NdtureUe des Cetaces. 179 



some specimens transmitted to him by M. Van Breda, a relative 

 of the illustrious Camper, that these two were quite distinct ; that 

 the Rostratus of Shaw was the Gangeticus, and that the Frontatus, 

 M. Geoffroy's specimen, had the dorsal fin of the same species. * 

 In 1828, Mr Lesson gave an accurate account of Van Breda's 

 specimen under the name of Delphinorhyncus Bredanensis, a name 

 quite appropriate and unobjectionable, Next year, however, (loc. 

 cit.) Cuvier refers to this species under the appellation of the 

 Rostratus, which, according to another statement, in the same 

 page, is the Gangeticus : he also distinctly places it among the 

 Delphinorhynci. Again, our author, in 1833, states that his bro- 

 ther had named this new species Rostratus, referring in proof to 

 the Oss- Fos. v. 400, where we find that no such name was given to 

 it : at the same time he applies a new trivial name to it, D. a long 

 bee. In the work before us he changes his ground, and adduces as 

 proof that the Baron had named the species Rostratus, in the Regne 

 Animal, 1817> where the Rostratus of Shawalone is named. Finally, 

 our author, who in 1833 had followed his brother, and had taken 

 pains to show that this was a Delphinorhyncus, — " le museau de cet 

 espece montre assez quelle appartient a la division qu'on a plus par- 

 ticulierement designee Delphinorhynque,". — three years afterwards, 

 in the work before us, excludes it from this genus, and ranks it as a 

 Delphinus. It is assuredly not a little grievous, that when the great 

 Cuvier could say of this very species, " Ces indications serve a met- 

 tre les naturalists a la torture," M. Frederic should now be acting in 

 a way so truly extraordinary, for it is not easy to regard his entangled 

 web as the result of mere carelessness or accident. 



The fossils of this order of Mammalia have an interest peculiarly 

 their own. To find not quadrupeds — the congeners of those which 

 now tread upon the soil, but the mighty monarchs of the deep, in the 

 centre of immense continents, and on the slopes of lofty hills, cannot 

 fail to excite the most profound reflections. This, along with the 

 fact, that Cuvier has devoted to them a most painful and successful 

 investigation, has conferred on them an interest of the highest cha- 

 l-acter ; and hence we are not surprised to find that these fossils re- 

 ceive a prominent place in almost every history of the order which 

 has appeared. From the work before us, however, they are exclud- 

 ed ; and our author in a few words of the introduction advertises us 

 of this peculiarity, remarking, that he has always considered these 

 organic remains as the proper subject of a distinct branch of science. 

 On several grounds we consider this as matter of regret. Were the 

 treatise entirely popular, still we think that a passing notice of these 

 * Regne Animal, 1829, 289. 



