The great sea-serpent (part 4 of 5)

The great sea-serpent (part 4 of 5)

70.--1819, September?--Near Boston, Mass., U. S. A.--An Officer of the American Navy.

71.--1819, September 13?--Bay of Massachusetts, U. S. A.

72.--1820, July?--Near Hundsholm, Norway.--A young man, master of a small fishing yacht.

73.--1820, August.--Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.--Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. PERKINS.

74.--1820?--About latitude 46°, longitude 3°, Bay of Biscay.--Lieutenant GEORGE SANDFORD, Captain of the Lady of Combermere.

75.--1821, Summer.--Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. PERKINS.

76.--1821.--Near the east coast of U. S. A.--Captain BENNETT.

77.--1821, September 25?--Near Nantucket Isle.--Many persons, Mr. FRANCIS JOY JUN.

78.--1821.--Off the Isles of Stenness, Vaily and Dunrossness (Shetland Islands).

79.--1822, Summer.--Off Soröe, Norway.--Many inhabitants of Soröe.

80.--1824, January.--Lat. 34° 31′ South, long. 48° West, about sixty miles east of Uruguay.

81.--1824, Summer.--Off Plum Island and in Shad Cove (Rhode Island?), U. S. A.--Mr. RUGGLES.

82.--1825?--West coast of Scotland?--Mr. ANDREW STRANG.

83.--1826, June 16.--George’s Bank, South of Newfoundland.--Captain HOLDREGE of the ship Silas Richards, Mr. WARBURTON, Miss. MAGEE.

84.--1826, June 18.--Off Cape Cod, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain and crew of a vessel.

85.--1827, August 24.--Christiania fjord, Norway.--Five persons.

86.--1827, August 26.--Christiania fjord, Norway.--Several persons.

87.--1827, September 3.--Off Nusodden, Norway (Christiania fjord?).

88.--1827, September 5.--Off Lepager (Christiania fjord?), Norway.

89.--1827, September 9.--Off Dröbak, Christiania fjord, Norway.--Several persons.

90.--1828?--Christiansund fjord, Norway.--NILS ROE.

91.--1828?--Christiansund fjord, Norway.--NILS ROE.

92.--1829? July.--Christiansund fjord, Norway.--LARS JOHNÖEN.

93.--1829, the end of July.--A considerable distance south-west of the Cape of Good Hope.--Captain PETRIE, of the Royal Saxon, and Mr. R. DAVIDSON.

94.--1830?--Christiansund fjord, Norway.--JOHN JOHNSON.

95.--1831?--In a narrow fjord near Christiansund, Norway.--Mr. WILLIAM KNUDTZON, Mr. BOOKLUNE.

96.--1832, Summer.--Rödö and Södelöw fjords, Norway.--Many persons.

97.--1833, May, 15.--Some miles from Margaret’s Bay, Nova Scotia.--Captain W. SULLIVAN, Lieutenants A. MACLACHLAN, G. P. MALCOLM, B. O’NEAL LYSTER, Mr. HENRY INCE.

98.--1833, July, on a Saturday.--Off Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.--Several persons.

99.--1833, July, the next Sunday.--Lynn Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.--Forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen.

100.--1834, Summer.--Bay of Gloucester Mass., U. S. A.--One of the crew of the Brig Mangehan.

101.--1835, March or April.--A few miles from Race Point Light, near Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain SHIBBLES, and the crew, of the brig Mangehan.

102.--1836?--In Christiansund fjord, at Torvig, Norway.--Mr. GAESCHKE.

103.--1837, end of July.--Near Storfosen and the Krovaag Isles (Drontheim) Norway.--A trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, with his two sons, and numerous people.

104.--1838?--The South Atlantic.--Captain BEECHY, of the Blossom.

105.--1839, August?--Near Boston.--Captain BUBIER.

106.--1839, September?--Coast of Maine, U. S. A.--Captain SMITH.

106 A.--1840, April 21.--24° 13′ N. latitude, 89° 52′ W. longitude, in the Gulf of Mexico.--Captain D’ABNOUR.

106 B.--1840, June?--Near Boston?

107.--1840, July?--Molde fjord, Norway.--Mr. HAMMER, Mr. KRAFT, and some other persons.

107 A.--1840, August?--“Along the whole line of the American coast”, i. e. of the east coast of the U. S.

108.--1841.--Christiansund fjord, Norway.--Several persons.

109.--1842?--Romsdal fjord, Norway.--A parish priest.

110.--1842?--Romsdal fjord, Norway.--A gentleman.

111.--1843, Summer.--Christiansund fjord, Norway.

111 A.--1843, October?--Near Ibbestad, not far from Christiansand, Norway.--Some fishermen.

112.--1845?--Near Bergen? Norway.--Some fishermen.

113.--1845.--Between Bergen and Sogn, Norway.--Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING, and two other gentlemen.

114.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--Camp’s Bay, near Cape Town.--Mr. G. D. BRUNETTE, Mr. CHARLES A. FAIRBRIDGE.

115.--1845, July 28.--Romsdale fjord, Norway.--Mr. J. C. LUND, Mr. G. S. KROCH, CHRISTIAN FLANG and JOHN ELGENSES.

117.--1846, August 8.--Between the islands of Sartor Leer and Tös, and in Bjornfjord, near Bergen, Norway.--Several persons, DANIEL SALOMONSON, his wife INGEBORG, ABRAHAM ABRAHAMSEN HAGENOES.

118.--1848, August 6.--Lat. 24° 44′ S., long 9° 22′ E., between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.--Mr. SARTORIS, midshipman, Lieutenant EDGAR DRUMMOND, Captain PETER M’QUHAE, Mr. WILLIAM BARRETT, master, and most of the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus.

119.--1848?--The Gulf of California.--Captain the Hon. GEORGE HOPE.

120.--1848, December 31.--Lat. 41° 13′ N., long. 12° 31′ W., west of Oporto.--An officer of H. M. S. Plumper.

121.--1849, February 18.--Off the south point of Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s bar, Florida.--Captain ADAMS, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, and the crew and passengers of it.

122.--1849, May 30.--South of Australia, between 40° and 45° S. lat., and 110° and 145° W. long.--Captain EDWARDS, of the Alpha, Mr. THOMSON, Mr. GEORGE PARK.

123.--1849, September 15.--Indian Ocean, between lat. 10° and 20° S., and long. 50° and 70° E.--An officer of H. M. S. Cleopatra.

124.--1850?--Between Iceland and the Far Öer.--Captain CRISTMAS.

125.--1853?--Fjords of Norway.

126.--1854, September 4.--Lat. 38° S., long. 13° E.--The Brig Albeona.

127.--1855, August?--Off St. Helena.--A Captain.

128.--1856, March 30.--Lat 29° 11′ N., long. 34° 26′ W.--Mr. J. H. STATHAM, Captain JAMES GUY, of the Imogen, Mr. JULIAN B. HARRIES, Mr. D. J. WILLIAMSON.

129.--1856, July 8.--Lat. 34° 56′ S., long. 18° 41′ E.--Captain A. K. W. Tremearne of the ship Princess, Captain MORGAN, of the ship Senator.

130.--1857, February 16.--In Table Bay, Cape Town.--Dr. BICCARD, his wife, daughter and two sons, Mr. MURRAY and Mr. HALL.

131.--1857, December 12.--North east end of St. Helena distant 10 miles.--Captain GEORGE HENRY HARRINGTON, of the ship Castilian, WILLIAM DAVIES, chief officer, EDWARD WHEELER, second officer.

132.--1858, January 26.--Lat. 19° 10′ S., long. 10° 6′ W., between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.--Captain SUCKLING of the Carnatic, Captain SHUTTLEWORTH.

133.--1861? August, on a Sunday.--Nahant?--Dr. AMOS BINNEY, and above a hundred persons.

134.--1861? August, the following Monday.--Nahant? from the piazza of the hôtel.

135.--1863, May 16.--Between the Isles of Canary and the Cape Verde Isles.--Mr. JOHN CHAPPLE, Rev. Mr. SMITH, on board the Screw Steamer Athenian.

136.--1871.--Near the coast of Australia.--A second officer.

137.--1872, August 20.--The Sound of Sleat between the Isle of Skye and the west coast of Scotland, and between Eigg and the mainland.--Rev. JOHN MACRAY, Minister of Glenelg, Rev. DAVID TWOPENY, Vicar of Stockbury, two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman, G. B., and a Highland lad, on board the cutter Leda; also a Lady at Duisdale, in Skye.

138.--1872, August 21.--On the north side of the opening of Loch Hourn, west coast of Scotland, and in the same Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland.--The same witnesses as of n^o. 137; the ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea, FINLAY MACRAE, and other people.

139.--1872, August 23.--In the entrance of Lochduich.--ALEXANDER MACMILLAN and his brother FARQUHAR.

140.--1872, August 24.--In the same locality.--The same witnesses.

141.--1873, Nov. 16?--Near Dunrobin castle, east coast of Sutherland, Scotland.--Lady FLORENCE LEVESON GOWER and the Hon. Mrs. COKE.

142.--1873, Nov. 17?--Near Golspie, east coast of Sutherland, Scotland.--Dr. SOUTAR.

143.--1873, Nov. 18?--The same locality.--Mr. JAMES.

144.--1875, July 8.--Lat. 5° 13′ S., long. 35° W., twenty miles from Cape San Roque.--Captain DREVAR, of the barque Pauline, HORATIO THOMPSON, JOHN HENDERSON LANDELLS, WILLIAM LEWARN, OWEN BAKER.

145.--1875, July 13.--Lat. 5° S., long 34° 10′ W., eighty miles from Cape San Roque.--The same witnesses.

146.--1876, September 11.--Fifteen miles north west of North Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straits.--JOHN K. WEBSTER, Captain of the British s. s. Nestor, and Mr. JAMES ANDERSON.

147.--1877, May 21.--Lat. 2° N., long. 90° 53′ E., Indian Ocean.--The master of the barque GEORGINA.

148.--1877, June 2.--Off Cape Vito, Sicily.--Commander PEARSON of H. M. Yacht Osborne, Mr. DOUGLAS HAYNES, Mr. FORSYTH, and Mr. MOORE.

149.--1879, January 28.--Lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E., Gulf of Aden.--Major H. W. J. SENIOR, Dr. C. HALL, Miss. GREENFIELD, on board the s. s. City of Baltimore.

150.--1879, March 30.--In Geographe Bay, Australia, near Lockville and Busselton.--Rev. H. W. BROWN, Mr. C. M’GUIRE and his wife, Mr. M’MULLAN.

151.--1879, April 5.--Cape Satano, the most southern point of Japan, distant about nine miles.--Captain DAVISON, Mr. MC. KECHNIE, of the Kiushiu Maru.

152.--1879, August 5.--100 miles west of Brest, France.--Captain J. F. COX, of the Privateer.

152 A.--1881, Nov. 12?--Near Monillepoint, not far from Cape Town.--Mr. C. M. HANSEN, his wife and children, and several of his neighbours.

153.--1882, May 28.--About six miles W.N.W. of Butt of Lewis (the northern point of the Hebrides or Western Islands).--Some fishermen.

154.--1882, May 31.--The same locality.--Mr. WEISZ of the Lloydsteamer Kätie, Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ.

155.--1882, September 3.--Near Orme’s Heads, northern coast of Wales, Irish Sea.--Mr. W. BARFOOT, Mr. F. J. MARLOW, Mrs. MARLOW, and several other ladies and gentlemen.

156.--1883, October 15.--Bristol Channel.

157.--1885, August 16.--Between Rödö and Melö Isles, Nordland, Norway, at lat. 66° 35′ N., long. 13° 21′ E.--Some lads.

158.--1886, August.--Near Kingston Point on the Hudson, New Jersey, U. S. A.--Two young men.

159.--1886, August.--Near the east coast of U. S. A.

160.--1886, August.--Near the east coast of U. S. A.--JONAH.

161.--1889, May.--In the common track from Liverpool to Philadelphia.--A captain.

162.--1890, June.--Near Long Island, not far from the coast of Connecticut.--Captain DAVID TUITS of the schooner Anny Harper.

* * * * *

In these reports nearly all is very probable from a zoological point of view, and there is but little that must be looked upon as fabulous.

Some statements, which at first seem to us to be exaggerations, we unhesitatingly accept as truths, when we have taken a review of all the reports together; either because they are constantly repeated, or because they are confirmed by highly respectable testimonies of recent date.

What now follows is an abstract of the 166 reports, enumerated above. The numbers in brackets correspond with those placed in the list given above, consequently also with those in my 4th. Chapter. Let us first speak of the improbable things.

A. Fables, Fictions, Exaggerations and Errors.

At present nobody believes that the appearance of a strange animal on the coast is a bad sign! In the sixteenth and the seventeenth century, however, this was not uncommon. So we read that an appearance of a sea-serpent portended a change in Norway (1), and that the appearance of one in 1522 was followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; it also foretold the destruction of the country (1). The snatching away of a man from a ship did not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being at hand, either that the princes would die or be banished, or that a war would soon break out (p. 105). The Norwegian fishermen looked upon its coming as a bad sign, for the fish would leave the coast (61). Curious are also the characters described to the animal. It lives in rocks and holes, and it comes out of its caverns only in summernights and fine weather, to devour calves, lambs and hogs (p. 105). The eating of cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs (p. 105) may also be a story, though this is not quite improbable. The fables, often told of Kraken and Spermwhales, that when sleeping on the surface of the water they are taken for an islet, are also related of sea-serpents: “and when it is slumbering on the Norway foam, the seamen deeming it some island, fixed their anchor in its scaly rind” (p. 111).

It is also said to enclose ships by laying itself round them in a circle; and to upset the ship (p. 109) if the seamen do not try to escape, which they can manage to do when they row over its body there where a coil is visible, for that when they reach the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible part rises (p. 134, p. 227). AREND BERNDSEN tells us that sea-serpents, as well as spermwhales, often run down whole ships with all aboard (p. 134), and some north sailors know that it had occasionally thrown itself across a yacht of several hundred tons and dragged it to the bottom (p. 134). Mr. Lee has sufficiently shown in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, that large calamaries really sometimes snatch a man from a rowing boat; for a long time this was considered to be a fable; now, however, zoologists unconditionally accept it as truth. Such incidents, if happened, are generally, but falsely, attributed by the Northern fishermen to sea-serpents (p. 105, p. 108, p. 134).

It is not astonishing that by such people the sea-serpent is called dangerous to seamen (p. 108, p. 134) and that they are very much afraid of it (7, 14, p. 134, 61, 64, 65, 67, 92, 103, p. 259, 139, 157), and will never forget to take with them asa foetida or castoreum, the smell of which the animal cannot bear (p. 130, p. 134, p. 259) Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent approaches, and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts the animal (p. 259). Some believe that it casts its skin, as common snakes do (p. 132), and that it is born on land, and lives in forests and mountains till it can no longer hide its enormous body in it; then it seeks some river and floats down to the sea (p. 133). When swimming, sea-serpents don’t show their tail above the surface. Fishermen, in their fear, would say: if one was near the head, the other end of the animal could not be seen (103). I am convinced that this is one of the reasons that the animal is sometimes said to be at least a cable in length. The animal leaves behind itself a considerable wake, which may be another reason that the witnesses exaggerated its length. So we find: it is three hundred feet long (p. 107, 21), about 320 feet (106 A), six hundred and seventy feet (p. 130, 61), about a fourth of an English mile (79), about 750 feet (85), from six hundred to 800 ells, i. e. from 1340 to 1780 feet (103), more than 500 feet (130) or half a mile long (156).

The thickness too is sometimes exaggerated (twenty feet, p. 105); the head is described in some instances to be as large as a foering boat, i. e. about twenty feet long (117, 146), or twelve feet long (126), or perhaps ten feet long (118), and the tail fully a hundred and fifty feet in length (146). The jaws are said to be of such an enormous size that, if extended, they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright in them (118). It may be that the alleged serpentine shape of the animal caused some writers to give scales to the sea-serpent (p. 105), or that the distance was too large for a closer examination, so that the observers thought it might have a hard skin (5), or a rough coating (41, 51), or even a scaly one (39), or it was the fear which made them see scales (157) which in reality did not exist. Scales are also occasionally delineated (fig. 26) though the eye-witness does not mention them, and even believed it belonged to the eel-tribe (63). No wonder that such a terrible animal is often called Leviathan (p. 111), an animal which raises its coils so high above the water, that a ship can go through one of them (p. 109). Norwegian fishermen really believe that the animal sometimes comes on land as OLAUS MAGNUS (p. 105) and PONTOPPIDAN (p. 133) tell us, and as is stated afterwards, when even distinct traces of it were said to have been found in the fields (96).

In my opinion it is an error to believe that there are two species of sea-serpents (p. 107) or that there are several species of them all belonging to the same genus (112). And also that the animal ever takes a boat for one of the other sex, which induces it to follow the boat (p. 133). This is a habit of the animal; but as it is a quite harmless one, it is an error to believe that it grows furious when the pursued are so fortunate as to escape (158), or that it may ever destroy them, even after being struck with a boat-hook (112). That the shores of Norway are the only in Europe, which are frequented by this monster (p. 135) is a positive error, since the animal is known to appear also on the coasts of Great Britain, France, and even in the Mediterranean.

From what we now know of the division of the colours of the animal’s body, I don’t hesitate to say that they are wrongly represented in one of the drawings (fig. 31). The cetacean tail delineated in fig. 49 is explained in n^o. 151, the fish tail of fig. 26 in n^o. 63. The definition that the eyes were of a greenish hue and looked devilish (158) is certainly the result of an observation made in great fright. I am sure that in cases wherein the colour of the head and neck are described as a bluish green (29), or of a blue colour (29), or as blue as possible (29), and that of the back of a dark green (30), these definitions are the result of optical illusion, or the observers may have been colour-blind.

The twelve fins (129, fig. 36) of which six are drawn on the left side and six on the right side of the body emerging from the water, are undoubtedly the result of an optical deception, as I have explained in n^o. 129.--In the same way I have explained why the animal has a head connected with the body without any indication of a neck, so that it resembled a gigantic salamander (146), and that it seemed to be of a gelatinous, that is flabby, substance (146), and that the motion of it was apparently cork-screw-like (155).

In no case the antenna, ending in a crescent (106 A) or the ridge of fins (148), or the discolouring of the water (131) observed, have anything to do with the animal or with its appearance.

But let us now pass to the facts which may be inferred from what is reported of the animal.

B. Facts.

These are so numerous that I am obliged to bring them together under several heads.

1. EXTERNAL CHARACTERS.

a. Dimensions.

