Initial commit of ebook 78334 filesHEADmain

85 files changed, 56492 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/78334-0.txt b/78334-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..607c3a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,26020 @@
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78334 ***
+
+
+  Transcriber’s Notes
+
+  Texts printed in italics and bold face or spaced in the source
+  document have been transcribed between _underscores_, =equal signs=
+  and ~tildes~ respectively. Superscript x is represented by ^x and
+  ^{xx}. Small capitals have been transcribed as ALL CAPITALS.
+
+  More Transcriber’s Notes and a list of changes made may be found at
+  the end of this text.
+
+
+
+
+THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT.
+
+
+
+
+  THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT.
+
+  AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL TREATISE.
+
+  WITH THE REPORTS OF 187 APPEARANCES (INCLUDING
+  THOSE OF THE APPENDIX), THE SUPPOSITIONS AND
+  SUGGESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND
+  NON-SCIENTIFIC PERSONS, AND THE AUTHOR’S CONCLUSIONS.
+
+  WITH 82 ILLUSTRATIONS.
+
+  BY
+  A. C. OUDEMANS, JZN.,
+  DOCTOR OF ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MEMBER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF THE
+  NETHERLANDS, DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL
+  SOCIETY (ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS) AT THE HAGUE.
+
+  PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, OCTOBER 1892.
+
+  LEIDEN,
+  E. J. BRILL,
+  Oude Rijn 33^a.
+
+  LONDON,
+  LUZAC & Co.,
+  Great Russell Street 46.
+
+
+
+
+  [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]
+
+
+  PRINTED AT E. J. BRILL’S, AT LEIDEN.
+
+
+
+
+  ~THIS VOLUME~
+  IS
+  DEDICATED
+  TO
+  ~OWNERS OF SHIPS AND YACHTS,~
+  SEA CAPTAINS
+  AND
+  ~ZOOLOGISTS.~
+
+
+  “It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may be
+  wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to believe
+  that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved”.--A. G.
+  MELVILLE. (_See p. 397 of the present volume._)
+
+
+Voyagers and sportsmen conversant with photography are requested to
+take the instantaneous photograph of the animal: this alone will
+convince zoologists, while all their reports and pencil-drawings will
+be received with a shrug of the shoulders.
+
+As these animals are very shy, it is not advisable to approach them
+with a steamboat.
+
+The _only_ manner to kill one _instantly_ will be by means of
+_explosive_ balls, or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine; but as
+it most probably will sink, when dead, like most of the Pinnipeds, the
+harpooning of it will probably be more successful.
+
+If an individual is killed, take the following measurements:--1.
+Length of the head from nose-tip to occiput.--2. Length of the neck
+from occiput to shoulders.--3. Length of the trunk from shoulders to
+tail-root.--4. Length of the tail from tail-root to end.--5. Distance
+from shoulders to fore-flappers.--6. Distance from shoulders to
+thickest part of the body.--7. Length of a fore-flapper.--8. Length of
+a hind-flapper.--9. Circumference of the head.--10. Circumference of
+the neck.--11. Circumference of the thickest part of the body.--12.
+Circumference of the tail-root.
+
+Give a description of the animal, especially an accurate one of the
+head, the fore-flappers and the hind-flappers, and, if possible, make a
+sketch.
+
+If but barely possible, preserve the whole skeleton, and the whole
+skin, but if this is utterly impracticable, keep the cleaned skull,
+the bones of one of the fore-flappers and those of one of the
+hind-flappers, four or five vertebrae of different parts of the
+backbone, neck, and tail; and preserve the skin of the head, and a
+ribbon of about a foot breadth along the whole back of the neck, the
+trunk, and the tail.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+In all ages meteoric stones have fallen on the earth. Many of them were
+found by persons who were in search of them; they preserved them, and
+thus collections were made in private rarity cabinets and in natural
+history cabinets. Many learned persons believed in meteoric stones,
+but many others were sceptical, and their attacks were so violent,
+and their mockery about stones that fell from the atmosphere, or were
+thrown by the men in the Moon to the inhabitants of the Earth, so sharp
+as to shake the belief of many a collector, and the happy possessor,
+fearing the mockery of the so-called learned men, concealed his
+treasures, or threw them away on the dust-hill, or in a ditch.
+
+But at last there appeared a firm believer in aerolites, named CHLADNI,
+who took the trouble to collect all accounts concerning observations of
+meteoric stones from the ancient times up to the nineteenth century.
+He showed 1. The immense number of facts. 2. The strikingly concurrent
+testimony in all the accounts independent of one another.
+
+In the year 1829 he published his work “Ueber Feuermeteore” (i. e.
+on Meteoric Stones) in Vienna, and from that moment the eyes of
+unbelievers were opened. Meteoric stones were again found, and were
+proved to be quite different from terrestrial stones. From that moment
+the belief in the existence of meteoric stones was fixed for ever.
+
+The author of the present Volume has been at the pains to collect all
+accounts concerning observations of Sea-Serpents. His work has the same
+purpose as CHLADNI’S had in 1829. It is his sincere hope that it may
+meet with the same success.
+
+  THE HAGUE,
+
+  A. C. O. JZN.
+
+  February 1^{st}, 1891.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+                                                                    Page
+
+  Preface                                                             IX
+
+  List of illustrations                                             XIII
+
+    I. Literature on the subject                                       1
+
+   II. Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent, cheats and hoaxes       12
+
+  III. Would-be Sea-Serpents                                          60
+
+   IV. The various accounts and reports concerning observations of
+       Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly
+       discussed; and criticisms on the papers written about the
+       subject                                                       102
+
+    V. The various explanations hitherto given                       380
+
+   VI. Conclusions                                                   485
+       List of observations                                          485
+       A. Fables, fictions, exaggerations and errors                 495
+       B. Facts                                                      498
+          1. External characters                                     498
+             _a._ Dimensions                                         498
+             _b._ Form                                               505
+             _c._ Skin                                               511
+          2. Internal or anatomical characters                       512
+          3. Colours, individual variations                          513
+          4. Sexual differences, mane                                515
+          5. Physiological characters                                517
+             _a._ Nutritory functions                                517
+                  1. Eating, food                                    517
+                  2. Breathing                                       518
+                  3. Excretion                                       518
+             _b._ Functions of the senses                            519
+                  1. Feeling                                         519
+                  2. Taste                                           519
+                  3. Smell                                           519
+                  4. Hearing                                         520
+                  5. Sight                                           520
+             _c._ Functions of the muscular system                   520
+                  1. Relative mobility of organs                     520
+                  2. Motions                                         522
+                  3. Voice                                           530
+             _d._ Generation, growth                                 530
+          6. Psychical characters                                    531
+             _a._ Not taking notice of objects                       531
+             _b._ Taking notice of objects                           531
+             _c._ Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion           531
+             _d._ Suspicion                                          531
+             _e._ Harmlessness                                       532
+             _f._ Timidity                                           532
+             _g._ Fearlessness                                       532
+             _h._ Fear                                               532
+             _i._ Fright                                             533
+             _j._ Fury                                               533
+             _k._ Toughness                                          533
+             _l._ Playsomeness                                       533
+             _m._ Sensibility of fine weather                        534
+          7. Enemies                                                 535
+          8. Repose, sleep, death                                    535
+          9. Geographical distribution                               537
+         10. Nomenclature                                            545
+      C. Conclusions                                                 546
+          1. Comparison with allied animals                          546
+          2. Its rank in the System of Nature                        560
+
+  Appendix                                                           572
+
+  Last word                                                          592
+
+
+
+
+LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
+
+
+                                                                   Page.
+  Fig.  1.--_Thynnus thynnus_ (Linn.)                                 19
+  Fig.  2.--_Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ Koch                              31
+  Fig.  3 and 4.--Would-be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston            55
+  Fig.  5.--The Sea-Monster, as Mr. C. RENARD supposed to have seen
+            it                                                        58
+  Fig.  6.--The largest calamary, ever found, with a scale of 80
+            feet                                                      61
+  Fig.  7.--The Animal of Stronsa                                     63
+  Fig.  8.--_Squalus maximus_, Linn.                                  72
+  Fig.  9.--_Chimaera monstrosa_, Linn.                               76
+  Fig. 10.--_Lamna cornubica_ (Linn.)                                 78
+  Fig. 11.--A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the sea      88
+  Fig. 12.--_Lineus longissimus_, Sow                                 91
+  Fig. 13.--_Gymnetrus gladius_, Cuv. Val.                            93
+  Fig. 14.--The Sea-Serpent, as represented by OLAUS MAGNUS          106
+  Fig. 15.--The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the text of GESNER         107
+  Fig. 16.--The second Sea-Serpent, illustrating the same work       108
+  Fig. 17.--The Sea-Serpent, as represented in the Basle edition of
+            OLAUS MAGNUS’ work                                       109
+  Fig. 18.--The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the Map of Scandinavia in
+            the Basle edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work                  109
+  Fig. 19.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by HANS EGEDE, drawn by Mr.
+            BING                                                     114
+  Fig. 20.--The same individual, plunging back into the water        115
+  Fig. 21.--The drawing of Mr. BING, as reprinted and altered in
+            the _Illustrated London News_ of 1848                    116
+  Fig. 22.--Mr. BING’S drawing, as copied by PONTOPPIDAN             119
+  Fig. 23.--Mr. BING’S drawing, as altered in Dr. HAMILTON’S work    120
+  Fig. 24.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Governor BENSTRUP            126
+  Fig. 25.--Mr. BENSTRUP’S drawing, as altered in Dr. HAMILTON’S
+            work                                                     127
+  Fig. 26.--The Sea-Serpent, as delineated by Mr. PRINCE             207
+  Fig. 27.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Mr. WARBURTON                234
+  Fig. 28.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Officers of the
+            _Daedalus_                                               273
+  Fig. 29.--Another sketch of the same individual                    274
+  Fig. 30.--A sketch of the head of the same individual              276
+  Fig. 31.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by an officer of H. M. S.
+            _Plumper_                                                296
+  Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Capt. GUY, of
+            the _Imogen_                                             304
+  Fig. 36.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Captains TREMEARNE and
+            MORGAN                                                   306
+  Fig. 37 and 38.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by Dr.
+            BICCARD                                                  308
+  Fig. 39 and 40.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the
+            Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. DAVID TWOPENY              323
+  Fig. 41.--The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a
+            sperm-whale”                                             330
+  Fig. 42.--Another representation of the so-called “Fight between
+            a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”                         334
+  Fig. 43.--The sperm-whale going down head foremost to the bottom   335
+  Fig. 44.--The ridge of fins, mentioned in the report of the
+            _Osborne_                                                348
+  Fig. 45.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Commander PEARSON and
+            Lieutenant HAYNES of the _Osborne_                       349
+  Fig. 46.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Major SENIOR of the _City
+            of Baltimore_                                            357
+  Fig. 47.--Outline of the back of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the
+            Rev. H. W. BROWN                                         361
+  Fig. 48 and 49.--Two positions of the sea-serpent, as seen by
+            Captain DAVISON of the _Kiushiu Maru_                    363
+  Fig. 50.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer
+            _Kätie_ near the Hebrides. Drawn under the supervision
+            of the Captain, Mr. WEISZ, by the American
+            animal-painter Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ                        367
+  Fig. 51.--Outline of the Sea-Serpent seen near Little Orme’s
+            Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. MOTT, after three different
+            sketches                                                 369
+  Fig. 52.--_Phocaena phocoena_ (Linn.).                             381
+  Fig. 53.--A row of porpoises                                       385
+  Fig. 54.--_Scoliophis atlanticus_, one sixth of full size          386
+  Fig. 55.--Its head, full size                                      386
+  Fig. 56.--_Hydrophis pelamidoides_                                 390
+  Fig. 57.--_Balaenoptera physalus_ (Linn.).                         398
+  Fig. 58.--_Ichthyosaurus communis_, skeleton                       400
+  Fig. 59.--_Ichthyosaurus communis_, restored                       400
+  Fig. 60.--_Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus_, skeleton                   401
+  Fig. 61.--_Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus_, restored                   402
+  Fig. 62.--_Chlamydosaurus_                                         432
+  Fig. 63.--_Iguana tuberculata_                                     433
+  Fig. 64.--_Catodon macrocephalus_                                  435
+  Fig. 65.--_Basilosaurus_, skeleton                                 436
+  Fig. 66.--_Basilosaurus_, restored                                 436
+  Fig. 67.--_Basilosaurus_ as imagined by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN.  442
+  Fig. 68.--_Eurypharynx pelecanoides_, Vaillant                     445
+  Fig. 69.--_Macrorhinus leoninus_ (Linn.)                           449
+  Fig. 70.--Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. HENRY LEE
+            explains Mr. BING’S drawing                              475
+  Fig. 71.--_Thrichechus manatus_ Linné                              482
+  Fig. 72.--Sea-Serpent, side view, outlines, drawn from the
+            descriptions                                             516
+  Fig. 73.--Sea-Serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the
+            descriptions                                             516
+  Fig. 74.--_Zalophus californianus_ (Lesson) Allen?--Drawn by
+            W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton
+            Aquarium.--From the _Illustrated London News_ of Jan.
+            6, 1877                                                  547
+  Fig. 75.--_Zalophus californianus_ (Lesson) Allen?--Drawn by
+            W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton
+            Aquarium.--From the _Illustrated London News_, of Jan.
+            6, 1877                                                  548
+  Fig. 76.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Drawn by the
+            animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
+            Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
+            Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877                                549
+  Fig. 77.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the
+            animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
+            Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
+            Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877                                550
+  Fig. 78.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched from a
+            living specimen by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL in the
+            Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
+            Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877                                550
+  Fig. 79.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the
+            animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
+            Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
+            Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877                                551
+  Fig. 80.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the
+            animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
+            Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
+            Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877                                551
+  Fig. 81.--_Otaria jubata_ (Forster) Desmarest.--From the List of
+            the Vertebrated Animals now or lately Living in the
+            Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877        552
+  Fig. 82.--_Callorhinus ursinus_ (Linné). Gray.--From BREHM’S,
+            “Thierleben”                                             553
+
+
+
+
+I.
+
+Literature on the Subject.
+
+
+An asterisk (*), placed before the works, mentioned in the list,
+signifies that the author has had no opportunity to consult them.
+
+  1555.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus,
+  earumque diversis statibus, conditionibus, etc., etc. Romae, 1555, p.
+  771.
+
+  *1556.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, etc.,
+  etc., (Editio nec Romae nec Basileae).
+
+  1560.--=Gesner.= Nomenclator aquatilium animantium (= Historia
+  animalium liber IV), Tiguri, 1560, p. 93, 94.
+
+  1567.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentium septentrionalium variis
+  conditionibus statibusve, etc., etc., Basileae, 1567, p. 799.
+
+  *1608.--=Edward Topsell.= The history of serpents, or the second
+  booke of living creatures. With wood cuts in-fol. London, 1608, (315
+  pag.).
+
+  1640.--=Aldrovandus.= Serpentum et draconum historiae libri duo.
+  Bononiae, 1640, p. 58, 59, 296.
+
+  1653.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V,
+  et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II. Francofurti, 1653.
+
+  1657.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V,
+  et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1657.
+
+  1660.--=Jonston.= Naeukeurige beschrijving van de natuur der vissen
+  en der slangen en draken. Amsterdam, 1660. Deel II en IV.
+
+  *1665.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V,
+  et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1665.
+
+  1667.--=Milton.= Paradise Lost. I, 192-208.
+
+  1668.--=Charleton.= Onomasticon zoicon. Londini, 1668. p. 34.
+
+  *1670.--=Berndsen.= Danmarks og Norges fruchtbare Herlighed, 1670?
+
+  1674.--=Adam Olearius.= Gottorfische Kunstkammer. Schleswig, 1674.
+
+  *1690.--=Ramus.= Norges Beskrivelse, 1690?
+
+  1718.--=Jonston.= Theatrum universale omnium animalium, Amstelaedami.
+  Edidit =Ruysch=. 1718.
+
+  *1722.--=Jean Baptiste Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de
+  l’Amérique, contenant l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols.
+  Paris, Giffard, 1722. 12^o.
+
+  1724.--=Jean Baptiste Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique,
+  contenant l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. La Haye,
+  1724.
+
+  1725.--=Père Labat.= Nieuwe reizen naar de franse eilanden van
+  Amerika: In ’t Nederlandsch in ’t ligt gebracht door =W. C. Dijks=.
+  Amsterdam, 1725, Vol. IV. P. I. p. 43.--Vol. IV. P. II. p. 105.
+
+  *1730.--=P. Dass.= Beskrivelse over Nordland. 1730?
+
+  *1740.--=Hans Egede.= (A Full and Particular Relation of his Voyage
+  to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734, printed in Danish
+  at) Kjoebenhavn, 1740.
+
+  *1740.--=Hans Egede.= Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom
+  Anfange und Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission, etc. Hamburg,
+  1740. 4^o.
+
+  1741.--=Paul Egede.= Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den
+  Groenlanske Mission, Tilstand og Beskaffenhed, Kjoebenhavn, 1741.
+
+  *1741.--=Paul Egede.= Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische
+  Mission betreffend; Kopenhagen, 1741.
+
+  1741.--=Hans Egede.= Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration.
+  Kjoebenhavn, 1741.
+
+  1742.--=Hans Egede.= Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration.
+  Copenhagen, 1742.
+
+  *1742.--=Paul Egede.= Journal of the mission to Greenland, 2^d. Vol.
+  London, 1742. (The first Vol. by =Hans Egede=, and the third Vol. by
+  =Niels Egede= do not contain anything about the subject.)
+
+  *1742.--=Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles françaises de l’Amérique,
+  VII, p. 341. Paris, 1742.
+
+  1742.--=Charles Owen.= An Essay towards a Natural History of
+  Serpents. London, John Gray, 1742.
+
+  *1743?--=Paul Egede.= Efterretninger om Grönland. Kjöbenhavn, 1743?
+  p. 45-46.
+
+  *1745.--=Hans Egede.= A description of Greenland. London. 1745.
+
+  1746--=Hans Egede.= Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746.
+
+  *1753--=Eric Pontoppidan.= Det förste Forsög paa Norges natuurlige
+  Historie. Kjoebenhavn, 2^d. Vol. 1753.
+
+  1754.--=Erich Pontoppidan.= Versuch einer natuerlichen Historie von
+  Norwegen, 2^d. Vol. Cap. VIII. § 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Kopenhagen, 1754.
+
+  1755.--=Eric Pontoppidan.= The Natural History of Norway. London,
+  1755.
+
+  *1760.--=Hans Egede.= New Natural History of Greenland. 1760.?
+
+  1763.--=Hans Egede.= Description et Histoire Naturelle de Groenland.
+  Copenhague et Genève, 1763.
+
+  1763.--=Hans Egede.= Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland.
+  Berlin, 1763.
+
+  *1764.--=Jonston.= Theatrum universale omnium animalium. Heilbron,
+  1764.
+
+  *1765.--=Knud Leems.= Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, 1765.
+
+  *1767.--=Canutus Leemius.= De Lapponibus Finmarchiae eorumque lingua,
+  vita et religione historia, c. notis =J. E. Gruneri=. (Text in Latin
+  and Danish.) 2 Vols. 4^o. with 100 figgs.
+
+  *1768.--=Jonston.= Historia naturalis de piscibus et cetis, et de
+  serpentibus et draconibus. Rouan, 1768.
+
+  *1771.--=Knud Leems.= Nachrichten von den Lappen in Finmarken, ihrer
+  Sprache, Sitten, u. s. w. Aus dem Dän. übers. v. =J. J. Volckmann=.
+  Leipzig, 1771. 8^o.
+
+  *1789.--=Paul Egede.= (Intelligences from Greenland, in the original
+  Danish language). Kjoebenhavn, 1789.
+
+  *1790.--=Paul Egede.= Nachrichten von Groenland aus einem Tagebuch
+  geführt von 1721-1788. Kopenhagen, 1790.
+
+  *1805.--=Peter Ascanius.= Icones rerum naturalium, ou figures
+  enluminées d’histoire naturelle du Nord. Cah. V. Copenhague 1805.
+  (In the first four Cahiers the author does not touch the subject).
+
+  1808, Nov.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 32, p. 190.
+
+  1809, Jan.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 33, p. 90.
+
+  1809, March.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 33, p. 251.
+
+  1809, May.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 33, p. 411.
+
+  1809, July.--=E. Home.= An anatomical account of the _Squalus
+  Maximus_, which, etc.--_Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
+  Society at London_, 1809. Vol. 98, p. 206-220.
+
+  1811, March.--=Dr. Barclay.= Remarks on some parts of the animal that
+  was cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, September 1808.--_Memoirs
+  of the Wernerian Natural History Society_, Vol. I.
+
+  1817, Aug. 20.--Extract from a letter from =S. G. Perkins=, Esq.
+  dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to =E. Everett=, in Paris.--(This
+  extract, a manuscript, preserved in the Library of the Royal
+  University of Göttingen, has never before been printed.)
+
+  *1817, Oct. 15.--_The Columbian_ (newspaper).
+
+  *1817, Oct. 22 or 23.--(A New York newspaper).
+
+  1817, Nov. 13.--Letter from =Edward Everett= in Paris to the
+  “Obermedicinalrath und Ritter” =Blumenbach= in Göttingen.--(This
+  letter preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen,
+  has never before appeared in print).
+
+  1817, Dec.--Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of
+  New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a
+  sea-serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817. 8^o.
+  Boston, 1817, with two plates, 52 pg.
+
+  *1817.--_Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England._
+  Boston, 1817.
+
+  1818, April.--=H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville.= Sur un nouveau genre
+  de Serpent, _Scoliophis_, et le Serpent de mer vu en Amérique en
+  1817.--_Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle._ Vol.
+  86. Paris, 1818.
+
+  1818, June.--Sur le serpent nommé _Scoliophis_.--Extrait d’une lettre
+  de =M. A. Lesueur= au Rédacteur (=Mr. H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville=).
+  _Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle._ Vol. 86.
+  Paris 1818.
+
+  1818.--=Hoffmann= and =Oken=. Thier von Stronsa. =Oken’s= Isis, II,
+  1818, p. 2096.
+
+  1818.--=W. D. Peck.= Some Observations on the Sea-Serpent.--_Memoirs
+  of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences._ Vol. IV. Part 1.
+  Cambridge 1818.
+
+  1818.--American Sea Serpent.--The _Journal of Science and the
+  Arts_.--Edited at the _Royal Institution of Great Britain_. Vol. IV.
+  London, 1818, p. 378.
+
+  1818.--American Sea-Serpent.--_The Quarterly Journal of Science,
+  Literature and the Arts. R. Inst._ Vol. VI. London, 1818, p. 163.
+
+  1818.--Wieder eine ungeheure Meerschlange an America.--=Oken’s= Isis,
+  1818, p. 2100.
+
+  *1818, June 9.--_Commercial Advertiser_, Boston.
+
+  1818, Aug. 21.--(Boston Newspaper). A paragraph from this newspaper
+  is preserved in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen.
+
+  1818, Sept. 11.--Letter from =Mr. Andrews Norton= to =Mr. George
+  Bancroft=, at that time a resident at Göttingen.--The letter is
+  preserved in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and
+  has never before appeared in print.
+
+  *1818.--W .... On the history of the Great
+  Sea-Serpent.--=Blackwood’s= _Magazine_, III. p. 33-42.
+
+  1819, Jan.--American Sea-Serpent.--_The Philosophical Magazine_, Vol.
+  LIII, p. 71.
+
+  1819.--=W. D. Peck.= Some observations on the Sea Serpent.--_The
+  Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts. R. Inst._ Vol.
+  VIII. London, 1819, p. 68.
+
+  1819.--_Scoliophis._ Eine neue Schlangen-Sippe.--=Oken’s= _Isis_,
+  1819, p. 113.
+
+  1819.--Meerschlange in Amerika. =Lesueur= aus Amerika an
+  =Blainville=.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819. p. 263.
+
+  1819.--Ueber die Meerschlange an Amerika. Von =T. Say= aus
+  Philadelphia an =Leach= in London.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819, p. 653.
+
+  1819.--Einige Bemerkungen über die Meerschlange von Amerika, von =W.
+  D. Peck=, Prof. d. N. G. in Amerika.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819, p. 1123.
+
+  *1819. Aug. 19.--_Boston Daily Advertiser._
+
+  *1819.--_Boston Centinel._
+
+  1819.--Amerikanische Meerschlange.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819. p. 1754.
+
+  1819. Nov.--=C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.= Dissertation on
+  Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents.--_Philosophical Magazine._
+  Vol. LIV.
+
+  1820, May.--=Prof. Jacob Bigelow.= Documents and Remarks respecting
+  the Sea-Serpent.--=Silliman’s= _American Journal of Science and
+  Arts._ Vol. II, p. 147-154. Boston (1819) 1820.
+
+  1820.--De beruchte Zeeslang op de kusten van
+  Noord-Amerika.--_Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820_, Tweede
+  Stuk, Mengelwerk, Amsterdam, 1820.
+
+  1821.--On the American Sea-Serpent.--_The Philosophical Magazine and
+  Journal_, Vol. 57, 1821, p. 356-359.
+
+  1821.--=Walter Scott.= The Pirate, Vol. I, Chp. II.
+
+  1821.--=Otto von Kotzebue.= Entdeckungs-Reise in die Süd-See und nach
+  der Behrings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordöstlichen Durchfahrt.
+  Unternommen in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818. Weimar, 1821,
+  Zweiter Band, p. 108.
+
+  *1821.--=Otto von Kotsebue.= Voyage of discovery into the South-Sea
+  and Behring’s Straits, London, 1822.
+
+  1821.--Sea-Serpent.--_The Philosophical Magazine and Journal_, Vol.
+  58, p. 454.
+
+  1821.--Analysis of one of the Vertebrae of the Orkney Animal.--_The
+  Edinburgh Philosophical Journal._ Vol. V, p. 227.
+
+  1822. Jan.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, I, n^o. 19, p. 294.
+
+  1822.--=Dr. Hibbert.= Description of the Shetland-Islands. London,
+  1822, p. 565.
+
+  1822.--=Otto von Kotsebue.= Ontdekkingsreis in de Zuid-Zee en naar de
+  Behrings straat in de jaren 1815, 1816, 1817 en 1818, tweede deel p.
+  277. Amsterdam, 1822.
+
+  *1822. June, 15.--_New-York_ ... (newspaper).
+
+  1822. Aug.--Die sogenannte Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem
+  Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, III, n^o. 48, p. 53.
+
+  1823. Febr.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, IV, n^o. 68, p. 24.
+
+  1823.--=A. de Capell Brooke.= Travels through Sweden, Norway and
+  Finmark in the Summer of 1820. London 1823.
+
+  1823. June.--Nachrichten über die grosse Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s=
+  _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, IV, n^o. 84, p.
+  273.
+
+  *1824.--_Newbury port_ ... (newspaper).
+
+  1824.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, VIII, n^o. 168, p. 218.
+
+  *1826. June 21.--_New York Advertiser._
+
+  1826. Oct.--Sea-Serpent.--_The American Journal of Science and Arts_,
+  conducted by =Benjamin Silliman=, Vol. XI.
+
+  1827.--=Dr. Hooker.= Additional testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent
+  of the American Seas.--_The Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI,
+  1827, p. 126.
+
+  1827, April.--=Dr. Hooker.= Fernere Zeugnisse über die Seeschlange in
+  den Amerikanischen Meere.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der
+  Natur- und Heilkunde_, XVIII, n^o. 256, p. 49.
+
+  1827, June.--Sea Serpent.--_The American Journal of Science and
+  Arts_, conducted by =Benjamin Silliman=, Vol. XII, June, 1827, New
+  Haven.
+
+  *1827, Aug.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.
+
+  *1827, Sept. 5.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.
+
+  *1827, Sept. 15.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.
+
+  1828, Jan.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XIX, n^o. 409, p. 193.
+
+  *1828.--=John Fleming.= A history of British Animals, etc.,
+  Edinburgh, 1828.
+
+  1829.--=Sam. L. Mitchill.= The history of Sea
+  Serpentism.--=Silliman’s= _American Journal of Science and Arts_,
+  1829.
+
+  1830, April, May.--_Chronicle._
+
+  1830, June.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265.
+
+  1832, Nov.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XXXV, n^o 756, p. 122.
+
+  *1834.--=Bakewell.= _Introduction to Geology._ Chap. XVI, p. 312;
+  with a note of Prof. =Silliman=.
+
+  1834. June.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XL, n^o 879, p. 328.
+
+  *1834.--=C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.=--Abhandlung über
+  Wasser-Schlangen, etc.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1834. Extract from _Phil.
+  Mag._ 1819.
+
+  1835. July.--A sea-serpent.--=Silliman’s= _American Journal of
+  Science and Arts_, Vol. 28, New Haven, July, 1835.
+
+  1835. Aug.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XLV, n^o 980. p. 186.
+
+  1837.--=H. Schlegel.= Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens,
+  Amsterdam, 1837.
+
+  *1837, Sept.--The “_Adis_” of Drontheim, (newspaper).
+
+  1837, Oct.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, IV, n^o 67, p. 7.
+
+  1839.--=Dr. R. Hamilton.= Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV
+  of =Jardine’s= _Naturalist’s Library_).
+
+  *1839.--_The Athenaeum_, London, 1839, p. 902.
+
+  *1839.--_Boston Mercantile._
+
+  *1839.--_Kennebek Journal._
+
+  1839, Oct.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XII, n^o 248, p. 88.
+
+  *1840.--_Boston Daily Advertiser._
+
+  *1840, Sept. 15.--_Journal du Havre._
+
+  1841.--=H. Rathke.= Ueber die Seeschlange der Norweger.--_Archiv für
+  Naturgeschichte_ 7^{er} Jahrgang, I, 1841, p. 278.
+
+  *1843.--_Christiansund Posten._
+
+  1843, Nov.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XXVIII, n^o 606, p. 184.
+
+  *1844.--=H. Schlegel.= Essay on the physiognomy of Serpents,
+  Edinburgh, 1844.
+
+  *1845.--_Cincinnati Gazette._
+
+  1845, Nov.--_Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History_,
+  Vol. II, p. 65.
+
+  1845, Dec.--_Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History_,
+  Vol. II, p. 73.
+
+  1846, Jan.--_Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History_,
+  Vol. II, p. 94.
+
+  1846, Febr.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, XXXVII, n^o 801, p. 134.
+
+  1847.--=Dr. R. Hamilton.= Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV,
+  of =Jardine’s= _Naturalist’s Library_).
+
+  1847.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p.
+  1604-1608.
+
+  *1847.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, n^o LIV, wrapper.
+
+  1847.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p. 1714-1716.
+
+  1847.--=Charles Cogswell.= A plea for the North Atlantic
+  Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p. 1841-1846.
+
+  1847.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p. 1911.
+
+  1847, July.--Ueber die Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem
+  Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe, III, 54, p. 148.
+
+  1847, Oct.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, Preface.
+
+  1848.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1848, p. 2028.
+
+  1848, June.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+  Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe, VI, 131, p. 328.
+
+  1848.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1848, p.
+  2192-2193.
+
+  *1848, Oct. 9.--_The Times._
+
+  *1848, Oct. 13.--_The Times._
+
+  *1848, Oct. 21.--_The Literary Gazette._
+
+  *1848, Oct. 21.--_The Globe._
+
+  *1848, Oct. 23.--_The Times._
+
+  1848, Oct. 28.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1848, Nov. 2.--_The Times._
+
+  *1848, Nov. 4.--_The Times._
+
+  1848, Nov. 4.--The fossil Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1848, Nov. 11.--=Prof. Richard Owen.=--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The
+  Times._
+
+  1848, Nov. 15?--Note on the subject “_Dodo_” of Mssrs. =Strickland=
+  and =Melville=.--_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2d.
+  Series, Vol. II, p. 444.
+
+  1848, Nov. 15?--=Prof. Richard Owen.= The Great Sea-Serpent.--_Annals
+  and Magazine of Natural History_, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 458.
+
+  *1848, Nov. 21.--_The Times._
+
+  1848, Nov. 23.--=Prof. Richard Owen.= The Great
+  Sea-Serpent.--=Galignani’s= _Messenger_.
+
+  *1848, Nov. 25.--_Boston Daily Advertiser._
+
+  1848, Nov. 25.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1848, Nov. 27.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London,
+  1848, p. 2306-2324.
+
+  1848, Nov. 27.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1848, Preface.
+
+  1848, Dec.--=Prof. Richard Owen.= Ueber die Seeschlange. =Froriep’s=
+  _Notizen a. d. Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe,
+  VIII, n^o 169, p. 231.
+
+  *1848.--_Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England_,
+  Boston, 1848.
+
+  *1848, Dec. 30.--_Bombay Bi-monthly Times._
+
+  *1849.--Life and Letters of Campbell, 1849?
+
+  *1849, Jan.--_Westminster Review._
+
+  *1849, Jan.--_Bombay Bi-monthly Times._
+
+  *1849, March?--_Boston Atlas._
+
+  *1849.--_Montrose Standard._
+
+  1849.--Enormous undescribed animal.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849,
+  p. 2356
+
+  1849.--Inquiries respecting the Bones of a large Marine Animal, cast
+  ashore on the Island of Stronsa, 1808.--_The Zoologist_, London,
+  1849, p. 2358-2363.
+
+  1849, Apr. 14.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1849.--The Sea-Serpent?--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p. 2395-2398.
+
+  1849.--A strange Marine Animal.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p.
+  2433.
+
+  1849, May, 19.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1849, July, 9.--_The Sun._
+
+  1849, July.--Ueber die Grosse Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus
+  dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe, X, n^o 205, p.
+  97.
+
+  1849.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p.
+  2458-2460.
+
+  1849.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p. 2541.
+
+  1849.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849.--Preface.
+
+  1850, Jan. 12.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1850, Jan. 19.--The Great Sea-Serpent. _The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1850.--Romance of the Sea-Serpent or Ichthyosaurus. Also a
+  collection of the ancient and modern authorities, with letters from
+  distinguished merchants and men of science. Cambridge, U. S. 1850,
+  12^o, 172 pages.
+
+  *1850.--_Christian Mercury_ (U. S. newspaper).
+
+  *1850.--_Charlestown Courier._
+
+  1850, April 20.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London
+  News._
+
+  1850.--The Great Sea-Serpent again.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1850,
+  p. 2803.
+
+  *1850, Sept. 2.--_Cork Constitution._
+
+  *1850, Sept. 7.--_Cork Constitution._
+
+  1850, Sept. 7.--The Sea-Serpent again!--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1850, Sept. 11.--_Cork Reporter._
+
+  1850, Sept. 14.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1850.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1850, p.
+  2925-2928.
+
+  1850, Dec. _Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History._
+  Vol. III, p. 328.
+
+  1851.--Rev. =Alfr. Chrl. Smith=. Notes on Observations in Natural
+  History during a Tour in Norway.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1851, p.
+  3228.
+
+  1851, Oct.--=Froriep’s= _Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der
+  Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie_, n^o 395.
+
+  *1852, Febr.--_New York Tribune._
+
+  1852, Febr.--=Galignani’s= _Messenger_.
+
+  *1852, Febr.--_Philadelphia Bulletin._
+
+  *1852, Mrch. 10.--_The Times._
+
+  1852, Mrch. 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent caught at last.--_The
+  Illustrated London News._
+
+  1852, Mrch.--=Froriep’s= _Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der
+  Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie_, p. 486.
+
+  1852, Mrch.--=Froriep’s= _Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der
+  Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie_, p. 491.
+
+  1852, Apr.--Reported Capture of the Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_,
+  London, p. 3426-3429.
+
+  *1852, Nov. 17.--_The Times._
+
+  1853, Jan.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1853, p.
+  3756.
+
+  1854, June?--=Dr. T. S. Traill.= On the supposed Sea-Snake, cast
+  on shore in the Orkneys in 1808, and the animal seen from H. M. S.
+  “Daedalus” in
+
+  1848.--_Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh_, III, n^o 44,
+  p. 208.
+
+  1855, Febr. 17.--The Sea-Serpent Once More.--_The Illustrated London
+  News._
+
+  *1855, Aug. 13.--_Buffalo Daily Reporter._
+
+  1855, Sept. 15.--The Great Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1855, Oct. 1.--_The Times._
+
+  1855. The Great American Snake Caught. _The Zoologist_, London, 1855,
+  p. 4896.
+
+  1856, May 3.--Another Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1856, Oct. 4.--The Sea-Serpent again. _The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1856.--The Great Sea-Serpent. _The Zoologist_, London, 1856, p. 4948.
+
+  1856.--The Sea-Snake Story a fiction. _The Zoologist_, London, 1856,
+  p. 4998.
+
+  *1857, Febr. and March.--_Cape Argus._
+
+  *1857, March 14.--_Cape Argus._
+
+  1857, June 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1858, Febr. 5.--_The Times._
+
+  *1858, Febr. 13.--_The Times._
+
+  *1858, Febr. 16.--_The Times._
+
+  *1858, Febr. 23.--_The Times._
+
+  1858, Febr.--_Revue Britannique_, n^o 2, p. 496.
+
+  1858, March 20.--Another Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1858, July or Aug.--_Java Bode._
+
+  *1858, Oct. 6.--_Amsterdamsche Courant._
+
+  1858.--Another Peep at the Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London,
+  1858, p. 5989.
+
+  1858.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1858, p. 6015-6018.
+
+  1859.--Another Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1859, p. 6492.
+
+  1860.--=Dr. R. Hamilton=, Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV
+  of =Jardine’s= _Naturalist’s Library_.)
+
+  1860.--=P. H. Gosse.= The Romance of Natural History, Vol. I, Lond.,
+  Nisbet, 1860.
+
+  1860.--A Sea-Serpent in the Bermudas.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1860,
+  p. 6934.
+
+  1860.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1860, p.
+  6985-6993.
+
+  1860.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1860, p. 7051-7052.
+
+  1860.--On the Probable Origin of Some Sea-Serpents.--_The Zoologist_,
+  London, 1860, p. 7237.
+
+  1860.--Captain =Tailor’s= Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London,
+  1860, p. 7278.
+
+  1860, Sept.--_Skibbereen Eagle._
+
+  *1860, Sept.--_Cork Constitution._
+
+  1861.--A Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1861, p. 7354.
+
+  *1862.--=Grattan’s= _Civilized America_, p. 39.
+
+  1862.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1862, p. 7850-7852.
+
+  1863.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1863, p. 8727.
+
+  1863, June 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  *1870, April 9.--=F. Buckland=, The Sea-Snake Again.--_Land and
+  Water._
+
+  1872, June 13.--_Nature_, Vol. VI.
+
+  1872, Aug. 1.--_Nature_, Vol. VI.
+
+  1872, Aug. 17.--Sea-Serpent, lately seen near Galveston. _The
+  Graphic._
+
+  *1872, Sept. 7.--_Land and Water._
+
+  1872, Sept. 12.--_Nature_, Vol. VI.
+
+  1873, May.--Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is
+  called the Norwegian Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1873, p.
+  3517-3522.
+
+  *1873, Nov.--_The Scotsman._
+
+  *1873, Nov. 20.--_The Times._
+
+  1873, Dec.--The supposed Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1873,
+  p. 3804.
+
+  1875, Nov. 20.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._
+
+  1875, Dec. 4.--_Illustrirte Zeitung._
+
+  1876, June 29.--The Sea-Serpents of the seventeenth Century.--_The
+  Graphic._
+
+  *1876, June.--_The Scotsman._
+
+  *1876, June.--_The Courant._
+
+  *1876, Dec.?--_London and China Telegraph._
+
+  *1876, Dec.--_Good Words._
+
+  *1877.--=J. Adams.= Account of a supposed Sea-Serpent seen off Nepean
+  Island. _Proceedings Lit. Philosophical Society of Liverpool_, n^o
+  XXXI, p. LXVIII.
+
+  *1877, Jan. 6.--=J. K. Webster.=--The Sea-Monster.--_Advertiser and
+  Ladies’ Journal._
+
+  *1877, Jan. 10, sqq.--(Newspapers of Liverpool).
+
+  1877, Jan. 13.--_Illustrated London News_, p. 35, 3d column.
+
+  *1877, Jan. 15.--=R. A. Proctor.= Strange Sea-Monsters.--_The Echo._
+
+  1877, Jan. 27.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Graphic._
+
+  1877, Febr. 3.--Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange.--_Illustrirte
+  Zeitung._
+
+  *1877, Mrch.--=R. A. Proctor.= Strange Sea-Creatures.--_The
+  Gentlemen’s Magazine._
+
+  *1877, June 13?--_Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette._
+
+  *1877, June 14.--_The Times._
+
+  1877, June 16.--_The Graphic_, p. 563, 3^d. column.
+
+  1877, June 30.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Graphic._
+
+  *1877, Sept. 4.--_Manchester Courier._
+
+  *1877, Sept. 8.--=F. Buckland.= Occurrence of a Sea-Serpent.--_Land
+  and Water._
+
+  *1877, Sept. 15.--=F. Cornish=, Reply to =Buckland=.--_Land and
+  Water._
+
+  *1878.--_Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk._
+
+  *1878, May 24.--=F. Buckland.= Supposed Sea-Snake caught in
+  Australia.--_Land and Water._
+
+  1878, Sept. 5.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--_Nature_, Vol. XVIII.
+
+  *1878, Sept. 6.--_The Scotsman._
+
+  1878, Sept. 12.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--_Nature_, Vol. XVIII.
+
+  1878, Sept. 19.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--_Nature_, Vol. XVIII.
+
+  1879.--=Andrew Wilson.= Leisure Time Studies; chiefly biological; a
+  Series of Essays and Lectures. With Numerous Illustrations, London,
+  Chatto and Windus, 1879.
+
+  1879, Jan. 30.--(Critic of =Mr. Wilson’s= Leisure Time
+  Studies).--_Nature_, Vol. XIX.
+
+  1879, April 19.--_The Graphic._
+
+  1879, July 19.--_The Graphic._
+
+  1879, July 24.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XX.
+
+  *1879, Sept. 24.--_The Times._
+
+  1880.--=A. Günther.= The Study of Fishes, p. 521. Edinburgh, 1880.
+
+  1880, Nov. 18.--=Searles V. Wood=, Jun. Order
+  Zeuglodontia.--_Nature_, Vol. XXIII.
+
+  1881, Febr. 10.--=Searles V. Wood.= Zeuglodontia.--_Nature_, Vol.
+  XXIII.
+
+  *1881, Sept. 8.--_Madras Mail._
+
+  1881, Oct. 8.--_Le Monde Illustré._
+
+  1881, Oct. 13.--_Nature_, Vol. XXIV.
+
+  1881, Nov. 12.--=A. C. Oudemans, Jzn.= Iets over fabelachtige
+  verhalen en over het vermoedelijk bestaan van de groote
+  Zeeslang.--_Album der Natuur_, 1882, p. 13-26. (The issue appeared
+  already Nov. 12, 1881).
+
+  *1881, Nov. 15?--_Cape Argus._
+
+  1881, Nov. 17.--_De Zuid-Afrikaan._
+
+  1881, Nov. 26.--_Nieuws van den Dag._
+
+  1882, Jan.--=P. Harting.= Een Zeeslang.--_Album der Natuur_, 1882, p.
+  66.
+
+  *1882.--=Catherine C. Hopley.= Curiosities and Wonders of
+  Serpent-Life. London, 1882, 8^o p. 247-267.
+
+  *1882, May, 22.--Giant cuttlefishes.--_Scotsman._
+
+  *1882, June.--The Sea-Serpent at Shetland.--_Glasgow Herald._
+
+  *1882, June.--_Newcastle Chronicle._
+
+  1882.--Die Neueste Seeschlange.--_Illustrirte Zeitung_, p. 2035.
+
+  *1882, July, 1.--A. Stradling.--_Land and Water._
+
+  1882.--=G. Verschuur.= Eene reis rondom de wereld in vierhonderd en
+  tachtig dagen. Haarlem, 1882.
+
+  1883.--=Henry Lee.= Sea Monsters Unmasked.--London, Clowes & Son,
+  1883.
+
+  1883, Jan., 25.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.
+
+  1883, Febr. 1.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.
+
+  1883, Febr. 8.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.
+
+  1883, Febr. 15.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.
+
+  1883, Oct. 20.--The Inevitable Sea-Serpent.--_The Graphic_ p. 387.
+
+  *1883, Nov. 4.--_Chambers’_ _Journal_, p. 748.
+
+  *1884, Sept. 14.--_Inverness Courier._
+
+  1884, Nov.--=C. Honigh.= Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen.--_De Gids_, p.
+  300.
+
+  *1885, July, 29-Sept. 6.--=W. Reid.= History of Sea-Serpents.--=John
+  O’Groat= _Journal_.
+
+  *1885, Sept. 1.--The Sea-Serpent again.--_Scotsman._
+
+  1885, Sept. 10.--_Nature_, Vol. XXXII.
+
+  *1886, Sept. 15.--The Sea-Serpent again.--_Evening Dispatch_,
+  Edinburgh.
+
+  1886, Sept. 25.--_The Graphic._
+
+  1886.--=W. E. Hoyle.= Sea-Serpent.--_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ Ed. 9.
+
+  1886.--=W. E. Hoyle.= Contribution to a Bibliography of the
+  Sea-Serpent (read 21st. April, 1886).--_Proceedings of the Royal
+  Physical Society of Edinburgh._ 1886.
+
+  *1889, May 21.--_De Grondwet_, n^o 38.--(Journal, edited in Holland,
+  Michigan, U. S. A.)
+
+  1889, June 6.--_Haagsche Courant._
+
+  1889, Dec. 7?--=John Ashton.= Curious Creatures in Zoology.--With 130
+  Illustrations throughout the text. London, John C. Nimmo (1890) p.
+  268-278.
+
+  1890, July 12.--_De Amsterdammer_, Weekblad voor Nederland.
+
+  and probably:
+
+  *17  ?--=Mongitore.= Remarkable Objects of Sicily.
+
+  *18  ?--=Leguat.= Travels to Rodrigues Island.
+
+  *1888.--=A. Nicholson.= Snakes, Marsupials and Birds.
+
+  Should any reader know of any other contribution to the literature of
+  the sea-serpent, he is earnestly requested by the author of this work
+  to inform him about it.
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes.
+
+
+Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Gosse says, are
+commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they palm upon
+their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their own invention,
+they tell the old stories they have heard when on fine evenings they
+were together with the old tars talking and chatting on the fore-deck.
+Of the latter many have no other origin than the imagination of a
+sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes; others again are exaggerated
+and garbled reports of what they have seen with their own eyes, or of
+what their comrades or their captain saw! There are the tales of the
+Unicorn, of the White Whale, that terrible “Moby Dick” of the Polar
+Regions, there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the
+exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent!
+
+Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the terrible
+tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment even to the
+sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently why our sailors
+do not report any more encounters with Mermaids, or with the Kraken.
+They know now that they saw, or harpooned, manatees, or dugongs, and
+gigantic squids, or calamaries.
+
+But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent having
+been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and by the master,
+several midshipmen, and some men of the crew! The news is printed in
+hundreds of newspapers, and passes from mouth to mouth, in short,
+it becomes the topic of the day! A schooner, or a brig runs into a
+harbour, say that of Liverpool, and the Captain, and the crew are
+immediately asked if they have seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the
+existence of such an animal they of course answer in the negative!
+But soon convinced by the affidavits printed in the newspapers, they
+swear that when on their next voyage they meet with it, they will
+bring it home! But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on
+the watch, the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning
+home arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon
+an idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent, yet
+he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly that
+he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on hoaxing the
+gullible!
+
+It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure in
+inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some splendid
+tricks on the believers!
+
+Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin by telling
+my readers some of them, which I met with in the various works I had
+the opportunity to consult.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for the
+first time in the _Report_ of 1817. There we find in a letter from the
+Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS the following:
+
+“He” (Mr. STAPLES of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780, as a
+schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay, one of these
+enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts--that the men ran
+into the hold for fright, and that the weight of the serpent sunk the
+vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner was of about eighteen tons.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Now follows the hoax of a JOSEPH WOODWARD, who had reason to be
+satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston, New
+York, etc. It runs as follows:
+
+“Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape Anne,
+is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has been drawn
+up and attested in proper form.”
+
+“I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant schooner
+of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N.
+W., and being about 10 leagues from the coast, perceived last Sunday,
+at two P. M. something on the surface of the water, which seemed to
+me to be of the size of a large boat. Supposing that it might be part
+of the wreck of a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few
+fathoms of it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole
+crew, that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it
+coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with
+extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a second
+time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most from the bow
+of the ship.”
+
+“I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket bullets.
+I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and myself distinctly
+heard the _ball_ and bullets strike against his body, from which they
+rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock. The serpent shook his
+head and tail in an extraordinary manner, and advanced towards the ship
+with open jaws. I had caused the cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it
+at his throat; but he had come so near, that all the crew were seized
+with terror, and we thought only of getting out of his way. He almost
+touched the vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly
+have come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear again,
+with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on the other, as
+if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However, we did not feel
+any shock. He remained five hours near us, only going backward and
+forward.”
+
+“The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided, we were
+able to examine him attentively. I estimate that his length is at least
+twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 130 feet; his head is full
+12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the neck is not less than six
+feet; the size of the head is in proportion to that of his body. He is
+of a blackish colour; his ear-holes (ouies), are about 12 feet from the
+extremity of his head. In short, the whole has a terrible look.”
+
+“When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner, that
+it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in all
+directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.”
+
+  “(Signed)”
+
+  “Joseph Woodward.”
+
+  “Hingham, May 12, 1818.”
+
+“This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo, who made
+affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.”
+
+This hoax was reprinted in the _Quarterly Journal of Science,
+Literature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London_, Vol. VI,
+1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. OKEN also
+inserted the tale of WOODWARD in his _Isis_, of 1818, p. 2100.--Thirty
+years afterwards Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the editor of _The Zoologist_,
+published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without, however,
+mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did not he do so?
+Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such an old story, and
+because he was aware of the fact, that the whole account was wonderful,
+and contained many impossibilities!
+
+Astonishing enough, Mr. FRORIEP translated this piece from the
+_Zoologist_, and inserted it in his journal (_Notizen_, Third Series,
+Vol. VI, n^o 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following
+remark:[1]
+
+  [1] The translations are done as literally as possible.
+
+“This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent,
+published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from the
+_Zoologist_. Some German newspapers have then amused themselves with
+our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We, however, shall go on
+to gather whatever from time to time will still come to us to solve an
+apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.”
+
+The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. COOPER, of
+Worcester (see _The Zoologist_, 1848, p. 2192). I will let him speak
+himself:
+
+“I have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent person
+than myself would offer any observation upon the statement of Captain
+Woodward, published in the March number of the Zoologist, relating to
+the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done so, I beg to offer you the
+following: In a note which you added in this statement, you say, “The
+foregoing statement was formally signed and sworn to at Hingham, by
+captain Woodward, on the 12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should
+have told your readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally
+considered as conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to
+be unworthy of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with
+itself. Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till I
+read the “Zoologist” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the latter
+ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so because in
+a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all evidence that
+will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Woodward tells us
+nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was sailing from Penobscot
+to Hingham, steering W. N. W., nor of the date when he says he saw
+the serpent, except that it was on “Sunday last at 2 p. m.” This is
+not sufficiently accurate. But these are trifling points. The most
+extraordinary part of the statement will appear from this: Captain
+Woodward says, the beast moved with _extreme_, or, as he afterwards
+expressed himself, _astonishing_ rapidity; that when he fired at the
+monster it was sixty feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which
+appears to have been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but
+after he fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused
+his cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat,--of course while
+it was advancing towards his vessel,--but before he could fire his crew
+were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its way. So here
+we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving with astonishing
+rapidity _towards the ship_, which it appears was also moving _towards
+the animal_, and yet allowing time to load a cannon, point it at its
+throat, and afterwards to tack to get out of its way. Truly a most
+accommodating serpent! But again, the animal remained five hours
+near the ship, allowing itself to be minutely examined, but yet no
+further attempt to kill the beast! And what is almost equally strange,
+though even the position of the ear-holes is mentioned,--such minute
+observation does Capt. Woodward seem to have made,--yet no description
+is given of any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before
+stated, that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and
+bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as though
+they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regretted that these
+inconsistencies did not strike you before you made public the statement
+in question; it is also to be regretted that no one better able than
+myself to point them out has undertaken to do so. But it is highly
+desirable, in the present state of our ignorance upon this subject,
+that none but the most inexceptionable evidence should be received. Let
+us have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need
+hardly add, that in these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly
+feeling towards Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of
+the matter; and I should hail with delight the day when one of these
+monsters of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with which
+we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is brought to
+our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be at once the wonder
+and admiration of naturalists.--W. W. Cooper; Claines, Worcester, June
+2, 1848.”
+
+Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed!
+
+Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea-serpent
+in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars was offered to
+the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home dead or alive. I will
+insert here the whole history of these attempts, for they finished with
+a trick.
+
+In the copy of the _Report of the Committee_ of 1817, which I have
+borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there
+is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818, the head or title
+of which is wanting; it runs as follows:
+
+  “Boston, Aug. 21.”
+
+  “Transmitted by our N. Y. Correspondents.
+
+“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the
+Sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:
+
+“_Squam River, Aug. 20th. 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful
+attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the
+Sea-Serpent. We struck him fairly but the harpoon soon drew out. He has
+not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him
+more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday,
+we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a
+proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours
+since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him
+as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of
+warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale.
+We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore
+disappointment.”
+
+  “Rich’d. Rich”.
+
+“Gloucester, Aug. 20.--As I thought it would be interesting to you to
+hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give you
+some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last, he sailed from this
+in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother
+commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam,
+and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed
+directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw
+the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a
+considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke
+that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the
+harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up
+the chase.”
+
+“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin
+is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had
+one of his hands wounded. These particulars I have in a letter from my
+brother”.
+
+  “Saml. Dexter”.
+
+After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am disposed
+to believe that the animal struck by Captain RICH was really a
+Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all that I have
+found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time that the animal
+was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been fired at it, but it
+has never been killed yet. In the same copy of the _Report of the
+Committee_ of 1817, there was a letter from Mr. ANDREWS NORTON to Mr.
+GEORGE BANCROFT, at that time a resident at Göttingen. I give here an
+extract from this letter concerning the matter in question.
+
+“Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s, I
+found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the most
+interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the expedition
+fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in particular
+nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his capture, and
+of the manner in which the information had been received, viz. from a
+person whose name was given, and who had come express from Gloucester,
+the evening before, to bring the news. He was said to be 120 feet
+long, and the Board of Health had sent down two boats to stop him in
+the Harbour. After talking about it all breakfast time, I immediately
+went to Reed’s stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my
+pocket, rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to
+carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him into
+the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well, and said at
+first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm upon the subject,
+and concluded at last that it would never do for him not to see it.
+When I had fairly got him into the chaise, his spirits rose with the
+exertion he had made, with the thoughts of the memoir and letters
+which he should write, and with the triumph which he anticipated
+over the Linnaean Society and their “diseased black snake”, as he
+contemptuously called it (meaning the small serpent, killed near the
+shore at Gloucester); for he pledged himself that we should find that
+the sea-serpent had no bunches on his back. I too anticipated with
+great satisfaction the honorable mention of me, which his gratitude
+would induce him to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected
+confidently to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this
+enormous animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end
+of Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out the
+expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose countenance
+foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that we had come in
+to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not taken! (I am not in
+the habit of using notes of admiration, but the present occasion seems
+to require one). The sailors, however, affirmed, as he said, that they
+had taken some most extraordinary fish of very large size, which he
+was going to see. I had little appetite left for seeing extraordinary
+fishes, but went to accompany Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the
+South End, and making our way through a croud, obtained admission into
+the dark lower room of a store where we found a considerable number
+of other gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged
+in from the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in
+sail. As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was
+pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be nothing but
+a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size.--We had been gradually
+prepared for the disappointment, so that the shock was not so great as
+you might suppose. The report in the morning’s paper had arisen from
+a _mystification_ performed upon the person who brought it to Boston,
+by the crew of the vessel engaged in the expedition. The sailors who
+dragged in the fish were part of this crew; and instead of their being
+tossed over the wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their
+imposition, and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would
+have been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection
+made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and bringing
+it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded for the
+honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present.--I have only
+to add that if you should learn that any one of the German literati is
+writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will assure him, that we
+do not consider the circumstance, connected with the deception just
+mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real
+existence.--In the Messenger of this week which I will send by the next
+opportunity you will find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and
+p. 758.”
+
+I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned passage from
+this _Messenger_. I think most of my readers know a tunny (_Thynnus
+thynnus_ (_Linn._)). For those, however, who don’t, I give here a
+figure of it.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 1. ~Thynnus thynnus~ (Linn.).]
+
+In the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January 1819, we
+read:
+
+“T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter received from him by Dr.
+Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an expedition
+purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been said in
+the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He succeeded in
+“fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by all the crew to be
+the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of them had previously
+seen and made oath to): but when drawn from the water, and full within
+the sphere of their vision, it proved that this serpent, which fear had
+loomed to the gigantic length of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless
+Tunny (_Scombrus Thynnus_) nine or ten feet long!”
+
+We see that Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK immediately recognized the whole
+story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. T. SAY was the dupe of it!
+
+From a letter from Prof. JACOB BIGELOW to Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN (_Am.
+Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820) I conclude that Prof. SAY’S
+letter was printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ for Jan. 1819. If anybody
+can tell me the exact title of THOMSON’S _Annals_, he will oblige me,
+indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult it. A part of this letter
+was translated into German, and inserted in OKEN’S _Isis_ of 1819, p.
+653. I will try to translate this part into English again:
+
+“I regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good earnest
+treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which is nothing
+but a result of defective observation connected with an extravagant
+degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. RICH has thrown light
+upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted out a ship to catch
+this Leviathan. He succeeded.....” (etc., the rest of the letter runs
+like the part from the _Philosophical Magazine_, quoted above).
+
+Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, however, says, (see _Phil. Mag._ Vol. LIV,
+1819):
+
+“The _Pelamis megophias_, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have left the
+shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts to catch
+it, probably because those attempts were conducted with very little
+judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long, and a strange
+shark, have been taken, of which the papers give no description: let us
+hope that they will be described by the naturalists at Boston”.
+
+And Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, of Boston (SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_,
+Vol. II, Boston, 1820):
+
+“In the following year” (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on an
+expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent, and
+after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish of the
+species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the name of Tunny,
+Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the _Scomber Thynnus_ of Linnaeus, and
+which fish he asserted to be the same as that denominated Sea-Serpent.
+This disappointment of public curiosity was attended at the time by a
+disbelief on the part of many, of the existence of a distinct marine
+animal of the serpent-kind, or of the dimensions and shape represented
+by the witnesses of Gloucester and elsewhere.”
+
+“It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise
+will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which
+may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most
+interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”
+
+This was written in 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet!
+
+The trick of Capt. RICH is also mentioned in the paper of Mr. MITCHILL,
+spoken of further on.
+
+Again Colonel T. H. PERKINS relates in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
+November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. RICH as follows (copied from the
+_Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361).
+
+“As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do much credit
+to the actors in it, but which served to fortify the unbelief of our
+southern brethern. Believing that the possession of the sea-serpent
+would be a fortune to those who should have him in their power,
+many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and other places in the
+neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with harpoons and other implements,
+and manned with persons used to the whale fishery, in hopes of getting
+near enough to him to fasten their harpoons in his side. Among others a
+Captain Rich (not Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party,
+which was fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they
+cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent. With
+a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they determined to
+throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though at the _expense of
+truth_! They spread a report that they had caught the serpent, or what
+had been taken for one, and that he was to be seen at a place mentioned
+in the advertisement.”
+
+“Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found to be
+no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a great natural
+curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds) very much disappointed
+those, who had been induced to visit it. Those who had declared their
+disbelief of the existence of the Sea-serpent amongst ourselves were
+delighted to find their opinions were confirmed, and gave themselves
+great credit for their judgment and discrimination. The report spread
+from Boston to New Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons
+to be a sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even
+those who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported
+that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had been
+themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been seen after
+the capture of the macquerel was made, during that year, Captain Rich
+had the laugh with him, until circumstances, which have transpired
+since, have borne rather against him. Thus much for the transactions of
+the past years.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+_The Lake Erie Serpent._--In Mr. RAFINESQUE’S _Dissertation on
+Sea-Snakes_, we read (See _Phil. Mag._ Vol. LIV, 1819):
+
+“It appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes, as well
+as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in Lake Erie, three
+miles from land, by the crew of a schooner, which was 35 or 40 feet
+long, and one foot in diameter; its colour was a dark mahogany, nearly
+black. This account is very imperfect, and does not even notice if it
+had scales; therefore it must remain doubtful whether it was a snake
+or a fish. I am inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise
+convinced: it might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the
+above genus _Octipos_. Until seen again, and better described, it may
+be recorded under the name of _Anguilla gigas_ or Gigantic Eel.”
+
+And in the _Additions_ to this dissertation:
+
+“The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and described to be
+of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet long. It is added,
+that at a short distance balls had no effect on him: but it is omitted
+to mention whether it was owing to have hard scales (in which case it
+might be a real snake of the genus _Enhydris_ or _Pelamis_), or to the
+indexterity of the marksman.”
+
+Every one feels that Mr. RAFINESQUE was the dupe of a hoax, and that
+he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation (see
+below) in which more hoaxes are to be found.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers, but
+when scientific men, they even read papers before learned assemblies,
+with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there has been no
+greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent, than that of
+Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL. I am obliged to communicate to my readers his
+whole paper, even at the risk of wearying them. It was published in
+SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, 1829, and runs as follows:
+
+“The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L. Mitchill’s
+Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our United States,
+for a few years past; read before the New York Lyceum, at a succession
+of sittings during October, 1828.--N^o. 35.--The Sea-Serpent.
+(Communicated for this Journal).”
+
+“This subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of notice,
+before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not happened,
+that during several years, it, or something so imagined and so called,
+had frequently been presented for public consideration; and that
+paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals, do yet, from
+time to time, attract the attention of their readers.”
+
+“This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of
+Massachusetts, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood of
+Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and evidence
+was collected to a large amount. These were so considerable and
+imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England published a book on
+the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of
+_Scoliophis_. As the fishermen and naturalists could not catch him and
+bring him ashore for inspection, it was concluded to fortify the story
+by oaths. Accordingly, affidavits were made to great extent, containing
+the particulars of what the several deponents believed they had seen,
+and, as far as swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a
+strong case. Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was
+nothing better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in
+no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions of
+the opinions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they had observed
+in the water. I who was a believer in the first instance, was gradually
+sworn into scepticism, which finally ended in incredulity.”
+
+“About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did me
+the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read a
+manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my
+distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express
+purpose of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning
+the sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had
+reduced his researches into the form of letters addressed to Sir
+Joseph Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evidently
+intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to acquire the
+honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence known first to
+the sçavans of Europe. He did not vouchsafe, even to name me in the
+communication. After a very pleasant interview, during which I found
+that he positively considered himself right in the investigation,
+and I determined on my part to enter into no discussion about it, he
+requested me to receive the writing, and engage some bookseller to
+cause it to be put to press without delay. The reason for this was,
+that he was obliged to return forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract
+in his behalf, and directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I
+had a lucky escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.”
+
+“Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the land,
+somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alcoholic spirit.
+This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of the Great Scoliophis.
+The head, which contains the strong _ophiological_ characters, had been
+crushed and destroyed. But, as far as I could judge, from the formation
+of the belly and tail, it had been a native of the land, (apparently a
+_coluber_,) and had, of course, no pretention to claim kindred with its
+pretended parent of the ocean.”
+
+“I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct opinion,
+relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my museum, at the
+time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating friends had brought
+me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chinese Sea.”
+
+“The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the sayings
+and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the benefit of
+the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be written.
+In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must premise, that I
+am one of the last persons in existence who would presume to put a
+limit to creative power. I admit that the all-mighty being could make
+a water-snake as easily as a fish; and that such an animal might
+be as big as a _Kraken_, as easily as the diminutive size of the
+_Stickleback_. Yet, on reviewing these legends of the times, there
+is found such a propensity towards the strange and the marvellous,
+that the men of the present day show a credulity very much resembling
+that of the remote ages, when the terraqueous globe was peopled with
+gorgons, mermaids, chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of
+fabulous zoology.”
