Aqualic 1991, 17.1,31-36

Cetaceans with two dorsal fins

Michel Raynal

Tour Rubis, Appl. C24, 36 avenue d'llalie, 75013 Paris

Jean-Pierre Sylvestre

6 residence de /'Aulnaye II, 91650 Breuillel

Abstract Of these ten cetaceans, four represented new genera (Lipotes, Indopacetus, Tasmacetus and Cetacean species continue to be discovered nowa­ Lagenodelphis). days. The search for new species is thus fully justified. Two Soviet mammalogists have described since, a Six accounts of cetaceans-or alleged cetaceans­ new species of killer from the Antarctic waters with two dorsal fins are analysed in this article. They as Orcinus glacialis (Berzin and Vladirnirov, 1983). seem to refer, respectively, to an unidentified However, this form has not been accepted as a dis­ stranded , possibly a large ; a terra­ tinct species by the scientific community, and it is tological ; and two distinct species still considered only a new subspecies of Orcinus orca unknown to science: a small odontocete (?Delphinus (Bigg, Ellis, Ford & Balcomb, 1987). rhinoceros, Quoy and Gaimard, 1824), and a large More recently, a new has been mysticete (Amphiptera pacifica, Giglioli, 1870). named Mesoplodon peruvianus from a skull, a skel­ eton and several caught specimens (Sylvestre, 1989). Introduction Consequently, the hope for future discoveries of new cetacean forms still unknown to science and a It should be clear to every zoologist, that animal cryptozoological research for them are fully justified. species still unknown to science, including cetacean It should be stressed for instance that the Yangtze species, remain to be discovered: among cetaceans, dolphin was well known to the Chinese as beiji no less than ten 'good species', of which nine are ('white flag') long before it was officially discovered marine cetaceans, have been described from 1900 to and named by Western science as late as in 1918: the 1963 (Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl, 1982): discovery of this species could have been made much -Splaytooth or Andrew's beaked whale (Meso­ earlier from an analysis of the Chinese reports. plodon bowdoini, Andrews, 1908). In effect, several other forms of unknown ceta­ -Spectacled ( dioptrica, Lahille, ceans have been reported but yet never caught, such 1912). as the 'high-finned ' once reported off -True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus, True, Scotland and Shetland, first described by Sir Robert 1913). Sibbald, the father of cetology. -Yangtze dolphin or beiji (Lipotes vexillifer, Miller, Recently, three )ogists have observed and 1918). photographed an unknown beaked whale in eastern -Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus, Pacific, off the coast of Mexico: they have suggested Longman, 1926). that it is either Mesoplodon pacificus (= Indopacetus -Tasman beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi, pacificus), or an unknown species of Mesoplodon, or Oliver, 1937). anothernewziphiid (pitman, Aguayo & Urban, 1987). -Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei, Fraser, However, the strangest of the unidentified ceta­ 1956). ceans are certainly those said to possess two dorsal -Gulf porpoise or Cochito (Phocoena sinus, Norris fins: a very brief review of this file has already been and Macfarland, 1958). made by Heuvelmans (1965 and 1986), bu t all the -Japanese (or gingko-toothed) beaked whale available data are gathered here for the first time. (Mesoplodon ginkgodens, Nishiwaki and Kamiya, 1958). Historical analysis -Arched (or Hubb's) beaked whale (Mesoplodon In 1814, French-American naturalist Constantin­ carlhubbSi, Moore, 1963). Samuel Rafinesque-Schrnalz was the first scientist 32 M. Raynal and J. P. Sylvestre

:. j" ,',' : ...",:-",~......

