37
C4.30A938
8D

Kell.

SKELETON

OF A
LATELY SET UP IN

_ BY

SPERM WHALES CALLED

TPHYSETES.

TWO PLATES.

ae Mot Sack KATOS emaoety péya daluwv
Ors ae TE TOANG Tpéper KAUTOS ’Auditpirn.
OA. «,

a SYDNEY:

~ PRISED BY KEMP bile ee
‘ 1851.

1887. ;
(Is, 6d.)

ae WHALE,

6
ats
—
~
~~
<
po
=<
_

4
—

nee Es) ACU Shee AS a ALN: JvE US UAE: ;

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION

OF THE

SKELETON

SPERM WHALE,

LATELY SET UP IN

NEW
THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM.

BY

WILLIAM S. WALL, CURATOR;
NEW GENUS

TOGETHER WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF A
SPERM WHALES CALLED

EUPHYSETES.

TWO PLATES.

\
*H ér1 MOI kal Kiros emoce’n péeya Saluwv
"EE GAds, ofd Te TOAAG Tpeper KAUTOS "AuquTpirn.
OA. ¢.

SYDNEY :
W. R. PIDDINGTON, BOOKSELLER, GEORGE-STREET.
PRINTED BY KEMP AND FAIRFAX,
1851.

REPRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES.—E. P. RAMSAY, LL.D., F.R.S.E., &., CURATOR.
1887.

CHARLES PoTTER, GOVERNMENT PRINTER.

5e 89—87 (a)
[ls, 6d.]

7 we OO - ~~
- rit
: NM ‘ 4 J bes me Te pe E<} L
it 1 hey (by i.
fis ty?
‘ iT as * 5
' \ oy vs a: } at tal
Nt
; em { as ae
' t A. ¥
{ * AE
ht af Va 4
OE
{
2 a4,
i ] r
rset ?
' f ‘ae i a
‘ t q 4 4 ; 5
=
a ORE TR OD nek
; a Fi ¢ | 4 se
a} WMATA Se PD (PAS > a> ta
‘ UR pre As rs iA jaw +h
A apy

% \ uk yeas
| uci roe fey
aR AIK AS 4A: AX aigs Ol

~ 7 oy ~
=.

PREFACE TO REPRINT.

Tue following work having been for some time out of print,
and copies very scarce, it was decided to have it reprinted, the
Skeleton referred to being still in a good state of preservation in
the Australian Museum. The plates have been reproduced
exactly as in the original edition, but as unfortunately an error
in the delineation of the hands had crept in, two additional
plates, taken from photographs of the actual hands now in the

Museum, have been added.

ie Pears Ay:

Curator.

Australian Museum,

Sydney, November, 1887.

REMINGTON KELLOGG

LIBRARY OF ie
MARINE MAM MALOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

inde Tae |i
1th 7 a,
i - 7
'
.
I i
»
t
4 a
*
th
. a
‘
ry
+
‘
4 7 ti
af ; i
; jog 4 Aa
Pd
’ ,
i é a Pty) 223
‘ i ;
- iy : ;
is ; a Ae AF ae i
- : . . :
| ee
>
* "
a " hae. 2
ae
i _ cs 7 ae a! “SA i. ua
>
P Pa a - ‘ " :
*
; r
2 :
Fei i =
A .
«
»
-”
*
©
.
P 5
= bd ‘
a
'
+ 4
. =
i : :

+

ey, pba Sen Patera”
_ vrs bas de

“< er 4 RP a bat
SE re neki i

re
: id

4th.)
jae |

NOTICE.

AS it is very desirable that the Collection in the AUSTRA-
LIAN MUSEUM of the Whales, Dolphins, and Dugongs
of the Southern Hemisphere, should be made as complete
as possible, the officers of whaling vessels and persons
residing on the sea coast are earnestly requested to give
notice to the Curator, Mr. W. S. WALL, of all specimens
that are procurable, or of which the bones may have
been discovered on the beach. Loose bones even are

valuable, and particularly skulls.

The Curator will also thankfully receive all Zoological
or Geological specimens which the owners may feel dis-
posed to present to the Museum. And the Museums
of Great Britain and Foreign Countries may effect an
exchange of duplicates, by addressing a letter on the
subject to the Secretary of the Australian Museum,

Sydney.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. On the CatodonsAustralis

CHAPTER II. On the Euphysetes Grayii ..

CHAPTER III. Concluding Remarks

PAGE.

59

PLATE I.—Fig.
Fig.
Fig.

Fig.

PLATE II.—Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.

—

On wr |

EXPLANATION OF PLATES.

. Skeleton of Catodon Australis as set up.
. Six bones which compose the sternum of same.
. Os hyoides, where the dotted lines denote the cartilage

that connects it with the styloidean processes,

. Bones of the pelvis, as found in the carcass of another

sperm whale, cast up between Botany Bay and
Port Hacking.

. Skeleton of Huphysetes Grayti, as set up.
. Upper side of skull of same.

Under side of skull of same.

. Occipital view of skull of same.
. Under jaw of same.
. Pelvis of same.

Fl « ws iff meh gia er ‘
roe aa,

ac
“ad
' i Vol
-
7 P *
‘ ANd Be Ds tee 4 3) Ri?
4)
'
yeu 2

a Pe eta dw: chiara ae at
‘usted v2 fhe, ne Pat
oon one De

CHAPTER I.

ON THE CATODON AUSTRALIS.

Wuatrver friendship or familiarity whales and dolphins may,
according to ancient writers, have had with men in the olden
time, it is very certain that the human species, with the exception
of a few sailors, have very little acquaintance with their “ fat
friends’? in these days. Even whalers in general know little
more of them than their oil. While a lion or a tiger has become
quite a vulgar animal in our menageries, there are few persons
who have seen a live cetacean in captivity, except Gesner, or
rather Rondelet (whom Gesner, in the passage alluded to, seems
to be quoting), who states, that in his day, his countrymen were
in the habbit of carrying live dolphins as far into the interior as
Lyons! It may, indeed, happen that the veracity of old Conrad’s
book, is as little to be trusted to in this story,* as in its pictorial
representations of the whale tribe. At least, in the present
railroad times, when a live hippopotamus is sporting in the midst
of London, the most of the external aspect of a cetacean that any
Cockney has yet seen, has been presented to his wondering gaze
by some distorted skin. And this is one of the reasons why the
figures of the sperm whale given by Beale and Frederic Cuvier
are so widely different from each other as to make it almost
incredible that they should have been intended for the same
species. By such misshapen masses of stuffing so little accurate
information is afforded to the zoologist that he is of necessity
obliged to have recourse to the skeleton.

* Hist, Anim., 1558, lib. iv. p. 387.

2

But when he takes this step in search of knowledge, the
naturalist finds the osteology of cetaceous animals to be a very
difficult pursuit, not merely on account of the general unwieldi-
ness of the skeletons, but of the time and trouble necessary to
extract the oil with which their bones are saturated, and which
makes the preparation of them, as I can vouch, most offensive to
the senses. Perfect skeletons of the order of Cetacea, or more
correctly Cete, are, therefore, in fact, very rare in museums. Of
animals said to be cachalots or sperm whales, perhaps the most
perfect skeleton hitherto described, is the one said by Beale to
belong to Sir Clifford Constable, Bart., of Burton Constable, in
Yorkshire. Its carcass was cast ashore on the coast of that
county in 1825, and was described in the same year by Dr.
Alderson in a paper read before the Cambridge Philosophical
Society.

Beale was the surgeon of a whaler, who, having made some
notes on the habits of the sperm whale of the Northern Pacific,
determined on his return to England, in 1833, to give an account
of its osteology. This, however, he appears to have studied for
the first and only time, not in any of those numerous whales he
had seen killed on the coast of Japan, but in Sir Clifford Constable’s
Yorkshire specimen, the skeleton of which had been set up
apparently in a very creditable manner by a Mr. Wallis, of Hull,
many years after the animal had been cast ashore. Now, this
Yorkshire skeleton, we shall give good reasons for believing to be
that of an animal different, not merely from our Sydney sperm,
but even from the true sperm whale of the coasts of Europe; nor
is it likely to be the same as that of the sperm whale of Japan.
Beale was, no doubt, led into his mistake by agreeing with most
observers since the time of Cuvier in considering Lacepéde’s
three genera, Catodon, Physalus, and Physeter,* and the several
species said to belong to them, as all referable to one species,
namely, the Physeter macrocephalus of Cuvier. But Cuvier him-

* Physeter and Physalus are classical words to express the blowing of

whales, and, therefore, are names applicable to all Cetacea. Catodonisa
modern name invented by Artedi, and adopted by Linnzus, to express

5)

self was in doubt whether the cachalot of the Southern Pacific
might not be specifically different from that of the Northern
Atlantic. He says that it is for naturalists to judge whether
the differences observed by him in the inferior jaw of an
Antarctic cachalot, and the under jaw of a sperm whale cast
ashore on the coast of France, result from a mere distinction
in age or sex, or from a specific difference. And he says, further,
that he does not imagine that naturalists will be able to decide
this question until they shall have been in possession of a com-
plete head of the Antarctic cachalot, to compare with that of the
Northern Atlantic animal, or until they shall, at least, have been
in possession of good drawings of the external figures of both
these cetaceans. Mr. Gray, of the British Museum, in No.
XIII of the Zoology of the Antarctic Voyage of the ‘‘ Erebus” and
“Terror,” which was made under the command of Sir J. C. Ross,—
a work that has more reference to the external appearance, than
to the anatomy of whales—also says, in 1846, “TI have no doubt,
from the analogy of other whales, that when we shall have had
the opportunity of accurately comparing the bones, and the
various proportions of the parts of the northern and southern
kinds of sperm, we shall find them distinct. Quoy gives an
engraving of a drawing of a sperm whale which was given him by
an English captain, and which is probably the southern whale.
He calls it Physeter polycyphus, because its back appears to be
broken into a series of humps, and Desmoulins re-names it
Physeter Australis.” Mr. Gray, moreover, makes a family of
“the toothed whales,” under the name of Catodentide, and to
this family he assigns three genera, viz., Catodon, Kogia, and
Physeter—their types being, respectively, the Catodon macro-
cephalus, or sperm whale of the Northern Atlantic; the Kogia

what is more peculiar to sperm whales, namely, their possession of teeth
only in the under jaw. The French name cachalot is, according to
Cuvier, derived from the Basque word cachau, signifying tooth. It may
be here observed that the Basques had a right to name the animal, as
they appear to have been the first professional fishermen of the sperm
whale, the valuable products of which were comparatively unknown to
the ancients,

4

breviceps, or short-headed sperm whale of the Cape of Good
Hope; and the Physeter Tursio, or Black-fish of the North Sea.
Now the larger skeleton lately set up by me in the Sydney
Museum clearly belongs to a species of the genus Catadon; and
the problem to be solved is, whether it be identical or not, as a
species, with the Catodon macrocephalus above-mentioned, which
is an European whale. Of this species, C. macrocephalus, the
British Museum only possesses one upper jaw, and three under
jaws. In the London College of Surgeons, there is, according to
Gray, the head of a foetus; and at Paris there is a nearly perfect
skeleton ;—with thisilast, therefore, I would more particularly
compare our Sydney skeleton, which has the great advantage of
being also perfect, and the history of which is as follows :—

It was announced in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 5th
December, 1849, that the carcass of a sperm whale had been
found at sea and had been towed by the schooner “ Thistle’? into
the harbour of Port Jackson. As the curator of the Australian
Museum, I considered that the skeleton would form a valuable
addition to our collection; so with the permission of the
Museum Committee, I lost no time in proceeding to Neutral
Bay, where the schooner then was at anchor, having a male whale
alongside. Mr. Williamson, the master of the vessel, as soon
as he was made acquainted with the object of my visit, offered
me most liberally the entire skeleton, with the exception of the
under jaw, which he was desirous of retaining for the sake of the
teeth. On my representing, however, to him the advantage of
our possessing a complete skeleton, he eventually consented to
my taking away the whole of the bones. The blubber portions
of the carcass had, on account of the oil, been removed previ-
ously to my arrival on the spot, but as soon as I was in posses-
sion of all that remained I proceeded to adopt proper measures
for cleaning the bones. After considerable difficulty in finding
persons willing to encounter so unpleasant, and as they imagined,
so unhealthy, a task—I at last succeeded in engaging four
Portuguese sailors, who had been some years employed in the
whale fishery. It was, however, then discovered that a portion

5

of the tail, containing ten of the caudal vertebre, and also that
afin, were deficient. The tail had been sent to Sydney with the
blubber ; but as I soon found it on Hughes’ Wharf, in Sussex-
street, I then, by permission of Colonel Baddeley, of the Royal
Engineers, carried the whole of the bones in my possession to
Pinchgut Island, where, under a course of lime and other
preparations, at the end of two months they were thoroughly
bleached and freed from oil and all offensive odour. As to the lost
fin, every hope of recovering it had been abandoned, when I was
informed by two boys that a strange fish was lying on a rock
near the bath, in Woolloomooloo Bay. This, fortunately, turned
out to be the part missing, which, by the way, was by far the
most interesting of the two fins, as it was the right one, the
bones of which are considerably larger than those of the left,
and also more perfect. The fin had been removed from the
whale by the crew of a coasting vessel, while they were wind-
bound in Woolloomooloo Bay. Their object was to render it
down into oil; but a fair wind springing up before they had
time to effect their purpose, they cut it adrift, when it probably
floated to the place where the boys so fortunately discovered it.
I state these facts in order to show the obstacles which I had
to encounter before I was enabled to obtain so perfect an
assemblage of the bones. Those finally deficient turned out to
be merely the bones of the pelvis, which were most likely to
escape our notice, from not being articulated to any of the other
bones, but only suspended in the flesh of the belly. Shortly,
however, after the skeleton had been set up, I heard of another
sperm whale having been killed off the Heads of Botany Bay,
and that it had been washed ashore on the sandy beach that
extends between that Bay and Port Hacking. I was resolved to
complete my collection of the bones, but experienced considerable
difficulty in discovering the carcass of this last whale, as it was
nearly buried in the sand. It proved to be that of a female, a
little larger than the other. With some danger from the heavy
surf which broke over it I contrived to secure the two pelvic
bones of the right side and also the atlas and axis, with a

6

complete sternum. Our materials for description became thus
so far complete.

The skeleton of the first of these two whales, which, as said
before, was a male, has been erected on strong iron supports,
and the cartilaginous substance into which the bones of Cetacea
so readily pass, and which occurs so plentifully between the
vertebre, has been carefully replaced by gutta-percha substi-
tutes, after drawings taken carefully by me on the spot where
the careass was cut up.

he whole length of skeleton as set up is thirty-three feet
six inches, from which if three feet one and a-quarter inch be
subtracted for the length of the intervertebral cartilages, there
will remain a total length of bone in the skeleton of thirty feet
four and three-quarter inches. The whole length of the head
from snout to occiput is nine feet six inches. In the “ Ossemens
Fossiles,” Cuvier has not given us an exact comparison between
the whole length of skeleton and the length of the head in the
sperm whales he examined, because neither of his skeletons
were quite entire. His most perfect skeleton was the one
purchased by him in London, and which must be considered as
typically to belong to the true sperm whale, or his Physeter
macrocephalus. Now all that he says of the whole length of
this is, that it was about fifty-four feet long, “ to which two or
three feet more may be added for the intervertebral cartilages.”
Beale does not state whether the Yorkshire skeleton is set up
with any allowance or substitute for the size of the intervertebral
cartilages, or whether it consists of the bones alone, but he
states the extreme length from snout to tail to be forty-nine feet
seven inches. However, I am inclined to believe that this is the
joint length of the bony vertebre alone, because he states that
the animal was measured shortly after death by Dr. Alderson,
and found to be fifty-eight feet six inches; and nine feet seems
to be too great a difference between the length of the living
animal and its skeleton, unless we are to make allowance
for the length of the intervertebral cartilages. Assuming this, I
offer the following table as showing the comparative measure-
ments of those three skeletons.

