 Section 0. A Book of Wales. 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 Pinchcliffe. A Book of Wales by Frank Evers Bedard. Preface. So far as I'm aware, there is no recent general work of a comprehensive kind dealing with the Cetacea in the English language. There are, of course, sections devoted to this group in many natural histories, such as the Royal Natural History of Mr Lydeca, Castle's Natural History, the Standard Natural History, etc. As well as the long section contained in Sir William Flower and Mr Lydeca's Mammals Recent and Extinct. I think, therefore, that there is, at present, a distinct gap to fill on behalf of those who would have, in a comparatively small compass, a general account of this group of mammal, and a selection of the voluminous literature which relates to that group. I have attempted to perform this task and to steer a course between too much exposition of technical facts and a too popular account of Wales. I have aimed at producing a solid book tempered by anecdote. It need hardly be pointed out that this book is not a monograph of the Cetacea, but on the other hand, I hope that at least the main facts of structure and mode of life of these creatures will be found in the following pages. Wales are, from many points of view, so interesting and remarkable a group of animals, that no apology is, in my opinion, needed for devoting a whole volume to them. It may be suggested, however, that, desirable though a book devoted to Wales may be, it has not a place in a series like the Progressive Science Series, which is devoted to the exposition of larger subjects than the present appears at first sight to be. It has, however, been my attempt in the present volume to endeavour to illustrate by means of the group of Wales, a very important biological generalisation, the intimate relation between structure and environment. No group shows this in a more striking degree than that with which I have occupied myself. The section on the Delphinodi will, I fear, be found less interesting than those relating to other subdivisions of the Wales tribe. They are not, as a rule, sufficiently well known to have accumulated much anecdote, and the structural differences present nothing of importance saved to the systematist. However, it is clearly necessary to include them as they form the bulk of the known cetaceans. Their synonymy, too, is perplexing and far from settled. I have, as will be seen, followed true in the main adopting some subsequent alterations of his views. As the present volume is not in any sense a catalogue of Wales, I have foreborn from giving a synonymy in the orthodox way, but I have mentioned most of the names which have been at one time or another applied to Delphins. Those who desire to pursue this portion of the subject further can refer to Mr True's account of the family Delphinodi, which is frequently referred to in the text. I may remark, finally, that a large number of the actual facts have been verified, and that here and there some small details appear which have not been hitherto recorded. This is the end of the preface. Section 1. A Book of Wales. 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 Pinchcliffe. The Book of Wales by Frank Evers Bedard. Introductory. The subject of which the present volume treats is undoubtedly one of interest to the general public, as well as to the naturalist. The huge size of many of these creatures, the rarity of the occurrence of some of them, and the mystery which envelops the habits of the great bulk of the species is attractive. Besides, to many people, the whale is an ingenious paradox, by reason of the fact that it lives in the water and yet is not a fish. At no more remote a date than 1895, thought Professor Huxley, this question of the fish-like nature of whales was not settled for many persons. Such persons, however, had on their side the naturalists of the 16th and even the 17th centuries who classified whales with fish. Even so recently as 1818, I quote from Sir William Flower, the current edition of Johnson's Dictionary defined a fish as an animal inhabiting the water. Hence a whale undoubtedly coming under the definition would be classified by the author of that dictionary as a fish. To the naturalist, the remarkable adaptation to its mode of life with the resultant fish-like form is no less interesting. But no competent zoologist has any longer any doubt of the mammalian character of the cetacea. It is even possible to assert that whales are remote from some of the existing and vanished groups of mammals, but the exact affinities of these creatures is a matter which is still disputed. There is thus a field for speculation which at present has hardly any limits. In cases of this kind, new and important evidence may be forthcoming at any minute, which lends a particular fascination to the study of this group, much more than to the study of these groups whose affinities are more thoroughly known. The existing knowledge of this group is very far from being complete. From the nature of the case, whales are exceedingly difficult to investigate. The opportunities for dissection are particularly confined to stranded specimens, and the stranding of whales is not an everyday occurrence. Obvious difficulties, moreover, hamper the naturalist who is so fortunate as to receive timely information of the stranding of a desired specimen. On the other hand, there is much more accumulated knowledge concerning the skeleton of cetacea. But even here there are many regrettable lacunae, not only by reason of the frequent imperfections of the skeletons, but also because of the sheer lack of material in the case of many forms, particularly among the dolphins. The often fragmentary character of the available cetacean remains, and the consequent and necessary inability to distinguish between what might be fairly regarded as real specific or generic differences, and what were mere variations led the late Dr. Gray to create a vast number of species and genera of whales. Comparatively few of those new forms which he instituted are now allowed by the students of this group. Though doubtless, a good many forms remain for identification and establishment. The total number of real species and genera of whales is a comparatively small one. This is itself an inducement to the study of the order, since it is possible to acquire a general knowledge of the whole group. A naturalist, who hopes to have a thorough acquaintance with such an order as that of the Redenture, has much work before him. The student of the cetacea, on the other hand, has to deal with not more than 35 genera and, at most, 80 species. It will be attempted to give the bulk of what is known concerning all of these in the present volume. End of Introductory 2 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 Sally Sharp at www.soundsharp.com The Book of Whales by Frank Evers Badard Section 2 A Book of Whales Chapter 1 The External Form of Whales Size of Whales Since the most obvious characteristic of the whale tribe is their large, occasionally colossal bulk, we cannot do better than commence with this salient peculiarity. Whales vary in length from barely four feet, Ponto Poria, to as much as 80 or 85, Balianoptra, Sibaldi. But their dimensions have been grossly exaggerated by modern writers, as well as by the ancients, for whom there was more excuse. It is an unquestionable fact that no creature known to science ever existed, which was larger than the largest whale, and that the colossal dinosaurs of the Secondary Epic fell some feet short of Balianoptra, Sibaldi. As a consequence, size is the one thing that is expected of a whale. Actual length measurements have been swollen by taking into account the bulging sides of the catechians, and with this help some astounding dimensions have received the sanction of not specially credulous persons. One Akhtar, a Norwegian, reported to King Alfred that the best whales caught in his own country were as much as 50 yards long. This is some diminution from Pliny, who held that in the Indian Sea called Balina, or Whirlpool, is so long and broad as to take up more length and breadth than two acres of ground. 900 feet is another measurement given by the same natural historian, but the size of whales by no means decreased with the advance of the centuries. Olaus Magnus allowed 960 feet in length to shorten her suit, whales, but when the latter authority comes down to definite and recorded fact, he is more careful with such measurements. In a section of his well-known work, Olaus Magnus figures a monstrous Pisces, stranded on the northern shores of England in the year 1532, which was naturally regarded as important. This animal, or another seen by the archbishop on the Norwegian shore, was 90 feet in length, a measurement which may conceivably have been accurate since it seems to have been a Balianoptera, which is known to reach 85 feet in length. Apart, however, from all exaggeration, it is evident that whales are not only the largest of living mammals, but the largest of all animals, mammalian or otherwise, which have ever existed. It is interesting to inquire into the reasons for their excessive bulk over the animal world in general. There are various causes which seem to contribute to the acquisition of a mighty frame. In the first place, the medium in which the animal lives must have something to do with it. Aquatic creatures have naturally less difficulty in sustaining a colossal bulk than have animals which live in a less dense medium. We find, in fact, a distinct relation between size and habitat. The blue shark, Carcerius, remarked the late professor Milnes Marshall, attains a length of 25 feet, specimens of