The great sea-serpent (part 3 of 5)

The great sea-serpent (part 3 of 5)

“Nils Roe, workman at Mr. William Knutszon’s, an elderly and simple man, relates: I saw the serpent twice, once at noon, and two days afterwards towards the evening, in the fjord” (near Christiansund) “at the back of Mr. Knutszon’s garden. The first time, when it was nearest to me, it was about a hundred feet distant. It swam first along the fjord, afterwards over against the spot, where I stood. I then observed it for more than half an hour. Some strangers, who were on the opposite shore, fired at it, when it disappeared.”

“The second time it was farther from me. It was small, perhaps twice as long as this room (about forty-four feet); while swimming it made serpentine movements, some to left and right, others up and down. I cannot state its correct thickness, but it appeared to be about as a common snake in proportion to its length. It was much thinner towards the tail. Several times it raised its head wholly above the water, but so, that it was just above the surface; the neck, however, and the other part of the body were but partly visible above the surface. The front of the head was rather pointed: the eyes were very large and glistened like those of a cat. I did not see a tongue and did not observe that it opened its mouth. I cannot state that the neck just behind the head is much thinner than the head itself, for from the back of the head commenced a mane like that of a horse, which waved to and fro in the water. Just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further backwards; in general it was not very long. The colour of the animal was a blackish brown.”

Again we meet with no character that is not known to us. All of them have already been stated.

* * * * *

=92=.--1829?--The following is an evidence given before the same Mr. RATHKE, being at Christiansund, and published by him in the journal mentioned above.

“Lars Johnöen, a fisherman at Smölen, about 50 years of age. I have seen the sea-serpent several times, but for the longest time and nearest to me, twelve years ago in the dog-days in the fjord not far from here (Christiansund), when I was alone, one noon, angling in a boat. Then I saw it within two hours three times for a considerable time, quite near to me. It came close to my boat, so that it was only about six feet from me. (He placed himself in the room at a distance of nearly six feet from the wall, and said, this was about the distance between him and the serpent.) I became alarmed; recommended my soul to God, laid myself down in the boat, and only held my head so far over it, that I could observe the serpent. It swam now past the boat, that was vehemently agitated by the ripple caused by its movements in the water, which was previously smooth as a mirror, and afterwards took itself off. After it had swam a considerable distance from me, I wound my angling line round the little instrument commonly used (a frame, moving on an axis) and I began again to fish. Not long afterwards, however, the serpent came again quite close to the boat, which again was violently agitated by the movements made by it in the water. I lay down again, and remained quite still, keeping, however, a watchful eye on the animal. Again it passed me, disappeared far off, and returned, though not so close as before, and at last disappeared, when a light wind rose, and ruffled the water. Notwithstanding my fright I yet observed the animal very accurately. Its length was about five to six fathoms, and the body, which was as round as a snake’s, was about two feet in diameter. (Lars Johnöen measured on a table before him with his hands a space of about two feet). The tail too appeared to me to be round. The head was about as long and as thick as a brandy anker (a ten gallon cask), it was not pointed but bluntly round. The eyes were very large and glistening. Their size (or diameter) was about that of this box here (five inches), and they were as red as my neckerchief (crimson). The animal did not open its mouth, therefore I cannot give its size. It constantly held its head above the surface of the water in an acute angle; not so high, however, that the nose should come over the board of a boat. Close behind the head, a mane like a horse’s commenced, extending rather far down the neck, and spreading on both sides; floated on the water; it was of tolerably long hair. The mane as well as the head and the rest of the body was brown as this looking glass frame (dark brown of old mahogany). I could not observe spots, or stripes of other colours, nor were there any scales; it seemed as if the body was quite smooth. The movements of the serpent were by turns fast and slow; they were also slow when the animal approached my boat. At the moment in which I could observe it best, its movements were serpentine, up and down. The few undulations, made by those parts of the body and the tail that were out of the water, were scarcely a fathom in length. These undulations were not so high, that I could see between them and the water.--When Lars Johnöen had given this declaration, the drawing which Pontoppidan had given of the animal was shown to him. He looked at it with astonishment, smiled and said that he saw a great resemblance between it and the animal he had seen. He likewise said, that some of the other sea-serpents he had seen were a great deal longer than the one described above.”

This unvarnished account describes very well the animal’s general doings, and accurately pictures its curiosity and harmlessness.

* * * * *

=93=.--1829, July.--We shall soon be acquainted with the appearance of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE of the Daedalus, on Aug. 6, 1848. Prof. RICHARD OWEN, questioned whether this animal could be a snake or not, gave his answer in an article published in the Times of Nov. 11, 1848, wherein he expresses his opinion that it must have been a large seal. This article seems to have been reprinted in the Bombay Bi-monthly Times. In the same journal for January, 1849, appeared the following statement and objections against Professor OWEN’S suggestions.

“I see, in your paper of the 30th December, a paragraph in which a doubt is expressed of the authenticity of the account given by Captain M’Quhae of the “great sea-serpent”. When returning to India, in the year 1829, I was standing on the poop of the Royal Saxon, in conversation with Captain Petrie, the commander of that ship. We were at a considerable distance south-west of the Cape of Good Hope, in the usual track of vessels to this country, going rapidly along (seven or eight knots) in fine smooth water. It was in the middle of the day, and the other passengers were at luncheon; the man at the wheel, a steerage passenger, and ourselves, being the only persons on the poop. Captain Petrie and myself, at the same instant, were literally fixed in astonishment by the appearance, a short distance ahead, of an animal of which no more generally correct description could be given than that by Captain M’Quhae. It passed within thirty-five yards of the ship, without altering its course in the least; but as it came right abreast of us, it slowly turned its head towards us. Apparently about one third of the upper part of its body was above water, in nearly its whole length; and we could see the water curling up on its breast as it moved along, but by what means it moved we could not perceive. We watched it going astern with intense interest until it had nearly disappeared, when my companion, turning to me with a countenance expressive of the utmost astonishment, exclaimed, “Good heavens! what can that be?” It was strange that we never thought of calling the party engaged at luncheon to witness the extraordinary sight we had seen; but the fact is, we were so absorbed in it ourselves, that we never spoke, and scarcely moved, until it had nearly disappeared. Captain Petrie, a superior and most intelligent man, has since perished in the exercise of his profession. Of the fate of the others then on deck I am ignorant; so the story rests on my own unsupported word, but I pledge that word to its correctness. Professor Owen’s supposition, that the animal seen by the officers of the Daedalus was a gigantic seal, I believe to be incorrect, because we saw this apparently similar creature in its whole length, with the exception of a small portion of the tail, which was under water; and, by comparing its length with that of the Royal Saxon (about six hundred feet), when exactly alongside in passing, we calculated it to be in that, as well as in its other dimensions, greater than the animal described by Captain M’Quhae. Should the foregoing account be of any interest to you, it is at your service; it is an old story, but a true one. I am not quite sure of our latitude and longitude at the time, nor do I exactly remember the date, but it was about the end of July.--R. DAVIDSON, Superintending Surgeon, Nagpore Subsidiary Force, Kamptee, 3d January 1849.”

At present we have only to fix our attention on the animal’s appearance, and not on Mr. DAVIDSON’S objections. As the reader will observe, the whole description agrees with other accounts already given. There is nothing in it that is new or unknown to us.

* * * * *

=94=.--1830?--The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, on his journey in Norway, being in Christiansund, noted down the following evidence, to publish it in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte of 1841.

“John Johnson, merchant, about 60 years of age, says in German: I saw the animal some years ago in the fjord” (of Christiansund); “it was about a thousand paces distant, when nearest to me; I observed it for more than half an hour. It swam very swiftly, for in the same time that we rowed about a quarter of a mile aside of it, it had swum about one half of a mile. I saw it best when it swam in a semicircle round a tolerable large rock that obstructed its passage, coming to that side of it which was turned towards me; in doing this it partly raised itself above the surface of the water. Its colour was blackish; its length was about that of this house (55 feet). Except the head, I did not observe much of its body, as it appeared but little above the surface. Judging from what I observed now and then, I think its thickness to be that of a stout man’s body. Its head was apparently as large as a hat. It was not pointed, but seemed rather blunt; in general, however, in comparison with its thickness, it was not very long. It was held but little above the surface of the water, making an acute angle with it; and it remained above the surface, as long as I saw it. Owing to the distance I could not discern the eyes. Also on account of the distance or because the neck was seldom elevated above the surface, I could observe nothing of a mane. The agitation which it caused in the water was very strong. The movements of the animal itself were serpentine, up and down, like those of a swimming leech. When the animal had reached a spot, where the water was ruffled by a rising gentle wind, it disappeared. Moreover, I believe, that the animal is not much to be feared and that it would not easily harm men.”

* * * * *

=95=.--1831?--The same Mr. RATHKE also noted down the following declaration (published in the above mentioned journal.)

“Mr. William Knutszon and Candidatus Theologiae Booklune gave the following written account: We together saw the sea-serpent in a narrow fjord, at a distance of about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515 yards) “for about a quarter of an hour; afterwards it dived, and came up so far from us, that we could not see it plainly. The water was as smooth as a mirror, and the animal had, as it moved on the surface, quite the appearance of a worm, or of a snake. Its motions were in undulations, and so strong, that white foam appeared before it, and waves were caused at its sides, which extended over several fathoms. It did not appear very high above the water, and it was principally its length, which was quite considerable. Once, however, it stretched its head quite erect in the air. The body was somewhat dark, and the head nearly black; the body had nearly the form of an eel or of a snake, a length of about fifty ells” (above one hundred feet) “and in proportion to it an inconsiderable thickness. The breadth diminished considerably from the head to the tail, so that the latter ended in a point. The head was long and narrow in proportion to the throat, as the latter appeared much greater than the former, which probably was the consequence of its being provided with a mane. The details of the head were not to be discerned, as the distance was too great.”

I may observe here that if these eye-witnesses declare that the head seemed to be narrower than the throat, this may probably also be the consequence of the animal’s contracting its neck. This may be often seen in seals and sea-lions. If a common seal has contracted its neck, it appears as if the animal has no neck, as if the head is immediately connected with the body. In reality the neck is shortened, and has become thicker than the head. If stretched, the neck on the contrary is very well visible, and narrower than the head. The same in sea-lions. If contracted, several rings of blubber surround the hind part of the head, which appears smaller than the neck; if stretched, the neck immediately gets much narrower and the head is broader than the neck. The expression “which probably was the consequence of its being provided with a mane” distinctly shows that the eye-witnesses, knowing that others at other times saw a mane, intended to explain the phenomenon they observed by the presence of this mane, which they could impossibly see, “as the distance was too great.”

* * * * *

=96=.--1832, Summer.--(FRORIEP’S Notizen, XXXV, n^o. 756).

“There is again question in Norway of the sea-serpent. It is said to have appeared and remained rather a long time in the Rödö- and Södelöw fjords this summer, and to have been seen by many persons. Distinct traces of it are said to have been found in the fields (??).”

We observe that Mr. FRORIEP adds two notes of interrogation after the last words. Evidently he is unable to explain them. I am convinced of the truth that the sea-serpent appeared in the fjords above mentioned. As to the traces of it, I must tell my readers that the superstition of the Norwegian people has forged this fable ever since they first became aware that the sea-serpent frequented their fjords. We have already met with this tale in PONTOPPIDAN’S Natural History of Norway, and probably the Norwegians will tell it us again, if we ask them now!

* * * * *

=97=.--1833, May, 15.--(Zoologist p. 1714, 1847).

“On the 15th. of May, 1833, a party, consisting of Captain Sullivan, Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle Brigade, Lieutenant Lyster of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the Ordnance, started from Halifax in a small yacht for Mahone Bay, some forty miles eastward, on a fishing excursion. The morning was cloudy, and the wind at S. S. E., and apparently rising. By the time we reached Chebucto Head, as we had taken no pilot with us, we deliberated whether we should proceed or turn back; but, after a consultation, we determined on the former, having lots of ports on our lee. Previous to our leaving town, an old man-of-war’s-man we had along with us busied himself in inquiries as to our right course; he was told to take his departure from the Bull Rock, off Pennant Point, and that a W. N. W. course would bring us direct on Iron Bound Island, at the entrance of Mahone or Mecklenburgh Bay. He, however, unfortunately told us to steer W. S. W., nor corrected his error for five or six hours; consequently we had gone a long distance off the coast. We had run about half the distance, as we supposed, and were enjoying ourselves on deck, smoking our cigars, and getting our tackle ready for the approaching campaign against the salmon, when we were surprised by the sight of an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement, and which in their gambols approached so close to our little craft, that some of the party amused themselves by firing at them with rifles. At this time we were jogging on at about five miles an hour, and must have been crossing Margaret’s Bay. I merely conjecture where we were, as we had not seen land since a short time after leaving Pennant Bay. Our attention was presently diverted from the whales and “such small deer”, by an exclamation from Dowling, our man-of-war’s-man, who was sitting to leeward, of, “Oh sirs, look here!” We were started into a ready compliance, and saw an object which banished all other thoughts, save wonder and surprise.”

“At the distance of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred yards on our starboard bow, we saw the head and neck of some denizen of the deep, precisely like those of a common snake, in the act of swimming, the head so far elevated and thrown forward by the curve of the neck, as to enable us to see the water under and beyond it. The creature rapidly passed, leaving a regular wake, from the commencement of which, to the fore part, which was out of water, we judged its length to be about eighty feet, and this within, rather than beyond the mark. We were, of course, all taken aback at the sight, and, with staring eyes and in speechless wonder, stood gazing at it for full half a minute. There could be no mistake, no delusion, and we were all perfectly satisfied that we had been favoured with a view of the “true and veritable sea-serpent”, which had been generally considered to have existed only in the brain of some Yankee skipper, and treated as a tale not much entitled to belief. Dowling’s exclamation is worthy of record. “Well, I’ve sailed in all parts of the world, and have seen rum sights too in my time, but this is the queerest thing I ever see!” and surely Jack Dowling was right. It is most difficult to give correctly the dimensions of any object in the water. The head of the creature we set down at about six feet in length, and that portion of the neck which we saw at the same; the extreme length, as before stated, at between eighty and one hundred feet. The neck in thickness equalled the bole of a moderate-sized tree. The head and neck of a dark brown or nearly black colour, streaked with white in irregular streaks. I do not recollect seeing any part of the body.”

“Such is the rough account of the sea-serpent, and all the party who saw it are still in the land of the living,--Lyster in England, Malcolm in New South Wales with his regiment, and the remainder still vegetating in Halifax.”

“W. SULLIVAN, Captain, Rifle Brigade, June 21, 1831.

“A. MACLACHLAN, Lieutenant, ditto, August 5, 1824.

“G. P. MALCOLM, Ensign, ditto, August 13, 1830.

“B. O’NEAL LYSTER, Lieut. Artillery, June 7, 1816.

“HENRY INCE, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the Zoologist adds between parentheses:

“The dates are those on which the gentlemen received their respective Commission, I am not aware of their present rank. I am indebted to Mr. W. H. Ince for this interesting communication: this gentleman received it from his brother, Commander J. M. R. Ince, R. N. It is written by their uncle, Mr. Henry Ince, the Ordnance store-keeper at Halifax, Nova Scotia.”--

We observe that the colour of the head and neck is described as “streaked with white in irregular streaks”, and that evidently the sea-serpent hunted after the grampuses “which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”.

This account translated into German is in FRORIEP’S Notizen, Third Series, III, n^o. 54, p. 148.

* * * * *

=98=, =99=.--1833, July.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen of June 1834 we read that Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S Introduction to Geology, stated that

“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased, and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in such reports.”

Dr. HAMILTON in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, says:

“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears date July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date state, that the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was first seen on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and the Promuntory, winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again on Sunday morning, heading for South-shores. He was seen by forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen, who insist that they could not have been deceived.”

* * * * *

It is evident that many reports of great sea-serpents have been published here and there, especially in Norwegian and North-American newspapers, which I have had no opportunity to consult, and which probably will never come within my reach. As we learn from Mr. FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. XL, n^o. 879, p. 328, “Mr. R. Bakewell in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology (1833?) states: that there are descriptions of the sea-serpent, wherein it is ascertained that it “has flappers like sea-turtles”. I have not been able to consult Mr. BAKEWELL’S work, but I insert this statement here, because we shall observe afterwards more than once this comparison of the flappers with analogous members of turtles.

* * * * *

=100=.--1834, Summer.--In Captain SHIBBLES’ report (n^o. 101) a passage runs as follows:

“One of the crew told us that his appearance and motion are precisely like that he saw last summer while in the bay” (of Gloucester) “which was said to be a sea-serpent.”

Though no particulars are mentioned, I am convinced that the appearance took place.

* * * * *

=101=.--1835, March or April.--(Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts Vol. 28, 1835, July.--)

“Captain Shibbles, of the brig Mangehan, of Thomastown, from Boston, for New-Orleans, which arrived here (Gloucester, Mass., March or April, 1835) on Saturday last, states that he saw when about nine or ten miles from Race Point light, what he, as well as the whole crew, supposed to be a sea-serpent,--he could distinctly see it with the naked eye, but to be certain, he took his glass and saw his eyes, neck and head, which was about as large as a barrel--the neck had something that looked like a mane upon the top of it; several times he raised his head seven or eight feet above the water, and for thirty or forty minutes he swam backward and forward with great swiftness. There were two other vessels near, the crews of which were in the rigging looking at the same object. Capt. S. states that it was very long, and that his head, neck and tail and his motion in the water, was exactly like those of a snake; every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steam-boat..... The Captain and crew attest to the correctness of this statement.”

As to the swimming backward and forward, I think that Captain SHIBBLES meant that the animal swam to and fro, and that he used these expressions in reference to the direction of the brig.

* * * * *

=102=.--1836?--Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE published in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte the following evidence, which he noted down when being in Christiansund in Norway:

“The Sorenskriver Gaeschke (a kind of judge of the same rank as the German country-judges, or the British sheriffs) gave me the following evidence: I saw the sea-serpent for a considerable time in a small fjord, first from a boat, afterwards from the beach, and from there during several minutes, at a distance of from thirty to thirty-six feet. In the beginning it swam round the fjord at Torvig, afterwards it went towards the mouth of the fjord. I saw its head stretched considerably out of the water. I noticed as well two or three undulations of the forepart of the body. Its motion was not like that of an eel, but consisted in vertical undulations. They were so strong, that they caused rather large waves; they were largest at the forepart of the animal and gradually lessened towards the back. The traces of them I discerned in a length of eight to ten fathoms, and in a breadth of two or three fathoms. The head, apparently blunt in front, had the size and nearly also the shape of an anker (ten-gallon cask) and the visible coils of the body were round and their thickness was that of a good timber-stock (twelve to fourteen inches square). I could not judge the entire length of the animal, as I could not discern the animal’s hindpart. The colour of the animal seemed to me to be a very dark grey one. What I believed to be the eyes, had according to my estimation the size of the outlines of a tea-cup (3¹⁄₂ inches). At the back of the head there was a mane, which had the same colour as the rest of the body.”

* * * * *

=103=.--1837, end of July.--(FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. IV, n^o. 67, p. 7, October, 1837).

“About the much mentioned Sea-Serpent the Drontheim Newspaper contains, as is ascertained, from an enlightened and trustworthy gentleman, the following statement: “Uncommonly early in this Summer our coasts and fjords were blessed with a mass of fat herrings, of which till to-day very few were cleaned and pickled, because the uncommon greasiness of the herrings made it difficult to preserve them in the warm air, which, however, was so beneficient to agriculture. Since the beginning of the dog-days the sea-serpent appeared on different spots in this country; one of these sea-monsters seems to have constantly remained near Storfosen and the Krovaag Isles; several fishermen were terrified in the highest degree, when the sea-serpent suddenly came down so near to them, that they had no time to think, to which side they should fly. It is true this terrible visitor properly has not made an attack, but it has followed the boat for a long distance, when one has tried to fly in a great hurry, so that the men overworked themselves, and some of the runaways fell ill afterwards. It is ascertained by quite trustworthy persons, that the length of the sea-serpent may be estimated from 600 to 800 ells, or perhaps still more, because if one was near its head, the other end of the sea-animal was not to be discerned distinctly. The sea-serpent is thickest just behind the head, apparently as thick as a large horse; its black and dark eyes are as large as an ordinary plate, without being glossy or very movable; the skin is smooth and of a dark colour; on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long, also on the neck there is something movable, which resembles the mane of a horse; the mouth, as far as the writer knows, has not been seen distinctly, and it is quite uncertain whether the animal is a beast of prey or not. Rarely does the sea-serpent appear but in calm weather; its motions and shape are serpentine. These observations are distinctly made in these days, amongst others by a trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, who with his two sons had reached a small islet, where the sea-serpent, after having followed their boat, passed closely and slowly.”

Those who made the statement that when they were near the head, the tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke the truth, for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who afterwards thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have a length of from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous manner. Again we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in great dread of the sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour is quite the same as told us PONTOPPIDAN a century ago. Again we read of the habit of the sea-serpent of following boats, but never attacking them, which may only be the effect of mere curiosity. The description, moreover, given by the not mentioned trustworthy and intelligent observer is quite correct. All the characters given by him are already known to us, and where he states that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in contradiction with former statements, it is natural that in a certain direction and in certain moments they need not give the impression of being so. Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on its upper-lips, as in seals.

In Dr. HAMILTON’S Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, we read:

“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of 1837, and we confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.

And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that it was the Adis of Drontheim which contained those particulars. The Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. HAMILTON the Kerchvang Islands, and strange enough, the very interesting particulars about the skin, the eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the nose are omitted.

* * * * *

=104=.--1838?--The reader will soon be made acquainted with the well known report of Captain M’QUHAE, of the Daedalus. As the report was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848, Captain BEECHY, of the Blossom, “one of the most scientific officers and ablest naval surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. FRANCIS BEAUFORT, F. R. S., Admiralty Hydrographer. An extract from this letter appeared in the Illustrated London News of Oct. 28, 1848, and runs as follows:

“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have fallen in with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary appearance we witnessed in the Blossom, in crossing the South Atlantic: I took it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I could get my glass upon deck it had disappeared, and I could nowhere find it--fresh breezes at the time.”

As Captain BEECHY writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say ten years; so I have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which it happened. If I may ever get the opportunity to learn the exact year or date, I shall be glad to correct my supposition in an eventual second edition. But for the present I am sure that the “trunk of a large tree” which had so suddenly disappeared, really was a sea-serpent.

* * * * *

Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. HAMILTON’S work about the Amphibious Carnivora, which appeared in the year 1839. The writer sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited from other works, or from which he gave only short extracts. One would say that Dr. HAMILTON is an unbeliever, for he ends his chapter on this animal with the words:

“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close our account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till favouring circumstances bring the animal under the examination of Naturalists, the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is scarcely to be expected.”

I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and that he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated of Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions and sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation between them and the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after the sea-serpent he treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And why did he end in such a vague way? May it be, because he could not give an explanation, or because he hesitated to show the public that he was really a believer?

* * * * *

=105=.--1839, August?--According to FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, vol. XII, n^o. 248, of Oct., 1839, the Boston Mercantile mentions that Mr. BUBIER, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms to have seen the sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to Nahant, near Boston, and estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.

* * * * *

=106=.--1839.--In the same periodical on the same page we read that Captain SMITH who had been a long time in the whale fishery, asserts in the Kennebek Journal, that he never before saw such a creature, and that if he had had a harpoon and lines on board, he would have harpooned it.

* * * * *

=106=, =A=.--1840, April 21.--(Journal du Havre, 1840, Sept. 15, Zoologist, 1847, p. 1716).--As I have not had the opportunity to consult the first paper, I give the account as I have found it in the Zoologist.

“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance, which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a degree of cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by the remark that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen at different points along the whole line of the American coast. Captain d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort, makes the following statements:

“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13 min. N. latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated from the meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running under a light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather. In a few hours we distinguished something like a long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea. Against this object the sea broke softly. As we approached we remarked that its different parts changed their position, and even their form, and we became perfectly certain that it was not a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the assistance of a telescope a long chain of enormous rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together, and in form very like the back of a silk worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we had first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. This tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the object itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane rising to the height of about two metres from the water, and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the mass (without leaving it, however); and this led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys. At last we perceived something like an antenna rising from the water, to the great height of nearly eight metres, terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to the other. We could not approach sufficiently near to acquire any very positive idea as to what we had seen; but everything led us to believe that it was an enormous serpent of at least 100 metres in length.”

Although the editors of the Journal du Havre believed that Captain D’ABNOUR by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve would shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on the contrary his narrative has had quite another effect. Every sceptic, I think, will smile or even laugh when he reads this report, for who can help laughing when he reads of a “membrane which led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys”, and of an “antenna of eight metres, terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to the other.” We find here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the names of the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal kingdom. A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was one, I don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent, how could they see from such a great distance, that it was thin; what reason was there to call it a “membrane”?

I am convinced that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw a sea-serpent. The animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still, showing numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and invisible. Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ, of the Kätie (n°. 154, fig. 50). We know that sea-serpents lying still may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea”. The sea broke gently against it. As they approached, the animal seen through a telescope had the appearance of “a long chain of numerous rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together”. We remember that this comparison has often been made by different witnesses. The other comparison of the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of a silk worm” is also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached, these appearances became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in a playful manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly black above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that also the trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The supposition of this division of colours had already been made by Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY (n^o. 41, p. 169). It is, therefore, very remarkable that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw that the tail too is coloured black above and white beneath! The animal curled its tail and let it for a moment “repose on a part of” its body. Then, “at the other extremity” the animal elevated its foreflapper to the height of about two metres (six feet) from the water. The flapper “inclined itself at a considerable angle upon the” body, consequently the animal made the same movement with its foreflapper as the individual afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ (n^o. 154, fig. 50). At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale elevated above the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to the height of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of course has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’ABNOUR says: that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its relative position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far from it. The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all events exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under the water.

The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in FRORIEP’S Notizen, Third Series, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847.

* * * * *

=106 B=.--1840, June?--In the Journal du Havre, of 15th September, 1840, (see Zoologist, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:

“Not long since the Boston Daily Advertiser announced a new appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world is so naturally incredulous.”

I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in the month of June of that year.

* * * * *

=107=.--1840, July?--In his Postscript Mr. RATHKE (Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 1841, Vol. I) says:

“According to a letter addressed to me by Dr. Hoffmann, a respectable physician in Molde, which is situated several miles south of Christiansund on one of the largest fjords, the school-inspector HAMMER, the adjunct KRAFT, and some other persons, who in 1840 made together an excursion in a boat on this fjord, saw very distinctly a so-called sea-serpent of considerable length.”

* * * * *

=107 A=.--1840, August?--The Editor of the Journal du Havre before publishing Capt. D’ABNOUR’S report (n^o. 106 A) says, (see Zoologist, 1847, p. 1715):

“We shall preface his narrative by the remark, that the sea-serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen, at different points along the whole line of the American coast.”

The Editor would have done better if he had published all the reports of the sea-serpent, that had come within his reach. The reader must know that with the terms “the whole line of the American coast” the Editor can only have meant the east coast of British America and of the United States, from Newfoundland to Cape Canaveral, Florida.

* * * * *

=108=.--1841.--In a Postscript to his paper (Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 1841, Vol. I) Mr. RATHKE tells us:

“According to a letter which I received some time ago from Mr. Soern Knutszon, a sea-serpent is again seen there some weeks after I had left Christiansund, by several persons.”

* * * * *

The well known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE in 1841 published in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 7th year, Vol. I, his dissertation “On the Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a translation of his paper:

“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself of the opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical and even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in the language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity offered in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal is said to have often been observed. The general notices which I received about the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is mostly seen in the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the open sea. In the fjord of Christiansund, which has such a considerable extent, manifold ramifications, and in which numerous islets are found, it appears almost every year. It is said to have been especially observed in that part of the fjord on which the village of Lorvig is situated. This only happens in the warmest part of the year, viz. in the dog days, and only then when the weather is quite still and the surface of the water smooth. When after its appearance the water is ruffled, however slightly, it immediately disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that in the dog days many fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into the sea, without taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive away the animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches, and therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise attracts it still more.”

“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which are spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who were said to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who at the request of SOEREN and WILHELM KNUDTSZON Brothers, two distinguished and very intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I questioned personally; for others I had put down several questions to which I received a written answer. I will communicate here the result of my inquiry.”

Now Mr. RATHKE publishes the affidavits which I have inserted above (n^o. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102), and his Postscript (see n^o. 107 and 108).

“If one” Mr. RATHKE goes on, “were to submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they not only contain several contradictory statements, but also that each evidence by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that we may at least admit so much of them, to be right, that what those persons who bear the evidences, took for a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what could be the cause of the illusion, which had created the belief in such an animal. Some persons, as I know, believe that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, was nothing else but a row of porpoises, swimming in a line. But all those persons by whom the above mentioned evidences are borne were too familiar with the sea, and had observed porpoises together too often to be deceived by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If this, however, had been the case, all the observations related to me of the sea-serpent holding its head above the surface, and about its size, must have been mere fictions, and this I cannot believe. According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted that there is a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow to a considerable length.”

Now Mr. RATHKE weighs and considers to what kind of animals the sea-serpent may belong. This, however, we omit here, as we have partly discussed these views in our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, where we spoke of the Animal of Stronsa, and as we shall once more refer to it in our Chapter of Explanations.

Every one, I think, will agree with me, that Mr. RATHKE has committed two faults. 1. He criticises the correctness of the statements in question, apparently without having taken the trouble to read all that had been written about the subject. If he had done so, he would never have said that the particulars of the evidences collected by him in Norway were sometimes contradictory; on the contrary, he would have observed that they completed one another! 2. He was the first scientific man and zoologist who had an opportunity to see the sea-serpent, probably even to kill it, and yet he returns to Germany without having made one single effort either to kill or to see it!

* * * * *

Immediately after Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE’S dissertation, the Editor of the Archiv für Naturgeschichte, the well-known Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON, wrote a paper, in which he gave full details of the Animal of Stronsa and descriptions of the saved bones. He ends this extract with the words:

“Consequently the Animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians; the animal, however, seen by the Rev. Maclean” (n^o. 31) “might be considered as such an animal.”

These words convince me of the fact that Mr. ERICHSON, like Mr. RATHKE firmly believed that there are in the Norwegian seas animals still unknown to them, which are called “sea-serpents”.

* * * * *

=109=.--1842?--(Times, Nov. 4, 1848).--

“A parish priest residing on Romsdal fjord, about two days journey south of Drontheim, an intelligent person, whose veracity I have no reason to doubt, gave me a circumstantial account of one, which he had himself seen. It rose within 30 yards of the boat in which he was, and swam parallel with it for a considerable time. Its head he described as equalling a small cask in size, and its mouth, which it repeatedly opened and shut, was furnished with formidable teeth; its neck was smaller, but its body--of which he supposed that he saw about half on the surface of the water--was not less in girth than that of a moderate sized horse.” (Part of a letter from “OXONIENSIS”).--

* * * * *

=110=.--1842?--“Another gentleman, in whose house I stayed, had also seen one, and gave a similar account of it: it also came near his boat upon the fjord, when it was fired at, upon which it turned and pursued them to the shore, which was luckily near, when it disappeared” (Also a part of the letter from OXONIENSIS, Times, Nov. 4, 1848).

* * * * *

=111=.--1843, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, we read:

“Some months ago the sea-serpent again appeared between the islets and inlets of the fjord of Christiansund.”

* * * * *

=111 A=.--1843, October?--(FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. 28, n^o. 606, p. 184).

“The Editors of the Christiansands Posten add the following remarks: “This whole description accurately fits on an appearance, which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and when the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed with their boats towards the animal, they would soon have observed without any doubt that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but water.””

The number of the Christiansands Posten was most probably one of the beginning of November or of the end of October. Consequently the appearance spoken of must have taken place some days before. At all events this is a proof of an appearance of the sea-serpent, swimming in vertical undulations, near Ibbestad, in Norway, at that time.

* * * * *

=112=, =113=.--1845.--The report of Captain M’QUHAE, which we shall meet with a little further on, induced Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to write a letter on the sea-serpent to the Admiralty.

“By the courtesy” says the Editor of the Illustrated London News in his number of Oct., 28, 1848, “of the Secretary to the Admiralty, we have been favoured with the following letter from a gentleman long resident in Norway.”

“13, Great Cumberland Street, October 25, 1848.”

“My dear Sir,--I regret that I have not found the volumes referred to in our conversation respecting the recent authentication of the existence of the sea-serpent by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. frigate Daedalus, but I will give you that part of the information which I remember best. Several years ago, a museum was established at Bergen, in Norway, the directors of which have, amongst other subjects of interest, turned their study to Natural History in general, and to the elucidation of some of its more doubtful or less known subdivisions. The question of the sea-serpent’s existence had previously attracted the attention of several scientific men in Northern Europe; and my friend, the late Dr. Newmann, Bishop of Bergen--a man much and justly respected for his learning, research and energy--made it the subject of inquiry within the last twenty or twenty-five years among his clergy and those of the adjoining dioceses. The amount of proof thus collected was sufficient to convince any one, however sceptical, as it is not mere hearsay evidence, but the testimony of known and respectable persons in various walks of life. One of the most striking statements is made by some fishermen, who saw the animal quite close to them, and of whom one more hardy than the rest struck it with a boat-hook, upon which it immediately gave them chase; and, had they not been very near a small island or rock, on which they took refuge, in all probability they would have been destroyed.”

“The size of the sea-serpents seen in the Norwegian fjords varies much; and I do not now remember what the dimensions of the largest are said to be. As far as I can tax my memory, none of them lately seen are larger than that described by Capt. M’Quhae. The one seen by the fishermen above alluded to, was, I think, not above 70 feet long. I have written to my colleagues in the direction of the Bergen Museum, and as soon as their answer arrives I will give you a more full account.”

“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile, known as the sea-serpent, but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect, as well as having short paws or flappers, the descriptions of the northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same animal as the Kraken, or rather from the names having been used indiscriminately.”

“In concluding this hurried statement, allow me to add my own testimony as to the existence of a large fish or reptile of cylindrical form. (I will not say sea-serpent.) Three years ago, while becalmed in a yacht between Bergen and Sogn in Norway, I saw (at about a quarter of a mile astern) what appeared to be a large fish ruffling the otherwise smooth surface of the fjord, and, on looking attentively, I observed what looked like the convolutions of a snake. I immediately got my glass, and distinctly made out three convolutions, which drew themselves slowly through the water. The greatest diameter was about ten or twelve inches. No head was visible; and from the size of each convolution, I supposed the length to be about thirty feet. The master of my yacht (who, as navigator, seaman, and fisherman, had known the Norwegian coast and North Sea for many years), as well as a friend who was with me, an experienced Norwegian sportsman and porpoise shooter, saw the same appearance at the same time, and formed the same opinion as to form and size. I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”

* * * * *

=114=.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--(Copied in the Illustrated London News of June, 13, 1857, from the Cape Argus of March, 14, 1857).

“Sir,--I inclose a letter addressed to me by a friend Dr. Biccard (with a drawing) containing an interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by him and others off the old lighthouse at the entrance of Table Bay on the 16th. of last month. It savours not a little of presumption to maintain that such a marine monster does exist, in the face of the deliberately recorded opinion of the greatest living Zoologist, Professor Owen, yet I venture to do so upon the simple testimony of my own eyes. In the year 1845, or 6, Mr. G. D. Brunette (of St. George’s-street, the conveyancer) and myself were fishing at Camp’s Bay one bright, clear summer day. There was not a breath of air, and the water was as smooth as the surface of a pond. About midday we were leaving the rocks to proceed to the marine villa, when Mr. Brunette suddenly directed my attention to what he at first thought was a whale. A moment’s inspection was sufficient, however, to detect the real nature of the animal. At about a mile from the shore we saw a line of shining black objects, like a string of large casks, floating on the surface of the water, lying parallel with the shore. It kept gently bobbing up and down, and on one occasion we saw the whole length for a few seconds above the water. Judging from the size of an Indiaman, 1000 tons, at a similar distance, I should say the animal’s length was from 150 to 200 feet. Of its girth I can form no estimate; but, from the show it made at so great a distance, it must have been at least three feet above the level of the sea. Nor could we distinguish head from tail, though near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth, as though the animal was blowing water in a lateral direction. It seemed to be basking in the warm sun, with no other motion than that I have described, or dipping under occasionally. After watching it for about a quarter of an hour we started for the villa, for the purpose of borrowing a telescope, but we had scarcely walked ten yards when we observed the animal turn slowly round and then made off in a straight line to seawards, towards the N.W. It moved at a rapid rate; so much so that when we got to the house and procured the glass it had reached such a distance that we could not distinguish it better than we had done with our naked eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving off was undulatory, the cask like substances submerging and emerging from time to time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them altogether, which was about an hour after first seeing the animal. That this animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet, knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brunette nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so we said nothing about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at my request, furnished me with particulars, for general information, of the animal seen by him under such favourable circumstances, I am induced to add my own poor testimony to the many facts now on record, proving conclusively the existence of a great marine saurian or some similar animal. I would point out that a gentleman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific attainments is not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the six or seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at so short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by a piece of seaweed, or by a seal.”

“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and I beg to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on the Great Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.”

“Yours, &c.,” “Chas. A. Fairbridge.”

“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”

The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place hereafter, (n°. 130). It is clear enough that we have here an unvarnished account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The appearance of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150 feet, is surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As the animal raised itself at least three feet above the level of the sea, its diameter may have been some fifteen feet. The animal evidently lay with its nostrils just at water-level, so that in exhaling it caused “a foam or froth, as though blowing water in a lateral direction”. I think, that the observer was a little mistaken as to the direction, which cannot have been quite a lateral one.

* * * * *

=115=.--1845, July 28.--(Zoologist, 1847, p. 1606).

“The Rev. Mr. P. W. Deinbolt, Archdeacon of Molde, gives the following account of one, which was seen last summer near Molde. The 28th. of July, 1845, J. C. Lund, bookseller and printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant; Christian Flang, Lund’s apprentice, and John Elgenses, labourer, were out on Romsdale-fjord, fishing. The sea was, after a warm, sunshiny day, quite calm. About seven o’clock in the afternoon, at a little distance from the shore, near the ballast place and Molde Hove, they saw a long marine animal, which slowly moved itself forward, as it appeared to them, with the help of two fins, on the fore-part of the body nearest the head, which they judged by the boiling of the water on both sides of it. The visible part of the body appeared to be between forty and fifty feet in length, and moved in undulations, like a snake. The body was round and of a dark colour, and seemed to be several ells (an ell two feet) in thickness. As they discerned a waving motion in the water behind the animal, they concluded that part of the body was concealed under water. That it was one connected animal they saw plainly from its movement. When the animal was about one hundred yards from the boat, they noticed tolerably correctly its fore-part, which ended in a sharp snout; its colossal head raised itself above the water in the form of a semi-circle; the lower part was not visible. The colour of the head was dark brown and the skin smooth; they did not notice the eyes, or any mane or bristles on the throat. When the serpent came about a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and was certain the shots hit it in the head. After the shot it dived, but came up immediately. It raised its neck in the air, like a snake preparing to dart on his prey. After he had turned and got his body in a straight line, which he appeared to do with great difficulty, he darted like an arrow against the boat. They reached the shore, and the animal, perceiving it had come into shallow water, dived immediately and disappeared in the deep. Such is the declaration of these four men, and no one has cause to question their veracity, or imagine that they were so seized with fear that they could not observe what took place so near them. There are not many here, or on other parts of the Norwegian coast, who longer doubt the existence of the sea-serpent. The writer of this narrative was a long time sceptical, as he had not been so fortunate as to see this monster of the deep; but after the many accounts he has read, and the relations he has received from credible witnesses, he does not dare longer to doubt the existence of the sea-serpent.”

“P. W. Deinbolt.”

“Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”

I need scarcely observe that the eye-witnesses of this appearance were deceived as to their opinion that the “boiling of the water on both sides of the head” was caused by “two fins on the forepart of the body, nearest the head”. The two fore-flappers of the sea-serpent are situated at rather a great distance from the head. The animal has a very long neck. This assertion is proved by their own words: “it raised its neck in the air”. If there were two fins near the head, large enough to cause any boiling of water, they would have been seen then by the persons, who would have mentioned them. The so-called boiling of the water was nothing but the commonly observed rushing caused by the animal’s motion through the water.

* * * * *

=117=.--1846, August 8.--(Zoologist, 1847, p. 1608).

“Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”

“On Saturday, the 8th. inst., in the course between the islands of Sartor Leer and Tös, a sea-monster, supposed to be a sea-serpent, was seen by several persons. Early on this day as the steamer Biörgvin passed through Rognefjord towing a vessel to Bergen, Daniel Salomonson, a cotter, saw a sea-monster, whose like he declares he never met with although accustomed to the sea and its inhabitants from his earliest years. The animal came swimming from Rognefjord in a westerly direction towards his dwelling at Grönnevigskioeset, in the northern part of the parish of Sund. The head appeared like a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) keel uppermost, and from behind it raised itself forward in three, and sometimes four and five undulations, each apparently about twelve feet long: its rate appeared to be that of a light boat rowed by four active men. When it reached Grönnevigskioeset at a distance of two rifle-shots it turned with considerable noise and continued its course towards Lundenoes. Later about eleven o’clock on the same day his wife Ingeborg, in Daniel’s absence, heard a loud noise in the sea, and she and two little children saw a great sea monster, such as described above, take a northerly course, close by their place at such a rate that the waves were dashed on the shore in the same way as when a steamer is passing by. Neither of them say that they saw anything like eyes or fins, or indeed anything projecting from its round form, but they declare that the colour of the animal was dark brown, and that it often rose up with gentle undulations, sometimes, however, sinking below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid course of the gigantic body.--On the same morning a lad, by name Abraham Abrahamsen Hagenoes, was out fishing in the Rognefjord, not far from Lundenoes, and just ready to throw out his line, when he, as he asserts, became aware that on about one hundred fathoms a monster with a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) and a long body lay upon the sea like large kegs and was nearing his boat: seized with a panic he exerted all his strength to reach the shore, and as the animal, apparently following him, was only about forty fathoms off, he leaped ashore, drew up the boat and ran up the bank, whence he viewed the monster which had by this time approached the shore within twenty fathoms. He says that that part of the body which was visible was about sixty feet in length, and that its undulating course was similar to the eel: that the colour of the back was blackish, shining strongly, and as far as he could distinguish there was a whitish stripe under the belly.”

“Report also says that the sea-serpent was seen by several persons in Biornfjord causing a great deal of dread, but of this our informants want authentic accounts. Our informant further says that he has no reason whatever to doubt the truth of the story of the man and his wife, or the truthworthiness of the lad Abraham, except as far as that his fears may have caused him to see several things through a magnifying glass.”

I am convinced that by a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) must be meant the head and a great part of the neck. The other characters are mere repetitions of what we have so often observed. Very interesting again is the statement of the lad that the animal had a white stripe “under the belly”. As the lad cannot have seen the proper belly of the animal, it must have been the throat; the boy thought that he saw a snake, and I think that he, being questioned, would tell me that a snake has a head, a trunk and a tail, and hardly any neck and throat. I am also convinced, that the boy has not seen with a magnifying glass: the measurements, he gives, are not exaggerated.

* * * * *

In 1847, Mr. EDWARD NEWMANN, the Editor of the Zoologist had the courage to open the columns of his Journal to all kinds of reports and discussions about the great sea-serpent. He says (p. 1604):

“It has been the fashion for so many years to deride all records of this very celebrated monster, that it is not without hesitation I venture to quote the following paragraphs in his defence. A month only has elapsed since I had occasion to quote with approbation, a very marked passage from the pen of Sir J. W. Hershell (Zool. 1586): I may apply it with equal propriety to the enquiry of the era of the Irish deer, or of the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent. Naturalists, or rather those who choose thus to designate themselves, set up an authority above that of fact and observation, the gist of their enquiries is whether such things ought to be, and whether such things ought not to be; now fact-naturalists take a different road to knowledge, they enquire whether such things are and whether such things are not. The Zoologist, if not in itself the fountain-head of this fact movement, may at least claim to be the only public advocate of that movement; and it is therefore most desirable, that it should call the attention of its readers to the following remarkable paragraphs. They are quoted from one of our daily papers, which gives them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they originally appeared; the localities mentioned are intimately known to all travellers in Norway; and the witnesses are generally highly respectable and of unimpeachable veracity. The very discrepancies in the accounts prove the entire absence of any preconcerted scheme of deception. The only question therefore for the fact-naturalists to decide, is simply, whether all of the records now collected, can refer to whales, fishes, or any other marine animals with which we are at present acquainted.”

I have no reason to doubt Mr. NEWMAN’s veracity, and so I am willing to believe that the five reports which follow this introduction “are quoted from one of” the British “daily papers, which gives them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they originally appeared”. I only ask why Mr. NEWMANN did not mention the daily paper? For the assertion of this daily paper that they are “literal translations from Norse papers in which they originally appeared” is at all events a fabrication, as the reports which Mr. NEWMAN published here are the evidences which Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE took, when on a journey in Norway, near Christiansund, apparently in the year 1840, and which he published in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte of 1841, six years later! I have inserted them above (n°. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102). As to the “discrepancies in the accounts” I have already showed that there are, in fact, hardly any discrepancies, but that the accounts complete one another. I must also observe here that the accounts are not translated literally. Many, and among them very interesting passages, are omitted. The reader, who will convince himself of the truth of my assertion, has only to compare the accounts, as they are inserted in the Zoologist with my translations of the German originals, or with the originals themselves.

Mr. GOSSE, too, in his Romance of Natural History, 1860, writes: “The public papers of Norway, during the summer of 1846, were occupied with statements of the following effect”, and he too publishes extracts from the evidences printed in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte of 1841!

Also Mr. LEE, in his Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883, says: “In 1847 there appeared in a London daily paper a long account translated from the Norse journals of fresh appearances of the sea-serpent.”

And Mr. JOHN ASHTON in his Curious Creatures in Zoology, 1889, asserts: “In 1847 a sea-serpent was seen frequently in the neighbourhood of Christiansund and Molde, by many persons, and by one Lars Johnöen, fisherman at Smölen, especially.”

All these writers have copied Mr. NEWMAN, and have therefore quite overlooked the fact that the originals were in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte of 1841, and that the appearances took place long before the year 1847!

* * * * *

The last number of the Zoologist for 1847 appeared in October of that year. The reader must know that the matter of this journal is arranged according to the class of the animals, treated of in each article. This I must mention for the better understanding of the following passage which Mr. NEWMAN wrote in his preface to the above mentioned volume of the Zoologist.

