Measurements.AB
Total length715a633
Length of rostrum413a325
Distance from occipital condyles to distal end of maxillæ612567
Breadth between centers of orbits309279
Breadth between zygomatic processes310278
Breadth between temporal fossæ228212
Breadth between postorbital processes of frontals323...
Breadth of rostrum at base (between maxillary notches)172b158
Breadth of rostrum at middle4044
Depth of rostrum at middle5242+
Greatest breadth of anterior nares5654
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ proximally130118
Greatest breadth of premaxillæ in front of nares108109
Length of temporal fossa9286
Depth of temporal fossa6346
Antero-posterior length of orbit9682
Breadth of foramen magnum3839
Length of tympanic bulla48...
Breadth of tympanic bulla32...
Length of mandible610...
Length of symphysis138...
Distance from anterior end of mandible to alveolus166...

a Tip of rostrum lacking. b The skull is much worn around the left notch and the measurement is only approximate.

EXTERNAL FORM.

The photograph of the head ([Pl. 40], fig. 4) shows that the end of the beak was quite blunt, and the lower jaw quite a little longer than the upper. The superior margin of the lower jaw, which is concave in front of the tooth, is strongly convex and elevated at the side of it and behind it. The inferior margin of the upper jaw is straight anteriorly, but farther back appears to be pressed upward by the tooth. An examination of the skull shows that the mandible can be lowered so that the teeth are below the upper jaw, but when so lowered the space between the teeth and the upper jaw on each side is barely a quarter of an inch (6 mm.). With the integuments in place, it is doubtful whether the mouth could be opened any wider than is shown in the photograph. The convexity of the head, shape of the blowhole, position of the eye, etc., do not appear to differ materially from the same characters in adults of M. bidens.

Genus ZIPHIUS Cuvier.

ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS Cuvier.

Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier, Oss. foss., 2d ed., vol. 5, 1823, p. 353. Hyperoödon gervaisii Duvernoy, Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 3, Zoöl., vol. 5, 1851, p. 49. Ziphius gervaisii Fischer, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, vol. 3, 1867, p. 55. Hyperoödon semi-junctus Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 15. Ziphius semijunctus True, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 8, 1886, p. 586. Ziphius grebnitzkii Stejneger, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 6, 1883, p. 77.

It has not seemed to me necessary in the present connection to attempt to cite all the multitudinous names which have been given to this species, especially as those zoologists most competent to judge, including Van Beneden, Flower, and Turner, after detailed consideration, have concluded that but one species of Ziphius, or at most two species, exist at present.[35]

Nearly all the skulls in European museums are assigned by the zoologists mentioned to Z. cavirostris proper, but some doubt has been entertained regarding two or three European skulls, and one specimen from Argentina, described by Burmeister. These last-mentioned specimens have been thought to possibly represent a second species, Z. gervaisii. The principal characters of the latter are the narrow, flat premaxillæ, the lack of a prominent mesirostral ossification, and small teeth. From the large series of skulls in the National Museum, I am able to dispose of the doubt concerning Z. gervaisii. I find that wherever the characters above mentioned occur the sex (when known) is female. There is every reason, therefore, to believe that Z. gervaisii is the female of Z. cavirostris.[36] I will return to this point again later.

In 1865 Cope described a species from Charleston, South Carolina, under the name of Hyperoödon semijunctus. In 1886 I referred it to the genus Ziphius, but was in doubt as to its specific identity. I thought that it might represent Z. gervaisii, which is interesting in the present connection because the type-specimen was a female.