264 THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 



tions is the opiuion of Flower after seeing the figure published by Holder, as 

 follows : " As far as I can make out it is the same as " B. hisicayensis " ; also that of 

 Dr. J. A. Allen : " Youi- drawing of the recent [New Jersey] specimen agrees well 

 with the figure of B. biseayensis of southei'u Europe, which I believe to be identi- 

 cal with Cope's B. cisarctieay 



In 1889, Van Benedeu stated explicitly his opinion that B. cisarctica was 

 identical with B. biscayensis. He remarks: "The Balw?ia biscayensis of Eschricht 

 is the Sletbag (whale with smooth back) of the ancient Icelandic whalers, the 

 Nord-Gaper of the Dutch whalers, and the Sarde of the French whalers (Du 

 Hamel). . . . It is the same animal as that to which Professor Cope of Phila- 

 delphia has given the name of Balcena cisarctica, and Professor Capelliui that of 

 Taranto whale, Balcena tarentina {Bakena Van Benediana). The Balwna Swe- 

 denborgii [Lilljeborg ; subfossil in Sweden] is also a synonym of this species " 

 (7, 15). Again: "Professor Cope has had the courtesy to send us from Phila- 

 delphia an earbone of an adult animal, and by our invitation Prof. Reinhardt 

 has compared it with that of the skeleton from Pampeluua [type of " B. bis- 

 Gaye7isis''^'\ which is in Copenhagen. Although the former bone is from an adult 

 animal and the second from a young animal, it is not doubtful, according to Prof. 

 Reinhardt himself, that these bones only present such differences as depend upon 

 age" (7, 17).' 



In an ai-ticle on B. biscayensis, published in 1891, Guldberg treats the descrip- 

 tions of Cope, Gasco, etc., as referring to one and the same species, occurring on 

 both sides of the Atlantic. This view was not, so far as I can ascertain, based on 

 examination of specimens {58). The same opinion was again broached in 1893 (59). 



From the foregoing statements, it will be seen, as pointed out by Holdei-, that 

 the opinions of those most competent to judge in the matter have leaned strongly 

 toward the identification of B. biscayensis with B. cisarctica. Two important 

 names, however, must be cited among those who take the opposite view, — Rein- 

 hai-dt and Fischer. 



Although Reinhardt was joint author with Eschricht of the work Om Nord- 

 hvalen, in which, as we have seen, the opinion is set down that the two species are 

 identical, in the Osteographie of Van Beneden and Gervais we find in connec- 

 tion with the account of Reinhardt's comparison of the ear bones of the type 

 of B. biscayensis with one of B. cisarctica, the following: "Prof. Reinhardt 

 does not believe, however, that the Bal<Bria biscayensis is a synonym of BaloBna 

 cisarctica'''' (8, 107). If Reinhardt is correctly repoi-ted in this place, we must 

 suppose that his opinion changed subsequent to the publication of the work Om 

 Nordhvalen, or that the statement in the latter is to be credited to Eschricht alone. 

 No explanation is given by Van Beneden and Gervais of the grounds of Reinhardt's 

 opposition to the pi'evailiug view. 



The second cetologist who has dissented from the union of the Right 

 whales of the European and United States coasts in one species is M. Paul Fischer. 



' It is difficult to harmonize this last remark with the statements in the Osteographie (see 

 p. I07 of that work). 