)

+ a 10 _ .:~+ ------_._------_._---­1M .-p.---- .,,----.--=:1 Figure 1. The 'monstrous ' of Sicily, 1741 (from MONGITORE 1742-1743). who was bold enough to name such a two-finned accurately (from the dimensions given in the text, the cetacean: animal was more elongated). The 'hole' on its head 'In my Sicilian Mastodology, I shall fix and de­ might be the vent of a cetacean, but what about the scribe several othercetaceans, from the seas ofSicily, scales and the ventral fin? Moreover, nothing is said figured by Mongitore; I have named them Delphinus in the text about the (or fins?). This account dalippus, Physeter urganantus, Oxypterus mongitori is thus too vague to be considered seriously as evi­ [Mongitore's one with sharp fins], N.G. [new genus] dence for the existence of two-finned cetaceans: it with two dorsal fins, etc.' (Rafinesque-Schmalz, might be a very large shark, possibly an oversized 1814). (Cetorhinus maximus). However, Rafinesque left Sicily in 1815 because of In 1819, a whole herd of strange cetaceans was matrimonial problems, and all his manuscripts were observed by Quoy and Gaimard, two French lost in the wreck of the vessel which brought him to naturalists, from the vessels Physicienne and Uranie, America, so that his 'Sicilian Mastodology' (i.e. 5°28' North latitude, between Sandwich Islands mammalogy) was never published, so far as the (Hawai) and New South Wales (Australia): authors know; in any case, it is not mentioned in the 'Everybody in the boat was as surprised as we list ofhis 939(!) publications compiled by Fitzpatrick were, to see on their snouts a horn or fin curved (1911). backwards, like that of the back. The volume of the There is only a simple further mention of this new animal was about double that of the common por­ generic name in a later work by Rafinesque, where poise, and the top of the body, to the dorsal fin, was Oxypterus is classified among toothed cetaceans, in marked with black and white spots.' (Quoy and the 'delphinia' family, now known as the odontocete Gaimard, 1824). sub-order (Rafinesque-SchmaJz, 1815). They swam close to the vessel, their heads remain­ One of us (M.R.) was able to check Rafinesque's ing in the water, so that the head and the snout could source: in his book about Sicily, Mongitore men­ not be seen, and they did not jump out of the water. tioned that in September 1741, a 'monstrous fish' had Quoy and Gaimard made drawings of these been found stranded on the coast of Sicily: (Figure 2), and though none of them were caught, 'It was 54 palms [about 13.9 m] long, with a cir­ they named them 'rhinoceros ' (Delphinus cumference of 28 palms [7.2 m], and its tail was rhinoceros). It should be stressed that the first dorsal forked in two parts, 12 palms [3.1 m] long. There was fin or 'horn' appears to be located not on the snout, a hole on its head, from which water came out. Its as said in the text, but behind the head,judging from mouth was armed with strong teeth.' (Mongitore, the drawing. 1742-1743). No cetacean with two dorsal fins is known to exist, The illustration (Figure I) is quite naIve, and it was but it is by no means impossible: the dorsal fin of the made certainly by a drawer who did not see the cetacean (when they have one), is only made with animal himself: even the proportions are not drawn connective tissue (nothing to do with the fins of the Cetaceans with two dorsa/fins 33

