THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 151 
B. musculus. is remarks are so important in the present connection that a trans- 
lation of the pertinent paragraphs of his article will be given. He writes: 
“Tt is well known that this whale grows to a great size. ‘The excessive length 
of 102 ft. 8 in.’ and more has, indeed, been given. Collett states that Commander Sv. 
Foyn told him that he had once seen from his ship a gigantic example, whose 
length he estimated at 132 ft. 10 in. (404 m.). I can not, however, refrain from 
expressing strong doubt that such large individuals exist. I shall not believe in 
such excessive size until I am convinced by correct measurements. Without wisb- 
ing to decry the practical exercise of estimating with the eye the size of objects at 
sea, I have seen cases enough in which the most experienced seamen have at times 
been deceived, when observations at great distances were concerned. 
“During my last voyage to Finmark in 1883 a very accurate whaler men- 
tioned to me that he had seen a Blue whale 102 ft. 8 in. long which was driven to 
land on the Murman coast. He had not, however, measured the specimen! Prof. 
Collett states that the usual length is 72 ft. 2 in. I believe, however, that this is 
estimated too low. 
“Tn his last article (in P. Z. S., April, 1886) he places the length between 70 
and 80 feet, which measure I can confirm. Prof. Sars (in Forh. Vid.-Sélsk., 
Christiania, 1878) estimates the length of the full-grown animal at 92 ft. 8in. This 
seems to me set too high. I have prepared the skeleton of many Blue whales. 
The first skeleton, a male nearly 78 ft. 9 in. (24 m.) long, was taken to the Uni- 
versity of Christiania in 1881 and later the fat was removed, at least from the ver- 
tebre. It showed that all the epiphyses were anchylosed to the bodies of the 
vertebrxe. In 18821 directed the preparation of a Blue whale (about 22 m.) which 
is in the Royal Museum at Brussels; in the year 18835 I prepared skeletons of two 
examples, which were somewhat smaller, the one 22.27 m. and the other about 
21.17 m. A full growth was not shown here. Iam on that account disposed to 
accept 77 ft. 1 in, (234 m.) as a minimum for the adult animal. 
“ As regards the maximum, it is, of course, impossible to say anything with cer- 
tainty. I will not dispute a length of 92 ft. 8 in., although I believe that it very 
seldom occurs. The largest individual that I have measured was 84 Norwegian 
feet [= 86 ft. 6 in. English], or about 264 m., long; it was shot at sea under my 
eyes by the boat Jarfjord. Prof. Aurivillius and Dr. Forstand of Upsala meas- 
ured in 1878 an example 86 ft. long,* and Collett states that in 1868 a Blue whale 
96 feet long® was found dead at sea and towed into Vardé. The Blue whales which 
I have seen varied mostly between 72 ft. 1 in. and 82 ft.5 in. When an animal 
measured more than 77 ft. 3 in. or 78 ft. 8 in., it was considered quite large by 
the whalers.” 
The largest recorded measurement for the species is that given by Dubar (34, 
17) for the Ostend whale, namely, 31 meters, or 101 ft. 8 in. This is probably 
erroneous. In his introduction, Dubar (34, 5) alludes to the same specimen as 
being 95 ft. long, while Van Breda (11, 344) and Nyenhuis (77, 166) cite it as 25 
o) 
ells, or 80 ft. (Dutch) long. Wan Beneden mentions the length in various places 
* In the translation the feet are reduced to feet and inches English measure. 
* Kind of feet not mentioned. If Norwegian, would equal 88 ft. 7 in. English. 
* Probably Norwegian feet (though Guldberg does not say so), in which case it equals 98 ft. 
11 in., English. 