“In Reptiles, the communications and quotations about “the Sea-Serpent” are well worthy of attentive perusal: it is impossible to suppose all the records bearing this title to be fabricated for the purpose of deception. A natural phenomenon of some kind has been witnessed: let us seek a satisfactory solution rather than terminate enquiry by the shafts of ridicule. The grave and learned have often avowed a belief that toads can exist some thousands of years without food, light or air, and immured in solid stone: surely it is not requiring too much to solicit a suspension of judgment on the question whether a monster may exist in the sea which does not adorn our collections.”

Mr. NEWMAN, viz. believed that the sea-serpent belonged to the class of Reptiles. The “communications and quotations” spoken of here, have already been inserted above (n°. 25, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 102, 106 A, 115, 116, 117.).

* * * * *

=118=.--1848, August 6.--No report of the sea-serpent has ever more shaken the incredulity of hundreds and thousands than that generally known as the account of the Daedalus, after the frigate from which the sea-serpent was seen.

The Times newspaper of October, 9, 1848, published the following paragraph:

“Intelligence from Plymouth, dated 7 Oct.”

“When the Daedalus frigate, Captain M’Quhae, which arrived at Plymouth on the 4th. instant, was on her passage home from the East Indies, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, her captain, and most of her officers and crew, at four o’clock one afternoon, saw a sea-serpent. The creature was twenty minutes in sight of the frigate, and passed under her quarter. Its head appeared to be about four feet out of the water, and there was about sixty feet of its body in a straight line on the surface. It is calculated that there must have been under water a length of thirty-three or forty feet more, by which it propelled itself at the rate of fifteen miles an hour. The diameter of the exposed part of the body was about sixteen inches; and when it extended its jaws, which were full of large jagged teeth, they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between them”.

The Admiralty instantly inquired into the truth of the statement, and in the Times of the 13th. the gallant captain’s official reply was published in the following terms:

“Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus,

Hamoaze, Oct. 11.”

“Sir,--In reply to your letter of this date, requiring information as to the truth of a statement published in The Times newspaper, of a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions having been seen from Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus, under my command, on her passage from the East Indies, I have the honour to acquaint you, for the information of my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that at five o’clock P. M., on the 6th. of August last, in latitude 24° 44′ S., and longitude 9° 22′ E., the weather dark and cloudy, wind fresh from the N. W., with a long ocean swell from the S. W., the ship on the port tack heading N. E. by N., something very unusual was seen by Mr. Sartoris, midshipman, rapidly approaching the ship from before the beam. The circumstance was immediately reported by him to the officer of the watch, Lieutenant Edgar Drummond, with whom and Mr. William Barrett, the master, I was at the time walking the quarterdeck. The ship’s company were at supper.”

“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea, and, as nearly as we could approximate, by comparing it with the length of what our main-topsail yard would show in the water, there was at the very least sixty feet of the animal à fleur d’eau, no portion of which was, to our perception, used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation. It passed rapidly, but so close under our lee quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his features with the naked eye; and it did not, either in approaching the ship or after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace of from twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on some determined purpose.”

“The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head, which was, without any doubt, that of a snake; and it was never, during the twenty minutes that it continued in sight of our glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish white about the throat. It had no fins, but something like a mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of seaweed, washed about its back. It was seen by the quartermaster, the boatswain’s mate, and the man at the wheel, in addition to myself and officers above-mentioned.”

“I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for transmission to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by to-morrow’s post.”

“Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”

“To Admiral Sir W. H. Gage, G. C. H., Devonport.”

In the Literary Gazette of Oct. 21st., 1848, the Editor published an engraving of PONTOPPIDAN’s representation, and adds some accompanying conclusions, appended to copious extracts from the learned Bishop’s work:

“We have now only to point to the very remarkable resemblance between Captain M’Quhae and Pontoppidan’s description. One might fancy the galant Captain had read the old Dane, and was copying him, when he tells of the dark brown colour and white about the throat, and the neck clothed as if by a horse’s mane or a bunch of sea-weed--the exact words of the historian. This snake, however, did not seem to care for the fresh wind and ruffish weather, but kept, as in the calm, its head several feet above the water, and stretched out its length so as to be visible for some sixty or eighty feet. The motion was not perceptibly impelled by vermicular or lent-serpent action! Had it then large fins? There must be some power. The picture engraved in the folio represents it like a series of six barrels, or risings, with the intermediate parts under the sea.”

In the Illustrated London News of Oct. 28st. was reprinted all that has been mentioned above, and there appeared three representations of the sea-serpent, as seen from the Daedalus, which I here show my readers in fig. 28, 29 and 30, omitting, however, the ship’s stern, because the drawings would be too large for our pages. The Editor of the Illustrated London News adds:

“The drawings above-named have been received by the Lord Commissioners to the Admiralty, and by the courtesy of Capt. M’Quhae, our artist has been permitted to copy this pictorial evidence, as well as further to illustrate the appearance of the Serpent, under the supervision of Captain M’Quhae, and with his approval of the Authenticity of their details as to position and form.”

On the 28th. of October Lieutenant DRUMMOND, the officer of the watch, mentioned in the report of Captain M’QUHAE, published his own impressions of the animal, in the form of an extract from his own journal. As far as I can discover it did not appear before the 1st. of December, in the Zoologist (p. 2306) and runs as follows:

“I beg to send you the following extract from my journal.”

“H. M. S. Daedalus, August, 6, 1848, lat. 25° S., long 9° 37′ E., St., Helena 1015 miles. In the 4 to 6 watch, at about five o’clock, we observed a most remarkable fish on our lee quarter, crossing the stern in a S. W. direction; the appearance of its head, which, with the back fin, was the only portion of the animal visible, was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably; the fin was perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head, and visible occasionally; the captain also asserted that he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it; the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown colour, and beneath the under jaw a brownish white. It pursued a steady undeviating course, keeping its head horizontal with the surface of the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for purposes of respiration. It was going at the rate of perhaps from twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest, was perhaps one hundred yards distant. In fact it gave one quite the idea of a large snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen anything similar, so it is at least extraordinary. It was visible to the naked eye for five minutes, and with a glass for perhaps fifteen more. The weather was dark and squally at the time, with some sea running.”

The following article appeared in the Times of Nov. 2d.:

“Amidst the numerous suggestions of those of your correspondents who are disposed to admit the account given by Captain M’Quhae of the marine monster seen by him and several of his brother officers, on the 6th. of August last, as not altogether imaginary, it appears surprising that it should not have occurred to any one to suggest an explanation of some apparent anomalies in the account, which have no doubt tended to stagger the belief even of some readers who are not disposed to assume (any more than myself) that a number of officers in Her Majesty’s navy would deliberately invent a falsehood, or could have been deceived in an appearance which they describe with such precise details”

“One of the greatest difficulties on the face of the narrative and which must be allowed to destroy the analogy of the motions of the so called “sea-serpent” with those of all known snakes and anguilliform fishes, is that no less than sixty feet of the animal were seen advancing à fleur d’eau at the rate of from twelve to fifteen miles an hour, without it being possible to perceive, upon the closest and most attentive inspection, any undulatory motion to which its rapid advance could be ascribed. It need scarcely be observed that neither an eel nor a snake, if either of those animals could swim at all with the neck elevated, could do so without the front part of its body being thrown into undulation by the propulsive efforts of its tail.”

“But, it may be asked, if the animal seen by Captain M’Quhae was not allied to the snakes or to the eels, to what class of animals could it have belonged? To this I would reply, that it appears more likely that the enormous reptile in question was allied to the gigantic Saurians, hitherto believed only to exist in the fossil state, and, among them, to the Plesiosaurus.”

“From the known anatomical characters of the Plesiosauri, derived from the examination of their organic remains, geologists are agreed in the inference that those animals carried their necks (which must have resembled the bodies of serpents) above the water, while their progression was effected by large paddles working beneath--the short but stout tail acting the part of a rudder. It would be superfluous to point out how closely the surmises of philosophers resemble, in these particulars, the description of the eye-witnesses of the living animal, as given in the letter and drawings of Captain M’Quhae. In the latter we have many of the external characters of the former, as predicated from the examination of the skeleton. The short head, the serpent-like neck, carried several feet above the water, forcibly recall the idea conceived of the extinct animal; and even the bristly mane in certain parts of the back, so unlike anything found in serpents, has its analogy in the Iguana, to which animal the Plesiosaurus has been compared by some geologists. But I would most of all insist upon the peculiarity of the animal’s progression, which could only have been effected with the evenness, and at the rate described, by an apparatus of fins or paddles, not possessed by serpents, but existing in the highest perfection in the Plesiosaurus.”--F. G. S.--

In the number of the Illustrated London News of November 4, 1848, the letter of Captain M’QUHAE was published in which he expresses his special approbation of the figures:

“I have observed with very great satisfaction the Engravings of the “Sea-Serpent” in the Illustrated London News of the 28th. inst.; they most faithfully represent the appearance of the animal, as seen from Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus on the 6th. of August last; and it is evident that much care has been bestowed upon the subject by the artist employed, to whom I beg to acknowledge myself greatly indebted for the patience and attention with which he listened to the various alterations suggested by me during the progress of the drawings.”

In the Times of Nov. 4th., we find the following remark:

“As some interest has been excited by the alleged appearance of a sea-serpent, I venture to transmit a few remarks on the subject, which you may or not may think worthy of insertion in your columns. There does not appear to be a single well authenticated instance of these monsters having been seen in any southern latitudes; but in the north of Europe, notwithstanding the fabulous character so long ascribed to Pontoppidan’s description, I am convinced that they both exist and are frequently seen. During three summers spent in Norway I have repeatedly conversed with the natives on this subject.”

Here follow the descriptions of two appearances which I have inserted above, (n^o. 109, 110).

“They expressed great surprise at the general disbelief attaching to the existence of these animals amongst naturalists, and assured me that there was scarcely a sailor accustomed to those inland lakes, who had not seen them at one time or another.”--OXONIENSIS.

An unknown writer in one of the daily papers, after suggesting, whether the animals in question might not be full grown specimens of the Saccopharynx flagellum of Dr. MITCHILL (described in the Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History, for March, 1824), or of the Ophiognathus ampullaceus of Dr. HARWOOD (Phil. Trans., 1827), gives Captain M’QUHAE the benefit of a further conjecture, viz., whether some land species, as the boas, among which are individuals “forty feet” in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even “transport themselves from one continent to another.” (See Zoologist, 1848; p. 2320).

Some days after the figures of Captain M’QUHAE were published, a nobleman, whose name is not mentioned, wrote to Prof. OWEN to know his opinion about the animal seen by the Captain. The Professor, it would seem, did not answer the nobleman directly, but sent his answer to the Editor of the Times, evidently with a view of bringing his opinion under the eyes of thousands. This letter is too important to be abridged; I therefore give it in extenso; it appeared in the Times of November 11, 1848.

The Great Sea-Serpent.

“Sir,--Subjoined is the answer to a question relative to the animal seen from the Daedalus, addressed to me by a nobleman distinguished in literature, and taking much interest in science.”

“As it contains the substance of the explanation I have endeavoured to give to numerous inquirers, in the Hunterian Museum and elsewhere, and as I continue to receive many applications for my opinion of the “Great Sea Serpent,” I am desirous to give it once for all through the medium of your columns, if space of such value may be allotted to it.”

“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant

“Richard Owen.”

“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”

“The sketch (this was a reduced copy of the drawing of the head of the animal seen by Captain M’QUHAE; attached to the submerged body of a large seal, showing the long eddy produced by the action of the terminal flippers) will suggest the reply to your query, “Whether the monster seen from the Daedalus be anything but a saurian?” If it be the true answer, it destroys the romance of the incident, and will be anything but acceptable to those who prefer the excitement of the imagination to the satisfaction of the judgment. I am far from insensible to the pleasures of the discovery of a new and rare animal; but before I can enjoy them, certain conditions--e. g. reasonable proof or evidence of its existence--must be fulfilled. I am also far from undervaluing the information which Captain M’QUHAE has given us of what he saw. When fairly analized, it lies in a small compass, but my knowledge of the animal kingdom compels me to draw other conclusions from the phenomena than those which the gallant captain seems to have jumped at. He evidently saw a large animal moving through the water, very different from anything he had before witnessed--neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface swimming creatures which are fallen in with in ordinary voyages. He writes--“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous serpent” (read “animal”), “with the head and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of the serpent” (animal) “was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish white about the throat”. No fins were seen (the captain says there were none; but from his own account, he did not see enough of the animal to prove the negative). “Something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” So much of the body as was seen was “not used in propelling the animal through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.” A calculation of its length was made under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast. The head, e. g., is stated to be, “without any doubt, that of a snake;” and yet a snake would be the last species to which a naturalist conversant with the forms and characters of the heads of animals, would refer such a head as that of which Captain M’Quhae has transmitted a drawing to the Admirality, and which he certifies to have been accurately copied in the Illustrated London News for October 28, 1848, p. 265. Your Lordship will observe that no sooner was the captain’s attention called to the object, than “it was discovered to be an enormous serpent”, and yet the closest inspection of as much of the body as was visible, à fleur d’eau, failed to detect any undulations of the body, although such actions constitute the very character which would distinguish a serpent or serpentiform swimmer from any other marine species. The foregone conclusion, therefore, of the beast’s being a sea-serpent, notwithstanding its capacious vaulted cranium, and stiff, inflexible trunk, must be kept in mind in estimating the value of the approximation made to the total length of the animal, as “(at the very least) sixty feet”. This is the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as to be inadmissible, in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as to the nature of the animal. The more certain characters of the animal are these:--Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short obtuse muzzle, gape of the mouth not extending further than to beneath the eye, which is rather small, round, filling closely the palpebral aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous modifications or hard and naked cuticle. And the captain says, “Had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should have easily recognized his features with my naked eye.” Nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle. All these are the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal--none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish. Body long, dark brown, not undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” The character of the integuments would be a most important one for the zoologist in the determination to the class to which the above defined creature belonged. If an opinion can be deduced as to the integuments from the above indication, it is that the species had hair, which, if it was too short and close to be distinguished on the head, was visible where it usually is the longest, on the middle line of the shoulders or advanced part of the back, where it was not stiff and upright like the rays of a fin, but “washed about.” Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetaceous mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east--viz. about three hundred miles from the western shore of the southern end of Afrika? The most likely species to be there met with are the largest of the seal tribe, e. g. Anson’s sea lion, or that known to the southern whalers by the name of the sea-elephant, the Phoca proboscidea, which attains the length of from twenty to thirty feet. These great seals abound in certain of the islands of the southern and antarctic seas, from which an individual is occasionally floated off upon an iceberg. The sea lion exhibited in London last spring, which was a young individual of the Phoca proboscidea was actually captured in that predicament; having been carried by the currents that set northwards towards the Cape, where its temporary resting-place was rapidly melting away. When a large individual of the Phoca proboscidea or Phoca leonina is thus borne off to a distance from its native shore, it is compelled to return for rest to its floating abode, after it has made its daily excursions in quest of the fishes or squids that constitute its food. It is thus brought by the iceberg into the latitudes of the Cape, and perhaps farther north, before the berg was melted away. Then the poor seal is compelled to swim as long as strength endures, and in such a predicament I imagine the creature was that Mr. Sartoris saw rapidly approaching the Daedalus from before the beam, scanning, probably, its capabilities as a resting-place, as it paddled its long stiff body past the ship. In so doing, it would raise a head of the form and colour described and delineated by Captain M’Quhae, supported on a neck also of the diameter given; the thick neck passing into an inflexible trunk, the longer and coarser hair on the upper part of which would give rise to the idea, especially if the species were the Phoca leonina, explained by the similes above cited. The organs of locomotion would be out of sight. The pectoral fins being set on very low down, as in my sketch, the chief impelling force would be the action of the deeper immersed terminal fins and tail, which would create a long eddy, readily mistakable, by one looking at the strange phenomenon with a sea-serpent in his mind’s eye, for an indefinite prolongation of the body.”

“It is very probable, that not one on board the Daedalus ever before beheld a gigantic seal freely swimming in the open ocean. Entering unexpectedly from that vast and commonly blank desert of waters, it would be a strange and exciting spectacle, and might well be interpreted as a marvel; but the creative powers of the human mind appear to be really very limited, and, on all the occasions where the true source of the “great unknown” has been detected--whether it has proved to be a file of sportive porpoises, or a pair of gigantic sharks--old Pontoppidan’s sea-serpent with the mane has uniformly suggested itself as the representative of the portent, until the mystery has been unravelled.”

“The vertebrae of the sea-serpent described and delineated in the Wernerian Transactions, vol. I., and sworn to by the fishermen who saw it off the Isle of Stronsa (one of the Orkneys), in 1808, two of which vertebrae are in the Museum of the College of Surgeons, are certainly those of a great shark, of the genus Selache, and are not distinguishable from those of the species called “basking-shark”, of which individuals from thirty to thirty-five feet in length have been from time to time captured or stranded on our coasts.”

“I have no unmeet confidence in the exactitude of my interpretation of the phenomena witnessed by the captain and others of the Daedalus. I am too sensible of the inadequacy of the characters which the opportunity of a rapidly passing animal, “in a long ocean swell”, enabled them to note, for the determination of its species or genus. Giving due credence to the most probably accurate elements of their description, they do little more than guide the zoologist to the class, which, in the present instance, is not that of the serpent or the saurian.”

“But I am usually asked, after each endeavour to explain Captain M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, “Why should there not be a great sea-serpent?”--often, too, in a tone which seems to imply, “Do you think, then, there are not more marvels in the deep, than are dreamt of in your philosophy?” And, freely conceding that point, I have felt bound to give a reason for scepticism as well as faith. If a gigantic sea-serpent actually exists, the species must, of course, have been perpetuated through successive generations, from its first creation and introduction into the seas of this planet. Conceive, then, the number of individuals that must have lived, and died, and have left their remains to attest the actuality of the species during the enormous lapse of time, from its beginning, to the 6th. of August last! Now, a serpent, being an air breathing animal, with long vesicular and receptacular lungs, dives with an effort and commonly floats when dead; and so would the sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident had opened the tough integument, and let out the imprisoned gases. Then it would sink, and, if in deep water, be seen no more until the sea rendered up its dead, after the lapse of the aeons requisite for the yielding of its place to dry land,--a change which has actually revealed to the present generation the old saurian monsters that were entombed at the bottom of the ocean, of the secondary geological periods of our earth’s history. During life the exigencies of the respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel him frequently to the surface; and when dead and swollen--

“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,”

he would

“Lie floating many a rood; in bulk as huge, “As whom the fables name of monstrous size, “Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove.”

“Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has not hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who have traversed the seas in so many directions. Considering, too, the tides and currents of the ocean, it seems still more reasonable to suppose that the dead sea-serpent would be occasionally cast on shore. However, I do not ask for the entire carcase. The structure of the back-bone of the serpent tribe is so peculiar, that a single vertebra would suffice to determine the existence of the hypothetical Ophidian; and this will not be deemed an unreasonable request, when it is remembered that the vertebrae are more numerous in serpents than in any other animals. Such large blanched and scattered bones on any sea-shore, would be likely to attract even common curiosity; yet there is no vertebra of a serpent larger than the ordinary pythons and boas in any museum in Europe.”

“Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén), than those of Norway. Krakens and sea serpents ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector; whilst the great denizens of those seas have been by no means so chary. No museums, in fact, are so rich in skeletons, skulls, bones and teeth of the numerous kind of whales, cachelots, grampuses, walrusses, sea unicorns, seals, etc., as those of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; but of any large marine nondescript or indeterminable monster they cannot show a trace.”

“I have inquired repeatedly whether the natural history collections of Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities of the United States, might possess any unusually large ophidian vertebrae or any of such peculiar form as to indicate some large and unknown marine animal; but they have received no such specimens.”

“The frequency with which the sea-serpent has been supposed to have appeared near the shores and harbours of the United States, has led to its being specified as the “American sea-serpent;” yet, out of the two hundred vertebrae of every individual that should have lived and died in the Atlantic since the creation of the species, not one has yet been picked up on the shores of America. The diminutive snake, less than a yard in length, “killed upon the sea-shore”, apparently beaten to death, “by some labouring people of Cape Ann,” United States (see the 8vo pamphlet, 1817, Boston, page 38), and figured in the Illustrated London News, October 28, 1848, from the original American memoir, by no means satisfies the conditions of the problem. Neither does the Saccopharynx of Mitchill, nor the Ophiognathus of Harwood--the one four and a half feet, the other six feet long: both are surpassed by some of the congers of our own coasts, and, like other muraenoid fishes and the known small sea snake (Hydrophis), swim by undulatory movements of the body.”

“The fossil vertebrae and skull which were exhibited by Mr. Koch, in New York and Boston, as those of the great sea-serpent, and which are now in Berlin, belonged to different individuals of a species which I had previously proved to be an extinct whale; a determination which has subsequently been confirmed by Professors Müller and Agassiz. Mr. Dixon of Worthing has discovered many fossil vertebrae, in the Eocene tertiary clay at Bracklesham, which belong to a larger species of an extinct genus of serpent (Palaeophis), founded on similar vertebrae from the same formation in the Isle of Sheppey. The largest of these ancient British snakes was twenty feet in length; but there is no evidence that they were marine.”

“The sea saurians of the secondary periods of geology have been replaced in the tertiary and actual seas by marine mammals. No remains of Cetacea have been found in lias or oolite, and no remains of Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur, or any other secondary reptile, have been found in Eocene or later tertiary deposits, or recent, on the actual sea-shores; and that the old air-breathing saurians floated when they died has been shown in the Geological Transactions (vol. V., second series, p. 512). The inference that may reasonably be drawn from no recent carcase or fragment of such having ever been discovered, is strengthened by the corresponding absence of any trace of their remains in the tertiary beds.”

“Now, on weighing the question, whether creatures meriting the name of “great sea serpent” do exist, or whether any of the gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits may have continued to live up to the present time, it seems to me less probable that no part of the carcase of such reptiles should have ever been discovered in a recent or unfossilized state, than that men should have been deceived by a cursory view of a partly submerged and rapidly moving animal, which might only be strange to themselves. In other words, I regard the negative evidence from the utter absence of any of the recent remains of great sea serpents, krakens, or Enaliosauria, as stronger against their actual existence, than the positive statements which have hitherto weighed with the public mind in favour of their existence. A larger body of evidence from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent.”

What speaks for itself, this letter appeared in several journals and newspapers. So I have found it in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d. Ser. Vol. II, p. 458 (15? Nov. 1848), in GALIGNANI’s Messenger of Nov. 23, 1848, in the Illustrated London News of Nov. 25, 1848, and in the Zoologist, of Nov. 27, 1848. As it came from such a quarter it is not surprising that many persons were willing to acquiesce in the decision.

Captain M’QUHAE, however, promptly replied to Professor OWEN. His answer was also addressed to the Editor of the Times (Times, Nov. 21, 1848):

“Sir,--Will you do me the very great favour to give a place in your widely-circulating columns to the following reply to the animadversions of Professor Owen on the serpent or animal seen by me and others from Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus on the 6th. of August last, and which were published in the Times of the 14th. inst.?

“I am, Sir, your obedient servant

“P. M’Quhae.

“Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus.

“London, November 18.

“Professor Owen correctly states that I “evidently saw a large creature moving rapidly through the water very different from anything I had before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming creatures fallen in with in ordinary voyages”. I now assert, neither was it a common seal nor a sea elephant; its great length, and its totally differing physiognomy, precluding the possibility of its being a Phoca of any species. The head was flat, and not a “capacious vaulted cranium;” nor had it “a stiff inflexible trunk”--a conclusion to which Professor Owen has jumped, most certainly not justified by the simple statement, that “no portion of the sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.”

“It is also assumed that the “calculation of its length was made under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;” another conclusion quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the great length was developed by its nearest approach to the ship, and until after that most important point had been duly considered and debated, as well as such could be in the brief space of time allowed for so doing, that it was pronounced to be a serpent by all who saw it, and who are too well accustomed to judge of lengths and breadths of objects in the sea to mistake a real substance and an actual living body, coolly and dispassionately contemplated, at so short a distance too, for the “eddy caused by the action of the deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly moving gigantic seal raising its head above the water,” as Professor Owen imagines, “in quest of its lost iceberg.”

“The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited. On this occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose and desire being, throughout, to furnish eminent naturalists, such as the learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed from optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan’s having clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have suggested the idea of ornamenting the creature seen from the Daedalus with a similar appendage, for the simple reason that I had never seen his account, or even heard of his sea-serpent, until my arrival in London. Some other solution must therefore be found for the very remarkable coincidence between us in that particular, in order to unravel the mystery.”

“Finally, I deny the existence of excitement, or the possibility of optical illusion. I adhere to the statement, as to form, colour, and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty; and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific may exercise the “pleasures of imagination” until some more fortunate opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance with the “great unknown”,--in the present instance assuredly no ghost.”

It also appeared in the Illustrated London News of Nov. 25 1848.

And a gentleman, who signed his letter with the initials J. C., wrote a letter to the Editor of the Illustrated London News (see this Journal of Nov. 25, 1848) to rectify another statement of the learned Professor:

“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite satisfactory as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my object in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to by Mr. Owen, in his letter to the Editor of the Times, of November 9th., that it was not of the serpent species, because “they failed to detect any undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of there being “no vertical or horizontal undulations perceptible” stamps the character of the animal; for it is well known by all observers of snakes in India, that when the animal is in chase of game, small or great, or when scared away, and moving at a rapid pace, he is propelled entirely by the tail, or the smaller half of the body, while the other portion, with a curve of the head, is kept quite stiff--and this exactly corresponds with the Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to fifteen miles an hour, apparently on some determined purpose.”

In May, 1854, Dr. T. S. TRAILL read a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, comparing the animal of the Daedalus, with the Animal of Stronsa. The part of his dissertation concerning the present occurrence runs as follows:

“In their statements there are no suspicious affectations of minute detail. Their simple narrative appears to deserve more attention than it has yet received from naturalists; and I strongly incline to the belief, that the animal seen by the crew of the Daedalus was an analogue of, if not the very same species, as the animal cast ashore in Orkney in 1808.”

“Considering the derision with which, in this country, the subject of the sea-serpent has been treated, and the ridicule attempted to be thrown on all who were bold enough to assert that they had seen such an animal, nothing but a consciousness of his unimpeachable veracity could have tempted the gallant Captain M’QUHAE to encounter the sneers of his incredulous countrymen. From all I have heard of his character for sagacity and veracity, from those who intimately knew him, I have not the smallest doubt that he has faithfully described what he and his crew saw distinctly, and at a short distance from the ship.”

“It was seen rapidly approaching before the beam.” Captain M’Quhae says: “On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; its colour of a dark brown, with yellowish-white about the throat.”

“The Captain could discover no fins, but “something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” He thought that its head did certainly resemble that of a snake; but the drawing which he transmitted to the Admiralty has not, to the eye of a naturalist, the form of that of any snake. The figure published in the Illustrated London News for October 28, 1848, is said to be an accurate copy of that drawing.”

“Captain M’Quhae estimates the length of its body at the surface of the water, “à fleur d’eau, at the very least equal to sixty feet, no part of which was to our perception used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations. It passed rapidly, but so close under our quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his features with the naked eye, and it did not, either in approaching the ship, or after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace of twelve or fifteen miles an hour, apparently on some determined purpose.”

“If we may judge from the engraving, the cranium is very convex, of moderate size, with a short obtuse muzzle, a mouth reaching beyond the eye; which last organ is round, and of a moderate size. The surface of the body is represented as smooth, and destitute of scales--of which they were enabled to judge, because it passed close under the quarter of the ship. It was in sight for twenty minutes.”

“The description certainly does not belong to any Ophidian; and as certainly militates against an opinion thrown out by Mr. Owen, that it might be a specimen of the leonine seal, which has, it is alleged, occasionally reached those latitudes. The leonine seal never exceeds twenty-five feet in length, and such would have a circumference at its shoulders of twenty feet, while this appears to be eel-shaped, with a diameter of not more than fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; the mane too, of the male of the leonine seal extends only over the head and neck; but in the other, it extended down the back.”

“With all deference to so eminent a naturalist as Mr. Owen, I humbly conceive that his conjecture respecting the identity of Captain M’QUHAE’s animal with the leonine seal, is not more probable than Home’s identification of the Basking shark with the Orkney animal.”

“Both M’QUHAE’s and the Orkney animal would appear to be a cartilaginous fish, totally different from any genus known to naturalists.”

Three years afterwards Captain HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131) was published in the Times. Some days afterwards Captain FREDERIC SMITH published his encounter with a sea-serpent, which after being harpooned and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, and the sea-serpents of the Daedalus and of Captain HARRINGTON were in his opinion undoubtedly pieces of the same kind of weed.

Now “An Officer of Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus felt obliged to state again that it was a living animal. As in this letter further particulars of the animal are mentioned, I insert it here in toto, (The Times of Febr. 16th., 1858):

“Sir,--Observing in your paper of yesterday’s date a letter from a correspondent to the marine animal commonly called the “sea-serpent”, in the concluding paragraph of which he mentions that he has no doubt the object seen from Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus in the month of August, 1848, when on the passage from the Cape of Good-Hope to St. Helena, was a piece of the same sea-weed observed by himself, I beg to state that the object seen from her Majesty’s ship was, beyond all question, a living animal, moving rapidly through the water against a cross sea, and within five points of a fresh breeze, with such velocity that the water was surging under its chest, as it passed along at a rate probably of ten miles per hour. Captain M’QUHAE’s first impulse was to tack in pursuit, ourselves being on a wind on the larboard tack, when he reflected that we could neither lay up for it nor overhaul it in speed. There was nothing to be done, therefore, but to observe it as accurately as we could with our glasses, as it came up under our lee quarter and passed away to windward, at its nearest position being not more than two hundred yards from us; the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour and form, all being most distinctly visible to us. We all felt greatly astonished at what we saw, though there were sailors among us of thirty and forty years’ standing, who had traversed most seas and seen many marvels in their day. The captain was the first to exclaim: “This must be that animal called the sea-serpent”, a conclusion which, after sundry guesses, we all at last settled down to. My impression was that it was rather of a lizard than a serpentine character, as its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power. It was in sight, from our first observing it, about ten minutes, as we were fast leaving one another on opposite tacks with a freshening breeze and the sea getting up.”

“I feel, Sir, I have already occupied more of your time and space than is justifiable, and have the honour to remain your obedient servant,

“An Officer of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus.”

Now let us run over all the prominent important particulars in the reports of the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen from the Daedalus. The first report, which appeared in the Times of October, 9, 1848, contains the description of the mouth: “and when it extended its jaws, which were full of large and jagged teeth, they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between them.” It is not said from whom the report came, nor is it signed. All the details, except this last, were afterwards substantiated by Captain M’QUHAE himself and by Lieutenant DRUMMOND. To me it seems quite impossible that the head was longer than three feet; as the neck is estimated at 16 inches in diameter, or one foot and a third, the breadth of the head, according to what we already know of the relative dimensions, cannot have been more than about two feet, and the length not more than about three feet. So the jaws, when extended, may open the mouth to about one and a half or two feet, a space which never can admit “of a tall man standing upright between them!”

The animal seen by the captain and some of the officers and crew of the Daedalus, was as follows: It swam with its body in a straight line. About sixty feet of its body were visible. Its head appeared to be about four feet out of the water. The part of the body hidden under water was estimated at thirty feet at least. The diameter of the neck behind the head was estimated at one foot and a third. When the animal opened its mouth, large jagged teeth were seen. “It moved with such velocity that the water was surging under its chest” (read throat, for the very chest, situated between the foreflappers, was invisible and much farther back). The head and a portion of the neck (Captain M’QUHAE says, though without any reason, shoulders) were kept above the surface of the sea. The animal was, during the time it was in sight, never once below the surface. Lieutenant DRUMMOND, however, says: the head disappeared occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval. The colour of the animal was a dark brown, with yellowish white under the throat. Something like the mane of a horse, or rather like a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back. Though the Captain says: it had no fins. Lieutenant DRUMMOND stated, that there was “a backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head, “and visible occasionally”. If this were a true back-fin, it ought to have been constantly visible. As, however, it was only occasionally seen, we conclude that it was nothing else but one of the animal’s foreflappers, occasionally coming above the surface of the water. “The captain also asserted that he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it.” This of course must have been one of the animal’s hind flappers. Lieutenant DRUMMOND must have been mistaken as to the length of the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calculation evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover was rather pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper-jaw projecting considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in saying: “the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown colour, and beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.”

The three figures are tolerably well drawn; in fact they are the best of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if they were delineated after the description above, but they were in reality “made from a sketch taken immediately after the animal was seen.” Here, as in foregoing reports, the figures and the text complete one another. The head is not that of a serpent, but that of a mammal. The proportions of length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the length of the mouth-split, the exact place of the eye, even the flattened appearance of forehead and nose are true mammalian characters. No whiskers or bristles on the upper-lips, and no ears or earholes are drawn, or mentioned. The distance, when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It is clear that they were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle, and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible.

In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as the sea-serpent. I only wish to point out here that in none of the three figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a head would never have been described as resembling that of a snake. It is clear that it is drawn too high, too short and not flat enough.

I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. OWEN’s reply. It is the following: Prof. OWEN rejects the existence of the sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea-serpents ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector.” It may be true that Mssrs. SARS and LOVÉN often navigated along the coasts of Norway and yet never saw a sea-serpent. Prof. OWEN forgets that his own countryman, Mr. MORRIES STIRLING, saw one with his own eyes! Is this proof not decisive enough? The absence of remains is not a proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as there are whales with two backfins, which are seen by three different naturalists, yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice of zoologists. Prof. OWEN also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers know well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however, they may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that it was not before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or gigantic calamary, was brought to Paris by the commander of the Alecton, nota bene notwithstanding Prof. OWEN’s assertion that they did not exist, as else the naturalists of Norway, and amongst them especially SARS and LOVÉN, would have found them!!

Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. M’QUHAE agreed in details with that of Lieutenant DRUMMOND, because the latter was immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th., whilst the letter of Captain M’QUHAE was addressed to the Admiralty on the 11th. of October, two months afterwards and apparently written from memory.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his Leisure Time Studies says of the “fin” mentioned by Lieutenant DRUMMOND:

“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse”, and which the introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in parentheses after the word “rather” in his description) serves to correlate with the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back”.”

I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant DRUMMOND was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and the other fin, “twenty feet more backward”, was one of the animal’s hind-flappers, and I believe that I may express my conviction that Mr. ANDREW WILSON was just as wrong in supposing this, as in his conviction that the sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE was merely an extraordinarily developed sea-snake! A few pages further on, viz., the writer of Leisure Time Studies, quoting the report of Captain M’QUHAE says:

“The idea that the animal observed in this instance was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention, which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.” (!)

And on the following page:

“Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations and inaccuracies in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution of this interesting problem.” (!!)

* * * * *

Though they don’t touch our subject directly, the following words of Mssrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE, treating of the Dodo, are well worth our notice; they say (Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15?, 1848):

“In proof of the existence of the Dodo we have--unlike the assumed evidence of the existence of some other anomalous monsters of which we have lately heard much--every canon of cautious truthseeking fully satisfied. With no traditional superstition or belief to give an origin to such a story (a point of no little importance in such an investigation), we have here fifteen or sixteen separate and independant authorities all alluding incidentally to the Dodo, each different in language and description, yet each of which has points of resemblance that cannot be mistaken as referring to similar objects. We have moreover drawings of the creature itself, made by different hands, and at different times, and with different objects; some of them rude and coarse to grotesqueness, other finished works of art. Yet throughout all these there run characters which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us that the draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, and from individuals of one and the same species.”

I am obliged to remark here that the proof of the existence of the Dodo, quoted by them, is not unlike the proof of the existence of great sea-serpents. If they, however, had known and mentioned that a head and a foot of the Dodo are preserved in Kopenhague, they would have been right. This is not the case with the sea-serpent. As far as I know, there is not one material proof of the existence of sea-serpents. But it is with the sea-serpent just as with the different accounts and pictures of the Dodo, “throughout all which run characters which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us, that the draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, and from individuals of one and the same species”.

I hope that every-one who has read all the accounts I have collected and published in this volume, and thoroughly studied the figures, will grant that there is no question of “assumed evidences of the existence of some anomalous monsters”.

* * * * *

=119=.--1848?--In the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2356, we read:

“Enormous undescribed animal apparently allied to the Enaliosauri, seen in the Gulf of California.--Captain the Hon. George Hope states that when in H. M. S. “Fly”, in the Gulf of California, the sea being perfectly calm and transparent, he saw at the bottom a large marine animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, except that the neck was much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had four large flappers, somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior; the creature was distinctly visible, and all its movements could be observed with ease; it appeared to be pursuing its prey at the bottom of the sea; its movements were somewhat serpentine, and an appearance of annulations, or ring-like divisions of the body, was distinctly perceptible. Captain Hope made this relation in company, and as a matter of conversation. When I heard it from the gentleman to whom it was narrated, I enquired whether Captain Hope was acquainted with those remarkable fossil animals Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri, the supposed forms of which so nearly correspond with what he describes as having seen alive, and I cannot find that he had heard of them; the alligator being the only animal he mentioned as bearing a partial similarity to the creature in question.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of this Journal, considers this testimony “in all respects, the most interesting natural-history-fact of the present century” (Zoologist, 1849, Preface, Nov. 11).

Though I think that all reports of sea-serpents are very interesting natural-history facts, it is indisputable that this testimony is a very important one. If the reader for a moment brings before his mind the animal of the Daedalus, about eighty feet long, with a head of about three feet, a neck like the body of a serpent, the thickness behind the head being somewhat smaller than that of the head itself; at twenty feet in the rear of the head the body becoming at once much broader and provided there with two flappers; twenty feet more backwards again two flappers, and then a tail of about forty feet, ending in a point. If the reader now imagines this animal to be on the bottom of the sea, whilst he himself is placed on the deck of a vessel, the sea perfectly calm, is it not true that such an animal must make the impression of an alligator with a long neck, and having instead of paws flappers like those of a sea-turtle? If moreover the animal moved in vertical undulations, is it not very well conceivable and clear that, by the light and shadow falling on the animal from above, the curves of the animal’s back (called bunches when it swims on the surface) must be taken as distinctly perceptible annulations or ring-like divisions of the body? I think that there can be no question but this animal was a sea-serpent. The reader will remember that PONTOPPIDAN relates an account of a very young sea-serpent, eighteen feet in length, entangled in a fisherman’s net, “a worm with four paws on the belly”, and that the learned Bishop himself made the comparison: “thus it resembled a crocodile”!

* * * * *

=120=.--1848, December 31.--(Illustrated London News of 1849, April 14.)

“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”

“H. M. S. Plumper, Plymouth Harbour, April 10, 1849.”

“Not having seen a sketch of the extraordinary creature, we passed between England and Lisbon, and being requested by several gentlemen to send you the rough one I made at the time, I shall feel much obliged by your giving it publicity in your instructive and amusing columns.”

“On the morning of the 31th. December, 1848, in lat. 41° 13′ N., and long 12° 31′ W., being nearly due West of Oporto, I saw a long black creature with a sharp head, moving slowly, I should think about two knots, through the water, in a north westerly direction, there being a fresh breeze at the time, and some sea on. I could not ascertain its exact length, but its back was about twenty feet if not more above water; and its head, as near as I could judge, from six to eight. I had not time to make a closer observation, as the ship was going six knots through the water, her head E. half S., and wind S. S. E. The creature moved across our wake towards a merchant barque on our lee-quarter, and on the port tack. I was in hopes she would have seen it also. The officers and men who saw it, and who have served in parts of the world adjacent to whale and seal fisheries, and have seen them in the water, declare they have neither seen nor heard of any creature bearing the slightest resemblance to the one we saw. There was something on its back that appeared like a mane, and, as it moved through the water, kept washing about, but before I could examine it more closely, it was too far astern.--I remain, yours very truly

A Naval Officer.”

Evidently the Naval Officer did not send the description of the appearance and the figure, before he was repeatedly requested by several gentlemen to do so. These gentlemen would not have been so pressing, if an appearance like that of the Daedalus had not happened very recently. How many written testimonies of the existence of sea-serpents will not be found in log books and private journals of navigators!

* * * * *

=121=.--1849, February 18.--In the Zoologist of 1849 we read, p. 2459:

“Captain Adams, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, which arrived at Jacksonville, Florida, on the 1^{st} of April, from New York, had sight of a monster in many respects resembling the sea-monsters described by many others. Captain Adams states that on the morning of Sunday, the 18th. of February, about nine o’clock, when off the south point of Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s (Florida) bar, the attention of himself, crew and passengers, was suddenly rivetted upon an immense sea monster, which he took to be a serpent. It lifted its head, which was that of a snake, several times out of the water, seemingly to take a survey to the vessel, and at such times displayed the largest portion of its body, and a pair of frightful fins or claws, several feet in length. His tail was not seen at any time; but, judging from the dimensions of the body, the captain supposes the leviathan to be about 90 feet in length. Its neck tapered small from the head to the body and it appeared to measure about seven feet across the broadest part of the back. The colour was that of a dirty brown. When first seen it was moving towards the mouth of the St. John’s. The monster moved from the side of the vessel, and placed itself athwart its track, in front of her bows; but Captain Adams, not feeling partial to an encounter with his snakeship, ordered the vessel to be kept off. A boy on the deck, not knowing his antagonist, had seized a harpoon, and was in the act of striking, when he was prevented by the vessel’s moving off”--“Boston Atlas”.

At a glance we recognize the sea-serpent, as it appeared to HANS EGEDE. “The largest portion of its body” was seen, “and a pair of frightful fins or claws, several feet in length”. The reader may compare the fig. 19 in our report n^o. 5.--

* * * * *

=122=.--1849, May 30.--(Illustrated London News, 1850, January, 19.--)

“The following is an extract from the private log of Captain Edwards of the Alpha.--“Wednesday, May 30, P. M., strong breezes at N. N. W., and a sharp sea on; about 1.15 I felt a strange shaking of the ship. Mr. Thomson, my chief officer; Mr. George Park, civil engineer, cabin passenger on board, ran on deck as well as myself, when we beheld immediately under our lee quarter a monster of huge dimensions. It had no fins or broad tail, as whales have. It was of a light fawn colour, with large brown spots behind the shoulders; the head pointed like that of a porpoise. It had large glossy eyes; the shoulder was much darker than the rest of the body, which was the thickest part of it, (say twenty feet in diameter), from thence diminishing to the tail, to about the size of our mainyard in the slings (say twenty-four inches diameter). He took a turn round, and we afterwards saw him astern, and he went away in a S. E. by S. direction, at about thirty miles an hour.”--Melbourne Daily News, July, 1.--(“A correspondent, who sends us the above, adds that he believes this to be the first time the sea-serpent is stated to have been seen so far south.”)

Evidently the animal remained under water for a long time, and struck the vessel in coming to the surface. Seen from very near the colour evidently did not seem dark brown, but of a lighter hue. The absence of visible fins, the pointed tail, the brown spotted skin (no scales are mentioned, so it must have been smooth), the pointed head, the appearance of shoulders, the large eyes, its astonishing rapidity in swimming, all these statements characterize the sea-serpent. Alarmed at its having struck the vessel, off it went! Evidently Captain EDWARDS did not see the tip of the tail, which is rather pointed; he described, it is clear, what he took for the end of it, the extreme end being under water. No latitude is given in this report, but we may conclude that the appearance took place more towards the south than Melbourne is situated. This town is situated at about 38° S. lat., so the appearance may have taken place between 40° and 45° S. lat., and of course between 110° and 145° W. longitude, in the common track of vessels.

* * * * *

=123=.--1849, September 15.--(Illustrated London News for 1850, January 12).--Extract from a letter, dated “H. M. S. Cleopatra, Singapore, Oct. 26, 1849”, from an officer of that ship:--“Sept. 15. This evening they reported the Sea-Serpent: several of the men, as well as the officer of the forecastle, saw the monster; and they all ran aft to see it from the stern: they say it was about thirty feet long. After the report, all hands came to deck; but the evening was fast drawing to a close, and the ship going at eight knots, soon left the monster astern, going through the water very quickly to the N. W.”--(From a Correspondent.)

Most probably this appearance took place in the Indian Ocean between latitude 10 and 20 S. and longitude 50 and 70 E.

If one of the gentlemen of the Cleopatra is still in the land of the living, he will greatly oblige me by sending me some more details of the external appearance of the animal, and of the place where the animal was seen.

* * * * *

“The Rev. Alfred Charles Smith, M. A., an excellent naturalist, who passed the three summer months of 1850 in Norway, and who published” his Notes on Observations in Natural History during a Tour in Norway “in the Zoologist for that and the following year, thus alludes to his own inquiries, which, if they add nothing to the amount of fact accumulated, add weight to the testimonies already adduced”. (GOSSE, Romance of Natural History, 13th. Ed., Vol. I., p. 282.)

“Being in the country of the renowned Bishop Pontoppidan, and in the fjords which are generally claimed as the home, or, at any rate, as one of the habitations of the sea-serpent, whose existence seems yet to be a disputed point in England, I lost no opportunity of making inquiries of all I could see, as to the general belief in the country regarding the animal in question; but all, with one single exception--naval officers, sailors, boatmen, and fishermen--concurred in affirming most positively that such an animal did exist, and had been repeatedly seen off their coasts and fjords, though I was never fortunate enough to meet a man who could boast of having seen him with his own eyes. All, however, agreed in unhesitating belief as to his existence and frequent appearance; and all seemed to marvel very much at the scepticism of the English, for refusing credence to what to the minds of the Norwegians seemed so incontrovertible. The single exception to which I have alluded, was a Norwegian officer, who ridiculed what he called the credulity or gullibility of his countrymen; though I am bound to add my belief, that he did this, not from any decided opinion of his own, but to make a show of superior shrewdness in the eyes of an Englishman, who, he at once concluded, must undoubtedly disbelieve the existence of the marine monster. That Englishman, however, certainly partakes of the credulity of the Northmen, and cannot withhold his belief in the existence of some huge inhabitant of those northern seas, when, to his mind, the fact of his existence has been so clearly proved by numerous eye-witnesses, many of whom were too intelligent to be deceived, and too honest to be doubted.”

* * * * *

The reader will remember the splendid hoax of the New York Tribune (1852); now Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP in his Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, no 486, already doubted this report. After some time (n^o. 491) he communicated to his readers that according to the Philadelphia Bulletin, the whole was a hoax, but to show them how firm a believer Mr. FRORIEP, nevertheless, remained, he adds:

“This, however, will not prevent us from bestowing further attention on the subject of the Sea-Serpent.”

