CETACEA. 



CETACEA. 



874 



Genus XII. Ddphinapterus. 



Species 59. D. Peron'd, Peron's Dolphin. 



60. D. borealii. 

 Genus XIII. Ddphinue. 



Species 61. D. Ileavitidii, Hastated Dolphin. 



62. D. obacurus, Dusky Dolphin. 



63. Z. compreaaicauda, Compressed - Tailed 



Dolphin. 



64. D. Tarsio, Bottlenose Dolphin. 



65. D. Abusalam, the Abusalam. 



66. D. Entropia, the Eutropia. 



67. D. Eu.rynome, the Eurynome. 



68. D. Metis, the Metis. 



69. D. Cymodoce, the Cymodoce. 

 . 70. D. Doris, the Doris. 



71. D.frenatut, Bridled Dolphin. 



72. D. Clymene. 



73. D. Styx, the Styx. 



74. D. Euphroayne, the Euphrosyne. 



75. D. Alope, the Alope. 



76. D. microbrachiuni. 



77. D. dubiui. 



78. D. longer. 



79. D. Delphis, the Dolphin. 



80. D. Janira, the Janira. 



81. D. Noi-at Zealandice, New Zealand Dolphin. 



82. D. Foriteri, Forster's Dolphin. 



83. D. Sao, the Sao. 



84. D. longirostrit. Cape Dolphin. 



85. D. mitrofi, Small-Headed Dolphin. 

 Genus XIV. Steno. 



Species 86. Malaytmua, Malay Dolphin. 



87. S. frontal <u, Fronted Dolphin. 



88. S. compretsiu, Narrow-Beaked Dolphin. 



89. S. attenuattw, Slender-Beaked Dolphin. 



90. & futcut, Cuban Steno. 



91. & roitratut, Beaked Dolphin. 

 Genus XV. Fontoporia. 



Species 92. P. Blainvillii, the Pontoporia. 

 Genus XVI. Inia. 



Species 93. /. Geoffmyii, the Inia. 

 Genus XVII. Plataniita. 



Species 94. P. Gangetica, the Sou Sou. 



Sub-Order SIRENIA. 



Skin rather hairy. Whiskers rigid. Limbs clawed. Teats 2, 

 pectoral. Nostrils 2, apical. Herbivorous. 



Family MANATID-E. 



Grinders none, or flat crowned. Front of jaws covered with horn. 

 Genus XVIII. Manatus. 



Species 95. If. australit, the Manatee. 



96. M. Senegtilenti*, the Lamantin. 

 Genus XIX. ffalicore. 



Species 97. H, Dugong, Indian Dugong. 



98. H. Tabernaculi. 



99. H. auetralii. 

 Genus XX. Rytina. 



Species 100. R. yigag, Morskaia Korova. 



The following is M. F. Cuvier's arrangement of the Cctacea, to 

 which, 1 and that of Baron Cuvier, we shall principally refer when 

 speaking of the anatomy of these creatures. 



Tribe 1. 



PHVTOFHAOA (Vegetable-feeding). 



Teeth of different kind* ; molars with flattened crowns, corre- 

 sponding to the vegetable nature of their food. Mammx two, 

 pectoral. Lips provided with stiff bristles. External nostrils always 

 two, situated at the extremity or upper part of the rostrum, which is 

 obtuse. 



Genera : Manatui, Cuv. ; ffalicore, Cuv. ; Jtytina, 111. 



Tribe 2. 



ZOOPHAOA (Animal-feeding). 



Teeth of one kind or wanting, not adapted for mastication. 

 Mammae two, pudendal. External nostrils double or single, situated 

 on the top of the head. 



A. With the head of moderate size. 



Family JJdphinidce. 

 all of simple structure, and, generally, 



Teeth in bath jaws, 

 conical form. No civcuin. 



"ii'Ti: 1 1: 1 i>hin<H-hynchui ; Delphinug ; fnia; Phocrrna. 



M. F. Cuvier is of opinion that the following genera seem to form 

 tin; types of as many distinct families of Zoophagous Cetaceans. 



Genera : Monodon ; Ilyperoodon ; Platanuta. 



B. With the head of immoderate size, equalling one-third the 

 length of the body. 



Family 1. Catodontida. 



Teeth numerous, conical, but developed only in the lower jaw. 

 External nostrils or blow-holes confluent. No caecum. 

 Genera : Catodon ; Physeter. 



Family 2. Balamidtz. 



No teeth ; their place supplied by the plates of baleen, or whalebone, 

 attached to the upper jaw. Blow-holes distinct. A csecum. 



Genera: Balcenoptem; Balcena. (' Histoire Naturelle des Cdtacds,' &c.) 



