292 THE WHALEBONE WHALES OF THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC. 
VERTEBRZ. 
Of the vertebree, Beddard remarks (2, 168): “The atlas was missing; the 
remaining [ cervical | vertebrze are quite independent of each other as in the Rorquals ; 
and they have the wide lateral foramina formed by the transverse processes, which 
is so conspicuous a feature of those vertebre in Balenoptera and Megaptera.” 
Further than this the vertebrxe have not been described. 
STERNUM AND LIMBS. 
The sternum is described by Beddard as “cross-shaped, but the arms of the 
cross very short, and the posterior termination almost a fine point.” 
According to Dall’s notes, the scapula was in “breadth and height not very 
different, with a short, broad coronoid process, its head opposite first rib. Ap- 
parently only 4 fingers, of which the second is the longest.” 
Van Beneden remarked regarding this species in 1875: “It appears to us 
demonstrated and confirmed to-day . . . that the Devilfish of the American 
whalers is allied to the true whales by the absence of folds on the throat and of a 
dorsal fin, and by the presence of cirripeds and Cyami on the skin; and that it is 
allied to the Finbacks by the shortness of the baleen and the shape of the ros- 
trum.” “Tt is neither a Balena, a Balenoptera, nor a Megaptera” (5, 36, 37). 
BaL®NOPTERA DAVIDSONI Scammon. 
A nominal species which requires comparison with 2. acuto-rostrata is the B. 
davidsoni of Scammon, described in 1872 (81). Scammon described this species 
again and figured it in his Marine Mammals (82, 49-51), and Mr. W. H. Dall 
noted it in the appendix to this work, and gave measurements of a skull in the 
museum of the California Academy of Sciences. Scammon’s revised description is 
substantially the same as the original one. A comparison of this description with 
Sars’s diagnosis and figure of B. acuto-rostrata indicates a close similarity. 
Scammon states, however, that in his species the white marking of the 
pectoral is near the base. This is hardly true of B. acuto-rostrata, in which it 
may be said to be near the middle. Scammon’s figure corresponds with his descrip- 
tion in this particular, and shows the white band as very narrow, while in B. acuto- 
rostrata it occupies from one third to one half of the surface of the pectoral. If this 
distinction were constant it would, of course, have a certain importance. Unfortu- 
nately Scammon’s description is not explicit on this point and his figure cannot be 
relied upon in detail. For example, the shape of the head is entirely unlike any Fin- 
back, and the lower lip is similarly incorrect. The same is true of the caudal region, 
the dorsal fin, and the flukes. If these characters were really as represented in 
the figure, it would be necessary to remove the species from the genus Balenoptera. 
The skull, however (of which more will be said later), is indistinguishable 
generically, if not specifically, from 2. acuto-rostrata. Nearly all the figures of 
whales in Seammon’s work were evidently “improved” by the lithographers, with 
the result that they must be regarded as to a certain extent diagrammatic. 
