A Porpoise, Australophocaena dioptrica, Previously Identified As Phocoena spinipinnis, From Heard Island

Guiler, Burton and Gales (1987) reported a cranium (Tasmanian Museum No. A141 1) they identified as belonging to Burmeister’s porpoise, Phocoena spinipinnis Burmeister, 1865 from Heard Island (53°S 73°30’E). They noted that P. spinipinnis was previously known only from the cold-temperate coastal waters of South America and claimed that this cranium was evidence that the species has a much wider distribution than previously known. We have examined the photographs and details of their specimen and re-identify it here as Australophocaena dioptrica (Lahille, 1912) (family Phocoenidae). Barnes (1985) listed several features that distinguish the skulls of species within the subfamily Phocoenoidinae (including A. dioptrica) from those species within the Phocoeninae (including Phocoena spp.). Features that distinguish A. dioptrica from P. spinipinnis, dearly visible in the published photographs of the cranium from Heard Island, include: a relatively small, oval-shaped temporal fossa; an elevated, high-vaulted braincase that slopes abruptly onto the narial region; relatively large, high and convex premaxillary bosses; dorso-ventrally expanded zygomatic process of the squamosal; short and antetoposteriorly expanded postorbital process of the fronds; and maxillae extendmg nearly to the dorsal margin of the supraoccipital on the top of the skull. In all these features, the Heard Island specimen conforms with those of A. dioptrica. Crania of A. dioptrica have been illustrated by Hamilton (1941), Norris and McFarland (1958), Brownell (1975), Fordyce et al. (1984), and Barnes (1985). Crania of P. spinipinnis have been illustrated by Norris and McFarland (1958) and Brownell and Praderi (1984).

Book Review of Laud Humphreys: Prophet of Homosexuality and Sociology by John F. Galliher, Wayne H. Brekhus, and David P. Keys

As an undergraduate sociology major, the only thing I learned about Oklahoman Laud Humphreys's classic, Tearoom Trade (1970) was how it violated standards of informed consent in social science research. As Galliher, Brekhus, and Keys recount in their biography, Laud Humphreys: Prophet of Homosexuality and Sociology, sociology graduate student Laud Humphreys needed to supplement his (quite likely, participant) observational research of men who had sex in public bathrooms (i.e., tearooms) in St. Louis in the mid-1960s with a formal questionnaire. Knowing that these men would never agree if they knew they were selected because of their participation in highly stigmatized and criminal behavior, Humphreys recorded their license plates, got their home addresses, and interviewed them as part of a "community health survey." Herein lies the deception and the major source of the controversy. What I didn't fully appreciate when I was a student, however, and what the authors so deftly illuminate is the importance of this work not only for debates around ethical issues of social science research, but more importantly, perhaps, for the study of sexuality, deviance, and urban life.