114 Whale lately taken in the River Crouch.
France.
6. Near Biarritz, in 1874. Skeleton in the Bayonne
Museum.
Great Britain.
7. Near Bo'ness in the Firth of Forth, in 1872. Skeleton
in the University of Edinburgh Museum.
8. River Crouch, Essex, in 1883.
To these may be added the doubtful case of the whale
stranded at Charmouth, Dorsetshire, 1840, the skeleton of
which was unfortunately not preserved; and also one taken
on the coast of Virginia, North America, in 1858, of which
the skeleton is in the Museum of the Academy of Natural
Sciences at Philadelphia, and is believed by Cope to belong to
this species.
The synonomy of this species, as in the case of most
other whales, is involved in considerable confusion. The
generic name must be determined by the question, which is
open to considerable difference of opinion, as to how far it is
expedient to multiply such divisions. Balona, Balaenoptera,
Sibbaldius and Rudolphius, which have been applied to this
animal at various successive times, indicate various stages of
subdivision of the Linnean genus at the head of the list. Of
the propriety of separating the Rorquals or Fin-whales
(genus Balaenoptera of Lacepede) from the Bight Whales (to
which Balaena is now restricted) there can be no question;
but with the further subdivision of Balaenoptera I am not at
present disposed to concur, and would therefore prefer to
retain the present species under that name, although there is
certainly something to be said for Dr. Gray's first division of
the group into three, which he called respectively Physalus,
Sibbaldius, and Balanoptera.
With regard to the specific name, that of rostrata,
under which the species was first introduced to scientific
notice in the description given by Rudolphi of the Holstein
specimen (Abhandl. Akad., Berlin, 1820, p. 27) cannot be
maintained, as it arose from an erroneous identification with
the totally distinct species which had already received that
name. Cuvier used the term "Rorqual du Nord" for a