August 3, 188;).] 



SCIENCE. 



133 



stream as far as Quebec, and to show tliat possibly 

 Professor Flower had misapprehended when he was 

 told of stranded whales in the St. Lawrence; he, in 

 absence of description, naturally regarding them as 

 white Belugas. 



Besides this, several alternatives were presented 

 in the absence of the mention of most Jistinclive 

 characters; but no definite statement was hazarded, 

 nor was one intended. 



The first paragraph touching on this notice of the 

 St. Lawrence whale, and which is included by the 

 critic as among the " grave errors of statement,' is as 

 follows: "It is pretty certain that if the creature 

 was really a Balaena, and not a Balaenopler, it was 

 an example of unusual size." As we had no inten- 

 tion of arguing any ca.so, this cannot be regarded as 

 more than courtesy to IJr. Anderson, who had stated 

 his unqualitied opinion as above. 



The next passage in our text is, "The furrows on 

 the belly naturally suggest the Balaenopters; but it 

 is inferred that there was no dorsal tin." The dorsal 

 adipose fin being an essential feature in the latter, 

 absence of any notice of it naturally seemed strange. 



As there was uo description of the head, save as 

 related to its length, the baleen not being measured, 

 the only character that suggested strongly the fin- 

 back was the clinker-built aspect of the belly. In 

 this view the statement of Scoresby might well lead 

 to misapprehension, even by some not wholly 

 novices. 



Scoresby says (in his description of the B. mysti- 

 cetus), " The skin of the body is slightly furrowed, 

 like the water-lines in coarse-laid paper." 



The fluke of the tail is described as twelve feet in 

 length. Here, regarding the possible fact of there 

 being lieu flukes to the tail, the total width of the 

 caudal extremity would be twenty-four feet, the act- 

 ual measurement of a large example of a right whale. 

 That the writer in the bulletin did so regard it is 

 true; but. in the light of after-knowledge, we have 

 no doubt that Dr. Anderson meant to include the 

 whole width as twelve feet. 



In the absence of definite features in Dr. Ander- 

 son's description, and in view of the absence of any 

 attempt in the bulletin to argue in favor of any one 

 genus or species, we regard it as a subject that hardly 

 calls for criticism. In short, taking the evidence 

 recorded, to our mind it seems to be quite as easy to 

 prove the creature of one genus as the other; and by 

 that we mean that Dr. Anderson's positive state- 

 ments should not go for nothing. We are not, how- 

 ever, ready to hazard an opinion that the whale was 

 not a fin-back, as we certainly did not in the bulletin. 



The next point refers to Scoresby and his drawings. 

 That Scoresby did not portray his subject correctly, 

 so far as relates to the Greenland whale, is, we feel 

 sure, susceptible of demonstration, even if we should 

 omit the opinions of three of the most able cetolo- 

 gists. The critic claims, " That it was the best figure 

 [Scoresby's], if not quite correct in all points, of the 

 species down to 1.S74, when Scanimoii's admirable 

 illustration was published, has, I thijiU, hitherto 

 been unquestioned." When we are told that our 

 opinion that Scoresby 'furnished to scisnce an in- 

 correct figure ' is ' an error of statement of so grave 

 a character as to re(|Uire notice,' we answer by 

 quoting from Professors Eschricht and lieinhardt, in 

 their article on Greenland whale, in Itay society's 

 publ., p. 29. It is well known that these distinguished 

 authors are leading cetologists, whose work is edited 

 in English by Professor Flower. The latter, there- 

 fore, is supposed to acquiesce in their opinions. 

 These authors say, " We must confess, that as to 



proportions we confide more in these drawings [refer- 

 ring to Marten's and Zorgdrager's] than Scoresby's, 

 which certainly represents the Greenland whale (B. 

 mysticetus) more slender than it really is." 



Besides this, we claim to be able to demonstrate 

 the correctne^s of our statement by reference to 

 the figures. We have before us those of Scammon, 

 Scoresby, Zorgdrager, and Lap(?pede, representing the 

 Greenland whale. \Ve also have the Bachscrom 

 figure of nordcaper, published in Lac^pfede's work. 

 With Capt. Scammon' s figure before us, the one ad- 

 mitted by our critic to be an ' admirable illustration,' 

 compare now Zorgdrager's; and we find, that, though 

 rude in finish, it is nearly an exact counterpart of the 

 Scammon figure. We see that the form is bulky, and 

 has a very short 'small,' or caiulal region; that its 

 head is of the proportion of one-third the total length 

 of body; its pectoral limbs are situated very cfosely 

 behind the eye and angle of the mouth, not a ijuarter 

 of the total length of the 'flipper' distant therefrom, 

 — all of which features are recognized as correct. 



Let Scoresby's figure be compared with Zorg- 

 drager's, which we have seen is essentially the same 

 as bcammon's. We see that the form is not only 

 not bulky, with a very short ' small,' or caudal region, 

 but has the body very slender, with an elongated 

 ' small ; ' the latter being so slender that it is repre- 

 sented whipping the air like the tail of a saurian. Its 

 head is one-fourth of the total length of body, in- 

 stead of one-third, as in nature, and in the Zorg- 

 drager and Scammon figures. Its pectoral limbs are 

 situated at a distance from the eye and angle of mouth 

 represented by the total length of the limbs. It is 

 therefore seen, that, in accordance with all evidence, 

 Scoresby's figure was not correct. Hence it is "de- 

 plorable that nearly every book published to this day 

 has an illustration copied from Scoresby." 



" 'Tis true 'lis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true.'" 



Our critic next attributes unfamiliarity with Scores- 

 by's celological writings, from the fact that we credit 

 Godman with 'an amount of anatomical knowledge 

 quite unusual.' 



The truth is, the edition of Scoresby in our posses- 

 sion does not contain the portion relating to interior 

 anatomy and physiology, and the plates repreifent- 

 ing the spiracles. It is ' An account of the arctic 

 regions, Edinburgh, 1S20.' The work is not before 

 us, but a reference to this edition will verify our 

 statement. Since the matter was prepared for the 

 bulletin, we find that the several pages relating to 

 this portion of Scoresby's description were probably 

 never printed therein. We have, however, found the 

 whole in Sir William Jardine's Naturalists' library, 

 volume on whales, by Col. Hamilton. 



In view of this fact, one may venture to claim a 

 degree of immunity from severe criticism, though 

 evidently he may be open to the accusation that 

 ' he is none too familiar with .Scoresby's cetological 

 writings,' or at least his various editions. 



Not having met with this matter relating to the 

 anatomy and physiology in .Scoresby's book, it was 

 but natural to attribute to Godman ' an amount . . . 

 quite unusual." 



A point succeeds this, concerning which we must 

 take i.'isuc with the critic. He says, "The fact being 

 that Godman's account is an unaccredited compila- 

 tion from Scoresby's work, whole pages being taken 

 entire," etc. We find in our edition of Godntan's 

 Natural history, instead of "an unaccredited com- 

 pilation,' the following: '■Having never personally 

 enjoyed opportunities of studying the whale in bis 

 native floods, and having derived all we know in 

 relation thereto from Scoresby, we should deem it 