* * * * *

=124=.--1850?--The following evidence may be called one of the more interesting which tell about the habits of the sea-serpent. In the Zoologist of 1862, p. 7850, we read:

“Off Madeira, on board R. M. S. Thames. Made acquaintance with a Captain Christmas, of the Danish Navy, a proprietor in Santa Cruz, and holding some office about the Danish Court. He told me he once saw a sea-serpent between Iceland and the Faroe Islands. He was lying in to a gale of wind, in a frigate of which he had the command, when an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship, as if pursued, and lo and behold a creature with a neck moving like that of a swan, about the thickness of a man’s waist, with a head like a horse, raised itself slowly and gracefully from the deep, and seeing the ship it immediately disappeared again, head foremost, like a duck diving. He saw it only for a few seconds; the part above water seemed about eighteen feet in length. He is a singularly intelligent man, and by no means one to allow his imagination to run away with him.--Stephen Cave, M. P. for Shoreham; 35, Wilson Place, April 29, 1861, in a letter to Mr. Gosse.”

It is a very remarkable fact that we meet here the sea-serpent between Iceland and the Far-Oer, a place situated between the two most frequented parts of the North Atlantic, i. e. the coasts of Norway and the coasts of the United States. But it is not the first time; the readers will remember the report of HANS EGEDE (n^o. 5) and that of Capt. BROWN (n^o. 56). Remarkable, too, is the fact that the sea-serpent now made its appearance in a gale of wind. Is this not a matter of surprise as everywhere else is stated that it appears only in fine weather? Is it not reasonable therefore, to conclude that the animal feels comfortable in fine weather, but that, being an air-breathing animal it must come to the surface from time to time and may consequently be seen at times when there is wind? There is the statement of Captain M’QUHAE, who speaks of a “breeze” and here we meet with “a gale of wind”. It is also worthy of our notice that Capt. CRISTMAS mentions the immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the ship, as if pursued, and a sea-serpent making its appearance. I need not remind my readers of the same observation of some gentlemen near Nova Scotia (n^o. 97). Later on we shall have the report in which a sea-serpent gripped “a whale” (of the smaller kind) in its fin, and we have already learned that a sea-serpent (n^o. 54) was engaged with “a whale” (of the smaller kind).

Not less important is the description of the long neck, moving like that of a swan, and disappearing head foremost like a duck diving. Nearly exactly the same thing was observed in 1879, April 5.

The thickness of the neck was that of a man’s waist, the part above the water measured eighteen feet in length, and yet the foreflappers remained hidden under water. The head is described as resembling that of a horse, which may be the result of the animal bearing a mane, and when first rising out of the water, holding its head in a nearly right angle with the neck. Moreover the nostrils might have been widely opened. The animal of Capt. M’QUHAE had also a neck of one foot and a third in diameter; head and neck had a length of about twenty feet, for at about twenty feet in the rear of the head was seen the animal’s fore flapper. So we may conclude that these two individuals were of the same or nearly of the same length.

* * * * *

=125=.--1853?--Dr. TRAILL says in the Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh, n^o. 44, May, 1854, that it “is said to have been seen lately in some of their fjords.”

* * * * *

=126=.--1854, September 4.--(Illustrated London News, for 1855, February 17.--)

“It is reported by the British Brig Albeona, arrived at Liverpool, that on the 4th. of September last, about five in the afternoon, in lat. 38 S., long 13 E., while the ship was under a light wind and in smooth water, a sea-monster of great size and singular appearance was descried. Attention was first directed to it by the broken action of the water, which otherwise was smooth all around. The animal was discovered protruding its head above water to the length of about 30 feet, at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizon. His head was about 12 feet long and was marked by a white stripe or streak down each side. At about six feet from the termination of the streaks, which were presumed to be its jaws, there was a protuberance on its back like a small water-cask. The creature kept its mouth shut, but its eyes were plainly visible. At the point of contact with the water the body seemed about as much as the ship’s long-boat round. The general colour of the body was black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. While under observation he dipped under water three times, remaining submerged about a minute each time. From the broken action of the water at different points, it seemed as if protuberances, similar to that on the back existed on various parts of the body. From the best conjecture that could be made, it was computed at 180 feet in length over all.”

The length of the head may be somewhat exaggerated, the largest dimensions admissible are 6 feet in breadth and about 8 feet in length, as we shall afterwards observe from one of the most recent reports. It is a remarkable fact that here mention is made of a white stripe or streak down on each side of the head, presumed to be its jaws. In the deposition of Captain FINNEY (n^o. 34) too, we read “It had a white stripe extending the whole length of the head just above the water, there where the underjaw must have been”. And in the figures of the animal seen by the gentlemen of the Daedalus (fig. 28, 29, 30) the underjaw is drawn white, and described whitish brown or yellowish white. The protuberance on its back (read on the back of its neck) was a fold in the animal’s skin, as may be seen in the sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, when they contract their long necks, and then the other “protuberances, similar to that on the back” were of the same character. This character of having bunches occasionally, is well known to us. Or all these protuberances were merely vertical undulations.

Attention was first paid to it by the broken action of the water, which otherwise was smooth all around. So the animal first swam for a moment just below the surface, a habit which we have often observed in foregoing reports. The general colour of the body was black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. As to the description of the colour of the animal’s throat, it agreed with foregoing statements. As to the loose skin, and the pouch, this is also only explicable by the animal’s having a skin just like sea-lions. It is so loose and folds so easily, that if the head is bent a little downward, or if the neck is somewhat contracted, several folds are seen, which led Captain BROWN (n^o. 56) to mention “eight gills under the neck”. He had better have written “gill-splits”, meaning the furrows between the folds.--The length of 180 feet may be somewhat exaggerated, though we will afterwards prove that individuals of still greater length must exist.

* * * * *

=127=.--1855, August?--In the letter from Capt. G. H. HARRINGTON to Rear-Admiral W. A. B. HAMILTON, dated Liverpool, February 8, 1858, which letter will be inserted afterwards, we read:

“I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, shipowners of this place, that one of their captains reported a similar thing about two years ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took no further notice of it, supposing that he might have been deceived.”

I am convinced that the captain really saw a sea-serpent. The reader will, I hope, be convinced of it himself, after having read Captain HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131).

* * * * *

=128=.--1856, March 30.--(Illustrated London News of the 3d. of May, 1856).

“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”

“Imogen, Channel, 15th. April, 1856.”

“Sir.--We beg to hand you the enclosed Sketch of a Sea-Serpent we had the good fortune to sight on the 30th. of March last.”

“Imogen, from Algoa Bay, towards London. Sunday 30th. March, 1856. Lat. 29 deg., 11 min. N., Long. 34 deg., 36 min. W., bar. 30.50; calm and clear. Four vessels visible to southward and westward.”

“About five minutes past eleven A. M., the helmsman drew our attention to something moving through the water, and causing a strong ripple about 400 yards distant from our starboard quarter.”

“In a few moments it became more distinct, presenting the appearance in fig. 1., and showing an apparent length of about forty feet (above the surface of the sea), the undulations of the water extending on each side to a considerable distance in its wake. Mr. Statham immediately ascended to the maintopsailyard, Captain Guy and Mr. Harries watching the animal from the deck with the telescope. After passing the ship about half a mile, the serpent “rounded to” and raised its head, seemingly to look at us (fig. 2), and then steered away to the northward (N. E.), possibly to the neighbourhood of the Western Islands, frequently lifting its head (fig. 3). We traced its course until nearly on the horizon, from the topsailyard, and lost sight of it from deck about 11 h. 45 m. A. M. No doubt remained on our minds as to its being an immense snake, as the undulations of its body were clearly perceptible, although we were unable to distinguish its eyes.”

“The weather being fine and the glossy surface of the sea only occasionally disturbed by slight flaws (catspaws) of wind, we had a perfect opportunity of noticing its movements.”

“In conformity to your regulations we inclose our references, and remain,

“Sir, your obedient servants,

“James Guy, Commander,

“J. H. Statham, Julian B. Harries, D. J. Williamson, Passengers.”

After the figures of Capt. M’QUHAE of the Daedalus (n^o. 118, fig. 28, 29, 30), which show the animal swimming with its body in a straight line, these four figures of the animal are the best we have, but here it is swimming with vertical undulations. To the description I can add nothing, nor need I explain anything. Description and figures complete each other and give an accurate and very natural idea of a sight of the animal seen from afar.--

* * * * *

=129=.--1856, July 8.--(The Illustrated London News of the 4th. of October, 1856.)

“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”

“Colonial Agency, 4, Cullum-street, London, September 25th. 1856.”

“We hand you the following extract from the log-book of our ship Princess, Captain A. R. N. Tremearne, in London Docks 15th. inst., from China, viz:--”

““Thuesday, July 8, 1856.--Latitude accurate 34° 56′ S.; Longitude accurate 18° 14′ E. At one P. M. saw a very large fish, with a head like a walrus, and twelve fins, similar to those in a black fish, but turned the contrary way. The back was from 20 to 30 feet long; also a great length of tail. It is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great sea-serpent. Fired and hit it near the head with rifle-ball. At eight, fresh wind and fine.””

“We submit that the repeated accounts of seeing a marine monster, whatever be its correct name or kind, yet harmonising in some leading descriptions forbid longer doubt of one such creature existing, and we inclose you a rough sketch as this one appeared, signed by Captain Tremearne, who has been six years in our employ, and is otherwise well known. His own private log contains a similar record, and we have interrogated others of the Princess crew, who assert the fact of such appearance.”

“Captain Tremearne states that Captain Morgan, a passenger by the Princess, but who at St. Helena joined the ship Senator, to command her to Liverpool (where she is daily expected), also saw this monster, and can corroborate the statements.”

“Until 13th. of October the Princess will be at London Dock jetty, loading for Melbourne, and naturalists and other scientific persons can there make further inquiries, provided they do not subject Captain Tremearne to correspondence or interrupt ship’s duties, which are urgent for her speedy departure. The ship’s log-book and the rough sketch of the fish can also be inspected at our office.”

“Edmund J. Wheeler and Co.”

Though the description is very short, the figure enables us to make the following conjecture. Captain TREMEARNE really saw a sea-serpent, swimming with extraordinary speed, most probably because, on coming to the surface, it was alarmed by the unexpected presence of the ship. Having remained under water a long time it suddenly exhaled on coming to the surface, and blew like a whale, as the figure shows. The extreme velocity of its motion is cause that the impression of the head was that of a walrus. But this is a remarkable fact. We have already observed that a Norwegian fisherman described the head as resembling that of a seal (n^o. 8), and that Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29), too described at first sight the head to resemble that of a seal. Afterwards Mr. KRIUKOF (n^o. 36) better acquainted with sea-lions, described it as resembling a sea-lion’s; more than once the bristles on the upper lip are mentioned; one of the gentlemen of the Daedalus drew a head distinctly that of a Pinniped, and Captain TREMEARNE declares that it had the head of a walrus. Most probably he has seen the animal close to him and in its face, and saw the upper-lip with bristly whiskers, though this is neither mentioned nor figured. The same uncommonly rapid motion of the animal caused the captain to draw the neck too short and to see “twelve fins”. He was the dupe of an optical illusion, resulting from the very rapid paddling of the animal’s fore-flappers. But he has very well observed that the posture of the flappers when directed as upward as possible is “turned the contrary way to those in a black fish”. The head is described by him as that of a mammal, belonging to the order of Pinnipeds, the posture of the flappers is exactly that which pinnipedian mammals, as sea-lions and walruses, would exhibit, when swimming with extreme velocity. No reptile is able to lift up its fore-limbs to such a height. The animal in this position, but seen from behind, would have the external features as shown in the figure of Lieutenant HAYNES (fig. 45, n^o. 148). And captain TREMEARNE has also very well observed and delineated that six of the fins were on the left, and six on the right sight of the animal as if rising out of the water, and that the twelve were not situated on the animal’s back. The rough back, too, is a proof that the animal had a mane. The violent motions of the flappers must have caused a severe splashing and foaming of the water; it is clear that this is omitted by captain TREMEARNE when drawing his figure. So this report, though apparently of no worth, is, with the figure, one of the most valuable reports of an appearance of the sea-serpent, throwing light upon its rank in the system of nature. Remarkable is the fact that captain TREMEARNE writes: “it is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great sea-serpent”.

* * * * *

=130=.--1857, February 16.--The following letter was forwarded by Dr. Biccard to his friend Mr. FAIRBRIDGE, at his request, was then published in the Cape Argus of the 14th. of March, 1857, and reprinted, with the figure, in the Illustrated London News of 1857, June 13.--

“Cape Town, 11th. March, 1857.

“My dear Fairbridge,--According to your wish, I give you a short description of the Sea-Serpent seen by me and others opposite the old light-house at Green Point.”

“On Monday, the 16th. of February last, I went out to Green Point in the afternoon. At about 5 p. m., or a little after, I was called by Mr. Murray, the light-house-keeper, to “come and see a sea monster”. I proceeded to the light-house, and from thence I saw on the water, about 150 yards from the shore, the serpent, of which some details have already appeared in print. It was lying in the position shown in the accompanying sketch n^o. 1. I borrowed a rifle from Mr. Flail (Mr. Murray’s father-in-law), and fired at the animal. The ball fell short in front of it by about four yards, as shown in the sketch. The animal did not move, and I then fired a second shot, the ball striking about a foot and a half from it. The serpent, then apparently startled, moved from his position, straightened himself out, and went under water, evidently getting out of the way. He was invisible for about ten minutes, at the expiration of which interval he reappeared at about two hundred yards distance, and I should say about forty yards further off. He then came right on towards the place where I first saw him; but, before arriving there, my son, who had joined me, fired at the animal. Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple of the rifle, and I was thus prevented from further firing. Upon reaching the place he had first occupied, the serpent formed himself into the position delineated in Sketch n^o. 2. He then stood right into the bay, and soon afterwards we lost sight of him altogether.”

“As I have stated, the distance the animal kept from shore was not more than 200 yards; its length was about 200 feet, but its thickness I cannot tell, the upper part of the body only being visible. The head could be seen but indistinctly, as he raised it at intervals, as shown in the sketch. I consider the protuberance to be the upper part of the head, but I could not discover the eyes, notwithstanding the short distance, and the telescope which was a pretty good one. The colour of the animal was a dark dull colour, except the head, which was maculated with large white spots. The weather at this time was very calm, with a light northwesterly breeze. Besides myself, the serpent was seen by Mr. Hall, Mr. Murray, Mrs. and Miss Biccard, my two sons, and my coachman, who all saw it distinctly.”

“Yours, &c.,

“Biccard.”

Nobody can help laughing when he sees this figure, representing something very much like a black buoy, with white streaks and spots, and glittering in the sun, having a long rope attached to it! It is, however, pretty well done for one who cannot draw. As in so many other instances the figures and the text complete each other. The animal appears here nearly in the same position as it did in the Harbour of Gloucester, in 1817. The same astonishing lateral flexibility! “It lay down, in turning, in the form of a staple or horse-shoe” we have learned on that occasion, and “in doing so it nearly touched its head with its tail”, “the tail and the head then appeared only to be a few yards one from another”, once “it lay down in the form of an S”, &c. Though the Doctor does not describe this position, his figures tell it us. As the second ball apparently startled it, it changed its position, straightened itself out, disappeared, and came up after ten minutes, about forty yards further off. It behaved in the same way in the Harbour of Gloucester. The length may again be somewhat exaggerated, though I do not think such to be the case. The white streaks and spots on the head may have been the shining reflexion of day or sunlight, the head being thoroughly wet, as the animal raised and dropped it at intervals, which made the water run down every time, but it is also very possible that the individual was really spotted on its head.

* * * * *

=131=.--1857, December 12.--(The Times of February 5, 1858; the Zoologist for 1858, p. 5989.).

“I beg to enclose you a copy of an extract from the meteorological journal kept by me on board the ship Castilian, on a voyage from Bombay to Liverpool. I have sent the original to the Board of Trade, for whom the observations have been made during my last voyage. I am glad to confirm a statement made by the commander of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus, some years ago, as to the existence of such an animal as that described by him.--G. H. Harrington; 14 and 14¹⁄₂, South Castle Street, Liverpool, February 2, 1858.--

“Copy of an Extract from the Board of Trade Meteorological Journal, kept by Captain Harrington, of the ship Castilian, from Bombay to Liverpool.”

“Ship Castilian, December 12, 1857, north-east end of St. Helena, bearing north-west, distance 10 miles.”

“At 6.30 p. m., strong breezes and cloudy, ship sailing about twelve miles per hour. While myself and officers were standing on the lee-side of the poop, looking towards the island, we were startled by the sight of a huge marine animal, which reared its head out of the water within twenty yards of the ship, when it suddenly disappeared for about half a minute, and then made its appearance in the same manner again, showing us distinctly its neck and head about ten or twelve feet out of the water. Its head was shaped like a long nun-buoy, and I suppose the diameter to have been seven or eight feet in the largest part, with a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet from the top; the water was discoloured for several hundred feet from its head, so much so that, on its first appearance, my impression was that the ship was in broken water, produced, as I supposed, by some vulcanic agency since the last time I passed the island; but the second appearance completely dispelled those fears, and assured us that it was a monster of extraordinary length, which appeared to be moving slowly towards the land. The ship was going too fast to enable us to reach the mast-head in time to form a correct estimate of its extreme length, but from what we saw from the deck we conclude that it must have been over two hundred feet long. The boatswain and several of the crew who observed it from the top-gallant forecastle, state that it was more than double the length of the ship, in which case it must have been five hundred feet. Be that as it may, I am convinced that it belonged to the serpent tribe; it was of a dark colour about the head, and was covered with several white spots. Having a press of canvas on the ship at the time, I was unable to round to without risk, and therefore was precluded from getting another sight of this leviathan of the deep.”

“George Henry Harrington, Commander.”

“William Davies, Chief Officer.”

“Edward Wheeler, Second Officer.”

The animal seen by Captain HARRINGTON was no doubt a sea-serpent, of which at first sight, only the head and a small portion of the neck were exposed to the eyes of the spectators. Afterwards, when the animal moved slowly towards the land, its whole length must have been visible, and estimated at about two hundred feet. The head was seen in such a direction that it resembled a “nun-buoy”. The diameter of the head may have been six feet. At a moment that the animal contracted its neck, an annular fold was formed round the neck just behind the head, as may be seen in our sea-lions, and which led Captain HARRINGTON to write “with a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet from the top” of the head, i. e. somewhat behind the occiput. The discolouring of the water has of course nothing at all to do with the animal or its appearance.

Some days afterwards (Times of February 13, 1858; Zoologist for 1858, p. 5990) this document was followed by an account of FREDERIC SMITH, who stated that on December 28th., 1848, commanding the ship PEKIN, they saw an extraordinary creature, which, when harpooned, and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long. “So like a huge living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” Captain SMITH firmly believes that the animals of the Daedalus and of the Castilian were pieces of the same weed.

Hereupon, “An officer of H. M. S. Daedalus” wrote an apology in the Times of 16th. February, which we have inserted in n^o. 118. This letter was immediately followed in the same paper of the same date by the two following:

“Sir.--A letter appears in the Times of to-day signed “Frederic Smith” on the subject of the sea-serpent.

“The writer has this advantage over others who have reported the occasional appearance of what he fairly calls “this queer fish”--that he has handled as well as seen it. Still there would seem to be a considerable variety in the genus, for, while the specimen obtained by the Pekin in 1848 was 4 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length, that seen from the Circassian is described, if I remember rightly, in your paper of 4th. inst. as 10 feet or 11 feet in diameter, and upwards of 200 feet in length.”

“In this latter instance it was seen only, and but a passing sight; and testimony of this kind is just that which naturalists may be slow to receive as evidence of any new fact; nevertheless the practised vision of the Circassian’s commander should go for something, and as it would appear from the following letter that Captain Harrington is to be in town next week and ready to answer any questions, it might be worth the while of some of our philosophers to examine a little into the question of what Capt. Harrington and his officers really did see.”

“I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant

“Blackheath, February 12.” “W. A. B. Hamilton.”

For Circassian of course read Castilian.

“14, South Castle Street, Liverpool, February 8.

“Dear Sir,--I am in receipt of your favour of the 6th. of February, and should be glad if my communication to the Times might be instrumental in dispelling many doubts respecting the existence of such a monster as that described by myself and my officers.”

“I communicated it to Capt. Schomberg, R. N., of this place, in the course of conversation, who advised me by all means to send a copy of it to the Times.”

“Notwithstanding the assertions of men of science to the contrary I am now sure that such animals exist. I could no more be deceived than (as a seaman) I could mistake a porpoise for a whale. If it had been at a great distance it would have been different, but it was not above 20 yards from the ship.”

“I am of opinion that this animal makes its appearance at the surface at long intervals only. I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, shipowners of this place, that one of their captains reported a similar thing about two years ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took no further notice of it, supposing, as your friend seems to do, that he might have been deceived.”

“Twenty people, including Mrs. Harrington and my two officers, saw it as distinctly as I now see the gas light which I am writing by. I am well known in London, having commanded a steam transport during the Russian war belonging to the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company.”

“Captain Claxton, R. N., of the Priory, Battersea, is a personal friend of mine. I am also well known to Sir Colin Campbell, who is now in the East. My present ship is 1604 tons new measurement, and a new ship, of which I own a good part myself. There are, therefore, many reasons (in addition to my holding a first-class certificate in the mercantile marine) to hinder me from propagating a report which can do me no good, and, if untrue, do injury to science in the room of assisting it to elicit the truth in so important a matter as the discovery of the inhabitants of the deep.”

“I shall be in town for three or four days in the early part of next week. A letter addressed to me at the Jerusalem Coffee-House will meet with attention, and, if my limited time permit, I should be glad to have an interview with yourself, or any of your friends who might wish to have a verbal explanation in this matter.”

“I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant

“G. H. Harrington.”

“To Rear-Admiral W. A. B. Hamilton”

This letter was again answered in a very witty way in the Times of Febr. 23, 1858; this however, will be inserted in our chapter on Explanations.

In the Zoologist for 1858, p. 6015, Mr. ALFRED CHARLES SMITH, an old acquaintance of ours (p. 299) now wrote the following remark:

“To one who firmly believes in the existence of some huge marine monster of the serpent-form, such as the Northmen love to descant upon (and I am not ashamed to own to such credulity, as I have already declared in my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)), the clear and minute account of Capt. Harrington, on the sea-monster which he and twenty people saw on the 12th of December last, off the coast of St. Helena, was exceedingly interesting; nor did the subsequent letter of Mr. F. Smith tend to shake my belief in the accuracy of Capt. Harrington’s statement, the particulars of the two alleged appearances being so very different. I am not, however, about to argue the point, the premises before us being far too unsatisfactory and vague to argue from. I merely write to express my hope that as you have admitted the first correspondence on the subject to the pages of the Zoologist, you will give both parties fair play, and insert the remaining letters, which appeared in the Times of February 16th and 23 respectively, copies of which I enclose, so that naturalists may have an opportunity of studying the case in all its bearings, before they form their conclusions.--Alfred Charles Smith; Yatesbury Rectory, Calne, March 5, 1858.”

Of course, it was but natural that also foreign newspapers should take great delight in this polemic. So we find in the Revue Britannique, of 1858, n^o 2, Febr. p. 496, an article full of erroneous statements:

“Amongst the grave questions of the day, we did not think of meeting again, in the newspapers, with the famous sea-serpent, the problematic existence of which seemed to be banished to the world of apocryphal, or at least antediluvian animals; but no! three new eye-witnesses declare to have seen it, and very well too. Now a Captain Smith, of Newcastle, writes that he is convinced that these witnesses have been illuded, as he himself was on the 28th. of December, 1848, when after believing to see through his telescope an extraordinary monster, and after lowering the great net of the ship, he drew in only a gigantic sea-weed of twenty feet in length, which really had the form, attributed to the fantastic reptile. This indirect refutation, however, does not discourage the Rear-Admiral Harrington (imagine, a Rear-Admiral!) who in a second article in the Times, repeats that he is sure of the fact, that he has seen the sea-serpent twenty fathoms from his ship, that he has recognized it, as if he would have recognized a whale on the side of a porpoise, that his wife, who was on board, has seen it with him, as had his two officers, in short, that he will come to London, as soon as he has terminated his business at Liverpool, and will furnish all evidences demanded by science and scepticism. If he had only brought home the animal’s tail or one of its fins!”

* * * * *

=132=.--1858, January 26.--The Illustrated London News of March 20, 1858, mentions:

“The following is a report made by Captain Suckling, of the ship Carnatic, of London, of a Sea Serpent seen by him between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena:--“On the 26th of January, in latitude 19°10′ S., long 10°6′ W., about 5 minutes after noon, my attention was called by Captain Shuttleworth, a passenger on board the Carnatic to a large spar sticking out of the water one end some thirty feet above the level of the sea. It appeared to me to be the lower mast of some wrecked vessel, and having the glass in my hand, with which I had been looking at an American vessel in sight, I examined it narrowly. It seemed to be passing very rapidly to the eastward, having altered its bearings several points in the course of a few minutes, when it suddenly disappeared, and came up shortly afterwards astern of the ship. It was seen by all those on deck at the time, and it is their opinion, as well as my own, that it was an enormous sea-serpent. The American ship A. B. Thompson from Bombay to London, was in company at the time--wind light and variable, with clear weather”.--We have not space for the Sketch obligingly sent with this account”.

The comparison with a spar, an unwrought spar, or spruce, a log of timber, etc., has been made more than once, as the reader will remember, and when we compare the figures, drawn by an officer of H. M. S. Plumper (fig. 31), and by Major SENIOR (fig. 46), we can easily imagine, that in this position the animal must have illuded the observers more than once. It is a pity that the sketch has not been published. How many interesting drawings have in this way got into the paper-basket!

* * * * *

In 1860 Mr. P. H. GOSSE published his Romance of Natural History, First Series. The last chapter of this volume is entitled “the Great Unknown” and is entirely devoted to the Great Sea-Serpent. His manner of teaching Natural History to his readers was, as the able writer says himself, a poetical one. “In my many years’ wandering through the wide field of Natural History, I have always felt towards it something of a poet’s heart, though destitute of a poet’s genius”. I can recommend every zoologist and botanist to read his work in his leasure hours; I have read it with great interest and pleasure, increasing my knowledge, wandering with the writer from north to south and from east to west, from one pole to the other and from continents to the greatest depths of the ocean!

The sea-serpent’s question was such a favourite one of this romantic naturalist, that in his preface he wrote the following about it:

“If I may venture to point out one subject on which I have bestowed more than usual pains, and which I myself regard with more than common interest, it is that of the last chapter in this volume. An amount of evidence is adduced for the existence of the sub-mythic monster popularly known as “the sea-serpent”, such as has never been brought together before, and such as ought almost to set doubt at rest. But the cloudy uncertainty which has invested the very being of this creature; its home on the lone ocean; the fitful way in which it is seen and lost in its vast solitudes; its dimensions, vaguely gigantic; its dragon-like form; and the possibility of its association with beings considered to be lost in an obsolete antiquity;--all these are attributes which render it peculiarly precious to a romantic naturalist. I hope the statisticians will forgive me if they cannot see it with my spectacles.”

His chapter on the sea-serpent will also be read with great interest. But there are several facts which he seems not to have been able to explain. In describing the animal, seen near Cape Ann, 1817, he writes: “no appearance of mane was seen by any”, without giving any explanation; he has evidently underlined these words to draw the readers’ attention to this evidence, which is so quite contradictory to others, mentioned before and afterwards. On the same page (p. 284) when repeating the expression of one of the eye-witnesses “the mode of progression was like that of a caterpillar”, Mr. Gosse inserts his opinion in the following terms: “probably a looping or geometric caterpillar”. Now my readers will be at one with me, that the motion of the geometric caterpillar is the last with which that of the sea-serpent can be compared! The rapid motion of a common caterpillar of some butterfly, when tickled on its back part, will give the best idea.

The writer further tries to throw discredit on reports of Americans. He says (p. 287):

“Though the position and character of some of these witnesses add weight to their testimony, and seem to preclude the possibility of their being either deceived or deceivers, on a matter which depended on the use of their eyes, yet, owing to a habit prevalent in the United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we do naturally look with a lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe unusual or disputed phenomena.”

I, however, am of the contrary opinion, and may turn his words in the following way: Though we generally and naturally look with a lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe unusual or disputed phenomena, owing to a habit prevalent in the United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we are bound to admit all that is stated by such persons of unimpeachable character as Col. PERKINS and others, whose testimonies we have inserted in our papers. They evidently communicated what they saw, without any exaggeration and without any tendency to crack a joke or to hoax.

Again p. 318 of his work, after having treated of only a few of the different reports, that had come in up to his days (1860) Mr. GOSSE goes on in the following terms:

“A large mass of evidence has been accumulated; and I now set myself to examine it. In so doing, I shall eliminate from the inquiry all the testimony of Norwegian eye-witnesses, that obtained in Massachusetts in 1817, and various statements made by French and American captains since. Confining myself to English witnesses of known character and position, most of them being officers under the Crown, I have adduced the following testimonies.”

Here again I must point out that there is not a single reason to exclude all testimonies not coming from British navigators. With such reasoning Mr. GOSSE makes himself ridiculous in the eyes of all reasonable persons of his own and of other nations! That it is wrong to exclude reports, because they are of Americans or Norwegians, the reader himself will be ready to admit, I think, after having read the different reports mentioned in this volume.

“The following testimonies” now, alluded to by Mr. GOSSE, are:

“1. That of five British officers, who saw the animal at Halifax, N. S., in 1833” (n^o. 97).

“2. That of Captain M’Quhae and his officers, who saw it from the Daedalus in 1848,” (n^o. 118).

“3. That of Captain Beechy, who saw something similar from the Blossom” (n^o. 104).

“4. That of Mr. Morries Stirling, who saw it in a Norwegian fjord” (n^o. 113).

“5. That of Mr. Davidson, who saw it from the Royal Saxon, in 1829” (n^o. 93).

“6. That of Captain Steele and others, who saw it from the Barham, in 1852.” (See our Chapter on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, 1852, August 28).

“7. That of Captain Harrington and his officers, who saw it from the Castilian, 1857” (n^o. 131).

To our great astonishment Mr. Gosse also alludes to n^o. 6: That of Captain STEELE, who saw it from the Barham, in 1852. Some pages before, Mr. Gosse himself throws great doubt on this report, believing that the animal seen by Captain STEELE and his officers was a scabbard-fish, (the reader, I hope, will take the trouble to look up the report of 1852, August 28, in my Chapter on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, to read there again Mr. GOSSE’S own opinion of this report), and now he uses this report amongst others to examine to which of the recognized classes of created beings this rover of the ocean can be referred!

Now Mr. GOSSE passes to this inquiry: first, he asks, is it an animal at all? And he comes to the conclusions that this must be so, for else the being could not move with that astonishing rapidity. Further he examines the sea-weed hypothesis, the seal-hypothesis, &c., and winds up with: “my own confident persuasion, that there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the fossil Enaliosauria of the lias.”

All the above-mentioned views will be considered in Chapter V.

To our great surprise we see that Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the Zoologist, who ever was a warm defender of the sea-serpent, and like Mr. GOSSE firmly believed that there are still living Plesiosauri, is of another opinion in 1860. In this year, a very large riband fish was captured on the Bermuda Isles. Three descriptions of this fish appeared in the Zoologist (p. 6934, p. 6986, p. 6989), the last by Mr. NEWMAN himself, who, thinking that it was a new species, gave it the name of Regalecus Jonesii. The second description was by Mr. JONES, the naturalist on the Bermudas, at whose deposal the fish was placed by Mr. TRIMINGHAM, the captor. Mr. JONES, after his description, points out some striking peculiarities, which this riband-fish and the sea-serpent seen by captain M’QUHAE, had in common, and concludes that a part of the reports of the great sea-serpent must have been caused by the appearance of riband fishes. Now, Mr. NEWMAN, after the description of his new species Regalecus Jonesii, as I have already said, seems to waver in his opinion, for he adds:

“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. JONES, the similarity of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent, I do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published in the “Zoologist.”

* * * * *

=133=, =134=.--1861? August.--(Zoologist, 1862, p. 7850).--

“On a Sunday afternoon, in the middle of August, above a hundred persons, at that time in and about the hotel, were called on to observe an extraordinary appearance in the sea, at no great distance from the shore. Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, and showing all the common symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some wicked enemy. I had already more than once remarked this appearance from the rocks, but in a minor degree; and on these occasions I could always distinguish the shark, whose ravages among the “manhaidens” was the cause of such alarm. But the particular case in question was far different from those. The pursuer of the fugiting shoals soon became visible; and that it was a huge marine monster, stretching to a length quite beyond the dimensions of an ordinary fish, was evident to all observers. No one, in short, had any doubt as to its being the sea-serpent, or one of the species to which the animal or animals so frequently before seen belonged. The distance at which this one was, for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, visible, made it impossible to give a description of its apparent dimensions so accurate as to carry conviction to the sceptical. For us who witnessed it, it was enough to be convinced that the thing was a reality. But one of the spectators, Dr. Amos Binney, a gentleman of scientific attainments, drew up a minute account of it, which is deposited in the archives of one of the Philosophical Societies of Boston. I was and am quite satisfied that on this occasion I had a partial and indistinct but positive view of this celebrated nondescript; but had the least doubt rested on my mind it would have been entirely removed by the event of the day following the one just recorded. On that day, a little before noon, my wife was sitting, as was her wont, reading on the upper piazza of the hotel. She was alone. The gentlemen, including myself and my son, were, as usual, absent at Boston, and the ladies were scattered in various directions. She was startled by a cry from the house of “The sea-serpent! the sea-serpent!” But this had been so frequent, by the way of joke, since the event of the preceding day, and was so like “The wolf! the wolf!” of the fable, that it did not attract her particular attention for a moment or two, until she observed two women belonging to the family of the hotel keeper running along the piazza towards the corner nearest the sea, with wonder in their eyes, and the cry of “The serpent! the serpent! he is turning! he is turning!” spontaneously bursting from their lips. Then my wife did fix her looks in the direction they ran; and sure enough she saw, apparently quite close beyond the line formed by the rising ground above the rocks, a huge serpent, gliding gracefully through the waves, having evidently performed the action of turning round. In an instant it was in a straight line, moving rapidly on; and after coasting for a couple of minutes the north west front of the hotel, and (as accurately as the astonished observer could calculate) looking as it stretched at full-length about the length of the piazza,--that is to say, about ninety feet,--it sank quietly beneath the surface, and was seen no more. The person who was thus so lucky as to get this unobstructed view is one so little liable to be led astray by any imaginary impulse, that I may reckon on her statement with entirely as much confidence as if my own eyes had demonstrated its truth.”--Grattan’s Civilized America, p. 39.--

Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the Zoologist, ought to have mentioned the writer of the article, the date of it and the locality where the appearance took place. It was most probably Nahant, the well known watering place near Lynn, Mass. I have had no opportunity to consult GRATTAN’s Civilized America, therefore I have placed the note of interrogation after the above-mentioned year.

In this report only a few words are devoted to the description of the animal, yet the description itself is given as well as possible by the lady who saw it from the upper piazza of the hotel.

* * * * *

=135=.--1863, May 16th.--(Zoologist, 1863, p. 8727).

“The following is a copy of a letter from an officer of the African mail steamer Athenian, addressed to a gentleman in this town:--“African Royal Mail Screw Steamer Athenian, Cape Palmas, May, 16, 1863.--My dear Sir,--All doubts may now be set at rest about the great sea-serpent. On the 6th. of May the African Royal Mail Steam Ship Athenian on her passage from Teneriffe to Bathurst, fell in with one. At about 7 a. m. John Chapple, quartermaster, at the wheel, saw something floating towards the ship. He called the attention of the Rev. Mr. Smith and another passenger, who were on deck at the time, to it. On nearing the steamer it was discovered to be a large snake about 100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the body slightly under. On its head was something like a mane or sea-weed. The body was about the size of our mainmast. You are at liberty to publish this.”

The reader will observe that this too is a very insignificant description, but it mentions one of the very few cases that the tail of the animal was visible above the surface of the water.

The same report was published in the Illustrated London News of 1863, June, 13.--

* * * * *

=136=.--1871.--(G. VERSCHUUR, Eene reis om de wereld in vier honderd tachtig dagen).--After an appearance of a would-be sea-serpent on board the Grenada, which caused a dispute between those who saw it and those who were not so fortunate,

“the second officer, who joined in the quarrel, declared to have seen in 1871, near the coast of Australia a sea-serpent, which was several meters in length.”

* * * * *

=137=, =138=, =139=, =140=.--1872, August 20th., 21st., 23d. and 24th.--In the Zoologist of May 1873, p. 3517, the following statements of high respectable gentlemen are published.

“Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the Norwegian Sea-Serpent, on the Western Coast of Scotland, in August, 1872. By the Rev. John Macrae, Minister of Glenelg, Invernesshire, and the Rev. David Twopeny, Vicar of Stockbury, Kent.”

“On the 20th. of August, 1872, we started from Glenelg in a small cutter, “the Leda”, for an excursion to Lochourn. Our party consisted, besides ourselves, of two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman G. B., and a Highland lad. Our course lay down the Sound of Sleat, which on that side divides the Isle of Skye from the mainland, the average of breadth of the Channel in that part being two miles. It was calm and sunshiny, not a breath of air, and the sea perfectly smooth. As we were getting the cutter along with oars we perceived a dark mass about two hundred yards astern of us, to the north. While we were looking at it with our glasses (we had three on board) another similar black lump rose to the left of the first, leaving an interval between; then an other and an other followed, all in regular order. We did not doubt its being one living creature: it moved slowly across our wake, and disappeared. Presently the first mass, which was evidently the head, reappeared, and was followed by the rising of the other black lumps, as before. Sometimes three appeared, sometimes four, five, or six, and then sank again. When they rose, the head appeared first, if it had been down, and the lumps rose after it in regular order, beginning always with that, next the head, and rising gently; but when they sank, they sank all together, rather abruptly, sometimes leaving the head visible. It gave the impression of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself. There was no appearance of undulation: when the lumps sank, other lumps did not rise in the intervals between them. The greatest number we counted was seven, making eight with the head, as shown in the sketch N^o. 1. The parts were separated from each other by intervals of about their own length, the head being rather smaller and flatter than the rest, and the nose being very slightly visible above the water; but we did not see the head raised above the surface either this or the next day, nor could we see the eye. We had no means of measuring the length with any accuracy, but taking the distance from the centre of one lump to the centre of the next to be six feet, and it could scarcely be less, the whole length of the portion visible, including the intervals submerged, would be forty-five feet.”

“Presently, as we were watching the creature, it began to approach us rapidly, causing a great agitation in the sea. Nearly the whole of the body, if not all of it, had now disappeared, and the head advanced at a great rate in the midst of a shower of fine spray, which was evidently raised in some way by the quick movement of the animal--it did not appear how,--and not by spouting. F. was alarmed and retreated to the cabin, crying out that the creature was coming down upon us. When within about a hundred yards of us it sank and moved away in the direction of Skye, just under the surface of the water, for we could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea to the distance of a mile or more. After this it continued at intervals to show itself, careering about at a distance, as long as we were in that part of the Sound, the head and a small part only of the body being visible on the surface; but we did not again on that day see it so near nor so well as at first. At one time F. and K. and G. B. saw a fin striking up at a little distance back from the head, but neither of us were then observing.”

“On our return the next day we were again becalmed on the north side of the opening of Lochourn, where it is about three miles wide, the day warm and sunshiny as before. As we were dragging slowly along in the afternoon the creature again appeared over towards the south side, at a greater distance than we saw it the first day. It now showed itself in three or four rather long lines, as in the sketch N^o 2, and looked considerably longer than it did the day before: as nearly as we could compute, it looked at least sixty feet in length. Soon it began careering about, showing but a small part of itself, as on the day before, and appeared to be going up Lochourn. Later in the afternoon, when we were still becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, and by using the oars had nearly reached the Island of Sandaig, it came rushing past us about a hundred and fifty yards to the south, on its return from Lochourn. It went with great rapidity, its black head only being visible through the clear sea, followed by a long trail of agitated water. As it shot along, the noise of its rush through the water could be distinctly heard on board. There were no organs of motion to be seen, nor was there any shower of spray as on the day before, but nearly such a commotion in the sea as its quick passage might be expected to make. Its progress was equable and smooth, like that of a log towed rapidly. For the rest of the day, as we worked our way home northwards through the Sound of Sleat, it was occasionally within sight of us until night fall, rushing about at a distance, as before, and showing only its head and a small part of its body on the surface. It seemed on each day to keep about us, and as we were always then rowing, we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured sound of the oars. Its only exit in this direction to the north was by the narrow Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland, and only a third of a mile wide, and we left our boat, wondering whether the strange creature had gone that way or turned back again to the south.”--

“We have only to add to this narration of what we saw ourselves the following instances of its being seen by other people, of the correctness of which we have no doubt:

“The ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea saw it pass rapidly through on the evening of the 21st., and heard the rush of the water: they were surprised, and thought it might be a shoal of porpoises, but could not comprehend their going so quickly.”

“Finlay Macrae, of Bundaloch, in the parish of Kintail, was within the mouth of Lochourn on the 21st., with other men in his boat, and saw the creature at about the distance of one hundred and fifty yards.”

“Two days after we saw it, Alexander Macmillan, boat-builder at Dornie, was fishing in a boat in the entrance of Lochduich, halfway between Druidag and Castledonan, when he saw the animal near enough to hear the noise and see the ripple it made in rushing along in the sea. He says, that what seemed its head was followed by four or more lumps, or “half-rounds”, as he calls them, and that they sometimes rose and sometimes sank all together. He estimated its length as not less than sixty and eighty feet. He saw it also in two subsequent days in Lochduich. On all these occasions his brother Farquhar was with him in the boat, and they were both much alarmed and pulled to the shore in great haste.”

“A lady at Duisdale, in Skye, a place overlooking the part of the Sound which is opposite the opening of Lochourn said that she was looking out for the glass when she saw a strange object on the sea which appeared like eight seals in a row. This was just about the time we saw it.”

“We were also informed that about the same time it was seen from the island of Eigg, between Eigg and the mainland about twenty miles to the south-west of the opening of Lochourn.”

“We have not permission to mention the names in these two last instances.”

“John Macrae”

“David Twopeny”

“P. S. The writers of the above account scarcely expect the public to believe in the existence of the creature which they saw. Rather than that, they look for the disbelief and ridicule to which the subject always gives rise, partly on account of the animal having been pronounced to be a snake, without any sufficient evidence, but principally because of the exaggerations and fables with which the whole subject is beset. Nevertheless they consider themselves bound to leave a record of what they saw, in order that naturalists may receive it as a piece of evidence, or not, according to what they think it is worth. The animal will very probably turn up on these coasts again, and it will be always in that “dead season”, so convenient to editors of newspapers, for it is never seen but in the still warm days of summer or early autumn. There is a considerable probability that it has visited the same coasts before. In the summer of 1871 some large creature was seen for some time rushing about in Lochduich, but it did not show itself sufficiently for any one to ascertain what it was. Also some years back a well-known gentleman of the west coast, now living, was crossing the Sound of Mull, from Mull to the mainland, “on a very calm afternoon, when”, as he writes, “our attention was attracted to a monster which had come to the surface not more than fifty yards to our boat. It rose without causing the slightest disturbance of the sea, or making the slightest noise, and floated for some time on the surface, but without exhibiting its head or tail, showing only the ridge of the back, which was not that of a whale, or any other sea-animal that I had ever seen. The back appeared sharp and ridgelike, and in colour very dark, indeed black, or almost so. It rested quietly for a few minutes, and then dropped quietly down into the deep, without causing the slightest agitation. I should say that above forty feet of it, certainly not less, appeared on the surface.” It should be noticed that the inhabitants of that western coast are quite familiar with the appearance of whales, seals and porpoises, and when they see them, they recognize them at once. Whether the creature which pursued Mr. Maclean’s boat off the Island of Coll in 1808, and of which there is an account in the Transactions of the Wernerian Society (Vol. I, p. 442), was one of these Norwegian animals, it is not easy to say. Survivors who knew Mr. Maclean say that he could quite be relied upon for truth.”

“The public are not likely to believe in the creature till it is caught, and that does not seem likely to happen just yet, for a variety of reasons,--one reason being that it has, from all the accounts given of it, the power of moving very rapidly. On the 20th., while we were becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, a steam launch slowly passed us, and, as we watched it, we reckoned its rate at five or six miles an hour. When the animal rushed past us on the next day at about the same distance, and when we were again becalmed nearly in the same place, we agreed that it went quite twice as fast as the steamer, and we thought that its rate could not be less then ten or twelve miles an hour. It might be shot but would probably sink. There are three accounts of its being shot at in Norway; in one instance it sank, and in the other two it pursued the boats, which were near the shore, but disappeared when it found itself getting into shallow water.”

“It should be mentioned that when we saw this creature and made our sketches of it, we had never seen Pontoppidan’s “Natural History”, or his print of the Norwegian sea-serpent, which has a most striking resemblance to the first of our own sketches. Considering the great body of reasonable Norwegian evidence, extending through a number of years, which remains after setting aside fables and exaggerations, it seems surprising that no naturalist of that country has ever applied himself to make out something about the animal. In the meantime, as the public will most probably be dubious about quickly giving credit to our account, the following explanations are open to them, all of which have been proposed to me, viz:--porpoises, lumps of sea-weed, empty herring-barrels, bladders, logs of wood, waves of the sea, and inflated pig-skins; but as all these theories present to our minds greater difficulties than the existence of the animal itself, we feel obliged to decline them.”

“D. Twopeny.”

We observe at a glance that the figures show nearly exactly the same outlines as the figure of Mr. BENSTRUP (fig. 24). The reappearing and disappearing of the animal is well pictured and evidently recalls to my readers’ mind the “sinking down like a rock” of American reports. The reader will observe that the appearance took place nearly in the same locality as that of 1808, June (n^o. 31, 32). Moreover we need not add anything to the unvarnished reports. As to the appearances of the large creatures in 1871 and “some years back”, communicated in the post-scriptum, their descriptions, are too vague for me to see in them sea-serpents.--The fin striking up at a little distance from the head, of course, was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.--

* * * * *

Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, who first was a firm believer in the sea-serpent, and expressed his opinion that it might be a still living Plesiosaurus or an animal closely allied to it, and who afterwards evidently wavered in his opinion, after his description of the Regalecus Jonesii, a ribband-fish, (see above p. 319), now suddenly adds to the evidences of the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. DAVID TWOPENY, the following note:

“I have long since expressed my firm conviction that there exists a large marine animal unknown to us naturalists; I maintain this belief as firmly as ever. I totally reject the evidence of published representations; but do not allow their imaginary figures to interfere with a firm conviction, although I admit their tendency is always in that direction: the figures and exaggerated descriptions of believers are far more damaging to a faith in such an animal than the arguments, the ridicule on the explanatory guesses of unbelievers. The guess that a little seal was magnified by Captain M’Quhae into a monster several hundred feet in length is simply incredible: we smile at the conceit, and that is all.”

