So... I hate to be all contradictory on what is a truly excellent plush (it's clearly a tusk, not a horn! WOoooo! And the flukes are marvelous!), but I really do get irked when I see misinformation spread like this, especialy with marine biology (or dinosaurs, but that's another matter).
There are two things I take issue with, here:
1. The bigger mistake is calling Narwhals porpoises; Narwhals are not porpoises. They are in the order Monodontidae, along with (as you mentioned) belugas. Porpoises are, by definition, members of the order Phocoenidae. Now, these two orders are very closely related, it is true. But one is not part of the other, in either direction. If you need proof, just google "beluga skull" or "beluga teeth." One of the things that makes a porpoise a porpoise is its spade-shaped teeth, narrow in cross-section. Despite being closely related to porpoises, a beluga's teeth are cylindrical, like a dolphin's.
2. In addition, the word "whale" doesn't exactly work that way. If you want to be taxonomically accurate... well, since there are both tooth-bearing and baleen-bearing cetaceans which are unquestionably called "whales," there is no scientifically valid way to use the term without including the entire clade. Yes, including dolphins and porpoises ( as "small whales"). Personally, this is how I use the term when I'm being precise; That is, when I say "whale," I include dolphins and porpoises, unless I say otherwise. But this is not, I understand, a popular way to use the term at the monent, so I'll go with the only other way that has any reason too it; Size. I have heard people argue that "whale" should be understood as "cetaceans above a certain size." What size? I've never heard anyone give a precise number, but fortunately, we don't need one here. The "-whal" in "narwhal" does indeed mean "whale," in Old Norse. So people have been comfortable with narwhals meeting the size criterion of "whale" for hundreds, perhaps over a thousand, years. Indeed, they are part of how the English word came into existence. Given all that, I do not see how we can possibly not consider them "whales."
(incidentaly, the "nar-" means "corpse." Presumably on account of their greyish, deathly, palour.)
So there you have it. If you disagree, feel free to respond with your reasons. And I do apologize. It really is a wonderful plush. I wish I could have one, honestly.
Thank you for takning my post so well, and I am very, very sorry if I came across as snobby. I know I do sometimes, and I know it's a fine line between "flaunting how much I know," and "marshalling enough evidence to be convincing," all while respecting the other party's intelligence and knowledge. I walk it as best I can. It was your misfortune that your plush caught the eye of someone who has a passion for both cetaceans and taxonomy, I suppose! Sorry I went a little overboard.
Those Vikings did have a way with words, didn't they?
I suppose all the effort you've put in to him would be part of the reason I've never seen one for sale at the aquarium I volunteer at. I've only seen them stock things that are at least mostly accurate, and no commercial product I've seen does Narwhals justice. Ah, well. It's good to see that someone has taken the time to do so. It was late when I finished my post last night, so now I'd better go take a look at the rest of your gallery!