264 THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 
tions is the opinion of Flower after seeing the figure published by Holder, as 
follows: “As far as I can make out it is the same as “ B. dbéscayensis”; also that of 
Dr. J. A. Allen: “Your drawing of the recent | New Jersey] specimen agrees well 
with the figure of B. EE EITEDS of southern Europe, which I believe to be identi- 
cal with Cope’s B. cisarctica.” 
In 1889, Van Beneden stated explicitly his opinion that BL. cisarctica was 
identical with B. biscayensis. He remarks: “The Balena biscayensis of Eschricht 
is the Sletbag (whale with smooth back) of the ancient Icelandic whalers, the 
Nord-Caper of the Dutch whalers, and the Sarde of the French whalers (Du 
Hamel). . . . It is the same animal as that to which Professor Cope of Phila- 
delphia has given the name of Balena cisarctica, and Professor Capellini that of 
Taranto balls Balena tarentina (Balana Van Benediana). The Balena Swe- 
ake [Lilljeborg ; subfossil in Sweden] is also a synonym of this species” 
(7, 15). Again: “ Professor Cope has had the courtesy to send us from Phila- 
idole an earbone of an adult animal, and by our invitation Prof. Reinhardt 
has compared it with that of the skeleton from Pampeluna [type of “B. bis. 
cayensis” | which is in Copenhagen. Although the former bone is from an adult 
animal and the second from a young animal, it is not doubtful, according to Prof. 
Reinhardt himself, that these bones only present such differences as depend upon 
rege IU/() oe 
In an article on B. béscayensis, published in 1891, Guldberg treats the descrip- 
tions of Cope, Gasco, ete., as referring to one and the same species, occurring on 
both sides of the Atlantic. This view was not, so far as I can ascertain, based on 
examination of specimens (58). The same opinion was again broached in 1893 (49). 
From the foregoing statements, it will be seen, as pointed out by Holder, that 
the opinions of those most competent to judge in the matter have leaned strongly 
toward the identification of b. dbiscayensis with B. cisarctica. ‘Two important 
names, however, must be cited among those who take the opposite view,—Rein- 
hardt and Fischer. 
Although Reinhardt was joint author with Eschricht of the work Om Nord- 
hvalen, in which, as we have seen, the opinion is set down that the two species are 
identical, in the Ostéographie of Van Beneden and Gervais we find in connec- 
tion with the account of Reinhardt’s comparison of the ear bones of the type 
of B. biscayensis with one of ZB. cisarctica, the following: “Prof. Reinhardt 
does not believe, however, that the Balena biscayensis is a synonym of Balena 
cisarctica” (8, 107). If Reinhardt is correctly reported in this place, we must 
suppose that his opinion changed subsequent to the publication of the work Om 
Nordhyalen, or that the statement in the latter is to be credited to Eschricht alone. 
No explanation is given by Van Beneden and Gervais of the grounds of Reinhardt’s 
opposition to the prevailing view. 
The second cetologist who has dissented from the union of the Right 
whales of the European and United States coasts in one species is M. Paul Fischer. 
*It is difficult to harmonize this last remark with the statements in the Ostéographie (see 
p. 107 of that work). 
