362 TOOTHED WHALES 



that is to say, it is long and not very high. The skull is most 

 like that of Balaena, hut the process of the frontal arching over 

 the eye is broader relatively than in Balaena, and thus approaches 

 Ba.Jacno2)tera. Nothing is known of the viscera of this Whale. 

 The whalebone is white, and the animal was first described by 

 Dr. Gray from pieces of " bone." It is not always that so 

 fortunate a diagnosis of specific or generic difference has been 

 made from a structure which apparently offers so little aid for 

 discrimination. 



There is but a single species of the genus which is named 

 JVeobalaena martjinata. ^ 



Sub-Ordeu 2. ODOXTOCETI. 



The Odontoceti have teeth but no whale1;)one ; the blow-hole 

 is single ; the skull is not symmetrical ; some of the ribs are 

 two-headed. 



Fam. 1. Physeteridae. — This tVunily of the Odontocetes may 

 be thus defined : — All or most of the cervical vertebrae are fused 

 together. The costal cartilages are not ossified. In the skull the 

 pterygoids are thick and meet in the middle line ; the sym- 

 physis of the mandible is long. Teeth, more or fewer, are found 

 in both jaws, but those of the mandible are alone functional 

 (? exc. Kogia). The pectoral limb is smallish. The throat is 

 grooved by two or four furrows. 



This family of Whales is again susceptible of division into 

 the two sul)-fcimilies— Physeterinae or Sperm Whales and the 

 Ziphiinae or Beaked Whales. Professor I'. J. van Beneden was 

 strongly against any subdivision of wliat is here regarded as a 

 perfectly natural family, embracing the Physeters and the Beaked 

 AVhales. Tliere are, however, some reasons for the subdivision. The 

 Ziphiinae have a reduced series of teeth, never exceeding two on 

 each mandible, which contrasts with the fully-toothed mandibles 

 of liotli Pliyseter and Kogia. The stomach of the Ziphioids is 

 extraordinarily complicated even for a Cetacean. The small 

 head of the latter group, wliich recalls in a curious way that of 

 Mosasauroid reptiles and some Dinosaurs, is in contrast to tlie 



^ For osteology see Hector, Trans. New Zeal. Inst, ^'ii. 1S76, p. 251 ; and 

 Beddard, Trans. Zool. Soc. xv. 1901, v. 87. 