So he is again converted into a firm believer, but he does not now express any supposition as to the kind of animal that it may be.

* * * * *

=141=, =142=, =143=.--1873, November 16?, 17?, 18?--I have not been able to get a sight at the Times of Nov. 20th. of this year, but I have found an extract from an account in it, in the Zoologist of December of that year, p. 3804, running as follows:

“Mr. Joass, an eye-witness, writing in the Times of November 20, says, “the ears seemed to be diaphanous and nearly semicircular flaps or valves over-arching the nostrils, which were in front. The cavity of the eye appeared to be considerably further back, and a peculiar glimmer in it, along with the sudden disappearance of the creature, presented, indeed, the only signs of its vitality, as far as I could see, while I watched it for half an hour, apparently drifting with the rising tide, but always keeping about the same distance off shore ..... Dr. Soutar and I are more or less familiar with the forms of the porpoise, seal, halibut, conger, and even shark, both in and out of the water.”

In the same journal and on the same page we read the following “Extract from a letter from Mr. Joass, of Golspie, to the Rev. John Macrae, of Glenelg:”

“On Thuesday afternoon last, lady Florence Leveson Gower and the Hon. Mrs. Coke, driving near the sea, about eight miles east from Dunrobin, saw what seemed to them a large and long marine animal; on Wednesday morning Dr. Soutar, of Golspie, saw a large creature rushing about in the sea. about fifty yards from shore: it frequently raised what seemed a neck seven feet out of the water, and from the length of troubled water behind it appeared to be fifty or sixty feet long. He said to his family on meeting them at breakfast, “If I believed in sea-serpents, I should say I had seen one this morning”. I may mention that this gentleman is a most trustworthy observer and cautious man. On Thursday I saw what seemed some drift sea-weed. When your report was published Dr. Tayler, the author of “Thanatophidia of India” was at the castle; I asked him what he thought of the matter, and he said he was quite prepared to believe in such a monster. Mr. Vernon Harcourt told me that he was in a small yacht off Glenelg on the evening of the day mentioned in your report, and about six miles from the locality and that he and his crew saw what seemed a great moving mass, which, but for some engagement or the lateness of the hour, they would have examined.”

It is evident that the greater part of the account of the Times is not reprinted in the Zoologist.

The above given descriptions are poor, giving no approximative measurements of the diameter of the neck, &c.

This is the only appearance of the animal on the eastern coasts of Great Britain!

Again I am obliged to express my astonishment that Mr. NEWMAN does not mention any date, neither of the appearances, nor of Mr. JOASS’ letter.

* * * * *

=144=.--1875, July 8.--In the Illustrated London News of November 20th., 1875, appeared the following engraving and account:

“Our Engraving is an exact representation of a sketch we have received, with the following letter from the Rev. E. L. Penny, M. A., Chaplain to H. M. S. London, at Zanzibar, Oct. 21:--

“I send you herewith a sketch of the great sea-serpent attacking a spermwhale, which I have made from the descriptions of the captain and crew of the barque Pauline, and they have, after careful examination, pronounced it to be correct. The whale should have been placed deeper in the water, but I should then have been unable to depict so clearly the manner in which the animal was attacked.”

“Captain Drevar, of the barque Pauline, bound with coals for her Majesty’s naval stores at Zanzibar, when in lat. 5 deg. 13 min. S., long. 35 deg. W., on July 8 last, observed three very large sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round the body, with two turns, by what appeared to be a huge serpent. Its back was of a darkish brown and its belly white, with an immense head and mouth, the latter always open; the head and tail had a length beyond the coils about 30 ft.; its girth was about 8 ft. or 9 ft. Using its extremities as levers, the serpent whirled its victim round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale down to the bottom, head first. The other two whales, after attempting to release their companion, swam away upon its descent, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror.”

“On July 13 this or another sea-serpent was again seen, about 200 yards off the stern of the vessel, shooting itself along the surface, 40 ft. of its body being out of the water at a time. Again, on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of 60 ft. This time it seemed as if determined to attack the vessel, and the crew and officers armed themselves with axes for self defence.”

“Captain Drevar is a singularly able and observant man, and those of the crew and officers with whom I conversed were singularly intelligent; nor did any of their descriptions vary from one another in the least--there were no discrepancies.”

This report translated into German appeared in the Illustrirte Zeitung of Dec. 4th. 1875.

We observe that the so-called fight between the sea-serpent and the spermwhale took place in 5° 13′ S. lat., 35° W. long, i. e. near Cape San Roque (Eastern coast of Brazil), and that the barque Pauline on October 21 of that year was at Zanzibar, laden with coals. The reports were evidently copied from the Captain’s journal or log-book, and the figure was drawn by the Rev. E. L. PENNY, at Zanzibar. The barque did not return directly to England, but steered for Akyab (British Burmah); from where she sailed home, for we read in the Illustrated London News of January 13, 1877 (p. 35, third column):

“The great sea-serpent will not be ignored. He has now appeared, by affidavit, in a police court. The captain and crew of a vessel called the Pauline which has arrived in the Mersey from Akyab, report that in July, 1875, off Cape San Roque, on the north-east coast of Brazil, they saw the great sea-serpent. On Thuesday, the captain, whose name is Drevar, appeared before the stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool, Mr. Raffles, and expressed a wish, on his own behalf and that of his crew, to make a declaration affirming the truth of their statements respecting the serpent. Mr. Raffles desired Captain Drevar to prepare a written declaration and bring it before him. This captain Drevar did, on Wednesday, accompanied by a number of his crew. The declaration is to the effect that he and others on board the Pauline, on July 8, 1875, while in latitude 5 deg. 13 min. S., longitude 35 deg. W., observed three large spermwhales, one of which was gripped round the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. The head and tail appeared to have a length, beyond the coils, of about thirty feet, and the girth seemed to be eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the bottom head first. Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen about 200 yards off the Pauline, shooting itself along the surface, its head and neck being several feet out of the water. Subsequently the head of the animal was shot sixty feet into the air. The declaration was signed by Captain Drevar, Horatio Thompson (chief officer), John Henderson Landells (second officer), William Lewarn (steward) and Owen Baker (seaman).

1 am so fortunate as to be able to communicate the account as it appeared in the newspapers of the 10th. and 11th. of January, 1877. I have found it in ANDREW WILSON’s Leisure Time Studies:

“The story of the mate and crew of the barque Pauline, of London, said to have arrived in port from a twenty months’ voyage to Akyab,--about having seen “a sea-serpent” while on a voyage in the Indian seas, was declared to on oath before Mr. Raffles, the stipendiary magistrate, at the Liverpool Police-Court. The affidavit was made in consequence of the doubtfullness with which anything about the “sea-serpent” has hitherto been received; and to show the genuine character of the story it has been placed judicially on record. The following is a copy of the declaration, which will be regarded as unprecedented in its way:--

“BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL, IN THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER, TO WIT.

“We, the undersigned, captain, officers, and crew of the barque Pauline (of London), of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly and sincerely declare that on July 8, 1875, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long 35° W., we observed three large sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. The head and tail appeared to have a length beyond the coils of about thirty feet, and its girth eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the bottom, head first”.

GEORGE DREVAR, Master.

HORATIO THOMPSON.

JOHN HENDERSON LANDELLS.

OWEN BAKER.

WM. LEWARN.

Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen about two hundred yards off, shooting itself along the surface, the head and neck being out of the water several feet. This was seen only by the captain and one ordinary seaman, whose signatures are affixed.”

GEORGE DREVAR, Master.

OWEN BAKER.

“A few moments after it was seen elevated some sixty feet perpendicularly in the air by the chief officer and the following able seamen, whose signatures are also affixed.”

HORATIO THOMPSON.

WILLIAM LEWARN.

OWEN BAKER.

“And we make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made and passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty, entitled “An Act to repeal an Act of the present Session of Parliament, entitled an Act for the more effectual abolition of oath and affirmations, taken and made in various departments of the State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof, and for the more entire suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths and affidavits, and to make other provisions for the abolition of unnecessary oaths.” Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid the tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven.”

GEORGE DREVAR, Master.

WILLIAM LEWARN, Steward.

HORATIO THOMPSON, Chief Officer.

J. H. LANDELLS, Second Officer.

OWEN BAKER.

“Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid, the tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, before T. S. Raffles, J. P. for Liverpool.”

In Nature of February 10th., 1881, we read that “Captain Drevar has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck out of the water.”

Evidently this circular was a letter addressed by Captain DREVAR, when in Chittagong (Bengal), to the Editor of the Calcutta Englishman, in January, 1876. I have had no opportunity to consult this paper, but I have found an extract from it in the Graphic of January 27, 1877, and a partial translation of it in the Illustrirte Zeitung of Febr. 3, 1877. What I have found in the Graphic runs as follows:

“Captain GEORGE DREVAR, master of the barque Pauline, has furnished us a sketch of the Sea-Serpent (from which the annexed engraving is taken), which he encountered off the coast of South America. The occurrence took place on the 8th. July, 1875, at eleven A. M., the Pauline being at that time off Cape San Roque, lat. 5° 13′ N., long 35° W., the north-east coast of Brazil being twenty miles distant. Captain Drevar says:--The weather fine and clear, wind and sea-moderate. Observed some black spots on the water, and a whitish pillar, about thirty feet high above them. At the first glace I took all to be breakers as the sea was splashing up fountain-like about them, and the pillar a pinnacle rock, bleached with the sun; but the pillar fell with a splash, and a similar one rose. They rose and fell alternately in quick succession, and good glasses showed me it was a monstrous sea-serpent coiled twice round a large sperm-whale. The head and tail parts, each about thirty feet long were acting as levers, twisting itself and victim round with great velocity. They sank out of sight about every two minutes, coming to the surface still revolving; and the struggles of the whale and two other whales, that were near, frantic with excitement, made the sea in their vicinity like a boiling cauldron; and a loud and confused noise was distinctly heard. This strange occurrence last some fifteen minutes, and finished with the tail portion of the whale being elevated straight in the air, then waving backwards and forwards, and lashing the water furiously in the last death struggle, when the body disappeared from our view, going down head foremost to the bottom, where no doubt it was gorged at the serpent’s leisure; and that monster of monsters may have been many months in a state of coma, digesting the huge mouthful. Then two of the largest sperm-whales that I have ever seen moved slowly thence towards the vessel, their bodies more than usually elevated out of water, and not spouting or making the least noise, but seeming quite paralized with fear; indeed, a cold shiver went through my own frame on beholding the last agonizing struggle of the poor whale that had seemed as helpless in the coils of the vicious monster as a small bird in the talons of a hawk. Allowing for two coils round the whale, I think the serpent was about 160 or 170 feet long, and 7 or 8 feet in girth. It was in colour much like a conger-eel; and the head, from the mouth being always open, appeared the largest part of its body. I wrote thus far, little thinking I would ever see the serpent again, but at seven A. M., July 13, in the same latitude, and some eighty miles east of San Roque I was astonished to see the same or a similar monster. It was throwing its head and about 40 feet of its body in a horizontal position out of water as it passed onwards by the stern of our vessel.”

“This narrative is extracted from a letter addressed from Chittagong to the editor of the Calcutta Englishman in January 1876. It seems that Captain Drevar’s friends advised him to say nothing about this strange spectacle. “My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote that she pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the sea-serpent.” On the 10th. of this month Captain Drevar and four of the crew attended before Mr. Raffles, the magistrate at Liverpool, and made a solemn declaration in support of the foregoing narrative.”

The two figures, 42 and 43, are facsimiles of those accompanying the account in the Graphic.

I will try to translate again into English, what the Illustrirte Zeitung has published about this curious case, taken for granted that the German translation was correct, and laying all responsibility on the German writer.

“The Barque Pauline was on July 8th, 1875, about twenty miles distant from the north-eastern coast of Brazil, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long. 35° W., near Cape San Roque. At 11 o’clock a. m., the weather fine and clear”....... etc., word for word as in the Graphic up to the passage....... “head foremost to the bottom, where no doubt it was gorged at the serpent’s leisure”.

“As the serpent was twice wound round the body of the whale, Captain Drevar estimated its length to be 160 or 170 feet; it was about seven or eight in girth. The mouth was always open; the head was very large.”

“On the 13th. of July at 7 o’clock a. m. the barque was still in the same latitude, but about eighty miles from San Roque; then the same or a similar monster raised out of the water. Its head and about forty feet of its body were thrown horizontally out of the water and passed our stern.”

“As I was still reflecting on the cause, why this strange guest so often paid us a visit, and concluded that it was the white stripe of two feet breadth, which went round our ship above the copper work and which the serpent probably thought to be one of its colleagues, the cry of “There he is again” roused me. At a short distance from the ship I really saw the Leviathan, balancing about sixty feet high in the air, looking angrily at our vessel. As I was not sure, whether it was only looking at the white stripe on the ship’s hull, probably thinking to see one of its colleagues, or whether it was preparing to attack the vessel, we kept ready all our axes, to give it a warm reception. But the animal dived and disappeared.”

The German translater is convinced that the story contains truth, but he suggests that the whale was playing with a large tree or with a broken mast, “for it is known that whales like to gambol with violent motions”. The author further presents to his readers a reduced copy of the sketch of the Rev. Penny, (our fig. 41).--

Mr. LEE, who usually explains every sea-serpent after each report quoted by him, says, in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, p. 90, the following about these reports.

“It is impossible to doubt for a moment the genuineness of the statement made by Captain Drevar and his crew, or their honest desire to describe faithfully that which they believed they had seen; but the height to which the snake is said to have upreared itself is evidently greatly exaggerated; for it is impossible that any serpent could “elevate its body some sixty feet perpendicularly in the air”--nearly one third of the height of the Monument of the Great Fire of London. I have no desire to force this narrative of the master and crew of the Pauline into conformity with any preconceived idea. They may have seen a veritable sea-serpent; or they may have witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen the great creatures rolling over and over that they might breathe alternately by the blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the water; or the supposed coils of the snake may have been the arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean. The other two appearances--1st., the animal “seen shooting itself along the surface with head and neck raised”, and 2nd., the elevation of the body to a considerable height, as in Egede’s sea monster, would certainly accord with this last hypothesis; but taking the statement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation”.

It is remarkable that Mr. LEE who generally explains sea-serpents by calamaries, cannot give an explanation of this sea-serpent, with which he himself is satisfied. “They may have seen a veritable sea-serpent”. This phrase is very surprising, for Mr. LEE has not yet explained what is a veritable sea-serpent. Or did he mean a veritable sea-snake? This is improbable, for he knows very well that the largest snake which frequents the sea, the Eunectes murina, does not measure above 25 feet, so that it is not able to encircle a spermwhale, whose circumference is about forty feet. “Or they may have witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen the great creatures rolling over and over that they might breathe alternately by the blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the water”. This phrase, however, does not give any explanation of the long neck, the tail, the mouth being constantly open, the thick coils, which were coloured longitudinally, partly black, partly white, so that the captain spoke of a black back and a white belly!” “Or the supposed coils of the snake may have been the arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean.” This too is impossible, for the circumference of the serpent was estimated at seven or eight feet, and no arm of a calamary has a greater circumference than about sixteen inches, even that of the largest known specimens, which have a total length of eighty feet! For a moment I will leave Mr. LEE in his supposition that the animal, seen on the 13th. of July, was a swimming calamary or a similar individual standing upright with its tail in the air, and pass to his last phrase: “but, taking the statement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation”. This, now, I will try to do. But first I beg the reader to direct his attention to the sperm-whales.

The sperm-whales may attain a length of 60 to 70 feet, with a circumference of 40 feet at the thickest part. The females are smaller, growing from 30 to 40 feet. It is reported that sometimes, though very seldom, a male measures 90 feet. The head occupies the third part of the body-length, in mass, however, it is larger, for it is quadrangular in shape and in front just as thick and high as behind, whilst the bulky body tapers to the tail. The mouth lies wholly on the under side of the head. It is a terrible cavity when opened and may be up to fourteen feet in depth. The upper-jaw is toothless, but the under-jaw has from forty to fifty four formidable teeth, comparatively as sharp as the canines of a dog.

The sperm-whales live in troops, numbering from a very few to some hundreds, and containing many females and young ones, under the command of some old males. The young males remain in this family till they are strong enough to command their own family. Some old males wander about solitary, wild and angry. To become the sole proprietor of some females, these males fight each other vehemently, and indescribably grand is the sight of two troops meeting! The wild and warlike nature and the untamable muscular strength of the sperm-whale makes its presence even dangerous. The greatest hatred exists between them and the whale-bone-whales, or the fin-fishes, or rorquals, and when a shoal of sperm-whales meets with a shoal of whale-bone-whales, the latter are immediately attacked with the greatest fury and cruelty. The fight between two such squadrons is terrible, but grand, and commonly ends in the flight of the whale-bone-whales, pursued by the sperm-whales, not, however, without leaving many dead and terribly wounded companions, on which the frightful effects are visible of the bites of the sperm-whales, animals that might be called “mouth and teeth”.

Knowing the wild and angry nature of the warlike and pitiless sperm-whale, and the rather harmless character of the sea-serpent, we cannot believe that a sea-serpent has ever or will ever attack such a formidable antagonist. Every one will rather believe that a sperm-whale, when meeting with a sea-serpent, would suddenly attack it. Moreover, if the sea-serpent was the attacker, it would not have had “its mouth always open”,--an unfailable sign of great pain--but would have bitten repeatedly the whale! And so I firmly believe that one of the three spermwhales, had seized with its colossal mouth a sea-serpent by the trunk. The poor defenseless sea-serpent with its enormous flexible body wound round the upper jaw and forepart of the quadrangular head of the sperm-whale. We know that the sea-serpent has a rather dorso-ventral flexibility, for it can swim in vertical undulations, but we know too that its lateral flexibility is astonishing. I refer to the American reports from 1817 to 1819, wherein the animal in turning bent its body in the form of a staple, so that its head nearly touched its tail, and to the figures of Dr. BICCARD (fig. 37, 38.).

The sea-serpent, seized by the sperm-whale by the trunk, did not bend itself dorsally round the spermwhale’s head, for if this had been the case, the captain would have seen the underpart of the animal and described its colour as being white. It did not bend itself ventrally, for if this had happened, the colour would have been described as dark, or black. On the contrary the coils are described as longitudinally divided into two sections white and black. Consequently the sea-serpent had bent itself laterally. Captain DREVAR was right in his statement that the colour of the belly (under part) was white, and that the back (upper part) of the animal was black.

The sea-serpent in its violent pain raised its long neck high in the air and extended its jaws; it is even probable that it uttered a roaring sound or shriek, this is not mentioned; it may have been drowned by the dreadful noise caused by the fight of these two huge monsters, for we may suppose that the sea-serpent was not destitute of muscular strength, and must have been a formidable antagonist. Though it is not mentioned, I am convinced that the “two turns” of the sea-serpent were not always wound closely round the whale, but from time to time were loosened to be tightened again a moment afterwards. Nor do I set great value on the repeated assertion that there were two turns; it is impossible that this has always been seen clearly through such a “boiling of the water like a cauldron”. The dimensions of the head and tail part being each about thirty feet beyond the coils are certainly not exaggerated, as is the circumference or girth “about eight or nine feet”. The sea-serpent in its agony evidently paddled with its formidable flappers, which caused the water to be thrown like a fountain into the air. They therefore cannot have been visible with the glasses. The rolling over and over is, in my opinion, very natural in animals of such dimension, fighting in the water, and cannot be a result of the serpent “using its extremities as levers”. And so they were rolling for about fifteen(?) minutes and at last the spermwhale (and not the sea-serpent) dragged its victim down to the depths, head foremost. It is a habit of spermwhales, which is to be ascribed to their attachment to members of their family and to their warlike character and hatred of their enemies, to help each other in danger, and so the captain’s statement is quite correct: “the two others attempted to release their companion” and after the disappearance of the combatants “swam away, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror”; here we may safely read “fury”, probably they followed on the surface their companion which was beneath it, perceptible to them, but invisible to the spectators of the Pauline.

It is, however, more probable that the sea-serpent, feeling itself free for a moment, suddenly escaped, dived and was followed by the sperm-whale.

It is now the right moment to say some words about the figures. I will be short, only observing that they are not worth our attention. The sketches were evidently drawn in October and December, consequently more than three and five months after the encounter. It is impossible that they can give an exact representation.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his Leisure Time Studies is of another opinion than I, as to the fight; for he declares: “..... to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the Pauline must be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons”. The reader will understand that I do not wish to contest Mr. WILSON’S opinion.

* * * * *

=145=.--1875, July 13.--Now we come to the second statement of the same report, viz. the encounter with the animal on the 13th. of July.

On that day another or the same individual was seen again shooting itself along the surface horizontally, forty feet of its body being out of the water at a time. Consequently the animal swam with its body in a straight line, and not with vertical undulations. Again on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite perpendicular some sixty feet in the air, and evidently taking a survey towards the vessel. This case is nearly the same as that which EGEDE witnessed in 1734 near Gothaab. As it is often reported that whales and sperm-whales, when coming from the depths, do so with such an astonishing force and rapidity that they leap clear out of the water, I am convinced that the sea-serpent sometimes elevates its fore part to a considerable height as was seen by EGEDE (n^o 5), Captain ADAMS (n^o 121) and Captain DREVAR. If the height of the sea-serpent rising in the air was really sixty feet, Captain DREVAR must have seen the animal’s fore-flappers, though he did not mention them. Else I think that he exaggerated, that the height did not surpass forty feet and that the flappers remained under water. See also N^o 31.--

* * * * *

=146=.--1876, September 11.--In the number of the 15th. of January, 1877, of the Echo appeared an article by Mr. R. A. PROCTOR entitled “Strange Sea-Monsters”, wherein he quotes the following report. I have not been able to consult the Echo, but I have found it cited in Mr. WILSON’S Leisure Time Studies. Here no date, except that of September 11th., is given, but as the report appeared in the January number of 1877 of the Echo, I conclude that the appearance took place in September of 1876.

“Soon after the British steamship Nestor anchored at Shanghai, last October, John K. Webster, the captain, and James Anderson, the ship’s surgeon, appeared before Mr. Donald Spence, Acting Law Secretary in the British Supreme Court, and made affidavit to the following effect:

“On September 11, at 10.30 a. m., fifteen miles north-west of North Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straights, the weather being fine and the sea smooth, the captain saw an object which had been pointed out by the third officer as “a shoal!” Surprised at finding a shoal in such a well-known track, I watched the object, and found that it was in motion, keeping up the same speed with the ship, and retaining about the same distance as first seen. The shape of the creature I would compare to that of a gigantic frog. The head, of a pale yellowish colour, was about twenty feet in length, and six feet of the crown were above the water. I tried in vain to make out the eyes and mouth; the mouth may, however, have been below water. The head was immediately connected with the body, without any indication of a neck. The body was about forty-five or fifty feet long, and of an oval shape, perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the spine. The back rose some five feet above the surface. An immense tail, fully one hundred and fifty feet in length, rose a few inches above the water. This tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to its extremity; it seemed cylindrical, with a very slight taper, and I estimate its diameter at four feet. The body and tail were marked with alternate bands of stripes, black and pale yellow in colour. The stripes were distinct to the very extremity of the tail. I cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin or not. The creature possessed no fins or paddles so far as we could perceive. I cannot say if it had legs. It appeared to progress by means of an undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down).

“Mr. Anderson, the surgeon, confirmed the captain’s account in all essential respects. He regarded the creature as an enormous marine salamander. “It was apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance. Though keeping up with us, at the rate of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic. I saw no legs or fins, and am certain that the creature did not blow or spout in the manner of a whale. I should not compare it for a moment to a snake. The only creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe.””

As the captain asserts that the animal kept up the same speed as the ship, and Mr. ANDERSON that “though keeping up with us, at the rate of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic”, we must conclude that the animal moved by paddling with its flappers, and that with this simple mechanism it is able to propel itself at a rate of ten knots an hour, steadily and uniformly. The tail of the animal, which trailed inactively behind the trunk, must of course have been brought in motion by the action of the water, so that it is easy to understand that the captain thought that “it appeared to progress by means of an undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down)”. It is also very natural that the captain declared that “the creature possessed no fins or paddles as far as we could perceive. I cannot say if it had legs”, and that the surgeon ANDERSON confirmed it: “I saw no fins”; the flappers of the animal being entirely hidden under water.--The captain says: “The shape of the creature I would compare to that of a gigantic frog”. According to his description, however, the shape might have been better compared with that of a gigantic newt. This is done by Mr. ANDERSON, as we have seen above, who says at the end of his statement, “the only creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe”; he “should not compare it for a moment to a snake”. This is one of the few reports of the animal having been observed swimming in full length on the surface of the water. This I think very comprehensible. Generally the animal is swimming with the head and a part of the neck raised some feet out of the water, and in this case the trunk and the tail must carry their weight, so that the trunk will be visible only a few inches above the water, and the tail hidden for a greater part under it. But as soon as the animal drops its neck and head so that only the upper part of both remain above the surface, their weight is carried by the water itself, and body and tail will become more visible, lying almost à fleur d’eau (to use Captain M’QUHAE’S term). I firmly believe that this is also one of the few occasions that the animal swam with its neck contracted. In this situation it is very difficult to decide whether the animal has a neck or not, and so the captain’s assertion “the head was immediately connected with the body, without any indication of a neck” is very conceivable. From the hind part of the head the contracted neck gradually grows thicker towards the shoulders, where the animal seems to have its largest diameter, and from here it tapers towards the hind flappers, so that seen from the ship, both neck and body, being visible only a few feet above the surface, must have given rise to the description of the captain “the body was of an oval shape”. Again the position was very favourable to observe the exact place where the tail begins, and that the animal has there its pelvis and hind flappers, so that, being there broader than at the tail-root, the captain observed “this tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to its extremity”. The colour of the head being described as a pale yellowish one, and that of the body and the tail alternately black and pale yellow, I conclude that the animal having swum for some time in this manner, had been partly dried up in the sun, while “catspaws” washing over it again coloured it black here and there. As to its length I am inclined to believe that Mr. Webster is mistaken. I cannot admit that “the head was twenty feet, and six feet of the crown were above the water”, nor can I set much value upon his assertion that the tail was “fully one hundred and fifty feet in length”. I willingly admit that the head measured eight or nine feet, and the tail about one hundred feet. As the animal swam just at the surface it is clear to me that no mouth was visible, and I think that even the nose tip will only have been a few inches above the water. As no eyes were seen, the distance must have been rather great; but this is not mentioned. The body was perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the spine. Probably this was the mane, not quite discernable on account of the distance. The tail is described as cylindrical, tapering to its end, and estimated at four feet in diameter (at its junction, evidently).--It is clear that the extreme end of the tail was under water, for Mr. WEBSTER “cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin or not”. As to the supposition of Mr. ANDERSON that the animal was “apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance”, I cannot attach much importance to this, as it is impossible to decide this of an animal swimming at some distance, even of a calamary. The body was smooth, and that’s all. That the creature did not blow or spout like a whale, is very natural, as there was evidently no reason for doing so, the nose being constantly above the surface, and the animal swimming without diving from time to time. A whale, sleeping on the surface, does not spout either, as in that case the spout-holes are above the surface, and the breathing is regular and without puffing. So I think I have shown that all the parts of the statement are correct, except the estimated length.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON relying upon the statement of Mr. ANDERSON, adds in a note:

“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel”.”

My objections against this supposition are first, that, as I have already stated above, it is impossible to decide whether an animal is gelatinous or flabby, until we have touched and handled it, and secondly, that the manner of swimming of a calamary is not so as Mr. WILSON believes; for the enormous arms of such a creature are not trailing behind the body, when it is swimming backwards, but are coiled up and retracted into two peculiar arm pockets; and thirdly, that the colour of a calamary does not correspond with the colour stated in the report, but is a very light grey one, mixed with red or crimson, intermixed with purple.

* * * * *

In the number of February 3d, 1877 of the Illustrirte Zeitung, an article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange” appeared, written by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain DREVAR, which appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January of that year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superficially treats of several already known accounts and reports of sea-serpents viz: our n^{os}. 144, 145, and 5, the tales of PONTOPPIDAN, the animal of Stronsa (p. 61-88), the appearances quoted by the Boston Linnaean Society (1817), our n^o. 118, the hoax of the Daphne (1848, Oct. 21), our n^{os}. 129 and 130, the cheat of Dr. KOCH (1845), and the true sea-snakes (Hydrophidae). In two of his assertions this anonymous author is incorrect, viz. It was not Captain M’QUHAE who asserted that the animal’s mouth was large enough to admit of a tall man standing upright in it, but an anonymous contributor to the Times; Mr. HENDERSON was master of the ship Mary Ann, and not of the Daphne; the master of this ship was called TRELAWNEY. I consider these four names as Active (see my Chapter on hoaxes p. 34.)

* * * * *

=147=.--1877, May 21.--In Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S Leisure Time Studies we read in a note (p. 111):

“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas is afforded by the report of the master of the barque Georgina from Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September 4, 1877) put into Falmouth for orders on the 1st. September. On May 21, 1877, in latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53′ E., a large serpent about forty or fifty feet long, grey and yellow in colour, and ten or eleven inches thick, was seen by the crew. It was visible for twenty minutes, during which time it crossed the bow, and ultimately disappeared under the port-quarter.”

The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the animal. The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me conclude that the animal had swum for a long time with its body in a straight line, without diving and that the part, exposed to the sunbeams, had dried up.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON adds: “There can be little doubt that this sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I’ll not contest his opinion.--

* * * * *

=148=.--1877, June 2.--Not less important than others is the report of the Osborne. In Mr. =Lee’s= Sea Monsters Unmasked we read p. 93 the following about this occurrence:

“In June, 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty that on the 2nd. of that month, he and other officers of the Royal Yacht Osborne, had seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine animal, of which the following account and sketches were furnished by Lieutenant Haynes, and were confirmed by Commander Pearson, Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth, and Mr. Moore, engineer.”

“Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, “Royal Yacht Osborne, Gibraltar, June 6”: On the evening of that day, the sea being perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet, and varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by means of a telescope, at about one and a-half cables’ distance, I distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder. The head, as nearly as I could judge, was about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four to five feet, the shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head. I could not see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty feet. The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and which had disappeared by the time I got a telescope, were really the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body. The animal’s head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards, remaining above for a few seconds at a time, and then disappearing; there was an entire absence of “blowing” or “spouting”. I herewith beg to enclose a rough sketch, showing the view of the “ridge of fins”, and also of the animal in the act of propelling itself by its two fins.”

Evidently Mr. LEE has not communicated the whole account as it was in the original periodical, nor did he mention the name of the periodical.

The Times of June 14th., 1877 mentions:

“The Osborne, 2, paddle royal yacht, Commander Hugh L. Pearson, which arrived at Portsmouth from the Mediterranean on Monday, and at once proceeded to her moorings in the harbour, has forwarded an official report to the Admiralty, through the commander-in-chief (Admiral Sir George Elliot, K. C. B.), respecting a sea-monster which she encountered during her homeward voyage. At about five o’clock in the afternoon of the 2nd. instant, the sea being exceptionally calm, while the yacht was proceeding round the north coast of Sicily towards Cape Vito, the officer on the watch observed a long ridge of fins, each about six feet long, moving slowly along. He called for a telescope, and was at once joined by other officers. The Osborne was steaming westward at ten and a half knots an hour, and, having a long passage before her, could not stay to make minute observations. The fins were progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more nearly approached them, they were replaced by the foremost part of a gigantic sea-monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen, altogether devoid of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination, being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter. Its features were only seen by one officer, who described them as like those of an alligator. The neck was comparatively narrow, but so much of the body as could be seen, developed in form like that of gigantic turtle, and from each side extended two fins, about fifteen feet in length, by which the monster paddled itself along after the fashion of a turtle. The appearance of the monster is accounted for by a submarine volcano, which occurred north of Galita, in the Gulf of Tunis, about the middle of May, and was reported at the time by a steamer which was struck by a detached fragment of submarine rock. The disturbance below water, it is thought probable, may have driven up the monster from its “native element”, as the site of the eruption is only one hundred miles from where it was reported to have been seen”.

The Graphic of June 16, 1877, tells us p. 563, 3d. column:

“The Sea-Serpent has once more made his appearance, and this time the officers of the Royal Yacht Osborne are the witnesses to his existence. The Commander, says the Portsmouth Times and Navel Gazette, has sent an official report to the Admiralty, stating that on the 2nd. inst. a curious creature was seen off the coast of Sicily in a smooth sea. The serpent was “of immense length, with a smooth scaleless skin, and a ridge of fins, 15 feet in length, and 6 ft. apart along the back, a bullet-shaped head, and a face like an alligator. It moved slowly, and was distinctly seen by all the officers.”

The same Journal of the 30th. of June publishes the following account and sketch by Lieutenant HAYNES:

“We are indebted to Lieut. W. P. Haynes, of H. M. S. Osborne, for the sketch of the sea-monster seen by the officers and crew of that vessel off the north coast of Sicily on the 2nd. inst. In a letter accompanying the sketch, he says:--“My attention was first called by seeing a long row of fins appearing above the surface of the water at a distance of about 200 yards and “away on our beam”. They were of irregular heights, and extending about 30 or 40 feet in line (the former number is the length I gave, the latter the other officers), in a few seconds they disappeared, giving place to the foremost part of the monster. By this time it had passed astern, swimming in an opposite direction to that we were steering, and as we were passing through the water at 10¹⁄₂ knots, I could only get a view of it, “and on”, which I have shown in the sketch. The head was bullet-shaped, and quite six feet thick, the neck narrow and its head was occasionally thrown back out of the water, remaining there for a few seconds at a time. It was very broad across the back or shoulders, about 15 or 20 feet, and the flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion, which seemed to paddle the monster along. They were about 15 feet in length. From the top of the head to the part of the back where it became immersed, I should consider 50 feet, and that seemed about a third of the whole length. All this part was smooth, resembling a seal. I cannot account for the fins, unless they were on the back below, where it was immersed.”

According to Mr. HENRY LEE a Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND has suggested (where? this is not mentioned) that “the ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly, belong to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order.” Mr. LEE himself seems to be of this opinion too. As to me, I don’t believe it, for the simple reason that the basking sharks only live in the Arctic Sea, and are never observed farther south than the coasts of Great-Britain and of Massachusetts. So Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND’S whole supposition falls to the ground. At all events the fins have nothing to do with the sea-serpent. This is also the opinion of Mr. LEE, who asserts: “The combination of them with long flippers, and the turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”

We will first speak of the account Lieutenant HAYNES wrote on the 6th. of June, when at Gibraltar. The sea was perfectly smooth, and he saw the ridge of fins. He took his glasses and instead of fins he distinctly saw something quite different. In the short time that he fixed his glasses, the ridge of fins had no doubt disappeared, and the huge animal emerged. The owners of the fins were evidently frightened at the approach of the sea-serpent. Lieut. HAYNES “distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder”. We may safely add: and a long neck connecting this head with the shoulder, and we may safely read for shoulder: a part of its back. The head was about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four or five feet; consequently the animal had stretched its neck as forward as possible. The back, on the level of the flappers, was about fifteen feet broad, “and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of a turtle.” I should like to say: were those of a sea-lion, for a sea-turtle cannot possibly elevate its flappers so high above the surface of the water, while sea-lions are able to do so. Moreover the fashion is the same, that is to say, the paddling happens alternately, i. e. when the right flapper is brought as forward as possible to commence the act of paddling, the left one is kept as backward as possible, nearly touching the trunk, having just brought the act of paddling to an end. “The animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head.” This is in my opinion the most remarkable statement of this report. We have more than once met with the comparison of the head or face of the animal with that of a seal, but Lieutenant HAYNES clearly states the animal (seen from behind) resembled a seal. “I could not see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where it became immersed) I should reckon about fifty feet.” Going by known descriptions and figures, we may suppose that the length of the head may have been between eight and nine feet. When from the top of the head to just below the shoulder the length is estimated at about fifty feet, I reckon that the neck of the animal must have been one of forty feet, reckoning two feet from the top of the head to the occiput, and eight feet from the flappers to where the animal became immersed, i. e. the visible part of its back. The estimated measurements of the individual of captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118) were: length of the head about three feet, breadth about two feet; diameter of neck below the head about one foot and a third; length of the neck to the fore-flappers about twenty feet; length of the trunk from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers about twenty feet, length of the tail about forty feet, length of the whole animal between eighty and ninety feet. Let us now repeat those of the individual of the Osborne, which seems to be about three times larger. The breadth of the head is about six feet, consequently the length of the head about nine feet; the diameter of the neck below the head about four or five feet, say four feet, i. e. three times one foot and a third; the distance from the occiput to the flappers--forty feet, according to my calculation given above but,--comparing the dimensions of the individual of Captain M’QUHAE with the present, I don’t hesitate a moment to put down sixty feet for the distance from the head to the fore-flappers. The officers of the Daedalus were in a more favourable situation to estimate this distance, the distance from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers and the whole length of the animal they saw,--than Lieutenant HAYNES; for the former saw the animal from aside, whilst the latter beheld it from behind, and was consequently in a bad situation to estimate the different lengths of the animal, but in a more favourable to estimate its different breadths. The length of the neck must really have been formidable, for though the animal (see drawing) showed hardly any neck at all, (resembling an enormous ball just visible above the surface of the water, with another smaller bullet on its top,) Lieutenant HAYNES estimated the distance from the top of the head to the part of its back, where it became immersed, at fifty feet! The remaining part of the back and the animal’s tail and hind-flappers were entirely invisible. I have already expressed my firm conviction that the ridge of fins has nothing at all to do with the animal. It is evident that Lieutenant HAYNES himself had his doubts about this point, for else he would not have written: “unless the ridge of fins....... were really the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body”. Evidently the animal elevated its head from time to time some feet into the air to take a survey before it. Evidently it never dropped its head so as to come with its nostrils below water, for “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting”.

In the account of the Times only the following sentences are interesting. The ridge of fins moved slowly along. They were replaced by the foremost part of a sea-serpent. In my opinion this statement is very correct. Its skin was altogether devoid of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. This is a remarkable statement, for in the foregoing account the animal is said to resemble a huge seal! Again: the head was bullet-shaped (seen from behind) with an elongated termination (read snout) being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter. The assertion of one of the officers who saw the animal’s features and described them as like those of an alligator, cannot surprise us, as this comparison has been made more than once. As much of the body as could be seen was developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle. Evidently this reporter did not observe that the head and trunk were connected by a long neck, as did Lieutenant HAYNES. I cannot approve of the supposition that the animal would have been started by the volcanic disturbance, which took place a hundred miles more southward and a fortnight ago!!

The rough account of the Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette partly reprinted in the Graphic, is as the reader will already have observed himself, for the greater part, wrong: the fins of the ridge were estimated to be from five to six feet high, and not 15 feet in length. They were never seen along the back. Lieutenant HAYNES clearly doubted of it, and I believe that nobody of my readers will admit the possibility of such a position! It was the ridge of fins that moved slowly, and not the animal. Though it is not expressed in words, the figure shows us that the sea-serpent moved with the greatest velocity, paddling so violently, that it lifted up its flappers as high as possible.

In the letter which Lieutenant HAYNES forwarded to the Editor of the Graphic, we read that the animal passed the stern, swimming in an opposite direction to that they were steering to; consequently the animal could have been seen for a few seconds only from aside, and then only from behind. Most probably in passing the yacht, the animal turned its face once towards it, for we read in the Times of 14th. June: “its features were seen only by one officer.” The breadth of the back is now stated to be about 15 or 20 feet. “The flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion,” which is indeed a nearly exact expression for this motion. The length of 50 feet is now considered by the gallant officer to seem to be about a third of the whole length. The reason of this estimation is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the water behind the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe that this individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again, the Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could have been the ridge of fins! No wonder!

Of the second sketch (fig. 45) I will only say that it is partly wrong; for only one flapper must have been visible at one time, though it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rapidity that it seemed as if the two flappers were visible together. And when seen from aside in this position it would appear that the animal had more than two flappers, had a row of them, as is shown in our fig. 36.--It is also clear that the severe splashing and foaming of the water, which must have been caused by the movements of the flappers, is omitted in the figure.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his Leisure Time Studies notes that the details furnished in the account of the Times appear to be explicable by a tape-fish (Gymnetrus or Regalecus). I need not say that I am not at all at one with him. There is not one simple character either in the ridge of fins, or in the animal described, which agrees in the least with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape-fishes are deep-sea fishes, and only rise to the surface, dying or dead!

Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN’S comparison of the animal with a manatee (Nature, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but the length of the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimensions of both animals differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous to dwell any longer on it.

* * * * *

In January 1879, Mr. ANDREW WILSON published his Leisure Time Studies, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth chapter is entitled “The sea-serpents of Science”. As might be expected the author treats of the various explanations of the sea-serpent given by men of science as well as by others, and declares himself to be a firm believer of the fact that large unknown animals exist. I wish to quote here the most interesting parts, or better said, those parts which are, at present, of great interest. In considering the authenticity of the reports and the admission that really “something” must have been seen, the author says:

“Can we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated during past years, dismiss the subject simpliciter, as founded on no basis of fact? The answer to such a question must be an emphatic negative; since the evidence brought before our notice includes the testimony of several hundreds of sane and reasonable persons, who in frequent cases have testified on oath and by affidavit to the truth of their descriptions of curious marine forms, seen and observed in various seas. The second supposition, that all of these persons have simply been deceived, is one which must also be dismissed. For, after making all due allowance for exaggeration, and for variations in accounts arising from different modes of expression and even from mental peculiarities in the witnesses, there remains a solid body of testimony, which, unless there is some special tendency to mendacity on the part of persons who travel by sea, we are bound, by all the rules of fair criticism and of evidence, to receive as testimony of honest kind. As I have elsewhere observed: There are very many calmly and circumstantially related and duly verified accounts of serpentine, or at any rate, of anomalous marine forms, having been closely inspected by the crew and passengers of vessels. Either, therefore, we must argue that in every instance the senses of intelligent men and women must have played them false, or we must simply assume that they are describing what they have never seen. The accounts in many instances so minutely describe the appearance of such forms, inspected from a near standpoint, that the possibility of their being mistaken for inanimate objects, as they might be if viewed from a distance, is rendered entirely improbable. We may thus, then, affirm firstly that there are many verified pieces of evidence on record, of strange marine forms having been met with,--which evidences, judged according to ordinary and common sense rules, go to prove that certain hitherto undescribed marine organisms do certainly exist in the sea-depths.”

“The first issue I must therefore submit to the reader, as representing one of a large and impartial jury, is, that the mass of evidence accumulated on the sea-serpent question, when weighed and tested, even in a prima facie manner, plainly shuts us up to the belief that appearances, resembling those produced by the presence in the sea of huge serpentine forms, have been frequently noted by competent and trustworthy observers. Unless we are to believe that men and women have deliberately prevaricated, and that without the slightest excuse or show of reason, we must believe that they have witnessed marine appearances, certainly of unwonted and unusual kind. That “something” has assuredly been seen, must be the verdict on this first issue. What that “something” is or was, and whether or not the evidence will support the opinion that the appearances described bear out the existence of a “sea-serpent” in the flesh, form points for discussion in the next instance.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON mentions some pages further on a curious case of fear of popular ridicule in telling that

“one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had been seen by his crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below; since, to use his own words, “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, I should have been considered to be a warranted liar all my life after!”

In examining whether that “something” was a dead or living organism, Mr. WILSON concludes that:

“Numerous cases exist in which the object, presumed to be a living being, has been scrutinized so closely that, save on the supposition that senses have played their owners false, or that minds have given way to an unaccountable impulse for lying, we must face and own the belief that living animals have been seen.”

He now speaks of a few accounts, viz. the various reports of the animal seen by the officers of the Daedalus (n^o. 118), by the crew of the Pauline (n^o. 144, 145), and by the captain and the surgeon of the Nestor (n^o. 146), and explains them in his own way, believing that these sea-serpents were gigantically developed sea-snakes, or a great calamary. Next he treats of the appearance of the animal as reported by the officers of the Osborne (n^o. 148), explaining it to be a tape-fish. Finally he defends his hypothesis of gigantically developed sea-snakes and ribbon-fishes. These parts, however, I have inserted in my Chapter on various explanations.

* * * * *

In a review of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S Leisure Time Studies, which I have found in Nature of the 30th. of January, 1879, Vol. XIX, the following is written about the chapter on the sea-serpent:

“The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting, both as giving a very fair summary of the most recent evidence on this subject, and as showing that the age of incredulity is past, and that naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist, of which no single specimen has yet been obtained. Recollecting, however, the number of clever hoaxes to which this subject has given rise we think that the newspaper account at p. 104, of the declaration before a Liverpool J. P., made by the master and crew of a merchant-ship, to the effect that they had seen a huge serpent twice coiled round a sperm-whale, and a similar serpent with its head raised “sixty feet perpendicularly in the air,” should not have been inserted as evidence without first ascertaining that such a declaration was actually made before the magistrate named. The troubling of writing a single letter would probably have been sufficient, and would have settled the preliminary question of whether, from beginning to end, it was not a newspaper canard.”

I am convinced that, after having attentively read what they find in this book about the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by the crew of the Pauline (n^o. 144, 145) my readers will be convinced that the report of Captain DREVAR was not a canard. We read moreover in Nature of Febr. 10, 1881, that Captain DREVAR has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck out of the water. Mr. WOOD, the writer of the article in which this is communicated, adds: “This is satisfactory as showing that the declaration was no hoax”. I quite agree with him.

