1902.] OF THE SHORT-NOSED SPERM-WHALE. 55 



and are thus presei^ved in a natural condition. There is one bone 

 upon which some doubt must still be expressed, viz. the pelvis. 

 Wall (1) describes and figures this structure as consisting of two 

 pairs of more or less circvilar or oval plate-like bones, which he 

 arranges in a transverse row — an inner smaller and an outer 

 larger bone on each side ; the bones are very unlike the pelvic 

 bones of other Odontocetes, and as they were found in the sand, 

 it is within the bounds of possibility that the identification is. 

 incorrect. 



I searched the Parakanu.i carcase carefully for the pelvis : I 

 removed the penis and found no bone in connection with it, and 

 I feel quite certain that no bone existed, for the maceration was 

 most carefully carried out, and the contents of the macerating-tube 

 were sifted, so that even the cartilaginous epiphyses of the larger 

 ribs were recovered ; if there had been bones of the size and 

 shape described by Wall, they could not have been overlooked. 



The Axial Skeleton. 



The total length of the dried skeleton, when the bones were 

 laid out, in contact, is 2"39 metres (i. e. 7 ft. 11| inches), of which 

 the skull measures 0'39 m. (15g inches) and the vertebral column 

 2 "00 m. (6 ft. 8 inches). These measurements do not allow for 

 the intervertebral discs. I have not deemed it necessary to give 

 an account of the skull, as it has been adequately described and 

 figured by Owen (2), and more recently by Beneden & Gervais (5). 

 There is, however, one point to which I will refer, as it seems to 

 have escaped the notice of previous authors. 



At the tip of each premaxilla is a short triangular calcification — 

 apparently not bone, but calcified cartilage, for it differs consider- 

 ably from bone, both in colour and texture (PI. II. fig. 1, X). 

 Each of these " sclerites," or premaxillary nodules as they may 

 be termed, is grooved along its lower surface, and in this groove 

 lay the base of the single tooth of the upper jaw. This groove is 

 in line with that on the maxillary bone, which is continued 

 backwards as a canal, to join the infra-orbital canal. 



The premaxillary nodule is not indicated in Owen's figure, in 

 which the upper tooth is placed in the anterior end of the 

 maxillary gTOOve, and not on the premaxilla at all. 



I have not seen the figure given in Van Beneden & Gervais's 

 work, but no mention of the nodule occurs in the text : indeed, 

 these authors express some doubt as to the existence of the vipper 

 teeth (p. 349). In a second skull in the Dunedin Museum, 

 belonging to an older specimen, obtained from Napier, in the 

 North Island, this premaxillary nod^^le does not exist ; nor is 

 there any sign that it has fused with the premaxillary bone, for 

 the form of the latter and its relations to the maxilla are precisely 

 the same as in the Parakanui skull, if the nodule be removed. 

 No doubt this nodule remains separable from the bone, and hence 

 the absence of the upper teeth in most of the skulls of Cogia. 



