Whale measurements, June 11, 1903.
The skeletons remained on the island until August, 1904, when they were carried by the revenue cutterMcCullochto Dutch Harbor and afterwards to San Francisco. Through a misunderstanding they were allowed to remain on the beach at St. George Island until November, 1903, and suffered considerable injury. On that date they were deposited in a storehouse by Maj. Ezra W. Clark, assistant treasury agent in charge, who afterwards presented the photograph of the female above mentioned. (Pl. 42, fig. 1.) The latter shows the short, narrow, pointed pectoral fin, and long, rather slender beak.
Another specimen ofBerardiuswas found stranded on St. George Island on August 21, 1909. The following information regarding it was received from Maj. Ezra W. Clark, under date of September 4, 1909:
On August 21, 1909, after an unusually severe gale for the season, accompanied with heavy sea, a beaked whale was stranded under the cliffs of the northeast coast of St. George Island. Its position was such that it was reached with great difficulty. It was undergoing decomposition. I succeeded in getting the following information:
On August 21, 1909, after an unusually severe gale for the season, accompanied with heavy sea, a beaked whale was stranded under the cliffs of the northeast coast of St. George Island. Its position was such that it was reached with great difficulty. It was undergoing decomposition. I succeeded in getting the following information:
I think that I shall not be able to get the skeleton of this whale, owing to the rough seas prevailing.
I think that I shall not be able to get the skeleton of this whale, owing to the rough seas prevailing.
The Californian specimen (Cat. No. 49725) was first made known in a letter addressed to me by President Jordan, of Stanford University, under date of October 27, 1904, inclosing one from Mr. J. H. Ring, of Ferndale, California, dated October 23, 1904, which was as follows:
Enclosed find three views of an animal stranded on the beach near this place [Ferndale, Humboldt County, California], and as its identity seems rather uncertain we hope you will kindly classify it and inform us of its true name and habitat, if possible, from the photographs and incomplete description. Its total length is about 41 feet. Greatest circumference 16 feet, tapering probably to 18 inches near the tail. It also tapers toward the head, terminating in a sharp beak, the upper jaw being about 16 and the lower 19 inches long.On each side in the lower jaw well to the front is a conical tooth, the crown of which is exposed one-half an inch. The head is full and rounded, resembling that of an elephant, with depressions corresponding to the ears, and small eyes a little ahead and below.On top of head is a heart-shaped opening, evidently for breathing purposes. There is also evidence of a dorsal fin, while each fork of tail is 3½ feet or so long. The underside of the animal is too bruised to show anything of importance. The flippers are also in bad shape, one being buried in the sand, while the other is entirely denuded of flesh, leaving a bony stump about 6 inches long and which moves readily in any direction. We think it is a “bottle-nose” whale, but as some claim that they are not to be found on this coast and do not exceed 30 feet in length, it may be something else.
Enclosed find three views of an animal stranded on the beach near this place [Ferndale, Humboldt County, California], and as its identity seems rather uncertain we hope you will kindly classify it and inform us of its true name and habitat, if possible, from the photographs and incomplete description. Its total length is about 41 feet. Greatest circumference 16 feet, tapering probably to 18 inches near the tail. It also tapers toward the head, terminating in a sharp beak, the upper jaw being about 16 and the lower 19 inches long.
On each side in the lower jaw well to the front is a conical tooth, the crown of which is exposed one-half an inch. The head is full and rounded, resembling that of an elephant, with depressions corresponding to the ears, and small eyes a little ahead and below.
On top of head is a heart-shaped opening, evidently for breathing purposes. There is also evidence of a dorsal fin, while each fork of tail is 3½ feet or so long. The underside of the animal is too bruised to show anything of importance. The flippers are also in bad shape, one being buried in the sand, while the other is entirely denuded of flesh, leaving a bony stump about 6 inches long and which moves readily in any direction. We think it is a “bottle-nose” whale, but as some claim that they are not to be found on this coast and do not exceed 30 feet in length, it may be something else.
Mr. Ring was immediately communicated with, and very generously presented to the Museum the skull of the animal, which he had secured and cleaned with much labor and some danger to himself. He also undertook to have the skeleton cleaned and sent to Washington, and it was received in due course in June, 1905. Mr. Ring wrote under date of May 15, 1905:
You will notice that the point of the beak, as well as the points of the lower jawbones, are a little damaged, some hunters having shot the teeth out and then set a fire inside the jaws.