* * * * *

=149=.--1879, January 28.--The Graphic of April, 19, 1879, says:

“The following is an extract from the account given by our correspondent, Major H. W. J. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps, to whom we are indebted for the sketch from which our engraving is taken:--“On the 28th. of January, 1879, at about 10 a. m., I was on the poop deck of the steamship City of Baltimore in lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E. I observed a long black object abeam of the ship’s stern on the starboard side, at a distance of about three-quarters of a mile, darting rapidly out of the water, and splashing in again with a sound distinctly audible, and advancing nearer and nearer at a rapid pace. In a minute it had advanced to within half a mile, and was distinctly recognizable as the veritable “sea-serpent”. I shouted out “Sea-serpent! sea-serpent! call the captain!” Dr. C. Hall, the ship’s surgeon, who was reading on deck, jumped up in time to see the monster, as did also Miss. Greenfield, one of the passengers on board. By this time it was only about 500 yards off, and a little in the rear, owing to the vessel then steaming at the rate of about ten knots an hour in a westerly direction. On approaching the wake of the ship the serpent turned its course a little away, and was soon lost to view in the blaze of sunlight reflected on the waves of the sea. So rapid were its movements that when it approached the ship’s wake, I seized a telescope, but could not catch a view as it darted rapidly out of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus prevented from ascertaining whether it had scales or not but the best view of the monster obtainable when it was about three cables’ length, that is about 500 yards’ distant, seemed to show that it was without scales. I cannot, however, speak with certainty. The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the monster opened its jaws wide as it rose, and closed them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice, although occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head. The shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon I have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the forehead and eyebrow. When the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of the water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings.”

“Major Senior’s statement is countersigned by the two persons whom he mentions as co-witnesses, and he expresses his willingness to answer any questions which may be put to him by any one interested in the subject. His address while on furlough is Rosebank Villa, Southfield Rode, Cotham, Bristol.”

The appearance took place in the Gulf of Aden, as pointed out by the latitude and longitude. The account here is very correct as I now will try to show. The colour of the animal is called black and the appearance of the skin was that it was without scales. The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the animal opened its jaws wide as it rose, evidently swallowing some fish, captured under water in its pursuit of a shoal of them, and closed them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice. This is very natural, as I have already pointed out on a former occasion: if the head and neck are above the surface, the remaining parts of the body must carry their weight and sink a little below the surface. Not very much, however, for the foreflappers, as well as the hindflappers, paddling very rapidly caused a splash distinctly visible on the base of the neck (or on the shoulders), and “occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head”. Examining the figure, which is very exact, we may take it that the foremost splash was caused by the foreflappers, about twenty-five feet in the rear of the head, the very same place where the officers of the Daedalus (n^o. 118) “occasionally saw a fin”, and that about twenty-five feet more backward the hindmost splash was caused by the hindflappers, the place, where Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118) “occasionally saw another fin”. The animal seen from the Daedalus seems to have been a little smaller than that seen from the City of Baltimore. The comparison of the head with a dragon’s is a little far-fetched. The animal furiously pursuing its prey, sometimes opening its jaws, knitting its heavy eye-brows, which as we know are a little prominent, in short, expressing in its features hurry and a wild longing for its prey, may under these circumstances have had a feature terrible enough to cause Mr. SENIOR’S expression “the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragons I have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the fore-head and eye-brow”. We have learned already that on such occasions the animal curved its neck swan-like and diving head foremost like a duck, disappeared. Here we have another habit of pursuing: “when the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings”. This last might have been fairly omitted as every one can imagine the splash of water, caused by a log of wood falling into it. I think this comparison also far-fetched: such a splash cannot be compared with an object.

Our figure is taken from Mr. LEE’S often quoted work. It is the middle third of the one which illustrated the text in the Graphic, but as it is drawn on the same scale, I saw no reason to give my readers the whole illustration of the Graphic.

* * * * *

=150=.--1879, March 30th.--Nature of the 24th. of July, 1879, contains the following of Surgeon BARNETT, respecting the appearance of a sea-serpent near Cape Naturaliste in Australia.

“In Nature, Vol. XIX, p. 286, I observed some remarks respecting sea-serpents, and especially noted one passage which stated that “The age of incredulity is past, and naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist.”

“I was pleased to read this statement, as I have for many years been convinced that some of the accounts published from time to time in the newspapers are accurate descriptions of what has actually been witnessed, but I little expected that I should so soon be able to forward to you a description of one of these creatures, as given by an eye-witness, of whose accuracy there can be no question, and whose observations were made when very close to the animal.”

“Busselton is a little seaport about 150 miles south of Fremantle, on the west coast of Australia, situated on the shore of Geographe Bay, which is sheltered by Cape Naturaliste; the northern point of that singular projection on the south-west corner of Australia.”

“During the greater part of the year the water of Geographe Bay is as smooth as a lake, though it is a portion of that vast Indian Ocean which extends unbrokenly to the African coast. The beach is of smooth white sand, so hard at the water’s edge that it is frequently used as a road for riding or driving from Busselton to Lockville; the latter place, a few miles to the north, is the station of the Ballarat Timber Company, containing their steam saw mills, the termination of their railway, and the jetty from which large quantities of that imperishable and valuable timber called jarrah is exported to be used as piles, railway sleepers, etc.”

“Last month I heard a report that the sea-serpent had been seen near Busselton, and that the resident clergyman had been one of the spectators. Having the pleasure of personal acquaintance with that gentleman, I wrote to him on the subject, and received from him such an interesting account, that I applied to him for permission to communicate the facts to your paper, and verify them by publishing his name. It is fortunate that the principal eye-witness was an educated gentleman, who has for twenty seven years been a Colonial chaplain in this colony, and whose description of what he saw is clear, simple, and free from exaggeration.”

“I copy from the letters of the Rev. H. W. Brown the following extracts:--

“On Sunday, March 30, I left Lockville just as the sun was setting, on my way home by the beach”.

“The afternoon had been oppressively hot, not a breath of wind, and the sea was as smooth as a glass. I met C. M’Guire and his wife walking towards Lockville.”

“Soon afterwards, when abreast of the track to Richardson’s, I noticed ahead of me what looked like a black log of wood in the water a stone’s throw from the shore, nearly end-on to me, and apparently more buoyant at that end; getting nearer, I noticed that it was drifting apparently towards Lockville, and soon discovered that it was moving, leaving behind it a very long, narrow ridge on the smooth water. I then turned my horse’s head, and, at a walking pace kept just abreast of it, unnoticed apparently, till I had gained sufficiently on M’Guire to make him hear. I then coo-eed once; he turned and came back to meet me; but at the sound of my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight (under water), and doubled again in shore, but so rapidly as to leave both outward and inward “ridge” on the water distinctly visible at once, like a wide V with quite a sharp corner. It gave me the idea of two fishes, the one darting outward, the other crossing its track inward at the same moment.”

“Not knowing where it might show up next, but satisfied that it had come in-shore again, I tried by pointing seaward to direct M’Guire’s attention that way”.

“Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost at rest, and all apparently was in view, I estimated the length to be 60 feet, straight and taper, like a long spar, with the butt end, his head and shoulders, showing well above the surface.”

“I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff, about two feet diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very distinctly above water, several square-topped fins.”

“I here make an exact tracing from Mr. Brown’s letter of his sketch:--

“It was now getting rather too dark to see details distinctly. The fish proceeded toward Lockville, and I turned homeward. M’Guire said he would go on to Lockville jetty and look out for him there.”

“Whether he saw him again I know not, but M’Mullan, the fisherman, told me next morning that he had seen it about fifty yards from that jetty, and it looked to him about twenty feet long. So it did to me while in motion; only when at rest for a moment did its whole length show up sufficiently. What its propelling power was I cannot say from observation; I saw no lateral fins and no fish-tail.”

“When it started away at the sound of my voice, it was with the rapid movement of a pike or sword-fish, and yet the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake.”

“There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore the same afternoon, yet when I saw the stranger there were certainly no fish of which it could be in pursuit.”

“Since the year 1848, when the captain and officers of a British man-of-war gave evidence that they passed within 100 yards of a snake, which they estimated to be 60 feet in length above water, with probably 40 feet beneath, I do not know of any more clear account than the above. Many independant accounts of the existence of marine monsters have been placed on record, and it seems mere folly to treat these repeated reports with ridicule.”

“I trust that your readers will no longer doubt that the “age of credulity” is past.”

“H. C. Barnett.”

“Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.”

“Colonial surgeon.”

I need not tell my readers that the figure is very rude, and only gives a very indistinct representation of four “bunches”, or visible parts of vertical undulations, called “fins” in the narrative. The blunt head, compared with the end of a log, the imperfect description, and the so-called square appearance of the bunches must be ascribed to the falling darkness. The other details of the report: the swimming of the animal in bunches, its causing the “ridges” in the water in the shape of a wide V, its holding its head well above the surface, its length, its resemblance with a spar, straight and taper, are in my opinion convincing enough to call this “fish” a sea-serpent.

* * * * *

=151=.--1879, April 5.--In the Graphic of July, 19th., 1879, and in Nature for November 18th., 1880, we find the following statement:

“The accompanying engraving is a fac-simile of a sketch sent to us by Captain Davison, of the steamship Kiushiu-maru, and is inserted as a specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this journal. Capt. Davison’s statement, which is countersigned by his chief officer, Mr. McKechnie, is as follows:--Saturday, April 5th., at 11.15 a. m. Cape Satano distant about nine miles, the chief officer and myself observed a whale jump clear out of the sea, about a quarter of a mile away. Shortly after it leaped out again, when I saw there was something attached to it. Got glasses, and on the next leap distinctly saw something holding on the belly of the whale. The latter gave one more spring clear of the water, and myself and chief then observed what appeared to be a large creature of the snake species rear itself about thirty feet out of the water. It appeared to be about the thickness of a junk’s mast and after standing about ten seconds in an erect position, it descended into the water, the upper end going first. With my glasses I made out the colour of the beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.”

It is clear that the Editor of the Graphic is an unbeliever, else he would not have called these figures “specimens of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this journal”. I think that there is nothing curious in these figures, which are as correct as possible.

Cape Satano is the most southern point of Japan, or better, of the Isle of Kiu Siu. It is also called Satano Misaki, of which “Saki” or “Misaki” signifies “cape”. The Russians call it Cape Chichakoff. This is the third time that we read of the sea-serpent being seen in the Pacific Ocean (see n^o. 36 and 119).

The most remarkable fact mentioned in this report is the gripping the whale. The reader will remember the report of a sea-serpent engaged with a whale, of course one of the smaller kind (n^o. 54). In 1833 some British officers saw a shoal of grampuses near Halifax, Nova Scotia, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement” and a little while afterwards the sea-serpent appeared, evidently hunting after the grampuses (n^o. 97). Again in 1850 (?) Captain CHRISTMAS saw “an immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the ship, as if pursued” and soon afterwards a sea-serpent made its appearance, curving its neck swan-like, evidently keeping a lookout and disappearing “head foremost like a duck diving” (n^o. 124). Also Captain BROWN saw it “surrounded by porpoises” (n^o. 56). And now we have for the fifth time the sea-serpent pursuing whales, and a second time that it is engaged with one which it had evidently gripped in its pectoral fin. I am convinced that the description “holding on the belly of the whale” is incorrect. The dimensions of the neck estimated at thirty feet in length and of about the thickness of the mast of a junk are certainly not exaggerated. After the whale’s escape, the sea-serpent for about ten seconds stood in an erect position, like the animal of Captain BROWN (n^o. 56), taking evidently a survey all around, then bent its neck swan-like as in shown in the figure and finally “descended into the water, the upper end going first”, exactly the way in which the animal behaved seen by Capt. CHRISTMAS (n^o. 124). The description of the colour as “resembling that of a pilot-fish”, is very vague, for the different pilot-fishes (Naucrates) have different colours, generally grey with some hue of blue, brown, or purple. The vague definition may be the result of a damp atmosphere, or it must be that the throat was turned towards the spectators, and not the back-part of the neck, which is nearly black. As the sea-serpent has a very long and pointed tail, the fan-shaped or double finned tail in fig. 49 must be accounted for. This I think may be done in the following four ways: 1. The tail represents the whale, disappearing in the water, which in so doing caused a severe splash as is shown in the figure. 2. The tail is an optical illusion and the two fins of it were in fact the animal’s hindflappers paddling furiously, which may be explained as an expression of the animal’s emotion, as the whale escaped, and in doing so, the flappers caused the violent splash. 3. Not the flappers but the tail of the animal was lashing the water vehemently, and caused the optical illusion and the immense splash and foam. 4. The drawer, believing that the animal had a cetacean tail or a fish-tail, drew one, lashing the water, and so represented more his own imagination than the reality; but in no case a double finned tail has ever belonged to an animal with a long swan-like curved neck, as is really believed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD in that number of Nature!

* * * * *

=152=.--1879, August 5.--(Times of September 24, 1879).

“Capt. J. F. COX, master of the British ship Privateer, which arrived at Delaware breakwater on the 9th. inst. from London, says:--“On the 5th. ult., 100 miles west of Brest (France), weather fine and clear, at 5 p. m., as I was walking the quarter deck, looking to windward, I saw something black rise out of the water about twenty feet, in shape like an immense snake about three feet in diameter. It was about 300 yards from the ship, coming towards us. It turned its head partly from us, and went down with a great splash, after staying up about five seconds, but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, until it had turned completely from us and was going from us with great speed, and making the water all boiling round it. I could see its eyes and shape perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black as coal tar, and appeared to be making great exertions to get away from the ship. I have seen many kinds of fish in five different oceans, but was never favoured with a sight of the great sea-snake before.”

Of this unvarnished account Mr. WOOD says with reason (Nature, February 10, 1881), that it is “almost a duplicate of that of Major SENIOR” (n^o. 149). The colour of the animal is called black, the head and neck, like those of a snake, were elevated about twenty feet in the air. The animal stood so about five seconds, went down with a great splash, but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, thus behaving in the same way as the individual seen from the City of Baltimore (n^o. 149). The thickness here is estimated at three feet. The animal moved from the vessel with great speed. Consequently the captain could not discern four different splashes, two of the fore and two of the hind-flappers, but he reports that the water was boiling all around it. I think that the animal here again was pursuing a shoal of fish and not trying to escape the vessel.--

* * * * *

=152 A=.--1881, Nov. 12?--The Zuid-Afrikaan, of Nov. 17, 1881, mentions:

“In the Argus we read the following:--“Mr. C. M. HANSEN, functionary to the harbour-office, mentions, that on Saturday evening a little after six o’clock, being occupied in his garden near Monillepoint, he perceived near the spot where the Athens was wrecked, a great sea-serpent, and that he immediately drew the attention of his wife and children, and several of his neighbours to this appearance. After viewing the coast at its ease for half an hour the monster turned its head seaward and disappeared. Mr. HANSEN describes this sea-monster as being about 75 feet long, of a dark colour and with a head of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead, resembling that of a bull-dog, and provided with a long and brown mane, hanging down.”

Undoubtedly the length of 75 feet is that of the part visible above the surface of the water. It is not mentioned whether the animal swam with its body in a straight line or in vertical undulations. It is not for the first time that we hear of the sea-serpent near Cape-Town, (for Argus must no doubt be read Cape Argus), I pass the dimension of the head as I don’t know that of a 54 gallon hogshead. Remarkable is the comparison of the head with a bull-dog’s; it must have been seen in front, in order to make this impression. Again a mane was present and its colour is now called brown.

* * * * *

=153=.--1882, May 28th.--In the next account we read:

“At our arrival in Newcastle, I learned that some days before some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.”

* * * * *

=154=.--1882, May 31.--(Illustrirte Zeitung of 1st. of July, 1882).--

“The following report, with the accompanying engraving has been forwarded to us by Mr. Weisz, Captain of the Stettin Lloyd Steamer Kätie.”

“When the Stettin Lloyd Steamer Kätie, on her return from New-York to Newcastle, on the 31st. of May of this year, shortly after sunset and in that clear light which in this season takes place in fine weather in high northern latitudes, was about eight miles W. N. W. of Butt of Lewis (Hebrides), we observed on starboard before us, at a distance of about two miles a dark object lying on the surface, which was only slightly moved by the waves; first we took it for a wreck, as the highest end resembled the bow and the forepart of a ship, and the remaining hilly part resembled the broken waist-cloth of a ship filled with water. As we got nearer we saw with a glass on the left of the visible object, the water moving in a manner, as if the object extended there under the water, and this motion was of the same length as the part of the object, visible above the surface. Therefore we took care, not to steer too near, lest the screw should be damaged by some floating pieces of the wreck. But on getting nearer observed that the object was not a wreck, and, if we had not known with certainty that on these coasts there are no shallows, we should have taken this dark connected row of hills for cliffs. When we, however, changed our course obliquely from the object, which lay quite still all the time, to our astonishment there rose, about eighty feet from the visible end a fin about ten feet in height, which moved a few times, whilst the body gradually sunk below the surface. In consequence of this the most elevated end rose, and could distinctly be made out as the tail of a fish kind of immense dimensions.”

“The length of the visible part of this animal which had in no case any resemblance with the back of a whale, measured, according to our estimation, about 150 feet, the hills, which were from three to four feet in height, and about six or seven feet distant from each other, were smaller on the tail end, than on the head end, which withdrew from our observation.”

“At our arrival at Newcastle, I learned that some days before some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal. Had I directly recognized the object before us, to be one of these creatures, which for so long time belonged to the fables, I should certainly have neared it with the Kätie as much as possible.”

It is obvious that captain WEISZ saw, and Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ sketched the animal, ignorant of its being a sea-serpent. It became clear to them, when they arrived at Newcastle where they learned that a “sea-serpent” was seen by some fishermen of Lewis.

Here we have again the assertion that the animal showed bunches, though it lay still or nearly still, an observation already reported more than once, as the reader will remember. I am convinced that the dimensions are exaggerated, and that the disturbance of the water was caused by the length of the tail, and not of the head of the animal, which evidently was searching for food in a playful manner, as we may observe in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, and in doing so turned for a moment its body round, and raised once or twice first one of its hindflappers “which it moved a few times”, and then raised one of its foreflappers, which was taken for a tail by the captain and the drawer. The long neck here commences, but was, with the head, constantly under water, evidently directed downwards, for there was no disturbance of the water visible here. It is clear that the Kätie remained at a good distance from the animal, so that Mr. SCHULTZ, a well-known animal painter, could not obtain a better view of the flappers. The outlines of the flappers, however, are as correct as possible.

* * * * *

=155=.--1882, September 3.--(Nature, 1883, January 25).

“Believing it to be desirable that every well-authenticated observation indicating the existence of large sea-serpents should be permanently registered, I send you the following particulars.”

“About 3 p. m. on Sunday, September 3, 1882, a party of gentlemen and ladies were standing at the northern extremity of Llandudno pier, looking towards the open sea, when an unusual object was observed in the water near to the Little Orme’s Head, travelling rapidly westwards towards the Great Orme. It appeared to be just outside the mouth of the bay, and would therefore be about a mile distant from the observers. It was watched for about two minutes, and in that interval it traversed about half the width of the bay, and then suddenly disappeared. The bay is two miles wide, and therefore the object, whatever it was, must have travelled at the rate of thirty miles an hour. It is estimated to have been fully as long as a large steamer; say 200 feet; the rapidity of its motion was particularly remarked as being greater than that of any ordinary vessel. The colour appeared to be black, and the motion either corkscrew like or snake-like, with vertical undulations. Three of the observers have since made sketches from memory, quite independently of the impressions left on their minds, and on comparing these sketches, which slightly varied, they have agreed to sanction the accompanying outline as representing as nearly as possible the object which they saw. The party consisted of W. Barfoot, J. P. of Leicester, F. J. Marlow, solicitor, of Manchester, Mrs. Marlow, and several others. They discard the theories of birds or porpoises as not accounting for this particular phenomenon.”

“F. T. Mott.”

“Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”

The appearance took place, as is stated, near Orme’s Head, a headland of the Northern coast of Wales, projecting in a north-western direction into the Irish Sea. The great rapidity of the movement through the water, estimated at thirty miles an hour, its great length of about 200 feet, its black colour, its vertical undulations and the whole external appearance of the animal, outlines of which are represented in the figure, at once betray the sea-serpent.

Another correspondent of Nature immediately wrote to the Editor as follows: “I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, and have no doubt whatever that phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the head your correspondent gives.” There! It is just the head which shows that the animal seen by the party of gentlemen and ladies above mentioned, was one single animal and not a row of porpoises!

And therefore, one of the eye-witnesses, Mr. W. BARFOOT, promptly answered in Nature of Febr. 8, 1883:

“Like your correspondent, Mr. Sidebotham (in Nature Vol. XXVII, p. 315), I have frequently seen a shoal of porpoises in Llandudno Bay, as well as in other places, and on the occasion referred to by Mr. Mott, in Nature, Vol. XXVII, p. 293, the idea of porpoises was at first started but immediately abandoned. I will venture to suggest that no one has seen a shoal of these creatures travel at the rate of from twenty five to thirty miles an hour. I have seen whales in the ocean, and large flocks of sea-birds, such as those of the eider-duck, skimming its surface; but the strange appearance seen at Llandudno on September 3 was not to be accounted for by porpoises, whales, birds, or breakers, an opinion which was shared by all present.”

“William Barfoot.”

* * * * *

In 1883 Mr. HENRY LEE published his Sea Monsters Unmasked, one of the Series of publications of the International Fisheries Exhibition. This delightful book treats of the Kraken and the sea-serpent.

In the Preface Mr. LEE remarks:

“In treating of the so-called “sea-serpent”, I have been anticipated by many able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book “The Romance of Natural History”, published in 1862, devoted a chapter to it; and numerous articles concerning it appeared in various papers and periodicals.”

“But, for the information from which those authors have drawn their inferences, and on which they have founded their opinions, they have been greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously to consider this subject, to the late experienced editor of the Zoologist, Mr. Edward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind, of great judgment, a profound thinker, and an able writer. At a time when, as he said, “the shafts of ridicule were launched against believers and unbelievers in the sea-serpent in a very pleasing and impartial manner”, he, in the true spirit of philosophical inquiry, in 1847, opened the columns of his magazine to correspondence on this topic, and all the more recent reports of marine monsters having been seen are therein recorded. To him, therefore, the fullest acknowledgements are due.”

I too am under obligations to Mr. NEWMAN, as to one who has collected so many reports of the sea-serpent and published them in his journal, but I fail to see in him what Mr. LEE asserts him to be.

As to the contents of Mr. LEE’S “Great Sea-Serpent”, the second part of his Sea-Monsters Unmasked, I may be allowed to note the following.

First he mentions the various great snakes of antiquity and believes them to be merely boas (read pythons) and real sea-snakes. Next he represents a figure, found on a sarcophagus or coffin in the Catacombs of Rome, and tells us that it corresponds in many respects with some of the descriptions of the sea-serpent given several centuries afterwards. I, however, don’t observe any resemblance in them. I consider this monster as a singular combination of a horse and a fish, badly drawn, as one of the representations of those wonderful ideas or beliefs of antiquity concerning the existence of such monsters as sirens, tritons, the minotaurus, etc.

Further he treats of OLAUS MAGNUS, Bishop PONTOPPIDAN, HANS EGEDE, the Animal of Stronsa, and of various reports of the sea-serpent, and it is obviously a favoured idea of his that the sea-serpent is only to be accounted for by a great calamary; to prove this, he makes himself guilty of all kinds of misrepresentations and improbabilities; he considers every one as having been the dupe of optical deceptions, or as having made exaggerations, and their observations to be “full of error and mistakes”! And he who has never seen a sea-serpent, but sits pen in hand in his chair at his desk, knows it best of all: all sea-serpents were calamaries, except a very few, which were a row of porpoises! But the more Mr. LEE has to deal with more recent reports, the less he is able to explain the various sea-serpents by reference to his favoured calamary. Of the animals seen in the Harbour of Gloucester in 1817 he says: “Of this I can offer no zoological explanation”. He neither gives an explanation of the sea-serpent seen in 1833 by British officers (n^o. 97), nor of that in Lochourn (n^o. 137, 138, 139, 140). Then he says: “Many other accounts have been published of the appearance of serpent-like sea-monsters, but I have only space for two or three more of the most remarkable of them”. Truly, an easy way to get rid of them! One of these two or three more remarkable reports is the fight between the whale and the sea-serpent (n^o. 144) of which he proposes several explanations (I beg to refer the readers to that account), ending with the words: “it must be left for further elucidation”. The sea-serpent of the City of Baltimore (n^o. 149) was misunderstood by him. He compares the splash of the water, caused by the animal’s dropping its neck like a log of wood into it, with the caudal fins of a calamary (just imagine!) but ends: “but, as one with a bull-dog expression of eye-brow, visible at 500 yards distance, does not come within my ken, I will not claim it as much.” And of the animal of the Osborne he says:

“It seems to me that this description cannot be explained as applicable to any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly, as was suggested by Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND, belong to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order; but the combination of them with long flippers, and turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”

Nevertheless, in answering the question: “To which of the recognized class of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda” (i. e. calamaries). Such a contradiction I do not understand.

And notwithstanding his cherished great-calamary-hypothesis, and after having said some words about Mr. NEWMAN’s Plesiosaurus theory and Mr. WILSON’s ideas of the extraordinary development of snakes, he ends his work with the following conclusions:

“I arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without straining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not proved to be erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed “Great Sea-Serpent” may now be nearly all accounted for by the forms and habits of known animals; especially if we admit, as proposed by Dr. Andrew Wilson, that some of them, including the marine snakes, may, like the cuttles, attain to an extraordinary size.”

“2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance of every existing marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable. It appears to me more than probable that many marine animals, unknown to science, and some of them of gigantic size, may have their ordinary habitat in the great depths of the sea, and only occasionally come to the surface; and I think it not impossible that amongst them may be marine snakes of greater dimensions than we are aware of, and even a creature having close affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil skeletons tell of their magnitude and abundance in past ages.”

I am unable to follow out such a reasoning.

* * * * *

=156=.--1883, October 15?--The Graphic of 20th. October, 1883, mentions, p. 387:

“The inevitable sea-serpent has turned up again. This time he has been seen going down the Bristol Channel towards the Atlantic at the rate of twenty-five miles per hour, and afterwards he was noticed off the north coast of Cornwall. The monster was about half a mile long, and left a greasy trail behind him.”

I have no doubt about the appearance of a sea-serpent in Bristol Channel, and a few hours or a day afterwards off the north coast of Cornwall, as several individuals have already been reported on the west coast of Great Britain. The greasy trail left behind it is not an improbability, but the length of half a mile is most probably an invention of the incredulous Editor of the Graphic!

* * * * *

Mr. C. HONIGH in his Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen in de Gids for 1884, p. 300 speaking of strange and violent motions in the water of the lake of Mjösen in Norway during perfectly calm weather tells us as a specimen of Norwegian superstition:

“People ascribe these motions to sea-serpents, in which many persons in Norway firmly believe upon the authority of undeniable witnesses and their observations. One of the most famous of these monsters lived some centuries ago in the lake of Mjösen, in the neighbourhood of Hamar, where it became entangled in the shallow. A monk killed it with arrow-shots in its eye, and the monster then floated to near the “Holy-Isle” to a place which is still called “Pilestöa”. And yet there is still a sea-serpent in the lake, which has coiled itself round the great bell of Hamar, which in the time of the seven years’ war was lowered to the bottom.”

Mr. HONIGH adds:

“After all I heard and saw at Bergen, I don’t doubt in the least that in the Atlantic and on the coasts of Norway really appear from time to time immensely large mammals of the seal-kind, known by the name of “great sea-serpent”, though I therefore don’t admit all fabulous tales about it.”

The words “mammals of the seal-kind” are explained by the following circumstance. In November, 1881, appeared from my pen, then a student’s pen, a little article on the sea-serpent, in which I tried to show that a sea-serpent is a yet undescribed long marine animal, closely allied to the pinnipeds, with a long neck and a long tail. Mr. HONIGH, in preparing his paper for the Gids requested me to let him have a copy of my article, which I sent him, and he evidently accepted my supposition.

In a letter Mr. HONIGH tells me:

“In the literature of the Norwegians the sea-serpent or soe-orm is repeatedly mentioned, and in such an indisputable manner, that in my opinion there is no doubt of its existence.”

“On my return I learned from a gentleman of Bergen, that some time ago there was a part of the skeleton of a sea-serpent in the Museum of Natural History of Bergen.”

Though I begged Mr. HONIGH, teacher at the National Agricultural School at Wageningen, to communicate to me further particulars about the sea-serpent and about its literature, learned by him on his travels through Norway, and repeated this my question in February 1889, I am still waiting for an answer.

* * * * *

=157=.--1885, August 16.--(Nature of September 10, 1885).

“It was hardly to be expected that the season should pass without the appearance of the sea-serpent somewhere, and if we are to believe the information forwarded to us from a correspondent in Norway, it has just visited the coast of Nordland. Three sundays ago some lads were returning to the Island of Röd from the church at Melö, in the middle of the day, when they saw far out in the fjord a streak in the sea which they believed to be a flock of wild ducks swimming. On proceeding further, however, they heard a whizzing as of a rushing fountain and in a few moments perceived a great sea-monster with great velocity making straight for the boat. It appeared to be serpentine in shape, with a flat scaly head, and the lads counted seventeen coils on the surface of the water just as it passed the stern of the boat so closely that they could have thrown a boathook into it. By subsequent measurements on land the length of the animal was estimated at about 200 feet. It pursued its course on the surface of the sea until close behind the boat when it went down with a tremendous noise, but reappeared a little after, shaping its course for the Melö, where it disappeared from view. Naturally, the lads were greatly frightened. The weather at the time was hot, calm, and sunny. Our informer states that the lads are intelligent and truthful, and that there is no reason to discredit their unanimous statement, made, as it were, in a terribly frightened condition. It might be added that the waters in which the animal was seen are some of the deepest on the Norwegian coast, and that it is not the first time fishermen have averred having seen the sea-serpent here. The existence of the sea-serpent is fully believed in along the coast of Norway.”

The sea-serpent in its rapid motion made, as is often stated, the water curl before its throat, which rushing sound was distinctly heard by the lads. Notwithstanding their great fright they yet saw the head was flat, but they were mistaken as to its being scaly. Moreover the account is unvarnished and the description of the animal’s motions is correct.

* * * * *

Mr. W. E. HOYLE, busy on the article “Sea-Serpent” for the 9th. Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1886 (June?) a number of titles of books and journals, which came in his way while studying the subject. This bibliography contains 89 numbers. They were printed, as the author says: “in the hope that they might be the means of saving time and labor on the part of others”. Alas, his hope has not been realized on my part, for I had nearly finished my work when I happened to find Mr. HOYLE’s paper quoted in the decennial Register of the Zoologischer Anzeiger. Only 25 of the numbers published by Mr. HOYLE were new additions to my “Literature on the subject”, and I could consult only three of them, amongst which Mr. HOYLE’s article “Sea-Serpent” in the Encyclopedia Britannica quoted above.

Though Mr. HOYLE states: “no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of certain descriptions of the sea-serpent”, among others of “the huge snake seen by certain of the crew of the Pauline” (n^o. 144, 145) and of “Lieutenant Hayne’s account” (n^o. 148), and though he ends his article with the words: “It would thus appear that, while, with very few exceptions, all the so-called sea-serpents can be explained by reference to some well-known animal or other natural object, there is still a residuum sufficient to prevent modern zoologists from denying the possibility that some such creature may after all exist”, he himself was evidently taken in by the different persons who explained the sea-serpent by reference to the most impossible suppositions! He enumerates eight different explanations and seems fully to agree with them. It is evident that his only purpose was to satisfy the request of writing an article on the Sea-Serpent for an Encyclopedia.

* * * * *

=158=.--1886, August.--In the Graphic of September, 25, we read:

“The sea-serpent has now crossed the Atlantic, and has suddenly appeared near Kingston Point, on the Hudson. It was seen by two young men, who were rowing in a boat, and who, it seems, the monster fruitlessly chased. They describe the animal as growing furious, when it found them escaping. “It lashed the water with its tail, which seemed to be about seventy-five feet distance from its head. The head was as large and round as a flour-barrel; and its eyes of a greenish hue, looked “devilish”. Before resuming its journey up the Hudson, it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank.”

I have no reason to consider this account as a hoax, though it almost reads like one. In the Norwegian accounts it is said that the sea-serpent very often follows boats. I have explained this by the animal’s curiosity, mixed with some fear. The young men may have observed the animal paddling with its hind flappers, a possible expression of some emotion, as I have also explained when speaking of the animal seen from the Kiushiu Maru (n^o. 151), and they may have ascribed the foam to the lashing of its tail; or it really lashed its tail, as I also supposed on that occasion (n^o. 151). The length between head and tail estimated at seventy-five feet, is certainly not exaggerated. As the head is described round as a flour-barrel, it was evidently seen in its face. I refer to the animal of the Osborne (n^o. 148) where the head seen from behind is also described and figured round as a bullet. Of the young men’s description that the eyes “looked devilish”, and also that of their colour being “of a greenish hue” I will only say that it is unique. The “stream of foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank” was of course nothing but a sudden exhalation, probably held for some time from curiosity and fear, and then suddenly sent forth. The locality where the sea-serpent appeared, may be apparently strange, it is, however, very well explicable, owing to the animal’s habit of frequenting shores, and to the habit of other pinnipeds of frequenting brackish water and even mouths of large rivers.--

* * * * *

=159=.--1886, August?--In the same number of the Graphic it says:

“The serpent was also seen by the captain of a steamer, who “gave it the right of way”.”

* * * * *

=160=.--1886, August?--(On the same page):

“And yet another man (appropriately) named Jonah, who at first took the monster to be an immense tree floating with the tide--a notion which was quickly dispelled by the supposed tree throwing twenty feet of its length out of water.”

As the reader will remember, the comparison of the sea-serpent, swimming or lying on the surface, with a floating tree or log of wood, has been made more than once; evidently the animal raised its enormous neck for a moment out of water, to take a look-out.

* * * * *

=161=.--1889, May.--In the Haagsche Courant of June 6, of this year, I read:

“The sea-serpent has again appeared, and been seen by a captain sailing from Liverpool to Philadelphia, who hitherto obstinately refused to believe in its existence.”

Of course I immediately wrote to the Editor, begging him for the name of the journal, from which this statement had been taken. The Editor courteously answered that one of his correspondents had forwarded him a written copy of the account taken from the 38th. number of the Grondwet of May 21st., of this year, published in Holland, Michigan, but the written copy had already disappeared in the paper-basket, and the correspondent requested to send the original, answered that he was unable to do so for the same reason.

* * * * *

In the first days of December 1889, Mr. JOHN ASHTON published his Curious Creatures in Zoology. Pages 268-278 of his volume treat of the sea-serpent. The illustrations which accompany this part are: 1. A representation of a piece of sculpture on a wall of the Assyrian palace at Khorsabad, which as I believe, has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent, but which is a bad drawing of a Hydrophis. 2. The drawing of GESNER (our fig. 16) twice reduced. 3. EGEDE’s sea-serpent, as it was published in PONTOPPIDAN (our fig. 22). 4. An eel-kind taken from ALDROVANDUS’ work, and 5. A reduced copy of Captain M’QUHAE’s sea-serpent (our fig. 28).--

Curious is Mr. ASHTON’s assertion, when speaking of the sea-serpent of Khorsabad-palace and of ARISTOTELES: “These ........ were doubtless marine snakes, which are still in existence, and are found in the Indian Ocean, but the larger ones seem to have been seen in more northern waters”. Consequently he believes, like Mr. ANDREW WILSON that the Hydrophidae may develop gigantically and when in this condition make little trips from their common tropical residences to more northern latitudes!

Further he quotes OLAUS MAGNUS, GESNER, TOPSELL, ALDROVANDUS, PONTOPPIDAN, and EGEDE, but all by the way.

More space is devoted to the accounts of WALTER SCOTT, and to the observations of Mr. MACLEAN (n^o. 31), of a party of British officers (n^o. 97), of Lars JOHNÖEN (n^o. 92), of Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118), and of Lieutenant HAYNES (n^o. 148). All this, however, without giving the least explanation, and ending with these words:

“I think the verdict may be given that its existence although belonging to “Curious Zoology”, is not impossible, and can hardly be branded as a falsehood.”

* * * * *

=162=.--1890, June.--De Amsterdammer, Weekblad voor Nederland, of July 12th. of this year, mentions:

“The sea-serpent again.--Captain David Tuits, of the British schooner Anny Harper, has been favoured with a sight of it, near Long Island, not far from the coast of Connecticut. He is a perfectly trustworthy gentleman, who hitherto has never believed in sea-serpents, but who has now seen one on a clear day; the tail which was coloured brown with black spots, was about forty feet out of the water. The captain estimates the total length of the monster at over one hundred feet.”

I think it not too bold to consider this report almost a duplicate of our n^o. 135. There the sea-serpent is called “a large snake about 100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the body slightly under”. Most probably captain Tuits also saw only the head and the tail of the animal, and not the trunk. The tail is described here to be brown with black spots. It is evident that only the upper part of the tail was seen.

I immediately enquired of the Editor of the Amsterdammer about the source of this article; he, however, promptly answered me that his correspondent did not remember from which of the five or six German newspapers daily read by him, he had copied it.--

* * * * *

“To what class of known beings does this monster of the deep belong?” This question has caused various suppositions, to which we will turn our attention in the next chapter.--

V.

The various explanations hitherto given.

I have found the =first= explanation given about the Sea-Serpent in the Report of the Committee of 1817, where we read an extract from a M. S. journal of the Rev. WILLIAM JENKS, which he communicated in a letter to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, and which letter is printed there. It runs as follows:

“A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. Alden Bradford of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth,) inquired of Mr. Cummings, whether the appearance might not be produced by =a number of porpoises=, =following each other= in a train.”

This passage from the private journal was written in Sept. 10, 1809; but after having consulted SILLIMAN’s American Journal of Science and the Arts, Vol. II, Boston 1819 (1820), we are convinced that Mr. BRADFORD’s inquiry of Mr. CUMMINGS took place before Aug. 1803.

Fig. 52 shows my readers a porpoise.

As we read in SCHLEGEL’s Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, p. 517, note, PETER ASCANIUS in his Icones rerum naturalium Cahier V, Copenhague, 1805, says:

“In summer porpoises approach the coasts and the fjords. They often meet in the open sea in troops of several scores, and when the weather is calm and fine, they range in a line after each other to play and to tumble: they then have the appearance of a chain of little eminences floating on the surface of the water; some fishermen of the North, seeing them at a great distance, took this resemblance for an immense animal and gave it the name of sea-serpent.”

Again in the letter from Mr. S. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT, dated August 20, 1817, we read:

“All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of reports, people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was only a number of porpuses following each other in rapid succession.”

For the fourth time we read in FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. XIX, p. 193:

“Christiania, September 5, 1827. Last week several persons saw large shoals of porpoises, and therefore uttered the supposition that the alleged presence of the sea-serpent was not right.”

Mr. MITCHILL’S paper, of 1828, which we have inserted in toto in our Chapter on hoaxes, also ends with the supposition that the “gambols of porpoises” have given rise to all the tales of the sea-serpent.

SCHLEGEL in his Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, La Haye, 1837, p. 105, in his chapter on Fables respecting snakes says:

“We are surprised to hear of a sea-serpent, monstrous in shape and size”,

and he refers to his chapter on true sea-snakes, the Hydrophidae. There p. 517 he ends his chapter with the following words:

“Before ending the history of the interesting beings of which I have treated, I cannot help saying a few words about an animal, observed through centuries by many people of all ranks, and known to every one from the tales which are spread about it, but which is still ignored by naturalists. I mean the monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which in reality has nothing to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we have treated in the foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous evidences given by very respectable persons to prove the existence of this enormous sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I too should be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been turned into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of 1826. Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea, I suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the mouth of the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which I took for a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several others closely following each other. For the greater part hidden by the water, the upper part of this creature could be distinctly seen only for the short moment, when it was carried on the top of a wave, and plunged down into the precipice formed before it. The illusion caused by the continuous agitation of the waves indeed contributed to make doubtful the appearance of a great number of black objects, appearing together out of the water, disappearing the moment afterwards, and the whole of which deceitfully represented the simultaneous movements of the undulations of one single body. Convinced that the animals were unable to swim in vertical undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till I knew this monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of porpoises.”

In the Archiv für Naturgeschichte, of 1841, Mr. RATHKE, who published in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on his journey in Norway, says:

“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we shall soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what else could be the cause of the illusion which has created the belief in such an animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else but a row of porpoises, swimming in line. But all those persons, by whom the above-mentioned evidences are given were too familiar with the sea, and have too often observed porpoises together, to be deceived by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If this, however, had been the case, all the observations related to me of the sea-serpent’s holding its head above the surface, and about the size of it, must have been mere fiction, and this I cannot admit. According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted, that there is a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow to a considerable length.”

Again, as we learn in FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the Christiansand’s Posten after an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in the fjord of Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the following remarks:

“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed their boats to near the animal, they would undoubtedly have soon observed that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but water. This great sea-serpent in reality consists of a row of porpoises, which in a shoal of from eight to twelve often swim after each other in line. As each of these brown animals, eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears above the surface of the water at proportionably short intervals, in such a way, as if they were about to tumble head first, so every one, who sees such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the coils of an immense snake.”

In a letter from Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage (see Ill. Lond. News of October 28, 1848, and our n^o. 113):

“I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”

In ANDREW WILSON’S Leisure Time Studies we read, 1879:

“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming in line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and then, with a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface of the water, presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought about by a somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”

Mr. LEE in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, 1883, treating of the figure of Mr. BENSTRUP (see our fig. 24), says:

“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”

I have treated of his explanation in the right place (n^o. 10). And on the following page he also asserts:

“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as well as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an upraised head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”

I repeat here what I have said above (n^o. 10): If Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to tell me what was the head that resembled a horse’s head.

Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the great calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as some of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical undulations of the snake seen out of water have been the burly bodies of so many porpoises swimming in line--the connecting undulations beneath the surface have been supplied by the imagination.”

After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s Head (n^o. 155), Mr. SIDEBOTHAM, a correspondent of Nature writes in this journal (1883, Febr. 1):

“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the Little Orme’s Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever that the phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the head your correspondent gives, but in other respects what I have seen was exactly the same; the motions of porpoises might easily be taken for those of a serpent; once I saw them from the top of the Little Orme, they came very near the base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across the bay.”

Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the head.” I remind here my readers of Mr. CUMMINGS’ question “who ever saw a row of porpoises with a head of a seal?”

I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly. They are in the habit of continually throwing up their bodies half above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is clearly visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each coil a backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment afterwards three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen at once, while the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly visible above the surface, moving with the greatest regularity. Every one will feel that this explanation is not satisfactory; it does not even explain a single observation. Besides, how to explain the swan-like neck, so often seen by reference to porpoises? To avoid repetitions, I beg the reader to refer to the testimonies of Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29) and Mr. PRINCE (n^o. 63), in which they clearly bring to light the difference between the appearance of the sea-serpent and that of a row of porpoises.

And where a naturalist, like Mr. SCHLEGEL, describes the effect caused by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those persons who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe of an optical illusion. Mr. SCHLEGEL should have said: “On one occasion I was nearly deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I never saw a sea-serpent!”

* * * * *

The =second= explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the Hon. Judge DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, and Mr. FRANCIS C. GRAY. This learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? and before they began to feel puzzled, a deus ex machina in the form of a sick, illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a working man at that place, bought by Dr. So and So, and presented to the Committee to examine it, because people believed that this animal was a spawn of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really examined and dissected it and gave a full account of their experience in their Report. They considered the little =snake= to be =new to science=, closely allied to the Coluber constrictor or Black Snake, a common species of North-America, and gave it the name of Scoliophis atlanticus. This account is followed by two documents describing how the Scoliophis looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under which it was killed. I present here to my readers the Scoliophis atlanticus reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized figure of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with which the animal was killed.

Next they gave: “A few remarks on the question” (broached by the public) “whether the great serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.” These “few remarks” fill three pages and a half and end with the words:

“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous, important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting that of size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering them individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same name, until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have disclosed some difference of structure, important enough to constitute a specific distinction.”

It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, was a full grown individual of the species they called Scoliophis atlanticus! If they had collected all these accounts, if they had seriously compared them, they would have come most probably to the conclusion that they did not know precisely what it was, but that it could never be a snake.

Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as the little Scoliophis. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which was not bifid, while the tongue of Scoliophis is so! And the most accurate testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had no scales!

The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and no doubt drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE BLAINVILLE dared handle the subject publicly. As soon as the Report of the Committee of 1817 reached him, he made an extract from it in his Journal de Physique, etc., Vol. 86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made much more of the little curious snake, apparently believing too that it was a new species, than of the large marine animal of which he was unable to give any explanation. Mr. DE BLAINVILLE does not hesitate to express his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent to be a real snake and an adult of their Scoliophis atlanticus, and ended his extract:

“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is a true snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the Scoliophis, is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold that it is of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities which become null, if one is to believe that such an immense animal as that observed in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”

For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!

For Mr. DE BLAINVILLE who did not give himself the trouble to collect as many accounts as possible, to read OLAUS MAGNUS, PONTOPPIDAN, EGEDE, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the witnesses concerning the length of the animal.

Mr. A. LESUEUR, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. PÉRON, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. DE BLAINVILLE to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the members of the Committee, together with several inches of another portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake, closely allied to the Black Snake (Coluber constrictor), but that it was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself.

The dissertation of Mr. DE BLAINVILLE and the extract from Mr. LESUEUR’S letter translated into German are in OKEN’S Isis, 1819.

Mr. FRORIEP in his Notizen, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself about this explanation in the following manner:

“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”

Of this little Coluber we find also the following passage in SCHLEGEL’S Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, La Haye, 1837, p. 80:

“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the species called Coluber constrictor, of which all parts were disfigured by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published in Boston, will be found in the Journal de Physique Vol. 86, p. 297.”

Dr. HAMILTON, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, apparently believes that the little Scoliophis atlanticus was the spawn of the Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:

“The Great Sea-Serpent.”

“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.

We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of interrogation after the scientific name.

Without any doubt the Scoliophis atlanticus was a difformed specimen of Coluber constrictor. It was the bunches on its back, which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against this supposition.

* * * * *

The =third= explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already inserted the letter from Prof. T. SAY, of Philadelphia, to Prof. LEACH, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of the crew of the vessel commanded by captain RICHARD RICH, firmly believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but =a large tunny=. Prof. SAY’S letter is also printed in THOMSON’S Annals of January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above mentioned Chapter, fig. 1.

Prof. BIGELOW’S indignation rose against this explanation; in SILLIMAN’S Am. Journ. Sc. Arts. Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:

“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, in which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere), “is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a “defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” (See Thomson’s Annals, for January 1819)”.

“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note from the same author, on the identity of Scoliophis with Coluber constrictor. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on the subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it might have been decorous in him to have noticed the source from which he got his information.”

“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more important than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to the public consideration some additional evidence in regard to the size and shape of this marine animal which has come to light since the publication of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This evidence is partly the result of observations during the present year, and partly the contents of a communication made to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences fifteen years ago, but which, having been mislaid, has not before been published. The reader will judge whether it is a “defective observation” which has produced a remarkable coincidence between witnesses in different periods and places, unknown to each other; or whether it was “an extravagant degree of fear” which induced the commander of an American frigate to man his boats and go with his mariners in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add that the original letters constituting the communication last alluded to, are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy, where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, a seal, a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its enormous long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a tunny, even of nine or ten feet in length!?

