AND MESOPLODON SOWEBBYI. 773 



the cast, in determining it to be a younger skull of that species. As none of the 

 officials connected with the Museum of Science and Art could give me any 

 information as to the history of the specimen, I think it very probable that it 

 had formed a part of the Natural History collection of the University, prior 

 to its transference to the Department of Science and Art in 1854. As the 

 skull is almost perfect, and the bones not quite free from oil, it is clear that the 

 specimen had not been lying about the sea-shore and subjected for a time to 

 the action of the weather, but had been removed from a newly killed animal. 

 It is not unlikely that the animal had been captured somewhere on the Scottish 

 coast, and that the skull had been presented to the late Professor Jameson.* 



The following description of this specimen of the skull of Sowerby's whale 

 has been written with the especial object of pointing out the features of resem- 

 blance and dissimilarity between it and cavirostris. The skull of Soiverbyi was 

 not only much smaller, but more elegantly formed than that of cavirostris. Its 

 greatest length in a straight line was 29^ inches ; its greatest breadth, between 

 the post-orbital processes, llf inches ; its height, 9| inches. It was obviously 

 not perfectly adult, as the cranial sutures were not obliterated, and the pair of 

 mandibular teeth projected but slightly from their sockets. The texture of the 

 bones was not so open and friable as in cavirostris. 



The summit of the skull was formed by the frontal and superior maxillaries. 

 The beak was slender, its sides more nearly parallel, and it was absolutely longer 

 than that of cavirostris, as the distance from a line drawn across the base between 

 the maxillary foramina to the tip was 20^ inches, whilst its breadth at the same 

 line was only 10 inches. The tip of the beak was formed by the pre-maxillse, 

 which extended backwards almost horizontally as far as the base of the beak. 

 Their upper borders were curved inwards so as almost completely to roof in 

 the elongated meso-rostral canal, and in no part of their extent were they 

 more than |ths of an inch asunder. On a line with the base of the beak the 

 pre-maxillse rapidly ascended, formed the sides of the anterior nostrils, and each 

 terminated superiorly in a roughened, slightly overhanging ridge. The surface 

 of the ascending part of each bone widened out somewhat, and looked almost 

 directly forward, so that no hollow existed at the base of the beak. The pre- 

 maxillse were almost symmetrical, the right bone being a trifle broader than the 

 left. A foramen opened on the free surface of each bone on a line with the 

 maxillary foramina. 



No meso-rostral bone occupied the canal in the middle of the beak, which 

 was quite empty, though with the soft parts in situ, it would undoubtedly have 

 contained the elongated mes-ethmoid cartilage. 



* I have from time to time pointed out this cranium to various naturalists, amongst whom I mar 

 mention Dr Gunther, Dr Acland, and Professor Van Beneden. From a reference to it in Professor 

 Flower's article in " Nature," already quoted, it would appear that M. Van Beneden had supposed 

 the skull to be at the present time in the University Museum. 