The length of what was visible of the animal above the surface of the water was estimated to be: from sixteen to eighteen feet (25), several meters (136), about twenty feet (150), from twenty to thirty feet (35), thirty feet (113, 123), about thirty-six feet (92), about forty feet (26, 41, 42, 44, 80, 91, 128, 145), forty-five feet (137), between forty and fifty feet (115, 147), fifty feet at least (43, 46, 50, 51, 60), about fifty-five feet (94), from fifty to sixty feet (63), sixty feet (57, 83, 117, 118, 129, 138, 150), seventy-five feet (152 A), eighty feet at least (97), a hundred and fifty feet (154), and, though estimated by the eye-witnesses at about fifty feet, the visible part must, according to my reckoning, have been eighty feet at least in n^o. 148. These enormous differences in the statements cannot surprise us of an animal which may attain a length of more than two hundred feet. As a rule the animal swims with head and neck above the water-surface, commonly the back too is partly visible, but of the tail only a small portion. In n^o. 154 as we see, a length of 150 feet of the animal was visible; in this instance it lay nearly perfectly still; only the long neck and head were under water, and the back and a great length of tail were above the surface.

The whole length of the animal is spoken of as: great (37, 152), large (119), very large (2), considerable (107), immense (36), astonishing (1), enormous (132), as a yacht of fifty tons (8), three or four times larger than the ship (5), eighteen feet (14), from fifty to fifty-five feet (19), from fifty to sixty feet (18), sixty feet (17, 28, 56), at least sixty feet (82), more than sixty feet (29), from sixty to seventy feet (24), from sixty to eighty feet (139, 142), about seventy feet (29), not above seventy feet (109), at least seventy feet (41), from seventy to eighty feet (31), from seventy to one hundred feet (74), seventy five feet (1, 158), about eighty feet (63), from eighty to ninety feet (39, 118), about ninety feet (121, 134), one hundred feet (17, 33, 41, 44, 45, 63, 66, 69, 135), at least a hundred feet (34), more than one hundred feet (95), greater than the animal of Captain M’QUHAE, consequently probably more than one hundred feet (93), one hundred and twenty feet (34), from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and thirty feet (105), one hundred and thirty feet (69), about one hundred and fifty feet (65), from one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet (114), from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy feet (34, 144), one hundred and eighty feet (126), one hundred and ninety feet (52), about 200 feet (p. 107, p. 138, 130, 155, 157), more than two hundred feet (p. 107, 30, 131), and though estimated by the eye witnesses (see n^o. 148) as to be at least one hundred and fifty feet, the individual seen by them must have been, according to my reckoning, more than two hundred feet long.--Such a length needs no explanation: it is a fact, established by the declarations of highly respectable men, and of men who are accustomed to estimate the length of objects floating in the water from afar and at any short distance. Moreover it is the enormous tail which apparently enlargens these dimensions. The elephant is of a great bulk and of an enormous weight, but the giraffe astonishes us by its enormous legs and its enormous neck, though its body and its head are smaller than that of a moderate sized horse. So the colossal spermwhales, fin whales and whalebone whales surprise us by their bulk and weight, but the sea-serpent deprived of its neck and immense tail is only a child to them. Moreover a zoologist has not one single reason to deny the possibility of the existence of sea-animals with a body of no more than sixty feet, a neck of sixty feet, and a tail of hundred and twenty feet.

The length of the head is, according to the different declarations: nearly as that of a man (19, 43), about the size of the crown of a hat (42), larger than that of any dog (38), as large as a hat (94), about as that of a pail (29), full as large as a four gallon keg (42), equal to a small cask (109), nearly as large as the head of a horse (39, 60), rather larger than that of a horse (29), two feet long (56, 81), of the size of a ten gallon keg (48, 80, 92, 102), as large as a barrel (101), as large as a flour barrel (158), of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead (152 A), long (118), with regard to its thickness not very long (94), long in proportion to the throat (95), about six feet in length (97), about six or eight feet long (34, 120), as large as a little boat (32), colossal (115). The head of the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. Daedalus cannot have been longer than three feet, as the neck is estimated sixteen inches in diameter, though it is called long (118) or even ten feet long (118); evidently a portion of the neck was included in the calculation. The head of the individual seen by the officers of the royal yacht Osborne must have been from eight to nine feet long, as its breadth is estimated at six feet (148).

The length of the neck is said to be: long (31, 56, 119, 124), enormous (p. 225), a length of ten feet was visible (48), about eighteen feet (124), about twenty feet (118), at least twenty feet (160), the neck together with the body fifty or forty-five feet, i. e. the neck alone must have been about twenty-five feet (146), about twenty five feet (149), at least twenty five feet (152), about thirty feet (151), about sixty feet (145); “from its crown or top to just below the shoulder where it became immersed, I should reckon about fifty feet”, but as the eye-witness saw the animal from behind, the length of the neck could not be estimated with accuracy; as to me, I am convinced that the neck of the individual measured about sixty feet (148). The long neck is delineated in fig. 46, 48 and 49.

The length of the trunk has never been actually estimated, as nearly all the observers believed that the animal was serpent-shaped, and therefore estimated only its total length or the part exposed to their eyes. Yet we may put down the length of the trunk of the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. Daedalus to be about twenty feet, as one of the hindflappers was occasionally seen at about twenty feet distant from the point where one of the foreflappers was also occasionally seen. And as this fore-flapper was visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, we may conclude that the length of the trunk equals that of the neck (118). Consequently we may decide that the individual observed by the Captain and the surgeon of the Nestor, who saw the animal swimming evidently with its neck contracted, had a neck and a trunk each of about forty feet (146). In the same way we may conclude that the individual observed by the captain and crew of the Pauline (145) and that seen by the officers of the royal yacht Obsorne (148) had both a neck and a trunk of each about sixty feet.

The tail delineated in fig. 19, has only three times been actually estimated. Once it is called thirty five feet long (8), then forty feet long (162), and once a hundred and fifty feet (146). In my opinion the animal’s tail in this last instance cannot have been longer than about eighty feet, i. e. as long as the animal’s head, neck and trunk together. The length of the individual observed by the officers of the Daedalus was estimated by them to be at least eighty feet. As he have reckoned above about forty three feet for head, neck and trunk together, its tail consequently must have been about forty feet long. So the animal’s hind flappers are situated almost in the middle of the whole length. And therefore EGEDE and BING did not observe them, because the middle part of the whole length remained hidden from them (fig. 19). Captain HOPE states (119) that the animal seen from above on its back resembles an alligator with an enormous neck. If the animal had not an immense tail, he would never have made this comparison. When Captain TREMEARNE says “also a great length of tail” he seems to me to have included in his estimation a portion of the animal’s trunk (129). The individuals seen by the officers of the Osborne (148), of the Pauline (145), and of the Kätie (154), undoubtedly had a tail of about one hundred or even of one hundred and twenty feet in length. Captain D’ABNOUR called the tail enormous (106 A).

Twice (14, 119) it has been stated that the four flappers were seen together; the two fore flappers were seen four times (5, 121, 129, 148, see also p. 250); and delineated in fig. 19, 36, and 45; it is possible that the two hind flappers were twice seen (151, 158), and delineated in fig. 49. Four times one of the fore-flappers was visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154) and twice one of the hindflappers (118, 154). The foreflappers are called broad and large (5), frightful, several feet in length (121), larger than the posterior (119), about fifteen feet in length (148), and of immense dimensions (154); judging from the drawing illustrating this last instance (fig. 50), I should estimate its length also at fifteen feet. Captain D’ABNOUR saw one of the foreflappers rising to the height of about six feet from the water and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the body (106 A). The hindflappers are said to be smaller than the anterior (119), and about ten feet long (154).

As to the breadth of the head, some observers mention its diameter, and some its circumference, or they compare its thickness either with that of the neck, with that of the trunk, or with some well-known object; this is the reason that we meet with the following statements: it is rather broad (31), where the head was connected with the body (read neck) it was a little larger than the body (read neck) (34), the head was rather larger than the body (read neck) (48), much smaller than the body (69), narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently the animal had contracted its neck, so that this latter grew much thicker (69), about two feet in diameter (150), about three feet in circumference (69), at least three feet in circumference (29), about as thick as a ten gallon keg (92), about six feet thick (148).

The neck is somewhat smaller than the head (31), as is also stated in other accounts: smaller than the head (109), much thinner than the head (91), comparatively narrow (148), and may be two and a half feet in circumference (48), just behind the head sixteen inches thick (118), about the thickness of a man’s waist (124), about two feet in diameter (149), or about four feet thick (148).

The thickness of the animal has commonly been compared with that of different objects, a circumstance which makes it difficult to fix the true diameter. Moreover it is in many instances difficult to make out whether the animal’s neck, just behind the head, is meant by the observer, or the animal’s chest or breast, which is the thickest part of the trunk. For the animal generally swims in such a way that a little part of its back rises above the surface of the water, completely hiding its thickest part and its flappers, so that it makes the impression to be a serpentine animal without any appendages, and of a uniform size. So the animal is said to be ten or twelve inches thick (147), about twelve inches (113), about fourteen inches (102), fifteen inches (19), as thick as a half-barrel (39, 41, 44, 48, 63), as thick as a common firkin (63), about twenty two inches (17), as thick as a barrel (34, 41, 80), as thick as a man’s body (46), as thick as a wine barrel (2, 85), as thick as a stout man (94), as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads (12), three feet (17), as thick as a sloop’s boom (24), three to four feet in circumference (25), as thick as a full-grown ox (79), about two feet in diameter (92), inconsiderable (95), as thick as a large horse (109), he is the thickest just behind the head (103), several ells (115), as thick as our main mast (135), thirty feet from its head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat (126), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the back (121), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (148), the shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (122).

The tail-root had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet (146), but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a few instances that it was actually observed.

The tail ends in a point (fig. 19, fig. 20), and consequently is mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also said to be as pointed as a boat-hook (8), or very pointed (12).

Comparison of the dimensions. Supposing that the dimensions of the several portions of the animal are relatively nearly the same in individuals of different ages, we are able to draw up a table of comparative and relative dimensions. We learn from the officers of the Daedalus that the vertical diameter of the neck was about 1¹⁄₃ feet. From the officers of the Osborne we have the following estimations of dimensions: horizontal diameter of the head about 6 feet, horizontal diameter of the neck about 4 feet. We know from several eye-witnesses that the neck is round, so that we may suppose that its vertical diameter is the same as its horizontal or transversal one. Consequently the transversal diameter of the neck of the Daedalus animal was 1¹⁄₃ or ⁴⁄₃ feet; and that of its head ⁶⁄₃ = 2 feet. For a moment I will suppose that in these animals a head of about 2 feet broad has a length of about 3 feet, and this I may do, as the heads of the animals which I consider as allied to sea-serpents, have nearly these relative dimensions. In the same way I may put the length of the head of the Osborne individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to the foreflapper in the Daedalus animal was about twenty feet. We may consequently suppose that the same portion measured sixty feet in the individual seen by the officers of the Osborne. As to the question whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done hitherto? I answer without hesitation no, this length also includes a portion of the animal’s trunk, viz. the part from its shoulder to the point where the fore limb is free. In the animals which, in my opinion, are allied to the sea-serpent, the upper arm is, so to say, “imbedded” in the trunk’s integument, is not free, as in man, and nearly immovable, and this portion is about one third of the whole length of the limb. Consequently we may conclude that, if the free part of the foreflapper is about fifteen feet, the portion of the trunk from the place where the fore limb in seated on the body to the shoulder is about seven feet and a half. Consequently the individual of the Osborne had a neck of about 53 feet. As the size of the individual of the Daedalus was about one third of that of the Osborne, its neck was about 17¹⁄₂ feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the Daedalus individual were five feet in length. The distance from the foreflapper to the hind flapper in the Daedalus animal measured about 20 feet, consequently the trunk measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that the distance from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the Osborne animal must have been about 60 feet, and the length of its trunk about 67 feet. Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck, and the trunk, we have for the Daedalus animal 43 feet. This individual swam with its body in a straight line; “sixty feet at least were visible à fleur d’eau” are the words of Captain M’QUHAE, substantiated by the reports of two of his officers. Yet it was obvious that this was not the whole length of the animal, and that a great length of tail was hidden under water. The animal was estimated to be from eighty to ninety feet in length. I have not a single reason to doubt this statement, and therefore conclude that the tail of the animal was about as long as the distance from the animal’s nose to its hindflappers. But I will not be too bold and only give it a length of about forty feet. If this is within the bounds of truth, of which I don’t doubt in the least, the length of the tail of the individual, seen by the officers of the Osborne measured about 120 feet. Captain HOPE who had the opportunity to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position, states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (119). I venture to estimate the length of the last at about ²⁄₃ of that of the foreflappers. So we may estimate the length of the hindflappers of the two individuals at 3¹⁄₃ and 10 feet respectively. As to the breadth of the animal’s trunk the officers of the Osborne state that it was from fifteen to twenty feet in their individual. We may safely suppose that the animal did not expose its greatest breadth, which must have been a little below the surface of the water, so that I don’t hesitate to fix the greatest diameter at 20 or 21 feet. The body gradually diminishes towards the tail, and this in its turn towards its end, which, as we have observed, is pointed.

The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions only from the reports of the officers of the Daedalus and of the Osborne, is that they had a very favourable opportunity to estimate them. The former saw the animal swimming with its body in a straight line, and with its neck quite stretched, not contracted, showing the greater part of its length, and swimming in such a way that it was seen just from aside, so that the different lengths of the portions of the body could easily be estimated. And the latter saw the animal just from behind, so that the different breadths of the animal could be seen; moreover the dimensions of the foreflappers were visible.

I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.

+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of head. | ³⁄₄ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of neck. | 4 | 6 |11²⁄₃|17¹⁄₂| 23¹⁄₂| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of trunk. | 4⁷⁄₁₂| 7¹⁄₂|15 |22¹⁄₂| 29²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of tail. | 8²⁄₃ |13¹⁄₃|26²⁄₃|40 | 53¹⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Total length. |18 |27²⁄₃|55¹⁄₃|83 |110²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |From occiput to foreflappers.| 4¹⁄₃ | 6²⁄₃|13¹⁄₃|20 | 26²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of head. | ⁵⁄₁₂| ²⁄₃| 1¹⁄₃| 2 | 2²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of neck. | ³⁄₁₂| ⁴⁄₉| ⁸⁄₉| 1¹⁄₂| 1²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of trunk. | 1¹⁄₂ | 2¹⁄₃| 4²⁄₃| 7 | 9¹⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of foreflapper. | 1 | 1²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₃| 5 | 6²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of hindflapper. | ⁷⁄₉ | 1¹⁄₆| 2¹⁄₃| 3¹⁄₂| 4¹⁄₂| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+

+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of head. | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of neck. | 29¹⁄₂| 35¹⁄₃| 41¹⁄₆| 47 | 53| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of trunk. | 37¹⁄₆| 44²⁄₃| 52¹⁄₉| 59¹⁄₂| 67| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of tail. | 66²⁄₃| 80 | 93¹⁄₃|106²⁄₃|120| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Total length. |138¹⁄₃|166 |193²⁄₃|221¹⁄₃|249| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |From occiput to foreflappers.| 33¹⁄₃| 40 | 46²⁄₃| 53¹⁄₃| 60| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of head. | 3¹⁄₃| 4 | 4²⁄₃| 5¹⁄₃| 6| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of neck. | 2¹⁄₆| 2²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₉| 3¹⁄₂| 4| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of trunk. | 11²⁄₃| 14 | 16¹⁄₃| 18²⁄₃| 21| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of foreflapper. | 8¹⁄₃| 10 | 11²⁄₃| 13¹⁄₃| 15| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of hindflapper. | 5¹⁄₂| 6²⁄₃| 7⁵⁄₆| 9 | 10| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+

I am far from asserting that these dimensions will prove to be correct, if ever an individual falls into the hands of men, but I am sure that they are approximately correct.

Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence of an animal of 250 feet! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself the utmost possible length of our Sea-Serpent!

b. Form.

The name we give to an unknown object will naturally depend on the impression it makes on us at first sight. To some the animal was like a log of wood or a floating tree; comparisons which will be spoken of below. It is called an animal of the fish kind (60), or a most remarkable fish (118), or a very large fish (29), and to be eel-shaped (33), or to resemble a large eel (118, 152). Some persons say it appeared to be of a uniform size (34), and others that it gradually tapers towards the two extremes (41), and appeared round (43). One of the eye-witnesses says: I do not undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself (63). Generally it is compared with a snake (5, 17, 18, 25, 26, 37, 41, 44, 60, 80, 118, 135, 152) or serpent (26, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 60, 80, 103, 118, 121, 147, 157). Curious is the statement of one that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without, however, having ever heard of such an animal (132)! Remarkable is the opinion of an officer of the Daedalus: it was, he says, rather of a lizard than of a serpentine character, as its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power (118). Remarkable too is PONTOPPIDAN’S comparison of an animal which he himself, believing that sea-serpents have no fins, or paws, or flappers, did not mention in his paragraph about the subject, viz. with a crocodile (14). Captain HOPE who had an opportunity to observe the animal from above, described it as 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 flappers somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior (119). In my opinion the comparison of Lieutenant HAYNES, of the Osborne, who saw the fore part of the animal from behind, deserves all our attention; he says: the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head (148, fig. 45).

The shape of the head has also been described in different ways. There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (31); here it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that it was as round as a flour-barrel (158, evidently seen in front), and bullet-shaped (148, seen from behind, fig. 45). The head is also said to appear like a triangular rock (74), or like a nun buoy (131), or like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at our fig. 31, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another instance the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon cask (102), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat oval”. Major SENIOR asserts that the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon he has often seen (149); the explanation of this curious comparison I have given in treating of his report. The head, says somebody, resembled the end of a log (150), and: the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake’s (150); but he saw the animal in late evening twilight. But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble that of a snake (p. 137, 29, 60, 97, 101, 118, 121), or serpent (29, 48, 61, 63, 74), or something that of a rattle snake (39); and evidently seen in a somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped much like that of a sea-turtle (38). I can only explain these different comparisons by supposing that to some extent the head really resembles these various head shapes, being flattened above and somewhat blunt at its end. Though the officers of the Daedalus, too, compared it with that of a snake, their drawing (fig. 30) shows the head of a mammal. The proportions of the length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the extension of the mouth-split, the situation of the nostril and the eye, the flattened appearance of the forehead and nose, the bluntness of the snout and the presence of the two cushions on the crown of the head (the external visible masticatory muscles) are true mammalian characters. It therefore is not wonderful also to find such a head compared with that of a bull-dog (152 A), that of a walrus (129), that of a seal (8, 29, 148), and that of a sea-lion (36). When the animal held its head at nearly right angles with its neck, which has often been the case, and opened its nostrils as wide as possible (and the nostrils are exceedingly large), such a head, with its flattened nose and forehead, and with its somewhat protruding eyes, resembled that of a horse (9, 63, 124). We observe that the head is compared with seven different head-shapes, five of which are mammalian. It is obvious that the observers compared it with the heads of those animals which involuntarily and at once occurred to them. To which of these types are we to direct our attention? Which of these types will the sea-serpent’s head resemble most? I say, that of the sea-lion. And why? Because the animal, with the head of which that of the sea-serpent was compared, was not present at the time, except in Mr. KRIUKOF’S case. He was daily surrounded by sea-lions; the image of the sea-lion’s head was as firmly impressed on his memory as that of a dog on his master’s; and I greatly doubt whether the other observers were acquainted with sea-lions. These animals, especially the species of the Northern Pacific, are only of late years to be seen in the zoological gardens, and it remains to be found out whether the most recent eye-witnesses of the sea-serpent ever saw a sea-lion, and if so, whether the features of the animal had been impressed on their memory so as to recognize the same shape in the head of another animal. Moreover the head of a sea-lion, especially that of Zalophus californianus has some resemblance to a snake’s.