Carcerodon have been measured over 40 feet in length, while of the genus Rhynodon, examples of 50, 60, or even 70 feet in length have been described. Purely volent animals, bats, birds, and pterodactyls have far greater difficulties in sustaining themselves in the air, hence these classes of animals are relatively small. We may believe in eye-pureness, but we cannot accept a flying rock. The middle position is occupied by mammals, which require more muscular effort to stand or crawl than aquatic creatures, but not nearly so much as aerial. We find that their size is in correspondence. The mastodon and the great ground sloths were larger than any pterodactyl or bird, but not so large as whales. The dinosaurs are thought by some to have been at least partially aquatic, to have frequented at least marshes and estuaries, but even if they were purely terrestrial, they do not acquire absolutely the same colossal dimensions as do some whales. Not so intelligible as the last reason for enormous growth in size, but apparently to be proved by statistics, is the inference that large size is in proportion to the degree of organization of the creature. The simplest of all living creatures, the protozoa, are at the same time the smallest. Vertebrates grow to a larger size than invertebrates, and finally mammals, as represented by whales, grow to be the giants of the animal creation. Another favoring circumstance to large increase in size is abundance and easiness of capture of food, as well as freedom from foes. The tiger, or lion, at the expense of great expenditure of force, hunts down an antelope or a deer, while the whale gulps in huge mouthfuls of whale food with ease and comfort. Protected by its thick covering of fat, it does not readily fall a victim to any foes. Indeed, the only powerful enemy that it has at all is the killer whale orca, and it is not always that a green land whale succumbs to a shoal of those marine tigers. An ingenious suggestion has been made, which covers some of the apparent exaggerations in the dimensions of whales attributed to the agents. Monsieur Pouchet thinks that, since in old times, whales were not hunted at any rate to the extent that they are now and have been lately, they may, possibly, have had the opportunity of growing to larger dimensions. The sailor, Nierches, is quoted by Monsieur Pouchet upon the size of a magaptre of the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the magaptre indica of Monsieur Gervais referred to below. The Greek described it as 48 meters, but another rendering of the text says 23 meters, which, though large, is nearer to what we now regard as the truth. Shape of the body. In their shape, whales present a remarkable uniformity. Indeed, next to bulk, this is perhaps their most salient characteristic in the popular mind. They are all fish-like, with tapering body, big flukes, one pair of paddles, no apparent vestiges of hind limbs, no external ear, tiny eyes, and black or black-and-white coloration. Contrast the state of affairs with what obtains in many other groups of mammals. Compare the sloth and the anteater, near allies in structure to each other. One is tailless, long-limbed, short-snouted, inactive, inconspicuously colored, and with long-hooked claws. The other is bushy-tailed, comparatively short-limbed, enormously long-snouted, vigorous in its motions, conspicuous in color, owing to the broad white band upon its black body, and with strong tearing claws. Or, to take an example from another group of animals, what a large difference seems to separate the active, four-legged, brightly colored green lizard from the snake-like, inactive, dullly colored, blind worm. And yet, they are very closely allied. But one very important reason for diversity in the two examples selected, and for uniformity in the case of the whales, will at once strike the reader. The whales live under like conditions. The other animals lead totally different lives. The sloth never leaves the trees to whose branches it clings by the help of its long-curved claws, and upon whose leaves it browses. The ant-eater digs up with its sharp claws the firmly welded ant-hills of tropical America, and licks up with its long tongue the ants which it thus disturbs. Whales, on the other hand, not only all live in the sea or in rivers, but spend a great deal of their time below the surface, and are nearly all animal feeders. Moreover, it seems to be a well-established fact that the majority of whales range freely over wide stretches of ocean, the same species occurring in such widely separated localities as Tasmania and the coast of Britain, e.g. the sperm whale. While some perform regular migrations, hence diverse temperatures can have but little effect in producing differences. It is an interesting fact to note that those whales which are restricted in their range are at least, often, more different from their allies. The members of the family Platonis today are restricted in range and show differences among themselves. No one could confound the Platonista of the Ganges with Inia of the Amazons. Beluga and Monodon are peculiar types and they are both arctic in habitat. We cannot, however, push this matter further since, as is the case with most general statements, there are exceptions. Among those exceptions, we may note the Greenland right whale which differs but slightly from the widely distributed Bellina Australis or Biscayanus, as it is sometimes called. The flukes of the whale, which form its tail, are set, as everyone knows, at right angles to the plane of the body but vertically as in fishes. It has been noticed by several that the two halves of the tail fin have surfaces which are not precisely parallel to each other. They have, in fact, a screw-like form, one half being convex upwards, the other concave, and the use of the flukes seems to imply such a conformation. Captain Scorsby observes of the Greenland whale that it is, by means of the tail, principally that the whale advances through the water. The greatest velocity is produced by powerful strokes against the water. Impressed alternately upward and downward, but a slower motion, it is believed, is elegantly produced by cutting the water laterally and obliquely downward in a similar manner as a boat is forced along with a single oar in the operation of sculling. It is the latter motion, of course, that would be brought about by the slightly screw-like form of the tail fin. The tail, however, is also used in balancing, as a whale, when dead, falls over on its side. They are also of service in turning and, indeed, as a weapon of offense for striking boats. This seems to be deliberate in the case of the Californian whale. A dissection of the tail shows a beautiful and elaborate complex of tendons which are attached to the muscles of the trunk. These run in all directions and so account for the varied movements of the organ. There are diverse opinions as to the nature of the whale's tail. The late Dr. Gray was strongly of opinion, as are or were some others, that this organ is to be looked upon as the degenerate equivalent of the posterior pair of limbs. It must be admitted that there is a prima facie possibility in favour of this view, which is not unattractive. We should have, on this hypothesis, the whales exhibiting the last term of a series commenced by the sea lions. It has also been pointed out that the backwardly directed rudiments of the bony hind limbs conform to such a way of regarding the matter. It seems as if they had shrunk while the folds of the integument originally connected with them had remained, forming the flukes. There are not wanting analogies to support this theory. It is known, for instance, that there are, as a rule, fewer retracies, tail feathers, in modern birds than in archaeoterex, where each of the free caudal vertebrae supported a pair of these strong feathers. In modern birds, the retracies are all attached to the terminal plough-sharebone of the tail, which is produced by a fusion of not more than six or seven vertebrae. Now, as there are occasionally more than six or seven pairs of retracies, it looks much as if the epidermal structures had remained while the corresponding skeletal structures had vanished. Again, to take an example from a widely different class, there is a lamp-free with a pair of skin folds in the neighborhood of the vent, which are believed by some to represent a pair of otherwise missing hind limbs. Apart from these folds, there is no trace of limbs, no skeletal elements, that is to say. Plausible, though, such a derivation of the flukes of the whale may be, there are arguments which seem to be absolutely fatal to their entertainment. The tale of phonzina communus, when it first appears, is a prolongation of the body, sharply marked off from the body and precisely so far, like the tale of a typically tailed and terrestrial mammal. This tale has at first practically no lateral flanges. When these put in an appearance, they are obviously lateral expansions of the integument and the tale has a diamond-shaped outline. It is indeed not unlike that of a manatee in general shape. It is interesting to note this fact, for the manatee is clearly an animal whose ancestors were less remotely terrestrial in habit. Finally, the characteristic flukes of the adult are acquired, but the argument which seems to conclude the matter is that in this same porpoise, coincidentally with the appearance of the lateral flanges of the tale, the supposed hind limbs be it remembered, distinct traces of those same hind limbs are visible in their proper place, that is to say, considerably in front of the tale. If a further argument in the same direction be wanted, it is afforded by the