+
+“(a). The first tale I remember to have considered seriously relative
+to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put a steam boat
+in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to convey passengers.
+It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse the currents and pass
+among the islands with an ease and a speed unknown to boats moved by
+oars and sails; and of course, much of the business of transporting
+passengers would be taken away from the small craft heretofore
+employed. The large boat would thus destroy the small ones, or, as
+was expressed by another word, devour them. Under these forebodings,
+the steam-vessel made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag,
+the account proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical
+description of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and
+Gloucester, and had probably come there to consume all the small fish
+in the place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing
+seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occurrence,
+and credited accordingly.”
+
+“(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On this
+fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An active
+young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land, bought a
+little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to have seen;
+and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves. He named his
+vessel the _Sea-Serpent_. She was mostly employed in carrying country
+produce to the New-York market and in bringing manure back, with the
+advantage of passengers when any offered. This boat was on her way from
+Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout toward the city, and was met by a sloop
+from that place, a short distance from City-Island. The captain of the
+latter, on arriving at home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc
+for news; and being a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor,
+the querist, he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how
+(alluding to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back;
+how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how the
+black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were variegated;
+how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion of the boom in
+jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly wind); that this
+sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling at least from five to
+six knots an hour, which made all white before him (meaning the foam
+at the bows). The good man took the joke in real earnest, went away
+and told it to a sensible acquaintance. This latter wrote a formal
+and solemn account of it; which, travelling an extensive round in the
+sheets of intelligence, was finally embodied in the aforesaid book,
+where it is registered as a part of the evidence.”
+
+“(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I received
+from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a letter,
+respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to me whether
+that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide? It had been found
+on the shore of the region which the alarming visitor frequented; and
+was supposed to have been separated from his body by one of the musket
+balls which had been fired at him and washed ashore. To this serious
+communication I returned for answer that it was simply a portion of
+skin with closely adhering scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike
+(Esox osseus), an inhabitant of the Atlantic Ocean.”
+
+“(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about the
+sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The
+feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared he
+had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at length
+concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of catching
+him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain Rich. Day after
+day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent had, according to
+information, been observed, without discovering anything like him. At
+length, a creature was descried, which some of the men on board said
+they had seen before, and that it was the sea-serpent. The captain
+pursued the game a considerable time longer, with much vigilance and
+patience, until it was at a distance near enough to be harpooned. He
+was taken on board, and found to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I
+saw the preparation of it in the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself
+that it was an individual of a well known species called _Tunny_ in the
+Mediterranean, and _Albicore_ in the Atlantic sea.”
+
+“After the capture of the fish, the persons who, when they saw him in
+the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent, now changed
+their minds, and swore he was not.”
+
+“At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize; and
+unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure of his
+employers for attempting to impose upon them a _Horse-Mackerel_ (as
+they call it) for a _Sea-Serpent_! He told me the story himself.”
+
+“(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that a
+sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, somewhere
+between Kingston and York, had several times during his trips observed
+among the islands and rocks something that appeared to be a long animal
+with vertical flexures of the back, resembling lumps or humps of
+variegated black and white hues. He told some of his acquaintances what
+peculiar appearances had presented themselves to his view; and that he
+intended the next opportunity to take a more close and correct survey.
+He did so, shortly after, when the whole phenomenon ascended into the
+air! It turned out to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood
+of young ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head.
+And as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance
+so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though a
+wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceived, his
+belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!”
+
+“(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent. One
+of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was steering
+eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the hither side
+of the islands called “The Sisters”, which, when she arrived at the
+place of her destination on the southern shore, was reported by the
+men at the tavern and the printing office, to be the very creature.
+Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject, and inserted it in his
+paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It may be relied on that
+this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea, has been reduced to genus
+and species, by a distinguished naturalist, and registered very orderly
+in zoology. Now let us find what the production really turned out to
+be. The sheriff of the county, a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and
+conceiving that he knew as much about the lake as any person whatever,
+went on board full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but
+one of the people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning
+the wonderful sight, with which he and his associates had entertained
+the neighbourhood. The sailor was soon implicated in contradictions.
+The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was not
+ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sheriff
+would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as it was.
+At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and concluding
+that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots on the trunk for
+knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they would have a little
+pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent, which they thought their
+lake was as much entitled to as any other water. The whole three had
+agreed to tell the same tale and support it!”
+
+“(g). When the skin, &c. of the huge basking shark, that had straggled
+from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan Bay (Squalus
+Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the inhabitants were openly
+and earnestly invited by notice in words at length displayed in front
+of the house, to enter and behold the sea-serpent. The conceit took
+very well!”
+
+“Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions on
+the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the gambols
+of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the yet different
+appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which have fins on their
+backs, may have given rise to those parts of the narrations, not
+already herein commented upon.”
+
+Professor SILLIMAN, the editor of the journal, could not help saying in
+a note:
+
+“We give place to the _scepticism_ of the learned author, although
+not ourselves _sceptical_ on this subject. We do not see how such
+evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this
+Journal--particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the Boston
+Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr. Cabot, can be
+set aside--although we have no doubt that there have been on this
+subject both error and imposition; and we are far from believing that
+every thing that has been called a sea-serpent has really been such.”
+
+Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single _proof_ of the
+non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. MITCHILL gathered some _hoaxes_,
+which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his statements are
+sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea-serpent _first_
+haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in October 1828, had
+taken the trouble to look up the literature on the subject, he would
+have found that the sea-serpent had already appeared on the coasts of
+Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in Davis’ Straits, in the Northern
+Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all along the Eastern coasts of the
+United States. The Linnaean Society, he further asserts “published a
+book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under
+the name of _Scoliophis_”. This is also untrue, for the Society only
+figured an individual of a sick and ill-formed _Coluber constrictor_,
+the so-called Black Snake, having only the length of about one yard!
+The “mutilated specimen of a snake” which was brought to him in
+alcoholic spirit, was the same figured by the Linnaean Society; and
+where Mr. MITCHILL says that he is convinced that the snake was a
+common native of the land, “apparently a _Coluber_”, he expresses
+an opinion which the Society already printed in their little book.
+Consequently he cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally,
+where he says that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop,
+called “the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the
+Linnaean Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is
+commonly called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one
+“formal and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and
+black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed” the
+water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all white
+before him”.
+
+I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of Mr.
+MITCHILL is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy of
+notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours of the
+Committee was unfair.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I have found,
+translated into German, in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, of 1830, June, Vol.
+XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265:
+
+“Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American
+newspapers. Capt. DELAND with the schooner _Eagle_ ran into Charlston
+on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and with his crew
+is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the following declaration:
+On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M., at about a mile from
+Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of about 300 yards a large
+body, resembling an alligator, which sometimes moved with the vessel,
+sometimes lay motionless on the surface. Capt. DELAND, who perceived
+that he approached the animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered
+so, that he approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it
+lay quite still and apparently careless. Capt. DELAND aimed with great
+sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just
+visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster,
+to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel, and
+in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail, of which
+the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by every-one
+on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the animal approach,
+jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on deck, and the whole crew,
+the mate not excepted, only thought of their safety. They all had
+opportunity to see their enemy and agree that its length was about 70
+feet. The body was as thick as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of
+a grey colour, eel-shaped, without visible fins and apparently covered
+with scales, the back full of joints or bunches, the head and beak
+resembled an alligator’s, the former 10 feet long, and as big as a
+hogshead. A smaller individual was observed at a great distance (!),
+which, however, disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were
+seen again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they
+disappeared.--Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a similar
+creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four times at it;
+without, however, causing such a visit as in the present case. He
+believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has strength enough to
+damage a vessel of the size of the _Eagle_, if not to destroy it, and
+feels happy to have got rid of it in this way. He further asserts that
+he has certainly not erred with regard to the shape of the sea-monster,
+and that it was different from whales and other inhabitants of the
+deep, which he has ever witnessed” (_Chronicle_).
+
+Though the description of the form might lead to the belief that what
+is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent, yet I consider
+the whole account as a story, because it is not the habit of the
+sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck by a ball, but to
+plunge down and to disappear.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario. In
+FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of August 1835, Vol. 45, n^o. 980, p. 186, we read:
+
+“The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American newspapers.
+Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake Ontario, 78 feet
+long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a blue colour spotted
+with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea-serpent at last ought
+to have been explained or will be so very soon”.
+
+It seems that Mr. FRORIEP really believes, that if this report is not
+the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that the
+appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong to the
+impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the report can only
+be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In 1845 Dr. ALBERT C. KOCH “exhibited a large skeleton of a fossil
+animal, under the name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ in Broadway, New
+York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent. These remains
+consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring in all 114 feet, of
+a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the latter, and of parts
+of supposed paddles” (see _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._ Nov. 1845,
+Vol. II, p. 65). I show here to my readers the figure of this skeleton,
+which I have found in the _Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk_ of
+1878. The description of this skeleton in full particulars is given by
+Prof. WYMAN in the above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble
+my readers with it, but only mention that Prof. WYMAN in the same
+paper proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same
+individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate
+that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”.
+And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones
+belonged to the genus _Basilosaurus_ of HARLAN, 1824, an animal allied
+to the seals. The same genus is called _Zeuglodon_ by Prof. RICHARD
+OWEN in 1839, _Dorudon_ by Prof. GIBBES in 1845, and _Saurocetus_ by
+Prof. AGASSIZ.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 2.--~Hydrarchos Sillimanni~, Koch.]
+
+In the same _Proceedings_, of Dec. 1845, Vol. II, p. 73, Prof. H. D.
+ROGERS too states, that according to the form and structure of some
+loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals of
+_Basilosaurus_.
+
+In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. II, p. 94) we read that Dr.
+KOCH also told the public that the bones had been found together, in a
+position which proved that they belonged to one individual, and that
+the vertebrae formed an integral series, arranged in the order in which
+they were lying when discovered. That this assertion too was a mere
+fabrication, is not only shown by Prof. WYMAN, as we have seen above,
+but also in a letter by Dr. LISTER, who stated that Dr. KOCH had dug up
+the bones in _different_ places in Alabama.
+
+A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York
+correspondent in the _Cincinnati Gazette_ which, translated into
+German, appeared in FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_ of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37,
+n^o 801, p. 134.
+
+In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that
+Prof. SILLIMAN attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the same
+individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from any
+existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the popular
+(and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in our modern
+seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent had been
+attached”.
+
+These words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or journal,
+but I can hardly believe that Prof. SILLIMAN had a share in this
+imposture.
+
+In the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor
+published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and
+Palaeontologist MANTELL:
+
+“Sir,--Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared in the
+last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil mentioned at
+the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called Sea-Serpent,
+as having been exhibited in America under the name of _Hydrarchos
+Sillimannii_, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch, from bones
+collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged to
+several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean, termed
+_Basilosaurus_ by the American naturalists, and better known in this
+country by that of _Zeuglodon_, a term signifying _yoked teeth_. Mr.
+Koch is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of
+fossil bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an
+enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly,
+under the name of _Missourium_. This collection was purchased by the
+trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected the bones
+which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon in our
+National Gallery of Organic Remains”.
+
+“Not content with the interest which the fossils which he collected
+in various parts of the United States really possess, Mr. Koch, with
+the view of exciting the curiosity of the ignorant multitude, strung
+together all the vertebrae he could obtain of the _Basilosaurus_, and
+arranged them in a serpentine form; manufactured a skull and claws, and
+exhibited the monster as a fossil Sea-Serpent, under the name above
+mentioned--_Hydrarchos_. But the trick was immediately exposed by the
+American naturalists, and the true nature of the fossil bones pointed
+out.”
+
+“Bones of the _Basilosaurus_ have been found in many parts of Alabama
+and South Carolina, in green sand belonging to a very ancient (Eocene)
+tertiary formation. Hundreds of vertebrae, bones of the extremities,
+portions of the cranium, and of the jaws with teeth, have from time to
+time been collected. Remains of species of the same genus have also
+been found near Bordeaux and in Malta”.
+
+“Professor Owen has shown that the original animal was a marine
+cetacean, holding an intermediate place between the Cachelots and the
+herbivorous species. It must have attained a length equal to that of
+the largest living whales; for a series of vertebrae was observed
+_in situ_, that extended in a line 65 feet. An interesting Memoir on
+the _Basilosaurus_ by Dr. Gibbes, of Columbia, was published in the
+Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. I,
+2^d. Series, 1847; and a Memoir on the remains of the same animal, by
+Prof. Owen appeared in the “Transactions of the Geological Society of
+London”, Vol. VI; a brief notice of which is inserted in my “Medals of
+Creation” p. 826, under the name of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”.
+
+  “Gideon Algernon Mantell”.
+
+  “19, Chestersquare, Pimlico, Oct. 31. 1848”.
+
+In the _Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat, Hist._ (Vol. III, p. 328, Dec. 1850) we
+read:
+
+“This animal” (the _Basilosaurus_) “was supposed by Dr. KOCH to be a
+reptile, a marine serpent, but Dr. Wyman has exposed the fallacy of
+this opinion, and shown that it was a warm blooded mammal”.
+
+I do not think this to be the true view of the matter. I firmly believe
+that Dr. KOCH knew very well what he did, and that he was in every way
+an impostor who cheated the credulous people of their money. The honour
+of the discovery that the _Basilosaurus_ is a warm blooded mammal is
+due to Prof. OWEN. Dr. WYMAN has only recognized that the bones were of
+the _Basilosaurus_.
+
+The further history of the large skeleton exhibited in New York is
+related to us in that same Journal:
+
+“Koch’s sea-serpent was carried to Dresden, where it was described by
+Carus, who figured it and even restored the cranium, of which then only
+a portion had been found. Carus restored the cranium of a reptile, but
+this was a mere fiction of his imagination; for an entire cranium has
+since been found, proving beyond a doubt that the Zeuglodon was not a
+reptile but a cetacean; the teeth being inserted by double roots into
+double alveoli is positive evidence that it was a warmblooded mammal.
+Muller has also carefully studied this specimen, and pronounces it
+unquestionably a cetacean.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The reader will further on see mention made of a report, generally
+known as that of the _Daedalus_. It appeared in the newspapers of
+October, 1848. As soon as it was published, the following letter was
+addressed to the Editor of the _Globe_. It first appeared in the number
+of 21. Oct., 1848, of that journal, next in the _Times_ of 23d. Oct.
+and in the _Illustrated London News_ of 28 Oct. It runs as follows:
+
+“Mary Ann, of Glasgow, Glasgow, October 19”.
+
+“I have just reached this port, on a voyage from Malta and Lisbon,
+and my attention having been called to a report relative to an animal
+seen by the master and crew of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus, I take the
+liberty of communicating the following circumstance:--
+
+“When clearing out of the port of Lisbon, on the 30th of September
+last, we spoke the American brig Daphne, of Boston, Mark Trelawney
+master. He signalled for us to heave to, which we did; and standing
+close round her counter, lay-to while the mate boarded us with the
+jolly boat, and handed a packet of letters to be despatched per first
+steamer for Boston on our arrival in England. The mate told me that
+when in lat. 4° 11′ S., long. 10° 15′ E., wind dead north, upon the
+20th of September, a most extraordinary animal had been seen: from
+his description it had the appearance of a huge serpent or snake,
+with a dragon’s head. Immediately upon its being seen, one of the
+deck guns was brought to bear upon it, which having been charged with
+spike-nails, and whatever other pieces of iron could be got at the
+moment, was discharged at the animal, then only distant about forty
+yards from the ship; it immediately reared its head in the air, and
+plunged violently with its body, showing evidently that the charge
+had taken effect. The Daphne was to leeward at the time, but was put
+about on the starboard tack and stood towards the brute, which was seen
+foaming and lashing the water at a fearful rate: upon the brig nearing,
+however, it disappeared, and, though evidently wounded, made rapidly
+off at the rate of 15 or 16 knots an hour, as was judged from its
+appearing several times upon the surface. The Daphne pursued for some
+time, but the night coming on the master was obliged to put about and
+continue his voyage”.
+
+“From the description given by the mate, the brute must have been
+nearly 100 feet long, and his account of it agrees in every respect
+with that lately forwarded to the admiralty by the captain of the
+Daedalus. The packet of letters to Boston, I have no doubt, contains
+the full particulars, which, I suppose, will be made public”.
+
+“There are letters from captain Trelawney to a friend in Liverpool,
+which will probably contain some further particulars, and I have
+written to get a copy for the purpose of getting the full account.
+James Henderson, Master, Broomielaw, Berth, n^o 4”.
+
+The same story was inserted in the _Zoologist_ of 27 Nov. 1848, and Mr.
+NEWMAN the Editor who half a year before had fallen into the snare laid
+by the so-called captain WOODWARD, and who was taken to task by Mr.
+COOPER, grown more careful, now added:
+
+“Doubtless the sagacious production of some selfstyled philosophical
+naturalist, who is pledged to one of the hypothetical modes of
+explaining away the existence of a sea-serpent, and who hopes by a hoax
+of this kind to throw discredit on Captain M’Quhae’s statement”.
+
+Now, I think, Mr. NEWMAN was on the right track!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In the _Illustrated London News_ for 1850, April 20, Supplement, we
+read:
+
+“The following we extract from the _Christian_ (United States)
+_Mercury_.--The following letter from a gentleman of Beaufort gives
+exciting news of what may, by this time, be the “seat of war”. The
+old fellow has got into close quarter, and if he does not make a
+sudden and fortunate dash, has nothing better than offering himself
+as an oblation on the altar of science:--Beaufort, March 15, 1850.
+The report of Captain Bankenship and passengers has been verified by
+many other witnesses. This formidable sea-monster has been seen again
+to day, we understand, in our waters. When discovered by those on
+board the steamer, his “eminence” was in Port Royal Sound, a distance
+of seven or eight miles from this town. Since that time he has been
+lazily making his way up Broad-River, and was seen by a gentleman, we
+understand, to-day in White Branch River, an arm of the Broad, he is
+reported to be making his way higher up still, when, perhaps, he may
+be captured. He is described as being from 120 to 150 feet in length,
+and of proportionate bulk; has the head of a serpent, which he carries,
+when in motion, five or six feet out of the water, about ten feet from
+his head is a hump, resembling a huge hogshead, and as far as he could
+be seen, out of the water a succession of humps was observed. He was
+pursued for several miles along the bank of the river, at times the
+party in pursuit coming very near to him. He was shot at with a rifle
+and shot gun, which had the effect of making him timid, and caused
+him to sink below the surface of the water when nearly approached. We
+understand that a party from this place has been made up to capture
+him, if possible. The plan is to man two large flats with a cannon to
+each, one going below where he is represented to be, and the other
+above, and then approach each other, and, when he is discovered, to
+fire into him. In this way he may be taken if, peradventure, he does
+not take them first. The Whale Branch is not more than 100 yards wide,
+and there is every probability of an animated conflict with this king
+of the waters within his own dominions; and I suppose it is admitted
+that the battle must be waged upon his own terms. The “Charlestown
+Courier” has a letter from Beaufort, of the same date, and of a similar
+tenor to which is appended the following:--Information has just reached
+us that the said sea-serpent is ashore at the mouth of Skull Creek. If
+so, the prize is certain, and Beaufort immortalized.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN inserted this tale in his _Zoologist_ of 1850, p. 2803,
+however, not without the following introduction:
+
+“Ever since Prof. OWEN attempted to confound this leviathan with the
+seals, on which he probably feeds, taking in whole shoals of them
+at a mouthful, and draining of the water with his _seaserpentbone_
+apparatus in the manner of a whale filling his stomach with medusae and
+shrimps: ever since the promulgation of this humilating hypothesis,
+the great sea-serpent has felt himself snubbed and has doggedly
+kept in deep water, pertinatiously resolved, no doubt, to withhold
+himself in future from the incredulous malevolence of men. But he has
+relented: the recurrence of St. Valentine has warmed his heart: he has
+once more risen to the surface, and has wisely concluded to shun the
+disparaging Britishers, and to select, as of yore, for the scene of his
+auto-exhibition, the shores of a nation, at once the smartest and most
+credulous on earth. The papers of the United States are fraught with
+intelligence respecting him; cannon have been discharged, and reports
+say that he is actually ashore. My first extract is from a religious
+newspaper, entitled the “Christian Mercury.””
+
+The reader will afterwards get acquainted with Prof. OWEN’S
+suggestions; it is not now the right moment to enter into them; I will
+only observe that Mr. NEWMAN also wrote the following last word:
+
+“The London papers have repeated all this, intermixed with a perfect
+flood of wit: the shafts of which are directed against believers and
+unbelievers, in a very pleasing and impartial manner. Is it still a
+hoax, or a Brachioptilon Hamiltoni?--EDWARD NEWMAN, London, April 20,
+1850.”
+
+I must confess that I too am much inclined to believe, that all that
+has above been mentioned is a mere hoax, though the description of the
+animal agrees with that of the Sea-serpent. It is striking that the
+arm of the Broad-River is first called White-River, and a few lines
+afterwards Whale-River.--As to the _Brachioptilon Hamiltoni_, it is a
+kind of shark.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Again in the _Illustrated London News_ for 1850, Sept. 7, appeared a
+hoax in the following terms:
+
+“The _Cork Constitution_ publishes the following circumstantial letter:
+Courtmasherry, Aug. 29.--Sir,--The following particulars, the accuracy
+of which need not to be questioned, will, I doubt not, interest many
+of your readers:--The different fishing establishments on the shore of
+this extensive bay, extending from the Old Head of Kinsale to the Seven
+Heads, have been within the last few days abundantly supplied with fish
+of every description, and the greatest activity prevails to profit by
+the bounty which has been thus sent to us literally in shoals. It has
+been noticed too, that some description of fish, haak for instance,
+has been captured further within the limits of the inner harbour than
+was ever known before. In fact, as I heard it observed, the fish was
+literally leaping ashore. These novel appearances, however, it was
+my lot to see fully accounted for yesterday (August 28). At about
+1 o’clock A. M. when sailing in my yacht, with a slight breeze off
+shore, about two miles to the south of the beacon erected to the Barrel
+rocks, one of the party of four gentlemen on board (M. B. of Bandon)
+drew attention towards the structure, with the interrogatory of: “Do
+you see anything queer about the Barrels?” In an instant the attention
+of all on board was rivetted on an object which at first struck me as
+like the upheaved thick end of a large mast, but which, as it made out
+plainer, proved to be the head of some huge fish or monster. On bearing
+down towards the object we could distinctly see, with the naked eye,
+what I can best describe as an enormous serpent without mane or fur
+or any like appendage. The portion of the body above water, and which
+appeared to be rubbing or scratching itself against the beacon, was
+fully thirty feet long, and in diameter I should say about a fathom.
+With the aid of a glass it was observed that the eyes were of immense
+size, about nine inches across the ball, and the upper part of the back
+appeared covered with a furrowed shell-like substance. We were now
+within rifle shot of the animal, and, although some on board exhibited
+pardonable nervousness at the suggestion, it was resolved to fire a
+ball at the under portion of the body whenever the creature’s unwieldy
+evolutions would expose its vulnerable part. The instant the piece was
+discharged the monster rose as if impelled by a painful impulse to a
+height which may appear incredible, say at least thirty fathoms, and
+culminating with the most rapid motion dived or dashed itself under
+water with a splash that almost stopped our breath with amazement. In
+a few moments all disturbance of the water subsided, and the strange
+visitor evidently pursued his course to seaward. On coming up to the
+beacon we were gratified to find adhering to the supports numerous
+connecting scaly masses, such as one would think to be rubbed from
+a creature “coating” or changing its old skin for a new one. These
+interesting objects can be seen at the Horse Rock Coast Guard station,
+and will repay a visit. These particulars I have narrated in the
+clearest manner I am able, and if others, in other boats, who had not
+so good an opportunity of seeing the entire appearance of the animal as
+those in my boat had, should send you a more readable account of it,
+I pledge myself none will more strictly adhere to the real facts. I
+am, Sir, your very obedient servant, “Roger W. Travers””, in the _Cork
+Constitution_, Sept. 2.
+
+And in the number of September 14 of the same year, we read:
+
+“The mysterious stranger has been again seen by Mr. Travers and his
+enterprising yachtsmen. They have brought four rifles to bear upon his
+left eye which, it seems, he most merrily winked at his pursuers. He
+would have laughed in his sleeve at the pleasant conceit, but we learn
+that he had just put off his coat. He, however, wished them a polite
+good morning, and descended to unknown depths”.
+
+“On Saturday last (August 31), the weather having the appearance
+of being settled fine, I put out to sea, determined, as far as the
+capabilities of my little craft would permit, to go any length in
+finding out the position of the stranger, hoping, by keeping a constant
+look out in every direction, to discover him. Nor was I disappointed,
+the animal, lured no doubt by the dense masses of fish now off the
+coast, having remained within a comparatively short distance of the
+land. At about 11. o’clock A. M., when off Dunwordy-head, one of my
+crew on the look out sang out: “The sea-serpent on starboard bow!”
+and on looking in the direction indicated, I had the pleasure of
+at once recognizing the same monster that I had before seen, and
+greatly do I regret, indeed, that you or some person conversant with
+natural history were not on board with me. We drew as close as I
+thought consistent with safety, and had ample proof of the creature
+being piscivorous, he being at the time engaged in bolting a great
+number of large haak or congereels. I had now for the first time a
+view of his tail, which entirely differs from the usual form of that
+extremity in most descriptions of fish, being furnished with no fin,
+but somewhat resembling a huge elephant’s trunk or proboscis, the end
+long drawn out and curling and twisting in a very remarkable manner.
+I really feel afraid to hazard expressing in figures what I judge to
+be the dimensions of the animal, but I do believe that if it were
+stretched straight from head to tail it would be rather over than
+under thirty fathoms long, and of that length I am satisfied fully
+half is seven feet in diameter. The mouth is a most capacious organ,
+and opens something like that of an alligator. The small size of the
+gills, for I could discern nothing like the blowing holes of a whale,
+rather surprised me. The nose, I think, is formed of a soft flesh-like
+substance, not bony; and from the broken condition of the external
+coat of scales I am satisfied, as before observed, that the beast is
+now in its “coating” state. After a little time it appeared evident
+that he had fallen asleep, as we could perceive him rapidly drifting
+on shore at the east side of Dunworly-head; and I once more, although
+I now feel with more rashness than discretion, resolved to try the
+effect of firearms in capturing him. Four rifles were prepared, brought
+simultaneously to bear on the animal’s head, and, giving the word
+myself, and directing all to aim for the eye turned towards us, bang
+went the pieces in a volley, the shots taking evident effect. His first
+movement was to shake his head and wink the wounded eye in a rapid
+manner, and then, as if to cool the painful wound, he suddenly dived,
+since when I have not had the slightest trace of him either by my own
+observation or through others”. _Cork Constitution_, Sept. 7.
+
+“The _Cork Constitution_, referring to the foregoing says:--Since
+the above letter was received, the following information on the same
+subject came to hand. Monday last a party of gentlemen belonging to
+this city were enjoying a sailing excursion in the Antelope yacht,
+belonging to Mr. Wheeler, along the coast from Glandore to Kinsale.
+Passing the Old Head of Kinsale, the day unusually fine, they observed
+an extraordinary commotion in the sea, apparent to every one on board.
+The bay at Kinsale was at the time filled with fish. In a few moments
+they perceived a large serpent-like fish on the surface, that could not
+be less than 120 feet in length. In shape it resembled a long funnel
+of an immense steamer. Unfortunately they were not sufficiently near
+the monster to give a description, of the head and body. After lying
+on the surface for a few minutes, it suddenly dashed ahead with a
+velocity, as far as could be seen for a distance of two miles, of at
+least sixty miles an hour. It then disappeared. It was believed that
+the sea-serpent must have been in pursuit of the shoals of fish that
+thronged the bay. It is a singular circumstance that, notwithstanding
+the unusual quantity of fish that was observable, the Kinsale hookers
+were most unsuccessful, as it was stated they did not obtain a single
+take during the evening. The gentlemen who have witnessed the visit of
+the monster, and whose statement is detailed above, may be relied on as
+above all suspicion”.--_Cork Constitution_ Sept. 7.--
+
+The _Zoologist_ of course could not overlook such statements. In the
+year 1850 this journal inserted the three reports (see p. 2925):
+
+“The Great Sea-Serpent has again appeared with immense _éclât_ in the
+newspapers. Most respectable witnesses are called to speak a word
+in his favour, as will be seen by the following extracts from the
+daily press. It should, however, be premised that a number of brief
+and analogous paragraphs had previously located him “at Howth”, “off
+Wexford”, and “off Cork”; so that he made the grand demonstration at
+Kinsale, he appeared to be taking a coasting trip round the shores of
+old Ireland.”
+
+Here follow the above mentioned three hoaxes, of Courtmasherry, August
+29, August 31, and September 2. Further we read in the _Zoologist_:
+
+“A few friends accompanied me on a boating excursion this day (_Sept.
+9_) whose names are William Silk, John Hunt, George Williams, Henry
+Seymour, and Edward Barry, and, being off the Souverein-Islands,
+our attention was directed by one of the party to an extraordinary
+appearance ahead of the boat; immediately all eyes were turned to see
+what it was, when, to our astonishment and fright, the above monster of
+the deep was bearing down to us; we were at once thrown into an awful
+fright, and thought it best to retreat for the shore; on our landing,
+Mr. W. Silk, who was armed with a double barrelled gun, discharged
+both barrels at the monster, but without effect. I need not describe
+his appearance, as you are aware of it before, but from inquiries from
+various boatmen I am told he has been off the harbour the last three
+days.”--John Good, of Kinsale.” in _Cork Reporter_, Sept. 11.
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds:
+
+“The next account states that a party encountered the monster in
+Ballycotton Bay, fired into him, and made him disgorge a shoal of
+fishes, some of which fell into the boat, and being handled, gave the
+crew the most terrific electric shocks; where upon the naturalist of
+the party immediately concluded, and I think, with great judgment,
+that the sea-serpent is neither more nor less than the electric eel
+(_Gymnotus electricus_).”
+
+“The last account published in London, on this day (September 24),
+reports his capture and death at Youghal, in the county of Cork,
+together with full admeasurements, and the names of the parties
+concerned in the galant achievement.”
+
+“There was something that struck me as unsatisfactory about several
+parts of this highly exciting narrative. One o’clock in the morning,
+and without the assistance of a moon, was rather a strange time to
+make such exact observations. Again, about the scales; why not sent
+some to London or Dublin?--why keep them at the light-house? And
+again, the bearing of Kinsale bay did not quite correspond with my
+remembrance of the place: so I epistolized the chief actors, and
+particularly entreated Mr. Travers to send me a handful of scales,
+and a more detailed account: alas! there was no response. After a
+while I bethought myself of a friend in London who corresponds with
+the accountant of the Principal Bank at Bandon. To this gentleman my
+friend, with prompt kindness, applied, and I have now the pleasure of
+laying his most explicit answer before the readers of the “Zoologist”.”
+
+“Dear Sir,--I reply to your note relative to the Sea-Serpent, there is
+not one word of truth in the statements put forward in the newspapers:
+there is no such person as Roger W. Travers, but there is a person
+named James W. Travers, to whom I believe it has been done to annoy
+(and indeed with great effect). Mr. Thomson’s family has been staying
+in the neighbourhood, but do not hear a word of it except what is
+to be seen in the papers about it. Dear Sir, yours truly, H. O.’
+Callaghan.”--Bandon, Sep. 18, 1850.
+
+“Any comment on this would be superfluous.--Edward Newman.”
+
+The trouble Mr. NEWMAN gave himself to get possession of the scales,
+and to know whether the reports were true or not, is the best proof
+that he was caught in the snare!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+_The Sea-Serpent caught at last!_ (See _The New York Tribune_ for 1852,
+February, GALIGNANI’S _Messenger_ for 1852, Februari, _The Illustrated
+London News_ for 1852, March, 18, _The Times_ for 1852, March 10, _The
+Zoologist_ for 1852 p. 3426--3429, _Spenerische Zeitung_ for 1852,
+March).
+
+“Ship Monongahela, at Sea, Feb. 6.--A small vessel has just been
+reported from my mast-head, and as she is apparently bound into some
+of the northern parts, I intend to speak her, purposely to acquaint,
+through your widely diffused journal, the people of the United States,
+of the fact of the existence and capture of the sea-serpent--a monster
+deemed fabulous by many--but the truth of whose existence is for
+ever settled, and, I trust I shall be excused in saying, by Yankee
+intrepidity. On the morning of January 13, when in lat. 3 deg. 10
+min. south, and long. 131 deg. 50 min. west, the man on the look out,
+seated on the foretopmast cross-trees, sang out: “White Water” and in
+reply to my “Where away?” said “Two points on the lee bow”. Supposing
+it to be made by sperm whales, and being very anxious to obtain oil,
+I ordered my ship to be kept off, and immediately went aloft with my
+spyglass. I will observe that for several days we had been struggling
+along with very light and baffling winds, but at day-light of the
+morning of the 13th. the wind had drawn to the south-south-west, become
+steady, and threatened to blow a gale. I was aloft nearly half an hour
+before I observed anything like “white water” and then I presumed it
+to be made by a “school”, or rather schoal of porpoises; but wishing
+to be certain, I ordered the mate, as it was seven bells, to turn up
+all hands, square in the yards, and send out the port studding sails.
+It being my breakfast hour I urged the man to keep both eyes open, and
+came down; but before I reached the deck my attention was called to
+the sudden and vehement cry of Onnetu Vanjau, a Marquesan Islander,
+“Oh! look! look! Me see!--too much--too much!” All eyes were instantly
+directed to the savage to ascertain where he was looking, and then
+all eyes turned to the lee quarter. I had just time to see “black
+skin” when it disappeared. The native was excited, and in reply to
+my question said: “No whale--too much--too big--too long. Me no see
+all same dat fellar--me fraid”. Not being able to tell which way the
+animal or fish was bound, I luffed and came aback, ordering the lines
+into the boat and the crews to “stand by”. The horizon was scanned in
+every direction for nearly an hour, when giving up all hopes I braced
+forward and went below. The native continued to look with eagerness,
+pushed on by the observations of the crew, who asserted that he had
+seen nothing, but he proved the truth of his sight in a few minutes
+by uttering another cry, and with more vehemence than the first. I
+rushed on deck, and the first look, not a mile to leeward, rested on
+the strangest creature I had ever seen in the ocean. It was apparently
+still, but “shobbing” up and down, as we say of sperm whales. I knew it
+was not a whale. The head I could not see, but the body had a motion
+like the waving of a rope when shaken and held in the hand. Every eye
+in the ship regarded it attentively, and not a word was spoken or
+sound uttered. In a few minutes the whole length of the body rose and
+lay on the water; it was of an enormous length. Presently the extremity
+or tail moved or vibrated, agitating the water, and then the head rose
+entirely above the water, and moved sideways slowly, as if the monster
+was in agony or suffocating. “It is a sea-serpent” I exclaimed; “stand
+by the boats”. There was a hesitancy, and the mate said, “of what
+use is there lowering for him? We only lose time, and gain nothing
+besides”. I abruptly checked him, and ordered all hand to be called
+aft. When they had mustered I told them I wished to “try” that fellow.
+I urged them with all the eloquence I possessed, telling them there
+were but few who believed in the existence of a sea-serpent, and that
+a wish had been expressed that a whale ship might fall in with one of
+them--that if we did not attack him, and should tell of seeing him when
+we got home, we should be laughed at and derided--and the very first
+question would be: “Why didn’t you try him?” I told them our courage
+was at stake--our manhood, and even the credit of the whole American
+whalefishery, and concluded by appealing to their cupidity--holding
+out that we might possibly get him into some southern port. “I do not
+order one of you to go in the boats”, I said “but who will volunteer?”
+Let me say to their credit, every American in the ship stepped out at
+once, followed by all but one native and two Englishmen. I ordered the
+boat-steerers and officers to examine and see that every thing in and
+about the boats was in perfect order. I had already jumped into my
+boat when the serpent began to move very rapidly, and it was necessary
+to stand after him. The wind was piping up strongly, but as we gained
+I continued to carry all sail, hoping to be able to lower before the
+gale rendered it impossible. The serpent worked to windward, which
+compelled me to haul on the wind, and soon after I carried away my
+fore top-gallant mast; this was most unlucky for us, and, what was
+still worse, we lost sight of the monster. We repaired damages with
+all possible despatch, and still kept on the wind, hoping to see his
+snakeship. In less than an hour we saw him again, but some way to
+windward; soon ascertaining that he partly turned, and was headed
+baft for beam, I put the ship about on the other tack. The wind had
+increased so much, that I was obliged to put a single reef in the fore
+and mizen topsails. The serpent disappeared for a few minutes again,
+but when he rose he was a mile ahead of the ship, and going slowly to
+leeward, having made a complete circuit. I frankly admit my hopes were
+feeble of ever really capturing him, and the gale made me hesitate
+about lowering; but the time arrived, the serpent was still, and we
+nearly half a mile to windward. I came to with the head yards aback
+to have a better control of all the ship, and told the ship-keeper to
+keep close to us, and by no means to lose sight of us for an instant.
+We lowered, myself taking the lead, and in a few strokes--the wind and
+sea carrying us to leeward--I told the boat-steerer, James Wittemore,
+of Vermont, to “stand up”. With calm and cool intrepidity he laid hold
+of his iron (harpoon), and, when I beckoned with a movement of my hand,
+quick as thought both of his weapons were buried to the socket in the
+repulsive body before us. I shouted ’stern, but there was no visible
+motion of his snakeship. I shifted ends with the boat-steerer, and
+cleared away a lance as quickly as possible, beckoning them to pull
+up, that I might get a lance, when a movement of the body was visible,
+and the head and tail of the monster rushed as it were to “touch
+the wound”. The frightfulness of the head as it approached to boat,
+filled the crew with terror, and three of them jumped over board. I
+instinctively held out my lance, and its sharp point entered the eye.
+I was knocked over and felt a deep churning off the water around me. I
+rose to the surface and caught a glimpse of the writhing body, and was
+again struck and carried down. I partly lost my consciousness under
+water but recovered it; when I rose again in the bloody foam, the snake
+had disappeared, and I shouted, “pick up the line”. The third mate Mr.
+Benson, caught a bight at my line near the end, and bent on his, which
+in an instant began to be taken out rapidly. The mate picked me up as
+soon as I rose to the surface, and in a few minutes all were picked
+up--one was severely bruised and another insensible, but he recovered
+and both are now well. The snake had taken my line, the third mate’s,
+and was taking the second mate’s, when I ordered the mate to bend on
+and give his line to the ship. The snake was sounding, and I cautioned
+the officers not to hold on too hard, for fear of drawing the irons. At
+first the line went out rapidly, but decreased gradually, nevertheless
+I was obliged to get up a spare-line out of the fore hold and bend
+on. For fear that the ship would by its weight on the line draw the
+irons, I put on several drags and gave the line to the mate, when it
+became stationary. There were now out four boats’ lines, 225 fathoms
+in a boat, and two-thirds of another line, 100 fathoms more--in all
+1,000 fathoms, six feet in a fathom, 6,000 feet--better than one mile
+and an eighth, an enormous depth, and the pressure at that distance
+is inconceivable. It was now blowing furiously, and I scarcely dared
+to carry sail enough to keep the ship up, the boat was in peril, and
+I was obliged to take the line to the ship again, and run the risk of
+the irons drawing. I made the end of the line fast and took in all
+sail but enough to keep her steady, and waited in alarm the snake’s
+rising, the parting of the line, or the irons drawing. At 4 p. m. the
+wind began to shift, which favoured us a little; at 5 p. m. it, to
+our great joy, began to abate. At 8 p. m. a sudden lull; line taut.
+The night was beautiful, sky clear, wind scarcely a breath and sea
+rapidly falling, no eye was closed in the ship--we were speculating on
+our prey. It was evident he was on the bottom. He stayed down a long
+time; but on reflection I considered that was his _forte_--that he was
+at home there. At 4 a. m. of the 14th., 16 hours after he went down,
+the line began to slack, I had it taken to the windlass, when we got
+nearly two lines “hand over hand”, then there came a strain again. This
+strain continuing, I told every body to bear a hand and get breakfast,
+and just before we were through, the cook cried out, “Here he is”. In
+no time all were on deck, and sure enough he had risen; but all that
+was visible was a bunch, apparently the bight of the snake, where he
+had been fastened to. I lowered three boats, and we lanced the body
+repeatedly without eliciting any sign of life. While we were at work he
+gradually rose to the surface, and around him floated what I took to
+be pieces of his lungs which we cut with our lances. To make our work
+sure we continued to lance, eagerly seeking for his life, when he drew
+himself up and we pulled away, and then witnessed the terrific dying
+struggles of the monster. None of the crew who witnessed that terrible
+scene will ever forget it; the evolutions of the body were rapid as
+lightning, seeming like the revolving of a thousand enormous black
+wheels. The tail and head would occasionally appear in the surging
+bloody foam, and a sound was heard, so dead, unearthy, and expressive
+of acute agony, that a shrill of horror ran through our veins. The
+convulsive efforts lasted 10 or 15 minutes, when they suddenly stopped,
+the head was partially raised--it fell--the body partly turned, and lay
+still. I took off my hat, and nine terrific cheers broke simultaneously
+from our throats. Our prey was dead. Luckily he floated buoyantly, and
+we took him alongside, and while doing so he turned over, lying belly
+up. Every eye beamed with joy as we looked at him over the rail, and
+the crew again cheered vociferously, and I joined them. We now held a
+consultation as to what we should do, and I had requested all hands to
+offer their opinions. After a short talk, all of us felt convinced that
+it would be impossible to get him into port, and then we concluded to
+try and save his skin, head, and bones, if possible. In the first place
+I requested a Scotchman, who could draw tolerably, to take a sketch
+of him as he lay, and the mate to measure him. It was now quite calm,
+and we could work to advantage. As I am preparing a minute description
+of the serpent, I will merely give you a few general points. It was a
+male; the length 103 feet 7 inches; 19 feet 1 inch around the neck; 24
+feet 6 inches around the shoulders; and the largest part of the body,
+which appeared somewhat distended, 49 feet 4 inches. The head was long
+and flat, with ridges; the bones of the lower jaw are seperate; the
+tongue had its end like the head of a heart. The tail ran nearly to
+a point, on the end of which was a flat firm cartilage. The back was
+black, turning brown on the sides; then yellow, and on the centre of
+the belly a narrow white streak two-thirds of its length; there were
+also scattered over the body dark spots. On examining the skin we
+found, to our surprise, that the body was covered with blubber, like
+that of a whale, but it was only four inches thick. The oil was clear
+as water, and burnt nearly as fast as spirits of turpentine. We cut
+the snake up, but found great difficulty, and had to “flense” him, the
+body would not roll, and the blubber was so very elastic, that when
+stretched 20 feet by the blocks, it would, when cut off, shrink to 5 or
+6 feet. We took in the head, a frightful object, and are endeavouring
+to preserve it with salt. We have saved all the bones, which the men
+are not done clearing yet. In cutting open the serpent we found pieces
+of squid and a large blackfish, the flesh of which dropped from the
+bones. One of the serpent’s lungs was three feet longer than the other.
+I should have observed that there were 94 teeth in the jaws, very
+sharp, all pointing backward and as large as one’s thumb at the gum,
+but deeply and firmly set. We found it had two spoutholes or spiracles,
+so it must breathe like a whale; it also had four swimming paws, or
+imitations of paws, for they were like hard, loose flesh. The joints
+of the back were loose, and it seemed as if, when it was swimming
+that it moved two ribs and a joint at a time, almost like feet. The
+muscular movement of the serpent after it was dead made the body look
+as if it were encircled by longitudinal ridges. We were nearly three
+days in getting the bones in, but they are now nearly clean, and are
+very porous and dark coloured. The heart I was enabled to preserve in
+liquor, and one of the eyes, but the head, notwithstanding it is cool,
+begins to emit an offensive odour; but I am so near the coast now
+that I shall hold on to it as it is; unless it is likely to breed a
+distemper. Every man in the ship participates in my anxiety. 2 p. m. I
+have just spoken the vessel; she proves to be the brig Gipsy, Captain
+Sturges, eight days from Ponce, P. R., with oranges and merchandise,
+bound to Bridgeport. He has kindly offered to put these sheets in the
+post office when he arrives. As soon as I get in I shall be enabled to
+furnish you a more detailed account.--I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+Charles Seabury, Master, Whale-ship Monongahela, of New Bedford.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds:
+
+“Very well like a hoax, but well drawn up.”
+
+Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP, the Editor of the _Tagsberichte über die
+Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde_, (Abtheilung Zoologie und
+Palaeontologie n^o. 486, 1852, March), says:
+
+“The picturesque description of the adventure is lively and reads
+pleasantly, yet it makes the impression, as if the whole is one of
+the stories, so often occurring in American newspapers. Nothing can
+be concluded with any certainty from the description of the animal of
+104 feet length and 16 feet thickness, with two spout-holes and a skin
+like that of whales. The intrepid captor of the monster says that he
+has preserved the bones, the skin, the skull with its flesh adhering to
+it, an eye and the heart, and as he must come back ashore, a naturalist
+will at last have opportunity to examine and determine these remains,
+and we shall learn then, whether the fable of the Sea-Serpent is
+founded, and what the Sea-Serpent may probably be. As soon as possible
+we will mention more accurate reports.”
+
+Some time afterwards Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP wrote, (same journal n^o. 491):
+
+“As it was supposed, we learn from a communication of the _Philadelphia
+Bulletin_ that the story of the capture of the Sea-Serpent is a
+fiction. The crew that was said by the _New York Tribune_ to have met
+with the ship of Captain SEABURY in the open sea and to have taken
+home the report, has declared, that it has nowhere met with a ship
+_Monongahela_, Captain SEABURY.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Another reported capture of a sea-serpent was published in the _Buffalo
+Daily Republic_, of the 13th. of August, 1855, partly inserted in the
+_Illustrated London News_ of the 15th. of September, of that year, and
+_in toto_ in the _Zoologist_ of that year, p. 4896, and in the _Times_
+of October, 1, 1855:
+
+“The “Buffalo Daily Republic” of the 13th. of August, announces the
+capture of the great American water-snake on that day in the Silver
+Lake, near Perry village, New York. On Sunday, the 12th. the snake
+came to the surface, displaying 30 feet length of his body. On Monday
+morning all were on the alert. At nine o’clock the snake appeared
+between the whaleman’s boat and the shore: he lay quiescent on the
+surface, and the whaleman’s boat moved slowly towards him, Mr. Smith,
+of Covington, pointing his patent harpoon. On reaching within ten feet
+of the snake, the iron whistled in the air, and he darted off towards
+the upper part of the lake, almost dragging the boat under water by his
+movement. Line was given him, and in half an hour his strength seemed
+much exhausted. The whaleman then went ashore and gradually hauled the
+line in. When within fifty feet of the shore, the snake showed renewed
+life, and with one dart nearly carried off the whole line; but he was
+dragged slowly ashore amid excitement unexampled in the district. Four
+or five ladies fainted on seeing the snake, who, although ashore,
+lashed his body into tremendous folds, and then straightened himself
+out in agony with a noise that made the earth tremble. The harpoon
+had penetrated a thick muscular part, eight feet from his head. He is
+59 feet 8 inches in length, and has a most disgusting look. A slime a
+quarter of an inch thick covers his body, and if removed is instantly
+replaced by exudation. The body is variable in size. The head is the
+size of a full grown calf. Within eight feet from the head the neck
+gradually swells to the thickness of a foot in diameter; it then
+tapers down, and again gradually swells to a diameter of two feet in
+the centre, giving about six feet girth; it then tapers off towards
+the tail, and ends in a fin, which can expand in fan-shape three feet
+across, or close in a sheath. Double rows of fins are alternately
+placed along the belly. The head is most singular. The eyes are large,
+staring and terrific, with a transparent membrane attached to the lids,
+protecting the eye without impeding the vision. No gills appear. The
+mouth is like that of the fish called a sucker; it can stretch so as
+to swallow a body a foot and a half in diameter: there are no teeth; a
+bony substance, extending in two parallel lines, covers the upper and
+lower part of the head. The sides and back are dusky brown; the belly
+is dirty white. Although sinuous like a snake, there are hard knot-like
+substances along the back. The harpoon is still in him. He lies in the
+water, confined with ropes, which keep his body in a curve, so that
+he cannot get away. He can use his head and tail, with which he stirs
+the water all around. When he rears his head (which he generally keeps
+under water) he presents a fearful aspect. In expanding his mouth he
+exhibits a blood-red cavity, horribly to look at, and the air rushes
+forth with a heavy short puff.”
+
+The well known Mr. SPENCER F. BAIRD, the late zealous Secretary of the
+_Smithsonian Institution_, Washington, U. S. on reading this in the
+_Zoologist_, sent to the Editor the following letter (_Zoologist_,
+1856, p. 4998):
+
+“In the November number of the “_Zoologist_” (Zool. 4896) I notice an
+extract from an American paper, respecting the capture of the “Great
+American Snake”. You have probably since learned that the account is an
+unmitigated hoax, manufactured by a newspaper-editor, while on a summer
+vacation, for the purpose of furnishing material for his editorial
+correspondence.--SPENCER F. BAIRD, Smithsonian Institution Washington,
+U. S. December 28, 1855.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The following splendid trick is of Captain TAYLOR, who is even called
+“a respectable and trustworthy gentleman”, nay, who, when the truth of
+it was inquired into, even “confirmed the statement”!
+
+In the _Zoologist_ of 1860, p. 6985, we read:
+
+“The following extract from the log of the “British Banner”, which
+arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last, appeared in the
+Liverpool Daily Post of March 20. “On the 25th. April in lat. 12° 7′
+east, and longitude 93° 52′ south, felt a strong sensation as if the
+ship were trembling. Sent second mate to see what was up; the latter
+called out to me to go up the fore rigging and look over the bows.
+I did so, and saw an enormous serpent shaking the bowsprit with his
+mouth. There was about thirty feet of the serpent out of the water,
+and I could see in the water abaft of our stern; must have been at
+least three hundred feet long; was about the circumference of a very
+wide crinoline petticoat, with black back, shaggy mane, horn on his
+forehead, and large glaring eyes, placed rather near the nose, and jaws
+about eight feet long; he did not observe me, and continued to shake
+the bowsprit and to throw the sea alongside into a foam, until the
+former came clear away of the ship. The serpent was powerful enough,
+although the ship was carrying all sail, and going at about six knots
+at the time, he attacked us, to stop her way completely. When the
+bowsprit with the jibboom sails and rigging went by the board, the
+monster swallowed the foretopmast staysail and flying jib, with the
+greatest apparent ease; he also snapped the thickest of the rigging
+asunder like thread. He sheered off a little after this, and returned
+apparently to scratch himself against the side of the ship, making a
+most extraordinary noise, resembling that on board a steamer when the
+boilers are blowing off. A whale breached within a mile of the ship
+at this time, and the serpent darted off after it like a flash of
+lightning, striking the vessel with his tail, and staving in all the
+starboard quarter gaily. Saw no more of it, but caught a young one
+in the afternoon, and brought it on to Melbourne.--_William Taylor,
+Master, “British Banner”.”_
+
+“[The British Banner arrived here on Sunday, and is now in the Albert
+Dock. Captain Taylor declares that the above statement is perfectly
+correct.--_Editor Daily Post._]”
+
+Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds hereto:
+
+“It is impossible for any story to read more like a hoax than this,
+but I had ready means of procuring, through a friend at Lloyd’s, the
+information that there is such a ship as the “British Banner”, that
+she is commanded by Mr. William Taylor, a respectable and trustworthy
+gentleman, and that she did arrive at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March,
+last past, and is now in the Albert Dock. Armed with this information
+I wrote to Capt. Taylor, who has replied in the most courteous manner;
+he confirms the above statement, adding that he sent it to the Daily
+Post himself, and adding also that the young one reported to have
+been caught was presented to the Museum at Melbourne, where it was
+thoroughly inspected and pronounced to be a veritable sea-serpent.”--
+
+It is not quite clear whether Mr. NEWMAN was a second time the dupe of
+a trick, or not, but I think he really was!
+
+Mr. GEORGE GUYON, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the contrary, wrote the
+following poem (see _Zoologist_, p. 7051, 1860):
+
+    “I’ve a story to tell--I don’t say that it’s true--
+    But just as I heard it I tell it to you.
+    A ship there was sailing upon the blue sea
+    With her canvas all set, when the captain, said he
+    “I feel that the vessel is all of a tremble,
+    A sort of sea earthquake it seems to resemble;
+    Send forward the mate to see what is the matter.”
+    When lo! what he saw would have made your teeth shatter,
+    An enormous big snake rising out of the sea,
+    Some three hundred feet long it might possibly be,
+    And in bulk it might equal a “wide crinoline”
+    (At least seven yards round that description must mean).
+    With jaws eight feet long, and with eyes fiercely glaring,
+    A horn and a mane; he looked horribly daring,
+    While the bowsprit he shook in his terrible mouth.
+    ’T was in Latitude east and in Longitude south,
+    This is somewhat obscure, but I think on the whole
+    It occurred th’ other side of the Antarctic pole,
+    The ship making six knots--leaving foam in her wake,
+    Yet she stopped at the touch of this wonderful snake;
+    And the jibboom and bowsprit were snapped like a straw;
+    But his strength was outdone by his marvellous maw;
+    For he swallowed the stay-sail and also the jib,
+    Like a boy gulping oysters--they went down to glib.
+    With his stay to his stomac he turned him about,
+    And gave with his tail such a vigorous flout,
+    That some timbers to atoms were crushed by the blow,
+    And what more might have happened we none of us know,
+    When an object appeared for the which he set sail,
+    And both object and story were much like a whale.”
+
+Afterwards, (_Zoologist_, p. 7278, of the same year) we find the
+following about the young sea-serpent of Captain TAYLOR:
+
+“Captain Taylor’s Sea-Serpent.--A friend, who has the opportunity of
+communicating with Melbourne on the subject of the young sea-serpent
+which Captain Taylor says (Zool. 6985) he presented to the Museum at
+Melbourne, has ascertained through Mr. Coates, of that town, that
+Captain Taylor is so far correct, that he did at the time specified
+present a specimen of Pelamys bicolor to the Museum in question, and
+Professor M’Coy exhibited the same to Mr. Coates. Of course there is no
+rational ground for concluding that this small sea snake is the young
+of any such gigantic creature as Captain Taylor has described.--_Edward
+Newman._”
+
+But of a _great_ Sea-Serpent of Captain TAYLOR we don’t find any more
+statements!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+We have read the various hoaxes which appeared in the _Cork
+Constitution_ of 1850; the _Skibbereen Eagle_ too is not averse to
+publishing a similar hoax (See _Zoologist_, 1861, p. 7354):
+
+“As Samuel Townsend, Esq., J. P., of Whitehall, was sailing in
+Whitehall Harbour, he saw, following his wake, what appeared to him
+(from the many descriptions he had read of the monster) to be a
+sea-serpent about twenty five or thirty feet in length; and being
+in a small boat he endeavoured to keep as respectful a distance as
+possible. There was, however, another boat in the harbour at the time,
+in which was Mr. Samuel Kingston, his brother, Mr. John Kingston (of
+Trinity College, Dublin), and a party of ladies. These parties also saw
+the huge monster; and upon raising its neck about six feet above the
+surface the females became greatly alarmed, when Mr. John Kingston,
+who is a remarkably good shot, fired at it, upon which it immediately
+disappeared. Mr. Townsend informed us the serpent presented a beautiful
+appearance, having large, brilliant scales of a yellow hue, and is
+of opinion it was struck by the shot fired by Mr. Kingston. It was
+likewise distinctly seen from the windows of Whitehall-House. Mr.
+Robert Atkins told us he saw it the day before of Barlogue.”--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The following hoax is not inferior to any of the foregoing (Nature, of
+13th. of June 1872):
+
+“Mr. J. COBBIN of Durban, forwards to the _Natal Colonist_ the
+following account of a “sea-serpent” seen by him:--“During my last
+passage from London, I saw no less than three sea-serpents, but an
+account of the last will suffice. On 30th. December last, on board
+the _Silvery Wave_, in lat. about 35′ 0″ S., and long. 33′ 30″ E., at
+6.20 P. M. solar time, an enormous sea-serpent passing nearly across
+our bows compelled the alteration of our course. He was at least
+one thousand yards long, of which about one third appeared on the
+surface of the water at every stroke of his enormous fan-shaped tail,
+with which he propelled himself, raising it high above the waves,
+and arching his back like a land-snake or a caterpillar. In shape
+and proportion he much resembled the cobra, being marked by the same
+knotty and swollen protuberance at the back of the head on the neck.
+The latter was the thickest part of the serpent. His head was like a
+bull’s in shape, his eyes large and glowing, his ears had circular tips
+and were level with his eyes, and his head was surrounded by a horny
+crest, which he erected and depressed at pleasure. He swam with great
+rapidity and lashed the sea into a foam, like breakers dashing over
+jagged rocks. The sun shone brightly upon him; and with a good glass I
+saw his overlapping scales open and shut with every arch of his sinuous
+back coloured like the rainbow.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I don’t know whether the following, taken from the _Graphic_, is a true
+hoax, or an optical illusion, but I think it is a hoax. There we read
+in the number of August, 17th., 1872:
+
+“Concerning this much discussed animal, whose existence mariners from
+the earliest times have firmly asserted, and landsmen as obstinately
+persisted in doubting, we have received the following from Mr. Walthew,
+a well-known ship-owner and merchant in Liverpool:--“Report of Captain
+A. Hassel, of barque _St. Olaf_, from Newport to Galveston, Texas.--Two
+days before arrival at Galveston, and about 4.30 P. M. on May 13,
+weather calm, smooth sea, lat. 26° 52′, long. 91° 20′, I saw a shoal
+of sharks passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel’s stern,
+but before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About
+two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something on the
+weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one called out
+that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall man. On a
+nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with its head out of
+the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay still on the surface
+of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body in a serpentine
+manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could see, from the after
+part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of the same thickness all
+the way, excepting about the head and neck, which were smaller, and the
+former flat, like the head of a serpent. It had four fins on its back,
+and the body of a yellow greenish colour, with brown spots all over
+the upper part and underneath white. The whole crew were looking at it
+for fully ten minutes before it moved away. It was about six feet in
+diameter. One of the mates has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent,
+which will give some notion of its appearance.--A. Hassel, master of
+Norwegian barque St. Olaf.--Witness to signature, J. Fredk. Walthew.”--
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 3 and 4. Would be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston.]
+
+The accompanying engravings are also published, and I give facsimiles
+of them in Fig. 3 and 4.--I think that Captain HASSEL after having
+seen the shoal of sharks, two minutes afterwards saw four of these
+individuals swimming perfectly in a line, the foremost occasionally
+lifting its head above the surface, and the backs with the backfin of
+each animal being visible. The distance between the first and the last
+being about seventy feet, the whole row looked like a huge serpent,
+and gave thus rise to the story, which, as I have already said above,
+may be a hoax, or a true statement of what they saw. Evidently one of
+the mates first drew the sketch exactly as he saw the four sharks, but
+afterwards, answering his own question: “how would the serpent look, if
+floating on the surface?” sketched the second figure, where a boa or
+python with four fins is represented floating on the water like a cork,
+or better like the skin of such an animal puffed up!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+A splendid hoax was again communicated by a correspondent of the _Monde
+Illustré_ to the Editor, and published in the number of October, 8,
+1881, of that journal.
+
+“On board the steamer _The Don_, of the Royal Mail Steam Packet
+Company.--Captain ROBERT WOOLWARD.”
+
+  “Sunday, August 14, 1881”.
+
+  “To the Editor.”
+
+“I commence my letter by asking you a correspondent’s diploma of
+the journal _Le Monde Illustré_ for my friend Mr. E. DE CONTRERAS Y
+ALCANTARA, an inhabitant of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico, Spanish colony.”
+
+“I owe to Mr. DE CONTRERAS the subjoined sketch, the exactness of which
+is guaranteed by the seven signatures of the eye witnesses, who are:
+
+“Mr. E. DE CONTRERAS Y ALCANTARA, of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico,
+
+Mr. CARLO LOPEZ ALDANA, of Lima, Peru,
+
+Mr. HENRIQUE ROMAN, of Cartagena, Columbia,
+
+Mr. A. E. XIMENES DE SAN JOSÉ, of Costa Rica,
+
+Mr. MAURICE RENARD, of Paris,
+
+Mr. C. RENARD, of Paris, your correspondent.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 5.--The sea-monster, as Mr. C. Renard supposed to
+have seen it.]
+
+“The appearance lasted for ten minutes, in full moonlight. As I made
+the sketch, my son noted down his observations, Mr. CONTRERAS too; we
+compared and exchanged our several observations, these gentlemen at the
+little window of the smoking-saloon, and I just above, resting upon the
+port-hole and supported by a rope.”
+
+“The monster seemed to measure about forty or fifty meters, from the
+head to the tail, as far as the numerous coils made an approximative
+estimation possible. The body from the dorsal ridge to the midst of
+the belly seemed to be covered by several ranges of scales, or a rough
+skin like that of sharks, but forming overlapping layers of scales. The
+back is very darkish and gradually growing lighter towards the belly,
+where it is a dirty grey. The entire body is marked with alternating
+transversal stripes, darkish green, chesnut coloured, and grey; the
+tail seems to taper in a point, like that of eels. I preserve for the
+end the description of the head, which we have properly examined, and
+which is very remarkable. This head is not oval, and rather pointed, as
+in most of the snakes; it forms at its cranium a great mass with rough
+and irregular outlines. From the occiput it is provided with a hard and
+movable crest, with very sharp points; this crest may be lowered on the
+neck so as to become invisible. The upper jaw projects, as is shown in
+the sketch, the end is doubled up, and a dark hollow, like a nostril
+is visible there; the lower jaw, more pointed, shows below hollow
+and convex outlines, like sacs, doubtless for the act of swallowing.
+The teeth are sharp, enormous, and white. From the throat, attached
+to a kind of cushion, projects a hard tongue, pointed, provided with
+suckers, and glittering like steel, and phosphorescing as the sea
+occasionally does; the eye is round, very glittering, very movable, and
+seems to be able to look backward, so rapid and “_bien combinées_” are
+the animal’s evolutions; the orbit is bordered by a ring of lighter
+colour and seems to be overarched by an eye-brow provided with hairs or
+bristles.”
+
+“The face, from the snout to the neck presents a lateral oblique line,
+grey in colour, on both sides of which three other similar lines run
+towards it.”
+
+“The movement of the animal in the water, seems to produce no sound at
+all, but undulating waves and a very slight ripple.”
+
+“It caused a stench enough to make one ill; this smell, which hung
+about us for more than half an hour, was like that of a fermentation
+by heat on a large scale of the house of LESAGE, the great gatherers
+of Asnières, mingled with that of a dozen of charcoal-black works of
+Billancourt.”
+
+“To neutralize it, all the shops of several of our best perfumers would
+be wanted.”
+
+“The monster seems to be old, judging partly from its dimensions, and
+partly from its colour and the roughness of its integument.”
+
+“This is not the first time that similar animals are observed.”
+
+“The first time it was seen in 1847 by the Portuguese ship _Ville de
+Lissabonne_, captain JUAN ALPHONSO ZARCO Y CAPEDA.”
+
+“This date coincides with the buffooneries of the _Charivari_ on the
+_Constitutionel_, and with the first disease of the potatoes.”
+
+“In 1864, the second of _The Don_ observed a similar animal near the
+coast of Japan; he tattooed it on his arm.”
+
+“I end this series of reports by assuring you that the monster was seen
+on Wednesday evening, August 10, 1881, by the undersigned, at a quarter
+to ten P. M. in
+
+  latitude 29° 60′
+  longitude 42° 40′
+
+reckoning the degrees, according to the log-book on board, from the
+meridian of Greenwich.”
+
+“C. RENARD.”
+
+“(Here follow the seven signatures above-mentioned).”
+
+The Editor of the _Monde Illustré_ adds:
+
+“We leave to the author of this letter and of the subjoined sketch all
+the responsibility of an assertion which seems to us, least to say,
+strange, and the details of which we communicate to our readers with
+due reserve.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Let us now pass on to reports of would-be sea-serpents.
