1865.] DR. J. E. GRAY ON A NEW WHALE. 41 
question differs in important characters from the corresponding bone 
in the hitherto known species. 
In this case, though as yet we only know a single bone, there 
cannot be any doubt,—1, that the body of the vertebra differs in 
its form and thickness from the vertebra of any Finner Whale yet 
described ; 2, that the thickness of the lateral processes is exceed- 
ingly different from that of those parts in any other known species ; 
3, that the size, or rather width, of the canal of the spine, as com- 
pared with the size of the body of the vertebra, differs from the 
width found in any Whale yet examined. 
On comparing this vertebra with the drawing of the cervical ver- 
tebree of Balenoptera robusta, described by Professor Lilljeborg in 
his very excellent paper on the Scandinavian Whales, which he had 
been so kind as to transmit to me, I was induced to believe that the 
bone sent by Mr. Pengelly might belong to that species; but, for 
greater certainty, as I cannot read the Professor’s Swedish descrip- 
tion of the species, nor get it properly translated here, I sent a tracing 
of the bone to Upsal, and the Professor has replied that he believes 
that it belongs to the species he described. He has also sent me a 
drawing of one of the cervical vertebrz of his species, which cer- 
tainly agrees with the one from Babbacombe Bay in every particular, 
except in being a trifle larger in all its parts. 
The addition of this animal to our marine fauna, and the pro- 
curing of the remains of a second specimen of a species which only 
rested on the description of an imperfect skeleton found imbedded 
in the sand on the coast of Sweden, is important. 
In my “ Notes on the Whalebone Whales, with a synopsis of the 
species,” published in the ‘ Annals and Magazine of Natural History’ 
(vol. xiv. p. 343), I gave the reason why I thought Balenoptera 
robusta was probably more allied to Megaptera than to Physalus, 
and I there proposed for that species a new subgenus, under the name 
of Escuricutiuvs. The examination of the vertebra from Devon- 
shire, and the additional figures which Professor Lilljeborg has so 
kindly sent to me, confirms me in the idea that it is of a distinct 
form, proper to be considered as a genus. Professor Lilljeborg ob- 
serves, ‘‘ Depuis peu vous considérez que mon B. robusta appartient 
aux genre Megaptera. D’aprés les principes que vous avez suivies 
dans la distinction des genres des Balenoptéres, cette espéce, sans 
doute, doit faire type d’un genre particulier.” 
In the cervical vertebrz of all the genera of Finner Whales which 
I have examined, and which have hitherto been described, the width 
of the canal of the spinal marrow is rarely more than half the width 
of the body of the vertebra: thus in Physalus the canal is 52 inches 
wide, and the body of the vertebra 11 inches; in Megaptera, which 
had the largest and widest canal known until the discovery of this 
Whale, the canal is 5 inches, and the body of the vertebra 9 inches 
wide; but in this Babbacombe Whale the canal is 63 inches, and the 
body of the vertebra only 73 inches wide. The cervical vertebrz of 
the Balenide have a large canal for the spinal marrow, compared 
with the size of the body of these vertebre. 
