This is a modern-English version of The Beaked Whales of the Family Ziphiidae: An Account of the Beaked Whales of the Family Ziphiidae in the Collection of the United States Museum..., originally written by True, Frederick W. (Frederick William). It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
Bulletin 73

Smithsonian Institution
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE UNITED STATES
Bulletin 73

A STUDY OF THE BEAKED WHALES FROM THE ZIPHIIDÆ FAMILY IN THE COLLECTION OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM, ALONG WITH COMMENTS ON SOME SPECIMENS IN OTHER AMERICAN MUSEUMS

BY
FREDERICK W. TRUE
Head Curator, Department of Biology, U. S. National Museum

BY
FREDERICK W. TRUE
Head Curator, Department of Biology, U.S. National Museum

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1910

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1910

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
Issued September 28, 1910.

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
Released September 28, 1910.

[III]


ADVERTISEMENT.

The scientific publications of the United States National Museum consist of two series, the Proceedings and the Bulletins.

The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, the Proceedings and the Bulletins.

The Proceedings, the first volume of which was issued in 1878, are intended primarily as a medium for the publication of original, and usually brief, papers based on the collections of the National Museum, presenting newly-acquired facts in zoology, geology, and anthropology, including descriptions of new forms of animals, and revisions of limited groups. One or two volumes are issued annually and distributed to libraries and scientific organizations. A limited number of copies of each paper, in pamphlet form, is distributed to specialists and others interested in the different subjects as soon as printed. The date of publication is printed on each paper, and these dates are also recorded in the tables of contents of the volume.

The Proceedings, with the first volume released in 1878, are mainly meant to publish original, often short, papers based on the collections of the National Museum. They feature newly-acquired information in zoology, geology, and anthropology, including descriptions of new animal species and revisions of smaller groups. One or two volumes are published each year and sent to libraries and scientific organizations. A limited number of copies of each paper, in pamphlet format, are given to specialists and others interested in the various topics as soon as they are printed. The publication date is printed on each paper, and these dates are also noted in the volume's tables of contents.

The Bulletins, the first of which was issued in 1875, consist of a series of separate publications comprising chiefly monographs of large zoological groups and other general systematic treatises (occasionally in several volumes), faunal works, reports of expeditions, and catalogues of type-specimens, special collections, etc. The majority of the volumes are octavos, but a quarto size has been adopted in a few instances in which large plates were regarded as indispensable.

The Bulletins, the first of which was published in 1875, are a series of standalone publications mainly featuring monographs on large zoological groups and other general systematic studies (sometimes in multiple volumes), faunal works, expedition reports, and catalogs of type specimens, special collections, etc. Most volumes are octavos, but a quarto size has been used in a few cases where large plates were considered essential.

Since 1902 a series of octavo volumes containing papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum, and known as the Contributions from the National Herbarium, has been published as bulletins.

Since 1902, a series of octavo volumes featuring papers about the botanical collections of the Museum, known as the Contributions from the National Herbarium, has been published as bulletins.

The present work forms No. 73 of the Bulletin series.

The current work is No. 73 of the Bulletin series.

Richard Rathbun,
Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution,
In charge of the United States National Museum.

Richard Rathbun,
Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution,
In charge of the National Museum of the United States.

Washington, D. C., June 1, 1910.

Washington, DC, June 1, 1910.

[V]

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page.
Introduction 1
Descriptions of skulls and skeletons of Ziphioid whales 3
Genus Mesoplodon 3
Mesoplodon bidens 4
densirostris 9
europæus 11
stejnegeri 24
Genus Ziphius 30
Ziphius cavirostris 30
Genus Berardius 60
Berardius bairdii 60
Genus Hyperoödon 76
Hyperoödon ampullatus 76
List of species of existing Ziphioid whales 76
Index 79
Explanation of plates 83
[1]

A RECORD OF THE BEAKED WHALES IN THE ZIPHIIDÆ FAMILY AT THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM, ALONG WITH COMMENTS ON A FEW SPECIMENS IN OTHER AMERICAN MUSEUMS.

By Frederick W. True,
Head Curator, Department of Biology, U. S. National Museum.

By Frederick W. True,
Head Curator, Department of Biology, U.S. National Museum.


INTRO.

The beaked whales belonging to the family Ziphiidæ are, with the exception of the bottle-nosed whales of the genus Hyperoödon, among the rarest of cetaceans. Of the three genera Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius, so far as I have been able to ascertain from published records, specimens representing about one hundred individuals are known, and somewhat more than one-half of these belong to the first-named genus. Berardius is the rarest genus, only about fourteen specimens having been collected thus far. The U. S. National Museum contains specimens representing some twenty-five individuals of the three genera, or about one-fourth of the material at present available. Among these are six specimens of the genus Berardius, or nearly half of all that have been recorded thus far.

The beaked whales in the family Ziphiidae are among the rarest cetaceans, except for the bottle-nosed whales from the genus Hyperoödon. From what I've gathered from published records, there are known specimens of about one hundred individuals across the three genera Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius. More than half of these belong to the first-named genus. Berardius is the rarest, with only about fourteen specimens collected so far. The U.S. National Museum has specimens representing around twenty-five individuals from the three genera, which is about one-fourth of what's available right now. Among these are six specimens of the genus Berardius, which is nearly half of all that have been recorded so far.

The most important addition to the knowledge of these whales made during the last quarter century was the discovery of representatives of the three genera Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius, at Bering Island, in the North Pacific, by Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, whereby the known range of the family was very greatly extended. Two of the forms were described by Doctor Stejneger in 1883, and the third by myself from a skull which he collected. About one-half of the material which the Museum possesses consists of that collected by Doctor Stejneger in Bering Island and that from the same locality presented by Mr. Nicholas Grebnitzki, Russian governor of the Commander Islands.

The biggest addition to our knowledge of these whales in the last twenty-five years was the discovery of representatives from the three genera Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius at Bering Island in the North Pacific, by Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, which greatly expanded the known range of the family. Dr. Stejneger described two of the species in 1883, and I described the third from a skull he collected. About half of the material in the Museum comes from Dr. Stejneger's collection at Bering Island and from the same area donated by Mr. Nicholas Grebnitzki, the Russian governor of the Commander Islands.

About six years ago the National Museum received information and specimens from correspondents showing that the range of the three genera found at Bering Island extends to the eastern North Pacific, one genus (Ziphius) having been observed at Kiska Harbor, Alaska, another (Mesoplodon) at Yaquina Bay, Oregon, and the third (Berardius) at St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Alaska, and near Cape Mendocino, California.

About six years ago, the National Museum got information and specimens from sources indicating that the range of the three genera found at Bering Island extends to the eastern North Pacific. One genus (Ziphius) was spotted at Kiska Harbor, Alaska; another (Mesoplodon) at Yaquina Bay, Oregon; and the third (Berardius) was seen at St. George Island in the Pribilof Group, Alaska, and near Cape Mendocino, California.

[2]

On the east and west coasts of the United States the only occurrences of beaked whales known to me are as follows:

On the east and west coasts of the United States, the only instances of beaked whales I'm aware of are as follows:

EAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mesoplodon bidens:
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. 1867. Skull in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mesoplodon europæus:
Atlantic City, New Jersey. March 28, 1889. Young male. Skeleton, cast, photographs, and viscera in the National Museum.
North Long Branch, New Jersey. July 22, 1905. Adult female. Skull in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mesoplodon densirostris?:
Annisquam, Massachusetts. August, 1898. Young female. Skeleton in the Museum of the Boston Society of Natural History.
Ziphius cavirostris:
Charleston, South Carolina. 1865 (?). Young female. Skeleton in the National Museum. (Type of Z. semijunctus.)
Barnegat City, New Jersey. October 3, 1883. Adult female. Skeleton and cast in the National Museum.
St. Simon Island, Georgia. 1893. Male (?). Known from a photograph; only a few bones preserved.
Newport, Rhode Island. October, 1901. Adult male. Skeleton and photograph in the National Museum.
Hyperoödon ampullatus:
New York Bay, New York. 1822. Female (?). Not known to have been preserved.
North Dennis, Massachusetts. January, 1869. Male. Skeleton in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Newport, Rhode Island. 1869. Female. Skull in Museum of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.

WEST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mesoplodon stejnegeri:
Yaquina Bay, near Newport, Oregon. February 15 (?), 1904. Adult. Skull in the National Museum.
Ziphius cavirostris:
Kiska Harbor, Alaska. September, 1904. Known only from photographs.
Berardius bairdii:
St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Alaska. June, 1903. Adult female. Skeleton in the National Museum.
St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Alaska. June, 1903. Young male. Skeleton in the National Museum.
Centerville Beach, near Ferndale, California. October, 1904. Adult male. Skeleton in the National Museum.
Alaska or California (?). Skull formerly in museum of the Alaska Commercial Company, San Francisco.
Trinidad, California. January 30, 1905. Not preserved; perhaps not this genus.
St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Alaska. August 21, 1909. Female. Probably not preserved. Reported by Maj. Ezra W. Clark.
[3]


DESCRIPTIONS OF SKULLS AND SKELETONS OF ZIPHIOID WHALES.

Genus MESOPLODON Gervais.

Of this genus the National Museum has four specimens; namely, (1) a skull (Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M.) obtained at Bering Island, North Pacific Ocean, in 1883, by Dr. L. Stejneger, and made the type of the species M. stejnegeri True; (2) a skull and photographs (Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M.) of the same species, from Yaquina Bay, Oregon, obtained in exchange from Mr. J. G. Crawford in 1904; (3) a skeleton, cast, and photographs of a young male (Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M.), hitherto supposed to represent M. bidens, caught at Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 1889; and (4) a skeleton of an adult (Cat. No. 49880, U.S.N.M.) from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, representing M. grayi.[1]

The National Museum has four specimens of this genus: (1) a skull (Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M.) collected at Bering Island in the North Pacific Ocean in 1883 by Dr. L. Stejneger, which became the type specimen of the species M. stejnegeri True; (2) a skull and photos (Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M.) of the same species from Yaquina Bay, Oregon, received in exchange from Mr. J. G. Crawford in 1904; (3) a skeleton, cast, and photos of a young male (Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M.), which was previously thought to represent M. bidens, caught at Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 1889; and (4) a skeleton of an adult (Cat. No. 49880, U.S.N.M.) from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, representing M. grayi.[1]

In addition to this material, I have had the privilege of examining two skulls belonging to the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, and hitherto supposed to represent M. bidens, and two skeletons belonging to the American Museum of Natural History. Of these last, one is that of an adult and was purchased by the American Museum under the name of M. layardi, but was subsequently recognized to be a new species and was described by Mr. Andrews, under the name of Mesoplodon bowdoini. The other is that of a young individual, and has been labeled M. grayi.

In addition to this material, I've had the opportunity to examine two skulls from the Museum of Comparative Zoology, previously thought to represent M. bidens, and two skeletons from the American Museum of Natural History. One of these skeletons is from an adult and was bought by the American Museum under the name M. layardi, but it's since been identified as a new species and described by Mr. Andrews as Mesoplodon bowdoini. The other is from a young individual and is labeled M. grayi.

As already noted by Dr. G. M. Allen,[2] only four specimens of Mesoplodon have been recorded hitherto from the Atlantic coast of the United States. These are:

As noted by Dr. G. M. Allen, [2] only four samples of Mesoplodon have been recorded so far from the Atlantic coast of the United States. These are:

1. An adult, sex unknown, but probably female, 16 feet long, found at Nantucket, Massachusetts, in 1867, and recorded by Prof. L. Agassiz.[3] The skull of this individual is in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1. An adult, sex unknown but likely female, measuring 16 feet long, was found at Nantucket, Massachusetts, in 1867, and documented by Prof. L. Agassiz.[3] The skull of this individual is in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

2. A young male, 12½ feet long, captured at Atlantic City, New Jersey, March 28, 1889. The skeleton (Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M.) is in the National Museum.

2. A young male, 12½ feet long, captured at Atlantic City, New Jersey, on March 28, 1889. The skeleton (Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M.) is in the National Museum.

3. A young female, 12 feet 2 inches long, stranded at Annisquam, Massachusetts, August, 1898, and recorded by the late Alpheus Hyatt.[4] The skeleton is in the museum of the Boston Society of Natural History.

3. A young female, 12 feet 2 inches long, stranded at Annisquam, Massachusetts, August 1898, and recorded by the late Alpheus Hyatt.[4] The skeleton is in the museum of the Boston Society of Natural History.

4. An adult female, said by fishermen who measured it to have been 22 feet long, entangled in pound nets at North Long Branch, New Jersey, July 22, 1905, and recorded by Dr. Glover M. Allen.[5] The cranium of this individual is preserved in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy. The rostrum and mandible, which were originally obtained, were afterwards destroyed by accident.

4. An adult female, measured by fishermen to be 22 feet long, got caught in pound nets at North Long Branch, New Jersey, on July 22, 1905, and was documented by Dr. Glover M. Allen.[5] The skull of this individual is kept in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy. The snout and jaw, which were initially collected, were later accidentally destroyed.

I have examined all this material. Writers who have had occasion to mention these four specimens thus far have referred them tacitly to Mesoplodon bidens (Sowerby), but, after a careful study of them, I have ascertained that while the Nantucket specimen belongs to that species, the Atlantic City and Long Branch [4] specimens represent Mesoplodon europæus (Gervais). This is a very interesting discovery, because the latter species has been known hitherto only from a single skull, and its validity has been frequently questioned. The Annisquam specimen, as will be seen later, presents characters which appear to ally it to M. densirostris.

I have looked over all this material. Writers who have mentioned these four specimens so far have indirectly referred to them as Mesoplodon bidens (Sowerby), but after a thorough analysis, I have determined that while the Nantucket specimen belongs to that species, the Atlantic City and Long Branch [4] specimens actually represent Mesoplodon europæus (Gervais). This is a very interesting finding because the latter species has only been known from a single skull before, and its legitimacy has often been questioned. The Annisquam specimen, as will be discussed later, shows characteristics that seem to connect it to M. densirostris.

MESOPLODON BIDENS (Sowerby).

Physeter bidens Sowerby, British Miscell., 1804, p. 1; Trans. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 7, 1804, p. 310.
Delphinus sowerbensis Blainville, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., 2d ed., vol. 9, 1817, p. 177.
Delphinus sowerbyi Desmarest, Mammalogie, pt. 2, 1822, p. 521.

The only specimen from the Atlantic coast of the United States which can with certainty be referred to this species is the one from Nantucket mentioned on page 3. Prof. L. Agassiz’s original notice of it is so brief that it is quoted in full below:

The only example from the Atlantic coast of the United States that can definitely be linked to this species is the one from Nantucket mentioned on page 3. Prof. L. Agassiz’s original description of it is so short that it is included in full below:

Professor Agassiz also brought to the notice of the Society the discovery of a Cetacean, new to America. The skull was exhibited, and its peculiar features pointed out. It was obtained on the coast of Nantucket by Messrs. H. M. and S. C. Martin, of Roxbury. It belonged to the genus Mesoplodon, as characterized by Gervais, and ought to be separated from the fossil Ziphius, described by Cuvier. Professor Agassiz, however, questioned whether Mesoplodon was not identical with Delphinorhynchus, previously described by De Blainville. The specimen found at Nantucket measured 16 feet in length.[6]

Professor Agassiz also updated the Society about the discovery of a new type of whale in America. The skull was shown, and its unique features were emphasized. It was discovered off the coast of Nantucket by Messrs. H. M. and S. C. Martin from Roxbury. It was classified under the genus Mesoplodon, as identified by Gervais, and should be distinguished from the fossil Ziphius, described by Cuvier. However, Professor Agassiz expressed skepticism about whether Mesoplodon could actually be the same as Delphinorhynchus, which was previously described by De Blainville. The specimen found at Nantucket measured 16 feet long.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

SKULL.

The skull of this Nantucket specimen, which I have before me, is thoroughly adult. That the specimen is a female is probable from the fact that the teeth (one of which is preserved), though fully developed, are only two-thirds as broad and three-fourths as long as those of Sowerby’s specimen (the type of the species), which was an adult male.[7] The skull is 765 mm. long, and about 30 mm. are lacking from the end of the beak, so that the original length was about 795 mm. It appears to be, therefore, rather the largest skull of the species of which there is any record. The specimen itself, according to Dr. J. A. Allen, was 16 feet 3 inches long.[8] The largest European skull appears to be the one in the Edinburgh Museum, described by Sir William Turner in 1872.[9] The length of this is 749 mm. The specimen was a female, but though the skull is so large, the mesirostral cartilage was not ossified, and the individual was, therefore, probably not thoroughly adult. Two other European specimens, of which the total length was almost identical with that of the Nantucket specimen, were (1) the adult female obtained at Overstrand, England, in 1892, and recorded by Southwell and Harmer[10] (length 16 feet [5] 2 inches, straight); (2) the adult male obtained at Brodie House, Scotland, in 1800, and recorded by Sowerby[11] (length 16 feet). The length of the skull is not given for either of these specimens. The adult male obtained at Rugsund, Norway, in 1901, and recorded by Grieg,[12] was only 15 feet 1 inch long, but some of the measurements of the skull are as large as, or even a little larger than, those of the Nantucket skull. The total length of the skull was not given, as the end of the beak was lacking.

The skull of this Nantucket specimen, which I'm looking at, is fully adult. It's likely a female because the teeth (one of which is preserved), although fully developed, are only two-thirds as wide and three-fourths as long as those of Sowerby’s specimen (the type of the species), which was an adult male.[7] The skull measures 765 mm long, and about 30 mm is missing from the end of the beak, making the original length around 795 mm. It seems to be, therefore, the largest skull of the species on record. According to Dr. J. A. Allen, the specimen itself was 16 feet 3 inches long.[8] The largest European skull appears to be the one in the Edinburgh Museum, described by Sir William Turner in 1872.[9] This one is 749 mm long. The specimen was a female, but even though the skull is quite large, the mesirostral cartilage wasn't ossified, so the individual was likely not fully adult. Two other European specimens, which had a total length almost identical to that of the Nantucket specimen, were (1) the adult female collected at Overstrand, England, in 1892, recorded by Southwell and Harmer[10] (length 16 feet 2 inches, straight); (2) the adult male collected at Brodie House, Scotland, in 1800, recorded by Sowerby[11] (length 16 feet). The skull length isn't provided for either of these specimens. The adult male collected at Rugsund, Norway, in 1901, recorded by Grieg,[12] was only 15 feet 1 inch long, but some of the skull measurements are the same as or even a bit larger than those of the Nantucket skull. The total skull length wasn't given, as the end of the beak was missing.

Grieg’s figures of the Rugsund skull afford a very satisfactory basis for comparisons between that specimen and the Nantucket skull (Pl. 1, fig. 1). Both skulls show the comparatively narrow frontal region, the moderately developed tubercle anterior to the anteorbital notch, and the low maxillary ridge, which are characteristic of the species. In both skulls the anterior prolongation of the ethmoid is lanceolate and flat, but in the Rugsund skull the apex is truncated. In the latter also the posterior end of the mesirostral ossification is divided into three longitudinal sections by two lateral and somewhat divergent grooves, while in the Nantucket skull there is only a single median groove. These differences may safely be regarded as individual. Toward the distal end the surface of the ossification in the Nantucket is pitted and irregular and descends much below the level of the premaxillæ. It ends distally at the same point with the vomer. In this skull the proximal end of the premaxillæ and adjoining plate of the maxillæ are somewhat less reflexed than in the Rugsund skull. The shape of the superior margin of the supraoccipital is alike in both.

Grieg’s measurements of the Rugsund skull provide a solid basis for comparing it with the Nantucket skull (Pl. 1, fig. 1). Both skulls display a relatively narrow frontal area, a moderately developed tubercle in front of the anteorbital notch, and a low maxillary ridge, which are typical of the species. In both specimens, the front part of the ethmoid is lance-shaped and flat, but in the Rugsund skull, the tip is flat. Additionally, the back end of the mesirostral bone in the Rugsund skull is divided into three longitudinal sections by two lateral and slightly diverging grooves, while in the Nantucket skull, there's only one central groove. These differences can be interpreted as individual variations. Toward the end, the surface of the bone in the Nantucket skull is pitted and uneven, dropping significantly below the level of the premaxillae. It ends at the same point as the vomer. In this skull, the top end of the premaxillae and the adjacent part of the maxillae are slightly less turned back than in the Rugsund skull. The shape of the upper edge of the supraoccipital is similar in both.

There are no well-defined differences in the relative thickness of the beak at the base or in the form and position of the visible portion of the palatines, but in the Nantucket skull the mass of the combined frontal and lachrymal anterior to the orbit is less rounded and more triangular than in the Rugsund skull. The temporal fossæ also have a postero-superior angular enlargement not seen in the latter.

There are no clear differences in the thickness of the beak at the base or in the shape and position of the visible part of the palatines, but in the Nantucket skull, the combined mass of the frontal and lachrymal bones in front of the orbit is less rounded and more triangular than in the Rugsund skull. The temporal fossæ also show a postero-superior angular enlargement that isn't present in the latter.

In the Nantucket skull the rostral portion of the premaxillæ is high and at the distal end vertical. The superior profile is somewhat convex, and the superior free margin rounded proximally, but sharp distally. The least distance between the free margins is 10 mm.

In the Nantucket skull, the front part of the premaxillae is tall and straight up at the far end. The upper outline is slightly curved, with the upper free edge rounded near the base but sharp at the end. The shortest distance between the free edges is 10 mm.

The pterygoids are cut off from the maxillæ anteriorly by a very narrow band of the palatine, which connects with a broad band externally and a lanceolate segment internally. The inferior pterygoid ridges diverge anteriorly. The broad surface internal to them is concave. The external border of the pterygoid sinus is nearly straight. An elongated, fusiform section of the vomer is visible on the inferior surface of the beak at the middle for a distance of 158 mm., and a small lozenge-shaped section, ill defined, is visible between the pterygoids and palatines. (Pl. 4, fig. 1.)

The pterygoids are separated from the maxillae at the front by a very narrow band of the palatine, which connects to a wide band on the outside and a lance-shaped section on the inside. The lower pterygoid ridges spread apart towards the front. The broad area between them is concave. The outer edge of the pterygoid sinus is almost straight. An elongated, spindle-shaped part of the vomer can be seen on the bottom surface of the beak in the middle for a distance of 158 mm, and a small, diamond-shaped section, which is not clearly defined, is visible between the pterygoids and palatines. (Pl. 4, fig. 1.)

The expanded anterior end of the malar is rhomboidal in form, with an external free margin 11 mm. long. Anteriorly it does not form part of the margin of the anteorbital notch.

The widened front end of the malar bone is shaped like a rhombus, with an outer free edge that is 11 mm long. At the front, it doesn't make up part of the edge of the anteorbital notch.

[6]

The lachrymal is irregularly oblong, with an external free margin 35 mm. long and 12 mm. thick. The distance from the anteorbital notch to the anterior end of the orbit is 60 mm. (Pl. 7, fig. 1.)

The lachrymal bone is oddly shaped, measuring 35 mm long and 12 mm thick at its outer edge. The distance from the anteorbital notch to the front end of the orbit is 60 mm. (Pl. 7, fig. 1.)

The lateral free margins of the basioccipital are extended posteriorly beyond the exoccipitals, which is a character indicative of age.

The side edges of the basioccipital extend back further than the exoccipitals, which is a feature that indicates age.

The supraoccipital has a distinct median ridge, with a longitudinal depression on each side, bounded externally by a prominent convexity. (Pl. 10, fig. 1.)

The supraoccipital has a clear middle ridge, with a long groove on each side, surrounded on the outside by a noticeable bulge. (Pl. 10, fig. 1.)

MANDIBLE.

The mandible is slender, with a very elongate symphysis, which measures 237 mm. The inferior outline of the ramus is strongly concave at the middle and slightly convex posteriorly, while the symphysial portion is bent upward. The superior outline is concave both behind and before the tooth, and also immediately anterior to the coronoid process. At about the beginning of the posterior fourth the outline is convex, and the mandible at this point is nearly as deep as at the coronoid process. The superior surface of the symphysis slopes down on each side to the median line, but each half of the surface is itself nearly plane. (Pl. 11, figs. 1, 2, and 5.)

The mandible is slim, with a very elongated symphysis that measures 237 mm. The lower edge of the ramus is sharply concave in the middle and slightly convex toward the back, while the symphysial section curves upward. The upper edge is concave both in front of and behind the tooth, and also just in front of the coronoid process. About a quarter of the way back, the outline becomes convex, and at this point, the mandible is almost as deep as at the coronoid process. The upper surface of the symphysis slopes down toward the center, but each side of the surface is nearly flat. (Pl. 11, figs. 1, 2, and 5.)

The alveolar groove anterior to the tooth is very distinct throughout and is without septa and open at the bottom. It ends distally in a rounded aperture 6 mm. in diameter, below which are several small foramina. These lead to a very large canal which occupies all the symphysial portion of the mandible, the walls being comparatively thin. Behind the tooth the alveolar groove becomes narrower gradually and disappears in a length of about 140 mm.

The alveolar groove in front of the tooth is clearly defined and has no septa, remaining open at the bottom. It ends distally with a rounded opening that's 6 mm in diameter, below which there are several small openings. These connect to a very large canal that fills the entire symphysial section of the mandible, with relatively thin walls. Behind the tooth, the alveolar groove gradually narrows and disappears over a distance of about 140 mm.

The mental foramen is situated in line with the anterior base of the tooth, and is confluent with a groove which extends forward for about 80 mm. A rather shallow groove runs along the inferior margin of the symphysis.

The mental foramen is located in line with the front base of the tooth and connects to a groove that extends forward for about 80 mm. There’s also a shallow groove that runs along the lower edge of the symphysis.

The coronoid process is erect and rounded, and is joined by a horizontal ridge anteriorly.

The coronoid process is upright and rounded, and it connects to a horizontal ridge at the front.

TEETH.

The mandibular tooth, which is shown in Pl. 2, fig. 3, is preserved on the right side only. Its dimensions are as follows: Length anteriorly in a straight line, 75 mm.; length from the apex to the posterior end of the root, straight, 60; greatest antero-posterior breadth, 28; transverse thickness, 10; height of apex above internal superior margin of jaw when tooth is in situ,[13] 22; antero-posterior length of base of exposed portion, 30; distance from anterior end to posterior end of root, 37; greatest height of the exposed dentine crown, above the cement, 14; length of the base of the dentine crown, 12.

The mandibular tooth, shown in Pl. 2, fig. 3, is only preserved on the right side. Its measurements are as follows: Length from the front in a straight line, 75 mm; length from the tip to the back end of the root, straight, 60; widest antero-posterior width, 28; transverse thickness, 10; height of the tip above the internal upper edge of the jaw when the tooth is in place, [13] 22; antero-posterior length of the base of the visible part, 30; distance from the front to the back of the root, 37; highest point of the exposed dentine crown above the cement, 14; length of the base of the dentine crown, 12.

This tooth, as already stated, is only two-thirds as broad and three-fourths as long as that of Sowerby’s Brodie House specimen (the type of the species), which was an adult male, and leads to the belief that the Nantucket specimen was a female. This is in a manner confirmed by the Rugsund specimen, which was an adult male and had teeth as large as Sowerby’s specimen. It has to be remarked, [7] however, that in the Overstrand, England, specimen (1892), which was an adult female, the teeth did not project beyond the gums. Messrs. Southwell and Harmer say regarding it:

This tooth, as mentioned before, is only two-thirds as wide and three-fourths as long as that of the Sowerby’s Brodie House specimen (the type of the species), which was an adult male, suggesting that the Nantucket specimen was a female. This is somewhat supported by the Rugsund specimen, which was also an adult male and had teeth as large as Sowerby’s specimen. However, it’s worth noting that in the Overstrand, England, specimen (1892), which was an adult female, the teeth didn’t extend beyond the gums. Messrs. Southwell and Harmer say about it:

The jaws were apparently completely edentulous, and although it was possible to feel through the gums a slight prominence on either side in the position of the teeth of the male, we could not by this means definitely satisfy ourselves with respect to this point, nor were we able to ascertain the presence of any other rudimentary teeth in either jaw. The evidence which exists on this subject is favourable to the view that the female of this species is not provided with any teeth which are large enough to pierce the gums.[14]

The jaws appeared to be totally toothless, and although we could feel a small bump on either side where the male's teeth would be, this didn't provide clear confirmation. We also couldn't tell if there were any small or underdeveloped teeth in either jaw. The evidence indicates that the female of this species doesn't have any teeth big enough to break through the gums.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

It is probable that the teeth in the Nantucket specimen, though quite large, did not project beyond the gums any considerable distance. The external border of the alveolar groove behind the tooth is only 20 mm. below the apex of the tooth, and it is not unlikely that the gums in a specimen of this size had nearly that thickness, so that only the tip of the tooth would project beyond them. Though the apex is acute, it has a flat abraded surface anteriorly, which, however, is but 4 mm. long. It seems probable, on the whole, that the teeth in the female may be quite large without projecting more than a few millimeters beyond the gums.

It’s likely that the teeth in the Nantucket specimen, although quite large, didn’t extend very far beyond the gums. The outer edge of the alveolar groove behind the tooth is only 20 mm below the tip of the tooth, and it’s possible that the gums in a specimen of this size were nearly that thick, so only the tip of the tooth would stick out. While the tip is pointed, it has a flat worn surface in the front, which is only 4 mm long. Overall, it seems that the teeth in females can be quite large without sticking out more than a few millimeters beyond the gums.

In shape the tooth of the Nantucket specimen is almost identical with that of Sowerby’s Brodie House adult male, as figured by Lankester. The dentine at the apex is more nearly white than the cement which surrounds it. The superior margin of the latter is not a plain ring, but sends upward a papilliform projection on each side. The dentine itself has two vertical grooves on each side. The root of the tooth ends very obliquely and is rugose and irregular. The cavity is closed.

In shape, the tooth from the Nantucket specimen is almost identical to that of Sowerby's Brodie House adult male, as illustrated by Lankester. The dentine at the tip is closer to white than the cement that surrounds it. The upper edge of the cement isn’t a smooth ring; instead, it has a papilliform projection rising on each side. The dentine itself features two vertical grooves on each side. The root of the tooth ends at a sharp angle and is rough and uneven. The cavity is closed.

Grieg remarks as follows regarding the structure of the teeth of the Rugsund specimen:

Grieg notes the following about the structure of the teeth of the Rugsund specimen:

Sections and microscopic preparations of the alveolar tooth of this whale show that its apex consists of dentine, within which is found an inner pulp cavity 4 mm. long and 1 mm. broad. The dentine, the structure of which agrees with that which Turner found in Mesoplodon bidens and Mesoplodon layardi, is yellowish white, with the exception of the part nearest the pulp cavity, which is yellowish brown. It seems to correspond most closely to what Ray Lankester called osteodentine. Throughout the tooth the dentine is covered with a very thin layer of shining white enamel. The enamel is, however, lacking on the front of the tooth, having probably been worn away. A section through the middle of the tooth, at right angles with the V-shaped furrow, shows a yellowish cement layer from 3 to 5 mm. broad, which is, however, worn away on the front of the tooth. Within the cement layer is a white, amorphous, calcareous mass, forming a band from 1.5 to 3.5 mm. broad, which appears to correspond to Ray Lankester’s “globular matter” and Turner’s “modified vasodentine.” The mass seems to agree most closely with Ray Lankester’s “globular matter,” as it has “no structure excepting an indistinct botryoidal character visible with a low magnifying power.” The core of the tooth consists of dentine, the inner layer of which is brownish, while the outer is rather whitish yellow. As above mentioned, the dentine is visible on the front of the tooth, since both the cement and the amorphous, calcareous mass are worn away. Moreover, it is clear that on the front of the tooth the dentine is not covered by enamel. The pulp cavity is reduced to a fine pore. A section across the root of the tooth shows an outer yellowish cement layer, from 2 to 5 mm. broad, while the interior of the tooth is filled with a white, amorphous, calcareous mass, which is interspersed with thin yellowish lamellæ of dentine. Here and there, also, thin lamellæ are seen to extend from the outer cement layer into the white, amorphous, calcareous mass. The dentine lamellæ appear to be identical with what Ray Lankester calls osteodentine. No pulp cavity is visible in the root of the tooth.[15]

Sections and microscopic preparations of the whale's alveolar tooth show that its tip is made of dentine, which has an inner pulp cavity measuring 4 mm long and 1 mm wide. The dentine, similar to what Turner found in Mesoplodon bidens and Mesoplodon layardi, is yellowish white, except for the area closest to the pulp cavity, which is yellowish brown. It appears to closely resemble what Ray Lankester called osteodentine. The entire tooth is covered by a very thin layer of shiny white enamel. However, the front of the tooth lacks enamel, likely due to wear. A cross-section through the center of the tooth, perpendicular to the V-shaped groove, reveals a yellowish cement layer measuring 3 to 5 mm wide, which has worn away at the front. Inside the cement layer is a white, amorphous, calcareous mass that forms a band ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 mm wide, appearing to correspond to Ray Lankester’s “globular matter” and Turner’s “modified vasodentine.” This mass most closely aligns with Ray Lankester’s “globular matter,” as it shows "no structure except for an indistinct botryoidal character visible with low magnification." The core of the tooth consists of dentine, with the inner layer being brownish and the outer layer somewhat whitish yellow. As mentioned before, the dentine is visible on the front of the tooth since both the cement and the amorphous, calcareous mass have worn away. It’s clear that the dentine at the front of the tooth is not covered by enamel. The pulp cavity has shrunk to a tiny pore. A cross-section through the root of the tooth shows an outer yellowish cement layer measuring 2 to 5 mm wide, while the interior of the tooth is filled with a white, amorphous, calcareous mass interspersed with thin yellowish lamellae of dentine. Occasionally, thin lamellae extend from the outer cement layer into the white, amorphous, calcareous mass. The dentine lamellae appear to match what Ray Lankester describes as osteodentine. There is no visible pulp cavity in the root of the tooth. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

[8]

The dimensions of the Nantucket skull are given in the following table in comparison with those of seven European skulls of M. bidens. Dimensions of the Annisquam, Massachusetts, skull are also added for purposes of comparison, although it represents another species (see p. 9).

The dimensions of the Nantucket skull are provided in the following table, alongside those of seven European skulls of M. bidens. The dimensions of the Annisquam, Massachusetts, skull are also included for comparison, even though it belongs to a different species (see p. 9).

Dimensions of eight skulls of Mesoplodon bidens and one skull of M. densirostris (?).

Measurements of eight skulls of Mesoplodon bidens and one skull of M. densirostris (?).

Column headings:
M. bidens.
B: Nantucket, Massachusetts, 1867, M.C.Z., female? adult.a
C: Scotland, 1872, Turner, female young.?
D: Fæø, Norway, 1895, Grieg, female? young.
E: Shetland, 1881, Turner, male adult.
F: Rugsund, Norway, 1901, Grieg, male adult.
G: Udsire, Norway, 1869, Malm, male (No. 1).
H: Vanholmen, Sweden, 1881, Malm, male (No. 2).
I: Landenæs, Norway, 1895, Grieg, male.
M. densirostris. (?)
J: Annisquam, Massachusetts, 1898, True, female young.
Measurements.BCDEFGHIJ
mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.
Total lengthb765+749620743±...733740660c622
Length of rostrumb483+489400......485500410c377
Tip of beak to end of pterygoidbd607+572.........582590517cd466
Height from vertex to pterygoid277241...254267272258235248
Breadth between orbitse277286f254267292293253f260[278]
Breadth between zygomatic processes289292262292295298270268266
Breadth at maxillary notches184197170184193187170175[166]
Breadth of beak at middle425138......3646g4038
Depth of beak at middle35...h31............h3351
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ proximally131127115114116129124122...
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ in front of anterior nares107102h104102108108100h7692
Greatest breadth of anterior nares54...53...5350505039
Length of temporal fossæ90...............h6682
Breadth between temporal fossæ222.....................208
Breadth of foramen magnum50.........4956548046
Length of mandiblec651ij470543i464...639640560...
Length of symphysis237241162......212220160...
Greatest depth of mandible106114921021161109795...
a The size of the teeth makes it quite certain that it is an adult female.
b End of beak broken off about 30 mm. from tip.
c Right side. Add 31 mm. for breakage.
d In median line.
e At middle.
f Between “suprafrontal processes of max.”
g Grieg’s fig., p. 18, shows 44 mm.
h From Grieg’s fig., p. 18.
i “Length of ramus.” Length of mandible=699 mm.
j In Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 26, 1872, p. 776.
[9]

MESOPLODON DENSIROSTRIS (Blainville)?

Delphinus densirostris Blainville, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., 2d ed., vol. 9, 1817, p. 178.
Ziphius seychellensis Gray, Zoöl. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 28.

The skull of the specimen from Annisquam, Mass., (Pl. 1, fig. 2) is, I regret to say, in rather poor condition. It is broken in the left orbital region, and all the bones, especially those of the beak, are warped by weathering. The proximal extremity of the left premaxilla is lacking and also the tip of the beak.

The skull of the specimen from Annisquam, Mass. (Pl. 1, fig. 2) is, unfortunately, in pretty bad shape. It’s broken in the left eye socket area, and all the bones, particularly those of the beak, are distorted from weathering. The upper part of the left premaxilla is missing, as well as the tip of the beak.

The skull is obviously that of a young animal, as all the sutures are open and the surface of the occipital condyles is pitted, owing to imperfect ossification.

The skull clearly belongs to a young animal, as all the sutures are open and the surface of the occipital condyles is pitted due to incomplete ossification.

Although the dimensions of the skull, with a few exceptions, agree well with those of young specimens of M. bidens, as shown by the foregoing table (p. 8), certain differences stand out conspicuously. The most salient of these is the depth of the beak as a whole and the depth and shape of the rostral portion of the premaxillæ. The latter portion of the premaxillæ instead of being low, with a straight inferior margin, is very high, with the inferior margin strongly convex. At the middle of the beak the premaxillæ are higher than the maxillæ on which they rest. It is true that the shape of the beak varies greatly with age in bidens and other species of Mesoplodon, but I do not find any evidence that such a change as is here indicated takes place in bidens. The form of the beak and of the rostral portion of the premaxillæ is that of M. densirostris.

Although the skull's dimensions, with a few exceptions, align closely with those of young examples of M. bidens, as shown in the previous table (p. 8), certain noticeable differences are evident. The most prominent of these is the overall depth of the beak and the depth and shape of the front part of the premaxillæ. Instead of being low with a straight lower edge, this part of the premaxillæ is quite high, with a strongly curved lower edge. In the middle of the beak, the premaxillæ are taller than the maxillæ beneath them. It's true that the shape of the beak varies significantly with age in bidens and other Mesoplodon species, but I don't see any evidence that the kind of change mentioned here occurs in bidens. The shape of the beak and the front part of the premaxillæ resembles that of M. densirostris.

The beak is almost as broad at the base as in bidens, but the lateral free margin of the maxilla anterior to the anteorbital notch instead of continuing along the side of the beak nearly to the tip, as in bidens, ends at a point about 90 mm. in front of the line of the notch, beyond which the sides of the beak are vertical.

The beak is almost as wide at the base as in bidens, but the outer edge of the maxilla in front of the anteorbital notch doesn't continue along the side of the beak nearly to the tip like in bidens; instead, it ends about 90 mm in front of the notch line, after which the sides of the beak are vertical.

The margin of the maxilla immediately anterior to the anteorbital notch is a little damaged, but there was apparently no strong tubercle at this point, and the surface of the maxilla, though convex, is not raised into a distinct ridge. In a young skull, however, one would not expect to find a high ridge. The palatines are visible from above, which is not the case in bidens.

The edge of the maxilla right in front of the anteorbital notch is slightly damaged, but it looks like there wasn't a prominent tubercle at this spot, and the surface of the maxilla, while curved, doesn't form a clear ridge. In a young skull, though, you wouldn't expect to see a tall ridge. The palatines can be seen from above, which isn't true for bidens.

The maxillary foramen is situated a little in advance of the premaxillary foramen and is directed forward, and, as Dr. Glover M. Allen has pointed out, connects with a broad groove which runs forward along the triangular, horizontal portion of the maxilla at the base of the beak. The maxillæ are much broader behind the notch than in bidens, and the anterior end of the malar forms the bottom of the notch. The premaxillæ are noticeably constricted immediately in front of the premaxillary foramina, and the expanded portion just behind these foramina is nearly horizontal, with a low transverse ridge near the middle. The proximal end of the premaxillæ is nearly vertical. The anterior nares are noticeably small. The foramen magnum is large, with a trifoliate outline (Pl. 10, fig. 2). The palate at the proximal end presents a median ridge with a narrow groove on each side. The palatines extend as a broad band much beyond the pterygoids anteriorly. The vomer is visible below for a space of 142 mm. near the end of the beak. A very small piece is also visible at the base of the beak, between the palatines and [10] pterygoids. The inferior surface of the pterygoids is convex on the side adjoining the lateral free margin (Pl. 4, fig. 2).

The maxillary foramen is located just in front of the premaxillary foramen and points forward. As Dr. Glover M. Allen noted, it connects to a broad groove that runs forward along the triangular, horizontal part of the maxilla at the base of the beak. The maxillae are much wider behind the notch than in bidens, and the front end of the malar forms the bottom of the notch. The premaxillae are noticeably narrow just in front of the premaxillary foramina, and the expanded section right behind these foramina is almost horizontal, with a low transverse ridge near the middle. The proximal end of the premaxillae is nearly vertical. The anterior nares are significantly small. The foramen magnum is large, with a trifoliate shape (Pl. 10, fig. 2). The palate at the proximal end has a median ridge with a narrow groove on each side. The palatines extend as a wide band far beyond the pterygoids at the front. The vomer is visible for a length of 142 mm near the end of the beak. A small piece is also visible at the base of the beak, positioned between the palatines and [10] pterygoids. The underside of the pterygoids is curved on the side next to the lateral free margin (Pl. 4, fig. 2).

This skull is peculiar in that there is no very distinct basirostral groove and that the basirostral ridge, as already stated, extends forward only about 90 mm. Below this ridge is a shallow broad groove which narrows rapidly forward and can be traced to the extremity of the beak, where it broadens out somewhat (Pl. 7, fig. 2).

This skull is unusual because there isn't a very clear basirostral groove, and the basirostral ridge, as mentioned before, only extends about 90 mm forward. Below this ridge, there's a shallow, broad groove that quickly narrows and can be followed to the tip of the beak, where it widens a bit (Pl. 7, fig. 2).

While this skull agrees in size and in many of its proportions with similar skulls of M. bidens, it differs from that species and agrees with M. densirostris in the breadth across the anteorbital region, in the depth of the beak and its shape at the base, in the shape of the premaxillæ both distally and proximally, in the direction of the maxillary foramen, and the shape of the maxillary bone in front of the same, in the occupation of the base of the maxillary notch by the anterior end of the malar, in the absence of any distinct maxillary ridge above the notch, in the forward extension of the palatines, and in the shape of the foramen magnum.

While this skull matches in size and many proportions with similar skulls of M. bidens, it differs from that species and aligns with M. densirostris in terms of the width across the anteorbital area, the depth and shape of the beak at its base, the shape of the premaxillae both at the distal and proximal ends, the angle of the maxillary foramen, and the shape of the maxillary bone in front of it. It also shares characteristics in how the anterior end of the malar occupies the base of the maxillary notch, the lack of a distinct maxillary ridge above the notch, the forward extension of the palatines, and the shape of the foramen magnum.

Flower states that there is a deep basirostral groove in M. densirostris,[16] but neither the figure in Gervais’ Zoologie et Paleontologie Française,[17] nor that in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Ostéographie des Cétacés,[18] shows such a groove. The conformation of the base of the rostrum appears to be about the same as in the Annisquam skull.

Flower mentions that there is a deep groove at the base of the beak in M. densirostris,[16] but neither the illustration in Gervais’ *Zoologie et Paleontologie Française*,[17] nor the one in Van Beneden and Gervais’ *Ostéographie des Cétacés*,[18] shows such a groove. The shape of the base of the beak seems to be similar to that in the Annisquam skull.

In regard to differences between this skull and those of M. densirostris it should be stated that in the latter the premaxillary foramina are situated farther apart, and that the maxillary foramina are situated considerably in advance of those of the premaxillæ instead of nearly in line with them.

In terms of the differences between this skull and those of M. densirostris, it's important to note that in the latter, the premaxillary holes are spaced farther apart, and the maxillary holes are significantly positioned ahead of the premaxillary ones rather than being nearly aligned with them.

The Annisquam skull approaches M. europæus in several characters, but these are such as europæus shares with densirostris. The principal ones are the breadth of the maxillæ in front of the orbits, the presence of the malar in the base of the anteorbital notch, and the convexity of a part of the inferior surface of the pterygoids.

The Annisquam skull is similar to M. europæus in several ways, but these features are also found in densirostris. The main characteristics include the width of the maxillae in front of the eye sockets, the presence of the cheekbone at the base of the anteorbital notch, and the curvature of a section of the underside of the pterygoids.

Dr. Glover M. Allen has given an account of the exterior, skeleton, and teeth of this specimen, from which the following particulars are extracted:[19]

Dr. Glover M. Allen has provided a description of the exterior, skeleton, and teeth of this specimen, from which the following details are taken:[19]

Regarding the Annisquam specimen no color notes were taken, but from a few small photographs in the possession of the Boston Society of Natural History, it appears evident that the ventral portion was of a lighter tint, and in one of the views a few oval whitish spots are seen on the side a trifle behind the middle portion of the body. Another view shows the convexity of the posterior margin of the flukes at the median point, as well as the prominent dorsal fin. The lower jaw protruded slightly beyond the upper. Measurements of this specimen, as noted by Professor Hyatt, are as follows: Total length, 12 feet 2 inches; from anus to bight of flukes, 3 feet 4 to 6 inches; across flukes, 3 feet 1 inch; from tip of rostrum to angle of mouth, 1 foot 1½ inches. The gular furrows were noted as about 10 inches long and from ¼ to ½ an inch deep.

For the Annisquam specimen, no color details were noted, but some small photographs from the Boston Society of Natural History clearly indicate that the underside was a lighter shade. In one view, a few oval whitish spots can be seen on the side, just slightly behind the midsection of the body. Another image highlights the curve of the back edge of the flukes in the center, along with the prominent dorsal fin. The lower jaw extended slightly beyond the upper jaw. According to Professor Hyatt, the measurements for this specimen are as follows: Total length, 12 feet 2 inches; from anus to the bend of the flukes, 3 feet 4 to 6 inches; across flukes, 3 feet 1 inch; from the tip of the rostrum to the corner of the mouth, 1 foot 1½ inches. The gular grooves were observed to be about 10 inches long and between ¼ to ½ an inch deep.

