SCANDINAVIAN CETACEA. " 253 



on the coast of Norway. I have mentioned, that there is also some difference in the form of certain 

 parts. The skull of the former seems to be more elongated and narrow, although the difference in this 

 respect is not great, after allowing for what Companyo overrates in length. There are greater 

 differences between them, both in the form and in the length of the processus transversi of the axis. 

 These processes are much shorter in the former, and according to Companyo's figure of this bone, 

 bent down at the point, while the ends of those on the skeleton in Bergen are directed upwards 

 towards the back. They are much more pointed on the latter. The atlas also shows some difference. 

 It has, according to Companyo's figure (which, however, seems to be rather indifferently executed), the 

 tuberculum atlantis posticum higher, the lateral processes somewhat lower, and the articulating areas 

 smaller than in the atlas of the latter. It is also entirely without tuberculum atlantis anticum, and 

 has in its place a tolerably deep incision or hollow, while the atlas on the latter has the tuberculum 

 atlantis anticum distinct behind, and is without the hollow. The sternum offers some differences, 

 but this bone is so variable in its form, according both to what Eschricht has shown and to what 

 I have observed, that these differences may be considered individual. In the skeleton at Bergen 

 it almost corresponds with the figure of this bone which Eschricht has given of No. 43 (1. c, p. 131), 

 only having a smaller hollow in front, and thus denoting a transition to its form in Companyo' s 

 rorqual. This hollow is still smaller in the sternum in the museum in Christiania, which is from 

 the same specimen as the skull at the same place. Companyo gives 14 pairs of ribs, and after 

 him, even Eschricht and Gervais ; if this were correct, I should not hesitate to consider Companyo's 

 rorqual a different species from ours, taking other differences into consideration. By examining 

 the rib figured by Companyo as being the 1st, it will be easily seen that it cannot be the 1st, but 

 is the 2nd. It is nearly of the same length as the one he has figured as the 2nd, and is, like the 

 latter, tapering at the lower end, which is not the case with the first rib, and it has, like the 2nd 

 figured, a capitulum with a short collum. The ribs, described by him as the 1st and 2nd, correspond 

 in form precisely with the 2nd and 3rd pairs on the skeleton in Bergen, and with the same pairs on 

 a skeleton of this species in the Physiological Museum in Copenhagen. It is therefore unquestionable, 

 that the ribs figured by Companyo as the 1st and 2nd are, in fact, the 2nd and 3rd ; the 1st rib has 

 therefore to be found. It is very evident that the bone figured by him under the name of " corne 

 de I'os hyoide," is the first rib.' It has its general form and size, its strong bend, and its expanded 

 upper and lower ends. It is, however, less dilated at the lower end than in the skeletons in Bergen 

 and Copenhagen, with which two ribs of the same pair in the museum in Christiania correspond 

 exactly. The rorqual of Companyo had consequently 15 pairs of ribs and 15 dorsal vertebræ, like 

 all other specimens of this species, of which the number of ribs have been fully known. It has, 

 according to Companyo and Gervais, 15 lumbo-saci-al vertebræ, and corresponds in this respect with 

 ours. The corpus of the hinder dorsal vertebra in Companyo's rorqual seems, as previously stated, 

 to be longer than that of the same vertebra on the skeletons of this species that are preserved in 

 Bergen and Copenhagen. He gives this length at 0-3 met. or 12^". I have unfortunately not noted 

 the length of the body of these vertebre on the before-mentioned skeletons, but I have noted the length 

 of the 1st lumbosacral vertebra, which generally is equal to or somewhat longer than the posterior dorsal 

 vertebra. The corpus of this vertebra is in the skeleton at Copenhagen 9", and in the one at 

 Bergen 9|" long. The corpus of the posterior dorsal vertebra on these skeletons can be estimated from 



^ Farines and Carcasonne have rightly considered this supposed " corne de I'os hyoide" ' as a 

 rib, although Companyo in his later above-quoted treatise reproaches them with this as erroneous. 

 They are also right in another remark made by them against Companyo's statements, viz., that the 

 first three pairs of ribs articulate with both processus transversi and corpora of the corresponding verte- 

 bræ, for none of these ribs articulate with the corpus vertebræ. 