On the arrangement and remarks of the two Cuviers, Dr. J. E. Gray 

 makes the following criticism. .After referring 'to Lacepede's classi- 

 fication, he says : 



" Cuvier, dissatisfied with this state of things, in his Ossemens 

 Fossiles' examined the various documents and consulted the 

 authorities which had been used by Lacdpede ; but he appears to have 

 undertaken the work with a predisposition to reduce the number of 

 species which his predecessor, had described to the smallest number. 

 Thus, he concludes that there are only eleven species of Dolphins, one 

 Narwhal, one Hyperoodon, one Cachalot or Sperm-Whale; and he 

 appears to think there are only two Whalebone Whales the Right 

 Whale and the Finner. To make this reduction : First, he believes 

 that the Hump-Backed Whale of Dudley is only a whale that has lost 

 its fin, not recognising that the Cape Rorqual, which he afterwards 

 described from the fine skeleton now shown in the inner court of the 

 Paris Museum is one of this kind. Secondly, that the Black Fish and 

 the Sperm-Whale are the same species, an error which must have 

 arisen from his not having observed that Sibbald had figured the 

 former, for he accuses Sibbald of twice describing the Sperm-Whale; 

 and when he came to Schreiber's copy of Sibbald' s figure, he thinks 

 the figure represents a dolphin which had lost its upper teeth, over- 

 looking the peculiar form and posterior position of the dorsal fin, and 

 the shape of the head, which is unlike that of any known dolphin. 

 This mistake is important, as it vitiates the greater part of Cuvier's 

 criticism on the writings of Sibbald, Artedi, and others, on these 

 animals. Unfortunately these views have been very generally adopted 

 without re-examination. But in making these remarks, it is not with 

 the least desire to underrate the great obligation we owe to Cuvier 

 for the papers above referred to ; for it is to him that we are indebted 

 for having placed the examination of the whales on its right footing, 

 and for directing our inquiries into the only safe course on these animals 

 which only fall in our way at distant periods, and generally under very 

 disadvantageous circumstances for accurate examination and study. 



"M. F. Cuvier's 'Cetacea' (Paris, 1836) is little more than an 

 expansion of his brother's essays, with a compiled account of the 

 species ; but he has consulted with greater attention the works of 

 Sibbald and Dudley ; has some doubts about the finned Cachalots 

 being the same as the Sperm-Whale (p. 475), but at length gives up 

 the subject. He has found that the Hump-Backed Whale is evidently 

 a Rorqual (p. 305), but does not record it as a species, nor recognise 

 it as the Cape Rorqual, nor as Dr. Johnston's Whale : the latter he 

 incorrectly considers the same as B. Physaltu. He combines together 

 as one species Quoy's Short-Finned Rorqual of the Falkland Islands, 

 with Lalande's Long-Finned Whale of the Cape (p. 352). He is in 

 great doubt about the hump of the Cachalots (p. 279) : his remarks 

 on that subject, and on the Cachalots of Sibbald, show how dangerous 

 it is for a naturalist to speculate beyond the facts before him." 



Before giving any account of the natural history of the species of 

 Whales, we shall make some remarks on their general structure and or- 

 ganisation. First we shall speak of the structure of the skeleton in the 

 Phytophagous Cetaceans of which the Lamantin, or Manatee, is 

 an example. The nasal bones in the skull of the Manatee are very 

 small, almond-shaped, separated from each other, and let in on each 

 side in a notch of the frontal bone. The result of this conformation 

 is a very large aperture of the bony nostrils. The rest of the bones 

 of the nose are nevertheless replaced by cartilages, so that in the 

 living animal the opening of the nostrils is, as ordinarily, at the end 

 of the muzzle. The intermaxillary bones carry no teeth in the adult, 

 nor at any period of life, except during the first days of embryonic 

 existence ; they are notwithstanding very much extended longitudi- 

 nally, and they re-ascend along the edge of the nostrils to above the 

 region of the eye. The orbits are very much advanced and very pro- 

 jecting. The suborbital hole is pierced in the re-entering angle formed 

 by the projecting frame of the orbit with the anterior part of the 

 maxillary bone, so that it is not perceptible when the cranium is seen 

 in profile. This projection of the orbit causes the distance between 

 the lower external border of the zygomatic portion of the intermaxil- 

 lary bone and the teeth to be greater than the width of the palate. 

 The frontal bones, whose anterior branches are much separated, in 

 order that they may embrace the aperture of the nostrils and form 

 the walls of the orbits, give off each an obtuse postorbital apophysio. 

 The cheek-bone extends throughout the lower half of the orbit on 

 the orbital apophysis of the maxillary bone, and thus border* the 

 whole of the orbit anteriorly ; it gives off a postorbital inferior apo- 

 physis. A very small lachrymal bone is let in ut.the anterior angle 

 between the frontal, the jugal, and the maxillary, which intervenes 



