"98 STUDIES OF TASMANIAN CETACEA, 



" 8^ inches long; the front lower teeth are worn away and 

 '' truncated, like the teeth of the common Delphinus 

 " t'ursio, which was described as B. brunatus by Montaigua 

 " There are twenty-seven teeth on each side in the upper, 

 " and twenty-five teeth on each side in the lower jaw. No. 

 "2 is seventeen inches long; the beak 9|, and the upper 

 " tooth-bone 8 inches long. The teeth, twenty-four above 

 " (perhaps one on each side is deficient, as the end of the 

 '■ jaw is very tender), twenty-three or twenty-fo'ur below. 

 " The front teeth are slightly truncated, but this skull 

 " differs from No. 1, being rather more convex and rather 

 '■' narrower, especially in the hinder part, from the middle 

 " of its length." 



Gray continues: — ^'T have compared these skulls with 

 '■ those of the different species of Bottlenoses (Tursio) in the 

 " British Museum ; a.nd thej'^ are perfectly distinct from any 

 "" of them. The species may be called Delphinus catalania. 

 " It is smaller in size, and has a much smaller brain cavity 

 " than D. cymodice (Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, t. 19) 

 " and D. metis (Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, t. 18), and 

 " the beak is not so tapering as in these species, and the 

 '" teeth are rather more numerous. It is equally distinct 

 " from Delphinus eurysome (Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 

 '■' t. 17), believed to be from the North Sea. It is not easy 

 " to point out the distinction of these species in words; but 

 " there cannot be a doubt about them when they are com- 

 " pared together." 



In 1883 Profeissor Flower (6) devoted considerable a.t- 

 tention to the genus under review, and made several 

 observations regarding the sex characters of T. tui'sio. We 

 desire to quote certain of Professor Flower's remai'ks, and 

 also to place in italics the portions which agree with our 

 own observations. In this manner will be seen the re- 

 markable similarity which exists between the Tasmanian 

 form and the species examined by Flower, who stated 

 inter alia: — "Jn the males the rostrum, is larger and compara- 

 ''' tively narrower. The intermaxillaries nre mor ^j?'ommeri^ 

 "" and convex, especially in their posterior half ; in this region 

 " the external harder of the maxillaries is almost parallel to the 

 '■' corresponding portion of the intermaxillaries; the crests «>f 

 " the cranium are more elevated and less sloping laterally. 

 " 'I'he heads of the females are remarkable for the breadth of the 

 "''rostrum at its base and its middle point; the rostrum conse- 

 ■" quently has a more triangular form, ; the intermaxillaries are 

 " Tnore flattened ; the exterior border of the posterior portion of 

 " the maxillaries is not parallel to the external border of the 



(6) Flower; P.Z.S.. 1883. 