Figure 2. The 'rhinoceros dolphin' (from QUOY and GAIMARD 1824). , which do possess a skeleton), and it takes a This whale looked much like a balaenoptere; it part in the stabilization of the animal: a careened was about 18 m (60 ft) long, the distance between the head, like that ofthe sperm whale (Physeter catodon), dorsal fins was about 2 m (6.5 ft). The mouth con­ or several humps on the back like in the humpback tained black whalebones. When the animal surfaced (Megaptera novae-angliae), are other solutions for for the first time, it blew in a spout which made a long the same problem of biomechanics. There are thus noise like that of the 'air in a large copper tube'. Then cetaceans with no dorsal fin, with one dorsal fin, with the animal blew each two minutes, but with much less a ridge of humps rich in connective tissue: therefore, noise and with no spout. The lower parts were why not with two dorsal fins? greyish white, no furrow was visible. The flippers 'Volume' is an ambiguous word: Quoy and seemed to be falciform and rather long. Gaimard allude of course to the 'length' of the ani­ Giglioli provided an accurate drawing of this ani­ mals. The common porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is mal (Figure 3), and he proposed for it the name of about 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) long: the cetaceans Amphiptera pacifica, 'the one ffom the Pacific with a reported by both French naturalists were thus about fin on each side' (Giglioli, 1870, 1874 and 1875). 3 m (10 ft) long. But were they really dolphins? It is There may be another report, taken from Bernard not at all sure, but they were certainly odontocetes, at Heuvelmans' extensive files on the famous 'Sea­ least because of their very short size. Serpent' (Heuvelmans, 1965): in October 1898, off According to British naturalist Jonathan Couch, Stonehaven (Scotland), Alexander Taylor and his in April 1857, a 'close and accurate observer of crew, on the fishing boat Lily, saw a strange 'sea nature' saw a group of dolphins at playoff the coast ' only fifty yards away: of Cornwall, of which one had two dorsal fins. He 'The skipperdescribes it as having a back somewhat provided the following description: like the upturned bottom ofa ship, on which were two 'The snout of the dolphin was distinctly visible; fins about 20 ft [6 m] apart, and the size of the length ofthe body from 6 to 8 ft [1.8 m to 2.4 m]-the sails of a small boat, which they closely resembled. shape more slender than in the common dolphins, of 'Behind one fin was a protuberance the shape of a which about a dozen were in the company. The camel's hump. The body was ofa bluish colour, and colour much 8S in the ordinary species; and as it in appearance the head was much flatter than that of repeatedly came to the surface, it was noticed that the a whale. first dorsal fin was at about the middle of the length, '[...] At intervals it raised its head high out of the and the other, two feet [0.6 m] nearer the tail. Its water, and spouted in the manner ofa whale, the only motions were like those of the other cetaceans that difference being that it took a shorter period to blow. were then amusing themselves at their leisure near the 'The skipper of the boat describes the part of the rocks in Lantivet Bay'. (Couch, 1856). creature that was visible as being twice the length of It should be emphasized that this abnormal dol­ its 34 ft [10.40 m] boat. He did not see its tail, so that phin was among a group of normal ones. there is no knowing what is total length might have On September 4, 1867, during his voyage round been.' (Anonymous, 1898). the world made on the steamer Magenta, Italian Another possible sighting which occurred in 1983 naturalist Enrico Hillyer Giglioli saw a large whale in the Mediterranean Sea, has been recorded by off the coast of Chile (SE Pacific): Maigret (1986): 'The gray greenish back of a great cetacean 'On July 17, while traveling between Bonifacio appeared, which, very remarkable a thing, showed [Corsica Island] and Cavalaire [Var, France], the two dorsal fins, well developed, erect, triangular, and crew of a sail boat 13 m [43 ft] long, claims having separated by a large, apparently smooth space.' seen a large-sized animal which followed their boat: it 34 M. Raynal and J. P. Sylvestre

,{Ill.,

Figure 3. The whale of the Magenta (from (GIGLIOLI 1870).

