 Section 6 of The Book of Whales. The Shoulder Girdle. The shoulder girdle of the whales consists of an apparently single bone which has a highly characteristic form liable to some range of variation. The major part of this bone is formed of the scapula, while a process directed forward is the coracoid, more pronounced in the larger number of whales than in any other among the higher mammalia. The scapula is broad and flattened, but both the breadth and the degree of flattening is not by any means uniform. In the sperm whale, the bone is gently concave. It is very much broader, i.e. longer, in an anterior posterior direction in the roar quals than in the right whales. Near to the anterior edge of the blade bone is a ridge, which ends in a particularly long process, the acromion. Only in the megaptora is this process, and also the coracoid process underlying it markedly reduced. In platinista, there is another abnormality of structure. The acromion coincides absolutely with the anterior margin of the blade bone, so that the ridge of the spine of the scapula is quite absent as a distinct structure. It is worthy of note that in megaptora, which has the longest flippers of all whales, the acromion and the coracoid process should be reduced to a minimum or even practically absent. Not only is the influence of a purely aquatic life to be seen in the outward form of whales, the respiratory organs and parts annexed show the same modification. Bearing in mind the peculiar habits of whales, their capacity for remaining a long time underwater, and the necessity therefore of supplying themselves with a good stock of air for use during those prolonged immersions, we should indeed expect to find that in the vascular, as well as in the respiratory organs, there were differences to be seen not found in mammals which are purely terrestrial. And this is precisely what we do find, but here again it is not always easy to distinguish between adaptational likeness and the real affinity. It is, that is to say, not always clear that structures supposed to be modified owing to the habits of the creature are not marks of likeness to some other family of mammals. But we shall consider these points as they arise. Dr. Otto Mueller, who has recently and elaborately dealt with this matter, has particularly dwelt upon the form of the chest cavity in these aquatic mammals. Among terrestrial creatures, the shape of this cavity is, as a rule, boat-like in transverse section. The cavity narrows below and is wider above. Furthermore, its ventral boundary line is about as long as its dorsal. The result of this being that the diaphragm, the partly tendinous but chiefly fleshy septum, which separates the chest cavity from that in which are lodged the liver, intestines, and stomach, has a vertical direction and stands, as it were, upright in the body. In the whales, on the other hand, the chest cavity is more barrel-shaped, oval in section, sometimes indeed transversely oval. Its dorsal boundary is much longer than its ventral, and in consequence the diaphragm is distinctly and mostly very oblique in direction. It is, however, one thing to state these differences and quite another to assert that they are modifications connected with the aquatic habit. It might be suggested in the first place that these marks of distinction are merely characteristic of whales, just as it is characteristic of one division of whales to have a free malar bone, a fact which is simply of classificatory significance and has no bearing, at least so far as we can see, upon any special difference in the mode of life of its possessor. Furthermore, the obliquity of the diaphragm might be associated with the shortening of the sternum, which is so marked a character of the whales, especially of the whalebone whales. A whole series of facts, however, upset these at first sight reasonable objections, and seemed to prove the contrary, i.e., that the modifications in question are really connected with the aquatic life and with nothing else. In the otter, and still more in the seal, which are examples of two stages in the literally downward progress of a land animal toward an aquatic existence, these several characters are seen in a condition intermediate to that which obtains in the purely land animal on the one hand and the purely aquatic whales on the other, and furthermore, in the manatee, which, if it be an ally of the whale, can hardly be regarded as an ally of the carnivora, to which group, of course, the otter and the seal belong. There is the same obliquity of the diaphragm. Thus, in three types, the whale, the manatee, and the seal, we have the same series of modifications existing. If the whale is a relative of the manatee, it is not of the seal, so that any renewed attempt to urge the argument from affinity fails. As to the obliquity of the diaphragm being due to the reduction of the sternum, this is disproved by several instances among the whales. In beluga, the diaphragm is attached to the sternum before its end. In hyperodon, the same as the case, while in bellenoptera, the attachment is altogether behind the sternum. There's thus no special relation to be observed between the end of the sternum and the ventral insertion of the diaphragm. Moreover, as showing that it is a modification of a recent kind, it is interesting to notice that in the purpose of the youngest stage that has been observed, the relative proportions of the ventral and the dorsal line of the thoracic cavity are as 1 to 1.75, while in the adult, the same proportions are as 1 to 2.25. Thus, these peculiarities are developed quite late, showing that they are a recent acquisition, and tending therefore to prove that they are developed in consequence of altered habitat. The lungs themselves are characterized by their simple form. In the mammalia, generally, the lungs are more complex. They are divided into a number of separate lobes, the practical result of which is to increase the lung's surface without any corresponding need for an enlarged chest cavity to contain them. The same result is brought about in the whale by the increased length of the lungs themselves. As already mentioned, the chest cavity is proportionately larger than in terrestrial mammals. Therefore, it follows that the lungs can be bigger without any lobulation. As a matter of fact, they are. What is uncertain at present is whether this simplicity is a primitive feature in the organization of these animals or whether it is a reduction following upon the alteration of other conditions. It is exceedingly difficult to decide such matters. But before we attempt to decide, another important feature of the structure of these aquatic mammals must be mentioned. In many parts of the body of whales, the blood vessels form to a very copious degree the anastomocene networks, which are known technically as Retia Mirabilia. Erette Mirabilia is produced by the breaking up of an artery into a meshwork of minute arterioles. The net physiological result so far as concerns the mechanical effects of such a breaking up is the slowing of the blood stream at such spots and the increase of the surface of blood exposed to the surrounding organs and tissues. It seems to follow from this that the oxygen contained in the blood would be more fully utilized by the tissues through which the Retia pass than in the case of a single tube. In fact, in the whale we have a state of affairs which in some degree suggests the respiratory conditions occurring in an insect, where the ramifying tracheae bring the air to the organs individually instead of, as in the bulk of air-breathing animals, the air having to be extracted from the blood by the tissues. These large reservoirs of oxygen within the body and in close relation to various organs which need abundant oxygen, then do away with the need for an increased lung surface in these diving animals. But not altogether. It looks as if the simpler condition of the lung had been retained. For in reptiles, the lungs have the same simple unlobulated structure, the increase being simply brought about by an increased length rendered possible by the greater obliquity of the diaphragm. The whale's stomach. It is a highly characteristic feature of whales and one which is absolutely universal, that they have an exceedingly complicated stomach. In man, the stomach is simply a bent, somewhat U-shaped wide region of the gut. There is, however, a difference observable in the structure of the lining membrane between what is called the cardiac portion of the organ, so-called because it lies nearest the heart, and the distal pyloric region, out of which opens the intestine. As a rare abnormality, however, the stomach of man is divided by constrictions into three chambers. Among rodents, it is common for the stomach to be divided into two or more less sharply marked off chambers by a median constriction. This chambering of the stomach is, however, carried out to a large extent only in the sirenia, manatee, the sloth, the ruminants, oxen, antelopes, deer, camels, and in the whales. It must not be at once concluded from this circumstance that the whales are related intimately to one or other or to all of these groups. We shall see presently that the divided stomach of the whales is essentially different from the divided stomach of the other animals. They simply have in common the bare fact that it is divided. But before proceeding to generalities, it will be convenient to lay before the reader some of the facts. We cannot give here a detailed account of the stomach in the entire order. Dr. Jung Claus, the most recent writer upon the subject, quotes no less than sixty-three memoirs apart from his own, which deal entirely, or more or less incidentally, with the cetacean stomach. To this memoir of Dr. Jung Claus's, we must refer for additional details and for this list of literature. The common purpose may conveniently serve as a starting point. Its stomach is among the least complicated, and it is clearly the most accessible of whales for study. In that creature, the stomach has the form which is indicated in a diagrammatic form in the accompanying sketch. The esophagus opens into a wide, blind sack, near to the upper esophageal side of which opens out of this the second division of the stomach. At the lower end of this ladder, and in the thickness of its wall, is a small passage, regarded as the third division, which leads into a long and rather narrow division of the stomach. This is the fourth chamber. It is curved in an undulating fashion, and from it arises the commencement of the small intestine, which commencement is dilated and might be regarded by some as a fifth stomacal chamber, where it not for the fact that into it opens the combined duct of the liver and of the pancreas. Beluga and the narwhal have stomachs which agree in many points with each other and differ slightly from the porpoise. Those whales, as will be seen later, form a well-defined group of dolphins, contrasting in other points with the remaining delfinidae. In both of them, the first division of the stomach is strongly divided into two separate chambers, the minute third chamber of the porpoise stomach, simply in that animal an excavation in the thick wall of compartment two, is here larger, and a distinct chamber visible before the stomach is dissected. Finally, there is a fifth chamber, separated off from the fourth, and like it of an elongated