Published records of marine rnamnals are not always I'cllablc ln what collccrns systematics, cvcn at an Qrd!Inal level. Mmy older references of cetac!Cans for the Early Miocene of Lisbon probably concern slrcm~ (partlcu- laxly those in Cotter, 1956 and Chof7at, 1950m), Another ex~pie is a record for the Burdigalian of Poz da Ponte (48), Originally reported to Cetacea (Zbyszewsk er ul., 1965) and later reassi~ed to Sircnia (Zbyszewski, 1967). As xnostof thesexecords correspond to ~en~ ~tena1 not always collected, it is dllf6cult to define their Mc! taxonomic nature, Nevexthclc88, thc 8carcc blbhographlc rcfe!Fencc8 for which a posltlvc cQITcspondcncc collld be established with materiel deposited in the studied collec- tions indicate that most (if not all) Early Mioccn!e publlshcd Iccor'ds Qf mar 1nc HlaIIIIInals cQrrcspQnd ln fact to sircnlans (as noted by Antunes„1959, 1969-70, 1984). Tllc Sys!tcmatlc nature ofsoBÃ references r howcvcF, could Bot bc dc6BItcly asccrtanled. IB these cases, the taxonQIxnc UnCCrtainty lviil be indiCated either by a broken Outhne of tbc 8~1QIS reprcsentIBg each Inarlxlc B1~3M1 Qfdcr (ln P!i@. 2 and 5), either by hatched areas (in Pig. 6).

The inverse problem was found when proceeding to the Inventory Gf fo!8811 Blatlnc fNaxBH1!818 Ul PGFtugucsc col- lections. In this ease it was not the systematic assi~cat Of the Speeimena that Conatituted a pFOMem (at leaSt fOr the majonty of them), but rather the definition of their PFQVCnancC. AlafgC pSIt Qf the collcctlonS Gf t11C Instltuto GcQIGglco c Mlrlc1FQ raised too LliMny pl'Gblcfns In th18 rcSpcCt Mmyulldescribed specimens are not labeled, and cvcn for those slttlng 1B labeled trays there '.l8a strong possibiility ofhaving been misplaced, If for some it is still possible to deduce their origmal locality of provenance (through the adhering matrix Qr thei~ relation to other