analogy of the ichthyosaurus. These aquatic reptiles have been lately discovered to have possessed a dorsal fin, not unlike that of the whales, and a caudal fork, which unlike that of the whales was vertical in direction. Now the ichthyosaurus had undoubted hind limbs, so that there can be no question of any correspondence here. The fact, therefore, that the whale's tail, unlike that of the fish, is at right angles to the axis of the body, as so far resembles the complex tail of the seal, is no argument, even from analogy, in favor of its having a limb-like character. The ichthyosaurus has no more right to a tail than the whale, save by virtue of its being an aquatic creature. The tail is in both a secondary adaptation to the needs of their existence. We must look, as Dr. Cuckenthal remarks, to the broad tail of the beaver for an analogy to the flukes of the whale. It is, however, somewhat astonishing to find the whale unlike the ichthyosaurus, which is with equal certainty derived from a terrestrial ancestor has transverse tail fins. Astonishing since the universality of a vertical fin in fish seems to argue its greater use as a swimming organ. The only conclusion to which this question seems to lead is that reptiles that are not so thoroughly modified for an aquatic life as the ichthyosaurus and are yet largely or entirely aquatic, such as crocodiles and sea snakes have a vertically compressed tail, while among mammals it is generally flattened from above downwards in such forms, instances of this being the beaver and the platypus. But this is not universal, only prevalent, for in the West, African, insectivore, otter, potomogale, we have a vertically compressed tail. It is possible that we may be justified in putting the question out of the category of a whale question by adopting the belief that whales have been derived from serenian-like ancestors. Perhaps the ingenious Ray was nearer the truth when he wrote that quote, in catechus fishes the tail hath a different position from what it hath in all other fishes, for whereas in these it is erected perpendicular to the horizon, in them it lies parallel there too. Partly to supply the use of the hinder pair of fins which these creatures lack and partly to raise and depress the body at pleasure. For it being necessary that these fishes should frequently ascend the water to breathe or take in and let out the air, it was fitting and convenient that they should be provided with an organ to facilitate their ascent and descent as they had occasion, end quote. There can indeed be no reasonable doubt but that this is an important function of the whale's tail. It remains underwater for a long time until the air taken in by respiration is exhausted. It must then rapidly ascend to the surface, perhaps from a great depth, to take in a fresh supply. An air-breathing creature must be in touch with the air. A powerful series of strokes with the flukes would cause it to ascend with great rapidity. But the ichtheosaurus was also an air-breathing creature at least so we must assume from its place of reptiles. It is, of course, conceivable, even probable that it may have possessed accessory, respiratory organs in the shape of vascular fringes, such as certain aquatic tortoises have at the present day. But no doubt can exist as to the possession of lungs. Therefore the extinct fish-lizard must also have come to the surface of the Cretaceous seas to spout. But its tail is fish-like in its verticalness and if we are to suppose that it resembled the whale in its diving and ascending to the surface, it is difficult to understand how it is that the tail is not made after the best pattern for affecting such movements. As a matter of fact, it seems according to Professor Alborn that the ichthyosaurus tail was suitable to a life of constant interchange between air and water but in a different way from that of the whale. Dr. Alborn has remarked in a recent and highly interesting paper that the ichthyosaurus and the shark stand in regard to their tail at the two opposite poles of aquatic creatures. They both possess what is termed in the fish a hetero- circle tail. This kind of tail is marked by the fact that the backbone is continued into the edge of the actual tail fin, the upper edge in the case of the shark, the lower edge in the reptile. So that in both cases the bulk of the actual fin itself lies either above or below the strengthening bar of bones and cartilages. It is suggested that the apobati or hypobati of the tail corresponds to a different function in the two cases. In the shark the movements of the body generally and of the tail would tend to move the fish downwards. In the hypobatius tail the movements of the tail would raise it and thus depress the head and in consequence the direction of progression would be away from the air, a state of affairs which is precisely what the shark would want. On the other hand the same movements of the apobatius tail would tend to direct the course of the reptile towards the surface of the water. So that after all the ichthyosaurus has a tail which is as useful or nearly so for enabling its possessor to move quickly to the top of the water as are the horizontal flukes of the whale. Dorsal fin Most whales have a fin on the dorsal side of the body, nearer to the posterior than to the anterior end of the body. The resemblance of this fin to the similarly placed dorsal fin of fishes is obvious. It has even been asserted that there are two dorsal fins in all whales but the existence of a second end of a fish like anal fin seems to be purely mythical. This fin is especially analogous to the fatty fin of the salmonoid fishes. It is not however present in all whales and when present is of very, very young size. According to Cucanthol the fin is not present in the young embryo of those whales which will eventually have a fin but it is represented by a long dorsal fold reaching back to the flukes. This structure appears to persist in monodon. The series of low irregular humps which take the place of the dorsal fin in the sperm whale may also be ascribable to the retention of an iconic condition. In Delphianapteris and Neomeris which are finless in the adult condition there is simply a low ridge in the embryo. There is an ascending series in length of the dorsal fin when it is fully present as in most Delphiniidae which culminates in orca where the fin is so large as to sometimes fly over at the top to one side. So high and pointed is the dorsal fin of this fierce cetacean that had been figured as a sharp horn capable of sticking into the body of the whale bone whale which this creature persecutes. The function of the dorsal fin seems to be that of a balancing organ and it is important to notice that it is at its largest in the swift and carnivorous orca. Dr. Murie is inclined to see in the dorsal fin a representative of the hump or humps of the camels and zebu. Such evidence as there is of the existence of two dorsal fins consists in the first place of some observations made by Miseries Coy and Gemard during the voyage of the French ship Ireny. The testimony of such observers must not be lightly rejected. It will be better to leave them to tell their own tale. Quote In the month of October 1819 going from the Sandwich Islands to New South Wales we saw in latitude 5.28n a number of dolphins performing their rapid evolutions around the ship. Everybody on board was surprised to see as we did on the forehead a horn or fin curved backwards similar to that upon the back. The size of the animals was about double that of the common porpoise and the upper surface as far as the dorsal fin was spotted black and white. We carefully examined these dolphins for the whole time that they accompanied us but although they passed close enough to touch the prow of our corvette having the highest part of the body out of the water their head was so deeply plunged below the surface that M. Arego the draftsman of the expedition and we ourselves were unable to distinguish whether the snout was long or short end quote They called this animal le Dauphin Reynosseuras The relation of these gentlemen gains support from some observations of Raffinesque who recorded a dolphin from the Sicilian coast also with two dorsal fins and which he named Mongtore Further than this Mr. Couch was informed that a dolphin with two dorsal fins had been observed in April 1857 on the coast of Cornwall These dolphins or whatever they were must however remain problematical for the time being but there is clearly a case which cannot be absolutely ignored and there is no inherent improbability especially when we remember the series of low humps upon the back of the cashelot End of section 2 Recording by Sally Sharpe of soundssharp.com Section 3 of the Book of Wales 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 Mike Botez The Book of Wales by Frank Evers Bedard Chapter 1 Part 2 The pectoral fin The flippers of the whale correspond of course to the anterior pair of limbs in other vertebrates Whales have only the rudiments of posterior appendages The limbs vary much in length and shape being sometimes rounder and sometimes longer and narrower The tip may or may not be curved round the appendage in the former case acquiring a falcate form The limbs of whales do not seem to be much used for progression They are rather used as balancers and thus resemble the anterior fins of fishes Squaresbee studied the action of the fins through a telescope and came to the conclusion that they were balancers and besides when a whale is dead it heals over onto the side a fact which seems to be a further proof that this is the function of the flippers The superficial likeness of the whales flippers