The teeth of the Annisquam specimen barely projected above the alveoli of the jaws and are sharply mucronate. The basal portion of each, however, is more like that of the male’s tooth [M. europæus] in the slightly convex posterior outline and the forward extension of the anterior angle. * * *

The teeth of the Annisquam specimen hardly protruded above the jaw sockets and are sharply pointed. However, the base of each tooth resembles that of the male's tooth [M. europæus] with a slightly rounded back edge and a forward extension of the front angle. * * *

The Annisquam skeleton has 45 vertebræ. Four of the seven cervicals are fused. The atlas, axis, and third cervical are firmly anchylosed throughout, save for the lateral foramina for the passage of the [11] cervical nerves. The fourth cervical is fused to the third by the dorsal spine on the left side and by the tip of the upper lateral process of the same side. Its centrum, right half of the dorsal spine (the spine is divided medially), and the remaining lateral processes are free. * * * The epiphyses of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebræ and the anterior epiphysis of the sixth cervical are fused to their respective centra, but all the other epiphyses of the vertebral column and of the pectoral limbs are free.

The Annisquam skeleton consists of 45 vertebrae. Four of the seven cervical vertebrae are fused together. The atlas, axis, and third cervical are completely fused, except for the openings on the sides for the cervical nerves. The fourth cervical is fused to the third by the dorsal spine on the left and by the end of the upper lateral process on the same side. Its body, the right half of the dorsal spine (which is divided down the middle), and the other lateral processes are free. The ends of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae and the front end of the sixth cervical are fused with their respective centers, but all other ends of the vertebral column and the shoulder limbs are free.

The Annisquam skeleton has nine dorsal vertebræ with their corresponding pairs of ribs. * * * The sternum of this specimen presents few points of interest. It consists of four pieces, the anterior-most of which is largest, slightly hollowed above, and correspondingly convex below. The three remaining pieces are nearly flat, with a deep median notch at the anterior and posterior border of each. The posterior piece evidently represents a fusion of the elements of two segments, as there are articular surfaces for two pairs of ribs.

The Annisquam skeleton has nine dorsal vertebrae with corresponding pairs of ribs. * * * The sternum of this specimen has few notable features. It consists of four pieces, with the front piece being the largest, slightly hollowed on top, and curved underneath. The other three pieces are almost flat, each featuring a deep notch in the middle at the front and back edges. The back piece clearly shows a fusion of elements from two segments, as it has joint surfaces for two pairs of ribs.

From the foregoing, it appears that the Annisquam specimen probably had one or two vertebræ less than bidens or europæus, and that the sternum was somewhat differently shaped. The tooth, which is figured by Doctor Allen, is conical, compressed, 54 mm. long, 30 broad at the base, and resembles teeth of immature bidens.

From the above, it seems that the Annisquam specimen probably had one or two fewer vertebrae than bidens or europæus, and that the sternum was shaped a bit differently. The tooth, which Doctor Allen illustrated, is conical, compressed, 54 mm long, and 30 mm wide at the base, resembling the teeth of young bidens.

Although with such scant material it is not possible to determine satisfactorily the identity of this third species of Mesoplodon in the North Atlantic, represented by the Annisquam specimen, I feel convinced that that specimen does not belong to M. bidens and that there is a strong probability that it belongs to M. densirostris. It is true that the latter species has been found hitherto only in the Indian Ocean and about Australia, but we know so little about the distribution of the ziphioid whales that, in my opinion, that circumstance by itself should not be given very great weight.

Although there’s not enough material to confidently identify this third species of Mesoplodon in the North Atlantic, represented by the Annisquam specimen, I’m convinced that this specimen doesn’t belong to M. bidens and there’s a good chance it belongs to M. densirostris. It’s true that the latter species has only been found in the Indian Ocean and around Australia so far, but we know so little about where ziphioid whales are distributed that, in my opinion, that fact shouldn’t be regarded as very significant on its own.

MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS (Gervais).

Dioplodon europæus Gervais, Zool. et Pal. franç., 1st ed., vol. 2, 1848-1852, p. 4; 2d ed., 1859, p. 289, pl. 40, figs. 3-6.
Dioplodon gervaisi Deslongchamps, Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, vol. 10, 1866, p. 177.
Neoziphius europæus Gray, Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales Brit. Mus., 1871, p. 101.

This species was based on a single specimen found floating in the English Channel about seventy years ago. An account of the circumstances under which it was found was given by Eugène Deslongchamps in 1866, as follows:

This species was identified based on a single specimen discovered floating in the English Channel about seventy years ago. Eugène Deslongchamps provided an account of the circumstances surrounding its discovery in 1866, as follows:

The head, which forms the subject of this last note, was given to my father some twenty-five or thirty years ago by Mr. Abel Vautier, a merchant and armorer of our town, who died at Paris two years since.

The head I’m talking about in this note was given to my father about twenty-five or thirty years ago by Mr. Abel Vautier, a merchant and weapons maker from our town, who passed away in Paris two years ago.

The captain of one of Mr. Vautier’s ships, on his return from a voyage to the colonies, saw floating on the water, at the entrance to the English Channel, the body of a large animal entirely covered by birds (large and small gulls, etc.), which were devouring it. The ship approached the stray, and the captain, knowing that Mr. Abel Vautier was greatly interested in natural objects, had the head of the cetacean cut off, fastened it securely with a cord, and let it trail behind the ship. When he arrived at Caën he made a present of it to Mr. Vautier. The piece had at that time an appearance anything but agreeable. Mr. Vautier was especially fond of beautiful objects which please the eye, and hence he offered it to my father, saying, “You, who are an anatomist, can make better use of this than I can.” My father was unwilling to refuse the present, but neither he nor Mr. Vautier knew as yet of its extreme rarity. It is in fact, up to the present time, the only specimen which exists, and is a unique object in collections.[20]

The captain of one of Mr. Vautier’s ships, returning from a journey to the colonies, spotted a large animal's body floating in the water at the entrance to the English Channel, completely covered by birds (gulls of different sizes) that were feeding on it. The ship approached the creature, and the captain, knowing Mr. Abel Vautier was very interested in natural specimens, had the whale's head cut off, secured it with a cord, and let it trail behind the ship. When he reached Caën, he gave it to Mr. Vautier. At that time, the piece looked far from pleasant. Mr. Vautier, who had a particular fondness for beautiful things, offered it to my father, saying, “You, being an anatomist, can make better use of this than I can.” My father didn’t want to refuse the gift, but neither he nor Mr. Vautier realized at that moment how incredibly rare it was. In fact, even today, it is the only specimen of its kind that exists and is a unique item in collections.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

[12]

No additional specimens have been recorded from European waters or elsewhere, and much doubt has been thrown on the validity of the species, many zoologists regarding it as an adult of the commoner species M. bidens. Van Beneden remarked in 1888:

No more samples have been found in European waters or anywhere else, and there's a lot of uncertainty about the legitimacy of this species, with many zoologists considering it an adult of the more common species M. bidens. Van Beneden noted in 1888:

The opinions of naturalists are divided as regards the identity of this ziphioid, which is unique up to the present time. In the eyes of some it represents an old male of the common Mesoplodon, in which the tooth, instead of developing near the middle of the jaw, has developed near the anterior extremity. This is the opinion of Doctor Fischer and others, who think that this unique specimen represents merely an individual modification and that consequently it should not figure in the list of species. We do not share this opinion. It is not impossible that this ziphioid may belong to the other hemisphere, and this would explain why only one single individual has been captured in Europe.[21]

Naturalists have mixed opinions about this ziphioid, which is currently unique. Some think it could be an older male of the common Mesoplodon, where the tooth has grown towards the front of the jaw instead of the middle. This is the viewpoint of Doctor Fischer and others, who argue that this unique specimen is just an individual variation and shouldn't be added to the species list. We disagree with this position. It's possible that this ziphioid could be from the other hemisphere, which would explain why only one has been found in Europe.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

In view of the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the original specimen, it is of great interest to find that two of the specimens from the east coast of the United States represent the same species. As one of them is adult and the other young, the view that the type of M. europæus is merely an old individual of M. bidens is satisfactorily disposed of, as is also the opinion that it represents a singular individual variation.

Given the circumstances around the discovery of the original specimen, it's quite intriguing to find that two of the specimens from the east coast of the United States are the same species. Since one is an adult and the other is young, the idea that the type of M. europæus is just an old version of M. bidens is effectively dismissed, as is the notion that it represents a unique individual variation.

The two American specimens which represent europæus are those from North Long Branch, New Jersey (adult female; skull, lacking rostrum and mandible, in the Museum of Comparative Zoology), and from Atlantic City, New Jersey (young male; skeleton, cast and photographs in the U. S. National Museum, Cat. No. 23346).

The two American examples of europæus come from North Long Branch, New Jersey (adult female; skull, missing the rostrum and mandible, is in the Museum of Comparative Zoology) and Atlantic City, New Jersey (young male; skeleton, cast, and photos are in the U.S. National Museum, Cat. No. 23346).

SPECIFIC CHARACTERS.

The species europæus differs from bidens in the following characters, which may be regarded as diagnostic:

The species europæus is different from bidens in these key characteristics, which can be considered identifying features:

Size larger and pectoral limbs relatively shorter and narrower.

Size larger and the front limbs are relatively shorter and narrower.

The expanded portion of the maxillæ and frontals broader in front of the orbit. The protuberance which projects into the anteorbital notch much larger and the ridge on the maxilla which extends backward from it much higher. Distance from inner margin of maxillary foramen to tip of protuberance much more than one-half the distance between the maxillary foramina of the two sides. Rostrum deeper at the base. Inferior surface of pterygoids more or less convex, with a ridge (in adults) running diagonally across it.

The expanded part of the upper jaw and forehead is wider in front of the eye socket. The bump that extends into the area before the eye socket is much larger, and the ridge on the upper jaw that extends back from it is significantly taller. The distance from the inner edge of the upper jaw opening to the tip of the bump is more than half of the distance between the upper jaw openings on both sides. The front part of the snout is deeper at the base. The underside of the pterygoids is somewhat rounded, with a ridge (in adults) running diagonally across it.

The cranial characters above enumerated are found in the type-skull, as will be seen by examining the excellent figures in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography, plate 24.

The cranial features listed above are present in the type-skull, as you can see by looking at the excellent figures in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography, plate 24.

In Dr. Glover M. Allen’s account of the Long Branch specimen[22] it is stated that the fishermen who measured it reported that it was 22 feet long, while none of the European specimens (some of which were certainly adults) was more than 16½ feet long. That the measurement reported by the fishermen is at least approximately correct appears from the fact that the skull is larger than that of any of the European specimens. The beak is missing, so that the total length of the skull can not be given, but the distance from the occipital condyles to the line of the maxillary [13] notches (straight) is 312 mm., while in the largest adult among the European specimens this distance is only 260 mm., and in the thoroughly adult Nantucket specimen 282 mm.

In Dr. Glover M. Allen’s account of the Long Branch specimen[22], it is mentioned that the fishermen who measured it said it was 22 feet long, while none of the European specimens (some of which were definitely adults) was longer than 16½ feet. The fishermen's measurement seems to be at least roughly accurate since the skull is larger than any of the European specimens. The beak is missing, so the total length of the skull can't be provided, but the distance from the occipital condyles to the line of the maxillary [13] notches (straight) is 312 mm, while in the largest adult among the European specimens, this distance is only 260 mm, and in the fully adult Nantucket specimen, it is 282 mm.

SKULL.

The Atlantic City and Long Branch skulls also agree in numerous other details of structure in addition to the foregoing, the more important of which will now be mentioned. Unless otherwise stated, the type-skull, as shown by Van Beneden and Gervais’ figures,[23] also presents the same peculiarities in contrast with M. bidens.

The Atlantic City and Long Branch skulls also match in many other structural details in addition to what was previously mentioned, several of which will be highlighted now. Unless stated otherwise, the type skull, as shown in Van Beneden and Gervais’ figures, [23] also shows the same unique characteristics compared to M. bidens.

Dorsal aspect (Pl. 2, figs. 1 and 2).—The premaxillæ are more depressed immediately in front of the blowhole than in M. bidens, which, with the prominence of the maxillary ridges, makes this whole region appear strongly concave. The blowhole is narrower absolutely and also relatively to the breadth of the expanded proximal ends of the premaxillæ, so that while in bidens the breadth of the blowhole is much more than one-third the breadth across the proximal ends of the premaxillæ, in europæus it is considerably less than a third. Both premaxillæ are much constricted on the sides of the blowhole and the effect is heightened by the greater expansion of the proximal ends of the former. These ends do not fit closely against the adjoining edge of the maxillæ as in bidens, but leave a transverse vacuity, or trough, which is especially noticeable in the type-skull. The anterior end of the malar bone occupies the bottom of the maxillary notch and a small portion of it is visible from above, while in bidens it does not extend up into the notch at all from the inferior surface and is not visible from above. The posterior margin of the maxillæ is more squared in europæus than in bidens.

Dorsal aspect (Pl. 2, figs. 1 and 2).—The premaxillae are more flattened right in front of the blowhole than in M. bidens, which, along with the pronounced maxillary ridges, makes this entire area look distinctly concave. The blowhole is narrower both in absolute terms and relative to the width of the broadened proximal ends of the premaxillae. In bidens, the width of the blowhole is much more than one-third the width across the proximal ends of the premaxillae, while in europæus it is significantly less than one-third. Both premaxillae are much narrower on the sides of the blowhole, and this effect is intensified by the larger expansion of the proximal ends. These ends do not closely align with the adjoining edge of the maxillae as in bidens, but create a transverse gap, or trough, that is particularly noticeable in the type skull. The front end of the malar bone sits at the bottom of the maxillary notch, and a small part of it can be seen from above, whereas in bidens, it does not reach into the notch from the bottom surface and isn’t visible from above. The back edge of the maxillae is more squared off in europæus than in bidens.

The margins of the beak, formed by the maxillæ, instead of being straight, are somewhat emarginate a little posterior to the middle of the length and somewhat convex anterior to it, which gives the contour of the beak, seen from above, a different shape from that of bidens. In the type-skull of europæus the mesirostral ossification appears to be higher at the proximal end than the premaxillæ, and distally extends to the end of the beak. In bidens it is lower than the premaxillæ and, in the Nantucket skull at least, ends anteriorly at the same point as the vomer, or, in other words, much behind the end of the beak. It would appear from the statements of Sir William Turner, Van Beneden and Gervais, Grieg, and others, that the mesirostral ossification never reaches the end of the beak in bidens, but it does in grayi, haasti, densirostris, and many fossil species, as well as in europæus.

The edges of the beak, shaped by the maxillae, aren't straight; they curve slightly inward a bit behind the midpoint and are somewhat rounded in front of it. This gives the shape of the beak, viewed from above, a different appearance than that of bidens. In the type skull of europæus, the mesirostral ossification seems to be higher at the back end compared to the premaxillae and extends distally to the tip of the beak. In bidens, it is lower than the premaxillae and, at least in the Nantucket skull, ends at the same point as the vomer, meaning it is significantly behind the tip of the beak. According to the observations of Sir William Turner, Van Beneden, Gervais, Grieg, and others, the mesirostral ossification never reaches the tip of the beak in bidens, but it does in grayi, haasti, densirostris, and many fossil species, as well as in europæus.

Lateral aspect (Pl. 8, figs. 1, 2).—The temporal fossæ are a little longer than the orbit in europæus, but a little shorter than the orbit in bidens; in the former the superior margin is flat or a little concave, rather than convex. The exoccipital extends in an angle farther forward in europæus, and the suture between it and the zygomatic is, in consequence, less nearly vertical than in bidens. The premaxillæ at the sides of the blowhole are nearly horizontal, so that their superior surface is little seen from this aspect, while in bidens they slope downward, so that the whole of the superior surface is visible. The high maxillary ridge, situated behind the anteorbital notch, is very noticeable from this point of view, as it shuts off a [14] considerable portion of the premaxillæ. The convex inferior outline of the beak and its great depth at the base are also salient peculiarities.

Lateral aspect (Pl. 8, figs. 1, 2).—The temporal fossæ are slightly longer than the orbit in europæus, but a bit shorter than the orbit in bidens; in the former, the upper edge is flat or slightly concave, rather than convex. The exoccipital extends at an angle further forward in europæus, making the suture between it and the zygomatic less vertical compared to bidens. The premaxillæ beside the blowhole are almost horizontal, so their upper surface is only partially visible from this angle, while in bidens, they slope downward, making the whole upper surface visible. The prominent maxillary ridge, located behind the anteorbital notch, is very noticeable from this view as it obscures a significant portion of the premaxillæ. The curved lower outline of the beak and its substantial depth at the base are also distinct features.

Ventral aspect (Pl. 5, figs. 1, 2).—The anterior ends of the palatine bones are bifurcated, the inner part being the smaller. The two bones make but a narrow angle with the median line, instead of a wide one, as in bidens, and the surface of the maxillæ between them is strongly convex instead of flat. This convexity is narrowed at both ends, or, in other words, is fusiform in shape. No similar conformation is found in bidens, in which the inferior basal area of the maxillæ is flat.

Ventral aspect (Pl. 5, figs. 1, 2).—The front ends of the palatine bones are split, with the inner part being smaller. The two bones form a narrow angle with the midline, unlike the wider angle seen in bidens, and the surface of the maxillæ between them is noticeably curved instead of flat. This curvature narrows at both ends, or in other words, is shaped like a spindle. This type of shape is not found in bidens, where the lower base area of the maxillæ is flat.

In the young Atlantic City skull of europæus, the vomer is visible as a small, narrow, club-shaped piece, 68 mm. long. Anteriorly it joins the premaxillæ, which form a prominent ridge in the median line. On each side of this ridge is a wide and quite deep groove. As the beak is lacking in the adult North Long Branch skull, its peculiarities can not be made known. In the type-skull the form is the same as in the Atlantic City skull, but the vomer does not appear at all on the palate. In bidens the shape of the inferior surface of the premaxillæ at the distal end is quite different. A very narrow groove runs parallel with and close to the median line and the whole surface external to it is more or less convex.

In the young Atlantic City skull of europæus, the vomer is seen as a small, narrow, club-shaped piece, 68 mm long. At the front, it connects to the premaxillæ, which create a noticeable ridge in the center. On either side of this ridge is a wide and fairly deep groove. Since the beak is absent in the adult North Long Branch skull, its unique features cannot be determined. In the type skull, the shape is the same as in the Atlantic City skull, but the vomer is not visible at all on the palate. In bidens, the shape of the lower surface of the premaxillæ at the tip is quite different. A very narrow groove runs parallel to and close to the center line, and the entire surface outside of it is somewhat convex.

MANDIBLE.

The mandible of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus resembles that of the type, as figured by Van Beneden and Gervais, in the shortness of the symphysis and in the position of the tooth, which is in advance of the posterior end of the symphysis. A number of differences, however, require consideration. (Pl. 11, figs. 3 and 6.)

The jawbone of the Atlantic City sample of M. europæus looks like that of the type described by Van Beneden and Gervais, particularly in the shortness of the joint and the placement of the tooth, which is positioned in front of the back end of the joint. However, several differences need to be addressed. (Pl. 11, figs. 3 and 6.)

In the type, the symphysis, as shown by Van Beneden and Gervais’ figure, plate 24, fig. 2a, is a little more than one-fifth the length of the mandible. The same relative proportion is found in the Atlantic City specimen, but, as the latter is a younger individual, one would expect the symphysis to be shorter. The figure of Van Beneden and Gervais gives the impression that in the type the end of the mandible is broken, and that, hence, the symphysis is shorter than it was originally. It will be observed that figures 2 and 2a do not agree as regards the length between the tooth and the end of the jaw, figure 2a showing a greater length. In figure 2, however, the jaw seems rather too long for the cranium, and if the greater length of the symphysis shown in figure 2a were introduced, it would certainly be so. The explanation of this discrepancy is not readily found; but one may be allowed to think that the symphysis is not so blunt in the type as is shown in figure 2.

In the type specimen, the symphysis, as illustrated by Van Beneden and Gervais in plate 24, fig. 2a, is slightly more than one-fifth the length of the mandible. The same proportion is seen in the Atlantic City specimen, but since this specimen is younger, we would expect the symphysis to be shorter. Van Beneden and Gervais's illustration suggests that the end of the mandible in the type is broken, which might mean the symphysis is shorter than it originally was. It's noticeable that figures 2 and 2a differ in the length from the tooth to the end of the jaw, with figure 2a showing a longer length. In figure 2, however, the jaw appears somewhat too long in comparison to the cranium, and if we included the greater length of the symphysis from figure 2a, it would definitely seem so. The reason for this difference isn't immediately clear; however, one could suggest that the symphysis in the type isn't as blunt as depicted in figure 2.

In the Atlantic City specimen the superior lateral free margin of the symphysis is straight, while in the type it is much elevated. This is no doubt due to difference in age and possibly in sex. The type shows three or four mental foramina, while the Atlantic City specimen has one large posterior one and seven smaller ones anterior to it.

In the Atlantic City specimen, the upper outer free edge of the symphysis is straight, while in the type, it is much higher. This is likely due to differences in age and possibly sex. The type has three or four mental foramina, while the Atlantic City specimen has one large one at the back and seven smaller ones in front of it.

Another peculiarity of the latter specimen is that the coronoid process is situated much in advance of the condyle, while the angle extends considerably behind it. In the type both are nearly in line with the condyle. I am unable to explain this difference.

Another unique aspect of the latter specimen is that the coronoid process is positioned well ahead of the condyle, while the angle extends significantly behind it. In the type, both are almost in line with the condyle. I can't explain this difference.

[15]

In the Atlantic City specimen the axis of the tooth where it emerges from the alveolus is 91 mm. from the end of the jaw. The portion of the tooth above the alveolus is 11 mm. long at the base and 12 mm. high. It is conical and sharp pointed, and is inclined forward and a little outward, especially at the tip. At the alveolus the transverse breadth of the tooth is 5 mm. The much larger tooth in the type indicates that that specimen was a male.

In the Atlantic City example, the axis of the tooth where it comes out of the socket is 91 mm from the end of the jaw. The part of the tooth above the socket is 11 mm long at the base and 12 mm high. It is conical and pointed, leaning slightly forward and outward, especially at the tip. At the socket, the width of the tooth is 5 mm. The significantly larger tooth in the type suggests that this specimen was a male.

The mandible of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus differs from that of M. bidens in the relative shortness of the symphysis, the large number of mental foramina, the more anterior position of the tooth, and the direction of the crown, which is forward instead of backward.

The jawbone of the Atlantic City example of M. europæus is different from that of M. bidens in that it has a relatively shorter joint at the front, a greater number of nerve openings, the teeth are positioned more towards the front, and the crown points forward rather than backward.

Dimensions of the type and two other skulls of Mesoplodon europæus.

Measurements of the type specimen and two other skulls of Mesoplodon europaeus.

Column headings:
A: English Channel, type,a adult.
B: North Long Branch, New Jersey, female, adult.
C: Atlantic City, New Jersey, 23346 U.S.N.M., male, young.
Measurements.ABC
mm.mm.mm.
Total length762(b)675
Length of rostrum459...427
Tip of beak to posterior end of pterygoids561...525
Height from vertex to end of pterygoidsc292?283256
Breadth between orbits327d325d287
Breadth between zygomatic processes360e325302
Breadth at anteorbital notches210205f182
Breadth of beak at middle66...60
Depth of beak at middle54...40
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ proximally168147142
The same, in front of anterior nares11199104
Breadth of anterior nares514542
Length of temporal fossæ102115101
Breadth between temporal fossæ228212208
Breadth of foramen magnum423434
Length of mandible654...565
Length of symphysis135...116
Greatest depth of mandible120...101
a Dimensions taken from Van Beneden and Gervais’ figures.
b Beak lacking. Length from occipital condyles to base of beak (straight), 312 mm.
c Pterygoids broken.
d At middle.
e Estimated. One zygoma is broken.
f Least.

VERTEBRÆ.

The vertebral formula of three specimens of M. bidens and of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus is as follows:

The vertebral formula for three specimens of M. bidens and the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus is as follows:

M. europæus.
Atlantic CityC. 7;Th. 9;L. 11;Ca. 20=47
M. bidens.
Landenæs7;10;11;19=47
Fæø7;9;11;19=46
Udsire7;10;9;20=46
[16]

Although the skeleton of M. europæus appears from the foregoing formula to include one less thoracic vertebra than those of M. bidens, as the last pair of ribs present is as long as the preceding ones, an additional pair probably existed originally. The formula for europæus would then be: C. 7, Th. 10, L. 10, Ca. 20 = 47. (Pl. 13, fig. 1.)

Although the skeleton of M. europæus seems to have one less thoracic vertebra than that of M. bidens, since the last pair of ribs is as long as the previous ones, there likely was an additional pair originally. The formula for europæus would then be: C. 7, Th. 10, L. 10, Ca. 20 = 47. (Pl. 13, fig. 1.)

In the Atlantic City specimen all the epiphyses are free. The atlas and axis are anchylosed together, the third cervical is united to the axis by the centrum, and on the right side by the top of the neural arch; on the left side the arch is imperfect and free. The fourth to the seventh cervicals, inclusive, are all free. The arch is incomplete above in the fourth, fifth, and sixth, but complete in the seventh. There is a short neural spine on both sixth and seventh cervicals. The atlas has a broad, obliquely-truncated inferior lateral process, but no superior process, while the axis has both inferior and superior processes. The inferior process is twice as long as the superior process, and both are directed backward. They do not meet to form a ring. The third to the sixth cervicals, inclusive, have inferior processes only, that on the third being long and thin (but developed on the left side only). On the fourth and fifth cervicals the processes are short and small; on the sixth, long and broad, and directed downward. The centrum of the seventh cervical has a broad facet on the side, where the first rib is attached, and an inferior lateral process thicker than that of the sixth cervical, but also directed downward.

In the Atlantic City specimen, all the epiphyses are separate. The atlas and axis are fused together, the third cervical is connected to the axis by the centrum, and on the right side by the top of the neural arch; on the left side, the arch is incomplete and free. The fourth through the seventh cervical vertebrae are all separate. The arch is incomplete at the top in the fourth, fifth, and sixth, but complete in the seventh. There’s a short neural spine on both the sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae. The atlas has a wide, slanted lower side process, but no upper process, while the axis has both lower and upper processes. The lower process is twice as long as the upper process, and both point backwards. They don’t join to form a ring. The third to the sixth cervical vertebrae only have lower processes, with the one on the third being long and thin (but developed only on the left side). On the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae, the processes are short and small; on the sixth, they are long and broad, pointing downwards. The centrum of the seventh cervical vertebra has a broad facet on the side where the first rib attaches, and a lower side process thicker than that of the sixth cervical, but also pointing downwards.

It is doubtful whether the foregoing characters of the cervical vertebræ are of any systematic importance, as there is a very large amount of individual variation among these animals in the development of the transverse processes and other details of structure. M. bidens, however, appears to have superior transverse processes on most of the cervicals which sometimes unite with the inferior processes to form foramina. In the specimen of M. europæus under consideration there are no superior processes, except on the axis.

It’s uncertain whether the characteristics of the cervical vertebrae mentioned above are systematically significant, as there is a considerable amount of individual variation among these animals in the development of the transverse processes and other structural details. M. bidens, however, seems to have prominent transverse processes on most of the cervical vertebrae, which occasionally merge with the inferior processes to create foramina. In the specimen of M. europæus being examined, there are no superior processes except on the axis.

Metapophyses are first distinguishable on the diapophyses of the fourth thoracic vertebra, and on the seventh assume the form of conical tubercles. On the eighth and following vertebræ they are flat, and are last distinguishable on the seventh caudal vertebra. Facets for the articulation of the tubercles of the ribs occur on the diapophyses of the first to the seventh thoracic vertebræ. On the latter vertebra the first transverse process appears as a short projection on the side of the centrum. On the eighth thoracic vertebra, the transverse process is broad and flat, with the anterior margin bent upward, and is about 48 mm. long. The base of the neural arch is strongly concave externally. The transverse process of the ninth thoracic vertebra is similar to the preceding one, but broader and not bent upward anteriorly. The base of the neural arch is also concave in this vertebra. The ends of the transverse processes of the eighth and ninth vertebræ are emarginate for the articulation of the ribs. A median inferior ridge is first distinguishable on the seventh thoracic vertebra.

Metapophyses first appear on the diapophyses of the fourth thoracic vertebra, and by the seventh, they take on the shape of conical tubercles. On the eighth vertebra and those following, they are flat, and they can be last seen on the seventh caudal vertebra. Facets for the attachment of the rib tubercles are present on the diapophyses of the first to the seventh thoracic vertebrae. On the seventh vertebra, the first transverse process shows up as a short projection on the side of the centrum. On the eighth thoracic vertebra, the transverse process is broad and flat, with the front edge curved upward, measuring about 48 mm long. The base of the neural arch is significantly concave on the outside. The transverse process of the ninth thoracic vertebra is similar to the previous one but is wider and isn’t bent upward in front. The base of the neural arch is also concave in this vertebra. The tips of the transverse processes of the eighth and ninth vertebrae are notched for rib articulation. A median inferior ridge first becomes noticeable on the seventh thoracic vertebra.

As far as can be learned from the descriptions of Turner, Grieg, and others, the thoracic vertebræ of europæus do not present any marked differences from those of bidens.

As far as we can tell from the descriptions by Turner, Grieg, and others, the thoracic vertebrae of europæus do not show any significant differences from those of bidens.

[17]

The transverse processes of the lumbar vertebræ are short, broad, and flat, and somewhat curved forward. They are expanded and rounded at the free ends. The centra increase in length posteriorly, the last lumbar having the greatest length of any vertebra in the column. The neural spines increase in length from the first lumbar to the fourth, those on the remaining lumbars being subequal, but the spine on the ninth lumbar is a little longer than the others. Median inferior ridges occur on all the lumbars and are strongest at the middle of the series. The height of the centrum of the ninth lumbar is 63 mm., width 73, and length 116. The highest neural spine is 233.

The transverse processes of the lumbar vertebrae are short, wide, and flat, with a slight forward curve. They are rounded and expanded at the free ends. The centra get longer towards the back, with the last lumbar vertebra being the longest in the entire column. The neural spines increase in length from the first lumbar to the fourth, with the remaining lumbars being roughly equal in size, although the spine on the ninth lumbar is a bit longer than the others. All the lumbars have median inferior ridges, which are most prominent in the middle of the series. The height of the centrum of the ninth lumbar is 63 mm, the width is 73 mm, and the length is 116 mm. The tallest neural spine measures 233 mm.

As above mentioned, the first of the vertebræ counted among the lumbars may be the last thoracic vertebra, but as there is no indication of an articular facet at the end of the transverse process it is not so considered in this place.

As mentioned above, the first vertebra counted as a lumbar vertebra might actually be the last thoracic vertebra. However, since there is no sign of an articular facet at the end of the transverse process, it isn't regarded as such here.

The lumbar vertebræ in M. bidens appears to be more nearly equal in length than in the present species, but are not different otherwise.

The lumbar vertebrae in M. bidens seem to be more similar in length than in the current species, but otherwise, they are not different.

The spines of the caudal vertebræ decrease rapidly in height posteriorly, and disappear after the tenth caudal. The transverse processes resemble those of the lumbars, but are shorter. They are last distinguishable on the eighth caudal. The transverse process of the seventh caudal is perforated by a vertical foramen. Similar but much smaller foramina occur on the sides of the centra of the eighth and ninth caudals. In these vertebræ the inferior ridges are also pierced by foramina. In the fourth caudal a ridge appears on the side of the neural arch on a level with the top of the centrum, and similar ridges are found on the succeeding vertebræ as far as the ninth caudal. The last ten vertebræ are without processes or neural arches.

The spines of the tail vertebrae decrease quickly in height towards the back and disappear after the tenth tail vertebra. The side projections are similar to those of the lower back vertebrae, but they are shorter. They can still be identified on the eighth tail vertebra. The side projection of the seventh tail vertebra has a hole in it. Similar but much smaller holes are found on the sides of the body of the eighth and ninth tail vertebrae. In these vertebrae, the lower ridges also have holes. On the fourth tail vertebra, a ridge appears on the side of the neural arch level with the top of the body, and similar ridges are found on the following vertebrae up to the ninth tail vertebra. The last ten vertebrae have no projections or neural arches.

Sir William Turner states that the caudals of M. bidens are without vertical foramina, but the figure in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography (plate 22) shows them in the same position as in M. europæus. The inferior ridges, however, appear to be imperforate in the former species.

Sir William Turner says that the caudals of M. bidens don't have vertical foramina, but the illustration in Van Beneden and Gervais' Osteography (plate 22) shows them in the same spot as in M. europæus. However, the lower ridges seem to be solid in the former species.

RIBS.

The first seven pairs of ribs have both tubercle and head. The first is nearly as long as the second, and is very broad at the proximal end. In the seventh pair the head is double, one facet of the rib articulating with the facet on the posterior margin of the centrum of the sixth thoracic vertebra and the other with the short transverse process on the side of the centrum of the seventh thoracic vertebra. The eighth and ninth pairs of ribs articulate only with the transverse processes of the eighth and ninth thoracic vertebræ, respectively. The ninth pair of ribs, as already stated, is nearly or quite as long as the eighth, from which it seems probable that a tenth short pair was present originally. There is, however, no trace of a facet for the articulation of such a rib on the end of the transverse process of what appears to be the first lumbar vertebra.

The first seven pairs of ribs have both a tubercle and a head. The first rib is almost as long as the second and is quite broad at the proximal end. In the seventh pair, the head is double, with one facet of the rib connecting to the facet on the back edge of the sixth thoracic vertebra’s centrum and the other connecting to the short transverse process on the side of the seventh thoracic vertebra’s centrum. The eighth and ninth pairs of ribs only connect with the transverse processes of the eighth and ninth thoracic vertebrae, respectively. As mentioned earlier, the ninth pair of ribs is nearly or just as long as the eighth, which makes it seem likely that there was initially a short tenth pair. However, there is no sign of a facet for this rib to connect on the end of the transverse process of what looks like the first lumbar vertebra.

The only difference between the ribs of M. europæus and those of M. bidens appears to be that the first pair is much longer proportionately in the former species.

The only difference between the ribs of M. europæus and those of M. bidens seems to be that the first pair is much longer in proportion in the former species.

[18]

STERNUM.

The sternum presents no differences of importance from that of M. bidens figured by Grieg,[24] except that the fourth and fifth segments are anchylosed together, both laterally and transversely, and that the two sides are symmetrical. (Pl. 13, fig. 2.)

The sternum shows no significant differences from that of M. bidens illustrated by Grieg,[24] except that the fourth and fifth segments are fused together on both the sides and across, and that the two sides are symmetrical. (Pl. 13, fig. 2.)

PECTORAL LIMB.

The scapula of M. europæus presents an entirely different appearance from that of M. bidens as figured in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography (plate 22). In europæus the scapula is very high anteriorly, the anterior border is convex forward and the anterior crest convex backward, bounding an elongated elliptical area. The posterior margin is straight. The acromion is short, with convex margins at the base, beyond which it narrows suddenly and terminates in a straight, cylindrical process, which is strongly inclined upward. The coracoid is as long as the acromion, nearly straight and horizontal, but expanded at the end. (Pl. 13, figs. 3, 4.)

The scapula of M. europæus looks completely different from that of M. bidens, as shown in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography (plate 22). In europæus, the scapula is very high at the front, with a forward-arching anterior border and a backward-curving anterior crest, forming a long elliptical area. The back edge is straight. The acromion is short, with curved edges at the base, after which it suddenly narrows and ends in a straight, cylindrical extension that angles upward. The coracoid is as long as the acromion, nearly straight and horizontal, but flares out at the end. (Pl. 13, figs. 3, 4.)

The phalangeal formula of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus and those of three Norwegian specimens of M. bidens are as follows (the metacarpals being included):

The phalangeal formula of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus and those of three Norwegian specimens of M. bidens are as follows (including the metacarpals):

Phalangeal formula of M. europæus and bidens.

Phalangeal formula of M. europæus and bidens.

I.II.III.IV.V.
M. europæus, Atlantic City:
Left2663+3+
Right on2764(+1?)4
M. bidens:
Landenæs16(5)543
Fæø16543
Udsire16654

In M. europæus the metacarpal of the third digit is much constricted in the middle. The shaft of the ulna is straight. Except in these particulars and the relatively small size of the whole pectoral limb, the latter appears not to differ materially from that of M. bidens. As shown above, the first digit in M. bidens consists of the metacarpal bone only, while in M. europæus a phalange is also present.

In M. europæus, the metacarpal of the third finger is tightly squeezed in the middle. The shaft of the ulna is straight. Aside from these details and the relatively small size of the entire front limb, it doesn't seem to differ much from that of M. bidens. As mentioned earlier, the first finger in M. bidens only has the metacarpal bone, while in M. europæus there is also a phalanx present.

Dimensions of the skeleton of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus, No. 23846, U.S.N.M.

Dimensions of the skeleton of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus, No. 23846, U.S.N.M.

mm.
Length of the seven cervical vertebræa94
Length of first, second, and third cervical vertebræa45
Atlas:
Maximum width156
Highest point103
Height of the spinal canal36
Greatest width across the front joint surfaces96
Axis, greatest breadth144
Seventh cervical vertebra:
Greatest width80
Highest peak without lower process117
Longest length of centrum14
Highest point of neural canal49
First thoracic vertebra:
Highest point151
Widest range136
Centrum height37
Center length21
Articular surface width48
Neural spine height61
Height of the neural canal53
Seventh thoracic vertebra:
Highest point246
Widest extent116
Center height35
Length of center69
Center width46
Width between transverse processes66
Eighth thoracic vertebra:
Highest point246
Greatest width (between transverse processes)142
Centrum height39
Centrum length73
Width of center47
First lumbar vertebra:
Highest peak263
Widest distance (between transverse processes)215
Height of anterior centrum43
Length of center83
Width of center53
First caudal vertebra:
Highest point263
Max width (between transverse processes)207
Height of anterior centrum65
Length of center113
Width of center67
Seventh caudal vertebra:
Highest point153
Greatest width87
Height of centrum (excluding hypapophysis)66
Length of center84
Center width70
Length of last 10 caudal vertebræ285
Sternum:
Total length404
Manubrium length165
Widest part of the manubrium134
Depth of the front notch of the manubrium37
Scapula:
Length247
Depth161
Acromion lengthb44
Coracoid length59
Humerus, length107
Radius, length110
Ulna, length100
Pelvic bones, length51
a Placed in contact.
b From the inside, without the cartilaginous tip.
[20]

HISTORY OF THE ATLANTIC CITY SPECIMEN.

Regarding the finding of the Atlantic City specimen and its exterior and gross anatomy, nothing has been published except brief references by Sir William Turner in 1889[25] and Dr. Glover M. Allen in 1906,[26] taken from a newspaper report of a communication made by myself before the Biological Society of Washington in 1889. On that account a somewhat detailed statement regarding it will be made in this place.

Regarding the discovery of the Atlantic City specimen and its external and overall anatomy, nothing has been published except for brief mentions by Sir William Turner in 1889[25] and Dr. Glover M. Allen in 1906,[26] which were drawn from a newspaper report of a talk I gave to the Biological Society of Washington in 1889. Therefore, a somewhat detailed statement about it will be provided here.

This individual (Pl. 41, figs. 1, 2) was a male, 12½ feet long. It was observed by the crew of life-saving station No. 28, near Atlantic City, New Jersey, on the afternoon of March 28, 1889. It had come inside the bar which skirts the coast at this point, and was apparently unable to find its way out. It was captured with some difficulty, after being wounded in the throat, and was dragged up on the beach near the station. Later in the day it was carried to the skating rink of Messrs. Johnson & McShea, at Atlantic City, where it was exhibited until Monday, April 1. On the next morning it was sent by express to Washington.

This individual (Pl. 41, figs. 1, 2) was a male, 12½ feet long. The crew at life-saving station No. 28, near Atlantic City, New Jersey, spotted it on the afternoon of March 28, 1889. It had gotten stuck inside the bar along the coast and seemed unable to find its way back out. After being wounded in the throat, it was captured with some difficulty and dragged up onto the beach near the station. Later that day, it was taken to the skating rink of Messrs. Johnson & McShea in Atlantic City, where it was displayed until Monday, April 1. The following morning, it was sent by express to Washington.

I examined it for the first time in Atlantic City on March 29. It was then lying on the floor of the skating rink in such a position that the under surfaces were concealed, and, as the teeth were not visible, I mistook it for a female. Upon its arrival in Washington, however, where it could be examined under more favorable circumstances, it proved to be a male. The following measurements were taken from the fresh specimen:

I looked at it for the first time in Atlantic City on March 29. It was lying on the floor of the skating rink in a way that hid the underside, and since the teeth weren’t visible, I thought it was a female. However, when it arrived in Washington, where it could be examined more carefully, it turned out to be a male. The following measurements were taken from the fresh specimen:

External dimensions of a specimen of M. europæus from Atlantic City, New Jersey.

External dimensions of a specimen of M. europaeus from Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Ft.in.
Total length (in a straight line)12 6
Tip of beak to base of dorsal fin (along the back)7
Tip of beak to base of pectoral fin (along the back)2 11
Length of pectoral fin along center11
Greatest breadth of pectoral fin
Height of dorsal fin (in a straight line)6
Length of base of dorsal fin1 2
Breadth of flukes (tip to tip)2 11
Depth of tail 14 inches in front of posterior margin of flukes
Tip of beak to angle of mouth
Tip of beak to eye1
Length of eye1
Breadth of blowhole4
Tip of beak to right angle of blowhole1
[21]

EXTERNAL FORM AND COLOR.

The general form was slender and elongate. The beak sloped gradually from its extremity to the forehead, and there was no constriction separating the beak from the remainder of the head. Behind the blowhole, the outline of the back commenced at a higher level, but immediately curved slightly downward, indicating the position of the neck. The line then rose gradually until the anterior base of the dorsal fin was reached. Behind the fin the outline sloped downward gradually to the flukes.

The overall shape was slim and elongated. The beak gradually tapered from its tip to the forehead, and there was no narrowing between the beak and the rest of the head. Behind the blowhole, the back started at a higher point but then curved slightly downward, showing where the neck was. The line then rose gradually until it reached the front base of the dorsal fin. Behind the fin, the outline sloped down gradually to the tail flukes.

The dorsal fin was relatively small, falcate, and obtusely terminated. The distance in front of its anterior base was three-fifths of the total length. Its posterior margin was continuous with the ridge of the back, which extended to the flukes and terminated abruptly a little anterior to the middle point of the antero-posterior breadth of the flukes. In front of the fin the back was rounded.

The dorsal fin was relatively small, curved, and rounded at the tip. The distance in front of its front base was three-fifths of the total length. Its back edge was continuous with the ridge of the back, which extended to the flukes and ended sharply just before the midpoint of the flukes' width. In front of the fin, the back was rounded.

The pectoral fins were small and were placed low down on the sides. Their anterior base was as far removed from the eye (in a straight line) as the eye was from the extremity of the beak. Their shape was somewhat different from that of the flippers of M. bidens figured by Sir William Turner.[27] Their anterior margin was nearly straight throughout; the extremity was evenly and distinctly rounded off. The posterior margin was slightly convex in the distal half and straight proximally.

The pectoral fins were small and positioned low on the sides. The front base was as far from the eye (in a straight line) as the eye was from the tip of the beak. Their shape was a bit different from the flippers of M. bidens illustrated by Sir William Turner.[27] The front edge was almost straight along its length; the tip was smoothly and clearly rounded. The back edge was slightly curved in the outer half and straight near the base.

The conformation of the region of the axilla was quite peculiar. The hard integument of the posterior margin of the flipper was continued proximally inward and forward to a point near the head of the humerus. The triangular area between this stiff edge and the side of the body was occupied by a thin, soft, wrinkled skin, in the middle of which the olecranon could be felt. On the side of the body this soft integument occupied an area nearly as large as the flipper, the underlying thick layer of blubber ending abruptly, especially below. A depression was thus formed in which the flippers could be placed so as to be almost in the same general plane with surrounding surfaces of the body. They are probably so placed when the animal is swimming.

The shape of the armpit area was pretty unique. The tough skin on the back edge of the flipper extended inward and forward to a spot close to the head of the upper arm bone. The triangular space between this firm edge and the side of the body had a thin, soft, wrinkled skin, in the middle of which you could feel the elbow bone. On the side of the body, this soft skin covered an area almost as big as the flipper, with a thick layer of fat underneath that ended sharply, especially below. This created a dip where the flippers could be positioned almost level with the surrounding surfaces of the body. They are likely positioned this way when the animal is swimming.

The flukes had the general lunate form common to all species of the order. The posterior margin is not divided in the center. Its middle third was convex; its lateral thirds concave. In these and other respects the shape of the flukes agreed closely with Sir William Turner’s excellent figure of M. bidens.[28] The antero-posterior breadth of the flukes was, however, somewhat greater in proportion to their transverse breadth than is indicated in this figure. The caudal peduncle terminated above at a point 6½ inches in front of the posterior margin of the flukes. On this margin were situated three star-shaped white scars, which appeared to mark the points of attachment of crustacean parasites.

The flukes had the typical crescent shape found in all species of the order. The back edge isn't split in the middle. The middle third was rounded, while the outer thirds were indented. In these and other ways, the shape of the flukes closely matched Sir William Turner’s excellent illustration of M. bidens.[28] However, the length of the flukes was somewhat larger in relation to their width than shown in this illustration. The tail section ended about 6½ inches in front of the back edge of the flukes. On this edge were three star-shaped white scars, which seemed to indicate where crustacean parasites had been attached.

The margins of the upper jaw were very obtuse posteriorly, the rostrum being covered with a layer of blubber of gradually increasing thickness. A depression [22] bounded by gradually converging lines extended 4¼ inches back of the angle of the mouth.

The edges of the upper jaw were quite rounded at the back, and the snout was covered with a layer of blubber that gradually thickened. There was a dip [22] that sloped back 4¼ inches from the corner of the mouth.

The inferior surface of the bony palate extended below the level of the lips, and the sides of the former were visible upon looking into the mouth laterally.

The lower surface of the bony palate extended below the lip level, and the sides of it were visible when looking into the mouth from the side.

The blowhole was large and somewhat unsymmetrically placed, the right angle being the more anterior. The concavity was forward.

The blowhole was large and slightly asymmetrically positioned, with the right angle being more towards the front. The curve faced forwards.

The eye was situated a little below the line of the mouth and 20¼ inches from the extremity of the snout.

The eye was located just below the line of the mouth and 20¼ inches from the tip of the snout.

The external opening of the ear was 2⅞ inches behind the posterior angle of the eye, and a little below the line of the lower eyelid.

The outer opening of the ear was 2⅞ inches behind the back corner of the eye and slightly below the line of the lower eyelid.

The two throat-furrows were of unequal length. The left furrow was 6¾ inches long, and its anterior end was distant 8⅝ inches from the extremity of the jaw. The right furrow did not extend quite so far forward, and was 7⅜ inches long.

The two throat furrows were different lengths. The left furrow was 6¾ inches long, and its front end was 8⅝ inches away from the tip of the jaw. The right furrow didn't reach as far forward and was 7⅜ inches long.

The furrows converged posteriorly; they were separated by an interval of ⅝ inches anteriorly and 5⅛ inches posteriorly. Between the anterior ends of the main furrows was a small one, about an inch long, but it is doubtful whether this was a natural fissure. I did not observe it when the whale was in Atlantic City.