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+Would-be Sea-Serpents.
+
+
+It is by no means astonishing that in the vast waters of the ocean
+several objects, totally different from the animal generally known as
+the Great Sea-Serpent, gave rise to tales of that Great Unknown, such
+as wrecks, gigantic sea-weeds, or even animal beings. So we meet with
+an account dated:
+
+1720.--(See PONTOPPIDAN.) “THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in
+1720 a Sea-Serpent had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet,
+in which it came with high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or
+eight fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left
+the inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the skin
+had sunk into the water of the inlet, so that its length could not be
+made out, as the inlet was several fathoms deep, and the skin partly
+lay there. The other end of this skin was washed on the shore by the
+current, where everybody could see it; apparently, however, it could
+not be used, for it consisted of a soft slimy mass. THORLACKSEN was a
+native of the harbour of Kobbervueg.”
+
+It may be that a real sea-serpent remained a week in the inlet. The
+Norwegian fishermen know the sea-serpent too well to make mistakes.
+Another animal would not have been called a sea-serpent, and a
+short description of it would have been given. But the skin wrongly
+attributed to the sea-serpent, was certainly nothing else but a
+putrified long arm or tentacle of a gigantic calamary. The description
+“soft and slimy mass” proves this sufficiently. The great calamary died
+in the fjord, or inlet, and its long dead arm was floated ashore by the
+current, while the body sank. Such great calamaries, the true Krakens,
+have been measured, and found to have a body of 30 feet in length with
+long tentacles of 58 feet (see LEE, _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, London,
+1883). I give here a figure of the largest ever found. (See our Fig. 6.)
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 6.--The largest calamary ever found, with a scale
+of 80 feet.]
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1808.--_The Animal of Stronsa._--Perhaps no stranded animal, even the
+so-called sea-monks of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century
+caused such an excitement among the learned as “the animal of Stronsa”.
+
+The oldest report of it is certainly a letter from Mr. CAMPBELL, in
+which only the following lines refer to it:
+
+“A snake (my friend TELFORD received a drawing of it) has been found
+thrown on the Orkney-Isles, a sea-snake with a mane like a horse, 4
+feet thick and 55 feet long, this is seriously true. MALCOLM LAING, the
+historian saw it, and sent a drawing of it to my friend.”
+
+The letter was first printed in the work entitled: “_Life and Letters
+of Campbell_”, and afterwards the above quoted lines were reprinted in
+the _Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2395.
+
+In the _Proceedings of the Meeting of the Wernerian Natural History
+Society_ on the 19th. of November, 1808, printed in the _Philosophical
+Magazine_, Vol. 32, p. 190, we read:
+
+“At this meeting Mr. P. NEILL read an account of a great Sea-Snake,
+lately cast ashore in Orkney. This curious animal, it appears, was
+stranded in Rothiesholm Bay, in the Island of Stronsa. Malcolm Laing,
+Esq., M. P. being in Orkney at the time, communicated the circumstance
+to his brother, Gilbert Laing Esq., advocate at Edinburgh, on whose
+property the animal had been cast. Through this authentic channel Mr.
+Neill received his information. The body measured fifty five feet in
+length, and the circumference of the thickest part might be equal to
+the girth of an Orkney pony. The head was not larger than that of a
+seal, and was furnished with two blow holes. From the back a number of
+filaments (resembling in tecture the fishing-tackle known by the name
+of silk-worm gut) hung down like a mane. On each side of the body were
+three large fins, shaped like paws, and jointed. The body was unluckily
+knocked to pieces by a tempest; but the fragments have been collected
+by Mr. Laing, and are to be transmitted to the Museum at Edinburgh. Mr.
+Neill concluded with remarking, that no doubt could be entertained that
+this was the kind of animal described by Ramus, Egede, and Pontoppidan,
+but which scientific and systematic naturalists had hitherto rejected
+as spurious and ideal.”
+
+In the meeting of the same Society on the 14th. of January, 1809, (see
+_Phil. Mag._ Vol. 33. p. 90.),
+
+“Dr. John Barclay communicated some highly curious observations which
+he had made on the caudal vertebrae of the Great Sea-Snake, (formerly
+mentioned) which exhibit in their structure some beautiful provisions
+of Nature, not hitherto observed in the vertebrae of any other animal.”
+
+“And Mr. Patric Neill read an ample and interesting account of this
+new animal, collected from different sources, especially letters of
+undoubted authority, which he had received from the Orkneys. He stated,
+however, that owing to the tempestuous season, the head, fin, sternum,
+and dorsal vertebrae, promised some weeks ago to the University Museum
+at Edinburgh, had not yet arrived; but that he had received a note
+from Gilbert Meason, esq., (the gentleman on whose estate in Stronsa
+the sea-snake was cast,) intimating that they might be expected by the
+earliest arrivals from Orkney. In the mean time, he submitted to the
+Society the first sketch of a generic character. The name proposed for
+this new genus was _Halsydrus_, (from ἁλς the sea, and ὑδρος a water
+snake); and as it evidently appeared to be the Soe-Ormen described
+above half a century ago, by Pontoppidan, in his Natural History
+of Norway, it was suggested that its specific name should be _H.
+Pontoppidani_.”
+
+Mr. MALCOLM LAING and Dr. GRANT, living on Stronsa, were requested to
+take down the affidavits of the eye-witnesses, and at the meeting of
+the Wernerian Society on the 11th. of February, 1809, (see _Phil. Mag._
+Vol. 33. p. 251),
+
+“the Secretary (Mr. P. Neill) laid before the Society copies of those
+affidavits made before the justices of peace at Kirkwall in Orkney, by
+several persons who saw and examined the carcass of the great sea snake
+(_Halsydrus Pontoppidani_) cast ashore in Stronsa in October last;
+with remarks illustrative of the meaning of some passages in these
+affidavits.”
+
+The above-mentioned communication of Dr. JOHN BARCLAY was printed in
+1811 in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_, and
+contains a detailed description of some vertebrae of the animal. The
+figures of these vertebrae are splendid, also those of the dried and
+shrivelled skull and a portion of one of the pectoral fins, with the
+cartilages that connect it with the body. As well the descriptions as
+the figures betray at a glance the shark nature of the animal. We will
+not trouble our readers with them, and we will also omit the figures,
+except one; it is a drawing made after the description of one of the
+eye-witnesses. (See our Fig. 7).
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 7.--The Animal of Stronsa.]
+
+The Paper of Dr. BARCLAY was entitled: _Remarks on some parts of the
+animal that was cast ashore on the island of Stronsa, Sept. 1808._ The
+above-mentioned affidavits were also printed in 1811, in the first
+Volume of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society_, and
+run as follows:
+
+  “At Kirkwall, Nov. 10. 1808.
+
+“In presence of Dr. Robert Groat, Physician in Kirkwall, and Malcolm
+Laing, Esq; M. P. Two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace of the
+County of Orkney.
+
+“Compeared Thomas Fotheringhame, house-carpenter in Kirkwall; who
+solemnly declared, That being in Stronsa during the gales of wind in
+October last; he went to see the strange fish that was driven ashore in
+Rothiesholm Bay: That he measured his length with a foot-rule, which
+was exactly fifty-five feet, from the junction of the head and neck,
+where there was the appearance of an ear, to the tail: That the length
+of the neck, from the ear to the shoulder, was ten feet three inches,
+as nearly as he recollects. And being shewn a drawing of the animal,
+he declared, That the neck appeared to him to be too long. That the
+fins or arms, or, as they were called on the island, the _wings_ of
+the animal, were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than
+they appear in the drawing: That the toes were less spread out, and
+tapering more to a point, unless when purposely lifted up; but were not
+webbed unless the space of an inch and a half in breadth, where they
+joined each other; and the length seemed to be about eight inches: That
+he measured one of the wings next the head, which was four feet and a
+half in length, and in shape, from the first joint to the extremity, it
+resembled a goose-wing without the feathers: That the hollow between
+the snout and the upper part of the skull, appeared to him not to
+be quite so deep as represented in the drawing: That in every other
+respect the drawing appears to be so exact, that if the fish had not
+been mentioned, it would have brought it to his recollection: That from
+the ridge of the back to the belly, the body appeared to be four feet
+in depth, and the circumference rather oval than round; but that he did
+not measure either: That the mane or bristles of the back extended from
+the shoulder to within two feet and a half of the tail, and were of a
+shining appearance when wet; but shrunk up, and turned yellow, when
+dried: That the mane was thin, about two inches and a half in breadth
+towards the shoulder, and two inches in breadth at the tail: That the
+skin seemed to be elastic when compressed, and of a greyish colour,
+without any scales: it was rough to the feeling, on drawing the hand
+over it, towards the head; but was smooth as velvet when the hand was
+drawn towards the tail: That the extremity of the tail was about two
+inches in thickness, and somewhat rounded; and as he saw no part of the
+bones, he cannot say whether any part of the tail had been broken off
+or not: That the eyes appeared to be no larger than those of a seal:
+That there were two spout holes on each side of the neck, about an
+inch and a fourth in diameter, and at the same distance from the head
+as appears in the drawing: That he lifted up the snout, and examined
+the throat, which was too narrow to admit his hand: That a part of the
+bones of the lower jaw, resembling those of a dog, were remaining at
+that time, with some appearance of teeth, which were soft, and could
+be bent by the strength of the hand: That he observed no nipples, or
+organs of generation; the belly having been burst open by the violence
+of the sea: That the stomach was about the size of a ten gallon cask;
+and the bowls about the bulk of those of a cow: That the bristles of
+the back which had been pulled off through curiosity, were luminous
+in the dark, while they continued wet. And all this he declares to be
+truth, &c.
+
+  “(Signed)”
+
+  “Thomas Fotheringhame.”
+
+  “Kirkwall, Nov. 19, 1808.”
+
+“Compeared John Peace, tenant in Dounatoun in Rothiesholm; and being
+interrogated, solemnly declares, That on the 26th. day of September
+last, he went a fishing off the east part of Rothiesholm-head, when he
+perceived as he imagined, a dead whale, on some sunk rocks, about a
+quarter of a mile from the Head: That his attention was first directed
+to it by the sea-fowl screaming and flocking about it; and on approach
+of it, in his boat, he found the middle part of it above the surface
+of the water: That he then observed it to be different from a whale,
+particularly in having fins or arms, one of which he raised with his
+boat-hook above the surface of the water: That this was one of the arms
+next the head, which was larger and broader than the others nearer the
+tail; and at that time the fin or arm was edged all around, from the
+body to the extremity of the toes, with a row of bristles about ten
+inches long, some of which he pulled off, and examined in the boat:
+That about ten days afterwards, a gale of south east wind came on, and
+the surge drove the fish ashore on Rothiesholm-Head: That he measured
+it by fathoms, and found it about fifty-four or fifty-five feet in
+length: That he observed the six arms, or wings as they are called on
+the island; but perceived no part of the bristles then round the edges
+of the fins or arms, and supposes, that being in a putrid state, they
+had been beaten off by the sea, or washed away: That a small part of
+the belly was broken up when he saw it then, from which the stomach,
+as he now supposes it to have been, had fallen out: That the stomach,
+which he took at first for the penis, from the one end of it being
+joined to the body; but on seeing it after it was opened, he concluded
+it to have been the stomach, as it resembled the second stomach of
+a cow: That he did not measure the circumference of the animal, but
+it appeared to be of the thickness of a middle sized horse round the
+girth, of twelve or thirteen hands high. And being shewn a drawing of
+the animal, and desired to point out the resemblance or difference,
+he declared, That the joint of the foremost leg was broader than
+represented in the drawing, being more rounded from the body to the
+toes, and narrower at the upper end than at its junction with the toes:
+That the limb itself was larger than the hinder ones, and the uppermost
+joint or shoulder was altogether attached to the body: That in all
+other respects the drawing appears to him to be an exact resemblance
+of the fish, as it lay on the beach: That the mane came no further
+than the shoulder, and extended to the tail, part of which appeared to
+have been broken off: That the length of the neck, the situation of
+the spout-holes, and of the eye, the shape of the snout, the position
+and distance of the limbs from each other, appear to him to be exactly
+preserved in the drawing: That the lower jaw was awanting when he saw
+it: That the fish was of a greyish colour: That he observed no nipples
+or organs of generation, unless as above mentioned: That the part of
+the belly which was burst open, and from which the stomach had fallen
+out, was between the two limbs that are situated in the middle of the
+animal. And all this he solemnly declares to be truth. And declares he
+cannot write.”
+
+  “_Eodem die_”
+
+“Compeared Mr. George Sherar, tacksman of Rothiesholm in the island
+of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That on the
+20th. of October, being in Rothiesholm-head he saw the crew of John
+Peace’s boat examining something on the water, which he took to be a
+dead whale: That about ten days afterwards, a gale of east wind having
+taken place he went to see if the whale was driven ashore, and found
+it in a creek, lying on its back, about a foot under water; and from
+the view which he had of its figure, length and limbs, his curiosity
+induced him to return a day or two after the gale had abated, when he
+found it thrown upon the beach, a little below high water mark, and
+lying on its belly, as represented in the drawing: That he returned
+next morning, with a foot-rule, purposely to measure it, and found it
+to be exactly fifty-five feet in length, from the hole in the top of
+the skull (which he has brought to town with him), to the extremity
+of the tail: That the length of the neck was exactly fifteen feet,
+from the same hole to the beginning of the mane: That he measured also
+the circumference of the animal as accurately as he could, which was
+about ten feet, more or less; and the whole body, where the limbs were
+attached to it, was about the same circumference: That the lower jaw
+or mouth was awanting; but there were some substances or bones of the
+jaw remaining; when he first examined it, which are now away: That it
+had two holes on each side of the neck, besides the one on the back
+of the skull: That the mane or bristles were about fourteen inches
+in length each, of a silvery colour, and particularly luminous in
+the dark, before they were dried: That the upper part of the limbs,
+which answers to the shoulder-blade, was joined to the body like the
+shoulder-blade of a cow, forming a part of the side: That a part of
+the tail was awanting, being incidentally broken off at the extremity;
+where the last joint of it was bare, was an inch and a half in breadth:
+That the bones were of a gristly nature, like those of a halibut, the
+back-bone excepted, which was the only solid one in the body: That the
+tail was quite flexible, turning in every direction, as he lifted it;
+and he supposes the neck to have been equally so, from its appearance
+at the time: That he has brought in, to deliver to Mr. Laing, the
+skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs, next the head, with
+different parts of the backbone, besides the bones that were formerly
+sent in: That there were either five or six toes upon each paw, about
+nine inches long, and of a soft substance: That the toes were separate
+from each other, and not webbed, as far as he could observe; and that
+the paw was about half a foot each way, in length and in breadth: That
+a few days thereafter, a gale of wind came on, and drove it to another
+part of the shore, where it was broken to pieces by the surge, and
+when Mr. Petrie came out to take a drawing of it, no part of the body
+remained entire: That he endeavoured to convey an idea of the animal
+to Mr. Petrie, by drawing the figure of it as accurately as he could,
+with chalk, on the table, exactly as it lay on the shore, after which
+Mr. Petrie made six or seven different sketches or plans of the fish,
+before he could bring it to correspond, in each minute particular, with
+the strong idea which he retains of its appearance: That he was the
+more attentive to its shape, dimensions and figure, in order to be able
+to give an accurate account of it to any travellers that might come to
+Rothiesholm, and that he is ready to make oath that the drawing is an
+exact resemblance of the fish, as it appeared when he measured it; and
+corresponds in all particulars with the idea which he entertains of the
+figure, dimensions, and proportions of the fish: That the substance of
+the body appeared like coarse, ill coloured beef, interlarded with fat
+or tallow, without the least resemblance or affinity to fish; but when
+put into a lamp, and the lamp placed on the fire, it neither flamed nor
+melted, but burned away like a gristly substance: That he perceived no
+teeth in the upper jaw; the lower jaw and tongue being awanting, and
+the palate also away: That the aperture of the throat appeared to be so
+wide, that he might have put his foot down through it: That the joints
+of the limbs were not united by a ball and socket but were lapped over
+each other, and united by some means which he does not comprehend: That
+there were two canals, one above and another below the backbone, large
+enough to admit one’s finger, and extending from the vertebrae of the
+neck, to the extremity of the tail, containing two ligaments, which he
+supposed, enabled the animal to raise itself up, or to bend its body
+in a spiral form: That a tract of strong easterly wind had prevailed,
+before the body was discovered upon the shore, and that he saw the body
+on two or three different occasions, after he had measured it, and
+before it went to pieces. And all this he declares to be truth, &c.”
+
+  “(Signed)”
+
+  “Geo. Sherar.”
+
+“Compeared Mr. William Folsatter, tacksman of Whitehall, in the
+island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That
+having heard that it was a dead whale that had come on shore in
+Rothiesholm-head, he did not see the body till about the 28th. day of
+October, when it had gone to pieces: That he saw about nine or ten feet
+of the back-bone, and some bones of the paws, and what was supposed to
+be the stomach which last he had the curiosity to open; that it was
+about four feet long, and as thick as a firkin, but flatter: That the
+membranes that formed the divisions, extended quite across the supposed
+stomach, and were about three sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and at
+the same distance from each other, and of the same substance, with the
+stomach itself: That the section of the stomach, after it was opened,
+had the appearance of a weaver’s reed: That he opened about a fourth
+part of the supposed stomach which contained nothing but a reddish
+substance, like blood and water, and emitted a fetid smell: That he was
+very doubtful at the time whether it was really the stomach or not; but
+that each end of it had the appearance of terminating in a gut. And all
+this he solemnly declares to be the truth, &c.
+
+  “(Signed)”
+
+  “Wm. Folsetter.”
+
+“The said Mr. George Sherar being again interrogated, declares, That
+he examined the supposed stomach, after it had been opened by Mr.
+Folsitter, and that he laid it open to the farther end: That there was
+something like a gut at the end which he opened, about two inches long,
+with a small aperture: That the stomach had the same appearance from
+end to end, and contained nothing but a substance like blood and water:
+That the large bone of which a drawing was taken, was considered as the
+collar-bone; and that it was situated with the broad and thick part
+downwards and the open part towards the vertebrae of the back: That he
+observed no appearance of fins about the neck or breast, or other parts
+of the body, except the six paws already described. And all this he
+solemnly declares to be truth, &c.”
+
+  “(Signed)”
+
+  “Geo. Sherar.”
+
+One of the ablest ichthyologists of those days, Mr. EVERARD HOME
+examined the “sea-snake”, and recognized it for a Basking shark.
+Immediately after his paper in the _Philosophical Transactions of the
+Royal Society of London_, Vol. 98, entitled “_An anatomical account
+of the Squalus maximus (of Linnaeus), which_, &c.,” especially of an
+individual of thirty feet six inches, “entangled in the herring nets,
+belonging to the fishermen of Hastings, 13 Nov. 1808”, Mr. HOME goes
+further:
+
+“I cannot close the present paper without mentioning, that nearly the
+same period, two other Squali of large dimensions were thrown upon our
+coast. The probable cause of this event, is the season being uncommonly
+boisterous and tempestuous. On the 3d. of January, 1809, a fish was
+thrown ashore at Penrhyn, in Cornwall. On hearing of it from a person
+on the spot, I sent down a drawing of the subject of this paper to
+compare with it, and the fish proves to be of the same species, and a
+male, measuring thirty-one feet in length.”
+
+“The other was thrown ashore on the 7th. of October, 1808, at
+Rothiesholm, an estate of Gilbert Meason, Esq. in Stronsay, one of the
+Orkney isles. It had been seen lying on some sunken rocks, eleven days
+before, was in a half putrid state, and the sea fowls were in great
+numbers feeding upon it. Those who saw it, reported that the skin was
+rough in one direction, and smooth like satin in the other. At the time
+of its being examined, the skin and a great many other parts of the
+fish were wanting.”
+
+“Mr. Meason, with a zeal for science which does him infinite
+credit, upon hearing the strange accounts which were given of this
+sea-monster, got his brother, Malcolm Laing, Esq. and Dr. Grant, an
+eminent physician (both justices of the peace), to take depositions
+on the spot, from those persons who had seen the fish, that its real
+appearance might be ascertained. This examination, however, did not
+take place till six weeks after the fish was thrown ashore.”
+
+“These depositions were sent to Sir Joseph Banks, who put them into
+my hands. (The depositions are very long, and exceedingly minute;
+they are preserved in the Board-book of the Royal Society). I also
+received, a short time after, from my friend Mr. Laing, in consequence
+of a request I made for that purpose, that part of the skull, which
+contained the brain, the upper jaw having been separated from it, a
+considerable number of the vertebrae of the back united together by
+their natural attachments, a portion of one of the pectoral fins,
+with the cartilages that unite it to the spine, and a long and short
+cartilage forming the support of one of the gills. On comparing these
+different parts, with those of the Squalus maximus, they were found to
+agree, not only in their form, but also in their dimensions. This led
+to the opinion of the fish being a Squalus, a very different one from
+what was formed by those who saw it in the mutilated state in which it
+was thrown ashore, and who called it a _sea-snake_. In the different
+depositions, several parts are accurately described, such as the
+valvular intestine, which was taken for the stomach, and the bristles
+of the mane, which are described as ligamentous fibres, one of them is
+in my possession, and is of the same kind with the fibres forming the
+margin of the fins of the squalus maximus. The drawing that was made
+from memory, and which I have annexed, will enable me in a few words to
+point out how much, in some things, those who saw the fish adhered to
+truth, and in others allowed their imagination to supply deficiencies,
+for one of them declared, with confidence, that the drawing was so
+exact a representation of what he had seen, “that he fancied he saw the
+beast lying before him, at a distance on the beach.”
+
+“The drawing is correct in the representation of the head, and anterior
+part of the fish, from which the skin, the upper and lower jaw, the
+gills, and gullet, had been separated by putrification; and when we
+consider that the liver and the other viscera were all destroyed,
+except the valvular intestine, which was taken away by the observers,
+the size of the body that remained would be nearly in proportion with
+the drawing. The legs are tolerably exact representations of the
+holders in the male Squalus maximus, described in a former part of this
+paper, and therefore are not imaginary, only that four have been added
+which did not exist. This is satisfactorily determined by the pectoral
+fin, which is preserved, having no resemblance to them. The mane, they
+said, was composed of ligamentous fibres, one of which was sent to
+London; this corresponds, in its appearance, with the fibres that form
+the termination of the fins and tail of the Squalus maximus, such an
+appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met with in the place
+of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continued along the back,
+as in the drawing. The contortions towards the tail are such, as the
+invertebral joints could not admit of, they are therefore imaginary.”
+
+“It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by fathoms,
+the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet long.
+Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are preserved
+correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long, and it is
+rendered still more so, as the person who gives the length in fathoms,
+says, he saw at that time the six legs, the two foremost being larger
+than the hinder ones, and the lower joint more rounded from the body to
+the toes. The pectoral fin, which is preserved, proves this declaration
+to be incorrect: the person who measured the fish with a foot-rule,
+declares the length, from the hole in the head to the beginning of the
+mane, to be exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a
+Squalus of about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart
+of the skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other
+measurement must be questionable.”
+
+“It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure represented
+in this drawing, which was not actually seen. The skeleton of the
+holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin of the
+dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only errors
+are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the fish and
+the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs. (This mistake
+of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been frequently made.
+There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library, sent from Ireland, in
+which the fish is represented walking like a duck, with broad webbed
+feet. The skin of a male Squalus maximus was exhibited in London, some
+years ago, distended by means of hoops, and the holders were shown
+as its legs, on which it occasionably walked). And when we recollect
+that the drawing was made from memory six weeks after the fish had
+been seen by those, who describe it, during which interval it had
+been their principal subject of conversation, we may conclude that
+so extraordinary an object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when
+believed to be a perfect one, would, in their different discourses,
+have every part exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the
+depositions kept so close to the truth as they have done.”
+
+“It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained, that
+this fish is not a new animal unlike any of the ordinary productions of
+nature, and we are indebted to the zeal and liberality of Mr. Meason
+and Mr. Laing, who have collected a sufficient body of evidence to
+enable me to determine that point, and prove it to be a Squalus, and
+the orifices behind the eye, which communicate with the mouth met with
+in the skull, renders it very probable, that it is a Squalus maximus.”
+
+“This opinion is further confirmed by the Squalus maximus, known by
+the name of the basking shark, being frequently seen upon the coast of
+Scotland.”
+
+The only remark I have to make is: Mr. HOME will never have believed
+that the animal of Stronsa really measured 56 feet, and so made
+himself guilty of throwing discredit on the accurate measuring of the
+eye-witnesses.
+
+I present here to my readers the figure of a _Squalus maximus_, or
+Basking-shark, thus enabling them to make this animal’s acquaintance,
+if they don’t know it yet.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 8.--Squalus maximus, Linné.]
+
+Of course Mr. BARCLAY rejected Mr. Home’s supposition, and wrote a
+paper against it, printed in the first volume of the above mentioned
+_Memoirs_, running as follows:
+
+“Since reading the first paper of Mr. Home, where he treats of the
+vertebrae of the Squalus maximus, I have seen another, entitled “An
+anatomical account of the Squalus maximus”. In this last paper, he
+seems to be convinced, that the animal of Stronsa is a Squalus maximus.
+The scale on which he draws his figure of the squalus, is a scale of
+half an inch to a foot.”
+
+“Measuring by this scale, the head of his squalus is five feet and a
+half, from the joint of the upper jaw to the gills. The dried and
+shrivelled head of the animal of Stronsa, measures only twelve inches
+from the first vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw.”
+
+“The diameter of the head of the squalus maximus, from right to left,
+at the angle of the mouth, was, according to Mr. Home, five feet. The
+broadest part of the head of the animal of Stronsa is, in its present
+state, only seven inches.”
+
+“The diameter of the larger vertebrae, near the head, in the squalus,
+was, according to Mr. Home, seven inches. The first cervical vertebra
+in the animal of Stronsa, is still adhering to the head, and is only
+two inches in diameter.”
+
+“Yet some of the vertebrae of this animal, which are still preserved,
+are six inches and a half in diameter; and the first vertebrae which I
+saw, were from four to five and a half inches across.”
+
+“The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa,
+confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a neck.
+But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home’s figure be accurate, had nothing
+resembling a neck. And, indeed, Artedi observes, that “omnes pisces
+qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque carent: Ergo soli pisces
+cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a neck, therefore, as peculiar
+to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise the account of the spiracula or
+ear-holes, ascribed to this animal of Stronsa.”
+
+“The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches. The
+length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was fifty five
+feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part of the tail
+was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the animal of Stronsa
+was, by actual measurement, about ten feet, meant, I suppose, at the
+thickest part. If the animal had been cylindrical at that part, the
+diameter from the dorsal to the sternal aspect must have been about
+three feet four inches. The diameter of the squalus at the thickest
+part, measuring from the dorsal to the sternal aspect, is nearly six
+feet; its circumference, had it been cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.”
+
+“The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder to near
+the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after deducting
+the length of the head and neck, which, when together were sixteen
+feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which I got from Mr.
+Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought here, confirm the
+accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys. The bristles of that
+mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor, although they were, has the
+squalus a fin extending from the shoulder to the tail.”
+
+“A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and obliging
+Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the original, by
+Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the dried specimen now
+before us. It represents the sternum and two parts corresponding two
+scapulae, and those organs which are named _paws_. Mr. Home says, that
+these organs resemble the pectoral fins of his squalus. But the length
+of the pectoral fins, measuring along the upper margin, is four feet,
+the length of the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting;
+the part that remains, measures seventeen inches.”
+
+“The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three feet and
+seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in its dried state,
+is only five inches and three quarters.”
+
+“Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit articular
+surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.”
+
+“Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance to science,
+that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a new animal,
+unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.” Of what importance
+it is to science to admit no new genera or species into our catalogues
+of natural history, I cannot conceive. But it is certainly of much
+importance to science, that the naturalist should be cautious not
+to determine the species of an animal upon vague evidence. Now what
+evidence had Mr. Home that this animal was a squalus, and even to
+suppose that it was a squalus maximus?”
+
+I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. BARCLAY does not
+seem to make any difference between “a head” of a Squalus and “a
+skull.” It is true that the “head” of a _Squalus maximus_ of thirty
+feet and a half measures five feet and a half, but its “skull” has only
+a length of ten inches. It is true that the diameter of the “head”
+of such a shark measures from right to left about five feet, but its
+“skull” would have only a few inches in breadth. It is true that the
+diameter of the larger vertebrae near the head of such an individual
+may be about seven inches, but what is indicated by Mr. BARCLAY in the
+head of his “animal of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertebra”,
+is (don’t laugh!) the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted
+cartilaginous appendages!--No wonder that the animal of Stronsa had
+“a neck”, for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins,
+except the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed
+away, whilst the basking shark of Mr. HOME had no neck, because it
+was entire.--Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which ARTEDI is
+quoted!
+
+In the comparison of Mr. HOME’S basking shark and his own stranded
+animal, Mr. BARCLAY also wholly overlooks, when he states the
+dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified remains of
+an animal, and not of an undamaged being.
+
+Dr. BARCLAY seems to entirely reject Mr. HOME’S idea that the “mane”
+had never extended over the whole back, but what was seen were only
+fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places of the foremost and
+the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of the “mane” only existed in
+the imagination of the witnesses.
+
+In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the _paws_, Mr.
+BARCLAY again forgets that he has only before him a totally mutilated
+specimen.
+
+An extract from the “_Remarks_” of Dr. BARCLAY was given by Dr.
+HOFFMANN in OKEN’S _Isis_, II, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst others he
+says:
+
+“The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the
+differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the
+slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;”
+but Mr. HOFFMANN himself is not free from inaccuracies! In none of Dr.
+BARCLAY’S papers mention is made of a “membranaceous comb extended
+over bony rays, which was running from the shoulders to the end of the
+tail, over the back.” He has evidently translated this (if we may use
+this expression) from the figure (see our fig. 7). But this figure was
+made for print by Mr. SYME, after a drawing made on one of the islands
+from the description given there, and Mr. SYME has changed the “mane”
+(long loose hairs hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he
+figured exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced
+of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble to
+compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same Mr. SYME in
+the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal of Stronsa.”
+
+Immediately after this paper Mr. OKEN, the editor of the _Isis_,
+wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect
+description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship with
+other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as no animal
+with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been a cartilaginous
+fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia (a pair of additional
+paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or “holders”) were regarded
+as the third pair of feet, whilst the ventral and pectoral fins were
+the other pairs. “It is, however, no shark,” he goes on, and adduced
+7 proofs for this theory; “it is, neither a cetacean,” and for this
+opinion he gives 4 different reasons. And yet he has the boldness to
+conclude: “The animal consequently is _more_ related to the sharks, and
+as it is not a true shark, it must be a _Chimaera_”; but the reasons
+given to prove this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I
+will add here that he also says: “finally individuals of _Chimaera_ of
+30 feet in length, have already been caught”, a manifest untruth, for
+the largest ever measured were of three feet and a half!--For those
+readers who never saw a _Chimaera_, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, I
+have delineated the _Chimaera monstrosa_ in our fig. 9.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 9.--Chimaera monstrosa, Linn.]
+
+In the _Edinb. Philos. Journ._ Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is published
+of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis was made by
+Dr. JOHN DAVY, and communicated “a considerable time ago” by Dr. LEACH
+to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my readers with this analysis
+would be superfluous.
+
+Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822, really
+believes that:
+
+“The existence of the sea-snake,--a monster of fifty-five feet long,
+is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown on shore in
+Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the Edinburgh Museum.”
+
+Dr. HAMILTON too, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, is of the same
+opinion: “We turn first” he says “to an account of an animal which
+apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-serpents),
+“which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, in
+the year 1808”, and he goes on giving some details of the stranded
+animal, taken from the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_. Later on we
+learn from him that:
+
+“Dr. FLEMING” in his _History of British Animals_, 1828, (this work I
+have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal, suggests
+that these members were probably the remains of pectoral, ventral and
+caudal fins.”
+
+Mr. RATHKE in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, after having
+published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about the
+sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm
+believer in it, goes on:
+
+“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot
+be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition, however,
+is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal, which in 1816”
+(read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, and of which
+several pieces of the skeleton are said to be preserved in the Museum
+of the University of Edinburgh, and in the Museum of the Royal College
+of Surgeons. I have read a note about it in the London Journal _the
+Athenaeum_, 1839, p. 902, which note is taken from the work: _The
+Naturalist’s Library, Amphibious Carnivora, including the Walrus
+and Seals, also of the Herbivorous Cetacea_. By B. Hamilton, M. D.
+(Edinburgh, Lizars). An ample description of the saved rests of the
+animal is said to have been written by Dr. BARCLAY in the first Volume
+of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_. I had, however, not the
+means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-mentioned
+note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured 56 feet and
+had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet. The head was
+small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15 feet long. The organs
+of motion are said to have consisted of three pairs of fins: one pair
+of which is believed to have been properly a caudal fin. The foremost
+pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were the longest, and their tops
+looked like toes, partly, however, webbed together. From the shoulders
+a kind of bristly mane extended to near the extremity of the tail. The
+skin was smooth, without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as
+large as a seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.”
+
+“Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the head
+was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender, and the
+extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the animal stranded in
+Stronsa resembled a _Plesiosaurus_; and that consequently it belonged
+to the _Amphibia_, viz. to the Saurians.”
+
+Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON, the well known Editor of the _Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte_, expressed his opinion about the animal of Stronsa,
+immediately after the appearance of Mr. RATHKE’S dissertation. After
+having given full details of Mr. BARCLAY’S paper, and an ample
+description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts belong
+undoubtedly to a shark,” and:
+
+“Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and in spite
+of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be so for
+ever, only it may not have been a _Selache maxima_, but a _Lamna
+cornubica_, which also reaches a considerable length. So the animal of
+Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians.”
+
+I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. ERICHSON could
+arrive at this conclusion, as the _Lamna cornubica_, or porbeagle
+has never attained a length above 18 feet.--Our fig. 10 represents a
+porbeagle.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 10.--Lamna cornubica (Linn.).]
+
+It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of
+the _Zoologist_, after all that had been written about the animal of
+Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his journal of
+1849, p. 2358, he asked the following
+
+“_Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast ashore
+on the Island of Stronsa in 1808._”
+
+“In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society” (vol. I. p.
+418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast ashore on the
+island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the Doctor figures
+the head with a vertebra attached, four other vertebrae and a sternum
+with a paddle “and two parts corresponding two scapulae” attached. He
+speaks of the originals of these figures as specimens then before the
+audience he was addressing. He gives seven inches as the diameter of
+the head, and two inches as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then
+still attached to the head. The total length of the animal is given
+as fifty-five feet, and this from actual admeasurement. It is now
+positively asserted that the animal in question was a shark; but the
+utter impossibility of a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head
+only seven inches in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches
+in diameter, is so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I
+shall esteem it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the
+means of doing so will reply to the following questions:--
+
+“1. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained?
+
+“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?
+
+“3. Where are these bones preserved?
+
+“4. What is their present state?
+
+“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc.?
+
+“6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? and
+if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?
+
+“Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the questions
+at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus, order or
+class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head and sternum of
+the creature are still in existence.”--
+
+The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in the
+_Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2396:
+
+“_Reply to Mr._ NEWMAN’_s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the Stronsa
+Animal_.--Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an animal cast
+on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the “Memoirs of the
+Wernerian Society”,--after some little trouble I have been able to
+answer most of these questions.”
+
+“1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtained?--It will be
+seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that George Sherar,
+one of those who saw the animal, mentions that he brought away, to
+deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian), the skull, two joints of
+one of the largest limbs next the head, with different parts of the
+back-bone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, I
+suppose, forwarded them to Dr. Barclay.”
+
+“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?--The answer
+to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took them from the
+same animal.”
+
+“3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present
+state?--Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal College
+of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches in diameter;
+and four in the University Natural History Museum, preserved in
+spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas the other
+three are separate.”
+
+“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &c.?--6. Has it
+ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? if so, what
+opinion has he pronounced on it?--This is answered by the annoying fact
+that the skull has not been preserved.”
+
+“On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae, he
+tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly those of
+a Shark (_Squalus maximus_), as are the skull, sternum and scapulae,
+figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs”, p. 418.”
+
+“We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who saw this
+extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on closer inspection
+even these will be found to have little weight in the argument. In the
+first place it is infortunate that no well-educated person saw it: they
+were all ignorant, illiterate men, who most likely knew nothing further
+of a shark than that it was an animal with a huge mouth, capable of
+discussing so many seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly
+adapted for amputating limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses
+agreeing in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six
+legs: on this point it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing
+anything of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility of
+such a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it is at
+once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and scapulae
+with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol. I. p. 418);
+the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his “British Animals”,
+supposes were claspers. In the last place we may notice one striking
+contradiction in the evidences: Thomas Fotheringhame seems to have been
+astonished at such a large animal having such a narrow throat,--so
+narrow indeed that it would not admit his hand; while George Sherar
+would have had no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there
+is nothing to prove that Thomas Fotheringhame’s hand was larger than
+George Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other
+must have made a mistake in his calculation.”
+
+“We might further suggest the improbability of any animal sixty feet
+long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and we might even
+suspect the carpenter’s footrule of showing a decided taste for the
+marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single remark, that
+if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was certainly not the great
+sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the
+Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev.
+Mr. Maclean, Eigg-Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a
+strong resemblance.--Jas. C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.”
+
+As to the animal seen by Mr. MACLEAN, see our report n^o. 31, in the
+following chapter.
+
+One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa” was now
+set at rest. Not at all! Dr. THOMAS STEWART TRAILL wrote a paper about
+it, published in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_,
+Vol. III, n^o. 44, 1854, June, comparing it with the animal seen by the
+Captain, officers and crew of H. M. S. _Daedalus_ (see our report n^o.
+118 in the next chapter). The part of his dissertation, respecting the
+“animal of Stronsa” runs as follows:
+
+“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal
+reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain M’Quhae,
+the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the Southern Atlantic,
+between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, about 300 miles off the
+African shore, recalled my attention to the materials I had collected
+respecting the vast animal cast ashore on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys,
+in 1808.”
+
+“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made by
+those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me by order of
+Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on whose property it was
+stranded; and I obtained other notes from several individuals resident
+in Orkney.”
+
+“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and
+measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were
+transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists.
+Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the late Gilbert
+Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the skull and several
+vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which a portion of the
+pectoral fin, or _wing_, as it was termed by the natives, were
+afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined them.”
+
+“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of what was
+termed the _mane_ of the animal, which I now exhibit.”
+
+“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying on a sunken
+rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; but in a few
+days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on shore in a creek near the
+headland, where it remained for some time tolerably entire; and it was
+subsequently broken up by the fury of the waves. Before it was thus
+broken into several pieces it was examined, and measured by several
+intelligent inhabitants of the Island; and their testimony collected as
+above stated was forwarded to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations
+were, however, accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal,
+which was thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather
+allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the storm
+abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, to collect
+what information he could on the subject. But by this time the body of
+the animal was completely broken up. This lad, who was no draughtsman,
+and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, from the descriptions
+of those who had seen the animal most entire, to delineate with chalk
+on a table a figure of the animal. The rude figure so produced was
+transferred by pencil to paper, and copies of it were handed about as
+real representations of the animal.”
+
+“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted by those
+who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards obtained, it would
+appear that the _jointed legs_, which the lad had attached to it, are
+creations of his own imagination.”
+
+“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, were
+never called _legs_ by those who saw the animal, but were denominated
+by them _wings_ or _fins_ or swimming paws. “That nearest the head was
+broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half feet in length, and was
+edged all round with bristles or fibres, about ten inches long”. The
+“lower jaw was wanting when it was cast ashore, but there remained
+cartilaginous teeth in portions of the jaws”. Before it was discovered
+putrefaction had commenced, especially in the _fins_. The animal had a
+long and slender neck, on which there were two spiracles on each side.”
+
+“The _wings_ would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by
+incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains of pectoral,
+abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have been placed, like
+those of some of the shark family, farther from the centre of the
+abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of the witnesses states
+that “the wings of the animal were jointed to the body nearer the ridge
+of the back than they appear in the drawing”.”
+
+“The portion of the anterior fin or _wing_, which was attached to the
+omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a structure
+of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, the rays
+might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural science, seem
+like toes or fingers.”
+
+“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing the fins
+of fishes:”--
+
+“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires membraneuses
+representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et des pieds.”
+
+“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal rests
+on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw it most
+entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew the three
+principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George Sherar, and William
+Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, and of remarkable
+intelligence. They were not _ignorant fishermen_, as the witnesses were
+represented to be; but two of them were of the better sort of farmers
+in that part of Orkney; and the first and the last of them were also
+very ingenious mechanics, much accustomed to the use of the _footrule_,
+the instrument employed in measuring the animal.”
+
+“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that I can
+have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made of their
+impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”
+
+“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months after these
+accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr. Home (afterwards
+Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside the evidence of the
+persons who saw and measured the animal in its most entire condition,
+as to its dimensions of length and thickness; and maintains that it was
+nothing but a Basking shark (Selache maximum!), which he supposes the
+love of the marvellous had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those
+whom he is pleased to call “_ignorant fishermen_”. Unfortunately for
+Home’s hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to
+those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the Orkney
+Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so totally
+different from the animal in question, that the two could scarcely be
+confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had ever seen them.”
+
+“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion
+towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions)
+measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of the
+largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account scarcely
+exceeds thirty six feet.”
+
+“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. My
+notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body of the
+Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much towards the
+head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large Basking shark,
+where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, the shark-like
+figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the eel-like
+form of the Stronsey animal.”
+
+“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by
+different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more oval
+than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, who
+had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized horse in
+thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to fourteen hands
+in height, I found their greatest circumference to be from seventy-one
+to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet eleven inches to six feet
+one inch), or an average of six feet, that is less than the thickest
+part of our animal, but seemingly near that of its average dimensions.)”
+
+“The _mane_ as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a decomposed
+fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a fin; and the animal
+seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had a mane, floating about
+like sea-weed; and a similar appendage has generally been noticed in
+some less distinct accounts of a supposed sea-serpent.”
+
+“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior
+_wings_, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and
+differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the _mane_
+consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the
+back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine animal. That
+its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from the specimen now
+exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches in length; and in the
+dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, equal to that of
+isinglass.”
+
+“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our Museum,
+have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in the Wernerian
+Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their want of processes
+and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance to those of
+chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent to the cranium,
+measured only two inches across; while that of the Basking-shark,
+in the same situation, is about seven inches in diameter. Dr.
+Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of the omoplates,
+and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are accurately given,
+from a drawing made from the recent remains, by the late Mr. John T.
+Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman, and able naturalist. I know
+the representation to be correct, for I saw and handled the specimen.
+The substance of this part was a firm, but flexible cartilage, and
+seemed to have been placed in the muscles; just as Cuvier describes
+the omoplates of sharks to be: Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans
+le chair, en arrière des Branchies, sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à
+l’espine. The Orkney animal seems to have had _two circular_ spiracles
+on each side of its neck, about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the
+Basking shark has _five linear_ spiracles on each side, a foot or more
+in length.”
+
+“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far too small
+for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual length of
+that species. It measured in its dried state no more than twelve
+inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven inches.
+A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a head of at
+least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium at the
+angles of the mouth, would have measured probably five feet. These
+proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal could not possibly
+be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed to see the Basking shark,
+with that fish. There was a hole on the top of the cranium, something
+similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans; but its lateral spiracles
+and cartilaginous bones forbid us to refer it to the order of cetacea”.
+
+“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious
+_fish_, different from any described by naturalists; but it has no
+pretensions to the denomination of _Sea Serpent_ or _Sea Snake_,
+although its general form, and probably its mode of progression in
+the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order of _Serpentes_.
+Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known shark; nor does it
+belong to the family of Squalidae”.
+
+I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. TRAILL’S paper.
+First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was cast on shore
+by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime tolerably entire”.
+This is not true, for the dead animal was already in a very putrified
+and damaged state, when it floated on the surface of the sea, for the
+pectoral fin was already putrified and the fibres had become loose.
+
+Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, but
+they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by the
+strength of the hand”.
+
+Mr. TRAILL further says that “they would seem to have been the remains
+of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may be remains
+of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there is no fish known to
+Zoologists, that has _two_ anal fins. The anal fin is therefore called
+an _unpaired_ fin!
+
+In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those of
+HOME’S Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. _Barclay_, permanently
+believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”! Further
+he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of which
+we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six feet”.
+Consulting Prof. H. SCHLEGEL’S _De visschen van Nederland_, I read,
+however:
+
+“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, had a
+length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are usually
+observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this capture, which
+are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences, transmitted
+by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GUNNER, sometimes individuals of
+more than 70, and even of more than 100 feet in length were captured on
+the coasts of Norway”.
+
+In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the two
+dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so that their
+fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called “first
+cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. _Barclay_!
+
+The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of course no
+relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not “spiracles”
+as Mr. TRAILL says) of the Basking-shark. These “two spiracles on each
+side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”. They may have been
+decomposed stems of the vascular system in the flesh near the skull of
+the animal.
+
+Dr. TRAILL, no more than Dr. BARCLAY, seemed to have known the
+difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or “cranium”!
+
+The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in the
+engraving representing the skull in the _Memoirs of the Wernerian
+Society_ is evidently the result of putrification and of an external
+injury.
+
+I need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of Stronsa”.
+They may more than once have observed that I agree with Mr. EVERARD
+HOME’S opinion in all particulars, except in the so-called exaggerated
+dimensions. I firmly believe that the carcass of the animal measured
+fifty-five feet from the head to the end of the tail, and as a piece
+of tail seems to have been broken off, the vertebral column may even
+have been one of sixty feet. The dried and shrivelled skull measured
+twelve inches “from the first cervical vertebra to the farthest part
+that remains of the jaw”. But as I have pointed out that this “first
+cervical vertebra” was in reality the cartilaginous nose tip with
+its two contorted cartilaginous appendages, and as this nose tip
+must have measured (see the drawing of the skull in the _Memoirs of
+the Wernerian Society_, Vol. I) two inches, the whole skull measured
+fourteen inches. But the skull was dried and shrivelled, consequently
+we may safely admit that it measured in its perfect state about twenty
+inches. Consequently I conclude that: the largest Basking-shark that
+ever stranded on the coasts of Great Britain measured upwards of sixty
+feet, viz. the so-called “Animal of Stronsa”. The putrified body of it
+was floated ashore, and the putrification had continued so far that the
+almost black covering of the two backfins and the tail-fin were not
+only washed away by the waves, but that their yellow fibres had become
+loose. The eye-witnesses evidently reasoned that these fibres must
+have been present all along the back between these three parts, now
+far remote one from another, but were washed away, and they therefore
+concluded that the animal had “a mane, extending from the shoulders”
+(the part of the back at the level of the pectoral fins) “to the
+tail”, i. e. to the end of the tail. Or, according to another witness
+it extended “to within two feet and a half of the tail”; which may be
+explained in two ways, viz., either he meant that the mane extended to
+within two feet and a half beyond the level of the last pair of paws
+(the claspers), consequently the level where the tail begins, and here
+is the exact place of the hindmost back-fin, or he meant that the mane
+did not quite extend to the point of the tail, from which we in our
+turn may conclude that the last two feet and a half of the tail had
+already been wholly cleared from the fibres of the putrified tail-fin.
+
+Moreover putrification on one side, and the beating of the waves on
+the other side, had already removed the animal’s enormous jaws, gills,
+with adherent muscles and cartilages, and all the entrails, except the
+valvular intestine. On persons who never saw such a mutilated specimen
+of a shark, the animal _must_ have made the impression of being a
+sea-snake!
+
+As to the sketch, made by Mr. PETRIE after the descriptions of one of
+the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat altered by Mr.
+SYME, it will appear at a glance that besides the ridiculous legs, the
+head (read skull) of it is drawn too large. The carrion was 56 feet
+long and the drawing only 74 lines, consequently the length of one foot
+is represented by a space of 1.3 line. A skull of 14 inches should
+therefore be in this drawing only 1.5 line long, and not 6 lines.
+Last not least, the “mane” is not delineated on only three different
+places, as it really was, but from the “shoulders” to the end of the
+tail, according to the wrong conclusions of those “most intelligent
+eye-witnesses”! This terrible “mane” was evidently the _only_ cause of
+all this trouble, and of the whole puzzle!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1816.--_Phil. Mag._, LIV, 1819.--The third sea-serpent described by Mr.
+RAFINESQUE (for he believes there are several species), is called by
+him:
+
+“3. _The Scarlet Sea-Serpent._ This was observed in the Atlantic Ocean,
+by the captain and crew of an American vessel from New-York, while
+reposing and coiled up, near the surface of the water, in the summer of
+1816. It is very likely that it was a fish, and perhaps might belong
+to the same genus with the foregoing; I shall refer it thereto, with
+doubt, and name it _Octipos? coccineus_. Entirely of a bright crimson;
+head acute. Nothing further descriptive was added in the gazettes where
+the account was given, except that its length was supposed to be about
+40 feet.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 11.--A large calamary, swimming on the surface of
+the Sea.]
+
+I am convinced that this “sea-serpent” was a great calamary. As the
+greatest ever found, measured from the tip of the tail to the tips
+of the extended shorter arms about 30 feet (a calamary reposing or
+swimming in the sea always has its long tentacular arms coiled up), the
+length of 40 feet probably is exaggerated. I give here a figure of a
+large calamary, swimming on the surface of the water (taken from Mr.
+HENRY LEE’S Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883, corrected, however, as to its
+proportions), and now my readers most probably will agree with me that
+such an animal has been seen. The hillocks of the short arms make the
+appearance of a long undulating body. The body of such an animal is
+quite scarlet or crimson, and the tail (the so-called head) is acute.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1822, June.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of 1822, III, we read:
+
+“Some time ago the American newspapers were filled with the reports
+of a sea-serpent which showed itself in the neighbourhood. Also more
+than a year ago an animal was caught, supposed to be such a one,
+which, however, was recognized as a large tunny. It appears by the
+New-York newspaper of June 15th., that such an animal taken for a great
+sea-serpent has been caught in a bay near Middleton-Point. This monster
+measured thirty feet and has a circumference of 18 feet. It had already
+been seen for some days, floating like a huge trunk. Some persons had
+fired at it with guns, but without any result. Having got into shallow
+water it could not regain the high sea, was killed with harpoons, towed
+aland and flayed. The liver alone produced three barrels of train-oil.
+It took six men two hours to drag the skin, which will be stuffed, to
+a distance of about 200 yards off. None of the old whalemen and seamen
+who saw the animal, knew it. There were no guts (?) and there was no
+heart (??). In the beak six rows of small sharp teeth were counted and
+the throat was wide enough for a tall man to pass. The skin was lead
+coloured and could be used as a stone for sharpening knives (apparently
+an unusual large shark?)”
+
+About the tunny I allow myself to refer the reader to our fig. 1.--We
+immediately agree with Mr. FRORIEP that this animal was a large shark.
+Evidently it was dead, “floating some days like a huge trunk”. The
+reason that no whaleman recognized the animal, that neither guts
+nor heart was found, is of course to be found in the fact that the
+animal was putrified, irrecognizable, and had already lost its guts
+and some other entrails. Evidently it was a basking-shark, _Squalus
+maximus_ (See our fig. 8). The length of 30 feet and girth of 18 feet
+is normal in this species. Norwegian fishermen harpoon it to procure
+the train-oil from the liver. The teeth are comparatively small
+and conical, the skin is lead coloured and can really be used as a
+whet-stone.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1849.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2335, we read:
+
+“_A young sea-serpent._--On Friday, while some fishermen belonging to
+Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what appeared to them a
+young sea-serpent, and lost no time in bringing the young monster to
+the secretary of our Museum. The animal, whatever it may be called, is
+still alive, and we have just been favoured with a sight of it; but
+whether it really be a young sea-serpent or not, we shall leave those
+who are better acquainted with Zoology than we are to determine. Be
+it what it may, it is a living creature, more than 20 feet in length,
+less than an inch in circumference, and of a dark brown chocolate
+colour. When at rest its body is round; but when it is handled it
+contracts upon itself, and assumes a flattish form. When not disturbed
+its motions are slow; but when taken out of the water and extended,
+it contracts like what a long cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds
+itself up in spiral form, and soon begins to secrete a whitish mucous
+from the skin, which cements the folds together, as for the purpose of
+binding the creature into the least possible dimensions.”--“_Montrose
+Standard._”--
+
+“[This creature was probably a specimen of Gordius marinus. I am
+obliged for the extract.--E. Newman.]”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN suggesting this worm to be a _Gordius marinus_ evidently
+did not mean the _Gordius marinus_ of LINNÉ, but that of MONTAGU. The
+former is a little worm of about one half of an inch in length, living
+parasitically in the entrails of some fishes, especially in herrings,
+whilst the latter is identical to _Lineus longissimus_ of SOWERBY,
+belonging to the family of _Lineidae_, to the order of _Nemertini_,
+to the class of _Platyelminthes_ or Flat-Worms. Of this species
+individuals of thirty to forty-five feet in length have occasionally
+been dredged.
+
+Having the means of consulting the splendid work of the British
+Nemerteans of Mr. Mc. INTOSH, I am able to show my readers in fig. 12
+this _Lineus longissimus_, on a reduced scale.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 12.--Lineus longissimus, Sow.]
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1849, March 26.--Another would be sea-serpent; (Zoologist p. 2433 for
+1849):
+
+“_A strange marine animal_, of great size and strength, was captured
+on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By the enclosed
+handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears to be quite
+unknown to the neighbouring _savants_. The honest fishermen who drew
+the struggling monster to land are not, however, overscrupulous
+about the name, provided it be attractive enough to extract from the
+pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 6_d._; working people 3_d._ each”:
+they therefore boldly announce him as “the great sea-serpent caught
+at last”. My correspondent very judiciously observes, that whatever
+the animal may be, it adds another to the many evidences constantly
+occurring that there _are_ more things in heaven and earth, than are
+dreamt of by the most experienced practical observers. Some thirty
+five years since, the distinguished anatomist Dr. Barclay, was fain to
+reproach his contemporaries with the folly of affecting to suppose that
+they knew every thing. What additions have five and thirty years not
+given to Science! As the animal in question must be at least a local
+visitor, may we not hope, that some resident naturalist will favour us
+with a notice of it?”
+
+“The great Sea-Serpent caught at last, by fourteen fishermen, off
+Cullercoats, on Monday last, March 26, 1849. This most wonderful
+monster of the deep was discovered by a crew of fishermen, about
+six miles from the land, who, after a severe struggle, succeeded in
+capturing this, the most wonderful production of the mighty deep. This
+monster has been visited by numbers of the gentry and scientific men of
+Newcastle, and all declare that nothing hitherto discovered in Natural
+History affords any resemblance to this. As an object of scientific
+inquiry, this “great unknown” must prove a subject of peculiar
+interest. Many surmises as to its habits, native shores, etc., have
+already been made, but nothing is really known. The general opinion
+expressed by those that are best able to judge, is, that this is the
+great sea-serpent, which hitherto has only been believed to have a
+fabulous existence, but which recent voyagers declare they have seen.
+Now exhibiting, at the shop, 57, Grey Street, opposite the High Bridge.
+Admission: ladies and gentlemen 6_d._, Working people 3_d._ each.”
+
+In the _Illustrated London News_ of May 19, 1849, we find the following
+account of this capture:
+
+“The Sea-Serpent.--We observe in the Newcastle papers that a strange
+and hitherto unknown fish, nearly 13 feet in length, and possessing
+many of the characteristics which the captain of the _Daedalus_
+enumerated in his description of the great Sea-Snake, has really been
+caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats’ fishermen, and
+has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it has created the greatest
+sensation. The members of the National History Society of that town
+have duly reported upon it, and expressed their opinion, that it is a
+young specimen of the genus _Gymnetrus_, only four of which species,
+and those very rare, are known to ichthyologists, and described by
+Cuvier and others as inhabiting the Indian, Mediterranean and White
+Seas. The present specimen has become the property of a Newcastle
+merchant, who has presented it to the museum of that town; and we
+understand that, in accordance with a very general wish of most of our
+distinguished naturalists, it is now exhibiting in the metropolis.”
+
+As we read in the _Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2460--2462, Mr. ALBANY
+HANCOCK and Dr. EMBLETON now declared it to be a probably new species
+of the genus of riband-fish (_Gymnetrus_).
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 13.--Gymnetrus gladius, Cuv. Val.]
+
+Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the _Gymnetrus
+gladius_ of CUVIER and VALENCIENNES, taken from the _Règne Animal_.
+This fish is of a silvery colour, except the fins and the peculiar
+articulated head-ornaments, which are crimson. Its length is about ten
+feet, its home the Mediterranean. The _Gymnetrus Banksii_ or _Regalecus
+Banksii_ of Cuvier, closely allied to it, measures about twenty feet,
+sometimes more, and is, though rarely, hitherto caught only near the
+British shores. The fish in question therefore most probably belonged
+to this species.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1852, Aug. 28.--Mr. ALFRED NEWTON, of Elveden Hall, forwarded the
+following report to the Editor of the _Zoologist_ (see this journal for
+1853, p. 3756).
+
+“I have lately received the following account from my brother, Capt.
+Steele, 9th. Lancers, who on his way out to India in the Barham,
+saw the sea-serpent. Thinking it might be interesting to you, as
+corroborating the account of the Daedalus, I have taken the liberty of
+sending you the extract from my brother’s letter:--“On the 28th. of
+August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16′ S., about half-past two, we had
+all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when the first mate called
+us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight. About five hundred yards
+from the ship there was the head and neck of an enormous snake; we saw
+about sixteen or twenty feet out of the water, and he _spouted_ a long
+way from his head; down his back he had a crest like a cock’s comb, and
+was going very slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty
+or sixty feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put
+the ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached him,
+he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. _He was seen by
+every one on board._” My brother is no naturalist, and I think this is
+the first time the monster has ever been seen to spout.”
+
+“I am told by a gentleman whose brother was on board the ship (the
+Barham) referred in the following extract from “The Times” newspaper of
+November 17, 1852, that the occurrence there related took place between
+35° and 40° S. lat. and 40° and 45° E. long., being about 650 miles due
+south of Madagascar. I understand that the particulars of the event
+as there stated closely agree with those furnished to my informant,
+and further, which is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole
+circumstance, that the animal was observed to “blow” or “spout” in the
+same manner that a whale does.”
+
+“_Extract from an Officer’s Letter written between the Cape and
+Madras._ You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen the
+great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion.
+Information was given by a sailor to the captain, just as we were
+going to dinner. I was in my cabin at the time, and from the noise
+and excitement, I thought the ship was on fire. I rushed on deck, and
+on looking over the side of the vessel I saw a most wonderful sight,
+which I shall recollect as long as I live. His head appeared to be
+about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept moving it up and down,
+sometimes showing his enormous neck, which was surmounted with a huge
+crest in the shape of a saw. It was surrounded by hundreds of birds,
+and we at first thought it was a dead whale. He left a track in the
+water like the wake of a boat, and from what we could see of the head
+and part of his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet
+in length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away to
+get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards he slowly
+sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at dinner he was seen
+again, and a midshipman took a sketch of him, of which I will send you
+a copy.”--_The Times._
+
+Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, 1^{st} Series, p. 311,
+says of these rapports:
+
+“The descriptions, however, show great discrepancy with that of the
+creature, seen from the _Daedalus_” (see report n^o. 118 in the next
+chapter) “and cannot be considered confirmatory of the former account,
+otherwise than as proving that immense unrecognized creatures of
+elongate form roam the ocean.”
+
+“Mr. Alfred Newton, of Elveden Hall, an excellent and well-known
+naturalist, adds the guarantee of his personal acquaintance with one of
+the recipients of the above letters.”
+
+“I note this, because discredit has been undeservedly cast on the
+phenomena observed, by foolish fabulous stories having been published
+under fictitious names, for the purpose of hoaxing.”
+
+“If it were not for the spouting--which is not mentioned by one
+observer, and may possibly have been an illusion,--I should be inclined
+to think that this may have been one of the scabbard fishes, specimens
+of which inhabit the ocean of immense size. They carry a high serrated
+dorsal fin, and swim with the head out of the water.”
+
+By inserting these reports in the present chapter, I already show my
+readers, that I agree with Mr. GOSSE, that this animal cannot have been
+a sea-serpent.
+
+I confess that I am unable to give a decisive answer to the question as
+to what kind of animal it really was. _Apparently_ the most plausible
+explanation is that given by Mr. Gosse, viz., that it was a riband or
+scabbard fish. The dorsal fin which in these kind of fishes begins at
+the occiput, is red or crimson coloured, and serrated, so that it may
+have given rise to the expressions of “a crest like a cock’s comb”, and
+“a huge crest in the shape of a saw”. But riband fishes are deep-sea
+fishes. When floating on the surface they are dying or already dead.
+They never “swim with their head above the surface”! Moreover the green
+colour does not agree with the common silvery hue of these animals. A
+riband fish is delineated in fig. 13, p. 93.
+
+But wonderful it may seem that after having uttered this opinion, a
+few pages further on Mr. GOSSE uses this report amongst others to fix
+the class of living creatures to which the sea-serpent belongs. And
+what is the conclusion he arrives at?--that it belongs to the group of
+_Plesiosauri_, or at least is related to it!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1858, July 9.--_Another Sea-Serpent._--(_Zoologist_, 1859, p.
+6492.)--“The Amsterdamsche Courant of October 6, 1858, inserts the
+following letter from Captain L. Bijl, of the Dutch bark “Hendrik
+Ido Ambacht”, to the “Jorn-Bode”:--“Sailing in the South Atlantic,
+in 27° 27′ N. Lat., and 14° 51,′ E. long., we perceived on July the
+9th., between twelve and one o’clock in the afternoon, a dangerous sea
+monster, which during nine days constantly kept alongside of us to 37°
+55′ S. lat., and 42° 9′ E. long. This animal was about 90 feet long
+and 25 to 30 feet broad, and, most of the time, it struck the ship
+with such a force as to make it vibrate. The monster blew much water,
+which spread an unpleasant stench over the deck. The captain, fearing
+lest the animal might disable the rudder, did his utmost to get rid
+of his fearful antagonist, but without success. After it had received
+more than a hundred musket-balls, a harpoon and a long iron bar, blood
+was seen to flow from various wounds, so that at last from loss of
+strength, the monster could swim behind our vessel no longer, and we
+were delivered of it. By its violent blows against the copper the
+animal’s skin had been damaged in several places.”--J. H. van Lennep,
+Zeist.”[2]
+
+  [2] _Jorn Bode_ is most probably a misprint for _Java-Bode_. _Zeist_
+  is the well-known charming village, east of Utrecht, the fourth town
+  of the Netherlands.
+
+As to the animal, seen from the _Hendrik Ido Ambacht_, I think it must
+have been a sick spermwhale, which was out of temper; why else should
+it have been so angry that it followed the bark nine days, cuffing it
+“most of the time”? Moreover the nature of spermwhales is well enough
+known as angry and war-like.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1860?--In the _Zoologist_ for this year we read p. 6934:
+
+“_A sea-serpent in the Bermudas._--I beg to send you the following
+account of a strange sea-monster captured on these shores, the animal
+being, in fact, no less than the great sea-serpent which was described
+as having been seen by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. S. “Daedalus”, a few
+years since. Two gentlemen named Trimingham were walking along the
+shore of Hungary Bay, in Hamilton Island, on Sunday last, about eleven
+o’clock, when they were attracted by a loud rushing noise in the water,
+and, on reaching the spot, they found a huge sea-monster, which had
+thrown itself on the low rocks, and was dying from exhaustion in its
+efforts to regain the water. They attacked it with large forks which
+were lying near at hand for gathering in sea-weed, and unfortunately
+mauled it much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven
+inches in length, tapering from head to tail like a snake, the body
+being a flatfish oval shape, the greatest depth at about a third of its
+length from the head, being eleven inches. The colour was bright and
+silvery; the skin destitute of scales but rough and warty; the head in
+shape not unlike that of a bull-dog, but it is destitute of teeth; the
+eyes were large, flat, and extremely brilliant, it had small pectoral
+fins, and minute ventral fins, and large gills. There were a series of
+fins running along the back, composed of short, slender rays, united
+by a transparent membrane, at the interval of something less than an
+inch from each other. The creature had no bone, but a cartilage running
+through the body. Across the body at certain intervals were bands,
+where the skin was of a more flexible nature, evidently intended for
+the creature’s locomotion, screw like, through the water. But its
+most remarkable feature was a series of eight long thin spines of a
+bright red colour springing from the top of the head and following each
+other at an interval of about an inch; the longest was in the centre:
+it is now in the possession of Colonel Munro, the acting Governor of
+the Colony; and I had the opportunity of examining it very closely.