to the fish fin has been mentioned It is excitingly interesting to find that these are of course coupled with essential similarities to the hand of the mammalia and by comparing the two series of facts with each other and to the fact derived from the study of other aquatic creatures such as the seals on the one hand and aquatic reptiles such as Ictheosaurus on the other it seems possible to extricate characters that are due to the aquatic mode of life It will be necessary however to preface the description of the actual facts in the structure of whales with which we are concerned in the present chapter with a brief account of the essential likenesses and the essential unlikenesses between the fins of fishes the limbs of higher vertebrates The fins of fishes consist of a number of cartilaginous pieces arranged in rows of which the proximal one to four are larger than the rest and articulate with the shoulder girdle or the pelvic girdle as the case may be The cartilaginous or bony pieces are continued on at their ends by the horny fin rays which extend to the end of the fin The number and arrangements of these various cartilages or bones is naturally subject to some differences in different fishes It is not our object however here to do more than to call attention to the essential features in which the fins of fishes differ from the limbs of the vertebrates which lie higher on the scale The fish fin is termed the ichthyoproteidium to distinguish it from the limbs of all vertebrates higher than the fishes which possess what is called the keropteridium The actual facts of difference are these The keropteridium or hand-like limb always consists of a proximal bone The humerus or femur which alone articulates with the shoulder girdle or pelvic girdle This is followed by two bones the radius and ulna in the hind limb the tibia and fibula After this follows the carpus or tarsus composed of varying number of small bones or cartilages Then follow the fingers or toes composed of varying number of bones There are never more than five fully developed fingers or toes and often there are less But rudiments of one or two additional digits are believed to be represented by certain supplementary bones at the side of the first and of the last digit In the ichthyopteridium or fish fin there is no such clear distinction into the several regions which characterize the keropteridium The whole limb is shorter and often two or more pieces articulate with a limb girdle The distal cartilages are generally more numerous than five But they are not so much subdivided from the keropteridium into a series of pieces following one another It is not possible in the ichthyopteridium to recognize clearly the several regions of the keropteridium arm, forearm, wrist digits Now there are two points in which the whale's hand and arm have come to be slightly modified in the direction of the ichthyopteridium In the first place the distinction between hand and arm is commencing to vanish The proportions between the bones is not so unequal as in typical mammals The radius and ulna are short bones and there is less distinction between the bones of the carpus and ensuing metacarpus in the terrestrial mammals This modification however has not gone very far As may be seen from the drawing on page 25 it is still perfectly easy to distinguish the several elements of which the arm is made up It follows from this that the hand proper is larger in comparison with the arm than it is in terrestrial mammals This is precisely what is found in the ichthyopteridium We may regard perhaps the larger cartilages which articulate with the shoulder girdle as corresponding with the humerus, radius and ulna The commencing disappearance of marks of distinction between the different elements of the arm is of course correlated with the absence of a differentiation of function between its several parts A broad fin like that of a fish and of a whale would be as efficient if there were an absolute similarity between its several cartilages as if there were a differentiation The second point of likeness is not shown in all whales In beluga however is divided into two fingers incompletely it is true but still the division is plain enough This is a step in the direction of the polyductilus fin of the fish In no whale however is this feature of resemblance shown to a greater extent Together with these points of likeness not numerous or strong but admitted are obvious points of difference The increased surface of the whale's puddle desirable in an organ used as a fin is affected in a different way from the fin of a fish In the whale the area is increased not much by multiplication of the fingers but by their spreading out in a divergent fashion so as to require a larger skin area and by the increase of their length caused by the rejuplication of the finger bones The phenomenon known as hyperphalange is usually in whales The typical mammalian foot or hand is composed of digits which have but three phalanges the thumb indeed possessing but two In whales the number of phalanges may reach so great as 17 In the fish fin on the contrary the required area is obtained firstly by the multiplication of rays and secondly by the continuation of the fin as an expansion supported by the horny or calcified fin rays which have nothing to do with the cartilages of the fin but are exoskeletal structures Rarely in the batoid fishes skates the cartilages of the fins increase and the horny fin rays disappear The closest analogy with the whales is offered by those extinct aquatic reptiles the ichthyosauria Like the whales they are clearly to be derived from terrestrial reptiles There is no suggestion that they have sprung separately on their own account from fishes Their hand is still further advanced than is that of the whale but along the same lines There are it is true only five fingers of which the last is split into two so far resembling the whales but the number of phalanges is great in all these fingers not only is the hyperphalange of the ichthyosaurian manus more pronounced than is that of the cetacea but the individual elements are less separable by their distinctive characters A recognizable humerus is followed by a series of bones which can hardly be classified into radius and ulna carpus and metocarpus by their position and relations so much like are they in general appearance but it must be noted that the number of phalanges in any given digit is not greater than what is to be met with among the whales This observes Professor Cookentall is a case of convergence of which no better example could be imagined In two groups of animals so remote in the vertebrate series as are the whales and ichthyosaurus we have a modification into a puddle which has preceded along precisely the same lines only carried further in the reptile than the mammal It will now be interesting to inquire to what degree the limbs of other aquatic animals that have been derived from reptile ancestors resemble the fins of the whales We naturally turn first of all to the sirenia and to the seals and sea lions In comparing the pectoral limb of the whales with the ichthyopteridium and with the puddle of the ichthyosaurus it was unnecessary to point out the absence upon the former For the presence or absence of these structures does not bear up on the question of comparison in the two cases But the absence of nails must be mentioned in comparing the whales flippers with the limbs of the manatees and sea lions For the more perfect adaptation of the whales to an aquatic existence has led to the total disappearance in the adult of all traces of nails up on the digits But Dr. Cuckentall has found rudiments of these structures in the fetus as has also leebok These structures consist of thickening of the epidermis which is situated above the last phalanx Now in the sea lions and seals Nails are very well developed but they do not lie at the extremities of the digits to which they belong They are situated some way in the front of the point and the limb is continued beyond them as a cartilaginous rod not divided up into separate phalanges It seems therefore that this cartilaginous continuation super-added to the bony phalanges which lie on the proximal side of it can have nothing to do with the hyperphalange of the whales But the explanation or attempted explanation of hyperphalangry is a manner which will be treated of presently As to the manatee Nails are present or absent Evidently, therefore on the whale, as might be expected in marine or at least aquatic animals which have been longer denizens of the rivers and sea than have the sea lions Longer in all probability that is to say since their adaptation to the aquatic life is more complete Manatus inunguis is so named on the account total absence of nails up on the hands This has happened noted by several writers and there can be no doubt about the matter Now it is precisely in the group of the sirenia that hyperphalange is also met with but to a very small extent nothing like what we find among the whales Finally among the amphibia the same phenomenon is met with so that the occurrence of hyperphalange may as it seems be fairly set down to the need for an increased surface of hand to form a competent puddle A very singular fact about this hyperphalange in the whales is the existence of more numerous phalanges in the young than in the adult Thus in Fockeina communis the phalangeal formula of an embryo 7 cm long is 1 3 2, 8 3, 9 4, 5 5, 4 of an adult 2, 8, 6, 4 2 are the figures This looks as if the adaptation to an aquatic life had as it were at first overshot the mark the reduction taken place later that the creatures started with too ample a provision for its needs