104 THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 
“ A fine specimen of this species | Balwnoptera rostrata], over 30 feet long, went 
ashore during the autumn of 1866, on the Long Beach, N.J. It was much injured, 
probably by the killers. This species has not been before noticed on our coasts.” 
It is evident that he thought the whale to be B. acuto-rostrata at this time, but 
in the same Proceedings, 1868, p. 159, he is quoted as making the following state- 
ment on June 28d, 1868: 
“He [Prof. Cope] mentioned that he had opportunity of examining a por- 
tion of a specimen of the Scrag Whale of Dudley, Lalena gibbosa of Erxleben, 
and ascertained that it repr esented a genus not previously known. It was a fin-back 
whale, but without dorsal fin or throat fol ds, resembling superficially the genus 
Balena. he baleen short and curved. The genus was called Agaphelus. 
“A second species of the genus was to be found in the ‘ gray whale’ of the 
coasts of California. The baleen of this species, compared with that of the A. 
gibbosus, was longer and had narrower basis. The plates moderately and simply 
concave, while those of the latter are sigmoidal, most curved near the outer margin 
in cross section. The bristles of the California species were very coarse, varying 
from one to three series between the enamel plates. The bristles of the A. gibbosus 
much finer, three series together. Length of the latter, 8.5 inches, width at base, 4.4 
inches. In the gray whale or Agaphelus glaucus Cope, 22 inches in length, width 
at base 6 inches. In the former nearly 6 in an inch; in the latter 25. The baleen 
of the A. gibbosus belonged to an immature specimen of 35 feet in length.” 
I understand this to be the specimen that Cope referred to in 1867 under the 
name of L. rostrata, as appears from the same Proceedings, 1868, p. 224, where he 
cites that reference in synonymy. He now calls it Agaphelus gibbosus Cope, and 
gives the estimated length of the specimen, which was young, as 43 feet. 
At the beginning of this article, on p. 221, he makes the following statement : 
“During the autumn of 1866 a whale was cast ashore on the Long Beach, 
Ocean Co., Nae , opposite Westecunk, on the ailioe side of Little Egg Har ‘bor, near 
the residence of Wm. A. Crane. A recent visit to the spot furnished me with the 
means of determining the species to which this monster of the deep belonged, 
although not with the completeness desirable, as the tide had a short time previ- 
ously taken off the most bulky part of the carcass. Thus the cranium, cervical and 
dorsal vertebree, with the first ribs, the most important portions for its identifica- 
tion, were lost. There were preser ved, however, the mandibular arch, ear-bone, one 
scapula and both fins, numerous ribs, many lumbar and caudal vertebrae, with the 
baleen from one side of the maxilla. These portions, with a few prominent points 
dependent on the observations of Wm. A. Crane, serve to indicate a species not 
only new to our fauna, but new to modern science. The evidence of my informant, 
as that of an old and experienced coaster and waterman, and one familiar with the 
appearance of our cetaceans, confirmed by his sons and by the specimens preserved, 
so far as they went I consider reliable. . . . 
“In general features this Cetacean seems to be an intermediate form of the 
toothless whales; and an additional feature, which depends on the observation of 
my friend W. Crane, and in which I cannot conceive it possible that he should be 
mistaken, indicates still more conclusively that it pertains to a genus not before 
characterized. The whale was first driven on shore on its back, and the gular and 
