capabilities, and I am informed that there was once a factory for extracting the oil
about four miles below Agra.
I am not aware that any use is made of the skin; yet, as this resembles the
hide of other dolphins, it seems to be suitable for purposes where it is desirable to
use leather of great toughness and durability.
Species.—Blyth not only informed Reinhardt1 that he distinguished two species
of Platanista—one common in the Indus and but rarely found in the Ganges, the other
entirely wanting in the Indus,—but he even went so far as to describe the Indus
dolphin as a new species, and later, in 18632 he was still inclined to believe that two
species might be found to exist in the Ganges ; and Eschricht3 also, in 1851, held a
similar opinion.
Blyth’s type of Platanista indi4 had lost the maxillary crests. I t is the skull
evidently of an adult individual, as the teeth are reduced to hard osseous cubes. Its
total length from the inferior border of the foramen magnum to the tip of the snout,
which is very partially broken, is 19*50 inches. The snout anteriorly has a slight
downward curve. The sockets of the posterior teeth are obliterated above and
below, so that it is impossible to count the teeth. This skull corresponds well
with the skulls of ascertained males of the Gangetic dolphin^ and the snout and
teeth have the same characters.
Among Sir A. Burnes’ drawings* there is a figure of the Platanist of the Indus,
and it represents an animal with all the characters of the Platanist of the Ganges,
with the neck well defined and corresponding much to my Plate XXV. The drawing
does not reveal any character specifically different from that of the Ganges
Platanist. The specimen measures 7 feet long.
One of the characters assigned by Blyth to P. indi, and- which would appear to
have been the character to which he attached most importance, was the depth of the
jaws with the teeth, which “ measured in the middle of their length 3*25 inches to
gcmgetica 1*75 inch.” This depth of the jaw, however, is not distinctive of thè Indus
dolphin, because a mature female from the Hughli has a depth at the middle of the
snout of 3*50 inches, and another and slightly larger skull, probably of the female
sex, has a depth at the middle of the jaw of 4*36 inches. A male skull from the
Hughli of the same size and age as the type of P . indi, which I consider to have
belonged also to the male sex, has a depth at the middle of the jaw of 3*40 inches ;
so that this character selected by Blyth falls to the ground, and if the Indus dolphin
is distinct, the features that distinguish it must lie in some other organ or part.
There is no information about the sex on Sir A. Burnes’ drawing, or is
the animal so posed as to display the external generative organs ; but Blyth at
that time believing that his specimens of the Gangetic Platanist were males, and
1 Ann. and Mag., Nat. Hist., vol. ix (1852), p. 291.
3 Cat. Mamni.' As. Soc. Mus., 1863, p. 92, footnote.
3 Loc. cit.
4 Jonra. As. Soc., Bengal, vol. xxviii, 1859, p. 493; Cat. Hamm. As Soa. Mus., 1863, p. 92. Jerdon : Mainm.
Ind. 1867, p. 159. Gray : Cat. Seals and Whales, British Museum, 1866, i . 224.
5 Deposited in the As. Soc., Calcutta.
that the males had longer snouts than the females, remarks that the rostrum is
represented as short in proportion to the length of the animal, and that the specimen
is evidently a female, whence the male should have a longer rostrum. He was
of opinion, that Sir A. Burnes’ drawing was probably the identical individual that
furnished the skull on which he founded his Platanista mdi. This is,, however,
very doubtful, as the teeth are all represented as present in the representation of
the fl.TnTrm.1, and are sharp-pointed, whereas in the type the backmost teeth- had in
all likelihood fallen out, and the teeth generally are much worn, and reduced
almost to little squares. Erom the condition of the teeth as represented in the
drawing, I would be disposed to regard the animal as an adolescent individual,
and that it would attain to a greater size; but whether it would ever have reached
the dimensions of the largest female from the Ganges is, of course, an open
question.
A young Platanist from the Sutlej, presented to the Indian Museum, by C. E.
Wakefield, Esq., measures 49 inches in its total length, and has a gape of 10*80 inches.
I t is a female, and in its long snout it corresponds to the females generally of the
Platanist of the Ganges. In the position of its dorsal fin and in the character of its
pectoral and caudal flippers, I do not detect that it differs from the Gangetic individuals;
but, of course, I am comparing a stuffed animal with a stuffed female from the Ganges,
and I cannot sa^ anything regarding the features of the Indus animal in the flesh
beyond that Sir A. Burnes’ drawing, which was, in all likelihood, made from a
freshly caught specimen, does not reveal any external characters different from
the dolphin of the Ganges. The only point'in which the Sutlej young female differs
from a Gangetic female of about her own age, is the somewhat greater length of her
snout, and in possessing a few more teeth both above and below, but these variations
are not more than have been observed among undoubted examples of Gangetic
dolphins of one species. In the Sutlej female, the teeth are upper A f f, lower A f |,
and in the Gangetic female upper £ |, lower , both individuals indicating the
existence of variation in the number of the teeth in both jaws, and, in so doing,
1pfl,drng us to anticipate variation in’the length of the snout.
Professor Owen,1 in his “ Osteological Catalogue of the Museum of the Eoyal
College of Surgeons of England,” distinguishes a skull from the Indus as P. gangetica
var. minor, because, although it shows all the characteristics that have been pointed
out by Baron Cuvier and Professor Eschricht, it is of small size, the total length
not exceeding 12 inches, and the anterior teeth being much longer and more slender
and acute. “ . . . All the facets of the occiput have coalesced, and not any of the
sutural unions- manifest any mark of immaturity. There are twenty-one teeth on
the left side of the upper jaw and nineteen teeth on the right side; but the alveolar
grooves extend further back, indicating the former existence of teeth, or germs of
teeth which have been lost. There are twenty-six teeth on each side of the lower
jaw, behind which is a short extent of an empty alveolar groove. The teeth, in place,
1 Cat. Oss. Mus. Royal Coll. Surg., Loudon, p. 449, No. 2981.
F 3