to be later curtailed or indeed it seems more likely that the pectoral fin was originally a swimming organ and is now reduced to a mere balancer the degenerating muscles argue the same way the hand muscles of Balenoptera musculus are in all four on the exterior side ie the back of the hand is a single extensor the extensor communis digitorum this has a short muscular head arising between the radius and ulna it soon passes into tendon and on the wrist divided into four tendons one for each finger on the opposite side of the hand are three muscles two of these the flexor profundis digitorum and the flexor longus pollichis join together by their tendon it up into four tendons for the four digits the fourth muscle is the flexor carpi ulnaris it runs from the ulna to the PC form bone in the wrist we should therefore consider the pectoral fin as an organ which has undergone a change of function originally a paddle large size originally brought about by hyper phalange was necessary to it the assumption of dysfunction by the tail led to a reduction in the hand which has progressed very much further in some whales than in others hind limb traces of a hind limb have been found in many whales it is possibly represented in all but it has not been discovered in a good many of all whales whose structure is known best the hind limb is less reduced in ballena mistecetus this is rather a curious fact in view of the usual opinion that the right whale and indeed the whale bone whales generally are the most terrified of existing cetacea nevertheless in that whale there is a single bone representing the pelvis and there are in addition small pieces of a bone or cartilage which correspond respectively to the femur and to the tibia the femur is ossified in some 4 to 9 inches in length the tibia is only cartilaginous in the roarquals there is an instructive series of stages in the reduction of the hind limb in ballenoptera musculus the femur is represented by a spherical bony nodule first discovered by Sir William flower in B borealis and B nostrata no traces of a femur to exist the actual limb itself does not appear to be represented in the toothed whales it is the general view that the curved bone which is all that is left of the actual pelvis is the homolog of only one of three bones out of which each half of the pelvis is formed in terrestrial mammals considered to be equivalent of the ischium mainly on the account of certain muscles which are attached to it added to this stress has been laid on the fact that it ossifies from one center only and not from three as might have been the case where it is the equivalent of three bones ilium, ischium and pubis which constitute the normal mammalian pelvis professor delage has ingeniously argued in favor of the theory that the single bone of the cetacea represents the entire series in the ordinary mammals the continuity of the partly bony partly cartilaginous mass is not necessarily fatal to the view where there are three separate bones not to mention the small cotyloid the cartilage which they replace is at first perfectly continuous mass and as to the appearance of but one center of ossification in this mass which gradually invades the whole or nearly the whole it may be that prolonged investigation will show that there are other ossifications and in any case it might be that the whole mass being so reduced had only room so to speak for one center of ossification in any case there is a considerable superficial similarity between the small pelvis of baleenoptera and the fully developed pelvis of other mammals there is a fourth extension suggestive of an ilium a downward process which might do duty for a pubis and hollow in the middle of the bone which is not at all unlike the glenoid cavity in this indeed rudimentary femur is lodged the question is interesting as a general example of what happens when reduction through the generation takes place we shall recur to it presently and in the meantime deal with one or two other points in the structure of the hind limb in baleenoptera musculus the rudimentary femur is attached to the pelvis by two ligaments one anterior and the other posterior in these ligaments rudiments of muscle appear in the shape of a few fibers the actual correspondence of these muscles with those of terrestrial mammals depends of course on what view is taken of the homologies of ischium if the pelvis is simply an ischium then the arrangement of the bands of ligament would seem to show that of all femur left is the great trochanter a process of that bone particularly well developed in many mammals in balena mistichetus there are three recognizable slips of muscle end of section 3 recording by Mike Botez section 4 of the book of wales is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by Mike Botez the book of wales by Frank Evers Bedard chapter 1 part 3 hair one of the most universal definitions of the mammalia is the possession of hairy covering no other animals have any epidermal structures which are strictly comparable to hairs and hairs are present in almost all mammals the whales indeed are the only exception to the universality of this statement and they are after all only a partial exception the white whale beluga and the narwhal monodon appear never to possess any hairs either as adults or fetuses but in many other species hairs have been found to persist in the adult condition sometimes in diminished numbers in others there are hairs in the fetus but none in the adult animal these hairs are however fairly limited in every case to the jaw region and are so few that they can be and have been counted thus in the common purpose there are but two on each side in the fetus the adult baleenoptera borealis has according to doctor collet 26 some additional facts will be found below in the systematic part of the present volume the most noteworthy point however about these hairs next to the scarcity of them is the fact that they seem to be in all cases rudimentary a careful investigation of the structure of the skin has shown doctor kukenthal that the hairs of whales are entirely without those small glands associated with the hairs of mammals and secreting an oily matter for the lubrication of the hairs these sebaceous glands as they are termed are not found in cetacea at all their absence clearly denotes a degeneration in the hairs now the question arises is this loss of hair a matter of aquatic life is it in any way connected to their aquatic existence or has it some other explanation the usual view of course is that the hair is absent as not necessary to an aquatic animal the use of hair is largely that of retaining the heat of the body the loss of the heat in whales is prevented by the thick covering of blubber as well as by the thickness of the body thus a hairy covering would be unnecessary and perhaps even in the way though this is not so clear for whales as a rule do not swim very fast and many hairy creatures like the otter do swim with considerable rapidity the whales are the most purely aquatic of all mammals and they are undoubtedly there seems therefore to be some connection between the two facts but it must be borne in mind that in the seals and sea lions there is an outer coating of fat and yet the hair is retained particularly of course in the species which furnish the seal skin of commerce and which possesses a soft thick under fur as well as a coating of their hairs among aquatic mammals however there appears to be an undoubted tendency to lose the hairy coverings among the sea lions some do not possess the soft under fur which makes the pelages of their allies so valuable the hair is with them apparently becoming reduced then we have the sirenia manatee in which the hair has almost disappeared the walrus is another case in point and so is the hippopotamus but the latter instance is suggestive of another possible reason for the loss of the hairy covering in the whales there are several ungulate types which have gradually got less hairy in the course of their evolution the elephants of today are thrust by their almost naked skin with the mammoth of the Pleistocene the modern rhinoceros is hardly more hairy except indeed the Sumatran species while there was contemporary with the mammoth the hairy rhinoceros another division of the ungulates shows the same tendency in the pig tribe we have the largely hairless babirusa as well as the hippopotamus already referred to it is conceivable therefore that we have in the whales an exaggeration of an ungulate tendency and there are some who derive the whales from an ungulate ancestry as we will be pointing out in more detail in a future chapter there is yet another possible explanation of the hairless condition of the whale tribe whales are at present smooth skinned animals a few exceptions will be dealt with on another page but there is evidence which will be gone into on the page quoted that the ancestors of whales had dermal scutes forming an armature comparable to that of such a creature as the armadillo now in that animal the hairs have become reduced they have been replaced by the scales and there is no room for them except between the scutes if the view be correct that the ancestral whales were creatures clothed with scutes it is easy to see how the nude condition of the modern whales has been arrived at and the hair covering would have been destroyed by the appearance of the scutes and when this latter disappeared the hair would not reappear at any rate that is a legitimate assumption it must not therefore be assumed offhand that the absence of hair recovering in whales is a simple question of their aquatic life dermal skeleton in smooth skinned creatures like whales without anything more