Supplement to the catalogue of seals and whales in the British Museum — Reading Notes

(0 User reviews) 297

In Category - Animals

Authors: Gray, John Edward, 1800-1875 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2023 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Seals (Animals); Whales Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 38,429

Reading time 168 min

Text sections 10

Before opening Supplement to the catalogue of seals and whales in the British Museum — Reading Notes, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 38,429 words, 2 hr 48 min estimated reading time, and 10 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 11.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Seals (Animals),” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #69699

Gray's 1871 supplement to the British Museum catalogue of seals and whales, focusing on taxonomic revisions, skeletal descriptions, and geographic distributions, with detailed measurements and comparisons of specimens.

Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg69699

Read the Text

ckened margin on each side near the teeth, and then narrowed behind; the internal nasal opening elongate, longer than broad, narrow and arched in front, the edge in a line with the orbital process of the zygomatic arch, which is large and well developed. Flap of toes moderate.

In the adult skull of _A. antarctica_, from the Cape, the fifth hinder grinder has only very short rounded callous roots, which are slightly divided into two lobes; and the hinder sixth upper grinder seems to have a root of the same character. But not having any skulls of younger animals, I am not able to describe what are the forms of the roots of these two teeth in the younger state.

In the skulls of the older specimens (which are not adult, as they have the sutures between the bones still distinct), the fifth and sixth upper grinders have two distinct diverging roots.

* _The fifth and sixth upper grinders with two roots (?); the sixth upper partly behind the hinder edge of the zygomatic arch._ Arctocephalus. (Africa.)

1. Arctocephalus antarcticus. _The Cape Fur-Seal._

Phoca antarctica, _Thunb._, _Mém. Acad. Pétersb._ iii. p. 322; _Fischer’s Synop._ p. 242.

Arctocephalus schisthyperoës, _Turner_, _Journ. Anat._ 1868, p. 113, f. ⸺.

Arctocephalus schistuperus, _Günther_, _Zool. Record_, 1868, p. 20.

Arctocephalus antarcticus, _Gray_; _Allen_, _Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool._ ii. p. 45.

Arctocephalus Delalandii, _Gray_, _P. Z. S._ 1859, t. 69 (skull); _Ann. & Mag. N. H._ 1866, vol. xviii. p. 235; _Cat. S. & W._ p. 52.

Phoca ursina, _Cuvier_, _Oss. Foss._ t. 219. f. 5.

Arctocephalus ursinus, _F. Cuvier_, _Mém. Mus._ vol. xi. p. 205, t. 15, no. 1. _a_, _b_, _c_ (skull).

Otaria ursina, _Nilsson_.

Halarctus Delalandii, _Gill_, _l. c._ p. 7.

Otaria (Arctocephalus) pusilla, _Peters_, _Monatsb._ 1866, pp. 271 & 671.

_Junior._ Petit Phoque, _Buffon_, _H. N._ xiii. t. 53, = Phoca pusilla, _Schreb._

Inhab. South Africa, Cape of Good Hope.

The two adult skulls in the British Museum differ greatly in the width of the hinder nasal opening, in the form of the hinder lower lateral processes of the occipital bone, in the form of the back of that bone, and in the shape of the condyles.

The skull from the Cape of Good Hope, in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, was described and figured by Dr. Turner under the name of _Arctocephalus schisthyperoës_, in the ‘Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,’ vol. iii. p. 113. The name is changed to _A. schistuperus_ by Dr. Günther in the ‘Zoological Record’ for 1868, p. 20. It is evidently the skull of a half-grown animal, with all its teeth developed, but with the sutures of the bones still apparent. It agrees in every respect with what I should expect to be the form and structure of the skull of _Arctocephalus antarcticus_ from the Cape; but unfortunately the two skulls of that Sea-bear from the Cape which are in the British Museum are from old animals; and the specimen figured by Cuvier, Oss. Foss. v. 220, t. 18. f. 5, is also adult. It differs from the skulls of the two adult specimens of that species in the British Museum in the hinder nasal aperture being much extended forwards and gradually tapering to a point in front, which reaches to the transverse palato-maxillary suture. This peculiarity in the form of the palate, which Prof. Turner has not observed in any other seal-skull, seems to have induced him to regard it as a distinct species. From the examination I have made of the skulls of Seals in the Museum and other collections, I am induced to believe that it is an individual abnormality of _Arctocephalus antarcticus_. I have observed a similar malformation in the palates of two other species. I was myself misled by their structure, before I met with the other examples, to regard a skull with such a deformity as a distinct species.

At one time I thought that it might be a peculiarity of the young state, as it had up to that time only been observed in skulls of half-grown animals. It occurs in half-grown specimens of _Euotaria nigrescens_; but the skulls of the very young specimens of this Seal in the British Museum have the front edge of the hinder nasal opening truncated and slightly arched in form, with well-developed square palatine bones united by a central suture just as in the adult, but broader and straighter.