+It is two feet seven inches long, about three eighth of an inch in
+circumference at the base, and gradually tapering, but flattened at the
+extreme end, like the blade of an oar. The shell of these spines is
+hard, and, on examination by a powerful glass, appeared to be double,
+some red colouring matter being between the shells; the outside, which
+to the touch and natural eye was smooth, being rough and much similar
+to the small claws or feelers of the lobster or crayfish. The centre
+was a wide pith, like an ordinary quill. The three foremost of these
+spines were connected for about half their length by a greasy filament;
+the rest being unconnected; the serpent had the power of elevating or
+depressing the crest at pleasure. The serpent was carefully examined by
+several medical and scientific gentlemen; the head, dorsal spine, and
+greater part of the crest are in the possession of J. M. Jones Esq.,
+an eminent naturalist, who will, doubtless, send home a more learned
+description of this “wonder of the deep”. I regret that the immediate
+departure of the mail for England prevents my preparing you any more
+careful drawing of this great “sea-serpent” than that I enclose.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds hereto the following
+note:
+
+“Written by Captain Hawtaigne, of Her Majesty’s 39 Foot. I place
+implicit reliance on the narrative, except as to the animal being
+identical with that seen by Capt. M’Quhae, of which I think there is
+no evidence. Mr. J. M. Jones is an old subscriber to the _Zoologist_,
+and a most intelligent; but the query occurs to me, “Is not _this_
+sea-serpent a ribband fish?”--
+
+Yes, _this_ sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent
+naturalist”, Mr. J. M. JONES, soon afterwards described this species
+for the _Zoologist_, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr. EDWARD
+NEWMAN has “received the following particulars of this most interesting
+capture from an old and valued correspondent of the _Zoologist_. It
+must be read in connection with a previous note on the same animal in
+the April number of the _Zoologist_. (Zool. p. 6934)”.
+
+Now follows the description of the animal, by Mr. J. MATHEW JONES, with
+which we will not trouble our readers, only referring them to our fig.
+13, p. 93, of a ribband fish, closely allied to the specimen, captured
+in the Bermudas.
+
+Mr. JONES adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea-serpent
+seen by Captain M’QUHAE (see report n^o. 118), and concludes that part
+of the reports concerning the great sea-serpent originated from the
+appearance of ribband fishes. His views of the matter, however, will be
+treated of in our chapter on the various explanations.
+
+Immediately after this article Mr. NEWMAN wrote another, in which he
+shows that this fish is a _new species_, giving it the name _Regalecus
+Jonesii_, NEWMAN. How far Mr. NEWMAN was right in doing so, I am unable
+to decide. He gives a full description of his new species, and adds
+that he is not competent to express an opinion upon the similarity of
+_Regalecus Jonesii_ to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1878.--The _Scotsman_ of September 6th. of this year has inserted in
+its columns the following account.
+
+“A Baby Sea-Serpent.--From Van Diemen’s Land comes news of the capture
+of a queer fish. It is fourteen feet long, fifteen inches deep from the
+neck to the belly, tapering two inches to the tail, and eight inches
+in diameter in the thickest place. There are no scales, but the skin
+is like polished silver, with eighteen dark lines and rows of spots
+running from the head to the tail each side. There is a mane on the
+neck twenty inches long, and continues from the head to the tail;
+small head, no teeth, protrusive mouth, capable of being extended four
+inches like a sucker; eyes flat, about the size of a half crown, and
+like silver, with black pupils. There are two feelers under the chin,
+thirty-two inches long. The fish was alive when captured.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON who communicated this capture in _Nature_ of the
+12th. of September, 1878, Vol. XVIII, thinks that this account “seems
+explicable only on the tape fish theory.” I think he might have written
+“_is_ explicable only on the tape fish theory”, or in short: “this was
+evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is identical to a ribband fish.
+Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes, some species evidently don’t
+live at great depth, and are occasionally cast ashore after a storm, as
+had also happened, in 1860, on the Bermudas (see hereabove).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1879, December 23.--(G. VERSCHUUR, _Eene reis rondom de wereld in 480
+dagen_, p. 51.)
+
+On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. VERSCHUUR on board the _Granada_,
+left Mazatlan, a harbour on the western coast of Mexico, for San
+Francisco. Probably on the 23d. the _Granada_ passed Cape San Lucas at
+23° N. lat. Mr. VERSCHUUR says:
+
+“Past Cape San Lucas, one afternoon, as I am gazing at the ocean
+surface, I see a long neck rising out of the water very close to the
+ship. I beckon some other passengers who are on deck, and after a few
+minutes the object in question appears a second time. It is the neck
+of a snake, one would say, and we estimate the length of the visible
+part of the animal at about a meter. The thickness is about that of the
+upper-arm of a full-grown man and the head ends in a point, and is as
+large as a child’s head”.
+
+“We call the whole crew, and the captain as well as some officers run
+to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless five of us
+had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent altercation arose,
+when one of the officers said we evidently were mistaken, because the
+sea-serpent did not exist.”
+
+“Nobody of us, it is true, could affirm that it was a sea-serpent.
+We could only firmly maintain that what we had seen, agreed in all
+respects with the shape of a serpent.”
+
+“The second officer, who joined in the conversation, declared to have
+observed in 1871 near the coast of Australia, a sea-serpent which
+was several meters in length, and when this statement too was called
+in question, the quarrel got warmer and warmer, and, as it generally
+happens in such cases, every one kept his own opinion, and the world
+did not get any the wiser for it.”
+
+“Does the sea-serpent exist, or does he not? This is a problem which
+has been answered more than once in the most affirmative manner, and
+also in a negative sense. I have heard the question disputed on more
+than one voyage.”
+
+In order to obtain more particulars about the animal, I wrote to Mr.
+VERSCHUUR Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the following questions:
+
+“Did the features of the “snake” make on you the impression to be those
+of a mammal, like those of a seal or sea-lion, though the pointed head
+more resembled that of a snake?”
+
+“Or had the head, though being much larger, more the shape of that of
+an eel?”
+
+“Were there just behind the head a pair of fins, as eels have?”
+
+“Why did the visible part make on you the impression to be a “neck”.
+You speak of a “neck” of a snake. Was the diameter near the head
+smaller than that just above the water, as if the animal was still
+thicker under water?”
+
+“Or did you observe the contrary?”
+
+“Was the “snake” perfectly round, or was it provided on its back with a
+fin, as in eels?”
+
+“What colour had your snake, and had the belly and the back the same
+colour?”
+
+“Did you observe any eyes, nostrils, ears, ear holes, gills, whiskers,
+or any other appendages?”
+
+“These are all questions which a zoologist wants to have answered in
+order to determine somewhat, what animal may have been seen by you.”
+
+Mr. VERSCHUUR had the courtesy to send me an early answer Oct. 30th.,
+1889. The part of this letter referring to my questions runs as follows:
+
+“I greatly regret to say that my answers will not help you much. The
+distance at which I saw this strange animal was too great, and the
+appearance too short, to observe anything of the particulars stated by
+you.”
+
+“The part which we saw rise out of the sea had, if my memory does not
+deceive me, the thickness of a full-grown upper-arm, and the length of
+from 1 to 1¹⁄₂ meter.”
+
+“The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of a snake’s
+head, i. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the “cobra” or of the
+rattlesnake.”
+
+“Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., I could observe nothing, during this
+short appearance. The colour seemed to me to be a greyish one.”
+
+“I regret not being able to give you more details than those written by
+me in my book of travels.”
+
+I think this animal was of the eel-tribe, the dimensions were too small
+even to admit the supposition that it was a spawn of the sea-serpent.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+We observe that many so-called great sea-serpents are to be explained
+by reference to _known_ animals. There are, however, a great many
+sea-serpents which don’t answer to the description of any _known_ being
+at all, unless we venture upon a suggestion which is either wrong,
+forced, or premature, and which can be accepted only with a smile or a
+shrug of the shoulders.
+
+Some sea-serpent explainers are in the habit of explaining _one single_
+sea-serpent, say by reference to a row of porpoises, and then try to
+account for others by this suggestion, the upshot of which is that the
+explainer does no longer see his way clear of the difficulties which
+beset him, and driven to his wits’ end, cuts the Gordian knot, leaving
+a great many sea-serpents unexplained.
+
+Others, like Mr. GOSSE, Mr. ANDREW WILSON, and Mr. HENRY LEE, were
+prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea-serpent a
+_Plesiosaurus_, an extraordinarily developed _Hydrophis_, or a large
+Calamary (_Architeuthis_).
+
+But none of them hit on the plan to put all the accounts, tales, and
+reports of this great unknown animal side by side, to point out the
+statements which are immediately recognizable as strange, or explicable
+by reference to some known animal, and finally to decide which of
+the known animals may have been bold enough to present itself as a
+deceitful serpentine creature, or, if the result is negative and leads
+to the conclusion that the sea-serpent does not belong to any known
+species of animal, to decide, what kind of animal does exist, though
+_unknown_ to zoologists! And to this inquiry we pass now.
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+The various accounts and reports concerning observations of
+Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and
+criticisms of the papers written about the subject.
+
+
+An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in _Nature_
+of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that subject. A few
+months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the _Album der Natuur_, a
+Dutch periodical, designed to bring the latest progress and problems
+of Science in a very popular manner under the eyes of non-scientific
+readers.
+
+In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an animal
+which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless existed, and
+gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.
+
+In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the same
+subject by Mr. HENRY LEE. In this work “_Sea Monsters Unmasked_” the
+sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as having been a row
+of porpoises following one another, as some gigantic sea-weed, as
+huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as any still unknown animal
+belonging to a genus of reptiles, the representatives of which are only
+known in the fossil state.
+
+Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, and
+seeing that Mr. LEE did not mention my supposition, I am now so bold as
+to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent in another manner; I
+have chosen the English language as being known to all zoologists and
+to all navigators.
+
+The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, quoted
+by ARISTOTELES (_History of Animals_, Book 8, chapt. 28), PLINIUS
+(_Naturalis Historiae_, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), VALERIUS
+MAXIMUS (_de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus_, Lib. 1, cap. 8, 1st.
+century), FLORUS (Lib. 2), SENECA (litt. 82), SILVIUS ITALICUS (Lib.
+6), AULUS GELLIUS (Lib. 6, cap. 3), OROSIUS, ZONARES, DIODORUS SICULUS,
+VOLETERRANUS (_Commentariorum Urbanorum_ libri 38, book 12), PETR.
+MARTYR (_Decad._ 1, lib. 10), BAKIUS (_Posidonii Vita et Reliquiae_, p.
+115), AELIANUS, VERGILIUS, etc., were most probably nothing but pythons.
+
+The various kinds of _Serpens marinus_ alluded to by ARISTOTELES and
+PLINIUS, and afterwards described and figured by many other authors,
+evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of _Père_ JEAN BAPTISTE
+LABAT in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which reach no
+greater length than about twelve feet.
+
+For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different
+animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than the year 1500
+A. D.
+
+Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great
+Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come to the
+conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of the so-called
+sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were cuttles of
+extraordinary dimensions (_Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora_). In
+all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes not difficult for
+a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures and their habits,
+to explain those observations, but the greater part of the accounts
+of Great Sea-Serpents do _not_ agree with the well-known shape of
+sea-weeds and cuttles, _nor_ with the habits of porpoises. Mr. LEE
+tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent with these kinds
+of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent moving with vertical
+undulations, and figured it thus, knew the habits of those animals, and
+some of them testified, that it could not have been porpoises, which
+they knew well enough to be sure of it. I will add here that porpoises
+move irregularly and have dorsal fins, which must of course be visible
+whenever they appear on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts
+mentioning the sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any
+question of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.
+
+But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within our reach,
+and peruse them in order of their date.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=1=.--1522.--(See OLAUS MAGNUS, _Historia de gentibus_, etc.) “There
+is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island called
+Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change in the Kingdom
+of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, as it was seen, anno
+1522, raising itself high above the surface of the water and circling
+like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent was estimated by conjecture
+to be fifty cubits long; this event was followed by the banishment of
+King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; and it
+also showed the destruction of the country, as Isidorus tells us of the
+birds of Diomedes.”
+
+In the original Latin we read _atque in modum sphaerae convolvens_ (and
+wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am convinced that
+we have to do with a misprint, and that the author evidently wrote
+_atque in modum spirae convolvens_, which I have translated above “and
+circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies that the observer saw
+the animal swimming with vertical undulations, parts of which were
+visible above the surface of the water.
+
+Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the animal
+raised itself high above the surface of the water.
+
+Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about
+seventy-five feet.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+OLAUS MAGNUS, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as follows:
+
+“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of
+Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, namely
+that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 feet, and 20
+feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the shore of Bergen; it
+comes out of its caverns only on summernights and in fine weather to
+devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles,
+lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It has a row of hairs of two feet
+in length, hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark colour, and
+brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks boats, and snatches away the men, by
+raising itself high out of the water, and devours them: and commonly
+this does not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without
+a change being at hand, either that the princes will die or will be
+banished, or that a war will soon break out.”
+
+This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores of
+Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large dimensions,
+and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs hanging down from
+its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant and flaming. It
+only appears in fine weather.
+
+We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance
+on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. The eating of
+squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, or it may have
+been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them with its head above
+water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of snatching away a man
+from the ships is evidently confounded with another tale, as it is not
+mentioned anywhere else with regard to the sea-serpent. It evidently
+refers to gigantic calamaries which occasionally attack boats and
+snatch away one of the crew. (See LEE, _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, I,
+_The Kraken_.). Its being covered with scales must be fictitious too,
+for they who saw a sea-serpent at a short distance, are unanimous in
+stating that it had no scales but a smooth skin.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 14.--The sea-serpent as represented by Olaus
+Magnus.]
+
+On the same page of the text, OLAUS MAGNUS has figured a sea-serpent
+in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which has just anchored
+on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. I give a facsimile of
+that figure in Fig. 14.--Mr. HENRY LEE who mostly sees calamaries
+and no other animals in the tales and figures representing the Great
+Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the presumed body of the serpent was one
+of the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging
+are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its
+whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of
+transverse septa, one on each side of it”.--As to the snatching away a
+man of the crew, I quite agree with Mr. LEE, as already said above,
+but as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced
+that OLAUS MAGNUS or his draughtsman had no other intention than to
+delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned
+in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it a
+medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+GESNER in his _Nomenclator aquatilium animantium_, 1560, gives two
+figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in Fig. 15 and
+16.--GESNER says that there is a large map of Scandinavia in OLAUS
+MAGNUS’ work, and on this map our fig. 15 is drawn in the Baltic Sea,
+and our fig. 16 in the Atlantic Ocean. In the original edition of 1555
+there is but a small map of Scandinavia, which shows only the heads
+of several animals in the sea. I therefore conclude that there still
+exists another edition of MAGNUS’ work which I don’t know. Returning
+to our figures we immediately observe that the drawer has delineated
+large _snakes_, the one without scales, and swimming with _vertical_
+undulations, the other with large scales, and that he did not intend
+to represent a dorsal fin by the medial line, but only a medial row of
+scales, unequal to the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of
+protuberances are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long
+hairs hanging down from the neck of the animal.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 15.--The sea-serpent illustrating the text of
+Gesner.]
+
+Of the sea-serpent GESNER tells us:
+
+“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents
+of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked, do not
+harm any one. Of these sea-serpents OLAUS MAGNUS gives the following
+figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.--(See our fig. 15).
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 16.--The second sea-serpent illustrating the same
+work.]
+
+“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or two hundred
+feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as states the number
+added to the figure), which sometimes appears near Norway in fine
+weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it snatches away men from the
+ships. Mariners tell that it incloses ships, as large as our trading
+vessels, made on our rivers and lakes, by laying itself round them in
+a circle, and that the ship then is turned upside down. It sometimes
+makes such large coils above the water, that a ship can go through one
+of them. I give the figure as it is on the Map.”--(See our fig. 16.)
+
+Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent: it is
+harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns them upside
+down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can go through one
+of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the sea-serpent is
+perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this in almost every
+account. The other two are of course extraordinary exaggerations of its
+dimensions.
+
+The two figures of GESNER copied on a reduced scale, with an extract of
+his text, appeared in the _Graphic_ of January 29, 1876.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The text in the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work printed at Basle in 1567
+is the same as that of the first edition printed in 1555 at Rome, but
+the figure between the text differs, and is doubtless a combination of
+our figg. 14 and 16, in miniature; see our fig. 17.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 17.--The sea-serpent as represented in the Basle
+edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 18.--The sea-serpent, illustrating the Map of
+Scandinavia in the Basle edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.]
+
+On the map of Scandinavia subjoined to the work also occurs a figure of
+the sea-serpent, which we have copied in our fig. 18.--This figure does
+not claim our attention; it represents an eel or a snake, it has no
+scales.--Not so fig. 17: it distinctly shows dorsal scales and ventral
+plates, just as snakes have. This seems to me a confirmation of my
+opinion that in all these figures the drawers had no other intention
+than to delineate a large snake, without any notion of the arms of a
+calamary. As to the seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary
+was the robber, whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent.
+Last not least, it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from
+its neck, a true mane, and several credible persons declare to have
+seen them.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+ALDROVANDUS, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic or
+Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean. I believe he
+is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER.
+His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map of Scandinavia,
+which accompanies the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, unknown to me,
+and mentioned above. He only omits the water, the ship and the man in
+its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give copies, because they are exact
+enlargements of our fig. 15 and 16.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=2=.--1640?--(See ADAM OLEARIUS, _Gottorfische Kunstkammer_, Ed. I,
+1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long ago been
+confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who declared to have
+heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy man, that, whilst
+standing on a hill on the Norwegian coast, he saw in the calm water
+a large serpent, which seen from afar, had the thickness of a wine
+barrel, and 25 windings. These serpents are said to appear on the
+surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.”
+
+Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea, and most
+probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark, a large animal was
+seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the confirmation that it comes
+to the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.
+I beg the reader to fix his attention on those apparently insignificant
+statements, as it will be seen that they are given several times
+independant of one another.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+JONSTON in his _Historia naturalis_, and his _Theatrum universale
+omnium animalium_ of which several editions appeared in 1653, 1657,
+1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by RUYSCH, quoted by Prof. W. D. PECK in
+_Mem. Amer. Acad._ 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and 1768, repeats the tales of
+OLAUS MAGNUS, and the figures of GESNER and ALDROVANDUS.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+MILTON in his _Paradise Lost_, printed in 1667, comparing Satan with
+huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, calling
+it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):
+
+    “Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,
+    With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes
+    That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides
+    Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
+    Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge
+    As whom the fables name of monstrous size
+    Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove,
+    Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den
+    By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast
+    Leviathan, which God of all his works
+    Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream:
+    Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam,
+    The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff
+    Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell,
+    With fixed anchor in his scaly rind,
+    Moors by his side under the lee, while night
+    Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”
+
+We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large sea-monster
+on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor, a story told
+about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+CHARLETON in 1668 quotes only ALDROVANDUS and OLAUS MAGNUS, giving
+neither description nor figures.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=3=.--1687.--(RAMUS, _Norges Beskrivelse_, quoted by PONTOPPIDAN).
+
+“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times by several
+persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons together. The
+weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and the wind began to
+blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs out a coil of rope can
+know the length thereof, so one could see how long it was, before it
+had wound off all its coils, and stretched itself at full length.”
+
+In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm weather
+and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time the fact is
+mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a straight line.
+Further on we shall read this several times.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=4=.--1720.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög paa Norges naturlige
+Historie_).
+
+“THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent had been
+shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it came by high tide
+through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that
+eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or
+serpent was found. One end of the skin had entirely sunk into the water
+of the inlet, and no one could guess how long it was, the inlet in
+which the skin partly lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of
+this skin was washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see
+it; apparently it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy
+mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.
+
+It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily
+during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the
+sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had been
+an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent, I am sure
+that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also stated
+that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards was
+certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a great
+calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently proves my
+hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or inlet, and its long
+dead arm was washed ashore by the current, while the body sunk.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=5=.--1734, July 6.--The earliest account of HANS EGEDE’S encounter
+with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in Danish at
+Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “_A Full and Particular Relation of his
+voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734_”.
+
+I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the passage
+about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:
+
+“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal,
+which raised itself so high above the water, that its head reached
+above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew like a whale,
+had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it were, covered with a
+hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and uneven on its skin; moreover on
+the lower part it was formed like a snake, and when it went under water
+again, it cast itself backwards and in so doing it raised its tail
+above the water, a whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had
+very bad weather.”
+
+In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work, entitled
+_Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der
+Groenländischen Mission_, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4^o, which I have not
+been able to consult either.
+
+I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition. In the
+_Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of the article
+_Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent_ translated the
+passage from a Danish copy of EGEDE’S _Full and Particular Relation_
+in the British Museum. Evidently he was not very well up in the Danish
+language, for his translation is partly incorrect. I am convinced that
+in the original text EGEDE does not mention the exact locality where he
+saw the animal. The translator tells us that it was off the south coast
+of Greenland, which of course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south
+coast. Of “sea-animal” he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top”
+he has “on a level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he
+has “it blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were
+covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with shell-fish,
+or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.
+
+In 1738 HANS EGEDE wrote a _Journal of his mission_, in which he did
+not mention the meeting, but his son PAUL EGEDE in the continuation of
+this Journal, entitled _Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den
+Groenlandske Mission_, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a full account of it,
+which we have translated above word for word.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 19.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Egede, drawn
+by Bing.]
+
+I have not had the means of consulting the German translation of this
+work, entitled _Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische_ _Mission
+betreffend_, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything about the text
+or figures, but the translation which I found in the German edition
+of PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_ is correct. Not so the
+English translation entitled _Journal of the Mission to Greenland_, 2d.
+Vol. There we find, according to Mr. LEE who quotes the passage in his
+_Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, first _sea-monster_ instead of _sea-animal_,
+further, that _it spouted water like a whale_, instead of _it blew like
+a whale_. There is a great difference between these two expressions.
+A whale does not spout _water_ as is generally believed and figured.
+Further, that the body seemed to be covered _with scales_, instead of
+_with a hard skin_ or _crust_, for the Danish _skiell_ or _skiaell_ is
+singular, and not plural. Finally, that the tail above the water was a
+whole ship-length from the _head_ instead of from the _body_, for the
+Danish _Kroppen_ signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything
+of the figures in this edition.
+
+In the original Danish work of PAUL EGEDE there is a map of a part of
+the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called Baals Rivier,
+on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good Hope (Gothaab). As it
+was generally done in those days, Mr. BING, a brother-missionary of
+EGEDE’S, drew on his map not only the animal but also the vessel in
+the sea. I give here a facsimile of the figure of the animal, without
+the ship. We distinctly see that the animal has rather a serpentlike
+form with a large head, showing formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy
+eye-brow, and a nostril; two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the
+uneven skin, and a tail ending in a point.
+
+On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s
+tail, after it had plunged back into the water. The tail is again
+figured terminating in a point.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 20.--The same individual plunging back into the
+water.]
+
+We shall do well to observe the fact that the figure is an accurate
+illustration of the text with regard to the animal blowing like a
+whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately after having
+been under water a long time, is condensed in the cold air and forms
+little curling clouds.
+
+In the original Danish work of HANS EGEDE, entitled _A Full and
+Particular Relation_, etc., of which we have spoken above, there is
+also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to consult this
+work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of Baals Rivier with the
+two figures of the animal are quite the same, true facsimiles. The
+above mentioned translator drew this figure on a reduced scale for his
+article in the _Illustrated London News_, and as his text is incorrect,
+his figure is so too, for he changed the rough skin into scales,
+according to his own translation. (See our fig. 21.)
+
+Afterwards Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_ made use of the
+figure of the _Illustrated London News_ and so gave his readers again
+an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a true facsimile of
+the figure as it appeared in the _Illustrated London News_, Oct. 28,
+1848, and in Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, London, 1883. A reduced
+copy of it also appeared in the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of February 3,
+1877.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 21.--The drawing of Bing, as reprinted and altered
+in the Illustrated London News of 1848.]
+
+In the Danish work of HANS EGEDE _Det gamle Groenlands nye
+Perlustration_ we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the
+colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four times
+longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same as in PAUL
+EGEDE’S _Continuation_ of the Journal.
+
+In the German edition of this work, entitled _Des alten Groenlands neue
+Perlustration_, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it was seen before the
+Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had two broad flappers on the
+fore-part of the body”.
+
+In the Dutch edition, entitled: _Beschrijving van Oud Groenland_,
+Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties as
+the English and the German translators did, but was more correct in his
+expressions.
+
+In the French edition, entitled _Description et histoire naturelle du
+Groenland_, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed himself
+the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which was
+covered _with scales_, plunged back into the water, it did so with _the
+belly turned upwards_!”
+
+In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated from the
+French) entitled _Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland_,
+Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal _lay upon the water
+with its belly turned upwards_ when it plunged back into the water!
+
+In many respects the figure of Mr. BING and EGEDE’S text complete each
+other.
+
+Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We may do
+this most safely, being convinced of the truth of EGEDE’S words and
+BING’S figure. EGEDE “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded man,
+possessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love
+of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, and free
+from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable signs of
+fidelity.” (LEE, _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, p. 65.)
+
+From what has been said of the animal, seen by EGEDE, we gather that it
+appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather before the Danish
+Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland; (EGEDE says: “the
+following evening we had very bad weather”, so we may conclude that:)
+the weather was fine, when the animal was seen; it had a considerable
+length, say a hundred feet, and was much thicker than a snake of those
+dimensions would be, say some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck
+and the fore-part of its trunk high above the surface of the water, it
+had a long, sharp snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal
+as large as a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in
+those cold regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the
+figure where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where
+its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds
+of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. EGEDE does not say: it
+had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does not
+state that the figure, made by Mr. BING aboard his ship, directly after
+the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we must consider it as
+being correct; so the animal had two large and broad flappers on the
+fore-part of the trunk. The body _seemed_ to be covered with a hard
+skin. For truth’s sake EGEDE wrote _seemed_, which is well done; for a
+hard skin or crust would not have been _wrinkled_ when the animal bends
+its body. Like all known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions
+the animal must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick
+layer of bacon, and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions
+and seals wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as
+the Sea-Serpent of EGEDE did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly see
+that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals have.
+And if the animal could have scales, they would be very large ones,
+considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it must have been
+easy to see the scales from a distance, though they were wet with the
+water; but I can hardly believe that one can say of an animal, seen at
+some distance and quite wet and shining with the water, whether it has
+a crust or a soft skin. The latter has been the case, for the animal
+showed wrinkles when bending its body. Its lower part was formed like
+that of a snake, by which EGEDE evidently means to say that it was
+perfectly round and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he _did
+not see_ any appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for
+the middle part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water).
+The creature plunged _backwards_ into the water. It evidently has a
+considerable flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently
+it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility,
+nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. LEE thinks, which has no flexibility at
+all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the length
+of its body, which was distinctly seen by EGEDE and figured by Mr.
+BING. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable length, tapered
+in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal nor vertical
+ones. The figure shows an eye with a heavy eye-brow, a nostril, and
+teeth; the flappers have external visible fingers, as sea-lions have;
+those of porpoises and dolphins are without them. Afterwards we shall
+more than once have occasion to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is
+drawn by BING too large, and the neck too short.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Bing’s drawing as copied by Pontoppidan.]
+
+Mr. LEE says in his frequently quoted work _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_,
+“The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was of an entirely different kind”
+(viz. from those mentioned by MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN). I am of the
+opinion that if Mr. LEE had written: The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was
+the same, but seen in an entirely different position, condition and
+direction, he would have been nearer the truth; for careful inquiry
+has shown me that the sea-serpents of MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN are the
+same as those which still appear in the Norwegian seas, and those
+have all the characters of EGEDE’S animal. Moreover we saw that the
+animal, mentioned in our accounts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and according to the
+descriptions of MAGNUS and GESNER had the following characteristics:
+1. It raises itself out of the water to a considerable height. 2. It
+swims with vertical undulations. 3. It has an enormous length, probably
+upwards of a hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the
+same length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its
+neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming.
+8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It
+is harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11.
+It can stretch itself in a straight line.--Of these facts the 1st.,
+3d., 4th., and 10th. are stated by EGEDE; he could not mention the
+2d., 8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or
+eating. Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not
+see the animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its
+belly and somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without
+a mane. EGEDE says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness.
+Its colour was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large
+sea-animals, else he would have called it brilliant white, or green,
+or red. The eyes are figured by BING, though not described by EGEDE,
+but in PONTOPPIDAN’S work we read in a note to Chapt. VIII, § 7, that
+Mr. BING mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson SYLOW, at Hougs in the
+parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed to be reddish and like a burning
+fire. So its harmlessness is the only fact we cannot derive with
+certainty from EGEDE’S account.
+
+PONTOPPIDAN relating EGEDE’S observation of the monster gives a copy
+of Mr. BING’S figure, but as often occurred in those days, it is
+not copied with great accuracy, and BING’S drawing has been altered
+by PONTOPPIDAN so as to give quite another figure. (Our fig. 22 is
+a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. BING was right in
+figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and PONTOPPIDAN changes it
+wrongly into a waterspout of more than 100 feet long! PONTOPPIDAN is
+convinced, when seeing BING’S figure, that there are several species of
+sea-serpents, all belonging to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss
+this point.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Bing’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s
+work.]
+
+Still more exaggerated is the figure of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s
+Library_, or rather that which Dr. R. HAMILTON presents to his readers.
+He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the power of spouting
+a splendid set of water some twenty feet high, a water-mass equalling
+nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In his _Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents_, 1742, Mr. OWEN
+repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports of OLAUS MAGNUS
+and GESNER.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=6=.--1743?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is said that a few
+years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord,
+perhaps with high water, and died there and the carrion also caused a
+dreadful smell.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=7=.--1744?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is also told that a
+sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and that the stranding of
+sea-serpents took place in more localities.”
+
+There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily
+the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great enough to
+keep them far away from them, even from their carrions, and so these
+accounts don’t mention anything as a result of closer investigation.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=8=.--1745?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).--“A fisherman
+relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, he once saw a
+long, large and strange animal so close to his boat, that the water,
+brought in motion by the animal, dashed against it, but immediately it
+disappeared again under water. The head resembled that of a seal, its
+skin was also as woolly, but the body was as thick and as long as a
+yacht of fifty tons, and the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five
+feet long, tapered towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”
+
+Though PONTOPPIDAN did not seem to believe that this animal was his
+sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the case, because
+the whole description is exactly that of the animal. It is remarkable
+that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so close to their boat,
+as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a smooth skin; now seals
+when wet have also a smooth skin, and our fisherman was near enough to
+the animal to detect the real nature of such a skin, viz. that it is
+_hairy_, or as he expresses himself _woolly_. We shall afterwards more
+than once meet with statements in which the head is compared with that
+of a seal. The head, though resembling that of a seal, was of course
+much larger. The body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty
+tons, say about forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in
+length, and tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of EGEDE and
+those of the former writers MAGNUS, OLEARIUS and RAMUS, who compared
+the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the length of
+the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning of it, so that
+it may be supposed that there was a difference in thickness between the
+body and the tail.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=9=.--1746, August.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög_,
+_etc._).--PONTOPPIDAN relates:
+
+“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and Pilot-general
+at Bergen, Mr. LORENZ VON FERRY, and we spoke about this subject.
+He told me that for a long time he had doubted the existence of the
+sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences in 1746 had convinced
+him. And though I could not say anything of importance against it, he
+ordered to my satisfaction and that of others, two seamen, who were
+with him in his boat, and had seen the animal and its blood which
+coloured the water red after a shot of VON FERRY at it, to appear
+before the public court of justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed
+on oath may be found in the following instrument which I received in
+original, and which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in
+extenso:”
+
+“ALBERT CHRISTIAN DASS, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at Bergen,
+HANS CHRISTIAN GARTNER, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor of Justice
+and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town, together with
+JAN CLIES, OLE SIMENSEN, OLE BRINCHMAND, JOERGEN KOENIG for CONRAD
+VON LANGE, MATTHIAS GRAM for ELIAS PETRUS TUCHSEN, CLAUS NATLER for
+DIDRICH HASLOP, JOCHEM FOEGH for HENRICH HIORT, and JOERGEN WIERS for
+HANS CHRISTIAN BYSZING, sworn citizens and additional deniers there,
+declare, that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator JOHANN REUTZ
+appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented
+a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day
+before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general LORENZ VON FERRY.
+And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to supply
+him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event mentioned
+in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that purpose,
+pointed out two men living in this town, named NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER
+and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, begging that these men might be admitted
+to a declaration on oath, that all has happened in particulars so as
+is mentioned in the paper, which he begged to be registered in said
+instrument. The above mentioned paper was read to the witnesses and
+runs as follows:
+
+  “Mr. JOHANN REUTZ.”
+
+  “Sir,”
+
+“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a voyage,
+on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot day, having a
+mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when we had arrived with my
+yacht within a mile of the aforesaid Molde, being at a place called
+Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a book, I heard a kind of murmuring
+voice from amongst the men at the oars, who were eight in number, and
+observed that the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this
+I inquired what was the matter, and was informed that there was a
+sea-serpent before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the
+land again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard so
+many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension, they
+were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake passed by
+us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about in order to get nearer
+to it. As the snake swam faster than we could row, I took my gun which
+was loaded with small shot, and fired at it; on this he immediately
+plunged under water. We rowed to the place where it sank down (which in
+the calm might be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it
+would come up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake
+plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the small shot
+might have wounded it, the distance being very little. The head of this
+sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet above the surface of the
+water, resembled that of a horse. It was of a greyish colour, and the
+mouth was quite black, and very large. It had black eyes, and a long
+white mane, which hung down from the neck to the surface of the water.
+Besides the head and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of
+this snake, which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there
+was a fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a
+certain company, where there was a person of distinction present, who
+desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail of all that
+happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were present at the
+same time and place where I saw this monster, namely, NIELS PETERSEN
+KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, will appear in court, to declare
+on oath the truth of every particular herein set forth; and I desire
+the favour of an attested copy of the said descriptions.”
+
+  “I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”
+
+  “L. VON FERRY.”
+
+  “Bergen, 21st. February 1751.
+
+“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths, and,
+with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared the
+aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set forth therein
+to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation was made out for
+the said Procurator REUTZ, and granted by the Recorder. That this was
+transacted in our court of justice we confirm with our hand and seals.”
+
+“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”
+
+  “A. C. DASS.”    “H. C. GARTNER.”
+  “J. CLIES.”      “O. SIMENSEN.”
+  “O. BRINCHMAND”  “J. KOENIG.”
+  “M. GRAM.”       “C. NATLER.”
+  “J. FOEGH.”      “J. WIERS.”
+
+As to Mr. VON FERRY’S declaration that the head of the sea-serpent
+resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than that
+it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck, that the
+nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane on the animal’s
+neck altogether must have led him to think so. The statement that the
+colour of the head was greyish, apparently contradictory to what had
+as yet been said about the animal’s colour, viz., that it is a dark
+brown one, may be explained, I think, as follows: the sea-serpent has
+a skin as woolly as seals and sea-lions have; it had swum a long time
+with its head two feet above the water, and the weather being very hot,
+its skin was dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that
+when being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish
+black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat
+dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see that
+sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the stone border
+of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very soon become dry in
+the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow colour. But returning to Mr.
+VON FERRY’S sea-serpent, the mouth, however, was black and very large.
+The eyes were black, the mane long and white (being dry) hanging down
+to the surface of the water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were
+very thick and the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of
+the coils is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.
+
+Prof. W. D. PECK (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc._ IV, I, 1818) calls
+this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which he”
+(PONTOPPIDAN) “gives seems to have been made from the description of
+Capt. DE FERRY, the officer above alluded to. In this figure, the head
+and jugular region are raised out of the water; a little below the head
+is a mane which seems to be inserted all round the back of the neck.
+The appearance of this mane was most probably an optical deception, and
+was nothing more than the water displayed by the neck in the progress
+of the animal through it, returning to its level. It had probably no
+mane. But of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by
+the Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”
+
+Prof. PECK seems not to have read PONTOPPIDAN so accurately as might
+be expected from him, for the figure in PONTOPPIDAN’S work has quite
+another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. PECK would not have
+written his supposition of the mane, if one of the eye-witnesses of
+the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had seen a mane. Moreover
+PONTOPPIDAN asserts that nearly all agree in representing the animal
+with a mane, and we shall read of several declarations further on.
+
+As to the colour of the coils, Mr. LEE seems to be at one with me for
+in his frequently quoted work _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ he says: “The
+supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of
+eight porpoises following each other in line”, and: “I believe that
+in every case so far cited from PONTOPPIDAN, as well as that given by
+OLAUS MAGNUS, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body
+were only so many porpoises swimming in line, in accordance with their
+habit before mentioned.” If Captain VON FERRY had described the coils
+of his serpent as being white or red, Mr. LEE certainly would not have
+supposed that they were eight porpoises.
+
+Further Mr. LEE remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a horse,
+was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it
+certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body
+into those vertical undulations.”
+
+Very well, but if Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by porpoises, he
+ought to account for the head which preceded them; this he silently
+passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake. A fine explanation
+indeed!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=10=.--1747?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“Governor BENSTRUP is
+said to have had some years ago a similar meeting with the sea-serpent”
+(to Mr. VON FERRY’S) “and he has figured it. I should like to possess
+this figure to show it to my readers. I, however, show here another one
+sent to me by Parson HANS STROEM, which he himself has copied from the
+original.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 24.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Governor Benstrup.]
+
+The figure shows a head with a mane, and six coils of the body. The
+nostril is indicated, the mouth has no teeth, the eye is large.
+
+It is remarkable that Mr. LEE tells us: “The figure of the sea-serpent
+given by PONTOPPIDAN was drawn, he tells us, under the inspection of
+a clergyman, Mr. HANS STROM, from descriptions given of it by two of
+his neighbours, Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN, of Herroe; and was declared
+to agree in every particular with that seen by Captain DE FERRY, and
+another subsequent observed by Governor BENSTRUP.”
+
+Not only does not the first part of this statement tally with the words
+of PONTOPPIDAN, but also the second part is discrepant, for the learned
+Bishop goes on saying: “This figure agrees with the descriptions given
+by two of his neighbours Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN.”
+
+Mr. VON FERRY is not mentioned at all on this occasion by PONTOPPIDAN!
+
+Mr. BENSTRUP’S figure has also been copied by Dr. R. HAMILTON in the
+volume of _Phocidae_ (seals) of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_, but
+it has been greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr. R. HAMILTON thought
+it to be the same animal as that seen by EGEDE, for he figures both
+animals with the same head and features. Of the figure of BENSTRUP too
+he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming with corkscrew motions! O horror!
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 25.--Benstrup’s drawing as altered in Dr.
+Hamilton’s work.]
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=11=.--1748?--Mr. REUTZ of Herröe declared to PONTOPPIDAN that the
+drawing of Parson HANS STROEM agreed even in particulars with what he
+saw of the serpent several times when he went in his boat to church.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=12=.--1749?--Also Mr. TUCHSEN of Herröe made the same declaration. He
+too saw the animal several times when he went to church in his boat.
+PONTOPPIDAN adds: “and then I do not even mention many other persons
+of the same high rank and trustworthiness. The same Mr. TUCHSEN is the
+only one who told me that he distinctly saw the difference in thickness
+between the trunk and the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not
+gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller
+at once and very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two
+hogsheads. The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”
+
+This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact
+that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must
+infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had also
+hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede saw, are
+flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently the animal
+has four flappers.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=13=.--1750?--PONTOPPIDAN, telling what he has learned from the
+north-sailors says:
+
+“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to the
+serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”
+
+Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his boat,
+that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory to that
+of the fisherman (n^o. 8), who declared it as woolly as a seal-skin.
+The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the hairy nature of
+the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=14=.--1751?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An incertain
+rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have lately captured in
+their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four paws under its belly;
+which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled a crocodile. The peasants
+in their terror fled from their nets, and by doing so they gave an
+opportunity to the serpent to do the same.”
+
+Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I am sure
+it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an Orm is a serpent,
+viz., a long slender animal with a rather small head and a pointed
+tail; and as it was captured in nets in the sea, it is certain, that
+this animal, which PONTOPPIDAN compares with a crocodile, having a
+slender and round body like a snake and four paws (or flappers) is
+the same as the animal afterwards seen by Captain HOPE (n^o 119) and
+compared by him with an alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty
+feet, the animal must have been very young.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Now let us see what PONTOPPIDAN himself says of the sea-serpent, after
+having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:
+
+“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called Aale
+Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which ought
+to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great deeds of
+the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder next to the
+Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before describing its habit
+and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the real existence of the
+serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”
+
+The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the
+mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what were
+and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our own time.
+All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but sea-cows or
+manatees (_Thrichechus manatus L._ and _Thrichechus senegalensis_
+DESM.) or dugongs (_Dagungus dugung_ GMEL.). Mr. LEE believes that the
+occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the northern seas and even in the
+waters round Great-Britain and Ireland “afford some slight hope that
+the remarkable rytina (_Rytina borealis_ GMEL.) may not have become
+extinct in 1768, as has been supposed, but that it may still exist
+somewhat further south than it was met with by its original describer,
+STELLER.” Some of the mermen of PONTOPPIDAN were nothing else but
+Bladdernosed seals (_Cystophora cristata_ (ERXL) NILSS) as I already
+proved in my little paper in the _Album der Natuur_ of 1882, and I see
+that Mr. LEE comes to the same conclusion (_Sea Fables Explained_,
+_London_, 1883).
+
+We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian tales and
+the gigantic Octopus of DENYS DE MONTFORT really exist, and that they
+are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles (_Cephalopoda_).
+
+But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent really
+is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest scientific
+persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.
+
+“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator, that
+this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea, except in
+July and August, its pairing-time, during which it appears, when the
+sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the wind ruffles the surface
+of the water; if this arrangement, I say, were not thus made for man’s
+safety, the existence of the sea-serpent would want fewer proofs, than
+even in Norway, thanks to God! is the case, the shores of which are the
+only ones of Europe, frequented by this monster.”
+
+Here again it is stated that the sea-serpent is only seen in July
+and August (and PONTOPPIDAN believes that these two months are the
+pairing-time of the animal), that it only appears in calm weather, and
+dives under water as soon as the wind rises. The writer believes that
+the animal frequents only the shores of Norway. According to an account
+of OLAUS MAGNUS, it seems, however, that the sea-serpent was also seen
+in the Baltic Ocean, and we know now for certain that the animal which
+EGEDE saw in Davis’ Straits at 64° N. lat., was also our Sea-Serpent.
+Evidently our Bishop did not hit on the idea that the Sea-Serpent could
+be a migratory animal.
+
+“Like all who are enemies to credulousness I too doubted of the
+existence of the sea-serpent, when at last my doubt was dispelled by
+incontestable proofs. Amongst our ablest navigators and fishermen of
+this country there are many hundreds who prove the existence of the
+sea-serpent as eye-witnesses, and they agree pretty well in their
+descriptions, though there are many others who declare that they know
+the sea-serpent only from the tales of their neighbours. I, however,
+in my inquiry hardly met with a person who, when born in the Northern
+provinces, did not answer immediately with the greatest certainty and
+assurance. Nay, some so-called north-sailors, who are here (in Bergen)
+every year for commercial interests, even consider it as a shame to be
+earnestly questioned on that subject. They consider this question as
+superfluous as that one, whether there exists a cod-fish or an eel.”
+
+We see hereby that in Norway the belief in the existence of the
+sea-serpent was as firm as possible amongst the sea-faring people.
+
+“Though no one has ever been able to measure this animal, many
+witnesses agree in telling that the serpent must be as long as a
+cable, viz., 100 fathoms or 300 ells, whilst it lay on the surface of
+the water, so that only here and there behind the head, which is held
+upwards, some parts of the back were visible, which were also held
+upwards, whilst the serpent bent; and from afar one would have believed
+that he saw some tuns or hogsheads, which floated in a line, so that
+there was a space between each of them.”
+
+Though the length of a cable or six hundred feet given to the
+sea-serpent is exaggerated, it may be more than 100 feet, why not? For
+there are other sea-animals, such as the whale, which measures more
+than 88 feet, and the fin-fish (_Balaenoptera loops_) which sometimes
+attains a length of about 105 feet.
+
+It has been stated to PONTOPPIDAN by most of the eye-witnesses that the
+animal shows by its vertical undulations several coils above the water,
+and that these coils resembled from afar tuns or hogsheads floating in
+a line. It is very remarkable that these facts are repeatedly stated by
+witnesses who are independent of one another, even by persons who never
+heard of a sea-serpent.
+
+“The head of all these animals has rather a high and broad forehead;
+some, however, have a sharp snout, others a quadrangular beak as cows
+and horses have, with large nostrils, and on the sides there are a few
+stiff hairs, or bristles, as other animals have with a good nose. And
+that the sea-serpent has a good nose, is proved by its flying away at
+the smell of castoreum, which the people who go out in summer to fish
+on the great bank, will never forget to take with them.”
+
+The various ways of describing the head may be owed to this that
+different persons saw the head in different positions, that some of
+them saw it for such a short moment that it was impossible to say
+with certainty what form it had. It is not always explicable why
+one describes the head of an animal in one way and another in quite
+another. As to me I see in the head of a seal that of an otter, others
+distinctly see a man’s or a cat’s head in it, and the people in the
+service of the Zoological Gardens in the Hague exclaim “why, I can very
+well understand why that animal is called a sea-dog; it has a dog’s
+head, to be sure!” The fact is that we don’t know with any certainty
+the form of the sea-serpent’s head, but _most probably_ it resembles
+that of a sea-lion, which has also a head with a broad and flattened
+forehead, rather pointed, seen from one side, and blunt, seen in front.
+Here mention is also made of the large nostrils and the bristles on the
+lips of the animal.
+
+“The eyes are, as one says, large and blue, they are rather like a pair
+of pewter plates.”
+
+The eyes again are described differently. We have already heard
+them described as being black, red as fire, and now they are blue,
+viz. the ordinary blue, called tin-colour, that is a bluish-grey or
+a greyish-blue; so a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit; and
+grey fowls are called blue-fowls; there is rather a lilac tint to be
+observed in it. I cannot explain those differences otherwise than
+in the following way: when an observer sees the eyes in an oblique
+direction, he will always see this grey colour; when more in the
+axis of the eye, the colour is a bright dark black one, and when
+occasionally seen thus that the “tapetum lucidum” of the eye reflects
+the day-light, it is, as if the eyes were sparkling like fire.
+
+“The serpent’s colour is dark brown over the whole body, but thereby
+spotted, and with light streaks, or maculated with distinctly visible
+light spots, like a turtle or a lackered table, except in the region
+of mouth and eyes where it is rather dark, so that it resembles those
+horses which we call moorish-heads or black-faces.”
+
+We shall repeatedly have occasion to observe that these statements are
+correct. All eye-witnesses agree in this point.
+
+“That this animal spouts like a whale through its nostrils, as Mr.
+EGEDE saw, has never been seen here by anybody.”
+
+It is remarkable that though EGEDE has nowhere asserted that his animal
+was a sea-serpent, our learned Bishop seems to have recognized it as
+such at once, believing, however, it to be another species of the
+same genus. We have already stated that EGEDE did not see the animal
+spouting water, but he only saw the warm breath of the animal condensed
+in the cold air, just as BING, his brother missionary, figured it, and
+just as it is mentioned by accurate observers of whales. It is very
+easy to understand that EGEDE saw it, for the animal had apparently
+been under water for a long time; it suddenly appeared with so much
+violence, that a considerable part of its body was elevated above the
+surface of the sea, whilst, by a violent blow, the breath, hitherto
+held in, was pushed into the air. In this way parts of mucus of the
+inner surface of the nostrils and the little quantity of water adhering
+to the valves of the nose, must have been driven away at the same
+time, and the whole effect has been very accurately described by EGEDE
+and figured by BING, but has afterwards been exaggerated and altered
+by PONTOPPIDAN (see our fig. 22), and also in our century by Dr. R.
+HAMILTON (see our fig. 23).
+
+“But many agree in telling that when it swims rapidly through the
+water, it propels before it the water with such a violence that it
+murmurs like a small mill-brook.”
+
+This peculiarity has been repeatedly confirmed by the most trustworthy
+eye-witnesses as we will observe more than once afterwards.
+
+“Also the common sea-serpents of our shore differ from those of the
+Greenland-coasts, seen by EGEDE, in having no rough and hard skin, but
+a smooth one like a mirror, except on the neck, on which it has a mane,
+resembling sea-weed.”
+
+Remarkable again is the statement of its smooth skin, remarkable too is
+the declaration of the sea-serpent having a mane, and most remarkable
+the resemblance of this mane to sea-weed, an observation made by
+several eye-witnesses independant of each other. It is surprising
+that PONTOPPIDAN silently passes over the difference between his two
+kinds of sea-serpents: that the Greenland one has two flappers on the
+fore-part of its trunk.
+
+“As they cast their skin like common snakes, some people pretend, that
+a few years ago, a table-cloth has been made of such a slough found in
+the harbour of Kobbervueg. This made me so curious, that I wrote to one
+of the inhabitants of that harbour, to inquire after it, and as the
+proverb says, to get a strap of the skin. However, there was nothing of
+that skin, at least at that time. And a man of that harbour, who came
+to Bergen, told me he knew nothing at all about it.”
+
+As to the renewing of the skin, we see that the Bishop was taken in!
+But we must respect him that he did not rest before he knew the truth
+or the untruth of the fact, and that he also mentions his inquiry.
+Though the Bishop may have been deceived, his endeavours to find out
+the truth enhance his trustworthiness.
+
+“That the flesh of these animals is soft, has been stated by some
+who tell of a small, and probably young sea-serpent which was taken
+unexpectedly on board a ship. It instantly died, and nobody dared to
+touch it, till the crew was forced at last to cast it over board, owing
+to the intolerable smell arising from the soft and tough slime, in
+which it was dissolved by the action of the air. But this animal cannot
+have been a sea-serpent, for, as will be remembered, it is only seen in
+the calmest weather and sinks into the deep at the least motion in the
+air.”
+
+We agree with the Bishop, though for other reasons than he.
+
+After having related the two strandings of a sea-serpent (n^o. 6, 7),
+PONTOPPIDAN goes on:
+
+“I would that in such cases some one had inquired whether this serpent
+had a strong backbone, which seems to be necessary to keep together
+the mass of such a gigantic animal. The sharks, however, which are
+also cartilaginous fishes without bones, have such a backbone, but it
+is very subtile and even in the largest sharks only ten ells long.
+The sea-serpent, like sharks, eels and whales also seems to be a
+viviparous, not an oviparous fish, and most probably it seeks the other
+sex in the above mentioned season. It is said, that when this animal is
+ruttish, it looks after ships and boats, which it probably takes for
+something else. If this be true, as seamen say, those are wrong who
+think that the sea-serpent is not born in the sea, but on land, and
+lives in forests and among mountains, till it can no longer hide its
+body in it; it is said that it then seeks some river, and floats out to
+the sea, as some people pretend to have seen.”
+
+There is but one single reason why we think the sea-serpent is a
+viviparous being, viz. its hairy skin. It is certain that an animal
+with long hairs on its neck, has also hairs on its whole body, which
+has also been stated once already (n^o. 8), and hairy animals are
+viviparous (except the _Monotrymata_). Most probably PONTOPPIDAN called
+the sea-serpent viviparous for the same reason, otherwise I cannot find
+a single fact that would have led him to this conclusion. Its seeking
+the other sex cannot be a reason, for all animals do so in the warm
+season. I think that it looked after ships because it is a curious
+animal, knowing no fear of strange things or persons. It is evidently
+a fable that it brings forth young ones on the shore, probably
+originating in the fact that the sea-serpent has sometimes been seen in
+fjords, even in small ones, or probably originating in the fact that
+also seals creep ashore in the critical moment, whelp there and return
+with their young ones to the sea as soon as possible.
+
+“The question which troubles us most is the following: Is this animal
+dangerous to men, and how are they to defend themselves against this
+monster? ARENDT BERNDSEN (_Danmarks og Norges frugtbare Herlighed_ p.
+308) answers the first question in the affirmative, and tells us that
+the sea-serpent, as well as the sperm-whale, even often runs down men
+and ships. That such things happened in this region, I never heard of
+with certainty; but the north-sailors tell that it had occasionally
+happened that the sea-serpent raised itself and threw itself straight
+across a boat, nay across a large yacht of several hundred tons, and
+had dragged it to the depths. One of these north-sailors tells that he
+was once so close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth
+skin; he mentions at the same time that this serpent sometimes snatches
+a man from a boat, with its head raised upward and gives the others
+of the crew an opportunity to escape. Whether these reports are to be
+believed or not, I don’t know, because it is uncertain whether these
+serpents live on prey.”
+
+We see the Bishop weighing and considering whatever he heard, and not
+accepting everything for truth. We think that PONTOPPIDAN is right in
+giving no credit to the narrative that the sea-serpents made themselves
+guilty of sinking ships and eating men. It is mentioned already twice,
+that the sea-serpent raised itself high above the surface of the water;
+yet the flappers are not mentioned; so we may conclude that these are
+situated far from the head, or, what is the same, that the animal has a
+very long neck.
+
+PONTOPPIDAN further tells us that the sea-serpent sometimes encloses
+ships by laying itself round them in a circle, that the fishermen then
+row over its body there where a coil is visible, for when they reach
+the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible parts rise.
+Further, that the serpent swims with an incredible velocity, and that
+the fishermen who are much afraid of it, when seeing that it follows
+them, throw any object, for instance a scoop, at it, when the animal
+generally plunges into the deep. But most fishermen are in the habit of
+taking castoreum with them, for the serpent cannot bear the smell of
+it. And still further on he tries to explain the considerable length
+of the animal some witnesses speak of; the Bishop namely believes that
+two or more individuals followed each other, for they are only seen
+in rutting-time. And in his tenth paragraph, trying to answer the
+question, why those large serpents only frequent the northern seas, he
+says:
+
+“To this question I answer that the Creator of all beings disposes
+of the dwellings of His different creatures in different places by
+His wise intentions, which are not to be known to us. Why won’t the
+reindeer thrive anywhere but in the high and cold mountains? Why do the
+whales frequent only the north pole? Why are India and Egypt almost the
+only countries, where men have to fear crocodiles? No doubt because it
+pleases the wise Creator.”
+
+Here PONTOPPIDAN takes leave of the Sea-Serpent, and begins to treat of
+the large snakes mentioned by PLINIUS and other ancient authors, and we
+too will take leave of our honest and trustworthy Bishop, who has so
+often been laughed at for what he relates in his chapter on monsters.
+And yet two of his monsters, the mermaids and the Kraken, are unmasked,
+why cannot his third be accounted for?
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Now let us again collect all the facts which are not impossible from a
+zoologist’s point of view.
+
+We have before us an animal of the following imperfect description:
+
+The whole _length_ of this animal far surpasses one hundred feet, and
+the smallest individual ever seen measured eighteen feet. The greatest
+_thickness_ or diameter seems to be in the foremost third of its whole
+length, and in large individuals surpasses ten or even fifteen feet.
+Its _head_ is small in reference to the body, its _neck_ is long
+and slender, round as the body of a snake or eel; the thick _trunk_
+too is round: The _tail_ is also round, thinner than the body and
+gradually grows thinner to its end, which is pointed. The animal has
+four _flappers_. The foremost are probably found about one fourth of
+the length, the hindmost probably in the middle of the whole length.
+The _skin_ of the animal is hairy or woolly as a seal-skin; when wet
+it is smooth and glittering as a mirror. A long _mane_ hangs down from
+the neck, and that mane is sometimes described as resembling sea-weed;
+when dry, the mane is whitish, or pale. The _head_ is described as
+resembling that of a seal, or that of a horse. It tapers to the nose
+of the animal, so that some witnesses declare it has a sharp snout,
+others, however, that its end is like that of a cow’s, or a horse’s
+head, it has a broad and high, but flattened _forehead_. The _nostrils_
+are large, but as they are not always seen, it is evident that the
+animal can close them like a seal; on the _lips_ some stiff hairs or
+bristles are planted. The _colour of the head_, when wet, is dark
+brown, when dry, however, greyish, except round the mouth and the
+eyes, where it is almost black. The _mouth_ is large and provided with
+_teeth_. The _eyes_ are large, sometimes described as being bluish
+and dull, sometimes black, glittering and brilliant, and sometimes
+reddish as a burning fire. We have already tried to explain these
+different statements. Its _eye-brows_ are distinctly visible. Of the
+_neck_ no particulars are observed except that it is long, round,
+and bears a mane, I should say like that of the Antarctic Sea-lions
+(_Otaria jubata_) but much more developed. Its _fore-flappers_ are
+broad and large, and have probably an indented hind-edge, for Mr.
+BING drew externally visible fingers. Of its _hind-flappers_ nothing
+is mentioned. There is a visible _difference in thickness between
+the trunk and the_ very long _tail_ of the animal: the body is not
+gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes small at
+once, and very distinctly. Here the animal’s hind-flappers must be
+placed. The _colour_ of the body is said to be a dark brown, spotted
+and with light streaks, or marked with distinctly visible light spots.
+It has an astonishing flexibility in the neck as well as in the trunk
+and in the tail. It can bend its body sideways and backwards, and
+undulate it up and down like a rope. When the animal bends till it
+is U- or horse-shoe shaped, the skin obtains many folds or wrinkles.
+The _mode of swimming_ is mostly by vertical undulations, which are
+partly visible above the surface of the water; the end of the tail is
+always hidden under water when the animal swims. From afar the visible
+parts of the coils are said to resemble tuns, buoys, wine-barrels or
+hogsheads. The coils are either very large, and then 7 or 8 of them
+are visible, and a distance of a fathom is between each two coils, or
+they are very small, and then it is said that twenty-five of them are
+visible. This is only to be explained by the degree of speed with which
+the animal undulates its body. For the same reason it also swims more
+or less swiftly; it may also swim with its body in a straight line,
+using in this case of course its flappers; this, however, happens very
+seldom; when swimming rapidly it propels the water before it with such
+a violence, that it boils and splashes up, with foam and a distinctly
+audible rushing. When swimming, the animal holds its head two feet
+above the surface of the water. Sometimes it raises its neck and head
+to a considerable height. Once the condensed breath of the animal was
+visible, and it was said to blow like a whale. It is only seen in
+summer and in fine weather. It is harmless when not provoked, it is
+curious and stupid. It feeds probably on cuttles, lobsters and crabs,
+(certainly however on fish.).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Now we will go on with the perusal of the accounts concerning the
+animal and we shall observe that in general the accounts or rather
+the descriptions of the eye-witnesses repeat, and sometimes even in
+particulars, what we have gathered from the 14 above mentioned accounts
+and from what PONTOPPIDAN has taught us. I first invite the reader
+to follow me to the eastern coasts of the United States, next to the
+Northern Pacific, on the western coasts of Scotland, then again to the
+United States, and finally to Norway. In all these places, nay in every
+part of the world we shall meet with the animal which we shall find
+to be a true cosmopolitan, though the Atlantic seems to be its proper
+place of residence.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=15=.--1751.--In a letter from Capt. GEORGE LITTLE to the Rev. ALDEN
+BRADFORD, printed in the second volume of SILLIMAN’S _American Journal
+of Science and Arts_, we read:
+
+“A monster of the above description was seen in the same place, by
+JOSEPH KENT, of Marshfield, 1751. KENT said he was longer and larger
+than the main boom of his sloop, which was 85 tons. He had a fair
+opportunity of viewing him, as he saw it within ten or twelve yards of
+his sloop.”
+
+In the “above description” the sea-serpent is described as having the
+appearance of a large black snake, from 45 to 50 feet long, with a head
+of nearly the size of that of a man, which he carried four or five
+feet above the water, and with the greatest diameter of 15 inches. The
+individual which was seen by JOSEPH KENT was evidently larger; by “the
+same place” is meant Round Pond in Broad Bay and near Muscongus Island.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+KNUD LEEMS, as we learn in A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through
+Norway_, a northern divine, wrote his _Beskrivelse over Finmarkens
+Lappen_, 1765, in which he mentions, p. 332, the sea-serpent in the
+following terms:
+
+“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a huge
+monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size that of
+large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a neck with
+a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly. In the dog
+days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent will come to the
+surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some are partly visible
+above the water, whilst others remain hidden under it. The seamen
+greatly fear this monster, and they do not trust themselves on the sea,
+when the animal is on the surface.”
+
+The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head,
+resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit of the
+animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters known
+to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is whitish, which
+we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however, not the belly
+that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The animal’s neck being
+cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden under water, the
+observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped, always call its
+throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the whole throat and the
+breast were seen, though not described, by HANS EGEDE, but that even he
+did not see the true belly.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=16=.--1770?--In a letter from Mr. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD
+written in Aug. 1803, and published in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of
+Science and Arts_ (Vol. II) we read:
+
+“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the deceased
+Capt. PAUL REED, of Boothbay.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=17=.--1777 or 1778.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, Part I).
+
+“The next notice is from Capt. ELEAZAR CRABTREE, who saw it in the same
+(Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated its length at sixty
+feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that of a barrel, which is
+about twenty two inches.”
+
+A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. CRABTREE to the
+American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or
+mislaid.”--Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found back,
+and, as Prof. BIGELOW (see SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. II)
+says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the
+Academy,” Mr. JOHN Q. ADAMS, “where it may be seen.”
+
+Mr. A. BRADFORD anxious to have all the information he could get, did
+not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. CRABTREE. Capt.
+CRABTREE, however, at that time an old man did not write this testimony
+himself, but had it written by another in his presence and signed it as
+a correct statement. It is published in the above mentioned Journal,
+Vol. II, and runs as follows:
+
+“Capt. CRABTREE, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the Bay of
+Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon information
+of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water, near the shore,
+just below his house, and having often been told by individuals that
+they had before seen a similar sea-monster in that quarter, and
+doubting of the correctness of their reports, was induced to go down
+to the water to satisfy his own mind--that he saw a large animal, in
+the form of a snake, lying almost motionless in the sea, about thirty
+rods from the bank where he stood--that his head was about four feet
+above water--that, from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet
+in length--that he did not go off to the animal through fear of the
+consequences, and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter;
+he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those
+islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him that
+they had seen such an animal--and that more than one had been seen by
+several persons together.”
+
+  “Signed”
+
+  “ELEAZAR CRABTREE.”
+
+We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head four
+feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated at 100
+feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness
+which led Capt. CRABTREE to compare the sea-serpent with a snake.
+The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably it lay
+stretched out.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=18=.--1779.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. P. 1). “It appears
+by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810, that this serpent was
+first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year 1779, by Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY:
+he compared it to an unwrought spar (meaning probably one of spruce),
+which the scaly surface and dark colour of the animal would very much
+resemble; he thought it fifty or sixty feet in length.”
+
+It is evident that Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY only compared it with an
+unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part to be
+fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. W. D. PECK adds: “which the scaly surface
+and the dark colour of the animal would very much resemble”. I,
+however, take it that the animal swam with its body in a straight line,
+elevating its back but very little above the surface of the water, yet
+showing a length of fifty to sixty feet, and so the back of the neck
+and trunk quite covered with a mane resembling sea-weed, and the dark
+colour of the animal must have led Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY to the comparison
+with an unwrought spar.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=19=.--1780, May.--“Captain GEORGE LITTLE” who saw the animal, wrote “a
+letter” containing his observation to the American Academy of Arts and
+Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid” (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts
+Sc._ Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. of Sc. and
+Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820), we observe that Mr. ALDEN BRADFORD collected
+for truth’s sake some affidavits of eye-witnesses; he had learned that
+Capt. GEORGE LITTLE was an eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit,
+which he received and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the
+Academy; after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It
+runs as follows:
+
+  “Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”
+
+  “Sir”,
+
+“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that in May,
+1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a public armed ship.
