290 DR. J. MURIE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CAAING WHALE. 
it and its fellow of the other side; but posteriorly the two meet mesially, and as they 
diminish in calibre are fixed to the chevron bones as far as the vertebre. 
X. REFLECTIONS, ZOOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL. 
The skeleton, as I have intimated, is the standard whereby Cetacean generic segre- 
gation and affinities are best tested; consequently such parts of the organization of 
Globiceps as have been here treated, afford narrow limits in their applicability to 
taxonomy. One’s eyes, however, must not be shut to the fact that among the Del- 
phinidee Globiocephalus seems to be established generically by its outward configuration 
alone, unless Dr. Gray’s Sphwrocephalus’ assimilates; but the exterior aspect of this 
form is unknown. The truncate, globose, prenarial nodosity, fairly defined from the 
upper labial rim, the unusually long, narrow, tenuous pectoral limbs, and the low, 
falcate dorsal fin are very marked features in the genus under present consideration. 
The head of Orca and its ally Pseudorca, whilst rounded, is proportionally low; and 
their limbs and dorsal appendage sensibly differ. Grampus approaches our genus; but 
the facial prominence veers towards the outline of Phocena, or with a gradual arched 
declivity, rather than the bold perpendicular fulness and labial emargination of Globdio- 
cephalus; besides, its dorsal fin is relatively high, and its limbs shorter and broader. 
Phocena and the Dolphins (Delphinus &c.) are yet further removed in the points 
above indicated. Such differences, I grant, are gradational; but so are all osteological 
data. Within the limits of just comparison, however, they are not fanciful, but visually 
true, and have their special worth in the outward generic recognition of a group 
uncommonly like each other in their towt ensemble. 
Eight species of Globiocephalus are recognized in the British-Museum Catalogue, and 
other synonyms &c. enumerated. My worthy friend Dr. Gray’s method of recording 
scattered writers’ indifferently determined species is decidedly useful, but not without 
objections. He himself allows that such handy lists require constant supervision. 
His G. affinis, he surmises, is probably a young G. svineval (=G. melas). This opinion 
one can readily admit; for, unless in non-agreement of dental formula, there is no 
special characteristic to assign a separation. Now the numbers of the teeth in different 
specimens of Globiceps are most irregular, simply from the reason that they are so 
loosely implanted in their sockets that in early life, adolescence, and old age they not 
unfrequently drop out. But what is the Grampus affinis, p. 300, Cat.t The presumed 
anatomical distinctions of the American Globiocephalus intermedius rest on treacherous 
footing. To it fifty-eight vertebre are assigned against fifty-five to the European form ; 
yet in G. melas there obtain fifty-eight and fifty-nine, as authenticated by Professor 
Flower (Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. p. 349). Too much stress, I think, is laid on the cervical 
ossification of the former; and as to difference in dentition, the above remarks apply. 
G. edwardsii has no solid basis as a species. Regarding the South-Sea Blackfish 
* P.Z. 8. 1864, p, 244, and Cat. of Seals and Whales, 1866, p- 323, 
