PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 189 



with large gray and blackish brown spots." Lilljeborg says further: 

 "On the back, about in the middle of the body, is situated a longitudinal 

 keel or ridge as a rudiment of the dorsal fin, rising above the back 

 almost one inch through its whole length. The body is thickest at the 

 beginning of this keel, tapering behind, and nearer to the tail strongly 

 compressed, with a sharp edge above and below.'' This ridge is also 

 very recognizable in the description of the natives, as also in Nordens- 

 kjold's account, as the j)rojecting " backbone " (the projecting crest of the 

 prooessufi spinosi), a feature forcing upon them the impression of great 

 leanness. 



I do not see anj' reason why the narwhal which occurs in the Arc- 

 tic Ocean north of Bering Strait should not occasionally make its ap- 

 pearance as far south as Bering Island, as it is well known that on the 

 Atlantic side it has sometimes visited the northwestern coast of Ger- 

 many and the British waters. 



It may thus be regarded as fairly proved that the unknown cetacean^ 

 which in 1846 was observed near the southern end of Bering Island, wa& 

 a female narwhal. But, whatever it may have been, one thing is abso- 

 lutely sure : it was not a sea-cow ! 



It will therefore appear that there is no reason for altering the year 

 of the extermination, 1768, as already given by Sauer and accepted by 

 V. Baer and Brandt, to a later date. 



In the above investigation I have proceeded with great care and gone 

 into rather protracted details, but I found it necessary to lay before 

 the public the data in the case, to enable everybody to make up his own 

 mind. I have had two reasons for so doing. The case itself is im- 

 portant and interesting. It would give rise to many conjectures and 

 theories if it were taken for granted that a sea-cow could have roamed 

 about invisible until 1854 (or 1846). But, besides this, I thought it most 

 necessary to support my words by unquestionable proof in charging" 

 an authority like Professor Nordenskjold with errors or mistakes. That 

 he was not deceived intentionally by the natives,* I conclude, among 

 other things, from the fact that the misunderstandings comprise other 

 subjects besides the account of the sea-cow — thus, for instance, the color 

 of the stone-fox and the number of fur-seals killed on Bering Island, as 

 I have already shown. That a scientist of ^ordenskjold's well known 

 thoroughness and merits could fall into those mistakes may, perhaps, be 

 explained by the fact that in the hurry of the short stay at the island 

 he was too impatient to wait for the often jDrotracted and indefinite an- 

 swers, therefore indicating what rei)lies he expected or wanted, a hint 

 most certain to be followed bj" the natives. Besides, his account seems 

 to have been written down for the greater part from memory, the orig- 

 inal notes having been either lost or insufficient. 



Smithsonian Institution, January 1, 1884. 



* I regret very nnich tliat the words in my preliminary report (Contributions to the 

 History of the Commander Islands, No. 1, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., "VI, 1883, p. 84) can 

 be misunderstood as ill thought the natives had deceived Nordenskjold intentionally. 