The grooves came together at the back; they were spaced ⅝ inches apart at the front and 5⅛ inches apart at the back. Between the front ends of the main grooves was a small one, about an inch long, but it's uncertain if this was a natural crack. I didn't notice it when the whale was in Atlantic City.

The natural color of the specimen had largely disappeared before I examined it, but Captain Gaskell and others who saw it while still fresh agreed that it was very dark slate-gray on the back, lighter on the sides, and whitish on the belly. I observed that a broad area between the pectoral fins was slate-gray, and contrasted with the white of the throat and belly. The whitish color ended somewhat abruptly and irregularly at the anus, and the flukes, as well as the pectoral and dorsal fins, were probably very dark slate-gray, or blackish, when fresh.

The original color of the specimen had mostly faded before I got a chance to look at it, but Captain Gaskell and others who saw it while it was still fresh agreed that it was a very dark slate gray on the back, lighter on the sides, and whitish on the belly. I noticed that a wide area between the pectoral fins was slate gray, contrasting with the white of the throat and belly. The whitish color ended somewhat suddenly and unevenly at the anus, and the flukes, pectoral fins, and dorsal fins were probably very dark slate gray or blackish when fresh.

The epidermis was exceedingly smooth and glossy throughout.

The skin was extremely smooth and shiny all over.

The tongue was purplish-white. The roof of the mouth was black, except at the posterior end, where there was an irregular area of pinkish-white.

The tongue was purplish-white. The roof of the mouth was black, except at the back, where there was an irregular area of pinkish-white.

The integument of the roof of the mouth was smooth and shining. Its surface was convex at the extremity of the beak, but the central portion was concave, while at the posterior end it was again raised into a rounded pad. In these respects the shape of the integuments coincided with that of the underlying maxillæ, upon which they were closely fitted. The sides were rounded, and a shallow groove intervened between them and the lips. This groove was continued around the roof of the mouth behind, and formed a demarcation between this part and the œsophagus.

The skin on the roof of the mouth was smooth and shiny. Its surface was rounded at the tip of the beak, but the middle section was dipped in, and at the back it rose again into a rounded pad. In these ways, the shape of the skin matched the shape of the underlying jawbones, which it fit closely against. The sides were rounded, and there was a shallow groove between them and the lips. This groove continued around the back of the roof of the mouth and created a boundary between this area and the esophagus.

The tip of the tongue was 7½ inches from the extremity of the jaw. It was oval in outline, the extremity is obtuse, and it was entirely bound down. The margin was entire, and not crenulate, as in many dolphins.

The tip of the tongue was 7½ inches from the end of the jaw. It had an oval shape, the end was blunt, and it was completely attached. The edge was smooth, not scalloped like in many dolphins.

Dorsal and ventral views of the stomach are shown in Pl. 40, figs. 1 and 2; a dorsal view of the lungs in Pl. 13, fig. 5; and of the perineum in Pl. 40, fig. 3. A description of the gross anatomy is reserved for a subsequent paper.

Dorsal and ventral views of the stomach are shown in Pl. 40, figs. 1 and 2; a dorsal view of the lungs in Pl. 13, fig. 5; and of the perineum in Pl. 40, fig. 3. A description of the gross anatomy will be provided in a later paper.

The external dimensions of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus are given in the following table, together with those of nine European specimens of M. bidens taken from various authors, and assembled here for purposes of comparison. The dimensions of the Annisquam specimen which, as already explained (p. 9), represents a third species, are also added.

The external measurements of the Atlantic City specimen of M. europæus are listed in the table below, along with those of nine European specimens of M. bidens that were taken from various sources and compiled here for comparison. The measurements of the Annisquam specimen, which, as previously mentioned (p. 9), represents a third species, are also included.

[23]

External dimensions of Mesoplodon europæus, M. bidens, and M. densirostris.

External dimensions of Mesoplodon europaeus, M. bidens, and M. densirostris.

Column headings:
M. europæus.
C: Atlantic City, 1889, U.S.N.M. male, imm.
M. bidens.
D: Brodie House, Scotland, 1800, (Sowerby), male, adult.[a]
E: Overstrand, England, 1892, (Southwell), female, adult.
F: Dalgety, Scotland, 1888, (Turner), male.
G: Hillville, Kerry, Ireland, 1864, (Andrews), male (?).
H: Hevringholm, Denmark, 1880, (Reinhardt), female, adult.
I: Rugsund, Norway, 1901, (Grieg), male, adult.
J: Saltö, Sweden, 1885, (Aurivillius), male, young.
K: Landenæs, Norway, 1895, (Grieg), male.
L: Ostend, Belgium, 1835, (Dumortier), female, young.
M. densirostris?
M: Annisquam, Mass., 1898, (Allen), female.
Measurements.CDEFGHIJKLM
mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.
Total length3,8104,877b4,8284,5974,572f4,3154,6053,8703,7003,4503,708
b12′6″16′16′2″15′1″15′±=13′9″15′1ࡩ″12′8″12′2″11′4″12′2″
Tip of upper jaw to blowhole470......c572559602475530500440...
Tip of upper jaw to eye........................520......
Tip of lower jaw to pectoral find889............1,0981,000970930910...
Back of dorsal to back of flukes[1,156]...e1,803......[1,190]1,5901,280[1,130]1,150...
Length of base of dorsal fin356...349324...366400340330......
Length of eye25............464037.........
Length of mouth (upper jaw)248457432...343373...............
Length of mouth (lower jaw)......445349356392...320320...343
Length of throat furrowsf173...298...254248......300......
Distance between throat furrows posteriorly131...241229178157......217...254±
Height of dorsal fin152...191203...209215170160130...
Breadth of flukes889...1,118......9941,1301,000820680...
Flukes to anus..................1,2901,090[950]1,000940
Length of pectoral finkg279...h546......i392515440380......
Greatest breadth of pectoral fin95............131170120115......
a Type-specimen.
b Straight.
c To center of blowhole.
d From tip of upper jaw (curvilinear).
e Curvilinear.
f Left. The right=192mm.
g Along center. Along anterior border = 292mm±.
h Along anterior border.
i Straight; point of measurement not given.
j Along side.
k From anterior base, unless otherwise indicated.
[24]

Since the foregoing account of europæus was written, a description of the type-skull, with two excellent photographic figures, has been published by L. Brasil,[29] of the Caën Museum. A comparison of the figures with those of the Atlantic City and Long Branch skulls on Pls. 2 and 8 of the present article, confirms the identification of the latter specimens with M. europæus. Besides a brief description of the type-skull M. Brasil’s paper contains measurements and two text figures of the right mandibular tooth, natural size.

Since the previous description of europæus was written, L. Brasil from the Caën Museum has published a description of the type skull, along with two excellent photographs. Comparing these photos with those of the Atlantic City and Long Branch skulls on Pls. 2 and 8 of this article confirms that these specimens are indeed M. europæus. In addition to a brief description of the type skull, M. Brasil’s paper includes measurements and two figures showing the right mandibular tooth at natural size.

MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI True.

Mesoplodon stejnegeri True, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 8, p. 584. Oct. 19, 1885.

This species was originally described from a single cranium of a young individual, which was collected by Dr. L. Stejneger on Bering Island, Commander Group, Bering Sea, in 1883. With but a single skull, the characters of the species could not be very satisfactorily defined, and some European cetologists have been inclined to doubt its validity.[30] In 1904, however, another skull was obtained by the National Museum, which made it certain that the species was entirely distinct from M. bidens or other known forms of the genus. Early in the year mentioned Dr. D. S. Jordan, president of Stanford University, called my attention to a small whale, which stranded on the coast of Oregon, 1½ miles south of the United States life-saving station on South Beach, Yaquina Bay, near Newport, in February, and proved later to represent the present species. Doctor Jordan’s information was obtained from Mr. J. G. Crawford, of Albany, Oregon, who wrote him in part as follows, under date of March 7, 1904:

This species was originally described from a single skull of a young individual, collected by Dr. L. Stejneger on Bering Island, Commander Group, Bering Sea, in 1883. With only one skull, the characteristics of the species couldn't be clearly defined, and some European cetologists have questioned its validity. [30] However, in 1904, another skull was obtained by the National Museum, which confirmed that the species was completely distinct from M. bidens or any other known forms of the genus. Early that year, Dr. D. S. Jordan, president of Stanford University, drew my attention to a small whale that had stranded on the coast of Oregon, 1½ miles south of the United States life-saving station on South Beach, Yaquina Bay, near Newport, in February, which later turned out to represent this species. Dr. Jordan got his information from Mr. J. G. Crawford of Albany, Oregon, who wrote to him on March 7, 1904, stating in part:

Herewith I enclose a stereograph of a head of a member of the whale family, which I made at Yaquina Bay, Oregon. The animal was 17 feet long, with fluked tail, soft, smooth skin, blowhole on top of head, and two tusks in the mandible, but no [other] teeth in the mouth. The tusks are thin and apparently hollow. Length of head, 32 inches; width, 14 inches; height, 11 inches; blowhole, 5 inches. Eyes low on head. Width of mandible [jaw] at end: Upper, 1½ inches; lower, 1¾ inches. Width between tusks, 3 inches. The blubber was about 2 inches thick on the head. It went ashore about the 15th of February, 1½ miles south of the life-saving station on South Beach, 2½ miles south of Newport, Oregon. The head had been severed before I arrived.

I’m attaching a stereograph of a whale family member's head that I photographed at Yaquina Bay, Oregon. The whale was 17 feet long, with a fluked tail, soft and smooth skin, a blowhole on top of its head, and two tusks in its jaw, but no other teeth. The tusks are thin and appear to be hollow. The head measures 32 inches in length, 14 inches in width, and 11 inches in height, and the blowhole is 5 inches wide. The eyes are positioned low on the head. The jaw width at the end is: Upper, 1½ inches; lower, 1¾ inches. The distance between the tusks is 3 inches. The blubber on the head was about 2 inches thick. It washed ashore around February 15, 1½ miles south of the life-saving station on South Beach, which is 2½ miles south of Newport, Oregon. The head had already been removed when I arrived.

A clipping from the Oregonian newspaper contains the following:

A clipping from the Oregonian newspaper includes the following:

Albany, Oregon, March 2 [1904]. A peculiar specimen of the whale variety has been reported on the Oregon coast, near Newport. J. G. Crawford, of Albany, has just returned from a trip to Newport, where he made a picture of the head of the strange animal. The body was washed upon the beach during the recent storm which swept the coast. It is about 15 feet long. * * * Residents of the vicinity say they have never seen anything like it on the Oregon coast. * * * On either side of the mouth are two villainous-looking tusks several inches in length. They are at the back of the mouth, and extend up to a level with the top of the upper jaw. They are very wide and flat, squared on top. The mouth has no other teeth. * * *

Albany, Oregon, March 2 [1904]. A strange type of whale has been spotted on the Oregon coast, near Newport. J. G. Crawford, from Albany, just returned from a trip to Newport, where he took a picture of the head of this unusual animal. The body washed up on the beach during the recent storm that hit the coast. It’s about 15 feet long. * * * Locals say they’ve never seen anything like it on the Oregon coast. * * * On either side of the mouth are two large, menacing tusks that are several inches long. They’re located at the back of the mouth and extend up to the level of the upper jaw. They’re very wide and flat, with a squared-off top. The mouth has no other teeth. * * *

[25]

The head is equipped with a blowhole, like that of a whale. The eyes are very low, almost underneath the lower jaws.

The head has a blowhole similar to a whale's. The eyes are positioned very low, almost beneath the lower jaws.

The body is in a good state of preservation, the flesh having been torn but little by the birds.

The body is well-preserved, with the flesh barely torn by the birds.

On receipt of the foregoing information, letters were immediately addressed to Mr. Crawford and also to the keeper of the life-saving station at South Beach, Capt. Otto Wellander, asking that, if possible, the entire skeleton be preserved. Captain Wellander replied that the whale had not been dead long when washed ashore; that he had tried to find the body, but that the high tides had either carried it away or buried it under driftwood.

Upon receiving the information mentioned above, letters were quickly sent to Mr. Crawford and to the keeper of the life-saving station at South Beach, Captain Otto Wellander, requesting that the entire skeleton be preserved if possible. Captain Wellander responded that the whale hadn’t been dead for long when it washed ashore; he had attempted to locate the body, but the high tides had either taken it away or covered it with driftwood.

The skull when cleaned passed into the possession of Mr. J. G. Crawford, who sent to the Museum some excellent photographs of it, and also of the head before the flesh had been removed. Later he sent the skull itself to the Museum for my examination, and finally very generously presented it to the Museum in exchange.

The cleaned skull was given to Mr. J. G. Crawford, who sent some great photographs of it to the Museum, including images of the head before the flesh was removed. Later, he sent the skull itself to the Museum for my examination and ultimately very generously donated it to the Museum in exchange.

The skull is that of an adult individual, in nearly perfect condition, with the mandible and teeth. The parts missing are the left malar, the left tympanic bone, the distal ends of the pterygoids and the proximal ends of the premaxillæ. (Pl. 3, fig. 2.)

The skull belongs to an adult, in almost perfect condition, complete with the jawbone and teeth. The missing parts include the left cheekbone, the left ear bone, the ends of the pterygoid bones, and the front ends of the premaxillae. (Pl. 3, fig. 2.)

SKULL.

The Oregon skull exhibits all the characters included in the original diagnosis of the species,[31] but two of these, namely, the lack of a groove in front of the premaxillary foramen, and the vertical position of the premaxillæ distally, I do not at present consider of any importance, as they are shared by M. bidens. The species, as represented by the Oregon skull, however, presents other characters which clearly differentiate it from any other species of the genius. As it is without a basirostral groove, it allies itself in that respect to M. bidens, europæus, and hectori. Unlike those species, it has the premaxillary foramen behind the maxillary foramen, and in this respect resembles densirostris and grayi. Perhaps the most salient characters in which stejnegeri differs from bidens and all other known species are the erect position and flat surface of the supraoccipital and the very prominent backward extension of the frontal plate of the maxilla. This backward extension is so great that when the beak is horizontal a vertical line through the posterior margin of the maxilla passes considerably behind the temporal fossa. The only species which approaches stejnegeri in this respect is hectori, but in the latter the supraoccipital instead of being flat above the condyles is very strongly convex.

The Oregon skull shows all the features mentioned in the original description of the species, [31], but I currently don't think two of them are significant: the absence of a groove in front of the premaxillary foramen and the vertical position of the premaxillae at the ends, since they are also found in M. bidens. However, the species represented by the Oregon skull has other characteristics that clearly set it apart from any other species in the genus. Because it lacks a basirostral groove, it is similar in that aspect to M. bidens, europæus, and hectori. Unlike those species, it has the premaxillary foramen located behind the maxillary foramen, which makes it similar to densirostris and grayi. Perhaps the most notable differences of stejnegeri from bidens and all other known species are the upright position and flat surface of the supraoccipital, along with the prominent backward extension of the frontal plate of the maxilla. This backward extension is so significant that when the beak is horizontal, a vertical line through the back margin of the maxilla extends well behind the temporal fossa. The only species that comes close to stejnegeri in this regard is hectori, but in that species, the supraoccipital is not flat above the condyles but highly convex.

Another very marked character of stejnegeri is that the extension of the lateral free margin of the orbital plate of the frontal, anterior to the orbit, is equal to the length of the orbit itself. In bidens and all other known species this extension is only from one-third to one-half the length of the orbit. Numerous other distinguishing characters will be mentioned in the course of the following description of stejnegeri, which is drawn from the adult Oregon skull, but modified when necessary by reference to the type skull from Bering Island. Comparisons are made chiefly with M. bidens, which is on the whole the best known species.

Another noticeable feature of stejnegeri is that the extension of the outer edge of the orbital plate at the front of the skull is the same length as the orbit itself. In bidens and all other recognized species, this extension is only about one-third to one-half the length of the orbit. Many other distinguishing traits will be discussed in the following description of stejnegeri, based on the adult skull from Oregon, but adjusted when necessary using the type skull from Bering Island as a reference. The comparisons are mainly made with M. bidens, which is generally the most well-understood species.

[26]

In the Oregon skull of stejnegeri, the breadth between the post-orbital processes does not exceed the length from the occipital condyles to the maxillary notches. The skull is, therefore, narrower in proportion to its length than in any other species of the genus except hectori, as represented by the skull figured by Flower. This skull was, however, that of a young individual. It is probable that in adults of this species the skull is broader than in stejnegeri.

In the Oregon skull of stejnegeri, the width between the post-orbital processes is not greater than the length from the occipital condyles to the maxillary notches. Therefore, the skull is narrower relative to its length than in any other species of the genus except hectori, as shown by the skull depicted by Flower. However, this skull belonged to a young individual. It's likely that in adult specimens of this species, the skull is wider than in stejnegeri.

In the latter species, again, the length of the brain-case, between the occipital condyles and the maxillary notches, is just equal to the distance from the latter point to the distal end of the maxillæ, and the rostrum, including the premaxillæ, is much shorter than in other species of Mesoplodon, except hectori, as represented by the young skull above mentioned.

In the latter species, the length of the braincase, measured from the occipital condyles to the maxillary notches, is exactly the same as the distance from the maxillary notches to the end of the maxillae. Additionally, the rostrum, which includes the premaxillae, is much shorter than in other species of Mesoplodon, except for hectori, as shown by the young skull mentioned earlier.

The foramen magnum is very small, being less in width than the condyle on either side of it. In this respect it differs widely from bidens and other species (as far as can be ascertained from the figures available), except europæus, in which the relative size is about the same.

The foramen magnum is quite small, narrower than the condyle on either side of it. In this way, it is very different from bidens and other species (as far as we can tell from the figures available), except for europæus, where the relative size is approximately the same.

The supraoccipital rises vertically above each condyle to the very top of the skull, being neither convex nor strongly bent forward as in other species, and especially bidens. In the median line, however, while the occipital bone is flat immediately above the foramen magnum, it is deeply concave higher up and without a median ridge. The outline of the occipital crest, viewed from behind, is semicircular. In all the foregoing characters the occipital region differs widely from that of bidens and other species. The only close resemblance is found in the old skull of europæus from Long Branch, New Jersey, and even here the sides of the occipital above are far less prominent, their outline is much more convex, the occipital crest is angular, and the median depression is less pronounced.

The supraoccipital rises straight up above each condyle to the top of the skull, and it’s neither rounded nor sharply bent forward like in other species, especially bidens. In the middle, while the occipital bone is flat right above the foramen magnum, it curves deeply upwards and lacks a central ridge. The outline of the occipital crest, seen from the back, is semicircular. Overall, the features of the occipital region are very different from those of bidens and other species. The only close similarity is found in the old skull of europæus from Long Branch, New Jersey, but even here the sides of the occipital are much less prominent, their shape is more rounded, the occipital crest is angular, and the central dip is not as pronounced.

Dorsal aspect (Pl. 3, figs. 1, 2).—The most noticeable feature of the upper surface of the skull is the large backward extension of the frontal plates of the maxillæ, the free margins of which converge strongly. The outline of the anteorbital region is rounded. The anteorbital notch is a shallow emargination. Anterior to this is a second still shallower emargination, the “pseudo-notch.” The margin between the two is much thickened, but does not form a distinct projection or tubercle, as in bidens and other species. The superior orifices of the nares are unsymmetrical as regards position, the left being somewhat in advance of the right. The maxillæ are concave around the maxillary foramen, and external to this foramen is an elongated ridge about as in europæus. The rostral portion of the maxillæ is broad at the base but tapers more rapidly than in bidens. The margin is thick. At the middle of the beak the outline of the maxillæ at a lower level is visible from above, which is not the case in bidens or europæus. The rostral portion of the premaxillæ is oblique proximally and vertical distally. Unlike bidens, these edges are sharp throughout. The mesethmoid ends opposite the maxillary foramina. Anterior to it is seen the concave upper surface of the vomer, which, however, becomes flat distally. At about the middle of the beak the anterior end is clasped by the posterior forked end of a “mesirostral” ossification, which has a convex surface. This ossification begins proximally below the edges of the premaxillæ, but its surface rises gradually anteriorly, and at the end of the beak it is much above [27] the premaxillæ. The end of the beak consists of the consolidated mass of the premaxillæ and mesirostral ossification, the whole being convex above and below, but flat on the sides. The ossification has a deep median groove, which reaches to within 95 mm. of the tip of the beak.

Dorsal aspect (Pl. 3, figs. 1, 2).—The most prominent feature of the top surface of the skull is the large backward extension of the frontal plates of the maxillae, whose free edges converge strongly. The outline of the area in front of the eye is rounded. The anteorbital notch is a shallow indentation. Just in front of this is a second, even shallower indentation, referred to as the “pseudo-notch.” The border between the two is much thicker but doesn't form a distinct projection or tubercle, unlike in bidens and other species. The upper openings of the nostrils are asymmetrical in position, with the left one being slightly ahead of the right. The maxillae are concave around the maxillary foramen, and outside of this foramen is an elongated ridge similar to that in europæus. The front section of the maxillae is wide at the base but narrows more quickly than in bidens. The edge is thick. In the middle of the beak, the outline of the maxillae can be seen at a lower level from above, which isn't the case in bidens or europæus. The front part of the premaxillae is angled at the top and vertical at the bottom. Unlike bidens, these edges are sharp all the way through. The mesethmoid ends opposite the maxillary foramina. Just in front of it is the concave upper surface of the vomer, which becomes flat at the tip. At about the middle of the beak, the front end is joined by the back forked end of a “mesirostral” bone, which has a curved surface. This bone begins below the edges of the premaxillae, but its surface rises gradually toward the front, so that at the end of the beak, it sits much higher than the premaxillae. The end of the beak is made up of the combined mass of the premaxillae and mesirostral bone, with the whole structure being convex on the top and bottom, but flat on the sides. The bone has a deep middle groove that extends to within 95 mm of the tip of the beak.

It will be seen that the conformation of the upper surface of the beak is quite different from that of bidens or any other species.

It’s clear that the shape of the upper surface of the beak is quite different from that of bidens or any other species.

The maxillary foramina are large and directed forward, and have a distinct broad channel in front of them. In the Oregon skull the right foramen is single, but the left divided into two. The premaxillary foramina are a little behind the maxillary foramina. The distance between the maxillary foramina is less than that from the median line to the anteorbital notch. In bidens it is much greater.

The maxillary foramina are large and face forward, and there is a clear broad channel in front of them. In the Oregon skull, the right foramen is single, but the left one is split into two. The premaxillary foramina are located just behind the maxillary foramina. The distance between the maxillary foramina is shorter than the distance from the center line to the anteorbital notch. In bidens, it is significantly greater.

Lateral aspect (Pl. 9, figs. 1, 2).—A most noteworthy feature of the skull when viewed from the side is the great length between the orbit and the maxillary notch, which far exceeds that found in bidens and other species, being equal to the length of the orbit itself. The latter is about as long as the temporal fossa, which is somewhat flattened above, as in europæus. The outline of the supraoccipital is straight and nearly vertical. The zygomatic is more massive even than europæus and is especially thick below. The inferior outline of the beak is convex proximally as in europæus and layardi. There is no basirostral groove, the edges of the maxillæ being very thick in front of the maxillary notch. Over the orbit the maxillæ are thick and beveled, but not raised as in bowdoini.

Lateral aspect (Pl. 9, figs. 1, 2).—One of the most noticeable features of the skull when viewed from the side is the significant distance between the eye socket and the maxillary notch, which is much greater than that seen in bidens and other species, matching the length of the eye socket itself. The eye socket length is about the same as that of the temporal fossa, which is slightly flattened at the top, similar to europæus. The shape of the supraoccipital is straight and almost vertical. The zygomatic bone is bulkier than that of europæus and particularly thick at the bottom. The lower outline of the beak is curved toward the body, similar to europæus and layardi. There is no basirostral groove, and the edges of the maxillae are very thick in front of the maxillary notch. Above the eye socket, the maxillae are thick and angled, but not raised like in bowdoini.

Ventral aspect (Pl. 6, figs. 1, 2).—The beak is convex in the proximal half, much as in europæus, but farther forward is concave, except in the median line, where there is a narrow ridge formed proximally by the vomer, which in the type skull appears as a narrow lozenge 60 mm. long. In the adult Oregon skull it is anchylosed with the premaxillæ. The maxillæ extend to within 107 mm. of the end of the beak. The under surface of the beak is much more like that of europæus than of bidens.

Ventral aspect (Pl. 6, figs. 1, 2).—The beak is curved upward in the front half, similar to europæus, but becomes curved inward farther along, except for a narrow ridge along the center, which is formed at the back by the vomer and appears as a narrow diamond shape about 60 mm long in the type skull. In the adult Oregon skull, it is fused with the premaxillæ. The maxillæ reach within 107 mm of the tip of the beak. The underside of the beak resembles that of europæus more than that of bidens.

A narrow strip of the palatines extends around the base of the pterygoids in front, but the two strips do not meet in the median line. In the type-skull they do not extend inside the pterygoids. The expanded anterior end of the malar is very long and also forms the bottom of the maxillary notch, which is the case in europæus but not in bidens. The inferior borders of the pterygoids are convex anteriorly, as in europæus, and are continued laterally, so that the sinus is deep as in that species. The lachrymal is very long, the free margin having a length of 55 mm. The posterior margin of the zygomatic process is concave, rather than convex as in bidens.

A narrow strip of the palatines runs around the base of the pterygoids at the front, but the two strips don’t meet in the middle. In the typical skull, they don’t extend inside the pterygoids. The expanded front end of the malar is very long and also makes up the bottom of the maxillary notch, which is true for europæus but not for bidens. The lower edges of the pterygoids are curved outward at the front, like in europæus, and extend sideways, creating a deep sinus like that species. The lachrymal bone is very long, with a free margin measuring 55 mm. The back edge of the zygomatic process is concave, instead of convex as seen in bidens.

The tympanic bulla does not differ materially from that of bidens in size or shape, as far as can be judged from the figures given in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography (plate 26, figs. 4, 4a). The periotic is similar in size to the same bone in bidens, but the posterior end is more narrowly pointed and the anterior end is much lower, relatively. In europæus, as far as can be determined from the material at hand, the form and size of the earbone is similar to that of stejnegeri, but in the latter the anterior margin of the tympanic bulla is more nearly transverse and the posterior inferior groove is curved. (Pl. 35, fig. 2.)

The tympanic bulla is basically the same in size and shape as that of bidens, based on the illustrations in Van Beneden and Gervais’ Osteography (plate 26, figs. 4, 4a). The periotic bone is similar in size to that in bidens, but the back end is more pointed, and the front end is relatively lower. In europæus, from what we can tell with the available material, the shape and size of the earbone resemble those of stejnegeri, but in the latter, the front edge of the tympanic bulla is more horizontal, and the lower back groove is curved. (Pl. 35, fig. 2.)

[28]

In the Annisquam skull, supposed to represent densirostris, although from a young individual, the earbone is very much larger, especially the periotic, which is also quite differently shaped.

In the Annisquam skull, believed to represent densirostris, although it comes from a young individual, the earbone is significantly larger, particularly the periotic, which also has a noticeably different shape.

MANDIBLE.

The mandible of stejnegeri is much broken in the region of the angle on both sides, but otherwise complete. As compared with a mandible of an adult bidens, the most conspicuous differences are the shortness of the symphysis, the sharp upward bend of the inferior margin anteriorly, and the large size of the alveolus. The symphysis in the adult Oregon specimen of stejnegeri is 140 mm. long, or scarcely more than in the young specimen of europæus from New Jersey, and exactly the same as in the adult type-specimen of the latter species, as figured by Van Beneden and Gervais. The alveolus lies entirely behind the symphysis, its anterior end being 160 mm. from the anterior end of the jaw. It is 113 mm. long and 18 mm. wide. The mandible is 62 mm. high at its middle point. The coronoid process is more anteriorly situated than in bidens and the portion of the posterior margin of the ramus which remains indicates that the angle was strongly directed backward. (Pl. 11, fig. 4; pl. 12, fig. 1.)

The jawbone of stejnegeri is quite damaged around the angle on both sides, but otherwise intact. When compared to the jawbone of an adult bidens, the most noticeable differences are the shorter symphysis, the sharp upward curve of the lower edge at the front, and the large size of the tooth socket. The symphysis in the adult Oregon specimen of stejnegeri measures 140 mm in length, which is barely longer than in the young specimen of europæus from New Jersey, and is exactly the same length as in the adult type specimen of the latter species, as shown by Van Beneden and Gervais. The tooth socket is positioned entirely behind the symphysis, with its front end being 160 mm from the front end of the jaw. It is 113 mm long and 18 mm wide. The jawbone is 62 mm high at its midpoint. The coronoid process is positioned more towards the front than in bidens, and the remaining part of the back edge of the ramus shows that the angle was pointed strongly backward. (Pl. 11, fig. 4; pl. 12, fig. 1.)

TEETH.

The teeth are remarkable for their size and form. They are somewhat more than twice as broad as teeth of adult males of bidens, as shown by the figures of Lankester[32] and Grieg,[33] and also a little longer. They are, in fact, probably broader than, or at least as broad as, the teeth of any other species of Mesoplodon, not excepting layardi. Sir William Turner remarks regarding a specimen of layardi examined by him that “the breadth of the tooth, where it emerged from the alveolus, was 3½ inches.”[34] He does not state, however, whether the measurement was taken along the top of the alveolus, at an angle with the transverse axis of the tooth, or along the transverse axis itself. At all events, the teeth figured by Owen and others are much less than 3½ inches broad. The teeth of adult europæus are only 2 inches broad, and of bidens, as already stated, 1½ inches broad.

The teeth are impressive in size and shape. They are more than twice as wide as the teeth of adult male bidens, as illustrated by the figures of Lankester[32] and Grieg,[33] and are also slightly longer. In fact, they are likely broader than, or at least as broad as, the teeth of any other Mesoplodon species, including layardi. Sir William Turner notes that in a specimen of layardi he examined, “the width of the tooth, where it came out of the socket, was 3½ inches.”[34] However, he doesn't specify if this measurement was taken along the top of the socket, at an angle to the tooth's transverse axis, or along the transverse axis itself. In any case, the teeth that Owen and others illustrated are much narrower than 3½ inches. The teeth of adult europæus are only 2 inches wide, and the teeth of bidens, as mentioned earlier, are 1½ inches wide.

In stejnegeri (Pl. 12, figs. 1-3) the portion of the tooth above the alveolus is inclined slightly inward and backward, but the pointed tip curves outward so as to be vertical. When extracted from the alveolus, the whole tooth is found to be concave internally and convex externally. The posterior margin is convex and the anterior sinuous, a slight convexity occurring on the portion which projects above the alveolus. In this place the outer coating of cement is broken through, showing the underlying dentine or osteo-dentine, which is somewhat corroded or absorbed. This is particularly noticeable on the left tooth.

In stejnegeri (Pl. 12, figs. 1-3), the part of the tooth above the gumline tilts slightly inward and backward, but the pointed tip curves outward to stand vertical. When taken out of the gum, the entire tooth is concave on the inside and convex on the outside. The back edge is rounded, and the front edge is wavy, with a slight roundness on the part that sticks above the gumline. Here, the outer layer of cement is broken, revealing the dentine or osteo-dentine underneath, which appears somewhat corroded or worn away. This is especially noticeable on the left tooth.

The upper margin of the tooth is transverse, or nearly at right angles with the anterior and posterior margins. The posterior angle is rounded and the anterior raised into an acute point by the projection of the dentine as a distinct, sharp cusp. [29] The inferior end of the tooth is cut off obliquely and the margin is broken by numerous prominent rugosities. The surface of all that part of the tooth which is contained in the alveolus and covered by the gum above it is rugose, while the part above the gum is quite smooth and highly polished.

The top edge of the tooth is horizontal or almost at a right angle with the front and back edges. The back angle is rounded, and the front is pointed by the projection of the dentin, forming a distinct, sharp cusp. [29] The bottom end of the tooth is cut off at an angle, and the edge has many prominent bumps. The surface of the part of the tooth that is in the jawbone and covered by the gum is rough, while the part above the gum is smooth and highly polished.

The right tooth has the following dimensions (in straight lines): Length of anterior border, 150 mm.; length of posterior border, 107; length of superior border, 54; length of inferior border, 86; average length of exposed dentine tip, 10; greatest breadth of tooth, antero-posteriorly, 81; greatest breadth of tooth, transversely, 15; distance from center of base of exposed portion, when in position in the alveolus, to tip of dentine projection, 82; distance from center of base of portion above the gum to tip of dentine projection, 70; distance from center of base of portion above the gum to center of inferior margin, 76.

The right tooth has the following dimensions (measured in straight lines): Length of the front edge, 150 mm; length of the back edge, 107 mm; length of the top edge, 54 mm; length of the bottom edge, 86 mm; average length of the visible dentine tip, 10 mm; widest part of the tooth from front to back, 81 mm; widest part of the tooth side to side, 15 mm; distance from the center of the base of the visible part, when positioned in the socket, to the tip of the dentine projection, 82 mm; distance from the center of the base of the part above the gum to the tip of the dentine projection, 70 mm; distance from the center of the base of the part above the gum to the center of the bottom edge, 76 mm.

The dimensions of the skulls are as follows, those of the type-specimen having been revised and corrected:

The measurements of the skulls are as follows, with those of the type specimen having been reviewed and updated:

Dimensions of two skulls of M. stejnegeri.

Dimensions of two skulls of M. stejnegeri.

Column headings:
A: 143132 U.S.N.M. Yaquina Bay, Oregon, adult.
B: 21112 U.S.N.M. Bering Id. Type (1715), young.
Measurements.AB
Total length715a633
Length of rostrum413a325
Distance from occipital condyles to distal end of maxillæ612567
Breadth between centers of orbits309279
Breadth between zygomatic processes310278
Breadth between temporal fossæ228212
Breadth between postorbital processes of frontals323...
Breadth of rostrum at base (between maxillary notches)172b158
Breadth of rostrum at middle4044
Depth of rostrum at middle5242+
Greatest breadth of anterior nares5654
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ proximally130118
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ in front of nares108109
Length of temporal fossa9286
Depth of temporal fossa6346
Antero-posterior length of orbit9682
Breadth of foramen magnum3839
Length of tympanic bulla48...
Breadth of tympanic bulla32...
Length of mandible610...
Length of symphysis138...
Distance from anterior end of mandible to alveolus166...
a Tip of rostrum lacking.
b The skull is much worn around the left notch and the measurement is only approximate.

EXTERNAL FORM.

The photograph of the head (Pl. 40, fig. 4) shows that the end of the beak was quite blunt, and the lower jaw quite a little longer than the upper. The superior margin of the lower jaw, which is concave in front of the tooth, is strongly convex and elevated at the side of it and behind it. The inferior margin of the upper jaw [30] is straight anteriorly, but farther back appears to be pressed upward by the tooth. An examination of the skull shows that the mandible can be lowered so that the teeth are below the upper jaw, but when so lowered the space between the teeth and the upper jaw on each side is barely a quarter of an inch (6 mm.). With the integuments in place, it is doubtful whether the mouth could be opened any wider than is shown in the photograph. The convexity of the head, shape of the blowhole, position of the eye, etc., do not appear to differ materially from the same characters in adults of M. bidens.

The photograph of the head (Pl. 40, fig. 4) shows that the end of the beak was quite blunt, and the lower jaw was a little longer than the upper. The top edge of the lower jaw, which curves in front of the tooth, is strongly curved and raised on the side and behind it. The bottom edge of the upper jaw [30] is straight at the front, but further back seems to be pushed upward by the tooth. An examination of the skull shows that the mandible can be lowered so that the teeth are below the upper jaw, but when lowered, the space between the teeth and the upper jaw on each side is barely a quarter of an inch (6 mm.). With the skin intact, it's doubtful whether the mouth could be opened any wider than what’s shown in the photograph. The rounded shape of the head, the shape of the blowhole, the position of the eye, etc., do not seem to differ significantly from the same features in adults of M. bidens.


Genus ZIPHIUS Cuvier.

ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS Cuvier.

Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier, Oss. foss., 2d ed., vol. 5, 1823, p. 353.
Hyperoödon gervaisii Duvernoy, Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 3, Zoöl., vol. 5, 1851, p. 49.
Ziphius gervaisii Fischer, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, vol. 3, 1867, p. 55.
Hyperoödon semi-junctus Handle, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 15.
Ziphius semijunctus True, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 8, 1886, p. 586.
Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 6, 1883, p. 77.

It has not seemed to me necessary in the present connection to attempt to cite all the multitudinous names which have been given to this species, especially as those zoologists most competent to judge, including Van Beneden, Flower, and Turner, after detailed consideration, have concluded that but one species of Ziphius, or at most two species, exist at present.[35]

It doesn’t seem necessary to list all the various names that have been assigned to this species right now, especially since the zoologists most qualified to assess the situation, like Van Beneden, Flower, and Turner, have concluded after careful examination that there is only one species of Ziphius, or at most two species, currently in existence.[35]

Nearly all the skulls in European museums are assigned by the zoologists mentioned to Z. cavirostris proper, but some doubt has been entertained regarding two or three European skulls, and one specimen from Argentina, described by Burmeister. These last-mentioned specimens have been thought to possibly represent a second species, Z. gervaisii. The principal characters of the latter are the narrow, flat premaxillæ, the lack of a prominent mesirostral ossification, and small teeth. From the large series of skulls in the National Museum, I am able to dispose of the doubt concerning Z. gervaisii. I find that wherever the characters above mentioned occur the sex (when known) is female. There is every reason, therefore, to believe that Z. gervaisii is the female of Z. cavirostris.[36] I will return to this point again later.

Nearly all the skulls in European museums are classified by the zoologists mentioned as Z. cavirostris proper, but there’s some doubt about two or three European skulls and one specimen from Argentina described by Burmeister. These latter specimens have been considered to possibly represent a second species, Z. gervaisii. The main characteristics of this species are the narrow, flat premaxillae, the absence of a prominent mesirostral ossification, and small teeth. From the extensive collection of skulls in the National Museum, I can clarify the doubt concerning Z. gervaisii. I’ve found that wherever the mentioned characteristics appear, the sex (when known) is female. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that Z. gervaisii is the female of Z. cavirostris. [36] I will return to this point again later.

In 1865 Cope described a species from Charleston, South Carolina, under the name of Hyperoödon semijunctus. In 1886 I referred it to the genus Ziphius, but [31] was in doubt as to its specific identity. I thought that it might represent Z. gervaisii, which is interesting in the present connection because the type-specimen was a female.

In 1865, Cope described a species from Charleston, South Carolina, calling it Hyperoödon semijunctus. In 1886, I placed it in the genus Ziphius, but I was uncertain about its specific identity. I thought it might be Z. gervaisii, which is relevant here because the type specimen was a female.

In 1883 Dr. L. Stejneger described a species which he had discovered on Bering Island, Bering Sea, under the name of Z. grebnitzkii. Through the instrumentality of Doctor Stejneger and Governor Grebnitzki, the National Museum later received a large series of skulls from the same locality. The question of whether this species is identical with Z. cavirostris, or distinct, has caused me much study, and forms the principal subject of this chapter.

In 1883, Dr. L. Stejneger described a species he discovered on Bering Island in the Bering Sea, naming it Z. grebnitzkii. Thanks to Dr. Stejneger and Governor Grebnitzki, the National Museum later received a large collection of skulls from the same area. The question of whether this species is the same as Z. cavirostris or different has required a lot of my study and is the main focus of this chapter.

The National Museum has at present the following material, which may be considered as certainly representing Z. cavirostris:

The National Museum currently has the following material, which can definitely be considered as representing Z. cavirostris:

1. A complete skeleton and cast of an adult female, 19 feet 4 inches long, obtained at Barnegat City, New Jersey, October 3, 1883. Cat. No. 20971.

1. A full skeleton and cast of an adult female, 19 feet 4 inches long, collected in Barnegat City, New Jersey, on October 3, 1883. Cat. No. 20971.

2. A complete skeleton and photographs of an adult male, 20 feet 1 inch long, obtained at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1901, through Dr. E. A. Mearns, Mr. L. di Z. Mearns, and Capt. Gus Soderman. Cat. No. 49599.

2. A full skeleton and photos of an adult male, 20 feet 1 inch long, obtained in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1901, through Dr. E. A. Mearns, Mr. L. di Z. Mearns, and Capt. Gus Soderman. Cat. No. 49599.

3. The collection contains also the skeleton of the young female individual obtained at Charleston, South Carolina, prior to 1865, which constitutes the type of Hyperoödon semijunctus Cope. It was originally in the Charleston College Museum, but later was received by the National Museum in exchange. This individual was between 12 and 13 feet long. Cat. No. 21975.

3. The collection also includes the skeleton of a young female obtained in Charleston, South Carolina, before 1865, which serves as the type of Hyperoödon semijunctus Cope. It was originally housed in the Charleston College Museum but was later transferred to the National Museum in exchange. This individual measured between 12 and 13 feet long. Cat. No. 21975.

In addition, the national collections contain the following material, known to, or supposed to, represent the species Z. grebnitzkii:

In addition, the national collections include the following materials, recognized or believed to represent the species Z. grebnitzkii:

4. Cat. No. 20993. Skull of a male (?).[37] Collected by Dr. L. Stejneger in Bering Island, 1882. Orig. No. 1521. Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii.

4. Cat. No. 20993. Skull of a male (?).[37] Collected by Dr. L. Stejneger on Bering Island, 1882. Orig. No. 1521. Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii.

5. Cat. No. 21245. Skull. Orig. No. 1758.

5. Cat. No. 21245. Skull. Orig. No. 1758.

6. Cat. No. 21246. Skull. Orig. No. 2531.

6. Cat. No. 21246. Skull. Orig. No. 2531.

7. Cat. No. 21247. Skull. Orig. No. 1849.

7. Cat. No. 21247. Skull. Orig. No. 1849.

8. Cat. No. 21248. Skull of a male (?).

8. Cat. No. 21248. Skull of a male (?).

9. Cat. No. 83991. Skull.

9. Cat. No. 83991. Skull.

The five skulls preceding were also collected by Doctor Stejneger in Bering Island in 1882 and 1883.

The five skulls mentioned earlier were also collected by Doctor Stejneger on Bering Island in 1882 and 1883.

10. Cat. No. 22069. Skull of a female (?).[37]

10. Cat. No. 22069. Skull of a female (?).[37]

11. Cat. No. 22874. Skull.

Cat No. 22874. Skull.

12. Cat. No. 22875. Bones of an immature individual.

12. Cat. No. 22875. Bones of a young individual.

These three specimens were collected and presented by N. Grebnitzki.

These three samples were collected and presented by N. Grebnitzki.

13. Cat. No. 142579. A series of photographs of an individual captured in Kiska Harbor, Alaska, September, 1904. Presented by Dr. J. Hobart Egbert.

13. Cat. No. 142579. A collection of photos of a person taken in Kiska Harbor, Alaska, September 1904. Submitted by Dr. J. Hobart Egbert.

14. Cat. No. 84906. Photograph of the skeleton of an individual washed ashore at St. Simon Island, Georgia, in 1893, and belonging to Mr. W. Arnold.

14. Cat. No. 84906. Photo of the skeleton of a person that washed up on St. Simon Island, Georgia, in 1893, owned by Mr. W. Arnold.

In the genus Ziphius, as in other ziphioid genera, a study of the characters of the skull appears to afford the best basis for discrimination of species. We have first to consider whether the North American species is the same as the European and New [32] Zealand species, and afterwards whether the North Pacific species is identical with or distinct from these.

In the genus Ziphius, just like in other ziphioid genera, examining the features of the skull seems to provide the most reliable way to differentiate between species. First, we need to determine if the North American species is the same as the European and New Zealand species. Then, we will see if the North Pacific species is the same as or different from these.

The published measurements of specimens from the coasts of Europe and New Zealand, currently believed to represent the single species Z. cavirostris, are rather meager, and, furthermore, prove, on examination, to present so little uniformity that they are of limited use for comparison with measurements of skulls from the Atlantic coast of the United States. About all that can be said is that the latter skulls are of about the same size as the former and that the proportions do not present any striking differences. For detailed measurements of the American skulls, see page 53.

The available measurements of specimens from the coasts of Europe and New Zealand, which are currently thought to belong to the single species Z. cavirostris, are quite limited. Moreover, upon closer inspection, they lack uniformity, making them not very useful for comparing with measurements of skulls from the Atlantic coast of the United States. The only notable observation is that the American skulls are roughly the same size as the others and their proportions do not show any significant differences. For detailed measurements of the American skulls, see page 53.

On account of the uncertainty as regards the measurements, I have had recourse to the published descriptions and figures, especially those of Van Beneden, Sir William Turner, and Doctor Haast. So far as I can perceive, there is nothing in these descriptions that is not applicable to the skulls Nos. 49599 and 20971, from Newport, Rhode Island, and Barnegat City, New Jersey, respectively, in the National Museum, and I can find no reason for regarding the latter other than as representatives of Z. cavirostris.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the measurements, I've referred to the published descriptions and figures, especially those from Van Beneden, Sir William Turner, and Doctor Haast. From what I can tell, there’s nothing in these descriptions that doesn’t apply to skulls Nos. 49599 and 20971, from Newport, Rhode Island, and Barnegat City, New Jersey, respectively, in the National Museum. I see no reason to consider the latter as anything other than representatives of Z. cavirostris.

HISTORY OF THE NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, SPECIMEN.

Of the Newport specimen, No. 49599, the Museum has the complete skeleton, together with external measurements and a photograph. From data at hand it appears that the animal was originally obtained in Narragansett Bay about October 30, 1901, and afterwards towed to Fort Adams, near Newport. A few days later it was sent adrift again and stranded in the harbor of Dutch Island, near Canonicut Island, which is opposite Newport. While at Fort Adams its existence was made known to the Museum by Dr. E. A. Mearns, U. S. Army, and his son, Louis Mearns; and a preparator was sent to obtain the skeleton. With the aid of Captain Soderman, of the government tug Monroe, he found it at Dutch Island, and reported that it was a male, 20 feet 1 inch in length, measured along the curves of the back (18 feet 6 inches in a straight line). The epidermis was nearly all lacking, but the back appeared to have been black. The length in a straight line, as reported by Mr. Louis Mearns, was 19 feet. The complete measurements taken by the preparator, Mr. J. W. Scollick, are as follows:

Of the Newport specimen, No. 49599, the Museum has the complete skeleton, along with external measurements and a photograph. From the available information, it seems that the animal was initially found in Narragansett Bay around October 30, 1901, and was later towed to Fort Adams, near Newport. A few days later, it was released again and stranded in the harbor of Dutch Island, near Conanicut Island, which is across from Newport. While at Fort Adams, Dr. E. A. Mearns from the U.S. Army and his son, Louis Mearns, informed the Museum of its presence; a preparator was sent to collect the skeleton. With the help of Captain Soderman from the government tug Monroe, they located it at Dutch Island and reported that it was a male, measuring 20 feet 1 inch in length along the curves of its back (18 feet 6 inches in a straight line). The outer layer of skin was mostly gone, but the back seemed to have been black. According to Mr. Louis Mearns, the straight line measurement was 19 feet. The full measurements taken by the preparator, Mr. J. W. Scollick, are as follows:

External dimensions of Ziphius cavirostris, male, Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M., Newport, Rhode Island.

