2. PHYSEIER. 211 



According to Sibbald they produce spermaceti. Cuvier, in his 

 'History and Examination of the Synonyma of the Cachalots or 

 Sperm "Whales ' (Oss. Foss. v. 328-338), regards the description of 

 this animal given by Sibbald as merely a redescription of the Sperm 

 Whale, and finds great fault with Artedi, Bonnaterre, and others 

 for having considered them as separate ; and he regards the second, 

 blunt-toothed specimen as either a Delphinus globiceps or a D. Tursio 

 which had lost its upper teeth ; this error is important, as it vitiates 

 many of his subsequent observations. To have come to these con- 

 clusions he must have overlooked Sibbald's figure and ample details 

 of the first, and the figure of the teeth of the second, or they would 

 have at once shown him his error. That he did so is certain ; for 

 "when he comes to Schreber's reduced copy of Sibbald's figures of 

 Balaena microcephala (p. 337), he says Schreber does not indicate its 

 origin ; but on this copy of Sibbald's figure, which he before regarded 

 as a Sperm Whale, he observes, that " from the form of its lower jaw 

 it most resembles a large dolphin which had lost its upper teeth." 



Thus, while Cuvier was reducing the numerous species of Sperm 

 Whales that had been made by Bonnaterre, Lacepede, and other 

 compiling French authors, to a single species, he has inadvertently 

 confounded with it the very distinct genus of Black-fish, or Physeter 

 of Artedi, which has a very differently formed head, the top of the 

 head being flattened, with the blowers on the hinder part of its 

 crown, and with a distinct dorsal fin, particulars all well described 

 by Sibbald, a most accurate observer and conscientious recorder, and 

 not badly represented by Bayer. 



Mr. Bell observes, — " After careful examination of the various ac- 

 counts which have from time to time been given of whales belonging 

 to this family, called Spermaceti Whales, I have found it necessary 

 to adopt an opinion in some measure at variance with those of most 

 previous writers, with regard to the genera and species to which all 

 those accounts and details are to be referred. The conclusion to 

 which I have been ledjis, first, that the High-finned Cachalot is 

 specifically but not generically distinct from the common one, and 

 that therefore the genus Catodon is to be abolished, and the name 

 Physeter retained for both species ; and, secondly, that all the other 

 species which have been distinguished by various naturalists have 

 been founded upon trifling variations or upon vague and insufficient 

 data." — Brit. Quad. 507. Thus, though Mr. BeU differs from Cuvier 

 in regarding them as distinct species, yet he overlooked Sibbald's 

 figures, for he says there is no figure of the High-finned Cachalot in 

 existence, and keeps it in the genus Physeter, which he characterizes 

 as having the " head enormously large, truncated in front," which is 

 quite unlike the depressed rounded head of the High-finned Cachalot ; 

 and he also adopts the mistaken description of the dorsal fin. 



Eschricht seems to believe that Sibbald described a Killer, or Orea 

 gladiator, under the above name, but I have never heard of an Orca 

 52 feet long. 



Some parts of Sibbald's description, and his reference to Johnston's 

 figure, might lead to this error ; but his figures, which exactly agree 



p 2 



