R. BROWN ON THE MAMMALS OF GREENLAND. O 



overrule other considerations, considering that the eminence of 

 the zoologists followed will be a suificient safeguard that no great 

 error has been committed. Accordingly the nomenclature of 

 Baird's " General Report on the Mammalia of North America " 

 is chiefly folloAved, as far as relates to the Greenland terresti-ial 

 species, and the late Dr. Gray's British-Museum Catalogue (186(ij 

 for the marine species, with only a few trifling exceptions, 

 having a view to certain points of the synonymy of Fabricius's 

 species of Cetacea, to be afterwards discussed. I have, however, 

 ventured to differ from Dr. Gray as to the relative rank of the 

 group of Seals, believing, with llliger,* that they are entitled to 

 ordinal rank, and have accordingly designated them Pinnipcdia 

 (Illig.) — forming Gray's tribes Phocina^ Trichechina, and Cysio- 

 2)horina, for the sake of uniformity, into families under the titles 

 of Phocidfc, Trichechidcr^ CystophoridcE, comprising the same 

 species as the former tribes, without, however, committing myself 

 to an opinion regarding the advisability of so many generic and 

 other subdivisions of so natural a group, or of the good taste 

 displayed by M. Frederic Cuvier in the formation of •some of 

 his genera. Thus, with Professor Nilsson,'|' I cannot see why, 

 in the formation of the genus Callocephale J (^Callocephalus), 

 Linne's Phoca vitidina should have been chosen as the type of 

 the genus, while Phoca barbata, Fab., should have been retained 

 as the type of the genus Phoca.^ 



Dr. Gray's nomenclature and classification of the Cetacea I 

 have followed almost literally, though some of his species, such 

 as Pag enorhyyicJius albirostris, L. leucoplcurus, Delphmus 

 cuphrosyne (Z>. Holbcellii, Eschr.), and Hyperoodon {JLagenocetxis) 

 latifrons, are only known from skulls or skeletons. The localities 

 are also very vaguely known ; so that in the absence of all details 

 in reference to their habits and distribution, and from the fact, 

 moreover, of their specific (and still more their generic) claims 

 not being in evejy case universally conceded, the physical geo- 

 grapher or naturalist (strictly speaking) can have little to say 

 regarding them. I have, however, entered them as members of 

 the Greenland fauna, in deference to the opinion of their founder, 

 who, after the death of the lamented Eschricht stood alone in 

 his knowledge of the systematic history of the marine Mammalia. 

 The following table will show the general arrangement, the tribal 

 and numerical distribution of the Mammalia of Greenland, ex- 

 clusive of all introduced species and others which have been 

 erroneously included in former lists, and of the first with whom 



Fabricius heads his fauna, " Homo sapiens : sine Deo, 



sine Domino, reguntur consuetudine ;" — 



* Prodomus, p. 138 (1811). 



t Skand. Faun, i., p. 275. 



X F. Cuvier, Memoires du Museum, xi. p. 182. 



§ Even Nilijson's genus Cystophora, though faultless in aptitude, is liable 

 to the objection that it has also been applied to a genus of Alg-se by J. Agaidh. 

 This awkward confusion, however, is so common that it is only just to criticise 

 the fault in the abstract. 