* * * * *

The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in his Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents (Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family Hydrophidae), of which I give a figure representing the Hydrophis pelamidoides, and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this head, proposing for them the names of Pelamis megophias (Megophias monstrosus) and Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis.

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History, after discussing the question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a ribbon fish, or a large kind of eel, continues his considerations in the following terms:

“To the Reptiles, however, popular opinion has pretty uniformly assigned this denizen of the sea, and his accepted title of “sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities in the estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. Let us, then, test his claims to be a serpent.”

“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes (Hydrophidae), which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so soundly there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes fails to awaken them.”

“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON on the contrary in September, 1878, declares in Nature (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:

“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”

But a few lines further on he also tells us:

“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”--

In his Leisure Time Studies, the same writer returns to his favourite idea:

“The only group of animals to which our attention may be specially directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of the problem, is that of the Vertebrata,--the highest group of animals, which possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and quadrupeds as its highest representatives. Laying aside the class of birds, as including no form at all allied to our present inquiry, we are left with, speaking generally, three groups of animals, from the ranks of which various forms may be selected to aid us in solving the sea-serpent mystery. These three groups are the fishes, reptiles, and mammalia, and it may be shown that from each of these classes, but more notably from among the fishes and reptiles, various animals, corresponding more or less closely with the descriptions given of strange marine monsters, may be obtained. An important consideration, however, must not be overlooked at this stage, namely, that too frequently the attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent with some known animal of serpentine form and nature, has limited the perceptions and foiled the labours of naturalists. Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown form must be a serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of the term “serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than the reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the subject, and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at once given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists and other writers on this subject have never made allowance for the abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals. My own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations, but especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation of such discrepancies as the various narrations may be shown to evince. If we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary animal life, or amongst the reptiles themselves, the representatives of the “sea-serpents”, I think we may nevertheless build up a most reasonable case both for their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking into account the facts, that the term “sea-serpent”, as ordinarily employed, must be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals which possess elongated bodies; and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordinary serpents and of serpent-like animals will reasonably account for the occurrence of the animals collectively named sea-serpents.”

“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (n^o. 118) “was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits. Whilst to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the Pauline” (n^o. 144, 145) “must be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the animal being described in the various narratives as swimming with the head out of water, would seem to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration. The difficulties which appear to stand in the way of reconciling the sea-serpent with a marine snake, in this or in other cases, are two in number. The great majority of intelligent persons are unaware of the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively marine habits; and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes an apparent difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the history of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks of these marine snakes,--the Hydrophidae of the naturalist,--which inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails adapted for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea. Whilst, as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the true serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply because it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development of an ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with most of the appearances described, and would in the most natural manner explain many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations or inaccuracies in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution of this interesting problem”.

“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of motion of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a dorsal or back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements of the laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath the surface, would serve to propel the animal forward without causing the front portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent motion; whilst the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained on the presumption that sea-weed may have become attached to the animal, or, that the upper ridge of the vertically compressed tail extended far forward and appeared as a fin-like structure.”

“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which I may be desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes the strong points of this explanation, is the probability of the development to a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine serpents. This point is one in support of which zoology and physiology will offer strong and favourable testimony. There is no single fact, so far as I am aware, which militates in the slightest degree against the supposition that giant members of the sea-serpents may be occasionally developed. The laws which regulate human growth and structure, and in virtue of which veritable “sons of Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian giant, differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are developed, must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom. There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition that a giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly observe almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a member of the race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its neighbours. But clearer still does our case become when we consider that we have proof of the most absolute and direct kind of the giant development of such forms as cuttle-fishes, which have thus appeared as if in realisation of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”, which plays so important a part in that strange weird tale, the “Toilers of the Sea”. At the present time we are in full possession of the details of several undoubted cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes of literally gigantic proportions,--developed, in fact, to an extent justly comparable to that of the supposed “sea-serpent”, when the latter is compared with its ordinary representatives of the tropical oceans.”

“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable giant of its race--or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct species of monster sea-serpents--than in the production of huge cuttle-fishes, which, until within the past few years, remained unknown to the foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic developments of snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or reptiles, I hold we have at least a feasible and rational explanation of the primary fact of the actual existence of such organisms.”

Mr. LEE in his Sea Monsters Unmasked (1883) also says:

“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, and are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and colossal development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much attention to this subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law of the production of the giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at any rate, towards accounting for its supposed appearance”.

But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained. Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large Hydrophidae, supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain, the United States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland and the Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends over the tropical seas.

* * * * *

The =fifth= explanation. The same Mr. RAFINESQUE believed the sea-serpent seen by Capt. BROWN to be a fish (n^o. 56), closely allied to the genera Symbranchus (Fam. Symbranchidae) and Sphagebranchus (Fam. Muraenidae); consequently =belonging to the eel tribe=.

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History, after having shown that in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:

“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s figures remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be either so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the animal was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”

And Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his Leisure Time Studies is also inclined to this hypothesis:

“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the appearance of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the movements of a large conger-eel, for example, in any of our great aquaria, must have remarked not only its serpentine form, but also the peculiar gliding motion, which seems frequently to be produced independently of the active movements of the tail or pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however, that a giant eel might by most persons be readily enough referred to its proper place in the animal sphere, although, when viewed from some distance, and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner, the spectators--all unprepared to think of an eel being so largely developed--might report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”

Mr. LEE in his Sea-Monsters Unmasked, too, asserts:

“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”

As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough known to all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The Symbranchus has nearly the same external features, it has, however, no pectoral or ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures, or gill-splits, are united together on its throat. The Sphagebranchus has also nearly the same external features; it has no ventral fins and the very end of its tail is destitute of a fin.

The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility are strong proofs against this hypothesis.

* * * * *

The =sixth= explanation is that which I have accidentally found mentioned in Dr. HIBBERT’S Description of the Shetland Islands, 1822. The passage runs as follows:

“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished for, did not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the sea-snake, but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the =fable=.”

I am convinced that Dr. HIBBERT is right. All fables have their foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible that the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable of Thor’s great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.

Dr. PERCY’S explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE in a note to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2nd. series, Vol. 2, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848:

“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent, which first spread in modern times from Norway, was to be traced to the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology, of that fell offspring of Loki, Jormungandr,--the great world surrounding serpent, whom Thor fished up with the bull’s-head bait, and whom, at the great day of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It is curious by the way, that we are expressly told how Jormungandr rearing his head, poured out fountains of venom upon Thor, very much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great sea-serpent raising up its head and spouting out water.”

At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports of the great sea-serpent are no fables.

* * * * *

The =seventh= explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of =basking sharks=” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at the end of Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation, printed in 1828, with which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in our Chapter on Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our fig. 8, in the Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents.

Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist MANTELL in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor of the Illustrated London News, and published there in the number of November 4, 1848:

“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent, I would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable that an ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine habits described by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing to forbid the supposition that there are unknown living forms of cartilaginous fishes presenting the general configuration and proportions of the animals figured in the last Number of the Illustrated London News.”

Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than thirty feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (Squalus maximus of LINNÉ). The figures referred to are those of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE, (fig. 28, 29, 30).

In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. A. G. MELVILLE was of opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in reality, but only in fables, and that these fables originated in the Northern mythology. Now, he seems to have changed his opinion in a fortnight, for in a letter to Dr. COGSWELL, part of which is published “with permission of both gentlemen” in the Zoologist, number of November 27th., 1848, he says:

“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of some unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have astonished the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile of the authorities of science.”

“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the known facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri; nor do the recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”

“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous fish (Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when caught the sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive it is just as probable that a shark may carry the head for short periods out of the water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally step aboard to look at us land monsters.”

“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved. Might we not obtain some information from the accurate Sars regarding the Norwegian tradition? Could not the surgeon of the Daedalus throw some light on the subject?”

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History, after having treated of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion caused by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some cetacean, expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in the following terms:

“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville consider that the Daedalus animal may have been one of the sharks; and there is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, which was considered by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent, was really the Selache maxima or basking-shark. But the identification of Captain M’Quhae’s figure and description with a shark is preposterous.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, however, in Nature (1878, Sept. 12, Vol. XVIII) is of the opinion that:

“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”

Mr. LEE, in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, 1883, also believes that “the dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured by Mr. Buckland, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently means the ridge of fins as seen in fig. 44.

None of the observers of the sea-serpent mention fins on its back, so that this explanation is not untenable either.

* * * * *

The =eighth= explanation is given by Mr. MITCHILL in his paper “On Sea-Serpentism”, printed in 1828; (See our Chapter on Hoaxes), at the end of which he supposed that also the appearances of =balaenopterous whales= may have given rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says: “which have fins on their back”, and yet he cannot show me one single account of the sea-serpent, in which there is question of backfins. Moreover, who has ever heard of fin-fishes which bend their body in such a manner as to show bunches on their backs, or coils like a string of buoys? Fig. 57 shows the readers a fin-fish (Balaenoptera physalus (LINNÉ)). It is the largest kind of whales, it may obtain a length of 106 feet. An outline of the tail, seen from above, is added above the hindmost part of the main-figure.

Mr. GOSSE in his Romance of Natural History, after having considered and upset the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory says:

“It is by no means impossible that the creature may prove to belong to the Cetacea or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender and lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in this direction.”

The sea-serpent seen by Colonel STEELE, however was not a cetacean, although it was observed spouting, for it had a red back-fin like a saw (see our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, 1852, Aug. 28).--

* * * * *

The =ninth= explanation is Mr. R. BAKEWELL’S. In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, n^o. 879, of June, 1834, we read:

“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great American Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the opinion that the great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the United States of America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles which may be analogous to the fossil =Ichthyosaurus=, and that the description, given of the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles, and formidable mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing more with that of a saurian than with that of a snake. Some of the people who saw the sea-serpent state that the body was very long and as thick as a water-cask.”

Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent to be a living Plesiosaurus, yet we meet with the following suggestion, in the September number of Nature of that same year.

“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters of which the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:--“If the sea-serpent continues in its present sociable state of mind, we may perhaps have an opportunity of deciding the vexed question regarding the formation of that portion of his figure which, according to English observers, he keeps concealed under the water. The legend of the Lambton Worm, a popular tale in the North of England, describes the worm as a serpent of enormous size, who used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the River Wear, just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient stone effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle, represents it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was made, as it probably was, from some recollection on recent tradition of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the beast was one of the winged land monsters which existed at the same time as the Ichthyosaurus, but would naturally become an extinct species far sooner than the fish-lizard, which can conceal itself in the depth of the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”

The Ichthyosaurus must have been destitute of scales, or better the scales must have been of a microscopic minuteness, and so I have ventured to sketch my fig. 59, showing the Ichthyosaurus communis, as it most probably looked, and of which fig. 58 represents the skeleton.

Here we have an animal of really huge dimensions. Some may have had a length of from forty to fifty feet. Their skin was smooth, the tail was very long and four flappers resembling the foreflappers of whales, were the organs of locomotion. Most probably, however, the tail was provided with a vertical fin, as I have delineated. The neck was very short, as in whales. Now the sea-serpent has a pointed tail, and a very long neck. Especially this last character is enough to drop the supposition that the sea-serpents are still living Ichthyosauri. Moreover, the Ichthyosaurus was unable to move in vertical undulations.

* * * * *

The =tenth= explanation.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834), n^o. 879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S latest (1834?) edition of his Introduction to Geology, above mentioned, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds:

“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a =Plesiosaurus=, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the latter does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”

Plesiosaurians, as well as the Ichthyosaurians, are reptiles only known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in liassic and oolitic formations. Of these remains geologists are able to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show my readers a sketch in fig. 60.--If this is done, it will not be difficult to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more so as it is a well-known fact that these animals must have been destitute or nearly destitute of scales. The figures drawn by GOSSE, FIGUIER and ANDREW WILSON, don’t please me, as the necks are delineated too slender, and the head of the animal in Mr. GOSSE’S drawing, in my opinion, is wrongly represented. So I venture to present to my readers my fig. 61, showing how I think that the animal must have looked.

Mr. RATHKE, in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte, of 1841, after publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself is a firm believer in it, goes on:

“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot of course be asserted with any certainty. The supposition, however, is very near, that it is closely related to that animal which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkney’s,” &c.

After a short description of this animal with which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in the Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, Mr. RATHKE concludes:

“that this animal resembled a Plesiosaurus, and that it thus belonged to the Amphibia, viz. to the Saurians. Now if such were the case, and if the creature found in Stronsa were closely related to the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, and we have every reason to believe this, it is astonishing that the latter has not been more observed, than has been the case. For being an Amphibium, which, according to its organization, can only breathe by lungs, the sea-serpent necessarily must have come very often to the surface of the water, to renew the inhaled air. It is, however, conceivable and probable that stretching out its long neck, it generally comes only with the nose tip and only for a very short time on the surface of the water, remaining under it with the rest of the body, in which circumstances it will not be easy to observe it amongst the beating of the waves.”

We observe that Mr. RATHKE, like Prof. SILLIMAN, inclines to believe that the sea-serpent is, or is allied to the Plesiosaurus.

Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, in 1847, on the wrapper of the 54th. number of this Journal made the suggestion that sea-serpents may belong to one of the Enaliosaurians.

I have not seen this wrapper so that I am unable to give the words in which this supposition was written.

Most probably Mr. NEWMAN took this suggestion from Mr. RATHKE’S above mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which he inserted (N. B.!) in the same number of the Zoologist; but it is, of course, possible that this supposition really was the product of his own brain. We hope that the latter was the case; but I only ask: why did he insert the accounts of Mr. RATHKE in the columns of the issue, and why not the above-mentioned suggestion; what was the reason to communicate it on the wrapper? It makes on me the impression as if Mr. NEWMAN waited to see if some one or other would perhaps find out that both accounts and supposition were already six years old! But, of course, I may be mistaken!

Immediately after reading this suggestion on the above mentioned wrapper, Mr. CHARLES COGSWELL wrote for the same Journal his Plea for the Sea-Serpent. For history’s sake I repeat here his whole paper. It runs as follows:

“A Plea for the North-Atlantic Sea-Serpent. By CHARLES COGSWELL, M. D.”

“Every generation of man is born to stare at something, which so long as it eludes their understanding, is a very African fetish to the many, and a Gordian knot to the few.”

HAWKIN’S Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri.

“Of the numerous contributions supplied through the press to support the cause of the subject of this article, one of the most recent has arrested my attention, because of the particulars having been long since familiar to me by oral communication from the writer in person. I allude to the interesting narrative contained in the “Zoologist” for May last, describing a meeting with such an animal off the coast of one of the British provinces, stretching out into the Atlantic to the north-east of New England. It is worthy of notice that several animals of the Cetaceous kind (sometimes conjectured to have been a source of deception) were seen and scanned in limine, and an opportunity was thus afforded for immediate descrimination. Immediately subjoined is another statement, copied from a foreign newspaper, being the tribute of a French sea-captain to the same object, but qualified with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms and measurements, as rather to display an elaborate view of disjoined parts, than represent them all in harmony together as belonging to one individual. It betrays the caution of a witness, who would fain keep an opening in reserve for escape from a precarious position. The former adventure took place in 1833, the latter in 1840, and now they are related almost simultaneously within the last few months.”

“Nor is this delay to be wondered at, when we consider how much the reserve of unbiassed is the tribunal of public opinion, before which they appear. It will hardly be denied that there is no debateable point in the modern records of observation more complacently devoted to ridicule by all but universal consent, than that of the existence of huge serpent-like animals in the North Atlantic Ocean. The very mention of the name of sea-serpent in the singular number with the definite article prefixed, suggests to most minds an idea of some anomalous monster, without parentage or congeners, feigned to haunt the recesses of the deep, and, like the ghost of vulgar superstition, manifesting itself now and again for the sole conceivable end of adorning some wonderful legend. This impression, favoured by the circumstance of no actual specimen having ever occurred to the observation of a naturalist, much less been obtained for deliberate examination, has caused the subject of our notice to rank with the mermaid, the unicorn, the griffin, and other prodigies of the olden faith. It does not fail to be objected that Norway, a locality most fruitful in accounts of the appearance in question, has been immemorially distinguished for a vivid perception of the marvellous. Nor, after hearing the other side of the Atlantic, are we much better able to divest our minds of suspicion with regard to the trustworthy character of the witnesses; our relative in the West having acquired nearly as much celebrity for the endowment of a grand inventive genius as his Scandinavian ally in the cause of sea-serpents. They defer indeed, in so far as the latter believes and venerates his own creations, while the American indulges his fancy for the purely benevolent purpose of what is called “hoaxing” the unwary public. Not many years since, it may be recollected, one of these pleasant philosophers enlightened his fellow-mortals with a “true and peculiar” description of certain winged inhabitants assumed to have been discovered in the moon by an eminent living astronomer, giving the details with so much simplicity and effected candour with regard to some particulars, in the manner of “Gulliver’s Travels”, that many readers were not aware of its being a fabrication. Such proof of a disposition to practise on the public credulity, too often repeated, necessarily communicate a colouring of insincerity to all other reports of strange events emanating from the same source, and certainly demand the exercise of an unusual amount of circumspection, though they do not justify scepticism, in the case now before us.”

“Making due allowance for these peculiarities in the testimony, we may, nevertheless, proceed in a spirit of induction to examine into the tendency of the collateral evidence. The question after all, when reduced to its simplest form comes to be little more than one of geographical distribution. That is to say, that even if we chose to confine the animal to the true serpents, which has been the ordinary conception heretofore, there is no obvious impediment to oppose it, either on the score of want of analogy, or of structural incapacity. Amphibiousness, to commence with, in its popular acceptation, or the capability of spending a considerable time in the water, is one of the most familiar properties of serpents, as illustrated in the common snake (Coluber natrix) and the viper, the only two species, if we except the blindworm, ascertained to be indigenous to these islands. “Snakes”, observes Professor Bell (“History of British Reptiles”) “are extremely fond of the water, taking to it readily, and swimming with great elegance and ease, holding the head and neck above the surface. It is extremely probable that they resort to the water in search of frogs.” In the learned System of Schlegel, translated by Prof. Traill--“Physiognomy of Serpents”--members of various ophidian-groups are characterised as living near and inhabiting lakes and rivers. Some belong to the genera Tropidonotus (which here includes the first named British species), and Homalopsis, comprised under the head of Fresh Water-Serpents. Of the Boas, this author says: “several species frequent fresh water, and there are some of them essentially aquatic,” among them the Boa murina, the largest of known serpents, and his two species of Acrochordus.”

“Further, and what completely sets at rest the part of the case we are now considering, there are swarms of marine ophidians inhabiting the warm latitudes of the pacific. These appear to have been partly known to the ancients. Aelian informs us that Hydrae with flat tails were found in the Indian Seas, and that they also existed in the marshes. He also tells us that these reptiles had very sharp teeth, and appeared to be venomous. According to Ctesias, the serpents of the river Argada in the province of Sittacene, remain concealed at the bottom of the water during the day, and by night they attack persons who go to bath or wash linnen” (Griffith in Cuvier). Schlegel has no less than seven species collected under the generic name of Hydrophis, constituting his family of Sea-Snake--; they are especially fitted for aquatic life, having the nostrils directed vertically and furnished with valves, and the tail flattened like an oar; they reside in the sea exclusively, never going on land, and are supposed to prey on fishes. Their limits belong to the intertropical regions of the Indian Seas, or of the Great Pacific Ocean.”

“The existence of bona fide sea-serpents being therefore a matter of notoriety, (and preserved specimens are to be seen at any time on the shelves of the British Museum), we have but to address ourselves to the subordinate inquiry, whether there be sufficient reason for assigning to any of the family a habitat in the North Atlantic Ocean. And here it is necessary to put away all that idea of deviation from the common order of Nature, which could connect the evidence heretofore given with some isolated excressence so to speak, of the animal kingdom. The great size attributed to them has doubtless, served very materially to produce an infavourable impression. Schlegel limits the extreme length of the greatest known serpent to twenty-five feet, although such naturalists as Cuvier and Milne-Edwards allow an extension of thirty or forty feet to some of the Boas. These estimates do not fall so far short of those contended for in the present instance as to form an insuperable ground of objection. Many witnesses whose character and station in life command respect, whatever judgment may be formed of their powers of correct observation, profess to be fully persuaded that they have seen immense creatures, resembling serpents, in the vicinity of the European or the American shores. The several depositions from Norway that appeared in the “Zoologist” of February last, comprised the testimony not only of fishermen, drawing their subsistence from the sea, and familiar with the more prevalent forms of the inhabitants, but of a class commonly presumed to be well educated, as merchants, clergymen, and a surgeon. Their observations indeed vary on the subject of length (varying between forty and one hundred feet), and likewise on some of the details of outline, so that they may either relate to different specimens, or to deceptive phenomena producing dissimilar impressions, whichever alternative decretic may be inclined to profer. The first notice transmitted by an English gentleman, holding a responsible appointment under the crown in one of our transatlantic dependencies, is calculated to supply any deficiency on the part of the new hemisphere, so far as a faithful representation of what was submitted to the eye alone may remain a desideration. But for the resolution manifested in this periodical to allow the question a fair hearing on its sterling merits, there can be little doubt that this testimony, would not have been forthcoming; like in all probability, more of the same ingenious stamp, which the unwillingness of the principals to oppose the current of public opinion, directly proportioned to the value of the character they run the risk of compromizing for no obvious use, induces them to withhold.”

“But it may be asked, how it is possible to explain the circumstance of these monstra natantia being encountered no farther South than about the sixtieth or fifty-fifth parallel on the European boundary, while in the American water their domain approaches so much nearer the Equator, as Nova Scotia (or New Scotland) and New England? By a curious and happy coincidence, of like significance to many that are constantly springing up to confirm the results of independent research, such for instance as the print of the piscivorous gavials in a prior leaf of the “Stonebook” to the mammalivorous crocodiles; it happens that precisely a line swerving from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts is the boundary likewise of other marine animals of corresponding types. Among the divisions of the North Atlantic, recently marked out by Professor Edward Forbes as determined by the presence of similar forms of animal life, occurs what is called the “arctic and boreal” province, which “sweeps across the northernmost part of the North Atlantic from Europe, extending down the coast of North America as far as Massachusetts, but nothing like so far on the European side as the American.” (Lecture at the Royal Institution, May 14, 1847).”

“Thus copiously backed by the most affirmative evidence, both positive and circumstantial, all contributing to establish the lawful claim to entity, the “great unknown” of the North Atlantic has still to overcome the strong feeling of discredit so widely associated with his past history, before he can hope to be understood as seriously claiming to be a subject of the animal kingdom. If men of the highest name in science condescend to notice him at all, it is most probably with a smile at the expense of what they consider a crude invention, to which no importance should be attached. But authority, however exalted, has no patent of final adjudication in cases where its means of information are confessedly imperfect, as compared with those enjoyed by the supporters of a disputed position. The learned world was centuries in believing the story of Herodotus about little birds resorting to feed on insects within the “stretched jaws” of the crocodile. Bruce all but ruined his credit for a time by relating that he had seen the Abyssinians eat the raw flesh cut from one of the haunches of a living cow; and there are some who, with no more reason, pretend to doubt the good faith of a contemporary traveller, who declares that he once made a brief excursion on the back of an alligator. The conflicts of discovery and opinion engross indeed no small share of the history of human knowledge. There are cases, no doubt, in which the senses and the judgment of incompetent persons are liable to be imposed upon by irrelevant facts created or qualified for the occasion. But here there is no hypothesis concerned requiring nature to be tortured into its service; physiology can have no latent objections, ready to start up unawares and make a mockery of belief, because some of the serpent kind are indubitably organized for an aquatic medium; the laws of geographical distribution deduced irrespectively, yield their consent, and the integrity of not a few of the narrator is unimpeachable. Are we justified in rejecting the text, because the interpretation may not harmonize with our views; in imputing willful dishonesty to those who merely describe to the best of their hability what their eyes have disclosed to them? We do not despice the mermaid, the triton and siren, as altogether imaginary but endeavour to reconcile at least their physical attributes with those of the seal or oriental dugong. The unicorn is supposed to have original in the narwhal; and the griffin is recognized as a well-known friend in an antiquated garb, being no other than the tapir, somewhat disfigured by travellers, and further indebted to the artist for a pair of wings and an architectural style of tail. Even the ghost-seer is seldom suspected of intentional fraud, however justly we may believe to be the dupe of an imagination acted on by some positive phenomenon. The collateral truths which testify on the affirmative side have been dwelt upon to some extent, and shall again be adverted to presently. On the other hand, surely there must be something peculiar in the economy of a vast air-breathing race, frequenting well-known tracts and yet never visible but by the merest accident; nor is it any sufficient answer to refer to the construction of the breathing apparatus, distinctive of the marine ophidians, enabling them to live long under water, and respire air with an almost imperceptible exposure above the surface, because the like provision does not prevent the Pacific denizens from being abundantly subject to observation. The want of conformity in some of the reported particulars of form and dimensions is of insignificant moment, and may easily be converted into a proof of innocence of design. Above all, the objections, be it understood, are not of the kind which the public at large appear to imagine them. There is nothing ridiculous or abnormal in the idea of a sea-serpent. So far from this the philosopher should rather be required to give a reason why at least the warmer situations of the Atlantic are unprovided with occupants corresponding to those which dwell in the opposite region of the globe.”

“If the diversity of detail be accounted too serious an objection to be so lightly dismissed, is there no other organization within our cognizance which more satisfactorily embodies the several conditions rather loosely intimated than prescribed throughout the problem? The portraits given in authors of the restored Plesiosaurus, albeit conceived to represent beings that “filled up the measure of their years long before Eden was planted, and the dominions of man made of the red earth, acknowledged” (Hawkins), offer several particulars answering to those ascribed in most of the notices on record to the so-named sea-serpent,--the long, over-arched neck, the huge trunk, the protracted tail, and sometimes (see the deposition of Archdeacon Deinbolt, “Zoologist” 1606) an appearance of fins or paddles. This coincidence is the more remarkable, because no one can suppose it to have been preconcerted. Hence the ingenious suggestion of the Editor of the “Zoologist”, that the animals may belong to one of the Enaliosaurian types, seems to supply the only deficient link in the chain of demonstration, before we arrive at the final proof, a spectacle open to all observers. The neck of the Plesiosaurus (presuming this to be the genus indicated) “is composed of upwards of thirty bones, a number far exceeding that of the cervical vertebrae in any other known animal. This reptile combines in its structure the head of a lizard with teeth like those of a crocodile, a neck resembling the body of a serpent, a trunk and tail of the proportions of those of a quadruped, with paddles like those of turtles” (Mantell’s Wonders of Geology). If this seemingly whimsical coaptation of incongruous members, which the dictum of science has consigned to the doom of pre-Adamic extinction, can be suspected without unpardonable heresy to be yet among the living, what is more allowable than to surmise that persons even of cultivated intellect, but quite inconscious that such things had ever existed, may have all honestly striven, more or less, to mould their visual perception into accordance with the familiar notion suggested by its general outline; and thus have given rise to the confusion objected to in their reports. Be this as it may, the discovery of Mr. Darwin of marine saurians, though but three or four feet long, about some of the south sea islands, contradicts any assumption that animals approaching to it in character are no longer extant. To account upon this supposition likewise for the hide-and-seek sort of life which those in question seem to lead, it may be observed that “the breathing holes of the Plesiosaurus differ from those of all other existing reptiles, and resemble those of whales”. They are placed “near the highest part of the head, where they would enable the animal most readily to breathe without exposing anything more than the apertures themselves above the water, corresponding admirably with the marine habits of the animal as indicated by the structure of its extremities.” (Ansted’s Ancient World, 1847).

“Without committing myself to anything more than a belief that the subject is one fairly entitled to be considered an open question--open to the unrestrained testimony of future casual observers, equally with the criticism of the scientific--I feel assured that I cannot better express the opinion which every candid peruser of what has been stated must be prepared to arrive at, than by using the words of a naturalist who has given his attention to these remarks: “The argument appears to me perfectly satisfactory in favour of at least a suspension of judgment on the subject. The question is whether the evidence is such as would induce any man to believe, whose mind was prepossessed with no notions at all respecting it. Should we credit the testimony, if the animal to which it relates were claimed to be a mere variety? I think we should.”--

I am obliged to make a few notes or observations on this paper. The account, namely, of which Mr. COGSWELL speaks in the beginning of his “Plea”, which arrested his attention, because of the particulars having been long since familiar to him by oral communication, is that of the party of British officers (n^o. 97).--That “other statement” is that made by Capt. D’ABNOUR (n^o. 106a).--I beg the reader to look over the above-mentioned passages.--Mr. COGSWELL had better done to omit his observation, that the account of the French sea-captain “was qualified with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms and measurements”. The reader himself will in most of the accounts of the sea-serpent, which fill this volume, have observed the same “precision in details” indifferently whether the account was recorded by a Norwegian, a German, an English, a French or an American witness.--His observation that the sea-serpent only occurs “in the North Atlantic no farther south than a line swerving from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts” is incorrect, as the reader may already have observed himself. If he had read all the accounts of the sea-serpent up to his days, he would, of course, not have written this. The “deposition of Archdeacon DEINBOLT, zool. 1606” is of the 28th. of July, 1845 (n^o. 115). Mr. COGSWELL cites here the passage in which he will find “an appearance of paddles”. The reader will probably remember that there was no question of paddles, but of a boiling of the water, which the witnesses thought to have been caused by a pair of fins nearest the head, and which I have explained in another way.--Mr. COGSWELL calls Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, that the sea-serpents may belong to the Enaliosaurian type, “ingenious”. I think that the reader, after having read only the accounts of the sea-serpent up to the days of Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, i. e. up to 1847, will not be inclined to call this suggestion “ingenious”, with regard to the sea-serpent being so often reported as having a mane and whiskers, and swimming with vertical undulations. Moreover it is the question whether this suggestion was Mr. NEWMAN’S or Mr. RATHKE’S.

Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING too, seemed to believe that the sea-serpents are allied to the extinct Plesiosauri, for he writes in a letter to Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty (See Illustrated London News of 28th. October, 1848):

“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile known as the sea-serpent but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect, as well as having short paws or flappers, the description of the Northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same animal as the kraken, or rather from the names having been used indiscriminately.”

Another gentleman, who signed his article in the Times of November 2nd., 1848, with the initials F. G. S., came to the same suggestion. His letter will be found in its right place, after the statements of Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118).

Dr. COGSWELL who perhaps feared that in spite of his “Plea” the story of the sea-serpent was on a fair way to be forgotten, once more took the subject in hand, and sent a second paper to the Zoologist of December 1848. This dissertation is at least better than the first, being partly critical, partly historical. Again, for history’s sake, I am obliged to repeat nearly his whole paper.

“It grows more and more necessary every day to acknowledge the existence of a vast form of marine animal bearing some resemblance to a serpent. The recent letter of Captain M’Quhae to the Admiralty allows of no other alternative than either to admit the evidence, or invent some still more extraordinary hypothesis to explain it away. The forms of bearings of the strangers have been duly reported at head quarters, and no more deserve to be called in question, as regards the fidelity of the narrator, than the existence of any commissioned “Snake” or “Anaconda”, whose station and appointments we find recorded in the daily press. No preternatural messenger in “the shape that tempted Eve”,--he passes by on the other side without manifesting the slightest degree of interest in human affairs; no phantom progeny of light and air, although affecting literally the same haunts as the “Flying Dutchman”,--he steers himself by compass, and is the herald of no signal disaster; no herd of porpoises disporting all in a row, and joined together by some Daedalian process of imagination into the semblance of unity--his head is “decidedly that of a snake”,--he carries it for twenty minutes at a time out of the water; and his body is seen for a continuous length of sixty feet on a level with the surface. From the standard jest of the witty, and the discarded problem of the wise, he has shown himself likely to be “no joke” for his physical powers, and well deserving the gravest scientific inquiry.”

“To show what a formidable and unyielding front has been heretofore opposed to him, I shall quote a passage from the article under the head of “Serpents” in the last edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica” (1842): “No proper proof has yet been adduced of any of these species (sea-serpents) inhabiting the “American Ferry”, as we see that world of waters now named since the steaming days of the British Queen and the Great Western. Mr. Schlegel characterizes the statement as an assertion que je puis contredire avec certitude: and the author adds: “we shall content ourselves by stating that sea-serpents have not yet been observed in the Atlantic Ocean”. The following notice occurs in a popular compilation of the animal kingdom just issued from the press (1848): “Sea-serpent (or the Kraken). The appearance of this fabulous monster is thus accounted for by Mr. A. Adams. In the Sooloo seas I have often watched the phenomenon which first gave rise to the marvellous stories of the great sea-serpent, viz., lines of rolling porpoises resembling a long string of buoys oftentimes extending seventy, eighty, or one hundred yards. These constitute the so-named protuberances of the monster’s back, keep in close single file progressing rapidly along the calm surface of the water,” &c. Had the fabulous serpent in Aesop, who complained of being “a multis hominibus pessumdatus”, been aware of what laid up in the fates for his aquatic relative, no doubt he would have ceased to repine at his own hard lot.”

“The official corroboration of the fundamental truth of these “marvellous stories” is important, not only because the author under the circumstances must at least receive credit for the most entire sincerity, but from the encouragement thus given to other credible witnesses to bring forward their evidence. There is no reason to suppose that even this would have been readily laid before the public, but for the desire expressed by the Board of Admiralty to learn the truth of an accidental rumour. As regards any additional light thrown on the natural history of the animal, it is not more satisfactory than many of the accounts we already possess. Indeed the paragraphs which precede the captain’s letter in the “Zoologist” viz., the extract from the journal of Lieut. Drummond, and the first public rumour as it appeared in the “Times”, tend rather to confuse the official statement, and will no doubt be used to create suspicions of its accuracy. The communication which follows it, purporting to give a report of another specimen seen by an American captain, is supposed to be “a hoax”, and as such is worthy of preservation from the ingenuity it displays.”

“When a doctrine is assumed to be fanciful, people seldom take the trouble to inquire into its history and merits. This may account for the sea-serpent being commonly confounded with a very different prodigy, too exacting in its claims for the most extravagant credulity of modern days to regard with favour. As seen above, its name and that of Kraken are popularly used as synonymous. And nevertheless, Pontoppidan, Bishop of Bergen, whose “Natural History of Norway” (translated into English in 1755) is the usual standard of authority on both subjects, treats of them separately in appropriate sections of his work. Of the Kraken he says, “I come now to the third, and incontestably the largest sea-monster in the world: it is called Kraken, krasen, or, as some name it, krabben, that word being applied by way of eminence to this creature”. Its back or upper part he described as truly gigantic, being a mile and a half or more in circumference, and it is provided with limbs so strong as to be able to pull boats and the smaller sailing crafts under water. Some deem the original of this story to have been a Sepia or Medusa of enormous size; others set it down for an optical illusion; Pontoppidan himself thinks that “in all probability it may be reckoned of the polypi or of the starfish kind”. One cannot help being reminded, on reading the above, of the passage in Milton where he compares Satan, “prone on the flood”, to “That sea-beast””....... &c.--

“Commentators have been divided in opinion whether Milton supposed the leviathan to be a crocodile or a whale. The former idea derives little support from the text; the whale, which has only lately been divested of its “scaly rind”, puts forward more plausible pretentions: nevertheless, the vast bulk of the creature alluded to, and its position, “slumbring in the Norway foam”, suggest the inquiry whether the poet may not have had in his mind a tradition of the kraken. I may mention here that the Norwegian Bishop believed that the Leviathan of Job and Isaiah had been detected in the sea-serpent. Of the latter animal Pontoppidan says: “The soe-ormen””....... &c.

“It would serve little purpose to occupy these pages with mere copies of the published narratives and depositions tending to prove the existence of the animal under our consideration. Whatever discrepancies may perplex us with regard to subordinate details, it is important to remember that the one ruling form, that of a serpent, is the foundation of all the descriptions. The form may vary--in length, perhaps, from forty to a hundred feet and upwards; in the relative dimensions of the head and different parts of the body; in the presence or absence of a mane or paddles; and more particularly with respect to an appearance of dorsal arches or elevations, rising above the water like a row of casks or buoys. The greater part of the evidence on the subject is contained, I believe, in Pontoppidan’s “Natural History of Norway” (1755), the “Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England relative to a large Marine Animal, supposed to be a Sea-Serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817” (Boston 1817), and the last volume of “The Zoologist” (1847). In the Scandinavian work the principal witness is Captain L. de Ferry, of the Navy, who thus describes an individual which he saw while in a boat, rowed by eight men, within six miles of Molde, in a calm hot day of August, 1747. “The head of the snake””..... &c.

“The Report of the Linnaean Society of New England contains the result of an inquiry”....... &c.

“The tenor of the late observations in Norway recorded in the “Zoologist” (Zool. 1604) certainly might justify the inference that these so remarkable prominences are not persistent, but depend, as suggested by the American functionary, on the mode of progression practised at the moment. Anybody that had watched the lithe and varied curves of an otter in the water can have no difficulty in recording together the different kinds of undulations to the sea-serpent. There is one particular of rare occurrence worthy of notice, in one of these later accounts, calling to mind a peculiarity in the description of the animal seen by Mr. Egede, a Greenland missionary and furnished to us with a copy of the figure, by Pontoppidan. This creature, of the unusual length of 600 feet, “had under its body two flappers, or perhaps two broad fins”. One of the recent narratives also states of the progressive movement, that it appeared to be produced “by the help of two fins” (Zool. 1607). Thus is offered a possible solution of the difficulty occasioned by captain M’Quhae’s specimen having advanced at a rapid rate, with 60 feet of the body à fleur d’eau, without any visible undulation.” (I, however, refer the reader to the report of 1845, July 28).

“Here I may refer to “The Description of an Animal stranded on the Island of Stronsa, in the year 1808” given in the first Volume of the “Wernerian Transactions” by the late eminent Dr. Barclay. Evidently disposed to believe that this animal was a sea-serpent, Dr. Barclay indignantly repudiates the opinion of Mr. Home, that it was nothing more than a shark (Squalus maximus). Figures of the two are shown in juxtaposition, for the purpose of constrasting them, and to all appearance their respective peculiarities are quite sufficient to distinctive appellations. The Orkney animal, in fact, bears a curious resemblance to a Plesiosaurus, with six legs. Nevertheless, anatomists have decided that a shark it really was, the anomalies being accounted for by the circumstance of the drawing having been taken from hearsay and under the supervision of persons who only saw the original in a very imperfect state. The “Animal of Stronsa” and the “Scoliophis atlanticus” leave us equally in the dark with regard to the physical economy of the sea-serpent; that is, unless the solution offered by Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310) shall prove to be correct.” (See our 7th. explanation.)

“From what precedes it is evident, First, that the notion of the sea-serpent is not a mere growth of unlettered and credulous superstition, since it has been repeated and confirmed by parties than whom it would be difficult to select any more worthy of confidence, with this sole objection--that none of them have been naturalists. The critical eye of a Müller or an Owen would determine its true affinities in a moment. Secondly, that if we do the justice of rejecting all extraneous ideas, and confine ourself to what strictly relates to the object in question, there is a consistent tendency in nearly all the different narratives to invest it with the true characters of the reptilian class. Thirdly, that if there be any truth in the idea that the animal spends most of its time under water, only rising to the surface in calm weather during the summer months, this--however difficult to conceive of an air-breathing creature--in a great measure accounts for the infrequency of its occurrence. But are there no other forms, even of the highest stage of organization, which have been able to conceal themselves from the scrutinizing of naturalists? Not to speak of the minor accessions of unknown species, coming in to adorn our collections and extend the limits of science, it deserves to be borne in mind that perhaps the very chief of all the quadrumana (Troglodytes gorilla of Savage), the being that holds the foremost rank in the scale next to man, is one of the most recent contributions of the African Fauna. At the beginning of this century a cetaceous animal (Physeter bidens of Sowerby), sixteen feet long, was cast ashore on the coast of Elginshire, the species has been previously undescribed, and not another example is commonly believed to have since occurred. From the difficulty of assigning it a place, it has been the subject of no fewer than four or five generic appellations, and it is finally referred, by my friend Dr. Melville, to the Delphinorhynchus micropterus of Dumortier, two other specimens of which only exist, the one stranded at Havre, the other at Ostend. Were this animal known only by tradition, it is improbable that naturalists would have refused it their sanction, under an impression that a species of such individual magnitude could not possibly have escaped being captured and subjected of their criticism? And yet the recognition of the great Physeter bidens is purely the result of an accident!”

“If the reptilian nature of this mysterious creature be supposed to have been established, it becomes an interesting speculation to consider how far the stories of terrific dragons, transmitted to us by the ancients, had their origin in realities with which they were more conversant than ourselves. The sea-serpent, if a real existence, is of no modern creation. Our forefathers must have seen it. The utmost length at present allowed to land-snakes is twenty-five feet (Schlegel). Nevertheless, the very important part sustained by the serpent in the old mythologies,--its imposing magnitude and powers, and celebrated by historians and poets,--and its consequence in the romantic animals of the middle ages, will unstill a suspicion that, perhaps, not the biographers of snakes were mendaceous, but their heroes, like those of “the last minstrel”, have changed or disappeared in the progress of civilization. It is without the slightest idea of attaching any overstrained importance to the following passages that I venture to quote them, as proving that the idea of serpents frequenting and traversing the sea was at least not repugnant to ancient prejudices. The avenging ministers of Minerva, crossing the Aegean on their mission to destroy Laocoon, might be vindicated by an ardent classic as the model from which the moderns have often plagiarised their descriptions of the sea-serpent.

“Ecce autem gemini a tenedo tranquilla per alta “(Horresco referens) immensis orbibus angues “Incumbunt pelago, pariterque ad litora tendunt: “Pectora quorum iter fluctus arrecta, jubaeque “Sanguineae exuperant undas; pars caetera pontum “Pone legit, sinuatque immensa volumine terga. “Fit sonitus spumante salo”.--Virgil.--[3].

[3] Look, from Tenedos there come down through the quiet see (I shudder in telling it) two serpents in enormous coils, moving through the sea, and together they direct themselves to the strand: their chests, held up between the waves, and their blood-red mane are held above the waves; the remaining part lashes the sea, and they bent their immense backs in coils. There arises a noise, whilst the ocean skims.--Vergilius, Aeneis, II, 203, sqq.

“The poet, too, is sustained by the naturalist, for here we have Pliny (whose facts by the way deserve to have inspired the apophthegm that “truth is stranger than fiction”) telling how the African dracones were wont to club together and brave the perils of the Red Sea, in quest of the more luxurious diet of Arabia: “Narratur in maritimis eorum quaternos quinosque inter se cratium modo implexos erectis capitibus velificantes, ad meliora pabula Arabiae vehi fluctibus.” (Plin. Hist. Nat. VIII, 13).[4]

[4] “And (the Asachaeans) tell that near their coasts every time four or five of these (dragons) twisted together in the way of a twisted work, and sailing with their heads erected in the air, sail on the waves towards a better provender place of Arabia.”

“On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the rare opportunity afforded for the discussion of the subject by the conductor of this journal, for the purpose of showing, first, that sea-serpents as a family have long been perfectly recognized in science, and that therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment of ridicule; and next, of remarking that strange as are the properties attributed to the great sea-serpent, there are remains of a former world in our museums which in their perfect state united them all or nearly all. Encouraged by the Editor’s referring them to the Enaliosauri [Zool. LIV. Wrapper] I ventured to name the Plesiosaurus as the marine animal of our acquaintance to which they bear the nearest resemblance. This, although admitted at the time to be a daring breach of the Draconic laws of geology,--laws, which, having once consigned an organized form to extinction, have very rarely relaxed their rigour,--seemed to be a necessary result to the argument par voie d’exclusion: if not a Plesiosaurus what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to be at all correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the “animal of Stronsa” after all furnish the real key to the problem? The affirmative side of the question is not without at least two very able supporters (see Zool. 2310); and yet how to reconcile the characteristics of any possible shark with the sea-serpent-like head, curved neck, mane, or certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances so often mentioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent of the “Times” (Zool. 2311) calls attention to the striking resemblance between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosaurus, and is surprised at its never having occurred to any one before. If the signature F. G. S. implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological Society, it is satisfactory to find a member of that particular body, whose favour was least to be expected, so pleased with the idea as to be willing to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been repeated and widely circulated by other periodicals. In the words of an elegant contributor in “Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal who alludes to it” one would almost suppose that among the buried learning of the earlier nations there lurked some knowledge of geology, seeing how their ideas about dragons came to such a conformity in some respects, with the realities of these preadamite reptiles.”