Total length of
Length of head. | skeleton without
cartilages.

Feet Inches | Feet Inches

Cuvier’s London Skeleton ...........:000-8 16 4 54 0
Beale’s Yorkshire Skeleton .............. 18 04 49 7
Wall’s Sydney Skeleton ...............00006 9 6 30 4¢

|

Thus we see at once that while Cuvier’s London skeleton
and the Sydney one come wonderfully close to each other in
the proportions of the head to the whole length; the York-
shire skeleton having a head so large in proportion to the
length, must belong to a different species. If the forty-nine
feet seven inches include the length of the intervertebral car-
tilages, the disparity will be still greater. As it is, according
to the Yorkshire proportions, the Sydney skeleton, which is
thirty feet four and three-quarters inches long, ought to have
a head upwards of eleven feet long. Instead of which this skull
is only nine and a half feet long; so that the head in our sperm
whale is consequently shorter in proportion to the body than
Beale’s whale. It is the same in Cuvier’s London whale; yet
the figure of the sperm whale, as given by Frederic Cuvier,
and which appears to be that of the sperm whale of his brother
and of the Northern Atlantic Ocean, differs from the figure of
the Pacific sperm whale given by Beale, in having a larger head ;
so that the Yorkshire skeleton could not possibly have belonged
to the same whale as that of which Beale made a drawing in the
Pacific. Is it true that Beale and others consider the difference
to result from a defect in F. Cuvier’s figure, but I think reasons
have been now adduced for our believing that the drawings have
been taken from two different species. Of this, indeed, I shall
advance further proof hereafter.

The principal materials which Cuvier possessed for laying the
foundation of all our knowledge of the osteology of the sperm
whale, were the head of an animal cast ashore at Audierne, in

8

France, in 1784, and the almost perfect skeleton mentioned
before as having been purchased by himself in London, in 1818.
Now he has given usa table of the dimensions of the several
parts of the head in these two specimens. Reducing it to English
measure, I shall make use of this table by placing his observations
in parallel columns to the corresponding dimensions of the
Sydney whale. It will thus be seen that while Cuvier’s two
whales do not considerably differ among themselves in the relative
proportion of the parts of the head, there is a wide discrepancy
in the proportion which the parts of the head in the Sydney
cachalot bear to each other. It is on viewing such a table that
we regret the want of accurate drawings by which we might
compare the external forms of these three animals in other ways
than by mere measurement of their bones. I have, in the table,
also placed some measurements of the head of Sir Clifford
Constable’s Yorkshire skeleton, and of a skull of Gray’s Catodon
macrocephalus which is inthe British Museum. They are all the
dimensions of these last two which have as yet been recorded.

onaGH 6 ae 8-11 ee hae “*sursaq stsAydurds oyy oroym oovyd or} qe ‘mel rapun jo ypeorg
. Gi a wes 61 cee alle cece enceeeeestereccestecese wel qopun Jo soyouvd Surunout ayy jo qusIoH
ace i Ges ¢.99 aoe ors sores gar Knuod IvpNoyaIv oy} JO Sa5pe 1oqno oy} WaeM4oq ooueysi(T
Be 9g ue ¢.601 wc Ss mel Jepun ur Peco Areqzuap JO soltes 9yy Jo Yy5uUe'T
sees . QF CZ #6 oI | tee tececeen sae ners seul zapun Jo sisdydurhs ayy Jo yqSuerq
Ceecce ZG Z0Z 191 ZS ohereteecceroece aoe per iescif ene SaTTy qySreays v UL ‘mel Jepun eq} jo yyoue'y
iP ¢.99 Z.9 JoGg— [receseeetestesesetiseeeeetsseseaeeseseeetsetereiastersereeteerersteneets ge@q9 OU. JO
{UMN oT} 07 ALTISe O43 Jo Spo ro1dayUr oy} WLOIZ ‘TepdI00 Jo FYSIOH
aie reia's og | ees e9 &.08 aieie cheledi ie, Selateveip Wels sieiyials 9u0q [eqtdro90 ayy JO gavd JOMOT OY} JO Y}PLA 4soqVa1H
cs 6I G.G 9-16 eS len ae ee FS sopApuoo Tey1d1000 a} JO Sespo 194No oy WseMJoq eoULySI(T
aetels gee a) toe LZ Le Sis. e sieges visieisiey baile elovatalelovelRtn slavayare Ty eae Tea BO OD qysi ay} Jo YApvorq
es ee 6.9 9.1 iienieties cruerississosiesesereteereeees TQMOTE LO [LIISOU 4JOT O49 JO YFPLaag
me G9 ; 8-11 BL] (eee es SOLIU[[IXVUL Oy JO sjutod Io11eyUe oY WaeMyoqd VoULySICT
se 8% G.GF GiGpee lie * reese ssmTtTeLoy AIVJIGIOGNS oy} WH9AqZoq doUeySsT(T
ig eF ; LS GPO ee ve Arey EXeUL oY} JO SoyoJOU [eIIG.10-oFUL oY} WoSMgoq FNOUS JO TIDE M
ea 09 L-18 GpG [ort tris teerreeteneeeeetisepqiqao omfg UaoMNgaq Peery JO TAPEAL
LZI 08 : G.CRT BGtw (a ee ee Wreletaveta ofsiaie'sinsfe/elsieyt(oleiolelosaiete|sralsietete alaivietete “+ Kavyprxeut ayy JO
YoquOU [eFIqJO-14UE OY JO WOI}0q OY} OF diy } ULOI} ‘qnous JO Y45U9T O[Ol AA
0 LT : L-61 hee Wes Matava sta ereieipiatorsYotete ste(eintnte’s\cterv)sTersys “ TAMOTG qusta ony. yo aSpe qapury ayy
074 seyApuoo reqidro00 Jo aspe azoroysod oy} Woay [NYS JO YZSUo] poy Ay
GLI FII G.9IZ L-@8T GIG ee eee ea rae eae gees es ea “say Apuoo [eqtd1o00
dy} Jo espa aorzoysod oy} 07 ynous jo dy woaz ‘proy Jo YZHUIT STO AA
‘soyout | ‘soyout | ‘soyout | ‘seyour | ‘solour
"10s “UOJITIYAS "U0 Js[PYS “UOJ[PYS
erent Maen Bi etnan awn sean,
Ysiqiig eupes $e[vog, sdotang | s.tolang

‘SHIVHM WUadS 4O SCVAH NIVINAO JO SNOISNAWIC TVdIONTadd

10

Now the head of Cuvier’s London Skeleton was very nearly a
foot longer than that of the Audierne one; and, with the ex-
ception of the width of the occipital foramen in the two animals,
which we find to be rather larger in the Audierne specimen, we
observe the above relation in size to be well kept up throughout
the dimensions of the respective parts of the head. So well kept
up, indeed, as to incline us to adopt the idea that these two
animals of the Paris Museum must have belonged to the same
species. In Cuvier’s London and Audierne skulls, as also in the
heads deposited in the British and Sydney Museums, the whole
length of the head is to the length of the snout always in the same
proportion, viz.,as 13 to 9. Nevertheless, the Sydney skull differs
in a very important point; for while the British Museum upper
jaw appears to belong to the same species as the two Paris skulls,
not only on account of the above proportion, but also on account
of the width of the snout atthe ante-orbital notches in all three
being always less than one-third of the whole length, this width
in the Sydney skull is considerably more than one-third of the
whole length. Again, the width of the head between the orbits
in the Yorkshire skeleton, Cuvier’s London, and the Audierne
skulls, is always less than one-half the length of the head. In
the Sydney skull it is considerably more. In Cuvier’s London,
and the Audierne skulls, the height of the occipital part of the
skull is nearly equal to one-third of the whole length. In the
Yorkshire skeleton, according to Beale, it is considerably less ;
and in the Sydney skull considerably more ;—so that, in general,
the Sydney skeleton is further removed from the Yorkshire
skeleton than from the three others, And if these last three be
considered to belong to one species, viz., the Catodon macro-
cephalus of Gray, or Northern Atlantic sperm whale, we may
infer that the Sydney skeleton belongs to another species of the
same genus, which, whether identical or not with Quoy’s Physeter
polycyphus, that is, Desmoulins’ P. Australis, is certainly nearer
in structure to the true Atlantic sperm than to the Yorkshire
skeleton. The Sydney whale is assuredly not the Kogia breviceps
of Gray, for this Cape of Good Hope whale is said to have the

at:

beak only as long as its width at the notches. Neither is the
Sydney whale a species belonging to Gray’s genus Physeter; for
this last has its blow-hole opening on the middle of the top
of the head, instead of opening at the upper termination of the
snout, as in true sperm whales.

Beale’s Yorkshire skeleton has, as before mentioned, a skull
eighteen feet half an inch long, while the extreme width of it was
measured by him to be eight feet four inches. Now, according to
this proportion, the Sydney skull, nine feet six inches long,
ought to have a breadth of only four feet four and a half
inches, whereas its actual breadth is five feet four inches. In
other words, in the Sydney animal, the head is nearly one-
fifth its whole width broader than the Yorkshire cachalot,
which at the same time, as was before shown, has propor-
tionally a longer head. As might have been expected from
the foregoing remarks, the Sydney skeleton has a proportionally
shorter under jaw ; for comparing the length of the Yorkshire
skull with that of its under jaw, we find that the Sydney under
jaw, ought, in like manner, to be eight feet ten inches long,
whereas, it is only seven feet eight inches.

In all the Catodontide or family of sperm whales, there is an
early junction of the two sides of the under jaw; so that from
the articulating portion of the base of the skull, the two branches
converge in nearly straight lines to a point where this junction
takes place, and then both extend anteriorly, in the form of a
subeylindrical symphysis. This structure is not common in
Cetacea, but may be seen in the Soosoo, or Dolphin of the
Ganges, the genus Platanista of Cuvier, who, therefore, ascribes
to such fresh water dolphins a certain affinity with sperm whales.
Perhaps, however, this relation ought more correctly to be
termed, an analogy.

In the very learned introduction to Cuvier’s Comparative
Anatomy of the Sperm Whale, we find that Sir R. Sibbald, in
1689, described a specimen cast ashore on the coast of Scotland,
as having forty-two teeth. In 1723, Theodore Haszus described
one caught, latitude 77 degrees north, as having fifty-two teeth.
Anderson, in 1746, described one with fifty teeth ; and two others

12

afterwards with forty-two and fifty-one respectively. In 1770,
Robertson described one cast ashore at Leith, with forty-six
teeth. But such early naturalists were not very accurate ob-
servers of specific distinctions, and it is even supposed that more
than one of them may have taken other Cetacea, particularly the
genus Hyperoodon, for true Catodontide, or sperm whales. How-
ever, this may have been, Beale positively describes the Yorkshire
sperm whale as having in the lower jaw forty-eight teeth, twenty-
four on each side. Cuvier does not mention the number he
found in his Audierne specimen, but on examining his figures we
see that a supposed young cachalot, of which the under jaw is
preserved in the Parisian Cabinet d’Anatomie Comparée, has
twenty on each side. Cuvier himself, however, is inclined to
think that this last jaw may have belonged to an adult animal
distinct from the sperm whale, and he says that his London
specimen of true cachalot—his typical Physeter macrocephalus—
has fifty-four teeth in the under jaw. Our Sydney specimen has
only forty-two teeth, so that although we may, with the cele-
brated John Hunter, imagine it very possible that sperm whales,
according to age and other circumstances, vary in the number of
their teeth, we need not preclude ourselves from supposing that
these remarkable differences may also in some degree have their
origin in the species being distinct.

The Sydney Museum is in possession of two other under jaws
of Pacific Ocean sperm whales, besides the one appertaining to
the complete skeleton under examination. One of these is
fifteen feet long, and to be in proportion with our whale, must
have belonged to a skeleton sixty feet long, or more, without the
intervertebral cartilages. This under jaw, as far its dilapidated
state will allow us to ascertain, had only forty-two teeth, and
must, by the following proportions, have belonged to a species
distinct both from Cuvier’s London and fromthe Yorkshire whales.
The other under jaw has also forty-two teeth, and is thirteen
feet two inches long. I subjoina table of the proportions of
these three under jaws assumed to belong to the same species,
that is, Catadon Australis.

13

| Under jaw r A
Sydney finan Twofold , Under jaw
Skeleton. Bay, pre- G. Blaxand,
| sented by Esq
B. Boyd, Esq. "
BG? Tne et ins | Ey “Tn.
Length of lower jaw in straight line..) 7 8 | 13 2 | 15 0
ene Gheotisymnp by sisi sce esksesepion ise 4 0 ie lll 9 6
Length of series of dentary alveoles...| 4 8 8 9 | 10 6
Distance between outer edges of the
arbicular CONGYIOSH. c.c+steetssleeeeee ene: 4 See || 0 6 5
Height of the mounting branches of
THCMOWEL JAW. ssasaveesasavaneseovesesas ] 4 2 3 2 3
Width of jaw where the symphysis
DRC Sr Ses onigaatins ssierarie, ad tosror gosisaronieh asi 0 9 1 3 1 4
Number of teeth ........ Pe tiAsoter sesame 42 42 42 or more

Aceording to Mr. Gray, who probably, with Beale, took John
Hunter as his authority for the assertion, not only the number
of teeth varies according to age, but the length of the lower jaw
appears to increase in front, so that in the older specimens the
symphysis is more, and in the younger ones less than one-half of
the entire length of the under jaw. In our three Sydney under
jaws there can be no doubt that the disproportion between the
length of the symphysis and half length of the entire jaw goes
on increasing according to the size of the animal; but all three
have their symphysis longer than half the length of the under
jaw. It is also certain that the inspection of the greatest under
jaw in the Sydney Museum, may induce one to think it possible
that, as Mr.Gray says, the symphysis increases with age in a
greater proportion than the whole length of the lower jaw. By
the way, I may remark, that this largest specimen also appears
to exhibit more than forty-two dentary alveoles or sockets. We
thus have John Hunter’s position illustrated, that “the exact
number of teeth in any species of sperm whale is uncertain ;” since
as the posterior part of the jaw becomes longer with age, the
number of teeth in that part increases, and the sockets become
shallower and shallower, until, in the end, there is only a slight
depression to mark their place.

14

Cuvier and others have thought that they could discover in
their specimens of the upper jaw, a series of alveoles intended
for the reception of the conical teeth of the under jaw. Indeed,
Dr. Alderson expressly mentions the existence of such cavities
in the upper jaw of Sir C. Constable’s whale. Beale, however, on
his examination of the skeleton of this very same whale, came
afterwards to the conclusion that there were no indications of
sockets in the upper jaw. I imagine, therefore, that as Dr.
Alderson was describing from the specimen when it was first
cast ashore, the cavities of the upper jaw, into which he says,
“the teeth of the lower jaw fitted when the mouth was closed,”
must have merely been cavities in the fleshy lining of the palate.
We shall see that such cavities really exist in a new kind of
sperm whale hereafter to be described. I have also carefully
examined this matter in the skeleton now before us; and, as
irregular and linear cavities may be discovered in the roof of the
mouth, impressed along the roof of each maxillary in a line
nearly parallel to its junction with the inter-maxillary, I have
come to the conclusion that these cavities, although not exactly
corresponding in situation or form to the teeth of the under
jaw, may yet possibly mark the place of the bottoms of those
sockets in the gums, with which all observers of the sperm whale
in a fresh state, say the upper jaw is furnished for the purpose
of receiving the teeth of the under jaw.

The accounts given by old writers, of the voracity and fierce-
ness of sperm whales, are completely contradicted by late
observers, who have recorded that these vast animals are timid
and inoffensive, as, indeed, might have been imagined from their
having no teeth in the upper jaw. Beale asserts, and it is a fact
in which we may have the greater confidence, from its haying
been ascertained by personal observation, that the sperm whale
of the Pacific feeds almost entirely on cephalopod mollusca or
squid; and, that when near land, it sometimes, though very
rarely, devours small fishes.

