Part 8

THE WALRUS, OR MORSE.

Of the many strange forms which the Zoological Society of London has been the means of introducing to the stay-at-home naturalists of this country, certainly not the least interesting is that of the Walrus (Trichechus rosmarus, Linn.) It is true that in neither of the instances in which the young animal has been brought alive to the Gardens, has it long survived in its new home; but, short though its residence amongst us, the opportunity has been afforded to many of becoming acquainted with the Arctic stranger in propriâ personâ, instead of through the distorted medium of the badly-stuffed skins, or the equally bad representations of this interesting animal, which, until recently, we have possessed. The first recorded appearance of the Walrus in this country was, I believe, in 1624, when, according to Hakluyt’s ‘Pilgrimes,’ a young one was brought to England by Master Thomas Welden, in the God-speed, and duly presented at Court. In 1853 the Zoological Society became possessed of a young one, which lived only a few days in their Gardens. On the 1st of November, 1867, another was received, which lived till the 19th of December, when it unfortunately died, notwithstanding the care bestowed upon it, both as regards food and accommodation. This last was captured by the whale-ship Arctic, on the 28th of August, 1867, in lat. 69° N. and long. 64° W., and brought to Dundee, whence it was conveyed by Mr. Bartlett to the Society’s Gardens. The captain of the Arctic saw two or three hundred walruses basking upon the ice, and sent out his boats to the attack: among the killed was an old female followed by her young one; the latter was taken on board and eventually brought to England.

Although now confined to the icy seas of the Arctic circle, the Walrus was probably not uncommon on our shores in times long past. The skull is said to have been found in the peat near Ely, and Hector Boece, in his ‘Cronikles of Scotland,’ mentions it as a regular inhabitant of our shores in the end of the 15th century: in the present century it has occurred several times, although it must be considered as a very rare straggler, sadly out of its latitude. Wallace says that its fossil remains have been found in Europe as far south as France, and in America probably as far south as Virginia, and it was common in the Gulf of St. Lawrence so late as 1770 (Leith Adams). In recent times it has retreated before its great enemy, man, from the northern coasts of Scandinavia to the circumpolar ice of Asia, America, and Europe, sometimes, but rarely, reaching as far south as lat. 60°. In Smith’s Sound the Walrus does not appear to move further north than Cape Frazer, the meeting-place of the polar and southern tides: at this point Captain Feilden saw a single example. Whenever met with, it is the object of ruthless persecution, and is rapidly and surely becoming exterminated wherever man can reach it; and but for its ice-loving habits, which render its present strongholds always difficult, and sometimes impossible, of access, it would doubtless long ere this have become extinct.

Recently it has been met with on our shores, according to Bell, on the coast of Harris in 1817; in the Orkneys in 1825; one was seen in 1827 in Hoy Sound, but not captured; and in 1841 one was killed near Harris. Dr. Brown also states that two were seen, one in Orkney and the other in Shetland, in 1857. Prof. Heddle also informed Mr. Harvie-Brown that in 1849 or 1850 he saw an adult, and a young one, off the coast of the parish of Walls, in Orkney (Harvie-Brown, Proc. Nat. Hist. Soc. of Glasgow, 1879, p. 97.)

