SIBBALD^S RORQUAL. 403 



A large Fin-whale^ seventy-eiglit feet long, which was 

 stranded near Abercorn in 1692 and described by Sir 

 Robert Sibbald, was pi'obably of this species, as Prof. 

 Turner suggests, but the description is not sufficiently 

 detailed to set the question at rest. Coming down to 

 the present century, we have to consider the huge 

 Rorqual which was found floating dead in the North Sea 

 in 1827 and taken to Ostend ; its skeleton was preserved 

 and was exhibited in this country, whence it was shipped 

 to America, and it is said to be now at St. Petersburg {Gray, 

 Zoologist 1873, j9. 3364). This " Ostend Whale " created 

 much popular excitement at the time, and was described 

 by several writers, as Dubar, Van Breda, Dewhurst, 

 and others. Unfortunately several of its vertebras had 

 been lost, and the published descriptions of it are not 

 trustworthy; thus, its length has been variously stated at 

 eighty-four, ninety-live, and a hundred and five feet ; 

 consequently, its specific identity is difficult to deter- 

 mine. Eschricht named it Balcenoptera (ji(jas, and Dr. 

 Gray Sihbaldius borealis, while MM. Van Beneden and 

 Gervais refer it to Bal. muscidus. Prof. Turner, in his 

 paper on SibbakVs Rorqual in vol. XXVI. of the 

 " Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh," 

 expresses the belief that the " Ostend Whale " was a 

 large example of this species, an opinion in which Prof. 

 Flower fully agrees. Four years later, in October 1831, 

 a Fin-whale of about eighty feet in length was found 

 dead near North Berwick, and its skeleton, prepared by 

 the late Dr. Knox, is now in the Museum of Science and 

 Art in Edinburgh. This has always been quoted as an 

 example of B. muscidus, but Prof. Turner has clearly 

 shown that it, too, belongs to the present species. 



In 1847, Dr. Gray described the skeleton of a young- 

 Rorqual taken in the Huniber and preserved in the 



