194 Dr. J. E. Gray on the Whales described 
each species in the Catalogue of Whales; but he has worked 
them up into a short narrative, where I quoted the very wor 
of the authors themselves. That he has compiled these obser- 
vations second hand, is proved by the fact that in many cases 
he does not know the title of the work from which the materials 
are extracted. 
s usual in many Continental works, there is a great incli- 
nation to regard all the species that are not in their museums 
as varieties of those they have: this leads them, when they 
receive examples of the species themselves, to describe them as 
new, which has produced much confusion. in studying the 
geographical distribution of species. 
ave been much blamed and ridiculed for applying the 
same rules to the study of recent whales, as distinguished by 
their bones, that paleontologists have been in the habit of 
using. In this work numerous species and even genera of 
whales have been established on very imperfect fossil skeletons, 
or even on a few bones; and, as efore said, I cannot see 
why, when one receives a single bone or blade of whalebone 
which, on comparison with the same. bone or baleen. of the 
different known whales, is found to be different from them, one 
may not conclude that it is a distinct species, characterized by. 
the peculiar character of that bone or other part of the animal. 
Yet, because I have done so, while M. Gervais regards his 
fossil species as well established, he talks of the recent species 
so described as if they. were not. worthy of notice. Experience, 
however, has proved that the course I followed is the best for 
science : for example, having shown that there was a true 
whale with small baleen in Australia, thus causing the whale 
to be sought for, now we have the skull showing that it is a 
most. distinct. species and an entirely. new form; and it has 
been the same with other species so indicated from. small 
materials. | 
diii 
V abled Carica diem 
ET TEE 
