1870,] 107 [Cope. 
Many marked differences separate it from the Kreporkak, of the north- 
ern Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. The elevated coronoid process and pecu- 
liar nasal bones distinguish it at once. Thus in B. longimana these ele- 
ments are shorter and wider, considerably separated behind, and with the 
median process which overhangs the nares, considerably longer than 
the lateral. The reverse is the case here (fig. 2). The head bears a 
greater proportion to the length of the body than in B. longimana. Thus 
Flower notes a spccimen in mus. Louvain (Belgium), of 32 feet 2 in. in 
length, of which the head measures only 8 ft. 6in. In the present of 
31.6 in., the cranium is 9 ft. In aspecimenat Brussels of 46 ft., the head 
is 12 ft., nearly one fourth. Ina young specimen of 28 ft. 7 in., at Ley- 
den, Flower says the cranium measures oaly 7 ft. Tin. Ina specimen 
from the Dee, England, the proportions are similiar. As the length of 
the flippers is similar to that of the head, the difference is to be seen in 
this also. Other characters which distinguish the species from B. 
longimana, are the less concavity of the orbital plates of the’ frontal an- 
teriorly, and the reduction of the lumbosacrals to 10. If Rudolph’s 
figures be correct, the first rib is broader in the present animal, but the 
figure may be inaccurate. As to color, the pectoral fin is entirely white 
in the Arctic Megaptera,; black externally in this one. 
The same differences are to be observed in comparing with the JM. 
osphyia, in which the head and fin are even shorter than in M. longimana, 
(the proportion being 9.40*) and the coronoid process equally rudiment- 
ary. Special features of the latter are seen in the flat, deep diapophyses 
of atlas, which are much deeper than inthe present whale ; and the artic- 
ular area on the hinder angle of the first and other ribs, which is wanting 
here. The width of the orbital plates distally is, .5 their length in the 
type of M. osphyia, .83 the length in the present specimen. 
The species described by Gray (Catal. B. Mus., 1866, 162,) as Physulus 
brasiliensis, founded on some baleen of the ‘‘ Bahia finner,’’ has been 
supposed by me (Proc. A. M. Scie. Phila., 1867, p.32,) to be a Megaptera. 
Certain it is that a Megaptera is found at Bahia, as I have seen larger 
and smaller portions of two skeletons of one, but whether it be the 
“Bahia Finner’”? and P. brasiliensis, Gray, is quite doubtful. In the 
first place, fishermen and whalers never call a ‘‘ hump-back’’ (Megaptera) 
a ‘“finner;’’? if they have done so in the case of this species, it evidently 
has a noticeable dorsal fin, which is wanting in the present whale. In 
the next place, baleen of the ‘‘ Bahia finner’’ has a commercial value, 
being exported to England, while that of Megaptera has none, being 
coarse and twisted. That of the specimen here described was thrown 
away by it captors. 
I therefore believe that the present whale has not been noticed by nat- 
uralists, and is unknown to Zoology. I propose to call it Mucarrpra 
BELLICOSA. 
Dr. Goés says of its habits, that it appears about the island of St. Bar- 
tholomew in the beginning of March, or even in February, and remains 
