BY H. H. SCOTT AND CLIVE E. LORD. 29 



ity. The skulls of the ziphoid whales are loosely con- 

 structed, and the ethmo-vomerine cartilage would accord- 

 ingly receive far less pressure than obtains amona" the 

 Delphinichr. This is merely a suggestion in passing, and 

 is not regarded by us as being more than a tentative 

 note. 



Owing to mutilations in our skull, we are unable to 

 compare the whole of Time's cranial measurements with 

 our specimen, but a considerable number are hereunder 

 appended, and none of these involved any restorations. 

 If, by the most careful deductions that can be made by 

 comparative osteology, we restore the mutilated portions of 

 our skull, we find them to fall into line with True's data 

 in a raost remarkable wav, and even a^ casual glance at the 

 table supplied will show the similarity of the two speci- 

 mens. 



Some of the mutilations referred to, as, for instance, 

 the sawing off of the occipital condyles and part of the 

 occiput, evidently pre-dated the gift of the skull to the 

 Musieum, but the loss of the pterygoids, ear bones, and 

 all the teeth suggests unfair vsage in the days when this 

 and other whales' skulls were left to weather in the back- 

 yard, owing to want of proper storage space. 



