263 Dr. Gray on Prof, Owen's Description 0/ Euphysetes simus. 



defined and studied in a manner which must lead to the dis- 

 covery of many more. 



The result of the study I have bestowed on them has been 

 that the British Museum contains the largest collection of the 

 remains of the species ever brought together, and preserved 

 and arranged in the best manner for the use of scientific men — 

 much more so than if they were set up in large galleries, which 

 would have the effect of sending the general visitors away disgusted 

 at looking at what to them would seem like the repetition of the 

 same skeleton ; for they are too large for the eye to take in at 

 one view, unless they are placed too far from the observer for 

 the peculiarities of each kind to be studied and recognized. 



The description of Euphysetes simus in the paper above quoted 

 contains some peculiarities which require to be noted, that suc- 

 ceeding naturahsts may not misunderstand them. In plate 12 of 

 this valuable contribution to the knowledge of Indian Cetacea are 

 represented the side and back views of the skull. The explana- 

 tion of plate 12 stands thus: — "Euphysetes simus: fig. 1, side 

 view of the skull ; fig. 2, back view of the skull (rather more 

 than half the natural size).^^ The upper figure represents the 

 lower as well as the upper jaw : but no lower jaw was brought 

 to Europe ; and the figure of it must have been copied from the 

 Indian drawing, which, I think, might as well have been stated; 

 at least its not being stated has led to an inconvenience already, 

 as persons have come to the Museum to see the lower jaw, 

 which does not exist there, — more especially as, at page 40, the 

 lower jaw is described at considerable length, and not a word is 

 said that the description was taken from an Indian drawing, 

 and not from the real bones. 



Plate 11. fig. 2 represents the outline of the body, containing 

 a shaded drawing of a skeleton ; the plate is lettered " Physeter 

 simus/' and the explanation of plate 11 runs thus : "fig. 1, side 

 view of male (to same scale as female, plate 10) ; fig. 2, outline of 

 ditto, with skeleton.'^ The figure really represents the outline 

 of the Euphysetes simus of Owen, from India, and the skeleton 

 of Euphysetes Grayi of Macleay, from Australia, combining 

 two most distinct species in one figure and under one name. 

 At page 42, under "Bones of the Trunk and Fins (plate 11. 

 fig. 2),''^ occurs the following observation : — " Having been 

 favoured with photographs of these bones in Euphysetes Grayi 

 by the present able Curator (IMr. Krefft) of the Australian Mu- 

 seum, I have thought it might be useful to add the following 

 notes." Then follow the details of the skeleton, preceded, not 

 by "Euphysetes Grayi," but simply by the generic name " Eu- 

 physetes (plate 11. fig. 2).-" I feel assured that most readers of 

 both the text and the explanation of the plate will believe that. 