intestinal form shape. Of the other dolphins, while Globuscephalus and Grampus are most like monodon, or cella is most like the common porpoise, so too are Platonista and Pontiporia. The stomach of Bellenoptera musculis, our example of a whalebone whale, is constructed upon the same plan as that of those dolphins that have been already considered. It has four chambers, like that of the porpoise, but the proportions are a little different. This will be observed from the accompanying figure. It will be noted that the second chamber is larger than the first, and that the fourth is relatively small. A still greater reduction is seen, according to Sir William Turner, in the stomach of Bellena mysticidus, at least in the fetus of that whale. The author just mentioned counted but three chambers in its stomach. The small intermediate chamber, three, appears to be absent. The stomach of the xyphioid whales is in one important respect different from that of the whale group that we have hitherto considered. The stomachs of the genera Hyperidon, Mesopolidon, and Xypheus have been carefully examined by more than one observer. Berardius alone is as yet unknown as regards its soft parts. As a general rule, the xyphioid whales differ from others in the very large number of compartments into which the stomach is divided. Nine, ten, even thirteen or fourteen divisions have been recorded, and the varied statements which occur in the literature of the subject with respect to the exact number of compartments in the stomach of a given species are not, it is thought, evidence of inaccuracy on the part of one or more of the describers, but simply an expression of actual variability. This, however, is a detailed difference. The most important difference is that the first division of the stomach gives off the second at its posterior and not at its anterior end. In the stomachs of the whales that we have been considering, a cuttlefish or a herring, when swallowed, might, so far as anatomical arrangement is concerned, pass it once into the second compartment as well as into the first, as will it once be seen in division number two. That would be impossible in a xyphioid. The first compartment of their stomachs is large, and from it lead from the opposite extremity, be it remembered, to that where the esophagus enters, six to thirteen, smallish, round, orange-shaped cavities, of which the last, that immediately preceding the duodenum, is often the largest. It is so, for instance, in Musapladon, What, then, is the exact correspondence between the stomachs of these whales and those of the dolphins and whalebone whales? The inevitable conclusion is that the first compartment of the latter whales is missing in the stomach of the xyphioids. This conclusion is not only supported by a comparison of the actual structures concerned, as is so often the case the solution of the problem is aided here by those occasional occurrences so useful to the morphologist of rudiments. In Hyperidon, Dr. Jung Klaus has detected a small representative of the first stomach of other whales in the form of a slight cacal dilatation of the esophagus just before it opens into the normal first stomach of that whale. This rudiment seems obviously to have the significance that he suggests, and moreover it showed internally a characteristic meandering arrangement of the folds of mucous membrane, an arrangement which is universal, or nearly so, in the first division of the stomach of dolphins. It appears therefore that the stomach of the xyphioids is to be derived from that of dolphins and not vice versa. This is in harmony with other considerations which point to the xyphioids as modified, not archaic, forms of whales. See below. We may now compare the complicated whale stomach with the complicated ruminant stomach, the latter, when typically developed, has the characters shown in the following description. The esophagus leads into a large punch, the ruminant. It equally leads into a smaller pouch, the reticulum. From this ladder arises the salterium, so-called from the leaf-like arrangement of its folds of mucous membrane. Finally, there is the ebomasum, the truly digestive part of the stomach. In having four compartments, the stomach of a typical ruminant agrees with that of the porpoise, but at this point the agreement stops. The first three divisions of the ruminant stomach are clothed with esophageal epithelium. It is only the ebomasum, which is the truly digestive part of the stomach. Thus, in the ruminant, the stomach may be regarded as being primarily divided into two regions, the last of which only is the digestive portion. The first part is, again, sharply marked off into three regions. In the cetacea, on the other hand, the stomach, although like that of the ruminant, divided primarily into two parts, shows a further subdivision of the digestive part, which may be exceedingly complicated in the zyphioids, while the non-digestive region is generally not divided at all. And if it is, i.e. monodon, et cetera, the division is not of so marketed character as in the ruminants. Even in the manatee, the stomach is more ruminant than cetacean, for the true digestive stomach, apart from its two caca, is not divided. Thus, the stomach of ruminant and cetacean have only this in common, that the stomach is primarily divisible into two parts, but that is a universal character and is indeed seen in other vertebrates, for example, in birds, sharks, et cetera, from such a simply divided stomach as is seen in various rodents and in other types of mammals, both the cetacean and the ruminant stomach may have arisen, and the resemblances between them will, in this case, be an example of that frequent phenomenon in the organic world, convergence. To account for this likeness by convergence is a matter of interesting inquiry. The other complicated stomachs, which are found in mammals, are invariably associated with a vegetarian diet. The sloth, the oxen and the sheep, and the manatee and dugong are all vegetable feeders. The whales are most distinctly carnivorous animals. It has been suggested, however, that whales ruminate like oxen. This process, in the ruminantia, consists of the following series of acts. The animal bites off and swallows an immense amount of herbage, leaves, et cetera, and swallows them hastily. The mass, thus swallowed, is permeated by the saliva and is then returned to the mouth where it is thoroughly masticated at leisure and re-swallowed to be properly digested. It is held that the ruminantia, being as a rule timid creatures, who have to be on their guard against their numerous carnivorous foes, gain an advantage by this apparently complicated and even disadvantageously complicated act. They can lay in their store of food hastily and with rapidity, and then, at a more convenient season, when danger is not so pressing, remasticate and digest it at their leisure. Whales often feed among dense swarms of cuttlefish, crustaceans, et cetera, and it might seem that here, too, a kind of rumination might take place. The immense amount of food swallowed might be kept in the first division of the stomach and regurgitated for subsequent chewing. The fact that a large number of seals and porpoises perfectly whole and intact were found in the first division of the stomach of an orca seems to favor this hypothesis, as does also the statement of many, that whales, when captured, generally allow some undigested, even un-lacerated food to escape by the mouth. But on the contrary view, which is that usually accepted, we must consider the structure of the mouth, teeth, and tongue, all of which have an important bearing upon the existence or non-existence of prolonged mastication, such as characterizes ruminantia. The numerous and homodont teeth are not fitted for chewing. They are fitted simply for catching and retaining slippery fish and squid. The great length of the jaw in many forms does not permit of the essential lever action of the jaws in chewing. And finally, the immobile tongue is not of any use in aiding the performance of the function of mastication. Immobile tongue is obviously required to push back the food as it escapes from between the teeth. It is thus practically certain that whales do not ruminate. But in that case, of what use is the first stomach devoid as it is of glands? In the ruminant is a large storehouse. In whales, this would seem to be needless. It is thought that the first stomach of the whale is a chamber in which the food is to some extent broken up and softened by mechanical means. It is analogous, in fact, on this view to the bird's gizzard. The muscular layers of its walls are thicker than in the thin-walled ruminant of the ruminant. Often too, this compartment has been found to contain sand and stones just as does the bird's gizzard. And for the matter of that, the stomach of the sea lion. This introduction of sand and stones may be accidental. But on the other hand, its presence may be explained as an accessory to the trituration of the food. It is obvious that a trituration of this kind and rumination are mutually exclusive. The balance of probability is in favor of the former action of the first stomach. But even now, we have not accounted for the complication of the true digestive stomach. It is to be noticed, however, that here, as already stated, we are free from any analogy with the herbiferous stomach. In the Cyrenia and ruminants, this part of the stomach is not complicated. It is only the first part associated with the non-digestive functions of the stomach. This problem, it is to be feared, we must leave unsolved. Finally, there is the fact of the absence of the first stomach in the xyphoids to explain physiologically. Dr. Jung-Klaus thinks that this is associated with their exclusive diet of cuttlefishes, which require no stomacal mastication. Their tissues are soft and are easily digested by the digestive part of the stomach without any previous maceration and pressing. End of section six, recording by Colleen McMahon. Section seven of The Book of Wales. This is LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Colleen McMahon. The Book of Wales by Frank Evers-Betterd. Chapter two, some internal structures. Part three, teeth. Whales are, as is well-known, divisible into two groups, those with and those without teeth. The odontoceti and the mysticoceti of various authors. The mysticoceti, however, the whalebone whales possess teeth in the young condition while there are plenty of instances of the commencing disappearance of teeth among the odontoceti. Thus, the line which separates the two divisions of existing whales is not so hard and fast as was stated before recent discoveries in the growth of the teeth of these animals. Before considering the growth of the teeth, however, it will be well to lay briefly before the reader the principal facts in the structure of the teeth of existing toothed whales. A very marked feature of their teeth is the characteristic homodonti. This term, it should be explained, is applied to teeth when the whole series is composed of teeth which are alike. In most mammals, there is what is known as heterodonti, i.e., the teeth are specialized in different directions. Thus, in man, there are the anterior incisors, cutting teeth, which are different in form and in function from the posterior cheek teeth, molars, or crushing teeth. The differentiation is more emphasized