Books of Natural History, in general, make the grand char-
acteristic of sperm whales to consist in the utter deficiency of

15

tecth in the upper jaw.* Itmay besome excuse for this common
mistake, that we find the deficiency of upper teeth mentioned by
Cuvier in his “ ftegne Animal,” as, perhaps, the most palpable
distinction. In truth, however, scarcely any character of sperm
whales can be selected less peculiar than this, since the want of
teeth in the upper jaw is very common among the dolphins.
The genera Hyperoodon, Lacep., Ziphius, Cuvier, and Delphinor-
hynchus, Gray, have all no teeth in the upper jaw; and even
such typical genera of Delphinide as Beluga, Gray, Globiceph-
alus, Lesson, and Grampus, Gray, have them early deciduous.
So far, therefore, as concerns this character, the cachalots are
nothing else than immense animals of the dolphin family.

At least, there can be little doubt of the Outodontide or sperm
whales coming nearer to the dolphins, more particularly to the
genus Hyperoodon, in structure, than to the toothiess or true
whales, forming Mr. Gray’s family Balenide. One great dis-
tinction from all other Cetacea of the Catodontide, is the vast
concavity of the upper surface of their skull. Several kinds of
dolphin have the skull concave, but none have the hollow of such
capaciousness. This hollow, under the floor of which the brain
is lodged, is formed by an extension of the maxillaries, which
are so developed, as, together with other bones, to form a
semicircular wall, which in the Sydney skeleton has less of the
horseshoe shape than the head figured by Cuvier, in his ‘“‘ Ossemens
Fossiles.”

* Beale says, that some sperm whales have rudimentary teeth in the
upper jaw ; but if so, such animals must belong to a very different species
from our Sydney whale, which has not even the vestige of alveoles. Nor
has the skull of a very young sperm lately discovered on the beach near
Botany. However, it is right to remind those persons who may have it in
their power to investigate the matter, that Mr. F. D. Bennett says, that he
found eight rudimentary teeth on each side of the upper jaw in two instances
of sperm whales, which teeth ‘“‘are not visible externally in the young
cachalots, but may be seen upon the removal of the soft parts from the
interior of the jaw.” The entire length of these teeth was about three
inches! Now, this story is not to be reconciled with the description of the
upper jaw of the sperm whale given above, and therefore, I suspect that
Mr. Bennett must have taken some kind of dolphin for a young cachalot.

16

The immense snout of our Sydney whale, like that of the
dolphins, is formed of the vomer on the middle lime, with the
intermaxillaries on each side; and again having the maxillaries
on the outside of all. The vomer is thicker at the base in the
Sydney whale than in the one figured by Cuvier, and moreover is
best distinguished in the middle line of the roof of the mouth.
The extension of the intermaxillaries beyond the maxillaries
forms the point of the snout. The nostrils are pierced in the
middle of the semicircular cavity mentioned above, at the root of
the vomer, and between the bases of the two intermaxillaries.
The nostril on the right side is scarcely one-fifth of the width
of the left nostril. The direction of both is oblique, and also
their position with reference to the line of the vomer. The base
of each intermaxillary rises with a curvature on each side of the
nostrils, so as to form part of the bottom of that vast semi-
circular cavity on the back of the head, where is the principal
deposit of spermaceti. But the intermaxillary of the right side
reaches considerably further back than the left intermaxillary.
Indeed, a want of symmetry in the Catodontide generally, is
singularly conspicuous ; and in our whale, an organ on one side
scarcely ever agrees in size with its corresponding organ on the
other side. The left eye, for instance, as Cuvier says, is smaller
than the right one ;—indeed, so small, as in Cuvier’s specimen,
to have almost escaped his observation. He says, moreover, that
fishermen are well aware of the advantage they possess in
attacking a sperm whale on its blind side. In like manner, on
my first inspection of the carcass in Neutral Bay, I could not
discover the left eye in our Syduey whale. This disappearance
of the left eye would appear to result from the extreme develop-
ment of the left nostril, for the purpose of forming the blow-
hole from which the animal spouts.*

* There is every reason to believe that the Scotch whale, described by
Sir R. Sibbald, with forty-two teeth in the under jaw, was the Black fish,
Physeter Tursio of Linneus, and it is also, perhaps, although I confess I
have great doubts, the species of which Beale saw the skeleton in the posses-
sion of Sir Clifford Constable, in Yorkshire. Unfortunately, I am not able

ry

I have before said that at the back of the head or occiput
there rises a sort of semicircular wall, almost perpendicularly.
This is formed by the right bone of the nose, the base of the
right intermaxillary, and the base of the two maxillaries doubled
by the occipital. The maxillary forms the anterior angle of the
orbit, in front of which it has a deep emargination or notch, and
close to this notch, on each side of the head, is a deep hole, which

to refer to Dr. Alderson’s paper. According to Sibbald, in the Blackfish, a
little above the middle of the rostrum, ‘‘ there is a lobe which is called the
lune, having two entrances covered with one operculum, called the flap.”
Now, from the relation which the position of the nostrils in the skull bears
to that of their single external opening, or blow-hole, at the front of the
snout in the genus Catodon, we may infer that a blow-hole placed nearer
the middle of the head, as in the Blackfish, would not so much distort the
general appearance of the head. And here, by the way, I may observe,
that the words ‘‘spiracle” and ‘“‘blow-hole” appear to be better names
than ‘‘spouter” for that external orifice by which the canal from the
nostrils opens to the atmosphere ; particularly if Beale be correct, who
asserts that these animals never eject water from their nostrils, but only
vapour. No better external characteristic of the true sperm whales, or
genus Catodon, has yet been given than the position of their single blow-
hole at the summit of their snout—the ‘fistula in rostro” of the old
naturalists. It is as good a character as their fat quadrangular snout
itself. And were it not that the Blackfish, or genus Physeter, is said to
have the blow-hole at the middle of the snout, as another cetacean of the
same family, hereafter to be described, most certainly has likewise, all the
Catodontide, or family of sperm whales, might thus be neatly separated
from dolphins. The genus Catodon agrees with the herbivorous Catacca
alone, in having the nostrils opening at the extremity of the snout. It is
not the object of the present work to enter particularly upon the external
appearance of sperm whales, or upon the anatomy of their soft parts.
Indeed, as yet, I have had few opportunities of studying such subjects. I
may remark, however, that nothing is certainly known of the mode in
which the single spiracle of the sperm whales communicates with the two
nostrils in the skull. John Hunter would seem to assert, that there is only
a single tube or canal from the commencement, for both nostrils. In some
dolphins, on the other hand, there is said to be a dividing membranous
septum. But all this subject requires further investigation ; the only thing
which appears certain being, that their single external spiracle proves the
Catodontide to be rather dolphins than true whales, which last have two
distinct external spiracles, communicating by separate canals with the holes
in the skull. j
Cc

18

must be considered as answering to the sub-orbitalforamen in other
animals; although, as Cuvier says, it is in these Cefacea, more
correctly speaking, super-orbital.

The posterior angle of the orbit is occupied by the point of
the zygomatic apophyse of the temporal; but this does not
quite join the post-orbital apophyse of the frontal, so that the
orbit is, as if were, open at this place.

The inferior rim of the orbit is formed by a thick and
cylindrical jugal, of which the fore part is dilated into an oblong
plate, which partly closes the orbit in front.

The fossa temporalis is rather deep, of a roundish form, but
not distinguished by any crest from the rest of the occiput. The -
zygomatic part of the temporal is shaped like a thick and short
cone. Reaching to the orbit it alone forms the zygomatic arch,
as in the dolphins. The occipital bone is vertical, and forms all
the posterior face of that semicircular wall which is so singular
a characteristic of the back of the head. The lower edge of this
occipital bone is divided on each side by a notch into two lobes
of which the external one represents the mastoid apophyse.

OF THE OS HYOIDES.

When the intestines and other soft portions of the animal
were about to be towed to sea, and cast adrift, I desired the
men carefully to explore the masses of flesh; the result was
fortunate, for they had not made use of their spades many
minutes before they struck against some hard substances in
one mass, which, on examination proved to be the parts of
the os hyoides. This organ, in cetaceous animals, is generally
composed of three bones—two lateral, which are the styloi-
deans; and a central one, which is the true os hyoides, and
which is often separable into three. The styloideans, or styloid
processes, are attached by a cartilage to that lobe of the occipital
which represents the mastoid process. The os hyoides itself has
somewhat of a crescent form, having at the convex and anterior

19

part two apophyses by which it is suspended by cartilages to the
styloideans. On each side, more particularly in young speci-
mens, the two horns of the crescent are separated by a suture
from the centre piece. In our Sydney whale, which is com-
paratively a young specimen, the central bone of the os hyoides
is heart-shaped, with the point of the heart notched, so as to give
off the two short apophyses to which the styloileans are attached
by cartilage. It is also keeled in the middle behind, and con-
cave within. On each side we see a flat oval bone, joined by a
suture to this middle bone. In some Cetacea, these bones,
which form the horns of the crescent, are said always to remain
in the state of cartilage. The styloideans, in our whale, are
insulated slender prismatic bones, somewhat rounded at the
points. Cuvier has figured an os hyotides (O.F. pl. 226. fig. 15),
very like to the one just described, and which he supposes to
have belonged to the Audierne Cachalot. The dimensions of
the os hyotdes, in our specimen, are as follows :—

Madd@ievlene thot taiddle precy Jics.c-woes.<cksocavacwacceeccesnseecss 0 iL
(Greatest DTCAGLR OF GULCO ss o..stcsiccsiccnd dM. cianwaa savene waneuenesssenae 1 5
Breadth of ditto between the horns ..............cescsescssesseesees UU) en
Leneth of a2 horn of the crescents: .2s;;.snivesd-ovsancssanossdcddoudaoe 1 4
Greahesty Bread tel Of CibbOW.s.a-ut act setes cose owas se deocrerstoussdeees 0 8
Bene hinoh astylOudean) «os, sa): fu) ssaue daa avaesannacteseotececssoarve 1 a
Gureatestidiameter Of Cibo) (0. sscccecseocsedvancaroacsccesdvareosces 1 0

OF THE EAR.

Camper has figured the bone of the ear in the Northern
Sperm Whale, but I have not been able to refer to his figure,
and to compare it with the ear of our animal. Cuvier never
saw this bone of the sperm whale. In the Sydney specimen,

20

the external aperture of the meatus auditorius is so small as
only to admit of the entrance of a small quill. We may suppose
that the sense of hearing need not be very acute, if Beale be
right in contradicting the assertions of the old writers on this
subject, and denying to these animals the power of making “any
nasal or vocal sound whatever.” Nevertheless, the general
opinion of whalers seems to be that the Cetacea hear well, both
in water and the open air; and comparative anatomists, such as
Professor Rymer Jones, imagine that, while aquatic sounds are
received into the ear under water by the external meatus, which,
as above mentioned, is reduced here to the smallest possible
diameter—atmospheric sounds, on the contrary, are perceived by
the whale when his snout is out of the water, by means of the
blow-hole, which always communicates with the ear by a very
' wide Eustachian tube. One of the well-known characteristics
of Cetacea as an order, is to have the petrous portion of the
temporal bone, wherein is lodged the organ of hearing, more or
less distinct from the rest of the skull. In our whale the small
bones of the ear are consolidated into one irregular stony mass,
which is suspended by ligaments in a cavity formed between the
temporal, occipital, basilar, and sphenoid bones. It is an ear
different from that of herbivorous Cetacea, and also from that
of true whales; but, as Cuvier judged from Camper’s figure,
remarkably close in its structure to that of the dolphin family.
It may be divided into two parts, the drum and the labyrinth,
which are separated from each other behind by a very deep
longitudinal hole. The labyrinth is a stony mass, which may be
divided into two portions.—Ilst, the larger one comprising the
so-called semi-circular canals; and 2nd, the hemispherical
smaller one, which is separated from the larger portion nearly as
distinctly as in dolphins, and contains the cochlea. Three of the
fonr deep holes which separate these two portions of the laby-
rinth, are pierced at the bottom of the trefoil-shaped large one.
They serve for the admission of nerves. The tympanum or drum
is formed by a thick bony shell, curved inwards longitudinally,
so as to resemble the whorl of an univalve mollusc; and to form

ae .

21

thus a wide canal where the Eustachian tube takes its origin.
Behind, this canal is closed, and assumes a somewhat bilobed
form at the place where it becomes confluent with the posterior
part of the labyrinth, by means of a rugose bony apophyse, to
which the suspending cartilage is attached.

OF THE SPINAL COLUMN.

The spinal column in our specimen consists altogether of
forty-four vertebrae, z.e., if we consider the cervical vertebre to
be only two. But these in fact are seven, the first or atlas being
free, and the other six* much compressed, being anchylosed
together, as is manifested by their distinct ridges, which Cuvier
long since pointed out in his London Skeleton, Oss. Foss. pl. 22,
fig. 13.

The dorsal vertebree, or those to which the ribs are attached,
are ten in number, having the vertical spinous processes inclined
backwards, and increasing in length from the first to the last.
They have also short transverse processes on each side, and the
spinous process has an anterior articular, which being bifid, serves
for locking one vertebra into the other, by receiving the inclined
edge of the vertical apophyse of the preceding vertebre into its
bifurcation.

The next eight or lumber vertebre, have their spinous pro-
cesses wider at the summit than at the base. These are also
more oblique and elongated than in the dorsal vertebra, and
their articulars rise gradually on their front edge, as in the

*In the genus Hyperoodon and most of the Delphinide all the seven
cervical vertebre are soldered together, which occurs likewise in the true
whales. But in the bottlenosed dolphin, as well as the dolphin of the
Ganges (Platanista Gangetica of Cuvier), it is stated by Cuvier that all the
cervical vertebre are free? What is singular is, that in the Rorquals, at
least in the Cape Rorqual, the only cervical vertebre soldered together are
the axis and its following one; all the rest being quite free. In the order
of Cetacea it is to be observed that the cervical vertebree vary much in

structure. For instance, Daubenton and Cuvier both state that the manati
has only six such vertebrae.

22

dolphin tribe. These spinous apophyses at first increase to the
centre of the lumbar vertebre, and then begin to decrease in
size.

The transverse apophyses of the vertebre are at first merely
simple tubercles of the articular processes, and they do not
assume the form of distinet apophyses until the three or four last
dorsal vertebre. ‘hey then increase in size, until the two or
three last lumbars, when they continue diminishing to the tail.

The under side of all the vertebre after the fourth lumbar is
strongly carinated. :

The caudal vertebre are twenty-four in number, and may be
divided into two sets. The first thirteen have upright spinous
processes, gradually diminishing in size, and disappearing with
the lateral transverse apophyses. These thirteen vertebre have
attached to them twelve long inferior bifid processes,* called V
bones, each nearly perpendicular to the vertebral axis, and articu-
lated, or at least, connected by strong cartilage with the bodies
of two consecutive vertebre. The third of these V bones is the
longest, being one foot four inches long ; but the first and last are
only four inches each. While the fore part of the spine is, as above
described, made strong by having the consecutive dorsal vertebree
locked into each other, so that the hinder part of the vertical
apophyse of one is received, as it were, into the anterior bifurca-
tion of the same apophyse in the following vertebra; the root
of the tail, which requires more flexibility and power of motion
from side to side, has equal strength given to it by the manner in
which every two consecutive vertebre of the first thirteen caudals
are bound by tough cartilage to the twelve connecting V bones.
The twenty-seventh and three following vertebre have their
transverse apophyses perforated at the sides for the passage of

* The first of these V bones is truly bifid in our Botany whale, and the
arms are of unequal length, but in the Sydney whale this V bone is not
bifid, but only a subconical process. Is this a difference of sex or of
species? Or, are our two animals varieties of one species ?

+ Beale’s Yorkshire skeleton has, according to him, only ten V bones,

another proof the species being distinct. Besides, the second V bone is the
longest in his whale, whereas the third in our specimen is much the longest.

23

tendons which appear to have the same object of uniting strength
with perfect mobility of this part of the spine.