than at most a vestige of the original mammalian hairy covering it may appear at first somewhat unnecessary to devote a section to a subject with such a title as that selected to head the present page nevertheless the interesting fact is true that in two whales at any rate in certain forms considerable traces of a dermal armature exist which seems to be fairly interpretable as a remnant of what seems to have been a more extensive armature of a similar kind in certain of the extinct zooglodont some years ago in 1865 the late Dr. Gray described from the shores of Margate a purpose which he regarded as new and described under the name Fockeina tuberculifera on account of the fact that it possessed a series of spines on the upper edge of the dorsal fin Dr. Gray was not then aware that the same character occurs in the common purpose that it had been noted so long ago as Pliny the common purpose in fact is marked by this character as is also Fockeina spinipinus of Burmeister and the allied if not identical genus Neomedis focanoides the latter animal has a more extensive series of these tubercles which have been fully described by Dr. Cucantal there are several rows of them running along the back this genus has no dorsal fin from not far behind head to a point not remote from the commencement of the tail in Fockeina spinipinus there are more numerous tubercles than in P communis present on the back as well as on the front margin of the dorsal fin Dr. Cucantal has pointed out that these tubercles are especially large comparatively and obvious in the embryos of Neomedis an important fact in view of the inheritance from a more completely armored ancestor these tubercles have a form which is indicated in the accompanying figure that is figure 7 there is more especially in the area in the center of each the general outline is squarish as will be also seen in the figure these structures are by no means unlike scales but the term scale is one which is often used in more than one sense it is necessary to inquire as to what kind of scales these integmental tubercles are to be likened to the scales of a lizard or a snake are simply horny thickenings of the epidermis they are therefore not at all comparable to the scales of such a fish as the perch or pike where the scales are calcified plates produced in the dermis lying below the epidermis in other fishes such as the sharks and rays the scales are calcified structures produced by the joint activity of both epidermis and dermis professor kukenthal discovered that the rudimentary scales of the common porpoise are calcified and that the calcification is only met within the dermis it follows therefore that the rudimentary dorsal armature of the porpoise is comparable to the skin plates of an armadillo to compare it with an animal that is nearer to it in the series than any type of reptile or fish now although these structures are much reduced in the common porpoise they are not really absolutely limited to the anterior margin of the fin as had been thought for professor kukenthal made the important observation that here and there scattered over the general body surface on the ventral as well as on the dorsal side were similar but rather more rudimentary tubercles it thus appears a fair conclusion that we have to deal here with a creature which has descended from an armored ancestor such as an armadillo by this supposition it is of course not meant that the whales are the offspring of creatures exactly like the armadillo or even referable to the same group of mammals the edentata which includes that form it is merely meant to suggest that their ancestors were as completely armored as the armadillo nor is this a mere theory it seems to be an undoubted fact that a fossil whale called by Johannes Müller Delfinopsis Freieri has its body covered in many regions with small closely set tubercles these tubercles are described as being harder than stone and they must be comparable to the comparatively feeble tubercles which the descendants of this whale and its allies have retained today the blow hole the blow hole or the blow holes where there are two separate orifices of the whale are of course its nostrils they are situated on the top of the head as a rule some way behind the front of the head except in the sperm whale this is in accordance with robotic life we see such diverse types as the crocodile and the hippopotamus analogous arrangements of the nostrils which allow of the animal coming to the surface to breathe and at the same time exposing the minimum of its person to possible enemies the blowing or spouting of a whale is of course the act of expiration it takes place as the whale reaches the surface or just before after an immersion more or less prolonged but the real nature of this process has received more than one false interpretation Milton wrote and probably many believe with him at the present day of the whale who at his gills draws in and at his trunk Olaus Magnus figures the spouting of a very large whale as a means of offense his cut represents what may be a sperm whale may be by reason of the teeth in the lower jaw only a quite unnecessary frill of spines surrounds the head but there are two sprouts which overwhelm a ship whose bulwarks the whale is placed in his jaws the faceter observes the writer whose Latin we attempt to translate raises itself above the masts of the ships and belches forth droughts of ocean from its blow holes in such a way that it overwhelms with this rainy cloud even the strongest ships or expose the sailors to the greatest danger the older naturalists including the Archbishop from whom we have just quoted regarded the blow holes as apertures additional to the nostrils according to professor Cookenthal it was a celebrated anatomist and embryologist Carl von Behr who in 1826 first showed clearly from anatomical considerations that the whale could not spout forth from the bottom of sea water the water which does actually leave the blow hole is simply the breath of the creature condensed mingled often with a little of the surface water of the sea which the whale disturbs by commencing the act of exploration when still a little way beneath the surface of the water wrap however deservedly considered an authority the cetacea went back to the earlier view and held that spouting was a means of getting rid of abundant water taken in with the food after this date there were recurrences to the correct view and again lapses there from there is now no doubt about the matter at all as to the actual structure of the blow holes there are some important facts which must be dealt with though briefly the internal part of the nose in a man and in other mammals serves an olfactory as well as a respiratory function the sense of smell is there located in the whales this sense as is evinced by the structure of the brain is rudimentary absent and the nostrils therefore have but one function to perform i.e. that of taken in and expelling respiratory air Mousley quote, notes of a naturalist on the challenger describes the blowing of a humpback which followed the challenger for several days in the south pacific the appearance of a whale spout as seen from the level of the sea is very different from that which it has when seen from the deck of a ship it appears so much higher and shoots up into the air like a fountain discharged from a very fine rose the whale of course in reality does not discharge water but only its breath this however in rushing up into the air hot from the animals body has its moisture condensed to form a sort of rain and the colder the air just as in the case of our own breath the more marked the result when the spout is made with a blowhole clear above the surface of the water it appears like a sudden jet of steam from a boiler when affected as it sometimes is before the blowhole reaches the surface a low fountain as from a street fire plug is formed and when the hole is close to the surface at the moment a little water is sent up with a tall jet of steam the cloud blown up does not disappear at once but hangs a little while and is often seen to drift a short distance with wind the expiratory sound is very loud when heard close by and is a sort of deep bass snort extremely loud and somewhat prolonged it might even be compared to the sound produced by the rushing of stream at high pressure from a large pipe end of section 4 recording by Mike Botez section 5 of the book of wales 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 Kali McMahon the book of wales by Frank Evers Bedard chapter 2 some internal structures part 1 vertebral column the series of bones which constitute the vertebral column or backbone in the wales offer a number of peculiarities distinctive of the group of four mammals with inconsiderable exceptions manatee, sloth these vertebrae are very generally partially or entirely fused together the degree of fusion also varying from species to species hand in hand with this melting together of the vertebrae of all mammals. It is, however, important to emphasize the fact that the mysterious and perfect number seven, which characterizes all mammals, with the very few exceptions already noted, is preserved in these exceedingly short-necked creatures. It is by a reduction of the individual vertebrae, not by a dropping out of one or more in the series, that the neck is reduced in length. At first sight it is tempting to put down the remarkable consolidation of these neck vertebrae to the necessity for holding up the heavy head of the great whales. And it is undoubtedly a fact that in the right whales and in the huge-headed feicider, these peculiarities are seen in as exaggerated a form as anywhere. On the other hand we