You will notice that the point of the beak, as well as the points of the lower jawbones, are a little damaged, some hunters having shot the teeth out and then set a fire inside the jaws.
When received, the skeleton lacked the flippers and also two of the teeth. Regarding the former, Mr. Ring wrote on November 18, 1905, as follows:
I wrote you that one flipper was entirely gone and the other worn down to a stump, as shown in the picture. I have interviewed the man who stripped the specimen, and he says the stump was badly crushed and broken and fears it was lost one night when the extremely high tide had turned the whale over, and only the anchors and lashings I had secured it with prevented its going out to sea.
I wrote you that one flipper was entirely gone and the other worn down to a stump, as shown in the picture. I have interviewed the man who stripped the specimen, and he says the stump was badly crushed and broken and fears it was lost one night when the extremely high tide had turned the whale over, and only the anchors and lashings I had secured it with prevented its going out to sea.
This skeleton was mounted recently and placed on exhibition in the Museum. The flippers were modeled from those of the St. George Island specimens (which were also imperfect) and from the figures ofB. arnuxiigiven by Flower. The end of the beak was also restored, and a facsimile of the teeth substituted for the real ones. This remarkable skeleton shows in a manner hitherto unapproached the great size which this genus of ziphioid whales attains, and the peculiar conformation of the body. While the vertebræ rival those of the large whalebone whales, such as the Humpbacks, in their dimensions, the head is remarkable for its small size as compared with the immense proportions of the same part in the Right whales. (Pl. 42, fig. 4.)
Mr. Ring sent to the Museum three photographs of the Californian specimen above mentioned, two of which are reproduced onPl. 42, figs. 2 and 3. Although rather indistinct, they show the general form of the body, the peculiar bulbous head, with an indication of a neck, and the long beak.
Doctor Stejneger has very kindly placed in my hands his original notes on the young individual examined by him in Bering Island June 5, 1883 (Cat. No. 142,188) and they are given below in full:
When the news reached me that a small “plavum” was found dead ashore at the North Rookery of Bering Island, I immediately ordered dogs, and arrived at the place in company with the “starost.” The carcass was found lying on the very beach where the fur seals during the summer occupy the ground. As the bulk of the seals had not yet arrived, only a few “sikatschi” were seen in the immediate neighborhood, but it was reported that they had retired from the place on account of the smell of the putrefied body, as it was thought. The natives, fearing that it would drive the seals from the rookery altogether if left on the beach any longer, were very anxious to get it away as fast as possible, and it was only with some hesitation that they would allow one to stand on the rookery long enough to take a few measurements. The animal was quite a young one, and I conjectured that it had died immediately after having been born, as I think there were some remains of the umbilical cord. Hardly any of the bones were fully ossified. Under these circumstances, it was out of the question to have the whole skeleton preserved, as the dismembering and the separation of the putrified flesh from the bones and cartilages would require more care and consequently more time than the natives were willing to allow. I was therefore glad to secure the head and some of the neck vertebræ. Even that tried their patience, as the head was going to separate into its single bones and the not yet united component pieces, and consequently needed special care and attention.The carcass was lying with the back upward, this visible part being uniform black, and still in such a state as to allow of measuring. The lower surface was in a very advanced state of decomposition. Part of the belly was torn away, together with the entrails, and the genitalia and anus were not to be found. As stated above, I think that I could recognize the umbilical cord attached to a tatter of the skin. Of course, measurements of the lower side and of the circumference of the body, except at the narrowest place of the tail, could not be taken.
When the news reached me that a small “plavum” was found dead ashore at the North Rookery of Bering Island, I immediately ordered dogs, and arrived at the place in company with the “starost.” The carcass was found lying on the very beach where the fur seals during the summer occupy the ground. As the bulk of the seals had not yet arrived, only a few “sikatschi” were seen in the immediate neighborhood, but it was reported that they had retired from the place on account of the smell of the putrefied body, as it was thought. The natives, fearing that it would drive the seals from the rookery altogether if left on the beach any longer, were very anxious to get it away as fast as possible, and it was only with some hesitation that they would allow one to stand on the rookery long enough to take a few measurements. The animal was quite a young one, and I conjectured that it had died immediately after having been born, as I think there were some remains of the umbilical cord. Hardly any of the bones were fully ossified. Under these circumstances, it was out of the question to have the whole skeleton preserved, as the dismembering and the separation of the putrified flesh from the bones and cartilages would require more care and consequently more time than the natives were willing to allow. I was therefore glad to secure the head and some of the neck vertebræ. Even that tried their patience, as the head was going to separate into its single bones and the not yet united component pieces, and consequently needed special care and attention.