The Trichechus may be considered as intermediate between the true Seals and the Eared Seals, to both of which families it has affinities: it is carnivorous, feeding on mollusks, fish, and when it can get it, the flesh of whales. The stomach of one, examined by Captain Feilden, contained a large amount of green fluid oil, in which small particles of Ulva latissima could be detected, and minute fragments of the shells of Mya. Its habits were so well and succinctly described by Captain Cook a hundred years ago, that I cannot do better than quote his own words, the accuracy of which has since been amply confirmed. Whilst in Behring’s Straits, in lat. 70° 6′, and long. 196° 42′, on the 19th of August, 1778, Cook first met with the Walrus: “they lie,” he says, “in herds of many hundreds upon the ice, huddling one over the other like swine, and roar or bray very loud; so that in the night, or in foggy weather, they gave us notice of the vicinity of the ice before we could see it. We never found the whole herd asleep, some being always on the watch. These, on the approach of the boat, would wake those next to them, and the alarm being thus gradually communicated, the whole herd would awake presently. But they were seldom in a hurry to get away till after they had been once fired at, then they would tumble one over the other into the sea in the utmost confusion; and if we did not at the first discharge kill those we fired at, we generally lost them, though mortally wounded. They do not appear to us to be that dangerous animal some authors have described; not even when attacked. They are rather more so to appearance than in reality. Vast numbers of them would follow and come close up to the boats, but the flash of a musquet in the pan, or even the bare pointing of one at them, would send them down in an instant. The female will defend the young one to the very last, and at the expense of her own life, whether in the water or upon the ice. Nor will the young one quit the dam, though she be dead; so that if you kill one you are sure of the other. The dam, when in the water, holds the young one between her fore-fins.” Since Cook’s time the Walrus has learned to fear man, its only enemy except the Polar Bear, and is more difficult to approach. When wounded, or its young in danger, it has been known fiercely to attack the boats sent for its capture, striving to overturn them, and piercing their sides with its tusks: many serious accidents have been the result.

The number of Walruses killed annually by the Norwegian and Russian hunters is very considerable; probably nearly an equal number are wounded and lost. As the female produces only a single young one at a birth, which is said to remain with the mother nearly two years, “until its tusks are grown long enough to be used in grubbing up the shell mud at the sea-bottom,” it will readily be imagined that the destruction is greatly in excess of the production, and that they are rapidly decreasing in numbers. A communication in the Field of March 27th, 1880 (p. 381), received from St. Francisco, points out even more serious consequences resulting from the reckless destruction of the Walrus than the mere extermination of a species, itself a matter of no small regret. “If,” says the writer, “the whalers reach Behring Strait before the ice breaks up, they remain on the coast, and often hunt the Walrus for weeks together, with startling and serious results. Last year’s campaign was considered successful, as about 11,000 Walruses were secured, most of them within the Arctic Sea. But to attain this result, between thirty and forty thousand animals were killed, so that only one-third of the number destroyed were actually utilised. There can be no doubt as to the ultimate consequence of such glaring imprudence; but last year they were so painfully apparent as to touch even the hearts of those who occasioned them. Not that the whalers were moved to compassion by the victims themselves, but by the sufferings of the human beings who were deprived of their chief source of subsistence. The hardy tribes in the neighbourhood of Behring Strait literally cannot exist without the Walrus, and so long as they were its only human enemies the number destroyed was inconsiderable. But the herds soon dwindled under the superior weapons and appliances of civilised nations, and the survivors retreated, like the Whales, towards the Pole. By the end of last season, not a single Walrus was left on the coast, and the immediate result was such a terrible famine among the natives that the whalers themselves speak of it remorsefully. The population north of St. Lawrence Bay has been reduced by one-third; and in a village which formerly contained 200 inhabitants, only one man survived. Several of the whalers have consequently refused to take any part in future Walrus hunts on the coast; they assert that for every hundred animals killed, a native family must perish by starvation, and they will not incur so heavy a responsibility.”

About the month of August they repair to the shore, and congregating in vast herds on the beach of some secluded bay, lie for weeks together in a semi-torpid condition, without moving or feeding. Should their retreat be discovered whilst in this state, great is the slaughter. Mr. Lamont, in his ‘Seasons with the Sea Horses,’ says that in 1852, on a small island off Spitzbergen (one of the Thousand Islands), two small sloops discovered a herd of Walruses consisting of three or four thousand, nine hundred of which they succeeded in killing, only a small portion of the produce of which, however, they were able to carry away.