The neck being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s (74), or of a common snake’s (97, 101), and tapering small from the head to the body (121). It is obvious that this observer used the expression “tapering” in a sense contrary to the usual one, for he had a fair opportunity to see the animal’s head, long neck and upper part of the trunk with the two foreflappers, and he goes on with the words: and it appeared to measure about seven feet across the broadest part of the back.

The trunk must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may be inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably broader than the head (31), from the shoulders it tapered towards the tail (31, 39, 91, 150), the breadth diminished remarkably towards the tail (92), from the shoulder (estimated to be about twenty feet) diminishing towards the tail to about twenty four inches (122), evidently the end of the latter was hidden under water. Moreover, the body is said to be round (102, 115, 117), even as a snake’s (92), and on one occasion, when seen from behind, is said to be developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle (148, fig. 45), which we need not say, was the result of the upper part of the back being only visible. Remarkable is the use of the term “shoulders”, for even if the flappers of the animal were never actually observed, we are now obliged to conclude that the animal was possessed of fore-limbs. Equally remarkable is the statement: “there is a distinct difference in thickness between the body and the tail; the trunk is not gradually growing smaller, where the tail begins, but at once and very distinctly” (8, 12, 146); for such an animal has rumps, and consequently also thighs and hind-limbs.

The tail itself is cylindrical (146), like that of a snake (101), and tapering to its end (8, 12, 146, 150, fig. 19). Twice the animal’s head and tail were plainly visible above the surface (135, 162), the trunk being wholly hidden under the surface of the water; it was called a snake; the shape of the tail was not mentioned; evidently the tail was pointed, else it would have been described as resembling that of a fish or of a whale; evidently it was also tapering to its end, else it would have been described as a cord or whiplike. The same was the case in n^o. 152 A; the observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.

Position and shape of flappers. HANS EGEDE said that the animal had two flappers on the fore-part of the body (5), but the drawing of Mr. BING, his brother missionary (fig. 19), is not accurate, as the animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too large, and the flappers themselves are badly represented. It seems, however, that the indented edge of the foreflappers did not escape the eyes of Mr. BING. Mr. BAKEWELL asserts that the flappers are described to resemble those of turtles (p. 250); most probably the foreflappers are meant here, as these are occasionally seen above the surface, which is hardly ever the case with the hindflappers. In an animal which was estimated at from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the fore-flappers was occasionally visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about one fourth of the whole length (118). Captain HOPE states that the flappers were somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior (110). According to the figures 36, 45 and 50 on the right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion. In the figures 36 and 45 the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the animal of the Daedalus, which was from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the hindflappers was occasionally visible at about forty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about the centre of the whole length (118). Of course they were invisible to EGEDE and BING, as the middle part of the animal’s body was hidden under water (fig. 19).

The fore-head is described as high and broad (p. 144) and flat (29, 41, 44, 60, 69, 118, 157, fig. 30), or depressed (56) and once Mr. SENIOR thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow, a bull dog appearance (149).

The snout or muzzle is called long and sharp (5, fig. 19), sharp (p. 130, 115, 120), tapering to a point (48), rather pointed (91), pointed (118), though the accompanying figure (fig. 30) contradicts this, pointed like that of a porpoise (122), an elongated termination (148), not pointed but bluntly round (92), not pointed but seemed rather blunt (94), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows and horses have (p. 144), evidently with the nostrils opened as wide as possible, rather blunt (48), apparently blunt (102), bluff (150), obtuse (56), the head, estimated at eight or six feet long, consequently at five or four feet broad, tapered to the size of a horse’s (34), the snout being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal (148).

The upperjaw projects considerably (118); we may safely read projects.

Under the jaw there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch (126). This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible as it even occurs in allied animals.

The nostrils are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal is able to close them; they are, however, delineated (fig. 19, fig. 24, fig. 36), or indicated with a crescentic mark (fig. 80), and mentioned to have been distinctly visible (118), and described as large (p. 180). It is also evident that when the animal opens them as wide as possible, the beak appears quadrangular, as is the mouth of cows and horses (p. 130). This comparison agrees with the description of the nose sides or flaps which are here said to be “nearly semicircular flaps or valves overarching the nostrils, which were in front” (143).

Of the whiskers PONTOPPIDAN already tells us that on the sides of the nostrils there are a few stiff hairs or bristles, as other animals have, with a good nose (p. 130). These whiskers are mentioned afterwards only once: “on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long” (103). Were these whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that of a seal (8, 29), with that of a walrus (129), or with that of a sea-lion (36)? I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency, they are not mentioned in the reports.

The mouth is transverse (56) and large (9, 56); it is rarely mentioned, but once stated to have been distinctly visible (118); once it was estimated at fifteen inches (56) (I may ask: large, long, or when opened?), and once we find the firm assertion that when open it looked like that of a serpent! (41).

The eyes were not always seen; it may be that the distance was too large, or that the animal kept them closed (115, 128, 130, 137, 146). They are mentioned as to have been only visible in 31, 80, 101, 118, 126, 152, 158; but sometimes we get a short description. They are round (92, fig. 30), about the size of an ox’s (48), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in diameter (102), about 5 inches in diameter (92), large (p. 131, 91, 122), large as a plate (32, 103), disproportionately large (36), broad (p. 225), very large (92), relatively large (112). We observe that the size of the eyes, when opened as wide as possible, has struck the observers; they must be disproportionately large. But if we wish to know the relative largeness, we have only to consult n^o. 92 and 102, where the eyes are estimated at 3¹⁄₂ and 5 inches. On both occasions the observers estimated the head to be as long as a ten gallon cask, and about of the same thickness. As to the lustre of the eyes we read that: they are not glossy (103), generally, however, glossy (122), brilliant (p. 105), flaming (p. 105), sharp (44), very bright (48), and glittering (63, p. 225, 92). It seems that the eyes, seen in their axis are dark (44, 103), or black (9, 103), and that, when seen in an oblique direction they seem to be blue or better tin-coloured, for they are said to resemble rather a pair of pewter plates (p. 131). We also conclude that when seen in the axis and reflecting the daylight by their tapetum lucidum they glisten like those of a cat (91), or have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity (143), and this glimmer or glistening was said to be red (33), or reddish like a burning fire (5), or crimson (92). The eye is delineated in fig. 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36.--One of the eye-witnesses of no 48 states that there is a small bunch on each side of his head, just above his eye; another too said: there appeared a bunch above the eyes (48). It is also said that the eyes are prominent, and stand out considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad (60). It is easy to understand that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (56), and that another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (149). This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (fig. 19, 26). The situation of the eyes is over the jaws (56), and nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of the head (60, fig. 30).

Neither ear-holes nor external ears are mentioned. If external ears are present, they must be exceedingly minute; the absence, however, is very probable; at all events earholes must be present, but they are evidently very small, and capable of being closed, as in seals. Curious is the assertion “the ears seemed to be diaphanous” (143).

There is a slight hollow at the top of the head (60, fig. 30).

The features resemble those of an alligator (148), but made on others the impression as being those of a seal (29).

c. Skin.

Except in two cases (39, 157) when the animal was very near, scales are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, &c., &c., &c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales (149), altogether devoid of scales (148), smooth (13, p. 132, 41, 43, 48, 56, 59, 60, 92, 103, 114, 115, 118, 146, fig. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 45), like a mirror (p. 132), shining (114), shining strongly (117), with a very bright reflexion (46), looking similar to an eel’s (59). But an animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, must have a hairy skin. Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin appeared rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal (148), and still more: that it is as woolly as a seal’s (8). Such a hairy skin becomes smooth as a mirror and shines strongly, when it is wet, as may be seen in seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears.

2. INTERNAL OR ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.

It is not astonishing that we don’t know much of its anatomical characters, as it never had the honour to be dissected by the able hand and keen scalpel of an anatomist. Yet it is clear that if the animal opens its mouth, there is an opportunity to learn something about its teeth, tongue, etc. Generally it keeps its mouth shut, once only this is stated (126), as if the observer watched an opportunity to see it opening its mouth. Though we have several accounts mentioning the animal opening its mouth (39, 41, 48, 65, 81, 109, 118, 144, 149), teeth are not always seen, either because the distance was too great, or because the position was not favourable. Teeth are delineated (fig. 19); they are mentioned in 65, 81, 109, 118, described as formidable in 109, and as jagged in 118.

Of the animal’s tongue we have the following observations: “There rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point. I thought it not the tongue, as I saw the prong before I saw the head, but it might have been” (43, distance forty rods, with a spyglass); “I was struck with an appearance in the front part of the head like a single horn, about nine inches to a foot in length, and of the form of a marlinespike. There were a great many people collected by this time, many of whom had before seen the same object and the same appearance” (44); “he threw out his tongue about two feet in length, the end of it appeared to me to resemble a fisherman’s harpoon” (48); “he raised his tongue several times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again” (48); “he threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from his jaws, the end of it resembled a harpoon” (48); “he threw his tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again” (48); “the colour of his tongue was a light brown” (48).

To the descriptions of the teeth and tongue no great value can be attached, as such organs need close examination. The length of the tongue is, anatomically spoken, not an impossibility, as it is known that animals with a long neck generally have a long tongue.

3. COLOURS, INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS.

Just as in some species of the order of Pinnipeds, there seem to exist indeed some individual variations with regard to the colour of the sea-serpent.

Just as in the dark specimens of the Pinnipeds, the colour of the sea-serpent becomes lighter in drying; i. e. the real colour of the animal comes to light. Properly we should say: their colour is light, but, when wet, it becomes a dark one. It is evident that the real colour of the sea-serpent, being dried by the sunshine, is grey (9, 61, 64), a light ash-colour (25), grey and yellow (147), pale yellowish (146), or yellow (71).

Just as in Pinnipeds, the colour of a wet individual appears much lighter when it is very close to us, than when we see it at some distance. Three times the colour is called grey (65, 66, p. 138), though not a single fact is mentioned, from which it may be made out, whether the animal was very near or far off. The colour of an individual which was so close that it could be struck with a handspike was greyish (72), that of one a few yards distant, light fawn coloured (122), at about thirty feet distance the colour seemed to be a very dark grey (102), still farther a greyish brown (79).

Though some persons call the colour only dark, or brown, or black, it is noteworthy that those who describe it more minutely, agree that the backpart of the head, the neck, the trunk and the tail are dark, and that the under part of the head and the neck is light coloured. With regard to the colour, the animal is evidently longitudinally divided into a dark one above and a light one beneath.

The dark colour of the upper part seems to vary a little, as may be seen from the following appellations: dark (41, 48, 51, 63, 67, 80, 85, 103, 115, 131, 152 A, 154), very dark (42, 48), somewhat dark (95), dark dull (130), evidently a chocolate brown, or mahogany brown, or chestnut brown, for it was compared with a red snake (36), chocolate colour (44), dark chocolate colour (48), colour of a pilot fish (151), old mahogany brown (92), dirty brown (121), brown (43, 81, 92, 144), deep brown (34), dark brown (p. 131, 39, 44, 46, 56, 69, 97, 115, 117, 118, 135), blackish brown (91), approaching to black (63), nearly black (41, 95, 97) almost black (48), blackish (65, 94, 117), black (34, 42, 60, 85, 114, 120, 126, 138, 149, 150, 152, 155), as black as coal-tar (152). The tints of the figures also evidently represent a dark colour (figg. 28, 29, 30, 41, 45, 46). By some witnesses the colour of the head is observed to be darker than that of the body; we may safely read for “body” the “neck”. Once the colour of the shoulders is reported to be much darker than the rest of the body (122).

On this dark upperpart spots, stripes, streaks etc. of a lighter hue are observed more than once: the colour was that of a conger eel, consequently brown with lighter streaks (144), spotted, and with light flames, or maculated, with distinctly visible light spots like a turtle or a lackered table (p. 131), apparently shaded with light colours (41), streaked with white in irregular streaks (97), on an under ground of fawn colour there were large brown spots behind the shoulders (122), maculated with large white spots (130), covered with several white spots (131), brown with black spots (162). See also figg. 37 and 38.

In some individuals there is a black ring round the eye (p. 131, 29), and the region of the mouth is also black, so that they resemble those horses which we call moorish heads or blackfaces (p. 131, 9).

The sides of the underjaw seem to be very light coloured: white (34, 41, 126, figg. 28, 29, 30), as is also the throat: whitish (p. 138, 117, figg. 28, 29, 30), yellow (25), muddy white (56), yellowish white (118), brownish white (118), light coloured (126), white (69, 144), “the underpart of its head appeared nearly white” (41), “several feet of its belly” (read throat) “which were visible appeared nearly white” (41); very remarkable is the supposition of Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY: “I suppose and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white” (41), this really seems to be the case, for we read in 106 A that the tail is longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black, and in n^o. 144 that the whole animal was longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. Of course in both cases the black side was the back-side, as was very well supposed by Captain Drevar in n^o. 144.

I am of course unable to decide in how far the problematic dark stripe, curved downwards, on each side behind the underjaw, and as long as the head, delineated in figg. 28 and 29, will ever be found to come up to reality.

The representation of the colours in fig. 31 is very bad, as the animal’s back is drawn lighter than the underpart, and I believe that such alternating broad bands of a light and dark colour don’t exist in reality, but are here the result of drawing with a pencil.

4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE.

It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and that others have not.

The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over the whole length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, and diminishing gradually to the tail where it evidently passes imperceptibly into the common hair-coating. The mane is said to have been visible on its head (135); at the back of the head (figg. 17, 24, n^o. 102), which no doubt means just behind the occiput. Further: on the neck (p. 105, p. 132, p. 138, p. 225, 9, 11, 12, 101, 103, fig. 31), from the back of the head a mane commenced (91), just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further backwards (91), close behind the head a mane commences along the neck (92), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (92), the head was provided with a mane hanging down (152 A); evidently the mane extends from the head over the whole length of the neck and the trunk (18? fig. 28, fig. 29). The mane near the head is long (9, 152 A), tolerably long (92), two feet long (p. 105), and all along the neck and back: not very long (91), that it is of some length, we must suppose, for it is said to wash about to and fro in the water (91, 118, 120), and to spread to left and to right floating on the water (92), when the animal swims. The colour of the mane seems to be white (9) when dried up by the sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the body (102), brown (92, 152 A). The mane resembles that of a horse (p. 138, p. 225, 91, 92, 103, 118) or rather seaweed (p. 132, 118, 135).

Probably a mane was present in n^o. 51, and 74; the back from afar, was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and had a rugged appearance; see also fig. 36.

Twice it is stated that there was no mane (26, 115, see also fig. 19 and 27), but we have so many reports which don’t mention the mane, and which surely would have mentioned it, if it had been present, that we are obliged to believe that those individuals had no mane. In other instances the distance was too great to observe a mane, even if the animal had been provided with one.

I am sure that here we have one of the differences between males and females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a difference in size between males and females, I should not be surprised that, if these animals were better known to zoologists, the males would, in general, prove to surpass the females twice in size and four or six times in weight. In my opinion large individuals are, therefore, males, and must have a mane, or at one time have had one. The probability exists that they lose the greater part of their mane at a certain age, or that they were moulting when they were seen; which would account for the fact that in some large individuals no mane was observed.

I have ventured to draw the outlines of the animal from the descriptions. Fig. 72 represents it as seen from aside, with the divisions of the colours, and fig. 73 as seen on the back with the whiskers and the extension of the mane in the males.

5. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

a. Nutritory functions.

1. Eating, Food.--Its eating cuttles, lobsters and all kind of sea-crabs (p. 105), may be true. With the greatest certainty it may be said to feed on fish. We have found the following notices which decide this: “He often disappeared and was gone five or ten minutes under water; evidently he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same situation and thus employed for two hours. All kind of fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen” (35). “It sometimes darted under water with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey” (69), which in this instance surely was fish. “Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, and showing all the symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some wicked enemy” (133), and suddenly a sea-serpent appeared. “There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore” (150), a sea-serpent soon made its appearance.

Not only does the animal prey on fish, but, by way of change, also on sea-mammals. When on Behring’s Isle Mr. KRIUKOF tells us that “the sea-lions were so terrified at the sight of the monster, that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of the flesh, which, according to the Aleutians is that of this serpent” (36). Evidently such pieces of flesh are washed aland only when a sea-serpent had made its appearance, otherwise there would be no reason to ascribe such pieces of flesh to sea-serpents. Sea-reptiles don’t exist in those regions; it is highly improbable that the pieces of flesh were of sea-birds; they are not of fishes, as in that case they would not have been called flesh, consequently they are of sea-mammals. Of what kind of sea-mammals these pieces of flesh were, is not the question now, but I am sure that the sea-lions would not be so terrified, if they did not know the sea-serpent to be a terrible enemy.

There is moreover no doubt, that sea-serpents sometimes prey on the smaller kind of whales, as dolphins, porpoises, grampuses, &c. It sometimes appears suddenly amidst a shoal of these animals: “It was surrounded by porpoises and grampuses” (56); “There was an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”, no doubt because they were pursued by a sea-serpent (97); “an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship as if pursued” (124), and gracefully a long neck, moving like that of a swan rose from the depths. Our suppositions in this respect are confirmed by the reports of Captain S. WEST, who saw the sea-serpent “engaged with a whale” (54), and of Captain DAVISON, stating that a sea-serpent seized a whale on the belly (read pectoral fin) (151, fig. 49).

The manner of darting on its prey is well described in n^o. 149 and 152. I am convinced that the individuals in n^o. 154 and 106 a were diving for food in a playful manner, with their body and part of their tail floating on the surface.

2. Breathing. Nobody will doubt that sea-serpents respire by gills as fish do; they move or swim, as is stated in numerous reports, with the head constantly above water, or when holding it nearly on the surface, it is evident that their nostrils are always just above the surface. When diving or fishing for food the average time that they remain under water is about eight minutes (63). It is probable that they may remain under it for half an hour or still longer. When having remained so long under water, and appearing on the surface, the animal suddenly exhales with such a force that “we at first imagined it to be a whale spouting” (83), and “every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steamboat” (101). The same noise is usually heard when a whale “spouts” (See H. LEE, Sea Fables Explained, 1883, London), see also fig. 36. But also when the animal is swimming or lying still on the surface with its head on the level of the water, occasionally exhaling when its nostrils are not quite above water, it “spouts water from it not unlike the blowing of a whale” (74); “near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth as though it was spouting water” (114). The breath of the animal is occasionally also seen condensed by the cold, forming little curling clouds, “it blew like a whale”, said EGEDE (5, fig. 19), “it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff, resembling long shavings from a pine plank” (158). In general, however, the animal swims with its head some feet above the surface of the water, so that it is very natural that “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting” (148).