External dimensions of Ziphius cavirostris, male, Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M., Newport, Rhode Island.

Ft.in.
Total length, along curve of back201
Total length, in straight line186
Tip of snout to posterior margin of dorsal fin1310
Tip of snout to axilla52
Tip of snout to eye2
Tip of snout to anterior margin of blowhole24
Length of mouth11
Breadth of blowhole0
Length of pectoral fin, from head of humerus to tip, straight22
Vertical height of dorsal fin010
Breadth of flukes, from tip to tip53
Greatest girth (estimated)100
[33]

The breadth of the pectoral fin, as shown by the skeleton, was 5¾ inches.

The width of the pectoral fin, as indicated by the skeleton, was 5¾ inches.

The photograph, which is reproduced in Pl. 41, fig. 4, gives a good idea of the general form of the animal.

The photograph, which is reproduced in Pl. 41, fig. 4, provides a clear view of the animal's overall shape.

HISTORY OF THE BARNEGAT CITY, NEW JERSEY, SPECIMEN.

Of the Barnegat City specimen, No. 20971, the Museum has the complete skeleton, together with a cast of one-half of the entire animal, and another of the head, and some measurements, all of which were obtained by Mr. William Palmer and myself October 3, 1883. The Museum received notice of the stranding of this specimen from Capt. J. H. Ridgway, of the United States life-saving station at Barnegat City. It was an adult female, 19 feet 4 inches long in a straight line. The complete measurements, taken in straight lines with a rod and cord, are as follows:

Of the Barnegat City specimen, No. 20971, the Museum has the complete skeleton, along with a cast of half the entire animal, a cast of the head, and some measurements, all of which were collected by Mr. William Palmer and me on October 3, 1883. The Museum was informed about this specimen being stranded by Capt. J. H. Ridgway, from the United States life-saving station at Barnegat City. It was an adult female, measuring 19 feet 4 inches in a straight line. The complete measurements, taken with a rod and cord in straight lines, are as follows:

External dimensions of Ziphius cavirostris, female, Cat. No. 20971, U.S.N.M., Barnegat City, New Jersey.
(Measured in straight lines with rope and bar.)

External dimensions of Ziphius cavirostris, female, Cat. No. 20971, U.S.N.M., Barnegat City, New Jersey.
(Measured in straight lines with rope and bar.)

Ft.in.
Total length194
Tip of snout to eyes21
Tip of snout to blowhole20
Tip of snout to anterior base of pectoral fin310½
Tip of snout to anterior base of dorsal fin120
Tip of snout to anterior angle of vent12
Tip of snout to corner of mouth11½
Length of anterior margin of pectoral fin2
Length along center of pectoral fin17
Greatest breadth across pectoral fin
Length of anterior margin of dorsal fin16
Length of base of dorsal fin10
Vertical height of dorsal fin10
Breadth of flukes from tip to tip55
Antero-posterior length of flukes17
Length of eye2
Breadth of eye1
Girth around eyes3
Girth at anterior margin of dorsal fin7
Girth at root of pectoral fins6
Breadth of lower jaw at middle of length
Breadth of upper jaw at middle of length5
Breadth of blowhole5
Distance from posterior angle of eye to ear

I neglected to make a full description of the color, but noted that it was stone gray, lighter above and darker below; snout nearly white. The cast, which was painted from a sketch made at Barnegat City and from pieces of skin brought to Washington, bears out this note in general, but with modifications. The color of the body as a whole is gray tinged with dull yellowish. The gray is darker on the back than on the belly, but on the latter is a large area of dark brown, reaching from near the pectoral fins to and beyond the anus, and halfway up on the sides. On this dark area are several large oval whitish blotches, some two inches in [34] diameter. Both upper and lower jaws nearly to the angle of the mouth are cream white. On the sides and belly the gray color is speckled with black spots of about the size of a grain of wheat. The pectoral fins are dark gray above and below; the flukes were similarly colored.

I didn’t fully describe the color, but I noted that it was stone gray, lighter on top and darker on the bottom; the snout was almost white. The cast, which was painted from a sketch made in Barnegat City and from pieces of skin sent to Washington, generally reflects this observation but with some changes. The overall color of the body is gray with dull yellowish tints. The gray on the back is darker than on the belly, but there’s a large area of dark brown on the belly that extends from near the pectoral fins to beyond the anus and halfway up the sides. On this dark area, there are several large oval whitish blotches, some about two inches in diameter. Both the upper and lower jaws, nearly up to the angle of the mouth, are cream white. On the sides and belly, the gray color is speckled with black spots about the size of a grain of wheat. The pectoral fins are dark gray both above and below; the flukes have a similar color.

A comparison of the dimensions of the two specimens above described with those of European and New Zealand specimens is afforded by the following table (the measurements being reduced to percentages of the total length):

A comparison of the sizes of the two specimens mentioned above with those from Europe and New Zealand is provided in the following table (the measurements are expressed as percentages of the total length):

External dimensions of Ziphius cavirostris. (Reduced to percentages of the total length.)

External dimensions of Ziphius cavirostris. (Reduced to percentages of the total length.)

Column Headings:
A: Newport, Rhode Island 49599 U.S.N.M., male, 1901.
B: Barnegat City, New Jersey, 20971 U.S.N.M., female, 1883.
C: New Brighton, New Zealand, female.
D: Punta, Corsica, 1842.
E: Buenos Ayres, Argentina, male, 1865.
Measurements.AaAbBbCDE
Ft.in.Ft.in.Ft.in.Ft.in.Ft.in.Ft.in.
Total length2011861941961901211½
Per cent.Per cent.Per cent.Per cent.Per cent.Per cent.
Tip of snout to posterior margin of dorsal69.074.867.2[67.1][78.5][70.8]
Tip of snout to axilla25.328.0c20.0d24.4...c[25.0]
Tip of snout to eyek12.213.310.812.8...10.9
Tip of snout to anterior end blowhole11.212.610.4......11.4
Length of mouth5.45.9e 5.06.4...[ f] 5.3
Breadth of blowhole2.32.52.22.6...1.2
Length of pectoral from head of humerus10.811.7...g12.8......
Length of pectoral from axillah7.58.1hi8.1...g 8.38.6
Greatest breadth of pectoral finj2.4j2.62.93.02.93.0
Vertical height of dorsal fin4.14.55.23.43.54.3
Breadth of flukes, tip to tip fin26.128.428.031.2...27.3
a Curvilinear.
b Straight.
c To anterior base.
d Lower jaw to “beginning of pectoral.”
e From tip of upper jaw.
f From tip of lower jaw.
g Points of measurements not specified.
h From the bones; from outer anterior margin of proximal expansion of ulna.
i Along center.
j From the bones. The external measurement originally taken by Scollick is entirely too large.
k The skull gives this measurement as 10.4 per cent. The original measurement by Scollick is entirely too large and can not be correct. The same is probably true regarding length to blowhole, but I can not prove it.

The close correspondence in proportions shown in this table favors the idea of specific identity, and taken with the similarity in size, and characters of the skull, warrants, I think, the assumption that the specimens from the Atlantic coast of the United States belong to Z. cavirostris.

The close match in proportions shown in this table supports the idea of specific identity, and combined with the similarity in size and features of the skull, leads me to believe that the specimens from the Atlantic coast of the United States belong to Z. cavirostris.

COLORATION.

It should be remarked, however, that the Barnegat City specimen does not agree in color with any of the European or New Zealand specimens. On the other hand, the latter show a most extraordinary diversity in color, some being black, with the head and back as far as the dorsal fin white; others all black above, white [35] below, and the head black and brown. The color of the young specimen from Buenos Ayres, Argentina, is described by Burmeister as follows:

It should be noted, however, that the Barnegat City specimen does not match the color of any European or New Zealand specimens. In contrast, those specimens show an incredible variety of colors, some being black with a white head and back up to the dorsal fin; others are entirely black on top, white underneath, with the head being black and brown. The color of the young specimen from Buenos Aires, Argentina, is described by Burmeister as follows:

All the body of the animal is of a light gray color, a little yellowish, resembling the color of light ash, but much darker on the back and much lighter on the belly. The fins are much darker than the back—almost black—and the large fin of the tail has a very pure white area of irregular shape on the underside.

The animal's body is a light gray with a slight yellowish tint, resembling the color of light ash, but it's much darker on the back and considerably lighter on the belly. The fins are significantly darker than the back—almost black—and the large tail fin has a white area of irregular shape on the underside.

If the indications from the skull and proportions are trustworthy Z. cavirostris must be a species in which the color is very variable, differing perhaps in the two sexes, or with differences in age. This is, however, by no means certain at present, and whether the diversities of color reported in different specimens are merely individual variations, or are due to post-mortem changes, remains to be discovered. It will be noticed that the color of the Argentine specimen is nearest to that of the Barnegat City specimen.

If the signs from the skull and proportions are reliable, Z. cavirostris must be a species with highly variable color, possibly differing between the sexes or changing with age. However, this isn’t confirmed yet, and it’s still unclear whether the color variations in different specimens are just individual differences or if they result from changes after death. It's worth noting that the color of the Argentine specimen is closest to that of the Barnegat City specimen.

TYPE OF ZIPHIUS SEMIJUNCTUS (COPE).

The type-specimen of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope), as already mentioned, is a young female.[38] The most noticeable characters which it presents are that the premaxillæ are flat proximally, and that the teeth are small, sharp-pointed and open at the roots. The form of the teeth is undoubtedly due to immaturity, but [36] as the shape of the premaxillæ is similar to that found in the nominal species gervaisii, it might be thought necessary to refer semijunctus to the latter species. As will be shown later, however, this form of the premaxillæ appears to be characteristic of the adult female of cavirostris, and of immature individuals of either sex, the young, as in many kinds of animals, resembling the adult female rather than the male.

The type specimen of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope), as mentioned earlier, is a young female. [38] The most noticeable features it shows are that the premaxillae are flat at the base, and the teeth are small, sharp-pointed, and open at the roots. The shape of the teeth is definitely due to being young, but [36] since the shape of the premaxillae is similar to that found in the nominal species gervaisii, one might think it's necessary to refer semijunctus to the latter species. However, as will be shown later, this shape of the premaxillae appears to be characteristic of the adult female of cavirostris and of immature individuals of either sex, with the young, as in many animal species, resembling the adult female more than the male.

I have been able to find but one character in the skull of semijunctus which might be regarded as specific. This is that the lachrymal bone is thick distally, and cut off square at the end. In other specimens of Ziphius examined it is thin and flat, and rounded or pointed at the end. As there is much individual variation in the form of the lachrymal, this peculiarity alone is, in my opinion, an insufficient indication of the validity of the species.

I found only one characteristic in the skull of semijunctus that could be considered specific. This is that the lachrymal bone is thick at the end and cut off straight across. In other examined specimens of Ziphius, it is thin and flat, rounded or pointed at the end. Since there is significant individual variation in the shape of the lachrymal, I believe this unique feature alone is not enough to validate the species.

COMPARISON OF SKELETONS.

A comparison of the skeletons of the three individuals from the Atlantic coast of the United States reveals a number of differences of more or less importance. Were it not for the lack of reliable differences in the skulls, it might be considered that these variations in other parts of the skeletons indicated specific difference. I am disposed, however, since the Barnegat and Newport specimens are of opposite sexes, to regard them partly as sexual and partly as individual. In the case of the Charleston specimen (semijunctus), the skeleton, besides being immature, has been very much damaged by careless handling, and nearly all the bones are somewhat abraded. It is, therefore, only available to a limited extent for purposes of comparison. As no description of a Ziphius skeleton from the coast of the United States has, so far as I am aware, been published hitherto, and as descriptions of skeletons of Old World specimens are few and rather brief, I shall give below a detailed comparative description of the American specimens. For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to each specimen merely by the locality.

A comparison of the skeletons of the three individuals from the Atlantic coast of the United States shows several differences of varying degrees of significance. If there weren't reliable differences in the skulls, these variations in other parts of the skeletons could be seen as indicating specific differences. However, since the Barnegat and Newport specimens are of opposite sexes, I tend to view them as partly sexual and partly individual. For the Charleston specimen (semijunctus), the skeleton is both immature and has been significantly damaged due to careless handling, with almost all the bones being somewhat worn down. Therefore, it can only be used for comparison to a limited extent. As far as I know, there's been no published description of a Ziphius skeleton from the coast of the United States, and descriptions of Old World specimens are few and quite brief. So, I'll provide a detailed comparative description of the American specimens below. To keep it simple, I’ll refer to each specimen only by its location.

VERTEBRAL COLUMN AS A WHOLE.

The vertebral formula in the three North American specimens and in four Old World specimens and Burmeister’s Argentine specimen is as follows:

The vertebral formula in the three North American specimens, four Old World specimens, and Burmeister’s Argentine specimen is as follows:

Vertebral formula of Ziphius cavirostris.

Spine structure of Ziphius cavirostris.

Locality and sex.C.Th.L.Ca.Total.
Newport, Rhode Island, male79102046
Barnegat City, New Jersey, female791118(+1?)46(?)
Charleston, South Carolina, female7101016(+3?)46(?)
Holma, Sweden (Malm)7101018(+1)46
Pisa Museum (Van Beneden)791116+43+
Warrington, New Zealand (Scott and Parker)71092046
Lyttleton Harbor, New Zealand (Haast)79111946
Buenos Ayres, Argentina (Burmeister), male710102249
[37]

In the figures of the Argentine specimen the last ten caudals are practically without characters, and it is perhaps allowable to question whether the terminal two or three were not added to make an even taper to the end of the column. If such be not the case, this specimen had more vertebræ than any other.

In the Argentine specimen, the last ten tail vertebrae barely show any distinct features, and it might be worth questioning whether the last two or three were included just to create a smooth taper at the end of the column. If that’s not true, then this specimen had more vertebrae than any other.

CHARACTERS OF THE VERTEBRÆ.

Newport (male).—The seventh cervical vertebra presents a conical metapophysis, which on the first thoracic vertebra forms of a rather thick, long, declining process ending in a facet for the tubercle of the first rib. This metapophysis maintains nearly the same form as far as the sixth thoracic vertebra, but on the third thoracic a mammiliform process makes its appearance on the anterior margin near the tip, and becomes more prominent on each succeeding vertebra. On the seventh thoracic it becomes larger, thin, and upright, and widely separated from the articular facet for the tubercle of the rib. On the centrum of this vertebra lower down is a second much larger rugose articular facet. On the eighth thoracic vertebra the upper articular process disappears altogether and is replaced by a transverse process on a lower level, with a facet at the free end for the rib. On the ninth thoracic the transverse processes are larger and nearly straight. They are longer on the first lumbar and incline a little forward. Those of the succeeding vertebræ are similar, but decrease gradually in length, while somewhat increasing in breadth. They are last traceable on the ninth caudal. On the eighth caudal they are perforated by a foramen.

Newport (male).—The seventh cervical vertebra has a cone-shaped metapophysis, which on the first thoracic vertebra forms a fairly thick, long, downward-tilting process that ends in a facet for the tubercle of the first rib. This metapophysis keeps a similar shape up to the sixth thoracic vertebra, but on the third thoracic vertebra, a small rounded process appears on the front edge near the tip and becomes more pronounced on each subsequent vertebra. On the seventh thoracic vertebra, it gets larger, thinner, and upright, and is widely spaced from the articular facet for the rib's tubercle. On the body of this vertebra lower down, there is a second, much larger, roughened articular facet. On the eighth thoracic vertebra, the upper articular process disappears entirely and is replaced by a transverse process lower down, which has a facet at the end for the rib. On the ninth thoracic vertebra, the transverse processes are larger and almost straight. They are longer on the first lumbar vertebra and tilt slightly forward. The processes on the following vertebrae are similar but gradually decrease in length while somewhat increasing in width. They can be traced to the ninth caudal vertebra. On the eighth caudal vertebra, they have a hole (foramen) in them.

All the vertebræ from the first cervical backward have neural spines as far as and including the eleventh caudal. The spine on the first thoracic is rather short, narrow and pointed. These spines increase in height in succeeding vertebræ as far as the sixth lumbar; at the same time the breadth increases antero-posteriorly and the tip becomes expanded. The spines are nearly equally high on all the succeeding lumbars, but begin to decrease on the caudals and disappear altogether on the eleventh caudal.

All the vertebrae from the first cervical one back have neural spines up to and including the eleventh caudal. The spine on the first thoracic vertebra is quite short, narrow, and pointed. These spines get taller in the following vertebrae up to the sixth lumbar; at the same time, their width increases from front to back, and the tips become wider. The spines are about the same height on all the following lumbar vertebrae, but they start to decrease on the caudals and vanish completely on the eleventh caudal.

The anterior zygapophyses and metapophyses maintain a nearly constant position close to the top of the centra throughout the column, from the seventh thoracic backward, and are vertical, thin, and oblong, squared or rounded. They begin to decrease in size noticeably on the first caudal, and on the seventh caudal are mere swellings at the sides of the nearly horizontal plate from which the neural spine springs. They are traceable as far as the twelfth caudal.

The front zygapophyses and metapophyses stay nearly in the same position near the top of the centra throughout the column, starting from the seventh thoracic vertebra and continuing backward. They are vertical, thin, and oblong, either squared or rounded. Their size noticeably decreases starting at the first caudal vertebra, and by the seventh caudal, they are just small bumps on the sides of the nearly horizontal plate from which the neural spine begins. They can be seen all the way to the twelfth caudal vertebra.

A ridge appears on the side of the neural arch near its base on the fifth caudal and is stronger and very marked on those following, to the ninth caudal. A ridge unites the anterior and posterior facets for the chevrons on the ninth and succeeding caudals.

A ridge shows up on the side of the neural arch close to its base on the fifth caudal and is more pronounced and clearly defined on the following ones, up to the ninth caudal. A ridge connects the front and back facets for the chevrons on the ninth and the following caudals.

Barnegat City (female).—Unlike the Newport skeleton, there are no neural spines on the fifth, sixth, and seventh cervicals. The spine on the first thoracic vertebra is quite short and sharp, and on the second, third, and fourth thoracics also is rather pointed, though of increased length. There is no metapophysis on the seventh cervical.

Barnegat City (female).—Unlike the Newport skeleton, there are no neural spines on the fifth, sixth, and seventh cervical vertebrae. The spine on the first thoracic vertebra is fairly short and sharp, and on the second, third, and fourth thoracic vertebrae, it is also quite pointed, but longer. There is no metapophysis on the seventh cervical vertebra.

[38]

On the seventh thoracic the facet for the tubercle of the rib, instead of being very prominent, becomes inconspicuous. The metapophysis is flat and squared, and there is no lower facet on the side of the centrum. On the eighth thoracic the metapophysis is thin, squared, and vertical, and a well-formed transverse process appears on the side of the centrum. The transverse processes of the ninth thoracic are a little curved backward, and on the first lumbar and succeeding vertebræ bent forward. These processes are less tapering on all the lumbars than in the Newport skeleton. They disappear on the eighth caudal. None is perforated.

On the seventh thoracic vertebra, the facet for the rib tubercle is less noticeable instead of being very prominent. The metapophysis is flat and square, and there’s no lower facet on the side of the body. On the eighth thoracic, the metapophysis is thin, square, and vertical, with a well-defined transverse process on the side of the body. The transverse processes of the ninth thoracic curve slightly backward, while on the first lumbar and the following vertebrae, they bend forward. These processes are less pointed on all the lumbar vertebrae compared to the Newport skeleton. They disappear on the eighth caudal vertebra, and none of them have any perforations.

The longest neural spine is on the sixth lumbar, and on all the lumbars both the anterior and posterior edges are somewhat convex. Hence their shape is rather different from those of the Newport skeleton, in which the anterior margins are somewhat concave. The tips of the spines are rather suddenly expanded. The spines of the caudals are rather more expanded at the tip and more inclined backward than in the Newport skeleton. They disappear on the eleventh caudal.

The longest neural spine is on the sixth lumbar, and on all the lumbars, both the front and back edges are slightly curved. As a result, their shape is quite different from that of the Newport skeleton, where the front edges are slightly indented. The tips of the spines are noticeably wider. The spines of the caudals are also wider at the tips and are angled more backward than those in the Newport skeleton. They fade away on the eleventh caudal.

The horizontal plate joining the metapophyses is noticeable on the fifth caudal. The ridge on the side of the neural arch is first noticeable on the fourth caudal and is very strong on the fifth, sixth, and seventh. The metapophyses are last traceable on the twelfth caudal.

The horizontal plate connecting the metapophyses is visible on the fifth caudal. The ridge on the side of the neural arch first appears on the fourth caudal and is quite prominent on the fifth, sixth, and seventh. The metapophyses are hardly noticeable by the twelfth caudal.

Charleston (female, jr.).—This skeleton resembles the Newport one as regards the facets for the articulation of the tubercles of the ribs, except that the seventh thoracic resembles the sixth and has no lower facet on the side of the centrum. The transverse processes of the ninth thoracic are rather strongly curved backward, while those on the last thoracic and first lumbar are nearly straight. On succeeding vertebræ they are inclined forward. They are last traceable on the eighth or ninth caudal (vertebra 35 or 36). None is perforated by a foramen.

Charleston (female, jr.).—This skeleton is similar to the Newport one in terms of the surfaces where the rib tubercles connect, except that the seventh thoracic vertebra is like the sixth and doesn’t have a lower facet on the side of the centrum. The transverse processes of the ninth thoracic vertebra are noticeably curved backward, while those on the last thoracic and first lumbar vertebrae are almost straight. On the following vertebrae, they lean forward. They can be traced on the eighth or ninth caudal vertebra (vertebra 35 or 36). None are pierced by a foramen.

Though the vertebræ are defective, there appear to have been no neural spines on the fourth to the seventh cervicals, inclusive. The spine on the first thoracic is short, and on the first to the fourth is pointed. The spine disappears on the tenth caudal (vertebra 37).

Though the vertebrae are flawed, it seems there were no neural spines on the fourth to the seventh cervical vertebrae, inclusive. The spine on the first thoracic vertebra is short, and from the first to the fourth, it is pointed. The spine disappears on the tenth caudal (vertebra 37).

The metapophyses assume the vertical position on the eighth thoracic. The last of these processes is barely traceable on the tenth caudal (vertebra 37). The ridge on the side of the neural arch is well marked on the fifth to the ninth caudals, inclusive. On the seventh caudal (vertebra 34) the anterior and posterior facets for the chevrons are united on the right side, and on the eighth caudal and succeeding vertebræ on both sides.

The metapophyses take on a vertical position on the eighth thoracic. The last of these processes is barely noticeable on the tenth caudal (vertebra 37). The ridge on the side of the neural arch is clearly defined on the fifth to the ninth caudals, inclusive. On the seventh caudal (vertebra 34), the front and back facets for the chevrons are joined on the right side, and on the eighth caudal and following vertebrae on both sides.

CERVICAL VERTEBRÆ.

Barnegat City (female).—The first four cervicals are united. The foramen above the anterior articular facets of the atlas is complete, and the edges of these facets are raised. The inferior lateral process is flat, broad, and strongly bent backward.

Barnegat City (female).—The first four cervical vertebrae are fused. The hole above the front articular surfaces of the atlas is intact, and the edges of these surfaces are elevated. The lower side process is flat, wide, and sharply angled backward.

Second cervical: Inferior lateral process nearly as long as that of the first cervical; broad, flat, and bent backward parallel with the process of the first cervical. Superior lateral process short, strong, and flat. A large incomplete foramen between it and the inferior process.

Second cervical: The inferior lateral process is almost as long as that of the first cervical; it's broad, flat, and bent backward parallel to the process of the first cervical. The superior lateral process is short, sturdy, and flat. There's a large incomplete foramen between it and the inferior process.

[39]

Third cervical: A short, conical inferior process, curved forward.

Third cervical: A short, cone-shaped lower process that curves forward.

Fourth cervical: Similar, but with smaller and shorter inferior process. Neural arch and spine complete; the latter fused with the preceding spines. Arch not reducing the size of the neural canal.

Fourth cervical: Similar, but with a smaller and shorter inferior process. The neural arch and spine are complete; the spine is fused with the previous spines. The arch does not reduce the size of the neural canal.

Fifth cervical: Arch and spine broken. Arch nearly as broad as the anterior epiphysis of the centrum. Inferior lateral process short, straight, and directed obliquely outward.

Fifth cervical: Arch and spine are broken. The arch is almost as wide as the front end of the center. The lower side process is short, straight, and slants outward.

Sixth cervical: Spine broken. Arch complete, nearly as wide as the anterior epiphysis. Inferior lateral process short, thick, knobbed, and directed obliquely outward and a very little forward. The left longer.

Sixth cervical: Spine broken. Arch complete, nearly as wide as the front epiphysis. The lower lateral process is short, thick, knob-like, and angled slightly outward and a bit forward. The left side is longer.

Seventh cervical: Spine obsolete. Arch complete, as wide as the anterior epiphysis. No superior lateral process or metapophysis. A thick articular facet for the head of the first rib on the middle of the side of the centrum. No inferior lateral process.

Seventh cervical: Spine outdated. Arch fully formed, as wide as the front epiphysis. No upper lateral process or metapophysis. A thick joint surface for the head of the first rib located in the middle of the side of the centrum. No lower lateral process.

Fused spines of the first to fourth cervicals bent backward; the mass broad antero-posteriorly and rounded at the tip.

Fused spines of the first to fourth cervical vertebrae curved backward; the mass was broad from front to back and rounded at the tip.

Newport (male).—First cervical with the foramen over the anterior articular facets incomplete, and the borders of the facets less raised. The facets also broader and more declined. Inferior lateral process thicker, somewhat tapering, and nearly transverse.

Newport (male).—The first cervical vertebra has an incomplete foramen over the front articular facets, and the edges of the facets are less elevated. The facets are also wider and more angled downwards. The lower lateral process is thicker, slightly tapering, and almost horizontal.

Second cervical: Inferior lateral process much shorter than that of first cervical, about parallel with it, but with the tip bent forward. Superior lateral process short, thick, and bent backward; joined to the inferior process on the right side, inclosing an oval foramen.

Second cervical: The inferior lateral process is much shorter than that of the first cervical, about parallel with it, but the tip is bent forward. The superior lateral process is short, thick, and bent backward; it is connected to the inferior process on the right side, enclosing an oval foramen.

Third cervical: A short, straight, triangular superior process on the right side; that on the left short and blunt. Inferior lateral process long, thick, club-shaped, and curved backward.

Third cervical: A short, straight, triangular superior process on the right side; that on the left is short and blunt. The inferior lateral process is long, thick, club-shaped, and curves backward.

Fourth cervical: Inferior lateral process similar to the last in shape, but shorter, broad and flat, and only slightly curved backward. Neural arch and spine separate from those of the third cervical; the arch rather smaller than those preceding it, and reducing the size of the neural canal.

Fourth cervical: The inferior lateral process is similar in shape to the last one but is shorter, broader, and flatter, with only a slight backward curve. The neural arch and spine are separate from those of the third cervical; the arch is somewhat smaller than those before it, which reduces the size of the neural canal.

Fused spines of the first to third cervicals nearly vertical, rather high, and obtusely pointed.

Fused spines of the first to third cervical vertebrae are almost vertical, quite high, and bluntly pointed.

Fifth cervical: Spine pointed and quite long. Arch complete. Inferior lateral process short, squared, flattened, and directed outward obliquely.

Fifth cervical: Spine sharp and fairly long. Arch complete. The lower side process is short, squared, flattened, and angled outward obliquely.

Sixth cervical: Spine about as long as on the fifth cervical. Arch much narrower than the anterior epiphysis. Inferior lateral process prominent, thick, somewhat compressed, and directed downward.

Sixth cervical: Spine about as long as the fifth cervical. The arch is much narrower than the front epiphysis. The inferior lateral process is prominent, thick, somewhat compressed, and angled downward.

Seventh cervical: Spine as high as the arch, obtusely pointed. Arch complete, as wide as the anterior epiphysis. A strong conical superior lateral process, or metapophysis, on a broad base, directed forward. An articular raised facet on the side of the centrum, directed obliquely backward. No inferior lateral process.

Seventh cervical: Spine reaches as high as the arch, with a blunt point. The arch is complete, as wide as the front epiphysis. A strong conical superior lateral process, or metapophysis, sits on a broad base and faces forward. There's an elevated articular facet on the side of the centrum, angled obliquely backward. No inferior lateral process.

Charleston (female, jr.).—The first to fourth cervicals resemble those of the Newport skeleton, but the fourth entirely separate. All the lateral processes undeveloped, or broken off, except the right inferior lateral process of the atlas, [40] which is like that of the Newport specimen. The anterior foramen of the atlas is incomplete, as in that specimen, and the spines of the conjoined vertebræ are vertical and pointed. (Pl. 25, fig. 1.)

Charleston (female, jr.).—The first to fourth cervical vertebrae are similar to those of the Newport skeleton, but the fourth one is completely separate. All the lateral processes are either undeveloped or broken off, except for the right inferior lateral process of the atlas, which is like that of the Newport specimen. The anterior foramen of the atlas is incomplete, just like in that specimen, and the spines of the fused vertebrae are vertical and pointed. (Pl. 25, fig. 1.)

Fifth cervical: Spine wanting. Arch complete. Inferior lateral process undeveloped, or abraded.

Fifth cervical: Spine missing. Arch is complete. The lower side process is underdeveloped or worn down.

Sixth cervical: Spine and processes broken. Arch wide.

Sixth cervical: Spine and processes fractured. Arch is broad.

Seventh cervical: Similar to that of the Newport skeleton, but the spine obsolete or broken.

Seventh cervical: Similar to the Newport skeleton, but the spine is either outdated or damaged.

THORACIC VERTEBRÆ.

Barnegat City (female).—First thoracic: Spine vertical, pointed, about as high as arch and centrum together. A moderately long process with articular facet for tubercle of rib on side of neural arch; facet elliptical and directed a little downward and forward. A smaller facet for head of second rib on posterior upper edge of centrum.

Barnegat City (female).—First thoracic: The spine is vertical and pointed, about the same height as the arch and centrum combined. There is a moderately long process with an articular facet for the tubercle of the rib on the side of the neural arch; the facet is elliptical and slightly angled downward and forward. A smaller facet for the head of the second rib is located on the upper back edge of the centrum.

Seventh thoracic: Metapophyses long, extending horizontally, straight superiorly. A small articular facet on the outer side near the base, directed downward; strongest on right side. A very small facet on posterior upper edge of centrum, scarcely noticeable on right side. Neural spine rather narrow at tip; superior margin straight.

Seventh thoracic: Metapophyses are long, extending horizontally and straight upwards. There's a small articular facet on the outer side near the base, pointing downward; it's strongest on the right side. A very small facet is present on the upper back edge of the centrum, hardly noticeable on the right side. The neural spine is fairly narrow at the tip, with a straight upper margin.

Eighth thoracic: Metapophyses squared and thin. A distinct transverse process on side of centrum about half as broad as the centrum is long, and as long as centrum is broad; flattened, squared, and a little curved backward and upward. Articular facet for rib elliptical and directed obliquely backward. A broad, shallow groove across base of transverse process, the anterior edge of which is emarginate proximally. Neural spine as in seventh thoracic.

Eighth thoracic: The metapophyses are squared and thin. There's a clearly defined transverse process on the side of the centrum that is about half as wide as the centrum is long and as long as the centrum is wide; it's flattened, squared, and slightly curved backward and upward. The articular facet for the rib is elliptical and angled obliquely backward. There’s a broad, shallow groove across the base of the transverse process, with the anterior edge being notched at the proximal end. The neural spine is similar to that of the seventh thoracic.

Ninth thoracic: Metapophyses squared. Transverse process similar to that of eighth thoracic, but equal to centrum in length, little narrowed at base, and directed outward; anterior edge convex, posterior concave; articular facet occupying the posterior half of the distal edge. A very shallow groove proximally.

Ninth thoracic: Metapophyses are squared. The transverse process is similar to that of the eighth thoracic but matches the length of the centrum, slightly narrowed at the base, and directed outward; the anterior edge is convex, and the posterior edge is concave; the articular facet occupies the posterior half of the distal edge. There's a very shallow groove proximally.

Newport (male).—First thoracic: Neural spine a little curved backward and rounded at tip; much higher than length of arch and centrum together. Articular facets as in Barnegat skeleton.

Newport (male).—First thoracic: The neural spine is slightly curved backward and rounded at the tip; it is much higher than the combined length of the arch and the centrum. The articular facets are similar to those in the Barnegat skeleton.

Seventh thoracic: Metapophyses similar in shape to those of Barnegat skeleton but with a very distinct facet on side of arch, terminating a process about as long as the greatest diameter of the facet; surface of facet rugose. Below this process, on side of centrum, a very large, oval, sessile facet, reaching forward nearly to the anterior face of the centrum and upward to its superior edge. A very low, small swelling on the posterior superior edge of centrum, probably indicating the point of attachment of a cartilage connecting the head of the eighth rib. Neural spine expanded at free end, and superior margin rounded.

Seventh thoracic: The metapophyses have a shape similar to those of the Barnegat skeleton but feature a very distinct facet on the side of the arch, ending in a process about as long as the largest diameter of the facet; the surface of the facet is rough. Below this process, on the side of the centrum, there is a large, oval, flat facet that extends forward almost to the front face of the centrum and upward to its top edge. There's a very low, small bump on the back upper edge of the centrum, likely indicating where a cartilage connecting the head of the eighth rib attaches. The neural spine flares out at the free end, and the top edge is rounded.

Eighth thoracic: Metapophyses similar to those of Barnegat skeleton. A distinct transverse process nearly as broad as the length of the centrum, oblong or squared, flat, directed somewhat backward, but not upward. Articular facet for rib not occupying whole of free end and only slightly directed backward; anterior margin as in Barnegat skeleton. Neural spine similar to that of seventh thoracic.

Eighth thoracic: The metapophyses are similar to those of the Barnegat skeleton. There’s a distinct transverse process that is nearly as wide as the length of the centrum, oblong or squared, flat, and angled slightly backward, but not upward. The articular facet for the rib doesn’t cover the entire free end and is only slightly angled backward; the front edge is like that of the Barnegat skeleton. The neural spine resembles that of the seventh thoracic.

[41]

Ninth thoracic: Similar to that of Barnegat skeleton, but transverse process longer than centrum and directed a little downward, articular facet occupying less than posterior half of free margin; proximal groove inconspicuous; anterior and posterior margins nearly straight.

Ninth thoracic: Similar to that of the Barnegat skeleton, but the transverse process is longer than the centrum and points slightly downward, with the articular facet covering less than the posterior half of the free margin; the proximal groove is not very noticeable; the anterior and posterior margins are almost straight.

Charleston (female, jr.).—The centra of the thoracic, as well as the lumbar, vertebræ in this individual present inferior median keels, and more or less concave sides, which is not the case in the Barnegat and Newport skeletons. This can not be due to immaturity, as in a still younger individual, supposed to represent Ziphius grebnitzkii, the thoracic vertebræ are rounded below. The neural spines of the thoracic vertebræ are much less inclined backward in semijunctus than in the Newport and Barnegat skeletons, but this is doubtless connected with age, as the younger series of vertebræ already mentioned exhibits the peculiarity in a more marked degree. A similar modification dependent upon age appears to affect Hyperöodon, as will be seen by comparing Van Beneden and Gervais’ figures in the Osteography, plate 18.

Charleston (female, jr.).—The centers of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in this individual show lower middle keels and somewhat concave sides, which is not found in the Barnegat and Newport skeletons. This can't be attributed to immaturity, as in a younger individual, thought to represent Ziphius grebnitzkii, the thoracic vertebrae are rounded at the bottom. The neural spines of the thoracic vertebrae are significantly less tilted back in semijunctus compared to the Newport and Barnegat skeletons, but this is likely related to age, as the younger series of vertebrae mentioned already displays this characteristic more prominently. A similar age-related change seems to affect Hyperöodon, as can be seen by comparing Van Beneden and Gervais’ figures in the Osteography, plate 18.

First thoracic: Similar to that of Newport skeleton, but spine not higher than arch alone. (A little abraded at tip, but probably undeveloped.)

First thoracic: Similar to the Newport skeleton, but the spine is not higher than the arch itself. (Slightly worn at the tip, but likely underdeveloped.)

Seventh thoracic: Metapophyses short (abraded), incompletely developed. A distinct facet on side of same on an elongated process, as in Newport skeleton, but no second larger one on side of centrum. No facet on superior margin of centrum either anteriorly or posteriorly.

Seventh thoracic: Metapophyses are short (worn down) and not fully developed. There’s a noticeable facet on the side of the same on an elongated process, similar to the Newport skeleton, but there isn't a second larger one on the side of the centrum. There’s also no facet on the upper edge of the centrum, either at the front or back.

Eighth thoracic: Transverse process similar to that of Barnegat skeleton, but anterior edge nearly straight; process about one-half as broad as length of centrum. (Indications of immaturity.)

Eighth thoracic: The transverse process is similar to that of the Barnegat skeleton, but the front edge is almost straight; the process is about half as wide as the length of the centrum. (Signs of immaturity.)

LUMBAR VERTEBRÆ.

Barnegat City (female).—First lumbar: Similar to last thoracic, but transverse process expanded distally and slightly directed forward; a little longer than centrum; anterior and posterior edges emarginate proximally.

Barnegat City (female).—First lumbar: Similar to the last thoracic, but the transverse process is wider at the end and slightly angled forward; a bit longer than the centrum; the front and back edges are notched at the base.

Eleventh lumbar (last): Centrum very long. Neural arch and spine very high, more than twice length of centrum. Spine inclined backward much beyond posterior face of centrum; anterior margin straight, posterior convex, tip expanded. Transverse process a little more than one-half length of centrum, somewhat expanded at distal end and curved forward so that tip is about in line with anterior face of centrum. Metapophyses close to centrum and to each other, semihexagonal in outline. A sharp median inferior ridge, and shallow posterior oblique channels on under side of centrum.

Eleventh lumbar (last): The body is very long. The neural arch and spine are very tall, more than twice the length of the body. The spine leans backward far beyond the back face of the body; the front edge is straight, the back is curved, and the tip is wider. The transverse process is just over half the length of the body, slightly wider at the far end, and curves forward so that the tip aligns with the front face of the body. The metapophyses are close to the body and to each other, shaped like a semi-hexagon. There's a sharp ridge down the middle on the underside of the body, and shallow, slanted channels at the back.

Newport (male).—First lumbar: Similar to that of Barnegat skeleton, but transverse processes considerably longer than the centrum and not expanded at tip; anterior edge straight, posterior only slightly emarginate proximally.

Newport (male).—First lumbar: Similar to that of the Barnegat skeleton, but the transverse processes are significantly longer than the centrum and not flared at the tip; the front edge is straight, while the back is only slightly indented at the top.

Tenth lumbar (last): Centrum like that in Barnegat skeleton. Neural arch and spine only slightly higher than length of centrum. Transverse process oblong, free margin nearly transverse; process inclined forward so that tip is a little beyond anterior face of centrum. Metapophyses close to centrum, rounded in outline. Neural spine much inclined backward; anterior edge concave, posterior convex, [42] tip expanded. A rounded inferior median ridge and very distinct oblique posterior channels on under side of centrum.

Tenth lumbar (last): The centrum is similar to that in the Barnegat skeleton. The neural arch and spine are only slightly higher than the length of the centrum. The transverse process is oblong, with the free margin nearly horizontal; the process tilts forward so that the tip extends slightly beyond the front face of the centrum. The metapophyses are close to the centrum and have a rounded shape. The neural spine leans back significantly; the front edge is curved inward, while the back edge is curved outward, with the tip spreading out. There is a rounded ridge in the middle on the underside of the centrum, along with very distinct oblique channels at the back. [42]

Charleston (female, jr.).—First lumbar: Similar to that of Barnegat skeleton, but transverse process directed outward and scarcely or not at all forward; length of process equal to that of centrum; tip rounded (due to immaturity).

Charleston (female, jr.).—First lumbar: Similar to that of Barnegat skeleton, but the transverse process is directed outward and hardly or not at all forward; the length of the process is equal to that of the centrum; the tip is rounded (due to immaturity).

Tenth lumbar (last): Centrum very long. Neural arch and spine a little less in height than length of centrum. Transverse process oblong, curved forward, more than one-half as long as centrum. Metapophyses similar to those of Newport skeleton. Inferior median ridge very sharp; lateral channels rather indistinct.

Tenth lumbar (last): The body is very long. The neural arch and spine are slightly shorter in height than the length of the body. The transverse process is oblong, curves forward, and is more than half the length of the body. The metapophyses are similar to those of the Newport skeleton. The inferior median ridge is very sharp; the lateral channels are somewhat unclear.

CAUDAL VERTEBRÆ.

Barnegat City (female).—First caudal (vert. 28): Similar to last lumbar, but neural spine broader antero-posteriorly. Transverse process ࡪ length of centrum, inversely triangular, the tip much in advance of anterior face of centrum, free end somewhat rounded. Metapophyses similar to those of last lumbar. No median inferior ridge, but two short processes bearing facets for chevrons posteriorly and a very slight indication of similar process anteriorly, but without facets. Posterior inferior oblique channels indistinct.

Barnegat City (female).—First caudal (vert. 28): Similar to the last lumbar, but the neural spine is wider from front to back. The transverse process is about the same length as the centrum, shaped like an inverted triangle, with the tip extending well past the front face of the centrum, and the free end is slightly rounded. The metapophyses are similar to those of the last lumbar. There’s no median inferior ridge, but there are two short processes with facets for chevrons at the back and a very slight indication of a similar process at the front, though without facets. The posterior inferior oblique channels are not well defined.

Seventh caudal (vert. 34): Centrum (exclusive of chevron processes) nearly as deep as long. Neural arch and spine only a little higher than length of centrum, very much inclined backward and expanded at distal end; free border of spine straight. Metapophyses close to centrum, united nearly to tips by a horizontal plate. A ridge extends backward from their tips nearly across the arch. Another very prominent ridge traverses the centrum at the base of the arch. At the posterior end, a deep groove, convex forward, extends down the side of the centrum, making an emargination in the transverse process and proceeding thence down the lower side of centrum to its lower middle point, where it ends in a deep semicircular emargination between the anterior and posterior chevron facets. Transverse process a triangular stub, reaching nearly to the line of the anterior face of centrum. Chevron processes very large, and the median inferior surface of the centrum between them deeply grooved longitudinally.

Seventh caudal (vert. 34): The centrum (not including the chevron processes) is almost as deep as it is long. The neural arch and spine are only slightly taller than the length of the centrum, significantly angled backward and widened at the far end; the free edge of the spine is straight. The metapophyses are close to the centrum, nearly connected at their tips by a horizontal plate. A ridge runs backward from their tips almost across the arch. Another prominent ridge runs along the base of the arch across the centrum. At the back end, there’s a deep groove that curves forward and extends down the side of the centrum, creating an indentation in the transverse process, then continuing down the lower side of the centrum to its lower middle point, where it ends in a deep semicircular indentation between the front and back chevron facets. The transverse process is a triangular stub that nearly reaches the line of the front face of the centrum. The chevron processes are very large, and the middle lower surface of the centrum between them is deeply grooved lengthwise.

Tenth caudal (vert. 37): Centrum as deep as long. Neural spine a low ridge, as long as the centrum, and extending beyond it posteriorly. No transverse processes. A foramen in side of centrum much above the middle and a similar one below. Close to the latter and below it another foramen pierces the ridge uniting the chevron processes, and appears below on side of longitudinal inferior median channel. Metapophyses small mammilliform processes on top of centrum.

Tenth caudal (vert. 37): The centrum is as deep as it is long. The neural spine is a low ridge, equal in length to the centrum, extending beyond it toward the back. There are no transverse processes. There's a foramen on the side of the centrum, located well above the middle, and a similar one below. Close to the latter, there's another foramen that pierces the ridge connecting the chevron processes, appearing below on the side of the longitudinal inferior median channel. The metapophyses are small, nipple-like processes on top of the centrum.

Eleventh caudal (vert. 38): No processes. A very small neural spine. Posterior epiphysis strongly convex.

Eleventh caudal (vert. 38): No processes. A very small neural spine. The posterior epiphysis is strongly convex.

Twelfth caudal (vert. 39): A rounded mass without processes.

Twelfth caudal (vert. 39): A rounded mass without any extensions.

Thirteenth caudal (vert. 40): An oblong mass, with two grooves on each side, two widely separate foramina above and two closely approximated below, entering a common depression, with rounded projections on its borders.

Thirteenth caudal (vert. 40): An elongated mass, featuring two grooves on each side, two widely spaced openings above, and two closely positioned below, leading into a shared depression, with rounded projections on its edges.

Fourteenth caudal (vert. 41): Similar to thirteenth caudal, but with a single lateral groove.

Fourteenth caudal (vert. 41): Similar to the thirteenth caudal, but with one lateral groove.

[43]

Fifteenth caudal (vert. 42): Similar to fourteenth caudal, but sides extending upward and downward in a ridge. Inferior foramina nearly as far apart as superior and posterior epiphysis much smaller than anterior.

Fifteenth caudal (vert. 42): Similar to the fourteenth caudal, but the sides extend upward and downward in a ridge. The inferior foramina are almost as far apart as the superior ones, and the posterior epiphysis is much smaller than the anterior.

Sixteenth caudal (vert. 43): Similar to fifteenth caudal, but the disproportion of epiphyses greater and lateral ridges higher. Superior and inferior surfaces of centrum inclined.

Sixteenth caudal (vert. 43): Similar to the fifteenth caudal, but the difference in epiphyses is greater and the lateral ridges are taller. The top and bottom surfaces of the centrum are slanted.

Seventeenth caudal (vert. 44): Similar to preceding, but smaller.

Seventeenth caudal (vert. 44): Similar to the previous one, but smaller.

Eighteenth caudal (vert. 45): Longer than high. Inferior ridge longer and larger than superior. Groove very large. Anterior face of centrum deeply concave, posterior flat. Posterior epiphysis very much smaller than anterior. Foramina very small, practically obliterated on right side.

Eighteenth caudal (vert. 45): Longer than it is tall. The lower ridge is longer and larger than the upper one. The groove is very large. The front surface of the centrum is deeply concave, while the back is flat. The back epiphysis is significantly smaller than the front. The openings are very small, nearly nonexistent on the right side.

Newport (male).—First caudal (vert. 27): Similar to last lumbar, but transverse process shorter, about two-thirds as long as centrum, oblong and but little constricted at base; distal margin nearly straight. The process does not extend forward quite to the line of the anterior face of centrum. No inferior median ridge, but strong posterior chevron processes. Postero-inferior oblique grooves very distinct.