The colour of the Walrus is brown, paling with age, and the skin is thickly covered with short hairs; the adult reaches the length of 10 or 15 feet, or, according to some authorities, even more, and weighs from two to three thousand pounds. Its rounded head, heavy muzzle, thickly set with stout bristles, small, round blood-shot eyes, and formidable tusks, give to this animal a ferocious appearance which is foreign to its nature, except when greatly excited or at pairing time, when the old bulls are said to fight with great fierceness and determination. A full-grown Walrus will yield from five to six hundred pounds of blubber, the oil from which, however, is not so fine as that of the Seal. The ivory tusks were formerly much used by dentists; at present, I believe, owing to the introduction of vulcanite, very little is applied to that purpose. Mr. Lamont mentions 24 in. in length and 4 lb. each in weight, as the size of a good pair of bull’s tusks: a pair in the Norwich Museum measure 32 in. in length, and the heavier of the two weighs 9 lb. 9 oz. The immensely elongated canine teeth which form the “tusks,” are found in both sexes, but are shorter and more slender in the female than in the male. The skin of the Walrus is valuable for many purposes.

Few animals, so long known to man, have, when figured, been represented so inaccurately as the Walrus: the hind feet are almost invariably depicted extended backwards, like those of the Seal (so also in stuffed specimens), whereas in the living animals they can be directed to the front, and serve as supports to the body in progression on the land or ice, in the same manner as the hind limbs of the eared seals. Dr. J. E. Gray, in an article ‘On the Attitudes and Figures of the Morse,’ in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1853, pp. 112-16, reproduces some of the wonderful prints of this animal from old authors, most of which are purely imaginary: Fig. 8, p. 37, is copied from one of these. By far the best portrait known, till quite recently, is one published in Amsterdam in 1613, where an old female and her young one are very accurately depicted: this has been reproduced in Bell’s ‘British Quadrupeds,’ 2nd edition, p. 269. Fig. 10 is copied from the “Sea Horse,” in the foreground of Cook’s illustration in ‘A Voyage to the Pacific,’ &c., 1784 edit., vol. ii., p. 446; as will be seen, this figure forms the source from which most subsequent illustrations were derived. Fig. 7 is taken, by kind permission of the late Mr. F. Buckland, from his ‘Log-book of a Fisherman and Zoologist,’ and represents “Jemmy,” the young Walrus, whose brief sojourn in the Zoological Gardens has already been referred to. One of Mr. Wolf’s “Zoological Sketches” represents a herd of Walruses in almost every conceivable attitude, and of course beautifully drawn and coloured.

Some authors recognise two distinct species of Walrus, one of which is said to be confined to the northern shores of the Atlantic, the other to the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Allen, in the ‘North American Pinnipeds,’ enters at length into the subject, and minutely describes the peculiarities which characterise each species. Reviving, after the example of Malmgren, the almost obsolete generic name of Odobænus, he describes the Atlantic Walrus under the name O. rosmarus; the animal found in the Pacific he calls O. obesus. The chief external points of difference in the latter appear to be in the facial outline, the longer and thinner tusks, “generally more convergent, with much greater inward curvature; the mystacial bristles shorter and smaller, and the muzzle relatively deeper and broader, in corelation with the greater breadth and depth of the skull anteriorly.” The eyes are also said to lack the “fiery red” appearance attributed to the Atlantic Walrus, and to be smaller and very protuberant. Cook’s figure reproduced at p. 41, also that at p. 177 of Scammon’s book, are those of Odobænus obesus, and the fine pair of tusks mentioned at p. 40, as now in the Norwich Museum, were probably also obtained from a Pacific Walrus. The figure at p. 33, and the excellent figure by Wolf, at p. 457 of Lloyd’s ‘Game-birds and Wild-fowl of Sweden and Norway,’ are of the Atlantic Walrus.

It is much to be regretted that the extinction of this harmless and useful animal is merely a matter of time, and that perhaps before many years have passed it may have ceased to exist; the only hope appears to be that when it has become too scarce to render its pursuit remunerative, a remnant may still be left to continue the species around the far off and unapproachable islands of the Arctic seas. Even in Franz Josef Land, where, in the summer of 1880, Mr. Leigh-Smith found the Walrus very abundant: it will probably not long remain unmolested, for that gentleman informed Captain Feilden that the Norwegian walrus-hunters, when they heard of his discovery, talked of pushing on for Franz Josef Land next summer, the Spitsbergen walrus-hunting having become very uncertain, from the paucity and wariness of the animals.

CETACEA.

