Japan Whaling Association V. American Cetacean Society: the Great Whales Become Casualties of the Trade Wars

Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 1986 Article 9 September 1986 Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society: The Great Whales Become Casualties of the Trade Wars Virginia A. Curry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Recommended Citation Virginia A. Curry, Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society: The Great Whales Become Casualties of the Trade Wars, 4 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 277 (1986) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol4/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society: The Great Whales Become Casualties of the Trade Wars I. Introduction The United States, encouraged by environmental and animal protection organizations, has been the major propo- nent of effective measures to conserve whales.1 Japan, on the other hand, has been the most outspoken defender of whal- ing.2 A major confrontation between the two countries oc- curred in Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society.' The United States blinked.4 This pro-whaling deci- sion by the United States Supreme Court had two significant political and legal implications. It intensified the conflict be- tween conservationists and whalers.' It also demonstrated the Court's preference for deferring to the Executive Branch's in- terpretation of its congressional mandate. Japan Whaling asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Secretary of Commerce has discretion under the Pelly6 and Packwood Amendments7 to negotiate with Japan 1. Note, Legal Aspects of the International Whaling Controversy: Will Jonah Swallow the Whales?, 8 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 211, 212 (1975). 2. Id. at 212 n.8. See also, Note, The U.S.-Japanese Whaling Accord: A Result of the Discretionary Loophole in the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment, 19 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L. & Econ. 577, 585 (1986)(authored by Andrew J. Siegal). 3. 106 S. Ct. 2860 (1986). This case (No. 85-954) was consolidated with Baldrige v. American Cetacean Soc'y (No. 85-955). 4. See Burgess, Japan Links Whaling Ban to Court Case, Wash. Post, Apr. 6, 1985, at Al, col. 6. See also Note, supra note 2, at 577 n.5. 5. See, e.g., Letter from Douglas Falkner of Greenpeace International requesting public support (Feb. 1987). See also, Haberman, Japanese Whalers Face Heavy Seas, N.Y. Times, Apr. 12, 1987, at 3, col. 1. 6. Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protection Act of 1967, 22 U.S.C. § 1978 (1982). The Pelly Amendment provides that "when the Secretary of Commerce deter- mines that nationals of a foreign country, directly or indirectly, are conducting fishing operations in a manner or under circumstances which diminish the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation program, the Secretary of Commerce shall certify 1 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 4 over its whaling practices. The lower courts had held that the Secretary did not have this discretion and must certify Japan for its violations of the International Whaling Commission's quotas.8 The courts had concluded that these violations "di- minish[ed] the effectiveness" of international conservation treaties and thus triggered the sanctioning process. ' The Su- preme Court reversed. 10 This Note will describe and analyze the conflicting argu- ments presented in Japan Whaling over interpretations of the Pelly and Packwood Amendments. The Supreme Court, reversing the lower courts, held that these amendments give the Secretary of Commerce discretion to negotiate with Japan over its future whaling practices, rather than certify it for its past and present practices." The Note concludes that al- though the Supreme Court claims to have decided this case on pure statutory interpretation grounds, the 5-4 decision re- flected a major policy choice. The Court recognized that, when it comes to whaling, the Secretary of Commerce has an inher- ent conflict of interest between his responsibility for the health of United States commerce and his statutory mandate to protect whales. He was given discretion to resolve the con- flicts in his position. This Note recommends that, in light of this deference to the Secretary, those citizens who believe that the conservation of whales and other endangered species is as important as concerns over international trade must convince Congress to act to remove the Secretary's discretion. such fact to the President." Id. § 1978(a)(1). 7. Packwood Amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. § 1821 (1982 & Supp. III 1985). The Packwood Amendment provides that "the term 'certification' means a certification made by the Secretary [of Com- merce] that nationals of a foreign country, directly or indirectly, are conducting fish- ing operations or engaging in trade or taking which diminishes the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling." Id. § 1821(e)(2)(A)(i). 8. American Cetacean Soc'y v. Baldrige, 604 F. Supp. 1398 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 768 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 9. American Cetacean Soc'y, 604 F. Supp. at 1410, afl'd, 768 F.2d at 428. See also infra note 40 for an explanation of the certification and sanctioning process. 10. Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Soc'y, 106 S. Ct. 2860 (1986). 11. Id. at 2862. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol4/iss1/9 2 1986] JAPAN WHALING II. Background A. Whaling "There is probably no one group of animals which has the significance of whales to world conservation."' 2 The rapid de- cline of whale populations during this century is dramatic evi- dence of the power of human technology to affect the environ- ment on a global scale."3 During the nineteenth century, those species of whales which could be killed by the slow whaling boats were nearly wiped out. The whaling industry appeared to be as close to extinction as the whales that supported it. Yet, in the first four decades of the twentieth century more whales were killed than in the previous four hundred years.'4 Technological advances available to whalers were respon- sible for this incredible killing efficiency. Steam-powered catcher boats, gun-fired harpoons with explosive heads, com- pressed air pumps to keep dead whales from sinking, and the modern factory ship to process the catch at sea revitalized the twentieth century whaling industry.'5 Today, Russia and Ja- pan are the only countries actively engaged in large-scale whaling. 6 The whaling process has decimated the whale population. Estimates place the pre-whaling population at 3.9 million whales.' 7 By 1975, the population was reduced to 2.1 million. 18 Only 1.2 million of these were mature whales.' 9 However, these figures underestimate the devastation. While the overall 12. Scarff, The InternationalManagement of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises: An InterdisciplinaryAssessment, 6 Ecology L.Q. 326 (1977) (part 1) (quoting Talbot, Remarks at the Presentation of the Albert Schweitzer Medal, Animal Welfare Inst. Rep. 2 (Jan.-Mar. 1974)). 13. Hill, Vanishing Giants, 77 Audubon 56 (1975). 14. Scarff, supra note 12, at 346. 15. Id. 16. Together, Japan and Russia account for eighty percent of the captured whales. Christol, Schmidhauser & Totten, The Law and the Whale: Current Devel- opments in the International Whaling Controversy, 8 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 149, 163 (1976). 17. Scarff, supra note 12, at 332. 18. Id. 19. Id. 3 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 4 decline is forty-six percent,20 some baleen whale species such as the bowhead and right whales have been reduced by over ninety percent.21 The blue whale, the largest animal on earth, 22 has been reduced by ninety-nine percent. B. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling On November 20, 1946, representatives of fifteen major whaling nations23 signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) 24 and created the Interna- tional Whaling Commission (IWC).2 5 Since the treaty became effective in 1948,26 the IWC has dictated the "rules" of inter- national whaling management and conservation.27 The United States, a founding member of the ICRW, and Japan are both signatories to this treaty.2" The signatories hoped that the IWC could effectively reg- ulate whaling so that the whale stock could be maintained at a productive level and the whaling industry could prosper.29 From the first, however, the whaling states favored short-term economic gain and secured the approval of very high annual quotas.30 The results are evident. The most valuable species 20. Id. 21. Id. at 330-31. 22. Levin, Toward Effective Cetacean Protection, 12 Nat. Resource Law. 549, 550 (1979)(citation omitted). 23. Signatory governments were Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, South Africa, USSR, United Kingdom and the United States. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, opened for signature Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, T.I.A.S. No. 1849, 161 U.N.T.S. 72 [hereinafter ICRW] (proclamation). (Publication of the T.I.A.S. series was begun in 1950, two years after the United States signed this treaty.) 24. Id. 25. Id. at 1717, T.I.A.S. No. 18___, 161 U.N.T.S. 76. 26. Id. at 1717, T.I.A.S. No. 18___, 161 U.N.T.S. 74. 27. Smith, The International Whaling Commission: An Analysis of the Past and Reflections on the Future, 16 Nat. Resources Law, 543, 547 (1984). 28. ICRW, supra note 23.