Newport (male).—First tail vertebra (vert. 27): Similar to the last lumbar vertebra, but the transverse process is shorter, around two-thirds the length of the centrum, oblong, and only slightly constricted at the base; the outer edge is nearly straight. The process does not extend forward all the way to the line of the front face of the centrum. There is no inferior median ridge, but there are strong posterior chevron processes. The postero-inferior oblique grooves are very distinct.

Seventh caudal (vert. 33): Similar to the same vertebra in Barnegat skeleton, but neural spine more inclined backward and anterior border deeply concave. Metapophyses oblong, directed upward, not reaching anterior face of centrum as they do in Barnegat skeleton. Anterior face of centrum receding superiorly and the ridge opposite it on side of centrum shorter than in Barnegat skeleton. Ridge behind metapophyses indistinct. Postero-inferior oblique grooves as in Barnegat skeleton, but piercing transverse process, forming a foramen. Anterior and posterior chevron processes very large and receding very much, as do also the anterior and posterior faces of centrums.

Seventh caudal (vert. 33): Similar to the same vertebra in the Barnegat skeleton, but the neural spine is more angled backward and the front edge is deeply concave. The metapophyses are elongated, pointing upward, and they don't reach the front face of the centrum like they do in the Barnegat skeleton. The front face of the centrum slopes backward at the top, and the ridge on the side of the centrum opposite it is shorter than in the Barnegat skeleton. The ridge behind the metapophyses is not well-defined. There are postero-inferior oblique grooves like in the Barnegat skeleton, but they penetrate the transverse process, creating a foramen. The anterior and posterior chevron processes are very large and set back quite a bit, as are the front and back faces of the centrums.

Eleventh caudal (vert. 37): Similar to Barnegat skeleton, but spine shorter than centrum and not extending beyond it anteriorly or posteriorly. Metapophyses similar, but wider apart.

Eleventh caudal (vert. 37): Similar to the Barnegat skeleton, but the spine is shorter than the centrum and does not extend beyond it either in the front or the back. The metapophyses are similar but spaced farther apart.

Twelfth caudal (vert. 38): Neural arch barely complete. No spine.

Twelfth caudal (vert. 38): Neural arch is barely complete. No spine.

Thirteenth to nineteenth caudals (vert. 39-45): Similar to those of Barnegat skeleton.

Thirteenth to nineteenth caudals (vert. 39-45): Similar to those of the Barnegat skeleton.

Twentieth caudal (vert. 46): Rudely triangular, with a peg-like posterior projection, bearing the very small posterior epiphysis. No foramina. Anterior epiphysis deeply concave in middle.

Twentieth caudal (vert. 46): Roughly triangular, with a peg-like projection at the back, featuring a very small posterior epiphysis. No openings. The anterior epiphysis is deeply concave in the center.

Charleston (female, jr.).—First caudal (vert. 28): Similar to last lumbar, but only a faint inferior median ridge. Inferior outline of centrum antero-posteriorly very concave, which is not the case in the Barnegat and Newport skeletons. Posterior chevron processes prominent. Postero-inferior oblique grooves shallow.

Charleston (female, jr.).—First caudal (vert. 28): Similar to the last lumbar, but with just a slight inferior median ridge. The bottom outline of the centrum is very concave from front to back, unlike in the Barnegat and Newport skeletons. The posterior chevron processes are prominent. The postero-inferior oblique grooves are shallow.

Seventh caudal (vert. 34): Like the Newport skeleton. The transverse process not pierced or emarginate. Postero-inferior oblique grooves indistinct. Ridges on centrum very distinct. Right anterior and posterior chevron processes united and pierced by a foramen.

Seventh caudal (vert. 34): Similar to the Newport skeleton. The transverse process is neither pierced nor indented. The posterior-inferior oblique grooves are not clear. The ridges on the centrum are very noticeable. The right anterior and posterior chevron processes are fused and have a hole through them.

Tenth caudal (vert. 37): Similar to the same vertebra in Newport skeleton, but neural spine very short.

Tenth tail vertebra (vert. 37): Similar to the same vertebra in the Newport skeleton, but the neural spine is very short.

[44]

CHEVRONS.

The number of chevrons in the North American and some other specimens is as follows:

The number of chevrons in North American and some other specimens is as follows:

Newport, Rhode Island.11
Barnegat City, New Jersey.8(+3?)
Charleston, South Carolina.8+
Buenos Ayres, Argentina (Burmeister).11
Holma, Sweden (Malm).9
Littleton Harbor, New Zealand (Haast).10
Warrington, New Zealand (Scott and Parker).9
Pisa Museum (Van Beneden).9

The chevrons are similar in form in the three North American specimens, with some differences which will be pointed out below.

The chevrons are similar in shape across the three North American specimens, though there are some differences that will be highlighted below.

Newport (male).—The first chevron consists of a pair of bones which are not united. They are longer than deep, their depth indeed being less than that of any one of the succeeding bones except the tenth and eleventh. Each presents one strong superior articulating facet. Second chevron, elongated antero-posteriorly, but not much deeper than the first. Third chevron very deep and only equaled in that respect by the fourth; narrowed and rounded off below. Fourth chevron largest and broadest (antero-posteriorly) of the series; expanded below and the lower border transverse. Fifth to eighth similar in form, but less deep successively, and the lower border more rounded. Ninth similar to eighth, but smaller and thinner. Tenth similar to first, longer (antero-posteriorly) than deep. Eleventh similar to tenth in form, but smaller.

Newport (male).—The first chevron consists of a pair of bones that are not fused. They are longer than they are deep, with their depth being less than that of any of the following bones, except for the tenth and eleventh. Each has one strong upper articulating facet. The second chevron is elongated front to back, but not much deeper than the first. The third chevron is very deep, only matched in this regard by the fourth; it narrows and rounds off at the bottom. The fourth chevron is the largest and broadest (front to back) of the group; it flares out at the bottom and has a horizontal lower edge. The fifth to eighth are similar in shape but become progressively less deep, with the lower edge becoming more rounded. The ninth is similar to the eighth but smaller and thinner. The tenth is similar to the first, longer (front to back) than it is deep. The eleventh resembles the tenth in shape but is smaller.

Barnegat City (female).—First chevron bone lacking. Second like that of Newport skeleton, but smaller. Third similar to second, but much larger and more produced posteriorly; quite unlike the third in the Newport skeleton in form, and much less deep. Fourth, largest and deepest of the series; anterior and posterior borders rounded, and the inferior border similar. Fifth to eighth similar in form, but successively less deep, and all more expanded below; inferior border nearly straight. Ninth similar to eighth, but depth not exceeding breadth; lower angles produced.

Barnegat City (female).—First chevron bone missing. Second is like that of the Newport skeleton, but smaller. Third is similar to the second, but much larger and more extended at the back; it's quite different from the third in the Newport skeleton in shape and much less deep. Fourth is the largest and deepest in the series; the front and back edges are rounded, and the bottom edge is similar. Fifth to eighth are similar in shape, but progressively less deep, and all more broadened at the bottom; the lower edge is nearly straight. Ninth is similar to the eighth, but its depth does not exceed its width; the lower angles are extended.

Charleston (female, jr.).—The chevrons of this specimen resemble those of the Newport skeleton, but on account of immaturity they are all more or less rounded. The two sides of the first chevron are united. The second is without the posterior angular projection seen in the other specimens. The third is the deepest of the series. The eighth is not deeper than long, and hence resembles the tenth chevron of the Newport skeleton in proportion, but is, of course, much smaller. Two or three chevrons are lacking from the posterior end of the series.

Charleston (female, jr.).—The chevrons of this specimen look like those of the Newport skeleton, but due to being immature, they are all somewhat rounded. The two sides of the first chevron are joined. The second one doesn’t have the rear angular projection found in the other specimens. The third is the deepest in the series. The eighth is not any deeper than it is long, which makes it similar in proportion to the tenth chevron of the Newport skeleton, but it is, of course, much smaller. Two or three chevrons are missing from the back end of the series.

RIBS.

Barnegat City (female).—First rib shortest and broadest, but considerably broader at proximal end than at distal end. Head and tubercle close together. The succeeding ribs increase in length and decrease in breadth to the fifth or sixth. The third, fourth, and fifth are expanded and flattened at distal end. Seventh, eighth, and ninth successively shorter. Distance between head and tubercle [45] greater on second rib than on first, and on third is greater than on second. On the third to sixth, inclusive, the distance is about equal. The tubercle is scarcely distinguishable on the seventh rib, while on the eighth and ninth it is lacking, these ribs joining the transverse processes by a terminal facet only.

Barnegat City (female).—The first rib is the shortest and widest, but it's much wider at the top end than at the bottom. The head and tubercle are close to each other. The next ribs get longer and narrower up to the fifth or sixth rib. The third, fourth, and fifth ribs are wider and flatter at the bottom. The seventh, eighth, and ninth ribs get progressively shorter. The distance between the head and tubercle is greater on the second rib than on the first, and it's greater on the third than on the second. For the third to sixth ribs, the distance is about the same. The tubercle is hardly noticeable on the seventh rib, and it's missing on the eighth and ninth, with these ribs connecting to the transverse processes only by a terminal facet.

Newport (male).—Similar to those of the Barnegat skeleton, but first rib maintains nearly the same breadth throughout. Neck thicker than in Barnegat skeleton. Seventh rib terminates proximally in a single large rugose facet, which connects with a similar facet on side of centrum of seventh thoracic vertebra.

Newport (male).—Similar to the Barnegat skeleton, but the first rib stays almost the same width all the way through. The neck is thicker than that of the Barnegat skeleton. The seventh rib ends at the top with a single large rough spot, which connects to a similar spot on the side of the centrum of the seventh thoracic vertebra.

Charleston (female, jr.).—Similar to those of the Barnegat skeleton, but a distinct tubercle on the seventh rib. Eighth and ninth ribs end proximally in a transverse facet only, which is largest on the eighth. Tenth rib (represented by a fragment) only half as broad as the preceding ones and more nearly round in section.

Charleston (female, jr.).—Similar to the Barnegat skeleton, but there is a distinct bump on the seventh rib. The eighth and ninth ribs end near the body with a flat surface only, which is biggest on the eighth. The tenth rib (shown by a piece) is only half as wide as the previous ones and is more round in shape.

STERNUM.

Barnegat City (female).—Five segments. Manubrium wider than long, convex inferiorly. Deep anterior and posterior notches, about equal, the former with an angular projection on each side. Facet for cartilaginous sternal rib thick and prominent. Second segment wider than long, about equally notched anteriorly and posteriorly, the two sides anchylosed together by a bony bridge, about as wide as the notches are deep. Third and fourth segments similar to second but smaller; similarly notched; left portion a little longer than right. Fifth segment elongated, left side very much so; the two sides joined by a narrow bridge; posterior notch very deep.

Barnegat City (female).—Five segments. The manubrium is wider than it is long, with a convex shape on the underside. There are deep notches in the front and back, roughly equal in size, with the front having an angular projection on each side. The facet for the cartilaginous sternal rib is thick and stands out. The second segment is wider than it is long, with similar notches on the front and back; both sides are fused together by a bony bridge, about as wide as the notches are deep. The third and fourth segments are similar to the second but smaller; they have similar notches, with the left side being a bit longer than the right. The fifth segment is elongated, especially on the left side; the two sides are joined by a narrow bridge, and the back notch is very deep.

Newport (male).—Similar to sternum of Barnegat skeleton, but manubrium scarcely wider than long; posterior notch much longer than anterior, with parallel sides. Second and third segments similar to those of Barnegat skeleton but sides of latter not completely anchylosed together. Fourth segment in two pieces, with a wide interval between. Fifth segment triangular with deep anterior, triangular notch, a narrow bridge, and short posterior prolongation (the left longer than the right).

Newport (male).—Similar to the sternum of the Barnegat skeleton, but the manubrium is barely wider than it is long; the posterior notch is much longer than the anterior one, with parallel sides. The second and third segments are similar to those of the Barnegat skeleton, but the sides of the latter are not completely fused together. The fourth segment is in two pieces, with a large gap in between. The fifth segment is triangular with a deep triangular notch in the front, a narrow bridge, and a short posterior extension (the left side is longer than the right).

Charleston (female, jr.).—Resembles the sternum of the Barnegat skeleton rather than that of Newport skeleton, but anterior parts cartilaginous. Opposite sides of second, third, and fifth segments anchylosed together and those of fourth segment nearly so. (Pl. 25, fig. 2).

Charleston (female, jr.).—Looks more like the sternum of the Barnegat skeleton than the one from Newport, but the front parts are cartilaginous. The opposite sides of the second, third, and fifth segments are fused together, and the sides of the fourth segment are almost fused. (Pl. 25, fig. 2).

SCAPULA.

Barnegat City (female).—Superior border irregular. Posterior angle acute. Anterior and posterior borders nearly straight. Ridges distinct. Acromion broad both at base and at tip, sharply bent upward, so as to be parallel with anterior border of scapula. Coracoid nearly as long as acromion, slender, a little curved upward, irregular and somewhat expanded at the end.

Barnegat City (female).—Superior border is irregular. The back angle is sharp. The front and back borders are nearly straight. Ridges are clearly defined. The acromion is wide at both the base and tip, sharply curved upward to be parallel with the front border of the scapula. The coracoid is almost as long as the acromion, slender, slightly curved upward, and irregularly expanded at the end.

Newport (male).—Superior border irregularly rounded. Posterior angle obtuse, anterior angle projecting. Ridges indistinct. Anterior and posterior borders nearly straight, but irregular. Acromion broad at base, tapering toward the [46] tip, which is again somewhat expanded; bent upward, but not sufficiently to be parallel with anterior margin of blade. Coracoid rather thick, irregular, strongly expanded at tip.

Newport (male).—The top edge is unevenly rounded. The back angle is blunt, while the front angle sticks out. The ridges are not very noticeable. The front and back edges are mostly straight but uneven. The acromion is wide at the base and narrows toward the tip, which widens again; it bends upward, but not enough to align with the front edge of the blade. The coracoid is fairly thick, irregular, and significantly flared at the tip.

Charleston (female, jr.).—Rather too much abraded for comparisons, but posterior margin more concave than in either of the other skeletons.

Charleston (female, jr.).—A bit too worn for comparisons, but the back edge is more curved than in either of the other skeletons.

FORE LIMB.

Barnegat City (female).—Fore limb much shorter than in the Newport skeleton. Humerus: Head quite oblique, the lower edge overhanging the shaft considerably on the ulnar side. Tuberosity level with upper surface of head, elliptical in outline when viewed from above. Deltoid ridge moderately prominent, irregular, rugose, and extending to about the middle of the shaft. Distal end of humerus not expanded. Bicipital groove inconspicuous.

Barnegat City (female).—The forelimb is much shorter than in the Newport skeleton. Humerus: The head is quite angled, with the lower edge significantly overhanging the shaft on the ulnar side. The tuberosity is level with the upper surface of the head and has an elliptical shape when viewed from above. The deltoid ridge is moderately prominent, uneven, rough, and extends to about the middle of the shaft. The distal end of the humerus is not expanded. The bicipital groove is not very noticeable.

Radius: Almost perfectly straight, but a little inclined toward ulna at oblique proximal end; scarcely expanded at distal end, which is lower externally than internally.

Radius: Almost perfectly straight, but slightly tilted toward the ulna at the angled proximal end; hardly flared at the distal end, which is lower on the outside than on the inside.

Ulna: Much slenderer than radius, rounded triangular in section, not expanded at distal end, where the margin is lowest externally. Olecranon well developed, thin, and pointed proximally.

Ulna: Much slimmer than the radius, with a rounded triangular shape in cross-section, and not widened at the distal end, where the outer edge is the lowest. The olecranon is well-developed, thin, and pointed at the proximal end.

Carpals: Five; two on ulna side, two median and one on radial side in line with first metacarpal. The proximal middle bone (intermedium) extends much farther proximally than those on each side of it.

Carpals: Five; two on the ulna side, two in the middle, and one on the radial side lined up with the first metacarpal. The proximal middle bone (intermedium) extends much further up than the ones on either side of it.

Metacarpals: Metacarpal III longest, metacarpal II broadest. Metacarpal I oblong, or rather conical, with a lateral enlargement, and situated in line with the distal row of carpals.

Metacarpals: Metacarpal III is the longest, and metacarpal II is the broadest. Metacarpal I is elongated, or more like conical, with a wider side and is aligned with the distal row of carpals.

Digits: First phalange of first digit short and conical.

Digits: The first phalanx of the first digit is short and cone-shaped.

Newport (male).—Fore limb considerably longer and more massive than that of the Barnegat skeleton but similar otherwise, except as follows:

Newport (male).—The forelimb is much longer and bulkier than that of the Barnegat skeleton, but otherwise similar, except for the following:

Humerus: Head rather larger and less inclined. Deltoid ridge more prominent.

Humerus: The head is larger and less angled. The deltoid ridge is more pronounced.

Radius: Broader proximally and rounded at distal end, where it extends outward beyond the carpal bones.

Radius: Wider at the top and rounded at the bottom, where it extends outward past the wrist bones.

Ulna: Thicker, and olecranon less pointed.

Ulna: Thicker, and the elbow point is less sharp.

Carpal bones: Middle carpal bone not extending farther proximally than those on either side of it.

Carpal bones: The middle carpal bone does not extend further up than the ones on either side.

Metacarpals: Metacarpal I nearly square, third longest, second to fourth more constricted.

Metacarpals: Metacarpal I is almost square, the third longest, and the second to fourth are more narrow.

Digits: First phalange of first digit long and cylindrical. Phalangeal formula: I, 1; II, 6; III, 6; IV, 4; V, 2.

Digits: The first bone of the first finger is long and cylindrical. Bone structure breakdown: I, 1; II, 6; III, 6; IV, 4; V, 2.

Measurements of the skeletons above described are as follows:

Measurements of the skeletons mentioned above are as follows:

[47]

Dimensions of four skeletons of Ziphius cavirostris.

Measurements of four skeletons of Ziphius cavirostris.

Column headings:
A: Barnegat City, New Jersey. 20971 U.S.N.M. female, adult.
B: Newport, Rhode Island. 49599 U.S.N.M. male, adult.
C: Charleston, South Carolina. 21975 U.S.N.M. female, young.
D: Bering Island. (Vertebræ) young.
Measurements.ABCD
mm.mm.mm.mm.
Length of skull945915797...
First to fourth cervicals (vert. 1-4):
Length of combined center81796655
Largest atlas coverage283259210(?)146
Highest point of atlas215218170148
First thoracic vertebra (vert. 8):
Widest range211220174(?)122
Greatest height267321163133
Length of center42463219
Height of center70674849
Seventh thoracic vertebra (vert. 14):
Broadest range142158147128
Highest point440417260182
Length of the center1021037451
Height of center (ant.)68694944
Eighth thoracic vertebra (vert. 15):
Maximum width253288177100
Highest point447427265186
Length of center1101097854
Height of center65695147
Ninth thoracic vertebra (vert. 16):
Maximum width329366248(?)122
Highest point418431277192
Centrum length1171178258
Center height69755349
First lumbar vertebra (vert. 17):
Largest scope385393b275142
Highest point464451b293200
Length of center122120b8962
Height of center7481b5550
Tenth lumbar vertebra (vert. 26):
Greatest width362335c230158
Highest point524488c343242
Centrum length172162c12985
Height of center107109c7871
First caudal vertebra (vert. 27):
Maximum width336(?)d313223166
Highest point483d458307235
Length of center178d16012791
Centrum height113d1098175
Seventh caudal vertebra (vert. 33):
Maximum width164e161113110
Highest pointf255f250155f135
Length of center13913110377
Height of center (ant.)f111f119f85f78
Twelfth caudal vertebra (vert. 38):
Widest extent90g886162
Highest point83g785361
Length of center55g564647
Fifteenth caudal vertebra (vert. 41):
Widest range64h624945
Highest point54h523330
Center length42h393028
Eighteenth caudal vertebra (vert. 45):
Maximum width37i38......
Highest point20i19......
Length of center24i22......
Twentieth caudal vertebra (vert. 46):
Widest range...j25......
Highest point...j13......
Length of center...j19......
Chevrons:
First chevron's antero-posterior length...74......
Same depth...6644...
Length of second arrowhead831075538
Depth of the same87857463
Third chevron length114916146
Same depth13520612390
Length of the fourth chevron1251226751
Depth of the same21320611167
Eighth chevron length80864335
Depth of the same1081154133
Length of 9th chevron8474...27
Depth of the same8388...19
Scapula:
Maximum length385415k224159
Highest point275300175132
Acromion lengthl115159...48
Length of coracoid from the edge of the glenoid1271486038
Pectoral limb:
Total length588652......
Humerus:
Length16817713095
Width at the far end69695242
Radius:
Lengthm178m175m135...
Width at far end556541...
Ulna:
Length without elbow bone165171118...
Length including elbow bone220225150...
Width at far end444230...
Metacarpals:
First length3128
Length of second5255
Third length5258
Length of fourth4451
Length of fifth3739
Phalanges:
Length of the first phalanx of the first digit2744
Sternum:
Total lengthn803821o550o395
Length of sternum handle259306o203105
Width of the manubrium286333193128
Length of the fifth segmento170p184o128p92
Fifth segment width1331688682
Ribs:
Length of first rib (straight)405410277191
Width of the first rib at the top end881106546
Width of the first rib at the far end63804030
Length of fifth rib (straight)785770545415
Length of ninth rib (straight)620620
a The measurements of height of vertebræ are from center of inf. margin of centrum to center of tip of spine, unless otherwise specified.
b Last thoracic.
c Ninth lumbar.
d Second caudal = vert. 28.
e Eighth caudal = vert. 34.
f Without chevron facet.
g Thirteenth caudal = vert. 39.
h Sixteenth caudal = vert. 42.
i Nineteenth caudal = vert. 45.
j Vert. 46.
k Edges abraded.
l A little broken.
m In median line.
n Without cartilages.
o With cartilages.
p Left side.
[49]

PHALANGEAL FORMULA.

The formulas for the ossified phalanges in two American[39] and three Old World specimens are as follows:

The formulas for the hardened finger bones in two American[39] and three Old World specimens are as follows:

Phalangeal formula of five specimens of Ziphius cavirostris.

Phalangeal formula of five specimens of Ziphius cavirostris.

Locality.I.II.III.IV.V.
Newport, Rhode Island16642
Barnegat City, New Jersey16643
Villefranche, France (Haeckel)15642
Pisa Museum, Italy (Van Beneden)13(?)541
Warrington, New Zealand (Scott and Parker)15542

SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES IN SKELETONS.

The chief differences between the Barnegat City and Newport skeletons are in the size and form of the processes of the cervical vertebræ, the form of the seventh and eighth thoracic vertebræ and of the ribs connected with them, the direction of the acromion of the scapula, the shape of the first phalange of the first digit, and of the posterior segments of the sternum. As far as the processes of the cervicals are concerned, these are known to be extremely variable in all cetaceans. The [50] seventh and eighth thoracic vertebræ are those on which the mode of attachment of the ribs changes in ziphioid whales, and I have observed in the genus Mesoplodon, as here, that the processes and articular facets were very variable, being sometimes quite unlike on the two sides of the same vertebra. The direction of the acromion is probably subject to large individual variations, though this can not be determined at present, and the same is true of the form of the first phalange of the first digit. The form of the sternum is quite variable in all cetaceans, and can not be relied on for specific characters, without comparison of many individuals.

The main differences between the Barnegat City and Newport skeletons are in the size and shape of the processes of the cervical vertebrae, the shape of the seventh and eighth thoracic vertebrae, and the ribs connected to them, the angle of the acromion of the scapula, the shape of the first phalanx of the first digit, and the back segments of the sternum. Regarding the cervical processes, they are known to vary widely among all cetaceans. The seventh and eighth thoracic vertebrae are where the way the ribs attach changes in ziphioid whales. I've noticed in the genus Mesoplodon, as seen here, that the processes and joint surfaces were quite variable, sometimes looking very different on either side of the same vertebra. The direction of the acromion likely has significant individual variations, though we can’t determine that right now, and the same goes for the shape of the first phalanx of the first digit. The shape of the sternum is also quite variable in all cetaceans and can't be reliably used for identifying species without comparing many individuals.

On the whole, I am of the opinion, as already stated, that we are not compelled by the differences noted to regard the Barnegat and Newport skeletons as representing different species. The Charleston skeleton is too young and imperfect to admit of serious consideration. The idea that the differences between the adult skeletons are probably individual receives support from the fact that the skeleton shown in the photograph from St. Simon Island, Georgia, mentioned on page 31, No. 14, appears to possess a combination of characters exhibited by the other two.

Overall, I believe, as I've mentioned before, that the differences we've noticed don't force us to see the Barnegat and Newport skeletons as different species. The Charleston skeleton is too young and incomplete to be taken seriously. The notion that the differences between the adult skeletons are likely due to individual variation is backed up by the fact that the skeleton in the photograph from St. Simon Island, Georgia, referenced on page 31, No. 14, seems to have a mix of traits found in the other two.

AGE VARIATIONS IN SKULLS.

The series of skulls of Z. grebnitzkii, which the Museum owes to the activities of Dr. L. Stejneger and Mr. N. Grebnitzki, comprises specimens of different ages, and, as will be shown presently, probably both sexes. Taken together with the skulls from the east coast of the United States they probably represent very fully the variations which the skull undergoes in the present species. These changes may, perhaps, be best made evident by the following brief descriptions of the various skulls:

The collection of skulls of Z. grebnitzkii, which the Museum credits to the efforts of Dr. L. Stejneger and Mr. N. Grebnitzki, includes specimens of various ages and, as will be demonstrated shortly, likely both sexes. Together with the skulls from the east coast of the United States, they likely represent a comprehensive range of variations seen in this species’ skulls. These changes may be best illustrated by the following brief descriptions of the different skulls:

21975. Charleston, South Carolina.—Young female. (Type of Z. semijunctus.) All sutures open, and elements of occipital bone distinguishable. No mesethmoid ossification. Opposite maxillary notches, premaxillæ closely approximated, nearly flat and horizontal, and about level with adjacent parts of maxillæ. Left premaxilla grooved longitudinally at this point. Orifice of anterior nares on a level with lower end of rectangular projecting boss formed by superior portion of nasals. Rostrum pointed, much broader distally than it is deep. A very distinct rudimentary alveolar groove in distal end of each maxilla. Proximal end of vomer resting against anterior face of nasals and reaching up to overhanging boss. Anterior face of the latter nearly flat. (Pl. 14, fig. 1; pl. 18, fig. 1; pl. 20, fig. 1; pl. 21, fig. 2.)

21975. Charleston, South Carolina.—Young female. (Type of Z. semijunctus.) All sutures are open, and you can see the elements of the occipital bone. There’s no ossification of the mesethmoid. The opposite maxillary notches have premaxillae that are closely aligned, nearly flat and horizontal, and level with the adjacent parts of the maxillae. The left premaxilla has a longitudinal groove at this point. The opening of the anterior nares is aligned with the lower end of the rectangular projecting boss formed by the upper part of the nasals. The rostrum is pointed, much wider at the end than it is deep. There’s a very distinct rudimentary alveolar groove at the distal end of each maxilla. The proximal end of the vomer is connected to the front face of the nasals and reaches up to the overhanging boss. The front face of this boss is nearly flat. (Pl. 14, fig. 1; pl. 18, fig. 1; pl. 20, fig. 1; pl. 21, fig. 2.)

Rami of mandible not anchylosed together at symphysis. Teeth hollow, open at the root, acute at apex, tipped with enamel; diameter 10 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 1; pl. 24, fig. 1.)

Rami of the jaw not fused together at the symphysis. Teeth are hollow, open at the root, pointed at the tip, and covered with enamel; diameter 10 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 1; pl. 24, fig. 1.)

20971. Barnegat City, New Jersey.—Adult female. Majority of sutures open, but those on superior surface of rostrum between maxillæ and premaxillæ partly anchylosed. Vomer nearly all anchylosed to rostral portion of premaxillæ; it presents a slight median elevation, but there is no mesirostral ossification. Right premaxilla in front of nares broad, flat, and horizontal; left, nearly so, but with a quite broad longitudinal groove. Opposite maxillary notches premaxillæ nearly on a level with adjacent parts. Orifice of anterior nares level with lower end of nasal boss. End of rostrum quite acute, and broader than deep. Rudimentary [51] alveolar groove distinct distally. Proximal end of vomer anchylosed with anterior face of nasals and reaching up to nasal boss, which has a sharp median ridge completing nasal septum superiorly. Anterior face of nasal boss slightly concave on each side of median line. (Pl. 14, fig. 2; pl. 18, fig. 2; pl. 20, fig. 2; pl. 21, fig. 3.)

20971. Barnegat City, New Jersey.—Adult female. Most of the sutures are open, but those on the upper surface of the snout between the maxillae and premaxillae are partially fused. The vomer is mostly fused to the front part of the premaxillae; it shows a slight elevation in the middle, but there's no mid-snout ossification. The right premaxilla in front of the nostrils is broad, flat, and horizontal; the left is almost the same, but has a fairly wide longitudinal groove. The maxillary notches of the premaxillae are nearly level with the surrounding areas. The opening of the nostrils is level with the lower end of the nasal boss. The end of the snout is quite pointed and wider than it is deep. A distinct rudimentary alveolar groove is visible at the end. The proximal end of the vomer is fused with the front face of the nasals and extends up to the nasal boss, which has a sharp median ridge that completes the nasal septum at the top. The front face of the nasal boss is slightly concave on both sides of the midline. (Pl. 14, fig. 2; pl. 18, fig. 2; pl. 20, fig. 2; pl. 21, fig. 3.)

Rami of mandible anchylosed together at symphysis and suture largely obliterated. Teeth slender, cylindrical, rugose, rather blunt; roots closed; diameter 13 mm. (Pl. 24, fig. 3.)

Rami of the jaw fused together at the symphysis, and the suture mostly gone. Teeth are thin, cylindrical, rough, and somewhat blunt; roots are closed; diameter is 13 mm. (Pl. 24, fig. 3.)

22069. Bering Island.—Adult female? All the sutures about as in preceding specimen. Mesirostral ossification distinct, rounded, extending from base of rostrum nearly to apex, but disappearing before reaching line of anterior ends of maxillæ. Its upper surface below that of premaxillæ. Premaxillæ approximated, and right premaxilla with an angular process near base of rostrum overlapping mesirostral ossification. Premaxillæ at base of rostrum, anterior nares, proximal end of vomer, and nasals as in preceding skull. Apex of rostrum moderately acute, broader than deep. Rudimentary alveolar groove shallow. (Pl. 15, fig. 1.)

22069. Bering Island.—Adult female? All the sutures are similar to the previous specimen. Mesirostral ossification is clearly defined, rounded, extending from the base of the rostrum nearly to the tip, but it disappears before reaching the line of the front ends of the maxillae. Its upper surface is below that of the premaxillae. The premaxillae are close together, and the right premaxilla has an angular process near the base of the rostrum that overlaps the mesirostral ossification. The premaxillae, base of the rostrum, anterior nares, proximal end of the vomer, and nasals are as in the previous skull. The tip of the rostrum is moderately sharp, broader than deep. The rudimentary alveolar groove is shallow. (Pl. 15, fig. 1.)

Rami of mandible anchylosed together and suture largely obliterated. Teeth somewhat fusiform, blunt; roots closed; diameter, 14 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 3.)

Rami of the jaw fused together and the suture mostly disappeared. Teeth are somewhat spindle-shaped and blunt; roots are closed; diameter is 14 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 3.)

83991. Bering Island.—Similar in all respects to preceding, but mesirostral ossification a little less well developed.

83991. Bering Island.—Similar in every way to the previous entries, but the mesirostral ossification is slightly less developed.

22874. Bering Island.—Entirely similar to two preceding, but premaxillæ a little curved out from mesirostral ossification and left premaxilla opposite maxillary notch rather strongly inclined, nearly vertical. Anterior face of nasal boss distinctly concave. (Skull defective.)

22874. Bering Island.—Completely similar to the two earlier ones, but the premaxillae are slightly curved outward from the mesirostral ossification, and the left premaxilla across from the maxillary notch is quite strongly inclined, almost vertical. The front face of the nasal boss is clearly concave. (Skull is damaged.)

21246. Bering Island.—Sutures as in three preceding skulls. Mesirostral ossification distinct and rounded, but much below level of premaxillæ. Rostral portion of premaxillæ narrow and widely divergent toward base of rostrum, leaving mesirostral entirely exposed. Right premaxilla on a line with maxillary notches strongly concave and sunk below level of maxillæ. Left premaxilla vertical, with a broad groove. Right premaxilla remains low and concave proximally, the posterior end being then abruptly turned upward and reaching level of vertex. Orifice of anterior nares on a level with lower end of nasal boss, and vomer resting against anterior face of nasals, which latter have a median ridge continuing nasal septum, but with a slight vacuity between the two. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obliterated. Outer sides of premaxillæ at distal end strongly concave. Rostrum rather acute, about as deep as wide opposite distal ends of maxillæ. (Pl. 15, fig. 2.)

21246. Bering Island.—Sutures are similar to those in the three previous skulls. The mesirostral ossification is clearly defined and rounded, but sits lower than the premaxillae. The front part of the premaxillae is narrow and widely spreads toward the base of the rostrum, exposing the mesirostral area completely. The right premaxilla aligns with the maxillary notches, being strongly concave and positioned below the level of the maxillae. The left premaxilla is vertical and features a broad groove. The right premaxilla stays low and concave at the proximal end, while the back end curves upward abruptly, reaching the level of the vertex. The opening of the anterior nares is on the same level as the lower end of the nasal boss, with the vomer resting against the front face of the nasals, which have a median ridge that continues the nasal septum but includes a slight gap between them. The rudimentary alveolar groove is nearly gone. The outer sides of the premaxillae at the distal end are strongly concave. The rostrum is fairly pointed, about as deep as it is wide at the distal ends of the maxillae. (Pl. 15, fig. 2.)

20993. Bering Island.—Adult male? (Type of Z. grebnitzkii). Majority of sutures open, but maxillæ and premaxillæ anchylosed together above and on the sides. Premaxillæ approximated anteriorly, but diverging posteriorly. Mesirostral ossification well developed, reaching level of premaxillæ; anteriorly rather narrow but a little broader near middle of rostrum, where it is beveled off abruptly. Behind this point premaxillæ strongly concave, nearly vertical and widely separated, forming a large and deep basin, in the bottom of which the vomer appears as a broad, irregular bony surface. Bottom of basin much below level of surrounding parts. Orifice of anterior nares much below level of nasal boss. Vomer reaching lower end of nasals. Anterior face of latter strongly concave, with only a moderate median [52] ridge completing nasal septum above. Mesirostral with a median groove at distal end. Premaxillæ high at distal end, but sides nearly plane. Rostrum compressed near apex, deeper than wide. (Pl. 16, fig. 1; pl. 19, fig. 1; pl. 20, fig. 3.)

20993. Bering Island.—Adult male? (Type of Z. grebnitzkii). Most of the sutures are open, but the maxillae and premaxillae are fused together on top and on the sides. The premaxillae are close together at the front but spread apart at the back. The mesirostral bone is well-developed, reaching the level of the premaxillae; it is relatively narrow at the front but a bit wider toward the middle of the rostrum, where it has a sharp edge. Behind this point, the premaxillae are strongly curved inward, nearly vertical, and widely separated, creating a large, deep basin where the vomer shows up as a broad, irregular bony surface. The bottom of the basin is much lower than the surrounding areas. The opening of the anterior nares is well below the level of the nasal boss. The vomer extends to the lower end of the nasals. The front face of the nasals is strongly curved inward, with just a moderate median ridge completing the nasal septum above. The mesirostral bone has a median groove at the end. The premaxillae are high at the back end, but the sides are almost flat. The rostrum is compressed near the tip, deeper than it is wide. (Pl. 16, fig. 1; pl. 19, fig. 1; pl. 20, fig. 3.)

Rami of mandible anchylosed together and suture partly obliterated. Teeth conical, with rather short, acute tips; roots closed, short and conical; diameter, 25 mm. (Pl. 23, fig. 1; pl. 24, fig. 2.)

Rami of the jaw fused together and the suture partially closed. Teeth are cone-shaped, with short, pointed tips; roots are closed, short, and cone-shaped; diameter is 25 mm. (Pl. 23, fig. 1; pl. 24, fig. 2.)

21245. Bering Island.—Nearly all sutures between maxillæ and premaxillæ at end of rostrum, above and below, anchylosed together, but majority of others traceable. Condition of superior surface of skull very similar to that of preceding, but premaxillæ rather low at distal end. Mesirostral at distal end rather lower than premaxillæ and concave superiorly; more posteriorly assuming form of a narrow ridge, with a deep channel between it and premaxillæ on each side. More posteriorly still it widens rapidly, with a convex surface, and terminates abruptly with a truncated end, the surface of which is concave. A deep basin around nares, as in preceding skull. Orifice of anterior nares far below level of nasal boss. The latter largely absorbed and deeply undercut and concave in front. Nasal septum terminating before reaching lower end of nasals, and ridge on latter low and traversing left nasal. Sides of premaxillæ at distal end very concave. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obsolete. Rostrum blunt at apex, and about as deep as wide at anterior ends of maxillæ. (Pl. 16, fig. 2.)

21245. Bering Island.—Most of the connections between the maxillae and premaxillae at the tip of the snout, above and below, are fused together, but most of the others can still be traced. The condition of the upper surface of the skull is very similar to the previous one, but the premaxillae are somewhat low at the far end. The mesirostral section at the far end is lower than the premaxillae and has a concave upper surface; further back, it takes the shape of a narrow ridge, with a deep groove on each side between it and the premaxillae. Even further back, it widens quickly and has a convex surface, ending abruptly with a flat tip that is concave on the surface. There is a deep basin around the nostrils, like in the previous skull. The opening of the anterior nostrils is well below the level of the nasal boss. The nasal boss is mostly absorbed and has a deep undercut and concave front. The nasal septum ends before reaching the lower end of the nasals, with a low ridge running along the left nasal. The sides of the premaxillae at the distal end are very concave. The rudimentary alveolar groove is almost gone. The rostrum is blunt at the tip and is about as deep as it is wide at the front ends of the maxillae. (Pl. 16, fig. 2.)

21248. Bering Island.—Similar to preceding, but mesirostral ossification higher than premaxillæ at distal end and convex above; less abruptly widened posteriorly and posterior termination flat. Narrow, deep grooves between ossification and premaxillæ on each side, or, in other words, premaxillæ more closely approximated to sides of mesirostral distally. Basin around nares and conformation of the several bones bordering it similar to preceding. Sides of premaxillæ concave at distal end, the grooves thus formed in them intruding some what on the maxillæ, especially posteriorly. Apex of rostrum very blunt, rounded off below and projecting above; deeper than wide. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obsolete. (Pl. 17, fig. 1; pl. 22, fig. 4.)

21248. Bering Island.—Similar to the previous one, but mesirostral ossification is higher than the premaxillæ at the distal end and has a convex shape above; it widens less abruptly at the back and ends flat. There are narrow, deep grooves between the ossification and the premaxillæ on each side, meaning the premaxillæ are located closer to the sides of the mesirostral region distally. The basin around the nares and the shape of the bones that surround it are similar to the previous description. The sides of the premaxillæ are concave at the distal end, which creates grooves that intrude somewhat on the maxillæ, especially towards the back. The tip of the rostrum is very blunt, rounded off underneath and projecting above; it is deeper than it is wide. The rudimentary alveolar groove is nearly nonexistent. (Pl. 17, fig. 1; pl. 22, fig. 4.)

Rami of mandible anchylosed together and the symphysis and suture largely obliterated. Teeth very broadly fusiform; tip short and rather blunt; roots closed; diameter 30 mm.

Rami of the jaw fused together, and the connection and suture mostly gone. Teeth are very broadly spindle-shaped; the tip is short and somewhat blunt; roots are closed; diameter is 30 mm.

49599. Newport, Rhode Island.—Adult male. All sutures on superior surface of skull more or less anchylosed together. Mesirostral ossification and premaxillæ all on one level near apex of rostrum, but at extreme tip mesirostral lower, forming a narrow ridge with a deep groove on each side between it and premaxillæ. The same conformation repeated more posteriorly, but grooves deeper and wider, while mesirostral maintains the same level as premaxillæ. It widens suddenly here, forming a broad flat-topped mass, which is a little overlapped by the premaxillæ. The mass terminates suddenly somewhat behind middle of rostrum with a deep concavity placed obliquely. Basin in front of the nares and conformation of bones composing it as in two preceding skulls. Vomer at proximal end touching lower end of nasals, and nasal septum continued behind and above it as a low ridge, composed of the inner edges of the two nasal bones and reaching up to the nasal boss. Outer sides of premaxillæ near distal end deeply concave. Apex of [53] rostrum rather blunt, deeper than wide opposite distal ends of maxillæ; all the bones anchylosed together, but some of the sutures indicated by grooves. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obsolete. (Pl. 17, fig. 2; pl. 19, fig. 2; pl. 21, figs. 1, 5.)

49599. Newport, Rhode Island.—Adult male. All the sutures on the upper surface of the skull are mostly fused together. The mesirostral ossification and premaxillae are all on the same level near the tip of the snout, but at the very end, the mesirostral part is lower, creating a narrow ridge with a deep groove on each side between it and the premaxillae. This same structure is repeated further back, but the grooves are deeper and wider, while the mesirostral part stays at the same level as the premaxillae. It suddenly widens here, creating a broad, flat-topped mass that is slightly overlapped by the premaxillae. This mass ends abruptly just beyond the middle of the snout with a deep concave section angled obliquely. There is a basin in front of the nares, and the shape of the bones forming it is similar to the two previous skulls. The vomer at the proximal end touches the lower part of the nasals, and the nasal septum continues behind and above it as a low ridge made up of the inner edges of the two nasal bones, extending up to the nasal boss. The outer sides of the premaxillae near the distal end are deeply concave. The tip of the snout is rather blunt and deeper than wide at the distal ends of the maxillae; all the bones are fused together, but some of the sutures are marked by grooves. The rudimentary alveolar groove is almost nonexistent. (Pl. 17, fig. 2; pl. 19, fig. 2; pl. 21, figs. 1, 5.)

Rami of mandible anchylosed together at symphysis, the suture indicated only by a groove. Teeth large, broadly conical and tapering at the tip. Root very short, rugose, conical and closed; diameter 29 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 2; pl. 23, figs. 2, 3.)

Rami of the jaw are fused at the symphysis, with the joint only marked by a groove. The teeth are large, broadly conical, and taper to a point. The root is very short, uneven, conical, and closed; diameter 29 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 2; pl. 23, figs. 2, 3.)

The dimensions of the several skulls are as follows:

The sizes of the different skulls are as follows:

Dimensions of ten skulls of Ziphius cavirostris (including the types of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger and Z. semijunctus Cope).

Measurements of ten skulls of Ziphius cavirostris (including the types of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger and Z. semijunctus Cope).

Column headings:
A: 83991. Bering Island. grebnitzkii.
B: 21248. Bering Island. grebnitzkii.
C: 22874. Bering Island. grebnitzkii.
D: 21246. Bering Island. grebnitzkii.
E: 20993. Bering Island. Type grebnitzkii.
F: 22069. Bering Island. grebnitzkii.
G: 21245. Bering Island. grebnitzkii.
H: 21975. Type semijunctus.
I: 20971. Barnegat, N. J. Female, cavirostris.
J: 49599. Newport, R. I. Male, cavirostris.
Measurements.ABCDEFGHIJ
mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.
Total length900877a807850963882855797945915
Length of rostrum491480a397470550480476463550514
Height from vertex to inferior border of pterygoids433450......515471481349440465
Distance from tip of rostrum to posterior free margin of pterygoids (median)664670......735682673614735726
Distance from the same to anterior end of nasals617621a538600690623589590708676
Breadth between centers of orbits495513b499488563b486492393476530
Breadth between zygomatic processes511513...505573531530415503548
Breadth between temporal fossæ270309325300349317311242302313
Breadth of rostrum at base319331345324380337320249307337
Breadth of rostrum at middle102117b94±10712010911283112113
Breadth of premaxillæ at same point54675862787075446280
Depth of rostrum at middle668180791181171135077107
Breadth of premaxillæ in front of nares176177184205221230219128176234
Greatest breadth of anterior naresc74777790981031087076112
Greatest length of temporal fossa161158154149152140146133143155
Greatest depth of temporal fossa81737779877489678076
Length of orbit (ant.-post.)131133132130137126117113134132
Distance from anterior end of orbit to maxillary notch78928270838985618299
Length of tympanic bulla............53......54...55
Breadth of tympanic bulla............24......37?...25
Length of mandible...769...............679...842
Length of symphysis...170.........184...149...176
Depth of mandible at coronoid...153...............133...153
a About 150 mm. lacking from end of beak.
b A little abraded.
c Taken on a level with the curve of the inner margin of the premaxillæ. Is only approximate.
[54]

SEX CHARACTERS.

It will be found from an examination of the foregoing descriptions that in those specimens in which the sex is known to be female, or is marked as such, the premaxillæ are comparatively narrow, the mesirostral ossification only slightly developed, the prenarial basin undeveloped, and the teeth quite slender, with a diameter of from 10 to 14 mm. As the teeth in some of them have closed roots there can be no doubt that they are adults. On the other hand, those skulls known or believed to be from adult males have the mesirostral ossification enormously developed, a deep prenarial basin, and fusiform teeth with closed roots and a diameter of from 25 to 30 mm. It appears to be a fact, therefore, that in the females the mesirostral ossification is never greatly developed at any age, that the teeth are never thick and fusiform, and that the prenarial region is never deeply concave. Immature individuals present, of course, the appearance of the females, except that the teeth are open at the root and that the mesirostral ossification is not developed at all. Conversely, the females, broadly speaking, always present characters of immaturity, but in adults the roots of the teeth are, of course, closed.

From examining the descriptions above, it can be seen that in specimens identified as female, the premaxillae are relatively narrow, the mesirostral ossification is only slightly developed, the prenarial basin is not developed, and the teeth are quite slender, measuring between 10 to 14 mm in diameter. Since some of these teeth have closed roots, it is clear that they are adults. Conversely, skulls known or believed to be from adult males show significantly developed mesirostral ossification, a deep prenarial basin, and fusiform teeth with closed roots measuring between 25 to 30 mm in diameter. Therefore, it seems that in females, mesirostral ossification is never greatly developed at any age, their teeth are never thick and fusiform, and the prenarial region is never deeply concave. Immature individuals resemble females, except that their teeth have open roots and that mesirostral ossification is not present at all. On the other hand, females generally exhibit characteristics of immaturity, but in adults, the roots of the teeth are, of course, closed.

