The formulas for the ossified phalanges in two American[39]and three Old World specimens are as follows:
Phalangeal formula of five specimens of Ziphius cavirostris.
The chief differences between the Barnegat City and Newport skeletons are in the size and form of the processes of the cervical vertebræ, the form of the seventh and eighth thoracic vertebræ and of the ribs connected with them, the direction of the acromion of the scapula, the shape of the first phalange of the first digit, and of the posterior segments of the sternum. As far as the processes of the cervicals are concerned, these are known to be extremely variable in all cetaceans. Theseventh and eighth thoracic vertebræ are those on which the mode of attachment of the ribs changes in ziphioid whales, and I have observed in the genusMesoplodon,as here, that the processes and articular facets were very variable, being sometimes quite unlike on the two sides of the same vertebra. The direction of the acromion is probably subject to large individual variations, though this can not be determined at present, and the same is true of the form of the first phalange of the first digit. The form of the sternum is quite variable in all cetaceans, and can not be relied on for specific characters, without comparison of many individuals.
On the whole, I am of the opinion, as already stated, that we are not compelled by the differences noted to regard the Barnegat and Newport skeletons as representing different species. The Charleston skeleton is too young and imperfect to admit of serious consideration. The idea that the differences between the adult skeletons are probably individual receives support from the fact that the skeleton shown in the photograph from St. Simon Island, Georgia, mentioned onpage 31, No. 14, appears to possess a combination of characters exhibited by the other two.
The series of skulls ofZ. grebnitzkii, which the Museum owes to the activities of Dr. L. Stejneger and Mr. N. Grebnitzki, comprises specimens of different ages, and, as will be shown presently, probably both sexes. Taken together with the skulls from the east coast of the United States they probably represent very fully the variations which the skull undergoes in the present species. These changes may, perhaps, be best made evident by the following brief descriptions of the various skulls:
21975. Charleston, South Carolina.—Young female. (Type ofZ. semijunctus.) All sutures open, and elements of occipital bone distinguishable. No mesethmoid ossification. Opposite maxillary notches, premaxillæ closely approximated, nearly flat and horizontal, and about level with adjacent parts of maxillæ. Left premaxilla grooved longitudinally at this point. Orifice of anterior nares on a level with lower end of rectangular projecting boss formed by superior portion of nasals. Rostrum pointed, much broader distally than it is deep. A very distinct rudimentary alveolar groove in distal end of each maxilla. Proximal end of vomer resting against anterior face of nasals and reaching up to overhanging boss. Anterior face of the latter nearly flat. (Pl. 14, fig. 1;pl. 18, fig. 1;pl. 20, fig. 1;pl. 21, fig. 2.)
Rami of mandible not anchylosed together at symphysis. Teeth hollow, open at the root, acute at apex, tipped with enamel; diameter 10 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 1;pl. 24, fig. 1.)
20971. Barnegat City, New Jersey.—Adult female. Majority of sutures open, but those on superior surface of rostrum between maxillæ and premaxillæ partly anchylosed. Vomer nearly all anchylosed to rostral portion of premaxillæ; it presents a slight median elevation, but there is no mesirostral ossification. Right premaxilla in front of nares broad, flat, and horizontal; left, nearly so, but with a quite broad longitudinal groove. Opposite maxillary notches premaxillæ nearly on a level with adjacent parts. Orifice of anterior nares level with lower end of nasal boss. End of rostrum quite acute, and broader than deep. Rudimentaryalveolar groove distinct distally. Proximal end of vomer anchylosed with anterior face of nasals and reaching up to nasal boss, which has a sharp median ridge completing nasal septum superiorly. Anterior face of nasal boss slightly concave on each side of median line. (Pl. 14, fig. 2;pl. 18, fig. 2;pl. 20, fig. 2;pl. 21, fig. 3.)
Rami of mandible anchylosed together at symphysis and suture largely obliterated. Teeth slender, cylindrical, rugose, rather blunt; roots closed; diameter 13 mm. (Pl. 24, fig. 3.)