The last eleven of the caudal vertebre are without processes
of any kind, and rapidly diminish in size down to the terminai
bone of tail, which is nearly globular, and scarcely one inch in
diameter.

Now taking the two most perfect sperm skeletons hitherto
described, namely, Cuvier’s London, and Beale’s Yorkshire, we
find that the last has forty-four vertebrae, like our Sydney
specimen ; but that the first has fifty-five vertebre, accounting

the six last cervical vertebra to be anchylosed into one. The
following table will show the differences more clearly :—
8 y
= Lumbar, or
Dorsal Ver- pAapp ee
Cervical Ver- tebrie ; or eee.
Cents such as have! © 5 .
ebre as an- |) pair of ribs! between Caudal. Total.
chylosed. articulated | Bete tend
ee CEVA rst aving a
V bone.
}
Wall’s Sydney ... 2 10 8 24 44
Beale’s Yorkshire 2 10 8? 24? 44
heen London.. 2 14 20? 19? 55

If Cuvier’s London skeleton really has the number of vertebrx
he assigns to it,* the animal must have been thoroughly distinct,
not merely from the Yorkshire whale, but from our Sydney whale
also; which last, however, in this respect agrees remarkably
with the one described by Beale, so far at least as we can make out
from that author’s description. In all three whales I believe the
foramen for the passage of the spinal cord to be widest as it
passes through the atlas and other cervical vertebrx, from which
it tapers away until it terminates about the commencement of
the caudal vertebre.

* There is no doubt that the number of vertebre in different species of
Cetacea varies much. Right whales and Rorquals generally have more than
fifty, and in fact forty-four is upon the whole a small number of vertebre
for a cetacean animal.

24.
TABLE

SHOWING THE LENGTH AND CIRCUMFERENCE OF EACH VERTEBRA IN THE
SPINAL COLUMN OF THE SYDNEY SPERM WHALE.

No. Name. Length. presets | No. | Name. Length. er
in. ity 0% in. ft. in.
Atlas 3 5 11 || 22'| Caudal 2nd,
2 | Axis (which is having inferior
called dentata processes 93 Dd
in man) and 23 3rd 9 5 6
five others an- 24 | 4th 9 5) (i)
chylosed into 25 5th 9 4 9
one. 1s By Ash I) 23 6th 9 4 4
3 | Dorsal Ist 3 4 9 | 27 7th 82 3 10
4 2nd 41 4 9 || 28 Sth 83 3 3h
5 3rd 4} 4 8 || 29 9th 8 3
6 4th 48 4 6 || 30 10th 74 2 10
7 5th 5 A |e lth 64 | 2 8
8 6th 53 4 7 || 32 12th 54 2 6
9 7th 6 4 81) 33 13th 4 2° 2
10 8th 64 4 8 || 34 | Caudal Ist,
11 9th 63 4 9 without any
12 10th 62 5 4 inferior process| 34 1 10
13 | Lumbar Ist a 6 0 || 35 2nd 23 1 84
14 2nd 7h 6 1 || 36 3rd 24 1 74
15 3rd ie (3) il) ey 4th yD 1 5s
16 4th 8 6 5 || 38 5th 2 1 4
17 5th 84 6 34] 39 6th 2 aes
18 6th 84 6 34) 40 7th 12 0 11
19 7th 82 @ il | aul 8th 1k 0 10
20 8th 9 5 113|| 42 9th 1} O 7
21 | Caudal Ist, hav- 43 10th 1 0 53
ing inferior | 44 11th 0} 0 3%
processes 94 5 §

nr ay

25

TABLE
OF DIMENSIONS OF THE V BONES IN SYDNEY SPERM WHALE.

No. Length. Width at top. Breadth at widest part.
ft in. inches. inches.
1 0 4 4
2 0 114 4 28
3 ee AL 5h
4 1 33 6 73
5 er 5h 61
6 1 0 6 7
7 0 114 61
8 0 92 64 6
9 Os 6 4 7
10 0 64 5 64
11 0 5 4? 5
12 0 4 4 34

OF THE RIBS.

The somewhat circular chest, on account of the disappearance
of the neck, appears close to the posterior part of the head. The
first, ninth, and tenth pairs of ribs have only one articulating
surface to their proper vertebree, but the second, third, and
fourth, have two articulating surfaces, and the fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth, have three. The ribs on the left side are
of larger dimensions than the corresponding ones on the right, as
the following table will show.

TABLE
OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE RIBS,

No. Length of ribs on right side. Length of ribs on left side.
ft. in. ft. in.
eS ceceetacautgsienenseictmies: canis’ Deg oe * Ne alert rises cout eioslotachtar cas 9 eae 4 33
DMR maccipertscteraer erste ress Deede iy. cecerees cous tones concer getbanre a.9
3) | Meeneceneocos nose neee crete ce Gee2h Yo Geegautaned.aastdamidsetaucnsans 6 2%
APA alecactasiiete nioatreiagoi-pintsiean seleceewe (6) Sse | eee saeeescecenee on: seae count 6 4
Dy Papa ee Races Sewceckae wea ameaateee (a SC) a Oe cao ne ne cudticer darcecerocncn 6 2
(0) || Bosneataccecmene reece retene DOM fy esacecaseueecsense toeeaccaee 5 114
ON heads Se UEC er eenCn ere BBA lh, cla jaar ta spans Neasdsiomeagte siete Sa)
Siler a acess ofevcighscsaetinne. AOU: Roetawaanuncte tac eenacsenchiscaes 4 10
W)/|| Teopy stan Tall) copaneadane 4 3 PIKE Genes simloy” E- enesdacaebabe 4 3h
10 Mitte oesss (x. 3 5h Dittoee OS Pres. 3 6

26

OF THE STERNUM.

One of the more remarkable parts of the comparative anatomy
of our Sydney specimen is the structure of the sternum. To
understand this structure, it may be useful to bear in mind a
remark of Geoffroy de St. Hilaire, that the bones of symmetrical
animals are always in pairs, one ranged on each side of a theo-
retical spinal axis or medial line; so that a central, or what
appears in nature to be an odd bone, such as a vertebra or a bone
of sternum, must be considered theoreticaliy as composed of two
bones ossified together at their symphysis. Now, on referring
to the Delphinide, which are perhaps of all Cetacea the nearest
to the Catodontide, or sperm whales, we find (see Cuvier Oss.
Foss. pl. 244, fig. 21) that Delphinus Tursio, or bottle-nosed
dolphin, the sternum of which consists of three bones, has this
binary structure marked out in the anterior bone, which is dis-
tinguished by a hole in the centre of the ossified symphysis,* and
in the third bone by the trace of a central suture. In our
Sydney sperm whale, the anterior bone must be described as two
distinct subtriangular ones joined by a cartilage in the middle ;
each with a wide head in front, and a deep emargination in
the middle. These corresponding emarginations answer to the
hole in the middle of the anterior sternum bone of Delphinus
Tursio, which, as before said, has the two bones consolidated into
one. So also Beale describes the anterior piece of thesternumin his
sperm whale to be “ perforated in the middle by an oblong open-
ing.” Unfortunately, M. Cuvier does not seem to have ever
seen any part of the sternum of the Cachalot. He says, how-
ever, that the bottle-nosed dolphin has three bones in the
sternum, of which the second is simply rectangular, receiving the
articulation of the second pair of ribs where it joins the anterior

* Tt would appear according to Cuvier, that the true whales or genus
Balaena, have not got this perforation in the solid anterior piece of their
sternum ; so that we have here another proof of sperm whales being nearer
to dolphins than to true whales in their structure,

27

bone before described. In our Sydney whale this second piece
of the sternum is composed of two distinct triangular bones joined
together by cartilage ; and which, if consolidated into one, would
make an equilateral triangle, having its point directed towards
the tail of the animal. These bones,in the Yorkshire whale, are
consolidated into one flat irregular piece, and Beale describes a
third piece which expands very much, and also a small ensiform
portion. This last alone would show his animal to be a distinet
form of sperm whale. The bottle-nosed dolphin has also a third
bone, but Cuvier makes no mention of its having any “ ensiform
portion.”

I have been fortunate in getting possession of the sternum of
the other sperm whale thrown ashore at Botany, as it has led me
to understand the structure of this part in such animals, as com-
pared with the same in dolphins. Our two sperm whales may be
said to have their sternum composed of six bones, three on each
side of a cartilaginous medial symphysis. The first two form by
their junction that anterior bone of the dolphins, so remarkable
in some species for its medial perforation. But in the Botany
sperm whale, each of these first two is ossified with the following
two, which, when joined by cartilage, answer to the second bone
of the sternum in Delphinus Tursio. The third two bones of the
cachalots answer to the third bone of dolphins, but in our Sydney
sperm whale these last are ossified with the foregoing two; so
that we may say, that of the three bones on either side of the
sternum, the Sydney whale has the two last anchylosed together,
and the Botany whale the two first bones. Besides, the termina-
tion of the sternum is widely different in these two individuals.
In our Sydney skeleton the two last bones converge to a point,
whereas in the Botany specimen they diverge from each other
with truncated summits, thinned off towards their inner edge.
Does the sternum in the same species vary in this manner? Is
itasexual distinction ?—or am I describing two different species ?
Unfortunately, the Botany sperm whale was in such a state of
decomposition when I saw it, and besides had been so much cut
up, that I must confess it to be out of my power to determine

28

these points. And I trust this uncertainty will be borne
in mind when I come to describe the pelvis of the Botany
sperm whale, which I have reasons for believing to have been
a female.

In our Sydney whale, the sternal parts of its ribs are all
cartilaginous, whereas in the true dolphins they are generally
ossified. As I made my drawings of this singular sternum on the
spot before the animal was divided, I have no doubt of the
accuracy of the manner in which I have placed these bones in the
skeleton ; which, besides, is proved by the location of the bones
in the Botany Bay sternum. Their dimensions are as follow in
the Sydney specimen :—

ft. in. |

Tirta ek Che RUSE NarceonAccaan seqoonncacoosscoupadanqonoshesuensdoane cee, a 3 0
Greatestibreadbhyotadittopes-esscattntenadsec cs taser terebeeeachccs 3 0
Benet hon anterior boners aqmeccmcter decanters arnereemaierees 1 8
Greatest breadthyobeachiot tdttto)..-.--s-ee-cesesrereereceeeeereenene 1 6
Meastibreadthtatreachwotsdittos nuesmecersaeedecer see eaeeereeer es OSLO
Menethyotwporterrorbon ese nn-.-.<arveeen der seeekerterenanaeneachecaecce 1 +
Greatest breadth of each of ditto ...... Beene okrreaa core aatione 0 84
Breadthyobeachoraitbosab) pOultmyecetenaecte sees eteree ene eneee 0 Pas

OF THE FINS, OR FOREPAWS.

I need scarcely state to zoologists that cetaceous animals have
no clavicles. The scapula of the sperm whale forms a flat sub-
triangular piece, having the blunt apex downwards and concave,
while the base of this triangle is convex. The anterior margin
goes off into a keel, offering at its external termination a flat

ie

29

triangular and blunt-headed process, representing the acromion ;
while the other margin lying close to the ribs, and where the
scapula articulates with the humerus, projects forward in the
form of a more styliform and pointed process, which no doubt is
the coracoid. The great size and the form of the acromion pro-
cess agrees better with the structure of true whales, than with
that of dolphins.* The following are the dimensions of the right
scapula :—

Length from upper part to glenoid cavity ..............c:0eeee oe | 3 31
SECA ROM UP PEL) DALLAS scat sists cenevctonsssshier ce oitsemesisloetaaseseeir 1 10
An TU AT NO WiOS bi BISip ter tabla nesolePoaiste(eynsinogoinia sireaiell eye naiaraforis iat Ose LL
a LOWES be aMtbswawvussasasasses eens maine baat wakaseiemee | O 8
Tema theot MeKOMMON PLOCOSS: cr try rete ccrieisioieriee weiner oa aleejtvisesiewere tl O lt
Breadth of Ome Mame rao int cc cnsaneaanten sodas seaencanetcs | UU Ys
Memo cinomMcorac olds process). crass riers. cer encut keane men eerie her ash | O 63
Breadth of CLOT ea eM RSs tersrsarecwemeipncae seme tanec de taseckst | dObi as
henptheot Len or dec avaliyareutsriesse cee enoplser pleckieick beet eek saiecn ate Os
Breadth of ON ss Sh usanarins gaiaanscnltns ab Octeamacaneetamerladeeain er 0 5s

With respect to the very short thick humerus, it is very
nearly half the length of the scapula, and consequently in pro-
portion to the scapula not so long as in the Yorkshire whale
On the opposite side to the head of the animal, there is a short
and thick apophyse, so that the external side of the humerus
presents a strong notch or emargination, This humerus expands
very much at its carpal end, where it articulates with the radius
and ulna. Beale says that in the Yorkshire whale the radius

* On comparing the figure of the scapula of our Sydney whale with that
given by Cuvier of his London whale, a great difference may be discovered
in the general form, and particularly in that of the acromion.

30

and ulna were ossified to the humerus. The following are the
dimensions of the humerus in our Sydney specimens :—

Whole length of humerus........ cecseeceveceeeeeeeee ce seeeneeeeeenes a 2
TRIECENGNH ON CIE TNGEYC ya paconoconnpuccdss ocuconHe dandoascon-sopepONGAdCo 209008 0) ais
Breadth of narrowest Part J.0:.... cvcossnccccscucevesecsentee cn sansiaels OS
Circum#PerencewOLetG OF irre ccepdescnsscteriirticctiiatebiace menisci: Aes 22
Breadthvotextremityaieccssecceerovemscenesncnsenste seria. select Omess

MI nt

With respect to the radius and ulna, they are both constricted
in the middle, and of much the same form, except that the
globular olecranon process of the latter gives a peculiar
character to this last, by its being very prominent as its turns
towards the thumb. The following are their dimensions :—

inches.

Wength of nina rics. crnecanesasosnceasaannensssenecmen siemens et rmseeo ese: 93
Breadth of upper part of ditto, including the olecranon, which

projects s0.as to dorm a HOOK oiccss.cacnesneonereorseecseneecerrees 72
Circumference of narrowest part Of Gitt0 ............:ecceseeeeen eee 10
Breadth of lower part of ditto...... ........ sinc oion eons sjeachiai oaaleee if
Teng bho tradins | cn. nccreccincmeacueantekaeoneee action ee enaeeeetee 10?
Breacthion headsof dibbomescscetmectesceecs cease aeaees acess 54
Circumference of narrowest part of ditto......... aves oceserescacee ll
Breadth’ of lower part Of Gittoy.c.-..ccncccrerncceeecsncrseenassuaesase 63

The bones of the carpus are not articulated together, as in the
more perfect mammals, but are imbedded in a mass of that
cartilaginous substance which so often, in Cefacea, represents
bony matter. This flat mass of cartilage, which takes the place
of the wrist, is one foot two inches in width, and extends five
inches from the radius and ulna to the metacarpal bones.

