128 DR. J. MURIE ON THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF THE MANATEE. 
such bloated over-stuffed specimens, that from them, as well as figures extant, an unfair 
idea of the configuration is obtained, and one is embarrassed to comprehend the mode 
of progression of such an awkward form in water as on land. 
Emendations on the text of the forementioned authors relative to the shape of the 
animal are less necessary; so that I limit myself to a notice of the points which photo- 
tography has elucidated in the present case. Pl. XVII. fig. 1, profile view, shows that 
in the young Manatee the head and body, to as far as the root of the tail, have together 
a very elongated biconical contour—not so protuberant at the posterior belly part as in 
Home’s figure, and quite different from the barrel-like aspect of Vrolik’s animal. Seen 
on the dorsal (P]. X VIIL. fig. 3) and on the ventral (Pl. XVII. fig. 2) aspects, the biconical 
form is less rigid, from the deep skin-sulci being more emarginate ; whilst towards the 
pelvic region there is a sudden rugged contraction, as if behind the ribs a broad band 
had been tightly lashed round the short axis of the body. Posteriorly to this the outer 
border-lines obliquely diverge in a very gradual and regular manner, so as to form a 
comparatively long and very broad, thin, shovel-shaped, caudal organ. 
The hindermost border, whilst rounded’, has a remarkable truncated character, and 
centrally is incised; or rather there is a short, shallow longitudinal sulcus on its upper 
surface, which forms a corresponding convexity below. ‘The tail of Home’s specimen 
gives a three-quarter or tilted view; but this, if compared with the present fig. 1, is too 
much narrowed at the end. The Beaver-shaped tail attributed to Manatus by some 
writers is true only to a certain extent, inasmuch as in the latter it broadens greatly 
compared with the former, and, as Albers’s figure distinctly represents, there is a slight 
mesial V-shaped indentation or emargination. 
Regarding the head, Stannius’s figure is by far the most trustworthy; but, as already 
particularized, the absence of texture detracts from the otherwise characteristic phy- 
siognomy of the creature. W. Vrolik’s best representation, to my mind, seems to be 
that depicting the under surface of the lower jaw and muzzle (pl. 2. fig. 5); his front 
foreshortened view of the head (pl. 2. fig. 4) has far too large, staring eyes; and these 
are not widely enough apart. The facial expression, as dependent on the eye, is 
markedly noticeable on comparing Vrolik’s plates and those now given. ‘The accuracy 
of the present lithographs are vouched for as carefully taken photographs, faithfully 
and minutely copied by my artists, Messrs. Berjeau and Smit, figure 3 alone having 
been slightly reduced from the negative impression so as to fit the length of the plate. 
2. Admeasurements—Humboldt, Stannius, and Vrolik have each recorded some of 
the proportional dimensions of the body. On this account it might be deemed super- 
fluous to institute a fresh series of measurements, were it not that it lends precision to 
the description and figures of the specimens under immediate consideration. Inches 
and decimals have been taken as the standard throughout. 
1 This peculiarity has evidently caused the adoption of the name “ Round-tailed Trichechus” for the 
Manatee, vid. Shaw’s ‘ Zoology,’ vol. i. p. 244. 