The occasional stranding upon our shores of some monster member of the order CETACEA serves from time to time to reawaken our interest in these wonderful animals, and sets us thinking how little we know about them, and how small is our acquaintance with their life-history.

Nor is this lack of information surprising when we consider that the difficulties in the way of studying the larger Cetacea, are so great as to be almost insuperable to any ordinary person, and even to the leaders of zoological science rarely does the opportunity present itself of examining specimens in the flesh; for, of the rare instances in which they are cast ashore, the majority occur in wild and unfrequented parts of the coast, where they are probably cut up for their oil before a naturalist has an opportunity of examining them. From their unnatural position when cast up, and their altered appearance, owing to the falling in of some parts and the distension of others, correct portraiture is almost impossible; and their great size renders it difficult and expensive to make them serviceable to science, while from the putrid condition in which they are frequently found, a close examination is too often anything but agreeable. If seen in their native element, where alone they should be seen duly to appreciate their grand proportions and perfect adaptation to their mode of life, the view must be brief and too often distant, certainly affording rare opportunities for close observation. There is thus little left for naturalists to study, except the bony skeletons, and of these often mere fragments. Under these circumstances, we shall cease to wonder at the great confusion which, till recently, existed in the classification and nomenclature of the Cetacea, and which has been only partially cleared away, chiefly by the labours of Professors Flower and Turner in this country, and by Professors Eschricht, Reinhardt, Van Beneden, Gervais, and others on the continent. The literature of the subject is widely scattered and difficult of access; and, although Dr. Gray and Professor Flower have done much to condense and systematize what is known, our acquaintance with the tropical and southern species of this interesting order is not at present sufficient to furnish materials for a monograph worthy of the subject. No class of animals has been called so many names, or so vilely caricatured in portraits, as the unfortunate Whales.

It is scarcely necessary now to say that the Cetacea hold a fully recognized place in the great class Mammalia, although this honour has not always been accorded to them. Ray classed them with the Fishes; and although Linnæus finally placed them in their true position, Pennant, following his earlier mistake, failed to do so. The members of this order, which includes the Whales proper, Narwhal, Dolphins, and Porpoises (with which, until recently, the Dugong and Manatees were improperly associated under the name of Herbivorous Cetaceans), bring forth their young alive. These are nourished by the female, which, for this purpose, is furnished with two inguinal mammæ. They are warm-blooded, and breathe by means of lungs, rendering frequent visits to the surface of the water necessary, as the animal can only respire when the orifice of the nostrils, called the blow-hole, which is placed on the top of the head, is above water. The breathing apparatus is very peculiar, being so modified that the air is admitted into the trachea without passing through the mouth; the Whale can thus breathe freely, provided the blow-hole be above water, even when its mouth is submerged or filled with water. There are no external ears, but a small aperture situated just behind the eye, communicates with a perfectly-constructed internal hearing apparatus, and this, as the water is an excellent conductor of sound, is all-sufficient. The food of the Cetacea consists of various forms of marine animals, from the Seal, which frequently forms a meal to the fierce Grampus, to the minute creatures which go to build up the giant form of the Right-Whale. Some possess numerous formidable teeth in both jaws; others have teeth in the lower jaw only; and in one section the teeth are only present in the embryo, but in their stead, from the upper jaw depend curious plates, arranged side by side, to which the name of baleen has been given. The animal is encased in a layer of fat called “blubber,” which lies beneath the skin, and serves to retain the heat of the body, and the skin is smooth, polished, and quite devoid of hair or scales. On the back of most species is found a fleshy dorsal fin, and the fore limbs are represented by flippers externally undivided; the hind limbs, so far as external appearance is concerned, are altogether absent, but a rudimentary pelvis is found embedded in the flesh. The tail-fin forms the chief organ of locomotion: it is always fixed horizontally, and is of great size and power, enabling the animal, by its vigorous use, to attain great speed. There are many and striking peculiarities in the bony skeleton which it is not necessary here to enumerate.

