a 
54 CETACEA. 
a 
nn 
According to Sibbald they produce spermaceti. Cuvier, in } 
‘History and Examination of the Synonyma of the Cachalots « 
Sperm Whales’ (Oss. Foss. v. 328, 338), regards the description 
of this animal given by Sibbald as merely a redescription of th 
Sperm Whale, and finds great fault with Artedi, Bonnaterre, an 
others, for having considered them as separate; and he regard 
the second blunt-toothed specimen as either a Delphinus glo 
biceps or a D. Tursio which had lost its upper teeth; this erro 
is important, as it vitiates many of his subsequent observations 
To have come to these conclusions he must have overlooke¢ 
Sibbald’s figure and ample details of the first, and the figure ¢ 
the teeth of the second, or they would have at once shown hin 
his error. That he did so is certain; for when he comes te 
Schreber’s reduced copy of Sibbald’s figures of Balena microce= 
phala (p. 337), he says Schreber does not indicate its origin ; but 
on this copy of Sibbald’s figure, which he before regarded as 
Sperm Whale, he observes, that “from the form of its lower ja 
it most resembles a large dolphin which had lost its uppe 
teeth.” i 
Thus, while Cuvier was reducing the numerous species of Sperr 
Whales that had been made by Bonnaterre, Lacepéde, and other 
compiling French authors, to a single species, he has inadvert= 
ently confounded with it the very distinct genus of Black-fish, ¢ 
Physeter of Artedi, which has a very differently formed head, the 
top of the head being flattened, and with the blowers on the hind 
part of its crown, and with a distinct dorsal fin, particulars all 
well described by Sibbald, a most accurate observer and consei : 
entious recorder, and not badly represented by Bayer. . | 
Some parts of Sibbald’s description, and his reference t 
Johnston’s figure, might lead to this error ; but his figures, whieh 
exactly agree in proportion with his description, though not ré 
ferred to in the text, at once set this at rest, the drawing bem 
+s of the natural size, that is to say, 6 feet to an mch; and he 
observes that his animal is longer and more slender than Wi 
loughby’s figure of the Sperm Whale. 
Sibbald describes the comparatively small triangular dorsal t 
be erect, like a “ Mizam mast,” which Artedi and Linne 
translate pinna altissima, and cause Shaw to call it the High 
finned Cachalot. Dr. Fleming by mistake calls this species th 
Spermaceti Whale (Brit. A. 38); and he refers to P. macrocephala 
(Linn.) as the true Sperm Whale figured by Robertson. Sibbal 
in speaking of another specimen, says, “ spinam dorso longam 
as correctly quoted by Artedi and Lmnzeus, but used by them 
opposition to the alizssima of their other. species. ‘- 
J. Bayer (Act. Nat. Cur. 1733, 111. 1. t. 1) gives a rath 
fanciful but very recognizable figure of a male specimen of th 
' 
pe a atts ns lien eter Sagi iy gy a a ily 
“a 
- 