+At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or monster, coming down the
+Bay, on the surface of the water. The cutter was manned and armed. I
+went myself in the boat, and proceeded after the serpent. When within a
+hundred feet, the mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they
+could make ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50
+feet in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15
+inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he carried
+four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance of a common
+black snake. When he dove he came up near Muscongus Island--we pursued
+him, but never came up within a quarter of a mile of him again.”
+
+“I have the honor to be sir,
+
+  “Your friend and humble servant
+
+  “Geo. Little.”
+
+It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain, who thus saw
+only its occiput. As the head is thought to have nearly the size of
+that of a man, and the whole length to be 45 to 50 feet, it is evident
+that either the head is estimated too small, or the length too great;
+moreover it is clear that the captain saw nearly the whole length;
+this sometimes occurs; generally, however, only the foremost part is
+visible. Again it is mentioned that the sea-serpent held its head four
+feet above the surface of the water, and that the colour was black.
+
+A letter from Mr. A. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, printed in
+the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:
+
+“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American war, two
+miles from the place where I lived then.”
+
+I consider this passage as relative to Capt. GEORGE LITTLE’S
+observation.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=20=.--1781?--In the same letter the above mentioned lines are followed
+by the words:
+
+“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=21=.--1782?--In a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to
+the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 7, 1818, and published
+in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:
+
+“Mr. CUMMINGS observes, that the British saw him in their expedition
+to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of that which they
+saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. CUMMINGS imagines to be an
+exaggeration.”
+
+I think Mr. CUMMINGS is right in this supposition.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=22=.--1783? --In the same letter we read:
+
+“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=23=.--1784?--In the same letter we find:
+
+“June 28th., 1809. Mr. CUMMINGS observes that a Mr. CROCKET saw two
+of them together about twenty years since”....... “One of those seen
+by Mr. CROCKET was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, and their
+motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular winding, and not
+horizontal.”
+
+This appearance is also mentioned in the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ (IV,
+I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands:
+
+“and one of them, a Mr. CROCKET, had seen two of them together about
+the year 1787.”
+
+And in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820) we read in a
+letter from Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written
+Jan., 1804:
+
+“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say, were seen
+by one Mr. CROCKET, who then lived upon Ash Point.”
+
+The fact that there were _two_ animals together only claims our
+attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been a
+male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the two must
+have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those was smaller
+than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS”; consequently the other was as large as
+or even larger than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, ergo the difference in
+size of these two must have been considerable. The occurrence of two
+together is reported only a very few times. Evidently these animals
+lead solitary lives.
+
+We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784,
+relying upon the words of Mr. CUMMING’S letter of 1804: “about twenty
+years since”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=24=.--1785?--In the same letter it says:
+
+“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting the
+Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. STAPLES, of Prospect, of whom I
+inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. MILLER, of one of the Islands
+in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big as a sloop’s boom,
+and about sixty or seventy feet long”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=25=.--1786, August 1.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1911).--
+
+“Having seen much notice taken in the _Zoologist_ of the question of
+the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the log-book
+of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard the ship
+“_General Coole_”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.--”
+
+“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16 or 18 feet
+in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back of a light
+ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”
+
+“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You may rely
+on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy himself
+may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle of Wight.
+September, 8, 1847.”
+
+Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it would
+be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or 4 feet in
+circumference made the impression of being a serpent or snake; the
+whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under water. As the colour
+of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour, I suppose that the
+animal having swum a long time in the sun without diving under water,
+the skin had become dry and showed the ash-colour; the colour of the
+belly (read throat) is stated to be yellow. This statement already
+mentioned above we shall see repeated more than once.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=26=.--1787?--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, dated,
+Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge Davis of Boston, and
+printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:
+
+“Aug. 23, 1809.--Mr. CHARLES SHAW (then of Bath, now an attorney in
+Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. LILLIS, with whom he had sailed,
+observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen off the coast a
+very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like a snake than a
+fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its head erect, had no
+mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent. He asked Mr. SHAW if he had
+ever seen, or read, or heard of such an animal.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=27=.--1794?--In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. JENKS, printed in
+the _Report_ of 1817, we find:
+
+“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands
+have seen such an animal”......
+
+“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands two
+persons were together at both times.”
+
+It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for one of
+the two times, for in the letter from Mr. CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN
+BRADFORD, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the second volume of
+SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_, (1820), we find the
+following passage:
+
+“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large
+serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox Island)
+“as their neighbours informed me.”
+
+Again two individuals were seen together.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=28=.--1799?--And the date of the second time, that the animal was
+seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter from Mr. CUMMINGS
+(1804), it says:
+
+“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw an animal
+of this kind about five years since, as they then informed me. They
+told me, that the serpent which they saw was about sixty feet long, and
+appeared to have an ascending and descending motion.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=29=.--1802 July.--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of
+Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 17, 1817, and
+published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:
+
+“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS who has been much
+employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and navigated his own
+boat among the islands, &c. in the discharge of his duty, informs me,
+in conversation, which was immediately written from his lips, that in
+Penobscot bay has been occasionally seen within these thirty years, a
+sea-serpent, supposed to be about sixty feet in length, and of the size
+of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr. CUMMINGS saw him, in company with his wife
+and daughter, and a young lady of Belfast, MARTHA SPRING; and judged
+he was about three times the length of his boat, which is twenty
+three feet. When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the
+boat, though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but
+about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. ALDEN
+BRADFORD of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth) inquired of
+Mr. CUMMINGS whether the appearance might not be produced by a number
+of porpoises following each other in a train; but Mr. CUMMINGS asserts,
+that the animal held its head out of water about five feet till he
+got out to sea; for when seen he was going out of the bay, and Mr.
+CUMMINGS was ascending it. The colour was a bluish green about the head
+and neck, but the water rippled so much over his body, that it was
+not possible to determine its tint. The shape of the head was that of
+a common snake, flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen
+approaching, passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. CUMMINGS was as
+incredulous in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The
+weather was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr.
+CUMMINGS remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent makes his
+appearance on the coast.”
+
+“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that, which
+in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having been
+communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, but mislaid.”
+
+In the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc._ Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818, we read
+also:
+
+“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. CUMMINGS) “was forwarded to the
+Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account of the animal,
+as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is lost or mislaid.”
+
+Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the hands
+of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS, and printed in
+SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820). The
+letter runs as follows:
+
+  “Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”
+
+  “My Dear Sir,”
+
+“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though the urgency
+of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime in July 1802
+that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our passage to Belfast,
+between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first appearance was near Long
+Island. I then supposed it to be a large shoal of fish with a seal at
+one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so
+much higher than usual; but, as he drew nearer to our boat, we soon
+discovered that this whole appearance was but one animal in the form
+of a serpent. I immediately perceived that his mode of swimming was
+exactly such as had been described to me by some of the people of FOX
+Islands, who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm
+the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal
+but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders it
+highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable
+distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was rather
+larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent. His
+body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head and as
+much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue colour except
+a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first but moderate,
+but when he left us and proceeded towards the ocean, he moved with
+the greatest rapidity. This monster is the sixth of the kind, if our
+information be correct, which has been seen in this bay within the term
+of eighteen years. Mrs. CUMMINGS, my daughter and Mss. MARTHA SPRING
+were with me in the boat all that time, and can attest to the above
+description.”
+
+  “I continue yours in Christian affection
+
+  “ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”
+
+  “REV. ALEXANDER MC. LEAN.”
+
+Mr. MC. LEAN forwarded this letter to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD who says
+of it:
+
+“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular as
+might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received
+a statement more in detail,”
+
+which runs as follows:
+
+  “Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”
+
+  “Rev. and Dear Sir,”
+
+“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description
+of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this motion was
+ascending and descending; all we can say is, _it appeared so to us_
+(for he was seen not only by me, but by three other persons). His real
+motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his nearest distance from us was
+ten rods. The sea was then very smooth, and very little wind, but still
+there was such a constant rippling of the water over his body, that
+I could not distinctly observe the magnitude or colour of any part
+but his head and neck. The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain.
+But certain I am that he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue
+as possible, and a black ring round his eye. The head was three feet
+in circumference _at least_. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises
+moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that
+those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and
+none but the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head
+upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long Island
+to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all the time out
+of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without
+immerging at all? This is the best information which you can obtain from
+
+  “Your Friend and Servant”
+
+  “ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”
+
+  “Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD.”
+
+“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same colour.”
+
+The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. CUMMINGS declares
+the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as blue as
+possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.” But I think
+that we must not rely too much upon this definition of the colour, for,
+as we observe in daily life, different persons will give different
+names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly black colour “blue”
+while another does not see any blue in it at all; consequently we may
+safely suppose that the colour was the common dark brown, nearly black
+one, and that Mr. CUMMINGS called such a colour “as blue as possible”
+or “a bluish green.” Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents
+may sometimes vary as in our common seals.
+
+It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression
+the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish” (read
+“porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but wondered
+that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual”.
+Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common appearance of
+the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s figure (fig. 24). But
+as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. CUMMINGS’ boat, the resemblance
+diminished, because the serpent has not such thick upper lips as our
+common seal, so that the snout is rather sharp, and the forehead being
+moreover flat, the resemblance is also that of a snake’s head! The mode
+of swimming was up and down, and Mr. CUMMINGS in his second letter
+says “it appeared so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr.
+CUMMINGS expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I
+think it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the
+sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly saw
+the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly, and that
+some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the animal with
+many bunches on its back, that it moved through the water, apparently
+not by undulating up and down, but they were astonished that the
+sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has the property of keeping
+his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently it may show itself
+in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly still with the body in a
+straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still, but with many folds or bunches
+on its back. 3. Swimming with its body in a straight line, using its
+flappers. 4. Swimming with bunches on its back, propelling itself by
+its flappers, not by vertical undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical
+undulations, and not with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical
+undulations and with its flappers.
+
+I repeat here the words of Mr. CUMMINGS: “Who ever saw fifty or sixty
+porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a
+manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or
+macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head. Who ever saw a
+serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now who ever saw a porpoise
+swim so great a distance without immerging at all?” And we may add: Who
+ever saw porpoises without backfins? (The white whale, _Beluga leucas_
+has no back fin, but it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is
+almost black.)
+
+I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different
+dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways: 1. The
+animals may have been more or less visible above the surface of the
+water, and the hind part hidden under water is not always estimated in
+proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers have not always
+seen the same individual, but of course young ones, middle-aged and old
+individuals, males and females.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I will insert here a letter from the REV. ALDEN BRADFORD to the Hon.
+JOHN Q. ADAMS, to show my readers how the former troubled himself about
+the question.
+
+  “Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”
+
+“_To the Honorable_ John Q. Adams, _corresponding Secretary of the
+American Academy of Arts and Sciences_.
+
+  “Sir,
+
+“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries
+in _Natural History_, I am induced to communicate to the society the
+following account of a _Sea-Serpent_, which I have lately collected.”
+
+“It will probably be within the recollection of some persons conversant
+with Navigation, that in the course of a few years past, there have
+been vague reports of an animal of this description having been seen in
+or near Penobscot Bay. But little credit, however, was attached to the
+story, and no particular authentic account has yet been given to the
+public on the subject.”
+
+“A few months ago I happened to hear related the story of one, which
+was seen in the Bay of Penobscot in 1802. And for my own satisfaction,
+I have been inquisitive to the truth of the account, and to the
+general evidence of the existence of such an animal. The first
+correct information I received was from the perusal of a letter to
+Rev. Alexander McLean, from Rev. Mr. Cummings of Sullivan; which is
+enclosed, and marked _A._ and some remarks were added by Mr. McLean
+at my request. The account was liable to some objections, and not so
+particular as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in
+reply, received a statement more in detail, which accompanies this, and
+is marked _B._”
+
+“I was afterwards informed, that George Little Esq. late commander of
+the Boston frigate, saw a sea-monster similar to the one described
+by Mr. _Cummings_, in the time of the revolutionary war with
+Great-Britain; and as I was anxious for all the information that was
+to be had, I wrote him on the subject, and he forwarded the enclosed
+(marked _C._) in answer to my letter. I have also the testimony of a
+Capt. _Crabtree_ of Portland, an intelligent man, which is direct and
+positive. This is also enclosed and marked _D._ It was written in his
+presence and received his signature, as a correct statement.”
+
+“All this evidence, I think, cannot fail to establish the fact _that a
+large sea-serpent has been seen in and near the Bay of Penobscot_. The
+existence of such a _Monster_ can no longer be reasonably disputed. But
+whether he constantly resides in that vicinity, or whether he coasts
+further south or north, during a part of the year, more particular
+information is necessary to ascertain. Nor is it known on what species
+of fish he subsists. By this communication I have it in view only
+to furnish evidence of the actual existence of the animal. It will
+probably operate in favour of further information, and lead to a
+particular history of this hitherto undescribed Serpent.
+
+  “I am with great esteem
+
+  “Your humble servant
+
+  “A. Bradford.”
+
+The four letters above mentioned and marked _A_, _B_, _C_, and _D_, are
+already inserted in their right places. I refer my readers to n^o. 29,
+where the letters marked _A_ and _B_ are copied, to n^o. 19, where that
+marked C is inserted, and to n^o. 17, where the letter marked D will be
+found back.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=30=.--1805? Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819) in his
+_Additions_ to his dissertation, says:
+
+“4. Mr. W. LEE has brought to notice another Sea-Snake, seen by him
+many years ago near Cape Breton and Newfoundland, which was over 200
+feet long, with the back of a dark green: it stood in the water in
+flexuous hillocks, and went through it with impetuous noise. This
+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 then _Pelamis chloronotis_, or Green-back Pelamis.”
+
+The length of 200 feet is estimated more than once, though in many
+instances probably exaggerated. The definition of the colour to be
+a dark green one, we have already explained above, discussing the
+report of Mr. CUMMINGS. The flexuous hillocks are of course nothing
+else but the vertical undulations, the impetuous noise is caused by
+the fore-flappers as will be stated afterwards. Of Mr. RAFINESQUE’S
+determination I will say nothing, because it is a false one and a proof
+of his credulity.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=31=.--1808, June.--At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural History
+Society on the 13th. of May, 1809 (_Phil. Mag._, Vol. 33, p. 411) “the
+Secretary read a letter from the Rev. Mr. MACLEAN of Small Isles,
+mentioning the appearance of a vast Sea-Snake, between 70 and 80 feet
+long, among the Hebrides, in June, 1808.”
+
+This letter is printed in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the
+Wernerian Natural History Society_ (1811) and runs as follows:
+
+“To the Secretary of the Wernerian Natural History Society.”
+
+  “Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”
+
+  “Sir”
+
+“Your letter of the first instant I received, and would have written
+in answer thereto sooner, had I not thought it desirable to examine
+others relative to the animal of which you wish me to give a particular
+account.”
+
+“According to my best recollection, I saw it in June 1808 not on
+the coast of Eigg, but on that of Coll. Rowing along that coast, I
+observed, at about the distance of half a mile, an object to windward,
+which gradually excited astonishment. At first view it appeared like
+a small rock. Knowing there was no rock in that situation, I fixed my
+eyes on it close. Then I saw it elevated considerably above the level
+of the sea, and after a slow movement, distinctly perceived one of its
+eyes. Alarmed at the unusual appearance and magnitude of the animal, I
+steered so as to be at no great distance from the shore. When nearly in
+a line betwixt it and the shore, the monster directing its head (which
+still continued above water) towards us, plunged violently under water.
+Certain that he was in chace of us, we plied hard to get ashore. Just
+as we leaped out on a rock, taking a station as high as we conveniently
+could, we saw it coming rapidly under water towards the stern of our
+boat. When within a few yards of the boat, finding the water shallow,
+it raised its monstrous head above water, and by a winding course get,
+with apparent difficulty clear of the creek, where our boat lay, and
+where the monster seemed in danger of being imbayed. It continued to
+move off, with its head above water, and with the wind for about half
+a mile, before we lost sight of it.--Its head was rather broad, of a
+form somewhat oval. Its neck somewhat smaller. Its shoulders, if I can
+so term them, considerably broader, and thence it tapered towards the
+tail, which last it kept pretty low in the water, so that a view of
+it could not be taken so distinctly as I wished. It had no fin that I
+could perceive, and seemed to me to move progressively by undulation up
+and down. Its length I believed to be from 70 to 80 feet; when nearest
+to me, it did not raise its head wholly above water, so that the neck
+being under water, I could perceive no shining filaments thereon, if it
+had any. Its progressive motion under water I took to be rapid, from
+the shortness of the time it took to come up to the boat. When the
+head was above water, its motion was not near so quick; and when the
+head was most elevated it appeared evidently to take a view of distant
+objects.
+
+  “I remain, Sir, &c.
+
+  “DONALD MACLEAN.”
+
+To understand well what Mr. MACLEAN meant with “shining filaments”
+which he did _not_ see, I must return to the “Animal of Stronsa”, the
+putrified body of a large basking shark. My readers will remember that
+the putrified dorsal fins of that shark resembled bristles, which
+were transparent, and gave light in the dark (p. 61). Evidently the
+Secretary of the Wernerian Society writing to Mr. MACLEAN, asked him to
+give a full description of the animal seen by him near “the coast of
+Eigg”, and whether he saw on its back “shining filaments” or not. Of
+course, Mr. MACLEAN did not see them!
+
+For the first time it is mentioned by an eye-witness that the shoulders
+were visible. Mr. MACLEAN adds: “if I can so term them”. This is very
+remarkable, for we may safely take it for granted, that he, like all
+other persons, believed to see a sea-snake, or serpentine animal, and
+yet, though he could not know, that it has flappers, and probably would
+not have believed it, when it was told him, he has distinctly seen that
+the animal at once became much broader behind its long neck.
+
+The animal plunged violently under water. When Mr. MACLEAN had reached
+his safe position he saw the animal swimming rapidly under water
+towards his boat. We must suppose that it swam so near the surface,
+though under water and invisible, that the surface rippled, and a wake
+was formed by the motion of the animal. The animal coming in shallow
+water, turned immediately and swam away. Once it did not raise its head
+quite above water, so that the neck was under water. When the head was
+most elevated, it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects.
+These five habits as yet new to us, will be observed and reported
+several times afterwards. The other statements of Mr. MACLEAN are all
+mere repetitions of so often mentioned peculiarities.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=32=.--1808 June.--In the same letter we read:
+
+“About the time I saw it, it was seen about the Isle of Canna. The crew
+of thirteen fishing boats, I am told, were so much terrified at its
+appearance, that they in a body fled from it to the nearest creek for
+safety. On the passage from Rum to Canna the crew of one boat saw it
+coming towards them, with the wind, and its head high above water. One
+of the crew pronounced its head as large as a little boat, and each
+of its eyes as large as a plate. The men were much terrified, but the
+monster offered them no molestation.--From those who saw it, I could
+get no interesting particulars additional to those above mentioned.”
+
+The dimensions given to the head and eye may be exaggerated. It is
+remarkable that the animal is so often coming in the neighbourhood of
+a boat, and is yet perfectly harmless. This confirms my supposition
+expressed above that the animal is sometimes very inquisitive.
+PONTOPPIDAN would say “it thought to see the other sex, for it was
+pairing time!”
+
+The whole letter from Mr. MACLEAN to the Secretary of the Wernerian
+Society is reprinted in Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_ (a volume
+of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_), 1839, without any remark or
+explanation.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=33=.--1810?--Sir WALTER SCOTT in the Notes to _The Pirate_ says,
+according to Mr. ASHTON (_Curious Creatures in Zoology_, 1889):
+
+“The author knew a mariner, of some reputation in his class, vouch for
+having seen the celebrated Sea-Serpent. It appeared as far as could be
+guessed, to be about a hundred feet long, with the wild mane and fiery
+eyes which old writers ascribe to the monster.”
+
+I am convinced that the adjectives “wild” and “fiery” and the phrase
+“which old writers ascribe to the monster” are no additions made by
+the mariner, who simply may have told that the sea-serpent seen by him
+was about a hundred feet long, had a mane like a horse, or resembling
+sea-weed, and had red eyes. Unluckily neither the date, nor the
+locality is mentioned. The date cannot be far back from 1820; so I have
+chosen 1810, but of the locality of course nothing can be guessed.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=34=, =35=.--1815, June 20 and 21.--In the _Report of a Committee_, of
+1817, we read that this Committee wrote a letter to Mr. SAMUEL DAVIS,
+of Plymouth, requesting him to examine upon oath some respectable men
+of that place, with regard to the appearance of the animal in 1815.
+This letter runs as follows:
+
+  “Boston, September 1, 1817.
+
+  “Sir”,
+
+“At a meeting of the Linnaean Society of the 18th. ult., the
+subscribers there appointed a Committee for the purpose of collecting
+any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal,
+denominated a _Sea Serpent_, reported to have been recently seen in and
+near the Harbour of Gloucester. The Committee have procured evidence
+from Gloucester, which they are preparing to report to the Society,
+and this evidence is of such a character, that they have thought it
+expedient to extend their inquiry to other reported appearances of a
+similar nature on our coasts. An appearance of this sort is mentioned
+as having been noticed by some persons at Plymouth two or three years
+since. We would ask your assistence in procuring the evidence on this
+subject.
+
+“Your connection with the Society seems to authorize the request for
+your assistence in having the evidence on this subject, which may exist
+at Plymouth, properly taken and transmitted; but separately from any
+such claim, we know your habitual readiness to aid in any investigation
+in natural science. This subject is now of general interest among us,
+and will probably be so abroad. Any cooperation which you may wish from
+magistrates and intelligent gentlemen at Plymouth, we doubt not will be
+readily afforded you. We shall suspend our final report to the Society,
+until your communication shall be received.”
+
+  “Yours respectfully and
+  with esteem
+
+  “John Davis      }
+  “Jacob Bigelow   } Committee.
+  “Francis C. Gray }
+
+The answer was as follows:
+
+  “Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”
+
+  “Gentlemen.”
+
+“Inclosed is the deposition duly authenticated of Capt. E. Finney of
+this town, descriptive of an unusual animal, which was seen by him in
+the outer harbour of Plymouth, in June 1815. Capt. Finney lives a few
+miles from town, and is much engaged in business, which must apologize
+for the delay that has followed, since the receipt of your letter of
+the first of September. His deposition is impartial and unbiassed--and
+agrees uniformly with his first declarations in 1815--besides he has
+not read, whatever he may have heard, of the Cape Ann descriptions; he
+has been from his youth accustomed to a seafaring life--in the fishing
+employ, and in foreign voyages--has frequently seen whales, and almost
+every species of fish.”
+
+“The drawing on the other page (made by me) I have shewn to Capt.
+Finney, who says it illustrates his conceptions on the subject exactly.
+All your questions were asked him, and when his replies are negative,
+such as gills, breathing holes, &c. &c. it must not be inferred that
+such things were not displayed--but only that he did not see them, &c.
+Certain house carpenters, who were at work on a building near the spot,
+also saw it; as well as many others--these persons dwell with emphasis
+on the long and distant _wake_ made in the water by the passage of
+the fish.--As to the point of time, it must have been from known data
+between the 18th. and 25th. of June. And I would remark, that this is
+exactly the season when the first setting in of mackerel occurs in our
+bay.”
+
+  “Yours respectfully”
+
+  “S. Davis.”
+
+And the deposition of Captain FINNEY as follows:
+
+“I, Elkanah Finney of Plymouth, in the county of Plymouth, Mariner,
+testify and say: That about the twentieth of June, A. D. 1815, being
+at work near my house, which is situated near the sea-shore in
+Plymouth, at a place called Warren’s cove, where the beach joins the
+main land; my son, a boy, came from the shore and informed me of an
+unusual appearance on the surface of the sea in the cove. I paid little
+attention to his story at first; but as he persisted in saying that he
+had seen something very remarkable, I looked towards the cove, where I
+saw something which appeared to the naked eye to be a drift sea-weed.
+I then viewed it through a perspective glass, and was in a moment
+satisfied that it was some aquatic animal, with the form, motion, and
+appearance of which I had hitherto been unacquainted. It was about a
+quarter of a mile from the shore, and was moving with great rapidity
+to the northward. It then appeared to be about thirty feet in length;
+the animal went about half a mile to the northward; then turned about,
+and while turning, displayed a greater length than I had before seen;
+I supposed at least a hundred feet. It then came towards me, in a
+southerly direction, very rapidly, until he was in a line with me,
+when he stopped, and lay entirely still on the surface of the water.
+I then had a good view of him through my glass, at the distance of a
+quarter of a mile. His appearance in this situation was like a string
+of buoys. I saw perhaps thirty or forty of these protuberances or
+bunches, which were about the size of a barrel. The head appeared to be
+about six or eight feet long, and where it was connected with the body
+was a little larger than the body. His head tapered off to the size
+of a horse’s head. I could not discern any mouth. But what I supposed
+to be his under jaw had a white stripe extending the whole length of
+the head, just above the water. While he lay in this situation, he
+appeared to be about a hundred or a hundred and twenty feet long. The
+body appeared to be of a uniform size. I saw no part of the animal
+which I supposed to be a tail. I therefore thought he did not discover
+to me his whole length. His colour was a deep brown or black. I could
+not discover any eyes, mane, gills, or breathing holes. I did not see
+any fins or legs. The animal did not utter any sound, and it did not
+appear to notice any thing. It remained still and motionless for five
+minutes or more. The wind was light with a clear sky, and the water
+quite smooth. He then moved to the southward; but not with so rapid a
+motion as I had observed before. He was soon out of my sight. The next
+morning I rose very early to discover him. There was a fresh breeze
+from the south, which subsided about eight o’clock. It then became
+quite calm, when I again saw the animal about a mile to the northward
+of my house, down the beach. He did not display so great a length as
+the night before, perhaps not more than twenty or thirty feet. He often
+disappeared, and was gone five or ten minutes under water. I thought
+he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same
+situation, and thus employed for two hours. I then saw him moving
+off, in a northeast direction, towards the light house. I could not
+determine whether its motion was up and down, or to the right and left.
+His quickest motion was very rapid; I should suppose at the rate of
+fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Mackerel, manhaden, herring, and other
+bait fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen.”
+
+  “Elkanah Finney.”
+
+“_Plymouth_ ss. October 2, 1817. The above named Elkanah Finney
+appeared and made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement, by him
+subscribed, before me
+
+  Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”
+
+In vain have I tried to get a look at the above mentioned “first
+declarations in 1815”.
+
+Though the Committee now possessed the long wished-for drawing of the
+Sea-Serpent, it did not publish it, nor did it state why it did not.
+The “questions” of which Mr. DAVIS writes will be presented to our
+readers hereafter. We see that the animal may remain quite still on
+the surface of the water, keeping, however, its coils, or joints, or
+bunches. It was a large individual. Its head seemed to be from 6 to 8
+feet, its whole length far above one hundred and twenty feet. “Its head
+was a little larger than the body”, we must of course read: “Its head
+was a little broader than the neck”. It had a white stripe extending
+over the whole length of the head, just above the water, in the place
+where the underjaw must have been. We may look upon all the statements
+of Capt. FINNEY, as to the animal’s colour, dimensions, motions, &c.
+as quite correct: he was a man too well acquainted with the different
+sea-animals, to be mistaken in any observation. Moreover, all his
+statements will soon and successively be repeated over and over again,
+till there remains not a shadow of doubt of their truth, which, in my
+opinion, is now already the case.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=36=.--1816?--In the “_Voyages_” of the well known OTTO VON KOTZEBUE,
+which appeared in Weimar in 1821, translated into English, in London,
+1821, and into Dutch, in Amsterdam, 1822, we read that on the Isle
+of Unalaska, one of Aleutes, he had made the acquaintance of a Mr.
+KRIUKOF, living there since 1795, and being Agent of the American
+Company. VON KOTZEBUE writes:
+
+“Mr. Kriukof’s description of a sea animal which pursued him at
+Behring’s Island, where he had gone for the purpose of hunting, is
+very remarkable. Several Aleutians affirm they have often seen this
+animal. It is of the shape of the Red serpent, and immensely long; the
+head resembles that of the sea-lion, and two disproportionately large
+eyes give it a frightful appearance. “It was very fortunate for us”
+said Kriukof, “that we were so near land, or else the monster would
+have swallowed us: it stretched its head far above the water, looked
+about for prey, and vanished. The head soon appeared again, and that
+considerably nearer: we rowed with all our might, and were very happy
+to have reached the shore before the serpent. The sea-lions were so
+terrified at the sight, that some rushed into the water, and others hid
+themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of flesh which,
+according to opinion, is that of this serpent, which no animal, not
+even the raven, will touch. Some Aleutians, who had once tasted some of
+it, suddenly died.”
+
+This passage was told by Mr. KRIUKOF to von KOTZEBUE in Aug. 1817. So
+we have taken 1816 as the year of the appearance, though it may have
+happened earlier. When Mr. VON KOTZEBUE wrote his book in 1820, he had
+already heard of the Sea-Serpent, which appeared in 1817 in the Harbour
+of Gloucester, Mass., and so he adds:
+
+“If a sea-serpent really has been seen on the coast of North-America,
+it may have been one of this frightful species.”
+
+What now are the most interesting parts of this notice? First of all
+that the Sea-Serpent is a common visitor of the Northern South-Sea, for
+the Aleutians affirmed that they often saw it. But the description of
+the head claims our close attention. We already said that the animal
+must have a hairy skin, for it has a mane, and those persons who saw it
+very closely confirm this. The head has already been twice described
+as resembling that of a seal, and afterwards we shall meet again with
+such a description; generally, however, it is said to resemble that of
+a snake, or a serpent, and sometimes to be sharp. What head combines
+these characters? I say the head of a sea-lion. It resembles more
+or less that of a seal, and seen from aside, more or less that of a
+snake, is rather pointed, because a sea-lion has not such formidable
+upper lips as seals have, and rather blunt. Why has nobody given
+this description? I say, because nobody among the eye-witnesses ever
+saw a sea-lion, neither the Norwegian, nor the many eye-witnesses of
+Massachusetts, nor even afterwards the other witnesses. The only one
+who could make this comparison was Mr. KRIUKOF, and the Aleutians,
+who live surrounded by these animals. The sea-lion’s head is rather
+blunt, rather pointed, rather long, and flattened on the forehead,
+has also some whiskers, which are also attributed to sea-serpents by
+eye-witnesses in Norway, according to PONTOPPIDAN, and afterwards again
+by a person who saw it at a few yards’ distance from him.
+
+Moreover KRIUKOF’S comparison with the Red Snake, a species evidently
+known to him, the disproportionate large eyes, the habit of the animal
+to stretch its long neck far above the surface of the water, apparently
+to look about for prey, to follow a boat at some distance, it being
+supposed to be inquisitive, though harmless, are all statements we have
+already met with or will meet with afterwards. It seems that sea-lions
+too often become the prey of the sea-serpent, otherwise these creatures
+would not have been so afraid of it.
+
+As to the pieces of flesh, I am convinced that they are not of a
+sea-serpent, but either of sea-lions, of porpoises, or of another
+smaller kind of whales, which are the rests of a meal of our friend.
+They are washed ashore in a putrified state, and their not being to
+the taste of the ravens is probably a story, which, like the report of
+the death of the Aleutians who had tasted of it, must without doubt be
+considered as a mere fable. This report is reprinted in the _Magazine
+and Journal_, Vol. LVIII, 1821.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+“In the month of August, 1817,” we read in the _Report of a Committee_,
+&c. printed Dec. 1817, Boston, by CUMMINGS and HILLARD,
+
+“In the month of August, 1817, it was currently reported on various
+authorities, that an animal of very singular appearance had been
+recently and repeatedly seen in the harbour of Gloucester, Cape Ann,
+about thirty miles distant from Boston. It was said to resemble a
+serpent in its general form and motions, to be of immense size, and to
+move with wonderful rapidity; to appear on the surface of the water
+only in calm and bright weather; and to seem jointed, or like a number
+of buoys or casks following each other in a line.”
+
+“In consequence of these reports, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society
+of New England, holden at Boston on the 18th. day of August, the
+Hon. John Davis, Jacob Bigelow, M. D. and Francis C. Gray, Esq. were
+appointed a Committee to collect evidence with regard to the existence
+and appearance of any such animal. The following report made by that
+Committee is now published by order of the Society.”
+
+  “Linnaean Society of New England.”
+
+“The Committee appointed on the 18th. of August last to collect
+evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of a Sea-Serpent,
+said to have been recently seen in the harbour of Gloucester, now lay
+before the Society the following facts and documents.”
+
+“On the 19th. of August your Committee wrote to the Hon. Lonson Nash
+of Gloucester, requesting him to examine upon oath some of the
+inhabitants of that town with regard to the appearance of this animal,
+to make the examination as early as possible, to request the persons
+examined not to communicate to each other the substance of their
+respective statements, until they were all committed to writing; to
+have these statements signed and certified in due form, and sent to
+us. Our letter also contained certain rules with regard to the mode of
+conducting this examination, and questions to be put to the persons
+examined.”
+
+“In answer to it we received from Mr. Nash a letter, dated 28th.
+August, enclosing eight depositions, duly certified, which on the 1st.
+September were read before the Society as were also three depositions
+taken in Boston, on the 30th. August and 1st. September. You directed
+us to return your thanks to Mr. Nash for his readiness in complying
+with our request, to continue the investigation of the subject
+committed to us, in such manner as we should deem expedient, and to
+lay before you a formal report of the whole evidence that should be
+procured. In compliance with your directions, the chairman of the
+Committee wrote again to Mr. Nash on the 2d. September, and received
+from him an answer, dated 9th. September. We also wrote to Mr. Samuel
+Davis of Plymouth on the 1st. September, requesting him to examine upon
+oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance
+of an animal said to have been seen there in the year 1815, and to
+resemble the one lately seen near Gloucester; this letter contained
+the same rules and questions as were sent to Mr. Nash. In answer to
+this application, a letter from that gentleman was received on the 4th.
+October, enclosing the deposition of Capt. E. Finney. Your Committee
+have also received a communication from the Rev. William Jenks of Bath
+relative to the subject. All these documents are now laid before you in
+the following order.”
+
+   “1. The rules and questions of your Committee.
+   “2. The letter from Mr. Nash of 28th August, enclosing the eight
+       following depositions.
+   “3. The deposition of Amos Story.
+   “4. That of Salomon Allen.
+   “5. That of Eppes Ellery.
+   “6. That of William H. Foster.
+   “7. That of Matthew Gaffney.
+   “8. That of James Mansfield.
+   “9. That of John Johnston.
+  “10. That of William B. Pearson.
+  “11. The deposition of Sewall Toppan }
+  “12. That of Robert Bragg            } taken at Boston.
+  “13. That of William Somerby         }
+  “14. The letter from our Chairman to Mr. Nash.
+  “15. The answer of Mr. Nash.
+  “16. Our letter to Mr. S. Davis of Plymouth.
+  “17. His answer, containing
+  “18. The deposition of Elkanah Finney.
+  “19. The letter from the Rev. William Jenks to your Committee.
+  “20. Is an account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in
+       the North Sea, extracted from the history of Norway, written by
+       the Right Rev. Erich Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in the year
+       1751.
+
+
+I.
+
+  “Boston, Aug. 19, 1817.
+
+“The Committee appointed by the Linnaean Society, at their meeting on
+the 18th. inst. for the purpose of collecting any evidence which may
+exist respecting a remarkable animal, denominated a _Sea Serpent_,
+reported to have recently been seen in and near the harbour of _Cape
+Ann_, have concluded on the following method of proceeding in the
+execution of their commission.”
+
+“I. The examination to be confined to persons professing actually to
+have seen the animal in question.
+
+“II. Such persons to be examined as may be met with by either of the
+Committee, or by Hon. Lonson Nash of Gloucester, who is to be requested
+by a letter addressed to him from the Committee to undertake this
+service.”
+
+“III. All testimony on the subject to be taken in writing, and after
+being deliberately read to the person testifying, to be signed by him,
+and sworn before a magistrate. The examinations to be separate, and the
+matter testified by any witness not to be communicated until the whole
+evidence be taken.”
+
+“IV. The persons testifying to be requested first to relate their
+recollections on the subject, which being taken down, the following
+questions to be proposed, if not rendered unnecessary by the statement
+given.”
+
+
+“Questions.”
+
+“1. When did you first see this animal?”
+
+“2. How often and how long at a time?”
+
+“3. At what times of the day?”
+
+“4. At what distance?”
+
+“5. How near the shore?”
+
+“6. What was its general appearance?”
+
+“7. Was it in motion or at rest?”
+
+“8. How fast did it move, and in what direction?”
+
+“9. What parts of it were above the water and how high?”
+
+“10. Did it appear jointed or only serpentine?”
+
+“11. If serpentine, were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”
+
+“12. How many distinct portions were out of water at one time?”
+
+“13. What were its colour, length and thickness?”
+
+“14. Did it appear smooth or rough?”
+
+“15. What were the size and shape of its head, and had the head ears,
+horns, or other appendages?”
+
+“16. Describe its eyes and mouth.”
+
+“17. Had it gills or breathing holes, and where?”
+
+“18. Had it fins or legs, and where?”
+
+“19. Had it a mane or hairs, and where?”
+
+“20. How did its tail terminate?”
+
+“21. Did it utter any sound?”
+
+“22. Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice any thing?”
+
+“23. Did you see more than one?”
+
+“24. How many persons saw it?”
+
+“25. State any other remarkable fact.”
+
+
+II.
+
+  “Gloucester, August 28, 1817.”
+
+  “John Davis,        }
+  “Jacob Bigelow, and } Esq’rs.
+  “Francis C. Gray    }
+
+  “Gentlemen,
+
+“I have received your favour of the 19th. inst. In that communication
+you request my assistance, in collecting evidence relative to a strange
+marine animal, that has appeared in the harbour in this place; and
+I have most cheerfully complied with your request. The subject is
+calculated to excite much interest, at home and abroad.”
+
+“The deponents were interrogated separately, no one knowing what the
+others had testified, and though they differ in some few particulars,
+still, for the most part, they agree.”
+
+“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is mistaken,
+as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical. I saw him, on
+the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should judge he was two
+hundred and fifty yards from me, when the nearest. I saw him twice with
+a glass for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye. At
+that distance, I could not take in the two extremities of the animal
+that were visible, _at one view_, with a glass. His manner of turning
+is well described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions. The
+persons who have deposed before me, are men of fair and unblemished
+characters. The interrogatories that you sent to me were all put to
+the witnesses; but generally, I have omitted inserting them in the
+depositions, when the witnesses declared their inability to answer
+them.”
+
+“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken, as to the distinct portions of
+the animal that were visible, at one time. I saw, at no time, more than
+eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible; still, I
+cannot believe that _fifty_ distinct portions were seen, at one time. I
+believe the animal to be straight, and that, the apparent bunches were
+caused by his vertical motion.”
+
+“I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat with his brother
+Matthew, when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s answers corroborate
+Matthew’s testimony.”
+
+  “Respectfully, gentlemen,
+
+  “Your most ob’t
+
+  “Lonson Nash.”
+
+We observe that the Linnaean Society has exerted all its energies in
+the matter and has acted with the greatest accuracy. In our historical
+treatice we, however, have not followed the above order, but arranged
+the depositions chronologically.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=37=.--1817, August 6?--In a letter from Mr. S. G. PERKINS, dated
+Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to Mr. E. EVERETT in Paris, preserved in the
+Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and which we shall
+hereafter present to our readers _in toto_, we read:
+
+“About a fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance of the
+Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster come into the
+Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake, was of great length,
+&c.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=38=.--1817, August, 10.--(See the _Report_ of 1817).
+
+“I, Amos Story of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, mariner, depose
+and say, that on the tenth day of August A. D. 1817, I saw a strange
+marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, at the southward and
+eastward of Ten Pound Island, in the harbour in said Gloucester. It was
+between the hours of twelve and one o’clock when I first saw him, and
+he continued in sight for an hour and half. I was setting on the shore,
+and was about twenty rods from him when he was the nearest to me. His
+head appeared shaped much like the head of a sea turtle, and he carried
+his head from ten to twelve inches above the surface of the water. His
+head at that distance appeared larger than the head of any dog that I
+ever saw. From the back part of his head to the next part of him that
+was visible, I should judge to be three or four feet. He moved very
+rapidly through the water, I should say a mile in two, or at most, in
+three minutes. I saw no bunches on his back. On this day, I did not see
+more than ten or twelve feet of his body.”
+
+Though Mr. STORY compares the animal’s head with that of a sea-turtle,
+probably because he saw it in such a direction that it seemed short and
+thick; his statement that it carried its head a foot above the water,
+and that it was larger than that of any dog at a distance of twenty
+rods,--the head may even have been of about two feet--, that its motion
+was rapid, are all mere repetitions of facts well known to us. He did
+not see bunches on its back, the animal consequently swam with its body
+in a straight line, a habit we have also already met with. Just behind
+the head a part of the neck of about four feet was hidden under water,
+and then twelve feet of the animal’s body were visible again.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=39=, =40=, =41=.--1817, August 12, 13, 14.--(See the _Report_, printed
+in 1817).
+
+“I, Solomon Allen 3d. of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
+shipmaster, depose and say; that I have seen a strange marine animal,
+that I believe to be a sea-serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester.
+I should judge him to be between eighty and ninety feet in length, and
+about the size of a half barrel, apparently having joints from his
+head to his tail. I was about one hundred and fifty yards from him,
+when I judged him to be of the size of a half barrel. His head formed
+something like the head of the rattle snake, but nearly as large as
+the head of a horse. When he moved on the surface of the water, his
+motion was slow, at times playing about in circles, and sometimes
+moving nearly straight forward. When he disappeared, he sunk apparently
+directly down, and would next appear at two hundred yards from where he
+disappeared, in two minutes. His colour was a dark brown, and I did not
+discover any spots upon him.”
+
+“_Question._ When did you first see this animal?”
+
+“_Answer._ I saw him on the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth of
+August, A. D. 1817.”
+
+“_Q._ How often, and how long at a time?”
+
+“_A._ I was in a boat on the twelfth inst. and was around him several
+times, within one hundred and fifty yards of him. On the thirteenth
+inst. I saw him nearly all the day, from the shore. I was on the beach,
+nearly on a level with him, and most of the time he was from one
+hundred and fifty to three hundred yards from me. On the fourteenth, I
+saw him but once, and had not so good a view of him.”
+
+“_Q._ What parts of it were above the surface if the water, and how
+high?”
+
+“_A._ Its joints or bunches, appeared about eight or ten inches above
+the surface of the water.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it bend its body up and down in moving, or to the right and
+left?”
+
+“_A._ He moved to the right and left.”
+
+“_Q._ How many distinct portions of it were out of the water, at one
+time?”
+
+“_A._ I should say fifty distinct portions.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it appear smooth or rough?”
+
+“_A._ It appeared rough and scaly.”
+
+“_Q._ Had it ears, horns, or any other appendages?”
+
+“_A._ I perceived none.”
+
+“_Q._ How did its tail terminate?”
+
+“_A._ He seemed to taper towards (what I thought) his tail, though I
+had no distinct view of his tail.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it utter any sound?”
+
+“_A._ Not in my hearing.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”
+
+“_A._ It appeared to me to avoid the boat where I was, though
+afterwards, I saw him make towards a boat, in which was Mr. Gaffney and
+others.”
+
+“_Q._ Did you see more than one?”
+
+“_A._ I did not.”
+
+“_Q._ How many persons saw it?”
+
+“_A._ Twenty or thirty persons were in view of me.”
+
+“_Q._ Did he open his mouth when you saw him, and if so, how wide?”
+
+“_A._ Yes, when I looked at him from the shore with a glass at about
+two hundred yards distance, his mouth appeared to be open about ten
+inches. I had no glass, when I saw him from the boat.”
+
+“_Q._ Did he carry his head above the surface of the water?”
+
+“_A._ Yes, at times, about two feet, then again he would carry the top
+of his head just on the surface of the water.”
+
+“_Q._ Did he turn short and quick, and what was the form of the curve
+that he made?”
+
+“_A._ 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.
+
+  “Solomon Allen 3d.”
+
+“Essex, ss. August 21, 1817. Personally appeared Solomon Allen the
+third, and made oath that the foregoing facts by him subscribed, are
+true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”
+
+  “Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”
+
+As we have already seen, Mr. LONSON NASH wrote in his letter to the
+Committee:
+
+“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is mistaken,
+as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical.” And:
+
+“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken as to the distinct portions of
+the animal, that were visible, at one time. I saw at no time more than
+eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible; still I
+cannot believe that _fifty_ distinct portions were seen at one time.”
+
+As to the motion of the animal I believe that Mr. ALLEN was really
+mistaken. When the animal was nearest to him, there was still a
+distance of a hundred and fifty yards between Mr. ALLEN and the
+animal. As to the number of the bunches which Mr. ALLEN reports, viz.
+fifty, I believe that he has not _counted_ them; he says: I should say
+fifty. PONTOPPIDAN tells us that the greatest number ever seen was
+twenty-five, and I believe that this is indeed the case.
+
+Moreover its length of from eighty to ninety feet, the size of the
+visible part to be that of a half barrel, the resemblance of the head
+to a rattle-snake’s, say a common snake’s, the size of it to be that of
+a horse’s, say two feet, &c., &c., are all common statements. Of course
+Mr. ALLEN is also mistaken as to its scaly surface. The roughness,
+however, may have been the result of the rippling of the water. When
+the animal disappeared it sunk directly down, like a rock, a statement
+which we have met with and shall meet with several times. That the
+teeth of the animal were not visible at a distance of two hundred yards
+cannot surprise us. In the animal’s turning its flexibility again is
+mentioned: head and tail approaching, nay, nearly touching each other.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=41=.--1817, August 14.--See also no 41 on p. 164.--(_Report of a
+Committee_, 1817).
+
+“I, Epes Ellery, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, shipmaster,
+depose and say; that on the 14th. day of August, 1817, I saw a
+sea animal that I thought to be a serpent, in the harbour in said
+Gloucester. I was on an eminence, near low water mark, and about thirty
+feet above the level of the sea, when I saw him. I should judge that
+he was about one hundred and fifty fathoms from me. I saw the upper
+part of his head, and I should say about forty feet of the animal. He
+appeared to me to have joints, about the size of a two-gallon keg. I
+was looking at him with a spy-glass, when I saw him open his mouth, and
+his mouth appeared like that of a serpent; the top of his head appeared
+flat. His motion when he turned was quick, but I will not express an
+opinion of his velocity. 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 together.”
+
+“_Q._ At what time of the day did you see him?”
+
+“_A._ It was a little after sun set.”
+
+“_Q._ What parts of it were above the surface of the water, and how
+high?”
+
+“_A._ I did not count the number of bunches, but they appeared about
+six inches above the surface of the water.”
+
+“_Q._ Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”
+
+“_A._ Vertical.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”
+
+“_A._ It did not appear to avoid any thing. He appeared to be amusing
+himself, though there were several boats not far from him.”
+
+“_Q._ Did you see more than one?”
+
+“_A._ I did not.”
+
+“_Q._ How many persons saw it?”
+
+“_A._ There were fifteen or twenty persons near where I was.”
+
+  “Epes Ellery.”
+
+Essex ss. August, 25, 1817. Personally appeared Epes Ellery, and made
+oath to the truth of the foregoing facts by him subscribed.
+
+  “Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”
+
+Not a single fact which has not been stated before.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n^o. 41 on p. 164 and n^o. 41 on p.
+167.)--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).
+
+“I, William H. Foster, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, merchant,
+depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, A. D. 1817,
+I first saw an uncommon sea-animal, that I believe to have been a
+serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. When I first discovered
+him, his head was above the surface of the water, perhaps ten inches,
+and he made but little progress through the water. He was apparently
+shaded with light colours. He afterwards went in different directions,
+leaving on the surface of the water, marks like those made by skating
+on the ice. Then he would move in a straight line west, and would
+almost in an instant, change his course to east, bringing his head,
+as near as I could judge, 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, and shewing a body at least forty feet in length.”
+
+Its being shaded with light colours is already mentioned by
+PONTOPPIDAN. Its leaving a wake behind it has already been stated many
+times, and will often be stated afterwards. Also its mode of turning,
+giving to its body the form of a staple.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n°. 41 on p. 164, p. 167, p.
+168.)--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817.).
+
+“I, Matthew Gaffney, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, ship
+carpenter, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, A. D.
+1817, between the hours of four and five o’clock in the afternoon,
+I saw a strange marine animal, resembling a serpent, in the harbour
+in said Gloucester. I was in a boat, and was within thirty feet of
+him. His head appeared full as large as a four-gallon keg, his body
+as large as a barrel, and his length that I saw, I should judge forty
+feet at least. The top of his head was of a dark colour, and the under
+part of his head appeared nearly white, as did also several feet of
+his belly, that I saw. I supposed and do believe that the whole of his
+belly was nearly white. I fired at him, when he was the nearest to me.
+I had a good gun, and took good aim. I aimed at his head, and think I
+must have hit him. He turned towards us immediately after I had fired,
+and I thought he was coming at us: but he sunk down and went directly
+under our boat, and made his appearance at about one hundred yards
+from where he sunk. He did not turn down like a fish, but appeared to
+settle directly down, like a rock. My gun carries a ball of eighteen
+to a pound; and I suppose there is no person in town, more accustomed
+to shooting than I am. I have seen the animal at several other times,
+but never had so good a view of him, as on this day. His motion was
+vertical, like a caterpillar.”
+
+“_Q._ How fast did it move?”
+
+“_A._ I should say he moved at the rate of a mile in two, or at most
+three minutes.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it appear smooth or rough?”
+
+“_A._ I thought it smooth, when I was endeavouring to take aim at him,
+and will not say positively, that he was smooth, though that is still
+my belief.”
+
+“_Q._ Does he turn quick and short, and if so, what is the form of path
+that he makes, in turning?”
+
+“_A._ He turns quick and short, and the first part of the curve that he
+makes in turning, is in the form of the 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.”
+
+“_Q._ Did he appear more shy, after you had fired at him?”
+
+“_A._ He did not; but continued playing as before.”
+
+“_Q._ Who was in the boat with you, when you fired at the serpent?”
+
+“_A._ My brother Daniel, and Augustin M. Webber.
+
+  “Matthew Gaffney.”
+
+“Essex, ss. August 28, 1817. Then Matthew Gaffney made oath that the
+foregoing, by him subscribed, is true according to his best knowledge
+and belief.
+
+  “Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace”
+
+As we have already seen Mr. LONSON NASH in his letter to the Committee
+wrote:
+
+“His manner of turning is well described in Mr. Gaffney’s
+description...... I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat
+with his brother Matthew when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s
+answer corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”
+
+We read here that the underpart of the head appeared almost white, and
+several feet of its belly too (read of the underpart of its neck, or of
+its throat). Further Mr. GAFFNEY goes on: “I supposed and do believe
+that the whole of his belly was nearly white”. This is very remarkable,
+for Mr. GAFFNEY seems to be familiar with sea-animals, as porpoises,
+&c., and a very good observer, and his conclusion is quite right from
+a zoological point of view. Very remarkable is the animal’s demeanor
+after the shot. Apparently furious, it directed itself suddenly to
+the shooter, but when very near to him, it sank down like a rock
+and appeared again far away. This manner of acting will afterwards
+be described again in Norway. Again its manner of disappearing is
+described as sinking like a rock. The mode of turning too is just the
+same as is mentioned every where.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n^o. 41 on p. 164, p. 167, p. 168,
+p. 168.) (_Report of a Committee_, 1817.)
+
+We read in the letter from Mr. LONSON NASH to the Committee that he
+himself saw the animal:
+
+“I saw him on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should
+judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when the nearest.
+I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and at other times,
+with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not take in the two
+extremities of the animal, that were visible, at one view with a
+glass...... His motion is vertical..... His manner of turning is well
+described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions..... I saw,
+at no time, more than eight distinct portions; though more may have
+been visible..... I believe the animal to be straight, and that the
+apparent bunches were caused by his vertical motion.”
+
+The Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. JOHN DAVIS immediately wrote to
+Mr. LONSON NASH the following letter:
+
+  “Boston, September 2, 1817.”
+
+  “Sir”,
+
+“Your letter of the 28th. ult. to the Committee of the Linnaean
+Society, and the accompanying depositions, were duly received, and
+were yesterday communicated to the Society. The Committee are greatly
+obliged to you for your ready compliance with their request. In these
+sentiments the Society unite, and I am charged with the agreeable
+office of communicating to you their vote of thanks for your very
+acceptable labours. What you have thus accomplished will go far in
+giving some precise and accurate conceptions on a subject, peculiarly
+exposed to exaggeration and mistake. This evidence, with some
+additional documents, will probably be published. The Committee will
+not make their final report on the subject of their Commission until
+evidence shall be procured respecting some other reputed appearances of
+like description, particularly one at Plymouth in 1815.”
+
+“We have been informed that the animal at Gloucester was once seen,
+and it was said by a woman, lying dormant very near the shore. The
+Committee wished this intimation to be given to you, that if it should
+point to any material circumstances, the evidence might be taken.”
+
+“The last we hear of the object of our inquiry is of his appearance
+off East Point on the 28th. ult. This we gather from the testimony
+of captain Toppan, and his crew, of the schooner Laura, coming from
+Newburyport to Boston.”
+
+“It appears by your letter, that you had sight of the animal. A letter
+from you, giving a detailed account of your observations, would be
+particularly acceptable.”
+
+“We understand that a gentleman in Gloucester, (Captain Beach) has
+a drawing, supposed to be a good representation of the animal. Some
+information respecting this drawing would be agreeable; how far it is
+considered by those who had the best view of the animal as a correct
+representation, and whether the person possessing it would be disposed
+to permit an engraving from it to be annexed to the publication of the
+evidence, and on what terms. Yours very respectfully,
+
+  “Jno Davis.”
+
+“We have already read the report of the appearance of 1815 (n^o. 34 and
+35); the intelligence of the encounter on the 28th. of August we will
+communicate afterwards (n^o. 48). The answer of Judge NASH, omitting
+the intelligence about the animal reposing on the rocks (this report
+has been discussed some pages further on, n^o. 45) runs as follows (See
+_Report of a Committee_, 1817):
+
+  “Gloucester, September 9, 1817.”
+
+  “Sir”,
+
+“Your favoured of the 2d. inst. has been received. The vote of thanks
+of the Linnaean Society for my services was highly gratifying to me,
+not simply on account of the high consideration I entertain for the
+members of that laudable institution; but likewise for the agreeable
+manner, and respectable channel, through which their vote of thanks was
+communicated to me.”
+
+“You request a detailed account of my observations, relative to the
+serpent. I saw him on the fourteenth ultimo, and when nearest, I judged
+him to be about two hundred and fifty yards from me. At that distance
+I judged him (in the largest part) about the size of a half barrel,
+gradually tapering towards the two extremes. Twice I saw him with a
+glass, only for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye,
+for nearly half an hour. His colour appeared nearly black--his motion
+was vertical. When he moved on the surface of the water, the track of
+his rear was visible, for at least half a mile.”
+
+“His velocity, when moving on the surface of the water, I judged was at
+the rate of a mile in about four minutes. When immersed in the water,
+his speed was greater, moving, I should say, at the rate of a mile in
+two or at most three minutes. 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. He apparently went as
+straight through the water, as you could draw a line. 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. With
+a glass, I could not take in, at one view, the two extremes of the
+animal, that were visible. I have looked at a vessel, at about the same
+distance, and could distinctly see forty five feet. If he should be
+taken, I have no doubt that his length will be found seventy feet, at
+least, and I should not be surprised, if he should be found one hundred
+feet long. When I saw him I was standing on an eminence, on the sea
+shore, elevated about thirty feet above the surface of the water, and
+the sea was smooth.”
+
+“If I saw his head, I could not distinguish it from his body; though
+there were seafaring men near me, who said that they could distinctly
+see his head. I believe they spoke truth; but not having been much
+accustomed to look through a glass, I was not so fortunate.”
+
+“I never saw more than seven or eight distinct portions of him above
+the water, at any one time, and he appeared rough; though I supposed
+this appearance was produced by his motion. When he disappeared, he
+apparently sunk directly down like a rock.”
+
+“Captain Beach has been in Boston for a week past, and I am informed
+that he is still there. An engraving from his drawing of the serpent
+has been, or is now, making at Boston, but I have not been able to
+ascertain how far his drawing is thought a correct representation.”
+
+  “Respectfully, Sir,
+
+  Your most obedient,
+
+  Lonson Nash.”
+
+Mr. W. D. PECK says of this declaration (_Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol.
+IV. Pt. 1.)
+
+“The account of it by Lonson Nash Esq. Justice of the Peace in
+Gloucester, from his own observation, is perfectly free from prejudice,
+and as clear and satisfactory as can be expected of an object at a
+distance of two hundred and fifty yards.”
+
+Remarkable in this testimony is again the considerable wake the animal
+leaves behind it when swimming rapidly. Easy it is to explain why
+the speed is greater under water than when partly visible above the
+surface of the water. Those parts viz. which are above the surface
+must be borne by the body hidden under water, consequently this
+carries a burden, and the speed, it is evident, cannot be so rapid
+as when the animal is quite under water, in which position each part
+of the animal’s body is carried by the water itself, and not by the
+individual. It has no burden to carry, it is specifically lighter, and
+the speed can reach its maximum.--Remarkable too is the fact that the
+animal, when swimming under water, does so just below the surface, and
+causes the rippling of it. This is a habit of Pinnipeds.
+
+Where Mr. Nash thinks that the apparent roughness is produced by its
+motion, I am convinced that he is right. He could not distinguish
+its head from its body, which cannot surprise us; both are of the
+same thickness, when seen from aside, and I believe too that the
+seafaring men, more accustomed to look with a glass, distinctly saw
+the difference between head and neck. Moreover the mode of turning,
+its length of more than seventy feet, its sinking down like a rock,
+when disappearing, need not be spoken of; they were mere repetitions of
+former statements.
+
+I am sorry I have not been able to get a look at Mr. BEACH’S figure.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=42=.--1817, August 15.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).
+
+“I, James Mansfield, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, merchant,
+depose and say: That I saw a strange creature, of enormous length,
+resembling a serpent. I think this was on the 15th. of August, A. D.
+1817. I should say he was from forty to sixty feet in length, extended
+on the surface of the water, with his head above the water about a
+foot. He remained in this position but a short time, and then started
+off very quick, with much greater velocity than I have seen him move
+with at any other time. I saw bunches on his back about a foot in
+height, when he lay extended on the water. His colour appeared to me
+black or very dark. It was a little before six o’clock P. M. when I saw
+him. I should say, he moved a mile in five or six minutes.”
+
+“_Q._ How near the shore was the serpent?”
+
+“_A._ About one hundred and eighty yards from the shore where I stood.”
+
+“_Q._ Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”
+
+“_A._ Vertical.”
+
+“_Q._ What were the size and shape of its head; and had it ears, horns,
+or any other appendages?”
+
+“_A._ His head appeared to be about the size of the crown of a hat,
+at the distance from whence I saw him. The shape of his head I cannot
+describe, and I saw no ears, horns, or other appendages. I had no spy
+glass, and cannot describe him so minutely as I otherwise could. I have
+seen him at other times, but my view of him was not so good, as on this
+day.”
+
+  “James Mansfield.”
+
+“Essex, ss. August 27, 1817. Then James Mansfield made oath to the
+truth of the foregoing deposition by him subscribed.”
+
+  “Before Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”
+
+We have here again the statement that the animal is able to keep its
+bunches, when it lies extended on the water.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=43=.--1817, August 17.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817.) The second
+part of the affidavit of Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER runs as follows:
+
+“On the seventeenth of August instant, I again saw him. He came into
+the harbour, occasionally exhibiting parts of his body, which appeared
+like rings or bunches. As he drew near, and when opposite to me, 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.”
+
+“_Q._ Might not the prong or spear that you saw, have been the tongue
+of the serpent?”
+
+“_A._ I thought not; as I saw the prong before I saw his head; but it
+might have been.”
+
+“_Q._ At what distance were you, when you saw the spear of the serpent?”
+
+“_A._ I should judge forty rods; I had a spyglass when I saw the prong
+or spear.”
+
+“_Q._ Did the animal appear round?”
+
+“_A._ He did.”
+
+“_Q._ Did he appear jointed, or only serpentine?”
+
+“_A._ He appeared jointed.”
+
+“_Q._ Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”
+
+“_A._ Vertical.”
+
+“_Q._ What was its colour?”
+
+“_A._ It appeared brown.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it appear smooth or rough?”
+
+“_A._ It appeared smooth.”
+
+“_Q._ What was the size and shape of his head?”
+
+“_A._ At the distance where I was, his head appeared as large as a
+man’s head; but I cannot describe its shape.”
+
+“_Q._ Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?”
+
+“_A._ I thought it appeared to notice objects.”
+
+“_Q._ How fast did it move?”
+
+“_A._ At the rate of a mile in a minute, at times, I have no doubt.”
+
+  “William H. Foster.”
+
+“Essex ss. August 27, 1817. Personally appeared William H. Foster, and
+made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, is true,
+according to his best knowledge and belief.”
+
+  “Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”
+
+The first statement that strikes us is the prong or spear, seen by Mr.
+FOSTER. I am convinced that this instrument, seen by him at a distance
+of forty rods, and with a spy-glass, rising from the foremost part of
+the head, about 12 inches, or a foot, in length, pointed at its end,
+and having six inches in circumference, or two in diameter, at the
+bottom, was nothing else but the animal’s tongue.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=43=.--1817, August 17.--See also n^o. 43 on p. 175.--(_Report of a
+Committee_, 1817).--
+
+“I, John Johnston, jun, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, of the
+age of seventeen years, depose and say: That on the evening of the
+seventeenth day of August, A. D. 1817, between the hours of eight and
+nine o’clock, while passing from the shore in a boat, to a vessel lying
+in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw a strange marine animal,
+that I believe to be a serpent, lying extended on the surface of the
+water. His length appeared to be fifty feet at least, and he appeared
+straight, exhibiting no protuberances. Capt. John Corliss and George
+Marble were in the boat with me. We were within two oars length of him.
+We immediately rowed from him, and at first concluded to pass by his
+tail; but fearing we might strike it 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. There was not
+sufficient light to enable me to describe the animal.”
+
+  “John Johnston, jun.”
+
+“Essex, ss. August 25, 1817. Personally appeared John Johnston, jr. and
+made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, is true
+according to his best knowledge and belief.”
+
+  “Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”
+
+This account is as interesting as all the other ones; though no further
+particulars are described, it is again mentioned that more than fifty
+feet of the animal’s back part were visible, lying perfectly still on
+the surface of the water, showing no bunches at all.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=44=.--1817, August 18.--In the letter of Mr. S. G. PERKINS to Mr. E.
+EVERETT, dated Boston Aug. 20, 1817, we read:
+
+“But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at Beverly
+from the bank of New-foundland. The captain and the crew report that,
+off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea Monster of the Snake kind, lying
+on the water, of immense length. That the crew were so much alarmed,
+that they got away as soon as they could, and that they estimated it at
+100 feet long.”
+
+=44=.--1817, August 18.--See also n^o. 44 hereabove.--(_Report of a
+Committee_, 1817).--
+
+“I, William B. Pearson, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
+merchant, depose and say: That I have, several times, seen a strange
+marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, of great size. I have
+had a good view of him, only once, and this was on the 18th. of August,
+A. D. 1817. I was in a sailboat, and when off Webber’s cove (so called)
+in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw something coming out of the
+cove; we hove to, not doubting but that it was the same creature that
+had been seen several times in the harbour, and had excited much
+interest among the inhabitants of Gloucester. James P. Collins was the
+only person with me. The serpent passed out under the stern of our
+boat, towards _Ten Pound Island_; then he stood in towards us again,
+and crossed our bow. We immediately exclaimed: “here is the snake!”
