REDESCRIPTION OF THE CHINESE WHITE DOLPHIN 
COLORATION. Mainly pink with light grey around the head and 
darker pigmentation along the length of the back, including the 
leading and trailing edge of the dorsal fin and the ventral fringe of 
the fluke. There was dark, fragmented pigmentation on the melon, 
around the eyes and across the dorsal cape. Although both the dorsal 
and ventral surfaces of the fluke were pink, the dorsal surface of the 
pectoral fins were still grey and had only just begun to lighten. 
EXTERNAL APPEARANCE. The body was slender but with a promi- 
nent melon. Neither the ‘robustness’ nor prominent peduncle, typical 
of other, adult individuals observed and examined from Hong Kong 
waters were present (Porter, 1998). The dorsal fin was slightly 
falcate and the flukes were small with a distinct notch. The pectoral 
fins were broad in the middle but tapered both distally and at the 
base. The ‘hump-back’, reportedly typical of populations west of 
Indonesia, has not been recorded from any individual in the South 
China Sea (Reeves & Leatherwood, 1994). 
COMMENTS. During the post-mortem it was noted that the indi- 
vidual had deep scarring around the pectoral fins and torso. This 
healed injury was consistent with abrasion from either a rope or a 
similar object. It cannot be determined if this injury caused any 
major deformity to the pectoral fin bones although some pathology 
of them was observed. These injuries were distinct from those 
associated with the animal’s death. 
ETYMOLOGY. The species name is derived from its geographical 
location, i.e. both sinensis and chinensis referring to ‘China’. The 
meaning of the current genus name Sousa has become obscure. 
Although the taxonomy of the genus Sousa has yet to be resolved, in 
accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomencla- 
ture, this neotype must bear the name of the holotype. 
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SPECIMENS 
The age of nine Hong Kong specimens of Sousa chinensis used for 
comparative skeletal purposes in this study, ranged between 4 and 
14 growth layer groups, the former number having been established 
as the age where rapid juvenile growth rate decreases and adult 
dimensions are gained (Porter, 1998). No Hong Kong specimen had 
reached physical maturity as determined by fusion of post-cranial 
elements and closure of the tooth pulp cavity. There was, therefore, 
no physically mature specimen to compare with the holotype. The 
most obvious difference, therefore, between the skeletal measure- 
ments available for the holotype and those for the neotype is that of 
size (Table 2). The holotype had two less lumbar vertebrae, four 
more caudal vertebrae and six more chevron bones than the neotype. 
The holotype had slightly fewer teeth than the neotype but both 
counts are within the range identified for other Hong Kong speci- 
mens (Table 3). A comparison of the remaining diagrams of the 
holotype with the neotype illustrates clearly the similarities in 
general shape and skull configuration. Both have large ovoid crani- 
ums with robust and elongated rostrums, the eliptical nares are deep 
set and the vomer is exposed (Fig. 5). Differences are apparent, 
however, in the occipital condyles (a) and the lacrimal flares (b), 
which were more prominent in the holotype. The shape of the 
holotype temporal fossae also differed from those of the neotype (c): 
in the former they were swept back towards the posterior of the skull 
resulting in a smaller width between them. There are differences in 
the degree of ossification of the scapulae, the holotype being more 
robust with larger coracoid and metacromion processes (Fig. 6). 
The measurements obtained from the holotype, the neotype and 

85 
Table 2 Sousa chinensis principal skeletal dimensions and vertebral 
counts of the Hong Kong neotype and the holotype from Fujian 
Province (Flower, 1870). 
Measurement Neotype Holotype 
1 Condylobasal length 481 526 
2 Length of rostrum. 292 325 
3 Width of rostrum 110.1 I) 
5 Width of rostrum at midlength 44.8 47 
16 Greatest parietal width 140.9 163 
32 Length upper tooth row to tip rostrum 260 284 
33(UL) Number of teeth (UL) 35 33 
34(UR) Number of teeth (UR) 35 32 
35(LL) Number of teeth (LL) 31 32 
36(LR) Number of teeth (LR) 32 31 
a7 Length of lower tooth row. 259 279 
38 Greatest length of left ramus. 407 457 
39 Greatest height of left ramus. 82.5 91 
40a Length of symphysis 113.3 140 
48a Number of cervical vertebrae i 7 
48 Number of thoracic vertebrae 12 12 
49 Number of lumbar vertebrae 12 10 
50 Number of caudal vertebrae 18 22 
51 Total number of vertebrae 49 51 
78 Number of vertebral ribs (left) 12 12 
79 Number of vertebral ribs (right) 12 12 
96 Number of chevron bones 8 14 
105 Greatest length of coracoid process. 21.5 37 
106 Greatest width of coracoid process. 11.6 29 
107 Greatest width of metacromion process. 54.5 30 
108 Greatest length of humerus. 63.9 73 
109 Greatest width of humerus distally. 39:5 57 
110 Greatest length of radius. 74 79 
111 Greatest width of radius distally. 38.2 47 
112 Greatest length of ulna. 65.9 67 
HOLOTYPE 
coracoid process 
metacromion process 

NEOTYPE 

Fig. 6 A copy of the original illustrations of Flower’s (1870) holotype 
and the corresponding views of the neotype demonstrating differences 
in the form of the coracoid and metacromion processes of the scapula. 