3. Excretion. In one report we read that the animal left a greasy trail behind him (156). It is very probable that such a large sea-animal, provided as it is with rather a thick layer of bacon under its skin, secretes a quantity of liquid fat, large enough to leave a greasy trail”; this will certainly happen when it is severely wounded.

Without any doubt it is true that it may “emit a very strong odour” (61).

b. Functions of the senses.

1. Feeling.--Of course but little can be noticed about the animal’s feeling. PONTOPPIDAN tells us that it has whiskers “like other animals which have a good nose.” How far the Bishop believed that those whiskers had anything to do with the animal’s sense of smell, I cannot tell. But certainly they have not. Well developed whiskers are rarely found but in animals which catch their prey in a stealthy way, such as cats, dogs, viverrides, mustelides, and numerous allied animals, and in animals which live in holes, as mice, rats, &c. It is known that all these animals can go through holes, crevices, fissures, slits or clefts which are large enough to admit their whiskers. Whiskers are organs of feeling. Consequently seals, sea-lions, sea-bears, &c., and also sea-serpents will on numerous occasions find their whiskers of great use for the purpose of feeling with them.

Further it must not astonish us that sea-serpents are usually observed in fine weather when there is no wind. They seem to dislike wind, and therefore, if having no special purpose in view, they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow (3, p. 129, p. 133, 92, 94); they even seem to be very sensible of the least wind.

Warmth on the contrary seems to be very welcome to them, as they are often seen on hot days, and even basking in the sun (114, 137).

2. Taste. The taste of the animal is, of course, only to be known by the food it takes.

3. Smell. There is no doubt that, guided by their smell they prey on fish, but it is clear that we shall never know any more particulars about it. Only it is stated, and it seems to be true, that they cannot bear the smell of castoreum and asa foetida, and that Norwegian seamen and fishermen up to the days of RATHKE (1840) would never forget to bring one of these drugs with them, to drive them away. (PONTOPPIDAN, p. 130, p. 134, p. 259).

As far as I know, zoologists accept three reasons why some animals emit some strong odour; viz. to drive away their enemies, or to recognize one another, either in the neighbourhood or from afar, or to flatter and to attract the other sex. With which purpose sea-serpents emit a strong odour, this surely will be very difficult to decide, but in all probability they smell it themselves.

4. Hearing. The observations about the animal’s hearing are, as may be expected, but very few. That an animal hears, can only be asserted when it gives unmistakable signs that it has heard, for instance a sudden turning of its head towards the origin of sound, or the running away from it. So we have the statements that the sea-serpent “was not pleased with the noise of our oars” (69); “the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent approaches and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts it still more” (p. 259); “on both days it seemed to keep about us, and as we were always rowing then, we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured sound of the oars” (137, 138); “on my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight and under water” (150).

5. Sight.--The numerous statements that a sea-serpent swims with its head some feet above the surface of the water prove that it looks straight before it. Further we have found it several times mentioned that it followed a boat, and finally the assertion that it raised its head and neck several feet above the water, evidently to take a survey towards the ship passing, or to take a view of objects, or to look about for prey (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131, 145, 149, 152 A).

c. Functions of the muscular system.

1. Relative mobility of organs. We have already mentioned that the eyes, like the nostrils and the mouth, may be shut or opened wide. Yet they do not seem to be very movable (103).

The head may be held at right angles with the neck (70, fig. 24). The animal can bend its neck in several directions, moving it like that of a swan (124, 151, fig. 49), consequently bent dorso-ventrally in the form of a stretched S. When only the forepart of the neck, curved in such a way, is visible above water, the observers naturally say that it is curved (97), or bent in a semi-circle (115). It can also turn its head a little sideways (60, 63, 93). The swimming in vertical undulations is surely a proof of dorso-ventral flexibility. It has the power to hold its body in a straight line, quite stiff, even in swimming. Also it has the power to bend its neck, trunk and tail dorso-ventrally into numerous “bunches”, unless it is not the whole mass of its body, but only the layer of muscles, bacon and its skin, which it is able to bend in such a manner, for it is observed lying perfectly still, showing, however, numerous bunches (34, 42, 61, 64, 67, 69, 106 A, 154). In this condition it may even swim (60, 63). These bunches according to its body-length, may be of the size of a barrel (34), or from six to seven feet from each other, and from three to four feet high (154, fig. 50). On some occasions it gave the impression of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself (137), for there was no appearance of undulation; when the lumps sunk, other lumps did not rise in the intervals between them (137). Twice it is observed only with its head and its tail above water, the body slightly under (135, 162), and once casting itself backwards, and in doing so, its tail rose high above the water (5) so that the animal was bent dorsally in the form of an U or horse-shoe (fig. 19).

Its lateral flexibility is also astonishing. In turning it bends its body quite in the form of a horse-shoe, the head nearly touching its tail end (39, 41, 44); in turning twice immediately after each other or in playing, its body is bent in the form of the letter S (63, fig. 37, fig. 38). Also it may play in circles (39). Once, seized by a spermwhale, evidently in its trunk, it wound itself laterally round the head and upperjaw of its attacker (144). Its tail is said to lash the water (151? 158), and to wind itself up, and to rest for a moment on a part of the trunk (106 A). In short it is as limber and active as an eel (44).

Provided, as sea-lions are, with rather a thick layer of bacon under its skin, the animal, when it bends its body in the form of a horse-shoe, either laterally or dorsally, naturally shows in the concave side of the curve, wrinkles or folds (5) in its skin. When its head is held nearly at right angles with the neck, the skin under the chin is contracted into folds, which led to the description that the animal had some “gills” (read “gill-splits”, 56). When its neck is a little contracted, it may happen that three folds of the skin encircle the neck, which when held so for some time, and exposed to the sun, dry on their highest part, and when stretched again, will show “three yellow collars” (71). It may also be that “at about six feet from the jaws there is a protuberance on its back like a small watercask” (126), or that “a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircles the neck about two feet from the head” (131).

The flappers may be lifted up so high that they are occasionally visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154, fig. 50); when the animal is swimming with extreme rapidity, they may be raised still higher, so that they are almost entirely above the surface (129, 148, fig. 36, fig. 45), but then they are not directed hindwards, but forwards, “they were turned to the contrary way” (129, fig. 36, fig. 50). The flappers move alternately: “the movements of the flappers were those of a turtle”, “the monster paddled itself along after the fashion of a turtle” (148), and have “a semi-revolving motion” (148). When the animal swims with vertical undulations, it may press the flappers close against the body, so that seen from above, it is as if the flappers were wanting (82).

2. Motions. Hitherto we have considered the animal by itself, let us now see how it moves in the water.

The first sign of the presence of a sea-serpent may, of course, be very different. Generally, when the animal was met with it was already swimming on the surface; sometimes it lay still, and it appeared to be a wreck or a small rock, but on approaching gradually changed into a living animal; and sometimes, though rarely, it appeared on the surface not far from the vessels. It is a proof that it may remain a tolerably long time under water before it comes to the surface to breathe. This may happen in two ways; viz. 1. After it has swum a long time just below the surface, it will gradually raise its head above it, and 2. When it has swum for some time very deep below the surface, it will rise perpendicularly upwards. Instances of the first manner of coming to the surface will be found in the following passages: “the first sign of the sea-serpent coming up was a rushing in the water ahead of the ship; at first we imagined it to be a whale spouting” (83), “attention was first directed to it by the broken action of the water” (126). Apparently this happened also in the animal of Captain TREMEARNE (129). In the other manner of coming to the surface, going upwards with great speed, a large portion of the animal is shown to the spectators: “it raised its head high above the surface (1, 31, 36), even so high that the foreflappers became visible” (5, 121); “arising out of the depths of Ocean, stretches to the skies its enormous neck, masthead high” (p. 225); “it raised itself slowly and gracefully from the deep” (124), “it suddenly stood quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of sixty feet” (145); “a head and neck rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet (149, 151, 152, see also fig. 19, fig. 46, fig. 48, fig. 49). Once it struck a vessel in coming to the surface (122) so that it may be supposed that the animal had its eyes shut.

Generally it swims with vertical undulations (1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, p. 130, p. 138, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 81, 82, 83, 85, 91, 92, 94, 95, 101, 102, 103, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 137, 138, 139, 150, 155, 157, see also the following figures 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 47, 51). The undulations may be large or small, so that their number differs, but also the animal’s higher or lower position in the water is cause, that their number may greatly vary. Of course it is not always easy to account for a small number of coils. This number is mentioned to be two or three (102), three (113), three to four (138), three to five (117), four or more (139), seven (137, 157), not more than seven (137), seven or eight (9), not more than eight (41), at least ten (85), ten or twelve (44, 60), thirteen to fifteen (63), fifteen to twenty three (63), fourteen (69), several (83), twenty five (2). In our illustrations we find four (fig. 40, fig. 47, fig. 51), six (fig. 26), seven (fig. 24, fig. 39), eight (fig. 35), eleven (fig. 27, fig. 34) and twenty (fig. 33).

The motion of the animal is said to be wrongly serpentine (29, 91, 103, 119, 157), like that of a snake (101, 115, 155), like that of an eel (117), and rightly vermicular (82), like that of a caterpillar (41), like that of a leech (94).

The coils are said to resemble or to be as large as ten-gallon kegs (41), half-barrels (60), flour barrels (60), large kegs (117), those of a dromedary (83), about three feet long (117).

The space between the coils, for there is always a space visible between them (p. 130), is sometimes large, at other times small; it was a space of one fathom (9), of seven feet (69), or of three feet (60).

The whole animal swimming with vertical undulations, and seen from afar, resembles a string of tuns or hogsheads (p. 130), a large shoal of fish (read porpoises) with a seal at one end of it (29), a string of empty barrels tied together (60), a string of casks tied together (60), a string of large casks, gently bubbing up and down (114), a long chain of rocks (106 A), a long chain of enormous rings (106 A), a number of barrels linked together (106 A), eight seals in a row (137), a flock of wild ducks swimming (157).

The height of the coils above water was, according to the animal’s lower or higher position in the water, or according to its bulk, about six inches (41), eight or ten inches (39), at least three feet (114), only a few feet (106 A); we also find the notices: “apparently about one third of the upperpart of its body was above water” (93), “it partly raised itself above the surface of the water” (94).

As is to be expected, the bunches decrease in size towards the tail (69, 102); of coarse this will always be the case.

It seems that sometimes the undulations are limited only to the trunk of the animal: “I saw no bunches towards I thought the end of the tail, and I believe there were none; from where I judged his navel might be, to the end of his tail there were no bunches visible” (44); “the first bunch appeared ten or twelve feet from his head” (69); “about thirty feet behind the head appeared the first coil” (81).

The reader will remember (see Relative mobility of organs) that the animal may crook up its back, or the layer of bacon of its back, when lying perfectly still. It seems evident that it also is able to swim with its flappers, whilst its back is in such a condition: “the bunches appeared to be fixed” (60); “his bunches appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he moved along some appeared to be depressed and others brought above the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them” (63); “the protuberances were not from his motion, as they were the same whether in slow or in rapid movement” (69). See also n^o. 137.

I am convinced that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations, usually presses its flappers to its body. Once it was seen from above (82) and it seemed to be eel-shaped, and the flappers must have been invisible, at least they are not mentioned; it swam with vertical undulations.

But there are reasons to believe that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations, at a moderate rate, also uses its flappers. Once it was seen from above, moving with vertical undulations, and its flappers are tolerably well described (119). And when we read: “the motion of his body was rising and falling, the head moderately vibrating from side to side” (48), “the motion of his head was sideways and quite moderate, and the motion of his body was up and down” (48), “his motion was partly vertical, partly horizontal” (69), “serpentine movements, some up and down, some to the side” (91), we must conclude that the animal swimming with vertical undulations may indeed also use its flappers. If only the foreflapper and the hind one of the right side were used, the animal would turn to the left, if, on the contrary, it used its two left flappers, it would turn to the right; consequently when the right foreflapper (leaving for a moment the hindflappers out of consideration) is moved backwards with a strong action, the head must move a little to the left, and it will move to the right, when the left foreflapper is propelled backwards.

The instances in which the animal swims with its body in a straight line, propelling itself only with its flappers, are few in comparison with its swimming with vertical undulations (3, 18, 34, 38, 56, 59, 83, 93, 104, 115, 118, 120, 129, 130, 132, 138, 143, 145, 146, 147, 150, 160, see also figg. 28, 29, 31, 36, 45). The animal in this position resembled some drift of sea-weed (143), a mast of a vessel floating (83), an enormous log of timber floating (83), a trunk of a large tree floating (104), an unwrought spar (18), a long spar (150), a log of wood (150), an immense tree floating (157).

A change in its mode of swimming is sometimes also witnessed, it may be that it first swam with vertical undulations, and then with its body in a straight line, or vice versa (3, 83, 115).

In swimming the end of the tail only (118, 122, 146), or nearly the whole tail (31, 34, 38, 60, 63, 69, 74, 80, 81, 85, 93, 102, 114, 115, 121, 148, 150) is concealed under water and invisible. The flappers are always below the surface of the water and invisible (31, 34, 80, 85, 122, 138, 146, 150), save the above-mentioned four times (118, 129, 137, 148). The head may be held just at the surface of the water (31, 39, 44, 66, 74, 91, 137, 146, 148, figg. 32, 33, 37, 38), so that it sometimes is recorded as not having been visible (41, 113, 114), or may be, and this is generally the case, held above water (31, 44, 51, 63, 83, 91, 97, 128, figg. 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 51). The height above water is said to be but little (94), some feet (70), well above water (150), several feet (155), high (32), considerable (102), quite erect in the air (95), six inches (48, 63), eight inches (44), one foot (38, 41, 42, 92, 137, 138), two feet (9, 39, 63, 80, 138), three feet (63), four feet (17, 19, 29, 60, 118), five feet (19, 29, 60), six feet (60, 74, 97), seven feet (60, 101, 142), eight feet (101), ten or twelve feet (131).

The head may, of course, sometimes be gradually laid down (63), or gradually raised higher (51), is generally held in an acute angle (94), which is of course the case when it is only a few feet above the surface, and the angle becomes the less acute the more the head is elevated; but sometimes the neck is curved (97) in the form of a semicircle (115). The head may be held constantly above water as long as the animal was visible (29, 31, 92, 94, 118), or raised and lowered at intervals (128, 129, 148).

Sometimes, evidently when darting on some prey, the animal raises its whole neck quite stiff in the air: “head and neck stood upright like a mast” (56), “the whole neck raised above water like a snake preparing to dart on his prey” (115), “the animal protruded its head above water to the length of about thirty feet at an angle of sixty degree to the horizon” (126), “a large spar sticking out of the water one end, and some thirty feet above the level of the sea” (132), “it resembled the lower mast of some wrecked vessel, passing rapidly” (132), “darting rapidly out of the water and splashing in again, head and neck to a height of about twenty or thirty feet out of the water” (149, fig. 46), “head and neck reared about thirty feet out of water” (151), “a neck rose out of the water, about twenty feet, moving with great speed” (152), “at first it was taken to be an immense tree floating, but this illusion was soon dispelled as the neck was thrown twenty feet in the air” (160).

When swimming the whole animal is not always above water, but may occasionally dip under without any noise, or disappear with a distinctly audible splash (31, 39, 41, 44, 60, 63, 69, 74, 114, 117, 126, 132, 137, 139, 149, 151, 152, 157).

The speed is said to be: faster than we could row (9), rapid (p. 132, 31, 97, 114, 117, 134, 137), an incredible velocity, like an arrow (p. 134), moderate (29), the greatest rapidity (29), a great rapidity (34, 138), slow (39, 115, 120, 131, 137), much more rapid than whales or any other fish (48), very rapid (63, 69, 132), nearly still (69), very slow (83), very swiftly (94), a great swiftness (101), that of a light boat rowed by four active men (117), very quick (123), at a great rate (137), at a rapid pace (149), a great speed (152), a great velocity (157)--or it was estimated at--two miles an hour (83, 120), three miles an hour (39), four miles (60), ten miles (146), ten to twelve miles (42, 138), twelve to fourteen miles (48), fifteen miles (41, 118, 149), fifteen or twenty miles (35), twenty miles (44, 156), twenty four miles (38), twenty to thirty miles (41), thirty miles (122, 155), thirty-six to forty-two miles (51), sixty miles (43, 50).

The animal may swim for a considerable time with the same speed, steadily and uniformly (48, 118, 134, 138, 146), or decreasing, or increasing it (29, 51, 60, 69).

Of course the animal swimming rapidly propels the water before it, so that the water curls up before its throat (51, 93, 118), or even foams (44, 63, 85, 95, 115, fig. 26), and when it swiftly darts forwards for prey and elevates its flappers above water, the motion of its flappers causes distinctly visible splashes (137, 149, 152, fig. 46, of course in n^o. 129 and 148 the movements of the flappers must also have caused a severe splashing, though this is neither mentioned nor delineated, figg. 36, 45). Also when it drops its neck like a log of wood into the water, an enormous splash or spray on both sides was visible (149, 152).

In the open sea the animal generally swims “as straight forward as you could draw a line” (39, 41, 114, 134), “not deviating in the slightest degree from its course, which it held on apparently on some determined purpose” (118), seldom it is recorded as “taking a turn” (114, 122, 128), but when in a harbour it may move “in several directions” (41), as if “playing” (39, 63, 69, 130), “in circles” (39), or “bringing the body into a letter S” (63, 130). The mode of turning is so characteristic and unique that I feel obliged to repeat all that I have found about it:--“he turned short and quick and the first part of the curve that he made in turning resembled the link of a chain, but when his head came parallel with his tail, his head and tail appeared near together” (39),--“his motion when he turned was quick; the first part of the curve that he made in turning was of the form of a staple, and as he approached towards his tail he came near his body with his head, and then ran parallel with his tail, and his head and tail then appeared near together” (41),--“in changing his course he brought his head to where his tail was, or in fact to the extreme hinder-part visible; raising himself as he turned six or eight inches out of water” (41),--“he turned quick and short and the first part of the curve that he makes in turning is in the form of a staple, but his head seems to approach rapidly towards his body, his head and tail moving in opposite directions, and when his head and tail came parallel they appear almost to touch each other” (41),--“when he changed his course he diminished his velocity but little; the two extremes that were visible appeared rapidly moving in opposite directions, and when they came parallel, they appeared not more than a yard apart” (41),--“he turned very short; the form of the curve when he turned resembled a staple; his head seemed to approach towards his body for some feet, then his head and tail appeared moving rapidly, in opposite directions, and when his head and tail were on parallel lines they appeared not more than two or three yards apart” (44),--“he turned slowly, and took up considerable room in doing it” (69),--“it turned with considerable noise” (117).

