B. S. Lull — Fossil Dolphin from California. 211 



eliminate the bone fragments clinging to the depths of certain 

 of the impressions, especially those of the cervical series and 

 of the right paddle, in order to secure by means of casts and 

 otherwise the more exact contour of the bones themselves. 

 One should fully realize that while the imprints are often deep, 

 certain outlines become very vague and the extent of the vari- 

 ous processes very difficult to determine. 



The entire specimen is in a sense comparable to the deeply 

 incised but partially effaced inscriptions on an Egyptian obe- 

 lisk, and the interpretation of such an ancient hieroglyph is 

 necessarily halting. 



Dedication. 



I propose for this form the name Delphinavus newhalli, n. 

 gen., n. sp., the generic distinctions in contrast with Delphinus 

 being outlined below. The species is dedicated to the family 

 of Newhall, twice a contributor to the Yale collections, first 

 through the late Henry Gr. Newhall of the class of 1874, Shef- 

 field Scientific School, who accompanied Professor Marsh upon 

 the Yale Expedition of 1873, and again through his nephew T , 

 Edwin White Kewhall, Jr., Massachusetts Agricultural Col- 

 lege 1906, the discoverer and giver of this important specimen. 



Morphology. 



For the purpose of comparison, I have, through the cour- 

 tesy of Doctor George F. Eaton, used a mounted skeleton of 

 DelpMnus delphis, catalogue number 265, Peabody Museum 

 osteological collection. This specimen is not quite mature, as 

 the vertebral epiphyses are still free from their respective 

 centra. The skeleton measures 5 feet 10 inches from tip of 

 rostrum to that of the caudal series. The fossil, which as I have 

 said, seems to have been fully grown, would have an estimated 

 length of perhaps 5 feet, though the proportions of the various 

 regions which serve to make up the total length differ in the 

 two forms, as I shall show. 



The Axial Skeleton. 



Skull. — In the proportions of cranium to rostrum the form 

 under consideration agrees most nearly with the modern dol- 

 phin, Delphinus, in contrast with those proportions seen in 

 Phoccena. The most apparent cranial contrast with Delphinus 

 is the higher, more nearly vertical occiput which in the fossil 

 makes a sharp angle with the roof of the skull at the vertex, 

 instead of rounding forward as in the modern form. The pre- 

 cise limits of the various bones are not to be determined with 

 assurance in many cases, but they agree in general with those 



