Mr. J. E. Gray on Hyperoodon latifrons. 409 



species belonging to different genera as then established (see 

 Cat. Cetacea, p. 72), but I think M. Duvernoy has perhaps been 

 correct in now referring them to the same genus, as If. F. Cu- 

 vier's figures and description of the skull of D. micropterus is 

 very inaccurate and imperfect (see Ann. Sci. Nat. J 851, t. 2. 

 f. 3,3). 



These observations are more important, as up to this time we 

 have no proof of there being any considerable difference between 

 the skulls of the two sexes of whales or dolphins, and my expe- 

 rience is against the theory ; for after measuring and comparing 

 all the skulls of these animals which I could find in the various 

 European Museums, several hundreds in number, T have been 

 struck with the great uniformity in size, proportion, and form of 

 the skull of the different species. 



It is to be regretted that so excellent a paper as the descrip- 

 tion of the animal and skeleton of Delphinus gangeticus should 

 be deformed by so many captious observations on the labours 

 of others, especially as many of them are not deserved or founded 

 on justice. Many of the observations which M. Eschricht has 

 indulged in respecting my labours on this class of animals have 

 been corrected by myself in the Descriptive Catalogue of Cetacea 

 in the Collection of the British Museum, which was published in 

 1850, one year before the Professor's paper, and which he quotes 

 in the second page of his Essay. I will only refer to a few of 

 these observations. 



Thus : 1 . Dr. Eschricht, in a note having very little to do with 

 the Essay, observes, that he believes the drawing of Duhamel's 

 (D. canadensis) which I obtained from M. De Blainville, and 

 which I at first thought might probably be (not be) an Inia, is 

 only a Beluga. In 1850 I had, in the Catalogue (p. 78) above 

 referred to, already observed : u From inquiries recently made in 

 Canada, I have very little doubt but that Duhamel's animal was 

 a Beluga, which is common in that country." I may further 

 remark, that if it had not been for the opportunity of inspecting 

 the original drawing of Duhamel, which I obtained from M. l)e 

 Blainville, showing the absence of the dorsal fin, neither Pro- 

 fessor Eschricht nor I could have divined that the dolphin with 

 the beaked nose represented the beakless Beluga, for the absence 

 of the fin is not mentioned in the description. 



Secondly. The Professor states, that "the cranium of Sowcrby's 

 valuable specimen deposited in the Anatomical Museum of the 

 University of Oxford was reported by Mr. Gray as no longer ex- 

 isting there, &c. It was therefore a very gratifying surprise to 

 me to be favoured with a communication from Prof. Acland, 

 Curator to the Museum, to the effect that the specimen was 

 quite safe in his custody." 



Ann. i>- Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 2. Vol. ix. 27 