22069. Bering Island.—Adult female? All the sutures about as in preceding specimen. Mesirostral ossification distinct, rounded, extending from base of rostrum nearly to apex, but disappearing before reaching line of anterior ends of maxillæ. Its upper surface below that of premaxillæ. Premaxillæ approximated, and right premaxilla with an angular process near base of rostrum overlapping mesirostral ossification. Premaxillæ at base of rostrum, anterior nares, proximal end of vomer, and nasals as in preceding skull. Apex of rostrum moderately acute, broader than deep. Rudimentary alveolar groove shallow. (Pl. 15, fig. 1.)
Rami of mandible anchylosed together and suture largely obliterated. Teeth somewhat fusiform, blunt; roots closed; diameter, 14 mm. (Pl. 22, fig. 3.)
83991. Bering Island.—Similar in all respects to preceding, but mesirostral ossification a little less well developed.
22874. Bering Island.—Entirely similar to two preceding, but premaxillæ a little curved out from mesirostral ossification and left premaxilla opposite maxillary notch rather strongly inclined, nearly vertical. Anterior face of nasal boss distinctly concave. (Skull defective.)
21246. Bering Island.—Sutures as in three preceding skulls. Mesirostral ossification distinct and rounded, but much below level of premaxillæ. Rostral portion of premaxillæ narrow and widely divergent toward base of rostrum, leaving mesirostral entirely exposed. Right premaxilla on a line with maxillary notches strongly concave and sunk below level of maxillæ. Left premaxilla vertical, with a broad groove. Right premaxilla remains low and concave proximally, the posterior end being then abruptly turned upward and reaching level of vertex. Orifice of anterior nares on a level with lower end of nasal boss, and vomer resting against anterior face of nasals, which latter have a median ridge continuing nasal septum, but with a slight vacuity between the two. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obliterated. Outer sides of premaxillæ at distal end strongly concave. Rostrum rather acute, about as deep as wide opposite distal ends of maxillæ. (Pl. 15, fig. 2.)
20993. Bering Island.—Adult male? (Type ofZ. grebnitzkii). Majority of sutures open, but maxillæ and premaxillæ anchylosed together above and on the sides. Premaxillæ approximated anteriorly, but diverging posteriorly. Mesirostral ossification well developed, reaching level of premaxillæ; anteriorly rather narrow but a little broader near middle of rostrum, where it is beveled off abruptly. Behind this point premaxillæ strongly concave, nearly vertical and widely separated, forming a large and deep basin, in the bottom of which the vomer appears as a broad, irregular bony surface. Bottom of basin much below level of surrounding parts. Orifice of anterior nares much below level of nasal boss. Vomer reaching lower end of nasals. Anterior face of latter strongly concave, with only a moderate medianridge completing nasal septum above. Mesirostral with a median groove at distal end. Premaxillæ high at distal end, but sides nearly plane. Rostrum compressed near apex, deeper than wide. (Pl. 16, fig. 1;pl. 19, fig. 1;pl. 20, fig. 3.)
Rami of mandible anchylosed together and suture partly obliterated. Teeth conical, with rather short, acute tips; roots closed, short and conical; diameter, 25 mm. (Pl. 23, fig. 1;pl. 24, fig. 2.)
21245. Bering Island.—Nearly all sutures between maxillæ and premaxillæ at end of rostrum, above and below, anchylosed together, but majority of others traceable. Condition of superior surface of skull very similar to that of preceding, but premaxillæ rather low at distal end. Mesirostral at distal end rather lower than premaxillæ and concave superiorly; more posteriorly assuming form of a narrow ridge, with a deep channel between it and premaxillæ on each side. More posteriorly still it widens rapidly, with a convex surface, and terminates abruptly with a truncated end, the surface of which is concave. A deep basin around nares, as in preceding skull. Orifice of anterior nares far below level of nasal boss. The latter largely absorbed and deeply undercut and concave in front. Nasal septum terminating before reaching lower end of nasals, and ridge on latter low and traversing left nasal. Sides of premaxillæ at distal end very concave. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obsolete. Rostrum blunt at apex, and about as deep as wide at anterior ends of maxillæ. (Pl. 16, fig. 2.)
