ALLEN — FOSSIL CETACEANS FROM FLORIDA 
147 
Possibly referable to this species is the centrum of a lumbar vertebra (15786 
M.C.Z.) from Mulberry. It has lost the lateral processes and the neural spine, 
but shows, still intact, a median dorsal ridge running nearly the entire length 
of the vertebra. This is low and laterally compressed, with rounded summit, 
and about 4 mm. high at the middle point, where on each side are one or two 
small pits in the groove at its base. Dal Piaz (1905) mentions a similar ridge on 
the vertebrae of Schizodelphis sulcatus and it is visible in anterior view in several 
of the vertebrae he figures. The centrum itself is long as compared with that 
of most modern dolphins, some 57 mm., lacking the posterior epiphysis. The 
anterior face is subcircular in outline, with a vertical diameter of 32 mm., and 
has a small linear depression at its center. The posterior outline is subtriangular 
due to the flattening of the ventral contour. 
Remarks. — Of these three specimens, the larger rostral fragment 
recalls very strongly a similar piece from the Miocene of Shiloh, New 
Jersey, referred by Leidy (1869) to his Priscodelphinus grandaevus 
and figured as such by Case (1904, pi. 15, fig. 1), and again as Prisco- 
delphinus sp.^. by True (1908 a, p. 28, fig. 1-3). Indeed, the Florida 
specimen seems to offer little in itself to distinguish it from the New 
Jersey fragment, except that its intermaxillse in side view are possibly 
higher in proportion to the maxillaries. All the fragments may there- 
fore be provisionally considered as representing the same species. 
The selection of a name for them, however, is not an easy matter. 
For, though Leidy referred the Shiloh specimen to his Priscodelphinus 
grandaevus, the latter was really based on two caudal vertebrae of an 
immature animal, so that the association of the rostral fragment 
with these is purely assumptive, though all the bones were from the same 
locality. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the caudal vertebrae on 
which the species grandaevus was founded, are congeneric with the 
dorsal vertebra which Leidy made the type of the genus Priscodel- 
phinus. Moreover, there appears to be some ground for believing 
(True, 1908) that this genus is itself identical with Schizodelphis. If 
this identity could be shown through the discovery of an associated 
skeleton, the former name would have priority, and the latter would 
then become a synonym of it. But awaiting further light on the matter 
it seems best to retain the two generic names as originally applied. 
True (1908 a) in referring again to Leidy^s specimen refrains from giving 
it a specific name, but the occurrence of what seems to be the same 
dolphin in the Florida deposits makes it advisable to give it a dis- 
tinctive title for convenient use, even though the fragments at hand 
are insufficient for a complete diagnosis. 