still in some other animals, less so again in others. But on the whole, the mammals stand apart from all other vertebrate animals by the fact of their heterodonti. The teeth of a frog, of a snake, or of a lizard are all more or less alike. There is no possibility of speaking of incisors, canines, and molars. Another characteristic feature of mammalian dentition will be postponed until the actual dentition of adult whales has been described and compared without of other mammals. Broadly speaking, it is correct to define the toothed whales as mammals in which there is no specialization of the teeth, but there are some slight exceptions which will be dealt with presently. The number, size, and position of the teeth of the adonisetes varies, but the majority have a large number of smallish, conical teeth embedded in both upper and lower jaws. The actual numbers vary much. The greatest number are seen in the genus Aenea, where no less than 221 are reckoned up. As will be seen in the account of the different kinds of whales, the number of the teeth is often made use of as a generic character. Among the dolphinidae, there are a gradual series of genera in which the number of teeth gets reduced. It must not be imagined, however, that we can actually start from some such form as Aenea with abundant teeth and derive from it the various genera in which the teeth are reduced and arrange those genera in order of this reduction, but it will be convenient to take them in such an order. Through a gradual reduction in the number, we arrive at the genus Delphinapteris, the beluga, where there are but nine teeth on each side of the jaw. In Grampus, this dentition is still further reduced. The teeth in the upper jaw have disappeared altogether and there are only a few three to seven on each side of the lower jaw arranged near to the symphysis of the mandibles. Another line culminates in the narwhal, monodon, where all the teeth have vanished and the adult animal saved the well-known tusk and the accompanying tusk of smaller size sometimes equally developed in the upper jaw. In this case, it is the lower jaw which has become edentulous. A second series of modifications is seen among the Fisiteridae, the cashelot, and the zephyoid whales. The cashelot has functional teeth only in the mandible where they form a row of strong conical teeth, but in addition to these are a series of smaller teeth in the upper jaw, which are not to be seen in the dried skull as they are not embedded in the bone, but only in the gum, which naturally is stripped off or decays away in the course of preparation of the skull for museum purposes. This kind of reduction is still further exaggerated in the zephyoid whales. In all of these, the number of teeth actually used is very limited, not more than two pairs, usually one pair, and those are limited to the lower jaw. But in addition to these, there are in most, if not in all, zephyoid whales, a set of smaller teeth only in the upper jaw or in both jaws, which are, like the corresponding teeth of the cashelot, embedded only in the gum and so are as a rule lost in skulls acquired by museums. These teeth are clearly on the wane and as even the teeth of the lower jaw are sometimes not extruded, and in other cases lost before the animal dies, it is evident that these whales are not so very far removed from the whale bone whales, but it should be observed that they exhibit no trace of the compensating whale bone. So much then for the general modifications of the teeth as regards numbers, which are exhibited in the series of toothed whales. The question arises, are those whales with the most teeth the most primitive and have they given rise to those with a reduced dentition? Or is the converse true? Or finally, is it safest to take the middle path and make two series, one ascending and one descending? Are, for instance, dolphins with a moderate number of teeth nearest to the ancestral form from which have arisen by multiplication on the one hand, the ania, and by reduction, the narwhal? This supposition agrees in some ways more nearly with what we know of mammalian dentition in general. It has been pointed out that the typical mammalian dentition is heterodont. It is also limited in numbers, and those numbers are definite, apart from the marsupials, in which more over 56 is the greatest number of teeth, and a very few other instances, no mammal has or had more than 44 teeth. Even here, there is nothing like the abundance of teeth of ania or platinista. Furthermore, the number of teeth of the many toothed dolphins appears to be not exactly fixed to a tooth or two, whereas in the mammalia as a rule, with but few exceptions, such as priodon and armadillo and the manatee, the number does not vary, except of course on occasional abnormalities. On a priori grounds, therefore, dangerous grounds sometimes on which to build an argument intended to last, we should be rather disposed to regard the excessive dentition of the typical dolphins as not a primitive state of affairs, but one derived from something more nearly approaching to what is characteristic of mammals in general. In a number of skulls belonging to various genera of dolphinidae with numerous teeth, Professor Kukenthal found here and there that the regular arrangement of the relative positions of teeth in the upper and lower jaw was lost. The regular arrangement is that the teeth of the two jaws should alternate, an obvious convenient arrangement for the due prehension of the fish or octopuses upon which they feed. Alternating teeth would be better able to lay hold of this slippery food. When this accurate correspondence ceases, it is brought about by the intercalation of teeth, a proceeding which naturally increases the total number. If this process is going on now, there is nothing unreasonable in thinking that it has been going on in the past in correspondence, perhaps, with the increase in length of the jaws themselves. Thus, the number of teeth in dolphins is greater now than it has been. They are therefore to be derived from creatures with fewer teeth, so far more like the typical mammalia. Another argument pointing in the same direction is afforded by the ancient zoolodonts treated of more fully on another page. These cetaceans had a dentition conforming in number of teeth to the more typical mammalia. Their teeth were also more conformable to those of the mammalia generally in their heterodonti, but we shall recur to this after considering the traces of heterodonti still remaining in the group of whales. Having dealt generally with the number of teeth among existing cetacea, their shapes remain for consideration. As a rule, the teeth of whales are simple and conical in form, directed either upwards or rather forwards. They resemble, in fact, to the canine teeth of other mammals, not only in this shape, but in their being implanted by a single root. There are, however, a few examples of some. They're not a great deal of specialization in the form of the teeth. In Aenea geofrensis, the posterior series of teeth have a distinct lateral cusp, so that they have ceased to be simply peg-like teeth. In the common porpoise, Focana communus, the teeth have broad divided crowns which are sharply marked off from the root. There is reminiscence here of the more complicated teeth of ancestral forms such as the zuclidonts. The extraordinary strap-shaped teeth of mezoblidan leartii and the tusks of the narwhal need not be referred to in the present connection. They appear to be simply exaggerations, perhaps originally pathological, of the simple conditions obtaining in other whales. They are probably not to be looked upon as an inheritance from terrestrial ancestors. Professor Kukenthal has a theory that the simple teeth of whales are to be derived from the splitting up of more complicated teeth, such as are found in other mammals. In zuclidonts, called so on this very account, each tooth is formed of two pieces, each with its separate root. By division of these, the more numerous teeth of a dolphin can be arrived at. But recent investigations into the manatee seem to negative this theory, for in that animal, an indefinite succession of complicated teeth occurs. In almost all mammalia, the individual is provided with two sets of teeth. There is the dentition found in the young. This is later replaced by the dentition of the adult. The two sets of teeth are spoken of respectively as the milk and the permanent dentition. This is characteristic of the mammalia and distinguishes them from lower vertebrates where there is not this merely double dentition. New teeth in the lower vertebrates are formed as they are wanted. If a mammal loses one of the teeth of the second series, that tooth is not replaced. The relative importance of these two sets of teeth varies much. The milk teeth are sometimes only developed as rudiments, never of functional use. While in other cases, the milk teeth persist for a long time and are very distinctly functional. It has been even attempted to be shown that in the marsupials, it is the permanent dentition which is suppressed and only represented by rudiments while the teeth of the full grown animal are the persistent milk teeth. This general character of the mammalia has been described as defiadant and it was thought that by this, the majority of mammals were to be distinguished from some that have but one set of teeth and were accordingly to be termed monofiadant. In some of the Edentata, the sloth, it is still believed that only one set of teeth is ever produced and the same view is originally held about the toothed whales. There is however, now not the least doubt that the dolphins are truly defiadant mammals, thus conforming in a very important character to the terrestrial allies. But it is not quite settled which of the two dentitions it is that persists. It is held by Cucanthal that the dental series of whales belongs to the milk dentition. Thus the whales are clearly descendants of purely defiadant mammals. We have now to consider the whalebone whales which in the adult condition have no teeth, only the plates of baleen which will be treated of on another page. As long ago as the year 1807, Geoffrey St. Hilaire discovered the rudiments of teeth in a fetus of the Greenland Whale, baleena mysticetus, and this important discovery was afterwards confirmed by the great Cuvier as well as by his less known brother, Frederick Cuvier. Since then the facts have been confirmed by others. The first discoverers of the facts contented themselves with little more than a statement of them. But later Professor Julin laid great stress upon the additional fact that the teeth of Balanaptura rostrada which he examined were not merely simple conical teeth but have a more complicated pattern. He found teeth with one cusp like those of cetacea generally and two and even with three cusps. The simple teeth moreover were those in the interior part of the jaws, the more complicated teeth further back. In fact, there is an obvious likeness to a set of incisors followed by the more complicated cheek teeth. This arrangement is typical of mammals and is found in the cetacean Zucladon. An addition of great weight has been made to these discoveries by Professor Cucanthal who found besides the fairly well-developed rudiments of teeth, very rudimentary traces of a second dentition. Thus showing that the whale bone whales like their toothed