CO885-(23-24) — Page 168

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

I[ ། ། ། ། ་

19

Reference :-

mminumim C.O. 885

23 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE |BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

14

23 January 1914.]

WHALING COMMITTEE:

Mr. STANLEY T. Burfield, B.A.

for Balaenoptera musculus they are probably about 20 ft. long when they are born. That was obtained even by 15 July, and that seems exceptionally early for one so large. On 7 August, 8ft. 8in., and also on 7 August, Sft. 6 in.; on 27 August, 7 ft. 10 in.; on 4 September, 3 ft. 11 in.; and on 8 September, 9ft. 4 in.

242. Are not smaller fœtuses than those found sa far as you know -I did not see any the season I was there. The smallest I saw was this one of 4 ft. 11 in., and I was particularly anxious to get small ones, but with very small ones it is so difficult, even supposing they are there, to see them, the mother is so large, the uterus, and so on; with quite a small one it is quite possible that you would not see it if it were there. The numbers are very few which have been obtained, small enough for embryological work, but you could not say that small ones did not exist definitely. As I say, it is difficult to see even if they are there.

243. Your fourth point is that birth probably takes place in winter, and early spring months, which you have already mentioned ?—Yes.

244. (Mr. Holt.) I think your observations infer rather a long period of gestation, do they not?-For the ordinary finner!

245. Yes?—I think I have mentioned about 11 months for the ordinary finner, and longer for the Blue whale.

246. That is a much larger beast though, is it not? --Yes.

247. There is no possibility of the period of gesta. tion being short, as some people have suggested P Quite short?

248. You?-One would hardly expect it, because for a near terrestrial mammal, the elephant, it is 20 months, and in the whale the young is born in quite an advanced stage, so that one would rather expect a fairly long period of gestation.

249. The facts you have recorded render it not impossible that the period is very much longer, in fact about a year longer than you suggest P-Yes, if it were a year longer it would fit in with the facta as we know them.

250. That is to say. 10 months, or say, 22 months ? -Yes, it would have to be a year longer to make the facts fit in. For the Blue whale the assumption at present is that it is about 18 or 20 months, and the elephant as a comparison is about 20 months, I believe. 251. I suppose it might be variable in the same species-Yes, to a certain extent.

252. (Chairman.) The next question is the length of pregnancy, and we have really already started on to that point. Just now you said that for the Blue whale the period was generally 20 months ?-18 to 20,

253. The common finner you put at 11 months, that being the generally accepted view-Yes, 10 or 11. 254. Under Head (II.) General Statement, you put the lengtha at certain periods -That is perfectly general. I give fairly wide limits too.

255. I see you give the fortus in April as fi to 12 in. That is what we must assume from the sizes

a little later on.

256. That is an assumption, a calculation P-Of course, fœtuses of that size have been found which seem to bear out that.

257. I think I have been told that the smallest fatus found was about 4 to 5 in. -Yea. Kükenthal got a number of them, or had them went to him from ne of the Spitzbergen stations. I have seen some fairly small ones in the Cambridge Museum, but not very small not less than the size you mention.

6t

258. The lengths you give here are: April 6, fœtus to 12 in.; August, 6 to 10ft.; at birth, 18 to 20 ft. In giving April and August. and then the birth, you are merely fixing a period, because you have already Kiven those other figures which show very variable lengths in different whalee at the same time of the year P-Yes. Of course, those figures give a fairly wide latitude, but that is given merely as a general statement, and I have made those fairly wide. It is possible they are wider still.

259. It is really a calculation -Yea.

260. Then you give the supposed period of the Blue whale as 18 to 20 months, and of the sperm whale as

[Continued.

about 10 months P---Yea. With regard to the Blue whale period, 18 to 20 months, Guldberg, I think, was the first to state that, and, from what I can make out, his argument seems to be that within 14 days (quite a short period) one may find fœtuses of the Blue whale anything from about 2 ft. to 6) or 7 ft. long at the same time or within the same fortnight as pairing is going on in the same species; and from that he esti- mates that the period of gestation must be over a year. His theory is that it is from about 18 to 20 months; also that it corresponds fairly closely with the period of a being such as an elephant, a large terrestrial mam- mal, which may not be so far different from a whale.

281. You would agree there is very little sound evidence upon which you can base any conclusions P— Yes. I think that is the most exnot that has ever been given.

262. Really, for the most part, it is a matter of opinion and guesswork?-I think so, except that the fœtuses, such as we have them, point to something in that direction.

