1922] Kellogg: Pinnipeds from Miocene and Pleistocene Deposits 11 



Suffolk County, England, associated with another humerus, which 

 agreed very closely with the correspondiug bone of Phocanella minor. 

 Newton compared this last mentioned humerus with the cast of Phoca- 

 nella nvmor in the British Museum and found that it agreed precisely 

 in certain peculiarities exhibited by this species. The term New- 

 bournian has been proposed for this nodule bed of the Red Crag by 

 Harmer, 135 since it is presumed to be somewhat younger than the 

 typical Scaldisian. 



The earliest mention of the discovery of fossil remains of Phocidae 

 in Italy appears to be in the account of the travels of Gior. Targioni- 

 Tozzetti 136 in Tuscany. He mentions the finding of supposed phocid 

 remains in caverns along the seashore near Pisa. In 1875, Forsyth- 

 Major 137 reported the presence of Pristiphoca occitana in beds of 

 marine clay in the hills of Orciano, Saline, and Volterra, Tuscany. 

 Lawley, 138 in his paper on Pliocene fish remains from Tuscany, inci- 

 dentally mentions the finding of canines and incisors of Pristiphoca 

 occitana in a horizon analogous to that of Orciano and Montpellier. 

 During the year 1900 the Geological Museum of Pisa acquired a 

 nearly complete skeleton of a fossil phocid from the Pliocene clay of 

 Orciano. These remains were studied by Ugolini 139 and a report of 

 his investigations was published. He concluded that his fossil material 

 was indistinguishable from similar skeletal parts of the existing 

 Monachus albiv enter of the Mediterranean region. His comparisons 

 are all with Paleophoca nystii, a very different form. On the basis 

 of his three plates it appears that the relationships are closer with 

 Nordmann's Phoca- maeotica. The restoration of the femur is prob- 

 ably somewhat exaggerated, but otherwise it agrees in all essential 

 details with the femur of Monotheriwn maeoticum. The humerus of 

 this phocid is rather short and stout, conforming in all its details 

 to the peculiar configuration of Monachus. As in the latter, the 

 entepicondylar foramen is absent. 



135 Harmer, F. W., The Pliocene deposits of the East of England. Quar. Jour. 

 Geol. Soc. London, vol. 56, no. 224, p. 720. 1900. 



i3o Targioni-Tozzetti, G., Eelazioni di alcuni Viaggi fatti in diverse parti della 

 Toscana, vol. 10, p. 394; vol. 12, p. 200. Florence, 1768-79. 



i37Forsyth-Major, G. J., Considerazioni sulla fauna dei Mammiferi plioeenici 

 e postpliocenici della Toscana. Atti della Soc. Toscana Sci. Nat., Pisa, vol. 1, 

 fasc. 3, p. 226. 1876. 



138 Lawley, E., Dei resti di pesci fossili del Pliocene toscano. Atti della Soc. 

 Toscana Sci. Nat., Pisa, vol. 1, fasc. 1, p. 66. 1874. Nuovi studi sopra ai pesci 

 ed altri vertebrati fossili della Toscana, p. 103. Florence, 1876. 



139 Ugolini, E., 11 Monachus albwenter Bodd. del Pliocene di Orciano. Palaeon- 

 tographia Italica, Mem. Paleo., vol. 8, pp. 1-20, text fig. 1, pis. 1-3. Pisa, 1902. 