21248. Bering Island.—Similar to preceding, but mesirostral ossification higher than premaxillæ at distal end and convex above; less abruptly widened posteriorly and posterior termination flat. Narrow, deep grooves between ossification and premaxillæ on each side, or, in other words, premaxillæ more closely approximated to sides of mesirostral distally. Basin around nares and conformation of the several bones bordering it similar to preceding. Sides of premaxillæ concave at distal end, the grooves thus formed in them intruding some what on the maxillæ, especially posteriorly. Apex of rostrum very blunt, rounded off below and projecting above; deeper than wide. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obsolete. (Pl. 17, fig. 1;pl. 22, fig. 4.)
Rami of mandible anchylosed together and the symphysis and suture largely obliterated. Teeth very broadly fusiform; tip short and rather blunt; roots closed; diameter 30 mm.
49599. Newport, Rhode Island.—Adult male. All sutures on superior surface of skull more or less anchylosed together. Mesirostral ossification and premaxillæ all on one level near apex of rostrum, but at extreme tip mesirostral lower, forming a narrow ridge with a deep groove on each side between it and premaxillæ. The same conformation repeated more posteriorly, but grooves deeper and wider, while mesirostral maintains the same level as premaxillæ. It widens suddenly here, forming a broad flat-topped mass, which is a little overlapped by the premaxillæ. The mass terminates suddenly somewhat behind middle of rostrum with a deep concavity placed obliquely. Basin in front of the nares and conformation of bones composing it as in two preceding skulls. Vomer at proximal end touching lower end of nasals, and nasal septum continued behind and above it as a low ridge, composed of the inner edges of the two nasal bones and reaching up to the nasal boss. Outer sides of premaxillæ near distal end deeply concave. Apex ofrostrum rather blunt, deeper than wide opposite distal ends of maxillæ; all the bones anchylosed together, but some of the sutures indicated by grooves. Rudimentary alveolar groove nearly obsolete. (Pl. 17, fig. 2;pl. 19, fig. 2;pl. 21, figs. 1, 5.)
Rami of mandible anchylosed together at symphysis, the suture indicated only by a groove. Teeth large, broadly conical and tapering at the tip. Root very short, rugose, conical and closed; diameter 29mm.(Pl. 22, fig. 2;pl. 23, figs. 2, 3.)
The dimensions of the several skulls are as follows:
Dimensions of ten skulls of Ziphius cavirostris (including the types of Z. grebnitzkii Stejneger and Z. semijunctus Cope).
It will be found from an examination of the foregoing descriptions that in those specimens in which the sex is known to be female, or is marked as such, the premaxillæ are comparatively narrow, the mesirostral ossification only slightly developed, the prenarial basin undeveloped, and the teeth quite slender, with a diameter of from 10 to 14 mm. As the teeth in some of them have closed roots there can be no doubt that they are adults. On the other hand, those skulls known or believed to be from adult males have the mesirostral ossification enormously developed, a deep prenarial basin, and fusiform teeth with closed roots and a diameter of from 25 to 30 mm. It appears to be a fact, therefore, that in the females the mesirostral ossification is never greatly developed at any age, that the teeth are never thick and fusiform, and that the prenarial region is never deeply concave. Immature individuals present, of course, the appearance of the females, except that the teeth are open at the root and that the mesirostral ossification is not developed at all. Conversely, the females, broadly speaking, always present characters of immaturity, but in adults the roots of the teeth are, of course, closed.
