570 



ME, F. E. BEDDAED ON THE 



in proportion to the head are the ears in this species than in O.jubata. Attention has 

 been already drawn by Peters 1 to the varying length of the ears, which have been made 

 use of as " subgeneric characters " to distinguish all his subgenera except Otaria and 

 Zalophus. Dr. Gray, in a short note published some years ago in the ' Annals and 

 Magazine of Natural History' 2 , has remarked upon the great length of the ears in the 

 Cape Sea-Lion (which is figured, p. 372), and concludes with the question "Do the 

 elongated palate and the short ears of the Sea-Lion and the long ears and short 



Eiff. 1. 



' 



■ 



' 



ffp 



Head of Otaria hooheri. 

 (One third of the size of nature.) 



palate of the Sea-Bear characterize the groups 1" I am inclined, as will be pointed 

 out presently, to answer Dr. Gray's question in the affirmative ; but Gray himself, 

 so far as I am aware, never attempted to classify Sea-Lions and Sea-Bears on this 

 basis of fact. In 0. hoo/ceri, however, measurements show that the length of the 

 ear is one tenth of that of the head at the level of the ear. In 0. jubata, on the 

 contrary, the same measurements give the proportions 1 : 12. In the Californian Sea- 

 Lion, again, 0. gillespii (the head of which is shown in fig. 4, p. 372), the proportions 



1 " Ueber die Ohrenrobben, Otaria, insbesondere iiber die in den Sammlungcn zu Berlin befindlichen Arten," 

 Monatsb. Ak. Wiss. Berlin. 186'i, pp. 261-281 and pp. 665-672. 

 - Ser. 4, vol. ix. p. 483. 