—

31

The carpal bones are six in number. Five of them are of
rounded irregular shape, and are placed in a transverse row, one
opposite to each finger. The sixth is a thin linear flat trans-
verse bone, placed close to the radius, between it and the carpal
bone of the thumb; go that the thumb may be considered as
having two carpal bones. The largest carpal bone is about two
inches in diameter. There is considerable discrepancy here
between the description of Beale and mine as just given;
but the true placing of the carpal and metacarpal bones, rudi-
mentary as they are in Cetacea, and separately imbedded in
cartilage, is a subject of considerable difficulty, unless drawings
of them have been made in situ. My drawing of these bones
was made on the spot, before they were separated from the
eartilage in which they were embedded. If Beale be right, his
whale has seven square carpal bones, but it is possible that by
mistake he has included the first metacarpal bone of the thumb,
among the carpal bones. Cuvier never saw either the carpal or
metacarpal bones, or the phalanges of his specimens of sperm
whales. The dimensions of our carpal bones are as follows :—

First carpal bone of thumb, length ...... yale tideias da tbeacilaeas OR
Ditto ditto, Ibreadithin.sssoc. sc cseceevae eoeeescuie o4
Second carpal bone of thumb, length .............. cesscosceseenes 22
Ditto ditto, LCA thr ened. coe Seat none 1?
Carpal bone of forefinger, Meni Gbps oicstccncavkgu ed taacdecnndvas 2h
Ditto ditto, DKCad bees pecs: cee cuseatoness 2
Carpal bone of middle finger, length ..............ccccsseceeeeeees 23
Ditto ditto, J ET REE 1 hel Urea on Sra GS ANEr a Seen cone 2
Carpal bone of fourth finger, length .. ........:ccsecsssecsecnees 24
Ditto ditto, breadth state ti eeecmetn sete 2
Carpal bone of little finger, length .............sssecenseeseerees 24

Ditto ditto, readily emcee cee mameaertees 1¢

o2

The metacarpal bones, which are much compressed, and
scarcely to be distinguished from the phalangeal, are in number,
five being to all appearance the first joints of their several digits.
That of the thumb is more dilated at the carpal end; while the
largest is that of the middle finger, and measures four inches in
length, and three in breadth,—but I give the following as their
general dimensions.

inches.
Metacarpal"boner or thumbs leno thty scp nish eae eedessete er 1
F breadth atibase ica. aeecierses-meenes 1g
Ditto ottoretinger, | | den gthien....adeno.de-steeeeeecee 3?
Pe breadthhyat ase: sne-.c-<euesee ken 22
Ditto ormiddletinger; length \.1.:)...0-- 0. seeererewse ee ee 4
a3 breadth) atibasey.ca.c.csmensusee nee 23
Ditto.oftounthtingerenethine eta. aeceaseeeen eee 3a
56 PreadthiyatiASeheqeeateris sss ekr ect 23
Dittovorlittletmeer, Wenpth\ evans eee eee 3%
_ breadthvatibaseeeeecm ee eeeeerceree 2

The phalanges gradually diminish towards the points of the
fingers :
The thumb containing 2 bones, and a third phalanx of cartilage

The index finger........ 5 bones
The middle finger...... 5 bones
The fourth finger...... 3 and a fourth phalanx of cartilage
The little finger ........ 3 bones

OF THE PELVIS.

The pelvis, as 1 mentioned before, was not recovered from the
whale of which the skeleton is set up. Itis a skeleton, however,
entire, except in this respect. I obtained afterwards from the
other carcass on the open beach at Botany, although it was in an
advanced state of decomposition, the greater part of those soft

eee ee ee

39

parts, in which, while the animal was alive, the pelvic bones
were suspended. Unfortunately, one-half nearly had been
carried away by the heavy seas which dashed on the beach,
although enough remained in two bones of one side to prove
that the rudimentary pelvis of the sperm whale of the Pacific
Ocean is of much the same construction as that of the right
whale of the Southern Ocean, which, with that of the Cape
Rorgual, was examined at the Cape of Good Hope for
M. Cuvier, by M. de la Lande, as mentioned in the Oss. Foss.
vol. ix., p. 302.

The situation of the bones of the pelvis, which are the only
vestiges of the hinder legs of ordinary mammals, marks the
place in the spinal column, from which these extremities, if they
had existed, would have been suspended. The development of
the V bones in Cetacea probably takes its origin in the total
abortion of the ordinary hinder extremities of other Dlammalia.

The pelvis in the sperm whale is not in immediate junction
with the spine, but suspended in the flesh at some distance from
it. The antepenultimate of the lumbar vertebre in our Sydney
skeleton bears towards its extremity an impression which
probably serves for the attachment of the strong muscles that
support the bones of the pelvis. In the true whale of the
Southern Ocean (Balena Australis), the pelvis is composed of
three pieces, a middle and two more slender ones, which are
articulated, one on each side of the former. So also it appears
to be with the sperm whale, except that what answers to the
middle bone of the true whale appears here to be composed of
two arched bones. Thus, in reality, there are four bones, two
on each side of the sperm whale, and they lie in the form of a
crescent, of which the convex part is directed forward. These
bones are situated in front of the anus, but are probably not
joined together by any true articulation.

In Beale’s Yorkshire whale, he describes a pelvis which is of
a very different structure from this. There, he says, the animal
had two broad, flat, irregular and quadrilateral bones, ossified at
their symphysis—a structure which approaches more to the
pelvis of the Cape Rorqual (Megaptera Poeskop of Gray).

D

o4

The largest of these pelvic bones in our Botany whale, is
curved somewhat like a rib, convex on one side, concave on the
other, broader at one extremity, and at the other hooked back
towards the convex side. The smaller bone, which perhaps
answers to the ossilium in more perfect mammals, is sub-cylin-
drical, somewhat curved and thicker at the base than at the
extremity.* It is not unlike the corresponding bone in the
pelvis of the Southern true whale, but is comparatively shorter
and less slender. The dimensions of the bones are as follow :—

st, Bone—_Wemethict sacckws vaperins sete yae Oates sedaaseeanapere mate wacong ‘eu
Breadth ab base atescs nderceecsne shades Mesane Reckoner 25
Ditto at nadaie Sale aA pets slo aa aihatsialtste le anamelnt eet e Menem 14
Dittovat pointe ss ctaamsmerrswctenmecen qantctilpeea comets 14
Thickness at middle...............00005. sassy ota oat 0%
Mhickniessiab Wook ae, cccvacnneeres lthgaaacuatcencaiegtemaet 1

ZN eBONE—WOHSGN, cence ainmencwebne sso) .eeeat ar erates eees cea eee 37
Greatest. bread tho ..nctcosnsanastovmassieasinencacmeenenerer li

Still the subject of the pelvis in the genus Catodon obviously
requires further elucidation by means of more perfect specimens.
And here, I may remark, that it would be of great service to the
promotion of natural science if the officers of whaling vessels,
and persons having opportunities along the coast of Australia,
would forward to our Musuem specimens of the Cefacea of the
Pacific Ocean, or their bones. It is indeed rather discreditable
that our Colonial collection should not be in possession of any
specimen of the common porpoise of Port Jackson (if it be a
porpoise), or of the dugong of our north-eastern shores. The
last deficiency is the more tantalizing, as although there is said

* Tn page 88 of Beale, he mentions a bone of his Yorkshire whale, which

from its shape, I should imagine to be the same as this, but it is seven
times the length, and he assigns to it a quite different use.

3D

to be a considerable fishery of dugongs so near to us as Moreton
Bay, naturalists are still ignorant whether the Australian species
be the same with the dugong of Java and Sumatra.

We have now finished our survey of the bony structure
of the sperm whale of our Australian coast, and I think it has
been quite sufficient to enable us to decide that this species is
neither the same as Beale’s Yorkshire whale nor yet as Cuvier’s
London whale; consequently that it is not the Catodon macro-
cephalus of Gray, that is, the common sperm whale of the
European seas. Whether it be the same species as the Physeter
Australis of Desmoulins—an apocryphal species, founded, as we
have seen, on a sketch made by the master of an English whaler
—may admit of doubt ; since no description, properly so called,
as yet exists of this last named species. J! am inclined, indeed,
to believe that more than one species of the sperm whale will
hereafter be shown to live in these Southern Seas. Still, as the
epithet “ Australis” is as applicable to our specimen as to any
other of the genus, it has been judged proper to name it Catodon
Australis, and I trust sufficient characters have been assigned
by which this species may hereafter be distinguished from all
others.

The skeleton set up appears to excite considerable interest
among the curious of Sydney; and it is to be hoped that the
foregoing observations will not merely serve to explain the
osseous framework of a sperm whale, but also show the visitors
of our Museum that the inspection of these dry bones ought to
suggest to them reflections far more instructive than the vulgar
admiration of their prodigious size. According to Beale,
specimens are to be seen in the Pacific more than three times
the size of this individual; and nevertheless, Madame de Staél’s
observation ought ever to be borne in mind: “ Le plus foible
atome est un monde et le monde peutétre n'est quun atome.”
Thus, the practised observer of nature knows that the smallest
organisation may offer as complex a subject for curious study as
the largest ; and that an interest may attach itself to the sperm
whale quite distinct from that due to its enormous dimensions,

36

or even to its great use in human economy. We may, for
instance, without being very profound naturalists, admire its
truly mammal structure, disguised under the mask of a fish ; its
want of that symmetry which is so general in other vertebrated
animals; its cup-like receptacle for the spermaceti which is to
obviate in the ocean the enormous weight of such a mass of
skull; its vertebre locked into each other in two different ways,
both however adapted to combine the greatest strength with the
power of effecting the object to which any part of the spinal
column may be specially destined. We may, likewise, study the
delicate mechanism of the paddles, and the manner in which the
hinder legs, so necessary to the other orders of Mammalia, here
disappear; or we may compare the small and simple bones that
terminate the tail, with the accounts which whalers give us of
their stoutest boats being dashed to pieces by the powerful
cartilaginous flukes of which these weak bones form the axis.
But it is almost impossible to detail the various subjects for
meditation, which the inspection of such a skeleton may suggest
to the minds of our visitors; and I shall, therefore, proceed to
the description of another cetacean animal of the sperm whale
family, which presents,"as I believe, a form new to naturalists.

CHAPTER IT.

ON THE EUPHYSETES GRAYII.

THE enquiries for bones, which in my search for the pelvis of
the sperm whale, I lately instituted along the coast in the
immediate neighbourhood of Sydney, have excited such interest
among settlers near the sea that I trust our Australian Museum
is at length in possession of the nucleus of what hereafter will
become a classical collection of the remains of cetaceous
mammals. Such remains form the rarest specimens to be seen
in European collections; and our immediate proximity to the
Pacific Ocean affords to Sydney peculiar advantages for assem-
bling materials, upon which a thorough investigation of this
obscure department of zoology may be founded. One advantage
already secured by my enquiries has been the discovery of a new
animal, about nine or ten feet long, and the lodging an almost
perfect skeleton of it in our museum.

Mr. Brown, a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of
Botany, who had kindly assisted me in my search for the second
sperm whale, sent me word in the month of September last that
a young one had been thrown ashore at Maroubra Beach, half-

_way between Coogee and Botany. To this place I immediately
proceeded, and found half buried in the sand the remains of a
cetacean that appeared to have been dead about six weeks. The
Tumour since has been that such an animal was about that time
seen within the Heads of Port Jackson, and, being taken for a
young sperm, was repeatedly fired at. Whether this was our
animal, or such the cause of its death, cannot now be ascertained.
The carcass, when I discovered it, had been so much devoured by
native dogs and other animals of prey that no part remained of

08

the external integuments except the flukes of the tail, the dorsal
fin, the thumb extremity of the right pectoral fin, the fore part
of the top of the head, with the gums, and part of the under jaw
with the teeth and lip attached. These parts are all much torn,
but such as they were found they are preserved in the Museum,
and they will serve to give us some idea of the external appear-
ance of the animal.

Though a whale of the sperm family, with a short and very
broad head, it was in appearance a dolphin, about 9 feet long.
Like a dolphin, it had a low snout, and rising from it a convex
forehead, at the base of which was the large single blow-hole
placed at about the middle of the head.* The snout was turned
up with a margin somewhat like that of a pig. In the gums of
the roof of the mouth there was on each side a series of sockets
for receiving the teeth of the under jaw; these teeth were
hollow, conical, and inserted somewhat horizontally in the sides
of a very thin, narrow, subcylindrical under jaw. They were
slightly curved upwards, so that their points should enter into
the above-mentioned alveoles of the upper jaw. The eye was
situated low, in front of a very weak pectoral fin. There was a
triangular dorsal fin like that of a dolphin, the rather convex
front edge of it being inclined backwards at an angle of about
45°. The hinder edge of it was more perpendicular and concave.
The perpendicular height of the point of this dorsal fin from the
back was about 3} inches, and its base 6 inches wide. The
caudal fin was triangular, with the terminating edge sinuated
from each sharp point to the middle, where there was an emar-
gination small but deep. Its breadth at the terminating edge in
a straight line was two feet, and the length from the medial
emargination that divided the flukes to the neck of the tail was
about one foot. Such is all that I can say on the subject of the
outward aspect, but the manner in which the points of the teeth
are worn show this whale to have been a full-grown animal.

* As far as Ican judge, this aperture appears to have been somewhat of a
circular form, or it may have been lunate, with the horns of the lune
directed forwards towards the point of the snout.

39

By repeated visits to Maroubra Beach, by diligent search,
by sifting the sand, and offering premiums to residents near the
spot for the recovery cf the smaller bones, I have been able to
collect an almost perfect skeleton. Indeed, it may be said to be
complete, with the exception of the sternum, some phalanges of
the digits of left paddle and one side, of which we are deficient
in many of the ribs.

The skeleton, without the invertebral cartilages, is about eight
and a quarter feet long, while the skull, from extremity of snout
to the hinder edge of the occipital condyles, is sixteen and a half
inches long. The great principal on which this skull has been
constructed, is the same which prevails in the more enormous
sperm whale described in the preceding chapter. There is the
same want of symmetry, the same distortion of the component
bones, the same concavity of the upper surface of the head,
formed by the enormous development of the base of the
maxillaries, and finally, the same convexity of the roof of the
mouth. Here, moreover, we have some anomalies that render
the formation more divergent from that of dolphins, than even is
that of the skull of a true sperm. For instance, owing to the
great breadth of the vomer, we have asnout forming from the
notches almost an equilateral triangle, but with its apex blunt
and emarginate ; the point of the snout is thus short, truncated,
and emarginate, instead of being long and sharp as in the true
sperm. Here, also, the intermaxillaries barely pass beyond the
point of the maxillaries ; although, as in the true sperm whale,
the right intermaxillary mounts nearly to the occipital, high
above the right nostril, which is, as it were, almost carved out of
it. A great distinction is here perceived from the structure of
the genus Catodon, for instead of a perpendicular and semicircular
wall, formed by the maxillaries and doubled by the occipital,
forming the back of the great cavity on the summit of the head,
we see this cavity, although it is completely formed at the back
by the maxillaries, divided as it were into two unequal parts by
a ridge of bone which is twisted towards the left side of the head.
This prominent, thick, and sinuated ridge, which in the middle of

40

the forehead separates the two unequal cavities, is formed by the
base of the left maxillary and the base of the right intermaxillary,
which both meet at the summit of the head. The right inter-
maxillary, however, does not join the occipital, but is separated
from it by a thin, edge of the right maxillary, so that the occipital
is doubled in front by the base of the maxillaries alone; in this
way the left intermaxillary is much shorter than the right one,
and mounts no higher than the wall of the left nostril, which it
partly forms. It isthe enormous width given to this left nostril
that thus distorts the bones. The vomer forms with the sides of
the intermaxillaries a broad hollow canal, in the middle of which
it tapers away to a point which divides that intermaxillary
emargination which terminates the broad snout.

The nostrils are pierced in the middle of the upper surface of
the head, not, perhaps, so obliquely as in the genus Catodon :
but they are here much more unequal in size, one being more
than ten times the size of the other. The nasal bones are in this
manner thrown completely out of their place. The right one is
a very small triangle, at the base of the ethmoidal, which forms,
with the right intermaxillary, the wall of the small right nostril.
It also forms the lower edge of the dividing ridge, and terminates
abruptly and perpendicularly above the base of the vomer. The
left nasa! bone is more than two inches long, and somewhat of a
parallelogram in shape. With the left intermaxillary, the left
maxillary and the ethmoid together, it forms the wall of the
enormous left nostril.

In this animal, as we have said, the two massive maxillaries
touch each other behind where they are doubled by the occipital,
and leave no part of the frontal visible. A notion of their heavy
proportions may be obtained from the fact, that a section of the
right maxillary, taken through the right nostril, perpendicular to
the medial line of the head, would be a triangle, having four
inches and a half for its base, and about one inch and a half for
its height.