That these conclusions are correct is borne out by an examination of descriptions and figures of specimens from other parts of the world, for which purpose a few are available in the writings of New Zealand zoologists and others. Hector, for example, in 1873,[40]published a description and figures of a skull from the Chatham Islands which had a large mesirostral ossification, deep prenarial concavity, and large, thick teeth, having a diameter of 34 mm. This is the same combination of characters found in the Newport specimen, which is known to be a male, and the Bering Island skulls supposed to be those of males.[41]
In 1876,[42]Haast figured and described a female 26 feet long, and hence presumably adult, from Lyttleton Harbor, New Zealand, which had a small development only of the mesirostral ossification, a slight prenarial depression, and rather slender teeth with closed roots and a diameter of 19 mm. This combination of characters is found in the Barnegat skull, also known to be an adult female.
In the same paper Haast describes[43]and figures the skull of another female from Akaroa Harbor, New Zealand. This individual was larger than the last and was accompanied by a suckling calf. Hence, there can be no doubt that it was mature. The skull shows a moderate development of the mesirostral ossification, and slender cylindrical teeth with closed roots and a diameter of 16 mm.
It is demonstrated from the foregoing discussion, I think, that the sexes can be distinguished by the skulls, when adult, or by the teeth alone.
Reverting now toZiphius gervaisii, which was mentioned onp. 30as perhaps constituting a separate species, it will be seen by examining the figures given byGervais[44]of the skull on which it was based that the latter presents the combination of characters peculiar to the female ofZ. cavirostris. This skull, which was from Aresquiers (Hérault), France, was 888 mm. long, and hence, presumably, adult. The mesirostral ossification is but slightly developed, the prenarial concavity moderate, the teeth small, slender, and cylindrical, with closed roots and a diameter of 14 mm. There seems to be no sufficient reason for regarding this skull as representing a species distinct fromcavirostris.
The specimen from Buenos Ayres described and figured by Burmeister in 1868[45]was an immature male. In the skull the mesirostral ossification was lacking, the premaxillæ were flat, and the teeth conical and acuminate, with open roots, and a diameter of 12 mm. This individual was 12 feet 11½ inches (3.95 m.) long, and hence about as long as the Charleston specimen, but the skull was apparently 680 mm. long, while that of the Charleston specimen is 797 mm. long. In the latter the teeth are 45 mm. long and 10 mm. in diameter, while the tooth figured by Burmeister is 31 mm. long and 12 mm. in diameter. From these data it appears improbable that the sex of immature individuals can be determined from the skull or teeth.
The teeth of the various North Atlantic and North Pacific specimens merit a somewhat more detailed description than is given on pages50to53. Six pairs of teeth from six different individuals are available for comparison. Their dimensions are as follows:
Dimensions of the teeth of Ziphius cavirostris.
21975. Charleston, South Carolina.—Young female. (Type ofZ. semijunctus.) The teeth are slender, conical, and acuminate, largest at the base and tipped for about 2 mm. with white enamel. The remainder of the teeth is coated with a thin layer of cement. The teeth in what appears to be their natural position protrude horizontally from the mandible for about 17 mm. They are slightly curved upward near the tip and are oval, or elliptical, in section, the transverse diameter being a little less than the vertical diameter. They are a little flattened externally.The surface is smooth. They are open at the root, and hollow. (Pl. 38, figs. 1, 2;pl. 22, fig. 1.)
Doctor Manigault, curator of the Charleston Museum, wrote to Professor Cope regarding these teeth, as follows:
Another peculiarity of the head consists in the lower maxillary bones being provided each at its point with a single small and very sharp tooth. These were not noticed during the dissection, owing to their being too much embedded in the integuments.[46]
Another peculiarity of the head consists in the lower maxillary bones being provided each at its point with a single small and very sharp tooth. These were not noticed during the dissection, owing to their being too much embedded in the integuments.[46]
20971. Barnegat City, New Jersey.—Adult female. The teeth are slender, cylindrical, and irregularly pointed at both ends. The tips show what appears to be an inner core of dentine which has been worn down nearly to the cement coating and somewhat fractured. The cement coating is several millimeters thick, but does not increase the diameter of the teeth near the middle, so that they remain irregularly cylindrical throughout. The surface of the cement is rough and irregular. The root is short, conical, and closed at the end. These teeth are nearly straight. As they have been extracted from the jaw and the latter is broken it is not possible to distinguish which is the upper and which the lower surface, but they are irregularly oval in section, and a little compressed. (Pl. 38, figs. 3-5.)
