DR. J. MURIE ON THE ORGANIZATION OP THE CAAING WHALE. 241 



differs, inasmuch as the terminal free borders of the flukes are straighter or set more at 

 a right angle to the long diameter of the spine, as Couch has observed. The tips of 

 the flukes ai-e also relatively more pointed than in the Porpoise. The median incision 

 or fork is but of moderate depth ; and in this specimen no overlapping of the adjoining 

 borders occurred, as is occasionally found in Phocmna communis. 



The measurement of the tail gave the subjoined results: — 



ft. in. 



Distance from tip to tip of the flukes 2 3 



The transverse diameter at middle of flange 16 



The transverse diameter at the root 3 



Length from the vertebral root to the fork 10 



Length of the outer border of each fluke 17 



Length of the inner or posterior border of the same ... 1 2 



If the accompanying illustrations be compared with those of Traill ', the Cuviers ^ 

 Scoresby \ Bell \ Jardine \ and Couch ^ it will be seen that they do not quite corre- 

 spond to one or other in outline or proportions. As the latter authority finds fault 

 with the figures extant, and professes to correct previous delineations, I may be allowed 

 to point out wherein his own as well as others difler from those views now given. 

 To my mind, indeed, Mr. Couch's representation does not nearly so well convey an idea 

 of the curious club-like, yet harmonious, symmetrical appearance of the Pilot Whale's 

 body as do the very authors whom he quotes as ha-\dng misrepresented it. In his spe- 

 cimen the dorsal fin is far too rounded at its posterior extremity, the pectoral fin too 

 thick at its proximal half, and the caudal extremity of the body at the setting-on of 

 the tail has too gi-eat vertical depth in proportion to the dimensions of the figure. 

 What he remarks of Scoresby's and Bell's flexion of the tail forwards may be just, 

 though not necessarily so. In but one point does he decidedly agree with my obser- 

 vations, namely the shape of the tail. 



A pardonable error often fallen into in Cetacean illustrations is too great thickness of 

 the body relative to its length. This happens on close inspection of the animal, which 

 deceives as respects its vastness — considering that, as a whole, there is a certain sym- 

 metrical graceful proportion, i. e. thickness and breadth which decrease in an equiva- 

 lent ratio rearwards. Such is my experience of the coup dceil in various Whale 

 genera I have seen in the flesh. In this respect Professor Traill's figure fails ; moreover 

 the dorsal fin is too much rounded, the pectorals proportionally in advance of their 

 true position, and the eye rather high. 



Of Baron Cuvier's side view of a male Qlobiceps, copied by his brother Frederick, I 

 may note that the nasal prominence is less abrupt, and the distance betwixt this and the 



' Loc. cit. ' Annales, as already quoted; also De I'Hist. Nat. dea Cetaces (Paris, 1836), pi. 13. fig. 2. 



= Op. cit. pi. 13. fig. 1. * British auadrupeds, p. 483. 



Naturalist's Library, loc. cit. p. 212. ' Ann. Nat. Hist. vol. ix. (1842), pi. 6. 