Of all the orders of Mammalia the structure of the skull
varies most in the Pachydermata and Cetacea ; indeed the skull of

41

our animal is as distant in organization and form from that of a
dugong, as the cranium of an elephant is from that of one of the
Edentata. But the peculiarity of the skull in carnivorous
Catacea is, that their face is almost entirely formed of the
maxillaries and intermaxillaries, the nasal bones being very
minute, and out of the ordinary place; while the frontals,
separated from each other by the aforesaid predominant bones,
are each thrown down on the sides of the head, forming the
front side of a fossa temporalis as large as the orbit itself, and
still more completely closed.

The frontal, in our animal, is a heavy quadrilateral piece, with
concave sides, one of which forms the top of the orbit. A point
of the maxillary comes near to the front angle of this orbit, and
its posterior wall is formed by part of the zygomatic apophyse of
the temporal, which, however, does not join the post-orbital
apophyse of the frontal, but leaves it open in this place. The
lower part of the orbit has its front side formed by a short
thick triangular jugal, which in our specimen is not quite entire.
The fossa temporalis is of a pear-shaped form, the point of which
is open, and directed obliquely in front downwards.

The occiput falls almost vertically from the top of the head.
It is sinuated behind on each side, a slight cavity being at the
summit. From this it gently projects to form the oval eminence
of the occipital condyles. The foramen occipitale is oval; its
vertical height being two inches, and the width one inch and a
half. The occiput itself, which is eleven inches high by one
one foot in width, has its lower edge on each side divided into
two lobes, of which the external one makes an acute angle.

The under side of the skull or roof of the mouth is convex,
like that of the true sperm whale, but otherwise presents
considerable differences. For instance, only two small points
of the intermaxillaries show themselves on each side of the line
of the vomer to form the snout, which is almost entirely com-
posed on the under-side of the enormous maxillaries. These
have each in their middle a linear groove five inches and a half
long, running up from the front of the snout, and which

42

probably marks the place of the bottom of the sockets, which
are formed deep in the gum of the upper jaw, for the purpose of
receiving the points of the teeth of the under jaw.

The palatines are small and quadrilateral. The pterygoideans
very large, form two angular apophyses behind, separated from
each other by a deep emargination of an elliptical form.

The lower jaw is a singular contrast to the upper; the former
being as slight and fragile as the latter is massive and strong.
So weak is the connection of this under jaw with the skull, that
the articulating condyles are scarcely to be detected. The
broad branches are nearly as thin as paper, and although the
sides are reflexed inwardly, as in dolphins, the doubling, so as to
form the hollow tube, does not occur as in them, near the base
of the jaw, but within three inches of the symphysis. Each
triangular branch, which at the articulating base is semicircular
and about four inches high, and convex on the outside, is, from
its extreme thinness, almost transparent. The symphysis,
which is short in comparison to that of the genus Catodon, is
boat shaped and carinated. From its sides project horizontally
about thirteen teeth, curved gently upwards on each side. The
longest of these is situated about the middle of the symphysis,
and is about one and a quarter inch long. They have all single
roots implanted in single sockets. They are all about half
hollow, as in the true sperm whales, but being so much longer,
thinner, and sharper in proportion, give the animal a quite
different aspect, and perhaps a more ferocious one. Neverthe-
less, so extremely feeble an under jaw demonstrates that the
long sharp teeth serve merely for the purpose of retaining the
weak mollusca which, no doubt, form this creature’s prey.

43

DIMENSIONS OF THE SKULL OF EUPHYSETES GRAYII.

Inches.
Length of skull from extremity of snout to the hinder edge
Omacenpitalicondiyl estasenact eee sen ace crass cons seein erete el sess wiecns 16 1-2
Ditto of skull from hinder edge of occipital condyles to the
posterior wall of the right nostril ...............cceseeseeeeeneeees 6
Ditto of snout from its extremity to the bottom of the
antorbital nobebrorm bie maxillary: wermsnse veal ie cilsioa(a0 eels
Breadth of head between the orbits ...............:ssccsveseveresees
Greatest width of ridge dividing cavity of head.................
Ditto of snout between the antorbital notches of the
aD eR Ne ea Ty permease restarts copes tiolanietaiestad slated wis’.eiielosijsivoclafsleiets aloo oi. sla
Ditto of snout at half distance between its extremity and
theantorbital notchvor maxallamys vel cncecsstiaehcite-ies vielesiotr
Dittojohsnoutat extremlb ya. nce ceadecssecse se liacn emer eneenctelese series
Width between outer edges of intermaxillaries at the line
drawn between antorbital notches of the maxillary .........
Distance between the suborbitary (or here, superorbitary)
HOREVIMUIDR), coosacade e596 .cabbobaohooednoogoagooUode face ardadeDoD) dossonode
Distance between anterior points of the intermaxillaries ......
Greatest distance between the inner walls of the raised edges
GethesrmaxaMlAries(s jotadickeersdcsvecas sed seeatesauadoadecloneivenedacs
Wielka GH llgsig MOE ocoaond BoooachoodooDonoUacococoEncdoDONGenoAGeDU Ne
TLernaquln @it GUNATG) igecaccognoacdodanabad vod soosounEnonSbedosnquncBoonmeageooacc
\ivilolieln (ost Teared ony GNARO) ss icuds coasgododocetodunupadsosnaucosoosuucBuOsoOL
TEferoVeRH) CLE GOTIANO), condaadennapddocooas cadendbooHpridoncadbbobs dos uo on dBUSUCE
Height of occipital crest above the right nasal bone............
Ditto of ditto above the left nasal bone ............0.csessereeees
Whridthroftheroccipitaleforamen eccrassececensanseressrerecscnee sees
Distance between the outer edges of the occipital condyles...
Greatest breadth of the occipital at its lower part............ ..
Height of the occipital from the inferior edge of the basilar
touthersmmrnrty ol thevhead! arn ccepe septsoreisllalceiire duvsteWs cues
Length of lower jaw in a straight line .............::seceeeeeeneeeee
IDNs) OLE LLNS) Ehya00)) 0) ONE co6006 one cp pnaoocoesoodovooddauedecoNbouod 600K uor
Ditto of the series of dentary alveoles ..,......6. csccsesseeeeen eee
Distance between outer edges of the articular condyles ......
Height of the mounting branches at base.........:. ...s.seenee ee
Width of jaw at the place where the symphysis commences. .

—
oh

1-2

mbnws He ie) bo or io)
rane

— —
— Pew

— Ll
ee i Go Or Oo CO

THE OS HYOIDES.

The os hyoides of our animal is remarkably similar to that of
the true sperm whale, and principally differs in that the lateral
pieces are still more rounded; while the anterior apophyses of
the middle piece are deficient. This structure is, therefore,
further removed from that of true whales and dolphins than even

4d.

the os hyoides of the genus Catodon. The styloidean processes
are sub-cylindrical pieces, thicker at each extremity.

Inches.
Length of middle piece.........ccssccccesseneeeceneeseneeseuereceneeeaees 34
AMV hAT @be ling Woy. Soucraoddosaousqoonearon =sen0an7¢9900000 epi dsiposnemn dsb600° 4
Greatestibnickmessssscsn sentir aanetscecrccc tiene ccintermorietlanehlatateniatasts 8
Length of & Worn ....csccccceccsccssseesecenseencescsevenseseussecncevens 3
Wael Gheotyalitibomsecenareens nts ctnteets cerlssnietmndetteateb leleestestetat 24
Length of styloidean.........cccesssccsesencecnsensseneeseeceecessosennsds 4

OF THE EAR.

As in the true sperm whale and dolphins the small bones of
the ear are confluent into one stony piece, which is suspended in
a cavity of the head close to the temporal bone. It may be
divided into three parts, viz., the labyrinth, tympanum, and the
somewhat prismatic base from which they both spring as from a
fibrous root. The larger portion of the labyrinth has externally
six points, and the other portion, which is spherical in Catodon,
is here oval as in dolphins. None of the four holes, which
almost in a line, separate the oval part of the labyrinth from the
larger portion, are here pierced in a cavity distinct from any of
the others. In dolphins, on the other hand, there is one large
semicircular hole in which three smaller ones are pierced, leaving
the fourth hole outside something as in Catodon, only still further
removed from the structure of the ear in our animal. The
tympanum resembles the shell called a cone with a wide longi-
tudinal mouth, and in other respects the ear resembles that of
the Catodon more than the ear of the dolphin.

Having now given a pretty full description of the head of this
small whale, it seems high time for us to consider the name that
ought to be given to it.

45

The character which Mr. Gray of the British Museum, has
ascribed to his short-headed toothed whales, or his genus Kogia, is
as follows :—“ Head moderate, broad, triangular. Lower jaw
wide beneath, slender, united by a short symphysis infront. Jaw-
bone of skull broad, triangular, as broad as long.”

Now, De Blainville (Ann. Anat. Phys. ITT. t. 15) had pre-
viously by means of a single skull from the Cape of Good Hope,
and which is lodged in the Paris Museum, distinguished a ceta-
cean mammal under the name of Physeter breviceps, with the
following characters, viz.:—‘ Skull very broad and high. The
frontal crest very distinct, and the nasal pit very deep, rather
like that of the cacholat. Nose very short and pointed, very
rapidly tapering, only one inch longer than the breadth of occi-
pital bone. The lower jaw is very wide apart at the condyles,
bent sharply inwards, and united in front by a moderate
symphysis, and very narrow, but rounded at the end. Teeth,
fourteen or fifteen, narrow, slender, conical, acute, and rather
arched inwardly ; length of skull, fourteen inches six lines;
lower jaw, thirteen inches; separation of the condyles, twelve
inches ; symphysis, about two-ninths of length of lower jaw;
beak, the length of width at the notch. This skull bears no
resemblance to the skull of the young sperm whale.” And
it was upon these few facts recorded by De Blainville that
Mr. Gray founded his genus Aogia, with the above mentioned
character.

The Sydney animal, whose head has been described above, may
be called Euphysetes, and as a genus, the following characters
may be assigned to it, viz.:—Head moderate, rounded behind, and
subterangular in front where the base is broad, and the snout
truncated, slightly reflexed, and marginated at the extremity ; the
spermacetic cavity of skull is longitudinally divided by a bony
ridge near the occiput; single blow-hole externally situated in
middle of head at base of snout ; lower jaw, wide at the condyles,
having the branches in front united into a short narrow symphy-
sis, with about twenty-six teeth, thirteen on each side.

4.6

The following measurements will show the relation between the
genus Kogia and this new genus Huphysetes.

| Kogia. | Euphysetes.

Inches. Inches.
Motalglene baw tes kul We nenterecrae sence 494900400 06 143 163
Greatest bread theo Gdittome smarter ase sectascee seas seit (meer ter eae 133
Bread GhvolCutborat ma ObCMesmrce ce. werseemeetecte ceneer Melero. 13
Memo Got We ake Tecssteseisiclelottile svete sesiealsiusleisslsplscaleaieais/l= 6 1-7 U
Breadthiotdittorat motchesiaac-scssuess aap ssesvie 6 1-7 9
Length of Under Jaw i-..cscccssccncisseeseesesiessertensnes 13 143
Width apart of condyles of ditto .........seeseecee ees 12 12
Meng thiol the SymphySis Meee. sacceceewewsaciee ase eelet 2 8-9 3h

As our animal, therefore, comes obviously near to the Kogia
breviceps of Gray, who founded the genus on the description by
De Blainville of a skull of his Physeter breviceps, it may be
incumbent on me to state why a new name has been adopted,
namely, Huphysetes Grayit.

In the first place, the jawbone of our animal is not as broad
as long. The nasal pit is totally unlike that of the cachalot.
The nose (if by nose be meant snout) is not pointed, but very
truncated or blunt in the skeleton as well as in the perfect
animal ; moreover, instead of the nose being one inch longer
than breadth of occipital bone, this is to the length of snout in the
proportion of aboutfourteen to eight. The teeth, instead of being
fourteen or fifteen, are in number twenty-six. Again, the beak,
instead of being as long as itis wide at the notches, has its length
in proportion to this width only in the proportion of seven to nine,
and soon. The few characters given by De Blainville and Gray
show sufficient divergency from the form of our animal, and they
incline me to leave the name Kogia breviceps for the whale that
may be found to suit the above description of it as recorded by

AT

those gentlemen. I must, however, in candour confess that I am
disposed to suspect that the Paris skull has been badly described,
and that it may possibly, after all, belong to the same genus as
our cetacean. On the other hand, it is almost incredible, if the
genus Kogia be identical with our Euphysetes, that Mr. Gray
should have been silent on what certainly is by far the most
remarkable character of the latter’s skull, namely, the heavy
ridge of bone that longitudinally divides the spermacetic cavity
into two unequal parts. There has been nothing like this
structure hitherto described among Cetacea.

Tt is to be regretted that a barbarous and unmeaning word
like Kogta should have heen admitted into the nomenclature of
so classical a group as the Cefacea; and with respect to De
Blainville’s trivial name breviceps, however good and characteris-
tie it may have been in conjunction with the genus Physeter, it
is manifest, that when once these animals with short heads are
separated generically from true sperm whales, such a name has
the defect of belonging to all the species that may be found in
the genus, and consequently becomes a generic instead of a
specific epithet. There has, therefore, in the naming of our
animal been an endeavour to avoid both these defects, and it has
been called Euphysetes Grayii; where the word Euphysetes,
namely, a good or easy blower, alludes to the enormous size of the
left nostril, and the specific name is given in honor of J. E. Gray,
Esq., chief of the Natural History Department in the British
Museum, a gentleman who has much distinguished himself in the
study of this order of mammals.*

OF THE SPINAL COLUMN.

The Kuphysetes Grayit has forty-four vertebre in addition to
the seven cervical ones; but these cervical vertebre are all so

* If some odoriferous hero of the harpoon should here sing out, ‘‘ Give us
a plain English name, and no nonsense ;” I have the satisfaction to inform
him that he can with considerable propriety call this whale ‘‘ the new
codger,” and thus distinguish it from ‘‘ the old codger,” which is Mr. Gray’s
Kogia breviceps.

.

48

confluent and soldered together, as it were, into one bone, that it
is more difficult to distinguish them from each other than
perhaps in any other cetacean, although the soldering of all the
seven cervical vertebra into one piece occurs not unfrequently
among the dolphins.

In this sublunary creation, every organic structure passes off
gradually to some other one ; and it is in consequence of this law
of nature that almost all characters, however distinctive of groups
they may appear on a first glance, will be found to give way at
some point or other of any series which forms a group. Few
characters, for instance, can more generally denote the class of
Mammalia than their seven cervical vertebre. The atlas, the
axis, and the five others are all to be seen distinct in the
dolphin of the Ganges, as well as in the swan-like neck of the
cameleopard. Among the sloths, however, we find one species
with nine cervical vertebre, and on the other hand among Cefacea
we often see their seven cervical vertebre soldered together into
one. The sperm whale, or Catodon, as we have seen, has its atlas
distinet, but its axis and the following five vertebre are soldered
together into one piece. Whena character of this kind breaks
down, it becomes, from its tendency to vary, of little more value
than to distinguish species. Thus Delphinus delphis, D. globiceps,
D. griseus, and Phocena communis, as also the genus Hyperoodon,
have all the cervical vertebre soldered together. Delphinus
Tursio has them all distinct, as well as the Platanista or Del-
phinus Gangeticus, Linn. In the Cape Rorqual the atlas is distinct,
and also the four last vertebra, but according to Cuvier the axis
and the third joint are soldered together. In the Cape whale
the whole seven are confluent into one piece.

