106 The Scottish Naturalist. 



from 43 to about 70 feet in length. The latter Prof. Flower t 

 considers to be about the utmost extent to which this species 

 has any claim. Notwithstanding its great size, it is of the least 

 commercial value in proportion to its bulk of all the whale tribe. 

 Sibbald described and figured in his " Phalavwlogia Nova" two 

 fin whales which he regarded as specifically distinct. Dr. Gray 

 and some others seem to be of a different opinion, or at least 

 doubtful as to the correctness of this arrangement, consequently 

 they have placed both animals in the present species. The 

 first of these is Sibbald's De Balcena tripinni quce rostrum acutum 

 habet et plicas in venire, &c. This individual was stranded near 

 Burntisland, on the 17th November, 1690. It was 46 feet long, 

 and 20 feet in circumference ; the pectoral fins 5 feet long; the 

 tail 9 feet broad. The second is Sibbald's De Balcena tripinni 

 quce maxillam inferiorem rotundam, &c. This specimen was 

 thrown ashore near Abercorn, in the Firth of Forth, in Septem- 

 ber, 1692, and measured 78 feet in length, with a circumference 

 of about 35 feet. The pectoral fins were 10 feet long, and the 

 tail was 18^ feet broad. That the first-mentioned of these 

 whales belongs to B. musculus may be readily, I think, taken 

 for granted. The second, however, presents greater difficulties 

 in the way of arriving at a similar conclusion. Irrespective of 

 the large size of the animal, there is the wide under jaw, em- 

 bracing the upper, the length of the baleen (3 feet), the breadth 

 of the tail, and the long pectoral fins. All are characters that 

 appear to me to be more appropriate to B. Sibbaldii than to the 

 species under consideration. 



Dr. Neill % describes a male of this whale which ran ashore 

 near Alloa on 23d October, 1808. The total length was 43 feet, 

 the circumference where thickest, about 20 feet, the pectoral 

 fins nearly 5 feet long, and tail about 10 feet broad. Dr. Neill 

 states that he had seen a M.SS. account by the the late Dr. 

 Walker, dated 1782, of a whale which was forced ashore near 

 Burntisland on the 10th June, 1761, precisely of the same size 

 as Sibbald's Burntisland whale, and that Walker, who was at 

 the same time clearly of opinion that his specimen was of the 

 same species as that described by Sibbald from the same place, 

 named it Balcefia sulcata. 



+ Proceedings of Zoological Society, 1864. 

 £ Memoirs Wernerian Society, vol. L 181 1. 