THE MELANCHOLY OF HARUHI SUZUMIYA: MANGA V. 17 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Nagaru Tanigawa,Gaku Tsugano,Noizi Ito | 176 pages | 17 Dec 2013 | Little, Brown & Company | 9780316322348 | English | New York, United States The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya: Manga v. 17 PDF Book The two series were streamed in Japanese and with English subtitles on Kadokawa's YouTube channel between February 13 and May 15, Character Family see all. Chad rated it liked it Nov 10, Essential We use cookies to provide our services , for example, to keep track of items stored in your shopping basket, prevent fraudulent activity, improve the security of our services, keep track of your specific preferences e. While Haruhi is the central character to the plot, the story is told from the point of view of Kyon , one of Haruhi's classmates. Retrieved February 26, On April 17, Yen Press announced that they had acquired the license for the North American release of the first four volumes of the second manga series, promising the manga would not be censored. September 25, August 21, [10] [35]. No trivia or quizzes yet. The "next episode" previews feature two different episode numberings: one number from Haruhi, who numbers the episodes in chronological order, and one number from Kyon, who numbered them in broadcast order. Nagaru Tanigawa is a Japanese author best known for The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya for which he won the grand prize at the eighth annual Sneaker Awards. November 21, [41]. Era see all. Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell Paperback, 4. Retrieved April 14, The series has been licensed by Bandai Entertainment and has been dubbed by Bang Zoom! An omnibus of three anthologies containing short stories from several different manga artists.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 08–1448. Argued November 2, 2010—Decided June 27, 2011 Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, filed a preenforcement challenge to a California law that restricts the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Federal District Court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: The Act does not comport with the First Amendment. Pp. 2–18. (a) Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like pro- tected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through fa- miliar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wil- son, 343 U. S. 495, 503. The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Un- ion, 535 U.

