398 MR. W.H. FLOWER ON THE SKELETONS OF WHALES [Nov. 8, 
22", at the lower end 41, The second, third, and fourth have 
short capitular processes, not reaching balfway to the bodies of the 
vertebrae. These processes are absent in all the others. The longest 
rib (the fifth) is 41” in a straight line, the twelfth is 31", and the 
thirteenth 30". There are ten chevron bones present. The sternum 
is remarkably small for the size of the animal, a transversely elongated 
lozenge in shape, 4! in antero-posterior and 8" in transverse diameter. 
The scapula is, as usual in the family, much elongated transversely, 
and has a long acromion process. Its length is 14", its breadth 25". 
The humerus is 10" long; the radius 18}, and proportionately 
slender. The hand, artificially articulated, is 18! long ; the second 
digit has, besides the metacarpal, three bones, the third three bones, 
the fourth six bones, the fifth three bones. These numbers are 
probably not correct, as they do not correspond with a natural ske- 
leton of the hand of the same species at Brussels. 
The upper surface of the orbital plate of the frontal is almost of 
a rhomboid form. The malars are very thin; the outer end of the 
lachrymals forms a thick, projecting, rounded knob. The nasal bones 
are almost straight across their anterior ends, slightly longer at the 
middle, and sloping away at the sides ; their upper surface tolerably 
flat, but raised to a low ridge in the middle towards the anterior 
end, and slightly hollowed on each side of this. The dimensions of 
the cranium are given in the table at p. 402, compared with those of 
other specimens of the genus. The inferior maxillaries have low, 
obtusely triangular coronoid processes. They are articulated too 
close to the head, and their upper edge rotated too much inwards. 
This position greatly diminishes their curve as seen from above, and 
causes their extremity to bend downwards. I was much interested 
in observing this, as it explains away a great peculiarity in the figure 
of the Whale in the Berlin Museum by Rudolphi (Abhandlungen 
Acad. Berlin, 1822), in which the same mode of articulating has 
caused some misconception as to the character and relation of these 
bones, the more important to be rectified, as this is the only figure 
extant of the skull of any member of this genus. 
The question now naturally arises, to what species is this skeleton 
to be referred, and what should it be named? There can be little 
doubt that it is identical with the above-mentioned specimen de- 
scribed by Rudolphi; at least a careful perusal of his description 
and figure (for I have not seen the skeleton) leaves this impression 
on my mind. In habitat, age, size, number of vertebrze and ribs, 
and all other important osteological characters they agree. There 
are certainly slight differences in the proportions of the parts of the 
cranium, but not greater than are found among different individuals of 
undoubtedly the same species ; and it is possible that even these may 
arise from inaccuracies on the part of the artist. Some of the evi- 
dence also is wanting to make the comparison complete ; for instance, 
the sternum from the Berlin specimen, and the hyoids from the one 
at Leyden. In assigning only five vertebrze to the cervical region, 
Rudolphi is obviously in error, being probably misled by the mode 
in which the skeleton was articulated. He states that the transverse 
