Prof. Eschricht on the Gangetic Dolphin. 291 



surprise to me, not only to be favoured with a communication 

 from Prof. Acland, Curator of the museum, to the effect that the 

 specimen was quite safe in his custody, but with a complete 

 plaster-of-Paris cast of it, enabling me to verify the correctness 

 of the statement in my memoir, founded only on the said figure. 

 I described (p. 97) the Hyperoo.dons as a very isolated group of 

 toothed whales, represented at the time only by two species, but 

 at present by many more, the number of fossil species not only ex- 

 ceeding those of the existing (as 3 to 2), but constituting, more- 

 over, a very considerable proportion of the known fossil whales. 

 It was to be expected that the gap between this form of antedi- 

 luvian remains and existing species would be gradually supplied 

 by intermediate forms, and that these might be expected among 

 fossil specimens. If I mistake not, I have succeeded in point- 

 ing out such a form among species at present existing ; and that 

 this transition is distinguished from the formation of all other 

 whales, by an almost total blindness, cannot fail being recognized 

 as a most remarkable circumstance. It is to be expected that 

 further forms of transition will be discovered, between the group 

 of Hyperoodons and other cetaceous groups, or new links be- 

 tween them and the Gangetic dolphin. Perhaps the dolphin of 

 the Amazon may be looked upon as such. Our animal stands 

 so isolated, that it is likely the genus which it forms will be en- 

 larged hereafter by other species ; and I must here again quote 

 M. Reinhardt, to whose exertions are due almost all the mate- 

 rials on which my present memoir is founded : — " I must add, 

 that Mr. Blyth, Curator of the Asiatic Society's Museum, told 

 me, that he distinguished two species of Platanista ; one of them 

 common in the Indus, but rarely found in the Ganges ; the other 

 or common Gangetic species (as far as I understand him) en- 

 tirely wanting in the Indus; and that they were characterized 

 by the different length of the rostrate portion of the upper jaw. 

 I am not aware that they have been described, nor do I know 

 the names given them by Mr. Blyth." 



It must be obvious that the above remark must have recurred 

 to my mind in noticing the discrepancy between former observa- 

 tions and my own. I am not alluding here to the very strong 

 difference in the outer form, which according to usage in ceto- 

 logy, might easily lead to the adoption of a new species — but 

 only to Cuvier's account of the skeleton, as regards the form of 

 the beak, and the number of vertebrae and fingers. It is, of 

 course, free to every one to consider those discrepancies as founded 

 upon specific distinctions, contrary to what I have declared to be 

 my views; and to combine them with that just mentioned of Mr. 

 Blyth; but it appears to me that any such attempt must rest on 

 a very insecure basis, like so many others, which have converted 

 cetology into a labyrinth, where it is extremely arduous to find 



