A smflll portion of the skin of this Whale was sent to me in a dried state, and
the only observation I have to make regarding it is that it was extremely thin and
deep black.
Six pieces of short balene accompanied the other remnants of this Whale ; they
were all of one size, or nearly so, with the exception of one small white piece, evidently
only a portion of a flake, as, although it measures 5*25 inches in length, it has
considerable basal thickness where it had been cut across. Its breadth is only 2-50
inches, and it is triangular in form, tapering to a point at its free end, which is
broken up into a fringe of long fibres. The five remaining pieces are also triangular,
with about 12 inches of length and a maximum breadth at the base of 6 inches.
Their basal margins are uninjured, as the plates had evidently been drawn out of
the decaying mucous membrane. The long curved free border is deeply fringed.
In November 1874, or about that period, a small balene Whale was cast ashore
on the island of Sondip, lying at the mouth of the Brahmaputra, opposite to Chittagong.
Some portions of the animal were saved by Babu Udaychand Dutt, Civil
Medical Officer, Noàkàli, and are now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta.1 They
consist of the skull, less the maxillaries, premaxillaries, vomer, nasals, left palatine
and the lower jaw. The right petrous and tympanic were preserved. The
other bones saved are the atlas, one lumbar and two caudal vertebrae, the
body without processes of a dorsal, one spinous and one transverse process, four
epiphyses of vertebral centra, first rib of right side, eighth or ninth rib of same side,
the right scapula, humerus, radius and ulna, a hyoid and a stylohyal. All of these
bones indicate a very young animal, and the question occurs in connection with
them,—may this be the young of the same species as Balcenoptera edeni, or can any
opinion be pronounced on its relation to Balcenoptera indica ?
The form of the portion of thè skull which remains has a strong resemblance to
the corresponding portion of the skull of the Medical College specimen, which skull
differs from the Sittang skull in a few but what appear to me unimportant details,
such as the much narrower character of the portion of the squamosal which enters
into the formation of the temporal fossa, and in the less concave character of the
upper part of the parietals in the same fossa. This Sondip skull has the narrow
squamosal suture of the Medical College skull, but the concave parietal of the
Sittang Whale. In other respects, it agrees with both those skulls, but as the maxillaries
are not present in it, and as the skull of B. schlegeli is chiefly distinguished
from those two skulls by the characters presented by these bones, it is possible, in
view of the differences to be noted in the other bones of this young animal, that it
may be specifically distinct from them and B. schlegeli, and therefore probably a
hitherto-unknown Cetacean species. My greatest difficulty in reconciling this young
Whale with Balcenoptera edem lies in the characters presented by the lumbar vertebra,
which appears to be the equivalent of the eighth lumbar of that Whale. This
vertebra, as I have said, is in a very young stage ; the epiphyses of the body are gone,
and those of the spinous and transverse processes have evidently been cartilaginous,
1 J . Wood-Mason : Proc. As. Soc., Bengal, 1874, Nov., p. 201.
and yet, notwithstanding this, the body of this vertebra is considerably deeper and
shorter than the corresponding vertebra of B. edeni, as is shown by the following
measurements and has none of the depressed character, which is so distinctive of
Measurements of eighth lumbar vertebra of B. edeni and Sondip Whale. B. edeni. Sondip.
Inohfis. inches
Vertical diameter of body, anteriorly . . . . . . . . . . 625 7;50
Transverse diameter of body, anteriorly 8-00
Longitudinal length, beneath . . . . . . . . . . . . 7ÌÒ
Extreme h e i g h t ....................................... .........
, width 12-50 25-00
Transverse diameter of neural canal . . . . . . . . . . . 215 2-50
Vertical „ „ „ .................................................................................................. 3-75 • 2.-95
the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae of that animal. These differences are so marked
that it is impossible to reconcile the character of this vertebra with any of the
vertebrae of the Sittang Whale, and, moreover, the forward direction pf the transverse
processes is much more pronounced than in the corresponding vertebra of
that animal, and the spinous process is more erect and of greater thickness in its
last half, and not, like it, contracted at its middle.
In the Medical College, Calcutta, there are five vertebrae of a Whale, which,
judging by the condition of their epiphyses, would appear to have belonged to an
animal somewhat younger than the Sittang Whale, and yet they are considerably
larger. I refer them to the tenth dorsal, sixth, seventh and eighth lumbars, and tp
the second caudal. I have not succeeded in tracing their history. They have
the generic characters of the vertebrae of B. edeni in the form of their bodies, but
the spinous processes are more erect. The following table will show to what degree
they exceed in size the corresponding vertebrae of B. edeni:
Comparison of vertebra.
Medical College Speoimen. B. edeni.
10D. 6L, 7L. 8L. SC- 10D. 6L. 7L. g * ,
Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches.
Vertical diameter of body, anteriorly . 6-45 7-60 7*90 7-75 900 5-25 5-75 6-25 625 7-00
Transverse diameter o f body, anteriorly 9-00 9-40 9-50 9"76 11-50 7-30 8-00 8-00 800 9-75
Longitudinal length, beneath 7-00 8-25 8-50 900 9-25 6-20 8-00 7-10 7-10 7-50
Extreme h e i g h t ....................................... 24-50 28-40 29-00 28*25 20-25 20-75 22-25 24-00 24-75 1800
„ breadth . . . . . 39*25 3475 3200 24-25 32-30 72-60 14-25 12-50 20-00
Transverse diameter of neural canal . 2-70 2-83 2-70 2-55 1-75 2-65 2-40 215 ' 2-15 1-85
Vertical „ n u 3-35 2-80 7-75 2-45 1-96 3-30 3-90 3-95 3-75 2-65
1 No epiphyses. * One epiphysis. * Half, as one transverse process is gone.
These vertebrae of the Medical College Whale, with the exception of the tenth
dorsal and the second caudal, have lost some of the epiphyses of their bodies. In
the first mentioned vertebra, the hinder epiphysis is intact, and, in the last, the
epiphysis is partially united to the centrum around the margin in the Medical College
specimen, whereas in B. edeni all trace of the distinction between the