must set against this the fact that in the great roar quals there is usually a freedom between these vertebrae, which in some species is complete. A further consideration of the variations in the degree of fusion between the cervical vertebrae seems to point to the conclusion that the peculiarity is one which is, as it were, gaining ground. For the platinistidae, which some other considerations lead us to regard as among the most primitive of existing cetaceans, have all these vertebrae quite free. Between this extremity and that offered by the right whales are almost every possible step in the fusion of the individual bones. Some, for instance, have two, three, etc. fused and the rest free. In fact it seems difficult to explain this anomalous state of affairs by any adaptation to a particular need. Nor is it possible to seek for any explanation of the peculiarity by looking for its occurrence in any possible allies of the whales. If it were suggested that the Cyrenia are creatures which are, so to speak, on the way to become whales, which connect the whales with the terrestrial ungulates, it might be urged that here, at any rate, is a trace of the same fusion of the neck vertebrae. For in the manatee two of these vertebrae are thus fused, but we have on the same hand the armadillos, where the same thing precisely occurs. And even in another group of vertebrates altogether, the hornbill offers an example of a bird in which two of the cervical vertebrae are fused. We shall deal presently with some facts in which the dugongs and manatees resemble the whales, but this view of the relationships of the whales is not one which at the present day commends itself to naturalists. It is a curious fact, however, that one of the most remarkable peculiarities of one of these Cyrenia, the manatee, i.e. the dropping of one cervical vertebrae already referred to, is hinted at in certain whales. The late Dr. Gray used as a specific and even as a generic character the fact that in some whales the first rib is a double structure, looking like two ribs melted together, and that one part of this double rib is attached to the last cervical vertebra. This looks like a commencing dropping out of the last cervical vertebrae from its own proper series. It has been partly at any rate transferred to the ensuing dorsal row. Another Cyrenian feature in the cervical vertebrae of the whales is the slenderness of the cervical series. This is seen not in the manatee, but in the recently extinct retina of bearing straits. In that animal, however, the vertebrae are not in the least degree fused. In all mammals, with the exception of the whales, the atlas is peculiar in that its centrum has broken loose and has attached itself to the following vertebrae, the axis or epistepheus, from whose centrum it projects as the odontoid process. In whales, as a rule, this process is entirely wanting, but it is a significant fact that the most considerable rudiments of it exist in Platonista and among the Platonista day, upon whose probably basal position among the Cetaceae we have already commented. The dorsal vertebrae among these animals are, of course, those which bear ribs, and their number varies much from species to species or from genus to genus. Nine to sixteen are the limits of variation. The curious divergences in the mode of articulation of the ribs serve to divide the Cetaceae, and under the description of the sperm whale, the anea, and some other types the differences are dealt with. It has been pointed out that the Cetaceae differ from the Cyrenia by the fact that the latter have but few lumbar vertebrae, while in the Cetaceae these same vertebrae are very numerous, but in anea there are only three, a number which is repeated in the manatee. In this connection it is interesting to recall the fact that in Ritina, the most Cetaceae of the Cyrenia, the lumbar region has increased to six vertebrae. As the pelvis is so rudimentary a structure it is not surprising to find that there is no sacrum. No lumbar vertebrae are fused to make the complex and firm massive bone, which in terrestrial creatures supports the arch of the hind limbs. As there is no sacrum it would seem at first a little difficult to define the commencement of the caudal series of vertebrae. Practically there is a difficulty owing to the frequent incompleteness of skeletons and museums, but theoretically there is none since the first caudal is provided below with a V-shaped appendage of bone, the intercentrum or chevron bone. Professor Delage has also pointed out that in Balanoptiramusculus at any rate the lumbar series is defined by the termination opposite to the last one of the abdominal cavity. In terrestrial mammals there is not as a rule much give in the backbone. They cannot wriggle their bodies to any great extent. The reason for this is clearly the desirability of a firm support for the limbs by which locomotion is affected. This is brought about not only by the fusion of the vertebrae in the region of attachment of the hind limbs to form the sacrum already mentioned, but elsewhere in the series the successive vertebrae are locked together by special joints, which allowing of a certain amount of movement curtail that movement within very narrow bounds. In some adentate animals and eaters sloth these usual joints are increased by the presence of supplementary articulations between successive vertebrae, which renders the backbone of the creatures in question a much more rigid rod than it is in the majority of mammals. Now to the whale an eminently flexible backbone is obviously a desideratum. It moves mainly by powerful strokes of the tail and of the hind part of the body generally. Hence we find that the interlocking joints, the zygopophices as they are technically termed, are much reduced and indeed do not exist at all in the hindre part of the series where their presence would interfere with the necessary undulations of body by means of which the whale forces its way through the water. Furthermore a large development of the disks of fibrous tissue which lie between the center of the vertebrae adds efficiency to this important part of the whale skeleton. It is interesting to note that in platanista so frequently referred to as an archaic type of cetacean the interlocking of the vertebrae is much more marked than in other forms. The sternum. All whales possess a sternum or breast bone but the form of this bone or series of bones as it actually is in many forms varies and the variations concern us in the present chapter in as much as they bear upon the broad lines of modification which these aquatic mammals have undergone in their gradual change in adaptation to a life in the ocean. The typical mammalian breast bone consists of a number of separate pieces of bone often spoken of as sternum brite and forming a row along the middle line of the breast. Between each of these separate bones is inserted a rib. The number of pieces out of which the sternum is formed is sometimes very large as many as 14 elements occur in the sloth colapus for example. Among the toothed whales the sternum shows what we must regard from a comparison with land mammals as the most primitive conditions. In barardius for example this sternum consists of five pieces placed end to end and these bear facets for six ribs. A very interesting feature of this sternum is to be seen in the fact that it is not only distinctly biped behind but that it is also somewhat incomplete in the middle line gaps being left in the dried skeleton from which probably pieces of cartilage have dropped out. Now the interest of what seems to be a mere detail of anatomy is this. The sternum of mammals is developed from a fusion between the lower ends of the growing ribs. It is at first in two longitudinal pieces and the ossification the conversion into bone of this cartilage is also double. Paired centers of the deposition of bony matter appearing. Thus in barardius and in other forms distinct traces of the original paired state of affairs are left. In other toothed whales the number of pieces composing the sternum is reduced. In mozapladon there may be only four and in the sperm whale there are but three pieces. Moreover in this latter whale the double character of the sternum is especially obvious. Two of the three pieces out of which it is composed are paired bones while the last shows some indications of a longitudinal division into two. A further shortening of the sternum is exhibited in the cashlot by the fact that there are only four ribs which reach it. These three types of cetaceans seem to show that there has been a progressive shortening of the sternum but the facts are not it is hardly necessary to point out conclusive as a demonstration of this probability. More certain evidence is afforded by the actual stages of development of the breastbone of the common purpose. In this whale the actual proportions of the sternum during growth to the adult condition have been found to lessen in a market fashion which leaves no doubt that here at least the sternum is a part of the skeleton which is shrinking. The extreme of the shrinkage of the sternum is realized in the whalebone whales in which we have seen and shall see so many grounds for regarding as in many respects the most modified of whales. In these animals the sternum is reduced to a single piece which is heart-shaped in the ballina australis and sometimes cross-shaped in the roar quals. More generally it has in these latter cetaceans the form of a T. With the sternum in these whales articulates but one pair of ribs the first. It is a matter of interest to inquire into the exact nature of this simple bone which is all that is left of the sternum in the