378 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



after the disappearance, from one or other cause, of the barnacle, there is left a greyish 

 symmetrical pattern on the epidermis that cannot be mistaken for the scars caused by 

 healed pits (Plate XXXVII, fig. 2). 



Pe7tnella grows very deeply into the blubber — much further than the depth of the 

 pits — and affects the skin and blubber only immediately 

 around its narrow "stalk." Secondary infection of the open 

 pits with Pejinella often takes place, but there seems no 

 possibility that this parasite is responsible for the formation 

 of the pits either by its own activities or as a reaction on the 

 part of the whale to these activities. It is true that Pennella 

 may leave a scar of its own, but this is smaller and quite 

 distinct from the scars left by the pits. 



There have been reports from the whalers at Saldanha 



Bay of fishes (apparently Myxinoids) occasionally attached ^'S- ^^^- Rod-shaped 

 , , , _ r 1 rill bacteria in scar tissue, 



to the whales at sea. boon alter the capture or the whales 



the fishes were said to loosen their hold so that specimens were never taken. 

 Myxinoid fishes can in fact be caught by hook and line in Saldanha Bay, though these 

 are far too small to have caused the pits. In this connection Olsen (191 3) remarks as 

 follows: "A species of Myxinoid makes similar wounds in Bryde's whale, but I did 

 not obtain specimens because they always leave the whale when it is dragged out of 

 the water. I do not know whether they are to be found on the whale when alive or 

 only after its death". There is no doubt that the wounds noted by Olsen at Durban 

 are the "pits" under discussion. A very good illustration of them is given in his 

 paper. He describes them as "fresh wounds with a length of as much as 10 cms. and 

 3-4 cms. deep, caused by parasites, generally Pennella''. It is probable that wounds 

 caused by a sucking fish would show signs of the method by which they had been 

 made, and such fishes cannot be imagined to make the crescentic pits. The same 

 objection applies to biting fishes, although certain species might possibly manage to 

 make the open pit in one bite. It is in fact the partially cut pit shown in Plate XXXVI , 

 fig. 4, with its free flap of practically unaffected blubber which constitutes the great 

 objection to any kind of bite, gash or macro-parasite, as a possible cause of the open 

 pits and the scars, for there seems to be no conceivable process by which such agents 

 could cause this particular stage. One can only suppose that there is some micro- 

 organism which, having penetrated the skin, propagates itself through a peculiar kind 

 of curving plane, undermining a piece of blubber which finally drops out and leaves 

 an open pit. 



It should be mentioned that instances of fishes biting into the blubber of whales 

 have been known. Scoresby (1820) describes how the Greenland Shark {Laemargus 

 borealis) bites "hemispherical pieces", "nearly as big as a person's head", out of the 

 blubber of the living Greenland whale, Laemargus does not occur, however, in the 

 south, and if it did it could hardly be the cause of the pits in question. It is con- 

 ceivable that the whale's epidermis might be pierced by a bite of some kind and that 



