J!Y II. H. SC(»TT AND CLIVK E. LORD. 29 



ity. The skulls of the ziphoid whales arc loosely con- 

 structed, and the ethmo-vomerine cartilage would accord- 

 ingly receive far less pressure than obtains anion? the 

 l)flphini(l(r. This is merely a suggestion in passing, and 

 is not regarded by us as being more than a tentative 

 note. 



Owing to mutilations in our skull, we are unable to 

 compare the whole of Tme's cranial measurements with 

 our specimen, but a considerable number ax"e hereunder 

 appended, and none of these involved anv restorations. 

 If, by the most careful deductions that can be made by 

 comparative osteology, we restore the mutilated poi"tions of 

 our skull, we find them to fall into line with Tnie s data 

 in a most i-emarkable wav. and evf n a casual glance at the 

 talkie sup])liod will show the similarity of the two speci- 

 mens. 



Some of the mutilations referred to, as, for instance, 

 the sawing off of the occipital ccndylcs and part of the 

 occiput, evidently prc-dated the gift of the skull to the 

 Muveum, but the loss of the pterygoids, ear bones, and 

 all the teeth suggests unfair rsage in the davs when this 

 and oth?r whales" skulls were left to weather in the back- 

 yard, owing to want of proper storage space. 