In my original notes on this specimen, I recorded that there was a small pair of teeth behind the larger ones described above. Mention of these will be made again later. (Seep. 57.)
22069. Bering Island.—Adult female (?). The teeth are in position in this specimen and are nearly horizontal in position, but a little inclined upward and toward each other. They do not extend beyond the tip of the jaw nor up to the level of the upper surface of the symphysis, but protrude about 13 mm. beyond the alveoli on the side. They are rather slender, somewhat fusiform, blunt at both ends and slightly curved upward. The surface is irregular. They are nearly round in section. The root is closed, and the apex shows what appears to be a core of dentine surrounded by cement. There is a depression on the inner side near the root. These teeth are remarkable as intermediate in form between those of the preceding specimen and those of the specimens next to be mentioned. (Pl. 38, figs. 6, 7;pl. 22, fig. 3.)
20993. Bering Island.—Adult male (?). (Type ofZ. grebnitzkii.) These teeth are almond-shaped and very symmetrical. They are thickest near the base and taper gradually to the tip, which is quite acute. They are somewhat compressed and hence elliptical in section, the vertical diameter being greater than the transverse diameter. One side (probably the inner) is flattened. They are slightly curved upward toward the apex, which is a little worn and fractured. The root is very short and conical. It is nearly closed, but a very small canal extends upward for about 10 mm. The surface of the tooth is quite smooth, but dull in the lower half. The line of demarcation between cement and dentine is not evident. (Pl. 38, figs. 8, 9;pl. 23, fig. 1.)
21248. Bering Island.—Adult male (?). In this specimen the teeth are still in the natural position in the jaw. They are held in place by ligaments and protrudefar beyond the alveoli, only about one-ninth of their length being below the superior border. They incline forward at an angle of about 45° with the longitudinal axis of the jaw and diverge slightly at the tips.
The teeth themselves have the same general form as those of the preceding specimen, but are larger. The inner surface is flattened and the outer strongly convex. The tips are quite pointed, but show some indications of wear. The roots can not be seen distinctly, but appear to be closed. (Pl. 22, fig. 4.)
49599. Newport, Rhode Island.—Adult male. These teeth are longer than those of the preceding specimen, and while they resemble the latter in general form, taper much more gradually to the tip. The root, or portion below the point of maximum girth, is much shorter than that above, and rugose, with several deep furrows. A very small circular opening at the base of the root marks the orifice of the nerve. The upper half of the teeth is smooth, and the tips slightly worn and fractured. The small elliptical worn area is situated on the convex side of the tooth, which appears to be the outer side. As the alveoli of the jaw are, however, filled with a network of bone, the teeth can not be inserted in them. They were detached when received. (Pl. 38, figs. 10, 11;pl. 22, fig. 2;pl. 23, figs. 2, 3.)
Besides the difference in the size and form of the teeth in the two sexes, it is probable, as will be seen by consulting the foregoing data, that in the female the apex of the teeth does not extend more than a very small distance above the alveoli even in mature individuals, and probably often not more than a few millimeters; while in adult males the teeth are almost entirely protruded from the alveoli, which are filled with a coarse bony network. These differences are carried out in all the American specimens, and also characterized the New Zealand specimens, as may be learned from the accounts of Haast and Hector.
A number of rudimentary teeth in addition to the large terminal pair have been noted in the Aresquiers, Buenos Ayres, and perhaps other specimens, and two such teeth were found in the mandible of the Barnegat specimen, behind the large pair. One of these rudimentary teeth has been preserved. It is cylindrical and moderately curved. The length is 16 mm. and the diameter 2 mm. The whole tooth, with the exception of the extreme tip, is thickly coated with cement. The root is closed and the crown acute and apparently abraded by use. (Pl. 38, fig. 5.)