“The determination of a great marine species, however, and even a knowledge of its habits and influence on the other inhabitants of the deep, are not, as I conceive, the most obvious advantages to be desired from the settlement of this question. Let it be admitted that a huge unknown creature of any description, provided its general appearance is such as to redeem the various historians of the great sea-serpent from the charge of wilful deception, does “swim the ocean stream”, and the value of the result cannot be too easily over-estimated. The cui-bono philosopher, the bugbear of naturalists, will no doubt have been highly amused with the recent excitement about a discovery that at first sight appears of no practical consequence to the interests of man. I know of no subject of research he would be likely to seize upon with more secure self-complacency--or of one which, though indirectly, supplies a more triumphal answer. To have our failing confidence in the value of human testimony reassured (and no evidence can be more solemn than that which relates to the sea-serpent), is surely no trifling gain of itself. But more than this: no circumstance has tended so emphatically to stamp the “Yankee” character with the stain of a bold and unscrupulous love of fiction and exaggeration as the story of the sea-serpent. Perhaps, on the principle of Mr. Warren’s “man about town”, who, being called a splendid sinner, made it his pride to deserve the title, the thoughtless portion of our Trans-atlantic family (the generous tribute of an Agassiz is sufficient warrant for the savans) may have thence been led to indulge in a dangerous style of humour, through a spirit of bravads. This source of misunderstanding once removed, the American character may afterwards be regarded with more respect, and the people themselves--no longer excited to defy the ridicule they were not able to escape--may sober down to the legitimate standard of reason.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, too, could not forego the pleasure to publish a second time his favourite explanation of the Enaliosaurians. In the Preface to the year 1848 of his Journal, which appeared together with Mr. COGSWELL’S above mentioned dissertation, he filled some pages about the subject:

“The communications made to the Admiralty by Captain M’Quhae has turned public attention to the possibility of the existence of a Sea-Serpent (Zool. 2307). My own views on this subject have long been known: two years have elapsed since I expressed an opinion (Zool. 1604), that although the evidence then before the public was perhaps insufficient to convince those who had hypotheses on their own to support, yet that it was far too strong for the fact-naturalist, the inquirer after truth, to dismiss without investigation. To advance such an opinion as this,--to admit the possibility of the existence of a sea-serpent in so enlightened an age as the nineteenth century,--of course led to my being loaded with ridicule; loaded, but not overwhelmed, for I immediately afterwards ventured on expressing a still bolder opinion,--no less than that of suggesting its affinity to a tribe of animals supposed to be extinct. I stated on the wrapper of n^o. 54 that the Enaliosauri of authors would, if living, present the appearances described. Almost immediately after this I published the statement of Captain Sullivan and five other British officers, who deliberately assert (Zool. 1715) that they saw--while on a fishing excursion on the coast of British America--a sea-serpent, which they supposed to be eighty or a hundred feet in length; its head, six feet in length, and its neck, also six feet in length, were the only part constantly above water, and resembled those of a common snake: the creature passed them with great rapidity, “leaving a regular wake”. Nothing is said of any undulating movement, or of any appearance of portions or coils of the body. The statement of Captain M’Quhae (Zool. 2307), and that obligingly furnished expressly for the “Zoologist” by Lieut. Drummond (Zool. 2306), essentially corroborate the evidence of Captain Sullivan and his companions: the length and position of the head and neck, and their being kept constantly above water, closely correspond; the estimated total length corresponds; the non-observance of any undulation corresponds,--indeed Captain M’Quhae expressly states that no portion of the animal appeared to be used in “propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation”. Thus we have separate statements closely corresponding with each other, and each statement is vouched for by several British officers whose veracity has never been called in question: under these circumstances we may afford to dismiss from this inquiry all those assertions of American captains, which have been treated in this country with such contempt. Resting the evidence solely on the authority of British officers, I then wish to state my unhesitating conviction that a marine animal of enormous size does exist, and that it differs essentially from any living animal described in our systematic works; and here I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that the statement of captain Sullivan should have been so entirely neglected as it has been: it appears to me in all respects equally trustworthy with the official statement of captain M’Quhae.”

“The next question which occurs is this--to what class of vertebrate animals must we refer this monster of the deep? Is it a mammal, bird, reptile, or fish? All these classes include animals whose home is the ocean. To commence with placental mammals;--we have otters, seals, walrusses and sea-cows, all of which breathe atmospheric air, and, therefore, when swimming on the surface usually keep their nostrils--often their heads--above the water: they also propel themselves by means of submerged fins or paddles, and, when inclined, can move along the surface with rapid direct and continuous motion. Professor Owen (Zool. 2312), in accordance with these views, declares the animal to be a seal; Phoca proboscidea or P. leonina, but his reasoning on the point appears to me very inconclusive: he assigns the animal a “capacious vaulted cranium”, whereas Lieutenant Drummond (Zool. 2307) declares the head was “long, pointed, and flattened at the top”, adding that it was, “perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.” Captain M’Quhae, also, subsequently to Professor Owen’s paper, repeats (Zool. 2333) that “the head was flat, and not a capacious vaulted cranium”. The captain, who must be annoyed at the insinuation that in an official report he had magnified a seal into a sea-serpent, emphatically declares that “its great length and its totally differing physiognomy preclude the possibility of its being a Phoca of any species.” This idea must therefore be abandoned; the other marine mammals still remaining open for future consideration.”

“Among Birds we have no approach to the animal described.”

“The Enaliosauri next claim our attention, and, for the present purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because I feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could urge many reasons in connection with the views I have long since published in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations which may be considered speculative, I would invite the intention of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by a section of the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the sternum, and the smoothness of the skin; and when they have well-considered these important points, I would inquire whether these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian? and, again, whether they are not rather marsupial than placental? I have already pointed out the manupedine, ferine, glirine and brutine groups of marsupials; why should we not also have a cetine group? Without making any other use of this suggestion than that of temporarily separating the Enaliosaurians from the Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention to the arguments of Mr. Morries Stirling (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. S. (Zool. 2311), both of whom support the opinion which I had previously broached as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent,--a view controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen (Zool. 2316), on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct; but here I may perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact, being only assumed, does not touch the main question.”

“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion of an anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. COGSWELL (Zool. 2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal may not have been a boa; and I may observe that the evidence concerning the head, which has been repeatedly described as precisely resembling that of a snake or serpent, together with the fact of the animal holding its head clear of the water, are so many points in favour of its belonging to the Ophidia; but, on the other hand, we must place the non-observance of that undulating mode of progression which every snake must employ,--and it amounts to more than non-observance, for Captain M’Quhae, who directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length--three times that of a boa--militates against this hypothesis. Professor Owen lays great stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae; but as only two Ophidians have yet entered the arena as competitor for the title of sea-serpent,--Saccopharynx flagellum, which I have heard is a bona fide black snake, and Boa constrictor, which is received on all kinds as a veritable serpent,--I think the absence of ophidian vertebrae is of no great moment. The Sauria offer similar coincidences with the Ophidia, and present a similar discrepancy: their heads and necks might readily be described by general observers as those of snakes or serpents, but the undulating motion with which they swim is almost precisely similar to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an objection to our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia and Chelonia have next to be considered, and these truly possess the submerged limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the vertebral column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles absolutely impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned, these reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living animal with the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents. Yet the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles, and especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the idea of their being described--even by the veriest tyro in observation--as snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both crocodiles and tortoises floating on the surface of water, the back, and not the head and neck, must be the part most prominently and permanently visible. It is therefore manifest that no existing groups of reptiles answers the conditions required by the recently-recorded descriptions of the sea-serpent.”

“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the sharks as offering a solution of the problem; and the record respecting the sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great weight to this view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists as Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the Stronsa animal, I entertain very great doubts of the decision in question; it certainly does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae of an ophidian, but then no naturalist desires to make it one; the boa hypothesis is applied only to the sea-serpent of the Daedalus. Leaving, however, this Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may observe, first, that all analogy contravenes the idea of a shark having a neck, and secondly, I would beg of those gentlemen who advocate this hypothesis, to take their pencils and depict a shark with a head and shoulders clear out of the water, and his body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think the most brilliant fancy could scarcely imagine a shark maintaining such a position for twenty minutes at the time, and, what is stranger still, while in this position, ploughing the ocean at the rate of twenty miles an hour.”

“After maturely considering these various views, it will be found that the Enaliosaurian hypothesis presents the fewest difficulties,--in fine, one only, the supposition that these wonderful creatures have become extinct. It will be the object of a separate essay, now preparing for the press, to adduce evidence from other sources of the existence--in sea-serpents seen off the Norwegian coast--of two large flappers or paddles, closely corresponding in situation with the anterior paddles of Ichthyosaurus, and also of enormous eyes, exactly as indicated by the fossil remains of that animal; but this, not being deducible from recent observations, may be reserved for a more complete and careful review of the entire history of these enormous creatures which in all probability will eventually be found to constitute several genera and species.”

“In throwing open the pages of the “Zoologist” to communication on a subject so uniformly tabooed by the scientific,--in claiming for that subject a calm and dispassionate investigation,--in expressing my unhesitating belief that the various narratives, although often conflicting, are nevertheless, according to the belief of the narrator, perfectly true,--and in attempting to assign the sea-serpent a place in the System of Nature,--I feel convinced that all true naturalists will approve the course I have taken, and will be willing to abide the result. Discussion must ever have the tendency to dissipate error and establish truth; and he who believes himself right need never shun the ordeal. In this spirit I invite discussion, and shall feel obliged for any communications tending to elicit or establish truth.”

Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.

The communications made by Captain M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND are inserted in the foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118).--The statement of Captain SULLIVAN and five other British officers is that of 1833, May 15th., inserted above. (n^o. 97.)

Ever and anon Mr. NEWMAN shows that the statements referred to by him are those of British officers. Why so? Is a British officer more trustworthy than an officer of any other nation?

What zoologist or palaeontologist has ever shared Mr. NEWMAN’S doubt of the reptilian nature of the Enaliosaurians!? Who would like to bring these extinct creatures under a newly founded order of Cetacean Marsupials!! Did not Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion originate in the two facts 1. That he himself thought the sea-serpent to be an Enaliosaurian, and 2. That Prof. OWEN asserted that the sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE, according to his description and figures, must be a mammal? I think Mr. NEWMAN reasoned further: “well, why should the Enaliosaurians not be mammals?”

“The enormous length of the animal, three times that of a boa, militates against this hypothesis”, viz. of being a boa. This is no argument. In the time that only calamaries were known of 6 or 7 feet length, with arms of 10 or 11 feet, nobody had ever dreamt that there existed really individuals of 30 feet in length with long arms of 50 feet!

It is evident that Mr. NEWMAN was wrongly informed about the Saccopharynx flagellum, for this animal is a kind of fish, belonging to the eel-tribe, however not in the least resembling an eel in its external characters, and not a black snake!

The “separate essay, now preparing for the press” as far as I know has never been published.

The quotation of the Ichthyosaurus shows us that Mr. NEWMAN was unwilling to give up his first suggestion. The evidence, referred to by him, where the sea-serpent had apparently two flappers near the head, is the same as that referred to by Dr. COGSWELL, (see pp. 409, 411, and n^o. 115.).

After observing that other sea-serpents, e. g. that of Captain M’QUHAE don’t come up to his Ichthyosaurian suggestion, Mr. NEWMAN concludes that “the enormous creatures in all probability will eventually be found to constitute several genera and species!!!

The favourite Plesiosaurian hypothesis is also spoken of by the writer of the “Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the bones of the Stronsa Animal” (which I have inserted in my Chapter on Would-be sea-serpents). He says:

“But we must now conclude with the single remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark, it was certainly not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance.” JAS. C. HOWDEN.

As to the animal of Mr. MACLEAN, see our n^o. 31.

Mr. NEWMAN in the Preface to the Zoologist for 1849, wrote the following about the Reptiles mentioned in this volume. The words are worth quoting.

“In British Reptiles nothing remarkable has occurred; but I have been favoured with a communication, published in the February number (Zool. 2356), announcing the present existence of huge marine animals closely related to the Enaliosauri of by-gone ages, that appears to me in all respects the most interesting Natural History-fact of the present century, completely overturning as it does some of the most favourite and fashionable hypotheses of geological science. The published opinion of Mr. Agassiz (Zool. 2395) certainly favours the idea that Enaliosaurians may still exist: he says: it would be in precise conformity with analogy that an animal should exist in the American seas which has long been extinct and fossilized in the Eastern hemisphere: he instances the gar-pike of the western rivers, and says that, in a recent visit to Lake Superior, he has detected several fishes belonging to genera now extinct in Europe.”

The communication mentioned here is that of Captain HOPE, who saw the sea-serpent in the Gulf of California (n^o. 119). In fact, since this opinion was expressed by AGASSIZ, (where?) numerous animals, even of tolerably large size, have been discovered in Australia as well as in the great depth of the ocean, the allies of which are only found in a fossilized state.

The favourite Plesiosaurus hypothesis is also treated of and finally adopted by Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History. After rejecting the hypotheses of the sea-serpent being only a deceitful huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a large ribbon-fish, some large kind of the eel tribe, a large specimen of true sea-snakes, a strayed large land-snake as the boas, he goes on in the following manner:

“It yet remains to consider the hypothesis advanced by Mr. E. Newman, Mr. Morries Stirling, and “F. G. S.”, that the so called sea-serpent will find its closest affinities with those extraordinary animals, the Enaliosauria, or Marine Lizards, whose fossil skeletons are found so abundantly scattered through the oolite and the lias. The figure of Plesiosaurus, as restored in Professor Ansted’s Ancient World, has a cranium not less capacious or vaulted than that given in Captain M’Quhae’s figures; to which, indeed, but that the muzzle in the latter is more abbreviate, it bears a close resemblance. The head was fixed at the extremity of a neck composed of thirty to forty vertebrae, which, from its extraordinary length, slenderness, and flexibility, must have been the very counterpart of the body of a serpent. This snake-like neck merged insensibly into a compact and moderately slender body, which carried two pairs of paddles, very much like those of a sea-turtle, and terminated behind in a gradually attenuated tail”.

“Thus, if the Plesiosaur could have been seen alive, you would have discerned nearly its total length at the surface of the water, propelled at a rapid rate, without any undulation, by an apparatus altogether invisible,--the powerful paddles beneath; while the entire serpentine neck would probably be projected obliquely, carrying the reptilian head, with an eye of moderate aperture, and a mouth whose gape did not extend beyond the eye. Add to this a covering of the body not formed of scales, bony plates, or other form of solidified integument, but a yielding, leathery skin, probably black and smooth, like that of a whale; give the creature a length of some sixty feet or more, and you would have before you almost the very counterpart of the apparition that wrought such amazement on board the Daedalus. The position of the nostrils at the summit of the head indicates that on first coming on the surface from the depths of the sea, the animal would spout in the manner of the whales,--a circumstance reported by some observers of the sea-serpent.”

“I must confess that I am myself far more disposed to acquiesce in this hypothesis than in any other that has been mooted. Not that I would identify the animal seen with the actual Plesiosaurs of the lias. None of them yet discovered appear to exceed thirty-five feet in length, which is scarcely half sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. I should not look for any species, scarcely even any genus, to be perpetuated from the oolitic period to the present. Admitting the actual continuation of the order Enaliosauria, it would be, I think, quite in conformity with general analogy to find important generic modifications, probably combining some salient features of several extinct forms. Thus the little known Pliosaur had many of the peculiarities of the Plesiosaur, without its extraordinarily elongated neck, while it vastly exceeded it in dimensions. What if the existing form should be essentially a Plesiosaur, with the colossal magnitude of a Pliosaur?”

“There seems to be no real structural difficulty in such a supposition except the “mane”, or waving appendage, which has so frequently been described by those who profess to have seen the modern animal. This, however, is a difficulty of ignorance, rather than of contradiction. We do not know that the smooth integument of the Enaliosaurs was destitute of any such appendage, and I do not think there is any insuperable unprobability in the case. The nearest analogy that I can suggest, however, is that of the Chlamydosaur, a large terrestrial lizard of Australia, whose lengthened neck is furnished with a very curious plaited frill of thin membrane, extending like wings or fins to a considerable distance from the animal.”

(Foot-note:) [“It was not till after this paragraph was written that I noticed the very close similarity of the fins with which Hans Egede has adorned his figure of the sea-serpent (copied in the Illustrated London News, Oct. 28, 1848), to the frill of the Chlamydosaurus.”]

“Two strong objections, however, stand in the way of our acceptance of the present existence of Enaliosauria; and these are forcibly presented by Professor Owen. They are,--1. The hypothetical improbability of such forms having been transmitted from the era of the secondary strata to the present time; and 2. The entire absence of any parts of the carcases or unfossilized skeletons of such animals in museums.”

“My ignorance of the details of palaeontology makes me feel very diffident in attempting to touch the former point, especially when so great an authority has pronounced an opinion; still I will modestly express one or two thoughts on it.”

“There does not seem any à priori reason why early forms should not be perpetuated; and examples are by no means rare of animals much anterior, geologically, to the Enaliosaurs, being still extant. The very earliest forms of fishes are of the Placoid type, and it is remarkable that not only is that type still living in considerable numbers, but the most gigantic examples of this class belong to it,--viz. the sharks and rays; and these exhibiting peculiarities which by no means remove them far from ancient types. The genus Chimaera appears in the oolite, the wealden, and the chalk; disappears (or rather is not found) in any of the tertiary formations, but reappears, somewhat rarely, in the modern seas. It is represented by two species inhabiting respectively the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans.”

“Now, this is exactly a parallel case to what is conjectured of the Enaliosaurs. They appear in the oolite and the chalk, are not found in the tertiary strata, but reappear, rarely, in the modern seas, represented by two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern Oceans.”

“Among Reptiles, the curious family of river tortoises named Trionychidae, distinguished by their long neck, and a broad cartilaginous margin to the small back-shell, appears first in the wealden. No traces occur of it in any subsequent formation, till the present period, when we find it represented by the large and savage inhabitants of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Ganges.”

“What is still more to the purpose is, that the Iguanodon, a vast saurian which was contemporary with the Plesiosaur and Ichthyosaur, though transmitting no observed representative of its form through the tertiary era, is yet well represented by the existing Iguanadae of the American tropics.”

“It is true the Iguana is not an Iguanodon; but the forms are closely allied. I do not suppose that the so-called sea-serpent is an actual Plesiosaur, but an animal bearing a similar relation to that ancient type. The Iguanodon has degenerated (I speak of the type, and not of the species) to the small size of the Iguana; the Plesiosaurus may have become developed to the gigantic dimensions of the sea-serpent.”

“A correspondent of the Zoologist (2395) adduces the great authority of Professor Agassiz to the possibility of the present existence of the Enaliosaurian type. That eminent palaeontologist is represented as saying, that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were represented by living types in the New. He instances the gar pike of the Western rivers, and said he had found several instances in his visit to Lake Superior, where he had detected several fishes belonging to genera now extinct in Europe.””

“On this point, however, an actual testimony exists, to which I cannot but attach a very great value.”

Here Mr. GOSSE cites the report of Captain HOPE (n^o. 119), and goes on:

“Now, unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an animal which could have been no other than an Enaliosaur,--a marine reptile of large size, of sauroid figure, with turtle-like paddles. It is a pity that no estimate, even approximate, of the dimensions is given; but as the alligator affords the comparison as to form, it is most probable that there was a general agreement with it in size. This might make it some twelve or fifteen feet in length.”

“I cannot, then, admit that either the general substitution of Cetacea for Enaliosauria in our era, or the absence of remains of the latter in the tertiary deposits, is sufficient evidence of their non-existence in our seas; any more than the general replacement of Placoid and Ganoid fishes by the Cycloids and Ctenoids, or the absence of the former two from the tertiaries, is proof of their present non-existence.”

“It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Darwin has ably insisted, that the specimens we possess of fossil organisms are very far indeed from being a complete series. They are rather fragments accidentally preserved, by favouring circumstances, in an almost total wreck. The Enaliosauria, particularly abundant in the secondary epoch, may have become sufficiently scarce in the tertiary to have no representative in these preserved fragmentary collections, and yet not have been absolutely extinct.”

“But Professor Owen presses also the absence of any recognised recent remains of such animals. Let us test this evidence first by hypothesis, and then by actual fact.”

“It may be that a true serpent, with large vesicular lungs, would float when dead, and be liable to be seen by navigators in that condition, or to be washed ashore, where its peculiar skeleton would be sure to attract notice. But, as I have before said, I do not by any means believe that the unknown creature is a serpent in the zoological sense. Would a Plesiosaurus float when dead? I think not. It is supposed to have had affinities with the whales. Now, a whale sinks like lead as soon as the blubber is removed; the surface-fat alone causes a whale to float. But we have no warrant for assuming that the Plesiosaur was encased in a thick blanket of blubber; no geologist has suggested any such thing, and the long neck forbids it; and if not, doubtless it would sink, and not float, when dead. Therefore the stranding of such a carcase, or the washing ashore of such a skeleton, would most probably be an extremely rare occurrence, even if the animal were as abundant as the sperm whale; but, on the supposition that the species itself is almost extinct, we ought not to expect such an incident, perhaps, in a thousand years. If we add to this the recollection, how small a portion of the border of the ocean is habitually viewed by persons able to discriminate between the vertebrae of an Enaliosaur and those of a Cetacean, we shall not, I think, attach great importance to this objection.”

“The only region of the globe in which the unknown monster is reputed to be in any sense common, is the coast of Norway. Now this, it is true, is fortunately within the ken of civilized and scientific men; and, confessedly, no enormous ophidian or saurian carcases have ever been recognised on that shore. But the shore of Norway is, perhaps, the least favourable in the world for such a jetsam. Such a thing as a sand or shingle beach is scarcely known; the coast is almost exclusively what is called iron-bound; the borders of the deeply indented fjords rise abruptly out of the sea, so that there is generally from fifty to three hundred fathoms’ depth of water within a boat’s length of the shore. How could a carcase or a skeleton be cast up here, even if it floated?”

“But, secondly, as to facts. Is it true, that of all the larger oceanic animals we find the carcases or skeletons cast up on the shore? Is it true even of the Cetacea, whose blubber-covered bodies invariably ensure their floating, and whose bones are so saturated with oil that they are but little heavier than water?”

“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French coast, which was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so fortunate as to fall under the examination of so eminent a zoologist as De Blainville; and hence its anatomy was well investigated. It has become celebrated as the Toothless Whale of Havre (Aodon Dalei). Yet no other example of this species is on record; and, but for this accident, a whale inhabiting the British Channel would be quite unrecognised.”

“Of another Whale (Diodon Sowerbyi), likewise British, our entire knowledge rests on a single individual which was cast on shore on the Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the naturalist Sowerby.”

“There is a species of sperm whale (Physeter tursio) affirmed to be frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of sixty feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other Cetacea by its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by other remarkable peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet no specimen of this huge creature has fallen under modern scientific observation; and zoologists are not yet agreed among themselves whether the high-finned Cachelot is a myth or a reality!”

“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a Cetacean which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing two dorsals. The character was so abnormal that his statement was not received; but the eminent zoologists attached to one of the French exploring expeditions,--MM. Quoy and Gaimard,--saw a school of cetacea around their ship in the South Pacific, having this extraordinary character,--the supernumerary fin being placed on the back of the head. Here is the evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a most remarkable whale, no carcase of which--no skeleton--has ever been recognised.”

“The last example I shall adduce is from my own experience. During my voyage to Jamaica, when in lat. 19° N., and long. from 46° to 48° W., the ship was surrounded for seventeen continuous hours with a troop of whales, of a species which is certainly undescribed. I had ample opportunity for examination, and found that it was a Delphinorhynchus, thirty feet in length, black above and white beneath, with the swimming paws wide on the upper surface, and isolated by the surrounding black of the upper parts,--a very remarkable character. This could not have been the Toothless Whale of Havre; and there is no other with which it can be confounded. Here, then, is a whale of large size, occurring in great numbers in the North Atlantic, which on no other occasion has fallen under scientific observation.”

“Are not these facts, then, sufficiently weighty to restrain us from rejecting so great an amount of testimony to the so-called sea-serpent, merely on the ground that its dead remains have not come under examination?”

“In conclusion, I express my own confident persuasion, that there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the fossil Enaliosauria of the lias.”

We only observe that Mr. GOSSE is evidently inclined to believe that there are “two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern oceans.” It is not at all plain what circumstance has led him to this supposition.

Curious is the comparison of the flappers, figured by Mr. BING (fig. 19) with the frill of the Chlamydosaurus. I give here a figure of such an animal.

Mr. GOSSE gets clearly entangled in his own considerations of the affinity of the sea-serpent with the Plesiosaurus when he comes to the fact of the existence of a mane. It is a pity that he has not mixed up with his considerations the well-known Iguana tuberculata, a lizard belonging to the same family as the Chlamydosaurus, but which has a comb extending over the whole length of the neck, the back and the tail!

Mr. LEE in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, considering the Plesiosaurus hypothesis, says:

“I think this theory is not forced upon us.”

Of the probability of living Plesiosauri, however, he says:

“Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance of probability is contrary to the supposition that any of the gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued to live up to the present time. And yet I am bound to say, that this does not amount to an impossibility, for the evidence against it is entirely negative. Nor is the conjecture that there may be in existence some congeners of these great reptiles inconsistent with zoological science. Dr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum, a strict zoologist, is cited by Mr. Gosse as having long ago expressed his opinion that some undescribed form exists which is intermediate between the tortoises and the serpents.”

“Prof. Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the Zoologist (p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence of the Enaliosaurian type that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American Seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were represented by living types in the New.”

It is obvious that of all animals, now living or extinct, the outlines of the Plesiosaurus fit best to the descriptions and figures of the great sea-serpent. Abandoning the possibility of still living Plesiosauri, I reply to the question “Why cannot the sea-serpent be a Plesiosaurus?”

Plesiosauri with such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent has, are hitherto unknown to palaeontologists, but, as to me, this cannot be of much importance; for there is no reason why in the course of ages this appendage should not have been developed to gigantic dimensions. The difference between the place of the nostrils in the two animals cannot claim any weight either (the Plesiosaurus had its nostrils both before its eyes and not at the end of its snout, as is the case in the sea-serpent) for this place may have changed in process of time. But there are two other differences which are of very great importance, and settle the question: 1. The neck of the Plesiosaurus must have been fit to be bent in all directions, but I think no palaeontologist will ever admit that its trunk or backbone could be bent in such vertical undulations, as is the case with the sea-serpents. 2. The Plesiosaurus may have been destitute of scales, and may have had a smooth skin, it can never have been provided with a hairy skin as seals have, and at all events it had no mane, and no whiskers.

* * * * *

An =eleventh= explanation is properly a negative one. In the American Journal of Science and Arts, of 1835, viz: Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, the Editor, published a report of one of his acquaintances, wherein the eye-witness declared: “nothing like a fin was seen”. Now Prof. SILLIMAN in a Remark of the Editor says: “The absence of paddles or arms =forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian=.”

I need not observe that this explanation was premature, and that the assertion “nothing like a fin was seen” does not exclude the presence of flappers, hidden under water. The flappers of a swimming sea-lion or seal are not generally seen either. If not a saurian, what kind of animal could it be then, a fish or a mammal?

* * * * *

The =twelfth= explanation, viz: =a row of spermwhales=, which is found in Prof. SCHLEGEL’S Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, 1837, p. 518, is better than that of a row of porpoises or of basking sharks, with their plainly visible backfins, for there is a species of spermwhales, viz. the Catodon macrocephalus the backfin of which is so small as to be almost invisible. The other species, Physeter tursio has a rather large and erected backfin.

Professor SCHLEGEL, after describing the appearance of a row of porpoises swimming in line, goes on saying: “This habit is also common to the larger cetaceans, which, however, only accidentally frequent our” (the Dutch) “coasts. The coasts of North-America, where the monstrous sea-serpent has so often been observed, swarm with them, and I confess that from a vessel, for instance, the unexpected appearance of a family of spermwhales swimming in line, with the eldest at the head, must offer a spectacle striking enough and fit to call forth at once superstition, imagination and fear.”

It is true that a row of sperm-whales must offer a striking spectacle, but in none of the accounts of the sea-serpent the “bunches” or visible parts of the vertical undulations surpassed the length of a fathom, whilst the visible parts of the backs of spermwhales measure several fathoms, and the distance between two of these backs in a row of spermwhales is enormous. The supposition, moreover, does not explain the head resembling that of a snake, and kept constantly above water, neither the long neck accidentally observed, the long and pointed tail, &c.

* * * * *

The =thirteenth= explanation supposes that the sea-serpent may be a still living =Basilosaurus=, an extinct marine mammal, first described by HARLAN in the year 1824; afterwards the name was changed to that of Zeuglodon by Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Fig. 65 represents the skeleton of a Basilosaurus. This animal lived in the tertiary periods. Almost all the characters of the skeleton remind us of Pinnipeds, only a few of Cetaceans, and so it is still doubtful to which order it belongs. Professor D’ARCY W. THOMPSON rejects all association with the Cetacea (Studies from the Museum of Zoology in University College, Dundee, Vol. I. N^o. 9.) The length of the largest skeletons measured seventy-five feet. The teeth and molars are nearly exactly those of seals. The nostrils were situated at the tip of the nose, as in seals, most probably, however, they were directed upwards. The bones of the rather short fore-extremities resemble those of seals. Most probably these limbs were provided with nails, as in seals. But, on the other hand, of some of the known skulls the remaining part shows an affinity to cetaceans. The vertebrae again are seal-like. Till now it is unknown whether the animal had hind-extremities or not, for the bones of them are not yet discovered. The body must have been rather slender and cylindrical. I venture to represent to my readers in fig. 66, a Basilosaurus restored. As the bones of the fore-extremities closely resemble those of seals, it is probable that small hind-extremities were not wanting. If the former resembled those of dolphins, the existence of hind-flappers would be problematic. Yet I have omitted them, because the bones of them are not yet discovered, as far as I know.

The reader will remember that Dr. KOCH (see our Chapter on Hoaxes and Cheats) exhibited a large skeleton in Broadway, New-York, under the name of Hydrarchos Sillimanni. This skeleton was made by him out of several bones of the extinct Basilosaurus. The imposture was soon discovered by Prof. WYMAN, and, of course, immediately published in all kinds of newspapers, which also reached Europe. In FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, of February, 1846, is one of these articles translated into German. Consequently we may conclude that the translator of this article knew that the Hydrarchos Sillimanni was, in fact, made up of bones of the Basilosaurus. Now we find in FRORIEP’S Notizen, Third Series, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847, a suggestion of a writer who wrote under the initials M. J. S. (evidently the Editor, the well-known Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN: I have searched the Bibliotheca Zoologica of CARUS and ENGELMANN, and not found another author whose name has these initials):

“Is the sea-serpent perhaps identical with the Hydrarchus, viz. a still living species, a still present remainder, though in a few individuals, of former periods?”

I think that this means: “Are there perhaps still living Basilosauri, and is the sea-serpent perhaps one of these creatures?”

Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. wrote in Nature of 18th. of November, 1880, Vol. 23, a paper, entitled: “Order Zeuglodontia”, in which he tries to show that the sea-serpent most probably belongs to this Order. The contents of his paper are as follows:

“In August 1848 H. M. S. Daedalus encountered off St. Helena a marine animal, of which a representation appeared in the Illustrated News of the latter part of that year. It is thirty-two years since I saw this figure, but I recollect that it was one of a blunt-nosed animal with a neck carried about four feet above the water, which was so long as to present the appearance of a serpent; and I remember that Prof. Owen, in combating at the time the idea that this was a sea-serpent, pointed out that the position of the gape in relation to the eye, as shown in the figure in the Illustrated News, was that of a mammal, and not that of a reptile; in consequence of which he argued that the animal seen was probably only a leonine seal, whose track through the water gave an illusory impression of great length. This idea, however, seemed to me untenable in the face of the representation in the Illustrated News; but it was obvious that to afford the buoyancy necessary for the support above the water of so long a neck (estimated on that occasion as sixty feet though only the part near the head was actually out of the water), the submerged portion of the animal could not have had the shape of a serpent.”

“Two or three years after this, on reading the description of Zeuglodon cetoides, from the Tertiary (probably Upper Eocene) formations of Alabama, it struck me that the animal seen from the Daedalus may have been a descendant of the order to which Zeuglodon belonged; and I have ever since watched with interest for reports of the “great sea-serpent”.”

“Three years ago the following appeared in the newspapers.”

Here Mr. SEARLES WOOD copies the whole affidavit of the crew of the Pauline (n^o. 144), and adds:

“The locality here specified was about thirty miles off the northern coast of Brazil.”

And he goes on:

“In this account I thought that I recognized the grip of the whale by the long neck of the attacking animal, the appearance being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the objects; but in face of the general ridicule which has been attached to this subject, and being without any assurance that the declaration so purporting to be made was genuine, I did not venture to ventilate my long-cherished idea. A relative of mine, however, just returned from India, chancing to say that two of the officers to the steamer in which she went out had on the previous voyage witnessed an immense animal rear its neck thirty feet out of the water, and that a sketch of the object had been instantly made, and on reaching port sent to the Graphic. I obtained the number of that paper for July 19, 1879, and I inclose a tracing of the figures in it, which are accompanied by the following statement in the Graphic:--”

The statement of the Kiushiu Maru is further copied, accompanied by the two figures (see n^o. 151, figg. 48 and 49), and he continues saying:

“As I have not been able to find any description of the skeleton of the Zeuglodon, I venture to draw attention to the subject through your columns, in the hope that among your many readers in America this letter may attract the notice of some one who will tell us whether what is known of the osseous structure of Zeuglodon cetoides is or is not consistent with the representation in the Graphic. The remains of the cetacean, supposed to be extinct, indicate, according to Sir Charles Lyell, that it was at least seventy feet in length, (He observes in the third edition of his “Manual of Elementary Geology”, 1851, p. 208, that he visited the spot where a vertebral column of this length belonging to Zeuglodon had been dug up.) while its great double-faced but knife-edged molars show that it was carnivorous; and as we are not so far removed from the period of the Alabama Tertiaries as to render it improbable that members of what must once have been a great Order of carnivorous cetacea, totally distinct from the orders of cetacea hitherto known as living, may still survive, I have braved the ridicule attaching to this subject so far as to invite attention to it.”

“The second of the two figures in the Graphic shows the long necked animal to possess the cetacean tail, and its head there seems to have been turned from the observer, so that the underside of it only is presented. The first figure shows that the whale had been seized on its flank by the powerful bite of its aggressor, and that to escape from this it had thrown itself out of the water. Having succeeded in this object the second figure shows the aggressor rearing its head and neck out of the water to discover the direction which its prey had taken, in order that it might follow it up; and so far from the charge of curious drawing made by the editor of the Graphic being justified, the representation of the whale can be at once recognized as fairly correct; while that of the tail of the unknown animal (which probably prompted this charge), so far from being curious, forms an important piece of evidence as showing the animal in question to be catacean.”

This paper had already been sent to the Editors of Nature, when Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN., observed that he was mistaken as to the report, and as soon as possible he sent a Postscript to the Editors, which appeared appended to his paper. The postscript runs as follows:

“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my relative, and find that the cut in the Graphic of July 19, 1879, is not that of the instance observed from the steamer in which she came home, which was the City of Washington; but of a separate instance which occurred to another ship. I have not been able yet to procure the Graphic containing the figure of the animal seen from the City of Washington, but she tells me that it was pasted up in the saloon and represented only the head and long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great height out of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for the Graphic by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence. These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked are, however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”

“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description of Zeuglodon cetoides, says that “the skull is very long and narrow and the nostril single”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth on which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded the order Zeuglodontia, from the Miocene of Malta; and that the teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the Gironde and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under the name of Squalodon, are those of a smaller species of Zeuglodon. The remains of Squalodon, along with those of the shark with huge teeth, Carcharodon megalodon, and of numerous cetaceans assigned to orders all still living, and of which some, such as Delphinus, belong to living genera, occur in the “Sables inférieures” of Antwerp; which, though long called Miocene, are by Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as older Pliocene, and as the base of that series of deposits of which the middle and upper divisions are respectively represented by the Coralline and Red Crags of England; and with these “Sables inférieures” the so called Miocene of Malta, in which Zeuglodon is associated with Carcharodon, is probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc., 2d. ser., vol. I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp species of Carcharodon from both the Eocene of South Carolina and Miocene of Alabama. These various references bring the Zeuglodonts, with their Carcharodon associates, down to a late geological period during which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey the whale in the woodcut (which looks like a Grampus) seems an example”.

“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English (1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures (one of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves, and the other that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers or fins, resting almost on the surface of the sea, with head and tail erect out of the water like the letter U, and spouting water or steam from its mouth in a single column), from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen, some of whom had seen the animal in the position in which it was observed from the Daedalus, and others in that in which it is represented in the cut as seen from the Kiushiu-maru; for in the long narrative which he gives of the descriptions received from observers at numerous times, some of these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his own.”

“[The animal seen from the Osborne, and figured in the Graphic of June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing from the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”

I shall take the liberty to make some remarks on his paper.

The reader will remember (see n^o. 118) that it was not the long neck of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, made by the officers of the Daedalus, but the roundness of its neck, the apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of the animal’s head with that of a snake.

In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD says: “a neck, estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the reason of such a deduction!

As I have not read the “description of Zeuglodon cetoides” I am not able to discover the reason why it struck Mr. Wood that the animal seen from the Daedalus may have been a descendant of the order to which Zeuglodon belonged.

We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the object” (See n^o. 144). I will not contest his opinion!

I do not know what to think of Mr. WOOD, when he speaks of the Kiushiu Maru in connection with a relative of his. I may suppose that his relative had told him she repatriated by the City of Baltimore through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous voyage” of that vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding this he cites the account of the Kiushiu Maru reporting the appearance of a sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) in the Van Diemen’s Straits. Most probably the City of Baltimore never was there!

In short, the error took place, and Mr. WOOD sees clearly in the figures of the Graphic his Zeuglodon pointing out that this figure shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently the animal must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. WOOD was convinced that the Zeuglodon (read Basilosaurus) had the following outlines!

It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had the opportunity to read “a description of Zeuglodon cetoides”. Yet he holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between the extremely short neck of Basilosaurus and the extraordinarily long neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events must have struck him.

At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations of PONTOPPIDAN’S Natural History of Norway. It is clear that he has not read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that the Bishop concocted his two figures from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen”, whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first figure is a copy of a sketch of Mr. BENSTRUP, and the second a copy of the drawing of Mr. BING. Of the latter figure Mr. WOOD says “it is that of a serpent-like animal almost resting on the surface of the sea”. I shall be greatly obliged to any person who can show me a passage either in PONTOPPIDAN’S or in EGEDE’S work, stating that the animal presented itself in this way “resting on the surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself (n^o. 5), where it is clear that the animal must have been seen in this position for only the fraction of a second!

Mr. WOOD, describing the drawing of Mr. BING underlines the words: in a single column, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water or steam from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their attention to the fact that the figure represents the animal’s head seen from aside), whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose or mouth, when seen from aside could ever have been decided to be single or double! If we look at the breath of a horse, standing just on one side of him, it will be observed to be single. This optical illusion will be dispelled as soon as we stand in front of the horse. Bing’s figure would have been incorrect, if he had drawn two columns, though in reality--if the animal exhaled through its nostrils,--the column must have been double.--It is remarkable that Mr. WOOD does not say anything of the great difference between the figure of the Kiushiu Maru (with a cetacean tail) and that of Mr. BING, (with a long and pointed one).--Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his own description!

Finally he compares the animal seen from the Osborne with a manatee! Surely we must be a Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD JUN. to find this conception not preposterous!

In a second paper in Nature of February 10, 1881, Mr. WOOD quotes the report of the City of Baltimore, and correcting his second error, writes in parentheses “not City of Washington, as I had misunderstood.”--In treating of this report and of the accompanying figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers, whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in the act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According to his idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very long neck (called by him Zeuglodon), he ascribes the splash, caused by the hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal. Remarkable is his third error; for after having first confounded the foremost splash, drawn in the figure, with that described in the report as caused by the dropping of the neck, he now writes: “the foam around the neck may be due to the splash of the humeroid” (i. e. fore) “paddles which a cetacean should possess.”

Mr. WOOD further sees in the figure of the head of the Daedalus animal (fig. 30) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead and eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison is far fetched.

Of the report of Captain Cox (n^o. 152) Mr. WOOD says:

“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major Senior in the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the water prior to its darting forward under it; while the boiling of the water around, which is so inconsistent with the motion of a snake in water (which I have more than once seen) evidently resulted from the strokes of the cetacean tail, and possibly also from those of the paddles, as in the case witnessed by Major Senior. The black colour also is described in both cases.”

In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion that the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four flappers together. It is very natural that Mr. WOOD who represents the sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and with a long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally he says:

“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous letter” (figg. 48, 49, 46, and reduced sketches of figg. 28 and 30), “it appears to me that the external form of the animal must resemble the well-known Plesiosaurus, if we imagine the hinder (femuroid) paddles of that Enaliosaurian to be absent, and a cetacean tail (which is their homologue), to be present in their stead. Since in the direction of the Porpesse the cetacean in external form so closely simulates the fish, so it may in another direction simulate this Mesozoic marine saurian, or the gigantic Elasmosaurus of the American cretaceous formation, of which a nearly perfect skeleton is described by Prof. Cope as forty-five feet in length, the neck constituting twenty-two of this length.”

And he expresses his firm opinion:

“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists any doubt that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans, with necks of extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”

In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number of the Album der Natuur for 1882, and in this issue the author of the present Volume treated of the probability of the existence of the great sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was only a student of Natural History at the Utrecht University, really believed the animal of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and was misled by the hoax of Captain SEABURY of which he only knew the last part, found by him in the Illustrated London News. In his firm belief, however, he examined such characters, taken from these tales and from nearly 60 reports then known to him, as were possible from a zoological point of view, and came to the conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a mammal, with four flappers, a long neck and a long and pointed tail, and that the position of this marine mammal is between dolphins and pinnipeds. Was there such an animal known? Yes, the Zeuglodon cetoides of Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Well, as the sea-serpent has the outlines of a Plesiosaurus, with an enormous tail, he called it Zeuglodon plesiosauroides. At that time he was the dupe of the Stronsa animal and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so many other writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the difficult question without reading, if not all that had been written about the animal, at least much more than some few reports!

* * * * *

The =fourteenth= explanation is that of an anonymous writer in one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848. Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND, he asks whether or not the animal could be a full grown specimen of =Saccopharynx flagelium= of Dr. MITCHILL or the =Ophiognathus ampullaceus= of HARWOOD. I have only to tell my readers that these two names are given to two different species of the same genus, that the former attains a length of about five, the latter of about six feet, and to give the next figure, in order to enable them to judge themselves, whether such an animal could ever have shown itself in the form of a sea-serpent! They belong to the family of the Muraenidae.

The figure represents the Eurypharynx pelecanoides of VAILLANT, taken from FILHOL’S La vie au fond des mers. GÜNTHER, in his Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger says on p. 262 of Saccopharynx Bairdii (synonym with Saccopharynx flagellum): “It is uncertain whether these specimens are specifically distinct from Saccopharynx pelecanoides VAILLANT.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before my readers the above figure as a representation of the general outlines of Saccopharynx flagellum.

* * * * *

The =fifteenth= explanation is suggested by the same anonymous writer on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance of the sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether “some land species, as the =boas=, among which are individuals of forty feet in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even transport themselves from one continent to another”.

Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round the trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles Lyell from the Zoological Journal of December, 1827. (Principles of Geology.)”

Mr. GOSSE in his Romance of Natural History after having shown that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family Hydrophidae) because “none of these are known to extend a few feet in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, that a record exists of a serpent having been seen in the very midst of the North Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the historical fact of the boa constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes the report of the sea-serpent seen from the General Coole, (n^o. 25) and goes on saying:

“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that no suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to have occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and nothing more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, “sixteen or eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”

“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a true serpent--perhaps the Boa Murina, one of the largest known, and of very aquatic habits--carried out to sea by one of the great South American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to the spot where it was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion it affords us no help in the identification of the great unknown.”

“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly that of a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed to mark the characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal from another, are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at all events, is rather negative than positive. For example, if a person of liberal education and general information, but no naturalist, were to tell me he had seen a creature with a head “exactly like that of a snake”, I should understand him, that the head was not that of an ordinary beast, nor of a bird, nor that of the generality of fishes; but I should have no confidence at all that it was not as like that of a lizard as of a serpent, and should entertain doubt whether, if I showed him the form of head, even of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was something like that.”

“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the colossal animal seen from the Daedalus, and on other occasions, is a serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A lengthened cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything that appears, it may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender cetacean, as anything. All analogies and probabilities are against its being an ophidian.”

It is remarkable that Mr. GOSSE is disposed to believe that the sea-serpent of the General Coole was a boa, because the report speaks of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of the Daedalus was a boa, though the captain, Mr. M’QUHAE, clearly tells that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without any doubt, was that of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference between “a snake” and “a serpent with a head of a snake”!? What, in short, is the difference between a snake and a serpent? Though he attaches a considerable value to the assertion of the captain of the General Coole who speaks of “a snake, and nothing more”, Mr. GOSSE “does not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them was undoubtedly that of a snake”. How to make this agree?

Mr. LEE in his Sea Monsters Unmasked says: “a marine snake of enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he means in this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents the sea, as the Boa murina, I have placed this supposition here, and I have not considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.

As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the boas are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.

* * * * *

The =sixteenth= explanation is given by Professor RICHARD OWEN, viz.: that the sea-serpent is a swimming =large seal=. I refer my readers to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain M’Quhae could have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118). After having enumerated all the characters of the animal seen by captain M’QUHAE, taken from the figures as well as from the descriptions, Professor OWEN comes to the conclusion: “All these are the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal..... Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetacean mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor OWEN further concludes: Phoca proboscidea or Phoca leonina. Very remarkable is the fact that a few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This is the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as to be inadmissable, in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as to the nature of the animal”. (The italics are mine).

In fig. 69 I show my readers the Macrorhinus leoninus, LINNÉ, or sea-elephant, of which Phoca leonina, LINNÉ, and Phoca proboscidea, PÉRON, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated tubercular proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which is seen in the background of my drawing, have the common features of seals.

Mr. H. E. STRICKLAND and Mr. A. G. MELVILLE in the note added to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say of Prof. OWEN’S letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation of the circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and briefly, but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the Great Sea-Serpent generally.”

Captain M’QUHAE, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of a seal. His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I therefore refer my readers to it (n^o. 118).

Mr. FRORIEP, in his Notizen, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, 1849, after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement of Lieutenant DRUMMOND, from that of Captain M’QUHAE, from the hoax of the Daphne, from the suggestion of Mr. MANTELL, from that of Prof. OWEN, &c. &c. finally concludes:

“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is still fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent; yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must be a large sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a snake; but whether this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to the family of the amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful after the objections of Prof. OWEN.”

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History treats of the seal-hypothesis in the following manner:

“Among animals, the Vertebrata are the only classes supposable. But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but Mammalia, Reptilia, Pisces,--there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of lengthened form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each has the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”

“Let us, then, look at the Mammalia. Here Professor Owen would place it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost the force of an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption if I venture to examine the decision of one whom I greatly respect. It is true, his reasoning applies directly only to the creature seen from the Daedalus; but we are bound to consider the exigencies not only of that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated cases.”

“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:--“Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short obtuse muzzle, gape not extending further than the eye; eye rather small, round, filling closely the palpebral aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous modifications of hard and naked cuticle; nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle; body long, dark brown, not undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.”

“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on the back to a horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing of hair; and, guided by this interpretation, the Professor judges that the animal was not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”

“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, more than from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that this diagnosis was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made from the life, under the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing could be more legitimate than such a use of them. But surely it has been overlooked that they were made under no such circumstances. Only one of the published representations was original; and this was taken “immediately after the animal was seen”. That is, one of the officers, who could draw, went below immediately, and attempted to reproduce what his eye was still filled with. Now, what could one expect under such conditions? Of course, the artist was not a zoologist, or we should have had a zoologist’s report. Would the drawing so produced be of any value? Surely yes; of great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful representation of the general appearance of the object seen, but nothing more; its form, and position, and colour, and such of the details as the observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down, so to speak, in his mind, would be given; but a great deal of the details would be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an object before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles, relative distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them down seriatim; ever looking at the part of the original on which he is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was open to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but necessarily vague, idea of the whole before him as the original from which he drew. Who is there that could carry all the details of an object in the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, too, under strong excitement? This was not the case even of a cool professional artist, called in to view an object for the purpose of depicting it; in all probability the officer had not thought of sketching it till all was over, and had made no precise observations, his mind being mainly occupied by wonder. He sits down, pencil in hand; he dashes in the general outline at once; now he comes to details,--say the muzzle, the facial angle;--of course, his figure must have some facial angle, some outline of muzzle; but probably he had particularly noticed that point. What shall he do? there is no original before him, a glance at which would decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or three forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer, with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the head?” and then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so of other details.”