263. Under Head C. Rapidity of Reproduction, you think, under the most favourable circumstances, once a year P-Under the most favourable circumstances, yes. 264. Except in the case of the Blue whale P-Yee, where it cannot be, if you take these other figures.

265. Really you mean, if you assume that 10 months is the period of gestation ?-For what species?

266. Any of them except the Blue whale P-Yes. 267. That, again, is merely a oslonlation -Yea; that being so, once a year must be the limit.

268. There is no evidence actually as to there being generally a considerable interval between parturition and the next act of copulation ?-I do not think there is any evidence of it.

289. The Blue whale you put every third year, again on the assumption P-Yes.

270. And the common finner every second year?— That is on the assumption also.

that

271. And sa to whether there are twins, you say

very rare; but there are cases ?—Yes. 272. There are, at any rate, cases of two calves being found with one cow, being seen following one cow -I have not come across any definite cases of that myself, but there are distinctly recorded cases with two foetuses.

273. That is more exact evidence still P-That has been recorded, although I have not seen one.

I think 274. Still, it is very rare?--It is very rare. that applies to all the large whales.

275. That is of interest in connection with the question of the rate at which you can expect the whales to replace themselves?--Yes. I think twins may be put out of the question altogether.

276. Then, finally, there is the question of the age

at maturity. Your first point is that the young even get up to a third of the length of the mother when they are born?-Yes.

277. And probably they remain with the mother for about a year after birth? Yes; that is the assumption. Calves 40 ft. 278.Rapid growth after birth.

to 50 ft. long seen with mother "F-Yes.

279. That is to say, assuming they remain with the mother for about a year, they grow very rapidly during that period-Yes; of course, that is the possibility, because the milk is very rich stuff they are feeding on to begin with.

28. Then you give True's length ?—Fifty-five feet seven inches for an ordinary finner.

281. Does he support that with much evidence ?- That is deduced from a large number of figures, I believe. He had a large number of figures both for American and Norwegian specimens.

282. So that he had some solid evidence to go upon ? -I think so.

283. From that you conclude that they are probably mature when from two to three years old?—Yes; because you have the young following the mother not much more than a year old, which are about 50 ft. long. Haldane gives a case of taking a 2 ft. fœtus from a whale apparently about 50 ft. long. That is rather exceptional; but even taking True's figure of 55 ft. 7 in, which is rather above that length and

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Mr. STANLEY T. BURFIELD, B.A.

28 January 1914.]

which is a definite figure if there is one, a whale cannot be very old when it can breed.

284. That in enormously important evidence if it is justified, because if it is the fact that the whale is mature at the age of two to three years old, it throws a very different light on the question of reproduction than if you imagine the whale to be considerably older st maturity. Incidentally it occurs to me to ask you, do you know the age at maturity of the elephant?—No, I do not.

285. I imagine it is a very much longer period P-I think so, but I do not know the figure.

288. Is the statement that they are" probably mature when two to three years old "your caloulation?-Hal- dane states that distinctly, and there is that example of his I put in that he took a 2 ft. fœtus from a 50 ft. female finner. At the same time he does not deduce that from Trus's figure; that is my own which fits in with his statement.

287. That is really a most interesting point, and so far as it goes it seems to be nearer certainty ?—Yes. Most of these things seem to be purely matters of -opinion, and I do not see how they can be anything else. 288. (Mr. Baker.) Having got such an important statement I should like to put a question on it: it looks as if protection of the cow with calf might go a very long way towards ample protection for whales ?—Yes.

289. Without any other restrictions at all P-Do you mean fust the protection of the cow at birth P

290. If whalers could be prohibited (assuming it could be enforced) from killing a cow with a calf- either the cow or the calf when together, it might go a long way towards ample protection of the species?→→ Yes, but if the whalers see a female with a smaller beast with her, if that smaller beast is (as cases have been recorded) nearly 50ft. long the whalers might Assume that it was a male.

291. I quite agree; I think if the small animal is 50 ft. long obviously you could not expect the whalers to protect it, because that is very nearly the size of the adult P-Yes.

292. But if a small whale is seen with a large whale it seems a legitimate inference that it is a cow and a calf, and if they were protected such protection might be a very good protection of the species P-Yes. If you mean by small, say up to 30 ft., a whale of that size would probably only be seen with the mother during the winter months near the breeding grounds where they are not hunted, and when they do see the young with the female it would be later in the year when they are perhaps 40ft. long at any rate.

