THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 151 



B. museulus. His remarks are so impoi'taut in the present connection that a trans- 

 lation of the pertinent pai-agraphs of liis article will be given. He writes : 



" It is well known that this whale grows to a great size. The excessive length 

 of 102 ft. 8 in. ' and more has, indeed, been given. Collett states that Commander Bv. 

 Foyn told him that he had once seen from his ship a gigantic examjjle, whose 

 length he estimated at 132 ft. 10 in. (40A m.). I can not,"'however, refrain from 

 expressing strong donbt that such large individuals exist. I shall not believe in 

 such excessive size until I am convinced by correct measurements. Without wish- 

 ing to decry the practical exercise of estimating with the eye the size of objects at 

 sea, I have seen cases enough in which the most experienced seamen have at times 

 been deceived, when observations at great distances were concerned. 



"During my last voyage to Finmark in 1883 a veiy accurate whaler men- 

 tioned to me that he had seen a Blue whale 102 ft. 8 in. long which was driven to 

 land on the Murman coast. He had not, however, measured the specimen ! Prof. 

 Collett states that the usual length is 72 ft. 2 in. I believe, however, that this is 

 estimated too low. 



" In his last article (in P. Z. S., April, 1886) he places the length between 70 

 and 80 feet, which measure I can confirm. Prof. Sars (in Forli. Vid.-Sehk., 

 Cliristiania, 1878) estimates the length of the full-grown animal at 92 ft. 8 in. This 

 seems to me set too high. I have prepared the skeleton of many Blue whales. 

 The first skeleton, a male neai'ly 78 ft. 9 in. (24 m.) long, was taken to the Uni- 

 versity of Christiania in 1881 and later the fat was removed, at least from the ver- 

 tebrae. It showed that all the epiphyses were anchylosed to the bodies of the 

 veitebiag. In 1882 I directed the i)re]iai'ation of a Blue wliale (about 22 m.) which 

 is in the Royal Museum at Brussels; in the year 1883 I pi-epared skeletons of two 

 examples, which were somewhat smallei-, the one 22.27 m. and the other about 

 21.17 m. A full growth was not shown here. I am on that account disposed to 

 accept 77 ft. 1 in. (23-|^ m.) as a minimum for the adult animal. 



" As regards the maximum, it is, of course, impossible to say anything with cer- 

 tainty. I will not dispute a length of 92 ft. 8 in., altliougli I believe that it very 

 seldom occurs. The largest individual that I have measured was 84 Norwegian 

 feet [= 86 ft. 6 in. English], or about 26* m., long; it was shot at sea under my 

 eyes by the boat Jarj^jonl Prof. Aui'ivillius and Di\ Foi-stand of Upsala meas- 

 ured in 1878 an example 86 ft. long," and Collett states that in 1868 a Blue whale 

 96 feet long^ was found dead at sea and towed into Vardo. The Blue whales which 



I have seen varied mostly between 72 ft. 1 in. and 82 ft. 5 in. When an animal 

 measured more than 77 ft. 3 in. oi' 78 ft. 3 in., it was considered quite lai'ge by 

 the whalers." 



The largest recorded measurement for the species is that given ])y Dubar {34, 

 17) for the^Ostend whale, namely, 31 meters, or 101 ft. 8 in. This is probably 

 erroneous. In his introduction, Dubar {34-, 5) alludes to the same specimen as 

 being 95 ft. long, while Van Bieda {11, 344) and Nyenhnis {71, 166) cite it as 25 

 ells, or 80 ft. (Dutch) long. Van Beneden mentions the length in various places 



' In the translation the feet are reduced to feet and inches English measure. 



" Kind of feet not mentioned. If Norwegian, would equal 88 ft. 7 in. English. 



' Probably Norwegian feet (though Guldberg does not say so), in which case it equals 98 ft. 



II in., English. 



