[1]As this species is well known, the skeleton is not described in this
paper.
[2]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 366.
[3]Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 11, 1866-68, p. 318.
[4]Idem, vol. 29, 1899, p. 9.
[5]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 357.
[6]Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 11, 1866-68, p. 318.
[7]One of the teeth of Sowerby’s specimen is figured by Lankester in
Trans. Roy. Micr. Soc., new ser., vol. 15, 1867, pl. 5, figs. 1, 2.
[8]Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoöl., vol. 1, 1869, p. 205.
[9]Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 26, 1872, p. 771.
[10]Zoologist, ser. 3, vol. 17, Feb., 1893, p. 42; Ann. and Mag. Nat.
Hist., ser. 6, vol. 11, 1893, p. 275.
[11]Trans. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 7, 1804, p. 310.
[12]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, no. 3.
[13]The external margin is broken at this point.
[14]Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 11, 1893, p. 277.
[15]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, No. 3, pp. 27, 28.
[16]Trans. Zoöl. Soc. London, vol. 10, 1878, p. 418.
[17]Second ed., plate 40, fig. 4.
[18]Plate 25, fig. 2.
[19]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1896, pp. 363-370, fig. 3 (tooth, nat. size);
fig. 4 (sternum).
[20]Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, vol. 10, 1866, p. 177.
[21]Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, vol. 41, 1888, p. 117.
[22]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 359.
[23]Ostéographie, plate 24.
[24]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, No. 3, p. 32, fig. 12.
[25]Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 10, 1888-89, p. 13.
[26]Amer. Nat., vol. 40, 1906, p. 357.
[27]Journ. Anat. Phys., vol. 20, pl. 4, figs. 2 and 3, Oct. 1885.
[28]Idem, pl. 4, fig. 1.
[29]Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, ser. 6, vol. 1, pp. 216-225, pls. 1, 2
(skull); two text-figs. (tooth).
[30]“The slight differences pointed out by Mr. True appear to be
individual or local rather than specific.” (Van Beneden, Les
Ziphioïdes des mers d’Europe, 1888, p. 100.) See also James A. Grieg,
Bergens Museums Aarbog, 1897, No. 5, p. 19.
[31]Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 8, 1885, p. 585.
[32]Trans. Roy. Micr. Soc., vol. 15, 1867, pl. 5, figs. 1, 2.
[33]Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1904, No. 3, p. 26, fig. 10.
[34]Sci. Results of the Voy. of the _Challenger_, Zool., vol. 1, pt. 4,
Bones of Cetacea, 1880, p. 13.
[35]See the following:
Turner, W.—Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 26, 1872, p. 769.
Flower, W. H.—Proc. Zoöl. Soc. London, 1876, p. 477.
Fischer, P.—Act. Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, vol. 35, 1881, p. 113.
Van Beneden, P. J.—Les Ziphioïdes des Mers d’Europe, 1888, p. 82.
[36]An immature male might, of course, present the characters of the
female, but in the former case the teeth would be open at the roots
and but slightly, if at all, coated with cement.
[37]As to reasons for assigning sexes thus, see p. 55.
[38]Cope’s original description of this species was as follows:
“Hyperodon semijunctus, sp. nov. The question whether a Hyperodon
visits this side of the Atlantic, has at length been solved by the
description which I have received through Dr. Alexander Wilcocks of
this city, of a species taken in Charleston Harbor. This is well
drawn up by Gabriel Manigault, who set up the specimen, which adorns
the Charleston Museum. The points wherein it evidently differs from
its congeners, the _H. bidens_ and _latifrons_, are, first, the
separation of the four posterior cervical vertebræ, the three
anterior only being solidly anchylosed, instead of the seven, as in
the known species, even in the young, according to Dr. J. E. Gray.
Second, the possession of one or more pairs of ribs added to the
flying series, and of two more vertebræ, including ten dorsal instead
of nine. (Nine are given by Cuvier, Ossemens Fossiles, viii, 188; and
Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1864, 419, for the _bidens_.) Five
ribs are connected with the sternum, of which the anterior
articulates with the seventh cervical by its inferior head.