293. Do you know if there is a regulation applying to the Irish fisheries, prohibiting the killing of a cow and calf? I do not know,

(Mr. Holt.) I do not think so.

(Mr. Baker.) Either the Irish or the Scotch have that protection, I cannot remember which.

(Mr. Lamb.) I think we have only one regulation. 294. (Mr. Baker.) (To the wilnass.) Do you know whether in fact from the Irish fisheries cows and calves are killed P

Are they seen P-I had one definite onse of a young one 50 ft. and the cow was killed, but of course if the young one was nearly 50 ft. long it is reasonable to assume that it might be an ordinary male.

295. (Mr. Lamb.) That was a question I wanted to put to you: have you any idea at what stage the calf would be self-supporting Take your average length, supposing 55ft, is the length of the adult roughly, could you state at what length the calf would be self. supporting in the average case?—No, because I do not think there is any evidence at all as to how long the mother gives the milk. The young whale, I believe, does not actually suck; the milk is forced out by the mother down the throat of the young.

296. I thought possibly there might be evidence from the contents of the stomachs of the young whalen, but possibly in the cases of very small whales they do not trouble to take note ?-No, I do not think there is any evidence for that. On the assumption, for instance, in the case of the finner that the young is about 19 ft. long when born, by the time it is about 50ft, it would have, I think, wall developed whalebone and I think would be self-supporting.

[Continued.

15

297. So that it might be possible to protect the calf by a regulation that no whale accompanied by a whale of a certain minimum size should be killed P- Yes, but there again the same difficulty exists as to judging the length.

298. (Mr. Holt.) Supposing there was such a regu- lation in Ireland, which there is not, would it be possible to enforce it except by personally inspecting all the hunting operations P-I think not.

299. You could not possibly tell, and you would have to produce evidence in a court of law that the actual female whale brought in had, as a matter of fact, a calf at her beel when she was killed ?—A female is brought in occasionally with the milk running, but that would not be sufficient evidence, because that might happen and the female might not have had a young one at all.

I think that is the only evidence one could

obtain from the female, and I do not think it would be worth anything.

300. Without absolute supervision at sea any regu lation of that sort would be useless?—I think so. You mean bringing in the female without her young, of course f

301. Yes Yes, I think so. I do not think it would be possible, because I had a definite case where I was told (I should not have known) that a young one from 40 to 50 ft. had accompanied the female. The female was brought in and out up, and I should not have known, unless it had been told me, that the young one had been with her.

302. The young one often runs in after the mothar P —Yes; but, even so, not so far in that the people at the station would see it.

303. (Mr. Lamb.) If you had regulations of that kind every vessel would require to carry its own police. man; that would be the only effective way?—Yes, that would be the only possible way.

304. And that would not be possible?—I do not suppose it would be impossible, but that is the only way

it could be done.

305. (Chairman.) It would make protection very expensive P-Yen.

(Mr. Lamb.) And the industry would have to pay for it.

306. (Mr. Vernon.) Whatevidence is there as to the proportion of the sexes? Are they about equal?--They are about equal, I think. My own figures brought them about equal. It has been suggested that the cows, that is to say, caught cows, are fewer in numbers than the balls, and one explanation of that is that the cows are shyer than the bulla, because apparently the numbers of the sexes existing are about the same. I believe, if you take the sexes of a fairly large number of fœtuses, you will find they work out about the same.

307. After the birth of the calf presumably the cow

is less sought after by the whalers P-Yes, because a female with a suckling gives the worst yield, but a gravid female gives the best yield.

308. (Chairman.) Now there is the question of pro- tective measures, and you first mention close areas?— It is a question of close areas or close seasons.

309. As we see the question at present it appears to be a question of close areas or close seasons unless some other method can be devised P-That method of policing on the boat would not come under either of the heads.

310. What we wanted to get at really was the question whether you could find a basis for a regulation closing areas or establishing close seasons which would have to be adjustable, no doubt P-Yes.

$11. You do not think at the moment you could indicate any area which one could close P-No, I think the only way one could do that would be to draw an imaginary line right across, so to speak, about the 60th parallel, and everything north of that we would assume would contain the breeding areas.

312. That would be a serious interference with present whaling operations, would it not P-Certainly. At least it would not interfere with the Irish or the Shetlanders. It depends how far north the Shetland people go, but I think the 60th parallel would come in the neighbourhood of Iceland. When I say "breading