336 Prof. J. Reinhardt on the Fin- Whale 
Now, as to the “ Tunnolik” of the Greenlanders, it must be 
admitted that if this really is identical with the Ostend whale, 
as has hitherto been usually supposed, it must, no doubt, as 
sctence stands at present, be considered a species quite dis- 
tinct from the “ Steypirey®r” or Balenoptera Sibbaldii. But 
the question is, whether this supposition is true; and though 
with respect to this whale we are still limited to the very same 
materials that were formerly at Eschricht’s disposal, yet they 
may be found sufficient to answer this question. What made 
Eschricht suppose that his ‘ Tunnolik” might be the same 
species as the Ostend whale was the resemblance which he 
found between Dubav’s figures of the pectoral fin of the latter 
and the fin which Mr. Méller sent him from Greenland*. 
Now this correspondence is so great, indeed, that at a time 
when only a single fin-whale with such a pectoral fin was 
known, he surely was justified in making such an inference 
and in disregarding the discrepancy that seemed to exist 
as to the place of the dorsal fin, and to explain it as caused 
only by a mistake in the measurement of one or other of these 
two whales, which had taken place under very unfavourable 
circumstances. But the matter appears in another light now 
that a pectoral fin, like that of the Ostend whale, characterized 
by the uncommonly elongated and slender form of the pha- 
langes, is found also in the Physalus section. 
The pectoral fin of the skeleton of B. Sibbaldit which ori- 
ginally belonged to Lidth de Jeude is stated by Flower to 
have four phalanges in the index, five in the third finger, five 
in the fourth, and three in the fifth; the fin of the skeleton at 
Hull agrees with this, except that the third finger has six 
phalangest. It is, however, observed expressly by Flower, 
that, the phalanges of both skeletons being artificially articu- 
lated, we cannot be sure that they are arranged in their 
natural order of succession, or that they are all present; 
Eschricht found, indeed, when he examined the skeleton at 
Hull in 1846, seven phalanges in the third finger, or one 
more than Flower tf. fsberkaaly one phalanx seems to have 
been lost during the time that has elapsed since Kschricht 
had an opportunity of studying this skeleton. Thus it becomes 
very probable that the still smaller number of phalanges in 
* See K. D. Vid. Selsk. Skr. ser. 4. vol. xii. (1846) pp. 379, 380, and 
ser. 5. vol, i. (1849) p. 138. 
+ Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1864, p. 418, and 1865, p.475. The meta- 
carpal bones are not included in the number of the phalanges in these 
statements ; and the same is the case in all the following statements where 
nothing is said to the contrary. 
t K. D. Vid. Selsk. Skr. ser. 5. vol. i. p. 180. 
