2 CETACEA. 
in a recognizable manner, from two specimens thrown on the — 
coast of Holland in 1598 and 1601; and Johnston (t. 41 & 42) — 
well figures one of these specimens. 
; 
. 
| 
In 1671, Martens, in his ‘ Voyage to Spitzbergen,” gave a de- — 
scription and figure of the Whalebone Whale, the “ Fin Fish” — 
(Balenoptera Physalus), the Weise Fish (Beluga Catodon), and — 
of the Botzkopt (Orca Gladiator) ; and his figures of the firstand — 
second have been the chief authorities for these animals until this — 
time. 
In 1692, Sibbald published a small quarto pamphlet, with three — 
plates, describing the Whales which had come under his observa- 
tion. He divides them into three groups :—I. The small Whales 
with teeth in both jaws, of which he notices three :—the Orca 
(O. Gladiator), the Beluga, and one from hear-say, which from — 
its size was probably a Porpesse (Phocena vulgaris). Il. The 
larger Whales with teeth in the lower jaw :—1. the Sperm Whale; — 
and 2. the Black-fish. And III. The Whalebone Whales, of : 
which he describes three specimens. The arrangement he pro- 
posed is the one used in this paper; and his work forms the — 
groundwork of all that was known on the larger Cetacea up to — 
the Linnzan time: but Artedi and Linneus committed the mis- 
take of regarding individual peculiarities resulting from accidental 
circumstances as specific distinctions, so that three of their spe- 
cies have to be reduced to synonyma. [There is a later edition, 
edited by Pennant, which appeared in Edinburgh in 1773. ] 
In1725, Dudley, in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions’ (No. 387), 
describes all the Whales now recognized by-the whalers, except 
the Black-fish ; viz. 1. The Right or Whalebone Whale. 2, The 
Serag Whale. 3. The Fin-back Whale. 4. Bunch or Hump- 
back Whale. And 5. The Spermaceti Whale. Cuvier, in his — 
historical account, scarcely sufficiently estimates either Sibbald’s — 
or Dudley’s contribution. 
Bonnaterre, and after him Lacepéde, in their Catalogues, col- 
lected together with great industry all the materials they could 
find, in every work that came in their way ; hence they, the latter — 
especially, formed a number of species on most insufficient au-— 
thority: for example, they made a genus on the otherwise good © 
figure of the Sperm Whale figured by Anderson, because the artist — 
had placed the spout on the hinder part of the head; and a divi- 
sion of a genus for the Fin-fish of Martens, because he did not 
notice in his description or figure the fold on the belly. Yet the 
characters given by Lacepéde, and genera formed by him, have 
been used in our latest works, some even in Cuvier’s last edition 
of the ‘Animal Kingdom’; and many of these species still en- 
cumber our Catalogues. Nae 
Cuvier, dissatisfied with this state of things, in his ‘ Ossemens > 
