1883.] 



PROF. FLOWER ON THE DELPHINID^. 



483 



Mu?6am d'Histoire Natnrellc,' t. xix. (1812), p. 10, where, though 

 no iiaTne'Js given, it is stated that " il semble aussi que c'est I'espece 

 leg^rement indique par Sliaw (Gen. Zool. vol. ii. pt. 2, p. .514, 

 1801) sous le nom Ae Delp/innis rostratus" \ In the ' Ossemens 

 fossiles,' 2nd edit. t. v. p. 278, 1823", these indications were more 

 fully developed, and a species, a "phantom" species as it after- 

 wards turned out, was described under the name of Delphinusfron- 

 tatus, based upon a stuffed s})ecinien and certain skulls which Cuvier 

 supposed to belong to one and the same species. At p. 400 of the 

 same work an " addition impurtante" appears, stating that Van Breda 



Fig. 6. Palate of Sieno rostratus. 



had identified the skulls as belonging to a species quite distinct from 

 the stuffed specimen, for which alone in future Cuvier reserved the 

 name of fronfatus. This specimen afterwards proved to have been 

 previouslj' described by Blaiuville as D. geoffrensis (now Inia geof- 

 frensis), and the name frontatus therefore disappeared from the 

 lisi^. In the meantime the skulls in the Paris Museum, and another 

 of the same species observed by M. de Blaiuville in Sowerby's col- 

 lection in London, had been fully described, even to the " rugueuse 



1 In all probability the species now known as Platanista gangetica (Lebeck), 

 as subsequently conjectured by Cuvier. 



^ It may be convenient for those to wbom the now scarce first edition of 

 this work is inaccessible, to know tliat it does not contain any account of the 

 Cetacea. 



3 Every one who has followed in Cuvier's steps in endeavouring to identify 

 Dolphins by the old descriptions will echo the sentiment which his researches 

 into the synonymy of tliis species called ^ovt\\:~"tonfes ces indications incoi/' 

 pletes ne serveni qu'a mettre les naturalistes it la torture." 