The carcass was lying with the back upward, this visible part being uniform black, and still in such a state as to allow of measuring. The lower surface was in a very advanced state of decomposition. Part of the belly was torn away, together with the entrails, and the genitalia and anus were not to be found. As stated above, I think that I could recognize the umbilical cord attached to a tatter of the skin. Of course, measurements of the lower side and of the circumference of the body, except at the narrowest place of the tail, could not be taken.
Table of dimensions.
The original description ofB. bairdiiby Doctor Stejneger is as follows:
Besides anOrca, which is said to visit the rookeries, but of which I have not been able to procure any specimen, or even to see one, there are at least two species of the familyZiphiidæ, both undescribed, as I suppose. I am very much indebted to Mr. Grebnitzki for a skull of each of the species, for one of which I should like to propose the nameBerardius bairdii, as a slight token of my esteem and gratitude.As I am now almost without any literary means, I find it impossible to decide with certainty in what genus this species will finally have to be placed. But I think that the supposition that this specimen (No. 1520) is a youngBerardiusmay not be far out of the way. At first I suspected that it is aDioplodon, but the size of the skull, in connection with the distinctness of the sutures, the evident maxillary crests, and the terminal position of the teeth very soon led me to the above conclusion.The specimen in question has very low and scarcely incurved maxillary crests; the shortest distance of which is two and two-thirds times greater than their greatest height, and although it still is in its “adolescent” stage, I should greatly doubt whether the crests in this species ever become developed to such a degree as, for instance, inHyperoödon diodon(Lacép.). The groove between the maxillary and the nuchal crest is very shallow. The maxillary notch is deep. The beak is long, making only a little less than half the length of the entire skull. Nares straight; right nasal larger than the left one, but not very much. The occipital condyles do not come in contact beneath the foramen magnum; the symphysis of the lower jaw is very short, amounting to only one-fifth of the whole length of the jaw.Want of time and books prevents me from making more extended remarks, and until I can present an exhaustive and comparative description, I shall have to content myself by giving a provisional table of dimensions. The following dimensions are in millimeters and English inches, and are in every case measured in a straight line:mm.in.Length of skull1,40555.32Greatest breadth69827.48Greatest height53020.87Length from process of supramaxillaries before orbit to posterior edge of condyles61024.02Length from same process to tip of beak89035.04Depth of maxillary notch501.97Length of premaxillaries1,22248.11Premaxillaries reach beyond supramaxillaries1345.28Distance of upper edge of maxillary crests at their anterior end2288.98Distance of same at their middle35814.10Greatest height of maxillary crests863.39Length of visible part of vomer32512.80Distance from anterior tip of vomer to tip of beak27510.83Length of pterygoids29511.62Height of foramen magnum702.76Width of foramen magnum803.15Distance of condyles at upper edge of foramen magnum1003.94Closest approximation of condyles beneath the foramen magnum20.08Entire length of lower jaw1,29250.88Height of lower jaw at second tooth groove1003.94Length of symphysis25710.12Greatest diameter of foremost tooth groove (longitudinal)1003.94Shortest diameter of foremost tooth groove (transverse)451.77Greatest diameter of posterior tooth groove (longitudinal)401.58Shortest diameter of posterior tooth groove (transverse)351.38Distance between the tooth grooves652.56This specimen was found stranded in Stare Gavan, on the eastern shore of Bering Island in the fall of last year, and only the skull was preserved. From analogy I should judge that the entire length of the animal must have been about 18 feet (5½ meters). This species is well known by the natives for the cathartic quality of the blubber, resembling in this respect the Atlantic “Dögling,” or “Anarnak” (Hyperoödon diodon). The Russian name, by which the inhabitants here designate this whale, isPla-un(sp. Pläoon), while the Aleut name isKigan agalusoch, the meaning of which is said to be “having teeth on the nose,” a very inappropriate designation, as the teeth are situated on the tip of the lower jaw, and not on the nose.[53]
Besides anOrca, which is said to visit the rookeries, but of which I have not been able to procure any specimen, or even to see one, there are at least two species of the familyZiphiidæ, both undescribed, as I suppose. I am very much indebted to Mr. Grebnitzki for a skull of each of the species, for one of which I should like to propose the nameBerardius bairdii, as a slight token of my esteem and gratitude.