That these conclusions are correct is borne out by an examination of descriptions and figures of specimens from other parts of the world, for which purpose a few are available in the writings of New Zealand zoologists and others. Hector, for example, in 1873,[40] published a description and figures of a skull from the Chatham Islands which had a large mesirostral ossification, deep prenarial concavity, and large, thick teeth, having a diameter of 34 mm. This is the same combination of characters found in the Newport specimen, which is known to be a male, and the Bering Island skulls supposed to be those of males.[41]

That these conclusions are correct is supported by examining descriptions and images of specimens from other parts of the world, for which a few are available in the writings of New Zealand zoologists and others. Hector, for example, in 1873,[40] published a description and images of a skull from the Chatham Islands that had a large mesirostral ossification, a deep prenarial concavity, and large, thick teeth, measuring 34 mm in diameter. This is the same combination of features found in the Newport specimen, which is known to be a male, and the Bering Island skulls thought to be from males.[41]

In 1876,[42] Haast figured and described a female 26 feet long, and hence presumably adult, from Lyttleton Harbor, New Zealand, which had a small development only of the mesirostral ossification, a slight prenarial depression, and rather slender teeth with closed roots and a diameter of 19 mm. This combination of characters is found in the Barnegat skull, also known to be an adult female.

In 1876, [42] Haast identified and described a female measuring 26 feet long, indicating it was likely an adult, from Lyttleton Harbor, New Zealand. It showed only minor development of the mesirostral ossification, a slight depression in the prenarial area, and relatively slender teeth with closed roots measuring 19 mm in diameter. This combination of features is also seen in the Barnegat skull, which is also recognized as an adult female.

In the same paper Haast describes[43] and figures the skull of another female from Akaroa Harbor, New Zealand. This individual was larger than the last and was accompanied by a suckling calf. Hence, there can be no doubt that it was mature. The skull shows a moderate development of the mesirostral ossification, and slender cylindrical teeth with closed roots and a diameter of 16 mm.

In the same paper, Haast describes[43] and illustrates the skull of another female from Akaroa Harbor, New Zealand. This individual was larger than the previous one and had a nursing calf with her, so it's clear that she was mature. The skull displays a moderate development of the mesirostral ossification and slender cylindrical teeth with closed roots, measuring 16 mm in diameter.

It is demonstrated from the foregoing discussion, I think, that the sexes can be distinguished by the skulls, when adult, or by the teeth alone.

It’s clear from the discussion above that adult skulls can distinguish between the sexes, or even just by looking at the teeth.

Reverting now to Ziphius gervaisii, which was mentioned on p. 30 as perhaps constituting a separate species, it will be seen by examining the figures given by [55] Gervais[44] of the skull on which it was based that the latter presents the combination of characters peculiar to the female of Z. cavirostris. This skull, which was from Aresquiers (Hérault), France, was 888 mm. long, and hence, presumably, adult. The mesirostral ossification is but slightly developed, the prenarial concavity moderate, the teeth small, slender, and cylindrical, with closed roots and a diameter of 14 mm. There seems to be no sufficient reason for regarding this skull as representing a species distinct from cavirostris.

Reverting now to Ziphius gervaisii, which was mentioned on p. 30 as possibly being a separate species, it's clear from examining the figures provided by [55] Gervais[44] of the skull used for classification that it shows traits characteristic of the female Z. cavirostris. This skull, which came from Aresquiers (Hérault), France, measured 888 mm in length, indicating it was likely an adult. The mesirostral ossification is only slightly developed, the prenarial concavity is moderate, and the teeth are small, slender, and cylindrical with closed roots and a diameter of 14 mm. There doesn't seem to be any strong reason to consider this skull as belonging to a species separate from cavirostris.

The specimen from Buenos Ayres described and figured by Burmeister in 1868[45] was an immature male. In the skull the mesirostral ossification was lacking, the premaxillæ were flat, and the teeth conical and acuminate, with open roots, and a diameter of 12 mm. This individual was 12 feet 11½ inches (3.95 m.) long, and hence about as long as the Charleston specimen, but the skull was apparently 680 mm. long, while that of the Charleston specimen is 797 mm. long. In the latter the teeth are 45 mm. long and 10 mm. in diameter, while the tooth figured by Burmeister is 31 mm. long and 12 mm. in diameter. From these data it appears improbable that the sex of immature individuals can be determined from the skull or teeth.

The specimen from Buenos Aires described and illustrated by Burmeister in 1868[45] was a young male. In the skull, the mesirostral bone wasn't formed, the premaxillae were flat, and the teeth were conical and pointed, with open roots and a diameter of 12 mm. This individual measured 12 feet 11½ inches (3.95 m.) long, which is about the same length as the Charleston specimen, but the skull was seemingly 680 mm. long, while the Charleston specimen’s skull is 797 mm. long. In the latter, the teeth are 45 mm. long and 10 mm. in diameter, whereas the tooth depicted by Burmeister is 31 mm. long and 12 mm. in diameter. Based on this information, it seems unlikely that the sex of immature individuals can be determined from the skull or teeth.

TEETH.

The teeth of the various North Atlantic and North Pacific specimens merit a somewhat more detailed description than is given on pages 50 to 53. Six pairs of teeth from six different individuals are available for comparison. Their dimensions are as follows:

The teeth from the different North Atlantic and North Pacific specimens deserve a more detailed description than what's provided on pages 50 to 53. We have six pairs of teeth from six different individuals for comparison. Their measurements are as follows:

Dimensions of the teeth of Ziphius cavirostris.

Measurements of the teeth of Ziphius cavirostris.

Cat. No.Locality.Age.Sex.Teeth.
Length.Greatest diameter.
mm.mm.
21975Charleston, South CarolinaaYoungFemale4510
20971Barnegat City, New JerseyAdultFemale5613
22069Bering IslandAdult(Female?)4114
20993do bAdult(Male?)4825
21248doAdult(Male?)5830
49599Newport, Rhode IslandAdultMale6329
a Type of Z. semijunctus.
b Type of Z. grebnitzkii.

21975. Charleston, South Carolina.—Young female. (Type of Z. semijunctus.) The teeth are slender, conical, and acuminate, largest at the base and tipped for about 2 mm. with white enamel. The remainder of the teeth is coated with a thin layer of cement. The teeth in what appears to be their natural position protrude horizontally from the mandible for about 17 mm. They are slightly curved upward near the tip and are oval, or elliptical, in section, the transverse diameter being a little less than the vertical diameter. They are a little flattened externally. [56] The surface is smooth. They are open at the root, and hollow. (Pl. 38, figs. 1, 2; pl. 22, fig. 1.)

21975. Charleston, South Carolina.—Young female. (Type of Z. semijunctus.) The teeth are slender, cone-shaped, and pointed, largest at the base and about 2 mm at the tip, covered with white enamel. The rest of the teeth have a thin layer of cement. In what seems to be their natural position, they stick out horizontally from the jaw for about 17 mm. They curve slightly upward near the tip and are oval or elliptical in shape, with the horizontal diameter a bit smaller than the vertical diameter. They are slightly flattened on the outside. [56] The surface is smooth. They are open at the root and hollow. (Pl. 38, figs. 1, 2; pl. 22, fig. 1.)

Doctor Manigault, curator of the Charleston Museum, wrote to Professor Cope regarding these teeth, as follows:

Doctor Manigault, curator of the Charleston Museum, wrote to Professor Cope about these teeth, saying:

Another peculiarity of the head consists in the lower maxillary bones being provided each at its point with a single small and very sharp tooth. These were not noticed during the dissection, owing to their being too much embedded in the integuments.[46]

Another strange feature of the head is that each lower jawbone has a single small, very sharp tooth at its tip. These weren't visible during the dissection because they were too deeply embedded in the skin.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

20971. Barnegat City, New Jersey.—Adult female. The teeth are slender, cylindrical, and irregularly pointed at both ends. The tips show what appears to be an inner core of dentine which has been worn down nearly to the cement coating and somewhat fractured. The cement coating is several millimeters thick, but does not increase the diameter of the teeth near the middle, so that they remain irregularly cylindrical throughout. The surface of the cement is rough and irregular. The root is short, conical, and closed at the end. These teeth are nearly straight. As they have been extracted from the jaw and the latter is broken it is not possible to distinguish which is the upper and which the lower surface, but they are irregularly oval in section, and a little compressed. (Pl. 38, figs. 3-5.)

20971. Barnegat City, New Jersey.—Adult female. The teeth are slender, cylindrical, and pointed irregularly at both ends. The tips have what looks like an inner core of dentine that has been worn down almost to the cement coating and is somewhat fractured. The cement coating is several millimeters thick but doesn’t make the diameter of the teeth wider near the middle, so they stay irregularly cylindrical throughout. The surface of the cement is rough and uneven. The root is short, conical, and closed at the end. These teeth are nearly straight. Since they have been taken out of the jaw and the jaw is broken, it’s not possible to tell which is the upper and which is the lower surface, but they are irregularly oval in shape and a bit compressed. (Pl. 38, figs. 3-5.)

In my original notes on this specimen, I recorded that there was a small pair of teeth behind the larger ones described above. Mention of these will be made again later. (See p. 57.)

In my original notes on this specimen, I recorded that there was a small pair of teeth behind the larger ones described above. I will mention these again later. (See p. 57.)

22069. Bering Island.—Adult female (?). The teeth are in position in this specimen and are nearly horizontal in position, but a little inclined upward and toward each other. They do not extend beyond the tip of the jaw nor up to the level of the upper surface of the symphysis, but protrude about 13 mm. beyond the alveoli on the side. They are rather slender, somewhat fusiform, blunt at both ends and slightly curved upward. The surface is irregular. They are nearly round in section. The root is closed, and the apex shows what appears to be a core of dentine surrounded by cement. There is a depression on the inner side near the root. These teeth are remarkable as intermediate in form between those of the preceding specimen and those of the specimens next to be mentioned. (Pl. 38, figs. 6, 7; pl. 22, fig. 3.)

22069. Bering Island.—Adult female (?). The teeth in this specimen are positioned properly and are almost horizontal, but slightly angled upward and toward each other. They don't extend beyond the tip of the jaw or reach the level of the upper surface of the symphysis, but they do protrude about 13 mm beyond the alveoli on the side. They are relatively slender, somewhat spindle-shaped, blunt at both ends, and slightly curved upward. The surface is uneven. They are nearly round in cross-section. The root is closed, and the tip appears to have a core of dentine surrounded by cement. There is a depression on the inner side near the root. These teeth are notable for being intermediate in shape between those of the previous specimen and those of the specimens that will be discussed next. (Pl. 38, figs. 6, 7; pl. 22, fig. 3.)

20993. Bering Island.—Adult male (?). (Type of Z. grebnitzkii.) These teeth are almond-shaped and very symmetrical. They are thickest near the base and taper gradually to the tip, which is quite acute. They are somewhat compressed and hence elliptical in section, the vertical diameter being greater than the transverse diameter. One side (probably the inner) is flattened. They are slightly curved upward toward the apex, which is a little worn and fractured. The root is very short and conical. It is nearly closed, but a very small canal extends upward for about 10 mm. The surface of the tooth is quite smooth, but dull in the lower half. The line of demarcation between cement and dentine is not evident. (Pl. 38, figs. 8, 9; pl. 23, fig. 1.)

20993. Bering Island.—Adult male (?). (Type of Z. grebnitzkii.) These teeth are almond-shaped and very symmetrical. They are thickest near the base and gradually taper to a sharp tip. They are somewhat compressed, making them elliptical in cross-section, with the vertical diameter being larger than the horizontal. One side (probably the inner) is flattened. They curve slightly upward toward the apex, which is a bit worn and fractured. The root is very short and conical. It is nearly closed, but a small canal extends upward for about 10 mm. The surface of the tooth is quite smooth but dull in the lower half. The line between the cement and dentine is not clear. (Pl. 38, figs. 8, 9; pl. 23, fig. 1.)

21248. Bering Island.—Adult male (?). In this specimen the teeth are still in the natural position in the jaw. They are held in place by ligaments and protrude [57] far beyond the alveoli, only about one-ninth of their length being below the superior border. They incline forward at an angle of about 45° with the longitudinal axis of the jaw and diverge slightly at the tips.

21248. Bering Island.—Adult male (?). In this specimen, the teeth are still in their natural position in the jaw. They are secured by ligaments and extend far beyond the sockets, with only about one-ninth of their length below the upper border. They tilt forward at an angle of about 45° to the length of the jaw and slightly diverge at the tips.

The teeth themselves have the same general form as those of the preceding specimen, but are larger. The inner surface is flattened and the outer strongly convex. The tips are quite pointed, but show some indications of wear. The roots can not be seen distinctly, but appear to be closed. (Pl. 22, fig. 4.)

The teeth have a similar shape to those of the previous specimen, but they are larger. The inner surface is flat while the outer surface is very curved. The tips are sharp, but show some signs of wear. The roots aren't clearly visible, but they seem to be closed. (Pl. 22, fig. 4.)

49599. Newport, Rhode Island.—Adult male. These teeth are longer than those of the preceding specimen, and while they resemble the latter in general form, taper much more gradually to the tip. The root, or portion below the point of maximum girth, is much shorter than that above, and rugose, with several deep furrows. A very small circular opening at the base of the root marks the orifice of the nerve. The upper half of the teeth is smooth, and the tips slightly worn and fractured. The small elliptical worn area is situated on the convex side of the tooth, which appears to be the outer side. As the alveoli of the jaw are, however, filled with a network of bone, the teeth can not be inserted in them. They were detached when received. (Pl. 38, figs. 10, 11; pl. 22, fig. 2; pl. 23, figs. 2, 3.)

49599. Newport, Rhode Island.—Adult male. These teeth are longer than those of the previous specimen, and while they generally resemble the latter, they taper much more gradually to the tip. The root, or the part below the maximum girth, is much shorter than the part above and has a rough texture with several deep grooves. A very small circular opening at the base of the root marks the nerve opening. The upper half of the teeth is smooth, and the tips are slightly worn and chipped. The small elliptical worn area is located on the curved side of the tooth, which seems to be the outer side. However, since the jaw's alveoli are filled with a network of bone, the teeth cannot be placed in them. They were separated when received. (Pl. 38, figs. 10, 11; pl. 22, fig. 2; pl. 23, figs. 2, 3.)

Besides the difference in the size and form of the teeth in the two sexes, it is probable, as will be seen by consulting the foregoing data, that in the female the apex of the teeth does not extend more than a very small distance above the alveoli even in mature individuals, and probably often not more than a few millimeters; while in adult males the teeth are almost entirely protruded from the alveoli, which are filled with a coarse bony network. These differences are carried out in all the American specimens, and also characterized the New Zealand specimens, as may be learned from the accounts of Haast and Hector.

Besides the difference in size and shape of the teeth between the two sexes, it seems, as shown by the previous data, that in females, the tips of the teeth barely extend above the gums even in adults, often only a few millimeters; whereas in adult males, the teeth stick out almost entirely from the gums, which are filled with a rough bony structure. These differences are observed in all the American specimens and are also noted in the New Zealand specimens, as described in the accounts of Haast and Hector.

A number of rudimentary teeth in addition to the large terminal pair have been noted in the Aresquiers, Buenos Ayres, and perhaps other specimens, and two such teeth were found in the mandible of the Barnegat specimen, behind the large pair. One of these rudimentary teeth has been preserved. It is cylindrical and moderately curved. The length is 16 mm. and the diameter 2 mm. The whole tooth, with the exception of the extreme tip, is thickly coated with cement. The root is closed and the crown acute and apparently abraded by use. (Pl. 38, fig. 5.)

A number of basic teeth, along with a large pair at the end, have been observed in the Aresquiers, Buenos Ayres, and possibly other samples. Two of these basic teeth were found in the jaw of the Barnegat specimen, situated behind the large pair. One of these basic teeth has been preserved. It is cylindrical and moderately curved. It measures 16 mm in length and 2 mm in diameter. The entire tooth, except for the very tip, is heavily coated with cement. The root is closed, and the crown is pointed and seems to have been worn down from use. (Pl. 38, fig. 5.)

Returning now to the question of the validity of grebnitzkii as a species, I would say that after comparing the measurements of the Bering Island skulls with those of the Atlantic coast specimens, and comparing the skulls themselves, I have been unable to find any constant difference of importance, except the size and form of the periotic bone. As the earbones are lacking from many of the skulls, the series available for comparison is small.

Returning now to the question of the validity of grebnitzkii as a species, I would say that after comparing the measurements of the Bering Island skulls with those of the Atlantic coast specimens, and comparing the skulls themselves, I have not been able to find any consistent significant differences, except for the size and shape of the periotic bone. Since many of the skulls are missing the earbones, the number available for comparison is limited.

As compared with the Atlantic coast specimens, the anterior portion of the periotic bone in grebnitzkii is larger, broader, and more rectangular in outline when viewed from below. I observe, however, that the absolute size and outline of the periotic vary considerably in the different specimens of grebnitzkii without relation to age. The same appears to be true of cavirostris, but comparing the two series of skulls as a whole it appears to be true that the anterior mass of the periotic is larger in grebnitzkii. I do not think, however, that the latter species should be [58] kept distinct on this account alone, at least until the character has been confirmed, and perhaps strengthened by others, through the examination of a larger series of specimens.

Compared to the Atlantic coast specimens, the front part of the periotic bone in grebnitzkii is larger, wider, and more rectangular in shape when seen from below. However, I notice that the actual size and shape of the periotic differ significantly across various grebnitzkii specimens, regardless of age. The same seems to apply to cavirostris, but when looking at both groups of skulls overall, it seems that the front part of the periotic is larger in grebnitzkii. However, I don’t believe that this species should be considered separate just for this reason alone, at least until this characteristic has been confirmed and possibly reinforced by examining a larger number of specimens.

SKELETON OF ZIPHIUS FROM BERING ISLAND.

The Museum collection contains an incomplete skeleton of a very young individual, Cat. No. 22875, which was received from Bering Island with the skulls of Z. grebnitzkii, but does not belong to any one of them. Whether it really represents that species is, therefore, uncertain, but such is probably the case. The length of the vertebral column, consisting of 45 vertebræ, without interspaces, is 9 feet 2 inches.

The museum collection has an incomplete skeleton of a very young individual, Cat. No. 22875, which was received from Bering Island along with the skulls of Z. grebnitzkii, but it doesn't match any of them. It's uncertain if it actually belongs to that species, but it probably does. The length of the vertebral column, made up of 45 vertebrae without any gaps, is 9 feet 2 inches.

The vertebral formula is as follows: C. 7; Th. 10; L. 10; Ca. 18 (+1?) = 45 (+1?). This is the same as in the type of semijunctus so far as the cervicals, thoracics, and lumbars are concerned, and the probable total is the same. In their general characters these vertebræ agree with those of the skeletons already described, but they present a number of differences as well. On account of immaturity the processes are even less developed than in semijunctus. All the epiphyses are free, and in the third to the seventh thoracic vertebræ the neural arch and spine are separate from the centrum. The centra are very short in proportion to their width.

The vertebral formula is as follows: C. 7; Th. 10; L. 10; Ca. 18 (+1?) = 45 (+1?). This is the same as in the type of semijunctus regarding the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebrae, and the probable total is also the same. In general, these vertebrae share characteristics with the skeletons previously described, but they exhibit several differences too. Due to immaturity, the processes are even less developed than in semijunctus. All the epiphyses are free, and in the third to the seventh thoracic vertebrae, the neural arch and spine are separate from the centrum. The centra are very short compared to their width.

Although the specimen is so young, the anterior foramen of the atlas is, nevertheless, inclosed by bone, and though the line of separation between the atlas and axis is visible on the sides, the fourth cervical is anchylosed to the third at the top of the centrum. Although the neural spines, metapophyses, and transverse processes of the thoracics are much shorter than those of the young semijunctus, the epiphyses are as large or even larger than in that specimen. The neural arches are also noticeably thicker than in semijunctus, and the centra are rounded inferiorly rather than carinated. The neural spines are much more nearly erect than in the adult Barnegat and Newport skeletons, but, as mentioned on page 41, this is probably a character of immaturity, and is shared by semijunctus.

Although the specimen is quite young, the front opening of the atlas is still surrounded by bone. Even though the division between the atlas and axis can be seen on the sides, the fourth cervical vertebra is fused to the third at the top of the centrum. While the neural spines, metapophyses, and transverse processes of the thoracic vertebrae are much shorter than those of the young semijunctus, the epiphyses are as large or even larger than in that specimen. The neural arches are also noticeably thicker compared to semijunctus, and the centra are rounded on the bottom instead of being carinated. The neural spines are much more upright than in the adult Barnegat and Newport skeletons, but, as mentioned on page 41, this is likely a characteristic of immaturity and is also seen in semijunctus.

The differences as regards the form of the centra and neural arches die away among the lumbars, and these vertebræ and the caudals are, with a due allowance for greater immaturity, very similar to those of semijunctus.

The differences in the structure of the centra and neural arches fade away among the lumbar vertebrae, and these vertebrae, along with the caudals, are, with some consideration for greater immaturity, very similar to those of semijunctus.

The seventh thoracic is like the sixth in form, and is without a transverse process. It thus resembles the same vertebra in semijunctus. The eighth, however, has an ill-defined facet on the side of the metapophysis and a second facet a little above the upper border of the centrum. The eighth pair of ribs has only a single terminal articular facet.

The seventh thoracic vertebra is similar in shape to the sixth and lacks a transverse process. It therefore resembles the same vertebra in semijunctus. The eighth vertebra, however, features a poorly defined facet on the side of the metapophysis and a second facet slightly above the upper edge of the centrum. The eighth pair of ribs has just one terminal articular facet.

The ninth thoracic has a short, thick transverse process, about in line with the upper surface of the centrum.

The ninth thoracic vertebra has a short, thick transverse process that aligns roughly with the upper surface of the body of the vertebra.

The transverse process of the seventh caudal is perforated on the right side by a foramen. The transverse processes are last traceable on the ninth caudal, the neural spines on the tenth caudal, and the neural arch on the eleventh caudal. Eight chevron bones are preserved, but probably two more were present originally.

The transverse process of the seventh caudal bone has a hole on the right side. The transverse processes can still be seen on the ninth caudal, the neural spines on the tenth caudal, and the neural arch on the eleventh caudal. Eight chevron bones are still intact, but likely two more were there initially.

Ten pairs of ribs are present. The first is much broader in the proximal half than in the distal half, but the distal end is slightly expanded. The first seven pairs [59] possess both head and tubercle, but the eighth, ninth, and tenth have only a single terminal articular facet.

Ten pairs of ribs are present. The first is much wider at the top half than at the bottom half, but the end is slightly enlarged. The first seven pairs [59] have both a head and a tubercle, but the eighth, ninth, and tenth only have a single end joint surface.

The sternum, which consists of five segments, is similar in form to that of semijunctus. The two sides of each segment are united. The posterior emargination of the third segment, and those of both ends of the fourth and fifth segments are small. The scapula and humerus are like those of semijunctus in form. The remaining parts of both pectoral limbs are lacking.

The sternum, made up of five sections, is shaped similarly to that of semijunctus. Each section is connected on both sides. The back notches on the third section and those at both ends of the fourth and fifth sections are small. The shape of the scapula and humerus resembles that of semijunctus. The other parts of both front limbs are missing.

Without more material, and especially some skeletons of adults, it is difficult to decide what importance should be assigned to the differences observable in the cervical and thoracic vertebræ of this young Bering Island specimen. The measurements of the skeleton are included in the table on pages 47 and 48.

Without additional material, and particularly adult skeletons, it's hard to determine the significance of the differences seen in the cervical and thoracic vertebrae of this young specimen from Bering Island. The measurements of the skeleton can be found in the table on pages 47 and 48.

EXTERNAL CHARACTERS.

The series of photographs (Cat. No. 142579) of an individual obtained in Kiska Harbor, Alaska, is very interesting as affording comparison of what is apparently a specimen of grebnitzkii with the Atlantic form represented in the photograph of the Newport, Rhode Island, specimen. As no part of the Kiska specimen was preserved, it is not possible, of course, to identify it positively with grebnitzkii or even with the genus Ziphius. No one who compares the photographs reproduced in Pl. 41, figs. 3 and 4, can, I think, fail to be convinced that both represent animals of the same genus and that the Pacific species (whether grebnitzkii or not) bears the strongest possible resemblance to the Atlantic one.

The series of photographs (Cat. No. 142579) of an individual taken in Kiska Harbor, Alaska, is quite fascinating as it allows for a comparison of what seems to be a specimen of grebnitzkii with the Atlantic version shown in the Newport, Rhode Island, photograph. Since no part of the Kiska specimen was preserved, it's impossible to definitively identify it as grebnitzkii or even with the genus Ziphius. I believe anyone who compares the photographs shown in Pl. 41, figs. 3 and 4, will agree that both depict animals of the same genus and that the Pacific species (whether it's grebnitzkii or not) closely resembles the Atlantic version.

Doctor Egbert published the following note on the Kiska specimen in 1905:

Doctor Egbert published the following note on the Kiska specimen in 1905:

Early in September a monster dolphin grounded on the beach in Kiska Harbor and was killed. Specific identification has not yet been made. The general color was bluish-gray; length, 18½ feet; estimated weight, 3,600 pounds; sex, male. Body was quite regular in shape and rather rotund, the greatest circumference being about midway between dorsal fin and tip of the rather short snout. This dolphin was hauled alongside the ship, stripped of its blubber, and the oil extracted. Some of the flesh was eaten. The oil obtained was of excellent quality. It was particularly desired for use on the wire of the deep-sea sounding machine used aboard the [U. S. Coast Survey steamer] Patterson.[47]

In early September, a large dolphin washed up on the beach in Kiska Harbor and was killed. It hasn't been specifically identified yet. The dolphin was mostly bluish-gray, measuring 18½ feet long and weighing about 3,600 pounds; it was male. The body was fairly uniform and quite round, with the widest part located roughly between the dorsal fin and the end of its relatively short snout. This dolphin was brought alongside the ship, its blubber was removed, and oil was extracted. Some of the meat was consumed. The oil produced was of excellent quality and was particularly sought after for use on the wire of the deep-sea sounding machine used on the [U. S. Coast Survey steamer] Patterson.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

The size was about the same as that of the Newport specimen. Although Doctor Egbert gives the color merely as “bluish gray,” the photographs indicate that the belly was white, or whitish, and that there were oval white spots on the sides. As a whole, therefore, the coloration was similar to that of the New Zealand specimens of cavirostris obtained at Port Cooper and Lyttleton Harbor.

The size was roughly the same as the Newport specimen. While Doctor Egbert describes the color as “bluish gray,” the photographs suggest that the belly was white or whitish, and there were oval white spots on the sides. Overall, the coloration was similar to that of the New Zealand specimens of cavirostris collected at Port Cooper and Lyttleton Harbor.

When compared with the photograph of the Newport specimen (Pl. 41, fig. 4) it will be seen that the Kiska photograph represents an animal practically identical in general form, as well as in the general shape of the head, the length and form of the snout, the size and general shape of the pectoral fins. In the photograph of the Newport specimen the flukes are not well seen, but in the Kiska photograph the posterior median convexity peculiar to the ziphioids is clearly represented. The dorsal fin of the Newport specimen appears to be turned somewhat to one side and the tip crumpled, which makes it appear lower and somewhat longer and less pointed than [60] that of the Kiska specimen. This may, of course, be a real difference, though such is probably not the case.

When you compare it to the photograph of the Newport specimen (Pl. 41, fig. 4), you'll see that the Kiska photograph shows an animal that is almost identical in overall shape, including the head's form, the length and shape of the snout, and the size and shape of the pectoral fins. The flukes of the Newport specimen aren’t very visible, but in the Kiska photograph, the distinct posterior median convexity typical of ziphioids is clearly shown. The dorsal fin of the Newport specimen seems to be angled to one side and the tip looks crumpled, making it appear lower, a bit longer, and less pointed than that of the Kiska specimen. This could be a real difference, but it probably isn't.

Considering the foregoing data relative to grebnitzkii as a whole, there is not in my opinion sufficient warrant at present for considering this form as a species distinct from cavirostris, and it should be added that no distinguishing characters were given in the original description.

Considering the data about grebnitzkii overall, I don't think there is enough reason right now to classify this form as a species separate from cavirostris, and it's important to note that no distinguishing features were provided in the original description.


Genus Berardius Duvernoy.

Of this genus the National Museum has three skulls and three skeletons representing the species bairdii, and a skull representing the species arnuxii. The latter, Cat. No. 21511, U.S.N.M., is without exact locality, but is catalogued as having been obtained in New Zealand. As the species arnuxii has been well described and figured by Flower[48] and others, no detailed account of this skull is given here. Measurements of it, however, are included with those of B. bairdii in the table on p. 68.

The National Museum has three skulls and three skeletons of the species bairdii, along with one skull of the species arnuxii. The latter, Cat. No. 21511, U.S.N.M., doesn’t have a specific location listed but is noted as being collected in New Zealand. Since the species arnuxii has been thoroughly described and illustrated by Flower[48] and others, there’s no detailed description of this skull provided here. However, measurements for this skull are included with those of B. bairdii in the table on p. 68.

BERARDIUS BAIRDII Stejneger.

Berardius bairdii Stejneger, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 6, p. 75, June 22, 1883.
Berardius vegæ Malm, Bihang K. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handl., vol. 8, 1883, No. 4, p. 109.[49]

This species was based by Dr. L. Stejneger on a skull obtained by Mr. N. Grebnitzki in Stare Gavan, on the eastern shore of Bering Island, Commander Group, Bering Sea, in the autumn of 1881. In 1879 a portion of a skull of the same species was found on Bering Island by the Vega expedition, and was made the basis of a new species, B. vegæ, by A. W. Malm, the description of which was published a few months after that of Doctor Stejneger. The National Museum subsequently received another skull from Bering Island, through Mr. N. Grebnitzki, but, so far as I am aware, nothing further was heard of the species until 1903 and 1904, when the National Museum received three nearly complete skeletons, two of them from St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Bering Sea, and one from the coast of California. The material now in the National Museum is as follows:[50]

This species was identified by Dr. L. Stejneger based on a skull that Mr. N. Grebnitzki collected in Stare Gavan, on the eastern shore of Bering Island, Commander Group, Bering Sea, in the autumn of 1881. In 1879, part of a skull from the same species was discovered on Bering Island by the Vega expedition, which led A. W. Malm to create a new species, B. vegæ, with the description published just a few months after Dr. Stejneger's. The National Museum later received another skull from Bering Island through Mr. N. Grebnitzki, but as far as I know, there was no further news about the species until 1903 and 1904, when the National Museum obtained three nearly complete skeletons: two from St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Bering Sea, and one from the coast of California. The material currently in the National Museum is as follows:[50]

(1) Cat. No. 20992.—Skull and mandible of an immature individual collected by Dr. L. Stejneger in Bering Island. Original number 1520. Catalogued November 24, 1883. Type.

(1) Cat. No. 20992.—Skull and jawbone of a young individual collected by Dr. L. Stejneger on Bering Island. Original number 1520. Catalogued November 24, 1883. Type.

(2) Cat. No. (lacking).—Skull and mandible of an immature individual. Collected by Mr. N. Grebnitzki in Bering Island (?). Mounted.

(2) Cat. No. (lacking).—Skull and jawbone of a young individual. Collected by Mr. N. Grebnitzki on Bering Island (?). Mounted.

(3) Cat. No. 142118.—Skull, mandible, and cervical vertebræ of a very young individual. Collected by Dr. L. Stejneger, June 5, 1883, on North Rookery, Bering [61] Island. Original number 2191. This specimen is accompanied by notes and measurements.

(3) Cat. No. 142118.—Skull, jawbone, and neck vertebrae of a very young individual. Collected by Dr. L. Stejneger on June 5, 1883, on North Rookery, Bering [61] Island. Original number 2191. This specimen comes with notes and measurements.

(4) Cat. No. 49726.—Skeleton and measurements of an adult female. Near East Rookery, St. George Island, Pribilof Group. Collected by James Judge, in June, 1903. Length, 40 feet 2 inches.

(4) Cat. No. 49726.—Skeleton and measurements of an adult female. Near East Rookery, St. George Island, Pribilof Group. Collected by James Judge, in June 1903. Length: 40 feet, 2 inches.

(5) Cat. No. 49727.—Skeleton and measurements of an immature male. Same locality and date as the preceding. Length, 25 feet 5 inches.

(5) Cat. No. 49727.—Skeleton and measurements of a young male. Same location and date as the one before. Length, 25 feet 5 inches.

The two skeletons (4) and (5) are somewhat incomplete. The Museum received a photograph of the female from Maj. Ezra W. Clark.

The two skeletons (4) and (5) are a bit incomplete. The Museum got a photograph of the female from Maj. Ezra W. Clark.

(6) Cat. No. 49725.—Skeleton and two photographs of an adult male (?) stranded on Centerville beach near Ferndale, Humboldt County, California, October, 1904. Length, about 41 feet.

(6) Cat. No. 49725.—Skeleton and two photographs of an adult male (?) found stranded on Centerville beach near Ferndale, Humboldt County, California, in October 1904. Length, approximately 41 feet.

A brief note on the St. George Island and California skeletons was published by the author in Science for 1904.[51] The dimensions given by the collectors were so large as to raise doubts whether they were correct, but the arrival of the skeletons proved that they were not overstated, and that the specimens were by far the largest ziphioid whales ever discovered, the bones about equaling those of a humpback whale in size and massiveness.

A quick note about the St. George Island and California skeletons was published by the author in Science for 1904.[51] The measurements provided by the collectors were so large that they raised questions about their accuracy, but when the skeletons arrived, it became clear that the measurements weren’t exaggerated, and that the specimens were by far the largest ziphioid whales ever found, with bones roughly the size and weight of a humpback whale.

HISTORY OF THE ST. GEORGE ISLAND SPECIMENS.

The St. George Island specimens were first made known by Mr. James Judge, special agent of the Treasury Department, resident at the Pribilof Islands, in a letter dated June 16, 1903, as follows:

The St. George Island specimens were first introduced by Mr. James Judge, a special agent of the Treasury Department living on the Pribilof Islands, in a letter dated June 16, 1903, as follows:

I was much surprised the other day to find a pair of whales ashore near East Rookery [St. George Island]. They lay about 150 yards apart. The female was 40 feet 2 inches, the male 25 feet 5 inches in length. The species is not positively identified, but tallies closely with the Globe Encyclopedia description of Bottlehead or Bottlenose whale, Hyperodoön bidentatus. Natives call it “Tcha-dhan.” The male is without teeth; female has two teeth in front of lower jaw.[52] The skin is thin, smooth, white underneath, and black above. Dorsal fin small and well aft. Caudal large and powerful. Eyes very small. Ears not visible.

I was really surprised the other day to discover a pair of whales on the shore near East Rookery [St. George Island]. They were about 150 yards apart. The female measured 40 feet 2 inches long, while the male was 25 feet 5 inches long. The species isn't definitively identified, but it closely matches the description of the Bottlehead or Bottlenose whale, Hyperodoön bidentatus, in the Globe Encyclopedia. Locals call it “Tcha-dhan.” The male has no teeth, and the female has two teeth at the front of her lower jaw. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ The skin is thin, smooth, white underneath, and black on top. The dorsal fin is small and positioned far back. The tail is large and powerful. The eyes are very small, and the ears aren't visible.

Thinking that the skeleton might be of use, the bones of the female were cut out and placed high and dry on the grass. Four ribs were broken; otherwise the bones are intact. The male was towed to East Landing, and with the aid of a capstan deposited beyond reach of surf. Some blubber was saved. The foxes will clean up the bones during August, so that in all probability both skeletons will be available this fall. * * * I inclose some measurements, taken roughly, with a 5-foot tape line.

Thinking the skeleton might be useful, the female's bones were removed and placed up high and dry on the grass. Four ribs were broken; otherwise, the bones are intact. The male was towed to East Landing and, with the help of a capstan, was placed out of reach of the surf. Some blubber was saved. The foxes will clean up the bones in August, so both skeletons should be available this fall. * * * I'm enclosing some measurements taken roughly with a 5-foot tape measure.

[62]

Whale measurements, June 11, 1903.

Whale measurements, June 11, 1903.

Female.Male.
Ft.in.Ft.in.
Greatest length402255
Greatest circumference (much bloated)200120
Extremity of upper lip to nostril4430
Distance between eyes4636
Extremity of lower lip to angle of mouth2519
Circumference of head at eyes81070
Lower half of snout 10 inches from end2319
Upper half of snout 12 inches from end2117
Length of [pectoral] fin along outer edge5035
Circumference of tail [at] junction [with] caudal fin5035
Distance between extreme points of caudal fin10263
Anus to end of body11877
Anus to vagina12......
Anus to penis......18
Length of vagina13......
Length of penis......19
Penis at base......15
Height of dorsal fin0120
Dorsal fin along spine to end of body111175
Length of nipple from raised base01......

The skeletons remained on the island until August, 1904, when they were carried by the revenue cutter McCulloch to Dutch Harbor and afterwards to San Francisco. Through a misunderstanding they were allowed to remain on the beach at St. George Island until November, 1903, and suffered considerable injury. On that date they were deposited in a storehouse by Maj. Ezra W. Clark, assistant treasury agent in charge, who afterwards presented the photograph of the female above mentioned. (Pl. 42, fig. 1.) The latter shows the short, narrow, pointed pectoral fin, and long, rather slender beak.

The skeletons stayed on the island until August 1904, when they were transported by the revenue cutter McCulloch to Dutch Harbor and then to San Francisco. Due to a misunderstanding, they were left on the beach at St. George Island until November 1903, which caused them significant damage. On that date, Maj. Ezra W. Clark, the assistant treasury agent in charge, moved them to a storehouse and later provided the photograph of the female mentioned earlier. (Pl. 42, fig. 1.) This photo shows the short, narrow, pointed pectoral fin, and the long, fairly slender beak.

Another specimen of Berardius was found stranded on St. George Island on August 21, 1909. The following information regarding it was received from Maj. Ezra W. Clark, under date of September 4, 1909:

Another specimen of Berardius was found stranded on St. George Island on August 21, 1909. The following information regarding it was received from Maj. Ezra W. Clark, dated September 4, 1909:

On August 21, 1909, after an unusually severe gale for the season, accompanied with heavy sea, a beaked whale was stranded under the cliffs of the northeast coast of St. George Island. Its position was such that it was reached with great difficulty. It was undergoing decomposition. I succeeded in getting the following information:

On August 21, 1909, after an unusually strong storm for the season and rough seas, a beaked whale washed up under the cliffs on the northeast coast of St. George Island. Its location was very difficult to reach. It was decomposing. I was able to gather the following information:

Sex, female.
Length from tip of beak to end of body, 22 feet.
Length of beak, tip to base, 2 feet 5 inches.
Length of head, not including beak, 2 feet.
Length of tail, or width of flukes at base, 1 foot 10 inches.
Girth around beak at its base, 2 feet.
Girth around body at dorsal fin, about 12 feet.
Girth around body at base of tail, 3 feet.
Spread of tail, or flukes, 6 feet.
Length of dorsal fin at base, 1 foot 10 inches.
Fore fins, 1 foot 10 inches.

I think that I shall not be able to get the skeleton of this whale, owing to the rough seas prevailing.

I don’t think I can get the skeleton of this whale because of the rough seas.

[63]

HISTORY OF THE CENTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA, SPECIMEN.

The Californian specimen (Cat. No. 49725) was first made known in a letter addressed to me by President Jordan, of Stanford University, under date of October 27, 1904, inclosing one from Mr. J. H. Ring, of Ferndale, California, dated October 23, 1904, which was as follows:

The Californian specimen (Cat. No. 49725) was first introduced to me in a letter from President Jordan of Stanford University, dated October 27, 1904, which included a letter from Mr. J. H. Ring of Ferndale, California, dated October 23, 1904, that said:

Enclosed find three views of an animal stranded on the beach near this place [Ferndale, Humboldt County, California], and as its identity seems rather uncertain we hope you will kindly classify it and inform us of its true name and habitat, if possible, from the photographs and incomplete description. Its total length is about 41 feet. Greatest circumference 16 feet, tapering probably to 18 inches near the tail. It also tapers toward the head, terminating in a sharp beak, the upper jaw being about 16 and the lower 19 inches long.

Attached are three photos of an animal that has washed up on the beach near here [Ferndale, Humboldt County, California]. Its identity is a bit unclear, so we hope you can identify it and tell us its correct name and habitat, if possible, based on the photos and the incomplete description. It measures about 41 feet in length, with a maximum circumference of 16 feet, tapering down to about 18 inches near the tail. It also narrows toward the head, which ends in a sharp beak; the upper jaw is about 16 inches long, and the lower jaw is about 19 inches long.

On each side in the lower jaw well to the front is a conical tooth, the crown of which is exposed one-half an inch. The head is full and rounded, resembling that of an elephant, with depressions corresponding to the ears, and small eyes a little ahead and below.

On each side of the lower jaw, toward the front, there’s a cone-shaped tooth with half an inch of the crown visible. The head is full and rounded, similar to an elephant's, featuring indentations where the ears would be, and small eyes that are positioned slightly ahead and below.

On top of head is a heart-shaped opening, evidently for breathing purposes. There is also evidence of a dorsal fin, while each fork of tail is 3½ feet or so long. The underside of the animal is too bruised to show anything of importance. The flippers are also in bad shape, one being buried in the sand, while the other is entirely denuded of flesh, leaving a bony stump about 6 inches long and which moves readily in any direction. We think it is a “bottle-nose” whale, but as some claim that they are not to be found on this coast and do not exceed 30 feet in length, it may be something else.

There is a heart-shaped opening on top of the head, clearly for breathing. The animal also has a dorsal fin, and each fork of the tail is about 3½ feet long. The underside of the animal is too injured to provide any significant details. The flippers are also in bad condition; one is buried in the sand, and the other is completely stripped of flesh, leaving a 6-inch long bony stump that moves easily in any direction. We believe it’s a “bottle-nose” whale, but since some people say they aren’t found on this coast and don’t grow longer than 30 feet, it could be something else.

Mr. Ring was immediately communicated with, and very generously presented to the Museum the skull of the animal, which he had secured and cleaned with much labor and some danger to himself. He also undertook to have the skeleton cleaned and sent to Washington, and it was received in due course in June, 1905. Mr. Ring wrote under date of May 15, 1905:

Mr. Ring was contacted right away and generously donated the skull of the animal, which he had carefully secured and cleaned with a lot of effort and some risk to himself. He also took on the task of getting the skeleton cleaned and sent to Washington, and it arrived as expected in June 1905. Mr. Ring wrote on May 15, 1905:

You will notice that the point of the beak, as well as the points of the lower jawbones, are a little damaged, some hunters having shot the teeth out and then set a fire inside the jaws.

You’ll notice that the tip of the beak and the ends of the lower jawbones are a bit damaged because some hunters shot the teeth out and then started a fire inside the jaws.

When received, the skeleton lacked the flippers and also two of the teeth. Regarding the former, Mr. Ring wrote on November 18, 1905, as follows:

When it arrived, the skeleton was missing the flippers and two of the teeth. About the flippers, Mr. Ring wrote on November 18, 1905, as follows:

I wrote you that one flipper was entirely gone and the other worn down to a stump, as shown in the picture. I have interviewed the man who stripped the specimen, and he says the stump was badly crushed and broken and fears it was lost one night when the extremely high tide had turned the whale over, and only the anchors and lashings I had secured it with prevented its going out to sea.

I told you that one flipper was totally missing and the other was worn down to a stub, as the picture shows. I talked to the guy who prepped the specimen, and he said the stub was badly crushed and broken. He’s worried it got lost one night when the really high tide turned the whale over, and only the anchors and ties I used to secure it stopped it from drifting out to sea.

This skeleton was mounted recently and placed on exhibition in the Museum. The flippers were modeled from those of the St. George Island specimens (which were also imperfect) and from the figures of B. arnuxii given by Flower. The end of the beak was also restored, and a facsimile of the teeth substituted for the real ones. This remarkable skeleton shows in a manner hitherto unapproached the great size which this genus of ziphioid whales attains, and the peculiar conformation of the body. While the vertebræ rival those of the large whalebone whales, such as the Humpbacks, in their dimensions, the head is remarkable for its small size as compared with the immense proportions of the same part in the Right whales. (Pl. 42, fig. 4.)

This skeleton was recently mounted and put on display in the Museum. The flippers were modeled after those from the St. George Island specimens (which were also imperfect) and from the figures of B. arnuxii provided by Flower. The tip of the beak was also restored, and a replica of the teeth replaced the real ones. This impressive skeleton illustrates in an unprecedented way the enormous size that this genus of ziphioid whales reaches, along with the unique shape of its body. While the vertebrae are comparable in size to those of large whalebone whales, like the Humpbacks, the head is notably small when compared to the massive size of the same body part in Right whales. (Pl. 42, fig. 4.)

Mr. Ring sent to the Museum three photographs of the Californian specimen above mentioned, two of which are reproduced on Pl. 42, figs. 2 and 3. Although rather indistinct, they show the general form of the body, the peculiar bulbous head, with an indication of a neck, and the long beak.

Mr. Ring sent three photographs of the Californian specimen mentioned above to the Museum, two of which are shown on Pl. 42, figs. 2 and 3. Although they are somewhat unclear, they display the overall shape of the body, the distinctive bulbous head, a hint of a neck, and the long beak.

[64]

DESCRIPTION OF A YOUNG BERING ISLAND SPECIMEN.

Doctor Stejneger has very kindly placed in my hands his original notes on the young individual examined by him in Bering Island June 5, 1883 (Cat. No. 142,188) and they are given below in full:

Doctor Stejneger has generously shared his original notes on the young individual he examined on Bering Island on June 5, 1883 (Cat. No. 142,188), and they are provided below in full:

When the news reached me that a small “plavum” was found dead ashore at the North Rookery of Bering Island, I immediately ordered dogs, and arrived at the place in company with the “starost.” The carcass was found lying on the very beach where the fur seals during the summer occupy the ground. As the bulk of the seals had not yet arrived, only a few “sikatschi” were seen in the immediate neighborhood, but it was reported that they had retired from the place on account of the smell of the putrefied body, as it was thought. The natives, fearing that it would drive the seals from the rookery altogether if left on the beach any longer, were very anxious to get it away as fast as possible, and it was only with some hesitation that they would allow one to stand on the rookery long enough to take a few measurements. The animal was quite a young one, and I conjectured that it had died immediately after having been born, as I think there were some remains of the umbilical cord. Hardly any of the bones were fully ossified. Under these circumstances, it was out of the question to have the whole skeleton preserved, as the dismembering and the separation of the putrified flesh from the bones and cartilages would require more care and consequently more time than the natives were willing to allow. I was therefore glad to secure the head and some of the neck vertebræ. Even that tried their patience, as the head was going to separate into its single bones and the not yet united component pieces, and consequently needed special care and attention.

When I heard that a small “plavum” had been found dead on the shore at the North Rookery of Bering Island, I quickly gathered some dogs and went there with the “starost.” The carcass was lying right on the beach where the fur seals usually gather during the summer. Since most of the seals hadn't arrived yet, only a few “sikatschi” were seen nearby, but it was reported that they had left the area because of the smell from the decaying body. The locals were worried that if it remained on the beach any longer, it would completely drive the seals away from the rookery, so they were eager to get rid of it quickly. They only lingered long enough to let me take a few measurements. The animal was very young, and I suspected it had died right after being born since I thought I could see some remnants of the umbilical cord. Most of the bones weren’t fully developed. Because of this, it was impossible to preserve the whole skeleton, as removing the decayed flesh from the bones and cartilage would take more care and time than the locals wanted to spend. So, I was glad to secure the head and some neck vertebrae. Even that tested their patience since the head was starting to break into its individual bones, which weren’t fully formed yet, requiring special care and attention.

