[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.