As I am now almost without any literary means, I find it impossible to decide with certainty in what genus this species will finally have to be placed. But I think that the supposition that this specimen (No. 1520) is a youngBerardiusmay not be far out of the way. At first I suspected that it is aDioplodon, but the size of the skull, in connection with the distinctness of the sutures, the evident maxillary crests, and the terminal position of the teeth very soon led me to the above conclusion.
The specimen in question has very low and scarcely incurved maxillary crests; the shortest distance of which is two and two-thirds times greater than their greatest height, and although it still is in its “adolescent” stage, I should greatly doubt whether the crests in this species ever become developed to such a degree as, for instance, inHyperoödon diodon(Lacép.). The groove between the maxillary and the nuchal crest is very shallow. The maxillary notch is deep. The beak is long, making only a little less than half the length of the entire skull. Nares straight; right nasal larger than the left one, but not very much. The occipital condyles do not come in contact beneath the foramen magnum; the symphysis of the lower jaw is very short, amounting to only one-fifth of the whole length of the jaw.
Want of time and books prevents me from making more extended remarks, and until I can present an exhaustive and comparative description, I shall have to content myself by giving a provisional table of dimensions. The following dimensions are in millimeters and English inches, and are in every case measured in a straight line:
This specimen was found stranded in Stare Gavan, on the eastern shore of Bering Island in the fall of last year, and only the skull was preserved. From analogy I should judge that the entire length of the animal must have been about 18 feet (5½ meters). This species is well known by the natives for the cathartic quality of the blubber, resembling in this respect the Atlantic “Dögling,” or “Anarnak” (Hyperoödon diodon). The Russian name, by which the inhabitants here designate this whale, isPla-un(sp. Pläoon), while the Aleut name isKigan agalusoch, the meaning of which is said to be “having teeth on the nose,” a very inappropriate designation, as the teeth are situated on the tip of the lower jaw, and not on the nose.[53]
It will be observed that the largest of the foregoing specimens measured 40 feet 2 inches in length, while the Centerville skeleton was reported to be about 41 feet long. The largest example of the New Zealand species,B. arnuxii, of which there is a record was 32 feet long.
The St. George Island specimens were reported to be black on the back and white below, but it is not certain how long they had been dead when found by Mr. Judge. The young individual examined by Doctor Stejneger was also black on the back, but this was in a state of decomposition.
The color of the type-specimen ofBerardius arnuxiiwas described by Arnoux as follows: “Its color was entirely black, except for a light gray area near the genital organs; it was a male.”[54]Haast remarks of a young individual observed by him near New Brighton, New Zealand, and not in a fresh condition: “The color of the whole animal was of a deep, velvety black, with the exception of the lower portion of the belly, which had a grayish color.”[55]
The color of the immature male ofB. arnuxiicaptured in Wellington Harbor, New Zealand, in 1877, and described by Hector, was as follows: “The colour was black with a purple hue, except a narrow band along the belly, which was grey. The muzzle, flippers, and tail lobes were intensely black.”[56]
It is not likely that there is any marked difference in the color ofarnuxiiandbairdii, but the data available are insufficient for the determination of the matter. It will be observed, however, that Mr. Judge stated that the malebairdiifound on St. George Island was white below, while in all the accounts ofarnuxiithe color of the under surface is given as blackish, with a restricted area of gray.
Besides its apparently greater size,Berardius bairdiidiffers fromB. arnuxiiin various cranial and other osteological characters, as well as in external proportions, and is to be regarded as a distinct species. The external measurements of the St. George Island specimens reduced to percentages of the total length and compared with similar measurements of a specimen ofB. arnuxiidescribed by Hector, are as follows:
External dimensions of Berardius bairdii and B. arnuxii.
The measurements of these specimens ofbairdiiagree well together. The specimen ofarnuxiiappears to have had narrower flukes, shorter pectoral fin, and a rather higher dorsal fin, situated farther forward than inbairdii. Measurements of a larger number of specimens might show that some or all of these differences of proportion are elusive, but it will be observed that in the Wellington specimen ofarnuxii, recorded by Doctor Haast, the breadth of the flukes is only 21 per cent of the total length. The pectoral fin is said to be only 19 inches long, or only 5.2 per cent of the total length, but the manner of taking the measurement is not mentioned.
