166 Prof. Eschricht on the Gangetic Dolphin. 



phiiis. To these peculiarities may be added^ further, the propor- 

 tionally small number of vertebrae, stated by Cuvier to be forty- 

 six (7+11+28). 



After Cuvier had concluded his examination of the animal, all 

 the essential points concerning it seemed to have been finally 

 settled, at least as concerned the examination of museums. It 

 was not to be expected that any further observations of importance 

 on the skeleton would be made, especially as no one possessed 

 so complete a one as Cuvier. It was therefore a very acceptable 

 contribution on the part of Mr. J. E. Gray*, who furnished some 

 remarks on the comparison of two Platanista crania in the Bri- 

 tish Museum, and a third in that of the University of Edinburgh ; 

 showing, that the vaulted processes on the upper jaw only ap- 

 proach each other closely towards the middle, during the advanced 

 age of the animal ; and that the orifice of the nostrils, in the very 

 young cranium, is '^nearly straight," and receives its marked 

 obliquity only in older individuals (" end of the nose recurved "). 

 His figure of the profile of the cranium t appears to be only a 

 reduced copy of Cuvier's, though the teeth are represented as 

 longer. 



A faithful representation of the exterior form of the animal 

 was therefore much wanted. Lebeck's and RoxburgVs figures, 

 though quite adequate to fulfill their intention, namely to point 

 out the animal as a distinct species of Dolphin, did not satisfy 

 the desire felt during half a century, to be correctly informed of 

 the exterior figure of an animal, of which the skeleton was so very 

 peculiar, and in a manner to satisfy the demands of the present 

 state of the graphic art. This want was the more urgent, as 

 the two representations alluded to deviated so much from each 

 other, as to give the animal a very different physiognomy; 

 which could not be ascribed to diff'erence of sex or age, since both 

 were males, measured exactly Q~ Engl, feet, and weighed exactly 

 140 lbs. — a coincidence so striking, that one cannot help con- 

 cluding, that both accounts were taken from one and the same 

 specimen ; the more so as they are contemporaneous (Lebeck 

 alone quoting the place and year of capture — November 1797, 

 1^ German mile from Calcutta). I anticipate that many zoolo- 

 gists of our time would prefer founding a distinct species on each 

 of those figures ; but in cetology, it is obviously unsafe to rely on 

 delineations, invariably given on a greatly reduced scale, while 

 the object itself must have been placed, most frequently, in a very 

 unfavourable position for the artist. Various attempts have been 



* hoc. cit. p. 45 (where Platanistina is a misprint for Platanista), and 

 Catalogue of the Specimens of Mammaha in the Collection of the Brit. Mu- 

 seum, Pt. I. Cetacea, Lond. 1850, 8vo, p. 137. 



t Ibid. tab. 7. f 2. 