It was this observation that induced me to return to my original opinion, that the skull which I had at first regarded as a young skull of _Arctocephalus monteriensis_ (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1859), and then as a separate species under the name of _A. californianus_ (Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 51), was only a monstrosity of _A. monteriensis_, as I did in the Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, xviii. p. 232; and I am now induced to believe that _Arctocephalus schisthyperoës_ is only an imperfectly developed skull of _A. antarctica_.

Continue Reading →

John Edward Gray's 1871 supplement to the British Museum catalogue of seals and whales is a dense taxonomic work that updates and expands earlier classifications. The text is organized by suborders, families, tribes, and genera, with each entry listing species, synonyms, type localities, and often detailed osteological measurements. Gray frequently cites his own prior publications and those of contemporaries like Van Beneden and Cope, creating a layered scholarly dialogue.

The excerpts reveal a strong emphasis on skeletal features—particularly cervical vertebrae and baleen—as diagnostic characters. For instance, Gray notes that in Caperea antipodarum the seven cervical vertebrae are "completely soldered by their bodies," while in Macleayius australiensis they form "a single mass." Such precise anatomical observations drive the taxonomic distinctions throughout the work.

Taxonomic Structure and Nomenclature

The supplement follows a hierarchical arrangement typical of 19th-century natural history. Gray divides the Pinnipedia into three families—Phocidae, Trichechidae, and Otariadae—and further splits them into tribes such as Phocina, Halichœrina, and Monachina. Each tribe contains genera and species, often with geographic notes like "N. Pacific" or "Falkland Islands."

Gray frequently updates names from earlier catalogues. For example, Balæna australis is listed under Eubalæna, and he introduces new genera such as Macleayius and Caperea. The text includes square-bracketed entries like "[cullamacha. N. Pacific]" and "[japonica. Japan]," suggesting tentative or unverified records. This careful annotation reflects Gray's effort to reconcile museum specimens with published accounts.

Species are often accompanied by synonyms, such as Balæna antipodarum being cited as both a Gray and a Van Beneden name. The result is a dense web of references that rewards readers familiar with 19th-century cetacean taxonomy.

Osteological Detail as Diagnostic Evidence

Gray's descriptions rely heavily on skeletal measurements and morphology. For Macleayius australiensis, he provides the atlas vertebra width (28½ inches) and height (18 inches), and notes the shape of lateral processes: "upper lateral process of the atlas very broad, compressed... lower lateral process elongate, compressed, rather swollen in the middle." Such quantitative data allow comparison across specimens.

In the entry for Macleayius britannicus, Gray compares a vertebra dredged at Lyme Regis with that of M. australiensis, concluding that differences in the "outer edge of the broad lateral process being oblique" indicate a distinct species. He explicitly rejects Van Beneden's identification of the bone as Balæna biscayensis, asserting that it "has no affinity" with that species. This argumentative tone shows Gray actively defending his taxonomic decisions.

The supplement also includes notes on baleen, ribs, and phalanges. For instance, the description of the first rib as "very narrow above, and gradually becomes very broad below and deeply notched on the lower edge" provides a clear anatomical marker for identification.

Geographic and Specimen Provenance

Each species entry typically includes a locality, often broad ("North Sea," "New Zealand") but occasionally specific ("Lyme Regis, Dorsetshire"). Gray also notes the source of specimens, such as "B.M." (British Museum) or "Mus. Paris." For Arctocephalus antarcticus, he lists multiple localities: Cape of Good Hope, Falkland Islands, Australia, New Zealand, indicating a wide distribution.

The supplement includes references to specimens from expeditions and collectors. For example, Otaria jubata is from "S. America," and Callorhinus ursinus from "Kamtschatka." Some entries cite earlier works, like "Gray, Dieffenbach, t. 1," linking the catalogue to broader natural history literature.

Gray occasionally speculates on synonymy based on geography, as when he suggests that the "bonnet" of Sandwich-Islands whalers is the "topknot" of an old male of a related species. These asides reveal how whalers' vernacular names informed scientific classification.

Readers should approach this supplement as a technical reference rather than a narrative. The dense tables and measurements reward careful study, especially when comparing entries across genera. Gray's frequent cross-references to his own earlier works and to those of contemporaries like Van Beneden and Cope create a network of 19th-century cetacean science. For those interested in the history of taxonomy, this text offers a window into how museum collections shaped species concepts through meticulous osteological comparison.

I keep thinking about that old catalogue, all those careful measurements of seals and whales, how someone once believed order could be found in such vastness. It reminded me of a quieter book, The House Fly and How to Suppress It — Story, Setting & Ideas, which lingers the same way—not about grandeur, but about the small, stubborn things we try to understand, and how that effort somehow stays with you.