MR. W. H. FLOWER ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF THE SPERM-WHALE. 369 
known, I venture to question whether the Cachalot frequently, if ever, exceeds that 
length, when measured in a straight line. My. Crowther assures me that the specimen 
described in this memoir was considered a full-sized animal. But the most important 
evidence upon this head is derived from a magnificent lower jaw, also presented to 
the Museum by that gentleman, which was considered in the colony ‘‘ unique on 
account of its great size.” This jaw measures in a straight line, from the tip to a line 
drawn across the hinder edges of the rami, 16’ 2", or 1 inch longer than that of the 
Yorkshire skeleton, and but 20" longer than that of the Tasmanian skeleton. The fact 
that the animal to which this jaw belonged was considered by experienced men a giant 
among Cachalots gives a good indication of what size the ordinary individuals attain. 
Lastly, a few words on the zoological designation of the Cachalot, presuming that 
there is at present but one well-established species. Following the rules laid down by 
the Nomenclature Committee of the British Association, we find in Linnzus’s ‘ Systema 
Nature’ (12th edit. 1766), the genus Physeter including every animal, then known or 
imagined, with which the Cachalot can possibly be identified. Of the four species 
assigned to this genus, the one called macrocephalus is without doubt that especially 
founded upon the common Cachalot, notwithstanding the error in the diagnostic ex- 
pression, “fistula in rostro.” The P. catodon was a small species, probably the Beluga; 
the P. microps and tursio had high dorsal fins; while the references under the head of 
P. macrocephalus to Clusius’s description, the statement as to the size and the number 
of the teeth, and especially to the “ spermaceti e ventriculis cerebri,” all point indis- 
putably to the great Sperm-Whale. 
Artedi’s name of Catodon has been revived as the generic designation of the Cachalot 
by several zoologists, whose faith in Sibbald is so great as to retain in the system, upon 
the strength of his description and figure alone, an animal of which, as Dr. Gray says, 
“there is not a bone, nor even a fragment of a bone, nor any part that can be proved 
to have belonged to a specimen of this gigantic animal, to be seen in any Museum in 
Europe” *. If the Linnean genus Physeter is to be kept in abeyance until the redis- 
covery of Sibbald’s “ Balena macrocephala tripinna”’ }, it is to be feared that it may 
ultimately disappear altogether from zoological literature. ; 
* ©Cat. Seals and Whales in Brit. Mus.’ (1866), p. 215. 
+t ‘Phalainologia Nova,’ 1692, 
