1908.] Alien, The North Atlantic Right Whale. 297 



all the specimens were procured from the North Atlantic, together with the 

 preconceived idea that only one whale can inhabit that region," is doubtless 

 to some degree true. After discussing in detail these several fragments, 

 he gives it as his opinion "that there is not at present any material to make 

 out what the Balcvna biscayensis of Eschricht is, and, that the Balcena bis- 

 cayensis of these authors [Van Beneden and Gervais] is made up of the 

 bones of various whales" (1. c., p. 199). 



After further reference to "M. Van Beneden's theory of whales inhab- 

 iting 'bands across the different oceans/" he proceeds to enumerate the 

 following five species of "whales of the North Atlantic, including the Medi- 

 terranean Sea": 



" 1. Balcena biscayensis, Eschricht, which, I believe, is a Cuvierus with a double- 

 headed first rib [and therefore a Fin- whale, Dr. Monedero's figure of the San Sebastian 

 specimen, and Eschricht 's standing as a cetologist to the contrary notwithstanding!]. 



"2. Balcena biscayensis. Van Beneden and Gervais as distinct from B. biscay- 

 ensis of Eschricht, resting on the mass of cervical vertebrae figured by Lacepede [Dr. 

 Monedero's figure, copied by Van Beneden and Gervais, being again ignored.] * 

 Whether this is a distinct species or only a variety of Balcena mysticetus, there cannot 

 be the slightest doubt of its being distinct from the following. 



"3. Balcena britannica, Gray, established on the mass of cervical vertebrae 

 which is in the British Museum, . . . .dredged off the coast of Lyme Regis ....-." 



His Nos. 4 and 5 are respectively Balcena cisarctica Cope and Agaphelus 

 yibbosus Cope (/. c., p. 200), which latter Cope himself afterwards retracted 

 as invalid. 



The whales of other seas are reviewed in the course of Dr. Gray's paper, 

 and his critical comment on the way in which some pf them are treated, and 

 others ignored, in the work under notice are generally judicious. In the 

 present case, however, enough has been quoted from Dr. Gray's papers 

 touching Balcena biscayensis to show that his course in reference to it is, 

 to say the least, strangely inconsistent and unwarranted. 



Van Beneden in his reply 2 to Dr. Gray, gave reasons for certain omissions 

 on his map, and for the extension of the range of the Greenland Whale over 

 certain areas, for which he was criticised by Gray. Apropos of the thirteen 

 pairs of ribs in the San Sebastian whale, with the first rib on each side bifid 

 or double-headed, and of fourteen pairs of single-headed ribs in Cope's 

 type of B. cisarctica, upon which difference Gray placed great importance, 

 he states that he differs from Gray in respect to the significance of such 

 differences, and proceeds to show that they may be merely individual, and 



1 On a preceding page (p. 198), in referring to these same vertebrae he says: " At any rate, 

 it [the species they represent] ought to be called Balcena mediterranea rather than biscayensis, 

 unless", etc. 



2 La premiere cote des ce'tace's, a propos de la notice du docteur J.-E. Gray, surla distribu- 

 tion des baleines. Bull. Acad. roy. de Belgique, 2 e se"r., T. XXVI, 1868, pp. 7-17, pll. i, ii 



