THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 103 
(Proc. A. N. Sci, Phila, 1867, p. 32) to be a Megaptera. Certain it is that 
a Megaptera is found at Bahia, as I have seen larger and smaller portions of two 
skeletons of one, but whether it be the ‘ Bahia Finner’ and P. brasiliensis, Gray, is 
quite doubtful. In the first place, fishermen and whalers never call a ‘hump-back’ 
(Megaptera) a‘ finner’; if they have done so in the case of this species, it evidently 
has a noticeable dorsal fin, which is wanting in the present whale. In the next 
place, baleen of the ‘Bahia Finner’ has a commercial value, being exported to 
England, while that of MZegaptera has none, being coarse and twisted.” (29, 107.) 
From a comparison of these two paragraphs it would appear that Cope first 
brought forward his specimen as indicating that Gray’s Balenoptera brasiliensis, or 
“ Bahia Finner,” was a Megaptera, but afterwards concluded that though a Megaptera 
unquestionably occurred in the vicinity of Bahia, it was “quite doubtful” whether 
the same was Gray’s B. brasiliensis after all. We may properly consider that 
Cope’s remark that “it should be called Meyaptera brasiliensis” means merely that 
when he first wrote, in 1867, he thought Gray’s Balenoptera brasiliensis should be 
transferred to the genus Megaptera. The Meguptera brasiliensis is not, therefore, 
to be considered as one of Cope’s new species, and the skeleton which he presented 
to the Philadelphia Academy is not a type. Disposed of in this way, as I believe 
it should be, there is still a matter of interest in determining what the skeleton was 
which Cope presented to the Academy. 
So little is left of the specimen and it is so young, that it is hardly worth con- 
sideration. The skull is very immature and lacks the right maxilla. The spines 
and processes of the vertebre are all separate, showing immaturity. I have found 
37 vertebre in all, apparently without the atlas and axis, and numerous caudals are 
doubtless lacking. 
The skull, so far as can be judged, does not differ notably from that of JZ. 
bellicosa. The breadth across the squamosals (greatest) is 38 in.; the orbit, point 
to point, 6 in. What Cope means by saying that the “orbital processes of the 
frontal are narrowed externally,” is not evident. The orbits are very large rela- 
tively, as is to be expected in so immature an individual. Length of mandible, 
straight, 5 ft. 14 in.; curved, 5 ft. 5 in. 
There are 14 pairs of ribs, all very fragile. The first is broad distally, as in 
M. bellicosa. Measurements of the limbs are as follows: 
Scapula: Breadth, 1 ft. ro in. 
Eleight) cess 
Humerus: Length, o + “ without epiphyses (straight). 
Radius: Length, 1“ 83“ “ i 
Ulna: Length, 1 es ae # § 
The total length of the skull (as well as can be made out) is 5 ft. 2 in. 
Length of rostrum, 3 ft. 25 in. Breadth of rostrum at middle, estimated, 14 in. 
Depth of mandible at middle, 64 in. Nasals are lacking. 
Note on AGAPHELUS GrBBosus (Erxleben) Cope. 
The first mention of this whale by Cope is in the Proceedings of the Academy 
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1867, p. 147, where he says in a foot-note: 