Returning now to the question of the validity ofgrebnitzkiias a species, I would say that after comparing the measurements of the Bering Island skulls with those of the Atlantic coast specimens, and comparing the skulls themselves, I have been unable to find any constant difference of importance, except the size and form of the periotic bone. As the earbones are lacking from many of the skulls, the series available for comparison is small.
As compared with the Atlantic coast specimens, the anterior portion of the periotic bone ingrebnitzkiiis larger, broader, and more rectangular in outline when viewed from below. I observe, however, that the absolute size and outline of the periotic vary considerably in the different specimens ofgrebnitzkiiwithout relation to age. The same appears to be true ofcavirostris, but comparing the two series of skulls as a whole it appears to be true that the anterior mass of the periotic is larger ingrebnitzkii. I do not think, however, that the latter species should bekept distinct on this account alone, at least until the character has been confirmed, and perhaps strengthened by others, through the examination of a larger series of specimens.
The Museum collection contains an incomplete skeleton of a very young individual, Cat. No. 22875, which was received from Bering Island with the skulls ofZ. grebnitzkii, but does not belong to any one of them. Whether it really represents that species is, therefore, uncertain, but such is probably the case. The length of the vertebral column, consisting of 45 vertebræ, without interspaces, is 9 feet 2 inches.
The vertebral formula is as follows: C. 7; Th. 10; L. 10; Ca. 18 (+1?) = 45 (+1?). This is the same as in the type ofsemijunctusso far as the cervicals, thoracics, and lumbars are concerned, and the probable total is the same. In their general characters these vertebræ agree with those of the skeletons already described, but they present a number of differences as well. On account of immaturity the processes are even less developed than insemijunctus. All the epiphyses are free, and in the third to the seventh thoracic vertebræ the neural arch and spine are separate from the centrum. The centra are very short in proportion to their width.
Although the specimen is so young, the anterior foramen of the atlas is, nevertheless, inclosed by bone, and though the line of separation between the atlas and axis is visible on the sides, the fourth cervical is anchylosed to the third at the top of the centrum. Although the neural spines, metapophyses, and transverse processes of the thoracics are much shorter than those of the youngsemijunctus, the epiphyses are as large or even larger than in that specimen. The neural arches are also noticeably thicker than insemijunctus, and the centra are rounded inferiorly rather than carinated. The neural spines are much more nearly erect than in the adult Barnegat and Newport skeletons, but, as mentioned onpage 41, this is probably a character of immaturity, and is shared bysemijunctus.
The differences as regards the form of the centra and neural arches die away among the lumbars, and these vertebræ and the caudals are, with a due allowance for greater immaturity, very similar to those ofsemijunctus.
The seventh thoracic is like the sixth in form, and is without a transverse process. It thus resembles the same vertebra insemijunctus. The eighth, however, has an ill-defined facet on the side of the metapophysis and a second facet a little above the upper border of the centrum. The eighth pair of ribs has only a single terminal articular facet.
The ninth thoracic has a short, thick transverse process, about in line with the upper surface of the centrum.
The transverse process of the seventh caudal is perforated on the right side by a foramen. The transverse processes are last traceable on the ninth caudal, the neural spines on the tenth caudal, and the neural arch on the eleventh caudal. Eight chevron bones are preserved, but probably two more were present originally.
Ten pairs of ribs are present. The first is much broader in the proximal half than in the distal half, but the distal end is slightly expanded. The first seven pairspossess both head and tubercle, but the eighth, ninth, and tenth have only a single terminal articular facet.
The sternum, which consists of five segments, is similar in form to that ofsemijunctus. The two sides of each segment are united. The posterior emargination of the third segment, and those of both ends of the fourth and fifth segments are small. The scapula and humerus are like those ofsemijunctusin form. The remaining parts of both pectoral limbs are lacking.
Without more material, and especially some skeletons of adults, it is difficult to decide what importance should be assigned to the differences observable in the cervical and thoracic vertebræ of this young Bering Island specimen. The measurements of the skeleton are included in the table on pages47and48.