“I extract the following from Gabr. Manigault’s description:
“‘The superior maxillary bones are quite pointed in front and widen
out toward the base of the snout. Their lateral edges become
developed on each side into a prominent vertical ridge, which is
slightly convex on the outer surface, and the reverse on the inner.
These bones, after having widened out upon approaching the orbits,
ascend vertically along with the occipital (the two together holding
the frontal, which is quite perceptible, between them) and form at
the back of the head a transverse ridge, which is quite high and very
thick. From my not knowing by what name it was known, I did not
satisfy myself concerning the presence of palatine tubercles. Another
peculiarity of the head consists in the lower maxillary bones being
provided each at its point with a single small and very sharp tooth.
These were not noticed during the dissection, owing to their being
too much imbedded in the integuments; they are now, however, quite
visible. In the cavity of the skull is a septum of bone separating
the cerebrum from the cerebellum (_i. e._, the tentorium). The first
rib is very wide and short, and presents a marked contrast to the
others. The sternum is quite flat and wide. The pectoral fins are
small, and have been carefully preserved, with the various carpal and
phalangeal bones kept together by their natural ligaments. As the
skeleton stands, the fins consist only of the scapula, the humerus,
the radius, and the ulna, with but few phalanges.
“‘The length of this specimen is between twelve and thirteen feet.’”
(_Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila._, 1865, p. 15.)
[39]The Buenos Ayres specimen is not included here, as I am uncertain as
to its proper interpretation.
[40]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 5, 1873, p. 164, pls. 4-5.
[41]Hector also figures a tooth from a specimen found at Manawatu beach
in pl. 5, fig. 3, which is like those of the Chatham Island specimen
in size and shape (diameter 34 mm.), and should belong to a male, but
as he does not figure or describe the skull this can not be used in
the present discussion.
[42]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 9, 1876, p. 430, pl. 24, figs. A and
C; pl. 26, fig. 4.
[43]Idem, p. 440, pl. 24, fig. B; pl. 26, fig. 3.
[44]Zool. et Paléontol. franç., 2d ed., 1859, p. 287, pl. 39, figs. 2-7.
[45]Anal. Mus. Pub. Buenos Aires, vol. 1, 1868, pp. 301-366, pls. 15-20.
[46]Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 15.
[47]Forest and Stream, vol. 65, 1905, p. 452.
[48]Trans. Zoöl. Soc. London, vol. 8, 1871, pp. 203-234, pls. 27-29.
[49]See Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc, 1886, No. 4, p. 328.
[50]There is, or was formerly, in the museum of the Alaska Commercial
Company in San Francisco a skull of _Berardius_ 3 feet 6 inches long.
The locality in which it was obtained is unknown to me.
[51]Science, new ser., vol. 20, 1904, p. 888.
[52]At the time this was written it was not known that there were really
four teeth in the lower jaw, but it is interesting to note that when
the mandible was covered by the integuments none of the teeth was
visible in the male, although the individual was 25 feet long, and
that only two teeth were visible in the adult female.
[53]Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 6, pp. 75-77, June 22, 1883.
[54]Duvernoy, Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 3, Zoöl., vol. 15, 1851, p. 52,
footnote.
[55]Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 6, October, 1870, p. 348.
[56]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 10, 1878, p. 338.
[57]Ostéographie des Cétacés, pl. 23^bis.
[58]Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 8, 1872, p. 223.
[59]Ostéographie des Cétacés, p. 615, pl. 23^_bis_.
[60]Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 10, 1878, p. 339.
[61]Trans. N. Z. Inst., vol. 10, 1878, p. 339. Hector remarks that in the
skeleton studied by Flower there were twelve caudals with facets for
chevrons, but I do not find it so stated in the original account.
[62]Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Dec. 1869, pp. 191, 192.