When the animal swims, either with vertical undulations, or with its body in a straight line, holding, however, its head just at water-level, so that the nostrils are only above the surface to breathe, it generally shows nearly its whole length, only the very end of its tail being under water. In such a condition it must swim very easily, for the water carries its total weight, so that it is actually null, and the animal in swimming has only to surmount the friction and the resistance of the water made against an object in motion. But as soon as the head is lifted above the surface, the weight of it must immediately be carried by the body. It is therefore not astonishing if an observer states: “its progressive motion under water was rapid; when the head was above water, its motion was not near so quick” (31), “when immersed in the water his speed was greater” (41). It is very natural too, that when the head is held above water, and when consequently the body must carry the weight of the head, the body sinks a little deeper into the water: “his head was now more elevated above the water, and his body more depressed below” (51), and that when the animal has raised its whole neck quite erect in the air, the body has sunk so deep that it is: “not visible at all” (149), and that “the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice” (149). Therefore figg. 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 48 and 49, are tolerably well delineated. Fig. 33 shows us the animal swimming with vertical undulations, holding its head on the level of the water, and having nearly its whole length visible on the surface. In fig. 34 the head is held a little above the surface, and the end of the tail is already below it. Fig. 35 shows the head still more elevated while of the tail nothing more is visible. Figg. 37 and 38 represent the animal floating on the surface, showing the ridge of its whole back. In figg. 46, 48 and 49 the animal’s neck is elevated as high as possible, but its body is of course too deep to be seen.

A few lines above we have spoken of the increased speed of the animal swimming under water. The question arises how was this to be seen; and the answer is given by the eye-witnesses themselves: “I saw it coming rapidly under water” (31), “when moving under water you could often trace him by the motion of the water on the surface, and from this circumstance I conclude he did not swim deep” (41), “we could trace his course under water” (69), “swimming below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid course” (117), “in swimming under the surface the animal swims not deeply, for on the surface one can trace its course” (126), “and moved away just under the surface of the water, for we could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea” (137).

This, however, is not always the case. The animal can swim so deep that its course is not betrayed on the surface. Once “it swum directly under a boat” in which two men were (41), and once “it passed below the boat at the depth of eight or ten feet, swimming slowly with a vermicular motion” (82), which shows us at the same time that it swims under water with vertical undulations. There is, of course, reason to believe that it may also occasionally swim with its body in a straight line; and Captain HOPE saw it at still greater depths swimming evidently with its flappers and with vertical undulations (119).

So we have gradually approached to the way in which the animal disappears from the surface of the vaste ocean. In some instances it is only said that “it disappeared” (36), “it all at once vanished” (74), “it all at once disappeared” (74), “it suddenly disappeared” (132, 143, 155), evidently withdrawing itself beneath the surface of the water deep enough to avoid a rippling of it. In other instances the way how it disappeared is more circumstantially described: “it sank” (49, 60, 69, 117, 137), “it sunk gradually into the water” (63), “it sank quietly beneath the surface” (134), “it sank rather abruptly” (137), “it sunk apparently down” (39), “he did not turn down like a fish, but appeared to settle down like a rock” (41), “he apparently sunk directly down like a rock” (41); this “sinking like a rock” is of course effectuated by a sudden upward movement of all the flappers together. But the animal may also plunge violently under water (31), or go down with a tremendous splash (157), or when it is swimming with its neck high elevated above the surface, it dives like a duck head foremost (124, 151), and finally, when it has apparently remained a long time under water in great depths, and suddenly comes to the surface with so much force that its head, long neck, and a part of its trunk with its formidable foreflappers become visible, it throws itself backwards, and in doing so, raises its enormous tail high above the surface of the water (5), and disappearing under the waves, the last part which is visible of it, is the end of the tail (fig. 20). Generally, however, it happens that the swimming animal grows gradually smaller and smaller to the eyes of the observers, and at last disappears in the distance to be seen no more.

3. Voice.--In none of the reports gathered in this volume there is a single notice about the animal’s voice. It is probable that the individual gripped by the spermwhale (144) uttered a sound which, however, was not heard amidst the tremendous noise, made by the two animals fighting.

d. Generation, Growth.

I am sure that nobody will believe any longer, as was the case in 1817, that sea-serpents are oviparous. Animals with a hairy skin, save the Monotrymata, are viviparous, consequently sea-serpents are viviparous.

Though PONTOPPIDAN believes that sea-serpents “seek the other sex most probably in July and August” (p. 133), and that “July and August are its pairing time” (p. 129), I am satisfied that March and April must be taken as their months of amours, and that July and August are the months of whelping.

A new born pup most probably has a length of about twenty feet (14).

It seems that the months during which two sea-serpents were seen together are July and August, probably also September (23, 27, 66, 72). It would seem, therefore, that a male remains in the neighbourhood of his companion during her pregnancy and probably also during the first month or during the first two months of the new-born young.

It seems also that the females are much smaller than the males, as the pups are comparatively very small, and as twice one of the two which were seen together is described smaller than the other (23, 66).

We have already met with two instances in which the head of the individual is delineated or described as having a hollow at its top (60, fig. 30). I am satisfied that these were two males not yet full-grown, showing the two cushions of their enormously developed masticatory muscles, which were not yet closed in the centre of the top of the head, and whose skulls therefore, could not show the occipital and medial crests.

6. PSYCHICAL CHARACTERS.

a. Not taking notice of objects.

There are instances that the animal is reported as taking no notice at all of men, vessels or other objects (29, 34, 48, 82, 83).

b. Taking notice of objects.

At other instances, however, the animal was thought to notice objects (43), or is said to have turned its head two or three times slowly round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object on board (60), or that it slowly turned its head towards the observers (93), and numerous are the reports that it lifted itself high above the surface apparently to take a survey towards the vessel, or to take a view of objects (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131, 145, 149, 152 A).

c. Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion.

The many instances that sea-serpents are said to have followed a boat (p. 133, 31, 36, 103, 110, 117, 158) or to have taken a survey towards vessels, sufficiently prove that they are curious beings, and that their curiosity as in so many animals, is generally mixed with some suspicion, which of course is again a proof that the animal is constantly prepared for selfpreservation. One of the most striking proofs of this is to be read in n^o. 92: the individual swam towards a boat, passed within a few feet or some fathoms, and swam away, to repeat the same movement two times.

d. Suspicion.

That some of the eye-witnesses got the impression that it is sometimes really suspicious may be seen from the following lines: “he appeared to avoid the boat wherein I was” (39), “he seemed suspicious of the boat” (69), “they chased the animal fruitless for seven hours” (59), “Captain George Little made many attempts of pursuing and killing it, but without any result, as the serpent ever kept a distance of a quarter of a mile” (19), “on both days it seemed to keep about us, and as we were always rowing then, we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured sound of the oars.” (137, 138).

e. Harmlessness.

The animal is evidently a quite harmless creature (p. 107). Though very close to several boats, it offered them no molestation (32). “After the shot” of MATTHEW GAFFNEY “it turned towards him immediately, sank down, went directly under his boat, and made its appearance one hundred yards from where it sank and continued playing as before” (41), “he appeared to us to be a harmless animal” (63), “it was harmless” (69). A proof of perfect harmlessness may be found in n^o. 92: it approached a fisherman in his boat to within six feet and offered him no molestation. See also n^o. 94 and 112.

f. Timidity.

PONTOPPIDAN already concluded that these animals are really timid ones, “for when it follows a boat, the fishermen throw any object, for instance a scoop, at it, and then the animal generally plunges into the deep” (p. 134), and Mr. PRINCE also says: “he appeared to us to be a timid animal” (63).

g. Fearlessness.

It were perhaps better if I used here the expression: “Involuntary consciousness of the harmlessness of vessels, boats, and men”, in which, however, it was often mistaken! “It did not appear to avoid anything” (41), “it appeared to be amusing itself, though there were several boats not far from it” (41); after the shot of MATTHEW GAFFNEY “it did not appear more shy” (41); once it lay extended on the surface, the night was falling, and a boat rowed by four men, passed just before its snout at an oar’s length, and yet it remained lying quite still (43), “it did not appear to be at all disturbed by the vessel” (48, 80, 93, 112, 118); it may swim or come to the surface very close to boats, and swim parallel with them (72, 109, 112, 121, 157).

h. Fear.

A stronger expression of suspicion is evidently to be seen in the animal’s sinking and being seen no more at the approach of a vessel (49).

i. Fright.

I think that in the following we see true expressions of fright. When LORENZ VON FERRY fired at it, the animal plunged down under water and was seen no more (9); some strangers fired at it and it suddenly disappeared (90); it gracefully rose once from the deep, but seeing a ship, it immediately disappeared (124); it once raised its head out of the water within twenty yards of a ship, when it suddenly disappeared, but here its curiosity got hold of its fright, and after half a minute it made its appearance again in the same manner (131).

j. Fury.

The animal does not always plunge down after a shot, and is then seen no more: MATTHEW GAFFNEY fired at it, when it was thirty feet from him. The animal turned towards him immediately after the shot, sank down, went directly under his boat and made its appearance at about one hundred yards from where it sunk. It continued playing as before, and did not appear more shy (41); once when it was fired at, it turned and pursued the boat to the shore and then disappeared (110); a boatmen struck it with a boathook, upon which it immediately gave him chase (112); when LUND fired at it, it stretched its long neck quite erect in the air, like a snake preparing to dart on its prey, and darted towards LUND, who reached the shore in time (115). I am convinced that the animal, when fired at and hit, in most instances grows suddenly furious and darts on the enemy, but it seems that its fury is soon dispelled by the emotion of fear, suspicion, timidity, etc. Hitherto I have not found one single proof that it ever attacked a man, with the result of having hurt him, though it had more than once a favourable opportunity of doing so.

k. Toughness.

It is evident that the animal is a tough one; it is not easy to kill it. A single rifle-ball seems to be insufficient, and I think the only manner to kill it is by explosive balls or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine, which will at once destroy a considerable part of its brain and skull, or body.

l. Playsomeness.

Like the seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, sea-serpents have often been seen amusing themselves for hours when in a harbour, gracefully gliding in circles, as has been stated above. Twice an individual just as in seals, showed its head and tail quite above the surface, the body slightly under (135, 162), stretching itself comfortably; at other times crooking up its back to sun itself (114, 137).

m. Sensibility of fine weather.

Evidently the animals feel comfortable in fine weather and when there is no wind. Repeatedly we have found the statement that they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow. But as they are air-breathing animals, they are obliged to come every now and again to the surface, and it is, therefore, not wonderful that there are reports which, though in a slight degree, contradict the other statements. But upon the whole it is clear that in such circumstances the animal will only raise their nostrils for a moment above the surface of the water in order to breathe, and this is clearly the reason why in many instances they are never high enough and long enough above the surface to be observed by men.

When the animal appeared, the weather is reported to have been calm (2, 3, 5, 25, 29, 61, 64, 79, 103, 128, 130, 137, 144, 157), quite calm (35), good (60), clear (34, 60, 63, 83, 114, 128, 132, 152, 154, 162), very clear (60), fine (44, 79, 128, 129, 144, 146, 152), brisk (114), sunshiny (137, 149, 157), warm and sunshiny (138), hot (150, 157), very hot (64), excessively sultry (61), cloudy (131), dark and cloudy (118).

The surface of the sea is described as smooth (34, 41, 126, 146), quite smooth (80), very smooth (29), perfectly smooth (44, 137, 148), extremely smooth (63), smooth as a mirror (92, 95), as smooth as a glass (150), as smooth as the surface of a pond (114), calm (2, 60), quite calm (p. 129, 115), almost calm (60), perfectly calm (83, 119), exceptionally calm (148), moderate (144). But there may be also some sea on (120), or a sharp sea on (122), or the surface may be only little moved by waves (154), or occasionally disturbed by slight flaws of wind, “catpaws” (128), or there may be a long ocean swell (118), or a strong ebb tribe (51).

In the reports we read that there was no wind (48), not a breath of wind (150), not a breath of air (114, 137), a very little wind (29), a light wind (34, 126, 132), a light air of wind (60), a fresh wind (118, 129), a variable wind (132), a moderate wind (144), a gale of wind (124), a light breeze (80, 130), a brisk breeze (51), a fresh breeze (104, 120), or there were strong breezes (122, 131).

7. ENEMIES.

Undoubtedly sea-serpents have some enemies of which we are and probably will remain ignorant. But spermwhales and men are certainly their most terrible foes, the former on account of their enormous beak with formidable teeth (144), the latter on account of their nets (14), boathooks (112), harpoons (59, 121), and rifles (9, 19, 41, 69, 90, 110, 115, 129, 130).

8. REPOSE, SLEEP, DEATH.

I believe that repose and sleep are the same for the animal, and that like a seal, it is always on the look out, shutting the eyes for only a few seconds. I say, I believe so, for I cannot deduce it from one of the reports. Once it is said that it lay motionless, without bunches, holding its head above water, and that the eyes were visible (80); another time it lay perfectly still, spouting like a whale; consequently the nostrils were just below the surface, or just at water level, so that the water was sprayed by every exhalation; it had a rugged appearance, consequently it was most probably a male with a mane (74). The other instances in which the animal was evidently resting are the following: it lay almost motionless in the sea; probably in a straight line, for undulations or bunches are not mentioned (17). It was in the evening between eight and nine o’clock; it lay extended on the surface of the water, it appeared straight, exhibiting no protuberances, “we were within two oars’ length of him, when we first discovered him and were rowing directly for him. We immediately rowed from him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail, but fearing we might strike him with the boat, concluded to pass around his head, which we did, by altering our course. He remained in the same position, till we lost sight of him. We approached so near to him, that I believe I could have reached him with my oar” (43). It lay perfectly still extended on the water, probably with its body in a straight line, for no protuberances are mentioned; neither its head nor its tail were visible; yet I believe that its nostrils were above water level, and so it remained for half an hour (46). Very seldom it seems to avail itself of an opportunity to support itself on a sand bank. I have found but one case in which it is, however, stated that the bank had about four feet water upon it. “It lay dormant on the rocks, partly on the rocks, partly in the water,” resembling from afar a large log of wood. “It lay stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had four or five feet water upon it, and lay partly over the channel” (45).

Till now it seems that no individual has ever been killed by the rifle balls of men. It is probable that the individual attacked by the sperm-whale (144) was finally killed by it, but it is also probable that it escaped. Yet I believe that sperm-whales may occasionally wound sea-serpents to death.

Generally, however, I believe that these animals die a natural death.

Dead sea-serpents are more likely to sink than to float, as the enormous neck and tail are most probably not provided with a comparatively thick layer of bacon, and are, therefore, too heavy for the comparatively small quantity of air in the animal’s lungs, and for the layer of bacon of the animal’s trunk. Yet it may occasionally occur that sea-serpents dying near some shore, may be stranded by the waves. PONTOPPIDAN reports that a dead sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amond in Nordfjord and that its carrion caused a dreadful smell (6), and that another stranded near the isle of Karmen (7), and that the stranding of dead sea-serpents took place in more localities (7). Such carrions must be a dainty to all kinds of mews, which sometimes even follow living individuals (69). The fear of the Norwegians of sea-serpents, even of such carrions, is great enough to keep them at a considerable distance. It may be true “that some time ago a part of a skeleton of a sea-serpent was present in the Museum of Natural History at Bergen” (p. 374). It is possible that the fate of this part of a skeleton was the same as that of so many meteoric stones (see my Preface), or as that of the two eggs of Platypus or Ornithorhynchus, which reached the Manchester Museum in the year 1829, and remained there for some years, till they were condemned to the rubbish hill (Nature, 11 Dec. 1884, p. 133), and it was not before September 1884 that zoologists knew that Ornithorhynchus and Echidna are really oviparous, and that the Manchester Museum was once in the possession of two eggs!!

9. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

The Rev. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, after having mentioned that the animal swims with vertical undulations, wrote in August 1803: “this renders it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable distance, and that the water is his proper element” (29).

I wish to express here my firm conviction that these animals never come ashore, nor even on the ice, but always remain in the water. It is true that we have one observation that an individual rested upon a sandy beach, which, however, at that time had about four feet water upon it. But we have other observations that individuals which, following a boat, come into shallow water, immediately and apparently with some difficulty took a turn and went away (31, 115).

It seems that in Norway it has happened a few times that these animals, which are in the habit of frequenting the fjords, swam even up the mouths or the lower parts of rivers, consequently swam in fresh water, which probably gave rise to the fable of these animals being born on land, remain there till they are too large to hide themselves, and then swim down to the sea, where they can move much more easily. Their swimming in fresh water is once recorded, viz. in the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey, U. S. A. (158).

Moreover they are sea-animals, and according to their air-breathing condition, live on the surface, though they may sometimes seek great depths (119).

I have already shown that these animals like sunshiny and hot weather. They don’t like wind, and consequently we may conclude that they are averse of cold weather and of cold water. Therefore they are seen near Norway especially in July and August, which led PONTOPPIDAN to suggest that they “perpetually live in the depths of the sea, except in July and August” (p. 129). The Bishop seems not to have hit upon the idea that the sea-serpents could be migratory animals.

The sea-serpents, it is true, may remain for a long time in a place where they enjoy all that they can possibly wish to have, i. e. room enough, bright weather and plenty of food. They may stay a few days in the same fjord (3, 4, 96) or in the same place or harbour (31 and 32, 34 and 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, 50 and 51, &c., &c.). But then, it may be that the fish is flown for the enemy, or that the season proceeds, the sea-serpents look for an other provender place, or swim to a warmer part of the ocean, i. e. they migrate.

And so we come to their horizontal geographical distribution. We may at once assert that they are cosmopolites though we have not a single report of an appearance at a higher degree than 46° S. latitude, i. e. they have not been met with in the Antarctic Ocean.

