DR. J. MURIE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CAAING WHALE. 241 
differs, inasmuch as the terminal free borders of the flukes are straighter or set more at 
a right angle to the long diameter of the spine, as Couch has observed. The tips of 
the flukes are also relatively more pointed than in the Porpoise. ‘The median incision 
or fork is but of moderate depth; and in this specimen no overlapping of the adjoining 
borders occurred, as is occasionally found in Phocena communis. 
The measurement of the tail gave the subjoined results :— 
Distance from tip to tip of the flukes . . . .. . 
The transverse diameter at middle of flange. . . . . . 
The transverse diameter at the root 
Length from the vertebral root to the fork 
Length of the outer border of each fluke . 
Length of the inner or posterior border of the same 
SBR rHOrFRNe 
DWASOw oO we 
If the accompanying illustrations be compared with those of Traill', the Cuviers?, 
Scoresby *, Bell *, Jardine *, and Couch®, it will be seen that they do not quite corre- 
spond to one or other in outline or proportions. As the latter authority finds fault 
with the figures extant, and professes to correct previous delineations, I may be allowed 
to point out wherein his own as well as others differ from those views now given. 
To my mind, indeed, Mr. Couch’s representation does not nearly so well convey an idea 
of the curious club-like, yet harmonious, symmetrical appearance of the Pilot Whale’s 
body as do the very authors whom he quotes as having misrepresented it, In his spe- 
cimen the dorsal fin is far too rounded at its posterior extremity, the pectoral fin too 
thick at its proximal half, and the caudal extremity of the body at the setting-on of 
the tail has too great vertical depth in proportion to the dimensions of the figure. 
What he remarks of Scoresby’s and Bell’s flexion of the tail forwards may be just, 
though not necessarily so. In but one point does he decidedly agree with my obser- 
vations, namely the shape of the tail. 
A pardonable error often fallen into in Cetacean illustrations is too great thickness of 
the body relative to its length. This happens on close inspection of the animal, which 
deceives as respects its vastness—considering that, as a whole, there is a certain sym- 
metrical graceful proportion, 7. e. thickness and breadth which decrease in an equiva- 
lent ratio rearwards. Such is my experience of the coup dil in various Whale 
genera I have seen in the flesh. In this respect Professor Traill’s figure fails; moreover 
the dorsal fin is too much rounded, the pectorals proportionally in advance of their 
true position, and the eye rather high. 
Of Baron Cuyier’s side view of a male Globiceps, copied by his brother Frederick, I 
may note that the nasal prominence is less abrupt, and the distance betwixt this and the 
' Loe, cit. * Annales, as already quoted; also De l’Hist. Nat. des Cétacés (Paris, 1836), pl. 13. fig. 2. 
* Op. cit. pl. 13. fig. 1. ‘ British Quadrupeds, p. 483. 
Naturalist’s Library, loc. czt. p. 212. * Ann, Nat. Hist. vol. ix. (1842), pl. 6. 
