PLATANISTA. 417 



Genus Platanista, Cuvier. 

 Platanista gangetica, Lebeck. Plates XXV, &c. 



Belphinus gangeticuSj Lebeck, Der Gesellschaft Naturf. Freunde zu Berlin, 1801, vol. iii., pp. 280-282, 

 pi. 2; Roxburgh, Asiatic Res. vol. vii. 1801, pp. 170-174, pi. 5; Home, Phil. Trans. 1818, pp. 

 417-419, pi. 21. 



Belphinus rostratus, Shaw, Genl. Zool., vol ii., pt. 2, 1801, p. 514 ; Blainville, Nouv. Diet. d^Hist. Nat. 

 Appl. 1816-19, 2nd ed. Dauphin. 



Lelphinus sJiawensis, Blainville, Nouv. Diet. d^'Hist. Nat. Appl. 1816-19, 2ad ed. Dauphin. 



Platanista gangetica, Cuvier, Rech. Oss, Foss., nouv. ed., Paris, vol. v. pt. 1, pp. 279-280, and pi. 22, 

 fig-s. 8 to 10, pi. 23, fig. 19; Lesson, Comple. (Euv. BufFon, Get. 1834, p. 215, Atlas pi. 3, 

 fig. 3; Gray & Hardw. 111. Ind. Zool. 1830-34, pts. xv. & xvi., pi. 4 ; Cuvier, Hist. Nat. Cet. 

 1886, pi. 8 fig. 2; Jardine, Nat. Lib. vol. vi. Mamm. 1837, pi. 28; M'Clelland, Cal. Journ. 

 Nat. Hist. vol. i. 1841, p. 425; Owen, Odont. 1840-45, p. 449; Gray, Cat. B. M. Cet. 1850, 

 p. 137; Cat. Seals, Whales, 1866, p. 223; Eschricht, Danske Vid. Selsk. Skr., 5*^ R. Bd. ii. 

 1851, pp. 347-387, 3 Pis.; Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. vol. ix. 1852, 2nd ser., pp. 161-188, 

 pp. 279-293, pis. V. to vii. ; Blyth, Cat. Mamm. As. Soc. Mus. 1863, p. 92 ; Flower, Trans. Zool. 

 Soc. (1866,) vol. vi. 1869, p. 87, et seq. 



Platanistina gangetica, Gray, Voy. Erebus and Terror, 1846, Mamm. pp. 45, 46, pi. 7, fig. 2. 



Esdiricht in his admirable memoir on the structure of this remarkable type 

 of Cetacean fully summarised all that was known regarding it at the time he 

 wrote. Since then, Professor Plower has described many of the important features 

 of its osteology and greatly enlarged our knowledge regarding its affinities. 



Eschricht considered that the figure of a female drawn under Eeinhardt's 

 direction was a faithful representation of the animal, and that " the skill of the 

 draftsman, and, above all, the great experience of the naturalist, suflB.ciently guaran- 

 teed the correctness of the delineation." He has also stated that the accuracy of 

 the drawing was still further corroborated by the close correspondence of its propor- 

 tions with the skeleton of the self-same individual. There can be no doubt but 

 that this drawing which was reproduced by Eschricht, was, as a whole, a consider- 

 able improvement on the representations of the animal given by Lebeck, E^oxburgh, 

 Lesson, E. Cuvier, Sir William Jardine, and Gray, but it cannot be overlooked that 

 it erred in some important details. In E/Oxburgh's figure of a male, the artist has 

 attempted to show the prominence of the head before the blow-hole, and he has given 

 the approximate position of the pectorals, in both of which features Eschricht's 

 figure is at fault. As, therefore, a faithful dehneation was a desideratum, I have 

 reproduced a photograph of a female dolphin (Plate XXV). A comparison of 

 this plate with Eschricht's will show that the latter fails to represent the constriction 

 of the neck, the undulating outhnes of the back and belly, the bulging character of 

 the head and the proper position of the pectoral fins. The constriction of the neck 

 is a marked feature of this Cetacean, and was to be looked for from the character 

 of the cervical vertebrae. Eschricht justly doubted the accuracy of Eeinhardt's 

 drawing on two points, viz., the positions of the eye and ear, which he considered 

 were placed too far above the angle of the mouth. 



E 3 