Up to this time the animals have appeared 1. In the Arctic Ocean, and 2. In the Atlantic Ocean.

a. All along the coasts of Norway from North Cape up to the boundary of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 111 A, 112, 113, 115, 117, 125, 157). Of the whole coast of Norway that of the northern provinces (washed by the Arctic Ocean) seems to be frequented more than that of the southern (p. 130). It seems that they appear along these coasts almost every year.

b. Along the coasts of Sweden, from the boundary of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord, to the southmost point of Sweden, Falsterbo. I have but one report (2), and the locality of the appearance of the animal I have supposed to have been in the Sund near Malmö.

c. In the Baltic or Swedish Sea. According to OLAUS MAGNUS it is also recorded from this sea, but I think that this happens no more.

d. North of Scotland: between Iceland and the Faroe Isles (124), between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides (56, 153, 154), and near Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles (78).

e. On the eastern coast of Scotland (141, 142, 143).

f. Along the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England (31, 32, 82, 137, 138, 140, 155, 156).

g. A hundred miles west of Brest, France, (152).

h. In the Gulf of Biscay (74).

i. West of Portugal (120).

j. In the Mediterranean (148).

k. North-east of the Azores (25).

l. South of the Azores and west of the Canaries, 29° N., 34° W., (128).

m. From the Canaries to Cape Verde (135).

n. In a line from Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope and a little further south (93, 114, 118, 129, 130, 131, 132, 152 A), not along the coast, except three appearances in Table Bay (114, 130, 152 A).

o. In Davis Straits, 64° N., (5).

p. Along the east coast of North America from Newfoundland to Florida (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 83, 84, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 106 B, 107 A, 121, 133, 134, 158, 159, 160, 162). So these coasts seem to be frequented almost every year. In Mr. TRAILL’s paper on the subject (Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 1854, Vol. 3,) we read: “I shall not here discuss the notices we have, from time to time, received of late years of a great sea-serpent seen by mariners in crossing the Atlantic to America”. I am convinced that these meetings took always place not far from the American coast. Our n^o. 161 is also one of these “notices received of a sea-serpent seen by a mariner in crossing the Atlantic from America”.

q. In the Gulf of Mexico (106 A.)

r. East of Cape San Roque (144, 145).

s. East of La Plata river mouth (80).

t. In the South Atlantic (104).

3. In the Indian Ocean.

a. In the Gulf of Aden (149).

b. Probably between 40° lat. and 20° lat. S., and between 50° and 70° long. E. (123).

c. In lat. 2° N., long. 90° E. (147).

d. In the Malacca Straits (146).

e. Near the coast of Australia (136).

f. In Geographe Bay (150).

4. In the Pacific Ocean.

a. South of Australia (122).

b. Near Cape Satano, the southmost point of the Isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) (151).

c. Near Behring Isle (36). The Aleutians declare that they have often seen this animal (36).

d. In the Gulf of California (119).

That so many appearances took place in the Atlantic and so few in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific only results from the Atlantic being the great highway of nations.

Along the coasts of Norway they appear only “at certain times” (2) i. e. evidently “in the dog days” (92, p. 138), viz. from the 23th. of July to the 23th. of August, and when we consult those reports which mention the dates of the appearances we observe that they really appear along the Norwegian coasts in July (61, 92, 115) and August (9, 64, 68, 117, 157), but that after the dog days they swim further south: from the 24th. of August to the 9th. of September one or more individuals appeared in Christiania fjord (85, 86, 87, 88, 89), and in the month of October (?) an individual was observed near Ibbestad, in the neighbourhood of Christiansand (111 A). The occurrences between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides took place in the last days of May (153, 154) and in July (56), those on the east coast of Scotland in the middle of November (141, 142, 143), those on the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England: in June in the neighbourhood of Coll and Eigg (31, 32), in the last days of August in the neighbourhood of Loch-Hourn (137, 138, 139, 140), in the beginning of September near Orme’s Heads, Wales, (155), and in the middle of October in Bristol Channel (156). The occurrence a hundred miles west of Brest, France, took place on the 5th. of August (152), that west of Portugal on the 31st. of December (120), that in the Mediterranean on the 2d. of June (148), that north-east of the Azores on the 1st. of August (25), that south of the Azores and west of the Canaries on the 30th. of March (128), that between the Canaries and Cape Verde on the 16th. of May (135), and those between Cape Verde and Cape of Good Hope and southwest of the latter: on January 26 (132), February 16 (130), July 8 (129), in the end of July (93), in the summer (114), on August 6 (118), on November 12 (152 A), and on December 12 (131).

EGEDE saw an individual in Davis’ Straits in July (5); the sea-serpents frequent the coast of North America from Newfoundland to Florida in February (121), March or April (101), May (19, 97, 161), June (34, 35, 53, 54, 60, 83, 84, 106 B?, 162), July (29, 55, 75?, 81?, 98, 99, 100?), August (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 62, 63, 69, 73, 105?, 133, 134, 158, 159, 160), September (70, 71, 77, 106?), and October (50, 51). It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April (106 A), was east of Cape San Roque in July (144, 145), and visited the South Atlantic east of Uruguay in January (80).

January was the month in which it appeared in the Gulf of Aden (149), September in about lat. 15° S. and 60° E. (123), May in about lat. 2° N. and long. 91° E. (147), September in the Malacca Straits (146), and March in Geographe Bay (150).

In May it was observed south of Australia (122), and in April south of Kiu Siu, Japan (151).

A few lines above I have already expressed my firm conviction that they are migratory and don’t like cold water. If this be true, they will be generally observed (and I purposely draw the reader’s attention to the expression “generally”, for animals are not bound by laws of nature), in the northern hemisphere when summer is there, and they will generally appear in the southern hemisphere when summer visits those parts of our globe. To follow this rule they must be able to migrate from north to south, and vice versa. Consequently the Atlantic and the Pacific are the only two oceans in which we shall observe that generally this rule is followed, for in the Indian Ocean the animals are checked in their course towards the north by the continent of Asia.

We are therefore obliged to take no account of the appearances which occurred in the Indian Ocean. And as we have only two appearances observed in the Pacific, of which the dates are mentioned, we are also obliged to pass over those in the Pacific too.

Let us now see where the animals were met with in the different months.

January.

South of St. Helena. 19° S. (132). East of Uruguay. 34¹⁄₂° S. (80).

February.

East coast of North America. 31° N. (121). Table Bay. 34° S. (130).

March.

East coast of North America. 42° N. (101). South of the Azores. 29° N. (128).

April.

East coast of North America. 42° N. (101). Gulf of Mexico. 24° N. (106 A).

May.

Near Butt of Lewis. 58¹⁄₂° N. (153, 154). East coast of North America. 44° N. (19). East coast of North America. 43° N. (97). East coast of North America. 40° N. (161). Between Canaries and Cape Verde. 22° N. (135).

June.

Coast of Norway. 64° N. (103). West coast of Scotland. 57° N. (31, 32). East coast of North America. 45° N. (83). East coast of North America. 42° N. (34, 35, 60, 84, 106 B). East coast of North America. 41° N. (53, 54, 162). Mediterranean. 38° N. (148). East coast of North America. 37° N. (52).

July.

Coast of Norway. 65° N. (61). Coast of Norway. 64° N. (103). Davis’ Straits. 64° N. (5). Coast of Norway. 63° N. (92, 115). Between the Far-Öer and the Hebrides. 60° N. (56). East coast of North America. 44° N. (29, 55). East coast of North America. 42° N. (98, 99). East of Cape San Roque. 5° S. (144, 145). West of Cape of Good Hope. 35° S. (129). South West of Cape of Good Hope. 38° S. (93).

August.

Coast of Norway. 70° N. (68). Coast of Norway. 66¹⁄₂° N. (157). Coast of Norway. 66° N. (64). Coast of Norway. 63° N. (9). Coast of Norway. 60° N. (117). Coast of Norway. 59° N. (85, 86). West coast of Scotland. 57° N. (137, 138, 139, 140). 100 miles west of Brest. 48° N. (152). North east of the Azores. 42° N. (25). East coast of North America. 42° N. (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 62, 63, 69, 73, 133, 134). East coast of North America. 41° N. (158, 159, 160). Between St. Helena and Cape of G. H. 24° S. (118).

September.

Coast of Norway. 59° N. (87, 88, 89). North of Wales. 53¹⁄₂° N. (155). East coast of North America. 42° N. (71). East coast of North America. 41° N. (77). South west of Cape of Good Hope. 38° S. (126).

October.

Near Ibbestad, Christiansand. 58° N. (111 A). Bristol Channel. 51° N. (156). East coast of North America. 41° N. (50, 51).

November.

East of Scotland. 58° N. (141, 142, 143). Near Monillepoint. 34° S. (152 A).

December.

West of Portugal. 41° N. (120). North-east of St. Helena. 15° S. (131).

What conclusions may now be drawn from these facts?

1^o. That these animals seldom appear in the North Sea, between Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark (141, 142, 143); that they don’t frequent the Baltic Ocean since two centuries; that they seldom appear in the so-called Skagerrak (85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 111 A); rarely show themselves in the Gulf of Mexico (106 A) or in the Mediterranean (148); but that they moreover inhabit the whole of the Atlantic Ocean.

2^o. That, when they remove their quarters, they seem to swim as much as possible in the so-called warm ocean-currents. The number of appearances, it is true, is very small, but surveying the foregoing list of appearances in the different months I am inclined to think that these animals in their migration from north to south really swim against the current, while, on the contrary, in their migration from south to north they move with the current. Only a very few times they were met with in the so-called cold ocean-currents.

3^o. We observe that in the month of August some individuals reached the highest northern latitude, i. e. 70 degrees, and that a series of appearances took place from 70° N. to 41° N. latitude,--that in the month of September they seem not to appear beyond 59° N. latitude; and so on;--so that we may conclude that in the beginning or in the middle of August they have reached their most northern point and begin to migrate towards the south, as in December we read of no appearances beyond 41° N. latitude, and in January of no one beyond 19° S. latitude. And further we conclude that they seem to leave the southern hemisphere to migrate again towards the north already in January, for in February they generally have already reached the northern latitudes, in March still higher, and so on.

4^o. We observe that in one month not all the appearances took place in the same latitude, consequently in one and the same month they are scattered over a vast portion of the ocean.

5^o. When the migration from north to south begins, which of course must be influenced by the early or late setting in of autumn, it seems that not only the individuals which have proceeded to the most northern coasts of Norway, but also some other individuals begin their migration towards the south. I think that we must find in this fact the explanation that even in July appearances took place at from 5° to 38° southern latitude, and that on August 6 an individual was seen at lat. 24° S. swimming towards the S. W. Though I have no appearances in the South Atlantic in the month of October, I am convinced that the greater part of the individuals are there during this month, as well as in November, December and January.--The reason that there are so few reports from these regions is of course that in comparison with the North Atlantic, a far smaller number of vessels visits the South Atlantic.

The two appearances which happened in the Pacific, and of which the dates are mentioned, are:

April.

South of Japan 31° N. (151)

May.

South of Australia 43° S. (122)

And those of the Indian Ocean:

January.

Gulf of Aden 12° N. (149)

March.

Geographe Bay 33° S. (150)

May.

Indian Ocean 2° N. (147)

September.

Straits of Malacca 3° N. (146) Indian Ocean 15° S.? (123)

Suppose that some individuals in the Atlantic migrate towards the south beyond the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope and get much farther than 20° eastern latitude, they will come into the Indian Ocean. I think that when these individuals returning to the north, find themselves checked by the continent of Asia, they will swim in any direction, and that perhaps most of them will find back the outlet round the Cape of Good Hope or south of Australia, so that in such cases individuals will be met with in the South Atlantic, or in the South Pacific, at times that one would not expect to find any.

10. NOMENCLATURE.

GESNER (p. 107) and PONTOPPIDAN (p. 132) believed that there were at least two species of the same genus. ALDROVANDUS, however, doubted of this, and thought that there was only one species (p. 110). Dr. HAMILTON was evidently of the same opinion (p. 126). RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ at last believed that there were several species (p. 199).

In his Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents, (Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names. Of the Massachusetts Sea-Serpent (his n^o. 1) he says:

“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus Pelamis, and I propose to call it Pelamis megophias. It might, however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of Megophias monstrosus might have been appropriated to it” (see p. 200).

Of Captain BROWN’S sea-serpent (his n^o. 2) he writes: “It had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not a snake, but a new genus of fish! I shall call this new genus Octipos (meaning eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will be Octipos bicolor” (see n^o. 56).

Mr. W. LEE’S sea-serpent according to RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (n^o. 4 of his “Additions”) “appears to be the largest on record, and might well be called Pelamis monstrosus; but if there are other species of equal size, it must be called Pelamis chloronotis (see n^o. 30).

The author of the present volume proposed in Nov. 1881 to give it the name of Zeuglodon plesiosauroides (see p. 445).

It is one of the laws of Nomenclature that the oldest name of a species or genus has the priority, no matter whether the author wrote it right or wrong, and whether the author placed his species, or genus, in a genus, or family, or group, other than zoologists would do at present.

Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is megophias, and this specific name must be kept. RAFINESQUE placed his species in the genus Pelamis. This genus, however, was established by DAUDIN, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with some other genera it forms the family of Hydrophidae Sws. It must, therefore, be rejected.

RAFINESQUE himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea-Serpent with the common small sea-snakes, proposes in that case the name of Megophias monstrosus. Here we have the oldest generic name for these animals, viz. Megophias. In my opinion, the only name to be given to the sea-serpent is that of

Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD.

I know that such a double name will offend the eyes and ears of some zoologists. But it will not do to give a wrong name simply to please some zoologists; and it is here the question: by what name must these animals be called according to the law of nomenclature, and then I say:

Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD.

and its synonyms are:

Pelamis megophias, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1), Megophias monstrosus, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1), Octipos bicolor, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 2), Pelamis monstrosus, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4), Pelamis chloronotis, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4), Zeuglodon plesiosauroides, OUD., Nov., 1881.

The name of Halsydrus Pontoppidani, proposed by Mr. PATRIC NEILL, for the “great sea-snake cast ashore on the isle of Stronsa” (Phil. Mag. Vol. 33, p. 90, Jan., 1809) can of course not be accepted as the scientific name of the sea-serpent, although it is older than Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents.)

Nor can there be any question to consider the name of Hydrarchos Sillimanni, proposed by Dr KOCH for his so-called fossil sea-serpent, as a synonym of Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on Hoaxes).

C. Conclusions.

1. COMPARISON WITH ALLIED ANIMALS.

It will be quite superfluous to tell my readers to which order of animals I think that this Megophias megophias belongs. It runs like a red thread through my whole volume, that I firmly believe that it belongs to the Order of Pinnipedia.

More than once I have already shown the relation to this Order, but probably not often enough to convince some headstrong scepticals, or even those who believe in the existence of sea-serpents, but think that they belong to other orders of the Animal Kingdom.

I will first show my readers some drawings and sketches of sea-lions and of a sea-bear.

Fig. 74 represents a sea-lion of the Brighton Aquarium. I think it is a Zalophus californianus (LESS.) ALLEN. We observe that it has a rather pointed, rather blunt snout, with whiskers; that the eyes protrude like those of a toad, that there is a little bunch a little above and behind the eye, that its neck is long in comparison with that of common seals, that in this position the neck is narrower than the head, and the shoulders are visible, that the flappers resemble somewhat those of turtles, that the body is round and slender, and the skin smooth and glittering in the sun, though, in fact, it is hairy and not shining when it is dry.

Fig. 75 shows the same species in another position. The neck is not extended as much as possible, and so the head seems to be as large as the neck; the forehead and nose form nearly a straight line; in the bunch above the eye protruding from the surface we clearly see the heavy eye-brow; the head is held at nearly right angles with the neck, so that the latter gets wrinkles on the throat, which resemble four gills (read gillsplits), or pouches of loose skin. Compare for a moment the left foreflapper with the flappers of a sea-serpent, drawn in figg. 36, 45, and 50. The skin is smooth and shining, though when dry it is hairy and dull.

Fig. 76 is a drawing of Eumetopias Stelleri (LESSON) PETERS, also a sea-lion. This genus is characterized by its considerably vaulted fore head (eu = well developed, metopion = forehead). The skin shows numerous folds or wrinkles, on the throat a fold again forms a distinctly visible “gill”.--The form of the foreflappers resemble those of a turtle. The neck is in comparison with that of seals much longer and as it is not extended as much as possible, it is thicker than the head. The skin is smooth, being wet.

Fig. 77 represents the same species. Here the animal swims with vertical undulations.

Fig. 78 represents the same species with its neck totally contracted so that several wrinkles encircle it, resembling “kinds of scrolls, or tufts of loose skin”, and it seems as if the animal has no neck at all.

Fig. 79 shows us the same species standing nearly upright in the water, with its neck contracted, so that it looks as having no neck, or a neck much larger than the head; the head seen in front is as round as a barrel; the skin is wrinkled. The individual looks at us, as if it would take a view of us.

Fig. 80 is the same individual in the same position but seen from aside. The head is now much longer, the snout neither too pointed, nor too blunt; the head is held at nearly right angles with the neck, forming a “gill” (read gillsplit) by wrinkling the skin on the throat.

Fig. 81 is a drawing of Otaria jubata, quite dry. The head is held at nearly right angles with the neck forming two “gills”. The snout is rather blunt, apparently quadrangular in front. The nostrils are at the end of the snout and wide open, “nearly semicircular valves overarching” them. The eyes are wide open and disproportionately large. The neck in comparison with that of seals is long. The skin is hairy, the hairs of the neck are much longer. This mane begins at the occiput. The form of the flappers is like that of a turtle’s. Compare the form of the foreflappers with that of figg. 36, 45 and 50. The body is round and slender.

Fig. 82 represents a sea-bear, Callorhinus ursinus, quite dry. The little hairy bunch which is visible in the forepart of the back, is the shoulder of the other side. The hairs of the back-line are longer than the others, forming a mane extending all over the neck and back. The reader will see that I have represented this animal with only four toes on both the foreflappers and hindflappers; this is because I give a facsimile of the figure occurring in BREHM’S “Thierleben”.

It is not the place here to give a monograph of Pinnipeds, but to compare the different known characters of the sea-serpents with those of the other of Pinnipeds, and therefore I am obliged to take the same order I have followed above.

Dimensions. At first sight it will be doubted if such an enormous animal can be a pinniped? It is so immensely large in comparison with the known species of this order! Suppose for a moment that whale-bone whales, spermwhales and finwhales were not yet known, and that one of these animals was caught; what would be our astonishment! Suppose that pythons and boas were not yet discovered, and somebody showed us a skin of a python of 26 feet long, I think that the first thought would be “you are a handy fellow, but you will not cheat me with your story!” I will add here some other striking comparisons.

The largest known now living cartilaginous fishes are of 36 (Selache maxima) and of 42 feet (Carcharodon Rondeletii); but a fossil species of the latter genus reached a length of 81 feet (Carcharodon megalodon), and earlier Northern truthful and accurate writers even mention 100 feet as occasional dimension of the Selache maxima, an animal eagerly pursued by the Norwegians for the oil of its liver.

We, who in our latitudes look already with amazement on a salmon of 5 feet length, must be perplexed when seeing for the first time an osseous fish of 10 (Thynnus thynnus), of 15 (Arapaima gigas), or of 20 feet (Regalecus Banksii).

The largest known living Amphibium is 4 feet long (Cryptobranchus), and caused great astonishment, when it was discovered, but fossil Amphibia have been found larger than 15 feet (Mastodonsaurus).

The largest actually measured living Reptile has a length of 30 feet (Crocodilus), but some fossilized reptiles show a length of 38 feet (Hadrosaurus, Ichthyosaurus), 45 feet (Elasmosaurus), 58 feet (Rhamphosuchus), 70 feet (Brontosaurus) nay even of 100 (Liodon) and of 115 feet (Atlantosaurus), and probably many kinds of Reptiles are still longer, the skeletons of which have been dug up only partially!