The carcass was lying with the back upward, this visible part being uniform black, and still in such a state as to allow of measuring. The lower surface was in a very advanced state of decomposition. Part of the belly was torn away, together with the entrails, and the genitalia and anus were not to be found. As stated above, I think that I could recognize the umbilical cord attached to a tatter of the skin. Of course, measurements of the lower side and of the circumference of the body, except at the narrowest place of the tail, could not be taken.

The carcass was lying on its back, with the visible part a uniform black, and still in a condition that allowed for measurements. The underside was very decomposed. Part of the belly was missing, along with the intestines, and the genitalia and anus were absent. As I mentioned before, I believe I could recognize the umbilical cord still attached to a piece of skin. Naturally, measurements of the underside and the body’s circumference, except at the narrowest point of the tail, couldn't be taken.

Table of dimensions.

Dimensions table.

Meters.
Total length from tip of upper jaw to notch of caudal fin, along the middle of the back, without, however, following the angle between beak and forehead4.81
From tip of upper jaw to fore border of spiracles.53
From fore border of the spiracles to fore border of dorsal fin2.63
Length of dorsal fin.29
Height of dorsal fin.11
From hind border of dorsal fin to the beginning of the caudal fin.93
From the same point to notch of the caudal fin1.36
Distance between the tips of the lobes of the caudal fin.91
Depth of the angle of the posterior margin of caudal fin.20
From tip of upper jaw to the angle of mouth.36
From the same to anterior angle of eye.475
Diameter of eye opening.06
From eye to eye over the spiracle.59
Distance between ends of spiracle.08
Length of beak from the forehead.23
Breadth of the beak at the forehead.18
From tip of upper jaw to anterior insertion of the pectoral fin.80
Pectoral fin along the anterior border.51
Breadth of pectoral fina at the insertion.20
Circumference of tail at its narrowest point, just before the caudal fin.62
a The pectoral fin rather straight, of equal breadth, and abruptly ending.
[65]

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII.

The original description of B. bairdii by Doctor Stejneger is as follows:

The original description of B. bairdii by Doctor Stejneger is as follows:

Besides an Orca, which is said to visit the rookeries, but of which I have not been able to procure any specimen, or even to see one, there are at least two species of the family Ziphiidæ, both undescribed, as I suppose. I am very much indebted to Mr. Grebnitzki for a skull of each of the species, for one of which I should like to propose the name Berardius bairdii, as a slight token of my esteem and gratitude.

Aside from an Orca, which is rumored to visit the breeding grounds but which I haven't seen or found, there are at least two species from the family Ziphiidæ, both of which I believe are not yet described. I'm really thankful to Mr. Grebnitzki for providing a skull of each species, and for one of them, I'd like to propose the name Berardius bairdii as a small token of my respect and appreciation.

As I am now almost without any literary means, I find it impossible to decide with certainty in what genus this species will finally have to be placed. But I think that the supposition that this specimen (No. 1520) is a young Berardius may not be far out of the way. At first I suspected that it is a Dioplodon, but the size of the skull, in connection with the distinctness of the sutures, the evident maxillary crests, and the terminal position of the teeth very soon led me to the above conclusion.

Since I currently have almost no literary resources, I'm unable to determine with certainty what category this species will ultimately fit into. However, I think it's reasonable to suggest that this specimen (No. 1520) may be a young Berardius. At first, I thought it was a Dioplodon, but the size of the skull, alongside the clarity of the sutures, the distinct maxillary crests, and the positioning of the teeth quickly led me to a different conclusion.

The specimen in question has very low and scarcely incurved maxillary crests; the shortest distance of which is two and two-thirds times greater than their greatest height, and although it still is in its “adolescent” stage, I should greatly doubt whether the crests in this species ever become developed to such a degree as, for instance, in Hyperoödon diodon (Lacép.). The groove between the maxillary and the nuchal crest is very shallow. The maxillary notch is deep. The beak is long, making only a little less than half the length of the entire skull. Nares straight; right nasal larger than the left one, but not very much. The occipital condyles do not come in contact beneath the foramen magnum; the symphysis of the lower jaw is very short, amounting to only one-fifth of the whole length of the jaw.

The specimen we are examining has very low, slightly curved maxillary crests; the shortest distance is about two and two-thirds times greater than their highest point. Even though it's still in its "adolescent" phase, I seriously doubt that the crests in this species will ever develop as much as those in, for instance, Hyperoödon diodon (Lacép.). The groove between the maxillary and nuchal crests is fairly shallow. The maxillary notch is deep. The beak is long, making up just under half the total length of the skull. The nares are straight; the right nasal is larger than the left, but only slightly. The occipital condyles do not touch below the foramen magnum; the symphysis of the lower jaw is very short, making up only about one-fifth of the total jaw length.

Want of time and books prevents me from making more extended remarks, and until I can present an exhaustive and comparative description, I shall have to content myself by giving a provisional table of dimensions. The following dimensions are in millimeters and English inches, and are in every case measured in a straight line:

Lack of time and resources prevents me from providing more detailed comments, and until I can offer a thorough and comparative description, I’ll have to share a preliminary table of dimensions. The following measurements are in millimeters and inches, taken in a straight line:

mm.in.
Length of skull1,40555.32
Greatest breadth69827.48
Greatest height53020.87
Length from process of supramaxillaries before orbit to posterior edge of condyles61024.02
Length from same process to tip of beak89035.04
Depth of maxillary notch501.97
Length of premaxillaries1,22248.11
Premaxillaries extend beyond supramaxillaries1345.28
Distance of upper edge of maxillary crests at their anterior end2288.98
Distance of same at their middle35814.10
Greatest height of maxillary crests863.39
Length of visible part of vomer32512.80
Distance from anterior tip of vomer to tip of beak27510.83
Length of pterygoids29511.62
Height of foramen magnum702.76
Width of foramen magnum803.15
Distance of condyles at upper edge of foramen magnum1003.94
Closest approximation of condyles beneath the foramen magnum20.08
Entire length of lower jaw1,29250.88
Height of lower jaw at second tooth groove1003.94
Length of symphysis25710.12
Greatest diameter of foremost tooth groove (longitudinal)1003.94
Shortest diameter of foremost tooth groove (transverse)451.77
Greatest diameter of posterior tooth groove (longitudinal)401.58
Shortest diameter of posterior tooth groove (transverse)351.38
Distance between the tooth grooves652.56
[66]

This specimen was found stranded in Stare Gavan, on the eastern shore of Bering Island in the fall of last year, and only the skull was preserved. From analogy I should judge that the entire length of the animal must have been about 18 feet (5½ meters). This species is well known by the natives for the cathartic quality of the blubber, resembling in this respect the Atlantic “Dögling,” or “Anarnak” (Hyperoödon diodon). The Russian name, by which the inhabitants here designate this whale, is Pla-un (sp. Pläoon), while the Aleut name is Kigan agalusoch, the meaning of which is said to be “having teeth on the nose,” a very inappropriate designation, as the teeth are situated on the tip of the lower jaw, and not on the nose.[53]

This specimen was found stranded in Stare Gavan on the eastern shore of Bering Island last fall, and only the skull was preserved. Based on similar cases, I estimate that the total length of the animal must have been about 18 feet (5½ meters). This species is well-known among locals for the cathartic effects of its blubber, similar to the Atlantic “Dögling” or “Anarnak” (Hyperoödon diodon). The Russian name used by residents for this whale is Pla-un (sp. Pläoon), while the Aleut name is Kigan agalusoch, which supposedly means “having teeth on the nose,” a misleading name since the teeth are located at the tip of the lower jaw, not on the nose.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

SIZE.

It will be observed that the largest of the foregoing specimens measured 40 feet 2 inches in length, while the Centerville skeleton was reported to be about 41 feet long. The largest example of the New Zealand species, B. arnuxii, of which there is a record was 32 feet long.

It can be seen that the largest of the specimens mentioned above measured 40 feet 2 inches in length, while the Centerville skeleton was said to be about 41 feet long. The largest example of the New Zealand species, B. arnuxii, that has been recorded was 32 feet long.

COLORATION.

The St. George Island specimens were reported to be black on the back and white below, but it is not certain how long they had been dead when found by Mr. Judge. The young individual examined by Doctor Stejneger was also black on the back, but this was in a state of decomposition.

The St. George Island samples were described as having a black back and white underside, but it's unclear how long they had been deceased when Mr. Judge found them. The young specimen that Doctor Stejneger examined also had a black back, but it was in a state of decomposition.

The color of the type-specimen of Berardius arnuxii was described by Arnoux as follows: “Its color was entirely black, except for a light gray area near the genital organs; it was a male.”[54] Haast remarks of a young individual observed by him near New Brighton, New Zealand, and not in a fresh condition: “The color of the whole animal was of a deep, velvety black, with the exception of the lower portion of the belly, which had a grayish color.”[55]

The color of the type specimen of Berardius arnuxii was described by Arnoux like this: “It was completely black, except for a light gray area around the genital organs; it was a male.”[54] Haast mentions a young individual he saw near New Brighton, New Zealand, that wasn't in fresh condition: “The entire animal was a rich, velvety black, except for the lower part of the belly, which had a grayish tint.”[55]

The color of the immature male of B. arnuxii captured in Wellington Harbor, New Zealand, in 1877, and described by Hector, was as follows: “The colour was black with a purple hue, except a narrow band along the belly, which was grey. The muzzle, flippers, and tail lobes were intensely black.”[56]

The color of the young male of B. arnuxii caught in Wellington Harbor, New Zealand, in 1877, and described by Hector, was as follows: “The color was black with a purple tint, except for a narrow band along the belly, which was gray. The snout, flippers, and tail lobes were deeply black.”[56]

It is not likely that there is any marked difference in the color of arnuxii and bairdii, but the data available are insufficient for the determination of the matter. It will be observed, however, that Mr. Judge stated that the male bairdii found on St. George Island was white below, while in all the accounts of arnuxii the color of the under surface is given as blackish, with a restricted area of gray.

It’s unlikely that there’s a significant difference in the color of arnuxii and bairdii, but the available data isn’t enough to determine that. However, it’s noted that Mr. Judge mentioned the male bairdii found on St. George Island was white underneath, while all descriptions of arnuxii indicate the underside is blackish, with a limited area of gray.

Besides its apparently greater size, Berardius bairdii differs from B. arnuxii in various cranial and other osteological characters, as well as in external proportions, and is to be regarded as a distinct species. The external measurements of the St. George Island specimens reduced to percentages of the total length and compared with similar measurements of a specimen of B. arnuxii described by Hector, are as follows:

Besides its seemingly larger size, Berardius bairdii differs from B. arnuxii in several cranial and other skeletal features, as well as in external proportions, and should be considered a separate species. The external measurements of the St. George Island specimens, expressed as percentages of the total length and compared with similar measurements from a specimen of B. arnuxii described by Hector, are as follows:

[67]

External dimensions of Berardius bairdii and B. arnuxii.

External dimensions of Berardius bairdii and B. arnuxii.

Column Headings:
bairdii.
A: 49726 St. George Island, Alaska, (Judge), female adult.
B: 49727 St. George Island, Alaska, (Judge), male imm.
arnuxii.
C: Wellington, New Zealand, (Hector), male.
Measurements.ABC
ft.in.ft.in.ft.in.
Total length402255276
per cent.per cent.per cent.
Distance from tip of snout to blowhole10.811.812.8
Distance from tip of mandible to corner of mouth6.06.9a6.1
Breadth of flukes from tip to tip25.324.619.1
Length of pectoral fin along outer edge12.413.49.4
Distance from anus to “end of body”29.029.8[34.0]
Height of dorsal fin2.52.43.0
Distance from anterior base of dorsal fin to “end of body”29.729.2[34.6]
a “Length of gape.”

The measurements of these specimens of bairdii agree well together. The specimen of arnuxii appears to have had narrower flukes, shorter pectoral fin, and a rather higher dorsal fin, situated farther forward than in bairdii. Measurements of a larger number of specimens might show that some or all of these differences of proportion are elusive, but it will be observed that in the Wellington specimen of arnuxii, recorded by Doctor Haast, the breadth of the flukes is only 21 per cent of the total length. The pectoral fin is said to be only 19 inches long, or only 5.2 per cent of the total length, but the manner of taking the measurement is not mentioned.

The measurements of these samples of bairdii are consistent with each other. The sample of arnuxii seems to have narrower flukes, a shorter pectoral fin, and a relatively higher dorsal fin that’s positioned further forward compared to bairdii. Measurements from a larger set of specimens might reveal that some or all of these proportional differences are inconsistent, but it should be noted that in the Wellington specimen of arnuxii, as recorded by Doctor Haast, the width of the flukes is only 21 percent of the total length. The pectoral fin is reported to be just 19 inches long, or only 5.2 percent of the total length, although the method of measurement isn’t specified.

As regards size, the largest specimen of B. arnuxii of which I find record is the type specimen. This was 32 feet long, and the skull 1,400 mm., or about 55 inches long. This appears to have been an adult male. The Centerville specimen of bairdii, which was an adult male, was about 41 feet long, and the skull 1,532 mm., or about 60 inches long, while the adult female from St. George Island was 40 feet 2 inches long and the skull 56 inches. Although the total length of the specimens of bairdii is so much greater, it will be observed that the length of the skull, while a little greater, absolutely fails to measure up to the proportions found in arnuxii. It might be suspected on this account that the external measurements of bairdii were exaggerated, but that such is not the case will appear from an examination of the measurements of vertebræ given on page 75. It is evident that the specimens of bairdii are far more massive in all parts of the skeleton than the specimen of arnuxii there cited. The same relations will be found upon comparing measurements of the specimen of arnuxii figured by Van Beneden and Gervais.[57] The truth appears to be that bairdii is a much larger species, but that the skull is considerably smaller relatively.

As for size, the largest recorded specimen of B. arnuxii is the type specimen. It was 32 feet long, with a skull measuring 1,400 mm, or about 55 inches long. This seems to have been an adult male. The Centerville specimen of bairdii, also an adult male, was about 41 feet long, and its skull measured 1,532 mm, or about 60 inches long, while the adult female from St. George Island was 40 feet 2 inches long with a skull length of 56 inches. Even though the total length of the bairdii specimens is much greater, the skull length, while slightly greater, does not match the proportions found in arnuxii. This might lead one to suspect that the external measurements of bairdii were exaggerated; however, this will be clarified by examining the vertebrae measurements on page 75. It's clear that the bairdii specimens are significantly bulkier throughout the skeleton than the arnuxii specimen mentioned. The same relationships will be observed when comparing the measurements of the arnuxii specimen illustrated by Van Beneden and Gervais.[57] The reality seems to be that bairdii is a much larger species overall, but its skull is relatively smaller.

[68]

SKULL.

The skull of Berardius bairdii presents many characters by which it may be distinguished from that of arnuxii, whether adult or young. As compared with the latter, the rostrum is less massive at the base. The pterygoid has a rounded extension posteriorly and superiorly, so that the posterior portion of the upper border of the pterygoid sinus is convex, rather than nearly straight, as in arnuxii. The exoccipital is larger and broader distally below, and its external surface is plane or concave, rather than convex, as in arnuxii. The distal end of the zygomatic process is much more incurved. The nasal bones instead of presenting lateral extensions have nearly straight sides. The vomer is deeply emarginate at the base of the skull posteriorly where it rests against the presphenoid. The palatines extend scarcely or not at all in front of the pterygoids. The foregoing differences will readily be seen by comparing the figures on Pls. 26-29 with those of the type of B. arnuxii given in Van Beneden and Gervais’s Osteography, plate 23.

The skull of Berardius bairdii has many features that set it apart from arnuxii, whether in adults or juveniles. Compared to the latter, its rostrum is less bulky at the base. The pterygoid has a rounded extension at the back and top, making the back edge of the pterygoid sinus curved instead of nearly straight, as seen in arnuxii. The exoccipital is larger and wider at the bottom and its outer surface is flat or slightly curved, rather than bulging, as in arnuxii. The tip of the zygomatic process curves in more significantly. Instead of having side extensions, the nasal bones are almost straight along the sides. The vomer is deeply notched at the base of the skull at the back where it meets the presphenoid. The palatines hardly extend in front of the pterygoids at all. These differences can easily be observed by comparing the images on Plates 26-29 with those of the B. arnuxii type shown in Van Beneden and Gervais’s Osteography, plate 23.

The following are dimensions of skulls of both species:

The following are the dimensions of skulls from both species:

Dimensions of five skulls of Berardius bairdii (including the type) and of three skulls of B. arnuxii.

Dimensions of five skulls of Berardius bairdii (including the type) and three skulls of B. arnuxii.

Column headings:
B. arnuxii.
A: New Brighton, New Zealand (Flower). No. 3.
B: New Zealand (V. B. and Gerv.). (Type). (a)
C: 21511, U.S.N.M., New Zealand, young.
B. bairdii.
D: 49726, St. George Island, female, adult.
E: 49725, Centerville, California, male(?) adult.
F: 20992, Bering Island, (Type).
G: 49727, St. George Island, male, young.
H: Mounted skull, Bering Island(?) (Grebnitzki?).
ABCDEFGH
mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.
Total length of skull1,3721,392b1,1741,5241,4231,3781,062(?)1,474
Height from vertex to inferior border of pterygoids533494(?)493563544......575
Breadth across middle of orbitsc625684577766682662530[716]
Breadth across postorbital processes686748606808722...560[760]
Breadth across zygomatic processes671748584750675...520[740]
Length of rostrum919894800960925880578+1,025
Breadth of rostrum at base399414378475420428310429
Breadth of rostrum at middled152150149207197188...223
Length of premaxillæ.........................
Breadth of premaxillæ at middled9190101120119115...125
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ in front of nares208210189235217238187239
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ behind nares...246193215195181165197
Distance from anterior end of premaxillæ posterior end of pterygoids (median)1,0971,0809351,1851,130...720+1,187
Distance from anterior end of premaxillæ to anterior end of vomer345264252276270260115+307
Length of portion of vomer visible on palate...420253±535370472360±450
Length of nasals (greatest, median, straight)132162(?)13413511813598142
Breadth of nasals (greatest)1021801251199710590105
Breadth of anterior nares7410280110989683100
Breadth of foramen magnum61...728582848371
Breadth across occipital condyles191213186261228240195235
Breadth of each condyle......751231041088398
Height of each condyle......135193171168142178
Length of mandiblee1,2451,236...1,3341,2891,282f8831,360
Length of symphysis310294...295295270f145310
Height at coronoid211222...271230223175245
Distance from tip of jaw to center of first tooth3445...504835f2260
Distance from tip of jaw to center of second tooth155159...200182165f87195
a From Van Beneden and Gervais figure.
b A little broken at tip.
c “Suprafrontal processes of maxillæ.”
d Same point.
e “Length of ramus.”
f About 27 mm. lacking from tip of mandible.

The foregoing measurements indicate a considerable variation in proportions among the different individuals, but there appears to be nothing that can be fixed upon in this small series to distinguish the two species by dimensions alone.

The previous measurements show a significant variation in proportions among the different individuals, but there seems to be nothing in this small group that can be used to differentiate the two species by size alone.

EARBONES.

The tympanic and periotic bones of B. bairdii (Pls. 34-37) present a number of characters by which they may be distinguished from those of B. arnuxii. While of about the same size in both species, the two bones when in the natural position, viewed from without, are nearly square rather than triangular in outline in B. bairdii, the superior border of the periotic being nearly parallel with the inferior border of the tympanic, and the anterior lobe of the periotic being turned down nearly at right angles with the rest of the bone. The periotic is shorter anteriorly than the tympanic in B. bairdii, while the reverse is true in B. arnuxii. In the former species the eustachian canal of the tympanic is wider, the distance between the outer and inner lips being greater. The involuted portion of the inner lip is shorter and differently shaped. The groove between the postero-inferior lobes is wider. The periotic beside having a much shorter anterior lobe than in B. arnuxii has also a smaller and smoother middle lobe, and the internal auditory meatus is smaller and more oblique. The dimensions of the bones in the Centerville beach skull, No. 49725, are as follows: Tympanic: greatest length, 62 mm.; greatest [70] breadth, 46; least breadth of eustachian canal, 17; height at sigmoid process, 47. Periotic: greatest length, 66; greatest breadth, 40; height at center of middle lobe, 35; length from tip of anterior lobe to anterior margin of internal meatus, 38.

The tympanic and periotic bones of B. bairdii (Pls. 34-37) have several features that set them apart from those of B. arnuxii. Although they are about the same size in both species, the two bones in their natural position, viewed from the outside, are nearly square instead of triangular in B. bairdii. The upper edge of the periotic is almost parallel to the lower edge of the tympanic, and the front lobe of the periotic is angled down nearly at a right angle to the rest of the bone. In B. bairdii, the periotic is shorter at the front compared to the tympanic, whereas in B. arnuxii, the opposite is true. In the former species, the eustachian canal of the tympanic is wider, with a greater distance between the outer and inner lips. The curled section of the inner lip is shorter and has a different shape. The groove between the lower-back lobes is wider. Additionally, the periotic has a significantly shorter front lobe than in B. arnuxii, a smaller and smoother middle lobe, and the internal auditory meatus is smaller and more diagonal. The dimensions of the bones in the Centerville beach skull, No. 49725, are as follows: Tympanic: greatest length, 62 mm; greatest width, 46 mm; least width of eustachian canal, 17 mm; height at sigmoid process, 47 mm. Periotic: greatest length, 66 mm; greatest width, 40 mm; height at center of middle lobe, 35 mm; length from the tip of the anterior lobe to the front edge of the internal meatus, 38 mm.

TEETH.

Although all the specimens of Berardius bairdii are more or less incomplete, two or three of the mandibular teeth have been preserved in nearly every instance; namely, in the adult female from St. George Island, the left anterior and right and left posterior; in the immature male from the same island, both anterior teeth; in the Centerville beach specimen, the left anterior and right (?) posterior teeth; in the skull from Bering Island formerly regarded as the type, all four teeth; in the very young skull from Bering Island, the left anterior and posterior teeth.

Although all the specimens of Berardius bairdii are somewhat incomplete, two or three of the mandibular teeth have been preserved in almost every case; specifically, in the adult female from St. George Island, the left anterior and both the right and left posterior teeth; in the immature male from the same island, both anterior teeth; in the Centerville beach specimen, the left anterior and right (?) posterior teeth; in the skull from Bering Island that was previously considered the type, all four teeth; and in the very young skull from Bering Island, the left anterior and posterior teeth.

Taken as a whole, these teeth are not larger than those found in the specimens of B. arnuxii thus far recorded, but in both species they vary so much on account of age, or for other reasons, that a comparison of dimensions is unsatisfactory. The dimensions are as follows:

Taken as a whole, these teeth are not larger than those found in the specimens of B. arnuxii recorded so far, but in both species, they vary so much due to age or other reasons that comparing their sizes is not very helpful. The dimensions are as follows:

Dimensions of teeth of Berardius arnuxii and B. bairdii.

Dimensions of teeth of Berardius arnuxii and B. bairdii.

Column headings:
A: Greatest height.
B: Greatest breadth.
Species and locality.Sex and age.Length.Large tooth.Small tooth.Remarks.
ABAB
B. arnuxii.ft.in.mm.mm.mm.mm.
Akaroa (Van Beneden. Type).Male.320a90906640From figure.b
New Brighton (Haast and Flower).Male(?).306a73634731From figure.
Port Nicholson (Knox and Hector).(?)270a6550(?)(?)From figure.
Locality unknown (Van Beneden and Gervais, pl. 21 bis).(?)(?)72535130From figure.
B. bairdii.
49725—Centerville, California.Male(?), adult.41±a83655328
49726—St. George Island.Female, adult.405c79726245
49727—St. George Island.Male, im.250a8661......
142118—Bering IslandYoung.......a50373131
a Tip more or less acute.
b Van Beneden’s measurements are slightly different.
c Tip much worn.

A description of the teeth of the different specimens of B. bairdii is subjoined.

A description of the teeth of the various specimens of B. bairdii is included.

No. 142118.—Bering Island; young (new born?). Anterior tooth conical, hollow, with thin walls. The lower half of the tooth is filled with a mass of bony pulp, which is separable. The tooth is widest at the base, and is without any constriction indicating the formation of a root. Outer and inner surfaces slightly convex, the latter with several distinct longitudinal furrows, which extend to the apex. The whole tooth has a thin coating of cement, except the tip, for a length of about 10 mm., which is more nearly white, and consists, presumably, of dentine. [71] The tooth is very symmetrical, but rather more convex externally. The apex is pointed, erect, and a little more convex externally than internally. (Pl. 39, figs. 1, 2.)

No. 142118.—Bering Island; young (newborn?). The front tooth is conical, hollow, and has thin walls. The lower part of the tooth is filled with a separable mass of bony pulp. It is widest at the base and shows no constriction that would indicate a root is forming. Both the outer and inner surfaces are slightly curved, with the inner surface displaying several distinct longitudinal grooves that extend to the tip. The entire tooth is coated with a thin layer of cement, except for the tip, which is about 10 mm long, appears whiter, and is presumably made up of dentine. [71] The tooth is very symmetrical, but has a bit more external convexity. The tip is pointed, upright, and somewhat more convex on the outside than on the inside. (Pl. 39, figs. 1, 2.)

The posterior tooth is similar to the anterior one, but much shorter and more blunt, and the longitudinal furrows are about equally distinct externally and internally. The cement extends nearly to the apex, which latter is very short and is directed backward.

The back tooth is similar to the front one, but it's much shorter and more rounded, and the long grooves are about equally noticeable on the outside and inside. The cement goes almost all the way to the tip, which is very short and points backward.

No. 49727.—St. George Island, Alaska; male, immature. Anterior teeth conical, acute, somewhat unsymmetrical, rather more convex externally than internally. The internal surface with a deep median longitudinal groove, and others less distinct on each side near the base. Apex slightly inclined forward and inward, convex externally, with a single longitudinal groove; nearly flat internally, with, or without, a groove. Base of tooth for about 17 mm. covered with longitudinal rugosities, indicating that the root was about to close. It is open, however, the walls of the tooth at the narrowest point being 8 mm. apart and the cavity filled with dense bony pulp. The anterior and posterior outlines of the teeth are irregular, being convex near the base, then slightly concave, and again convex near the apex. When in the natural position, these teeth protrude about 33 mm., or a little more than one-third their height, above the alveolus. (Pl. 39, figs. 3, 4.)

No. 49727.—St. George Island, Alaska; male, immature. The front teeth are conical, sharp, and somewhat uneven, more curved on the outside than on the inside. The inner surface has a deep groove running down the middle and some less prominent grooves on each side near the bottom. The tip is slightly tilted forward and inward, rounded on the outside, with a single groove running along its length; nearly flat on the inside, with or without a groove. The base of the tooth is covered with rough lines for about 17 mm., suggesting that the root is about to close. It’s still open, however, with the walls of the tooth at its narrowest point being 8 mm. apart and the space filled with dense bony pulp. The front and back edges of the teeth are uneven, curving out near the base, then slightly inwards, and again out near the tip. When positioned naturally, these teeth stick out about 33 mm., or just over one-third of their height, above the tooth socket. (Pl. 39, figs. 3, 4.)

Posterior teeth lacking.

Missing back teeth.

No. 49725.—Centerville beach, California; male (?), adult. Anterior tooth conical, with anterior and posterior margins as in the last. Apex considerably abraded and rounded off; not inclined inward or forward. Internal and external surfaces nearly equally convex, but the former with a broad median longitudinal groove. Root closed, the base of the tooth for a breadth of about 30 mm. covered with rounded rugosities. The inferior border slightly convex and the angles rounded off. When in the natural position, somewhat more than one-half of the tooth protrudes beyond the alveolus, and the tooth itself is inclined forward and outward. (Pl. 39, fig. 5.)

No. 49725.—Centerville Beach, California; male (?), adult. The front tooth is conical, with the front and back edges similar to the previous one. The tip is significantly worn down and rounded off; it doesn't tilt inward or forward. The inside and outside surfaces are almost equally curved, but the inside has a broad groove running down the middle. The root is closed, and the base of the tooth, about 30 mm wide, is covered with rounded bumps. The lower edge is slightly curved, and the corners are rounded. When in its natural position, just over half of the tooth sticks out beyond the socket, and the tooth itself is tilted forward and outward. (Pl. 39, fig. 5.)

Posterior tooth quite irregular in form, but the portion above the rugose base or root conical. Inner surface flat and uneven. Outer surface convex and rather rugose. The cement covers the whole tooth thickly to within about 5 mm. of the apex, which latter is short, quite acute, and slightly directed inward. It is convex externally and nearly flat internally. The basal rugosity or root is conical, thicker than the rest of the tooth, and unsymmetrical, being somewhat directed backward. It shows no opening below. When in the natural position this tooth is strongly inclined forward and outward, and only the tip for a length of 22 mm. protrudes beyond the alveolus. (Pl. 39, fig. 6.)

Posterior tooth is quite irregular in shape, but the part above the rough base or root is cone-shaped. The inner surface is flat and uneven. The outer surface is convex and somewhat rough. The cement covers the entire tooth thickly, reaching about 5 mm from the tip, which is short, sharp, and slightly angled inward. It is convex on the outside and almost flat on the inside. The rough base or root is cone-shaped, thicker than the rest of the tooth, and asymmetrical, leaning slightly backward. There is no opening below. In its natural position, this tooth is significantly tilted forward and outward, with only the tip protruding 22 mm beyond the jawbone. (Pl. 39, fig. 6.)

No. 49726.—St. George Island, Alaska; female, adult. Anterior tooth conical, with the tip blunt, having been so much abraded that the dentine does not extend beyond the coating of cement. The tip measures 26 by 19 mm. The external and internal surfaces of the tooth are about equally convex and somewhat rugose without distinct furrows. The root is thicker than the remainder of the tooth and very rugose. It is entirely closed below, and the inferior outline is convex. Posterior tooth much compressed, conical above the root, nearly flat internally and slightly convex externally. Cement coating very thick and extending to within about 5 mm. of the dentine apex, which latter is acute and very slightly curved inward and [72] backward. The root is very unsymmetrical, the posterior portion being much longer than the anterior. The surface is very rugose, and there is no opening whatever below. The inferior border is convex, with an emargination near the center. (Pl. 39, figs. 7, 8.)

No. 49726.—St. George Island, Alaska; female, adult. The front tooth is conical with a blunt tip, worn down so much that the dentin doesn't extend beyond the cement coating. The tip measures 26 by 19 mm. The outer and inner surfaces of the tooth are about equally rounded and somewhat rough without distinct grooves. The root is thicker than the rest of the tooth and very rough. It is completely closed at the bottom, and the lower outline is rounded. The back tooth is much flattened, conical above the root, nearly flat on the inside, and slightly rounded on the outside. The cement coating is very thick and extends to about 5 mm from the tip of the dentin, which is sharp and very slightly curved inward and backward. The root is very asymmetrical, with the back part being much longer than the front. The surface is very rough, and there is no opening at the bottom. The lower edge is rounded, with a notch near the center. (Pl. 39, figs. 7, 8.)

In the adult skull from Bering Island, which has been mounted and placed on exhibition, the teeth are fixed in the alveoli so that their entire length and the peculiarities of the basal portion can not be determined. In general form, however, they resemble those of the preceding specimen very closely. The anterior teeth are placed obliquely—that is, so that the anterior margins of the two teeth are nearer together than the posterior margins. The teeth are also somewhat inclined forward. The posterior teeth are strongly inclined forward and a little outward.

In the adult skull from Bering Island, which is displayed in an exhibition, the teeth are secured in their sockets, making it impossible to determine their full length and the unique features of the base. However, in general shape, they closely resemble those of the previous specimen. The front teeth are positioned at an angle, meaning the front edges of the two teeth are closer together than the back edges. The teeth also lean slightly forward. The back teeth are sharply angled forward and a bit outward.

The anterior teeth are rather concave along the middle internally and convex externally. The portion above the alveoli is quite smooth.

The front teeth have a slight inward curve in the middle on the inside and a rounded outward shape on the outside. The area above the gums is pretty smooth.

The posterior teeth are moderately rugose above the alveoli. The whitish tips of denture are conical, compressed, and rather acute. They extend 6 mm. above the denture, and are 11 mm. long at their base, and 6 mm. thick.

The back teeth have a somewhat rough texture above the gums. The whitish tips of the dentures are cone-shaped, narrow, and quite pointed. They extend 6 mm above the dentures, are 11 mm long at the base, and are 6 mm thick.

The anterior teeth protrude about 45 mm. above the alveolus (internally); their base at the alveolus is from 73 to 76 mm. long, and from 33 to 35 mm. thick. The posterior teeth extend about 18 mm. above the alveoli (measured vertically from the alveolus), and the base of the visible portion (measured along the alveolus) is from 30 to 34 mm. long and from 18 to 20 mm. thick. These teeth have an antero-external angular enlargement of the cement, so that they are somewhat triangular in horizontal section. (Pl. 30, fig. 3; pl. 31, fig. 5.)

The front teeth stick out about 45 mm. above the jawbone (internally); their base at the jawbone is between 73 to 76 mm. long and 33 to 35 mm. thick. The back teeth extend about 18 mm. above the jawbones (measured vertically from the jawbone), and the base of the visible part (measured along the jawbone) is between 30 to 34 mm. long and 18 to 20 mm. thick. These teeth have an angled enlargement of the cement on the front outer side, giving them a somewhat triangular shape in a horizontal section. (Pl. 30, fig. 3; pl. 31, fig. 5.)

The data available are insufficient to enable one to determine satisfactorily whether the teeth differ materially in size in the two sexes, but it appears probable that they do not.

The available data are not enough to determine if there is a significant size difference in teeth between the two sexes, but it seems likely that there isn't.

SKELETON.

While the skeleton of Berardius bairdii (Pl. 42, fig. 4) resembles that of B. arnuxii very closely in most particulars, it presents differences which may properly be regarded as specific. The vertebral formula of B. arnuxii as given by Flower is as follows: C. 7, Th. 10, L. 12, Ca. 19 = 48.[58] The same formula is given for another specimen of B. arnuxii by Van Beneden and Gervais, except that the caudals are 17, two being apparently lacking.[59]

While the skeleton of Berardius bairdii (Pl. 42, fig. 4) closely resembles that of B. arnuxii in most details, it has differences that are significant enough to be seen as specific. The vertebral formula for B. arnuxii, as stated by Flower, is: C. 7, Th. 10, L. 12, Ca. 19 = 48.[58] A different specimen of B. arnuxii has the same formula according to Van Beneden and Gervais, except that the caudal vertebrae number 17, with two seemingly missing.[59]

Doctor Hector, however, gives a different formula for a third specimen of this species, namely, C. 7, Th. 10, L. 13, Ca. 17 = 47. He remarks that “extreme care was taken to secure the whole of the small tail bones.”[60] The discrepancy here shown can not be accounted for at present, but, at all events, none of the formulas of B. arnuxii corresponds to that of B. bairdii, as derived from the three skeletons in the National Museum, namely, C. 7, Th. 11, L. 12, Ca. 16+ = 46+.

Doctor Hector, however, offers a different formula for a third specimen of this species, which is C. 7, Th. 10, L. 13, Ca. 17 = 47. He notes that “extreme care was taken to secure all of the small tail bones.”[60] The discrepancy shown here cannot be explained at this time, but, in any case, none of the formulas for B. arnuxii match that of B. bairdii, as derived from the three skeletons in the National Museum, which are C. 7, Th. 11, L. 12, Ca. 16+ = 46+.

The number of thoracic vertebræ can be determined positively from the youngish male from St. George Island (Cat. No. 49727), in which ten pairs of ribs are present, together with one rib belonging to the eleventh pair. This last is much shorter [73] than the tenth pair, and there can be no doubt that it really belongs to a terminal pair. In this skeleton the transverse processes of the eleventh thoracic vertebra are thick at the free end like those of the tenth thoracic vertebra.

The number of thoracic vertebrae can be confidently identified from the young male from St. George Island (Cat. No. 49727), which has ten pairs of ribs, plus one rib from the eleventh pair. This last rib is significantly shorter than the tenth pair, clearly indicating that it belongs to a terminal pair. In this skeleton, the transverse processes of the eleventh thoracic vertebra are thick at the free end, similar to those of the tenth thoracic vertebra. [73]

In the adult male from Centerville beach, California, only ten pairs of ribs are present, but as the tenth is quite as long as the ninth, there is little doubt that an eleventh pair was present originally. The eleventh thoracic vertebra, however, has transverse processes longer and more flattened at the free end than those of the tenth thoracic. It is possible, of course, that the real eleventh thoracic is lacking, and that this individual had thirteen lumbar vertebræ, but of this there is no positive evidence.

In the adult male from Centerville Beach, California, only ten pairs of ribs are present, but since the tenth pair is about the same length as the ninth, it's likely that an eleventh pair was originally there. However, the eleventh thoracic vertebra has transverse processes that are longer and more flattened at the free end than those of the tenth thoracic. It's possible that the true eleventh thoracic is missing, and that this individual had thirteen lumbar vertebrae, but there's no definitive evidence to support that.

Only a few of the ribs accompany the skeleton of the adult female from St. George Island, Alaska (Cat. No. 49726), but there are eleven thoracic vertebræ, the transverse processes of the eleventh being short and thick, like those of the tenth, with a distinct facet for the rib at the free end. This facet, however, is directed obliquely backward and occupies only the posterior half of the free margin.

Only a few of the ribs are found with the skeleton of the adult female from St. George Island, Alaska (Cat. No. 49726), but there are eleven thoracic vertebrae, with the transverse processes of the eleventh being short and thick, similar to those of the tenth, featuring a clear facet for the rib at the free end. However, this facet is angled backward and only covers the back half of the free margin.

There is no doubt in my mind that the number of thoracic vertebræ in B. bairdii is normally 11 and in B. arnuxii, 10. This would ordinarily be of little importance, as in nearly all kinds of cetaceans a variation of one, or even two, in the number of thoracic and lumbar vertebræ in different individuals of the same species is commonly met with. In the present family, however, the number of thoracic vertebræ shows little variation, and as all known skeletons of B. bairdii have eleven thoracics and all known skeletons of arnuxii appear to have ten thoracics, it seems probable that this difference is specific. At all events, it is correlated with a difference in the form of the vertebræ themselves. As is well known, the transverse processes of the thoracics in this family undergo a sudden change of form and position near the end of the series, the elevated processes on the anterior thoracics being replaced on the posterior vertebræ by others at a lower level on the sides of the centra. This change takes place differently and on different vertebræ in the two species under consideration.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the number of thoracic vertebrae in B. bairdii is usually 11, while in B. arnuxii, it's 10. Normally, this wouldn’t be very significant, as it’s common to see a variation of one or even two in the number of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae among different individuals of the same species in almost all cetaceans. However, in this particular family, the number of thoracic vertebrae sees little variation, and since all known skeletons of B. bairdii have eleven thoracics and all known skeletons of B. arnuxii appear to have ten thoracics, it seems likely this difference is specific. In any case, it’s linked to a difference in the shape of the vertebrae themselves. As is well known, the transverse processes of the thoracics in this family experience a sudden change in shape and position near the end of the series, with the raised processes on the anterior thoracics being replaced in the posterior vertebrae by others at a lower level on the sides of the centra. This change happens differently and at different vertebrae in the two species being discussed.

VERTEBRÆ.

In B. arnuxii the eighth thoracic has no facet at the posterior end of the centrum for the articulation of the head of a ninth rib and no distinct transverse process, the tubercle of the rib articulating with a facet on the side of the metapophysis. In B. bairdii the eighth thoracic is similar, but there is a distinct facet at the posterior end of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)

In B. arnuxii, the eighth thoracic vertebra doesn't have a facet at the back of the centrum for connecting the head of a ninth rib and lacks a clear transverse process, with the rib's tubercle connecting to a facet on the side of the metapophysis. In B. bairdii, the eighth thoracic looks similar, but it does have a distinct facet at the back of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)

In B. arnuxii the ninth thoracic has a very distinct transverse process on the side of the centrum, while in B. bairdii the ninth thoracic has a short, slender process attached to the side of the metapophysis and no facet at the posterior end of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)

In B. arnuxii, the ninth thoracic vertebra has a clearly defined transverse process on the side of the centrum, while in B. bairdii, the ninth thoracic has a short, thin process connected to the side of the metapophysis and lacks a facet at the back end of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)

In B. arnuxii the tenth thoracic is the second one having a distinct transverse process, and the latter is broad distally and has the articular facet on the posterior portion of the free margin. In B. bairdii the tenth thoracic is the first having a distinct transverse process on the side of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)

In B. arnuxii, the tenth thoracic vertebra is the second one with a noticeable transverse process, which is wide at the end and has the articular facet on the back part of the free edge. In B. bairdii, the tenth thoracic vertebra is the first to have a distinct transverse process on the side of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)

[74]

There are only ten thoracics in B. arnuxii, as already mentioned, but in B. bairdii there are eleven, and the eleventh is that which bears the second transverse process on the side of the centrum.

There are only ten thoracic vertebrae in B. arnuxii, as mentioned earlier, but in B. bairdii there are eleven, with the eleventh being the one that has the second transverse process on the side of the centrum.

The foregoing differences amount to this: That in B. bairdii the commencement of the lower series of transverse processes is pushed back one vertebra, as compared with B. arnuxii, and that in the ninth thoracic of the former species, which corresponds to the eighth of the latter species, the metapophysis has a short process on the side for the articulation of the tubercle of the rib, instead of merely a sessile facet. Although in other genera of ziphioids these differences would perhaps be looked upon as individual, since they are constant here they may be considered specific, at least provisionally.

The differences noted are as follows: In B. bairdii, the starting point of the lower series of transverse processes is moved back by one vertebra compared to B. arnuxii. Additionally, in the ninth thoracic vertebra of the former species, which aligns with the eighth of the latter, the metapophysis has a short process on the side for the attachment of the rib's tubercle, rather than just a flat facet. While these differences might be seen as individual variations in other genera of ziphioids, they are consistent here, so they can be regarded as specific, at least for now.

SCAPULA.

In B. bairdii the anterior border of the scapula is narrower than in B. arnuxii, the anterior ridge coming close to it and lying parallel with it. The acromion is directed more upward, so that the angle between it and the body of the scapula is more acute, and the process itself is rather more expanded distally. The coronoid is inclined a little more downward. The whole surface of the scapula is very uneven. (Pl. 33, fig. 2.)

In B. bairdii, the front edge of the scapula is narrower than in B. arnuxii, with the front ridge coming close to it and running parallel. The acromion points more upward, making the angle between it and the body of the scapula sharper, and the process itself is somewhat wider at the end. The coronoid leans a bit more downwards. The entire surface of the scapula is quite uneven. (Pl. 33, fig. 2.)

HUMERUS AND ULNA.

The humerus is shorter than in B. arnuxii and broader distally, and much more recurved on the ulnar side. The ulna is much broader distally and its whole shape is different. (Pl. 33, figs. 3 and 4.)

The humerus is shorter than in B. arnuxii and wider at the end, and it curves more on the ulnar side. The ulna is significantly wider at the end and its overall shape is different. (Pl. 33, figs. 3 and 4.)

CHEVRONS.

As the skeleton of the typical form arnuxii has been described in considerable detail and accurately figured by Flower and by Van Beneden and Gervais, it is not considered necessary to give a complete description of that of bairdii in this place. The entire skeleton and many of the separate bones are figured in Pls. 42, 32, and 33. The phalanges are lacking altogether, or are incompletely represented, in the various skeletons of bairdii, and for that reason the phalangeal formula can not be given. The chevrons number ten in the skeleton from Centerville beach, California (Cat. No. 49725). Both Flower and Van Beneden and Gervais give nine chevrons as the number for the skeleton of arnuxii in the Hunterian Museum, London, but the latter authors have added a tenth in outline in the figure of the skeleton of that species which is in the Paris Museum. Ten are mentioned by Hector as the correct number for the skeleton of arnuxii from Wellington Harbor examined by him.[61]

As the skeleton of the typical form arnuxii has been described in detail and accurately illustrated by Flower and by Van Beneden and Gervais, there's no need to give a full description of that of bairdii here. The complete skeleton and many individual bones are illustrated in Pls. 42, 32, and 33. The phalanges are either completely absent or not fully represented in the various skeletons of bairdii, which is why we can't provide the phalangeal formula. There are ten chevrons in the skeleton from Centerville beach, California (Cat. No. 49725). Both Flower and Van Beneden and Gervais list nine chevrons for the skeleton of arnuxii in the Hunterian Museum, London, but the latter authors have added a tenth in outline in the illustration of the skeleton of that species found in the Paris Museum. Hector mentions ten as the correct number for the skeleton of arnuxii from Wellington Harbor that he examined.[61]

STERNUM.

The sternum of bairdii (Pl. 32, fig. 2) consists of five segments and does not offer characters by which to distinguish it from that of arnuxii. In the former species the first eight pairs of ribs possess distinct heads and tubercles; the tubercle is rudimentary in the ninth pair and absent in the tenth and eleventh.

The sternum of bairdii (Pl. 32, fig. 2) is made up of five segments and doesn’t have features that separate it from that of arnuxii. In the first species, the first eight pairs of ribs have distinct heads and tubercles; the tubercle is small in the ninth pair and missing in the tenth and eleventh pairs.

The dimensions of the three skeletons of bairdii and of that of arnuxii described by Flower are as follows:

The measurements of the three skeletons of bairdii and the one of arnuxii that Flower described are as follows:

[75]

Dimensions of one skeleton of Berardius arnuxii and three skeletons of B. bairdii.

Measurements of one skeleton of Berardius arnuxii and three skeletons of B. bairdii.

Column Headings:
B. arnuxii.
B: New Brighton, New Zealand, 1868, (Flower). No. 3.
B. bairdii.
C: 49726 St. George Island, Alaska, female adult.
D: 49725 Centerville, California, male(?) adult.
E: 49727 St. George Island, Alaska, male young.
BCDE
mm.mm.mm.mm.
Length of centra of seven cervicals (inferior)254375310250
Atlas:
Width292362341280
Height...339321270
Fourth cervical:
Highest point...a254a249a191
Widest range...b243b197b173
Length of center36473430
Seventh cervical:
Highest point...310270198
Greatest width241257235177
Length of center46584942
First thoracic:
Highest point...391390255
Widest range...310290240
Length of center58846851
Ninth thoracic:
Highest point...508478333
Greatest range...318c218198
Centrum length152190176128
First lumbar:
Highest point...585540359
Maximum width...626575340
Length of center163228215150
Sixth lumbar:
Highest point...713642427
Greatest range...590572362
Length of center206273243172
First caudal:
Highest point...800d658427
Greatest breadth...577d511360
Length of center246338d280200
Ninth caudal:
Highest point...422335288
Greatest width...243194191
Length of centrum168241194160
Eleventh caudal, length of centrum104180156142
Length of scapula503710670395
Height of scapula356490445280
Length of humerus274...340248
Breadth of humerus at distal end109...170115
Length of radius295...a380220
Breadth of radius at distal end84...14088
Length of ulna (incl. olecranon)323......241
Breadth of ulna at distal end79......71
Length of sternum1,1431,4551,530...
Breadth of first segment of sternum325375495...
Length of first rib (straight)457543505323
Length of fifth rib (straight)991.........
Length of tenth rib (straight)737.........
a Median.
b Inferior.
c Process aborted on one side.
d Second.
[76]


Genus Hyperoodon Lacépède.

