28 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



In their general form the two crania closely resembled each other. The summit of 

 each skull was formed of the same bones similarly arranged, but in the New Zealand 

 skull the nasal bones were an inch longer, and somewhat more than an inch wider at the 

 base than in the one from Shetland. In both the great prseuasal fossae and anterior nares 

 were similarly shaped, and the bones forming theii" walls were similarly arranged ; the 

 only appreciable difference being that in the New Zealand specimen the transverse 

 diameter of the fossa was about an inch wider, the prjemaxillse forming the sides of the 

 fossae were more massive, and from the inner surface of the left prsemaxilla a' stronger 

 ridge projected than in the Shetland cranium. In the New Zealand specimen the 

 greatest width between the two prgemaxillse was 10 inches, whilst that of the Shetland 

 cranium was 8-^ inches. The beak was similarly constructed in both specimens. The 

 mesorostral bones were almost identical in shape, but in the New Zealand skull it was 

 1^ inch longer than in the one from Shetland — 14| inches as against 13|- inches. In 

 the New Zealand specimen a narrow longitudinal groove between 3 and 4 inches long 

 was situated at the posterior truncated end of this bone, no similar groove existed in the 

 Shetland animal. Both possessed an ecto-maxillary ridge and furrow ; in the Shetland 

 specimen the furrow was narrower and deeper than in the New Zealand, but in the latter 

 the superior maxilla in the middle third of the beak had its sides more uniformly rounded, 

 and projecting somewhat more laterally, than in the Shetland animal. In both, the under 

 surface of the beak had a similar construction, and the palate bones articulated with each 

 other mesially between the anterior ends of the two pterygoids, and separated the latter 

 from the superior maxillse. The mandibles resembled each other in shape and in projecting 

 beyond the tip of the beak, but in the New Zealand specimen the bone was somewhat more 

 massive and 2\ inches longer than in the one from Shetland — 34f inches to 32|- inches. 



The evidence which I have obtained from a jaersonal comparison of these two crania, 

 belonging to animals dwelling in such widely separated seas as those of the Shetland 

 Isles and New Zealand, is not such as to justify me in classifying them as distinct species. 

 In all the essential features of form and construction they are practically alike. The 

 differences which I have noted between them are merely such as are due to a difference 

 in size, and to the New Zealand cranium having, along with its greater size, a somewhat 

 more extended condition of ossification than the Shetland specimen, so that, so far as the 

 cranial characters afford a basis for observation, I could come to no other conclusion than 

 that the New Zealand animal is Zlphius cavirostris. 



Since the skull from the Wellington Museum arrived in Edinburgh, the New Zealand 

 naturalists have published additional information on this genus of Ziphioids. 



In May 1876 a paper by Dr von Haast was contributed to the Philosophical 

 Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand,^ and also to the Zoological Society of London,^ in 

 which was described the skeleton of an aged female whale that had been stranded, in 

 July 1872, in Lyttleton Harbour, Bank's Peninsula. This is apparently the same animal 



1 Trans. New Zealand Institute, vol. ix. p. 430, 1877. " Proc. Zool. Soc. Loncl., June 6, 1876, vol. xliv. p. 466. 



