2. rnrsETEK. 211 



According to Sibbcold they produce spermaceti. Cuvier, in his 

 * History and Examination of the Synonyma of the Cachalots or 

 Sperm Whales ' (Oss. Foss. v. 328-338), regards the description of 

 this animal given by Sibbald as merely a redescription of the Sperm 

 Whale, and finds great faalt mth Artedi, Bonnaterre, and others 

 for having considered them as separate ; and he regards the second, 

 blunt-toothed specimen as eitlier a Dclphinus fjlobiceps or a D. Tursio 

 which had lost its upper teeth ; this error is important, as it \itiate8 

 many of his subsequent observations. To have come to these con- 

 clusions he must have overlooked Sibbald's figure and ample details 

 of the first, and the figure of the teeth of the second, or they woidd 

 have at once shown him his error. That he did so is certain ; for 

 when he comes to Schreber's reduced copy of Sibbald's figures of 

 Baliena microcephala (p. 337), he says Schrcber does not indicate its 

 origin ; but on this copy of Sibbald's figure, which he before regarded 

 as a Sperm Whale, he observes, that '* from the form of its lower jaw 

 it most resembles a large dolphin which had lost its upper teeth." 



Thus, whUe Cuvier was reducing tlie numerous species of Sperm 

 Whales that had been made by Bonnaterre, Lacepede, and other 

 compiling French authors, to a single species, he has inadvertently 

 confounded with it the verj- distinct genus of Elack-fish, or Physeter 

 of Artedi, which has a very differently fonned head, the top of the 

 head being flattened, with the blowers on the hinder part of its 

 crown, and with a distinct dorsal fin, particulars all well described 

 by Sibbald, a most accurate observer and conscientious recorder, and 

 not badly represented by Bayer. 



Mr. BeU observes, — *' After careful examination of the various ac- 

 coimts whicli have from time to time been given of whales belonging 

 to this family, called Spermaceti Whales, I have found it necessary 

 to adopt an opinion in some measiu'e at variance with those of most 

 previous writers, with regard to the genera and species to which all 

 those accounts and details are to be refen'cd. The conclusion to 

 which I have been led. is, first, that the High-finned Cachalot is 

 specifically but not generically distinct from the common one, and 

 that therefore the genus Catodon is to be abolished, and the name 

 Physeter retained for both species ; and, secondly, that all the other 

 species which have been distinguished by various naturalists have 

 been founded upon trifling variations or upon vague and insufficient 

 datii." — Brit. Quad. .507. Thus, though Mr. Bell differs from Cuner 

 in regarding them as distinct species, yet ho overlooked Sibbald's 

 figm-es, for he says there is no figure of the High-finnecl Cachalot in 

 existence, and keeps it in the genus Phi/seter, which he characterizes 

 as having the " head enormously large, tnmcated in front," which is 

 quite unlike the depressed rounded head of the High-finned Cachalot ; 

 and he also adopts the mistaken description of the dorsal fin. 



Eschiicht seems to believe that Sibbald described a Killer, or Orca 

 (jladialor, under the above name, but I liave never heard of an Orca 

 52 feet long. 



Some parts of Sibbald's description, and his reference to Johnston's 

 figure, might lead to this error ; but his figures, wliich exactly agree 



r 2 



/^. 



A^.,-' - ■'.'- ' - 



.-r 



\// . 7^ 



