366 MR. W. H. FLOWER OX THE OSTEOLOGY OF THE SPERM-WHALE. 



the former. The right bone is 10"-2 in length in a straight line, the other half an inch 

 shorter. They differ in many particulars from the same bones in the Cachalot. They 

 Iiave a single, strong, and tolerably uniform curve, are but slightly compressed, much 

 thickest in the posterior half, and gradually tapering forwards, and, though presenting 

 some well-marked longitudinal ridges, have no angular processes projecting from the 

 surface. The disparity in size between these bones and those of a perfectly adult female 

 of //. rosfratum in the Museum of the University of Oxford is extraordinary, the latter 

 being but 5" in length, and very much more slender in proportion. As the male 

 Hyperoodon does not exceed the female in bulk so much as the male Cachalot is said 

 to do the opposite sex, we may expect to find fully as great a difference in the pelvic 

 bones of the two sexes of this animal. In the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons 

 is a bone (No. 2460, Osteol. Series) presented by the late Dr. Buckland, and described 

 in tiie catalogue as " the left pelvic bone (ischium) of a Cachalot {Pkyseter macroce- 

 2)Jialus)." It may possibly have belonged to a female of this species, though it presents 

 but Uttle resemblance to those of the males above described, and, indeed, is more like 

 that of the Hyperoodon. Its length is 8f" ; its general form that of a club, being 

 dilated towards one extremity, and much attenuated at the other. It is but slightly 

 compressed, and has a single strongly marked cui-ve. 



Conclusion. 



In the foregoing description of the skeleton of the Cachalot I have made but little 

 comparison with animals of the genus Kogia, having in fact had no opportunity of doing 

 so. The only two skeletons at present existing are both at Sydney, and- no adequate 

 description of them has yet been published. From such indications as we have (further 

 elucidated by some photographs kindly sent me by Dr. Bennett and Mr. Krefft), there 

 can be no doubt that they belong to a genus which, both in external and osteological 

 characters, is perfectly distinct from, though neai-ly allied to, Physeter. In the sketch 

 of the classification of the Cetacea, appended to the description of the skeleton of 

 /«/«*, the genera Physeter and Kogia are united to form the subfamily P%seff mi fp, 

 which, with the Ziphiinm (including Hyperoodon, Ziphius, &c.), form the very natural 

 family Piitseterid^. A detailed examination of every part of the skeleton of Physeter 

 has perfectly corroborated the position then assigned to this genus. Materials are at 

 present greatly wanted to complete our knowledge of the osteology of the Ziphiinae ; 

 hence it is impossible to say to which of the genera of that section Physeter approxi- 

 mates most closely. 



After a concise and masterly analysis of the almost inextricably perplexed literature 

 of the zoology of the Cachalots f, Cuvier came to the conclusion that, up to the time at 

 which he wrote, but a single species could be considered to be truly known. Since then 

 the claims of at least one distinct species to a place in the zoological system have been 



* Trans. ZooL Soc. vol. vi. p. HO, 1867. t ' Ossemens Fossiles,' edit. 1836, vol. viii. p. 189. 