As regards size, the largest specimen ofB. arnuxiiof which I find record is the type specimen. This was 32 feet long, and the skull 1,400 mm., or about 55 inches long. This appears to have been an adult male. The Centerville specimen ofbairdii, which was an adult male, was about 41 feet long, and the skull 1,532 mm., or about 60 inches long, while the adult female from St. George Island was 40 feet 2 inches long and the skull 56 inches. Although the total length of the specimens ofbairdiiis so much greater, it will be observed that the length of the skull, while a little greater, absolutely fails to measure up to the proportions found inarnuxii. It might be suspected on this account that the external measurements ofbairdiiwere exaggerated, but that such is not the case will appear from an examination of the measurements of vertebræ given on page 75. It is evident that the specimens ofbairdiiare far more massive in all parts of the skeleton than the specimen ofarnuxiithere cited. The same relations will be found upon comparing measurements of the specimen ofarnuxiifigured by Van Beneden and Gervais.[57]The truth appears to be thatbairdiiis a much larger species, but that the skull is considerably smaller relatively.
The skull ofBerardius bairdiipresents many characters by which it may be distinguished from that ofarnuxii, whether adult or young. As compared with the latter, the rostrum is less massive at the base. The pterygoid has a rounded extension posteriorly and superiorly, so that the posterior portion of the upper border of the pterygoid sinus is convex, rather than nearly straight, as inarnuxii. The exoccipital is larger and broader distally below, and its external surface is plane or concave, rather than convex, as inarnuxii. The distal end of the zygomatic process is much more incurved. The nasal bones instead of presenting lateral extensions have nearly straight sides. The vomer is deeply emarginate at the base of the skull posteriorly where it rests against the presphenoid. The palatines extend scarcely or not at all in front of the pterygoids. The foregoing differences will readily be seen by comparing the figures on Pls. 26-29 with those of the type ofB. arnuxiigiven in Van Beneden and Gervais’s Osteography, plate 23.
The following are dimensions of skulls of both species:
Dimensions of five skulls of Berardius bairdii (including the type) and of three skulls of B. arnuxii.
The foregoing measurements indicate a considerable variation in proportions among the different individuals, but there appears to be nothing that can be fixed upon in this small series to distinguish the two species by dimensions alone.
The tympanic and periotic bones ofB. bairdii(Pls.34-37) present a number of characters by which they may be distinguished from those ofB. arnuxii. While of about the same size in both species, the two bones when in the natural position, viewed from without, are nearly square rather than triangular in outline inB. bairdii, the superior border of the periotic being nearly parallel with the inferior border of the tympanic, and the anterior lobe of the periotic being turned down nearly at right angles with the rest of the bone. The periotic is shorter anteriorly than the tympanic inB. bairdii, while the reverse is true inB. arnuxii. In the former species the eustachian canal of the tympanic is wider, the distance between the outer and inner lips being greater. The involuted portion of the inner lip is shorter and differently shaped. The groove between the postero-inferior lobes is wider. The periotic beside having a much shorter anterior lobe than inB. arnuxiihas also a smaller and smoother middle lobe, and the internal auditory meatus is smaller and more oblique. The dimensions of the bones in the Centerville beach skull, No. 49725, are as follows:Tympanic: greatest length, 62 mm.; greatestbreadth, 46; least breadth of eustachian canal, 17; height at sigmoid process, 47.Periotic:greatest length, 66; greatest breadth, 40; height at center of middle lobe, 35; length from tip of anterior lobe to anterior margin of internal meatus, 38.
Although all the specimens ofBerardius bairdiiare more or less incomplete, two or three of the mandibular teeth have been preserved in nearly every instance; namely, in the adult female from St. George Island, the left anterior and right and left posterior; in the immature male from the same island, both anterior teeth; in the Centerville beach specimen, the left anterior and right (?) posterior teeth; in the skull from Bering Island formerly regarded as the type, all four teeth; in the very young skull from Bering Island, the left anterior and posterior teeth.
Taken as a whole, these teeth are not larger than those found in the specimens ofB. arnuxiithus far recorded, but in both species they vary so much on account of age, or for other reasons, that a comparison of dimensions is unsatisfactory. The dimensions are as follows:
Dimensions of teeth of Berardius arnuxii and B. bairdii.
A description of the teeth of the different specimens ofB. bairdiiis subjoined.