allies are diphyodont like other mammals. Furthermore, he has given reasons for believing that in them as in the toothed whales it is the milk dentition which persisted longest as it is represented by the most fully developed rudiments. The brain. The brain of all whales presents a most unusual shape of that organ. It is very much compressed from before backwards and is thus broader than it is long. It looks almost as if these creatures rushing through the waves had flattened their brains in the effort to oppose the weight of water but though so much shortened and comparatively small in total bulk, the cerebral hemispheres of the cetacea make up to some extent by the highly developed convolutions of the brain's surface. It used to be held and the belief is often seen in popular books, i.e. books which deal loosely with the facts and inferences of science, that the furrows of a brain corresponded with its thoughtfulness, that the higher the type the more abundant these grooves and furrows upon the surface which separate the complicated system of ridges of brain substance known as the convolutions. It is of course perfectly true that the brain of the highest animal of all, man is markedly and abundantly convoluted. It cannot be said, however, that the titanic whale is largely superior in intelligence to the small and active marmoset and yet if the convolutions of the brain were to be alone considered, this would have to be the opinion. For the marmoset's brain is not far from being quite smooth. While we have already commented upon the markedly convoluted character of that of the whale, the real relationship appears to be between size of body and complication of the brain's surface. And this is more obvious when nearly related animals are compared with each other. The marmoset, for instance, has a smoother brain than the gorilla. The rhinoceros and the hippopotamus have much more furrowed brains than the smaller ungulates. Our whales are, curiously enough, an exception to this generalization. It cannot be said that the great roarquall or sperm whale has a brain which is at all definitely superior in the number of its convolutions to the brains of smaller whales. Can we in any way account for the curious shape and the great convolution of the brain surface in cetacea? In the first place, it is as well to be convinced that they do want accounting for. This can hardly be doubted. The singular shape of the hemispheres of the whale are so peculiar that they suffice to define the group. There is nothing like it elsewhere among mammals. Then again, there are some reasons for considering the whales to occupy a low position in the mammalian series, reasons which will be dealt with on another page. We should expect, therefore, to find a lowest type of brain. Instead of this, we are confronted with the most specialized. Nothing is more difficult in zoology than to arrive at convenient generalizations for the paradoxical reason that it is so easy to frame hypotheses. The expression, simplex sigillum vari, not composed for the purpose for which it is used, and yet used with such frequency in zoological writing, especially in the newer developments of what is called sometimes Darwinism, has had a most deleterious effect upon speculation. A simple and obvious explanation often seems to such writers to settle the question at issue. And yet, in the long run, it seems to be plain that the processes of nature are not so simple. It is certain that the brains of some of the early and extinct forms of mammals were not only small but smooth. It is equally certain that their descendants, or at least allied forms subsequent in date, have that only larger but more rumpled brains. The whales, we can fairly assume, are an ancient stock and may have started even as whales with small and smooth brains. The requisite increase was brought about by a more extensive crumpling of the surface, while the small frontal bones and the large development of the facial region of the skull prevented the extension of the brain cavity forwards, its extension laterally being permitted partly by the non-union of the parietals above, and by the feebly attached bony apparatus connected with the organ of hearing. It seems to follow further that the whales cannot be nearly related to any existing form of mammal as the brain development has pursued so different a path. Sir William Turner has pointed out that a large number of the smaller convolutions of the whale's brain are transverse to the long axis of that organ, which suggests that there has been, as it were, a tendency to grow forward in the ordinary mammalian fashion but a check to the same growth, which has naturally resulted in furrows having the direction referred to. In any case, the whale's brain is partly characterized by the features to which attention has been called. It is also remarkable for the fact that in the toothed whales, there is absolutely no vestige of these four parts of the brain which are connected with a sense of smell. While in the whale bone whales, the same region is only feebly visible. It is sometimes erroneously asserted that creatures living in the water cannot smell, owing to the suspension in the water of the odiferous particles. But this is at once negative by the case of fishes, which have a well-developed olfactory apparatus. Anyhow, whales have not, but it is apparently not to be put down to their marine habitat, one of the very few structures indeed, which cannot be correlated with that mode of life. Whale bone. The real nature of whale bone was frequently, like that of spermaceti, misunderstood in past times. Bilan, translated by Scammon, wrote upon the matter as follows, and that which is called whale bone, coast de baleine, literally whale's ribs, with which ladies nowadays make their corsets and stiffen out their dresses, and which the beetles of some churches carry as wands. These are certain pieces cut off and drawn out from that which serves as eyelids for the whale, and which covers his eyes, and which is furnished at its extremity with a kind of long, stiff hair. This is what the Latins call the pretentious, and which they say enables the animal to direct his course through the sea. This latter notion, as Sir William Flower points out, is probably connected with the old feudal law cited by Blackstone, that the tales of all whales belonged to the queen as a perquisite to furnish her majesty's wardrobe with whale bone. Scaliger, too, in his commentaries upon Aristotle, observes of whale bone. In supercilious, lamellus habit, quacum, caput, merget, atolontor ab aqua, aquae, ita vidende, potestis sit, ubivero ex aqua exerit, conciedent lamelle, aquae, teagunt, oculus. Probably this and the former view is due in part to the tiny eye which escaped attention, and indeed seems on account of the peculiar development of the skull to have an abnormal situation. Nevertheless, at the same period in which Bellon wrote, the accurate location of whale bone was understood. For Oleus Magnus described in a stranded war qual the whale bone of which he remarked, palato adherabont cosi lamine corneae, and proceeded to point out that these lamine were not all of the same size, a fact which is well known to be the case with the lamine of whale bone. Later still, whale bone was quite properly described by T. Johnson in 1634 as the fins that stand forth of their mouths which are commonly called whale bones, being dried and polished served to make busks for women. Shakespeare, however, seems to have confused the true meaning of the term. He writes of teeth as white as whale bone, but it is believed that by whale bone in this case is meant the tusks of the walrus, an animal which was often and at many times confounded with whales. Indeed, it is not always easy to decide whether a given illustration refers to this animal or to some large toothed whale such as Orca. There is, however, curiously enough some justification for accepting Shakespeare's epithet of white in a perfectly literal fashion. For in many whales, the whale bone is white or white-ish in parts or altogether. The more celebrated Dr. Johnson in the dictionary edition of 1818 defines whale bone as the fin of a whale cut and used in making stays, thus reverting to earlier errors. It is, however, just possible that the stiffed, tendinous tissue of the actual tail was made use of as a material for stiffening articles of wear. It is quite conceivable that when dried it might form a cheaper substitute for real whale bone. The number of times that the expression fin is employed and the evident knowledge possessed by at any rate some persons who correctly located the true whale bone may perhaps point this way. Whale bone has, it need hardly perhaps be remarked, nothing to do with true teeth, but it is distinctly analogous to the horny, so-called teeth of the ornithorhynchus. And it is an interesting fact that the whales show the same tendency observable in other groups of the animal kingdom to the replacement of teeth by horny structures. The horny teeth of the platypus have their forerunners in the shape of true teeth, which are shed early. In birds, the most archaic forms had true teeth, but the birds of today have developed in their place the horny beak which characterizes them. The whale bone whales start life with rudimentary teeth which ultimately disappear on the appearance of the whale bone. The general character of whale bone resembles that of horns or hair. The color is black or white or brown. The place where the whale bone is formed is the roof of the mouth, the palate. The plates of whale bone are triangular in shape, the base of attachment being broader than the lower free extremity. The plates are attached by the broad base to the roof of the mouth, and they may indeed be regarded as an exaggeration of the ridges, often horny in character, which are found upon the roof of the mouth of all mammals. The plates are arranged in a direction transverse to the long axis of the mouth and are very numerous, as many as 370 having been counted. The blades are longest in the middle of this long series and gradually diminish towards both ends of the mouth. The outside of the blades, that turned towards the lips is straight and hard. The inner surface is frayed out into innumerable hair-like processes. Thus an exceedingly efficient straining apparatus is formed. The fine hairs entangle the minute creatures upon which the Greenland Whale feeds and at the same time allows the water to escape through the sides of the mouth between the lips. A more detailed description of the mechanism of the whale bone in the Greenland Whale will be found under the account of that whale. It has been suggested that certain transverse lines upon the plate of baleen are annual rings. In this event, the Greenland Whale lives to an age of 900 years. The use of whale bone for ladies stays and formerly for the ribs of umbrellas is well known. But it may be one of those things not so generally known that certain rich silks which stand of themselves owe some of their firmness to very thin shreds of whale bone incorporated with the silk threads. Another little known use of whale bone was its employment in the 13th century as plumes for helmets. This use is proved by two passages from William the Breton where the count of Boulogne is described as wearing upon his helmet the Branccia Bellini Britici Ponzi. This reference has been collected by M. Fisher in his careful account of the Biscayan whale to which further reference will be made below when that species comes to be treated of. Whale bone is still a costly article. Mr. Southwell in an article for the Zoologist for 1897 upon the whale fishery of the previous year observes that the value of the bone was 2000 pounds per ton as 12 right whales produce 135 and a quarter hundred weights of whale bone. The results of a successful whaling cruise are considerable. End of section seven. Recording by Colleen McMahon. Section eight of the Book of Whales. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. The Book of Whales by Frank Evers Bedded. A Comparison of Whales with Other Aquatic Mammals. Chapter three. A Comparison of Whales with Other Aquatic Mammals. Whales compared to seals. In the preceding pages a great deal has been said about the influence of environment upon structure. How to put the matter in a fairer way without prejudging the issue of the connection between environment and structure. A study of other aquatic mammals however and a comparison of them with whales brings out very clearly the fact that the organism is not molded in precisely the same way in every case. It would be strange indeed if it were so seeing that the material upon which the same influences have to work is different. The tribe of seals forms a very convenient starting point in such a series of comparisons. For there is no doubt at all about the affinities of these marine carnivora and they show a series of stages of more and more perfect adaptation to an aquatic existence. It is easy therefore here to distinguish between structural features which are related to the aquatic life and those which are definite peculiarities of the group not so related. The seals, unquestionably, form a subdivision of the carnivora to which, on account of the fin-like character of the forelimbs, the name of finiperia has been given. Further than this, it is possible to place them nearer to the bare division of the land carnivora than to other groups. The effects of a seafaring life are more plainly seen in the true seals than in the walrus or the sealions. The latter group in fact is a stage leading towards the more completely aquatic seal. In the true seals, facidae, the form is more fish-like. The nostrils have come to lie upon the top of the head instead of terminally. The external ears have completely vanished. The auditory organ being marked externally by a whole ome. The hind limbs are quite useless for progression on land, being quite bound up by the integments of the tail. The sealions can move with some rapidity upon dry land since the hind limbs have not so nearly lost their original functions. The external ears are present but much reduced. They vary, moreover, in the degree of reduction. Being much larger in the Cape Sea lion, Otaria pusila, than in the beast of Patagonia, Otaria jubata. In these external characters, there are certain obvious resemblances to whales. The fish-like form, the disappearance of the contralpiae, the form of the fin, which is even falcaed in form in both other aquatic mammals, the removal in the seals of the nostrils to the top of the skull, though not to appoint so far back as in the whales. These are plain and obvious likenesses. There are others, which a closer study in comparison of the two groups bring to light. The flippers have no nails in the whales, though in the fetus, traces of the structures have been discovered by Cucintal. In the sea lions, the nails, though still recognizable, are exceedingly small and not of the faintest use for scratching or any other nail function. This is not always the case with the true seals. In foca, the seals of our coasts, there are well-developed claws on the hand, but on the other side, we have the Antarctic genus, a matafoka, with the four limbs furnished only with quite rudimentary nails. The nails, therefore, may be fairly said to be disappearing in all these animals. Another feature in which there is a functional resemblance between whales and seals is the hind limbs. Considering that the latter are merely represented by the tiny rudiments in the whales, the comparisons may seem at first sight to be a little ridiculous. But there is, as has been discovered, a functional likeness in spite of this obvious dissimilarity. The hind limbs of the seal tribe play the part of a tail. They are extended beside the tail and act precisely as to the flux of the tail in the whale. It is by their means chiefly that the creature is propelled through the water. In the one group that unnecessary hind limbs have nearly disappeared altogether, in the other they have, as it were, become part of the tail. It is evident that an aquatic beast does not need the usual two pairs of limbs. The fact is shown also among fishes, but again in a different way from that which we see in whales and seals. In many fishes, the hind a pair of limbs persists, but is moved forward so as to line the same straight line or thereabouts with the anterior pairs of limbs. In primitive fishes, on the other hand, such as Saratotus, the Australian mudfish, both limbs persists in what we have to consider as the normal position. It is exceedingly interesting to note that in the three groups cited, a practically similar result is obtained in a totally different manner. In the last mentioned character, therefore, as well as in others which will be dealt with presently, the seal tribe have pursued a different path towards complete adaptation to the aquatic life to that followed by the whale tribe, but there is still a point remaining among what are practically external features in which the seals resemble to a certain extent the whales. It is usual among terrestrial mammals for the humerus to be longer, sometimes much longer than the radius. On the other hand, with the sole exception of Inea, the whale's humerus is shorter than the radius, the otter Mivot has given some measurements of these bones in representatives of the three kinds of aquatic carnivora, and its figures are as follows. In the common seal, Foka Witulina, the length of the humerus is 11 inches and that of the radius is the same. In Otaria Jupiter, the Patagonian sea lion, the two bones measure respectively 23 and 24 inches. Finally, in the walrus, the proportions are 30 and 23. It is curious to observe that the sea lion is the most whale-like of the three types. Now, as to the external features in which the seal tribe differ from whales. In the first place, the fauna have completely retained their hairy covering. There is no hint of a commencing baldness, whatever. Moreover, there is not here a case of the substitution of one organ for another that plays a similar part. For the seals have an abundant layer of fat and are pursued for purposes of oils as much as our whales. They have fur and blubber. Again, the extra length of digit required is not brought about in a cetacean fashion by the increase in the separate phalanges of the fingers, but by the formation of cartilaginous extensions of the fingers beyond the nails. That these are beyond the nails shows that they are not comparable to the extra phalanges of the whales. For the rudiments of nails, which have been discovered in whales, are terminally placed upon the hand. A peculiarity which the sea lion shares with the whales is the great breadth of the scapula. For some reason or other, this seems to be useful to an aquatic animal, for it is in these two types that the scapula seems to attain to its greatest diameter. It is true that in the adentis, the same bone is also very broad and that it is relatively narrow in the manatee, but the breadth is most striking in the sea lion and in the whale. But on a close comparison of the blade bones of the two, it is to be noticed that, in spite of superficial likeness, there are fundamental differences. In the sea lion, it is in the front part of the bone that which lies headwards of the spine that is expanded most. In the whale, it is precisely the reverse. Hence, the same general result is brought about in a totally diverse way in the two orders of aquatic mammal, whales and serenia. The serenia form the third most important in the last group of aquatic mammalia. There are limited rates today, though there are remains of more abundant genera in the past. Living now are only the two genera, manatees and helicor. The former are South American, West Indian and West African. They are coast living and fluviate animals, which browse along the bottom of the sea or of reverse upon algae. Thus is derived their name of sea cows. There seems to be four species of this genus. Helicor, the dagong, is an eastern creature apparently of only one species. Most persons are aware that quite recently they're lived on the shores of Bering Strait, a third variety of this group of mammals, the ritina or stellar sea cow. This has been extinct since about 1770, but as its external characters are known, it may come into the following comparison of serenia with whales. The general form of the body of these sea creatures is not especially whale-like. They are, for as it were, an intermediate incomplete form, half-fave between the purely terrestrial animal and the totally aquatic whale. Dr. Simon, who observed the dagong in Torres Straits, remarks of it that it appears to the eye more fish-like than seals and more mammal-like than whales. The dagong, however, and the ritina are so far whale-like in that they possess a fork-tail, set, of course, as in whales and not as in fish. In the manatee, the tail has another form, which, as has already been mentioned, it is not unsuggestive of the tail of the fetus of certain whales. It is interesting to note that here, as in some other points, the dagong and the ritina are more whale-like, or at least more purely aquatic in their structural features than as the manatee. There is one small point of possible comparison between the whales and the serenia, which seems to have been overlooked. It is well known that the upper lip of the manatee is cleft vertically and that the two halves of the upper lip, thus divided, act as a pair of grasping organs where it leaves upon which the animal feeds. Ritaments of the same structure, which are more pronounced in the fetus, also exist in the dagong. Now it is often been noticed that in the whales, between the two blue holes is a furrow. It seems to be just within the bounds of possibility that this group is still for the reduction of the same splitting of the lip, which is so useful to the manatee. Apart from this, however, we may notice that in the serenia, the nostrils are superior in position and that in the helicor, they are more so than in manatees. Another reason is to be seen here for regarding the dagong as the more perfectly modified animal of the two. The external year of the serenia has vanished, leaving only a minor year hole, as in the cetacea. The body of the serenia is, however, more hairy than that of whales, yet the hair is scant and coars. Dr. Kukentau has discovered that formerly these animals possessed, in addition to the sparsely scattered strong hairs, are covering a finer hairs in these animals. Therefore, as in the whales, the aquatic life leads to the loss of the hairy covering of the body, so characteristic of land mammalia. It may be mentioned moreover that the hairs are especially strong upon the upper lip, thus recalling