THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIO. 265 
In support of his opinion, he brought forward in 1871 (42) two characters as 
distinguishing biscayensis not only from césarctica but from australis and an- 
tipodarum. The first is drawn from a fragment of a rib found at Biarritz, which 
is “regularly oval, without appreciable angle, ridge, or crest.” The fragment 
has a maximum diameter of 11 cm. and minimum diameter of 8} cm. This rib, 
according to Fischer, is “infinitely more massive, more rounded, and thicker” than 
in Balena mysticetus, australis, or antipodarum, and lacks the crest found in those 
species. 
As a second distinguishing character of 2. biscayensis, Fischer points to the 
bifid first rib of the type specimen from San Sebastian, not found in césarctica or 
australis. He remarks further: “As to the whale of the east coast of North 
America, nothing proves to me its identity with the Basque whale. The Basque 
whalers themselves, after having almost destroyed the whales of the Bay of Biscay, 
spread out westward and in 1372 reached the banks of Newfoundland,’ where they 
saw a whale which they judged different, and called ‘Sardaco Baleac.’ It was 
smaller than the Biscay whale” (42, 299). 
As regards the size of the rib found at Biarritz, it is to be said that in the 
skeleton from Pt. Lookout, North Carolina, in the Raleigh museum, the largest rib 
has a maximum diameter of 12.7 em., and two others a diameter of 10.2 em. 
This was an adult male 50 ft. long. The largest ribs in the skeleton in the 
American Museum, New York (which is about 40 ft. long), have a diameter of 
9.75 em., and the maximum diameter of the 3d rib in the 39-foot Taranto specimen, 
as shown by Gasco’s figures, is 10 em. It will be seen, therefore, that Fischer’s 
measurements of the Biarritz rib are not remarkably large. The smoothness of 
that fragment is hardly a reliable character, as it is well known that the shape of 
the ribs is quite variable, not only in the same species, but among the various pairs 
in a single skeleton. 
In considering the importance of the bifurcation of the proximal end of the 
first pair of ribs in the type of B. béscayensis,—the second character brought for- 
ward by Fischer as distinguishing that species from cisarctica,—it will be interest- 
ing to read Gasco’s description, quoted on p. 257. This shows that the bifurcation 
occurs on both sides, but is of small extent and is unequal on the two sides. As 
stated by Gasco, the Taranto whale is without this bifurcation of the first rib, and 
such is the case in all the American specimens of JB. cisarctica I have examined. 
The B. biscayensis at San Sebastian (not the type) has the bifurcation on one side 
only, and that but slightly developed.’ 
In another paper, published in 1872 (43, 19), Fischer again sums up his opin- 
ions regarding B. biscayensis and B. cisarctica, as follows : 
“The Balena biscayensis, the Nordeaper of the Norwegians and Icelanders, 
and the Hunterius svedenborgi ought, it seems to me, to be assembled in the same 
genus, if not in the same species, very close to the Hunterius temmincki of the 
* Regarding this statement, see p. 267. 
> See GRAELLS, Wem. R. Acad. Cien. Madrid, 13, pt. 3, 18809, pl. 4, fig. 6. 
