#6 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 
the caudal vertebrae of the skeleton left, and no descriptions of the ex- 
terior shape of the fin at all, nevertheless would have been forced to 
restore it as a whale’s tail. The large transverse processes of these 
vertebre must have had a special function, namely, to support a tail 
having a fin like that of a whale or a dugong, which have the same 
kind of processes, and not ‘like that of the manatee, which is destitute 
of them. By seeing these vertebrie, I feel now more convinced than 
ever that there is no reason for supposing the old view, which even led 
to the specific name Manati balenurus (1785), to have been incorrect. 
It has been said that “nature” is not so contradictory as to provide such 
a sluggish animal like the sea-cow with the tail of the swift whale, a 
thought as ridiculous as to imagine ‘a rhinoceros with the legs of a race- 
horse.” But it is to be remarked: 1, that the swiftness does not depend 
upon the shape, but merely upon the relative size, and upon the strength 
of the moving muscles; 2, that a careful study of Steller’s words shows 
that it was not at all impossible for the sea-cow to move even very rap- 
idly ; and, 3, that “nature” would have been able to effect even extreme 
swiftness by a fin like that of the manatee, if it had been necessary, as 
it is a well-known fact that animals with legs as clumsy as those of a 
rhinoceros or an elephant are able to run as fast as a good horse. 
I think I hardly need apologize for passing the fur-seal (Callorhinus 
ursinus) and its allies in silence, until I have had further experience. 
There is nothing gained by making a few more or less insignificant re- 
marks on a matter about which an elaborate work has been published 
under your superintendence in this very year, especially as none of them 
are of such importance as to make a speedy publication desirable. On 
the whole, I am in a position to affirm most of Mr. Elliott’s statements. 
But as a matter of course there must be some differences, caused partly 
by the local circumstances and partly by the fact that two observers 
do not always view the same thing in the same light. It is therefore 
evident that many of my final notes will take the form of more or less 
critical remarks on Mr. Elliott’s monograph, an additional reason why | 
I should wish to retain them until they have been subjected to a new 
and thorough test. 
But an erroneous statement of Professor Nordenskjéld (Voy. Vega, 
Amer. ed., p. 609), that the list given in the note (loc. cit.) only embraces 
the fur-seals killed on Bering Island, must be corrected at once, as from 
the wide distribution of his book it is likely to be repeated by others 
not going back to the original source.* The following is an authentic 
*Evidently he has understood Elliott’s list as concerning only Bering Island. In 
his monograph, p. 113, Mr. Elliott gives the same figures with regard to ‘‘the Com- 
mander Islands,” but without correcting Nordensjéld’s mistake. The list actually 
embraces the skins from Robben Island, too. (This island, or rather rock, is situated 
close to Saghalin Island and does not belong to the Kurile chain as stated by Elliott, 
p. 8.) Besides, there is a slight typographical error in Elliott’s figures, the total be, 
ing given as 387,462 instead of 389,462. 