mista cosetti. In many mammals the sternum in the adult is no more than a single solid bone but here the apparent simpleness of the sternum is due to the co-ossification of originally separate elements. The articulation of several pairs of ribs is a clue to the number of these elements. Now is in the right whale and the roar quals but one pair of ribs articulates with the small sternum we should infer that it is the front piece of the sternum that piece which has been fancifully termed the manubrium the handle of the sword-shaped sternum. It may be remarked here that the end piece of the sternum is generally called the prosthesis enceiformis or enceiform piece thus completing the analogy derived from the comparison with the sword. It is extremely important to notice that there is evidence here too that the shortening of the sternum has really taken place and that comparatively recently. In the first place Sir William Turner found that in that giant among giants the huge roar qual Balanoptera Sibaldi a second piece of sternum identified by him with the enceiform cartilage or xyphus sternum as it is sometimes called and in the second place the well-known satelogist the late professor Eskricht of Copenhagen found in a whale bone whale that a fibrous band arising from the end of the sternum was attached to the second and third ribs this is clearly a rudiment of a posterior prolongation of the sternum the question now becomes pressing is this shortening of the sternum a character of whales unconnected with anything in particular or is it related to the aquatic life the answer to this question is to be derived from two sources we have first the argument from analogy we can consider how far if at all the same kind of change has gone on in other aquatic creatures the seals and sea lions do not help us in the very least but then it must be borne in mind that they are comparatively recent inhabitants of the water the Cyrenia on the other hand offer us a precisely similar series of stages the Morskaya Corova, Stellar's sea cow or Ritina Gygis had five pairs of ribs reaching the sternum the dugong of eastern seas but four while in the manatee the ribs are reduced to three pairs the sternum too in these animals is naturally reduced in correspondence with the failing attachment of the ribs but it is somewhat contradictory to bear in mind that the first two genera the least modified as regards ribs have a concentric tail more like that of whales while in other particulars referred to on other pages Ritina is more well like than either of its congeners to go to quite another group to which we have often had occasion to refer in dwelling upon the peculiarities of whales the itchthesaurians were devoid of a sternum at least of an ossified one and the same statement holds good for the pleosaurs there would seem therefore to be some connection between the aquatic life and an absent or rudimentary sternum Dr. Moeller however would answer the question which we asked some lines above in another fashion he is of the opinion that the whale bone whales breathe more with the thoracic musculature and less with the diaphragm than do the toothed whales the diaphragm in them is not so purely muscular and organ as it is in those toothed whales in which it has been examined hence the greater part of the exertions requisite for inspiration are thrown upon the muscles of the trunk the freedom of the ribs and a consequent shortening of the sternum is favorable to this supposed increased activity it is also ingeniously suggested by the same authority that the whale bone whales pursuing as they do minute prey instead of the comparatively large cuttlefish eaten by the bulk of the toothed whales have to remain longer underwater before they can obtain the sufficient supply of their food the freedom of the ribs etc not only allows of a greater extensibility of the elementary canal but a greater expansion of the lungs and in consequence a greater in draft of air whatever may be the explanation however the facts are as stated the skull the most obvious and the most remarkable feature of the whale skull is its asymmetry in the toothed whales so unintelligible does this aberration from what is normal in mammals appear to be that it is even been suggested that the peculiarity was originally a pathological state of affairs caused by injury and that a one-sided face has been the consequent inheritance one associates symmetry with vertebrate animals and so especially with aquatic ones swimming head foremost through the water that symmetry would seem to be their most necessary attribute it must be born in mind however that the asymmetry is not nearly so apparent in the head when clothed with flesh but the sperm whale is markedly asymmetrical in the single S shaped blowhole this absence of symmetry in the skull affects especially the premaxolay and the nasals the latter indeed are often reduced to a single very small bone there is one toothed whale in which the asymmetry of the skull is not so hard to understand that is of course the narwhal with its one rarely two tusk projecting in front this one-sided development could be readily imagined as having affected to a considerable degree the neighboring parts of the skull but we cannot assume that other toothed whales are the offspring of narwhal like forms though it is certainly true that the narwhal is in some respects a primitive whale it is easier to say that the asymmetry being as it is chiefly developed in the regions of the blowholes has something to do with those structures that defined any adequate reason for connecting the two footnote of course the unsymmetrical head of the flat fish is not in any way comparable in those fishes it is related to the fact that the sides of the body are used as dorsal and ventral surface respectively end of footnote seen from the ventral surface the whale skull is quite symmetrical this is the case even with cogia and feicider which are the most asymmetrical of whales above it is important to note that in the fetus the asymmetry is less marked than in the adult this leads us to the conclusion that the singular deformity of the head which characterizes the toothed whales is at least comparatively speaking a new development the whale skull also offers us an excellent instance of how great a departure from the typical appearance of an organ may be produced without any real change in its structure there are no bones in the skull that are not found in other mammals and none of the bones found in other mammals are wanting and yet the skull as a whole departs widely in general appearance from that of other mammals the brain case proper is relatively small and the snout the facial portion of the skull is very elongated the degree of elongation varying from genus to genus it is most developed perhaps in the extinct urino-delphus apparently a platinisted of which a figure is appended the toothed whales in fact embody the extremes of shortening and elongation of the facial region of the skull thus it is very short in orcella in cogia and in a few others several of the individual bones show peculiarities of which some will be mentioned in the present general count of the whale skull the parietals deserve their name for they are really walls to the skull and not a covering also as in other mammals this at any rate applies to the majority in the extinct zouglodons which in many other respects conform to a more generalized mammalian condition these bones are so to speak normal but among the toothed whales they do not meet above and the part of the roof of the skull which should be occupied by the parietals is invaded by the huge supracipital this does not however apply to the whalebone whales though it appears to do so in these whales the fetus has normal parietals meeting above in the adult the upper portion of the bones is overlaid by the supracipitals we have here the first stage in the disappearance of the median portion of the parietals being overlaid by the supracipitals their function ceases and in accordance with what is always found in nature being useless they disappear the enormous size of the supracipital bone reduces the size of the funnels with which it articulates the latter are very narrow above where they form the forehead and expand below where they protect the small orbit from above the premaxillary bones are remarkable for two peculiarities in the first place they do not accept in some of the extinct forms zoolodons bear any teeth but in the second place instead of having degenerated in bulk in consequence they are greatly increased they stretch backwards in touch or indeed partly cover the frontals the small size of the nasals which are almost rudimentary in all existing whales and especially so in the odontocides permits this junction to be affected laterally these premaxillary bones are ensheathed by the maxillae a feature very characteristic of the whales that is to say of existing forms the maxillae also cover over the funnels and in some odontocides are greatly crusted on their dorsal surface a feature which is carried to a maximum in hyperidon and in the gengidic platinista the bones related to the organ of hearing are extremely strong and stony in the whale tribe they are imperfectly attached as a rule to the surrounding portions of the skull and are thus readily detachable they are often found in a fossil condition quite separate the tympanic bone has a shell-like form not unlike a cowrie it is not always firmly attached to the periotic which ensheaths the actual organ of hearing some other peculiarities of the skull bones of cetacea are dealt with under the description of the different families end of section five recording by collie mcman