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES Anglo-Japanese Property Commission established pursuant to the Agreement concluded between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan on 12 June 1952 Decision of 30 November 1960 in the case United Kingdom in re Struthers and others v. Japan Commission anglo-japonaise des biens, établie en vertu de l’Accord conclu entre les Puissances Alliées et le gouvernement du Japon le 12 juin 1952 Décision du 30 novembre 1960 dans l’affaire Royaume-Uni in re Struthers et al. c. Japon 30 November 1960 VOLUME XXIX, pp.513-519 NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS Copyright (c) 2012 PART XXIII Anglo-Japanese Property Commission established pursuant to the Agreement concluded between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan on 12 June 1952 Commission anglo-japonaise des biens, établie en vertu de l’Accord conclu entre les Puissances Alliées et le gouvernement du Japon le 12 juin 1952 Anglo-Japanese Property Commission established pursuant to the Agreement concluded between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan on 12 June 1952 Commission anglo-japonaise des biens, établie en vertu de l’Accord conclu entre les Puissances Alliées et le Gouvernement du Japon le 12 juin 1952 Decision of 30 November 1960 in the case United Kingdom in re Struthers and others v. Japan* Décision du 30 novembre 1960 dans l’affaire Royaume-Uni in re Struthers et al. c. Japon** Treaty of peace between the United Kingdom and Japan of 1951—treaty interpre- tation—intention of the parties—meaning of “property”—inability of States to restrict treaty obligations through national law.

Colby Quarterly Volume 26 Issue 2 June Article 6 June 1990 "I will. Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II Barbara H. Traister Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cq Recommended Citation Colby Quarterly, Volume 26, no.2, June 1990, p.112-121 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Colby Quarterly by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Colby. Traister: "I will. Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II "I will . .. Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II by BARBARA H. TRAISTER N BOTH RichardII and Henry v, the first and last plays ofthe second tetralogy, I kings engage in highly theatrical activity. Each play, however, has a very different metadramatic focus. In Richard II acting becomes a metaphor for the way Richard sees himself. The focus of audience attention is the narcissistic royal actor whose principal concern is his own posturing and who is his own greatest, and eventually only, admirer. Richard is an actor and dramatist, the embodiment of Elizabeth I's comment: "We Princes, I tell you, are set on stages, in the sight and view of all the world duly observed" (quoted in Neale 1957,2:19). However, his self-ab­ sorption and blindness to the world around him lead the audience to make few, if any, connections between him and the actor-dramatist who created him. The play is nearly empty of self-reflexive dramatic overtones despite its complex portrait of a player king.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Signed at Washington Under Date of December 2, 1946

1946 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING Adopted in Washington, USA on 2 December 1946 [http://iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm] ARTICLE I . 4 ARTICLE II . 4 ARTICLE III . 4 ARTICLE IV . 5 ARTICLE V . 5 ARTICLE VI . 6 ARTICLE VII . 7 ARTICLE VIII . 7 ARTICLE IX . 7 ARTICLE X .

ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 15 September 2016 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00167 Crowdsourcing Modern and Historical Data Identifies Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Habitat Offshore of South-Western Australia Christopher M. Johnson 1, 2, 3*, Lynnath E. Beckley 1, Halina Kobryn 1, Genevieve E. Johnson 2, Iain Kerr 2 and Roger Payne 2 1 School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia, 2 Ocean Alliance, Gloucester, MA, USA, 3 WWF Australia, Carlton, VIC, Australia The distribution and use of pelagic habitat by sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) is poorly understood in the south-eastern Indian Ocean off Western Australia. However, a variety of data are available via online portals where records of historical expeditions, commercial whaling operations, and modern scientific research voyages can now be accessed. Crowdsourcing these online data allows collation of presence-only information Edited by: of animals and provides a valuable tool to help augment areas of low research effort. Rob Harcourt, Four data sources were examined, the primary one being the Voyage of the Odyssey Macquarie University, Australia expedition, a 5-year global study of sperm whales and ocean pollution. From December Reviewed by: 2001 to May 2002, acoustic surveys were conducted along 5200 nautical miles of Clive Reginald McMahon, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, transects off Western Australia including the Perth Canyon and historical whaling grounds Australia off Albany; 60 tissue biopsy samples were also collected. To augment areas not surveyed Gail Schofield, Deakin University, Australia by the RV Odyssey, historical Yankee whaling data (1712–1920), commercial whaling *Correspondence: data (1904–1999), and citizen science reports of sperm whale sightings (1990–2003) Christopher M.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA No. 17–1299. Argued January 9, 2019—Decided May 13, 2019 Respondent Hyatt sued petitioner Franchise Tax Board of California (Board) in Nevada state court for alleged torts committed during a tax audit. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the Board’s argument that the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada courts to ap- ply California law and immunize the Board from liability. The court held instead that general principles of comity entitled the Board only to the same immunity that Nevada law afforded Nevada agencies. This Court affirmed, holding that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not prohibit Nevada from applying its own immunity law. On remand, the Nevada Supreme Court declined to apply a cap on tort liability applicable to Nevada state agencies. This Court reversed, holding that the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada courts to grant the Board the same immunity that Nevada agencies enjoy. The Court was equally divided, however, on whether to over- rule Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.

The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke*** *c/- WA Museum, Francis Street, Perth WA 6000 ** SA Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000 ***Blackwood Lodge, RSD 273 Mount Hicks Road, Yolla Tasmania 7325 Australian Nature Conservation Agency September 1996 The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories, or the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. ISBN 0 642 21388 7 Published September 1996 © Copyright The Director of National Parks and Wildlife Australian Nature Conservation Agency GPO Box 636 Canberra ACT 2601 Cover illustration by Lyn Broomhall, Perth Copy edited by Green Words, Canberra Printer on recycled paper by Canberra Printing Services, Canberra Foreword It seems appropriate that Australia, once an active whaling nation, is now playing a leading role in whale conservation. Australia is a vocal member of the International Whaling Commission, and had a key role in the 1994 declaration of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. The last commercial Australian whaling station ceased operations in Albany in 1978, and it is encouraging to see that once heavily exploited species such as the southern right and humpback whales are showing signs of recovery. Apart from the well-known great whales, Australian waters support a rich variety of cetaceans: smaller whales, dolphins, porpoises and killer whales. Forty-three of the world’s 80 or so cetacean species are found in Australia. This diversity is a reflection of our wide range of coastal habitats, and the fact that Australia is on the main migration route of the great whales from their feeding grounds in the south to warmer breeding grounds in northern waters.

SHARING THE CATCHES OF WHALES IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE S.J. Holt 4 Upper House Farm,Crickhowell, NP8 1BZ, Wales (UK) <[email protected]> 1. INTRODUCTION What historians have labelled modern whaling is largely a twentieth century enterprise. Its defining feature is the cannon-fired harpoon with an explosive head, launched from a motorised catcher boat.1 This system was first devised about 1865 by Svend Foyn, the son of a ship-owner from Tønsberg, in Vestfold, southeast Norway. Foyn believed that “God had let the whale inhabit the waters for the benefit and blessing of mankind, and consequently I considered it my vocation to promote these fisheries”. He has been described as “. a man with great singularity of vision, since virtually everything he did . was dedicated to the profitable killing of whales”. Foyn’s system allowed for the first time the systematic hunting and killing of the largest and fastest swimming species of whales, the rorquals, a sub-class of whalebone whales (Mysticetes spp.). The basic technology was supplemented by significant developments in cabling, winches and related hardware and in processing. Powered vessels could not only tow the dead rorquals back to land bases quickly and thus in good condition for processing, but could provide ample compressed air to keep them afloat. Modern whaling could not, however, have become a major industry world-wide, without other technological developments. Other kinds of whales had already been killed in enormous numbers, primarily for their oil, for over a century.2 In 1905 it was discovered that oil from baleen whales could be hydrogenated and the resulting product could be used in the manufacture of soap and food products. Estimates of the Current Global Population Size and Historical Trajectory for Sperm Whales