Whale-bone-whales of 88 feet, sperm whales of 90 feet, and finwhales of 120 feet are occasionally mentioned to have been measured in the foregoing century, but at present such dimensions are not more recorded, because these animals have been so incessantly persecuted for ages!

Well, let us stop here, and say that there are many wonders still hidden in the sea, and that there will be always a chance that of every species of animals individuals will be discovered, still larger than the largest specimen ever measured. If of all Pinnipeds the sea-elephants were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the case: they are surpassed by sea-serpents. If of all known living and fossil animals the Atlantosaurus and the Balaenoptera were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the case: they are surpassed by the Megophias.

Of all Pinnipeds the family of the Auriculata (Eared Seals) has the longest necks. In this particular they are surpassed by sea-serpents.

None of the hitherto known living Pinnipeds has such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent, but the fossil Basilosaurus, an animal more or less allied to the earless seals, has an enormous tail. Of the singular appearance of a family of which some members have immensely long tails, and others are almost wholly without, we have more instances in the animal kingdom. Of the Monkeys the family of the Simiidae have no tails, whilst the other families have generally long tails. Amongst the tailed monkeys we find in one genus species with very long tails, as the Macacus cynamolgos (the Macaque Monkey), and others with very short tails, as the Macacus maurus (Moor Macaque). This difference in the length of the tail is present in all orders of the Quadrupedia.

Form.--The shape of Megophias megophias is exactly that of Zalophus californianus, with a longer neck, and with a tail as long as trunk, neck, and head together. The shape of the head too, in my opinion, more resembles that of Zalophus californianus than that of any other Pinniped. The shape of the neck, the trunk, and the flappers is exactly that of the same portions of the Auriculata, especially in Zalophus californianus, viz: all are slender: “The body is rather slender, and the head is narrow, long, and pointed, and with this slenderness of form is coordinated a corresponding litheness of movement”. (ALLEN, History of North American Pinnipeds, p. 276). It may be that the hindflappers have a form hitherto unknown in Pinnipeds, as we have of the hindflappers neither a description nor any tolerable illustration. The forehead being flat, very much resembles that of Zalophus californianus. The snout or muzzle too, is of all Pinnipeds most resembling that of Zalophus californianus.

All Pinnipeds have whiskers. In some species they are large, as in Callorhinus ursinus, the sea-bear, in other comparatively small, as in Monachus tropicalis GRAY, and in the males of the genus Macrorhinus, and even very small in the Trichecidae.

The eyes of Megophias megophias seem to be comparatively larger than those in other species of Pinnipeds, though Otaria jubata and Phoca foetida are known to have comparatively large eyes. I have nowhere found any remark about the colour of the eye, with regard to its tapetum lucidum, and till now I have had no opportunity to convince myself of the tapetum of Zalophus or Eumetopias being red. But is it not remarkable that Mr. H. W. ELLIOT too asserts of Eumetopias Stelleri: “it has a really leonine appearance and bearing, greatly enhanced by the rich, golden-rufous of its coat, ferocity of expression, and bull-dog-like muzzle and cast of eye”? (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 258).

Skin.--As in all Pinnipeds the skin is hairy, most probably the hairs are quite stiff and not woolly like fur.

Colours, Individual Variations.--We have only to read different descriptions of seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears, to observe that every species varies much as to its colour, but that in some there is a wide range of individual variations. Only in a few species the under part is darker than the upper part, but generally the upper part is much darker than the under part, and with regard to their colours the animals are so to say longitudinally divided into two sections, dark above, lighter beneath. Their being variegated with spots or streaks occurs in many species, less in sea-lions and sea-bears, more in seals, but is the most striking in the Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata, (ERXL) NILSS.). If we closely examine this species, the question arises: is not the lighter colour the ground-colour, and are not the dark spots and streaks and circles secondary appearances? And I think that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Remarkable is also the black colour of the region of the mouth and round the eye in some individuals of sea-serpents. This singularity occurs also in some specimens of other Pinnipeds. Of Eumetopias Stelleri “the end of the nose.... is naked and.... dull blue black” (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 234, 235); of Zalophus californianus we read: “A third is.... blackish around the eyes and nostrils” (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 277). In a foetal specimen: “nose and face, to and around the eyes” are “black” (Ibid., p. 278); and NILSSON’S black variety of the Ringed Seal (Phoca foetida FABR.) has “nose and eye-rings uniform black” (Ibid. p. 602).

Sexual differences, Mane.--The males of some species of Pinnipeds have a mane, i. e. the hairs of the neck are longer than on the rest of the body. Of Eumetopias Stelleri “the hair is longest on the anterior upper portion of the body, where on the neck and shoulders it attains a length of 40 mm.; it decreases in length posteriorly, and toward the tail has a length of only 15 mm.” (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 234). Of the hairs of Callorhinus ursinus we read: “It is longest on the top of the head, especially in the males, which have a well marked crest. The hair is much longer on the anterior half of the body than on the posterior half, it being longest on the hinder part of the neck, where in the males it is very coarse. On the crown the hair has a length of 42 mm.; on the hinder part of the neck it reaches a length of 50 to 60 mm. From this point posteriorly it gradually shortens, and near the tail has a length of only 20 mm. The males have much longer hair than the females, in which it is much longer than in Eumetopias Stelleri.” (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 315).

The difference in size of males and females is also a peculiar character of some species of Pinnipeds, as may be seen from the following tables:

+----------------------------+---------+---------+-------+ | | VERY OLD| VERY OLD| | | NAME | MALE. | FEMALE.| RATIO.| +----------------------------+---------+---------+-------+ |Zalophus californianus | 8¹⁄₃ ft.| 6³⁄₄ ft.|100:81 | |Eumetopias Stelleri |13 „ | 9 „ |100:69 | |Macrorhinus leoninus |25 „ |15 „ |100:60 | |Macrorhinus angustirostris|22 „ |13 „ |100:59 | |Callorhinus ursinus | 8 „ | 4 „ |100:50.| +----------------------------+---------+---------+-------+

In Callorhinus ursinus the female, as we observe, attains only half the length of a male. The weight of a fullgrown female being less than one sixth that of a full-grown male.

The losing of hair when the animals grow very old, is very striking in both Odobaenus rosmarus and in Odobaenus obesus.

Food. The food of all Pinnipeds consists of mussels, and other mollusks, especially, however, of all kinds of fish, but that they are not averse to cetacean flesh, may be proved by the following fact: Mr. BROWN says of Odobaenus rosmarus: “I have only to add that whenever it was killed near where a whale’s carcass had been let adrift, its stomach was unvariably found crammed full of the krang or flesh of that Cetacean” (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 135). Eumetopias Stelleri occasionally eats birds (Ibid. p. 274).

Breathing.--Even in seals and sea-lions it may be occasionally observed that they “blow like a whale”; I myself saw it more than once, when the animals lay with their nose at water level, or when they appeared on the surface after having remained under water for a long time. It is sufficiently known that the average time these animals remain under water is eight or ten minutes, but they have also been observed lying quite still on the bottom for more than three hours. I read in Mr. ALLEN’S work (p. 180) that also walruses “blow not unlike a whale”.

Excretion.--The emitting a very strong odour is also known in Pinnipeds. KRASCHENINIKOW says of Callorhinus ursinus: “Such as are old, or have no mistresses, live apart; and the first that our people found upon Behring’s Island were such old ones, and all males, extremely fat and stinking” (ALLEN, p. 342). Of Eumetopias Stelleri CHORIS reports: “L’odeur qu’ils répandent est insupportable. Ces animaux étaient alors dans le temps du rut” (ALLEN, p. 254), and of Phoca foetida KUMLIEN asserts:

“It is only the adult males (called Tigak, = Stinker, by the Eskimo) that emit the horribly disagreeable, all-permeating, ever-penetrating odor that has suggested its specific name. It is so strong that one can smell an Eskimo some distance when he has been partaking of the flesh; they say it is more nourishing than the flesh of the females, and that a person can endure great fatigue after eating it. If one of these Tigak comes in contact with any other Seal meat it will become so tainted as to be repulsive to an educated palate; even the atluk of the Tigak can be detected by its odor.” (ALLEN, p. 624).

Respecting the foetid odour emitted by this species, Dr. RINK observes as follows:

“It derives its scientific name from the nauseous smell peculiar to certain older individuals, especially those captured in the interior ice-fjords, which are also on an average perhaps twice as large as those generally occurring off the outer shores. When brought into a hut, and cut up on its floor, such a seal emits a smell resembling something between that of assafoetida and onions, almost insupportable to strangers. This peculiarity is not noticeable in the younger specimens or those of a smaller size, such as are generally caught, and at all events the smell does not detract from the utility of the flesh over the whole of Greenland”.--Danish Greenland, its People and its Products p. 123 (ALLEN, Hist. N. Am. Pinn. p. 624).

Feeling. Also in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens we may often observe that they dislike wind, and hold only the top of their nose above water, that they shut their eyes, and like to bask in the sun.

Smell, Hearing, Sight. It is also known of Pinnipeds that their smell is very good and their hearing very sharp, but that their sight is quite limited. This must not surprise us. Their eyes are adapted to see under water, but such eyes don’t see so well in the air. Yet I have observed that seals distinguish their keeper from other persons at a distance of twenty or thirty yards.

Relative mobility of organs. Every one who has ever witnessed the graceful movements of seals and sea-lions, especially those of Zalophus californianus will admit that these animals, like sea-serpents, are “as limber and active as an eel”. There is not one movement made by the sea-serpent, which cannot be made in perfectly the same way by sea-lions, especially by Zalophus californianus, save the movement of the tail.

Motion. The same may be observed in comparing the motions of sea-serpents with those of Zalophus californianus. They too may appear on the surface, exposing head, neck, and so much of the forepart of the trunk, as to show their flappers; nay, they may like all kinds of whales, jump clear out of the water. When swimming slowly, they may occasionally swim with vertical undulations, they usually, however, propel themselves by means of their flappers, holding their body in a straight line; and sometimes horizontal undulations are distinctly visible; in darting on some prey they swim not only with their flappers, but undulate their body both horizontally and vertically at intervals. Of course generally only one or two, seldom three undulations are to be counted.

I don’t know if sea-lions have ever been seen swimming with fixed bunches, or folds. When at rest their skin may enormously wrinkle, like that of walruses, and as is shown in our fig. 78.

In swimming the sea-lion usually holds its head above water, and may occasionally raise its long neck as high as possible to take a view of a boat or another object.

Owing to the form and size of its flappers the speed of the sea-lion is really astonishing; it is much less in seals.

Though in a less degree, than in sea-serpents, the water curls up before its chest, or better throat, in swimming; foam is occasionally observed, and waves are seen in the form of a V, a wake is of course formed, and a rushing may be heard at times.

That seals swim so low under the surface of the water, that the course of the animal can be traced only by the rippling surface, I have myself witnessed, but I do not know if sea-lions, especially, if Zalophus californianus, are in the habit of swimming in this way.

The manner of disappearing of the sea-serpent is exactly the same as that of other Pinnipeds. They may turn down with a severe splash, or sink gradually below the surface, or even, by a sudden upward motion of their flappers, “sink down like a rock”.

As to the voice of other Pinnipeds it is different in the different species, but as we have not a single statement of the voice of sea-serpents, comparison is out of the question here.

Generation.--The rutting time and the time of whelping differ in different species, but on an average the month of March and April may be fixed upon as the pairing time, and July and August as those in which the females bring forth the young ones.

In some species the males are much larger than the females, and the new born young ones, like the young sea-serpents are in exact proportion to the old males, as may be seen from the following table.

+----------------------------+----------+----------+---------+ | NAME. | VERY OLD | NEW BORN | RATIO. | | | MALE. |YOUNG ONE.| | +----------------------------+----------+----------+---------+ |Zalophus californianus | 8¹⁄₃ ft.| 2¹⁄₃ ft.| ¹⁄₃-¹⁄₄ | |Macrorhinus angustirostris| 22 „| 4 „ | ¹⁄₅-¹⁄₆ | |Eumetopias Stelleri | 13 „| 2 „ | ¹⁄₆-¹⁄₇ | |Callorhinus ursinus | 8 „| 10 in. | ¹⁄₈-¹⁄₉ | +----------------------------+----------+----------+---------+

Taking notice of objects. It is well enough known that seals will sometimes keep near a vessel, turning their head towards it; or will play round the vessel, disappearing on one side, reappearing on the other, as if playing hide and seek; from this it may be concluded they are in no dread of the vessel, but are curious, and suspicious of the living objects on it. I don’t know whether sea-lions and sea-bears behave in the same way, but I know that walruses do.

Curiosity and Suspicion are known characters in all kinds of Pinnipeds, and it is noteworthy that they are most striking in walruses and seals.

Harmlessness and Timidity. There is hardly any Pinniped which is not harmless and timid.

Fearlessness is a common trait in walruses and sea-elephants. One may come very near them. On the other hand scores of them, especially of the former, will sometimes follow a boat, roaring and crying and uttering the most horrible sounds, which may be expressions of their curiosity, suspicion, and fury, but it may also be a way they have of driving away their enemy.

Fear on the contrary, though less noticeable in walruses, is a prominent trait in seals, sea-lions and sea-bears. When men approach them they fly away as fast as possible, and in their hurry to reach the water crawl over each other, and roar, and cry, and lament in a most horrible way.

Fright. It is superfluous to touch upon this subject in Pinnipeds; every one knows the effects and consequences of a shot at these timid animals.

Fury. As in sea-serpents, most Pinnipeds, but especially sea-lions, sea-bears and walruses only get furious when wounded, or when neared while they are protecting their offspring.

Toughness. I know of no observations about this character in seals, sea-lions, sea-bears, and sea-elephants, but I believe that they are not tough; one heavy blow with a thick cudgel on the nose killing them instantly, but the toughness of walruses is known well enough; these animals are not an easy prey; they may be struck with axes on their cranium and hit by several rifle balls in their brain, and yet not die; they die a hard death.

Playsomeness is a well known character of all Pinnipeds; it may of course be less observable in the bulky and unwieldy walruses.

Remark. It is time that the volume comes to an end, and therefore I have made my comparison as short as possible. I have only to advise those who wish to know more about the agreement of sea-serpents with Pinnipeds, to read ALLEN’S often quoted work “History of North-American Pinnipeds”, and his “On Eared Seals”, (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard College. Cambr. Mass. Vol. II, n^o. 1.), and BREHM’S Thierleben.

There is one great difference between all the known Pinnipeds on one side, and sea-serpents on the other. The former are gregarious or social animals, only living in colonies or great herds, whilst Megophias megophias is a solitary being. This remarkable difference can be only accounted for by the two facts 1. That this species is a cosmopolitan, and 2. That these animals become extinct and that there exist at present only a very few individuals.

I don’t know if I have convinced my readers of the existence of sea-serpents, and if so, if they are convinced that these animals are closely related to Pinnipeds. But I am obliged to proceed on my way, and consider the rank which sea-serpents occupy in the system of Nature.

2. ITS RANK IN THE SYSTEM OF NATURE.

Zoologists admit as a fact that Pinnipeds originate in true land-animals. We are convinced that these land-animals were long-tailed Viverrine animals. The tail must have been longer than one half of the total length. This is no impossibility, as we have still living forms, the tail of which is as long as half of the total length of the animal, e. g. Herpestes Widdringtonii. The dentition must have been the typical carnivorous one: i 3/3, c 1/1, m 7/7; or there were more molars, perhaps 8/8, as a genus of wild dogs, Otocyon, has 8 molars on each side of each jaw; its dentition is i 3/3, c 1/1, m 8/8. (The Cynoidea, or dog-like animals are also considered as having their origin in Viverrine animals.)

Some of the descendants of these long-tailed Viverrine animals had gradually got such characters, that zoologists would term them long-tailed Musteline animals. They may be called long-tailed ancestors of weasels and stoats, for our common weasel (Putorius vulgaris L.) and our common stoat (Putorius ermineus L.) are still living descendants of them, though the tail has become very short, most probably because they have accustomed themselves to live in holes. The long tail has shown itself to be an inconvenient organ for this new manner of living, and therefore has gradually become shorter.

Some of these long-tailed ancestors of weasels and stoats took to another manner of living, compelled thereto by certain circumstances. They viz. took to eating fresh water fish. Gradually this grew to be a habit; they learned to swim, which happened by vertical undulations, they paddled with the feet, and used the tail as a rudder. This group may be called long-tailed ancestors of polecats and minks, for our common polecat (Putorius putorius L.) and the Russian minks (Putorius lutreolus L.) are still living descendants of them, though the tail has become short, because they have accustomed themselves to live in holes. The long tail has shown itself to be an inconvenient organ for such a manner of living, and therefore has gradually become shorter, not so short, however, as in weasels and stoats. Zoologists place the polecats and minks in the same genus as the weasels and stoats. The minks live especially in the neighbourhood of rivers and brooks, often go into the water and swim exceedingly well. Besides on poultry and rats, they feed on frogs, crabs, cray-fish, and all kinds of fish.

Some of these long-tailed ancestors of polecats and minks got so used to the water, that it finally became their proper element, and they came ashore only to rest from swimming, to bask themselves in the sun, or to find another brook or river. They began to feed on fish, crayfish, and frogs, and only when driven by hunger they fed on rats and poultry. It is evident that those individuals which by nature were best adapted to their new element, must gradually have survived their less privileged brethren, and so we may admit that a form gradually arose, which swam very easily with vertical undulations, using the tail as a rudder and as propelling organ. Also of great advantage must have been more sharply pointed teeth, and more jagged molars, smaller ears, a more woolly skin, and toes on the hind limbs, which were capable of expansion and more or less provided with a web. This group may be called long-tailed ancestors of otters, for all the known species of otters (Lutra) are still living descendants of them, though the tail has become shorter, shorter than one third of the total length of the animal, because they too like to live in holes. The face greatly resembles that of the polecat and mink, but the upper lips are thicker and the whiskers are longer and stronger. The change was not only great enough for zoologists to create for this group a new genus: Lutra STORR, but even to establish for it a new subfamily Lutrina GRAY.

These long-tailed ancestors of otters were again survived by their congeners which were still better adapted to the new medium, so that from them another group gradually arose, which had broader webs on the hind feet. This group may be called long-tailed ancestors of fin-tailed otters, for the fin-tailed otter (Lutra Sanbachii GRAY) is a still living descendant of them. The tail of this animal is shorter than that of its ancestors, longer, however, than that of the otters (Lutra), surpassing one third of the animal’s total length. Moreover it is somewhat flattened and shows on its hindmost half lateral fin-like dilatations. The change was great enough for zoologists to place the animal into a new genus: Pteronura GRAY. Its ancestors, however, were not provided with these lateral fin-like dilatations on the tail.

