114 
Whale lately taken in the River Grouch. 
France. 
6. Near Biarritz, in 1874. Skeleton in tire Bayonne 
Museum. 
Great Britain. 
7. Near Bo’ness in the Firth of Forth, in 1872. Skeleton 
in the University of Edinburgh Museum. 
8. Biver Crouch, Essex, in 1888. 
To these may be added the doubtful case of the whale 
stranded at Charmouth, Dorsetshire, 1840, the skeleton of 
which was unfortunately not preserved; and also one taken 
on the coast of Virginia, North America, in 1858, of which 
the skeleton is in the Museum of the Academy of Natural 
Sciences at Philadelphia, and is believed by Cope to belong to 
this species. 
The synonomy of this species, as in the case of most 
other whales, is involved in considerable confusion. The 
generic name must be determined by the question, which is 
open to considerable difference of opinion, as to how far it is 
expedient to multiply such divisions. Balcena , Balcenoptera, 
Sibbaldius and Rudolphius, which have been applied to this 
animal at various successive times, indicate various stages of 
subdivision of the Linnean genus at the head of the list. Of 
the propriety of separating the Rorquals or Fin-whales 
(genus Balcenoptera of Lacepede) from the Right Whales (to 
which Balcena is now restricted) there can be no question; 
but with the further subdivision of Balcenoptera I am not at 
present disposed to concur, and would therefore prefer to 
retain the present species under that name, although there is 
certainly something to be said for Dr. Gray’s first division of 
the group into three, which he called respectively Physalus, 
Sibbaldius, and Balcenoptera. 
With regard to the specific name, that of rostrata, 
under which the species was first introduced to scientific 
notice in the description given by Rudolphi of the Holstein 
specimen (Abhandl. Akad., Berlin, 1820, p. 27) cannot be 
maintained, as it arose from an erroneous identification with 
the totally distinct species which had already received that 
name. Cuvier used the term “Rorqual du Nord ” for a 