+From what I saw of him, I should say that he was nothing short of
+seventy feet in length. I distinctly saw bunches on his back, and once
+he raised his head out of water. The top of his head appeared flat,
+and was raised seven or eight inches above the surface of the water.
+He passed by the bow of the boat, at about thirty yards distance. His
+colour was a dark brown. I saw him at this time about two minutes. His
+motion was vertical. His velocity at this time was not great, though
+at times, I have seen him move with great velocity, I should say at
+the rate of a mile in three minutes, and perhaps faster. His size I
+judged to be about the size of a half barrel. I saw Mr. Gaffney fire
+at him, at about the distance of thirty yards. I thought he hit him,
+and afterwards he appeared more shy. He turned very short, and appeared
+as limber and active as the eel, when compared to his size. The form
+of the curve when he turned in the water, 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.”
+
+“_Q._ At what time in the day was this?”
+
+“_A._ Between the hours of five and six in the afternoon.”
+
+“_Q._ How many distinct portions of it were out of water at one time?”
+
+“_A._ Ten or twelve distinct portions.”
+
+“_Q._ Can you describe his eyes and mouth.”
+
+“_A._ I thought and believe, that I saw his eye at one time, and it was
+dark and sharp.”
+
+“_Q._ How did its tail terminate?”
+
+“_A._ I had not a very distinct view of his tail; I saw no bunches
+towards, what 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.”
+
+  “William B. Pearson.
+
+_Essex_, ss. August 27, 1817. Then William B. Pearson made oath to the
+truth of the above.”
+
+  “Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”
+
+In this account too there is not a single fact which has not been
+mentioned before, except that the tail did not show bunches, while
+the back did. From that point of the body where Mr. PEARSON judged
+his navel might be towards the end of the tail, the animal had no
+bunches. It is probable that we are meant to read: from the middle of
+the visible part, where the animal seemed to be thickest. It is also
+probable that the animal’s external characters, though Mr. PEARSON says
+he believed it to be a serpent, made on him the impression of a mammal.
+
+=44=.--1817, August 18.--See also n^o. 44 p. 176 and hereabove.--In the
+above-mentioned letter from Mr. S. G. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT we read:
+
+“My Brother--Colonel Perkins--went down to Cape Ann two days ago to see
+it. He says that he is satisfied that such an animal is there. As he
+stood on the shore, it came within the eighth of a mile of him, but as
+he did not see it so distinctly, as to be able to state all its points,
+he has not said any thing to the public about it.”
+
+Fortunately Col. T. H. PERKINS wrote down his experiences in a letter,
+dated Oct. 13, 1820, when on board the ship _Ann Marie_, to his friend
+JNO. P. CUSHING. He published it in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
+Nov. 25, 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of the
+sea-serpent seen by the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118). The whole is reprinted
+in the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2358, which I had the opportunity to
+consult. The part of the letter, treating of his visit runs as follows:
+
+  “Boston, November, 1848.”
+
+“In the paper called the “Illustrated London News” of 28th. October,
+is an account given by Capt. M’Quhae, of H. R. M. ship Daedalus, of a
+sea-serpent, seen from his ship in August last, on her passage from
+the East-Indies, and between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.
+The perusal of several articles on the subject leads me to send you a
+letter written by me on my passage from England to the United States,
+in August, 1820, to Jno. P. Cushing, my friend and then partner,
+residing at Canton in China. I also send you a memorandum from
+Commander Bolton, of the U. S. Navy, giving the report of the gentlemen
+of the Navy who were on board a tender called the Lynx, and who had a
+very favourable opportunity of satisfying themselves of the existence
+of the animal which had caused so much excitement. The serpent was
+seen in 1817, ’19, and ’20, from the _shore_, and the reports show
+the bunches to be produced by the vertical motion of the body when in
+action. From the drawings which accompany the letter of Capt. M’Quhae,
+there are none of the protuberances, and which would lead to the
+opinion that the animal seen on the other side of the Equator differs
+in genus from that which has been seen on our coast. The drawings of
+the sea-serpent seen on the coast of Norway, given in the report of the
+Bishop Pontoppidan, are identical with the appearance of the animal
+which has been so often spoken of as visiting our northern seas. T. H.
+Perkins.”
+
+“On board the ship Ann Marie, at sea, lat. 46, long. 44, Oct. 13, 1820.”
+
+“My dear sir,--When on shore I have little time to spare from business
+to devote to details which I am now to communicate.”
+
+“During the past three years you will have seen accounts in the
+newspapers, or reports will have met you in another form of an immense
+sea-serpent having infested our shores in Boston Bay. The first
+appearance he made in the summer of 1817, in the harbour of Cape Ann.
+Wishing to satisfy myself on a subject on which there existed a great
+difference of opinion, I myself visited Gloucester with Mr. Lee. On
+our way down we met several persons returning, who had visited the
+place where he was said to have exhibited himself, and who reported to
+us that he had not been seen for two or three days past. We however,
+continued our route to Gloucester, though with fears that we should not
+be gratified with the sight of the monster which we sought. I satisfied
+myself, from conversation with several persons who had seen him, that
+the report in circulation was not a fable. All the town were, as you
+may suppose, on the alert; and almost every individual, both great and
+small, had been gratified, at a greater or less distance, with a sight
+of him. The weather was fine, the sea perfectly smooth, and Mr. Lee and
+myself were seated on a point of land which projects into the harbour,
+and about twenty feet above the level of the water, from which we were
+distant about fifty or sixty feet......
+
+“Whilst thus seated, I observed an agitation in the water at the
+entrance of the harbour, like that which follows a small vessel going
+five or six miles an hour through the water. As we knew there was no
+shoal where the water was thus broken, I immediately said to Mr. Lee
+that I had no doubt that what I had seen was the sea serpent in pursuit
+of fish. Mr. Lee was not directing his attention to the spot which I
+speak of, and had not seen the foam of the water, the animal having
+immediately disappeared.”
+
+“In a few moments after my exclamation, I saw on the opposite side of
+the harbour, at about two miles distance from where I had first seen,
+or thought I saw, the snake, the same object, moving with a rapid
+motion up the harbour, on the western shore. As he approached us, it
+was easy to see that his motion was not that of the common snake,
+either on the land or in the water, but evidently the vertical movement
+of the caterpillar. As nearly as I could judge, there was visible at a
+time about forty feet of his body. It was not, to be sure, a continuity
+of body, as the form from head to tail (except as the apparent bunches
+appeared as he moved through the water) was seen only at three or
+four feet asunder. It was very evident, however, that his length must
+be much greater than what appeared, as, in his movement, he left a
+considerable wake in his rear. I had a fine glass, and was within from
+one-third to half a mile of him. The head was flat in the water, and
+the animal was, as far as I could distinguish, of a chocolate colour.
+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.
+From the time I first saw him until he passed by the place where I
+stood, and soon after disappeared, was not more than fifteen or twenty
+minutes.”
+
+“I left the place fully satisfied that the reports in circulation,
+although differing in details, were essentially correct. I returned
+to Boston, and having made my report, I found Mrs. Perkins and my
+daughters disposed to make a visit to Gloucester with me when the
+return of the animal should be again announced. A few days after my
+return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies; we had a pleasant
+ride, but returned ungratified in the object which carried us there.”
+
+The reader knows already that I don’t agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as
+to the generic difference of the sea-serpent.--It is the second time
+that the tongue of the animal is seen to be thrown out.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+All these reports of course greatly alarmed the people, and divided
+them into believers and unbelievers. Letters were written to Europe. As
+it is of interest to know the public opinion about the subject, it is
+perhaps not unnecessary to communicate here the letters which I found,
+especially those hitherto unpublished. On the 20th. of August of 1817
+Mr. S. G. PERKINS wrote a letter to Mr. E. EVERETT, then at Paris;
+this letter is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of
+Göttingen. An extract from it, respecting the sea-serpent, here printed
+for the first time, runs as follows:
+
+“You will except me to give you some account of the extraordinary
+monster, which is now the subject of universal conversation here. So
+far as we know anything of it, I will give it you, but we have yet
+to learn its Genus, species and character. About a fortnight since,
+two women, who live near the entrance of the Harbour of Cape Ann,
+reported that they saw a Sea-Monster come into the Harbour, that it
+had the appearance of a Snake, was of great length, &c. But little
+attention, however, was paid to this report, and it gained no public
+circulation. Within a week the Country has been agitated with reports
+of the existence of the monster, and men of reputation and character
+have made known, that they have distinctly seen the animal. Many have
+gone off in search of him in Boats, and muskets have been fired at him,
+without any other effect than alarming him and deterring him from
+suffering the approach of the boats. He is represented to be from 50 to
+100 feet long, of the size of a barrel about the body, which is formed
+into parallel rings, which--when he is on the top of the water--are
+so prominent, that they resembled buoys attached to each other. Its
+motions, when in pursuit of its prey, are very rapid, and create a
+wake like a small vessel passing thro’ the water. My Brother--Colonel
+Perkins--went down to Cape Ann two days ago to see it. He says that he
+is satisfied that such an animal is there. As he stood on the shore,
+it came within the eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it
+so distinctly as to be able to state all its points, he has not said
+any thing to the public about it. Many persons--who are well known
+as men of character--have assured me they have seen 30 or 40 feet of
+it out of water at once. These reports have created various opinions
+and sensations, many disbelieving the whole story, and others not
+doubting it, in the least. My brother goes again to morrow morning to
+pass a week at Cape Ann. It comes into the harbour daily, in pursuit
+of the herrings, which resort here in great quantities. All these
+facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of Reports, people
+had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was only a
+number of porpuses following each other, in rapid succession. But on
+Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at Beverly from
+the banks of Newfoundland. The captain and crew report that, off Cape
+Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea-Monster of the Snake kind, lying on the
+water, of immense length. That the crew were so much alarmed, that they
+got away as soon as they could, and that they estimated it, at 100 feet
+long. Other particulars were stated, which I do not recollect. This had
+revived the belief, in its existence, and great efforts will be made to
+take it dead or alive. I heard to day that a subscription was on foot,
+and that an express has been sent to Nantucket for twenty whale men
+to come up with their boats and apparatus to destroy it. The Linnean
+Society have appointed a Committee to go down and investigate it, of
+which Judge Davis is Chairman.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=45=.--1817, August 22?--We have already seen that the Chairman of the
+Committee asked Judge NASH to give, if possible, an evidence of the
+fact that a woman saw the animal lying dormant very near the shore.
+In speaking of Mr. NASH’S answer we skipped this evidence to insert it
+here. It runs as follows:
+
+“I have seen and conversed with the woman, who was said to have seen
+the serpent dormant on the rocks, near the water, to whom you refer
+in yours; but she can give no material evidence. She says that she
+saw something, resembling a large log of wood, on the rocks, on the
+extreme eastern point of Ten Pound Island, (a small island in our
+harbour), resting partly on the rocks, and partly in the water. The
+distance was about half a mile. She took a glass, looked at the object
+and saw it move. Her attention was for a short time arrested, by some
+domestic avocation, and when she looked for the object again, it had
+disappeared.”
+
+The letter from the Hon. JOHN DAVIS, the Chairman of the Committee, was
+dated Sept. 2, 1817. The appearance, therefore, took place before this
+date. Fortunately we have another testimony of this position of the
+animal. In the letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS, dated Oct. 13, 1820, and
+published by him in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, we
+read that he visited the harbour of Gloucester. This must have been on
+the 18th. of August 1817 (see n^o. 44. p. 178.); after having described
+this visit the Colonel goes on:
+
+“A few days after my return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies;
+we had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in the object which
+carried us there.”
+
+“Whilst at Cape Ann I talked with many persons who had seen the
+serpent, and among others with a person of the name of Mansfield, one
+of the most respectable inhabitants of the town. His account to me
+was, that a few days before, as he was taking a ride with his wife
+in a chair, the road taking them close to a bank which overlooks the
+harbour (and is nearly a perpendicular precipice), he saw an uncommon
+appearance, which induced him to descend from the carriage, when he saw
+the sea-serpent, in which until then he had been an unbeliever. The
+animal was stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had
+four or five feet of water upon it, and lay partly over the channel. He
+desired his wife to get out of the chair, which she did. He said he had
+made up his mind as to the length of the snake, but wished the opinion
+of his wife on the same subject. He asked her what she should consider
+his length; she answered that she could not undertake to say how many
+feet in length he was, but that she thought him as long as the wharf
+behind their house, an object with which she had always been familiar.
+Mr. Mansfield said he was of the same opinion. The wharf is one hundred
+feet in length. It is to be observed that the person above spoken of
+had been such an unbeliever in the existence of this monster, that he
+had not given himself the trouble to go from his house to the harbour
+when the report was first made of such an animal being there.”
+
+Consequently I may fix the appearance of the animal resting on a bank,
+or beach, or rock, on the 22th. of August, 1817. This is the _only_
+report I have found of this way of reposing of the animal, but I cannot
+believe that these reports are contrary to truth.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=46=.--1817, August, 23.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817). Mr. AMOS
+STORY after having made affidavit of his having seen the animal on the
+tenth of August, goes on:
+
+“I likewise saw, what I believe to be the same animal this day, viz.
+the twenty third of August, A. D. 1817. This was in the morning, about
+seven o’clock. He then lay perfectly still, extended on the water, and
+I should judge that I saw fifty feet of him at least.”
+
+“I should judge that I was forty rods from him this day. I had a good
+spy glass both days when I saw him. I continued looking at him about
+half an hour, and he remained still and in the same position, until I
+was called away. Neither his head nor tail were visible. His colour
+appeared to be a dark brown, and when the sun shone upon him, the
+reflection was very bright. I thought his body was about the size of a
+man’s body.”
+
+  “Amos Story.”
+
+“Essex ss. Aug. 23, 1817. Personally appeared Amos Story, and made oath
+that the foregoing deposition by him subscribed is true, according to
+his best knowledge and belief.”
+
+  “Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”
+
+As we read that the animal lay perfectly still, and as Mr. STORY does
+not mention that bunches were visible, we may conclude that it lay with
+its body in a straight line. Fifty feet of its length at least were
+visible. Its head and tail were not visible, says Mr. STORY, and yet
+the animal remained about half an hour in this position, which I think
+may thus be accounted for: the animal’s head, neck and back were in a
+straight line just above the surface of the water, so that its nose
+was also above it, which enabled the animal to breathe and to remain
+motionless, but at the distance of forty rods, though with a good spy
+glass, these particulars cannot have been distinctly seen by one who
+was not acquainted with the animal’s external features, and so he
+believed its head was invisible. That its tail was under water, I will
+believe with him.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=47=.--1817, August 24?--In the letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS to Mr.
+CUSHING, dated Oct. 13, 1820, Col. P. mentions the appearance of the
+sea-serpent as seen by Mr. and Mrs. MANSFIELD on the 22th. of Aug.,
+1817 (n^o. 45), and he continues:
+
+“Subsequent to the period of which I have been speaking, the snake
+was seen by several of the crews of our coasting vessels, and in some
+instances within a few yards.”
+
+I have therefore chosen the above date.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=48=.--1817, August 28.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).
+
+“Sewell Toppan, Master of the schooner Laura, declares: That on
+thursday morning the 28th. day of August, at about 9 o’clock A. M. at
+about two miles, or two and half miles east of the eastern point of
+Cape Ann being becalmed, I heard one of my men call to the man at the
+helm, “what is this coming towards us”; being engaged forward, I took
+no further notice till they called again.--I then got on top of the
+deck load, at which time I saw a singular kind of animal or fish, which
+I had never before seen, passing by our quarter, at distance of about
+forty feet, standing along shore. I saw a part of the animal or fish
+ten or fifteen feet from the head downwards including the head; the
+head appeared to be of the size of a ten-gallon keg, and six inches
+above the surface of the water. It was of a dark colour. I saw no
+tongue, but heard William Somerby and Robert Bragg, my two men, who
+were with me, call out, “look at his tongue”. The motion of his head
+was sideways and quite moderate; the motion of the body, up and down. I
+have seen whales very often; his motion was much more rapid than whales
+or any other fish I have ever seen; he left a very long wake behind
+him; he did not appear to alter his course in consequence of being so
+near the vessel. I saw him much less time than either of the others,
+and not in so favourable a position to notice his head.”
+
+“I have been to sea many years, and never saw any fish that had the
+least resemblance to this animal. Judging from what I saw out of
+water, I should judge the body was about the size of a half barrel in
+circumference.”
+
+  “Sewell Toppan”.
+
+“Suffolk ss. Boston, September 1, 1817. Personally appeared captain
+Sewell Toppan, and made solemn oath, that the foregoing declaration by
+him subscribed is true.”
+
+  “Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”
+
+“Robert Bragg, of Newburyport, mariner, of the schooner Laura, of
+Newburyport, Sewell Toppan Master, testifies: That on thursday last,
+about ten o’clock A. M. coming in said schooner bound from Newburyport
+to Boston, off Eastern Point, (Cape Ann), about a mile and a half from
+the shore, I being on deck, the vessel being becalmed, looking at the
+windward, I saw something break the water, and coming very fast towards
+us, I mentioned it to the man at helm, William Somerby; the animal
+came about 28 or 30 feet from us, between the vessel and the shore,
+and passing very swiftly by us; he left a very long wake behind him.
+About six inches in height of his body and head were out of water,
+and as I should judge about 14 or 15 feet in length. He had a head
+like a serpent, rather larger than his body and rather blunt; did not
+see his eyes; when astern of the vessel about 30 feet, he threw out
+his tongue about two feet in length; the end of it appeared to me to
+resemble a fisherman’s harpoon; he raised his tongue several times
+perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again. He was in sight
+about ten minutes. I think he moved at the rate of 12 or 14 miles an
+hour; he was of a dark chocolate colour, and from what appeared out of
+water I should suppose he was two and a half feet in circumference; he
+made no noise; his back and body appeared smooth; a small bunch on each
+side of his head, just above his eyes; he did not appear to be at all
+disturbed by the vessel; his course was in the direction for the Salt
+Islands; his motion was much swifter than any whale that I have ever
+seen, and I have seen many--did not observe any teeth; his motion was
+very steady, a little up and down.”
+
+  “To this account I am willing to make oath.”
+
+  “Robert Bragg.”
+
+“I, William Somerby of the Schooner Laura, testify and say: That on
+thursday last about 10 o’clock, A. M. as I was coming in said schooner
+from Newburyport, bound to Boston, off Brace’s cove, a little eastward
+of Eastern Point, (Cape Ann) about two miles from land, the sea calm,
+I was at helm. Robert Bragg, one of the crew, asked me if that was
+not the snake coming, pointing out a break in the water, south of us;
+a strange animal of the serpent form passed very swiftly by us--the
+nearest distance I should judge to be between 30 and 40 feet--the upper
+part of his head and back was above water--the length that appeared was
+about 12 or 15 feet, his head was like a serpent’s tapering off to a
+point. He threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two
+feet from his jaws--the end of it resembled a harpoon--he threw his
+tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again--I
+saw one of his eyes as he passed; it appeared very bright, and about
+the size of the eye of an ox. The colour of all that appeared was very
+dark, almost black. He did not appear to take any notice of the vessel,
+and made no noise. There appeared a bunch above the eye.--Should judge
+him to be about two and a half feet in circumference. Have often seen
+whales at sea. The motion of this animal was much swifter than that
+of any whale. The motion of the body was rising and falling as he
+advanced, the head moderately vibrating from side to side. The colour
+of his tongue was a light brown.”
+
+  “To this account I am willing to make oath.”
+
+  “William Somerby.”
+
+“_Commonwealth of Massachusetts_, August 30, 1817. Then appeared Robert
+Bragg and William Somerby, and made oath to the truth of the above
+declarations, by them respectively subscribed.”
+
+  “Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”
+
+In these three depositions we find the same observation. As the head
+was moving moderately sideways, we may conclude that the animal, though
+it was also moving up and down, used its flappers too, so that with
+the use of the right fore-flapper its head went a little to the left;
+and otherwise went a little to the right by the motion of the left
+fore-flapper.--For ROBERT BRAGG’S “larger” in “the head was rather
+larger than the body”, we don’t hesitate to read “broader”.--It is
+the third time that the animal’s tongue was observed. The tongue most
+probably was rather pointed, which led the two mariners to compare
+it with a harpoon.--Remarkable is the statement of the animal having
+a small bunch on each side of the head just above its eyes. This is
+the heavy eye brow figured by BING (fig. 19) and so often described
+afterwards.
+
+In a letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published
+in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, we read:
+
+“Captain Tappan, a person well known to me saw him with his head above
+water two or three feet, at times moving with great rapidity, and at
+others slowly. He also saw what explained the appearance which I have
+described, of a horn on the front of the head. This was doubtless what
+was observed by Captain Tappan to be the tongue, thrown in an upright
+position from the mouth, and having the appearance which I have given
+to it.”
+
+I quite agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as to the explanation of the
+horn (see n^o. 44, p. 180.)--In the _Report_ of 1817 the name is spelt
+TOPPAN, whilst Col. PERKINS writes TAPPAN; but as the details of the
+two accounts of the prong, or spear, or horn, or tongue are the same,
+I am convinced that these two names identify the same person. So the
+statement of Captain TOPPAN, WILLIAM SOMERBY and ROBERT BRAGG is
+substantiated by COL. PERKIN’S letter.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=49=.--1817, August 30?--In the same letter from Col. PERKINS we read:
+
+“One of the revenue cutters, whilst in the neighbourhood of Cape Ann,
+had an excellent view of him at a few yards’ distance; he moved slowly;
+and upon the approach of the vessel, sank and was seen no more.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=50=.--1817, October 3.--In a letter from Mr. THOS. HERTTELL to Mr.
+SILVANUS MILLER, printed in the _Report of a Committee_, 1817, a
+passage runs as follows:
+
+“Understanding that Mr. James Guion, a gentleman of character and
+respectability, had seen what was supposed to be the same animal, I
+yesterday conversed with him on the subject. He states that on Friday
+the 3d. inst. while on the point of land on the east side of the mouth
+of Mamaroneck harbour, he saw a little distance from the rocks, usually
+called the Scotch Caps, which lie at the extremity of Rye Point, a
+large marine animal, going with great rapidity up sound. He judged his
+speed to be little or no less than a mile in a minute. He describes
+the irregularity and unevenness of his back, about fifty feet of which
+appeared above the surface of the water, much in the way in which I
+have done.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=51=.--1817, October 5.--The abovesaid letter runs as follows:
+
+  “Rye-Neck, Oct. 21, 1817”
+
+  “Silvanus Miller, Esq.”
+
+“Sir, I observed in the Columbian of the 15th. inst. a paragraph
+stating that an animal had been seen in Long Island sound,
+corresponding with the description of the serpent lately seen in
+Gloucester harbour. That communication probably resulted from some
+observations which I made to you, and several other gentlemen, on the
+subject alluded to. When I spoke on that occurrence, I had no idea
+that it would become the subject of a newspaper remark; but since it
+has been publicly noticed, perhaps a more particular detail of the
+circumstances may not be deemed improper.”
+
+“On Sunday, the 5th. inst. at 10 o’clock A. M. while standing a few
+rods from my house on Rye-Neck, I observed at a small distance to the
+southward and eastward of Mr. Ezekiel Halsted’s dwelling on Rye Point,
+and perhaps not more than a half mile from the shore, a long, rough,
+dark looking body, progressing rapidly up sound (towards New York)
+against a brisk breeze, and a strong ebb tribe. Viewing it with my
+glass convinced me it was a large living animal.--His back, forty to
+fifty feet of which was seen above the surface of the water, appeared
+to be irregular, uneven, and deeply indented. I did not at this time
+remark that his head was more elevated above the water than the ridges
+or humps on his back. Some trees standing near the water, Rye Point
+soon intercepting my view of him, I hastened to a situation from
+which I obtained another sight of him as he passed that part of the
+sound opposite Hempstead bay. At this time he appeared to be nearly
+in the middle of the sound--his body more depressed below and his
+head more elevated above the water, going with increased velocity in
+the direction of Sand’s point, creating a swell before him not unlike
+that made by a boat towed rapidly at the stern of the vessel. From the
+time I first saw him till I lost sight of him perhaps could not have
+exceeded ten minutes, in which short time he had gone probably not less
+than six or seven miles.”
+
+“I was yesterday informed on creditable authority, that on the day on
+which I saw the above mentioned animal, he was seen by some persons at
+or in the vicinity of the light house on Sand’s Point.”
+
+“That it was a sea animal of great bulk, to me is certain.--That it is
+what is usually called a Sea-Serpent, and the same which appeared in
+Gloucester harbour, is only probable.”
+
+  “With much respect, Sir, yours, &c.”
+
+  “Thos. Herttell.”
+
+Though the usual statement that the animal had bunches on its back
+is here expressed in other terms, viz.: that its back was irregular,
+uneven, deeply indented, it may be seen at a glance that no new feature
+gave rise to these terms. The animal may moreover have had a mane,
+extending all over the back.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+N^o. 20 of the _Report_ is, as we have seen above (p. 161), an account
+of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in the North-Sea,
+extracted from the “History of Norway” written by the Right Rev. ERICH
+PONTOPPIDAN. Here is an extract from the matter given by that Bishop
+about the sea-serpent, and the whole affidavit of Capt. VON FERRY.
+
+After this the Committee goes on:
+
+“We have seen and heard sundry other statements of various authority
+relating to similar animals, said to have been seen at sea by different
+persons, but do not insert them in our report, because we consider the
+foregoing testimony sufficient to place the existence of the animal
+beyond a doubt; and because they do not appear so minute and so well
+authenticated as the preceding documents.”
+
+Poor Committee! Could they have foreseen that _seventy_ years
+afterwards the existence of the sea-serpent was _not_ beyond a doubt,
+at least among learned persons, they would not only have published all
+those sundry other statements, but have exerted themselves more in the
+matter than they did now. They would have gone to have a look at the
+animal and made an affidavit of their observations, and--even then they
+would not have been believed!
+
+I would kindly beg the Linnaean Society of Boston, or that learned
+Society which has inherited its archives, either to publish _all_
+reports, accounts and letters in their hands, or to send them all to
+me, that I may enlarge, correct and rectify this work in case a second
+edition is called for.
+
+The Committee, after having published the various exceedingly
+interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the
+phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? And before the question
+had become embarrassing, a _deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick,
+illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field
+near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a labourer at that place. And as
+the people believed that this was a spawn of the great sea-serpent, it
+was bought by a certain Dr. and presented to the Committee to examine
+it. The Committee really examined and dissected it, and gave a full
+account of their experience in their _Report_. They considered the
+little snake to be new to science, closely allied to the _Coluber
+constrictor_ or Black Snake, a species common in those regions, and
+gave it the name of _Scoliophis atlanticus_. This account is followed
+by “two documents relating to the appearance of the _Scoliophis_, while
+living, and to the circumstance under which it was killed.”
+
+Next they gave “a few remarks on the question” (raised by the public)
+“whether the great Serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester, be
+the _Scoliophis atlanticus_”. These “few remarks” fill three pages
+and a half, and end with their conclusion that this is indeed the
+case, “until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have
+disclosed some differences of structure, important enough to constitute
+a specific distinction.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Now, my readers will probably say that I have not yet explained why
+none of the eye-witnesses of the animal seen near Cape Ann saw a
+mane. I hope my readers will be satisfied when I tell them that I am
+convinced that the female Sea-Serpent has no mane, and that the mane is
+only a character of full grown males. So most of the eye-witnesses saw
+a female. It is only the individual witnessed by Messrs. JAMES GUION
+and THOS. HERTTELL which was most probably a male and had a mane. Seen
+from a distance its back was uneven, and deeply indented.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, “Groep III”, devoted
+a few pages to the “_Report of a Committee_”, giving a very short
+extract from it.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I will insert here an extract from a letter written by EDWARD EVERETT,
+Esq., Nov. 13, 1817, then in Paris, to the “Obermedicinalrath und
+Ritter” BLUMENBACH in Göttingen. This extract, here printed for the
+first time, is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of
+Göttingen; it runs as follows:
+
+“With Respect to the monstrous Serpent, of which I furnished you some
+account, before leaving Göttingen, I am sorry to say that the Reports,
+which circulated in the newspapers of his capture, were incorrect,
+and that he has escaped. Great attempts were made, and large sums of
+money offered, in Vain. I begun to collect a full account of him out
+of 300 American Newspapers, which I intended for You, but as I hear
+that a pamphlet, on the subject, is preparing by our Linnaean Society,
+which will contain depositions made on Oath, I have prefered waiting,
+till this appears, and I shall have it sent to you immediately. I
+have received to-day a letter of Oct. 25 from my brother, in which he
+informs me, that--a few days after the Serpent disappeared--a Young
+Serpent, 3 feet long, corresponding with the large one in appearance,
+was taken. This was brought to Boston, has been dissected, and
+pronounced a Non-descript, by the Connoisseurs there. This will also
+be described in the pamphlet of the Linnaean Society. Upon the subject
+of the Serpent four letters have been written by Gen. Humphreys of
+Boston--a member of the Royal Society--to Sir Joseph Banks; so that
+it is possible something may appear in the Philosophical Transactions
+about it.”
+
+Afterwards we shall read more of the attempts to catch the Sea-Serpent.
+It is a pity that Mr. EVERETT never published his collection! Most
+probably it has gradually disappeared in the paper-basket! Apparently
+Mr. EVERETT and Mr. BLUMENBACH corresponded much about the serpent: I
+also found a list of ancient works in which the sea-serpent and large
+snakes are mentioned, forwarded by the former to the latter, and in the
+above-mentioned letter EVERETT calls the Sea-Serpent “Our old friend
+the Serpent.”
+
+As soon as the _Report_ reached Europe, Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE
+BLAINVILLE made an extract from it in his _Journal de Physique, de
+Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle_, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Apparently
+he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and therefore
+paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal, which he
+doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did not trouble
+himself much. In one respect Mr. DE BLAINVILLE tried to throw ridicule
+on two reports, viz. those of ROBERT BRAGG and WILLIAM SOMERBY: “and
+the imagination of some sailors is cause that they saw a tongue or
+spear coming out of his mouth, to which they gave a length of twelve
+feet, a circumference of 6 inches at the bottom and a termination as a
+lancet.” As we saw, the two sailors only mentioned a _tongue_ of _two_
+feet; they did not use the expression of spear, they neither gave the
+circumference at the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as
+a _lancet_’s but as a _harpoon_’s. It was Mr. FOSTER who saw a _prong_
+or _spear_, but only of twelve _inches_ and terminating in a _small
+point_. At all events Mr. DE BLAINVILLE has read badly!
+
+But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus:
+
+“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent,
+we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the appearance
+of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with
+rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it is a true snake, this
+is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_, this
+assertion is still more doubtful, and finally that it is of the same
+species, here the number of probabilities still diminishes, and becomes
+totally null, if one believes that such an immense animal, as that
+which is observed in the sea has gone ashore to lay its eggs.”
+
+For this is firmly believed by the Committee!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Prof. W. D. PECK in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (_Mem. Am.
+Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says:
+
+“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in the
+portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.”
+
+After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. PECK says:
+
+“These are the earliest notices I can find of this animal on our
+shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence lately
+brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society, of men of
+fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.”
+
+After having given an extract from these evidences, Prof. PECK says:
+
+“The accounts of all these persons are very consistent; to the
+greater part it appeared to be straight, or without gibbosities or
+protuberances on the back; one person thought it had protuberances, but
+it seems probable that the upper flexures of its undulations occasioned
+this opinion.”
+
+“Its velocity is variously estimated; by some it was thought to move
+a mile in a minute, by others in three, four, or five minutes. It has
+great lateral flexibility, as is shewn by its turning short and moving
+in an exactly contrary direction, advancing the head in a line parallel
+with the body; hence its undulations when under water and equally
+surrounded by the medium, may be either vertical or horizontal at the
+will of the animal. The judgment of its velocity, however, without
+knowing its precise distance and without instruments to observe it, is
+extremely liable to err.”
+
+“In the testimonies above referred to, the imagination seems to have
+had no influence, and we certainly know from them, that the existence
+of the animal to which they relate is indisputable; we know that it
+moves by vertical undulations, at least while near the surface of the
+sea; that it is laterally as flexible as other serpents; and that its
+motion, at times, is very swift; but our knowledge is circumscribed by
+these limits. It is to be hoped, that if it again visits our shores,
+some successful means may be devised of taking it and presenting an
+opportunity of completing our knowledge of so interesting a link in the
+chain of animated beings.”
+
+“It has been seen in Long Island sound, progressing southward; it seems
+from this circumstance to be migratory, like the Coluber natrix in
+Hungary, and may pass the winter season in Mexico or South America.”
+
+A remarkable fact is it that Prof. PECK really believes that it was a
+sea-snake of enormous dimensions!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The _Journal of Science and the Arts_, edited at the Royal Institution
+of Great Britain, republished in its fourth Vol. (London, 1818) the
+affidavits of Messrs. LONSON NASH and WILLIAM B. PEARSON, (n^o. 41, p.
+170, and n^o. 44, p. 177) and the writer of the article declares: “the
+existence of the animal is placed beyond doubt.” Now we are in 1892,
+and yet it is doubted!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=52=.--1818 June.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr. Britt._
+VI, 1818.)
+
+“The _Commercial Advertiser_ of June 9th. contains a letter from a
+Captain of the brig _Wilson_, of Salem, bound to Norfolk, wherein he
+states, that during his passage, off Cape Henry, he fell in with, as
+he at first supposed, the wreck of a vessel, when he ordered his boat
+to be lowered; but to his great astonishment he found it to be the
+sea-serpent; he says, he then examined it, and such an object he never
+before witnessed; he believed it to be 190 feet in length, and its
+mouth and head were of an enormous size. After returning to the ship
+they bore off, fearing the consequences that might result from its
+coming in contact with the vessel.”
+
+The only characters mentioned here are the enormous head and the length
+of about 190 feet. Both may be exaggerated though greater dimensions
+are mentioned in later trustworthy reports.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=53=.--1818, June 19.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr.
+Brit._ VI, 1818).--
+
+“On the 19th of June he appeared in Sag-Harbour, and rewards were
+offered to the whalers to secure it.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=54=.--1818, June 21.--(_Ibidem_).
+
+“S. West, of Hallowell, master of the Packet _Delia_, describes it as
+seen on the 21st. of June, engaged with a whale.”
+
+The writer does not mean to say that it was a whale-bone-whale or
+a sperm-whale, but a whale of the smaller kind, viz. a dolphin, a
+grampus, or a porpoise. We shall come across an account stating that
+the eye-witnesses saw a panic amongst a shoal of porpoises, evidently
+caused by a sea-serpent pursuing them (n^o. 97); and across another
+account, stating that a sea-serpent was seen seizing a porpoise in one
+of its lateral fins (n^o. 151). It is evident that when the opportunity
+offers, a sea-serpent also preys on the grampuses, porpoises and
+dolphins.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=55=.--1818 July 2.--(_Ibidem_).
+
+“and on July 2d. two persons, J. Webber and R. Hamilton, saw it
+about seven miles from Portland, between Cranch Island point and
+Marsh-Island.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=56=.--1818 July.--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819). The second Sea Serpent
+described by Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (for he believes there are several
+species) is called by him:
+
+“_Capt._ BROWN_’s Sea-Serpent_. This fish was observed by Capt. Brown
+in a voyage from America to St. Petersburg, in July 1818, near 60° N.
+latitude and 8° W. longitude, or north of Ireland. In swimming the
+head, neck and forepart of the body stood upright like a mast: it was
+surrounded by porpoises and fishes. It was smooth, without scales, and
+had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is
+not a snake, but a new genus of fish! belonging to the eighth order
+_Tremapnea_, 28th. family _Ophictia_, and 3d. subfamily _Catremia_,
+along with the genera _Sphagebranchus_ and _Symbranchus_ of Bloch,
+which differ by having only one or two round gills under the neck. I
+shall call this new genus _Octipos_ (meaning eight gills beneath); head
+depressed, mouth transverse, large, eight transverse gills under the
+neck, and its specific name and definition will be _Octipos bicolor_.
+Dark brown above, muddy white beneath: head obtuse. Capt. Brown adds,
+that the head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches, and the eyes
+over the jaws, similar to the horse’s; the whole length might be 58
+feet.”
+
+Immediately we recognize our well-known Sea-Serpent, an individual
+of which the length is estimated at 58 feet, which held its head and
+very long neck upright whilst swimming. Captain BROWN says: “and the
+forepart of the body”; of course, for he thought to see a snake; if he
+had really seen the forepart of the body, (trunk) he would have seen
+the shoulders and the fore-flappers. It was surrounded by porpoises
+and fishes. Evidently the animal swam between them with the purpose to
+snatch one of them. It had a smooth skin, no scales, and eight gills
+under its neck. Dark brown above (i. e. on the dorsal part of head and
+neck), muddy white beneath (i. e. on its throat); head obtuse (read
+rather obtuse, seen from above or from below, or in front; just from
+aside it is rather pointed). The head was two feet long, the mouth
+fifteen inches (of course estimated dimensions), and the eyes over
+the jaws similar to those of a horse (this definition was caused
+by the heavy eye-brows and by the little bunch above each eye). The
+whole description is exactly that of our animal in the above-mentioned
+position and seen from a certain direction. For “eight gills” we may
+safely read “eight gillsplits”, or eight splits caused by and lying
+between nine folds or wrinkles, which in their turn are caused by the
+animal bending its head rectangularly towards the throat. Such folds or
+wrinkles are also seen in sea-lions, when they make the same motion,
+and stout corpulent persons will know what is meant by a double chin!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=57=.--1818, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through
+Sweden_ in 1820, p. 187, says:--
+
+“The fishermen at Sejerstad said a sea-serpent was seen two years ago
+in the Folden Fjord, the length of which, as far as it was visible
+was 60 feet. This had been told them by those who had seen it in the
+Folden.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=58=.--1818, August?--At p. 203 the same author mentions:
+
+“On being asked (viz. the merchant of Fieldvigen) his opinion
+respecting the serpent, he said he had never seen it himself, though
+others had in that neighbourhood.”
+
+=59=.--1818, August 19.--In 1818 in the United States many rewards were
+offered to whalers to catch the animal, and many attempts were made to
+do this, and to bring it home, dead or alive. Amongst others this was
+the case at Boston. In the copy of the _Report of a Committee_ of 1817,
+which I borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen,
+there was a paragraph from a newspaper of August 21, 1818, the head or
+title of which was not noted down; the cutting runs as follows:
+
+  “Boston Aug. 21.”
+
+  “Transmitted by our N. Y. correspondents.”
+
+“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the
+sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:
+
+“_Squam River, Aug. 20th., 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful
+attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the
+sea-serpent. We struck him fairly, but the harpoon soon drew out. He
+has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him
+more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday,
+we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a
+proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours
+since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him
+as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of
+warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale.
+We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore
+disappointment.”
+
+  “Rich’d. Rich.”
+
+“_Gloucester, Aug. 20._--As I thought it would be interesting to you
+to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give
+you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last he sailed from this
+in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother
+commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam,
+and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed
+directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw
+the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a
+considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke
+that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the
+harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up
+the chase.”
+
+“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin
+is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had
+one of his hands wound. These particulars I have in a letter from my
+brother.”
+
+  “Saml. Dexter.”
+
+As far as I can judge after having read what I could find about the
+Sea-Serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a
+harpoon. Evidently the animal then swam with its body in a straight
+line. Interesting to us are the words: “He has _no_ scales on him, and
+no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an
+eel”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The attempts mentioned above were continued, and, as my readers already
+read in my Chapter on hoaxes, ended with a hoax; at last a large tunny
+was brought in, and many persons believed it to be the animal! Among
+those who were present there was a Mr. ANDREWS NORTON; he wrote, Sept.
+11, 1818, a letter about this affair to Mr. GEORGE BANCROFT, an extract
+from which is also inserted in our Chapter on hoaxes. I will repeat
+here his last words:
+
+“I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the
+German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will
+assure him that we” (Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK) “do not consider the
+circumstance connected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting
+the evidence before obtained for their real existence.”--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+_The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts R. Inst. Gr.
+Brit._ repeats in its Vol. VII, London, 1819, the whole paper of Prof.
+PECK, and a translation into German appeared in OKEN’s Isis of 1819.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The well-known RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, when in America, made the
+sea-serpent a subject of study and inquiry as Prof. PECK had done. He
+too wrote a paper about it, entitled: _Dissertation on Water-Snakes,
+Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_. It seems that his dissertation appeared
+in an American Journal or in American Transactions, and that it was
+afterwards reprinted in the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819.
+He is a believer in Sea-Serpents, is evidently convinced that several
+species exist, belonging to the family of the _Hydrophidae_, or real
+Sea-Snakes.
+
+After having mentioned 9 species of real Sea-Snakes, of which the last
+was 8 to 10 feet long, he goes on:
+
+“This last species appears to be the largest real Sea-Snake which has
+fallen under the personal observation of naturalists as yet. But larger
+species still have been noticed at different periods. If I had the
+time and opportunity of perusing all the accounts of travellers and
+historians, I could probably bring many into notice; but this tedious
+labour must be postponed, and I must warn those who may be inclined
+to inquire into the subject, not to be deceived by the imperfect and
+exaggerated accounts of ancient and unknown writers. Whenever they
+mention neither the scales nor tail of their Sea-Serpents, or when they
+assert they had no scales, or had gills or fins, you must in all those
+instances be certain that they are real fishes rather than serpents.
+There might, however, be found some Sea-Snakes without scales, since
+there are such land snakes; and there are fishes with scales and yet
+without fins: but there are no fishes without gills, and no snakes
+or serpents with gills!--in that important character the classical
+distinction consists.”
+
+“Nearly all the writers whom I can remember, have been unacquainted
+with that obvious distinction; and they have, in imitation of the
+ancient Greek and Roman writers, given the name of Sea-Snakes to the
+large eels or fishes they happened to observe. This I apprehend is the
+case with Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway; with Mongitore
+in his Remarkable Objects of Sicily; with Leguat, in his Travels to
+Rodriguez Island, &c. Their observations, and the facts they record,
+are notwithstanding equally valuable, since they relate to monstrous
+unknown fishes, which seldom fall under the observation of men. The
+individuals of huge species are not numerous in nature, either on land
+or in water, and it is probable they often become extinct for want of
+food or reproduction.”
+
+“Among the four different animals which have lately been observed by
+Americans, and named Sea-Serpents, only one (the Massachusetts Serpent)
+appears to be such; another is evidently a fish, and two are doubtful.
+I shall refer a few remarks on each.”
+
+“1. _The Massachusetts Sea Serpent._ From the various and contradictory
+accounts given of this monster by witnesses, the following description
+may be collected.--It is about 100 feet long; the body is round and
+nearly two feet in diameter, of a dark brown, and covered with large
+scales in transverse rows; its head is scaly, brown mixed with white,
+of the size of a horse’s and nearly the shape of a dog’s; the mouth
+is large with teeth like a shark; its tail is compressed, obtuse,
+and shaped like an oar. This animal came in August last into the bay
+of Massachusetts in pursuit of shoals of fishes, herrings, squids,
+&c. on which it feeds. Its motions are very quick: it was seen by a
+great many; but all attempts to catch it have failed, although 5000
+dollars have been offered for its spoils. It is evidently a real Sea
+Snake, belonging probably to the genus _Pelamis_, and I propose to
+call it _Pelamis megophias_, which means Great Sea Snake Pelamis. It
+might however be a peculiar genus, which the long equal scales seem to
+indicate and which a closer examination might have decided: in that
+case the name of _Megophias monstrosus_ might have been appropriated to
+it.”
+
+We observe that Mr. RAFINESQUE gives here some characters to the
+Massachusetts’s Sea-Serpent, with which we have met nowhere else,
+apparently only for the purpose of rendering his supposition more
+plausible: 1. “The scales”. It is true that some of the eye-witnesses
+have declared the skin to be rough and scaly, but against _one_ who
+says so, there are _twenty_ who deny it, describing the skin to be
+smooth and having no scales. 2. “The scales are in transverse rows.”
+This assertion is made nowhere else. 3. “Its head brown mixed with
+white.” A new statement. The head is only described as white on its
+throat and lower jaws. 4. “The head of the shape of a dog’s.” I did not
+find this expression any where else; on the contrary all agree in its
+resembling a serpent’s or a snake’s head. 5. “The teeth like a shark’s,
+the tail compressed, obtuse, shaped like an oar.” Nobody saw either
+teeth or tail! Indeed a splendid description after the reports given of
+the animal’s external features!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=60=.--1819, June 6.--(SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the
+Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1820.)
+
+“I, Hawkins Wheeler, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and
+state of Connecticut, mariner, Commander of the sloop Concord, of said
+Fairfield, in her late passage from New York to Salem, in the County
+of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on oath declare, that
+during the said passage from New York to Salem, to wit, on Monday, the
+6th. day of June instant, at about five o’clock in the morning, the
+sloop being as near as I could judge, 15 miles N. W. of Race Point,
+and within sight of Cape Ann, I was at the helm of the sloop, and saw
+directly a-head, (the course of the vessel being N. W.) something that
+resembled a snake, about 100 yards distance from the sloop, moving in
+a S. W. direction. The animal moved in that direction, till he had
+passed athwart the course of the sloop, and appeared directly over the
+weather bow, when he altered his course to S. E. At this time he had
+been visible about five minutes, when he sunk, and in about six or
+eight minutes after, appeared again directly over the weather quarter,
+about the same distance from the sloop--he continued in that course
+about five or six minutes, when he sunk again, and I saw him no more.
+His motion was at the rate of about four miles an hour, when he passed
+ahead; but after he appeared again on the quarter, his motion was less
+rapid. To the best of my judgment he was not more than 100 yards of
+the vessel--the weather was good and clear--it was almost calm, with a
+light air of wind from the S., the vessel was going about two knots--I
+had a fair and distinct view of the creature, and from his appearance
+am satisfied that it was of the serpent kind. The creature was entirely
+black; the head, which perfectly resembled a snake’s, was elevated
+from four to seven feet above the surface of the water, and his back
+appeared to be composed of bunches or humps, apparently about as large
+as, or a little larger than a half barrel; I think I saw as many as
+ten or twelve, but did not count them; I considered them to be caused
+by the undulatory motion of the animal--the tail was not visible,
+but from the head to the last hump that could be seen, was, I should
+judge, 50 feet. The first view I had of him appeared like a string
+of empty barrels tied together, rising over what little swell of the
+sea there was. What motion I could discern in the body of the animal
+was undulatory, but he evidently moved his tail under water, and the
+ripples produced by it indicated a sweeping motion, making a wake as
+large as that made by the sloop.”
+
+  “Hawkins Wheeler.”
+
+“Essex, ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Hawkins Wheeler personally appeared,
+and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains
+the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me
+
+  “Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”
+
+“I, Gersham Bennet, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and
+State of Connecticut, mariner, on oath declare, that I was mate of the
+sloop Concord, Hawkins Wheeler, master, in her late passage from New
+York to Salem, Mass., that on Monday, the 6th. day of June inst., at
+seven o’clock in the morning, I was on the deck of the sloop, sitting
+on the hatches--the vessel was steering N. W. and was then about
+eighteen miles from Race Point--the man at the helm made an outcry,
+and said there was something alongside that he wanted me to look at.
+I looked, and saw something on the larboard side of the vessel, about
+twelve rods, certainly not exceeding fourteen, from the vessel, that
+resembled a serpent or snake. I immediately arose and went to the side
+of the vessel, and took a position on the rough tree, holding on by
+the shrouds; I there saw a serpent of an enormous size and uncommon
+appearance, upon the water; his head was about the length of the anchor
+stock above the surface of the water, viz. about seven feet. I looked
+at the anchor stock at the time, and formed my opinion by comparing
+the two objects. The weather was very clear and good and the water
+almost calm; and I had, I think, as good a view of the animal as if I
+had been within two rods of him. The colour of the animal throughout,
+as far as could be seen, was black, and the surface appeared to be
+smooth, without scales--his head was about as long as a horse’s and was
+a proper snake’s head--there was a degree of flatness, with a slight
+hollow on the top of his head--his eyes were prominent, and stood out
+considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of
+a toad, and were nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of
+the head. I had a full view of him for seven or eight minutes. He was
+moving in the same direction with the sloop, and about as fast. The
+back was composed of bunches about the size of a flour barrel, which
+were apparently about three feet apart--they appeared to be fixed,
+but might be occasioned by the motion of the animal, and looked like
+a string of casks or barrels tied together--the tail was not visible,
+but the wake of his tail which he evidently moved under water, showed a
+horizontal or sweeping motion, producing a wake as large as the vessel
+made. He turned his head two or three times slowly round towards and
+from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object on board. I went
+up on the rigging, for the purpose of taking a view of him from above;
+but before I had reached my station, he sunk below the surface of the
+water, and did not appear again. Gersham Bennett.”
+
+“Essex ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Gersham Bennett personally appeared
+and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains
+the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me,
+
+  “Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”
+
+It is probable that Mr. BENNETT is right in considering the “wake as
+large as the vessel made” was produced by a horizontal or sweeping
+motion of the tail, but it is far more probable that it was caused by
+the motion of the hind-flappers, supposed the animal nearly touched the
+surface of the water with the hinder part of the body.
+
+New characters to us are these: that there is a slight hollow on
+the top of its head, that its eyes are prominent, and stand out
+considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of
+a toad, and that they are nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the
+back of the head.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=61=.--1819, July.--A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden,
+in the Summer of 1820_, says at p. 187:
+
+“As I had determined, on arriving at the coast, to make every inquiry
+respecting the truth of the accounts, which had reached England the
+preceeding year, of the sea-serpent having recently seen off this part
+of Norway, I shall simply give the different reports, I received of
+it during my voyage to the North Cape, leaving others to their own
+conclusions, and without expressing, at least for the present, any
+opinion respecting them.”
+
+and at p. 198:
+
+“From him (the postmaster Mr. SCHILDERUP) I learned some curious
+particulars respecting the sea-serpent, which had caused so much
+alarm and wonder in Norway, and the report of which, as I have said,
+had even reached England. From having formerly been in the Norwegian
+sea service, he was called Captain Schilderup; and seemed a quick
+intelligent man. It appeared, that the serpent had actually been off
+the island for a considerable length of time during the preceding
+summer, in the narrow part of the Sound, between this island (Ottersum)
+and the continent; and the description he gave of it was as follows.”
+
+“It made its appearance for the first time in the month of July, 1819,
+off Ottersum, in the sound above mentioned. Previous to this he had
+often heard of the existence of these creatures, but never before
+believed it. During the whole of that month the weather was excessively
+sultry and calm; and the serpent was seen every day, nearly in the same
+part of the Sound. It continued there while the warm weather lasted,
+lying motionless, and as if dozing in the sun-beams.--This part of his
+account reminded me of the monster of the deep, so finely described by
+Milton.”
+
+“The number of persons living on the island, he said, was about thirty;
+the whole of whom, from motives of curiosity, went to look at it while
+it remained. This was confirmed to me by subsequent inquiries among the
+inhabitants, who gave a similar account of it. The first time that he
+saw it, he was in a boat, at a distance of about 200 yards. The length
+of it he supposes to have been about 300 ells, or 600 feet. Of this he
+could not speak accurately; but it was of very considerable length;
+and longer than it appeared, as it lay in large coils above the water
+to the height of many feet. Its colour was greyish. At the distance
+at which he was, he could not ascertain whether it were covered with
+scales; but when it moved, it made a loud crackling noise, which he
+distinctly heard. Its head was shaped like that of a serpent, but he
+could not tell whether it had teeth or not. He said it emitted a very
+strong odour, and that the boatmen were afraid to approach near it,
+and looked on its coming as a bad sign, as the fish left the coast
+in consequence. Such were the particulars he related to me. Thanking
+him for his information, I took my leave of him, and proceeded on my
+voyage.”
+
+And at p. 200:
+
+“Near Ottersum is the small Island of Krogoën”, (upon which a
+merchant lived, who hearing that Mr. BROOKE was an Englishman, who
+travelled to North-Cape, put to him numberless questions.) “Having
+answered all these questions as well as I could, and a momentary pause
+ensuing I seized the opportunity now to have my turn; and wishing
+to hear something still farther respecting the sea-monster, I began
+to overwhelm him with interrogations, as to its length, colour,
+appearance, time it staid, by whom seen, and many others that occurred
+to me. However ludicrous the earnest loquacity on both sides might
+have been, I had the satisfaction of hearing him confirm, in every
+particular, the account of Capt. Schilderup at Ottersum; and that many
+of the people at Krogoën had also witnessed it. It did not appear,
+however, that any one had ventured very near it, from the dread that
+was entertained of it.”
+
+Of course the length of the animal, estimated from a distance of 200
+yards, is exaggerated. The greyish colour is that which the animal
+obtains when drying in the sunshine, as I have already explained
+before. For the first time we meet with the statement that the animal
+emits a very strong odour, which is twice stated here. As we shall
+once more come across this statement, we must needs believe it. In my
+last chapter I will return to this fact, proving that it is not an
+impossible character of sea-serpents.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=62=.--1819, August 12?--Mr. SMITH informed us the sea-serpent had been
+seen the evening before at Nahant-beach. (Part of the following report.)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=63=.--1819, August 13?--There appeared an interesting account of an
+eye-witness about a sea-serpent in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
+19th. August, 1819. I have not been able to consult this journal. The
+report was translated in OKEN’s _Isis_ of 1819, p. 1754, accompanied
+by the figure, made by the eye-witness. Happily I found the same in
+SILLIMAN’s _American Journal Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820, but
+without the figure. It runs as follows:
+
+“The recent appearance of this animal at Nahant, in the view of several
+hundred persons, has furnished, perhaps, more conclusive proof of
+his existence, than any that has before been made public. For the
+satisfaction of our readers, we have procured a copy of the following
+letter, which gives a very clear and intelligible description of his
+appearance and movements. We have heard verbal statements from a great
+number of gentlemen, all of whom agree in substance with what is here
+related.”
+
+“_Copy of a letter from_ James Prince, _Marshal of the District, to the
+Hon. Judge_ Davis, _dated_”:
+
+  “Nahant, Aug. 16th., 1819.”
+
+  “Dear Sir,”
+
+“I presume I may have seen what is generally thought to be the
+sea-serpent--I have also seen my name inserted in the evening newspaper
+printed at Boston on Saturday, in a communication on this subject. For
+your gratification, and from a desire that my name may not sanction
+any thing beyond what was presented and passed in a review before me,
+I will now state that which, in the presence of more than two hundred
+other witnesses, took place near the long beach of Nahant, on Saturday
+morning last.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 26.--The sea-serpent as delineated by Mr. Prince.]
+
+“Intending to pass two or three days at Nahant, with my family, we
+left Boston early on Saturday morning. On passing the halfway house,
+on the Salem turn pike, Mr. Smith informed us the sea-serpent had
+been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach, and that a vast number
+of people from Lynn, had gone to the beach that morning, in hopes of
+being gratified with a sight of him: This was confirmed at the hotel.
+I was glad to find I had brought my famous mast-head spy-glass with
+me, as it would enable me, from its form and size, to view him to
+advantage, if I might be so fortunate as to see him. On our arrival
+on the beach, we associated with a considerable number of persons, on
+foot and in chaises, and very soon an animal of the fish-kind made
+his appearance. His head appeared about three feet out of water; I
+counted thirteen bunches on his back: my family thought there were
+fifteen--he passed three times at a moderate rate across the bay, but
+so fleet as to occasion a foam in the water--and my family and myself,
+who were in carriage, judged he was fifty feet in length, and, at the
+extend, not more than sixty; whether, however, the wake might not add
+to the appearance of his length; or whether the undulation of the
+water, or his peculiar manner of propelling himself, might not cause
+the appearance of protuberances, I leave for your better judgment. The
+first view of the animal occasioned some agitation, and the novelty
+perhaps prevented that precise discrimination which afterwards took
+place--as he swam up the bay, we and the other spectators moved on, and
+kept abreast of him; he occasionally withdrew himself under water, and
+the idea occurred to me that this occasionally raising his head above
+the level of the water, was to take breath, as the time he kept under
+water was of an average about eight minutes; after being accustomed to
+view him, we became more composed; and made the annexed figure of his
+outlines. Mrs. Prince and the coachman having better eyes than myself,
+were of great assistance to me in marking the progress of the animal;
+they would say he is now turning, and by the aid of my glass I saw him
+distinctly in this movement; he did not turn without occupying some
+space, and taking into view the time and space which he found necessary
+for his ease and accommodation, I adopted it as a criterium to form
+some judgment of his length--I had seven distinct views of him from
+the long beach so called, and at some of them the animal was not more
+than a hundred yards distance. After being on the long beach about an
+hour, the animal disappeared, and I proceeded on towards Nahant; but
+on passing the second beach, I met Mr. James Magee, of Boston, with
+several ladies in a carriage, prompted by curiosity to endeavor to see
+the animal, and we were again gratified beyond even what we saw in the
+other bay; which I concluded he had left in consequence of the number
+of boats in the offing in pursuit of him--the noise of whose oars must
+have disturbed him, as he appeared to us to be a harmless timid animal.
+We had more than a dozen different views of him, and each similar to
+the other; one however so near, that the coachman exclaimed: “Oh, see
+his glistening eye”. Thinking I might form some calculation of his
+length by the time and distance of each turn; and taking an angle with
+my two hands of the length he exhibited, that is to say, from his head
+to his last protuberance, and applying the same angle to other objects,
+I feel satisfied of the correctness of my decision that he is sixty
+feet long, unless the ripple of his wake deceived me--nor my dear sir,
+do I undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this
+was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself.
+Certainly it is a very strange animal. I have been accustomed to see
+whales, grampuses, porpoises, and other large fishes, but he partook
+of the appearance of none of these. The whale and the grampus would
+have spouted--the shark never raises his head out of water, and the
+porpoise skips and plays; neither of these has such appearances on the
+back or such a head as this animal. The shark it is true, has a fin on
+his back, and often the fluke of his tail is out of water; but these
+appendages would not display the form, and certainly not the number of
+protuberances, which this animal exhibited; nor is it the habit of the
+shark to avoid a boat. The water was extremely smooth, and the weather
+clear: we had been so habituated to see him, that we were cool and
+composed--the time occupied was from a quarter past eight to half past
+eleven--a cloud of witnesses exceeding two hundred, brought together
+for a single purpose, were all alike satisfied and united as to
+appearances, and as to the length and size of the animal; but you must
+deduct the influence which his passage through the water and the manner
+he propelled himself might have as to the apparent protuberances on
+his back, and the ripple occasioned by his motion on his real length,
+of all which you can judge equally well and better than myself. I must
+conclude there is a strange animal on our coast--and I have thought an
+unvarnished statement might be gratifying to a mind attached to the
+pursuit of natural science, and aid in the inquiries on a controverted
+question, which I knew to have interested you. I have ventured on
+the description, being also induced to hope, that if anything on the
+marvellous is stated as coming from me, you will correct it.
+
+  “Accept the respects and attention of
+
+  “Dear Sir, yours sincerely
+
+  “James Prince.”
+
+We see that Mr. PRINCE uses many words to give a very short description
+of the animal. Yet we are able to gather the following details. Its
+head appeared about three feet out of the water, there were 13 or 15
+bunches on its back, sometimes the rapidity was moderate, occasioning,
+however, a foam in the water; length 50 to 60 feet; the animal left
+behind it a wake; sometimes it withdrew itself under water; it appeared
+to be a harmless timid animal; its eyes were glistening. All these
+characters, external features and habits are long known to us. Mr.
+PRINCE first said the animal belonged to the fish-kind; afterwards,
+however, he dared not say whether it was of the snake or eel-kind;
+yet his figure shows large scales and a fish-tail. It is astonishing
+that the person who is so careful in his expressions, is so inaccurate
+when handling the pencil. The head of the animal in his figure is
+more that of a young duck than of a serpent or snake, which the head
+of the sea-serpent is said to resemble closely. The coils are badly
+drawn, and though 13 to 15 bunches were seen, only six are delineated.
+The rippling of the water on the animal’s left side and before it is
+well represented, on its right side, however, it is quite wrong. The
+two racked-formed wings are certainly the representation of the foam,
+caused in the water by the animal’s rapid motion. And finally the
+scales and the fish-tail are drawn by Mr. PRINCE though he has not seen
+them! I am obliged to state again that this figure is a facsimile of
+that which I found in OKEN’s _Isis_; the very one of the _Boston Daily
+Advertiser_ I have had no opportunity to see.
+
+The letter from Mr. PRINCE is translated into Dutch in the
+_Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk_.
+
+On the same day it was seen by Mr. CABOT, who wrote the following
+letter (SILLIMAN’s _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, II, 1820) to our well known
+
+  “Col. T. H. Perkins”
+
+  “Brookline, August 19, 1819.
+
+  “Dear Sir”
+
+“I very willingly comply with your request to state what I saw of the
+_Sea-Serpent_ at _Nahant_, on Saturday last, particularly as I happened
+to see it under favourable circumstances to form a judgment, and to
+considerable advantage in point of position and distance.”
+
+“I got into my chaise about seven o’clock in the morning to come to
+Boston, and on reaching the long Beach observed a number of people
+collected there and several boats pushing off and in the offing. I was
+speculating on what should have occasioned so great an assemblage there
+without any apparent object, and finally had concluded that they were
+embarking in those boats on a party of pleasure to Egg Rock, or some
+other point.”
+
+“I had not heard of the _Sea-Serpent_ being in that neighbourhood, and
+I had not lately paid much attention to the evidences which had been
+given of its existence, the idea of this animal did not enter my mind
+at the moment.”
+
+“As my curiosity was directed towards the boats to ascertain the course
+they were taking, my attention was suddenly arrested by an object
+emerging from the water at the distance of about one hundred or one
+hundred and fifty yards, which gave to my mind at the first glance the
+idea of a horse’s head. As my eye ranged along I perceived at a short
+distance eight or ten regular bunches or protuberances, and at a short
+interval three or four more. I was now satisfied that the _Sea-Serpent_
+was before me, and after the first moment of excitement produced by the
+unexpected sight of so strange a monster taxed myself to investigate
+his appearance as accurately as I could.”
+
+“My first object was the Head, which I satisfied myself was serpent
+shaped, it was elevated about two feet from the water, and he depressed
+it gradually, to within six or eight inches as he moved along. I could
+always see under his chin, which appeared to hollow underneath or to
+curve downward. His motion was at that time very slow along the Beach,
+inclining towards the shore; he at first moved his head from side to
+side as if to look about him. I did not see his eyes, though I have
+no doubt I could have seen them if I had thought to attend to this.
+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. My next
+object was to ascertain his length. For this purpose I directed my eye
+to several whale boats at about the same distance, one of which was
+beyond him, and by comparing the relative length, I calculated that
+the distance from the animal’s head to the last protuberance I had
+noticed, would be equal to about five of those boats. I felt persuaded
+by this examination that he could not be less than eighty feet long; as
+he approached the shore and came between me and a point of land which
+projects from the eastern end of the Beach, I had another means of
+satisfying myself on this point.”
+
+“After I had viewed him thus attentively for about four or five
+minutes, he sunk gradually into the water and disappeared; he
+afterwards again made his appearance for a moment at a short distance.”
+
+“My first reflection after the animal was gone, was, that the idea I
+had received from the description you gave of the animal you saw at
+_Gloucester_, in 1817, was perfectly realized in this instance; and
+that I had discovered nothing you had not before described. The most
+authentic testimony given of his first appearance there seemed to me
+remarkably correct; and I felt as if the appearance of this monster had
+been already familiar to me.”
+
+“After remaining some two or three hours on the Beach, without again
+seeing him, I returned towards Nahant; and in crossing the small beach,
+had another good view of him, for a longer time, but at a greater
+distance. At this time he moved more rapidly, causing a white foam
+under the chin, and a long wake, and his protuberances had a more
+uniform appearance. At this time he must have been seen by two or three
+hundred persons on the beach and on the heights each side, some of whom
+were very favourable situated to observe him.”
+
+  “I am very respectfully”
+
+  “your obedient servant”
+
+  “Samuel Cabot.”
+
+The Editor of the American Journal, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, adds:
+
+“It is almost superfluous to add, that Mr. Cabot and his friend Col.
+Perkins, are gentlemen of the first standing and consideration.”
