called “ SteypireySr” by the Icelanders. 339 
his description with a drawing, and that the fin itself which 
Moller had sent him has not been preserved. 
If the result I think we have come to is correct, Eschricht’s 
“ Tunnolik,” the “Steypirey&r” of the Icelanders, and, finally, 
the whale described by Malm are only one and the same species, 
which appears to be one of the most common in our northern 
seas, and the systematic name of which must be Balenoptera 
Sibbaldii*. If, contrary to expectation, it should appear, 
after all, that B. Caroline is different, I do not think it pos- 
sible, from the materials now available, to state with cer- 
tainty whether the “'Tunnolik” in that case must rather be 
referred to the one or to the other of these two species; but, 
as I have said, there is scarcely any fear that this question will 
be raised. 
I have still to add some measurements taken by Capt. 
Bottemann, apparently with very great care, of the male 
foetus of the ‘“ Steypireydr”’ mentioned before in this notice. 
He has been kind enough to send these to the Museum at 
* In his elaborate Monograph of the Balenoptera Caroline, p. xxi, 
Malm alludes to the possibility that his whale might be identical with 
B. Sibbald, remarking that, even if it were so (which, however, he 
denies), he could not use the name Svbbaldii, because “it has already 
been used by Neill in 1808 for another fin-whale, Musculus Sibbald, 
Neill.” This, however, is a complete misunderstanding, which shows 
that Malm cannot have seen, much less re..d, Neill’s paper on the whale 
stranded near the town of Alloa, but must have quoted at second hand 
from Eschricht’s Schema A, in his sixth essay upon the Cetaceans (K. D. 
Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, ser. 5. vol. 1. p. 111), or perhaps from the corre- 
sponding schema in the same author’s ‘Zoolog. Untersuchungen tiber die 
nordischen Wallthiere.’ It is true that the whale was stranded in 1808; 
but Neill’s paper was not read in the Wernerian Society till 1809, and 
not printed till 1811; and then, Neill does not give the Alloa whale any 
new name, but considers it to be the same species as that which was 
stranded in 1690 on Burntisland, and which Sibbald, in his ‘ Pha- 
lainologia Nova’ (ed. 2, p. 69), thought to be identical with the Musculus 
of Pliny. Purposing to point out, in the schema mentioned above, the 
specific identity between the Alloa whale and Sibbald’s “ Balena tripinnis 
que rostrum acutum habet,” Eschricht has briefly expressed this in the 
words “ Musculus Sibbaldii,” or the whale denoted by Sibbald as “ Mus- 
culus ;” and this denomination was not understood by Malm. Of course 
it is not my intention to reproach Malm in the least for haying been unable 
to examine the paper of Pat-ick Neill; but I think it would have been 
more correct to have stated expzessly that his was a second-hand quota- 
tion. And even if Malm had never seen the notice in question, he would, 
by a more judicious use of the remaining zoological literature, have been 
saved from falling into tke singular mistake that Neill had in 1808 
established a fin-whale genus Musculus and a fin-whale species Musculus 
Sibbaldit. 
24* 