the only hairs that are left in the whales which clothe or rather are found upon the same region. Sweat glands moreover fail entirely as in the whales. Only in embryo of manatees and lateral struts, did Kukentau find some, after all, rather doubtful traces of these glands. They are, of course, absent in whales. Finally, so far as concerns the skin, the sebaceous glands, such constant companions of the hairs in mammals generally, are beginning to vanish altogether in the Cyrenia. They occur, however, though in a rudimentary shape in the fetus, while they are completely absent in the few hairs of the whales. As in the whales, the skin of the Cyrenia is underlaid by a copious blubber which doubtless plays the part that should be performed by the hair of preserving the heat of the body. It has, however, been remarked that in the Cyrenia, the blubber is unlike that of the whales, in that there is no free liquid oil compared to the spermicity of the sperm and other whales. The Cyrenia have, like the whales, the forelimb of a fin-like form, but there are differences in the completeness with which this metamorphosis has progressed. The dugong has become more completely aquatic in this particular than the manatee. The latter, with the exception of the species manatees in Angus, has preserved the nails upon the extremities of the fingers while these have entirely disappeared in the dugong. Moreover, in the latter genus, the forearm no longer takes any part in the formation of this fin, a feature which, of course, is shared by the Cetacea. Professor Kukintal has, however, called attention to a curious similarity which exists between the hand of the Cyrenians to that of the sea lions in the shape of numerous papillae and grooves upon the undersurface. This is associated in the Otari day with a partial life upon land and the existence of these structures in the Cyrenia seems to indicate a more recent abandonment of the terrestrial life then has been the case with the Cetacea. These flippers are smooth. A reason for their retention, however, in the dugongs is perhaps to be found in the fact that these creatures graze upon beds of seaweed as a herbivorous mammal does upon a field of grass. And the rough papillae prevent the animal from slipping when thus engaged in crapping its food. In the skeletons of the forelimb, there are no strong resemblances to the whales. Further joints between the bones are well developed and there are only slight beginnings of hyperphalangee. So characteristic feature of the Cetacea. When we turn to the internal structure of the Cyrenia, the resemblances which they exhibit to the Cetacea by no means disappear. The bony framework of the head is perhaps the part of the skeleton which shows most unlikeness in the two groups. And this fact is not without significance for it is precisely in that region that external influence would not play so strong a part as it might well be supposed to do elsewhere. The skull, remarks Professor Zittle, shows not the least resemblance to the Cetaceans. Nevertheless, the nasal bones are much shortened, though that is a character found elsewhere. It is no use to give any detailed analysis of the skull in comparison with that of the whales. In the vertebral column, the fusion of the second and third vertebrae of the neck must not be looked upon as being really a strong point of likeness to whales since in the adentata the same fusion occurs. More important, perhaps as a likeness is the thin character of the central of those vertebrae in retina. The reduction in number of the vertebrae of the lumbar region is parallel and in here, which, as has been often remarked, would appear to be an early type of whale. Most striking as evidence of likeness between the Cyrenia and the Cetaceae is the shortened sternum and the fewness of the ribs attached there too. But here again, we may have to do with the need of powerful respiratory movements in these diving animals. As to the hind limb, it is instructive to notice that a pair of hind limbs do not seem to be at all necessary to swimming and diving creatures. End of Section 8. Section 9 of the Book of Whales. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org, recording by William Anderson. The Book of Whales by Frank Evers Baddard. Chapter 4, The Position of Whales in the System and Their Classification. In order to pursue matters in logical order, we must go back. First of all, to the question raised before, why is a whale not a fish? For the sake of those who are not well versed in the facts of comparative anatomy, it may be convenient to state briefly a few main reasons for placing the whale among the mammalia and not only not among the fish, but also in a position remote from all other groups of vertebrate animals. That is, the amphibia, reptiles, and birds. A whale is a hot-blooded creature, breathing by means of lungs which lie in the interior of the body in a definitive chest cavity shut off from the rest of the cavity of the body, that which contains the intestines, liver, et cetera. By a largely muscular partition, the diaphragm, it has, frequently, vestiges of the hairs which cover the body of other mammals in the presence of a few scattered hairs in the neighborhood of the mouth. It brings forth its young alive and suckles them with milk. The bones of the skull are precisely those of other mammals and only differ slightly in their relative arrangement. These characters are quite sufficient for the present purpose. Many might be added to them, of course. No creature which has these characteristics is anything but a mammal. One or two of them may be wanting in those lowest of the mammalian tribe. Ornithorhikus and Echinida, they do not bring forth their young alive, but lay eggs. Still, when born, the young Echinida and platypus are nourished by milk. Fishes, a very few of them, may have what are believed to be the representatives of lungs and with which, indeed, they actually breathe. But they have also gills and the vast bulk have no breathing organs except these gills. Lungs are found higher in the series, but no diaphragm like this of whales until we get to mammals. But to go further than this and to decide whereabouts in the long series of mammals the whale tribe should be intercalated is a matter which is at present beyond our knowledge. We may, however, discuss the matter for a little in order to show the grounds of our ignorance. From the sketch, which has just been given of the outward form and an internal structure of whales, it will be apparent the nature of the medium in which they live has profoundly affected the characters of the different organs. There is positively no part of the body with the exception, perhaps, of the brain and the stomach, and one or two other points to be referred to later that has not been evidently altered in some way, more or less, in different cases, to meet the changed conditions of life, as we believe them to have been. There is, therefore, obviously some difficulty in ascertaining or endeavoring to ascertain what are the real differential characters of the group, to separate, that is to say, characters due to the environment and those which have been inherited from the long-extinct terrestrial ancestor. The current definitions of the group satisie are obliged to be found on these as we must assume them to be recently acquired characteristics, to take one or two as examples. Professor Zittle defines them in the following terms, naked, smooth skin, fish-like water dwellers with cylindrical body, head not separable from the body, nasal orifices on the upper side lying far back, interior limbs, fin-like, hind limbs wanting, tail fin horizontal, milk glands abdominal in position, Messers, Parker, and Haswell use the following language, aquatic urethra with large head, fish-like, fusing form body, devoid of hair covering with the pectoral limbs paddle-like, the pelvic limbs absent, and with a horizontal cajol fin. A vertical dorsal fin is usually present. There is a long snout and two nostrils open by two lateral external apertures, or a single medium one, situated in all recent forms far back towards the summit of the head. The cervical region of the spinal column is very short and its vertebrate usually completely united together. Clavicles are absent. The humerus is freely movable at the shoulder, but all other articulations of the limbs are imperfect. The phalanges of the second and third digit always exceed in number the number three, normal in mammalia. The pelvis is represented by a pair of horizontal-plated styloform, vestiges of the ischia. Teeth may be absent and they're placed taken by sheets of baleen or whalebone. When present they may be numerous and homodont, or less numerous and heterodont, or reduced to a single pair. The epiglottis and the erytenoids are prolonged and embraced by the soft palate, so as to form a continuous tube for the passage of air from the nasal cavities to the trachea. The brain is large and the cerebral hemispheres are richly convoluted. The testes are abdominal. The teats are two and are posterior in position. The uterus is too horned, the placenta diffuse and non-desiguate. This definition is more comprehensive, but it still does not state all those features in which whales differ from other animals, which are not clearly connected with the need for a fish-like form and life at times in great depths of the ocean. It seems possible to extract from what has been said here as essential characteristics of the group in the following facts of structure. In the skull, the separation of the two periadoles by the intervention of the supratoctypical, or their concealment by its overlapping, the overlapping of the muzzle, generally by the premaxile, the loose attachment between various bones surrounding or connecting with the organ of hearing. The absence or feeble development of the coronary process of the lower jaw in the forelimb and girdle, the absence of clavicle, the greater number of the radius and the ulna than the humerus, the frequent presence of the typical number of bones and the wrist, the long and simple lungs, the unlobulated liver and complex stomach, the extraordinary shortened, but much convoluted brain. This combination of characters is found nowhere else among the mammals and, indeed, the bulk of the peculiarities are confined to whales. I might also, perhaps, have added some few others. This, and certainly more than one characteristic feature, might have been included in the list. Had I not limited myself to those which occur both in whale bone and in toothed whales, as there is some idea to the effect that the two great divisions of the Ceticeae have had a separate descent, even from unlike ancestors this had. However, better be deferred until after we have seen what can be done with the broader facts and settling the affinities of this highly puzzling group of creatures. It is to be feared that nothing can be done except and not vaguely to suggest an undulate-like ancestor. In them, we have in some forms at least the ruminants, a highly complex stomach and a rather simple liver. But there is really nothing else of first-rate importance to make the comparison stronger. As undoubted, whales occur back to the Iscine. They have possibly come off from earlier stock still, and Professor Albrecht has advanced and ingeniously supported the view that this Cetaceae are the nearest thing now existing to the