“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making a caricature. I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed for nearly forty years to draw animals from the life; and the public are able to judge of my power of representing what I see; but I am quite sure that if I were asked to depict an object unfamiliar to me, which I had been looking at for a quarter of an hour, without thinking that I should have to draw it, I should do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed the officer to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take him into your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful thing in blossom; keep him looking at it for some ten minutes without a hint of what you are thinking of; then take him into your drawing-room, put paper and colours before him, and say, “Make me a sketch of that plant you have just seen!” When it is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give you the characters of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare it yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general correctness.”

“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the sketch made on board the Daedalus must be for minute characters; and particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked with italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove the mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters could not possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ distance. I say “mainly relied on”; because there is the manelike appendage yet to be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of a mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it decides the question, however, I will presently examine.”

“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in which the creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to me at all to resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted cranium”. The summit of the head does not rise above the level of the summit of the neck; in other words, the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal, while there are indications that the occiput considerably exceeds the neck in transverse diameter. This is not the case with any seal, but it is eminently characteristic of eels, of many serpents, and some lizards. Let the reader compare the lower figure (Illustrated London News, Oct. 28, 1848) with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s British Fishes (ed. ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the scincoid lizards (the Jamaican Celestus ociduus, for instance) is not at all unlike that represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short, but a little more pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this point the Captain’s assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to Professor Owen, he distinctly asserts that “the head was flat, and not a capacious vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant Drummond, published before any strictures were made on the point, says, “the head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”

“With regard to the “mane”. The great Phoca proboscidea is the only seal which will bear comparison with the Daedalus animal in question, reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers declare that upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at the surface; but Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance of the water produced by progression induced an illusive appearance of a portion of this length. But how much? Suppose all behind thirty feet, the extreme length of the elephant seal. Then it is impossible the animal could have been such a seal, for the following reason. The fore paws of the seal are placed at about one-third of the total length from the muzzle; that is, in a seal of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle. But twenty feet of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and yet no appearance of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head to have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); and besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”

“But the great Phoca proboscidea has no mane at all. For this, we must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two kinds are recognized under this name, Otaria jubata and Platyrhynchus leoninus; though there is some confusion in the names. Neither of these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, about five feet would be the utmost that could project from the water in swimming. Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant officers to have magnified the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; I fear even then it will not do. For the mane in these animals is a lengthening and thickening of the hair on the occiput and on the neck, just as in the lion. But the “serpent’s” mane was not there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head” says Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says Captain M’Quhae.”

“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”

I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. GOSSE in discussing the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may add: especially of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE, was prepossessed with his idea of the sea-serpent being an Enaliosaurian.--Mr. GOSSE points out that the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal; but he does not fix the reader’s attention to the fact that if this were really the case, the estimation of the length of the head by Lieutenant DRUMMOND at “ten feet” and that of the diameter of the neck by Captain M’QUHAE at “sixteen inches” don’t agree at all!--In none of the reports of the animal of the Daedalus there is question of the “serpent” being “twenty feet projected from the water”; it is only stated that the head was kept four feet above the water.--Neither do the reports mention how much of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. GOSSE says “an equal length”.--Lieutenant DRUMMOND did not say that the mane was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the gallant officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!--

Prof. OWEN relying upon the descriptions of Captain M’QUHAE and drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their statements to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, absolutely rejects the estimation of the length of the animal at “sixty-feet at least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly come to another conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, and to the question: “which mammal could it have been? his reply could not be otherwise than: “a large seal”. It is evident that for this reason he recalled to his mind all the sea-mammals known to him, but he seems to have totally overlooked the possibility of the existence of sea-mammals unknown to him!!! The conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads the Professor to write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”. The Professor would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had examined all the reports about the animal, and all that had been written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a thorough investigation a sceptic must remain a sceptic.

I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. The latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant has no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these characters are very prominent in the sea-serpent.

* * * * *

The =seventeenth= explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is nothing else but a gigantic =sea-weed=, detached from the bottom of the sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. In the Zoologist of that year, p. 2541, we read the following statement of Captain HERRIMAN:

“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship Brazilian, now lying near the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the following curious and interesting statement:--

“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. the ship was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, being about forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, R. N., is said to have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight o’clock on that morning, whilst the captain was surveying the calm, heavy, rippleless swell of the sea through his telescope, the ship at the same time heading N. N. W., he perceived something right abeam, about half a mile to the westward, stretched along the water to the length of about twenty-five or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady, sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above the waters, had something resembling a mane, running down to the floating portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out into a sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly the same latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had fallen in with the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately called his chief officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, who, after surveying the object for some time, came to the unanimous conclusion that it must be the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae. As the Brazilian was making no headway, Mr. Herriman, determining to bring all doubts to an issue, had a boat lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together with Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, who acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they approached the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow of the boat armed with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. The combat, however, was not attended with the danger which those on board apprehended; for on coming close to the object it was found to be nothing more than an immense piece of sea-weed, evidently detached from a coral reef, and drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the westward in this latitude, and which, together with the swell left by the subsidence of the gale, gave it the sinuous, snake-like motion.”

“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity of examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” account of the great sea-serpent,--Mr. Herriman himself admitting that he should have remained under the impression that he had seen it. What appeared to be the head, crest, and mane of the immensum volumen, was but the large root which floated upwards, and to which several pieces of the coral reef still adhered. The Captain had it hauled on board, but as it began to decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now regrets that he had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of exhibition in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the tide and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”

Again we read in the Times of February 13th., 1858, republished also in the Zoologist for 1858, p. 5990:

“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington, of the ship Castilian, stating his belief that he had seen the great sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened by the fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship Daedalus near the same position. The following circumstance which occurred on board the ship Pekin, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & W. Smith, on her passage from Moulmein, may be of some service respecting this “queer fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E., nearly calm, saw, about half a mile on port beam, a very extraordinary looking thing in the water, of considerable length. With the telescope we could plainly discern a huge head and neck, covered with a long shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out of the water. This was seen by all hands, and declared to be the great sea-serpent. I determined on knowing something about it, and accordingly lowered a boat, in which my chief officer and four men went, taking with them a long small line in case it should be required. I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to regard their approach. At length they got close to the head. They seemed to hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the monster all the time ducking its head, and showing its great length. Presently the boat began pulling towards the ship, the monster following slowly. In about half an hour they got alongside; a tackle was got on the mainyard and it was hoisted on board. It appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but so completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen inches long, that we had it some time on board before it was discovered to be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head of an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem alive. In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had rather an offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been a short time in England when the Daedalus arrived and reported having seen the great sea-serpent,--to the best of my recollection near the same locality, and which I have no doubt was a piece of the same weed. So like a huge living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10, 1858.”--

The Editor of the Zoologist adds the following quotation from HARVEY’S British Algae, p. 27, however, not as an explanation of the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer in its existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain SMITH and to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence of these large weeds. We do the same.

“The plants of this family (Laminariaceae) are almost all of large size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk any other marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our own coasts have frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds expanding from their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong (Chorda) often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions are small, compared with their kindred on the shores of the Pacific ocean. The Nereocystis, a plant of this family inhabiting the north-western shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than whipcord, but upwards of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex a huge vesicle, six or seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and crowned with a tuft of upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from 30 to 40 feet in length. The vesicle being filled with air, buoys up this immense frond, which lies stretched along the surface of the sea: here the sea-otter has his favoured lair, resting himself upon the vesicle, or hiding among the leaves while he pursues his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors this floating tree must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly, we find it used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”

As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. S. Daedalus” and Captain HARRINGTON repeated their assurances that the creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral HAMILTON took up the cudgels for Captain HARRINGTON, upon which Captain FREDERIC SMITH wrote the following paper (The Times of 23 February 1858):

“Sir,--I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral HAMILTON, that in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three feet. Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson crabs, varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, were collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life could be furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking creatures which constituted the moving monstrous-looking external will assist those who read my account in believing what I before stated that even when the object was laid on deck we had difficulty in making out what it was. Now, sea-weeds of gigantic growth abound near the islands of the group of Tristan d’Acunha. From decay or other causes, these will from time to time be detached at the roots, and with their living attachment will then, floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents, into the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting himself. It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by the boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous specimens may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your insertion of this correspondence will cause more attention to be given to their capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus, to the forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers to “settle down” to the conclusion: “This must be the animal called the sea-serpent.” Had the monster I described not been taken, I should have believed, as firmly as Captain Harrington does, that I could confirm the statement of the commander of the Daedalus and that “the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.””

“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary and unexpected appearances of things as compared with the things themselves when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the Daedalus sea-serpent was seen in the recollection of one spectator, the mouth in that of another, and so on. I take leave to question the possibility of these being “most distinctly visible”, when the object at its “nearest position” was 200 yards distant, the sea getting up, and the observers travelling in an opposite direction, the passing of the two being apparently at the rate of 20 miles an hour. Naturalists will say whether an animal to answer to the habits and attributes of that in question would have a nostril.”

“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the Castilian, saw an extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression, and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the mercantile marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also for “Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless, these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington saw the sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very nearly and completely took me in until I took him in.”

“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant

“Fred. Smith.”

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History, p. 320, inquiring whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the sea-weed hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.

“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal at all? That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting some of the characters described, has been already shown; and on two occasions an object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved on examination to be but a sea-weed floating; the separated and inverted roots of which, projecting in the role of the swell, seemed a head, and the fronds (in the one case), and (in the other) a number of attached barnacles, resembled a shaggy mane washed about in the water.”

“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view of the floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken this for a living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest degree to presume that of such a nature could be the creatures, going rapidly through the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, with the head and neck elevated, so distinctly seen by Captain M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at two hundred, the latter at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly dismiss the sea-weed hypothesis.”

Again in Nature of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers the sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.

“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of the reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into masses of floating sea-weed.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his Leisure Time Studies speaking of this hypothesis says:

“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for some fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner strongly suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming, is a statement to the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony, and to the truth of which even observant sea-side visitors may testify. The movements of an unusually long frond or group of fronds of tangle, attached to a rock, and set in motion at low water, by a light swell, has before now, and when seen indistinctly, suggested the idea of the existence at the spot of some large denizen of the sea, browsing on the sea-weeds, with the fore part of its body, represented by the tangle fronds, occasionally appearing at the surface of the water.”

Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared in the Madras Mail, but which I take from Nature of 13th. October, 1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be explained in this way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his purpose. I also think that this was the intention of the contributor who inserted it in the columns of Nature, of the man who sent a Dutch translation of it to the Nieuws van den Dag, of 26th. Nov., 1881, and of Professor P. HARTING who republished this translation in the Album der Natuur, of 1882, p. 66.

“In a letter to the Madras Mail of September 8, on the use of gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H. Taylor, the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following interesting “sea-serpent”-story:--“A notable incident connected with this sea-weed, is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s letter. About fifteen years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor in Table Bay, an enormous monster, as it appeared, was seen drifting, or advancing itself round Green Point, into the harbour. It was more than one hundred feet in length, and moved with an undulating snake-like motion. Its head was crowned with what appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted among the affrighted observers declared they could see its eyes and distinguish its features. The military were called out, and a brisk fire poured into it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was hit several times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were its evident injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite still, and boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction. It was found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”

It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not deserving of any notice on our part.

* * * * *

The =eighteenth= explanation is attempted by Mr. A. G. MORE (see Zoologist for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:

“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep, in the pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to sollicit insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality, in some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance. Any one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great =ribband or scabbard fishes=, or who has ever read the striking accounts of the huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their extreme rarety, may, like myself, have been thus reminded of those mysterious sea-monsters which are occasionally observed by the unlearned to be no less a puzzle to learned opinion. When, too, we know that these fishes are supposed often to swim at the surface, and thus to be driven ashore more readily, when the only example of whose healthy life we have a credible account, is described as advancing head above water, and by the undulating movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we not reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so called “mane” of the great sea-snake.”

The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr. GOSSE in his Romance of Natural History in the following terms:

“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as the hair-tail, the Vaegmaer, and the Gymnetrus, are of large size, and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder and curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in other respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the animal in question. One of their most striking characteristics, moreover, is, that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”

In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas Isles. Mr. TRIMINGHAM, the captor, placed it at the disposal of Mr. J. MATTHEW JONES, a naturalist living there. This gentleman described the animal for the Zoologist, in which his paper appeared in the volume of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. JONES ended his article as follows:

“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture of the present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction it will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have in the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save size, with which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster “The Great Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested. The lengthened filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by the connecting membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would, viewed from a vessel’s deck, present to the spectator the mane so accurately described as a singular feature in the gigantic specimen seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R. N., and officers of H. M. S. Daedalus. Then again, the rapidity with which that individual specimen moved through the water, would coincide with the capabilities of a member of this genus, for the motive power produced by such an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely compressed form of body from the head throughout, must be immense.”

“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the united presses of England and America, emanating from the pens of travelers, and usually headed--“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”--criticised, however, in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed to an unmerited ridicule at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless, firmly believed in by the few, who have patiently waited to see the day when the mystic cloud which has hitherto veiled the existence of the maned denizen of the deep should vanish with the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit more clearly the truth of the assertions of those ill-used men, who, endeavouring like useful members of society to extend the cause of natural knowledge by publishing candid accounts of what their eyes have seen, have always met with an amount of contempt and reproach, sufficient to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”

“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London News at hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared, as it would have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other features in connection with his specimen and the present one. The facts, however, regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity of motion to which I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, thinking this ribbon-fish a new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured it with the name of Regalecus Jonesii, but to our great astonishment, he, who firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an Enaliosaurus (as we have observed above) now seems to be in doubt about the matter, for he ends his article with the following words:

“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. Jones, the similarity of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, I do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published in the “Zoologist”.”

The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the unbelievers, no doubt, as it seems more plausible than the Plesiosaurus-one. An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note which I have found in Nature of the 1st. August, 1872:

“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a specimen of the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without the tail. It appears that this fish is known to distant inland fishermen as being forty feet long, and from its slender shape and snake-like movement is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so minutely described by navigators. From its head there is erected a plume of flexible, rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail along its back there is a conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general colour is like burnished silver. The eye is large and silvery, and the profile of the head comports well with that of the horse. The specimen could not be preserved, but there are two smaller specimens in the Museum.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his turn believes (see Nature of Sept. 12, 1878) that:

“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”

In his Leisure Time Studies he returns to his idea:

“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on which occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved ribbon or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea that such an animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from a distance by persons unskilled in natural history,--and who would, therefore, hardly dream of associating the elongated being before them with their ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,--might account for certain of the tales of sea-serpents which have been brought under our notice. I had been specially struck with the mention, in several accounts of sea-serpents, of a very long back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and of a banded body covered with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several instances the description given of the heads of the sea-monsters closely correspond with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes. These fishes have further been described by naturalists as occasionally having been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion close to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated above the surface,--this latter feature, as we have observed, forming a remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I found, on making inquiry into the history of these fishes, that their serpentine form had struck previous observers, but, as far as I could ascertain, their merits as representatives of sea-serpents had never before been so persistently advocated.”

“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle, I communicated to the Scotsman and Courant newspapers in June, 1876. The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given as 12 feet 3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches, and the greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions in thickness, and the relatively long length and depth, giving to these fishes the popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes. The species was the well-known Gymnetrus or Regalecus Banksii of naturalists; and by the Museum attendant at Newcastle, I was informed that a still larger specimen of the same species was recently obtained of the Northumberland coast, the length of this latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the thickness 5 inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The breast fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very long, whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back, and obtains an average breadth of about three inches.”

“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of fish merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the idea that gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally developed. The gentleman in question wrote to inform me that about thirty years ago he engaged the smack Sovereign, of Hull, Baillie commander, to trawl in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury, then residing at Elie Lodge, Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in their trawling operations, the crew of the Sovereign captured a giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at length on the deck, extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem and stern. The smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length may therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,--this measurement being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six to seven inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined to view the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered the fish to be cut in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also worthy of remark that the trawlers seemed to express no great surprise at the size of Lord Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted that they had met with one much larger, this latter being coloured of a dirty-brown hue.”

He also explains the animal of the Osborne (n^o. 148) by reference to a ribbon-fish in the following terms:

“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views to the Times in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal for June 15, 1877:--“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,--such as giant sea-snakes themselves,--may occasionally personate the “sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very many of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on the supposition that giant tape-fishes--of the existence of which no reasonable doubt can be entertained--have been seen. The report of Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht Osborne, appears, as far as zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained on the “ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less skin, the rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral) fins, each measuring many feet in length, all form so many details corresponding exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer these observations with the view of showing that, given a recital founded, as I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we possess in the lists of living and of well-known animals adequate representatives of the great unknown.”

“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in the absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate the views expressed above as to the personality of this strange tenant of the Mediterranean Sea.”

“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor, speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I offer “as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in Good Words, from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” in Mr. Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes simply as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and not as a sole and universal representative of the modern leviathan.”

“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear proof before us that these and other animals may be developed to a size which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can only term enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the sea-serpent question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To objectors of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that we have not yet procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, I would point out that I by no means maintain the frequent development of such beings. The most I argue for and require is their occasional production; and I would also remind such objectors of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes which, until within the past few years, remained in the same mysterious seclusion affected at present by the great serpentine unknown. I need only add that I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a giant serpent of the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its representative, or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law of its production.”

“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully submit, as does a pleading counsel to his jury,--”

“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified, when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion being especially supported by the want of any prima facie reason for prevarication;”

“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved to be deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual attitudes on the part of familiar animals, there remains a body of evidence only to be explained on the hypothesis that certain gigantic marine animals, at present unfamiliar or unknown to science, do certainly exist; and”

“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development of gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar to the naturalist.”

Mr. LEE, in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, too, supposes that “the dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew Wilson, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.

I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a ribbon-fish has only one connected dorsal fin, and not a ridge of fins, (compare fig. 13 with fig. 44). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly black; the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark brown above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long time in the sun on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow; the under parts are of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers, which are the organs of locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth of a ribbon-fish is only a few inches, while that of the sea-serpent, as is clearly pointed out in the animal of the Osborne (n^o. 148), may grow to more than fifteen feet. But I need not sum up the differences between ribbon-fishes and sea-serpents. We have only to ask the opinion of one of the most able ichthyologists of our days, and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to stand upon:

Mr. GÜNTHER says in his Introduction to the study of Fishes, 1880, p. 520:

“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all parts of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the surface, or thrown ashore by the waves.....”

“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion of the gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their muscular and bony system, that they can be lifted out of the water with difficulty only, and nearly always portions of the body and fins are broken and lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes live is not known; probably the depths vary for different species; but although none have been yet obtained by means of the deep-sea dredge, they must be abundant at the bottom of all oceans, as dead fishes or fragments of them are frequently obtained. Some writers have supposed from the great length and narrow shape of these fishes that they have been mistaken for “Sea-Serpents”; but as these monsters of the sea are always represented by those who have had the good fortune of meeting with them as remarkably active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes, which are either dying or dead, have been the objects described as “Sea-Serpents”.”

* * * * *

The =nineteenth= explanation is that of Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS (see Zoologist, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that =a floating dead tree= “might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:

“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon, which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical delusion that might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands of the Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There was little wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the sea. I was sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room on the main deck, admiring the setting sun, and watching the rounded outlines of the blue mountains and distant islands against the sky, and the numbers of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to their nests”, when my eye rested on a long dark object apparently making its way steadily through the water. After observing it some time in silence I was sorely puzzled and could make nothing of it. It was neither a seal nor a diver nor a fishing cormorant, for with their forms I was familiar; so I went on deck and consulted other eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought to bear on the suspicious object, and the general scrutiny seemed to decide that it was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer according to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by lateral undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that the course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering. With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom or so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range up alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast by a clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this time, however, a closer and more critical inspection had taken place, and the supposed sea-monster turned himself into a long dark root, gnarled and twisted, of a tree, secured to the moorings of a fishing net, with the strong tide passing it rapidly, and thus giving it an apparent life-like movement and serpentine aspect.”

After Mr. DREW had published in Nature a case, in which he and many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags, another contributor Mr. E. H. PRINGLE wrote the following (Nature, September 12, 1878):

“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits” concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”

“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small group of passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss. Rangoon, then steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore. We were just within sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra. One of the party suddenly pointed out an object on the port bow, perhaps half a mile off, and drew from us the simultaneous exclamation of “The sea-serpent!” And there it was, to the naked eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the sea, with its head raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried in the water, and anon reared just above its surface. There was the mane, and there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards behind.”

“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the Rangoon would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a great sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the lenses and the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards, anchored in some manner to the bottom--a “snag” in fact. Swayed up and down by the rapid current, a series of waves undulated beyond it, bearing in their crests dark coloured weeds or grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”

“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land, and of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first hasty conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone the human mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we should be in forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, in his Leisure Time Studies, speaking of this hypothesis says:

“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus around which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and sea-acorns--producing a variegated effect by reason of their light colour--have attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of this latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual spectator, the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating in the closest and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,--by the same rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks and branches of trees one may frequently discern likenesses to the human face and to the forms of other living things. In this latter instance, the floating object was perceived at some miles’ distance from the deck of a yacht; and even when seen through a telescope, and carefully scrutinized by men accustomed to make out the contour and nature of objects at sea, the resemblance to the head of some animal was so close that the course of the vessel was changed and the object in due time overhauled. This latter, therefore, presents an example of a case, the details of which, when related, tempt people to maintain without further parley, that sea-serpents always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one kind or another.”

The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes at once the idea of a dead organism.

* * * * *

The =twentieth= explanation is: =a mass of flying birds=, of Mr. JOSEPH DREW, who wrote in Nature of the 5th. of September, 1878:

“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the Folkestone boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations of that neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from the French coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look at that extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer about a mile or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning in this direction there was seen an immense serpent apparently about a furlong in length, rushing furiously along at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour; it was blackish in front and paler behind; its elongated body was fairly on the surface of the water and it progressed with an undulating or quivering motion, mirum erat spectaculum sane.”

“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account for this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed and settled into the fixed idea that the object before them could be nothing less than the great sea-serpent himself; for--

“Prone on the flood, extended long and large, “Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge “As whom the fables name of monstrous size, “Leviathan, which God of all his works “Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”

“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses, and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument, the wonder was satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster was dark and glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually, fading towards the tail. The glass did not determine the matter until the extreme end was reached, and then it was seen to consist of a mass of birds in rapid motion; those that were strong on the wing were able to keep well up with the leaders, and to make the head appear thicker and darker by their numbers, whilst those that had not such power of flight were compelled to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless these birds were shags (Pelecanus cristatus) returning to their homes for the night from the distant waters in which they had been fishing, during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively as to the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer has often seen shags on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning in single or double file to their roosting places, and since it is stated in works of natural history that they have been noticed occasionally flying in this peculiar manner to the number of a thousand or more, it does not appear an unwarranted liberty in supposing that they really were Pelecani cristati.”

“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt the interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a large and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds (scores of them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the writer has thought it his duty to report the circumstance to you that your readers who voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses in their pockets and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity this interpretation of the great sea-serpent.”

This story induced Mr. BIRD (Nature, of 12th. September, 1878) to make a similar avowal:

“Dr. Drew’s letter in Nature, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to my mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend on August 8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was towards evening, when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without masts or funnel, moving through the water at enormous speed. After a minute or two it undulated and rose from the surface, and we saw that it was a flight of birds.”

“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at least many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated, though I doubt whether all can be explained in this manner.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, on the contrary wrote the following against this supposition (Nature, in the same number):

“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the English Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding the habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me, however, to point out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded as explanatory of the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the incident only explains one of a number of serpentine appearances of which porpoises and sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood with trains of sea-weed, &c., are also good examples. There have been placed on record numerous incidents of serpentine forms having been closely expected (as in the well-known case of the Daedalus, or later still of H. M. S. Osborne) where the hypothesis of the serpentine appearances assumed by flocks of birds or fishes could not be held as explanatory in any sense. It is with the view of showing that the exact personality of the “sea-serpent” cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew relates, that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer from the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent” mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully between cases in which serpentine appearances have been assumed by ordinary animals, and those in which one animal form has presented itself in the guise of the “great unknown”. I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle-fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape-fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for “a sea-serpent.”........ “At the same time zoologists cannot but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like that gentleman, note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and communicate such incidents to your columns.”

A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal from the pen of Mr. C. M. INGLEBY:

“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a cottage on an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view. One morning my attention was called to a large, dark, undulating body, which moved rapidly through the sea. As it was some way out from shore, I naturally concluded it to be of enormous length. I lost no time in making inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon, and was so fortunate as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed it. He told me it was a flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly have believed that I had seen the Great Unknown. I have often seen a similar phenomenon, but nothing nearly so striking as this.”

In Nature of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in the same locality; “I never, however, saw the head”. Now another correspondent thinking that he had solved the problem, wrote the following article in the next issue of the same journal:

“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes, on the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions, several members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance of three or four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a huge serpent. Its length was many times that of the largest steamer that ever passed, and its velocity equally exceeded that of the swiftest. What seemed its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes appeared to show signs of an open mouth. The general appearance of the monster was almost exactly similar to that of the figure in your correspondent’s letter published on the 25th. ult. Not the slightest appearance of this continuity in its structure could be perceived by the eye, although it seemed incredible that any muscular mechanism could really drive such an enormous mass through the water with such a prodigious velocity. I carefully watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day, just as one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it instantaneously turned through a right angle, but instead of going forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved itself into a flock of birds.”

“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what has been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s difficulty.”--W. STEADMAN ALDIS.--

As to the figure, it is our fig. 51.--In the next issue of Nature again another correspondent asserts:

“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in Nature yesterday, I was reminded by a person present that some years ago, when in Orkney, I pointed out an appearance that most people unaccustomed to witness it might have taken for a great sea-monster. This was nothing more or less than some hundred of cormorants or “skarps” flying in a continuous line close to the water, the deception being increased by the resemblance of a head caused by several “skarps” in a cluster heading the column, and by the “lumpy” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and hiding for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer to--not unnaturally--imagine that the portions so hidden had gone under water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be fairly estimated at thirty miles an hour or more.”--J. RAE.

It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass of flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the most striking proofs against this hypothesis.

* * * * *

The =twenty-first= explanation was proposed by Dr. ANDREW WILSON in his Leisure Time Studies, 1879. He presents a frontispiece to his work “embodying the chief representations of the various theories of the sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground is delineated =a large turtle=. Of this supposition Mr. LEE says in his Sea Monsters Unmasked:

“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers and broad back.”

The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet, including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. The breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three and a half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would have been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal well enough. Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized by its broad shell. No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian shore.

* * * * *

The =twenty-second= explanation. I don’t know whether the note p. 106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S Leisure Time Studies, also appeared in the first edition, January, 1879, and so I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. LEE, (1883), has a superior claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent might be in some or in most instances =a giant cuttle-fish or calamary=.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, quoting the report of Messrs. WEBSTER and ANDERSON (n^o. 146), in which the latter says: “the creature was apparently of a gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes in a note:

“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel.””

Mr. LEE in his Sea Monsters Unmasked tries to explain all accounts of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one of the figures of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work (our fig. 14) he says: “the presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid” (which snatched the man from the vessel) “and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each side of it.” I have discussed this explanation in its right place (see p. 106).

The “monster of EGEDE” he also explained by reference to a great calamary. Mr. LEE does not doubt of the accuracy of EGEDE’S description, but as to Mr. BING’S figure he says: “The high character of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that he had seen something previously unknown to him (he does not say it was a sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand what it was that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made by Mr. BING, one of his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to do this”. And Mr. LEE has the boldness to figure a large calamary, with the words: “the animal which EGEDE probably saw”, of which figure I give a facsimile in fig. 70.--

Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a doubting zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the whole fabric falls to pieces as soon as we compare EGEDE’S description and BING’S drawing with the greater part of descriptions and figures given as well before as after EGEDE. His idea is far fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When a calamary propels itself with great velocity to the surface and raises its tail high out of the water, all its arms are turned and stretched downwards; not one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is in this position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will fall to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure to left, and not to right, as Mr. EGEDE saw very distinctly; he says: “backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the position above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube, spouts in a direction contrary to that which Mr. LEE has figured. The locomotor tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it is stretched by its own muscular wall towards the head, and not towards the tail, nor in a direction perpendicularly to the body, when the act of spouting takes place. Moreover HANS EGEDE saw the sea-serpent spouting (exhaling) through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on or below the surface of the water, as the calamary of Mr. HENRY LEE!

Of Mr. MACLEAN’S report (n^o. 31) he says: “His description of it is exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”. If I may beg my readers to read Mr. MACLEAN’S report again, they will observe that nothing in it indicates a calamary!

About the report of Mr. J. C. LUND (n^o. 115) he writes:

“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements of all the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There is no room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, is most accurately and intelligently described--so clearly, indeed, that it furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the strange visitant.”

“Here let me say--and I wish it to be distinctly understood--that I do not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent, or other great creatures at present unknown to science, and that I have no inclination to explain away that which others have seen, because I myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”, it is said, and it is not agreeable to have to tell a person that, in common parlance, he “must not trust his own eyes”. It seems presumptuous even to hint that one may know better what was seen than the person who saw it. And yet I am obliged to say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly and assuredly, that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not correctly interpret that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is not the eye which deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the imagination which is led astray by the association of the thing seen with an erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent assumption of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key to the mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours had not access to, and which has only within the last few years been placed in our hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster are those of an animal with which we are now well acquainted, but of the existence of which the narrators of these occasional visitations were unaware; namely, the great calamary, the same which gave rise to the stories of the Kraken, and which has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian seas and fjords from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have elsewhere said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure of the Alecton in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the great sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express belief in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned, specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted were met with on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of them were deposited in museums, to silence the incredulous and interest zoologists. When Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846 the declaration of Mr. Lund and his companions of the fishing excursion he and they knew nothing of there being such an animal. They had formed no conception of it, nor had they the instructive privilege, possessed of late years by the public in England, of being able to watch attentively, and at leisure, the habits and movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in great tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed snake the elongated body of a giant squid.”

“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by the outrush of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction contrary to that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part, therefore, goes in advance, and the body tapers towards this, almost to a blunt point. At a short distance from the actual extremity two flat fins project from the body, one on each side, so that this end of the squid’s body somewhat resembles in shape the government “broad arrow”. It is a habit of these squids, the small species of which are met with in some localities in teeming abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the water in hot and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised out of water, to a height which in a large individual might be three feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at the rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person who has never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed, like the creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in accordance with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad expanse. The elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the neck to which the “head” is attached; the eight arms trailing behind (the tentacles are always coiled away and concealed) supply the supposed mane floating on each side; the undulating motion in swimming, as the water is alternately drawn in and expelled, accords with the description, and the excurrent stream pouring aft from the locomotor tube, causes a long swirl and swell to be left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have often seen, may easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of its body. The eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone of colour varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey, as the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”

“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the forepart of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”, the “moving in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark colour”, the “waving motion in the water behind the animal”, from which the witnesses concluded that “part of the body was concealed under water”, the “head raised, but the lower part not visible”, the “sharp snout”, the “smooth skin”, and the appearance described by Mr. William Knudtzon, and Candidatus Theologiae Bochlum, of “the head being long and small in proportion to the throat, the latter appearing much greater than the former”, which caused them to think “it was probably furnished with a mane”. Not that they saw any mane, but as they had been told of it, they thought they ought to have seen it. Less careful and conscientious persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on oath, that they did see it.”

“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the proverbially smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on both sides of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of that would cause this by the effluent current from its “syphon tube.” I have seen a deeply laden ship push in front of her a vast hillock of water, which fell off on each side in foam as it was parted by her bow; but that was of man’s construction. Nature builds on better lines. No swimming creature has such unnecessary friction to overcome. Even the seemingly unwieldy body of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without a splash, and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”

Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account, that they may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a sea-serpent or a great calamary. Mr. LEE’S last views of the motion of sea-animals is also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all his assertions; for instance, he says: “Nature builds on better lines”. I say: If nature built on better lines, men would long ago have imitated them. All creatures, when swimming rapidly on the surface, cause a splash. Swans, when moving as rapidly as possible, cause heavy undulations before the chest, and I have observed myself the common porpoises in the Zuider Zee, which when coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a rushing of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.

The sea-serpent of Mr. MORRIES STIRLING (n^o. 113) appeared, according to Mr. HENRY LEE also “to have been, like the others from the same locality, a large calamary.”

Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE and his officers he says:

“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted the veracity or bona fides of the captain and officers of one of Her Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because it was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. Their practised eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true character of anything met with afloat even if only partially seen, as intuitively as the Red Indian reads the signs of the forest or the trail; and therefore they were not likely to be deceived by any of the objects with which sailors are familiar. They would not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks of trees, or Brobdingnagian stems of Algae; but there was one animal with which they were not familiar, of the existence of which they were unaware, and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself--namely, the great calamary, the elongated form of which has certainly in some other instances been mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen swimming in the manner I have described, and endeavoured to portray, would fulfil the description given by Lieutenant Drummond, and would in a great measure account for the appearances reported by Captain M’Quhae. “The head long, pointed and flat on the top”, accords with the pointed extremity and caudal fin of the squid. “Head kept horizontal with the surface of the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for purposes of respiration.” A perfect description of the position and action of a squid swimming. “No portion of it perceptibly used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations.” The mode of propulsion of a squid--the outpouring stream of water from its locomotor tube--would be unseen and unsuspected, because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would suggest a prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms trailing astern at the surface of the water would give the appearance of a mane. I think it not impossible that if the officers of the Daedalus had been acquainted with this great sea-creature the impression on their mind’s eye would not have taken the form of a serpent. I offer this, with much diffidence, as a suggestion arising from recent discoveries; and by no means insist on its acceptance; for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very close view of the animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without any doubt, that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently declared that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form were all most distinctly visible.”

And of the sea-serpent of Mr. R. DAVIDSON (n^o. 93) he asserts: “The features of this incident are consistent with his having seen one of the, then unknown, great calamaries.”

The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant SANFORD (n^o. 74) is also explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under circumstances similar to those described by HANS EGEDE”.

Captain HARRINGTON’S sea-serpent (n^o. 131), according to Mr. LEE, “was evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal extremity and fin above the surface, and discolouring the water by discharging its ink.”

Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given, Mr. LEE concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have been searching amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, the great unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their elongated cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have played the part of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated incident.”

In answering, again, Mr. GOSSE’S question: “To which of the recognized classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There is not one of the above judiciously summarized characteristics that is not supplied by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits and peculiar mode of locomotion.”

With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those which Mr. GOSSE enumerates in his Romance of Natural History (see p. 318 of the present volume), but which, as we know, are taken by him from only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from a report of a would-be sea-serpent!

The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a would-be sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the head was described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true sea-serpents are brownish black, and only in case the animal had swum for a long time in the sun and partly above the surface of the water, the colour is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that this colour partly agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at rest or when dead; but generally, when the animal is in motion, and especially in emotion, the colour becomes a reddish-purple or crimson-red. Moreover the long neck, the mane, the extraordinary long tail, the four flappers, are not explained by reference to a calamary.

* * * * *

The =twenty-third= explanation is proposed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. in Nature of November 18th., 1880. His article on the “Order Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:

“[The animal seen from the Osborne, and figured in the Graphic of June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing from the one in question, and may have been =a manatee=.]”

This figure is our figure 45. Evidently Mr. WOOD did not read the account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based on a figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen from the Osborne, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the shoulders, where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and the length of the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal had an enormous neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total length of ten feet, the length from the crown or top to just below the shoulders is not more than four feet and there is no question of a neck, as our figure will show. Mr. WOOD committed the mistake, like so many others, that he explained one sea-serpent, instead of first comparing all the reports of it before giving an opinion.

* * * * *

Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According to different authorities, the sea-serpent may be:

1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, 1803).

2. Scoliophis atlanticus, a new species of snake with bunches on its back. (Hon. JOHN DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, Mr. C. F. GRAY, 1817).

3. A large tunny. (Prof. THOMAS SAY, 1818).

4. A true sea-snake (Hydrophis) of very large size. (Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).

5. A gigantic individual of the eel-tribe. (Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).

6. A fable, arisen from Northern Mythology. (Dr. PERCY, 1820?).

7. A basking shark, or a row of sharks. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL, 1828).

8. A balaenopterous whale, or a row of them. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL, 1828).

9. An Ichthyosaurus, or a saurian allied to it. (Mr. R. BAKEWELL, 1830?).

10. A Plesiosaurus, or a saurian allied to it. (Professor BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, 1830?).

11. Not a saurian. (Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, 1835).

12. A row of spermwhales. (Professor HERMANN SCHLEGEL, 1837).

13. A Basilosaurus. (Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN, 1847).

14. A Saccopharynx or an Ophiognathus. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).

15. A large boa. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).

16. A Macrorhinus leoninus, or sea-elephant. (Professor RICHARD OWEN, 1848, Nov. 9).

17. A large sea-weed. (Commander J. A. HERRIMAN, of the Brazilian, 1849).

18. A large ribbon-fish, Gymnetrus or Regalecus. (Mr. A. G. MORE, 1856).

19. A floating dead tree, or bamboo, or a weed-laden log of wood. (Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS, 1860).

20. A mass of flying birds. (Mr. JOSEPH DREW, 1878).

21. A large sea-turtle. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879).

22. A gigantic calamary. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879? or Mr. HENRY LEE, 1883).

23. A manatee. (Mr. SEARLES VALENTINE WOOD JUN., 1880).

* * * * *

I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I could discover, were the first to express the supposition to which their name is added. The dates are those at which they published their supposition.

Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the result of reading one single report (1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16), which are not mere suppositions without any foundation (6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21, 23), which are not offered by persons who a moment ago saw a deceitful object or animal (17, 18, 19, 20, 22), but which are the result of a study of several accounts and reports. They are those marked 2, 9 and 10. And of these n^o. 10 is the most admissible, because the Plesiosaurus in its outlines most resembles the sea-serpent. Why, however, is the sea-serpent not a Plesiosaurus? I have already summed up some reasons, when treating of this explanation, but the principal reasons are the mammalian characters, habits and behaviour of the sea-serpent; I will try to prove this in the next chapter.

VI.

Conclusions.

The Libraries from which I borrowed the greater part of the works treating of the subject were:

The Royal Library at the Hague,

The Library of the Leiden University,

The Library of the Utrecht University,

The Library of the Groningen University,

The Library of the Amsterdam University,

The Library of the Royal University at Göttingen,

The Library of the Royal Zoological Society “Natura Artis Magistra” at Amsterdam,

The Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam,

The Library of the Museum of Natural History at Leiden,

The Library of the Dutch Zoological Society at den Helder, and

The Library of the Dutch Entomological Society at Leiden.

In the part headed Literature on the Subject I have given an idea of the mass of works and articles written about it. I here present to my readers a list of the different appearances found by me in the works which I have consulted. Of each appearance I have noted down as far as possible, the date, the locality and the names of the observers. The numbers correspond with those in the 4th. Chapter.

* * * * *

1.--1522.--Near the Isle of Moos, Norway.

2.--1640.--Most probably in the Sound between Sweden and Denmark.--Burgomaster of Malmö.

3.--1687.--Damsfjord in Norway.--Several persons, and at one time eleven persons together.

4.--1720.--A little inlet near Kobbervueg, in Norway.--THORLACK THORLACKSEN.

5.--1734, July 6.--Before the harbour of Gothaab in Davis’ Straits, west of Greenland, at 64° N.--Rev. HANS EGEDE, Rev. BING.

6.--1743?--Cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, in Norway.

7.--1744?--Isle of Karmen, in Norway.

8.--1745?--Near Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, in Norway.--A fisherman.

9.--1746, August.--Jule-Naess, six miles from Molde, in Norway.--The Hon. LORENZ VON FERRY, NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN.

10.--1747?--Coast of Norway.--Commander BENSTRUP.

11.--1748?--Coast of Norway.--Mr. REUTZ.

12.--1749?--Coast of Norway.--Mr. TUCHSEN.

13.--1750?--Coast of Norway.--A north-sailor.

14.--1751?--Near Sundsmöer.--Some fishermen.

15.--1751.--Near Muscongus-Island and Round Pond in Broad Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. JOSEPH KENT.

16.--1770?--East coast of U. S. A.--Captain PAUL REED.

17.--1777 or 1778.--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Captain ELEAZAR CRABTREE.

18.--1779?--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY.

19.--1780, May.--Near Muscongus Island and Round Pond, in Broad Bay, U. S. A.--Captain GEORGE LITTLE, of the Boston frigate.

20.--1781?--Off Meduncook, east coast of U. S. A.

21.--1782?--East coast of U. S. A.?--The British on their expedition to Bagadusa.

22.--1783?--Near the Isle of Mount Desert, east of Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Inhabitants of this isle.

23.--1784?--Near Ash Point on Fox and Long Island, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. CROCKET.

24.--1785?--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. MILLER.

25.--1786, August 1.--Lat. 42° 44′ N., long. 23° 10′ W., north-east of the Azores.--On board the General Coole.

26.--1787?--East coast of U. S. A.--Captain LILLIS.

27.--1794?--Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.--Two inhabitants of these islands.

28.--1799?--Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.--Two inhabitants of these islands.

29.--1802, July.--Between Cape Rosoi and Long Island, Maine, U. S. A.--The Rev. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, Mrs. CUMMINGS, Miss CUMMINGS, Miss MARTHA SPRING.

30.--1805?--Near Cape Breton and Newfoundland.--Mr. W. LEE.

31.--1808, June.--Coast of Coll, west of Scotland.--Rev. DONALD MACLEAN.

32.--1808, June.--Coast of Canna and Rum, west of Scotland.--The crew of thirteen fishing boats.

33.--1810?--?--A mariner.

34.--1815, June 20.--Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain ELKANAH FINNEY, his son, and some house carpenters.

35.--1815, June 21.--Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain ELKANAH FINNEY.

36.--1816?--Near Behring’s Island.--Mr. KRIUKOF.

37.--1817, August 6.--Harbour of Cape Ann.--Two women.

38.--1817, August 10.--Near Ten Pound Island in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. AMOS STORY.

39.--1817, August 12.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. SALOMON ALLEN, 3d.

40.--1817, August 13.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. SALOMON ALLEN, 3d.

41.--1817, August 14.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. SALOMON ALLEN 3d., Mr. EPES ELLERY, Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER, Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY, Mr. DANIEL GAFFNEY, Mr. AUGUSTIN M. WEBBER, and the Hon. LONSON NASH.

42.--1817, August 15.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES MANSFIELD.

43.--1817, August 17.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER, Mr. JOHN JOHNSTON, jun., Captain JOHN CORLISS, Mr. GEORGE MARBLE.

44.--1817, August 18.--Off Cape Ann Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.--The Captain and crew of a vessel.--Webber’s Cove in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. WILLIAM B. PEARSON, Mr. JAMES P. COLLINS, Colonel T. H. PERKINS, Mr. LEE.

45.--1817, August 22?--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--A woman, Mr. MANSFIELD and Mrs. MANSFIELD.

46.--1817, August 23.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. AMOS STORY.

47.--1817, August 24?--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Several of the crews of coasting vessels.

48.--1817, August 28.--Two miles east of the eastern point of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain SEWELL TOPPAN, of the schooner Laura, WILLIAM SOMERBY, ROBERT BRAGG, mariners on board the same schooner.

49.--1817, August 30?--In the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.--One of the revenue cutters.

50.--1817, October 3.--In the sound between Long Island and the State New York, U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES GUION.

51.--1817, October 5.--Long Island Sound, N. York, U. S. A.--Mr. THOMAS HERTELL.

52.--1818, June.--Off Cape Henry, Virg., U. S. A.--The Captain and crew of the brig Wilson.

53.--1818, June 19.--In Sag Harbour, Long Island, N. Y., U. S. A.

54.--1818, June 21.--East coast of U. S. A.--S. WEST, master of the Packet Delia.

55.--1818, July 2.--Between Cranch Island Point and Marsh Island, about seven miles from Portland, Maine, U. S. A.--Mssrs. J. WEBBER and R. HAMILTON.

56.--1818, July.--60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, between Far Öer and Hebrides.--Captain BROWN.

57.--1818 July.--Folden fjord, Norway.--Some fishermen of Folden fjord.

58.--1818 August?--Near Fieldvigen, Norway.--Fishermen of Fieldvigen.

59.--1818, August 19.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain RICHARD RICH.

60.--1819, June 6.--About 15 miles north-west of Race Point, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain HAWKINS WHEELER, of the sloop Concord, and GERSHAM BENNETT.

61.--1819, July.--Sound between the Island of Ottersum and the continent, Norway.--Captain SCHILDERUP and about thirty other persons.

62.--1819, August 12?--At Nahant Beach, Mass., U. S. A.

63.--1819, August 13?--Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES PRINCE, Mr. SMITH, Mrs. PRINCE, Mr. JAMES MAGEE, Mr. SAMUEL CABOT, Mrs. CABOT, Mr. JAMES BOOTT, Colonel T. H. PERKINS, Mrs. PERKINS, and family.

64.--1819, August.--Vieg or Veg fjord, Norway.--JOHN GREGAR.

65.--1819, August?--At the North Cape.--Some fishermen.

66.--1819, August?--Bay of Shuresund or Sorsund in the Drontheim fjord, Norway.--The Right Rev. Bishop of the Nordlands and Finmark.

67.--1819? August?--In the Mageröe-Sund near North Cape, Norway.--The sexton of Maasöe.

68.--1819, August.--Near Vadsöe, Norway.--Several persons.

69.--1819, August 26.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--The Rev. CHEEVER FELCH, Captain WILLIAM T. MALBONE, of the schooner Science, Midshipman BLAKE, four boatsmen.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us