676 REVIEWS. 
tion which he had presented in 1850, in his catalogue of the seals—a 
' singularly unnatural one, based chiefly on the number and development 
of the teeth; all the Pinnipeds were regarded as forming a single family, 
divided among five sub-families, namely : — 
A. Grinders two-rooted ; [etc.] * 
a. ating teeth 4 [above]; 4 [below] [etc.] ee 
b. 6 [above]; 4 uet [eto. ] Phoci 
B. Grinders with singl grind f Halicherus). 
c. Ears without any conch; [et e}. 
* Muzzle large, truncated, simple; canines large; grinders lobed, when old, truncated. 
Trichechina pinion Trichecus Rosmarus and Halichærus! 
** Muzzle 0! M e with a dilatable appendage; cutting teeth 4 [above] 2 [! below]; 
ved hes — 
d. Ear li 1 distinct ext l ; [ete.] Arctocephalina 
* Only the Vir v contr: ip characters are noticed here; the others are often binant 
only to a portion of the groups diagnosed. 
If classification is really intended to represent the natural relations of . 
organized beings, as determined by the sum of their structural agree- 
ments, and the subordination of the respective groups differentiated, à 
more unfortunate classification than that noticed could scarcely be de- 
vised; if even it is only regarded as a means to enable us to ascertain 
the second prime division), having the ** grinders with single root (except 
the two d not being distinguished, even by Gray's own diagnosis, 
from Lobodon of the Stenorh; inchina (first prime division), which 
e 
of the genera Pagomys, Halicyon, (the latter based on intangible charac- 
ters,) and Callorhinus. 
same year, 1866, appeared a ** Prodrome of a Monograph of the 
Pinnipeds, by Theodore Gill, " in the Proceedings of the Essex Institute 
(V, pp. 1-13), in which those animals were distributed among three fami- 
lies (Phocide, Otariide, and Rosmaride), equivalent to the three sub- 
families recognized by Turner, and the Phocide were divided into three 
sub- uated Mec iit by important osteological characteristics pre- 
vionsly unn by systematists. In the Otariide, five = were rec- 
the Otariids, two by Gray and two by Peters nos “Dublished in the same 
year. The former, after a first passionate outburst of anger, finally ac- 
cepted as valid the three families just noted, and, like Peters, adopted the 
genera of Otariids first defined in the Prodrome (i. e. Eumetopias and 