+
+On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. PERKINS, when on board the _Ann Marie_,
+wrote a letter to his friend Mr. JNO. P. CUSHING; he published it in
+the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of 1848, Nov. 25; a passage of it runs as
+follows:
+
+“Besides the instances I have mentioned, there were many others
+reported of his having been seen the same year. In that year, 1817,
+although there were several reports of his having been seen, yet they
+were not well authenticated, nor do I place any confidence in them.”
+
+“In the month of August, in the last year, he again made his appearance
+in our vicinity, and under very satisfactory circumstances. The weather
+being hot, many of our citizens resorted to Nahant to pass a few
+weeks. On the number were Mr. and Mrs. Cabot and their children. Mr.
+Cabot had a view of him for more than half an hour at one time. He was
+in a chair, and had reached what is termed the long beach, when he
+saw several persons collected half a mile from him, which called his
+attention to the object which occupied them. Mr. C. had heard me often
+describe the view I had had of the serpent in 1817, and recognized in
+what was visible just without the breakers, and within a quarter of
+a mile, the monster which was supposed by many to exist nowhere but
+in the imaginations of those who had reported to have seen him. Mr.
+Cabot immediately rode back to Nahant; took Mrs. Cabot into his chair
+and returned to the beach; but the animal was no longer visible. By
+this time the inhabitants of Lynn had assembled to the number of some
+hundreds, on and near the beach, and all the visitors of Nahant were
+upon the alert. Having given over the hope of seeing him, Mr. Cabot
+was returning to leave his wife at her lodgings, when, to their mutual
+delight, he came in view just without the surf of the little beach, and
+within a quarter of a mile or less of where they stood.”
+
+“Marshal Prince, James Magee, and many persons of my acquaintance
+had a fine sight of him, and all agreed in their account of him in
+the principal particulars. They all agreed as to the rapidity of his
+movements, being very much beyond anything living they had ever seen.
+The apparent bunches on his back they consider as arising from the
+construction of his body, and that the movement was vertical and not
+horizontal. At one time his head was about two or three feet above
+water, but soon depressed to the level of the sea. When not swimming to
+be in pursuit of his prey, his motion was not rapid. They saw him turn
+and bring his body into a letter S, the head being at right angles with
+the tail. From fifteen to twenty three bunches, or apparent bunches,
+were counted by the different persons who saw him, and his size round
+they thought to be that of a common firkin or half barrel”.
+
+“No one thought they saw the whole of the body at a time, the tail
+seeming always to be considerably under water. The greatest length
+given to him was one hundred feet and no one who had a good sight of
+him thought him less than eighty feet in length. If the number of
+protuberances is twenty-three (and it seems there are at least this
+number), and calculating them to be distant from centre to centre four
+feet (and I think, considering their thickness, they cannot be less
+than this), he would be ninety two feet long. They all agreed, too, as
+to the colour being quite dark, approaching to black.”
+
+In a letter from Dr. BOOTT to Dr. HOOKER, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826,
+part of which was published in the _Edinb. Journ. of Sc._, we read that
+he visited Boston to gather testimony from eye-witnesses. He then says:
+
+“During this visit I distinctly remember the news coming from Nahant
+one morning, of the Serpent being in the bay of that place, distant
+about sixteen miles from Boston. Many hurried down to see it, and
+among them my brother Mr. James Boott. I was prevented from some cause
+leaving Boston. My brother reported that he distinctly saw a large
+serpent, about a mile from the shore; and that thousands were watching
+its motion on the beach and rocks. The first idea that occurred to my
+brother was that it was a horse swimming, its head at the time bearing
+a resemblance to that of the latter creature. He afterwards saw the
+undulating line of its back, and remained several hours watching the
+animal. Colonel Perkins of Boston, his wife, and family, were present
+at this time, as far as I recollect.”
+
+So we have of this appearance three different statements of respectable
+persons, who distinctly saw the animal on the same spot.
+
+This appearance of the sea-serpent near Nahant is also mentioned in Dr.
+HAMILTON’s _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=64=.--1819, August.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE says in his _Travels
+through Sweden, &c._, at p. 207:
+
+“I there” (Stenesöen) “obtained from his” (PEDER GREGER’S) “son John
+Greger, a young man, who employed himself in the fishery, still
+further information respecting the sea-serpent; it was in August of
+the preceding year, while fishing with others in the Vieg or Vegfjord,
+that he saw it; at that time they were on shore, hauling in their nets,
+and it appeared about sixty yards distant from them, at which they
+were not a little alarmed, and immediately retreated. What was seen
+of it above water, he said, appeared six times the length of their
+boat, of a grey colour, and lying in coils a great height above the
+surface. Their fright prevented them from attending more accurately to
+other particulars. In fact they all fairly took to their heels, when
+they found the monster so near them. The weather at the time was very
+hot and calm. Farther to the south (at Stenesöen) he said it was seen
+several times, and it remained there for a considerable period.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=65=.--1819, August.--The same author at p. 216 of his volume relates:
+
+“My honest boatmen who had brought me all the way from Leköe, a
+distance of near sixty miles, now left me. Previous to their departure
+they gave me the following account of the sea-serpent, which is here
+inserted as they related it, without the least variation. They were
+fishermen and had been up at the North Cape. During the time they
+remained there they saw the serpent twice, once at no very great
+distance from them. It was of a grey colour; the head blackish, with
+teeth. What they discerned of it they judged to be at least five times
+the length of their boat, which is about thirty feet. It moved in large
+folds on the water; and when they saw it, they rowed away from it as
+fast as they could. The weather was very calm at the time.”
+
+This is the most northern appearance of the sea-serpent. The teeth are
+mentioned here, though not described.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=66=.--1819? August?--The same author at p. 222 of his _Travels_ tells
+us:
+
+“To the testimony of others respecting the existence of the
+sea-serpent, I shall now add that of the bishop” (of the Nordlands and
+Finmark) “himself, who was eye-witness to the appearance of two in the
+bay of the Shuresund, or Sorsund, in the Drontheim _fjord_, about eight
+Norway miles from Drontheim. He was but a short distance from them, and
+saw them plainly. They were swimming in large folds, part of which was
+seen above the water, and the length of what appeared the largest he
+judged to be about 100 feet. They were of a darkish grey colour; the
+heads hardly discernable, from their being almost under water; and they
+were visible for only a short time. Before that period he had treated
+the account of them as fabulous; but it was now impossible, he said,
+to doubt their existence, as such numbers of respectable people, since
+that time had likewise seen them on different occasions.”
+
+Not a single fact that need astonish us. That _two_ were seen together
+is not reported for the first time, as the reader will remember. The
+swimming “in large folds, part of which was seen above water”, is a
+very accurate description of the effect made by the swimming animals.
+The colour is described as a darkish grey, which is exactly the colour
+of the animal, when seen at a short distance. Their holding their heads
+very low, only just above the surface of the water, is a common habit
+of them too.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=67=.--1819? August?--The same author relates (p. 403):
+
+“The last account respecting the existence of the sea-serpent I
+received from him” (the sexton of Maasöe) “during our journey. He
+was fishing, as he said, with others in the Mageröe-Sund, when they
+discerned the monster of the deep, stretching out his bulk in many
+a spiral fold, and basking on the surface of the water. Its colour
+was dark and as to its length, he assured me, with looks of wonder
+and almost of alarm, that it nearly reached from the Mageröe side
+to the mainland opposite. In this measurement fear, doubtless, was
+the principal agent; for as to any accurate observations made by
+himself, they were out of the question. My friend the sexton was much
+too prudent a man, to hazard any at such a juncture. A glance was
+sufficient for him to commence his flight forthwith, as fast as his
+arms would enable him.”
+
+Of course I agree with Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE as to the exaggerated
+dimensions attributed to the animal by the sexton of Maasöe. The words
+“spiral folds”, of course, are wrong, the author meant the sinuosities
+in which the animal moves. Its colour is here described dark, which
+corresponds with so many other testimonies.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=68=.--1819? August?--At page 406 of the volume of this author we read
+in a note:
+
+“The account of the serpent, received by him” (Prösten DEINBOLT of
+Vadsöe) “from several persons on that part of the coast, agreed with
+those which have been already given.”
+
+This, of course, is only a report of the appearance of the sea-serpent
+near Vadsöe.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=69=.--1819, Aug. 26.--“_Extract of a letter from_ Mr. Cheever Felch,
+Chaplan to the United States’ ship Independance of 74 guns, to the
+Editor of the Boston Centinel.” (SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol.
+II).
+
+  “Gloucester, August 26, 1819.
+
+  “Dear Sir.
+
+“Others having taken in hand to give some account of the Sea-Serpent, I
+know not why I should not have the same liberty. Being on this station,
+in the United States’ schooner Science, for the purpose of surveying
+this harbor, we were proceeding this morning down the harbor, in the
+schooner’s boat; when abreast of Dallivan’s Neck, William T. Malbone,
+Esq. Commander of the Schooner, seeing some appearance on the water,
+said--“_there is your sea-serpent_”, meaning it as a laugh on me, for
+believing in its existence; but it prooved to be no joke. The animal
+was then between thirty and forty yards distance from us. Mr. Malbone,
+Midshipman Blake, myself, and our four boatmen, had a distinct view
+of him. He soon sunk; but not so deep but we could trace his course.
+He rose again within twenty yards distance of us, and lay sometime on
+the water. He then turned, and steered for Ten Pound Island; we pulled
+after him; but finding that he was not pleased with the noise of our
+oars, they were laid in, and the boat skulled. We again approached very
+near him. He continued some length of time, playing between Ten Pound
+Island and Stage Point. As he often came near the Point, we thought
+we could get a better view of him there, than from the boat, of which
+he seemed conspicuous. Mr. Malbone and myself landed; and the boat
+was sent to order the schooner down, for the purpose of trying what
+effect a twelve pound carronade would have upon him. He did not remain
+long after we landed, so that I was unable to effect my intention, of
+ascertaining, accurately, his length, with my instruments. From my
+knowledge of aquatic animals, and habits, and intimacy with marine
+appearances, I could not be deceived. We had a good view of him, except
+the very short period while he was under water, for half an hour.--His
+colour is a dark brown, with white under the throat. His size, we
+could not accurately ascertain, but his head is about three feet in
+circumference, flat and much smaller than his body. We did not see his
+tail; but from the end of the head to the fartherest protuberance, was
+not far from one hundred feet. I speak with a degree of certainty,
+from being much accustomed to measure and estimate distances and
+length. I counted fourteen bunches on his back, the first one, say ten
+or twelve feet from his head, and the others about seven feet apart.
+They decreased in size towards the tail. These bunches were sometimes
+counted with, and sometimes without a glass. Mr. Malbone counted
+thirteen, Mr. Blake thirteen and fourteen, and the boatman about the
+same number. His motion was sometimes very rapid, and at other times he
+lay nearly still. He turned slowly, and took up considerable room in
+doing it. He sometimes darted under water, with the greatest velocity,
+as if seizing prey. The protuberances were not from his motion, as they
+were the same whether in slow or rapid movement. His motion was partly
+vertical and partly horizontal, like that of fresh water snakes. I have
+been much acquainted with the snakes in our interior waters. His motion
+was the same. I have given you in round numbers, one hundred feet,
+for his length, that is, what we saw; but I should say he must be one
+hundred and thirty feet in length, allowing for his tail. There were
+a considerable number of birds about the sea-serpent as I have seen
+them about a snake on shore. That there is an aquatic animal in the
+form of a snake, is not to be doubted. Mr. Malbone, till this day, was
+incredulous. No man would now convince him, there was not such a being.
+The sketch or picture of Marshal Prince, is perfectly correct. I could
+not, with my own pencil, give a more correct likeness.”
+
+  “With respect”
+
+  “Your obedient servant”
+
+  “Cheever Felch”
+
+  “Major B. Russell.”
+
+I will not contest Mr. FELCH’S opinion about Mr. PRINCE’S figure! As
+to the letter itself there is not a single statement which can detract
+from or add to our present notions of the sea-serpent.
+
+In 1846 Col. T. H. PERKINS, of whom we have spoken more than once,
+requested Mr. BOLTON, who was first Lieutenant of the _Independence_ in
+1819, to send him some particulars about this appearance. Mr. BOLTON
+promptly replied under date of July 14, 1846. This letter, published by
+Col. PERKINS in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, runs as
+follows:
+
+“In the year 1817 I was the first lieutenant of the Independence, of 74
+guns, then lying in the harbour of Boston.”
+
+“In the course of the spring or summer a party of officers were
+detailed, by order of Commodore Bainbridge, to survey the coast of the
+bay, to a limited extent northeastward and outside of the light-house.”
+
+“The officers selected for this duty were the sailingmaster of the
+ship, Wm. T. Malbone, and the Rev. Cheever Fetch, the instructor of the
+midshipmen.”
+
+“To assist in the service several of the most competent and elder
+midshipmen were designated. As they alternated periodically with other
+gentlemen of the same grade, I cannot with any degree of precision
+venture to name them. I hope that some of them are yet living, and,
+further, that they have advanced in professional distinction. There
+were also added a sufficient number of seamen and boys.”
+
+“Commodore Bainbridge, Mr. Malbone and Mr. Felch died some years ago.”
+
+“I recollect that on the first occasion, when the Lynx returned to
+the Independence, of which ship she was the tender, that Mr. Malbone
+reported as having seen a monstrous sea-animal, not before known to
+him, of the snake species; the length doubtful, but estimated at some
+eighty or more feet; and added as an accident, that the officers and
+men employed in a small boat to carry out the soundings had returned in
+haste, and indeed alarm, to the Lynx, which was at anchor.”
+
+“These statements were corroborated by Mr. Felch, the officers and
+crew.”
+
+“Subsequently it was seen several times, by some of the party, who,
+being soon satisfied that it was harmless approached comparatively
+near, and no doubt gave me a minute description of its appearance as
+it presented itself to them; but if so, the particular details have
+escaped my memory.”
+
+“These facts are all that I can with distinctness and certainty
+mention. Wm. Compton Bolton, Captain in the Navy of the United States,
+Saratonga Springs, July 14, 1846; to Hon. T. H. Perkins, Boston.”--
+
+It cannot surprise us that in some particulars, as “in the year 1817”,
+and in some others this letter does not agree with the foregoing letter
+from the Rev. CHEEVER FELCH himself, as twenty-seven years had since
+elapsed.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=70=.--1819, September?--Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT in a letter to Dr. HOOKER,
+dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, and published in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._,
+VI, 1827, says:
+
+“I remember also that a letter appeared in the _Boston Centinel_, soon
+after, published by an officer in the American Navy, who reported
+that, on his return from a survey of some part of the coast, he saw,
+when out of sight of land, a large serpent. He was so near that he
+drew an outline of it, and that outline accompanied the paragraph.
+When you showed me Mr. Warburton’s figure on the card, I at first
+thought it was a copy of that of the _Centinel_. I can only add, for
+your own satisfaction, that _I_ have no doubt of the existence of this
+remarkable animal.”
+
+As Dr. BOOTT is speaking of a visit at Boston in August 1819, the
+words “soon after” of course signify in the latter part of August or
+in the beginning of September. As the officer was “on his return”
+and published his encounter in the _Boston Centinel_, the appearance
+most probably occurred not far from Boston. The reader will find Mr.
+WARBURTON’S drawing further on (n°. 83).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=71=.--1819, September 13?--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819).
+
+“The great Sea-Snake has been seen again towards the middle of
+September, in the bay of Massachusetts, and three yellow collars
+observed on his neck, which has led some to believe it might be
+another individual and species; but this circumstance might have
+been overlooked before. It is not stated whether it had streaks of a
+lighter hue on the body, as the first was represented to have by some
+witnesses. It is therefore likely that the two characters of “streaks
+of a lighter hue on the body and three yellow collars on the neck”, may
+be added to its description. The collars are described as about two
+inches broad, and one foot apart.”
+
+The three yellow collars observed on its neck may be explained as
+follows: The animal has a hairy skin, as we have already seen, like a
+seal-skin. Now, when the neck is wet and contracted by the animal, its
+skin gets wrinkles, of course running round the neck, as is also the
+case in sea-lions. Those parts of these wrinkles, which are deepest,
+remain wet for a very long time, because they are not exposed to the
+air; those, however, which are highest, if we may use this expression,
+are not only most exposed to the air, but the hairs on those parts
+diverge and dry as soon as possible; and--when dry, they have a yellow
+greyish colour. If the animal now stretches its neck, it may show
+one, two, &c., even eight or more yellow-coloured collars round its
+dark brown neck, which may have a breadth of about two inches and
+a distance of one foot between them. This phenomenon or appearance,
+as already stated, is often to be seen in our zoological gardens on
+sea-lions and seals.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819, Dr. RAFINESQUE says:
+
+“Dr. Mitchill informs me that General Hawkins has written a memoir
+on the sea-serpent of Massachusetts, which he has sent, with a
+drawing, to Sir Joseph Banks; it is a paper of some length, and much
+interest, as it relates facts, and all the circumstances attending the
+appearance and natural history of those huge animals, taken upon oath
+of eye-witnesses. He attempts to prove, with much probability, that
+several individuals have been seen, and two at least, if not three
+species; one with three collars, another without any, and a smaller
+one.”
+
+In SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, 1820, I have found the
+following extract from a letter to the Editor, dated Boston, April 8,
+1820:
+
+“I have lately received a letter from Sir Joseph Banks, written by his
+own hand, in which he expresses his full faith in the existence of
+our Serpent in the Sea, and not only as it regards himself, but his
+friends, and he is grateful for every new communication I have given
+him on that subject, and writes with the same enthusiasm that he did
+several years ago. Although he is now very infirm.”
+
+Evidently this was a letter from General HAWKINS.
+
+Professor BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, the Editor of this journal adds:
+
+“Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society of London, the
+Companion of Capt. Cook, is now at a very advanced age but still
+vigourous in his intellectual powers, and ardent in the promotion of
+every species of useful knowledge.”
+
+In Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through Sweden_, we find at p.
+411:
+
+“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated
+relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally considered
+as the fabric of American invention; and there are many, I believe,
+in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not consider it in any other
+light than that of a hoax. Judging, however, from the detailed
+accounts of the circumstance which are preserved among the papers of
+sir Joseph Banks, the principal facts appear to be these.”
+
+And at p. 413:
+
+“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted the
+attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members was
+deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of them. This
+was accordingly done; and the above is the general substance of the
+various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys. This gentleman,
+who was a corresponding member of the Society, despatched to Sir
+Joseph Banks copies of the whole of these, which are still preserved
+in his library. Sir Joseph entered with warmth into this curious
+investigation; and the minuteness, with which every particular was
+supplied, showed how greatly he felt interested in the question.”
+
+In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT wrote a letter to Dr. HOOKER, a part
+of which was published in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI,
+1827. Dr. BOOTT, after some general remarks, goes on to express himself
+in the following terms:
+
+“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph
+Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal, and the
+respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight of him.
+The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet published
+by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question as to the real
+appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts, was put
+to rest by that publication. There could be no doubt of the fact, and
+the testimony of thousands who saw the animal _for one or two years
+afterwards_, must have been sufficient to satisfy the most incredulous.”
+
+“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph Banks,
+that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast; at all
+events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to him on the
+subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate of a similar animal
+in Pontoppidan’s _History of Norway_. I myself had no doubt of the
+truth of the assertions of the early observers of it, for many of them
+were known to me, and I was anxious to convince Sir Joseph of the
+discovery of a new and remarkable animal. I therefore was in the habit
+of sending him every information I could collect respecting it. In one
+of my last visits to Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and
+from the public papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe,
+that Sir Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though
+he continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake
+(figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”
+
+In October, 1828, Mr. MITCHILL read a paper before the New York Lyceum,
+which paper will be found in our Chapter on Hoaxes. As we have already
+observed, this paper also contains a particular account concerning the
+letters addressed by General HUMPHREYS to Sir JOSEPH BANKS.
+
+Again Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, asserts:
+
+“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted a
+copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance, to the late Sir
+Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are still preserved.”
+
+Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir JOSEPH BANKS
+himself, neither in the _Transactions of the Royal Society of London_,
+nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this Very Learned Body
+to give me the loan of all the papers about the subject, or to publish
+them in their next volume.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=72=.--1820, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through
+Sweden, during the Summer of 1820_, relates at p. 263:
+
+“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance
+occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house, and thinking
+little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had heard nothing for
+some time, a young man, the master of a small fishing yacht, which
+had just come in from Drontheim, joint our party; in the course of
+conversation, he mentioned that a few hours before, whilst close to
+Hundholm, and previous to his entering the harbour, two sea-snakes
+passed immediately under his yacht. When he saw them he was on the
+deck, and, seizing a handspike, he struck at them as they came up
+close to the vessel on the other side, upon which they disappeared.
+Their length was very great, and their colour greyish; but from the
+very short time they were visible, he could not notice any other
+particulars. He had no doubt of their being snakes as he called them,
+and the circumstance was related entirely of his own accord.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=73=.--1820, August.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361, we read:
+
+“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from the
+piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=74=.--1820?--The following report was published in the _Zoologist_ of
+1849, p. 2460.
+
+“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to me a
+subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view of
+gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would
+hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this sort
+has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without being
+at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the same fate;
+yet if it can afford any amusement or information for intelligent and
+scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely give it to the
+press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the truth of what I am
+about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P. M., being then in latitude
+46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning, observed an immense body on the
+surface of the water, apparently without motion, but water spouting
+from it, not unlike the blowing of a whale. I immediately got my glass;
+and, from its rugged appearance and showing nothing where the water
+issued from, I began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been
+the vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and,
+so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be taken
+in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s company
+were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought not unlikely,
+and went into the main cat harpens to look more distinctly at it: the
+appearance then was still steady, but irregular. I saw neither head nor
+tail above the water, but a hump from one extreme resembling the rise
+or point of rather a triangular rock: this tapered to a distance,--I
+certainly believe 70 or 100 feet, and the water broke over it, a
+little beyond it: it discharged the spout; but nothing showing itself,
+undetermined in mind what it could be, or whether I should tack the
+ship, it all at once disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head
+and neck--resembling something of a serpent’s--made its appearance,
+erected about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a
+survey towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of
+conjecture and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the
+above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan Townsend,
+was in the main top, and saw the creature I have described, and would
+feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.--George Sanford, Lieutenant
+R. N.”
+
+[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated by
+Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above statement, but it
+is presumed to have been written about the year 1820. Lieut. Sanford
+then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady Combermere.--E. N.”]
+
+No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that the
+appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.--The act of breathing
+of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under the
+surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance generally
+called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head just at
+water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water issued from”.
+The rugged appearance may have been caused by the animal lying with
+several bunches on its back, as afterwards was also reported by the
+Lloydsteamer _Kätie_ (n°. 154) or by its having a mane, extending all
+along the neck and back. The “hump from one extreme resembling the
+rise or point of rather a triangular rock” must have been the animal’s
+head which it lifted up just above the surface. Nearly the same
+appearance will be observed in the figure of one of the officers of
+H. M. S. _Plumper_ (fig. 31). Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat
+exaggerated, the “head and neck resembling something of a serpent’s
+erected about six feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking
+a survey towards the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all
+comment superfluous; all these characters have more than once been
+reported of this creature.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In the _Philosophical Magazine and Journal_, Vol. LVII, 1821, we find
+an extract from the numerous reports communicated by Prof BIGELOW in
+SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the Arts_, Boston, Vol. II,
+1820, May.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+We have already quoted MILTON, who in his _Paradise Lost_, printed
+in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst others the
+sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than once cited
+by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but express my
+surprise at this custom, for there is not one single word or expression
+in MILTON’S verses, which is taken from accounts, reports, or tales of
+the sea-serpent itself. WALTER SCOTT, however, in his _Pirate_: which
+was published in 1821, vol. I, chapt. II, says a few words about the
+animal, which are so correct, that they must have been taken from some
+or other report:
+
+“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”
+
+“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths of
+Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with a mane
+like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering eyes, raised
+mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder or for victims.”
+
+The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a mane are
+known characters, and the rising from the depths high into the air,
+standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment all around, evidently
+taking a survey, is a habit observed more than once.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=75=.--1821, Summer.--Col. T. H. PERKINS on the 13th. of Oct. 1820,
+when on board the _Ann Marie_, wrote a letter to his friend JNO P.
+CUSHING, which he published in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
+25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of an
+individual on the 6th. of August, 1848. The different parts of this
+letter are inserted partly in our Chapter on Hoaxes (p. 20, 21) and
+partly in n^o. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 63. The Editor of the _Boston Daily
+Advertiser_ now goes on:
+
+“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent
+gives letters from several members of his family, who _the next summer_
+had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the appearance of the
+animal is minutely described. This correspondence is very interesting;
+the description of the animal agrees entirely with that given above,
+and we regret that want of space must prevent the insertion of it.”
+
+It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published.
+Perhaps they are now lost for ever!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=76=.--1821.--In a letter from WILLIAM WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY,
+Esq. printed in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI, 1827, p.
+130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:
+
+“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak Coffin, who
+discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have
+been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about five years back.”
+
+Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=77=.--1821, September 25? In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Jan. 1822, I, we
+read:
+
+“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years, has been
+clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses, and it
+is described by all of them and the descriptions agree pretty well with
+each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished merchant of Nantucket, Mr.
+Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration of it on oath before the justice
+of the peace.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=78=.--1821?--Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_
+says at p. 565:
+
+“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the Isle of
+Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”
+
+This report is also quoted by Dr. R. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious
+Carnivora_, 1839.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=79=.--1822.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden,
+&c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:
+
+“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark, founded
+on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have appeared
+off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen by many of
+the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal is described
+as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of a full grown
+ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather when it made its
+appearance, calm and fine.”
+
+Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour, the
+calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden &c._, 1823, at
+p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement of the
+fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820) with those,
+related by PONTOPPIDAN. The passage runs as follows:
+
+“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of Maasöe)
+“gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share of attention.
+It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at any time they
+found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds of the serpent, and
+obliged to pass over a part of it, never to attempt making their way
+between the openings, caused by part of the body of the animal being
+concealed under water, for fear of its raising and upsetting the boat.
+On the contrary, they rowed with all their strength against one of
+the visible folds, as the serpent, as soon as he feels the touch of
+the boat, naturally sinks down and enables it thus to pass over in
+safety. It will appear perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking
+afterward into Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very
+substance of what is related in his work, which may be said to be
+unknown in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”
+
+Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the
+scrupulousness with which fables are told unchanged! The passages from
+PONTOPPIDAN referred to by our traveller have been discussed by me--p.
+134.
+
+For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all that has
+been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to insert all
+that Mr. BROOKE further says about it. After having repeated nearly all
+what PONTOPPIDAN mentioned about it, he goes on:
+
+“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts related in
+the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable person
+can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary dimensions,
+and in all probability of the serpent tribe, having been repeatedly
+seen by various persons along the Norway and Finmark coasts. These
+accounts, for the most part, have been given verbally from the mouths
+of the fishermen; an honest and artless class of men who, having no
+motive for misrepresentation, cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive.
+Could this idea, however, be entertained, the circumstance alone, of
+their assertions having been so fully confirmed by others in more
+distant parts, would be sufficient to free them from any imputation of
+this kind. The simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full
+700 miles of coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have
+been received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an
+animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce some
+degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several relations
+as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions, the state
+of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars are so
+fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable intervening
+distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied of the truth of the
+main fact. Many of the informants, besides, were of superior rank and
+education; and the opinions of such men as the _Amtmann_ (Governor) of
+Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe, _Prösten_ (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and
+the Bishop of Nordland and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought
+not to be disregarded. There does not appear the least probability,
+or even possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on
+the northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent.
+The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well known
+to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity in shape,
+appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be sufficiently
+obvious.”
+
+Remarkable is the fact that Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE considers the animal
+to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with which he of
+course means _snakes_.
+
+“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account
+received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected, the
+serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short
+distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part
+of that month, and having been seen during that time by the whole
+of the population of the island. The information collected, indeed,
+is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining so
+considerable a time; but the talent of observation in fishermen is far
+from considerable, and their curiosity is easily gratified. To these
+circumstances, and the general dread entertained of this animal, may
+be attributed the want of any attempt to take it. At the neighbouring
+island of Krogöen also, it will be remembered, that its having appeared
+was confirmed; and this would be sufficient at least to cause a
+wavering in the minds of those naturalists, who have treated former
+accounts as the mere offspring of imagination.”
+
+We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but
+their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from
+investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or more
+curious person would do!
+
+Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the
+Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently MILTON’S
+_Paradise Lost_ led him. I am far from admitting any relation between
+the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He further quotes KNUD
+LEEMS (p. 138), OLAUS MAGNUS (n°. 1, p. 105, 109), HANS EGEDE (n°. 5),
+ERIC PONTOPPIDAN, and speaks of the letters written to and preserved in
+the library of Sir JOSEPH BANKS, then president of the Royal Society,
+by General HAWKINS and General HUMPHREYS.
+
+I am also obliged to repeat here _in extenso_ his plea for the
+sea-serpent (p. 415-419):
+
+“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally
+guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and there
+are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who, if told
+of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen feet,
+such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced one like
+the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only stare with
+astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of these assertions, as
+if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but natural; their knowledge of
+the world and its productions, deprived as they are of other means of
+attaining it, must be confined to the narrow sphere they live in; and
+the ideas they possess of life must necessarily be contracted.”
+
+“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded by no
+country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees with
+admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature gradually
+unfolding itself to the researches of science, and finds his imperfect
+catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the existence of some new
+and extraordinary animal, which before was unknown to the world, or
+considered as living in the imagination alone. By the exertions of the
+present age, he has become acquainted with many creatures, in their
+forms and habits the most singular and strange; and thus he is taught
+never to deny the existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is,
+by whatever he beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator;
+and conscious, that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a
+knowledge of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers
+the various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects
+produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of chemistry
+and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea of that great
+superior force, which not only sets in motion this master machine,
+and indues it with powers of sense and reflection, but causes it to
+act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation and reproduction
+of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his researches regard
+the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally prepared for the
+wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid of the mikroscoop makes
+known to him the existence of myriads of living creatures, some of
+such incredible smallness, that the utmost powers of the magnifier can
+with difficulty render them visible; and of which thousands if put
+together, would not equal a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that
+the human body itself is filled with them; and that the structure of
+their own internal parts is equally complex and curious. When, however,
+he reflects, that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may
+perhaps contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter
+tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look
+forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted
+to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of the
+universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the deep gnoom
+of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild inhabitants, he
+sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of the Creator; whether
+he meets with the elephant supporting its enormous bulk with peaceful
+and dignified steps, or views the huge trunk of the stupendous boa
+serpent, extended to the length of fifty feet, and viing in size with
+the stately trees, between which it glides, the terror of all, and
+the sovereign of the forest. The secrets of the great deep alone are
+veiled from his inquiring eyes; and he regrets, that his structure
+prevents him from cleaving, like the finny tribe, the watery fluid,
+and gazing on the wonders below. Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay
+even a new world, would there be opened to his inspection, did not
+the grosser materials of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From
+the marine animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his
+observation, he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that
+they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them; and
+he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown regions of
+the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit may be deemed but as
+a spot, and the depth of which is not merely that of some miles, but
+extends, for any thing that is known to the contrary, even from pole to
+pole; there may be a variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even
+those which, on this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that
+their bulk may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they
+inhabit; and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever
+rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may
+be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown to us,
+subservient to the use and benefit of man.”
+
+“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more interesting
+and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel insensible, that I
+have wandered very far, and that the thoughts, to which the sea-serpent
+gave rise, have already comprised the whole globe.”
+
+The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE are
+translated in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=80=.--1824 January.--In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_
+conducted by Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, Vol. 28, July, 1835, we read:
+
+“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of great
+intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who has
+travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates,
+the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he is permitted
+to publish without the name of the author; with him he is, however,
+well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his integrity and in his
+freedom from any influence of imagination.”
+
+  “Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”
+
+“To Prof. Silliman,--Dear Sir,--On my passage from the River La Plata
+to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂° South, and 48°
+West longitude, I saw what was first supposed to be a fish called an
+Albicore; but, on further examination it was discovered to be a serpent
+of which I cannot give a clearer description than to say that a common
+dark coloured land snake is, in miniature, a perfect representation.
+A light breeze prevailed at the time and the sea was quite smooth. It
+first appeared within ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps,
+two feet above the water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg;
+the eye was distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about
+half the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference
+of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin was
+seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail. The
+serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head above water
+and eyes directed towards the vessel.”
+
+Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds to it a
+
+“_Remark of the Editor._--The distance of the place of observation
+being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this serpent must
+have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land snake of South
+America could not navigate so far out to sea if indeed they ever take
+to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly quiet, and appeared quite
+comfortable and at home on the waves. We must therefore consider this
+case as settling the question of the real existence of a Sea-Serpent.
+The absence of paddles or arms forbids us from supposing that this was
+a swimming saurian.”
+
+We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent of Prof.
+SILLIMAN’S acquaintance agree with those which are already known to us,
+and that the supposition or negative explanation of Prof. SILLIMAN,
+that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian is at least premature,
+for the assertion of the eye-witness that “nothing like a fin was
+seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles or arms”, which of course
+remained hidden under water!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=81=.--1824, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Oct. 1824, Vol. VIII,
+n°. 168, p. 218, we read:
+
+“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this summer. A
+Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned by the Newburyport
+Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad Cove at a distance of
+about 100 feet. The head was two feet long and of a brown colour. Mr.
+R. could distinctly observe the teeth in the mouth when opened. He
+could not discern the tail, but several times, about thirty feet behind
+the head, he observed parts of the animal in an undulating motion”.
+
+Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned to have
+been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=82=.--1825?--In a paper by Dr. T. S. TRAILL, printed in n^o. 44, May,
+1854, of the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_, we read:
+
+“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed by persons
+worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance related to me
+many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late Mr. Andrew Strang,
+a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once, when on a deep-sea fishing,
+he saw pass below his boat, at the depth of eight or ten feet, an
+enormously long fish, of an eel-shape. It was swimming slowly with a
+vermicular motion, and appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.”
+It appeared to take no notice of them; but they hastily removed from
+what they considered a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was
+shy in mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should
+class him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable
+reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once on
+the western coasts of Scotland.
+
+Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put the
+date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825, and
+to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because of
+all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented
+by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast of
+Scotland, of which I have three observations (n^o. 141, 142, 143). I am
+convinced that the animal seen by Mr. ANDREW STRANG was a sea-serpent.
+Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its _vermicular_ motion,
+its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the animal moved only by
+vertical undulations, holding its four flappers pressed against its
+body, otherwise Mr. STRANG would have compared it with “an alligator
+with flappers like those of a sea-turtle and with a long neck,” as did
+Captain HOPE (n^o. 119.)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=83=.--1826, June 16.--(_New York Advertiser_ of June 21, 1826, and
+_American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XI, 1826.)
+
+“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived yesterday
+from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank, five days since,
+he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about ten rods from the
+ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part which appeared out of water
+about sixty feet in length. The head and protuberances were similar
+to the representations which have frequently been given to him by
+persons who had seen him near Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow
+rate, and appeared unmindful of the ship. He was visible about seven
+minutes to the passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A
+certificate has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with
+a drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description
+of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the
+witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal as a
+sea-serpent.”
+
+Of this occurrence we learn more in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._, Vol. VI,
+1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. HOOKER:
+
+“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present this
+imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had the
+pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury Hall,
+Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the house of
+Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman, proceeding in
+his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards, New York packet,
+Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding this sea-monster
+on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s Banks. But his own plain
+statement must be presumed far more satisfactory to every candid mind
+than any account extracted from his letter.”
+
+  “Pentonville, 20th September 1826”
+
+  “Dear Sir,”
+
+“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds, that you
+were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as seen by me
+in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of the same; in
+compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a rough pencil drawing of
+the monster as it appeared during the time when its head was elevated
+above the water, and I shall state the particulars attending this novel
+exhibition.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 27.--The sea-serpent as seen by Mr. WARBURTON.]
+
+“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of the
+vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly smooth
+was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock P.
+M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in the water
+a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a whale spouting,
+and turning to the quarter whence the sound proceeded, we observed
+the serpent in the position as it appears in the sketch, slowly
+approaching at not more than the rate of two miles an hour, in a
+straight direction. I suppose we were hardly going through the water
+so fast, for there was scarcely a breath of wind. I must premise that
+I had never heard of the existence of such an animal. I instantly
+exclaimed, why, there is a _sea-snake_! “That is the sea-serpent”,
+exclaimed the captain, “and I would give my ship and cargo to catch the
+monster”. I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down
+below, but only five or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the
+daughter of a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up,
+saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I was too
+eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to the captain. In
+the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel at about the distance
+of 50 yards from us, neither turning his head to the right or left.
+As soon as his head had reached the stern of the vessel, he gradually
+laid it down in a horizontal position with his body, and floated along
+like the mast of a vessel. That there was upwards of 60 feet visible,
+is clearly shown by the circumstance, that the length of the ship was
+upwards of 120 feet, and at the time his head was off the stern, the
+other end (as much as was above the surface) had not passed the main
+mast. The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two minutes
+and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him for about twenty
+minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous log of timber. His
+motion in the water was meandering like that of an eel, and the rake he
+left behind was like that occasioned by the passing of a small craft
+through the water. We had but one harpoon on board, and the ship’s
+long-boat was, for the time being converted into a _cow-house_. We
+had two guns on board, but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel
+of New York with Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of
+such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet
+of Boston about five years back; but as I assured him I had never
+heard previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an
+_Englishman_, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also
+corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time. The
+humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the dromedary. I
+remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,
+
+  “William Warburton.”
+
+I give in fig. 27 a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the paper of
+Mr. HOOKER (_Edinb. Journ. Sc._ Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).
+
+The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed up in
+the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing of the
+water was heard. The part which appeared out of water was about sixty
+feet in length. It held its head some feet above the surface of the
+water, swimming at a rate of two miles an hour, and showing bunches
+on its back. After some moments it gradually laid down its head in a
+horizontal position with its body, and floated along like the mast of
+a vessel, evidently swimming with its body in a straight line, using
+its flappers. The wake which it left behind was equal to that of a
+small vessel. Nothing is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth,
+otherwise the scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal
+appeared not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any scales.
+The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a right angle
+with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled that of a horse,
+if we take moreover in consideration that some individuals have a mane.
+The individual seen by Captain HOLDREGE and Mr. WARBURTON evidently had
+no mane.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=84=.--1826, June 18.--In the same letter from Mr. WARBURTON to ROBERT
+BARCLAY there is a passage which we have omitted above and which runs
+as follows:
+
+“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off Cape
+Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance to us. This
+intelligence reached New York about four days after we arrived there,
+and the description given exactly corresponds with the foregoing.”
+
+Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In 1827 Dr. HOOKER wrote the following paper for the _Edinburgh Journal
+of Science_, Vol. VI:
+
+“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural
+History, which at various periods have been detected, it is not
+surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary,
+qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think that
+the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning
+the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony which has
+been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true that vague
+reports had been spread abroad with regard to this enormous animal
+long ere any just foundation was afforded for them, and indeed before
+we had heard of any who professed to have seen it. This may have
+very far conduced to produce that scepticism which now is perfectly
+unwarrantable. We are so accustomed, whenever the subject is introduced
+in conversation, to couple it with the preposterous fables of the
+_Kraken_, that it would be extremely difficult to break down the
+barriers against belief which prejudice has so long assisted to
+support. The accounts of the most credible witnesses have thus been
+rejected, although, “_to make assurance doubly sure_”, the generality
+of them have been taken upon oath.”
+
+“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences, have
+been made within the last century, that it is astonishing how the
+existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so marvellous
+or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity of Bruce,
+and we must leave it to time to do the same office with regard to
+the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is this monster more
+disproportionate to the extent of the sea than the elephant to that of
+the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a solid bulk, (even according
+to late most extravagant accounts), nearly approaching in magnitude
+to that of the whale? Geology has been infinitely more fortunate than
+zoology in many respects; theories only partially sustained have been
+received; and while the recent discoveries of the _Plesiosaurus_ and
+_Megalosaurus_ have made demands upon our powers of credence far
+greater than the _serpent_, the descriptions of the latter animal have
+received very little trust, and even much ridicule and contempt. In
+general, however, it must be confessed, that people do not object to
+the extraordinary proportions of such a creature, so much as to what
+they consider the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We
+trust to advance, in the sequel, such additional evidence to that
+already presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely
+the truth of the existence of such an animal,--an animal concerning
+which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its more
+immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery in which
+it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting to the most casual
+admirer of nature:--which must be interesting even from the element
+in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored in its inmost recesses. We
+can have so little information with regard to an animal which has so
+mighty an habitation, that it acquires a grandeur in our estimation
+far surpassing those which inhabit the earth. The monsters of the deep
+appear so independent of our influence, and so far removed from any
+connection with us, that any increase of our knowledge in reference to
+them must be highly gratifying.”
+
+“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported,
+that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in America, an
+animal, in general construction nearly resembling a serpent, had been
+frequently seen. These rumours created a good deal of excitement,
+insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of New England, it
+was determined more fully to investigate the matter. The Honourable
+Lonson Nash of Gloucester was appointed by a Committee to gather
+together all the information which might be obtained.”
+
+“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence which
+his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From different
+quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated
+all the information which it was in their power to proffer, and all
+declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon the accuracy of
+their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting from those who
+professed to have been personal witnesses of the monster: no weight was
+given to their accounts deduced from the reports which were everywhere
+circulated:--the unadorned and unexaggerated style in which their
+statements were worded is of itself perfectly sufficient to win over
+to all unqualified trust. The witnesses for the most part, unite in
+ascribing a vertical motion to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was
+no uncommon distance between it and the spectators, and it was never
+seen except in weather the most calm and bright. But these facts,
+along with the various depositions, have been long laid before the
+public in the “Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New
+England”, and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative
+circumstances which have lately occurred, and which _we_ think puts
+the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;--facts which
+have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen, who
+before were entirely sceptical.”
+
+He next gives the letter from Mr. WARBURTON, of which we have
+spoken above, and the letter from Mr. BOOTT, parts of which we have
+inserted in n^o. 63 and 70. After the different passages from various
+transactions and journals referring to the papers in Sir JOSEPH BANKS’
+library (p. 220), Dr. HOOKER goes on:
+
+“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all upon this
+much agitated question; at least we think they must remove the ideal
+connection between _our_ serpent, and
+
+    “That sea-snake, enormous curled,
+    “Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”
+
+“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras
+and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it
+inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober fact
+in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits of the
+_God Thor_, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian mythology.
+We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can now continue
+to doubt with regard to facts attested by such highly respectable
+witnesses.”
+
+It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent
+scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have
+been in vain!
+
+German translations of the whole of Dr. HOOKER’S paper as well as
+of the letters from Dr. BOOTT and Mr. WARBURTON are in FRORIEP’S
+_Notizen_, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n^o. 356, p. 49.
+
+In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XII, June 1827, the
+editor, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, says:
+
+“To us it seems a matter of surprise, that any person who has
+examined the testimony, can doubt the existence of the Sea-Serpent;
+the documents communicated by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and published
+in the second volume of this Journal, in 1820, were in our judgment
+alone sufficient, to settle the question: the following letter is an
+important additional document.”
+
+This is the letter from Mr. WARBURTON to Mr. BARCLAY, reprinted
+evidently from the _Edinb. Journal_ (n^o. 83, 84).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=85=.--1827, August 24.--According to FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ Vol. XIX,
+n^o. 409, p. 193,
+
+“the _Norwegische Handelszeitung_” (apparently of the 3d. or 4th. of
+September, 1827), “contains fresh intelligence of the Sea-Serpent,
+which confirms what has been published by Captain de Capell Brooke.”
+
+“In the last days of the last month an animal was seen by several
+trustworthy men in Christianiafjord, which, according to the
+description, appears to be a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions.
+On the 1st of this month five eyewitnesses were heard before the
+justice of peace, and according to their agreeing declarations, the
+animal held its head, which was dark and black, above the surface of
+the water, and showed at least ten coils; there was a distance of
+about twenty ells” (60 feet) “between each two coils, and the coils
+themselves were about six ells” (18 feet) “so that the total length
+of the animal may be estimated at 250 ells” (750 feet). “It moved
+with about the swiftness of a common boat, rowed by a man in still
+water, and caused a heavy rushing, like a strong motion in the water.
+The thickness was about that of a large wine-barrel or pipe. No tail,
+nor fins were observed. The rushing, it is believed, was caused by
+the head. The coils were movable, i. e. what was above the water one
+moment, was under it the next. Two eye-witnesses also declared, that
+what they saw, was one coherent whole and were not several animals. On
+Friday, the 24th. of August, at 10 o’clock A. M. the animal was seen
+moving from the Vakkerö-Bay into the Bonnefjord. The animal was seen
+from a distance of 200 fathoms.”
+
+Although the dimensions are exaggerated, the other features of the
+animal, viz. the head which is dark and black, and held above the
+water, the undulating motion of the animal, its visible coils, the
+rushing sound made by it, the apparent want of fins and the tail, which
+were hidden under water, are correct and known to us.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=86=.--1827, August 26.--(The same journal, the same issue).
+
+“And on Sunday, the 26th. of August at 7 o’clock in the evening it
+came again from the fjord and swam towards the ship-wharf, passing
+Liob-, and Principal-Islands.--It was then seen from a distance of 120
+fathoms. The eye-witnesses declared, that, if asked, they were ready to
+make oath to those declarations.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=87=.--1827, September 3.--(The same journal, the same issue).--
+
+“Christiania, Sept. 5.--The sea-serpent, mentioned in the
+Monday-number, has been seen again the day before yesterday off
+Nusodden.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=88=.--1827, September 5.--(The same journal, the same issue).
+
+“and to-day, off Lepager, by persons just as trustworthy as those who
+were heard before the justice. Their affidavit in principal points
+agrees with that of the former. A reward is offered to whoever will
+kill it and bring it home.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=89=.--1827, September 9.--(The same journal, the same issue).--
+
+“Christiania, September 15.--Sunday last the sea-serpent appeared also
+off Dröbak. Last week several persons saw large shoals of porpoises,
+and therefore supposed that the alleged presence of the former could
+not be true. But as among those who saw the sea-serpent, are many
+fishermen and seamen, who know very well how to distinguish the several
+sea-animals, and as it is not at all uncommon, that porpoises and
+whales of the smaller kind appear here in the fjord, so there is no
+reason to condemn the judicial concurrent testimonies.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=90=, =91=.--1828? The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, when on a
+journey in Norway, noted down the following evidence, which he
+published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.
+
+“Nils Roe, workman at Mr. William Knutszon’s, an elderly and simple
+man, relates: I saw the serpent twice, once at noon, and two days
+afterwards towards the evening, in the fjord” (near Christiansund) “at
+the back of Mr. Knutszon’s garden. The first time, when it was nearest
+to me, it was about a hundred feet distant. It swam first along the
+fjord, afterwards over against the spot, where I stood. I then observed
+it for more than half an hour. Some strangers, who were on the opposite
+shore, fired at it, when it disappeared.”
+
+“The second time it was farther from me. It was small, perhaps twice
+as long as this room (about forty-four feet); while swimming it made
+serpentine movements, some to left and right, others up and down. I
+cannot state its correct thickness, but it appeared to be about as a
+common snake in proportion to its length. It was much thinner towards
+the tail. Several times it raised its head wholly above the water,
+but so, that it was just above the surface; the neck, however, and
+the other part of the body were but partly visible above the surface.
+The front of the head was rather pointed: the eyes were very large
+and glistened like those of a cat. I did not see a tongue and did not
+observe that it opened its mouth. I cannot state that the neck just
+behind the head is much thinner than the head itself, for from the back
+of the head commenced a mane like that of a horse, which waved to and
+fro in the water. Just behind the head the mane was thickest and got
+thinner further backwards; in general it was not very long. The colour
+of the animal was a blackish brown.”
+
+Again we meet with no character that is not known to us. All of them
+have already been stated.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=92=.--1829?--The following is an evidence given before the same Mr.
+RATHKE, being at Christiansund, and published by him in the journal
+mentioned above.
+
+“Lars Johnöen, a fisherman at Smölen, about 50 years of age. I have
+seen the sea-serpent several times, but for the longest time and
+nearest to me, twelve years ago in the dog-days in the fjord not far
+from here (Christiansund), when I was alone, one noon, angling in a
+boat. Then I saw it within two hours three times for a considerable
+time, quite near to me. It came close to my boat, so that it was only
+about six feet from me. (He placed himself in the room at a distance of
+nearly six feet from the wall, and said, this was about the distance
+between him and the serpent.) I became alarmed; recommended my soul to
+God, laid myself down in the boat, and only held my head so far over
+it, that I could observe the serpent. It swam now past the boat, that
+was vehemently agitated by the ripple caused by its movements in the
+water, which was previously smooth as a mirror, and afterwards took
+itself off. After it had swam a considerable distance from me, I wound
+my angling line round the little instrument commonly used (a frame,
+moving on an axis) and I began again to fish. Not long afterwards,
+however, the serpent came again quite close to the boat, which again
+was violently agitated by the movements made by it in the water. I lay
+down again, and remained quite still, keeping, however, a watchful eye
+on the animal. Again it passed me, disappeared far off, and returned,
+though not so close as before, and at last disappeared, when a light
+wind rose, and ruffled the water. Notwithstanding my fright I yet
+observed the animal very accurately. Its length was about five to six
+fathoms, and the body, which was as round as a snake’s, was about two
+feet in diameter. (Lars Johnöen measured on a table before him with
+his hands a space of about two feet). The tail too appeared to me to
+be round. The head was about as long and as thick as a brandy anker (a
+ten gallon cask), it was not pointed but bluntly round. The eyes were
+very large and glistening. Their size (or diameter) was about that of
+this box here (five inches), and they were as red as my neckerchief
+(crimson). The animal did not open its mouth, therefore I cannot give
+its size. It constantly held its head above the surface of the water
+in an acute angle; not so high, however, that the nose should come
+over the board of a boat. Close behind the head, a mane like a horse’s
+commenced, extending rather far down the neck, and spreading on both
+sides; floated on the water; it was of tolerably long hair. The mane
+as well as the head and the rest of the body was brown as this looking
+glass frame (dark brown of old mahogany). I could not observe spots,
+or stripes of other colours, nor were there any scales; it seemed as
+if the body was quite smooth. The movements of the serpent were by
+turns fast and slow; they were also slow when the animal approached my
+boat. At the moment in which I could observe it best, its movements
+were serpentine, up and down. The few undulations, made by those parts
+of the body and the tail that were out of the water, were scarcely a
+fathom in length. These undulations were not so high, that I could
+see between them and the water.--When Lars Johnöen had given this
+declaration, the drawing which Pontoppidan had given of the animal was
+shown to him. He looked at it with astonishment, smiled and said that
+he saw a great resemblance between it and the animal he had seen. He
+likewise said, that some of the other sea-serpents he had seen were a
+great deal longer than the one described above.”
+
+This unvarnished account describes very well the animal’s general
+doings, and accurately pictures its curiosity and harmlessness.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=93=.--1829, July.--We shall soon be acquainted with the appearance of
+the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE of the _Daedalus_, on Aug. 6,
+1848. Prof. RICHARD OWEN, questioned whether this animal could be a
+snake or not, gave his answer in an article published in the _Times_
+of Nov. 11, 1848, wherein he expresses his opinion that it must have
+been a large seal. This article seems to have been reprinted in the
+_Bombay Bi-monthly Times_. In the same journal for January, 1849,
+appeared the following statement and objections against Professor
+OWEN’S suggestions.
+
+“I see, in your paper of the 30th December, a paragraph in which
+a doubt is expressed of the authenticity of the account given by
+Captain M’Quhae of the “great sea-serpent”. When returning to India,
+in the year 1829, I was standing on the poop of the _Royal Saxon_, in
+conversation with Captain Petrie, the commander of that ship. We were
+at a considerable distance south-west of the Cape of Good Hope, in the
+usual track of vessels to this country, going rapidly along (seven or
+eight knots) in fine smooth water. It was in the middle of the day,
+and the other passengers were at luncheon; the man at the wheel, a
+steerage passenger, and ourselves, being the only persons on the poop.
+Captain Petrie and myself, at the same instant, were literally fixed in
+astonishment by the appearance, a short distance ahead, of an animal
+of which no more generally correct description could be given than
+that by Captain M’Quhae. It passed within thirty-five yards of the
+ship, without altering its course in the least; but as it came right
+abreast of us, it slowly turned its head towards us. Apparently about
+one third of the upper part of its body was above water, in nearly
+its whole length; and we could see the water curling up on its breast
+as it moved along, but by what means it moved we could not perceive.
+We watched it going astern with intense interest until it had nearly
+disappeared, when my companion, turning to me with a countenance
+expressive of the utmost astonishment, exclaimed, “Good heavens! what
+can that be?” It was strange that we never thought of calling the party
+engaged at luncheon to witness the extraordinary sight we had seen;
+but the fact is, we were so absorbed in it ourselves, that we never
+spoke, and scarcely moved, until it had nearly disappeared. Captain
+Petrie, a superior and most intelligent man, has since perished in the
+exercise of his profession. Of the fate of the others then on deck
+I am ignorant; so the story rests on my own unsupported word, but I
+pledge that word to its correctness. Professor Owen’s supposition,
+that the animal seen by the officers of the _Daedalus_ was a gigantic
+seal, I believe to be incorrect, because we saw this apparently similar
+creature in its whole length, with the exception of a small portion
+of the tail, which was under water; and, by comparing its length
+with that of the _Royal Saxon_ (about six hundred feet), when exactly
+alongside in passing, we calculated it to be in that, as well as in its
+other dimensions, greater than the animal described by Captain M’Quhae.
+Should the foregoing account be of any interest to you, it is at your
+service; it is an old story, but a true one. I am not quite sure of our
+latitude and longitude at the time, nor do I exactly remember the date,
+but it was about the end of July.--R. DAVIDSON, Superintending Surgeon,
+Nagpore Subsidiary Force, Kamptee, 3d January 1849.”
+
+At present we have only to fix our attention on the animal’s
+appearance, and not on Mr. DAVIDSON’S objections. As the reader will
+observe, the whole description agrees with other accounts already
+given. There is nothing in it that is new or unknown to us.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=94=.--1830?--The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, on his journey in
+Norway, being in Christiansund, noted down the following evidence, to
+publish it in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.
+
+“John Johnson, merchant, about 60 years of age, says in German: I
+saw the animal some years ago in the fjord” (of Christiansund); “it
+was about a thousand paces distant, when nearest to me; I observed
+it for more than half an hour. It swam very swiftly, for in the same
+time that we rowed about a quarter of a mile aside of it, it had swum
+about one half of a mile. I saw it best when it swam in a semicircle
+round a tolerable large rock that obstructed its passage, coming to
+that side of it which was turned towards me; in doing this it partly
+raised itself above the surface of the water. Its colour was blackish;
+its length was about that of this house (55 feet). Except the head,
+I did not observe much of its body, as it appeared but little above
+the surface. Judging from what I observed now and then, I think its
+thickness to be that of a stout man’s body. Its head was apparently
+as large as a hat. It was not pointed, but seemed rather blunt; in
+general, however, in comparison with its thickness, it was not very
+long. It was held but little above the surface of the water, making
+an acute angle with it; and it remained above the surface, as long as
+I saw it. Owing to the distance I could not discern the eyes. Also on
+account of the distance or because the neck was seldom elevated above
+the surface, I could observe nothing of a mane. The agitation which it
+caused in the water was very strong. The movements of the animal itself
+were serpentine, up and down, like those of a swimming leech. When the
+animal had reached a spot, where the water was ruffled by a rising
+gentle wind, it disappeared. Moreover, I believe, that the animal is
+not much to be feared and that it would not easily harm men.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=95=.--1831?--The same Mr. RATHKE also noted down the following
+declaration (published in the above mentioned journal.)
+
+“Mr. William Knutszon and Candidatus Theologiae Booklune gave the
+following written account: We together saw the sea-serpent in a narrow
+fjord, at a distance of about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515
+yards) “for about a quarter of an hour; afterwards it dived, and came
+up so far from us, that we could not see it plainly. The water was as
+smooth as a mirror, and the animal had, as it moved on the surface,
+quite the appearance of a worm, or of a snake. Its motions were in
+undulations, and so strong, that white foam appeared before it, and
+waves were caused at its sides, which extended over several fathoms.
+It did not appear very high above the water, and it was principally
+its length, which was quite considerable. Once, however, it stretched
+its head quite erect in the air. The body was somewhat dark, and the
+head nearly black; the body had nearly the form of an eel or of a
+snake, a length of about fifty ells” (above one hundred feet) “and in
+proportion to it an inconsiderable thickness. The breadth diminished
+considerably from the head to the tail, so that the latter ended in a
+point. The head was long and narrow in proportion to the throat, as the
+latter appeared much greater than the former, which probably was the
+consequence of its being provided with a mane. The details of the head
+were not to be discerned, as the distance was too great.”
+
+I may observe here that if these eye-witnesses declare that the head
+seemed to be narrower than the throat, this may probably also be
+the consequence of the animal’s contracting its neck. This may be
+often seen in seals and sea-lions. If a common seal has contracted
+its neck, it appears as if the animal has no neck, as if the head is
+immediately connected with the body. In reality the neck is shortened,
+and has become thicker than the head. If stretched, the neck on the
+contrary is very well visible, and narrower than the head. The same in
+sea-lions. If contracted, several rings of blubber surround the hind
+part of the head, which appears smaller than the neck; if stretched,
+the neck immediately gets much narrower and the head is broader than
+the neck. The expression “which probably was the consequence of its
+being provided with a mane” distinctly shows that the eye-witnesses,
+knowing that others at other times saw a mane, intended to explain the
+phenomenon they observed by the presence of this mane, which they could
+impossibly see, “as the distance was too great.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=96=.--1832, Summer.--(FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, XXXV, n^o. 756).
+
+“There is again question in Norway of the sea-serpent. It is said to
+have appeared and remained rather a long time in the Rödö- and Södelöw
+fjords this summer, and to have been seen by many persons. Distinct
+traces of it are said to have been found in the fields (??).”
+
+We observe that Mr. FRORIEP adds two notes of interrogation after the
+last words. Evidently he is unable to explain them. I am convinced of
+the truth that the sea-serpent appeared in the fjords above mentioned.
+As to the traces of it, I must tell my readers that the superstition of
+the Norwegian people has forged this fable ever since they first became
+aware that the sea-serpent frequented their fjords. We have already
+met with this tale in PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_, and
+probably the Norwegians will tell it us again, if we ask them now!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=97=.--1833, May, 15.--(Zoologist p. 1714, 1847).
+
+“On the 15th. of May, 1833, a party, consisting of Captain Sullivan,
+Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle Brigade, Lieutenant
+Lyster of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the Ordnance, started from
+Halifax in a small yacht for Mahone Bay, some forty miles eastward,
+on a fishing excursion. The morning was cloudy, and the wind at S.
+S. E., and apparently rising. By the time we reached Chebucto Head,
+as we had taken no pilot with us, we deliberated whether we should
+proceed or turn back; but, after a consultation, we determined on
+the former, having lots of ports on our lee. Previous to our leaving
+town, an old man-of-war’s-man we had along with us busied himself in
+inquiries as to our right course; he was told to take his departure
+from the Bull Rock, off Pennant Point, and that a W. N. W. course would
+bring us direct on Iron Bound Island, at the entrance of Mahone or
+Mecklenburgh Bay. He, however, unfortunately told us to steer W. S. W.,
+nor corrected his error for five or six hours; consequently we had gone
+a long distance off the coast. We had run about half the distance, as
+we supposed, and were enjoying ourselves on deck, smoking our cigars,
+and getting our tackle ready for the approaching campaign against the
+salmon, when we were surprised by the sight of an immense shoal of
+grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement, and which
+in their gambols approached so close to our little craft, that some
+of the party amused themselves by firing at them with rifles. At this
+time we were jogging on at about five miles an hour, and must have
+been crossing Margaret’s Bay. I merely conjecture where we were, as we
+had not seen land since a short time after leaving Pennant Bay. Our
+attention was presently diverted from the whales and “such small deer”,
+by an exclamation from Dowling, our man-of-war’s-man, who was sitting
+to leeward, of, “Oh sirs, look here!” We were started into a ready
+compliance, and saw an object which banished all other thoughts, save
+wonder and surprise.”
+
+“At the distance of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred yards on
+our starboard bow, we saw the head and neck of some denizen of the
+deep, precisely like those of a common snake, in the act of swimming,
+the head so far elevated and thrown forward by the curve of the neck,
+as to enable us to see the water under and beyond it. The creature
+rapidly passed, leaving a regular wake, from the commencement of which,
+to the fore part, which was out of water, we judged its length to be
+about eighty feet, and this within, rather than beyond the mark. We
+were, of course, all taken aback at the sight, and, with staring eyes
+and in speechless wonder, stood gazing at it for full half a minute.
+There could be no mistake, no delusion, and we were all perfectly
+satisfied that we had been favoured with a view of the “true and
+veritable sea-serpent”, which had been generally considered to have
+existed only in the brain of some Yankee skipper, and treated as a
+tale not much entitled to belief. Dowling’s exclamation is worthy of
+record. “Well, I’ve sailed in all parts of the world, and have seen rum
+sights too in my time, but this is the queerest thing I ever see!” and
+surely Jack Dowling was right. It is most difficult to give correctly
+the dimensions of any object in the water. The head of the creature
+we set down at about six feet in length, and that portion of the neck
+which we saw at the same; the extreme length, as before stated, at
+between eighty and one hundred feet. The neck in thickness equalled the
+bole of a moderate-sized tree. The head and neck of a dark brown or
+nearly black colour, streaked with white in irregular streaks. I do not
+recollect seeing any part of the body.”
+
+“Such is the rough account of the sea-serpent, and all the party
+who saw it are still in the land of the living,--Lyster in England,
+Malcolm in New South Wales with his regiment, and the remainder still
+vegetating in Halifax.”
+
+“W. SULLIVAN, Captain, Rifle Brigade, June 21, 1831.
+
+“A. MACLACHLAN, Lieutenant, ditto, August 5, 1824.
+
+“G. P. MALCOLM, Ensign, ditto, August 13, 1830.
+
+“B. O’NEAL LYSTER, Lieut. Artillery, June 7, 1816.
+
+“HENRY INCE, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the _Zoologist_ adds between parentheses:
+
+“The dates are those on which the gentlemen received their respective
+Commission, I am not aware of their present rank. I am indebted to Mr.
+W. H. Ince for this interesting communication: this gentleman received
+it from his brother, Commander J. M. R. Ince, R. N. It is written by
+their uncle, Mr. Henry Ince, the Ordnance store-keeper at Halifax, Nova
+Scotia.”--
+
+We observe that the colour of the head and neck is described as
+“streaked with white in irregular streaks”, and that evidently the
+sea-serpent hunted after the grampuses “which appeared in an unusual
+state of excitement”.
+
+This account translated into German is in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Third
+Series, III, n^o. 54, p. 148.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=98=, =99=.--1833, July.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of June 1834 we read
+that Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S _Introduction
+to Geology_, stated that
+
+“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased,
+and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in such
+reports.”
+
+Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, says:
+
+“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears date
+July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date state, that
+the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was first seen
+on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and the Promuntory,
+winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again on Sunday morning, heading
+for South-shores. He was seen by forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen,
+who insist that they could not have been deceived.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It is evident that many reports of great sea-serpents have been
+published here and there, especially in Norwegian and North-American
+newspapers, which I have had no opportunity to consult, and which
+probably will never come within my reach. As we learn from Mr.
+FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Vol. XL, n^o. 879, p. 328, “Mr. R. Bakewell in
+the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology (1833?) states: that
+there are descriptions of the sea-serpent, wherein it is ascertained
+that it “has flappers like sea-turtles”. I have not been able to
+consult Mr. BAKEWELL’S work, but I insert this statement here, because
+we shall observe afterwards more than once this comparison of the
+flappers with analogous members of turtles.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=100=.--1834, Summer.--In Captain SHIBBLES’ report (n^o. 101) a passage
+runs as follows:
+
+“One of the crew told us that his appearance and motion are precisely
+like that he saw last summer while in the bay” (of Gloucester) “which
+was said to be a sea-serpent.”
