i CETACEA. ; 19 
Balena gibbosa, Eral. Syst. 610 (from Dudley); Gmelin, S. N. 
1.225; Bonnat. Cet.5; Lacep. Cet.113; Virey, N. Dict. H. N. 
gt iil. 185 ; Gerard, Diet. Sci. Nat. i. 440; Desm. Mamm. 528 ; 
Ea Fischer, Syn. 523. 
AB. gibbis vel nodis sex B. macra, Klemm, MSS. Pise. ii. 15. 
_ B. bipennis sex in dorso gibbis, Brisson, R. Anim. 351. 
_ Knotenfish oder Knobbelfish, Anders. Isl. 225; Crantz, Govern. 
146. 
-Bunched Mysticete, Shaw, Zool. ii. 495. 
‘Inhab. Atlantic Ocean. 
_ Dudley’s account is copied by Anderson, Crantz, and all suc- 
ceeding authors. It may be only a Megapteron. 
Cuvier thought the Scrag Whale (B. gibbosa) was only a Ror- 
qual (Oss. Foss. v. 267) which had been mutilated, but I suspect, 
from Dudley’s account of the form, that it must be a Balena, 
_ probably well known formerly. Indeed Beale (Hist. Sperm Whale) 
speaks of it as recognized by the whalers now. 
. Bonnaterre, and all succeeding authors, have referred to this 
genus the Hump-backed Whale of. Dudley, not understanding his 
description of the belly “bemg reeved,” that is, plaited ; ‘they 
_eall it Balena nodosa. 
_ 8B. Back finned. Head elongate, flattened. Palate broad. 
Baleen short, broad, twisted when dry. Belly plaited. 
Syn. Balezenoptera, Lacep. Cet. 
 Mysticetus, Wagler, Syst. Amph. 
Rorqualus, F. Cuvier, Cet. 
The whalers recognize two kinds of this division, the Hump- 
_ back and the Finner ; Cuvier (Oss. Fos.) believed there were only 
two species, one inhabiting the Northern and the other the 
‘Southern ocean, and these now prove to be the ty pes of the 
genera distmguished by the whalers. 
Several authors having been induced by Cuvier’s example to 
believe that all the Northern Finners were a single species, thought 
that the variations in the proportions might depend on the age 
of the specimens examined. Thus, 
1. Dr. Jacob (Dublin Journ. Science, 1825, 333) attempts to 
prove that Balena Boops, B. rostrata, B. musculus, and B. ju- 
_bartes were but one species ; and he has taken considerable trouble 
_to bring together the measurements and proportions of the differ- 
ent specimens which have been described. 
_ He gives an outline of his specimens, and contrasts it “ with 
-an outlme of Hunter’s Piked Whale, drawn according to the 
“measurements given by him;” and he observes, “that the pro- 
‘portions of the body (of these two specimens) vary mm a remark- 
+3 
- 