necessary, but unfortunately hypothetical, Pro-Mamelia, the race which has given rise to all mammals. His arguments will be partially gone into here. For at any rate, they will give some color to a primitive ancestry of our whales, a result to which other considerations, chiefly the failure to tack them on, even with probability anywhere else, seem to drive us. Unfortunately, as a general rule, it is by no means easy to distinguish between simplicity which is in the effect of degeneration and simplicity which may be fairly interpreted. As a retention of earlier and simpler conditions of structure, sometimes it is to be obvious enough to which category to refer an apparently primitive state of affairs in an organ. For example, while everyone admits nowadays that the amphibia are close to the fishes, no one would probably suggest that the total absence of lungs and certain salamanders is due to the final disappearance of the air bladder of the fish-like ancestor whose disappearance is commencing to be indicated by the loss of a connection with the esophagus and many fishes. It is a question of simplicity and degeneration within the tribe of Newts themselves, and when Professor Albrecht alleges the absence of a sacrum in the ventral column as a primitive character, it seems impossible to accept his view and to do otherwise than regard his simplification of the ventrable column as due to the dwindling hind legs and to the consequent absence of any need for strong support from the vertebral column. Again, whales have not only not an external ear and the adult conditions, but also no ear muscles which are so highly developed in terrestrial mammals with mobile ears. In criticizing Professor Albrecht's statements and suggestions, Professor Max Weber points out that sometimes since Professor Howes showed in the vodal, porpoise rudiments of external ears and of muscle, which can hardly be regarded as a beginning of these structures, so essential to an ear which plays an important part in the life of terrestrial mammals. For they are not only found in the embryo, if commencing structures, they should be more apparent in the adult. Thessages, remains of former structures, indicate their earlier existence by adhering for a brief time during development and then fading away as maturity is reached. Some other features in the organization of Cetaceae may perhaps be interpretive as really primitive. Among the whale bone whales, the two halves of the lower jaw are not only united by what is termed Cyndesmosis, a weak union by ligament than the strong bony union and chlisolus, which is prevalent in mammals generally. It may be urged, however, to do with the mode in which roar cools and write whales feet. The capacity for taking in enormous gulps of water containing the minute animals upon which the majority of these whales feed should be advantaged by a distensibility of the mouth and consequent increase of the mouth cavity. Of more importance in connection with the anatomy of the lower jaw is a discovery by Professor Albreach of a separate supraangular bone. It is a distinguishing feature of the mammals as contrasted with the reptiles lying beneath them in the series, that the lower jaw is almost entirely formed of dentary bone alone, a small chin bone sometimes occurring also. Now in reptiles, a large number of separate elements enter into its formation, so that at the occasional occurrence in Balopterisibaldi of the supraangular is so far an archaic feature. So too, possibly, is the marked separation of the sternum into two hemisterna. This is particularly apparent in the cockalot and in the cyanofoids. Now the sternum is developed from the ends of the ribs on both sides and in the embryo, it is always double. Later, the fusion of the two halves takes place and the apparently median sternum arises. In lower vertebrates, the double connection often survives. That there is often a seventh cervical rib in whales is a remnant of a former state of affairs. For in reptiles, there are a series of ribs depending from the neck vertebrae. But after all such an additional rib has been often met within other mammals, Professor Albrecht points out that the cetacean resemble the fish and that the occipital bone joins the frontal. It is no doubt, as has already been pointed out, a very curious fact in their anatomy, but one not easily susceptible of an explanation. But to liken them to fishes for this reason seems to prove too much. For what we want on the pro mammalian theory is rather a likeness with lowly organized reptiles. It cannot, of course, be seriously maintained as Professor Albrecht would have us believe that the dorsal fin is an inheritance from a fish. Dr. Murie's comparison of it from to the hump of a camel is far better. Professor Weber has just dwelt upon the excessive complicated brain and upon the mode of the attachment of the fetus to its mother in support of the more orthodox view that the whales are not primitive mammalia at all. If we are to place them in this position, we must displace monotrious mammals, ornithorhincus and echinda, whose organization in so many points places them unquestionably at the base of existing mammals. The general conclusion which best suits the facts at our disposal seems to be to look upon the cetaceae as an offshoot of an early group of the higher mammalia. This is unsatisfactory in its vagueness, no doubt. But it is difficult to see what more can be said, which is not entirely speculative and devoid of foundation and ascertained fact. Having been attempted, and it must be candidly confessed, failed to place the whales accurately in the system, it remains to arrange them with reference to each other. It is easier to do this than to solve the first problem. There is, however, an initial difficulty and the great superficial likeness which the various members of the whale tribe bear to each other. It needs no argument to prove that the mammalia are essentially a land race other than those which have already been advanced. To inhibit the water is a mode of life entirely foreign to their organization. It is perhaps this, which in part, at least, accounts for the uniformity of structure, which the large group of whales exhibit. So little divergence from the suitable structure would be just the fatal straw. We find as a support of this way of looking at the matter. Similar uniformities in groups which inhabit are usually medium. The groups of birds, for example, which contain as enormously large number of different species and is yet characterized by so great a uniformity of organization that the task of classifying them has proved insuperable, is an example of a race which has probably been modified to the aerial life from a life among the branches of the trees. Here again, a certain organization is needed to live that life, and why departures from the most fitting style of structure are not to be seen. A slight structural divergence might easily prove fatal to the perfect fulfillment of their functions as flying animals. Everyone has agreed that the orders of birds are separated from each other by characters of far less importance than those which separate many, if not all, of the orders of purely terrestrial mammalia. The satisie, it is true, formed one group equivalent to ungulata, thrudentia, et cetera. But it would seem that they are more alike one genus with another and external build and internal conformation than are either two groups cited. There are, for example, larger differences in the organs of digestion among the rodents and ungulates than are met with in the whales. The variability of external form, it is hardly necessary to dwell upon. The teeth differ much more from one rodent genus to another, or from one ungulate genus to another. Then in the whales, generally speaking, fish, on the other hand, are born and bred the aquatic life, shown just as many, if not more, divergences of structure as do the mammals. The expression fish-like is, it is true, often used to describe a certain shape. But what would be more utterly different in shape than a skate and an eel or a sunfish and a soul? Here we have the precise converse of the case afforded by whales, the whole organization being fitted into the marine or freshwater life. There is ample room for much variation without affecting the necessary essentials. Bearing in mind then the profound influence which the aquatic life seems to have had in molding the external as well as the internal form of whales, it is not surprising that several naturalists have arrived at the conclusion that those structural differences, which do exist, argue the justice of dividing the group into two great orders, the toothed and the whale bone whales, which have arisen from separate ancestors and have only come to resemble each other in various details owing to convergence, i.e. the likeness is superficial and due to similar conditions, not similar descent. This convergence is not an uncommon fact in nature. Such likenesses, as there are between the seals and whales and between the manatees and the whales are examples. Flying rodents and flying marmosupials exhibit another instance of the same phenomenon. In technical zoological parlance then, by those who believe the whales to be two groups originally distinct from each other, which have come to lie side by side, they would be spoken of as difeletic, that there do not appear to be any inectant forms between the toothed and the whale bone whales, is so far in favor of this view, but much more than is necessary to lend even a color of probability to the suggestion. It is perfectly true that the two great divisions of the Mycocetay and the Odontocetay are, as will be seen from the definitions which follow, separated from each other by exceedingly trenchant characters. So, for the matter of that, are the Archeocetay from both. But what appears fatal to us is the idea of a double origin as the exact correspondence in certain structures, which, so to speak, need not necessarily have been the same. Among these, the peculiar form of the scalpula stands preeminent. It is only in whales, and it is in all whales, that this shape of scalpula is met with. End of section nine. Section 10 of the Book of Whales. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Joseph Tabler. The Book of Whales by Frank Evers Bedard. The Hunting of Whales. The economic products of whales are, not in order of importance, one, the flesh, two, the bones, three, the whale bone, and four, the oil derived from the blubber. It is for these substances that they are hunted. The first two need not detain us long. The flesh of the cayeng whale, as noticed on page 28, is utilized by the inhabitants of the Orkneys as food, and that of various other whales is eaten, but is not an article of at all general consumption. The bones as well as the flesh can be and are utilized in the case of stranded whales for manure. And the ribs have been at various times and by different peoples used to build huts with. Nearchus relates how the natives of the Mediterranean built houses of these bones and the structures of the same kind are illustrated by Oleos Magnus. The oil of whales is derived from the blubber, which as already said, forms a thick coating immediately underlying the skin. Besides, there is in many whales, especially in the sperm whale, a certain amount of clear oil contained in the head, which is solid when cold and is known as spermaceti. You must first catch your whale and then extract the oil. The use of whale oil seems to be very ancient. Monsieur Pouchet tells of a convent mentioned in the life of St. Philippe, which had run short of oil. In answer to the prayers of the inmates, a large whale was found stranded the next day. This was in the year 684. Monsieur Pouchet thinks that whales were more frequently stranded in old times than now for that reason, not being hunted. They were necessarily more numerous. It seems to be hardly a matter for doubt that whales were first of all utilized only when stranded on the shore. And very numerous are the records of whales cast up upon our coasts and those of other European countries. A number of these events are collected together by Van Beneden in his setesse de Maers to Europe and more recently, Perona, has described the whales of the Italian shores. There are numerous others scattered and more or less elaborate enumerations of the stranding of different species of whales. John Evelyn, in his diary, records a large whale which came ashore near to his house. It seems probably from the size and other suggestions to have been a roquel. Here is his description. A large whale was taken betwixt my land butting on the Thames and Greenwich, which drew an infinite concourse to see it by water, horse, coach, and on foot from London and all parts. It appeared first below Greenwich at low water for at high water, it would have destroyed all the boats. But lying now in shallow water, encompassed with boats, after a long conflict, it was killed with a harping iron, struck in the head, out of which spouted blood and water by two tunnels. And after a horrid groan, it ran quite on shore and died. Its length was 58 foot height 16, relaxed skinned like coach leather, very small eyes, great tail, only two small fins, and picked snout in a mouth so wide that diverse men might have stood upright in it. No teeth but sucked slime only as through a grate of that bone which we call whale bone, the throat yet so narrow as would not have admitted the least of fishes. The extremes of the cetaceous bones hung downwards from the upper jaw and was hairy towards the ends and bottom with inside. All of it prodigious, but in nothing more wonderful than that an animal of so great a bulk should be nourished only by slime through those grates. In Hohensched's Chronicle, we read that in 1531, the 5 and 20th of May, between London and Gravesend, were taken two great fishes called Whirlpools, male and female. These were presumably either Bale and Optura or perhaps more likely sperm whales. The expression Whirlpool for large whales was very common at that period. Earlier still and also in the Thames, we hear from Fabian's Chronicle that in the year 1472, were taken at Eareth within 12 miles of London, four wonderful fishes, where of one was called Moors marini, the second a sword fish, and the other two were whales which after some expositors were pronostications of war and trouble. The Moors marini of this description, one would think could hardly be a walrus, but it was very possibly an orca of which three individuals came up the Thames so lately as 1890. The notion of the appearance of these huge whales being a portent of dire trouble is common. In Stowe's London is recorded the standing in the Thames at Blackwall of a Parmeseti whale, the sperm whale of course. A curious variant in the spelling of this word occurs in Baker's Chronicle where the stranding of a sperm whale is recorded and the writer goes on to remark the oil being boiled out of the head was Parmesita. For the following account of a whale hunt in olden times and also up the Thames, I am indebted to the Reverend William Hunt. The story comes from the Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris. The date is 1240. Belenave, sir, sir, sir, sir, undisembrator Elias Beluas, marinas in Littore, Maras, Angelié, Contramino, Mortue, and quasi in Alicuo, Sertamine, Lese, Sunt Progete, unde Natu Senores, Mares, Confini, Habitantes, Aserabant, Belafuis, in Auditum Interpaisis Beluas and Monstromarina, coe, Sese, Adin, Visem, Mordentia, e Colindentia, Alterno, Empetu, Entero, Morrunt, Unga, Mortua, Ex-Elis, Ad Alitore, Sunt Progete, Decorom, Pisium, Numero, Unus, Monstrosi, Iman, Nitatis, Belua, in Tamansem, Veniens, Vis Interpilis, Pontes, Elesus, Patranciere, Adminerium, Altum Regio, Quad, Bontelac, Mordelic, Dicitur, Insequentibus, Multis, Navigatorobus, Confunibus, e Balistas, e Arcubus, Perveniens, Ibidem, Giaculorum, Ictibus, Vis, Est, Premtes. No season passes without the record of a few whales stranded upon the shores of Great Britain, and it is to this fortunate circumstance that our knowledge of whales is so largely due. The discovery of the economic value of many parts of these huge monsters led naturally to their pursuit either from the shore or in the open sea. As to the actual date of the first active hunting of whales, there is dispute, the real date of the origin of this pursuit being difficult to ascertain. Some say that the Basques were the earliest race to engage in the pursuit of whales as a commercial enterprise. Others hold that the Norwegians were the pioneers in this branch of industry. Probably whales were first of all hunted from the shore, as indeed they are now in the case of the Californian gray whale off the Pacific shores of North America. As to the Norwegians, the following passage may be quoted from J. Ross Brown. As early as 887, according to Anderson, in his historical and chronological deduction of the origin of commerce, or as Haklut thinks, about 890, our excellent King Alfred received from one Okhter a Norwegian an account of his discoveries northward on the coast of Norway, a coast which appears to have been very little if at all known to the Anglo-Saxons. There is one very remarkable thing in this account, for he tells King Alfred that he sailed along the Norway coast so far north as commonly the whale hunters used to travel, which shows the great antiquity of whale fishing. So undoubtedly then and long after, the use of what is usually called whale bone was not known so that they fished for whales merely on account of their fat or oil. This story seems to show not merely a great antiquity for the pursuit of whales, but that the fishery was carried on from the shore. No doubt, as soon as the value of stranded whales was ascertained, they would be hunted in this fashion and then as the shore coming whales got scarcer, they would be pursued by the whalers further and further into the ocean. Anyhow, whatever may be the actual date of the first practicing of whaling as an industry, it is clear that it was known in this country as early as before the year 1000, for there is an interesting dialogue preserved written by one Elfric, Abbott of Ensham, in which the subject of whaling is dealt with. This is in the form of a conversation between the master and his pupils, written in order to familiarize the pupils with Latin conversation. The master begins by inquiring what is to be caught in the sea. The pupil then enumerates the following curious assortment of marketable marine fishes. Alesis at Isisios, Delphinos at Sturias, Astreas at Concros, Musculos at Tornico, Culos, Neptigalos, Platerios, and Potesces, and Polypodes at Multialia. Then the master vis capere aliquem setum, Nik. The reason is then demanded. The youth is supposed to reply, cuia pericolosum est capere setum. Tutius est mihim ire ad amnem cum nave mea quam ire cum multibus. Navibus invenetionum balene et amem. The master goes on to say, multi capiunt setus et evadant pericula. It is claimed therefore that wailing was practiced presumably in this country at that date. It should be explained that the word setus also means whale. Balena means a sea monster generally. This is rather remarkable considering the derivation of setus from the Homeric word, which seems to mean a sea monster generally. Balena usually definitely means whale, but the words fal and hranis seem to put the matter beyond doubt. The American whale fishery began at any rate as early as the year 1614. At first the animals were pursued from the shore and the island of Nantucket was the headquarters of the industry. The whales were watched for from a tall spar and when the animal was seen to spout the boats immediately set out in pursuit. The whale when captured was towed ashore and the flincing carried out on the beach. Shore wailing however was after no great a period abandoned for the reason that the whales had begun to get scarce. Ships were then fitted out for long voyages and in 1790 a ship fitted out at New Bedford doubled Cape Horn and really inaugurated the South Pacific whale fishery. The names of the ships are characteristic of the date. Captain Scammon tells us that one of the first vessels to cross the Atlantic in search of whales in the year 1770 was named the no duty on tee. The whale trade went on increasing for many years in leaps and bounds. In 1775 there were as many as 300 vessels engaged in the industry and by 1846 the total number of ships had increased to about 730 representing an aggregate tonnage of 233,189 tons. At this period the investments connected with the business are said to have been at least $70 million and 70,000 persons derived their chief support from the whaling interests. That year according to the statistics given by Captain Scammon was apparently the culmination of the whale trade in America for we observe a gradual diminution of the number of vessels until the year in which the statistics end to wit 1872. In this year the number of ships was altogether only 218 representing a tonnage of 52,701. That there should be this decrease is not surprising when we learn from the same table of statistics that during the years 1835 to 1872 about 292,714 whales must have been either captured or destroyed. To write an adequate account of the whaling industry would it need a volume to itself? We can only give a few facts. There is no doubt that here as in other countries the pursuit of whales has fallen off enormously in the last 50 years. This is to be partly explained by the increasing rarity of the more valuable kinds and partly to the replacement of the substances for which whales are hunted by cheaper substitutes. Captain Ewell, harbormaster of the port of Dundee has been good enough to give me some valuable information with regard to the state of the whaling industry at that town for incorporation into the present volume. Writing to me in June, 1898 Mr. Ewell stated that in that year the whaling vessels equipped at Dundee had met with but scant success. This fact coupled with the great fall in the price of oil and the enormous expense of the voyage has reduced the industry to such a point that only five vessels have left this season. The following table also kindly supplied to me by Captain Ewell shows the number of ships in the number of whales caught in a series of years commencing with 1859. The decrease of both sets of figures is most noteworthy. Moreover, the heaviest decrease is in the number of whales, whereas in 1861, eight vessels captured between them, 121 whales, the same number of ships in 1897 only secured nine whales. This tells its own story. For some further details of whale fisheries, the reader is referred to the sections dealing with the Greenland Whale and the Southern Whalebone Whale. End of section 10.