216 REINHARDT ON 



is placed entirely on the anterior half ol' the body, so that a line, drawn from its point vertically 

 down to the axis of the body, will meet the latter at some distance in front of the centre of the 

 whole body, it is on the contrary placed somewhat farther backwards in our dolphin, and the Hne 

 just mentioned will here fall rather behind than before the middle of the body. A very 

 conspicuous difference between these two dolphins, which though necessitated by the osteology, 

 has only been briefly alluded to before, and which must therefore now be more minutely 

 examined, is to be found in the shape of the pectoral fin. The ca'ing-whale, we know, 

 is distinguished by the very long, narrow, and pointed pectoral fin ; its breadth being scarcely 

 one fourth of its length, and the latter dimension is so considerable as to equal one fourth of the 

 whole length of the animal. In the dolphin here described, the cut (if I may use this 

 expression) of the pectoral fin, indeed, still resembles that of the ca'ing-whale, but it is broader in 

 proportion to its length (the proportion is about as one to three), and it is, moreover, so short, 

 that it is contained eight or nine times in the total length ; our dolphin, therefore, can by 

 no means be said to have long, but on the contrary, short pectoral fins. To these important 

 differences between these two forms, we must still, besides the remaining osteological characters, 

 mention the great difference already pointed out in the size of the teeth and the comparative 

 length of the dental row, on which, however, I shall dwell no longer, as it may be supposed that 

 none of those who, generally speaking, admit of the necessity of subdividing Cuvier's genera 

 Delphimts and Phocæna, would think of placing olu' species in the same genus with the 

 ca'ing-whale. 



We have seen above, that at present it is difficult or rather impossible to define exactly the 

 degree of the difference in the osteology between the dolphin here treated of, and Cuvier's 

 DeljjJiinus ffriseus, the type of the genus Grampus-^ and it is scarcely easier to do it, as far as the 

 external form is concerned. D'Orbigny's description of this species,^ published by Fr. Cuvier, 

 the only original one founded on autopsy existing, is not particularly minute in its details, and the 

 figure following the description, (though, indeed, far superior to the oldei', and extremely indifferent 

 one, of the individual stranded at Brest, which accompanied G. Cuvier's first account of this 

 dolphin,)^ was, as Ave know, not drawn until twelve or thirteen days after the stranding of the 

 animal, so long after death, therefore, that the decomposition had most probably altered its 

 appearance not a little, especially as the occurrence took place in the hot summer-time. Accord- 

 ingly, even the latter and better figure must, on this account, be used with caution, and it 



^ Besides Cuvier's Delphinus griseus, the tj'pical species of the genus, three other species have been 

 placed by Gray, in the genus Gi-ampus, one of these, however, Gr. Richardsonii is only founded on a 

 single lower jaw in the British Museum, which was, moreover, for some time supposed by him to 

 belong to the typical species itself; the Gr. Sakamata is only founded on the narratives of the 

 Japanese, about a dolphin inhabiting the sea around Japan, in which others believe they have recognised 

 a true killer ; the third, finally, is Risso's Delphinus aries (D. Rissoanus, Desm.), which considered as 

 a species is most certainly perfectly well-founded, but it can hardly be set down as an undoubted fact, 

 that this Cetacean is to be placed in the same genus with Delphinus griseus. Its osteology is still 

 perfectly unknown, and other authors are inclined to consider it to be nearly related to the ca'ing- 

 whale. Thus it is, in my opinion, only D. griseus that can be referred to, when we are speaking 

 of the characters of the genus Grampus. 



~ Fr. Cuvier's 'I'Histoire naturelle des Cétacés,' p. 184, pi. xii, fig. 2. 



* 'Annales du Museum,' tom. xix, tab. i, fig. 1. 