The series of photographs (Cat. No. 142579) of an individual obtained in Kiska Harbor, Alaska, is very interesting as affording comparison of what is apparently a specimen ofgrebnitzkiiwith the Atlantic form represented in the photograph of the Newport, Rhode Island, specimen. As no part of the Kiska specimen was preserved, it is not possible, of course, to identify it positively withgrebnitzkiior even with the genusZiphius. No one who compares the photographs reproduced inPl. 41, figs. 3 and 4, can, I think, fail to be convinced that both represent animals of the same genus and that the Pacific species (whethergrebnitzkiior not) bears the strongest possible resemblance to the Atlantic one.
Doctor Egbert published the following note on the Kiska specimen in 1905:
Early in September a monster dolphin grounded on the beach in Kiska Harbor and was killed. Specific identification has not yet been made. The general color was bluish-gray; length, 18½ feet; estimated weight, 3,600 pounds; sex, male. Body was quite regular in shape and rather rotund, the greatest circumference being about midway between dorsal fin and tip of the rather short snout. This dolphin was hauled alongside the ship, stripped of its blubber, and the oil extracted. Some of the flesh was eaten. The oil obtained was of excellent quality. It was particularly desired for use on the wire of the deep-sea sounding machine used aboard the [U. S. Coast Survey steamer]Patterson.[47]
Early in September a monster dolphin grounded on the beach in Kiska Harbor and was killed. Specific identification has not yet been made. The general color was bluish-gray; length, 18½ feet; estimated weight, 3,600 pounds; sex, male. Body was quite regular in shape and rather rotund, the greatest circumference being about midway between dorsal fin and tip of the rather short snout. This dolphin was hauled alongside the ship, stripped of its blubber, and the oil extracted. Some of the flesh was eaten. The oil obtained was of excellent quality. It was particularly desired for use on the wire of the deep-sea sounding machine used aboard the [U. S. Coast Survey steamer]Patterson.[47]
The size was about the same as that of the Newport specimen. Although Doctor Egbert gives the color merely as “bluish gray,” the photographs indicate that the belly was white, or whitish, and that there were oval white spots on the sides. As a whole, therefore, the coloration was similar to that of the New Zealand specimens ofcavirostrisobtained at Port Cooper and Lyttleton Harbor.
When compared with the photograph of the Newport specimen (Pl. 41, fig. 4) it will be seen that the Kiska photograph represents an animal practically identical in general form, as well as in the general shape of the head, the length and form of the snout, the size and general shape of the pectoral fins. In the photograph of the Newport specimen the flukes are not well seen, but in the Kiska photograph the posterior median convexity peculiar to the ziphioids is clearly represented. The dorsal fin of the Newport specimen appears to be turned somewhat to one side and the tip crumpled, which makes it appear lower and somewhat longer and less pointed thanthat of the Kiska specimen. This may, of course, be a real difference, though such is probably not the case.
Considering the foregoing data relative togrebnitzkiias a whole, there is not in my opinion sufficient warrant at present for considering this form as a species distinct fromcavirostris, and it should be added that no distinguishing characters were given in the original description.
Of this genus the National Museum has three skulls and three skeletons representing the speciesbairdii, and a skull representing the speciesarnuxii. The latter, Cat. No. 21511, U.S.N.M., is without exact locality, but is catalogued as having been obtained in New Zealand. As the speciesarnuxiihas been well described and figured by Flower[48]and others, no detailed account of this skull is given here. Measurements of it, however, are included with those ofB. bairdiiin the table onp. 68.
This species was based by Dr. L. Stejneger on a skull obtained by Mr. N. Grebnitzki in Stare Gavan, on the eastern shore of Bering Island, Commander Group, Bering Sea, in the autumn of 1881. In 1879 a portion of a skull of the same species was found on Bering Island by theVegaexpedition, and was made the basis of a new species,B. vegæ, by A. W. Malm, the description of which was published a few months after that of Doctor Stejneger. The National Museum subsequently received another skull from Bering Island, through Mr. N. Grebnitzki, but, so far as I am aware, nothing further was heard of the species until 1903 and 1904, when the National Museum received three nearly complete skeletons, two of them from St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Bering Sea, and one from the coast of California. The material now in the National Museum is as follows:[50]
(1)Cat. No. 20992.—Skull and mandible of an immature individual collected by Dr. L. Stejneger in Bering Island. Original number 1520. Catalogued November 24, 1883. Type.