Figure 4. Kwakiutl painted grave marker. had two dorsal fins, a trapezoidal head and a white 'legends of two-, three- and even five-finned killer belly. It was not a , of which they had seen '. A Kwakiutl painted grave marker at Alert several individuals previously.' Bay (British Columbia) Figure 4 may represent such In addition to these reports, the Haida Indians of a two-finned cetacean; but it has been suggested that the coast of British Columbia (Canada) have 'these legends could have originated from the sight Cetaceans with two dorsalfins 35 of a cluster of dorsal fins where whales surfaced separated by an interval of about 3.5 m: the differ­ together' (Stewart, 1979). ence between the two accounts is thus quite relative. The description of the animal observed in 1983 off Corsica sounds also like GiglioIi's whale: its largesize, Cryptozoological analysis trapezoidal head and white belly are consistent with We have thus on file six reports on marine creatures such an identification. Again, it was a single individ­ with two dorsal fins, and a possible native tradition ual. And the remark that 'it was not a rorqual' might with an artistic representation. mean that it did look like a rorqual anyway. Belgian cetologist Van Beneden, in a letter to On the other hand, the cetaceans reported by Quoy Professor Giglioli, suggested that the presence oftwo and Gaimard are quite different: gregarious, about dorsal fins in Giglioli's whale, was a terratological 3 m long (about 6 times smaller than Giglioli's anomaly (Giglioli, 1870), somewhat like a three­ whale), their dorsal fins located much more forward legged duck. This opinion, also shared by Borri (also more forward than in the dolphin sighted off (1927) is quite likely for the dolphin sighted off the Cornwall in 1857), body marked with spots, etc. coast ofCornwall in 1857, as it was swimming among Finally, Mongitore's 'monstrous fish' was prob­ a dozen normal dolphins, and apart from its super­ ably a large shark rather than a cetacean: it is not numerary dorsal fin, seemingly quite identical with even sure that it did possess two dorsal fins. How­ them. Ifnot a new species, such an atavistic dolphin ever, as its size, its 'hole on its head' (the vent?), and would be very interesting to be studied, because this the shape and place of the dorsal fins in the drawing, anomaly has never been recorded, as far as we know. are similar enough with that of Giglioli's whale, it But this hypothesis cannot explain at all Quoy's might possibly have been a specimen of that species; and Gaimard's herd of 'rhinoceros dolphins'. Nor but the evidence is too vague to be sure, and can it account for Giglioli's whale: in addition to Rafinesque-Schmalz's 'scientific' name (Oxypterus its two dorsal fins, this cetacean possessed several mongiton) must be invalidated as a nomen nul/um. distinct features, particularly a want of gular ridge, The case of the Indian tradition and the represen­ unlike all other great balaenopteres. These furrows tation of a double finned cetacean in British allow them to increase the volume ofwater (hence the Columbia should be kept apart, at least until more quantity of plankton) taken into the mouth, but they detailed evidence becomes available. take also a part in the stabilization; in a whale with Therefore, as unlikely as it may seem to some, we such a remarkable stabilization device (two dorsal are dealing with two kinds ofdouble finned cetaceans fins), furrows would be probably unnecessary. still unknown to science:-a small odontocete, There is a remarkable resemblance between described as Delphinus rhinoceros by Quoy and Giglioli's whale and the Lily 'sea monster': number Gaimard in 1824, though it is not at all sure that of animals (one single individual), length (18 m and it belongs to the genus Delphinus, nor even to the about 20 m), colour (greenish gray and blueish), Delphinidae family. We would propose the name of shape of the back fins (triangular and like sails), and Cetodipterus rhinoceros if it would turn out to rep­ the shape of the head and the spout of the Lily sea resent a new genus-and a large whalebone whale, monster were compared with that of a whale. The named Amphiptera pacifica in 1870, by Professor two dorsal fins were separated by an interval ofabout Giglioli; it looks much like a balaenoptere, but if a 2 m in Giglioli's whale, instead of about 6 in the Lily new family should be created for this whale, the name sea-monster, but it should be stressed that Giglioli's of Amphipteridae would be quite appropriate. observation was more accurate and longer. More­ Though still incertae sedis, these unknown ceta­ over, a study of the drawing of the Magenta whale, ceans show a very interesting example of conver­ shows that the 2 m interval refers to the base of the gence: both odontocete and mysticete sub-orders dorsal fins; but the tops of the dorsal fins are in fact show in effect all the possible stabilization devices:

Number of dorsal fins Odontocetes Mysticetes

o Dolphin Right Whale (Lissode/phis sp.) (Euba/aena sp.) Dorsal ridge Sperm Whale California of humps (Physeler calodon) (Eschrichlius gibbosus) I (De/phinus de/phis) (Ba/aenoplera museu/us) 2 Rhinoceros Dolphin Giglioli's Whale (?De/phinus rhinoceros) (Amphiplera pacifica) 36 M. Raynal and J. P. Sylvestre