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 242: 295–304, 2002 Published October 25 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales Hal Whitehead1, 2,* 1Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax B3H4JI, Nova Scotia, Canada 2Max Planck Institute for Behavioural Physiology, PO Box 1564, 82305 Starnberg, Germany ABSTRACT: Assessments of sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus abundance based on invalid analyses of whaling data are common in the literature. Modern visual surveys have produced popu- lation estimates for a total of 24% of the sperm whale’s global habitat. I corrected these assessments for whales missed on the track line and then used 3 methods to scale up to a global population. Scal- ing using habitat area, plots of 19th century catches and primary production produced consistent global population estimates of about 360 000 whales (CV = 0.36). This is approximately 20% of the numbers reproduced in current literature from invalid whaling-based estimates. A population model, based on that used by the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee, and which con- siders uncertainty in population parameters and catch data, was used to estimate population trajec- tories. Results suggest that pre-whaling numbers were about 1 110 000 whales (95% CI: 672 000 to 1512 000), and that the population was about 71% (95% CI: 52 to 100%) of its original level in 1880 as open-boat whaling drew to a close and about 32% (95% CI: 19 to 62%) of its original level in 1999, 10 yr after the end of large-scale hunting.

THE RMS – A QUESTION OF CONFIDENCE? - Manipulations and Falsifications in Whaling A review by Dr. Sandra Altherr, Kitty Block and Sue Fisher - 2 - RMS: A Question of Confidence? – Manipulations and Falsifications in Whaling Content 1. The RMS Process in 2005 and Remaining Questions . 3 2. RMP. 4 2.1. Tuning Level . 4 2.2. Phasing in the RMP. 4 2.3. Current RMS Discussion on the RMP. 4 3. Catch Verification through International Observers. 5 3.1. Misreporting and Underreporting in Past Whaling Activities . 5 3.2. Manipulations of Sex Ratio and Body-Length Data . 6 3.3. Hampering of Inspectors and Observers . 7 3.4.

"Fast fisk!" is the cry as the harpoon goes home unvisited by the Nantucket and New Bedford whalers, who reached their hey­ day in 1846 with no less than 730 vessels engaged in this trade and taking £1,400,000 worth of whale products in that one year alone. The ultimate effect of this immense onslaught on the whale population will be dealt with later. Because of the annual arrival of large numbers of the Southern right whales in Tasmania and New Zealand, there de­ veloped so-called "bay" or "shore" whaling in these countries in which the whales were captured only short dis­ tances from the coast. Types of Whales Hunted Only three species were hunted on a really large scale; the sperm, Southern right, and humpback whales. The sperm or cachalot (Physeter catodon) reaches a length of 60 feet in the male but only 30 to 35 feet in the female and has a very narrow sledge-like lower jaw with from 20 to 25 pairs of teeth, which pro­ vide the "ivory" described later. In the head also were the gummy, fatty sperma­ ceti from the lower or "junk" part and Whales and Whaling in the very valuable sperm oil from the "case" in the upper portion. This sperm oil was the source of the spermaceti candles from which the original unit of the Western Pacific light, "candle power," was calculated. It is interesting to note that the term "sperm whale" is derived from the odd By R. J. A. W. Lever idea of the old-time whalers that the spermaceti was actually the creature's sperm—the French were less imaginative The literature of whaling deals either with the early efforts and used the word "cachalot." The average quantity of oil obtained from in the Arctic with the hand-harpooning of Greenland whales one whale was six tons but a figure of from open boats or tvith the much later campaigns in 15 tons was sometimes reached.