In the Huphysetes Grayzi the one bone, which is formed of the
seven cervical vertebre, has the atlas and axis marked out in it
by their superior blunt conical transverse apophyses, as in the

Cape whale; their inferior apophyses being evanescent as in
dolphins. The third and fourth vertebrx are thick, each marked.
by a short conical superior transverse apophyse, and having a
separation, from each other and from the axis, distinguished by

om

49

four lateral holes, while the vestiges of the fifth, sixth, and
seventh vertebre are thin as paper, and soldered on to the back
of the preceding ones. The superior transverse apophysis of the
third and fourth vertebre are also distinguishable, although
those of the right side are more developed than those of the
left ;—a character, by the way, belonging to the whole of this
compound bone as well as to the spine generally. The vertical
apophyse of all the joints may be considered as uniting to form
one short cone on the back of the neck. The dimensions of this
compound cervical vertebra as follow :—

inches.
MO talewa Citherceanweseeaeeceeene ee Fee eet mba Pee Rome ec 52
Vertical h eight, 202) .h svssanenginv Rnupcebadamnnausnonace Gbawdinieetwaciie, 4}
HBS TEI ier oe ater cole ra Sign aia aural praia vancaChoerrcoe dW repmuheonwd Rls | 24
RV Gai NEO Taek CERT OF1g, err ies deuce arasuataink wos orevbiowamer nn ercateanenloceskeewetes | 2

There are of dorsal vertebre 14
Lumber ditto ...... 9

Camda. .0. secs ace 21} 13 with V bones attached.

8 terminal.
Making a total of vertebre ... 45, if the cervical vertebre be
counted as one.

50

TABLE
OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE VERTEBRA OF EUPHYSETES GRAYII, IN INCHES.
Width
Width: peter
Width Height terete Ore ae two
No, | Rotel | ote | moet, | tsrima| attan | MMS lot tran] Bhp] Remarks,
apophyse apophyse apophyse Hie tres
apophyse
156-8) 42ND 18 2, a 3-4 ene ae
2 uae a slaeaeael qeaah agra eo la ieee ae
35. - Sao Tae a ate folnen | a 7510 ie ( ee
4/5 |61-8]17-10)134/3 |2 vo) | extend over the “upper
5 Pe bSiny (say Ih alesy Ik eleay iS) EOF Th teby il liebe a branches of the transverse
apophyse of the preceding
6 |4°3-10'-6 7510] 1 9-10) 14-5 | 31-2412 | 4) ee eee
7 41-10 7 15.) 2 TOR eye ile 9 Z of the transverse apophyse
8 |4 71-5 /|2 1 125i Aad all 10D ts | eel eee
9 |42-5|71-2|2 11-5 | 4 1-2") 17-103 - 4111-10
10 |5 71-2|2 1 41-2|2 31-27] 9-10
/ 1116 7D DUES | ak 44.5 121-5 |4 9-10
12 |61-2|8 2 3-10! 1 4 9-10) 3 5 9-10
TBI 81-5 |21-2 | 1 5 31-515 9-10
14) 71-9 18 129 19-0 8 5 32-5 |51-5)| 9-10
15 |83-5 |8 1-2 | 21-2 | 1 5) | 3 3-5 | 5 1-2 9-10 Last of the dorsal vertebra.
16 |8 4-5 | 8 9-10) 21-2 | 1 55 (31-2 | 58-5) Ab eae eee eee
17 |84-5 |91-5 |24-5 | 1 52-5 | 31-2 | 53-5 | 4-5 | ‘the interior carina first be-
18 |83-5 |91-5 |24-5|1 51-513 Fo ee ae ae
19 |81-5 /9 24-5 | 1 44.513 52-5 | 7-10
20 |8 § 1-2 | 24-5 7-10 4 3 5 2-5 3-5 [Here the inferior carina is
longest, the horn of the
21 171-218 £45 | 61031-81919 1595 | 35 | eee
22/7 63-5129 4-54 1-213 1-542 1-5) 52553 5 | ete
93 161-2 (545 |23-5| 1-2|21-2 |21-5 |5 3.5 | fret appearance of ertien:
24 5 35 5 2 2.5 1-2 ) 1 1-2 4 1-2 8.5 lating surface for V bones.
5151-21445 /2292-5)] 1-2}11-2/12-5)|4 1-5) \rast vecticeot uitureetonter
26 | 41-2 | 4 21-5) 1-2 115 | 015/312) ee
27 134-5 |4 PAF 1-219 LN BAS ah. we Se ee
28 132-5 |3 1-2 |2 1-2 |, 4-5.) 3:53 :
99 |24-5|/32-51145] 25] 1-2) 25 |21-2
30 | 22-5 |3 e435] 1 25ulliee B59) 5 2
31 | 2 24-5113-5| 2-5] 2-5 Trans:
32 |14-5 |21-2/11-2] 2-5] 2-5 apophyse
35 S25 2 Web 2) 8-10) ees aaa
S41 oso Il 4- > | 225 1-5 ie pecomee Here Medullary foramen first
© 112-5 /125)1 1-5 Pee ee Oe
36 [12-5 111-5] 1 1-5
87 1°95 | 1 4.5 ss
38 |12-5] 45] 4-5 :
5911 1-5 | @-51) 455
40 | 1 3-5.) 3-5
du 9-10) S254) 35
49) “A-5*)) 122") “29
43) 55a 62-5 4) 195 ey
44 Ve? 9-5 9-5 oa This globular joint is ee
45| 2-5] 2-5] 2-5 j inthe part of tail that nae
ound, |

51

To judge from the articulating surfaces, there are about
thirteen V bones in this animal. Of these, however, only seven
have been found, the first of which belongs to the twenty-fifth
vertebra. The following table will express their dimensions, and
also the particular vertebre to which they were attached by
cartilaginous ligaments :—

No. of the vertebra, pee a sae

inches, inches.

25 2 2-5 2 1-5

29 1 2-5 ] 1-2

30 1 2-5 1 2-5

31 1 1-5 1

32 1 1-5 3-5

33 4-5 1-2

34 1-2 2-5

OF THE RIBS.

The ribs are not very round as in Catodon, but flattish and
often somewhat angular. The animal is thus more compressed,
that is, narrower and deeper in proportion than Catodon. In-
stead of ten pair of ribs, as in the true sperm whale, the
Euphysetes has no less than fourteen pairs, of which the last pair
are merely minute rudimentary bones floating in the side of the
animal and entirely disjoined from the vertebral axis. The first
rib, which is broad and flat, is bent in the middle almost at right
angles, and has but one articulating surface; that is, to the
transverse process of the first dorsal vertebra. The seven
following pairs have each two articulating surfaces for each con-
secutive two of the first seven vertebra, and the next five pairs

52

have only one articulating surface for each rib. All the ribs are
more or less arched, but become rapidly straighter and shorter
until the fourteenth, which is only about one inch and a-half
long, and has the slightest possible curvature. The length of the
ribs are as follows—but it must be recollected on the view of
these dimensions that, except the first, we possess no rib of the
left side. Possibly the ribs of left side, if known, would prove,
smaller than their corresponding ribs. Thus the right transverse
apophyse of the ninth vertebra is perforated on the side, but not
the left one, although there is an open groove in it for the
passage of the left tendon. In the same way the thirteenth and
fourteenth vertical apophyses are perforated on the right side of
the emargination, but on the left side these holes are open as
usual, and only grooves.

rib. inches. rib. inches.
IIE] Ga popencaeencncornanede aban8 15 Stheeree 22) ian gesribaline
a longitudinal
PATE Tg npeenoondedacop¢neascnonac 20 SAO cosena8e 20 + groove in their
Brel ec ee eae O4 10th se 1g) middle.
Ab ieee ocudecneren econ 25 WH, spoon nan 16
Gls civyatiock v.acimwartni osama 244 IPAd We onsdapon 144
Gil bshe chet odinettwactseenae 24 11635} 18 spennoe 114
Thao eadaatosonnciaecandasebNds 23 Aachen 13

OF THE STERNUM.

Only one of the pieces of the sternum was at first found, and
this would appear to be the middle one. It is composed of two
bones confluent at one of their sides, as is made evident by a
longitudinal medial furrow on the outside. The shape of this
piece is unsymmetrical, but quadrilateral, the right component .
bone being somewhat larger than the left one. The dimensions
of the entire bone are as follows:

53

inches.
Kength eh media ner..iiicisiccsincdivievastecsecsivestesseressveteus 13
VAT GRD ATE LO Der iaeciectie jit cies sais qe sedisteaatevivmetdejnsisin as anes aniernaga ae 2
WVarcl blamevtin lo OL LOTING cmc ceaecmecineacmeelcitesicemcoslenteeseaane aetiauk osmaepitemasie 13

Very lately, however, by sifting the sand, another and smaller
bone has been detected, which appears to be one of the com-
ponent bones of the terminal or third piece of the sternum.
What is most worthy of notice in it is, that it shows the sternum
of Euphysetes to have been terminated by two distinct flat
triangular bones, almost exactly as in the Sydney Catodon. This
terminating bone has the points of the triangle blunt or rounded
off; the base of it is rather more than three-quarters of an
inch long, and the sides are each about one-and-a-fifth of an
inch long.

OF THE PECTORAL FINS.

It will be seen from the following description of the hands,
fore extremities, or pectoral fins of the Euphysetes, that it
possesses in these organs no strength in proportion to that which
exists in the fins of the true sperm whale. Indeed in all the
Cetacea the pectoral fins can, from their feeble structure be of
little use as organs of locomotion, and probably are principally
of service in supporting their young. In our animal the scapula
is a remarkably thin, flat, smooth bone, with scarcely any con-
vexity. Indeed the little convexity which exists in this broad
subtriangular plate is towards its fore edge, where this convexity
is turned towards the ribs. The upper edge of this scapula forms
nearly the quadrant of a circle. Its posterior edge is concave,
and the anterior edge sinuated somewhat in the shape of anf.
The outer crest of the base of this scapula gives rise to the
acromion, which is also a thin subtriangular plate, and from the
inner ridge a thicker and more solid coracoid apophyse projects
in the shape of a parallelogram.

54

DIMENSIONS OF THE SCAPULA,

inches.

Greatest Length. :.1.u...te/siechsssousuaaesemeneaeeeaoeeeeeecee ree sectors
Wadthiof wconvex side ¥../2.0:ho.caanesaeneaneucotuen trae a ten eeaeee 10

Ditto sconcave Wider jWwaticccscsscuowastankae me areuaeayeeeen eee 5 1-5

Ditto « Janteriorside, ii savnecreccesteassroasnie coe aa oeeee eee 6 1-2
Breadth, Of Meck, juste dh ceesuncydene aleowstaseniounuemar shes teveneae eee 3
Projectionoltheracromion es ets meee re eee eee ener 3
Greatest height ot ditto... ic.s0caskecses eusaae gene seuere rtenemene 2
Projection of coracold apophyse......<sscwsesonesicnesmuewrcseancoes 2
Height of ditto at the extremity ..... Foor ocoeaper omonoe waonoe cS 1 1-5

With respect to the humerus, that apophyse on the front edge
of it which is so conspicuous in true sperm whales, and which
represents the deltoidal crest, is here very little prominent, but
in length it oceupies more than one-half of the front edge. The
humerus itself is flatter than in Catodon, very concave behind,
and in front presenting a waved edge.

inches
Totallength Of umerws «, cscsscasssacncersbecuneehencresecnsaaeeence t
Greatest widbhofi@itto 6.2 .sss.ivctoincavadqaetyscspeseshnasos cence 2 1-5
Semi-diameter of hemispherical head ............scseseeeeeneeeees 2

{

The cubitus or ulna is not confluent or soldered to any other
bone, but perfectly a distinct piece, like the radius. The thin
posterior edge of the cubitus is waved, and the olecranian
apophyse projects so very little as to make its base not wider
than the other end of it. The radius is in shape and dimensions
very like the cubitus, only it is thicker and more solid. The
width of radius at top and bottom is nearly the same, only in

55

the middle it is constricted and flattish as well as the ulna. The
latter however has a small convexity in the middle of its outer
margin under the semicircular olecranian process—

Hema SUNLOLSCM DIUM aaiony coca uacrwasesecaceses'Svecns(silevdesseacdeees sama: 212
Width at base, including olecranian apophyse .............006.- 1 4-5
Width at meeke 25) ..ccocscavenses easton eels Gare SOstine eahce's oticcheae tone 1 3-10
Wengihrot the Tagis. 54 cc vssssrascdesees ts ema cauitece cay cena iers 8% 2 1-2
WG hTataLO pesca nes ucstosascscceesninctaeavewes gaileidasioasecmanisnsgateoh act 1 3-5
WPL RBI Ghie: MMGC Cuts cinccenccsueseneace ose sevectortwednsosuct elle th 1 1-2

The carpal bones are in the Euphysetes not so far separated
from each other by cartilage as in the Catodon. They are seven
in number, viz.: two linear transverse bones and five of a flat,
round, irregular shape, a small hexagonal one of which is placed
between one of the transverse bones and the metacarpal bone
of the thumb. This transverse carpal bone is subtriangular,
and placed at the termination of the radius. The remaining
thin transverse bone is trapezoidal and situated between the
base of the ulna and the two outer carpal bones. The forefinger
has also two large flat carpal bones, placed between the corner of
the radius and the metacarpal bone of the forefinger. Of these
two carpal bones the one nearest the radius is pentagonal, and
the other hexagonal. From one side of the hexagonal bone
proceeds the metacarpal bone of the third finger. The largest
carpal bone, which is subpentagonal, lies between the trapezoidal
transverse carpal and the metacarpal bone of the fourth finger,
while a small subquadrangular carpal bone joins the outer edge
of the linear trapezoidal carpal with the metacarpal bone of the
little finger. This position of the carpal bones among them-
selves, so widely different from the disposition of them in the
pectoral fin of the true sperm whale, is nevertheless certain ;

56

but the way in which they are connected with the metacarpal
bones is not so certain, as only the bones of the thumb and fore-
finger, part of the right fin, were found zm situ. Almost all the
smaller bones of the fins were detected by sifting the sand on the
beach, and those of the left fin remain still imperfect. As in
the true sperm whale, the metacarpal bones appear as the first
joints of the five fingers, that of the thumb being the most
dilated at the carpal end.

The phalanges appear gradually to diminish towards the
points of the digits, and the right fin is so perfect that we may
account the thumb to contain two phalanges, the index six, the
middle finger six, the fourth finger four, and little finger three,
perhaps only two.

OF THE PELVIS.

The pelvis in the Huphysetes, as in Catodon, is composed of
four bones suspended in the flesh, but they are of a very
different form. The two middle ones are quadrangular, each
longer than broad, flattish on one side and triquetral or pris-
matic at the end where it articulates with the second kind of
pelvic bone ; this second kind is a broad subquadrangular bone,
thickest at the middle point of its inner side where it articulates
with the former, and from that articulation it flattens out into
an oval suspended obliquely in the flesh. A suspicion here
arises in the mind of any person conversant with Beale’s
description of the pelvis in his Yorkshire whale, that as his
words will so accurately suit the two exterior bones of our
Euphysetes, it may be possible that the two middle ones of that
specimen were lost, or at least not detected. Indeed these
bones, from lying insulated in the flesh of the belly, are d:fficult
to find, and in consequence it is very rare that the few skeletons
of Cetacea in museums are provided with them.

The dimensions of the bones of the pelvis in the right side of
Huphysetes are as follow :—

MaddlerBone= Wong estiside ce sacudteve tose: doeseereserscecaucncoss ma
Opposite side To SamM!: <2. :...swieccnecewsceeen ones ]
Shortest or triquetral side ...............sseeerees 08
Opposite}stdeatoisamen; sc iicasecsgacecs vmiehinvnjsicns 0g

Hxtemer hone—Articulating'std@: ........0c.0.ccececseens ones ao oes 14
MONIES tis CMe ar pectic cs caso secon seceeuassanier no 12
Wurncd Resid Ossc aa ccapismerr ins sane eeciapcdsames anita 1
SM GETESEESTC Cains seswcoceanicasenas dave. cea deaeonplesieldastes OF

We have thus passed in review the several parts of a cetacean
whose bony structure comes very near that of the common sperm
whale. Nevertheless, its external form demonstrates how little
importance is to be attached to most of those characters which
have been hitherto considered by Lacepéde, Cuvier, and other
great zoologists, to be ordinate. Here, for instance, we have a
sperm whale, with a short moderately sized head, and a de-
pressed snout like that of a dolphin, with a dolphin’s falcate
dorsal fin, and single blowhole situated in the middle of the head,
at the base of the snout. As for the want of teeth in the
upper jaw, it has already been shown to be common among
dolphins.