HYPEROÖDON AMPULLATUS (Forster).

Balæna ampullatus Forster, Kalm’s Linnean Travels, vol. 1, 1770, p. 18, footnote.
Balæna rostrata Müller, Zool. Dan. Prodrom., 1776, p. 7.
Hyperoödon butskopf Lacépède, Hist. Nat. des Cétacés, 1803-4, pp. XLIV and 319.
Hyperoödon rostratum Wesmael, Nouv. Mém. Acad. Roy. Bruxelles, vol. 12, 1840, pls. 1, 2.
Hyperoödon ampullatus Rhoads, Science, new ser., vol. 15, 1902, p. 756.

The National Museum has one skeleton of this well-known species, somewhat imperfect, which is labeled as having been obtained on the coast of Norway, and was received about the year 1875. Its catalogue number is 14499. This skeleton is about 19 feet long and has the following vertebral formula: C. 7; Th. 9; L. 9; Ca. 19 (+1?) = 44 (or 45). Eight chevrons are attached to the caudal vertebræ, and at least two more were present originally. The fifth thoracic vertebra has no facet on the centrum for the head of the sixth rib, but the latter articulates with a small facet on the side of the centrum of the sixth thoracic vertebra. The seventh thoracic has a well-developed transverse process on the side of the centrum. The ninth rib is shorter and more slender than the others. None of the transverse processes of the caudal vertebræ are perforated by foramina. These processes end on the eighth caudal, and the neural spines on the tenth caudal. The free ends of the neural spines of the thoracic and lumbar vertebræ are all more or less rounded. The pectoral limbs are incomplete.

The National Museum has a skeleton of this well-known species, which is somewhat incomplete. It’s labeled as having been found on the coast of Norway and was received around 1875. Its catalogue number is 14499. This skeleton measures about 19 feet long and has the following vertebral formula: C. 7; Th. 9; L. 9; Ca. 19 (+1?) = 44 (or 45). Eight chevrons are attached to the caudal vertebrae, and at least two more were originally present. The fifth thoracic vertebra lacks a facet on the centrum for the head of the sixth rib, but the sixth rib articulates with a small facet on the side of the sixth thoracic vertebra’s centrum. The seventh thoracic vertebra has a well-developed transverse process on the side of the centrum. The ninth rib is shorter and more slender than the others. None of the transverse processes of the caudal vertebrae have foramina. These processes stop at the eighth caudal, and the neural spines terminate on the tenth caudal. The free ends of the neural spines of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are all somewhat rounded. The pectoral limbs are incomplete.

So far as I am aware, only three examples of Hyperoödon have been taken on the coasts of the United States, as mentioned in the list on page 2. The skeleton of one of these (from North Dennis, Massachusetts) is in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the skull of the second (from Newport, Rhode Island), which was a female, is in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.[62] This skull is represented in Pl. 32, fig. 3.

As far as I know, only three examples of Hyperoödon have been found along the coasts of the United States, as noted in the list on page 2. The skeleton of one of these (from North Dennis, Massachusetts) is displayed in the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the skull of the second (from Newport, Rhode Island), which was a female, can be found in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.[62] This skull is shown in Pl. 32, fig. 3.


LIST OF SPECIES OF CURRENT ZIPHIOID WHALES.

Genus Mesoplodon Gervais.
Mesoplodon bidens (Sowerby).
North Atlantic Ocean; northern France to Norway and Sweden; Nantucket Island, Massachusetts.
Mesoplodon europaeus (Gervais).
North Atlantic Ocean; English Channel; New Jersey.
Gray's Beaked Whale
New Zealand and Chatham Islands; Bahia Nueva, Patagonia (Moreno).
[77]
Mesoplodon densirostris (Blainville).
Indian Ocean and South Seas; Lord Howe Island; Seychelles Islands; South Africa; Massachusetts(?).
Hector's Beaked Whale.
New Zealand.
Bowdoin's Beaked Whale.
New Zealand.
Mesoplodon layardi (Gray).
South Seas; New Zealand, Chatham Islands; Australia; Cape of Good Hope.
True Mesoplodon stejnegeri.
North Pacific Ocean; Bering Island and Oregon.
Genus ZIPHIUS Cuvier.
ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS Cuvier.
Cosmopolitan.
Genus Berardius Duvernoy.
BERARDIUS ARNUXII Duvernoy.
New Zealand.
Berardius bairdii Stejneger.
North Pacific Ocean; Bering Island and St. George Island, Bering Sea, to Kiska Harbor, Alaska, and Centerville, California.
Genus HYPEROÖDON Lacépède.
HYPEROÖDON AMPULLATUS Forster.
Arctic and North Atlantic oceans; Mediterranean Sea; southern France; New York Bay, Newport, Rhode Island, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
HYPEROÖDON PLANIFRONS Flower.
Indian and Pacific oceans; Lewis Island, Australia; Province of Buenos Ayres, Argentina, and territories of Chubut and Santa Cruz, Patagonia.


References

[1]As this species is well known, the skeleton is not described in this paper.
[2]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 366.
[3]Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 11, 1866-68, p. 318.
[4]Idem, vol. 29, 1899, p. 9.
[5]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 357.
[6]Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 11, 1866-68, p. 318.
[7]One of the teeth of Sowerby’s specimen is figured by Lankester in Trans. Roy. Micr. Soc., new ser., vol. 15, 1867, pl. 5, figs. 1, 2.
[8]Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoöl., vol. 1, 1869, p. 205.
[9]Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 26, 1872, p. 771.
[10]Zoologist, ser. 3, vol. 17, Feb., 1893, p. 42; Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 11, 1893, p. 275.
[11]Trans. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 7, 1804, p. 310.
[12]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, no. 3.
[13]The external margin is broken at this point.
[14]Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 11, 1893, p. 277.
[15]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, No. 3, pp. 27, 28.
[16]Trans. Zoöl. Soc. London, vol. 10, 1878, p. 418.
[17]Second ed., plate 40, fig. 4.
[18]Plate 25, fig. 2.
[19]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1896, pp. 363-370, fig. 3 (tooth, nat. size); fig. 4 (sternum).
[20]Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, vol. 10, 1866, p. 177.
[21]Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, vol. 41, 1888, p. 117.
[22]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 359.
[23]Ostéographie, plate 24.
[24]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, No. 3, p. 32, fig. 12.
[25]Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 10, 1888-89, p. 13.
[26]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 357.
[27]Journ. Anat. Phys., vol. 20, pl. 4, figs. 2 and 3, Oct. 1885.
[28]Idem, pl. 4, fig. 1.
[29]Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, ser. 6, vol. 1, pp. 216-225, pls. 1, 2 (skull); two text-figs. (tooth).
[30]“The slight differences pointed out by Mr. True appear to be individual or local rather than specific.” (Van Beneden, Les Ziphioïdes des mers d’Europe, 1888, p. 100.) See also James A. Grieg, Bergens Museums Aarbog, 1897, No. 5, p. 19.
[31]Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 8, 1885, p. 585.
[32]Trans. Roy. Micr. Soc., vol. 15, 1867, pl. 5, figs. 1, 2.
[33]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, No. 3, p. 26, fig. 10.
[34]Sci. Results of the Voy. of the Challenger, Zool., vol. 1, pt. 4, Bones of Cetacea, 1880, p. 13.
[35]See the following:
Turner, W.—Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 26, 1872, p. 769.
Flower, W. H.—Proc. Zoöl. Soc. London, 1876, p. 477.
Fischer, P.—Act. Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, vol. 35, 1881, p. 113.
Van Beneden, P. J.—Les Ziphioïdes des Mers d’Europe, 1888, p. 82.
[36]An immature male might, of course, present the characters of the female, but in the former case the teeth would be open at the roots and but slightly, if at all, coated with cement.
[37]As to reasons for assigning sexes thus, see p. 55.
[38]Cope’s original description of this species was as follows:

“Hyperodon semijunctus, sp. nov. The question whether a Hyperodon visits this side of the Atlantic, has at length been solved by the description which I have received through Dr. Alexander Wilcocks of this city, of a species taken in Charleston Harbor. This is well drawn up by Gabriel Manigault, who set up the specimen, which adorns the Charleston Museum. The points wherein it evidently differs from its congeners, the H. bidens and latifrons, are, first, the separation of the four posterior cervical vertebræ, the three anterior only being solidly anchylosed, instead of the seven, as in the known species, even in the young, according to Dr. J. E. Gray. Second, the possession of one or more pairs of ribs added to the flying series, and of two more vertebræ, including ten dorsal instead of nine. (Nine are given by Cuvier, Ossemens Fossiles, viii, 188; and Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1864, 419, for the bidens.) Five ribs are connected with the sternum, of which the anterior articulates with the seventh cervical by its inferior head.

“Hyperodon semijunctus, sp. nov. The question of whether a Hyperodon visits this side of the Atlantic has finally been answered by the description I received from Dr. Alexander Wilcocks of this city, regarding a species found in Charleston Harbor. This description is well prepared by Gabriel Manigault, who mounted the specimen that is now displayed at the Charleston Museum. The ways in which it clearly differs from its relatives, the H. bidens and latifrons, are, first, the separation of the four posterior cervical vertebrae, with only the three anterior being firmly fused, unlike the seven found in known species, even in the young, according to Dr. J. E. Gray. Second, it has one or more pairs of ribs added to the flying series and two additional vertebrae, making ten dorsal instead of nine. (Cuvier notes nine in Ossemens Fossiles, viii, 188; and Flower mentions it in Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1864, 419, for the bidens.) Five ribs are attached to the sternum, with the front one connecting to the seventh cervical by its lower head.”

“I extract the following from Gabr. Manigault’s description:

“I extract the following from Gabr. Manigault’s description:

“‘The superior maxillary bones are quite pointed in front and widen out toward the base of the snout. Their lateral edges become developed on each side into a prominent vertical ridge, which is slightly convex on the outer surface, and the reverse on the inner. These bones, after having widened out upon approaching the orbits, ascend vertically along with the occipital (the two together holding the frontal, which is quite perceptible, between them) and form at the back of the head a transverse ridge, which is quite high and very thick. From my not knowing by what name it was known, I did not satisfy myself concerning the presence of palatine tubercles. Another peculiarity of the head consists in the lower maxillary bones being provided each at its point with a single small and very sharp tooth. These were not noticed during the dissection, owing to their being too much imbedded in the integuments; they are now, however, quite visible. In the cavity of the skull is a septum of bone separating the cerebrum from the cerebellum (i. e., the tentorium). The first rib is very wide and short, and presents a marked contrast to the others. The sternum is quite flat and wide. The pectoral fins are small, and have been carefully preserved, with the various carpal and phalangeal bones kept together by their natural ligaments. As the skeleton stands, the fins consist only of the scapula, the humerus, the radius, and the ulna, with but few phalanges.

“The upper jawbones are quite pointed at the front and widen out toward the base of the snout. Their sides develop into a noticeable vertical ridge on each side, which is slightly rounded on the outer surface and the opposite on the inner. These bones, after widening as they approach the eye sockets, rise vertically along with the occipital (the two together supporting the frontal bone, which is quite noticeable between them) and create a high and thick transverse ridge at the back of the head. Because I didn’t know what it was called, I couldn’t confirm the presence of palatine tubercles. Another unique feature of the head is that each lower jawbone has a single small and very sharp tooth at its tip. These weren’t noticed during dissection, as they were too embedded in the skin; however, they are now clearly visible. Inside the skull, there’s a bony septum separating the cerebrum from the cerebellum (i.e., the tentorium). The first rib is very wide and short, standing out in contrast to the others. The sternum is flat and wide. The pectoral fins are small and have been carefully preserved, with the various wrist and finger bones held together by their natural ligaments. As the skeleton stands, the fins consist only of the scapula, the humerus, the radius, and the ulna, with very few finger bones.”

“‘The length of this specimen is between twelve and thirteen feet.’” (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 15.)

“‘The length of this specimen is between twelve and thirteen feet.’” (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 15.)

[39]The Buenos Ayres specimen is not included here, as I am uncertain as to its proper interpretation.
[40]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 5, 1873, p. 164, pls. 4-5.
[41]Hector also figures a tooth from a specimen found at Manawatu beach in pl. 5, fig. 3, which is like those of the Chatham Island specimen in size and shape (diameter 34 mm.), and should belong to a male, but as he does not figure or describe the skull this can not be used in the present discussion.
[42]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 9, 1876, p. 430, pl. 24, figs. A and C; pl. 26, fig. 4.
[43]Idem, p. 440, pl. 24, fig. B; pl. 26, fig. 3.
[44]Zool. et Paléontol. franç., 2d ed., 1859, p. 287, pl. 39, figs. 2-7.
[45]Anal. Mus. Pub. Buenos Aires, vol. 1, 1868, pp. 301-366, pls. 15-20.
[46]Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 15.
[47]Forest and Stream, vol. 65, 1905, p. 452.
[48]Trans. Zoöl. Soc. London, vol. 8, 1871, pp. 203-234, pls. 27-29.
[49]See Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc, 1886, No. 4, p. 328.
[50]There is, or was formerly, in the museum of the Alaska Commercial Company in San Francisco a skull of Berardius 3 feet 6 inches long. The locality in which it was obtained is unknown to me.
[51]Science, new ser., vol. 20, 1904, p. 888.
[52]At the time this was written it was not known that there were really four teeth in the lower jaw, but it is interesting to note that when the mandible was covered by the integuments none of the teeth was visible in the male, although the individual was 25 feet long, and that only two teeth were visible in the adult female.
[53]Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 6, pp. 75-77, June 22, 1883.
[54]Duvernoy, Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 3, Zoöl., vol. 15, 1851, p. 52, footnote.
[55]Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 6, October, 1870, p. 348.
[56]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 10, 1878, p. 338.
[57]Ostéographie des Cétacés, pl. 23bis.
[58]Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 8, 1872, p. 223.
[59]Ostéographie des Cétacés, p. 615, pl. 23bis.
[60]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 10, 1878, p. 339.
[61]Trans. N. Z. Inst., vol. 10, 1878, p. 339. Hector remarks that in the skeleton studied by Flower there were twelve caudals with facets for chevrons, but I do not find it so stated in the original account.
[62]Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Dec. 1869, pp. 191, 192.
[79]


INDEX.

A
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 76
Agassiz, L., 3
description of Mesoplodon bidens by, 4
Alaska, Ziphius from, 1
Allen, Dr. G. M., 3
American Museum of Natural History, 2, 3
ampullatus (Balæna), 76
(Hyperoödon), 76
arnuxii (Berardius), 68
B
bairdii (Berardius), 60
Balæna ampullatus, 76
rostrata, 76
Berardius, 60, 77
from California, 1
from Pribilof Islands, 1
specimens of, in National Museum, 1
Berardius arnuxii, chevron bones of, 74
coloration of, 66
distribution of, 77
external dimensions of, 67
size of, 66
skeleton, dimensions of, 75
skull, dimensions of, 68
teeth, dimensions of, 70
vertebræ of, 73, 74
vertebral formula of, 72
Berardius bairdii, 2, 60
chevron bones of, 74
coloration of, 66
description of a young, from Bering Id., 64
distribution of, 77
earbones of, 69, 83
external dimensions of, 64, 67
from Bering Island, 1, 60
from Centerville Beach, Cal., history of, 2, 63
from St. George Island, Alaska, 2
external dimensions of specimens, 62
history of, 61, 62
from Trinidad, Cal., 2
humerus of, 74
original description of, 65
scapula of, 74
size of, 66
skeleton of, 72
skeleton, dimensions of, 75
skull of, 68
skull, dimensions of, 68
sternum of, 74
teeth of, 70
teeth, description of, 70
teeth, dimensions of, 70
ulna of, 74
vertebral formula of, 72
Berardius vegæ, 60
Bering Island, Mesoplodon stejnegeri from, 24
Ziphiidæ from, 1
bidens (Mesoplodon), 4, 76
(Physeter), 4
Boston Society of Natural History, 3
bowdoini (Mesoplodon), 3, 77
Brasil, L., account of type-skull of Mesoplodon europæus by, 24
butskopf (Hyperoödon), 76
C
California, Berardius from, 1
cavirostris (Ziphius), 30, 77
Clark, Maj. Ezra W., 61
Cope, E. D., 35
Crawford, J. G., 3, 25
account of Mesoplodon stejnegeri by, 24
D
Delphinorhynchus, 4
Delphinus densirostris, 9
sowerbensis, 4
sowerbyi, 4
densirostris (Delphinus), 9
(Mesoplodon), 9, 76
Dioplodon europæus, 11
gervaisi, 11
E
East coast of United States, Ziphiidæ from, 2
Egbert, Dr. J. H., 59
[80]
europæus (Dioplodon), 11
(Mesoplodon), 11, 76
G
gervaisi (Dioplodon), 11
gervaisii (Hyperoödon), 30
(Ziphius), 30, 54
grayi (Mesoplodon), 3, 76
Grebnitzki, Nicholas, 1, 31, 60
grebnitzkii (Ziphius), 30
H
hectori (Mesoplodon), 77
Hyatt, A., 3
Hyperoödon, 76, 77
Hyperoödon ampullatus, 2, 76
distribution of, 77
from Newport, R.I., 2
from New York bay, 2
from North Dennis, Mass., 2
skeleton of, in National Museum, 76
specimens of, from coasts of United States, 76
vertebral formula of, 76
Hyperoödon butskopf, 76
Hyperoödon gervaisii, 30
Hyperoödon planifrons, distribution of, 77
Hyperoödon rostratum, 76
Hyperoödon semijunctus, 30
original description of, 35
type-skeleton of, 31
J
Jordan, Dr. D. S., 24, 63
Judge, James, 61
K
Kigan agalusoch, 66
L
layardi (Mesoplodon), 3, 77
M
Manigault, G. E., 35
Mearns, Dr. E. A., 32
L. di Z., 32
Mesoplodon, 3
Mesoplodon bidens, 2, 3, 4, 11
distribution of, 76
external dimensions of, 23
from Nantucket, Mass., 2, 3, 4
mandible of, 6
phalangeal formula of, 18
skull of, 4
skull, dimensions of, 8, 15
teeth of, 6
vertebral formula of, 15
Mesoplodon bowdoini, 3
distribution of, 77
Mesoplodon densirostris, 2, 9, 28
description of exterior of, 10
distribution of, 76
earbones of, 83
external dimensions of, 23
from Annisquam, Mass., 2, 3, 4
skull, dimensions of, 8
Mesoplodon europæus, 2, 11
color of, 22
distribution of, 76
external characters of, 21
external dimensions of, 20, 23
first record of, 11
from Atlantic City, N. J., 2, 3, 11
history of, 20
from North Long Branch, N. J., 2, 3, 11
lungs of, 22
mandible of, 14
pectoral limb of, 18
phalangeal formula of, 18
ribs of, 17
scapula of, 18
skeleton, dimensions of, 18
skull of, 13
specific characters of, 12
sternum of, 18
stomach of, 22
teeth of, 15
tongue of, 22
type-skull of, description of, by L. Brasil, 24
Van Beneden’s opinion regarding, 12
vertebræ of, 15, 16
vertebral formula of, 15
Mesoplodon grayi, 3
distribution of, 76
Mesoplodon hectori, distribution of, 77
Mesoplodon layardi, 3
distribution of, 77
teeth of, 28
Mesoplodon stejnegeri, 2, 24
distribution of, 77
earbones of, 83
external characters of, 29
from Bering Island, 1, 3
from Oregon, 1, 2, 3
mandible of, 28
skull of, 25
skull, dimensions of, 29
teeth of, 28
teeth, dimensions of, 29
Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, 2, 3, 76
O
Oregon, Mesoplodon stejnegeri from, 1, 3
P
Physeter bidens, 4
planifrons (Hyperoödon), 77
Pla-un, 66
Pribilof Islands, Berardius from, 1
R
Ring, J. H., 63
rostrata (Balæna), 76
rostratum (Hyperoödon), 76
S
St. George Island, Alaska, Berardius from, 1
Scollick, J. W., 32
[81]
semijunctus (Hyperoödon), 30
(Ziphius), 30
seychellensis (Ziphius), 9
Soderman, Captain, 32
sowerbensis (Delphinus), 4
sowerbyi (Delphinus), 4
Stejneger, Leonhard, 1, 3, 24, 31, 60, 64, 65
stejnegeri (Mesoplodon), 24, 77
W
Wellander, Capt. Otto, 25
West coast of United States, Ziphiidæ from, 2
Y
Yaquina Bay, Oregon, Mesoplodon stejnegeri from, 24
Z
Ziphiidæ from east coast of United States, 2
from west coast of United States, 2
list of existing species of, 76
specimens of, available for study, 1
in National Museum, 1
Ziphius, 30, 77
fossil, 4
species of, 30
Ziphius cavirostris, 2, 30
Argentine specimen of, 36
caudal vertebræ of, 42
cervical vertebræ of, 38
chevron bones of, 44
color of, 33, 34
comparison of skeletons of, 36
dimensions of, 32
distribution of, 77
earbones of, 83
external characters of, 59
external dimension of, 32, 33, 34
from Argentina, 55, 57
from Barnegat City, N. J., 2, 31
from Barnegat City, N. J., history of, 33
from Bering Island, 1, 31
from Charleston, S. C., 2, 31
from Kiska harbor, Alaska, 1, 2, 31
from Newport, R. I., 2, 31, 32
from St. Simon Island, Ga., 2, 31
lumbar vertebræ of, 41
pectoral limb of, 46
phalangeal formula of, 46, 49
scapula of, 45
sex characters of, 54
skeleton, dimensions of, 47
skeleton of, from Bering Island, 58
skull, age variations in, 50
dimensions of, 53
sternum of, 45
teeth, description of, 55
dimensions of, 55
thoracic vertebræ of, 40
skeleton, variations in, 49
vertebræ of, 37
vertebral column of, 36
vertebral formula of, 36
Ziphius gervaisii, 30, 54
Ziphius grebnitzkii, 30
external characters of, 59
from Bering Island, 31
skull, dimensions of, 53
skeleton of, from Bering Island, 58
Ziphius semijunctus, 30, 35
from Charleston, S. C., 2
type-skull, dimensions of, 53
Ziphius seychellensis, 9
[83]


PLATE EXPLANATION.

Plate 1 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Plate 1 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon bidens. Skull. Nantucket, Mass. Mus. Comp. Zoölogy, No. 1727. Female, adult. Dorsal aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon bidens. Skull. Nantucket, Mass. Mus. Comp. Zoölogy, No. 1727. Female, adult. Dorsal view. Approximately ¼ natural size.

Extremity of beak defective.

Beak tip is defective.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Skull. Annisquam, Mass. Female, young. Boston Society of Natural History. Dorsal aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Skull. Annisquam, Mass. Female, young. Boston Society of Natural History. Dorsal view. ¼ natural size.

Defective on the left side.

Faulty on the left side.

Plate 2 SKULLS AND TOOTH OF MESOPLODON

Plate 2 SKULLS AND TOOTH OF MESOPLODON

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ¼ natural size.

2. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. North Long Branch, New Jersey. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoölogy. Dorsal aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. North Long Branch, New Jersey. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoölogy. Dorsal view. ¼ natural size.

Distal portion of beak lacking and right frontal region defective.

Distal part of the beak missing and the right front area damaged.

3. Mesoplodon bidens. Tooth. Nantucket, Mass. Mus. Comp. Zoöl., No. 1727. Nat. size.

3. Mesoplodon bidens. Tooth. Nantucket, MA. Mus. Comp. Zool., No. 1727. Actual size.

Plate 3 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Plate 3 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type-skull. Bering Island. Immature. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type skull. Bering Island. Immature. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ¼ natural size.

Edges abraded; distal end of beak defective.

Edges worn down; tip of the beak damaged.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Skull. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Adult. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Skull. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Adult. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ¼ natural size.

Proximal end of premaxillæ defective and right nasal lacking.

Proximal end of the premaxillae is damaged and the right nasal is missing.

Plate 4 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Plate 4 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon bidens. Skull. Nantucket, Mass. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. No. 1727. Ventral aspect. About ¼ nat. size. Tip of beak, left pterygoid, and malars defective.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon bidens. Skull. Nantucket, Mass. Adult female. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. No. 1727. Ventral view. About ¼ natural size. Tip of the beak, left pterygoid, and malars are damaged.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Skull. Annisquam, Mass. Female, young. Boston Society of Natural History. Ventral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Skull. Annisquam, Mass. Female, young. Boston Society of Natural History. Underside view. ¼ natural size.

Left frontal region defective.

Left frontal area impaired.

Plate 5 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS

Plate 5 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, juvenile. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Bottom view. ¼ natural size.

2. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. North Long Branch, New Jersey. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoölogy. Ventral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. North Long Branch, New Jersey. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoölogy. Ventral view. ¼ natural size.

Distal portion of beak lacking, pterygoids, malars, and left frontal and temporal regions defective.

Distal part of the beak missing, pterygoids, malars, and the left frontal and temporal areas are damaged.

Plate 6 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Plate 6 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type-skull. Immature. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type skull. Juvenile. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Bottom view. ¼ natural size.

Edges abraded; tip of beak, pterygoids, zygomatic processes, etc., defective.

Edges worn down; tip of the beak, pterygoids, zygomatic processes, etc., damaged.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Skull. Adult. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Skull. Adult. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Bottom view. Approximately ¼ natural size.

Pterygoids and left malar defective.

Pterygoids and left cheekbone damaged.

[84]

Plate 7 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Plate 7 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon bidens. Skull. Nantucket, Massachusetts. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. No. 1727. Lateral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon bidens. Skull. Nantucket, Massachusetts. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. No. 1727. Side view. ¼ natural size.

Tip of beak, left pterygoid and malar defective.

Tip of the beak, left pterygoid, and malar are damaged.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Skull. Annisquam, Massachusetts. Female, young. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Lateral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Skull. Annisquam, Massachusetts. Female, young. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Side view. ¼ natural size.

Distal portion of beak defective and warped.

The tip of the beak is damaged and twisted.

Plate 8 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS

Plate 8 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Side view. About ¼ natural size.

2. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. North Long Branch, New Jersey. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. Lateral aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon europæus. Skull. North Long Branch, New Jersey. Female, adult. Mus. Comp. Zoöl. Side view. Approximately ¼ natural size.

Distal portion of beak lacking.

Tip of beak missing.

Plate 9 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Plate 9 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type-skull. Bering Island. Immature. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type skull. Bering Island. Immature. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Lateral view. About ¼ natural size.

Premaxillæ, maxillæ, frontals, zygomatic process, etc., defective. On account of these defects and the immaturity of the individual the forward inclination of the supraoccipital is much greater than in the skull shown in fig. 2.

Premaxillae, maxillae, frontals, zygomatic process, etc., are defective. Due to these defects and the individual’s immaturity, the forward tilt of the supraoccipital is much greater than in the skull shown in fig. 2.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Skull. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Adult. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect. ¼ nat. size.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Skull. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Adult. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Side view. ¼ natural size.

Proximal end of premaxillæ defective.

Defective proximal end of premaxillæ.

Plate 10 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Plate 10 SKULLS OF MESOPLODON

Skulls of Mesoplodon.

Skulls of Mesoplodon.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon bidens. Nantucket, Massachusetts.

Fig. 1. *Mesoplodon bidens.* Nantucket, MA.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Annisquam, Massachusetts.

2. Mesoplodon densirostris? Annisquam, MA.

3. Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey.

3. Mesoplodon europaeus. Atlantic City, NJ.

4. Mesoplodon europæus. North Long Branch, New Jersey.

4. Mesoplodon europæus. North Long Branch, New Jersey.

5. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type-skull. Bering Island.

5. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Type skull. Bering Island.

6. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon.

6. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, OR.

Posterior aspect. All figures ¼ nat. size.

Posterior view. All figures are ¼ natural size.

Plate 11 MANDIBLES OF MESOPLODON

Plate 11 MANDIBLES OF MESOPLODON

Mandibles of Mesoplodon.

Mandibles of Mesoplodon.

Figs. 1, 2, and 5. Mesoplodon bidens. Nantucket, Massachusetts.

Figs.1, 2, and 5. Mesoplodon bidens. Nantucket, Massachusetts.

3 and 6. Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey.

3 and 6. Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey.

4. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon.

4. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, OR.

All figures ⅕ nat. size.

All figures 1/5 nat. size.

Plate 12 MANDIBLE AND TEETH OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Plate 12 MANDIBLE AND TEETH OF MESOPLODON STEJNEGERI

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Mandible and tooth. ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Jawbone and tooth. ¼ natural size.

2. The same. Left mandibular tooth. Outer surface.

2. The same. Left lower jaw tooth. Outer surface.

3. The same. Right mandibular tooth. Inner surface.

3. The same. Right lower jaw tooth. Inner surface.

All figures a little more than ⅗ nat. size.

All figures are slightly more than ⅗ natural size.

[85]

Plate 13 SKELETON AND LUNGS OF MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS

Plate 13 SKELETON AND LUNGS OF MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS

Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M.

Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M.

Fig. 1. Vertebræ, from right to left as follows: 7th thoracic, 8th thoracic, 1st lumbar, 1st caudal. Scale, 1/3.7 nat. size.

Fig.1. Vertebrae, from right to left as follows: 7th thoracic, 8th thoracic, 1st lumbar, 1st tail vertebra. Scale, 1/3.7 natural size.

2. Sternum. Anterior aspect.

Sternum. Front view.

3. Left scapula. External surface. Scale 1/3.6 nat. size.

3. Left shoulder blade. Outer surface. Scale 1/3.6 natural size.

4. Right pectoral limb. External surface. Scale 1/3.7 nat. size.

4. Right chest arm. Outside surface. Scale 1/3.7 natural size.

5. Lungs. Dorsal aspect. About 1/8 nat. size.

5. Lungs. Back view. About 1/8 natural size.

Plate 14 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 14 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Female, young. Cat. No. 21975, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Figure.1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Female, young. Cat. No. 21975, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ⅙ natural size.

Tip of beak slightly defective.

Tip of beak slightly off.

2. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Female, adult. Cat. No. 20971, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Female, adult. Cat. No. 20971, U.S.N.M. Top view. ⅙ natural size.

Plate 15 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 15 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. Bering Island. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Female (?), adult, Cat. No. 22069, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. Bering Island. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Female (?), adult, Cat. No. 22069, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Bering Island. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Dorsal aspect. Cat. No. 21246. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Bering Island. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Dorsal view. Cat. No. 21246. ⅙ natural size.

Plate 16 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 16 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island. Male (?). Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island. Male (?). Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ⅙ natural size.

2. Skull. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Bering Island. Adult. Cat. No. 21245, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Bering Island. Adult. Cat. No. 21245, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ⅙ natural size.

Plate 17 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 17 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Bering Island. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 21248, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. (Type specimen of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Bering Island. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 21248, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ⅙ natural size.

2. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Male, adult. Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Male, adult. Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M. Dorsal view. ⅙ natural size.

Plate 18 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 18 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Ventral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Bottom view. ⅙ natural size.

2. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Ventral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Bottom view. ⅙ natural size.

Plate 19 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 19 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Bering Island. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii.) Bering Island. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Ventral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Bottom view. ⅙ natural size.

[86]

Plate 20 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 20 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Cat. No. 21975, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Cat. No. 21975, U.S.N.M. Lateral view. ⅙ natural size.

2. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Lateral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

2. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Side view. ⅙ natural size.

3. Skull. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect. ⅙ nat. size.

3. Skull. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Lateral view. ⅙ natural size.

Plate 21 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 21 SKULLS OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris.

Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Lateral aspect. 1/7 nat. size.

Fig.1. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Side view. 1/7 natural size.

2. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Posterior aspect. 1/7 nat. size.

2. Skull. (Type of Ziphius semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Back view. 1/7 natural size.

3. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Posterior aspect. 1/7 nat. size.

3. Skull. Barnegat City, New Jersey. Back view. 1/7 natural size.

4. Skull. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Posterior aspect. 1/7 nat. size.

4. Skull. (Topotype of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Back view. 1/7 natural size.

5. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Posterior aspect. 1/7 nat. size.

5. Skull. Newport, Rhode Island. Back view. 1/7 natural size.

Plate 22 MANDIBLES OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 22 MANDIBLES OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Mandibles of Ziphius cavirostris.

Mandibles of Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Charleston, South Carolina. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).)

Fig.1. Charleston, South Carolina. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).)

2. Newport, Rhode Island.

2. Newport, RI.

3. Bering Island. Cat. No. 22069, U.S.N.M.

3. Bering Island. Cat. No. 22069, U.S.N.M.

4. Bering Island. Cat. No. 21248, U.S.N.M.

4. Bering Island. Cat. No. 21248, U.S.N.M.

All figures about ⅕ nat. size.

All figures are about ⅕ natural size.

Plate 23 MANDIBLES OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 23 MANDIBLES OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Mandibles of Ziphius cavirostris.

Mandibles of Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Bering Island. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. About ⅕ nat. size.

Fig.1. Bering Island. (Type of Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. About ⅕ nat. size.

2. Newport, Rhode Island. Symphysis. Dorsal aspect.

2. Newport, Rhode Island. Symphysis. Back side.

3. The same. Ventral aspect.

3. The same. Front view.

Plate 24 MANDIBLES AND VERTEBRÆ OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 24 MANDIBLES AND VERTEBRÆ OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Mandibles and vertebræ of Ziphius cavirostris.

Mandibles and vertebrae of Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Cat. No. 21975, U.S.N.M. ⅕ nat. size.

Fig.1. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina. Cat. No. 21975, U.S.N.M. ⅕ nat. size.

2. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. About ⅕ nat. size.

2. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. About ⅕ natural size.

3. Barnegat, New Jersey. About ⅕ nat. size.

3. Barnegat, New Jersey. Approximately 1/5 natural size.

4. Vertebræ. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) From right to left, as follows: 1-3 cervicals, 1st thoracic, 7th thoracic, 8th thoracic, 1st lumbar, 1st caudal. About ¼ nat. size.

4. Vertebrae. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) From right to left, it goes: 1-3 cervical, 1st thoracic, 7th thoracic, 8th thoracic, 1st lumbar, 1st caudal. Approximately ¼ natural size.

Plate 25 SKELETON OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 25 SKELETON OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Ziphius cavirostris (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).)

Ziphius cavirostris (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).)

Fig. 1. Atlas. Anterior surface. Defective on left side.

Fig.1. Atlas. Front view. Flawed on the left side.

2. Sternum. Ventral aspect.

Sternum. Front side.

3. Right pectoral limb. Scapula somewhat defective.

3. Right shoulder. The shoulder blade is a bit damaged.

About ࡩ nat. size.

About nat. size.

[87]

Plate 26 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 26 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Berardius bairdii.

Baird's beaked whale.

Fig. 1. Type-skull. Bering Island. Immature. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. About 1/10 nat. size.

Fig.1. Type-skull. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M. Top view. About 1/10 natural size.

Frontals and zygomatic processes somewhat defective.

Frontals and zygomatic processes are somewhat flawed.

2. Skull. St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. About 1/10 nat. size.

2. Skull. St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect. About 1/10 natural size.

3. Skull. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Dorsal aspect.

3. Skull. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Top view.

All figs. about 1/10 nat. size.

All figs. about 1/10 natural size.

Plate 27 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 27 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Berardius bairdii.

Berardius bairdii.

Fig. 1. Type-skull. Bering Island. Immature. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect.

Fig.1. Type-skull. Bering Island. Juvenile. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M. Underside view.

2. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect.

2. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Underneath view.

3. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect.

3. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Underside view.

All figs. about 1/10 nat. size.

All figs. about 1/10 natural size.

Plate 28 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 28 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Berardius bairdii.

Berardius bairdii.

Fig. 1. Skull. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect.

Fig.1. Skull. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Side view.

2. Skull. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Lateral aspect.

2. Skull. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Side view.

3. The same skull. Posterior aspect.

3. The same skull. Back view.

4. Type-skull. Bering Island. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M. Posterior aspect.

4. Type skull. Bering Island. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M. Back view.

All figs. about 1/10 nat. size.

All figs. about 1/10 natural size.

Plate 29 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 29 SKULLS OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Berardius bairdii.

Berardius bairdii.

Figs. 1-4. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M.

Figs.1-4. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M.

5. Skull. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 29727, U.S.N.M. Posterior aspect. 1/10 nat. size.

5. Skull. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 29727, U.S.N.M. Back view. 1/10 natural size.

Plate 30 MANDIBLES OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 30 MANDIBLES OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Mandibles of Berardius bairdii.

Mandibles of Berardius bairdii.

Fig. 1. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M.

Fig.1. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M.

2. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 49727, U.S.N.M.

2. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 49727, U.S.N.M.

3. Bering Island. Adult. (From mounted skull.)

3. Bering Island. Adult. (From mounted skull.)

Dorsal aspect, 1/10 nat. size.

Dorsal view, 1/10 natural size.

Plate 31 MANDIBLES OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 31 MANDIBLES OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Mandibles of Berardius bairdii.

Mandibles of Berardius bairdii.

Fig. 1. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M.

Fig.1. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M.

2. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 49727, U.S.N.M.

2. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, juvenile. Cat. No. 49727, U.S.N.M.

3. Bering Island. (From type-skull.) Immature. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M.

3. Bering Island. (From type-skull.) Immature. Cat. No. 20992, U.S.N.M.

4. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M.

4. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M.

5. Bering Island. Adult. (From mounted skull.)

5. Bering Island. Adult. (From mounted skull.)

Lateral aspect. 1/10 nat. size.

Side view. 1/10 nat. size.

Plate 32 BERARDIUS BAIRDII AND HYPEROÖDON AMPULLATUS

Plate 32 BERARDIUS BAIRDII AND HYPEROÖDON AMPULLATUS

Berardius bairdii.

Berardius bairdii.

Fig. 1. Vertebræ. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. The vertebræ from left to right are as follows: 1-3 cervicals, 1st thoracic, 8th thoracic, 9th thoracic, 10th thoracic, 1st lumbar, 1st caudal.

Fig.1. Vertebrae. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. The vertebrae from left to right are as follows: 1-3 cervical, 1st thoracic, 8th thoracic, 9th thoracic, 10th thoracic, 1st lumbar, 1st caudal.

2. The same specimen. Sternum. Ventral aspect. About 1/7 nat. size.

2. The same specimen. Sternum. Front view. About 1/7 natural size.

3. Hyperoödon ampullatus. Newport, Rhode Island. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia.

3. Hyperoödon ampullatus. Newport, Rhode Island. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.

[88]

Plate 33 SKELETON OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 33 SKELETON OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Fig. 1. Berardius bairdii. Atlas. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Anterior surface. 1/7 nat. size.

Figure.1. Berardius bairdii. Atlas. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M. Front view. 1/7 natural size.

2. The same specimen. Right scapula. 1/7 nat. size.

2. The same sample. Right shoulder blade. 1/7 natural size.

3. The same specimen. Humerus. 1/7 nat. size.

3. The same specimen. Humerus. 1/7 natural size.

4. Berardius bairdii. St. George Island, Alaska. Left pectoral limb. Cat. No. 49727. Male, immature. ⅕ nat. size.

4. Berardius bairdii. St. George Island, Alaska. Left front flipper. Cat. No. 49727. Male, immature. ⅕ natural size.

Plate 34 TYMPANIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Plate 34 TYMPANIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Tympanic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Tympanic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris (?). Annisquam, Massachusetts.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris (?). Annisquam, MA.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, OR.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, New Jersey.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, NJ.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, Rhode Island.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, RI.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, California.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, CA.

Ventral aspect. Nat. size.

Ventral view. Natural size.

Plate 35 TYMPANIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Plate 35 TYMPANIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Tympanic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Tympanic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris (?). Annisquam, Massachusetts.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris (?). Annisquam, MA.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, OR.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger). Bering Island.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger). Bering Island.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, New Jersey.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, NJ.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, Rhode Island.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, RI.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, California.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, CA.

External surface. Nat. size.

Outer surface. Natural size.

Plate 36 PERIOTIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Plate 36 PERIOTIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Right periotic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Right periotic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris. (?) Annisquam, Massachusetts.

Fig. 1. *Mesoplodon densirostris.* (?) Annisquam, MA.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, OR.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (A kind of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger.) Bering Island.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, New Jersey.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, NJ.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, Rhode Island.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, RI.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, California.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, CA.

Inner aspect. Nat. size.

Inner side. Natural size.

Plate 37 PERIOTIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Plate 37 PERIOTIC BONES OF MESOPLODON, ZIPHIUS, AND BERARDIUS

Right periotic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Right periotic bones of Mesoplodon, Ziphius, and Berardius.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris. (?) Annisquam, Massachusetts.

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon densirostris. (?) Annisquam, MA.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon.

2. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, OR.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

3. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope).) Charleston, South Carolina.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger). Bering Island.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. (Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger). Bering Island.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, New Jersey.

5. Ziphius cavirostris. Barnegat City, NJ.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, Rhode Island.

6. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, RI.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, California.

7. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, CA.

Outer aspect. Nat. size.

Outer appearance. Natural size.

[89]

Plate 38 TEETH OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Plate 38 TEETH OF ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS

Teeth of Ziphius cavirostris.

Teeth of Ziphius cavirostris.

Fig. 1. Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope). Charleston, South Carolina. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Left tooth. Inner surface.

Fig.1. Type of Z. semijunctus (Cope). Charleston, South Carolina. Cat. No. 21112, U.S.N.M. Left tooth. Inner surface.

2. The same. Right tooth. Outer surface.

2. The same. Right tooth. Outer surface.

3-4. Barnegat City, New Jersey. The two large teeth.

3-4. Barnegat City, New Jersey. The two large teeth.

5. The same. One of the rudimentary teeth.

5. The same. One of the basic teeth.

6. Topotype of Z. grebnitzkii. Cat. No. 22069, U.S.N.M. Bering Island. Left tooth. Outer surface.

6. Topotype of Z. grebnitzkii. Cat. No. 22069, U.S.N.M. Bering Island. Left tooth. Outer surface.

7. The same. Right tooth. Inner surface.

7. The same. Right tooth. Inside surface.

8. Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Bering Island. Left tooth. Inner surface.

8. Type of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger. Cat. No. 20993, U.S.N.M. Bering Island. Left tooth. Inner surface.

9. The same. Right tooth. Outer surface.

9. The same. Right side. Outer surface.

10. Newport, Rhode Island. Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M. Left tooth. Inner surface.

10. Newport, Rhode Island. Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M. Left tooth. Inner surface.

11. The same. Right tooth. Outer surface.

11. The same. Right tooth. Outer surface.

Plate 39 TEETH OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 39 TEETH OF BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Teeth of Berardius bairdii.

Teeth of Berardius bairdii.

Fig. 1. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M. Left anterior tooth. Inner surface.

Fig.1. Bering Island. Young. Cat. No. 142118, U.S.N.M. Left front tooth. Inner surface.

2. The same. Left posterior tooth. Inner surface.

2. The same. Left back tooth. Inner surface.

3. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 49727, U.S.N.M. Right anterior tooth. Inner surface.

3. St. George Island, Alaska. Male, immature. Cat. No. 49727, U.S.N.M. Right front tooth. Inner surface.

4. The same. Left anterior tooth. Outer surface.

4. The same. Left front tooth. Outer surface.

5. Centerville, California. Male, adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Left anterior tooth. Inner surface.

5. Centerville, California. Male, adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Left front tooth. Inner surface.

6. The same. Right posterior tooth. Outer surface.

6. The same. Right back tooth. Outer surface.

7. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726. Left anterior tooth. Inner surface.

7. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Cat. No. 49726. Left front tooth. Inner surface.

8. The same. Right posterior tooth. Outer surface.

8. The same. Right back tooth. Outer surface.

9. The same. Left posterior tooth. Inner surface.

9. The same. Left back tooth. Inner surface.

All figures natural size.

All figures are actual size.

Plate 40 MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS AND M. STEJNEGERI

Plate 40 MESOPLODON EUROPÆUS AND M. STEJNEGERI

Fig. 1. Stomach of Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Ventral aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

Fig.1. Stomach of Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Ventral view. About ¼ natural size.

2. The same. Dorsal aspect. About ¼ nat. size.

2. The same. Dorsal side. About ¼ natural size.

3. The same. Perineum. a, penis. b, rudimentary mammary slits. c, anus. About ¼ nat. size.

3. The same. Perineum. a, penis. b, rudimentary mammary slits. c, anus. About ¼ natural size.

4. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Head, showing teeth in natural position.

4. Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Cat. No. 143132, U.S.N.M. Head, showing teeth in their natural position.

Plate 41 MESOPLODON AND ZIPHIUS

Plate 41 MESOPLODON AND ZIPHIUS

Fig. 1. Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Length 12½ feet.

Fig.1. Mesoplodon europæus. Atlantic City, New Jersey. Male, young. Cat. No. 23346, U.S.N.M. Length 12.5 feet.

2. The same. Dorsal aspect.

2. The same. Back side.

3. Ziphius cavirostris (?). Kiska Harbor, Alaska, 1904.

3. Ziphius cavirostris (?). Kiska Harbor, Alaska, 1904.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, Rhode Island. Male, adult. Length 20 feet 1 inch. Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M.

4. Ziphius cavirostris. Newport, Rhode Island. Male, adult. Length 20 feet 1 inch. Cat. No. 49599, U.S.N.M.

Plate 42 BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Plate 42 BERARDIUS BAIRDII

Fig. 1. Berardius bairdii. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Length 40 feet 2 inches. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M.

Fig.1. Berardius bairdii. St. George Island, Alaska. Female, adult. Length 40 feet 2 inches. Cat. No. 49726, U.S.N.M.

Ventral aspect.

Ventral side.

2, 3. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Length about 41 feet. Head from in front and from below.

2, 3. Berardius bairdii. Centerville, California. Male (?), adult. Cat. No. 49725, U.S.N.M. Length about 41 feet. Head viewed from the front and from below.

4. The same. Skeleton. About ⅙ nat. size.

4. The same. Skeleton. About 1/6 natural size.

The pectoral fin is modeled from another specimen. It is on the wrong side in this figure.

The pectoral fin is based on a different specimen. It's on the wrong side in this figure.


Transcription Notes

  • Retained publisher information from the printed copy (the electronic edition is in the public domain in the country of publication).
  • Corrected some palpable typos.
  • Reformatted column headings of tables for readable display on smaller windows (even so, some tables are up to 80 characters wide, and one takes 100 characters).
  • Resized images from original 8½×11 plates (thus, scale indications in captions are relative).
  • In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.

Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!