372 Mr. J. Couch on a specimen of Phocaena melas. 



about 2 feet in front of the vent. The cuticle is thin ; the co- 

 lour an intense black, smooth, like oiled silk ; interrupted on 

 the sides by several curious grooved marks, like the ridges on 

 some species of shells ; two long parallel lines low on the side 

 united by another {interiorly. Under the throat a broad white 

 mark, heart-shaped towards the throat, and extending back- 

 ward no further than the pectoral fins, behind which it is 

 faint and narrow. There was a notch in the dorsal fin, pro- 

 bably peculiar to the individual ; it was otherwise falcate pos- 

 teriorly. 



There can be no question of this being the Delphinus melas 

 of Fleming, D. Deductor of Scoresby, Phocaena melas of Bell, 

 6 British Quadrupeds/ p. 483 ; and consequently, as referred 

 to Delphinus melas of Trail, D. globiceps of Cuvier, and Glo- 

 bicephalus Deductor of Jardine ; but whilst the descriptions 

 given by these naturalists are sufficiently minute and accurate 

 to decide the species, they in common with their accompany- 

 ing figures have the misfortune to fail in some important par- 

 ticulars, which may lead to error if it shall be found that a 

 nearly allied species exists. The figure in Mr. Bell's work is 

 confessedly taken from Cuvier ; and though I have no oppor- 

 tunity of consulting the c Ann. du Museum/ in which the 

 paper of the great French naturalist is contained, or the work 

 on Cetaceans of his brother, yet I think it fair to conclude that 

 it is correctly copied. The singularity of position, however, 

 given to the tail, as thrown up over the back, and the attenu- 

 ated form assigned to the figure both of Scoresby and Bell 

 (though most obvious in the latter), lead to a suspicion that 

 the latter is indebted for its existence to the former, and con- 

 sequently that the engraving of Dr. Trail, whom Scoresby 

 has followed, is the only undoubted original. 



The following notes, which were made when comparing the 

 figures of Bell (derived from Cuvier) and Scoresby (whose de- 

 scription at least is from Trail) with the animal itself lying 

 favourably before me, and my own sketch and description, will 

 point out the differences between the former and the latter. 

 In Mr. BelFs work the bulk is much too slender, especially on 

 the anterior portion ; and not enough compressed posteriorly, 

 nor sufficiently ridged on that part above and below. The 

 caudal fin is too much divided and attenuated at the sides ; for 

 though a single specimen might chance to die in the attitude 

 given, nothing short of an error in the outline could represent 

 the corner of the tail so long and slender. The forehead also is 

 not sufficiently prominent and globular ; the teeth are too nu- 

 merous and conspicuous ; the under jaw is too much project- 

 ing. Jcnyns represents the teeth as conical and sharp-, whereas 



