THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERK NORTH ATLANTIC. 183 



all diffeient. I believe them all to be correct, but that for No. 19 is certainly so, 

 as it was obtained by very careful dissection of the fretus, after I had obsei-ved 

 that the formulae for the two preceding specimens did not ac-ree. 



It will be noted that the formula for No. 1 is the same as for the Kiel speci- 

 men, except that the latter has one less caudal vertebra. The foi-mula of No. 14 

 does not agree with any of the European specimens, but would accord with Gervais's 

 formuh genemie, if one vertebra were taken from the luml)ar series and added to 

 the dorsals. The formula of No. 19 is remarkable for the sixteen hunbars.' The 

 formula for the Ocean City whale is based on my own observations, but, as already 

 stated, one vertebra should perhaps be taken from the caudal series and added to 

 the lumbars, making fifteen lumbars in all, in which case this specimen, in so far as 

 it is complete, would agree with Malm's B. carolinoe. However this may be, as 

 the last rib present is long, it is quite probable that one more pair, making sixteen 

 in all, was present originally. In this case the number of lumbars might be con- 

 sidered as reduced to thirteen, thus according with Gervais's views. The Ocean 

 City skeleton probably lacks one caudal between the sixteenth and seventeenth 

 (?'. e., between the fifty-second and fifty-third vertebrae as now placed), and probably 

 the number of terminal caudals lacking is three. 



Until the limits of variation in the number and division of the vertebrae in 

 B. mmcuhis are better determined, little reliance can be placed on the formulae for 

 the discrimination of the species from its nearest allies. The present indications are 

 that the amount of variation is considerable. 



In this connection, it is interesting to observe the lack of harmony in the 

 vertebral formulae given for the South American Sulphurbottom. Gervais, who 

 regards the southei'n species as the same as B. sihhaldii [= B. niusculiis (L.)] gives 

 the formula C. 7, D. 16, L. 13, Ca. 29 (or 30) = 65 (or 66). Burmeister's B. inter- 

 media, regarded the same as B. musculus both by Gervais {51, m. 6) and by Lahille 

 {63, 35), has, according to the original describer, the formula C. 7, D. 15, L. 16, 

 Ca. 27 =■ 65. Lahille's Sulphurbottom, which he regards as a separate species, 

 B. miramaris, has the formula C. 7, D. 14, L. 14, Ca. 29 = 64. 



In the Ocean City skeleton the first vertebra in which the transverse process 

 is perforated, or has a foi-amen at the base, is the forty-sixth (right side only). The 

 trausvei'se processes are last distinguishable on the forty-eighth vei'tebi-a, and the 

 neural arch is obsolete on the fifty-fifth vertebra. 



SKULL. 



For the reasons stated on p. 179, a complete comparison of measurements of the 

 skulls of European and American specimens can not be made. The figure of the skull 

 of the Iceland whale published by Reinhardt {75, 188) appears to be accurate, except 

 that the maxillas have sprung apart. Measurements made on this figure compared 

 with those from the skull of the Ocean City whale show a close agreement, as follows : 



' Van Beneden (7, 265) gives the formula of a skeleton at Edinburgh as 7, 15, 16, 25 = 63. He 

 states in another place that there are bones of four individuals in Edinburgh, including the North 

 Berwick whale (7, 280). 