No. 142118.—Bering Island; young (new born?). Anterior tooth conical, hollow, with thin walls. The lower half of the tooth is filled with a mass of bony pulp, which is separable. The tooth is widest at the base, and is without any constriction indicating the formation of a root. Outer and inner surfaces slightly convex, the latter with several distinct longitudinal furrows, which extend to the apex. The whole tooth has a thin coating of cement, except the tip, for a length of about 10 mm., which is more nearly white, and consists, presumably, of dentine.The tooth is very symmetrical, but rather more convex externally. The apex is pointed, erect, and a little more convex externally than internally. (Pl. 39, figs. 1, 2.)
The posterior tooth is similar to the anterior one, but much shorter and more blunt, and the longitudinal furrows are about equally distinct externally and internally. The cement extends nearly to the apex, which latter is very short and is directed backward.
No. 49727.—St. George Island, Alaska; male, immature. Anterior teeth conical, acute, somewhat unsymmetrical, rather more convex externally than internally. The internal surface with a deep median longitudinal groove, and others less distinct on each side near the base. Apex slightly inclined forward and inward, convex externally, with a single longitudinal groove; nearly flat internally, with, or without, a groove. Base of tooth for about 17 mm. covered with longitudinal rugosities, indicating that the root was about to close. It is open, however, the walls of the tooth at the narrowest point being 8 mm. apart and the cavity filled with dense bony pulp. The anterior and posterior outlines of the teeth are irregular, being convex near the base, then slightly concave, and again convex near the apex. When in the natural position, these teeth protrude about 33 mm., or a little more than one-third their height, above the alveolus. (Pl. 39, figs. 3, 4.)
Posterior teeth lacking.
No. 49725.—Centerville beach, California; male (?), adult. Anterior tooth conical, with anterior and posterior margins as in the last. Apex considerably abraded and rounded off; not inclined inward or forward. Internal and external surfaces nearly equally convex, but the former with a broad median longitudinal groove. Root closed, the base of the tooth for a breadth of about 30 mm. covered with rounded rugosities. The inferior border slightly convex and the angles rounded off. When in the natural position, somewhat more than one-half of the tooth protrudes beyond the alveolus, and the tooth itself is inclined forward and outward. (Pl. 39, fig. 5.)
Posterior tooth quite irregular in form, but the portion above the rugose base or root conical. Inner surface flat and uneven. Outer surface convex and rather rugose. The cement covers the whole tooth thickly to within about 5 mm. of the apex, which latter is short, quite acute, and slightly directed inward. It is convex externally and nearly flat internally. The basal rugosity or root is conical, thicker than the rest of the tooth, and unsymmetrical, being somewhat directed backward. It shows no opening below. When in the natural position this tooth is strongly inclined forward and outward, and only the tip for a length of 22 mm. protrudes beyond the alveolus. (Pl. 39, fig. 6.)
No. 49726.—St. George Island, Alaska; female, adult. Anterior tooth conical, with the tip blunt, having been so much abraded that the dentine does not extend beyond the coating of cement. The tip measures 26 by 19 mm. The external and internal surfaces of the tooth are about equally convex and somewhat rugose without distinct furrows. The root is thicker than the remainder of the tooth and very rugose. It is entirely closed below, and the inferior outline is convex. Posterior tooth much compressed, conical above the root, nearly flat internally and slightly convex externally. Cement coating very thick and extending to within about 5 mm. of the dentine apex, which latter is acute and very slightly curved inward andbackward. The root is very unsymmetrical, the posterior portion being much longer than the anterior. The surface is very rugose, and there is no opening whatever below. The inferior border is convex, with an emargination near the center. (Pl. 39, figs. 7, 8.)
In the adult skull from Bering Island, which has been mounted and placed on exhibition, the teeth are fixed in the alveoli so that their entire length and the peculiarities of the basal portion can not be determined. In general form, however, they resemble those of the preceding specimen very closely. The anterior teeth are placed obliquely—that is, so that the anterior margins of the two teeth are nearer together than the posterior margins. The teeth are also somewhat inclined forward. The posterior teeth are strongly inclined forward and a little outward.
The anterior teeth are rather concave along the middle internally and convex externally. The portion above the alveoli is quite smooth.
The posterior teeth are moderately rugose above the alveoli. The whitish tips of denture are conical, compressed, and rather acute. They extend 6 mm. above the denture, and are 11 mm. long at their base, and 6 mm. thick.