Some of these long-tailed ancestors of the fin-tailed otter which in their migration had reached the sea-shore, probably by following the course of rivers, began to accustom themselves to eat sea-fish, and ended by feeding on them exclusively. The sea-water became their home, and their resting places and nests were found on the strand, and among sea-weed; they seldom came ashore to sleep or to sun themselves. Besides on sea-fish, they fed on crabs, lobsters, mussels, and some sea-weed. They left off eating poultry, frogs, and rats. The long tail was of great profit, as they used it as a rudder and as propelling organ in swimming with vertical undulations. Of course those individuals which were the best adapted to this new manner of living, survived the less privileged by nature, and so a group gradually arose which had a sharper dentition, and smaller ears; the skin was also changed to the most valuable fur, the toes of the hind-legs had become more webbed, and with such legs the animals could swim more easily; those of the fore-limbs had sharper nails, and with such nails the animals could more easily crawl upon the rocks; the eyes were larger, and with such eyes the owners could see better in great and dark depths, and in the sea-water near the shore, which is commonly troubled; the whiskers were longer and stronger, consequently the upper-lips, in which these whiskers were planted and which contained numerous and thick sensorial nerves, were very thick, and with such whiskers the animals could exceedingly well touch and feel when searching for their food between stones and sea-weed, and in the sandy bottom. The face resembled but little more that of the otters and fin-tailed otters, and the large eyes and shorter ears gave it a slight resemblance to seals. This group may be called long-tailed ancestors of sea-otters, for our sea-otters (Lutra lutris L.) are still living descendants of them. But as these animals have accustomed themselves to live more among sea-weed, ice, and rocks than their direct ancestors, the long tail must have been inconvenient, so that individuals with a shorter tail must have survived the others, and finally a species arose with a tolerably short tail: our sea-otter. To make up for this loss of tail, the hind-feet had become more webbed, and were gradually stretched more backwards, and, modified in this way, they were valuable swimming organs. The change was great enough for zoologists to create a new genus for this animal, which is called Enhydra CUV.

Some of the long-tailed ancestors of sea-otters took to a still more aquatic, or better pelagic life, migrated more towards the north, accustomed themselves to the icy regions, to swim greater distances and to remain longer under water. The consequences of this change in the manner of living were that all little adapted to this new life became extinct, and that all which were better privileged survived them, so that at last a group of animals arose of which we may safely admit that they had the following characters: The head and fore-feet resembled still more those of seals, the hind-legs were still more able swimming organs, and less fit for terrestrial locomotion, they were smaller than the fore-legs, because they were not always used in swimming, as the best manner of swimming must have been by means of vertical undulations; the long tail surpassed half of the total length, and served as a rudder and as propelling organ; the ears were still smaller, the dentition was still a normal carnivorous one (i 3/3, c 1/1, m 7/7), especially the molars were sharp and pointed, and on the skull were found peculiar modifications which are so distinctly visible on that of Pinnipeds. The animals must have resembled our common seals, having, however, small external ears, and a tail, surpassing one half of the total length. It is difficult to believe that these animals, which I will call Propinnipedia, moved on land; probably they came from time to time aland or on the ice to rest with the fore-part of the body on it, leaving, however, most certainly the long tail in the water. These Propinnipedia gave origin to two groups of animals, which are marked below with A and B.

A.--This group, by their having lived almost constantly far from land, and having come only very seldom near the shore to rest, supporting themselves on the chest or breast, clinging with the nails of the fore-legs to the beach, rock, or ice, changed in such a way, that zoologists can hardly reckon them any longer among Pinnipeds, but generally consider them as a link between Pinnipeds and Whales. Professor D’ARCY W. THOMPSON (Studies from the Museum of Zoology in University College, Dundee, Vol. I, N^o. 9, 1890) rejects any affinity of this group to Whales. I should like to go still farther and pretend that it has just as much claim to the title of Pinnipeds, as seals, sea-elephants, sea-bears, sea-lions, and sea-serpents. The skull was somewhat lengthened in front; the brain-case diminished in size; the deciduous dentition probably cut the gum; the permanent dentition was the typical heterodont carnivorous one (i 3/3, c 1/1, m 7/7); the nostrils were placed on the tip of the nose, as in seals, but directed upwards; the fore-limbs were perfectly those of seals, and provided with nails; but the rest of the body must have resembled that of a slender and elongated dolphin, or whale, with an enormous pointed tail. The most successful manner of swimming for these animals was by means of vertical undulations, which, as the forepart of the body (head and trunk) was somewhat bulky, and therefore somewhat inflexible, were strongest in the tail-part of the animal; consequently the hind-legs, used less and less, disappeared, if not quite, at least for the greater part. The animals were still hairy, though the hairs were most probably thinly scattered; the whiskers remained on the lips. The head was relatively large, not with regard to the animal’s total length, but to the trunk, and therefore the neck was very short. Externally the neck must not have been plainly visible. The animals could not move the head as easily as seals and sea-lions do, and therefore it was of great advantage that the nostrils were directed upwards. The vertebrae have the type of those of the Pinnipeds.--Such animals are now extinct, but their fossil remains are found and called Basilosaurus by HARLAN in 1824 (afterwards OWEN gave them the name of Zeuglodon, 1839).

B.--This second group is called Pinnipedia by ILLIGER in 1811, and ALLEN gives of it the following characters:

“Limbs pinniform, or modified into swimming organs, and enclosed to or beyond the elbows and knees within the common integument. Digits of the manus decreasing in length and size from the first to the fifth; of those of the pes, the first and fifth largest and longest, the three middle ones shorter and subequal. Pelvis with the iliac portion very short, and the anterior border much everted; ischia barely meeting by a short symphysis (never anchylosed) and in the female usually widely separated. Skull generally greatly compressed interorbitally; facial portion usually short, rather broad, and the brain-case abruptly expanded. Lachrymal bone imperforate and joined to the maxillary, enclosed wholly within the orbit. Palatines usually separated by a vacuity, often of considerable size, from the frontals. Tympanic bones separated also by a vacuity from the exoccipitals. Dentition simple, generally unspecialized, the molars all similar in structure. Deciduous dentition rudimentary, never truly functional, and generally not persistent beyond the foetal stage of the animal. Permanent incisors usually 6/4 or 4/4, sometimes 4/2 (Cystophora and Macrorhinus) or even 2/2 (Odobaenus); canines 2/2; molars 5/5, 6/5, or 5/3.”

And we may add: Tail either very long: about as long as one half of the animal’s total length, or very short: almost disappearing between the hind-legs.

Already very early the Pinnipeds divided themselves into two different branches, marked below with I and II.

I.--The members of this branch changed their manner of living. They very often crawled on land, ice, and rocks; the long tail was a very unconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently all the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than their congeners’ were better adapted to the new manner of living and survived them, so that at last a group of animals arose of which the tail has become very short, almost disappearing between the hind-legs, and to make up for this loss the hind-legs grew much larger than the fore-legs, were turned hindwards, gradually grew incapable of being turned forwards, and of no use in terrestrial locomotion. This branch is called Inauriculata by PÉRON in 1816 (afterwards called Phocidae by GRAY in 1825, and Reptigrada by ELLIOT COUES, invited thereto by ALLEN in 1880). The characters are described by ALLEN as follows:

“Hind-legs not capable of being turned forward, and not serviceable for terrestrial locomotion. Neck short. Skull with the mastoid processes swollen, but not salient, and without distinct alisphenoid canals. Anterior limbs smaller than the posterior, the first digit little, if any, longer than the next succeeding ones, all armed with strong claws, which are terminal. Hind feet capable of moderate expansion, short; digits (usually) all armed with strong claws, and without terminal cartilaginous flaps. Femur with no trace of the trochanter minor. Without external ears. Postorbital processes wanting, or very small. Incisors variable (6/4, 4/4, or 4/2). Deciduous dentition not persistent beyond foetal life.”

The group includes all true seals and sea-elephants.

II.--This branch is called Gressigrada by ELLIOT COUES in 1880, who was thereto invited by ALLEN, though this skilled zoologist was then unaware of the existence of the sea-serpent, or at least must have doubted its belonging to this branch. I have not a single reason to give another name to it; I purposely keep the name of Gressigrada, to avoid the increase of synonyms. The early forms of the Gressigrada must have had hind-legs which were smaller than the fore-legs, and a tail, which was as long as the head, neck and trunk together. They had also small external ears, and a somewhat lengthened neck. Further characters are: “Hind-legs capable of being turned forward and used in terrestrial locomotion. Neck lengthened (especially in section b). Skull with the mastoid processes large and salient (especially in the males), and with distinct alisphenoid canals. Anterior feet either nearly as large as the posterior, or much larger, their digits rapidly decreasing in length from the first to the fifth, with distinct claws, and with a broad cartilaginous border extending beyond the digits.” (They are called flappers.) “Hind-feet susceptible of great expansion, the three middle digits only with claws, and all the digits terminating in long, narrow, cartilaginous flaps, united basally.” (The hind-feet may also safely be called flappers.) “Femur with the trochanter minor well developed”.--Already at a very early date the branch of the Gressigrada divided itself into two sections, which are marked below with a and b.--

a.--The members of this section changed their manner of living. They very often crawled on ice, land, and rocks; the long tail was a very inconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently all the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than their congeners’ were better equipped, and survived the others, so that at last a group of animals arose of which the tail has become very short, scarcely, if at all, visible, being enclosed within the tegument of the body, and to make up for this loss, the hind-flappers grew much larger than the fore-flappers. The further characters for this group are: “Without external ears. Form thick and heavy. Anterior portion of the skull greatly swollen, giving support to the enormously developed canines, which form long, protruding tusks. Incisors of deciduous (foetal) dentition 6/6; of permanent dentition 2/6. No postorbital processes, and the surface of the mastoid processes continuous with the auditory bullae.”--This section is called Trichecidae by GRAY in 1821 (afterwards it was named Trichechidae by GRAY in 1825, Broca by LATREILLE in 1825, Campodontia by BROOKES in 1828, Trichecina by GRAY in 1837, Trichechoidea by GIEBEL in 1847, Trichechina by GRAY in 1850, Rosmaridae by GILL in 1866, Rosmaroidea by GILL in 1872, and Odobaenidae by ALLEN in 1880!!!). The section contains only the walruses.

b.--The early forms of this section must have had hind-flappers which were smaller than the fore-flappers, and a tail which was as long as the head, neck and trunk together. The animals were very slender and elongated in form, the neck being somewhat more elongated; external ears, though small, were still present. Further characters are: “Anterior portion of the skull not unusually swollen, and the canines not highly specialized.” They came very seldom aland, and when doing so, they must have only supported themselves on their breast and on their fore-flappers, leaving the long tail always in the water. They swam with vertical undulations, using also sometimes the flappers.--For this section I choose the name of Tenuia, or Animals which are slender.--Very early the section of the Tenuia divided itself into two smaller divisions which are marked below with 1 and 2.--

1.--The members of this division changed their manner of living. They very often crawled on ice, land and rocks; the tail was a very inconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently all the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than their congeners’, were better equipped and survived the others, so that at last a group of animals arose of which the tail has become very short, almost disappearing between the hind-legs which on the contrary to make up for this loss of tail, gradually became larger, so as to become even larger than the anterior feet. The further characters of this group are: “With small external ears. Incisors of deciduous dentition 6/4, only the outer on either side cutting the gum; of permanent dentition 6/4, the two central pairs of the upper with a transverse groove. Postorbital processes strongly developed. Surface of the mastoid processes not continuous with the auditory bullae.”--This division was called Auriculata by PÉRON in 1816, (afterwards also called Otariina by GRAY in 1825, Otariadae by BROOKES in 1828, Arctocephalina by GRAY in 1837, and Otariidae by GILL in 1866) containing the sea-bears and sea-lions.

2.--The members of this division did not accustom themselves to live in the midst of ice and rocks, consequently they retained the long tail, and small hind-legs. As the animals retained also their slenderness and extraordinary litheness, a long neck with a relatively small head must have been of great use to them, and consequently those individuals which had a longer neck than the others survived their less privileged congeners, so that at last a group arose with a very long neck and a comparatively small head. It seems that the external ears disappeared. They never came aland or on ice-floes. They even abandoned the cold regions and currents of the ocean, better liking the warmer parts. Their ordinary mode of swimming is with vertical undulations. Seldom do they swim with the body in a straight line, by means of their flappers. This little division for which I propose the name of Longicaudata, or Long-tailed Animals, consists only of one genus: Megophias RAF., including only one species Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD., the sea-serpent.

I purposely have not mentioned the genera Squalodon and Stenodon, and the group of Plagiuri (ART., 1735; Physeteres, KLEIN, 1741; Cetacea, BRISS, 1756; Cete, LINN, 1758), as the recent cetologists still differ in opinions as to their relation to Basilosaurus and the Pinnipedia.

I think the following phylogenetic table will in a more practical manner show the rank which in my opinion sea-serpents occupy in the System of Nature.

To many of my readers the above sketch of the rank of the sea-serpent in the System of Nature will no doubt seem to be too bold. They will say that the affinity of the sea-serpent to sea-lions and sea-bears (to the Auriculata) is expressed here too decisively, that, scientifically spoken, the sea-serpent is not yet known, that at best its existence is only beyond a doubt, and that when a specimen fell into the hands of men, it might be shown that the close affinity to the Auriculata was only apparent, and that in reality the relation is more remote. I confess that there is much to say in favour of this reasoning, but at all events the sea-serpent is a true Pinniped. It has four flappers, a hairy skin, and strong whiskers. Its head resembles that of a sea-lion, its long neck resembles that of a sea-lion, its trunk and its foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion. But these resemblances may be explained as resulting from convergency. When viewed in this way it seems to be more careful to consider the origin of the sea-serpent in the following manner.

Putorius vulgaris. Putorius ermineus. | | Putorius putorius. | Putorius lutreolus. | | | | Lutra. | | | | | | Pteronura Sanbachii. | | | | | | | | Enhydra lutris. | | | | | | | | | | Inauriculata. | | | | | | | | | | | | Trichecidae. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Auriculata. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Longicaudata. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --+------+-----+-----+----+-------------+------+-----+-------+------- | | | | |Basilosaurus.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Long-tailed ancestors | | | | | | | | of Tenuia. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Long-tailed ancestors | | | | | | | of Gressigrada. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Long-tailed early | | | | | | forms of Pinnipedia. | | | | | | | | | | | | Propinnipedia, long-tailed | | | | | ancestors of | | | | | Pinnipedia and Basilosaurus. | | | | | | | | | | Long-tailed ancestors | | | | of sea-otters. | | | | | | | | Long-tailed ancestors | | | of fin-tailed | | | otters. | | | | | | Long-tailed ancestors | | of otters. | | | | Long-tailed ancestors | of polecats and | minks. | | Long-tailed ancestors of weasels and stoats. | Long-tailed Viverrine ancestors.

The ancestors of Pinnipedia and Basilosaurus, which I have called Propinnipedia, had most probably hind-legs which were smaller than the fore-legs, and most certainly a tail which was nearly as long as the head, neck and trunk together. They had small external ears. Their most successful manner of swimming must have been by means of vertical undulations. It is difficult to believe that the Propinnipedia moved on land; probably they came only from time to time aland, or on the ice, to rest, leaving, however, most probably the long tail in the water. These Propinnipedia divided themselves into two branches.

All the members of the first branch got a tendency to bulkiness. The head grew longer and larger, consequently the neck grew shorter; the jaws grew longer, consequently the teeth began to stand widely apart; in consequence of the little mobility of the head the nostrils, placed at the top of the nose, became turned upwards, or probably got their seat a little more towards the top of the head; and in proportion as the animal got a thick layer of bacon, the hairs became thinly scattered. Probably it is here better to say: in proportion as the animal lost its hairs, it got a thick layer of bacon. The warm-blooded mammals are possessed of the hair, because hair was to them what feathers are to a bird. The air enclosed between the hairs and the feathers is a worse conductor of temperature than the hairs or feathers themselves. As soon as the manner of living has changed so much that air could no longer come between the hairs, the hairs themselves lost their reason of existence, hence a thick layer of bacon gradually replaced them. Probably this is a better way to explain the presence of bacon and the absence of hair, than to say that the hair disappeared because the animals obtained a layer of bacon, and could therefore dispense with them, or that the layer of bacon checked the development of hairs.--In short we may admit that the animals, of which we treat at present, were thinly scattered with hairs. The whiskers in all probability were still present, and even well developed. This branch has wholly become extinct. The fossil remains were called Basilosaurus.

All the members of the second branch did not show a tendency to bulkiness, they retained the relatively small head and well developed neck, the head consequently could very well move on the trunk. These are the Pinnipedia.

Already very early they divided themselves into two sections.

All the members of the first section accustomed themselves to crawl more on land, ice, and rocks, and as the long tail must have been an inconvenient organ in this new manner of living, all the individuals which had a smaller number of caudal vertebrae survived their congeners; consequently a form at last originated with a very short tail our well known order of Pinnipeds for which I now propose the name of Brevicaudata.

All the members however, of the second section accustomed themselves more to the sea, and therefore all the members which were best adopted for this manner of living successively survived their less privileged congeners, and finally the sea-serpents remained; animals which are so excellently adapted to an aquatic life and rapid movement, that their tendency to become extinct can only be explained by the singular phenomenon that colossal animals bring forth very few young ones, only two, or only one, at a time, and only after very long intervals. For these animals I already proposed above the name of Longicaudata. They form with the Brevicaudata the order of Pinnipedia.

If this view is better, (and who will tell us this with any certainty?) the phylogenetic table should be altered as follows:

Auriculata. Trichecidae. | | Living. | | Gressigrada. Inauriculata. | | | | Longicaudata. Brevicaudata. | | ------------------+---------+------------------------------------ | | Long-tailed early forms Basilosaurus. of Pinnipedia. | Extinct. | | | | Propinnipedia, long-tailed ancestors of Pinnipedia and Basilosaurus.

In the first table I have tried to show two things.

Firstly:--With a horizontal dotted line I have separated the still living animals or groups from those who have become extinct; the former are placed above, the latter beneath the dotted line.

And Secondly:--With the different lengths of the vertical dotted lines I have tried to show the different relative lengths of time-periods wanted by the different species or groups to be formed, so to speak, from that species or group which in this table is placed exactly beneath it, and with which it is united by a dotted line.

It is clear that the evolution must have happened, geologically spoken, with extreme rapidity there, where the animals were entirely changing their manner of living, be it from a terrestrial one into an aquatic one, or otherwise; and that the evolution happened less rapid, or even, geologically spoken, very slowly, where the animals remained terrestrial or aquatic beings, and only changed their manner of living in so far, that they became troglodytes or semi-troglodytes, or became from carnivorous only piscivorous or semi-carni-semi-piscivorous. I believe that by this hypothesis the problem is solved why remains of Basilosaurus are already found in Eocene layers together with remains of Viverrine ancestors of Carnivora, Pinnipedia and Basilosaurus, whilst those of true Pinnipedia, Lutrina and Mustelina appear for the first time during the Miocene period, and whilst remains of true Viverra’s (the genus) do not seem to have made their appearance before the Pliocene period.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us