12. _Charlotte, Chittenden County._—At this place were discovered considerable parts of a whale, described in 1850 (Amer. Jour. Sci., ser. 2, vol. IX, pp. 256–263) by Zadock Thompson, under the name _Beluga vermontana_. The animal has by many been regarded as identical with the white whale, _Delphinapterus leucas_, now appearing sometimes as far up as Montreal. A more extended description of it was given in 1853 (Hist. Vermont, Append., p. 15, figs. 1–13). This was reproduced in Edward Hitchcock’s Report on the Geology of Vermont, 1861, page 164, and was followed by remarks on the specimen by Edward Hitchcock jr. In the second volume of the work just cited (p. 938) Hager furnished a figure of the skeleton as mounted. In 1908 (Rep. State Geologist Vermont, 1907–8, pp. 76–112, plates X-XIX), Professor G. H. Perkins gave an extended description of the remains and reached the conclusion that _D. vermontanus_ is distinct from _D. leucas_. Since Perkins’s article gives a full history of the discovery and the literature pertaining to the specimen, this account will be much abridged. The bones were found in making a cut for the Rutland and Burlington Railroad, at the town of Charlotte, about a mile east of the shore of Lake Champlain. The bones were 8 or 9 feet below the surface and “were very completely bedded in fine adhesive blue clay.” The locality is 60 feet above the mean level of the lake and 150 feet above the sea. The deposits were laid down in the marine waters which took possession of Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence Valley when the Wisconsin glacial ice had withdrawn north of St. Lawrence River. The geological age of the animal is therefore late Pleistocene. NORTH CAROLINA. 13. _Below New Bern._—In 1842 (Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. XLIII, p. 143), Richard Harlan reported regarding the species of fossil vertebrates found 16 miles below New Bern. His list, which was long and consisted mainly of vernacular names, included “cetaceans.” SOUTH CAROLINA. 14. _Charleston._—In 1860 (Holmes’s Post-Pliocene Foss. South Carolina, p. 117, plate XXIV, fig. 9), Leidy described a cetacean tooth which he called _Physeter antiquus_. Later the specific name was changed to _vetus_. At the same time he figured a tooth (fig. 8) found in the Ashley River deposits. He further stated that teeth apparently of the same species had been taken from the Miocene formations of Virginia, but found no characters by which they could be distinguished from those of the recent sperm whale. GEORGIA. 15. _Brunswick._—In 1911 (Bull. No. 26, Geol. Surv. Georgia, p. 436), Gidley reported from here, among other vertebrates, some teeth which he regarded as those of _Physeter vetus_; but this may not be correct and they may not belong to the Pleistocene. FLORIDA.