This anatomy, with two almost similar back fins is Giglioli, Enrico Hillyer (1874) I Cetacei Osservati durante il similar enough with that of some , such as the Viaggio intorno al Globo della R. Pirocorvella Magenta, humantin (Oxynotus centrina). 1865-68. Napoli, Stamperia della Regia Universita, 59-72, tav. III. Giglioli, Enrico Hillyer (1875) Viaggio intorno al Globo della R. P. Italiana Magenta negli Anni 1865-66-67-68. Milano, Acknowledgements V. Maisner e Co., 884-886. Many thanks to Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans (Le Heuvelmans, Bernard (1965) Le Grand Serpent-de-Mer: Ie Probleme Zoologique et sa Solution. Paris, Pion. Vesinet, France) and to Dr. Karl P. Shuker (West Heuvelmans, Bernard (1986) Annotated checklist of Bromwich, England) for their kind help. Apparently Unknown Animals with which Crypto­ We would be of course very grateful for any infor­ zoology is Concerned. Cryptozoology 5, 1-26. mation about unknown forms of cetaceans. Honacki, James H., Kinman, Kenneth E. & Koeppl, James W. (1982) Species ofthe World. Lawrence Allen Press, Association ofSystematics Collections. References Maigret, Jacques (1986) Les ataces sur les Cotes Ouest­ africaines: encore quelques imigmes! Notes Africaines, no Anonymous (1898) Scared by a . Daily Mail 189, Janvier: 20-24. (London), October 10(3). Mongitore, Antonino (1742-43) Della Sicilia Ricercata Berzin, A. A. & Vladimirov, V. L. (1983) A New Species of nelle Cose piu Memorabili. Palermo, Francesco Valenza, (, Delphinidae) from the Antarctic Vol. 2: 98-99. Waters [in Russian]. Zoologicheski Zhurnal 62(2), Pitman, Robert L., Aguayo, Anelio L. & Urban, Jorge R. 287-295. (1987) Observations of an Unidentified Beaked Whale Bigg, M. A., Ellis, G. M., Ford 1. K. B. & Balcomb K. C. (Mesoplodon sp.) in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Marine (1987) Killer Whales, a study of their identification, Mammal Science 3(4), 345-352. genealogy and natural history in British Columbia and Quoy, Jean-Rene Constant & Gaimard, Joseph Paul Washington State. Nanaimo, Phantom Press and (I 824) Voyage autour du Monde Execute sur les Corvelles Publications. de S. M. /'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les Annees Borri, Celsio (1927) Saggio di Morfologia Dinamica dei 1817,1818, 1819, et 1820. Paris, Pillet Aine. Zoologie I, Cetacei. Alii della Societa di Sciencze Naturali di Pisa 38, 86. 181-251. Rafinesque-Schmalz, Constantin-Samuel (1814) Precis des Couch, Jonathan (1856) Remarks on the Species ofWhales Decouvertes et Travaux Somiologiques de Mr. c.-S. which have been Observed on the Coasts of Cornwall. Rajinesque-Schmalz entre 1800 et 1814. Palerme, Royale Transactions of the Royal Polytechnic Society of Typographie Militaire, 13. Cornwall, 24th report: 27-46. Rafinesque-Schmalz, Constantin-Samuel (1815) Analyse Fitzpatrick, Thomas Jefferson (1911) Rajinesque: a Sketch de la Nature ou Tableau de /'Univers et des Corps ofhis Life, with Bibliography. Des Moines, The Historical Organises. Palerme, au depens de I'auteur, 60. Department of Iowa. Stewart, Hilary (1979) Looking at Indian Art of the Giglioli, Enrico Hillyer (1870) Note intorno alla Distribu­ Northwest Coast. Vancouver and Toronto, Douglas and zione della Fauna Vertebrata nel/' Oceano prese durante un McIntyre, 42, 97. Viaggio intorno al Globo, 1865-1868. Firenze, Giuseppe Sylvestre, Jean-Pierre (1989) Baleines et Cachalots. Civelli,75-76. Lausanne, Delachaux et Niestle.