— 107 — 



184 for the Ocean City whale {Balaenoptera musculus L.) 49|/2 %> so that in 

 the matter of this proportion we find no appreciable difference. 



With regard to Reinhardts upper aspect of the skull of Balaenoptera 

 musculus L. we observe as characteristic points of resemblance: the broad 

 nasalia and the likewise broad maxillaria. 



The space between the intermaxillaria is however considerably narrower 

 in our skeleton, especially at the front. The intermaxillaria in the Buitenzorg 

 skeleton are moreover somewhat differently shaped, in so far that in the 

 smaller hind part of those bones the vertical dimension is predominant, whereas 

 towards the front the bone- surface so to say turns or revolves, and becomes 

 flattened in a horizontal direction. 



This horizontal flattening of the bone is attended with a more pronounced 

 broadening of the bone than in the Reinhardt skeleton, as a consequence of 

 which, except a very narrow median strip that remains open, an upper over- 

 arching of the vomer is formed, which vomer frontally tapers to a very pointed 

 apex. 



Again, the back-rim of the os frontale reaches further backward than in 

 the illustration of the Reinhardt-skull; other possible divergences are not to 

 be deduced from the latter picture by itself, since the lower and top view are 

 lacking. 



Now on comparing the side-view of the skull with the corresponding 

 illustrations in True (6) after Balaenoptera physalus L., we notice how in our 

 figure the temporal fossa i.e. the concavity for the musculus temporalis is 

 greater and stretches more forward, through which also the thickened outer 

 part of the maxillary directed towards the orbit, is conspicuously 

 lengthened. 



A further point to be noticed is that the exterior and posterior part of 

 the skull (squamosum) has more of a rearward direction, whereas this part 

 of the skull has an earlier and more directly downward bend in Balaenoptera 

 physalus L. 



All things considered, however, the remaining resemblance to the struc- 

 ture of the skull of Balaenoptera physalus L. is so great, that a reference to the 

 descriptions already existing of the latter species will be sufficient, whilst 

 a separate discussion follows for the more deviating parts of the skeleton, 

 accompanied by illustrations tending to show as clearly as possible the typical 

 shape. 