(2)Cat. No.(lacking).—Skull and mandible of an immature individual. Collected by Mr. N. Grebnitzki in Bering Island (?). Mounted.
(3)Cat. No. 142118.—Skull, mandible, and cervical vertebræ of a very young individual. Collected by Dr. L. Stejneger, June 5, 1883, on North Rookery, BeringIsland. Original number 2191. This specimen is accompanied by notes and measurements.
(4)Cat. No. 49726.—Skeleton and measurements of an adult female. Near East Rookery, St. George Island, Pribilof Group. Collected by James Judge, in June, 1903. Length, 40 feet 2 inches.
(5)Cat. No. 49727.—Skeleton and measurements of an immature male. Same locality and date as the preceding. Length, 25 feet 5 inches.
The two skeletons (4) and (5) are somewhat incomplete. The Museum received a photograph of the female from Maj. Ezra W. Clark.
(6)Cat. No. 49725.—Skeleton and two photographs of an adult male (?) stranded on Centerville beach near Ferndale, Humboldt County, California, October, 1904. Length, about 41 feet.
A brief note on the St. George Island and California skeletons was published by the author in Science for 1904.[51]The dimensions given by the collectors were so large as to raise doubts whether they were correct, but the arrival of the skeletons proved that they were not overstated, and that the specimens were by far the largest ziphioid whales ever discovered, the bones about equaling those of a humpback whale in size and massiveness.
The St. George Island specimens were first made known by Mr. James Judge, special agent of the Treasury Department, resident at the Pribilof Islands, in a letter dated June 16, 1903, as follows:
I was much surprised the other day to find a pair of whales ashore near East Rookery [St. George Island]. They lay about 150 yards apart. The female was 40 feet 2 inches, the male 25 feet 5 inches in length. The species is not positively identified, but tallies closely with the Globe Encyclopedia description of Bottlehead or Bottlenose whale,Hyperodoön bidentatus. Natives call it “Tcha-dhan.” The male is without teeth; female has two teeth in front of lower jaw.[52]The skin is thin, smooth, white underneath, and black above. Dorsal fin small and well aft. Caudal large and powerful. Eyes very small. Ears not visible.Thinking that the skeleton might be of use, the bones of the female were cut out and placed high and dry on the grass. Four ribs were broken; otherwise the bones are intact. The male was towed to East Landing, and with the aid of a capstan deposited beyond reach of surf. Some blubber was saved. The foxes will clean up the bones during August, so that in all probability both skeletons will be available this fall. * * * I inclose some measurements, taken roughly, with a 5-foot tape line.
I was much surprised the other day to find a pair of whales ashore near East Rookery [St. George Island]. They lay about 150 yards apart. The female was 40 feet 2 inches, the male 25 feet 5 inches in length. The species is not positively identified, but tallies closely with the Globe Encyclopedia description of Bottlehead or Bottlenose whale,Hyperodoön bidentatus. Natives call it “Tcha-dhan.” The male is without teeth; female has two teeth in front of lower jaw.[52]The skin is thin, smooth, white underneath, and black above. Dorsal fin small and well aft. Caudal large and powerful. Eyes very small. Ears not visible.
Thinking that the skeleton might be of use, the bones of the female were cut out and placed high and dry on the grass. Four ribs were broken; otherwise the bones are intact. The male was towed to East Landing, and with the aid of a capstan deposited beyond reach of surf. Some blubber was saved. The foxes will clean up the bones during August, so that in all probability both skeletons will be available this fall. * * * I inclose some measurements, taken roughly, with a 5-foot tape line.