408 Mr. J. E. Gray on Hyperoodon latifroiia. 



scribed and figured, that it was that of a female gravid with young. 

 A female specimen of the same species, as proved by the examina- 

 tion of its skull (described in my Catalogue of Cetacea, p. 70) in 

 the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, was captured in the 

 Firth of Forth, accompanied by a young male (see W. Thompson, 

 Ann. and Mag. Nat. llist. 1846, vol. xvii. p. 153). Other speci- 

 mens of this whale have been caught on the coast of England, 

 especially one in Lancaster Bay, but I am not aware that the sex 

 of that individual was recorded. 



I have observed the skull of at least one specimen which was 

 marked as being that of a male animal, which certainly belonged 

 to the common species ; and my late lamented friend Mr. Wil- 

 liam Thompson described a male specimen which was caught at 

 Belfast, the skeleton of which is presei^ed in the Belfast Museum, 

 which that naturalist refers to the common species. 



It is also to be observed, that in the above paragraph the Pro- 

 fessor appears to think that the only difference between the two 

 skulls is the thickness of the crest, but in the descriptive Cata- 

 logue of the Cetacea in the British Museum, I observe : " The 

 examination of four skeletons and six or eight skulls of H. ros- 

 tratum, and of three (four) skulls of this species {H. latifrons) 

 have satisfied me that it must remain a perfectly distinct species : 

 it not only differs from H. rostratum in the thickness and solidity 

 of the crest, but in the crest being much higher than the hinder 

 part of the head, while in all the skulls of H. rostratum the crest 

 is of the same height as the frontal ridge." — p. 70. 



The skull of Hyperoodon latifrons is one-third longer than that 

 of H. rostratuMj the latter being usually 60 and the other 90 or 

 93 inches long. Under these circumstances I must consider that 

 Professor Eschricht's supposition has not " become a matter of 

 certainty," for the evidence is certainly very adverse to the 

 theory. 



The Professor in the same manner considers the Physeter 

 hidens of Sowerby and the Dauphin du Havre of Blainville (the 

 Delphinus micropterus of Cuvier) to be the same species. It is 

 true, the only specimen of the former which has been recorded 

 was a male, and that the two specimens of the latter which have 

 been described were females ; but this is scarcely sufficient evi- 

 dence. Before Professor Eschricht made this suggestion, which 

 he evidently considers very important, in the * Annals and Maga- 

 zine of Natural History ' for 1846, 1 had regarded the three ani- 

 mals as belonging to the same species, " believing the difference 

 in the size of the teeth, which Mr. James Sowerby's description 

 appears to indicate, to be only a peculiarity produced by the age of 

 the specimen;" but when I had the opportunity of examining the ^ 

 skull, I considered myself justified in regarding them as distinct j 