The anterior teeth protrude about 45 mm. above the alveolus (internally); their base at the alveolus is from 73 to 76 mm. long, and from 33 to 35 mm. thick. The posterior teeth extend about 18 mm. above the alveoli (measured vertically from the alveolus), and the base of the visible portion (measured along the alveolus) is from 30 to 34 mm. long and from 18 to 20 mm. thick. These teeth have an antero-external angular enlargement of the cement, so that they are somewhat triangular in horizontal section. (Pl. 30, fig. 3;pl. 31, fig. 5.)
The data available are insufficient to enable one to determine satisfactorily whether the teeth differ materially in size in the two sexes, but it appears probable that they do not.
While the skeleton ofBerardius bairdii(Pl. 42, fig. 4) resembles that ofB. arnuxiivery closely in most particulars, it presents differences which may properly be regarded as specific. The vertebral formula ofB. arnuxiias given by Flower is as follows: C. 7, Th. 10, L. 12, Ca. 19 = 48.[58]The same formula is given for another specimen ofB. arnuxiiby Van Beneden and Gervais, except that the caudals are 17, two being apparently lacking.[59]
Doctor Hector, however, gives a different formula for a third specimen of this species, namely, C. 7, Th. 10, L. 13, Ca. 17 = 47. He remarks that “extreme care was taken to secure the whole of the small tail bones.”[60]The discrepancy here shown can not be accounted for at present, but, at all events, none of the formulas ofB. arnuxiicorresponds to that ofB. bairdii, as derived from the three skeletons in the National Museum, namely, C. 7, Th. 11, L. 12, Ca. 16+ = 46+.
The number of thoracic vertebræ can be determined positively from the youngish male from St. George Island (Cat. No. 49727), in which ten pairs of ribs are present, together with one rib belonging to the eleventh pair. This last is much shorterthan the tenth pair, and there can be no doubt that it really belongs to a terminal pair. In this skeleton the transverse processes of the eleventh thoracic vertebra are thick at the free end like those of the tenth thoracic vertebra.
In the adult male from Centerville beach, California, only ten pairs of ribs are present, but as the tenth is quite as long as the ninth, there is little doubt that an eleventh pair was present originally. The eleventh thoracic vertebra, however, has transverse processes longer and more flattened at the free end than those of the tenth thoracic. It is possible, of course, that the real eleventh thoracic is lacking, and that this individual had thirteen lumbar vertebræ, but of this there is no positive evidence.
Only a few of the ribs accompany the skeleton of the adult female from St. George Island, Alaska (Cat. No. 49726), but there are eleven thoracic vertebræ, the transverse processes of the eleventh being short and thick, like those of the tenth, with a distinct facet for the rib at the free end. This facet, however, is directed obliquely backward and occupies only the posterior half of the free margin.
There is no doubt in my mind that the number of thoracic vertebræ inB. bairdiiis normally 11 and inB. arnuxii, 10. This would ordinarily be of little importance, as in nearly all kinds of cetaceans a variation of one, or even two, in the number of thoracic and lumbar vertebræ in different individuals of the same species is commonly met with. In the present family, however, the number of thoracic vertebræ shows little variation, and as all known skeletons ofB. bairdiihave eleven thoracics and all known skeletons ofarnuxiiappear to have ten thoracics, it seems probable that this difference is specific. At all events, it is correlated with a difference in the form of the vertebræ themselves. As is well known, the transverse processes of the thoracics in this family undergo a sudden change of form and position near the end of the series, the elevated processes on the anterior thoracics being replaced on the posterior vertebræ by others at a lower level on the sides of the centra. This change takes place differently and on different vertebræ in the two species under consideration.
InB. arnuxiithe eighth thoracic has no facet at the posterior end of the centrum for the articulation of the head of a ninth rib and no distinct transverse process, the tubercle of the rib articulating with a facet on the side of the metapophysis. InB. bairdiithe eighth thoracic is similar, but there is a distinct facet at the posterior end of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)
InB. arnuxiithe ninth thoracic has a very distinct transverse process on the side of the centrum, while inB. bairdiithe ninth thoracic has a short, slender process attached to the side of the metapophysis and no facet at the posterior end of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)
InB. arnuxiithe tenth thoracic is the second one having a distinct transverse process, and the latter is broad distally and has the articular facet on the posterior portion of the free margin. InB. bairdiithe tenth thoracic is the first having a distinct transverse process on the side of the centrum. (Pl. 32, fig. 1.)