=Br.=, brain cavity; =J=, =J*=, upper and lower jaw-bones; =bo=, =bo=, being roughened parts of the bone sawn through; arrows indicate the narial passages, which open at =s=, spout-hole; =w=, whalebone; =t=, tongue, in dotted outline; =n=, nerve aperture, lower jaw. ]

Before proceeding to give some account of the species which have been found in the British Seas, it will first be necessary to say a few words as to the arrangement of the genera and species. I shall enter into this part of the subject, however, so far only as is necessary for us clearly to understand the relative positions of the species which we shall have to consider.

Professor Flower divides the order Cetacea into two sub-orders: First, Mystacoceti, or Balænoidea, in all the members of which baleen takes the place of teeth, which are never developed, disappearing before birth; second, Odontoceti or Delphinoidea, in which teeth (sometimes very numerous) are always developed after birth. The first sub-order is a very restricted one, embracing only two families, Balænidæ and Balænopteridæ, to the former of which belong the two genera of Right-Whales, Balæna and Eubalæna; and to the latter, two genera, namely, Megaptera and Balænoptera. To these two genera belong the Rorquals, which occasionally occur in the British seas. The second sub-order, Odontoceti, contains the families of Physeteridæ, represented by the Sperm Whale, Beaked Whale, and several allied species; Platanistidæ, consisting of some curious forms found only in India and South America; and Delphinidæ, comprising the Narwhal, Beluga, or White Whale, Grampus, Porpoise, and Dolphins. The total number of British Cetacea has been variously estimated; Dr. Gray, in 1864, described thirty, and in 1873 thirty-three species; while Bell, whom we shall follow, recognised only twenty-two species in his second edition, published in 1874.

The following table of the British Cetacea will serve to indicate at a glance the precise position assigned to each species, in the two main divisions into which the order is divided:--

BRITISH CETACEA.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUB-ORDER. FAMILY. SUB-FAMILY. GENERA. | | | | {Balænidæ Balæninæ Balæna | | =1.= { | |MYSTACOCETI { {Megapterinæ Megaptera | | (=Whalebone-Whales.=) {Balænopteridæ { | | {Balænopterinæ Balænoptera | | | | | | | | {Physeterinæ Physeter | | {Physeteridæ { {Hyperoodon | | { { { | | { {Ziphiinæ {Ziphius | | =2.= { {Mesoplodon | |ODONTOCETI { { Beluginæ {Monodon | | (=Toothed Whales.=) { { {Delphinapterus | | {Delphinidæ { {Orca | | { {Grampus | | { Delphininæ {Globicephalus | | {Phocœna | | { | | { Delphinus | | | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUB-ORDER. SPECIES. | | | | {(?) B. mysticetus, Right-Whale | | =1.= {B. biscayensis, Atlantic Right-Whale | |MYSTACOCETI M. longimana, Hump-backed Whale | | (=Whalebone-Whales.=) {B. musculus, Common Rorqual | | {B. sibbaldii, Sibbald’s ” | | {B. laticeps, Rudolphi’s ” | | {B. rostrata, Lesser ” | | | | P. macrocephalus, Sperm Whale | | {H. rostratum, Beaked Whale | | {H. latifrons, Broad-fronted Beaked Whale| | Z. cavirostris, Cuvier’s Whale | | =2.= M. bidens, Sowerby’s Whale | |ODONTOCETI M. monoceros, Narwhal | | (=Toothed Whales.=) D. leucas, White Whale, or Beluga | | O. gladiator, Grampus, or Killer | | G. griseus, Risso’s Grampus | | G. melas, Pilot Whale | | P. communis, Porpoise | | {D. delphis, Common Dolphin | | {D. tursio, Bottle-nosed Dolphin | | {D. acutus, White-sided Dolphin | | {D. albirostris, White-beaked Dolphin | +------------------------------------------------------------------+

MYSTACOCETI (WHALEBONE WHALES.)

BALÆNIDÆ.

THE GREENLAND RIGHT-WHALE.