The discovery of the Kuphysetes Grayii is useful in many
respects. It shows the error of the two brothers Cuvier in dis-
crediting the existence of the black fish of the northern hemis-
sphere; it shows the mistake of Professor Bell in assigning the
black fish of our whalers to the same genus as the common sperm
whale ; it shows, at the same time, the accuracy of the ancient
descriptions of the black fish by Sir Robert Sibbald and Otho
Fabricius* ; and finally, the shrewdness of Mr. Gray, in eliciting

* It is very possible, nay, probable, that the black fish of Otho Fabricius
is a different species from that of Sir R. Sibbald, particularly if it be true
that the former has only 22 teeth in all; for the latter has 21 teeth on each
side of under jaw, making 42 in all.

58

from such a mass of confusion so much correct information
respecting an animal which he only knew by Sir Robert Sibbald’s
figure. The truth is, that the Euphysetes comes much closer in
external appearance to the black fish than to the sperm whale.
It in a manner proves the existence, now or formerly, of such a
species as Sibbald and Fabricius described from the northern part
of the German Ocean. Like the Euphysetes, the black fish is
said to have a round head with a depressed and truncated snout;
it had also a dorsal fin, and its blowhole was situated on the
middle of the head. Now, as the skeleton of the Luphysetes
comes so near to that of Catodon, it is impossible that Mr. Gray
can be wrong in considering the black fish (the Physeter Tursio
of Linnzeus) to belong truly to the family of sperm whales.

Theknown genera that belong to the family of Catodontide
may, by their external appearance, be shortly characterised as
follows, viz.:—

No dorsal fin, but only

a hump instead. Blow- Head between a third

}
hole at the extremity of 1. Caropon. aue fourth of the whole
ength.
snout.
2. Koeta? angular, and pointed in

front ?

Head moderate, like
that of a dolphin, and
truncated in front.

(3. EUPHYSETES.

|
Dorsal fin. Blowkole
on middle of head,

| Head moderate, tri-

Head half length of
rest of skeleton? Blow-
hole covered by an oper-
culum or flap?

4, PHYSETER.

But of anatomical characters by which we may separate the
Euphysetes from all other described genera of the sperm whale
family, there is none so striking as that ridge of bone which
divides the back part of the spermacetic cavity into two lesser
cavities nearly equal in size.

59

CHAPTER ITI.

CONCLUDING REMARKS,

In this short chapter I propose to discuss ; first, the osteological
affinities of the Catodontide, or family of sperm whales ; secondly,
the true characters which distinguish that family ; and thirdly,
the causes of their rarity.

The first of these questions regards the animals to which the
sperm whale family, in the structure of their skeleton, come the
nearest. I have already, in a multitude of points, shown their
close affinity to the dolphin family, and the following series of
Delphinide is arranged very nearly in the manner that Mr. Gray
has, in his late work on Cetacea, considered to be the natural
disposition of these animals.

DELPHINID.®.

Normal Group,
FLUVIATILE.

Maxillary bones
horizontal.
( Maxillary bones
| rising vertically on

Symphysis of un- ¢ a. Intina, Gray.
der jaw more than |
half length of jaw, 4

and much com-| 5 Pravanistina, Gra 4 edge, so as to form
. aNdy ah 9 a . ’
pressed: \ z Ja Gest over the nos-
(trils.
Aberrant Group.
MARINE.
( Upper jaw tooth-
| less. Maxillary
| bones raised verti-
( ¢. HyPEROCDONTINA, Gray. ts nee dge ae
| to form a crest over
( the nostrils.
Symphysis of un- | ( Upper jaw with
der jaw not half4 | few teeth. Maxil-
length of jaw. | d. Monoceratina, Gray. 4 lary bones sub-hori-
| zontal, and rather
(plane.

Upper jaw with
many teeth. Max-
illary bones sub-ho-
rizontal and plane.

Le, DELPHININA, Gray.

60

But if such be the series of natural affinity among the true
dolphins, it must be confessed that it is very difficult to discover
good characters, founded on the skeleton, by which sperm whales
can be excluded from the group. It is very clear that our two
Sydney whales described in the preceding chapters touch the
above series at some point between Platanistina and Hyperoo-
dontina ; for they have the toothless upper jaw of the latter tribe
of dolphins, and that long symphysis of the under jaw which is
so remarkable in the fresh water dolphins, while a crest is formed
by the elevation of the maxillary bones in all the three groups.
The difference is that in all the dolphins of the above series the
base of the maxillary is extended laterally over the frontal,
whereas the base of the maxillary in sperm whales is extended
more behind for the purpose of aiding to form the spermacetic
cavity. In all dolphins the nostrils approach to equality and
symmetry, whereas in the family of sperm whales the nostrils
are exceedingly unequal and unsymmetrical—and thus have a
peculiar location in respect to the distorted and dislocated nasal]
bones. In the Catodontide also, the frontal bone is very con-
spicuous over the orbit, while in true dolphins it is comparatively
covered by the lateral dilation of the maxillary bones. Again a
very remarkable distinction is this, that the toothed edges of the
upper and under jaws in all dolphins are parallel, whereas in
sperm whales the sides of the under jaw are linear and laterally
compressed from where the symphysis takes place; and the
tapering upper jaw is thus very much broader than the under.

-Although such are perhaps the most valid characters by which
sperm whales can be separated from marine dolphins, it is to be
observed that if the Catodontide forma group of value equivalent —
to that of Delphinide, the sperm whales, and particularly the
Euphysetes, can be only aberrant forms connecting the first-
mentioned group with the dolphin family. It must be granted
also on this hypothesis that the researches of naturalists have not
as yet made us acquainted with the normal form of Catodontide,
nor yet with those species of the group that pass off to the
Balenide or family of right whales.

61

If I may be permitted to express my own opinion on a subject
of considerable difficulty, and which certainly admits of much
doubt—although the difficulty proceeds entirely from the paucity
of species known,—I confess that I think the affinities of car-
nivorous Cetacea among themselves would be still better expressed
by placing all the living species that are known in the two
following groups :—Balenie and Delphinide. We may then

make the sperm whales—animals, which, as we have shown, differ
in no important particular from dolphins—fall into the series of
Delphinide.

But in order to understand this matter more clearly, we had
better consider the place which the order of Cetacea holds in the
class of Mammalia. This order is distinguished neatly from all
other mammals by the absence of hinder feet ; and the typical
Catacea are evidently those which, in other respects, differ the
most in structure from the other orders of Mammalia. Now,
one of the characters most prevalent in these other orders is the
possession of molar teeth implanted in the maxillaries. Incisors
or intermaxillary teeth are often wanting, but, except in a few
Edentata, which are destitute of all teeth, the maxillary bones
are always provided with molars. Let us ask ourselves, then,
what Cetacea are least oceanic in general structure, and, at the
same time, in the possession of molars? The answer at once
will be, the herbivorous group. The existing herbivorous Cetacea,
together with the extinct genus Zeuglodon, and perhaps another
fossil genus, form, without doubt, the aberrant group of the
order, and are all distinguished by the possession of molar teeth
with double roots, as distinct from their incisors. The remaining
Cetacea, forming the normal group of the order, have no such
molar teeth. These may be divided into 1st, true whales,
Balenide, or those Cetacea which have no teeth, but more or less
baleen instead ; and, 2ndly, dolphins, or Delphinide, which have
only conical teeth with single roots, and more or less hollow, like
those of crocodiles. Now, this last group, or the family Del-
phinide, may be divided into sub-families, as follows :—The genus
Inia of D’Orbigny, serving to connect the Platanistina with the
Delphinina.

62

A. Maxillary bones sub- DELPHININA. Teeth in both jaws.
horizontal and plane. MOoNCOCEROTINA. No teeth in under jaw.
No teeth in upper jaw.
HYPEROODONTINA. Under jaw with short
symphysis.
No teeth in upper jaw.
Under jaw with long
symphysis. Nostrils
very unequal in size.
Teeth in both jaws. Under
jaw with long symphysis.

B. Maxillary bones at
their base rising ver- -

|
, CATODONTINA.
tically on their edge. |
L

PLATANISTINA.

Of the many characters which I have before given as separating
the sperm whale tribe from other dolphins, it is rather singular
that Mr. Gray should not have noticed one. The definition
given by him of his family of Catodontide or toothed whales, is
as follows :—“ Head large, upper jaw toothless, lower jaw with
conical teeth fitting into cavities in the edge of upper jaw.
Blowers united together by a lunate opening.”

Now in the first place no sperm whales have cavities in the
edge of upper jaw, while there are dolphins in possession of
every one of Mr. Gray’s other characters. The assertion of Mr.
Bennet that rudiments of teeth are to be found in the upper jaw
of young sperm whales, may be doubted ; but Mr. Gray himself
has stated that the genus Physeter or blackfish, which he makes
to belong to the group, has the blow-holes separate.* The least
objectionable part of the above definition consists perhaps in the
vague words “head large,’ and yet Mr. Gray assigns his genus
Kogia to the family with the contrary character of “head
moderate.” No doubt the large size of the head in proportion
to the body is a very striking characteristic of the genera
Catodon and Physeter ; but this is not particularly remarkable in
Euphysetes, which has a head in external form very like to that
of some dolphins, and not in proportion larger.

Premising that Iam in Mr. Gray’s and M. Cuvier’s case of
never having seen a blackfish or even any part of one, I shall
now venture to offer my own definition of the group of Cafo-
dontina as more accurate than that given by my predecessors as
the character of the

* Ts this correct ?

63

Famity CATODONTIDZ.

Upper surface of massive skull concave for the reception of
spermaceti. Nostrils enormously disproportionate in size, the
left one being the largest, and the nasal bones as well as those of
the face generally, being thereby unsymmetrical and distorted.
Blow-hole externally single. (in all?) Branches of the toothed
lower jaw united in front by a long symphysis, whichis always
considerably narrower than the toothless upper jaw. Teeth of
under jaw conical, hollow hke those of a crocodile, and fitting
into cavities formed in the gum of the upper jaw.

It has been more hastily conceded than truly said, that the age
of large animals has passed away—that in those pre-Adamite
eras of time which form the principal subject of geological study,
the vis ereatrix acted if not more complexly, at least on a larger
scale than at present—that the Megalosaurus, for instance, was
larger than the Mastodon, and the Mastodon again, larger than
any animal production of our own degenerate time. Many enthu-
siastic admirers of the world’s infancy, therefore, appear to have
overlooked the actual existence of an order of mammals which,
according to geological evidence appeared first on the face of our
globe so lately as since the cretacean period. Yet this order now
is apparently as numerous in species as in any previous aera, and
contains in it the living great northern rorqual (Balenoptera
physalus of Gray) an animal larger than any extinct geological
species known, and probably the very ‘‘ Balena Britannica,”
which Juvenal fixed on as his standard of cetacean hugeness.

If our earth be trodden at present by no mammal so large as
the Mastodon of North America, nor by any bird so huge as the
Deinornis or moa of New Zealand, their disappearance is
obviously so recent, that there is little difficulty in supposing that
the extirpation of such species may be owing to the hand of
man. Indeed the various species of the animal kingdom seem to be
in danger of violent extinction in direct proportion to their size.
The increase of this renders them in general less ferocious com-
pared with other species. A porpoise, that is, the least of known
Cetacea, is exceedingly voracious; but a sperm whale (whether

64:

Oatodon or EHuphysetes) which is nearly, as we have seen, the
same as a porpoise in all the essentials of its structure, is rendered
comparatively harmless by the want of teeth in the upper jaw.
This deficiency perhaps was necessary to aid its bulky stores of
spermaceti in balancing the specific gravity of its massive skull.
Right whales are in like manner rendered mild and timid by an
entire want of teeth, although the weight of their skull is also
relieved by the peculiar way in which the quantity of bone in it
is reduced.* Thus it is that immense size is not ordinarily the
characteristic of a beast of prey, and that the largest Cetacea feed
only on minute mollusca. As for the immense size of Cetacea, it
evidently proceeds from their buoyancy in the medium in which
they live, and their being enabled thus to counteract the force of
eravity.

Sperm whales are found to inhabit warmer seas than true
whales, and are brought more within the reach of those persons
whose love of destruction is attracted by their size and timidity,
and whose love of money is excited by the value of their oil.
Many whalers of late have declared that the number of young
sperm calves annually killed is so great as to threaten the speedy
annihilation of this kind of whale. With less motives for killing
off the species, thus certainly within our own times has man
wantonly extinguished the Nestor productus of Phillip Island, and
probably, at an earlier date, occasioned the similar fate of the
singular Dodo.

But while we may regret the premature extinction of a harm-
less and useful species of animal by the destructiveness of another
one, there can be no doubt that the creator has imposed a natural
limit to the duration of every species on the surface of this globe.
Just as individuals are born into the world, live, and, after an
appointed period, die; so we are taught by geology, that the
time of the natural existence of every species is also limited.
We observe the first appearance of a species of animal in one
stratum, we view it flourishing, as it were, in another, that
we trace it languishing, and its numbers rapidly decreas-

* Tt is for a similar reason that so many dolphins and other Cetecea have
the branches of their under jaw hollow, while the symphysis is very short.

65

ing in a later stratum, until at last, it appears utterly extinct.
We see other limited durations appointed for the existence of
genera, families, and orders, so that analogy would make us infer
that it must be the same—for all groups of which in geological
strata we have, ina manner, witnessed the commencement. It
thus may be that classes, nay, the two kingdoms of animal and
vegetable nature themselves,—for these, after all, are but groups
of greater dimensions—as they have had in geological strata a
visible beginning, so must they also in process of time have their
due end.

Nor need speculation cease here ; since it would surely be the
height of presumption to suppose that when all that organization
of matter which is dependent for existence on atmospheric air,
shall, with that gas, have passed away, other kinds of organic
beings may not remain, where atmospheric air has never existed,
or even where it may have ceased to exist. Nevertheless, it is
true that there is no vestige of material life having ever existed
on this terrestrial globe, except in connection in some way with
the atmosphere, and dependent on it. Nay, it would appear
from observation, that the order of the creation of species—aye,
and perhaps the order of their extinction too—has been carried
on in point of time, with reference to the successive conditions of
the circumambient air. Thus, aquatic beings have preceded
terrestrial, But there is an exception, which, as usual proves
the rule; and, pursuing the consequences legitimately to be
deduced from the above facts, we may, perhaps, be able to arrive
at the true reason for marine animals, warm-blooded, like whales,
having been called into existence so late, when their proper food,
Mollusca and Crustacea, had, for ages before the earliest tertiary
period, abounded in the waters which then covered a great part
of the face of the earth.

[2 plates. ]

Sydney : Charles Potter, Government Printer.—1887.
F

ure “Iy9 ‘yyeueyT «(YT “Syzp.gsa U0N0}0() )
ITY HictaO OFlO WN ale dnelS Siete Oso Shel depinoyusg pue WdVv Jer]

‘aIBUAA WdedS eed

ul = {[ aa T ‘qysuey =(AVaTOVIN—wivub sajasiydny )
(ds ‘finapvyJ— tT RVUD VIDOM ‘eteUAA S.Aeay Jo epelg aepinoys pue way bY

‘OlTeBUAA UdedS s,Aed

EE Ee

Catodon Australis

Fig. 4—Scale, % inch wo a root.
Figs. 2 & 3,— Scale, /inch lo a foot

Fig. 4, Scale, 2 inch foot
Drawn on Stone by W. S.Wall ig. 4,— Scale, ¢ inches ta tao

~

7
i

Oat bat

a

Fig. 6.

Half size

A ‘

er

Pine

pba ddy =

Le.
AH

SS

Euphysetes Grayii

Fig |, Seale, inch to a toot ;
Figs. 2,3, 4,5,— Scale, — 2 inches to & foot
Drawn on Stone by W.S.Wall .

; (Se. 39_87) ‘
= al —— 2 — « s Las ck 3 4

§ _ ea

Baal Sedna ih }¢