The first species, both in order and importance, of the Family Balænidæ is the well-known Balæna mysticetus, the GREENLAND, or RIGHT-WHALE as it is called by the whalers. So extremely doubtful, however, are the claims of this animal to a place in the British Fauna, that it is retained in the present treatise solely on account of the great interest attaching to it as a species, and not from any idea of maintaining for it a position, which, although hitherto assigned to it, has now become untenable. The use of the term well-known is perhaps unadvised; for, although this species has engaged the energies and industry of the merchant seamen of Northern Europe for centuries, so little was known of it scientifically, that not a single skeleton had ever found its way into any European museum, until Eschricht obtained one from Holsteinborg, in Greenland, in 1846. The recorded instances of the supposed occurrence of this species in the British Seas are unsatisfactory in the extreme. The most positive record is that in Messrs. Paget’s ‘Natural History of Great Yarmouth.’ They say: “Balæna mysticetus--common Whale--a small one taken near Yarmouth, July 8, 1784.” Sir James Paget, however, in a letter to the Author, is unable to add to the brief statement, as will be seen from the following extract from his communication:--“I am sorry I can give you no information respecting the Whale taken off Yarmouth in 1784; I have no notes as to the source from which I derived the statement, but probably it was from some MS. of Mr. Dawson Turner’s. It is not likely that any bones of the Whale were kept in Yarmouth, for there was no naturalist there at the time, and the whaling-trade, which was then actively carried on from the port, must have made Whales’ bones very common.” This is all that is ever likely to be learned of the Yarmouth Right-whale; but the season at which it occurred would render the heated seas on our coast utterly unbearable to an ice-loving inhabitant of the Arctic seas. This, with its small size, would seem to point to a closely-allied species to be mentioned soon. Sibbald records the occurrence of what he considers was probably a Right-whale, at Peterhead, in 1682; and a Whale recorded at Tynemouth by Willughby may have been of this species. In the first edition of Bell’s ‘Quadrupeds’ is a communication from the Rev. Mr. Barclay to the effect that on the coast of Zetland dead or very lean Whales of this species have several times been found or have run aground; but in the second edition of the same work the authors state that “there is no proof these references do not apply to some other species.” The same may be said with reference to Low’s remarks in the ‘Fauna Orcadensis,’ p. 158. This is all we know of the supposed occurrence of Right-Whales in British waters in recent times, and there is little doubt that these, if Right-Whales at all, should be referred to the next species.

The extreme northern habitat assigned to this species by those who have devoted much time and labour to the investigation of the subject, clearly proves that it must either have changed its habitat, which its present habits seem to render improbable, or that some other species formerly inhabited the temperate seas outside the Arctic circle extending southward to the Atlantic as far as latitude 40°, for it is beyond doubt that a brisk whale-fishery was carried on in former times by the Basque population in the Bay of Biscay and adjacent seas as far back as the 8th or 10th century. That such a southern species, distinct from the northern Right-whale did exist, is proved by Professors Eschricht and Reinhardt in their splendid memoir of the ‘Greenland Whale,’ a translation of which, edited by Professor Flower, was published by the ‘Ray Society’ in 1866, and of that species we shall give some account further on.

It has been asserted that the Greenland Whales supposed formerly to have visited our coasts, have been driven north by the increased traffic in the more frequented seas of temperate Europe; but from the habits of this species as observed on the west coast of Greenland, at the fishing stations established by the Danish Government, and recorded in the memoir just referred to, no confirmation of this theory is afforded. The fishery at these stations was prosecuted from the shore when the Whales appeared upon the coast in the winter months; as the spring advanced they followed the receding ice-line, and were seen in summer as far north in Baffin’s Bay as ships had at that time succeeded in penetrating, whilst their southward range in winter was always limited by a rather northerly degree of latitude. This, it is shown, went on with the greatest regularity for at least 80 years, during which the Whales constantly made their appearance at the same places, at the same season, without the slightest alteration taking place. The fact of the Whales always moving northward as the ice breaks up, will account for their being found in the spring in different latitudes; thus, on the Greenland coast, they are found, at this season, in latitude 65° 25′; but in Davis’ Strait, in 61° to 62°, always, however, inseparable from the ice. Messrs. Eschricht and Reinhardt thus conclude: “It seems, therefore, that the Whales have not retreated further north, as they are still found within precisely the same limits in which they were found at the beginning of the persecution, but in numbers so diminished that the fishery will hardly repay the trouble and expense attending it.”