+
+Though no particulars are mentioned, I am convinced that the appearance
+took place.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=101=.--1835, March or April.--(_Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. 28, 1835,
+July.--)
+
+“Captain Shibbles, of the brig Mangehan, of Thomastown, from Boston,
+for New-Orleans, which arrived here (Gloucester, Mass., March or April,
+1835) on Saturday last, states that he saw when about nine or ten miles
+from Race Point light, what he, as well as the whole crew, supposed
+to be a sea-serpent,--he could distinctly see it with the naked eye,
+but to be certain, he took his glass and saw his eyes, neck and head,
+which was about as large as a barrel--the neck had something that
+looked like a mane upon the top of it; several times he raised his head
+seven or eight feet above the water, and for thirty or forty minutes he
+swam backward and forward with great swiftness. There were two other
+vessels near, the crews of which were in the rigging looking at the
+same object. Capt. S. states that it was very long, and that his head,
+neck and tail and his motion in the water, was exactly like those of a
+snake; every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar
+to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steam-boat..... The
+Captain and crew attest to the correctness of this statement.”
+
+As to the swimming backward and forward, I think that Captain SHIBBLES
+meant that the animal swam to and fro, and that he used these
+expressions in reference to the direction of the brig.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=102=.--1836?--Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE published in the _Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte_ the following evidence, which he noted down when being
+in Christiansund in Norway:
+
+“The _Sorenskriver_ Gaeschke (a kind of judge of the same rank as
+the German country-judges, or the British sheriffs) gave me the
+following evidence: I saw the sea-serpent for a considerable time
+in a small fjord, first from a boat, afterwards from the beach, and
+from there during several minutes, at a distance of from thirty to
+thirty-six feet. In the beginning it swam round the fjord at Torvig,
+afterwards it went towards the mouth of the fjord. I saw its head
+stretched considerably out of the water. I noticed as well two or three
+undulations of the forepart of the body. Its motion was not like that
+of an eel, but consisted in vertical undulations. They were so strong,
+that they caused rather large waves; they were largest at the forepart
+of the animal and gradually lessened towards the back. The traces of
+them I discerned in a length of eight to ten fathoms, and in a breadth
+of two or three fathoms. The head, apparently blunt in front, had the
+size and nearly also the shape of an anker (ten-gallon cask) and the
+visible coils of the body were round and their thickness was that of a
+good timber-stock (twelve to fourteen inches square). I could not judge
+the entire length of the animal, as I could not discern the animal’s
+hindpart. The colour of the animal seemed to me to be a very dark grey
+one. What I believed to be the eyes, had according to my estimation the
+size of the outlines of a tea-cup (3¹⁄₂ inches). At the back of the
+head there was a mane, which had the same colour as the rest of the
+body.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=103=.--1837, end of July.--(FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. IV, n^o.
+67, p. 7, October, 1837).
+
+“About the much mentioned Sea-Serpent the Drontheim Newspaper contains,
+as is ascertained, from an enlightened and trustworthy gentleman, the
+following statement: “Uncommonly early in this Summer our coasts and
+fjords were blessed with a mass of fat herrings, of which till to-day
+very few were cleaned and pickled, because the uncommon greasiness of
+the herrings made it difficult to preserve them in the warm air, which,
+however, was so beneficient to agriculture. Since the beginning of the
+dog-days the sea-serpent appeared on different spots in this country;
+one of these sea-monsters seems to have constantly remained near
+Storfosen and the Krovaag Isles; several fishermen were terrified in
+the highest degree, when the sea-serpent suddenly came down so near to
+them, that they had no time to think, to which side they should fly. It
+is true this terrible visitor properly has not made an attack, but it
+has followed the boat for a long distance, when one has tried to fly in
+a great hurry, so that the men overworked themselves, and some of the
+runaways fell ill afterwards. It is ascertained by quite trustworthy
+persons, that the length of the sea-serpent may be estimated from 600
+to 800 ells, or perhaps still more, because if one was near its head,
+the other end of the sea-animal was not to be discerned distinctly. The
+sea-serpent is thickest just behind the head, apparently as thick as a
+large horse; its black and dark eyes are as large as an ordinary plate,
+without being glossy or very movable; the skin is smooth and of a dark
+colour; on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three
+quarters of an ell long, also on the neck there is something movable,
+which resembles the mane of a horse; the mouth, as far as the writer
+knows, has not been seen distinctly, and it is quite uncertain whether
+the animal is a beast of prey or not. Rarely does the sea-serpent
+appear but in calm weather; its motions and shape are serpentine.
+These observations are distinctly made in these days, amongst others
+by a trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, who with his two sons had
+reached a small islet, where the sea-serpent, after having followed
+their boat, passed closely and slowly.”
+
+Those who made the statement that when they were near the head, the
+tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke the truth,
+for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who afterwards
+thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have a length of
+from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous manner. Again
+we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in great dread of the
+sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour is quite the same
+as told us PONTOPPIDAN a century ago. Again we read of the habit of
+the sea-serpent of following boats, but never attacking them, which
+may only be the effect of mere curiosity. The description, moreover,
+given by the not mentioned trustworthy and intelligent observer is
+quite correct. All the characters given by him are already known to
+us, and where he states that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in
+contradiction with former statements, it is natural that in a certain
+direction and in certain moments they need not give the impression of
+being so. Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on
+its upper-lips, as in seals.
+
+In Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, we read:
+
+“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared
+in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of 1837, and we
+confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.
+
+And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that it
+was the _Adis_ of Drontheim which contained those particulars. The
+Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. HAMILTON the Kerchvang Islands, and
+strange enough, the very interesting particulars about the skin, the
+eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the nose are omitted.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=104=.--1838?--The reader will soon be made acquainted with the well
+known report of Captain M’QUHAE, of the _Daedalus_. As the report
+was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848, Captain BEECHY, of
+the _Blossom_, “one of the most scientific officers and ablest naval
+surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. FRANCIS BEAUFORT, F. R. S., Admiralty
+Hydrographer. An extract from this letter appeared in the _Illustrated
+London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, and runs as follows:
+
+“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have fallen in
+with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary appearance
+we witnessed in the _Blossom_, in crossing the South Atlantic: I took
+it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I could get my glass upon
+deck it had disappeared, and I could nowhere find it--fresh breezes at
+the time.”
+
+As Captain BEECHY writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary
+appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say ten years; so I
+have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which it happened. If I may
+ever get the opportunity to learn the exact year or date, I shall be
+glad to correct my supposition in an eventual second edition. But for
+the present I am sure that the “trunk of a large tree” which had so
+suddenly disappeared, really was a sea-serpent.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. HAMILTON’S work about the
+_Amphibious Carnivora_, which appeared in the year 1839. The writer
+sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited from other works,
+or from which he gave only short extracts. One would say that Dr.
+HAMILTON is an unbeliever, for he ends his chapter on this animal with
+the words:
+
+“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close our
+account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till favouring
+circumstances bring the animal under the examination of Naturalists,
+the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is scarcely to be
+expected.”
+
+I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and that
+he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated of
+Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions and
+sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation between them and
+the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after the sea-serpent he
+treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And why did he end in such
+a vague way? May it be, because he could not give an explanation, or
+because he hesitated to show the public that he was really a believer?
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=105=.--1839, August?--According to FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, vol.
+XII, n^o. 248, of Oct., 1839, the _Boston Mercantile_ mentions that
+Mr. BUBIER, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms to have seen the
+sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to Nahant, near Boston, and
+estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=106=.--1839.--In the same periodical on the same page we read that
+Captain SMITH who had been a long time in the whale fishery, asserts
+in the _Kennebek Journal_, that he never before saw such a creature,
+and that if he had had a harpoon and lines on board, he would have
+harpooned it.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=106=, =A=.--1840, April 21.--(_Journal du Havre_, 1840, Sept. 15,
+_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1716).--As I have not had the opportunity to
+consult the first paper, I give the account as I have found it in the
+_Zoologist_.
+
+“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance,
+which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a degree of
+cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the obstinacy
+of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by the remark
+that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen at
+different points along the whole line of the American coast. Captain
+d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort, makes the following
+statements:
+
+“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13 min. N.
+latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated from the
+meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running under a
+light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather. In a few hours we
+distinguished something like a long chain of rocks, falling off by a
+gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle
+by only a few feet over the level of the sea. Against this object the
+sea broke softly. As we approached we remarked that its different parts
+changed their position, and even their form, and we became perfectly
+certain that it was not a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the
+assistance of a telescope a long chain of enormous rings, resembling
+a number of barrels linked together, and in form very like the back
+of a silk worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we
+had first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became
+more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous
+tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. This
+tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the object
+itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane rising to the
+height of about two _metres_ from the water, and inclining itself at
+a considerable angle upon the mass (without leaving it, however); and
+this led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with
+an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys. At last
+we perceived something like an _antenna_ rising from the water, to the
+great height of nearly eight _metres_, terminated by a crescent of
+at least five _metres_ from one extremity to the other. We could not
+approach sufficiently near to acquire any very positive idea as to what
+we had seen; but everything led us to believe that it was an enormous
+serpent of at least 100 _metres_ in length.”
+
+Although the editors of the _Journal du Havre_ believed that Captain
+D’ABNOUR by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve would shake
+the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on the contrary
+his narrative has had quite another effect. Every sceptic, I think,
+will smile or even laugh when he reads this report, for who can help
+laughing when he reads of a “membrane which led me to conjecture that
+the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of
+respiration, like the lampreys”, and of an “antenna of eight metres,
+terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to
+the other.” We find here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the
+names of the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal
+kingdom. A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly
+transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was one, I
+don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent, how could they
+see from such a great distance, that it was thin; what reason was there
+to call it a “membrane”?
+
+I am convinced that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw a sea-serpent. The
+animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still, showing
+numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and invisible.
+Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ, of
+the _Kätie_ (n°. 154, fig. 50). We know that sea-serpents lying still
+may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a long chain of
+rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and
+elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea”.
+The sea broke gently against it. As they approached, the animal seen
+through a telescope had the appearance of “a long chain of numerous
+rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together”. We remember
+that this comparison has often been made by different witnesses. The
+other comparison of the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of
+a silk worm” is also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached,
+these appearances became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in
+a playful manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two
+sections, white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are
+longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly black
+above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that also the
+trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The supposition of
+this division of colours had already been made by Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY
+(n^o. 41, p. 169). It is, therefore, very remarkable that Captain
+d’ABNOUR really saw that the tail too is coloured black above and white
+beneath! The animal curled its tail and let it for a moment “repose
+on a part of” its body. Then, “at the other extremity” the animal
+elevated its foreflapper to the height of about two metres (six feet)
+from the water. The flapper “inclined itself at a considerable angle
+upon the” body, consequently the animal made the same movement with its
+foreflapper as the individual afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ
+(n^o. 154, fig. 50). At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale
+elevated above the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to
+the height of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of
+course has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’ABNOUR
+says: that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its
+relative position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far
+from it. The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all
+events exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under
+the water.
+
+The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in FRORIEP’S
+_Notizen_, _Third Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=106 B=.--1840, June?--In the _Journal du Havre_, of 15th September,
+1840, (see _Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:
+
+“Not long since the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ announced a new
+appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world is
+so naturally incredulous.”
+
+I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in the month
+of June of that year.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=107=.--1840, July?--In his Postscript Mr. RATHKE (_Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte_, 1841, Vol. I) says:
+
+“According to a letter addressed to me by Dr. Hoffmann, a respectable
+physician in Molde, which is situated several miles south of
+Christiansund on one of the largest fjords, the school-inspector
+HAMMER, the adjunct KRAFT, and some other persons, who in 1840 made
+together an excursion in a boat on this fjord, saw very distinctly a
+so-called sea-serpent of considerable length.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=107 A=.--1840, August?--The Editor of the _Journal du Havre_ before
+publishing Capt. D’ABNOUR’S report (n^o. 106 A) says, (see _Zoologist_,
+1847, p. 1715):
+
+“We shall preface his narrative by the remark, that the sea-serpent has
+been recently alleged to have been seen, at different points along the
+whole line of the American coast.”
+
+The Editor would have done better if he had published all the reports
+of the sea-serpent, that had come within his reach. The reader must
+know that with the terms “the whole line of the American coast” the
+Editor can only have meant the east coast of British America and of the
+United States, from Newfoundland to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=108=.--1841.--In a Postscript to his paper (_Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte_, 1841, Vol. I) Mr. RATHKE tells us:
+
+“According to a letter which I received some time ago from Mr. Soern
+Knutszon, a sea-serpent is again seen there some weeks after I had left
+Christiansund, by several persons.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The well known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE in 1841 published in the _Archiv
+für Naturgeschichte_, 7th year, Vol. I, his dissertation “On the
+Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a translation of
+his paper:
+
+“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself of the
+opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical and
+even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in the
+language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity offered
+in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal is said to
+have often been observed. The general notices which I received about
+the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is mostly seen in
+the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the open sea. In the fjord
+of Christiansund, which has such a considerable extent, manifold
+ramifications, and in which numerous islets are found, it appears
+almost every year. It is said to have been especially observed in that
+part of the fjord on which the village of Lorvig is situated. This
+only happens in the warmest part of the year, viz. in the dog days,
+and only then when the weather is quite still and the surface of the
+water smooth. When after its appearance the water is ruffled, however
+slightly, it immediately disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that
+in the dog days many fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into
+the sea, without taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive
+away the animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the
+fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches, and
+therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise attracts it
+still more.”
+
+“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which are
+spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who were said
+to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who at the request
+of SOEREN and WILHELM KNUDTSZON Brothers, two distinguished and very
+intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I questioned personally; for
+others I had put down several questions to which I received a written
+answer. I will communicate here the result of my inquiry.”
+
+Now Mr. RATHKE publishes the affidavits which I have inserted above
+(n^o. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102), and his Postscript (see n^o. 107 and
+108).
+
+“If one” Mr. RATHKE goes on, “were to submit the above mentioned
+evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they not only
+contain several contradictory statements, but also that each evidence
+by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that we may at
+least admit so much of them, to be right, that what those persons who
+bear the evidences, took for a long animal, was really such a one. For
+I should not know, what could be the cause of the illusion, which had
+created the belief in such an animal. Some persons, as I know, believe
+that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, was nothing else
+but a row of porpoises, swimming in a line. But all those persons by
+whom the above mentioned evidences are borne were too familiar with
+the sea, and had observed porpoises together too often to be deceived
+by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If
+this, however, had been the case, all the observations related to
+me of the sea-serpent holding its head above the surface, and about
+its size, must have been mere fictions, and this I cannot believe.
+According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted that there is
+a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow to a
+considerable length.”
+
+Now Mr. RATHKE weighs and considers to what kind of animals the
+sea-serpent may belong. This, however, we omit here, as we have partly
+discussed these views in our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, where we
+spoke of the Animal of Stronsa, and as we shall once more refer to it
+in our Chapter of Explanations.
+
+Every one, I think, will agree with me, that Mr. RATHKE has committed
+two faults. 1. He criticises the correctness of the statements in
+question, apparently without having taken the trouble to read all
+that had been written about the subject. If he had done so, he would
+never have said that the particulars of the evidences collected by
+him in Norway were sometimes contradictory; on the contrary, he
+would have observed that they completed one another! 2. He was the
+first scientific man and zoologist who had an opportunity to see the
+sea-serpent, probably even to kill it, and yet he returns to Germany
+without having made one single effort either to kill or to see it!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Immediately after Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE’S dissertation, the Editor of the
+_Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, the well-known Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON,
+wrote a paper, in which he gave full details of the Animal of Stronsa
+and descriptions of the saved bones. He ends this extract with the
+words:
+
+“Consequently the Animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the
+sea-serpent of the Norwegians; the animal, however, seen by the Rev.
+Maclean” (n^o. 31) “might be considered as such an animal.”
+
+These words convince me of the fact that Mr. ERICHSON, like Mr. RATHKE
+firmly believed that there are in the Norwegian seas animals still
+unknown to them, which are called “sea-serpents”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=109=.--1842?--(_Times_, Nov. 4, 1848).--
+
+“A parish priest residing on Romsdal fjord, about two days journey
+south of Drontheim, an intelligent person, whose veracity I have no
+reason to doubt, gave me a circumstantial account of one, which he had
+himself seen. It rose within 30 yards of the boat in which he was, and
+swam parallel with it for a considerable time. Its head he described
+as equalling a small cask in size, and its mouth, which it repeatedly
+opened and shut, was furnished with formidable teeth; its neck was
+smaller, but its body--of which he supposed that he saw about half on
+the surface of the water--was not less in girth than that of a moderate
+sized horse.” (Part of a letter from “OXONIENSIS”).--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=110=.--1842?--“Another gentleman, in whose house I stayed, had also
+seen one, and gave a similar account of it: it also came near his boat
+upon the fjord, when it was fired at, upon which it turned and pursued
+them to the shore, which was luckily near, when it disappeared” (Also a
+part of the letter from OXONIENSIS, _Times_, Nov. 4, 1848).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=111=.--1843, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. XXVIII, n^o.
+606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, we read:
+
+“Some months ago the sea-serpent again appeared between the islets and
+inlets of the fjord of Christiansund.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=111 A=.--1843, October?--(FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. 28, n^o. 606,
+p. 184).
+
+“The Editors of the _Christiansands Posten_ add the following remarks:
+“This whole description accurately fits on an appearance, which the
+writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and
+when the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by
+their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed with their boats
+towards the animal, they would soon have observed without any doubt
+that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but
+water.””
+
+The number of the _Christiansands Posten_ was most probably one of
+the beginning of November or of the end of October. Consequently the
+appearance spoken of must have taken place some days before. At all
+events this is a proof of an appearance of the sea-serpent, swimming in
+vertical undulations, near Ibbestad, in Norway, at that time.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=112=, =113=.--1845.--The report of Captain M’QUHAE, which we shall
+meet with a little further on, induced Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to
+write a letter on the sea-serpent to the Admiralty.
+
+“By the courtesy” says the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ in
+his number of Oct., 28, 1848, “of the Secretary to the Admiralty, we
+have been favoured with the following letter from a gentleman long
+resident in Norway.”
+
+  “13, Great Cumberland Street, October 25, 1848.”
+
+“My dear Sir,--I regret that I have not found the volumes referred
+to in our conversation respecting the recent authentication of the
+existence of the sea-serpent by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. frigate
+Daedalus, but I will give you that part of the information which I
+remember best. Several years ago, a museum was established at Bergen,
+in Norway, the directors of which have, amongst other subjects of
+interest, turned their study to Natural History in general, and to the
+elucidation of some of its more doubtful or less known subdivisions.
+The question of the sea-serpent’s existence had previously attracted
+the attention of several scientific men in Northern Europe; and my
+friend, the late Dr. Newmann, Bishop of Bergen--a man much and justly
+respected for his learning, research and energy--made it the subject of
+inquiry within the last twenty or twenty-five years among his clergy
+and those of the adjoining dioceses. The amount of proof thus collected
+was sufficient to convince any one, however sceptical, as it is not
+mere hearsay evidence, but the testimony of known and respectable
+persons in various walks of life. One of the most striking statements
+is made by some fishermen, who saw the animal quite close to them, and
+of whom one more hardy than the rest struck it with a boat-hook, upon
+which it immediately gave them chase; and, had they not been very near
+a small island or rock, on which they took refuge, in all probability
+they would have been destroyed.”
+
+“The size of the sea-serpents seen in the Norwegian fjords varies
+much; and I do not now remember what the dimensions of the largest
+are said to be. As far as I can tax my memory, none of them lately
+seen are larger than that described by Capt. M’Quhae. The one seen
+by the fishermen above alluded to, was, I think, not above 70 feet
+long. I have written to my colleagues in the direction of the Bergen
+Museum, and as soon as their answer arrives I will give you a more full
+account.”
+
+“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile, known as the
+sea-serpent, but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence
+of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the
+fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and
+other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect,
+as well as having short paws or flappers, the descriptions of the
+northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the
+antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence
+of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same
+animal as the Kraken, or rather from the names having been used
+indiscriminately.”
+
+“In concluding this hurried statement, allow me to add my own testimony
+as to the existence of a large fish or reptile of cylindrical form. (I
+will not say sea-serpent.) Three years ago, while becalmed in a yacht
+between Bergen and Sogn in Norway, I saw (at about a quarter of a mile
+astern) what appeared to be a large fish ruffling the otherwise smooth
+surface of the fjord, and, on looking attentively, I observed what
+looked like the convolutions of a snake. I immediately got my glass,
+and distinctly made out three convolutions, which drew themselves
+slowly through the water. The greatest diameter was about ten or twelve
+inches. No head was visible; and from the size of each convolution, I
+supposed the length to be about thirty feet. The master of my yacht
+(who, as navigator, seaman, and fisherman, had known the Norwegian
+coast and North Sea for many years), as well as a friend who was with
+me, an experienced Norwegian sportsman and porpoise shooter, saw the
+same appearance at the same time, and formed the same opinion as to
+form and size. I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many
+have believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given
+rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=114=.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--(Copied in the _Illustrated London News_
+of June, 13, 1857, from the _Cape Argus_ of March, 14, 1857).
+
+“Sir,--I inclose a letter addressed to me by a friend Dr. Biccard (with
+a drawing) containing an interesting account of the sea-serpent seen
+by him and others off the old lighthouse at the entrance of Table Bay
+on the 16th. of last month. It savours not a little of presumption
+to maintain that such a marine monster does exist, in the face of
+the deliberately recorded opinion of the greatest living Zoologist,
+Professor Owen, yet I venture to do so upon the simple testimony
+of my own eyes. In the year 1845, or 6, Mr. G. D. Brunette (of St.
+George’s-street, the conveyancer) and myself were fishing at Camp’s
+Bay one bright, clear summer day. There was not a breath of air, and
+the water was as smooth as the surface of a pond. About midday we were
+leaving the rocks to proceed to the marine villa, when Mr. Brunette
+suddenly directed my attention to what he at first thought was a whale.
+A moment’s inspection was sufficient, however, to detect the real
+nature of the animal. At about a mile from the shore we saw a line of
+shining black objects, like a string of large casks, floating on the
+surface of the water, lying parallel with the shore. It kept gently
+bobbing up and down, and on one occasion we saw the whole length for
+a few seconds above the water. Judging from the size of an Indiaman,
+1000 tons, at a similar distance, I should say the animal’s length was
+from 150 to 200 feet. Of its girth I can form no estimate; but, from
+the show it made at so great a distance, it must have been at least
+three feet above the level of the sea. Nor could we distinguish head
+from tail, though near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or
+froth, as though the animal was blowing water in a lateral direction.
+It seemed to be basking in the warm sun, with no other motion than that
+I have described, or dipping under occasionally. After watching it for
+about a quarter of an hour we started for the villa, for the purpose
+of borrowing a telescope, but we had scarcely walked ten yards when we
+observed the animal turn slowly round and then made off in a straight
+line to seawards, towards the N.W. It moved at a rapid rate; so much
+so that when we got to the house and procured the glass it had reached
+such a distance that we could not distinguish it better than we had
+done with our naked eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving
+off was undulatory, the cask like substances submerging and emerging
+from time to time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them
+altogether, which was about an hour after first seeing the animal. That
+this animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet,
+knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brunette
+nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so we said nothing
+about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at my request, furnished
+me with particulars, for general information, of the animal seen by him
+under such favourable circumstances, I am induced to add my own poor
+testimony to the many facts now on record, proving conclusively the
+existence of a great marine saurian or some similar animal. I would
+point out that a gentleman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific
+attainments is not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the
+six or seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at
+so short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by a
+piece of seaweed, or by a seal.”
+
+“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and I beg
+to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on the Great
+Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.”
+
+  “Yours, &c.,”    “Chas. A. Fairbridge.”
+
+  “Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”
+
+The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place
+hereafter, (n°. 130). It is clear enough that we have here an
+unvarnished account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The
+appearance of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large
+casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150 feet, is
+surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As the animal
+raised itself at least three feet above the level of the sea, its
+diameter may have been some fifteen feet. The animal evidently lay with
+its nostrils just at water-level, so that in exhaling it caused “a foam
+or froth, as though blowing water in a lateral direction”. I think,
+that the observer was a little mistaken as to the direction, which
+cannot have been quite a lateral one.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=115=.--1845, July 28.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1606).
+
+“The Rev. Mr. P. W. Deinbolt, Archdeacon of Molde, gives the following
+account of one, which was seen last summer near Molde. The 28th. of
+July, 1845, J. C. Lund, bookseller and printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant;
+Christian Flang, Lund’s apprentice, and John Elgenses, labourer, were
+out on Romsdale-fjord, fishing. The sea was, after a warm, sunshiny
+day, quite calm. About seven o’clock in the afternoon, at a little
+distance from the shore, near the ballast place and Molde Hove, they
+saw a long marine animal, which slowly moved itself forward, as it
+appeared to them, with the help of two fins, on the fore-part of
+the body nearest the head, which they judged by the boiling of the
+water on both sides of it. The visible part of the body appeared to
+be between forty and fifty feet in length, and moved in undulations,
+like a snake. The body was round and of a dark colour, and seemed to
+be several ells (an ell two feet) in thickness. As they discerned a
+waving motion in the water behind the animal, they concluded that
+part of the body was concealed under water. That it was one connected
+animal they saw plainly from its movement. When the animal was about
+one hundred yards from the boat, they noticed tolerably correctly its
+fore-part, which ended in a sharp snout; its colossal head raised
+itself above the water in the form of a semi-circle; the lower part was
+not visible. The colour of the head was dark brown and the skin smooth;
+they did not notice the eyes, or any mane or bristles on the throat.
+When the serpent came about a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and
+was certain the shots hit it in the head. After the shot it dived,
+but came up immediately. It raised its neck in the air, like a snake
+preparing to dart on his prey. After he had turned and got his body
+in a straight line, which he appeared to do with great difficulty, he
+darted like an arrow against the boat. They reached the shore, and the
+animal, perceiving it had come into shallow water, dived immediately
+and disappeared in the deep. Such is the declaration of these four
+men, and no one has cause to question their veracity, or imagine that
+they were so seized with fear that they could not observe what took
+place so near them. There are not many here, or on other parts of the
+Norwegian coast, who longer doubt the existence of the sea-serpent. The
+writer of this narrative was a long time sceptical, as he had not been
+so fortunate as to see this monster of the deep; but after the many
+accounts he has read, and the relations he has received from credible
+witnesses, he does not dare longer to doubt the existence of the
+sea-serpent.”
+
+  “P. W. Deinbolt.”
+
+  “Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”
+
+I need scarcely observe that the eye-witnesses of this appearance were
+deceived as to their opinion that the “boiling of the water on both
+sides of the head” was caused by “two fins on the forepart of the
+body, nearest the head”. The two fore-flappers of the sea-serpent are
+situated at rather a great distance from the head. The animal has a
+very long neck. This assertion is proved by their own words: “it raised
+its neck in the air”. If there were two fins near the head, large
+enough to cause any boiling of water, they would have been seen then by
+the persons, who would have mentioned them. The so-called boiling of
+the water was nothing but the commonly observed rushing caused by the
+animal’s motion through the water.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=117=.--1846, August 8.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1608).
+
+  “Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”
+
+“On Saturday, the 8th. inst., in the course between the islands of
+Sartor Leer and Tös, a sea-monster, supposed to be a sea-serpent, was
+seen by several persons. Early on this day as the steamer Biörgvin
+passed through Rognefjord towing a vessel to Bergen, Daniel Salomonson,
+a cotter, saw a sea-monster, whose like he declares he never met with
+although accustomed to the sea and its inhabitants from his earliest
+years. The animal came swimming from Rognefjord in a westerly direction
+towards his dwelling at Grönnevigskioeset, in the northern part of the
+parish of Sund. The head appeared like a Foering boat (about twenty
+feet long) keel uppermost, and from behind it raised itself forward in
+three, and sometimes four and five undulations, each apparently about
+twelve feet long: its rate appeared to be that of a light boat rowed
+by four active men. When it reached Grönnevigskioeset at a distance
+of two rifle-shots it turned with considerable noise and continued
+its course towards Lundenoes. Later about eleven o’clock on the same
+day his wife Ingeborg, in Daniel’s absence, heard a loud noise in the
+sea, and she and two little children saw a great sea monster, such as
+described above, take a northerly course, close by their place at such
+a rate that the waves were dashed on the shore in the same way as when
+a steamer is passing by. Neither of them say that they saw anything
+like eyes or fins, or indeed anything projecting from its round form,
+but they declare that the colour of the animal was dark brown, and
+that it often rose up with gentle undulations, sometimes, however,
+sinking below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid
+course of the gigantic body.--On the same morning a lad, by name
+Abraham Abrahamsen Hagenoes, was out fishing in the Rognefjord, not far
+from Lundenoes, and just ready to throw out his line, when he, as he
+asserts, became aware that on about one hundred fathoms a monster with
+a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) and a long
+body lay upon the sea like large kegs and was nearing his boat: seized
+with a panic he exerted all his strength to reach the shore, and as the
+animal, apparently following him, was only about forty fathoms off, he
+leaped ashore, drew up the boat and ran up the bank, whence he viewed
+the monster which had by this time approached the shore within twenty
+fathoms. He says that that part of the body which was visible was about
+sixty feet in length, and that its undulating course was similar to the
+eel: that the colour of the back was blackish, shining strongly, and as
+far as he could distinguish there was a whitish stripe under the belly.”
+
+“Report also says that the sea-serpent was seen by several persons in
+Biornfjord causing a great deal of dread, but of this our informants
+want authentic accounts. Our informant further says that he has no
+reason whatever to doubt the truth of the story of the man and his
+wife, or the truthworthiness of the lad Abraham, except as far as
+that his fears may have caused him to see several things through a
+magnifying glass.”
+
+I am convinced that by a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty
+feet long) must be meant the head and a great part of the neck.
+The other characters are mere repetitions of what we have so often
+observed. Very interesting again is the statement of the lad that the
+animal had a white stripe “under the belly”. As the lad cannot have
+seen the proper belly of the animal, it must have been the throat;
+the boy thought that he saw a snake, and I think that he, being
+questioned, would tell me that a snake has a head, a trunk and a tail,
+and hardly any neck and throat. I am also convinced, that the boy has
+not seen with a magnifying glass: the measurements, he gives, are not
+exaggerated.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In 1847, Mr. EDWARD NEWMANN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_ had the
+courage to open the columns of his Journal to all kinds of reports and
+discussions about the great sea-serpent. He says (p. 1604):
+
+“It has been the fashion for so many years to deride all records of
+this very celebrated monster, that it is not without hesitation I
+venture to quote the following paragraphs in his defence. A month
+only has elapsed since I had occasion to quote with approbation, a
+very marked passage from the pen of Sir J. W. Hershell (Zool. 1586):
+I may apply it with equal propriety to the enquiry of the era of the
+Irish deer, or of the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent. Naturalists,
+or rather those who choose thus to designate themselves, set up an
+authority above that of fact and observation, the gist of their
+enquiries is whether such things _ought to be_, and whether such
+things _ought not to be_; now fact-naturalists take a different road
+to knowledge, they enquire whether such things _are_ and whether such
+things _are not_. The _Zoologist_, if not in itself the fountain-head
+of this _fact_ movement, may at least claim to be the only public
+advocate of that movement; and it is therefore most desirable, that it
+should call the attention of its readers to the following remarkable
+paragraphs. They are quoted from one of our daily papers, which gives
+them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they
+originally appeared; the localities mentioned are intimately known
+to all travellers in Norway; and the witnesses are generally highly
+respectable and of unimpeachable veracity. The very discrepancies in
+the accounts prove the entire absence of any preconcerted scheme of
+deception. The only question therefore for the fact-naturalists to
+decide, is simply, whether all of the records now collected, can refer
+to whales, fishes, or any other marine animals with which we are at
+present acquainted.”
+
+I have no reason to doubt Mr. NEWMAN’s veracity, and so I am willing
+to believe that the five reports which follow this introduction “are
+quoted from one of” the British “daily papers, which gives them as
+literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they originally
+appeared”. I only ask why Mr. NEWMANN did not mention the daily
+paper? For the assertion of this daily paper that they are “literal
+translations from _Norse_ papers in which they originally appeared” is
+at all events a fabrication, as the reports which Mr. NEWMAN published
+here are the evidences which Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE took, when on a
+journey in Norway, near Christiansund, apparently in the year 1840,
+and which he published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, six
+years later! I have inserted them above (n°. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102).
+As to the “discrepancies in the accounts” I have already showed that
+there are, in fact, hardly any discrepancies, but that the accounts
+complete one another. I must also observe here that the accounts are
+not translated _literally_. Many, and among them very interesting
+passages, are omitted. The reader, who will convince himself of the
+truth of my assertion, has only to compare the accounts, as they
+are inserted in the _Zoologist_ with my translations of the German
+originals, or with the originals themselves.
+
+Mr. GOSSE, too, in his _Romance of Natural History_, 1860, writes: “The
+public papers of Norway, during the summer of 1846, were occupied with
+statements of the following effect”, and he too publishes extracts from
+the evidences printed in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841!
+
+Also Mr. LEE, in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, says: “In 1847
+there appeared in a London daily paper a long account translated from
+the Norse journals of fresh appearances of the sea-serpent.”
+
+And Mr. JOHN ASHTON in his _Curious Creatures in Zoology_, 1889,
+asserts: “In 1847 a sea-serpent was seen frequently in the
+neighbourhood of Christiansund and Molde, by many persons, and by one
+Lars Johnöen, fisherman at Smölen, especially.”
+
+All these writers have copied Mr. NEWMAN, and have therefore quite
+overlooked the fact that the originals were in the _Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, and that the appearances took place long
+before the year 1847!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The last number of the _Zoologist_ for 1847 appeared in October of that
+year. The reader must know that the matter of this journal is arranged
+according to the class of the animals, treated of in each article. This
+I must mention for the better understanding of the following passage
+which Mr. NEWMAN wrote in his preface to the above mentioned volume of
+the _Zoologist_.
+
+“In Reptiles, the communications and quotations about “the Sea-Serpent”
+are well worthy of attentive perusal: it is impossible to suppose all
+the records bearing this title to be fabricated for the purpose of
+deception. A natural phenomenon of some kind has been witnessed: let
+us seek a satisfactory solution rather than terminate enquiry by the
+shafts of ridicule. The grave and learned have often avowed a belief
+that toads can exist some thousands of years without food, light or
+air, and immured in solid stone: surely it is not requiring too much to
+solicit a suspension of judgment on the question whether a monster may
+exist in the sea which does not adorn our collections.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, viz. believed that the sea-serpent belonged to the class
+of Reptiles. The “communications and quotations” spoken of here, have
+already been inserted above (n°. 25, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 102, 106
+A, 115, 116, 117.).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=118=.--1848, August 6.--No report of the sea-serpent has ever more
+shaken the incredulity of hundreds and thousands than that generally
+known as the account of the _Daedalus_, after the frigate from which
+the sea-serpent was seen.
+
+The _Times_ newspaper of October, 9, 1848, published the following
+paragraph:
+
+  “Intelligence from Plymouth, dated 7 Oct.”
+
+“When the _Daedalus_ frigate, Captain M’Quhae, which arrived at
+Plymouth on the 4th. instant, was on her passage home from the East
+Indies, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, her captain, and
+most of her officers and crew, at four o’clock one afternoon, saw a
+sea-serpent. The creature was twenty minutes in sight of the frigate,
+and passed under her quarter. Its head appeared to be about four feet
+out of the water, and there was about sixty feet of its body in a
+straight line on the surface. It is calculated that there must have
+been under water a length of thirty-three or forty feet more, by which
+it propelled itself at the rate of fifteen miles an hour. The diameter
+of the exposed part of the body was about sixteen inches; and when it
+extended its jaws, which were full of large jagged teeth, they seemed
+sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between
+them”.
+
+The Admiralty instantly inquired into the truth of the statement, and
+in the _Times_ of the 13th. the gallant captain’s official reply was
+published in the following terms:
+
+  “Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus,
+
+  Hamoaze, _Oct. 11_.”
+
+“Sir,--In reply to your letter of this date, requiring information as
+to the truth of a statement published in _The Times_ newspaper, of
+a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions having been seen from Her
+Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_, under my command, on her passage from the
+East Indies, I have the honour to acquaint you, for the information of
+my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that at five o’clock P. M.,
+on the 6th. of August last, in latitude 24° 44′ S., and longitude 9°
+22′ E., the weather dark and cloudy, wind fresh from the N. W., with a
+long ocean swell from the S. W., the ship on the port tack heading N.
+E. by N., something very unusual was seen by Mr. Sartoris, midshipman,
+rapidly approaching the ship from before the beam. The circumstance was
+immediately reported by him to the officer of the watch, Lieutenant
+Edgar Drummond, with whom and Mr. William Barrett, the master, I was at
+the time walking the quarterdeck. The ship’s company were at supper.”
+
+“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to
+be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet
+constantly above the surface of the sea, and, as nearly as we could
+approximate, by comparing it with the length of what our main-topsail
+yard would show in the water, there was at the very least sixty
+feet of the animal _à fleur d’eau_, no portion of which was, to our
+perception, used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical
+or horizontal undulation. It passed rapidly, but so close under our lee
+quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should easily
+have recognized his features with the naked eye; and it did not, either
+in approaching the ship or after it had passed our wake, deviate in
+the slightest degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at
+the pace of from twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on some
+determined purpose.”
+
+“The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind
+the head, which was, without any doubt, that of a snake; and it was
+never, during the twenty minutes that it continued in sight of our
+glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour a dark brown,
+with yellowish white about the throat. It had no fins, but something
+like a mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of seaweed, washed about its
+back. It was seen by the quartermaster, the boatswain’s mate, and the
+man at the wheel, in addition to myself and officers above-mentioned.”
+
+“I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken
+immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for
+transmission to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by to-morrow’s
+post.”
+
+  “Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”
+
+  “To Admiral Sir W. H. Gage, G. C.
+  H., Devonport.”
+
+In the _Literary Gazette_ of Oct. 21st., 1848, the Editor published an
+engraving of PONTOPPIDAN’s representation, and adds some accompanying
+conclusions, appended to copious extracts from the learned Bishop’s
+work:
+
+“We have now only to point to the very remarkable resemblance between
+Captain M’Quhae and Pontoppidan’s description. One might fancy the
+galant Captain had read the old Dane, and was copying him, when he
+tells of the dark brown colour and white about the throat, and the
+neck clothed as if by a horse’s mane or a bunch of sea-weed--the exact
+words of the historian. This snake, however, did not seem to care for
+the fresh wind and ruffish weather, but kept, as in the calm, its head
+several feet above the water, and stretched out its length so as to be
+visible for some sixty or eighty feet. The motion was not perceptibly
+impelled by vermicular or lent-serpent action! Had it then large fins?
+There must be some power. The picture engraved in the folio represents
+it like a series of six barrels, or risings, with the intermediate
+parts under the sea.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 28.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the officers of
+the Daedalus.]
+
+In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28st. was reprinted all that
+has been mentioned above, and there appeared three representations of
+the sea-serpent, as seen from the _Daedalus_, which I here show my
+readers in fig. 28, 29 and 30, omitting, however, the ship’s stern,
+because the drawings would be too large for our pages. The Editor of
+the _Illustrated London News_ adds:
+
+“The drawings above-named have been received by the Lord Commissioners
+to the Admiralty, and by the courtesy of Capt. M’Quhae, our artist has
+been permitted to copy this pictorial evidence, as well as further to
+illustrate the appearance of the Serpent, under the supervision of
+Captain M’Quhae, and with his approval of the Authenticity of their
+details as to position and form.”
+
+On the 28th. of October Lieutenant DRUMMOND, the officer of the
+watch, mentioned in the report of Captain M’QUHAE, published his own
+impressions of the animal, in the form of an extract from his own
+journal. As far as I can discover it did not appear before the 1st. of
+December, in the _Zoologist_ (p. 2306) and runs as follows:
+
+“I beg to send you the following extract from my journal.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 29.--Another sketch of the same individual.]
+
+“H. M. S. _Daedalus_, August, 6, 1848, lat. 25° S., long 9° 37′ E.,
+St., Helena 1015 miles. In the 4 to 6 watch, at about five o’clock, we
+observed a most remarkable fish on our lee quarter, crossing the stern
+in a S. W. direction; the appearance of its head, which, with the back
+fin, was the only portion of the animal visible, was long, pointed,
+and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw
+projecting considerably; the fin was perhaps twenty feet in the rear
+of the head, and visible occasionally; the captain also asserted that
+he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it;
+the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown
+colour, and beneath the under jaw a brownish white. It pursued a steady
+undeviating course, keeping its head horizontal with the surface of
+the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally
+beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for
+purposes of respiration. It was going at the rate of perhaps from
+twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest, was perhaps one
+hundred yards distant. In fact it gave one quite the idea of a large
+snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen anything similar, so it
+is at least extraordinary. It was visible to the naked eye for five
+minutes, and with a glass for perhaps fifteen more. The weather was
+dark and squally at the time, with some sea running.”
+
+The following article appeared in the _Times_ of Nov. 2d.:
+
+“Amidst the numerous suggestions of those of your correspondents
+who are disposed to admit the account given by Captain M’Quhae of
+the marine monster seen by him and several of his brother officers,
+on the 6th. of August last, as not altogether imaginary, it appears
+surprising that it should not have occurred to any one to suggest an
+explanation of some apparent anomalies in the account, which have no
+doubt tended to stagger the belief even of some readers who are not
+disposed to assume (any more than myself) that a number of officers in
+Her Majesty’s navy would deliberately invent a falsehood, or could have
+been deceived in an appearance which they describe with such precise
+details”
+
+“One of the greatest difficulties on the face of the narrative and
+which must be allowed to destroy the analogy of the motions of the so
+called “sea-serpent” with those of all known snakes and anguilliform
+fishes, is that no less than sixty feet of the animal were seen
+advancing _à fleur d’eau_ at the rate of from twelve to fifteen miles
+an hour, without it being possible to perceive, upon the closest and
+most attentive inspection, any undulatory motion to which its rapid
+advance could be ascribed. It need scarcely be observed that neither
+an eel nor a snake, if either of those animals could swim at all with
+the neck elevated, could do so without the front part of its body being
+thrown into undulation by the propulsive efforts of its tail.”
+
+“But, it may be asked, if the animal seen by Captain M’Quhae was not
+allied to the snakes or to the eels, to what class of animals could it
+have belonged? To this I would reply, that it appears more likely that
+the enormous reptile in question was allied to the gigantic Saurians,
+hitherto believed only to exist in the fossil state, and, among them,
+to the Plesiosaurus.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 30.--A sketch of the head of the same individual.]
+
+“From the known anatomical characters of the _Plesiosauri_, derived
+from the examination of their organic remains, geologists are agreed
+in the inference that those animals carried their necks (which must
+have resembled the bodies of serpents) above the water, while their
+progression was effected by large paddles working beneath--the short
+but stout tail acting the part of a rudder. It would be superfluous to
+point out how closely the surmises of philosophers resemble, in these
+particulars, the description of the eye-witnesses of the living animal,
+as given in the letter and drawings of Captain M’Quhae. In the latter
+we have many of the external characters of the former, as predicated
+from the examination of the skeleton. The short head, the serpent-like
+neck, carried several feet above the water, forcibly recall the idea
+conceived of the extinct animal; and even the bristly mane in certain
+parts of the back, so unlike anything found in serpents, has its
+analogy in the _Iguana_, to which animal the _Plesiosaurus_ has been
+compared by some geologists. But I would most of all insist upon the
+peculiarity of the animal’s progression, which could only have been
+effected with the evenness, and at the rate described, by an apparatus
+of fins or paddles, not possessed by serpents, but existing in the
+highest perfection in the _Plesiosaurus_.”--F. G. S.--
+
+In the number of the _Illustrated London News_ of November 4, 1848,
+the letter of Captain M’QUHAE was published in which he expresses his
+special approbation of the figures:
+
+“I have observed with very great satisfaction the Engravings of the
+“Sea-Serpent” in the Illustrated London News of the 28th. inst.; they
+most faithfully represent the appearance of the animal, as seen from
+Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_ on the 6th. of August last; and it is
+evident that much care has been bestowed upon the subject by the
+artist employed, to whom I beg to acknowledge myself greatly indebted
+for the patience and attention with which he listened to the various
+alterations suggested by me during the progress of the drawings.”
+
+In the _Times_ of Nov. 4th., we find the following remark:
+
+“As some interest has been excited by the alleged appearance of a
+sea-serpent, I venture to transmit a few remarks on the subject, which
+you may or not may think worthy of insertion in your columns. There
+does not appear to be a single well authenticated instance of these
+monsters having been seen in any southern latitudes; but in the north
+of Europe, notwithstanding the fabulous character so long ascribed to
+Pontoppidan’s description, I am convinced that they both exist and are
+frequently seen. During three summers spent in Norway I have repeatedly
+conversed with the natives on this subject.”
+
+Here follow the descriptions of two appearances which I have inserted
+above, (n^o. 109, 110).
+
+“They expressed great surprise at the general disbelief attaching to
+the existence of these animals amongst naturalists, and assured me
+that there was scarcely a sailor accustomed to those inland lakes, who
+had not seen them at one time or another.”--OXONIENSIS.
+
+An unknown writer in one of the daily papers, after suggesting, whether
+the animals in question might not be full grown specimens of the
+_Saccopharynx flagellum_ of Dr. MITCHILL (described in the _Annals of
+the New York Lyceum of Natural History_, for March, 1824), or of the
+_Ophiognathus ampullaceus_ of Dr. HARWOOD (_Phil. Trans._, 1827), gives
+Captain M’QUHAE the benefit of a further conjecture, viz., whether some
+land species, as the boas, among which are individuals “forty feet”
+in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even
+“transport themselves from one continent to another.” (See _Zoologist_,
+1848; p. 2320).
+
+Some days after the figures of Captain M’QUHAE were published, a
+nobleman, whose name is not mentioned, wrote to Prof. OWEN to know
+his opinion about the animal seen by the Captain. The Professor, it
+would seem, did not answer the nobleman directly, but sent his answer
+to the Editor of the _Times_, evidently with a view of bringing his
+opinion under the eyes of thousands. This letter is too important to be
+abridged; I therefore give it in extenso; it appeared in the _Times_ of
+November 11, 1848.
+
+
+_The Great Sea-Serpent._
+
+“Sir,--Subjoined is the answer to a question relative to the animal
+seen from the _Daedalus_, addressed to me by a nobleman distinguished
+in literature, and taking much interest in science.”
+
+“As it contains the substance of the explanation I have endeavoured to
+give to numerous inquirers, in the Hunterian Museum and elsewhere, and
+as I continue to receive many applications for my opinion of the “Great
+Sea Serpent,” I am desirous to give it once for all through the medium
+of your columns, if space of such value may be allotted to it.”
+
+“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant
+
+  “Richard Owen.”
+
+  “Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”
+
+“The sketch (this was a reduced copy of the drawing of the head of
+the animal seen by Captain M’QUHAE; attached to the submerged body
+of a large seal, showing the long eddy produced by the action of the
+terminal flippers) will suggest the reply to your query, “Whether
+the monster seen from the _Daedalus_ be anything but a saurian?” If
+it be the true answer, it destroys the romance of the incident, and
+will be anything but acceptable to those who prefer the excitement of
+the imagination to the satisfaction of the judgment. I am far from
+insensible to the pleasures of the discovery of a new and rare animal;
+but before I can enjoy them, certain conditions--e. g. reasonable proof
+or evidence of its existence--must be fulfilled. I am also far from
+undervaluing the information which Captain M’QUHAE has given us of
+what he saw. When fairly analized, it lies in a small compass, but my
+knowledge of the animal kingdom compels me to draw other conclusions
+from the phenomena than those which the gallant captain seems to have
+jumped at. He evidently saw a large animal moving through the water,
+very different from anything he had before witnessed--neither a whale,
+a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface
+swimming creatures which are fallen in with in ordinary voyages.
+He writes--“On our attention being called to the object, it was
+discovered to be an enormous serpent” (read “animal”), “with the head
+and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of
+the sea. The diameter of the serpent” (animal) “was about fifteen or
+sixteen inches behind the head; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish
+white about the throat”. No fins were seen (the captain says there
+were none; but from his own account, he did not see enough of the
+animal to prove the negative). “Something like the mane of a horse,
+or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” So much of the
+body as was seen was “not used in propelling the animal through the
+water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.” A calculation
+of its length was made under a strong preconception of the nature of
+the beast. The head, e. g., is stated to be, “without any doubt, that
+of a snake;” and yet a snake would be the last species to which a
+naturalist conversant with the forms and characters of the heads of
+animals, would refer such a head as that of which Captain M’Quhae has
+transmitted a drawing to the Admirality, and which he certifies to have
+been accurately copied in the _Illustrated London News_ for October
+28, 1848, p. 265. Your Lordship will observe that no sooner was the
+captain’s attention called to the object, than “it was discovered to
+be an enormous serpent”, and yet the closest inspection of as much
+of the body as was visible, _à fleur d’eau_, failed to detect any
+undulations of the body, although such actions constitute the very
+character which would distinguish a serpent or serpentiform swimmer
+from any other marine species. The foregone conclusion, therefore,
+of the beast’s being a sea-serpent, notwithstanding its capacious
+vaulted cranium, and stiff, inflexible trunk, must be kept in mind in
+estimating the value of the approximation made to the total length of
+the animal, as “(at the very least) sixty feet”. This is the only part
+of the description, however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as
+to be inadmissible, in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as
+to the nature of the animal. The more certain characters of the animal
+are these:--Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short
+obtuse muzzle, gape of the mouth not extending further than to beneath
+the eye, which is rather small, round, filling closely the palpebral
+aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface
+smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous modifications or
+hard and naked cuticle. And the captain says, “Had it been a man of
+my acquaintance, I should have easily recognized his features with
+my naked eye.” Nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing
+by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle. All these are
+the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal--none of them
+those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish. Body long, dark brown, not
+undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something
+like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about
+its back.” The character of the integuments would be a most important
+one for the zoologist in the determination to the class to which the
+above defined creature belonged. If an opinion can be deduced as to
+the integuments from the above indication, it is that the species had
+hair, which, if it was too short and close to be distinguished on the
+head, was visible where it usually is the longest, on the middle line
+of the shoulders or advanced part of the back, where it was not stiff
+and upright like the rays of a fin, but “washed about.” Guided by the
+above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”,
+the animal was not a cetaceous mammal, but rather a great seal. But
+what seal of large size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered
+in latitude 24° 44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east--viz. about three
+hundred miles from the western shore of the southern end of Afrika? The
+most likely species to be there met with are the largest of the seal
+tribe, _e. g._ Anson’s sea lion, or that known to the southern whalers
+by the name of the sea-elephant, the _Phoca proboscidea_, which attains
+the length of from twenty to thirty feet. These great seals abound in
+certain of the islands of the southern and antarctic seas, from which
+an individual is occasionally floated off upon an iceberg. The sea
+lion exhibited in London last spring, which was a young individual of
+the _Phoca proboscidea_ was actually captured in that predicament;
+having been carried by the currents that set northwards towards the
+Cape, where its temporary resting-place was rapidly melting away. When
+a large individual of the _Phoca proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_ is
+thus borne off to a distance from its native shore, it is compelled
+to return for rest to its floating abode, after it has made its daily
+excursions in quest of the fishes or squids that constitute its food.
+It is thus brought by the iceberg into the latitudes of the Cape, and
+perhaps farther north, before the berg was melted away. Then the poor
+seal is compelled to swim as long as strength endures, and in such a
+predicament I imagine the creature was that Mr. Sartoris saw rapidly
+approaching the _Daedalus_ from before the beam, scanning, probably,
+its capabilities as a resting-place, as it paddled its long stiff
+body past the ship. In so doing, it would raise a head of the form
+and colour described and delineated by Captain M’Quhae, supported on
+a neck also of the diameter given; the thick neck passing into an
+inflexible trunk, the longer and coarser hair on the upper part of
+which would give rise to the idea, especially if the species were the
+_Phoca leonina_, explained by the similes above cited. The organs
+of locomotion would be out of sight. The pectoral fins being set on
+very low down, as in my sketch, the chief impelling force would be
+the action of the deeper immersed terminal fins and tail, which would
+create a long eddy, readily mistakable, by one looking at the strange
+phenomenon with a sea-serpent in his mind’s eye, for an indefinite
+prolongation of the body.”
+
+“It is very probable, that not one on board the _Daedalus_ ever
+before beheld a gigantic seal freely swimming in the open ocean.
+Entering unexpectedly from that vast and commonly blank desert of
+waters, it would be a strange and exciting spectacle, and might well
+be interpreted as a marvel; but the creative powers of the human mind
+appear to be really very limited, and, on all the occasions where
+the true source of the “great unknown” has been detected--whether it
+has proved to be a file of sportive porpoises, or a pair of gigantic
+sharks--old Pontoppidan’s sea-serpent with the mane has uniformly
+suggested itself as the representative of the portent, until the
+mystery has been unravelled.”
+
+“The vertebrae of the sea-serpent described and delineated in the
+_Wernerian Transactions_, vol. I., and sworn to by the fishermen who
+saw it off the Isle of Stronsa (one of the Orkneys), in 1808, two of
+which vertebrae are in the Museum of the College of Surgeons, are
+certainly those of a great shark, of the genus _Selache_, and are not
+distinguishable from those of the species called “basking-shark”, of
+which individuals from thirty to thirty-five feet in length have been
+from time to time captured or stranded on our coasts.”
+
+“I have no unmeet confidence in the exactitude of my interpretation of
+the phenomena witnessed by the captain and others of the _Daedalus_.
+I am too sensible of the inadequacy of the characters which the
+opportunity of a rapidly passing animal, “in a long ocean swell”,
+enabled them to note, for the determination of its species or genus.
+Giving due credence to the most probably accurate elements of their
+description, they do little more than guide the zoologist to the class,
+which, in the present instance, is not that of the serpent or the
+saurian.”
+
+“But I am usually asked, after each endeavour to explain
+Captain M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, “Why should there not be a great
+sea-serpent?”--often, too, in a tone which seems to imply, “Do you
+think, then, there are not more marvels in the deep, than are dreamt
+of in your philosophy?” And, freely conceding that point, I have felt
+bound to give a reason for scepticism as well as faith. If a gigantic
+sea-serpent actually exists, the species must, of course, have been
+perpetuated through successive generations, from its first creation and
+introduction into the seas of this planet. Conceive, then, the number
+of individuals that must have lived, and died, and have left their
+remains to attest the actuality of the species during the enormous
+lapse of time, from its beginning, to the 6th. of August last! Now,
+a serpent, being an air breathing animal, with long vesicular and
+receptacular lungs, dives with an effort and commonly floats when
+dead; and so would the sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident
+had opened the tough integument, and let out the imprisoned gases.
+Then it would sink, and, if in deep water, be seen no more until the
+sea rendered up its dead, after the lapse of the aeons requisite for
+the yielding of its place to dry land,--a change which has actually
+revealed to the present generation the old saurian monsters that were
+entombed at the bottom of the ocean, of the secondary geological
+periods of our earth’s history. During life the exigencies of the
+respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel him frequently
+to the surface; and when dead and swollen--
+
+    “Prone on the flood, extended long and large,”
+
+he would
+
+    “Lie floating many a rood; in bulk as huge,
+    “As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
+    “Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove.”
+
+“Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has
+not hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who have
+traversed the seas in so many directions. Considering, too, the tides
+and currents of the ocean, it seems still more reasonable to suppose
+that the dead sea-serpent would be occasionally cast on shore. However,
+I do not ask for the entire carcase. The structure of the back-bone of
+the serpent tribe is so peculiar, that a single vertebra would suffice
+to determine the existence of the hypothetical Ophidian; and this will
+not be deemed an unreasonable request, when it is remembered that the
+vertebrae are more numerous in serpents than in any other animals. Such
+large blanched and scattered bones on any sea-shore, would be likely to
+attract even common curiosity; yet there is no vertebra of a serpent
+larger than the ordinary pythons and boas in any museum in Europe.”
+
+“Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more acute
+naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén), than those of
+Norway. Krakens and sea serpents ought to have been living and dying
+thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all
+tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of
+the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector; whilst the great denizens
+of those seas have been by no means so chary. No museums, in fact,
+are so rich in skeletons, skulls, bones and teeth of the numerous
+kind of whales, cachelots, grampuses, walrusses, sea unicorns, seals,
+etc., as those of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; but of any large marine
+nondescript or indeterminable monster they cannot show a trace.”
+
+“I have inquired repeatedly whether the natural history collections
+of Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities of the United States, might
+possess any unusually large ophidian vertebrae or any of such peculiar
+form as to indicate some large and unknown marine animal; but they have
+received no such specimens.”
+
+“The frequency with which the sea-serpent has been supposed to have
+appeared near the shores and harbours of the United States, has led to
+its being specified as the “American sea-serpent;” yet, out of the two
+hundred vertebrae of every individual that should have lived and died
+in the Atlantic since the creation of the species, not one has yet been
+picked up on the shores of America. The diminutive snake, less than
+a yard in length, “killed upon the sea-shore”, apparently beaten to
+death, “by some labouring people of Cape Ann,” United States (see the
+8vo pamphlet, 1817, Boston, page 38), and figured in the _Illustrated
+London News_, October 28, 1848, from the original American memoir, by
+no means satisfies the conditions of the problem. Neither does the
+_Saccopharynx_ of Mitchill, nor the _Ophiognathus_ of Harwood--the
+one four and a half feet, the other six feet long: both are surpassed
+by some of the congers of our own coasts, and, like other muraenoid
+fishes and the known small sea snake (_Hydrophis_), swim by undulatory
+movements of the body.”
+
+“The fossil vertebrae and skull which were exhibited by Mr. Koch, in
+New York and Boston, as those of the great sea-serpent, and which are
+now in Berlin, belonged to different individuals of a species which I
+had previously proved to be an extinct whale; a determination which
+has subsequently been confirmed by Professors Müller and Agassiz. Mr.
+Dixon of Worthing has discovered many fossil vertebrae, in the Eocene
+tertiary clay at Bracklesham, which belong to a larger species of an
+extinct genus of serpent (_Palaeophis_), founded on similar vertebrae
+from the same formation in the Isle of Sheppey. The largest of these
+ancient British snakes was twenty feet in length; but there is no
+evidence that they were marine.”
+
+“The sea saurians of the secondary periods of geology have been
+replaced in the tertiary and actual seas by marine mammals. No remains
+of _Cetacea_ have been found in lias or oolite, and no remains of
+Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur, or any other secondary reptile, have been
+found in Eocene or later tertiary deposits, or recent, on the actual
+sea-shores; and that the old air-breathing saurians floated when they
+died has been shown in the _Geological Transactions_ (vol. V., second
+series, p. 512). The inference that may reasonably be drawn from no
+recent carcase or fragment of such having ever been discovered, is
+strengthened by the corresponding absence of any trace of their remains
+in the tertiary beds.”
+
+“Now, on weighing the question, whether creatures meriting the name
+of “great sea serpent” do exist, or whether any of the gigantic
+marine saurians of the secondary deposits may have continued to live
+up to the present time, it seems to me less probable that no part of
+the carcase of such reptiles should have ever been discovered in a
+recent or unfossilized state, than that men should have been deceived
+by a cursory view of a partly submerged and rapidly moving animal,
+which might only be strange to themselves. In other words, I regard
+the negative evidence from the utter absence of any of the recent
+remains of great sea serpents, krakens, or _Enaliosauria_, as stronger
+against their actual existence, than the positive statements which have
+hitherto weighed with the public mind in favour of their existence. A
+larger body of evidence from eye-witnesses might be got together in
+proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent.”
+
+What speaks for itself, this letter appeared in several journals and
+newspapers. So I have found it in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural
+History_, 2d. Ser. Vol. II, p. 458 (15? Nov. 1848), in GALIGNANI’s
+_Messenger_ of Nov. 23, 1848, in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov.
+25, 1848, and in the _Zoologist_, of Nov. 27, 1848. As it came from
+such a quarter it is not surprising that many persons were willing to
+acquiesce in the decision.
+
+Captain M’QUHAE, however, promptly replied to Professor OWEN. His
+answer was also addressed to the Editor of the _Times_ (_Times_, Nov.
+21, 1848):
+
+“Sir,--Will you do me the very great favour to give a place in your
+widely-circulating columns to the following reply to the animadversions
+of Professor Owen on the serpent or animal seen by me and others from
+Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_ on the 6th. of August last, and which
+were published in the Times of the 14th. inst.?
+
+  “I am, Sir, your obedient servant
+
+  “P. M’Quhae.
+
+  “Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.
+
+  “London, November 18.
+
+“Professor Owen correctly states that I “evidently saw a large creature
+moving rapidly through the water very different from anything I had
+before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an
+alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming creatures fallen
+in with in ordinary voyages”. I now assert, neither was it a common
+seal nor a sea elephant; its great length, and its totally differing
+physiognomy, precluding the possibility of its being a _Phoca_ of any
+species. The head was flat, and not a “capacious vaulted cranium;” nor
+had it “a stiff inflexible trunk”--a conclusion to which Professor Owen
+has jumped, most certainly not justified by the simple statement, that
+“no portion of the sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it
+through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.”
+
+“It is also assumed that the “calculation of its length was made under
+a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;” another conclusion
+quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the great length was
+developed by its nearest approach to the ship, and until after that
+most important point had been duly considered and debated, as well as
+such could be in the brief space of time allowed for so doing, that
+it was pronounced to be a serpent by all who saw it, and who are too
+well accustomed to judge of lengths and breadths of objects in the
+sea to mistake a real substance and an actual living body, coolly and
+dispassionately contemplated, at so short a distance too, for the “eddy
+caused by the action of the deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly
+moving gigantic seal raising its head above the water,” as Professor
+Owen imagines, “in quest of its lost iceberg.”
+
+“The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited. On this
+occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose and
+desire being, throughout, to furnish eminent naturalists, such as
+the learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated
+representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed from
+optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan’s having
+clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have suggested the idea
+of ornamenting the creature seen from the _Daedalus_ with a similar
+appendage, for the simple reason that I had never seen his account, or
+even heard of his sea-serpent, until my arrival in London. Some other
+solution must therefore be found for the very remarkable coincidence
+between us in that particular, in order to unravel the mystery.”
+
+“Finally, I deny the existence of excitement, or the possibility of
+optical illusion. I adhere to the statement, as to form, colour,
+and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty;
+and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific may
+exercise the “pleasures of imagination” until some more fortunate
+opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance with the “great
+unknown”,--in the present instance assuredly no ghost.”
+
+It also appeared in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 25 1848.
+
+And a gentleman, who signed his letter with the initials J. C., wrote a
+letter to the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ (see this Journal
+of Nov. 25, 1848) to rectify another statement of the learned Professor:
+
+“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain
+M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite
+satisfactory as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt
+we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my object
+in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to by Mr. Owen,
+in his letter to the Editor of the _Times_, of November 9th., that it
+was _not_ of the serpent species, because “they failed to detect any
+undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of there being “no vertical
+or horizontal undulations perceptible” stamps the character of the
+animal; for it is well known by all observers of snakes in India, that
+when the animal is in chase of game, small or great, or when scared
+away, and moving at a _rapid_ pace, he is propelled entirely by the
+tail, or the smaller half of the body, while the other portion, with a
+curve of the head, is kept quite _stiff_--and this exactly corresponds
+with the Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to
+fifteen miles an hour, _apparently on some determined purpose_.”
+
+In May, 1854, Dr. T. S. TRAILL read a paper before the Royal Society of
+Edinburgh, comparing the animal of the _Daedalus_, with the Animal of
+Stronsa. The part of his dissertation concerning the present occurrence
+runs as follows:
+
+“In their statements there are no suspicious affectations of minute
+detail. Their simple narrative appears to deserve more attention than
+it has yet received from naturalists; and I strongly incline to the
+belief, that the animal seen by the crew of the _Daedalus_ was an
+analogue of, if not the very same species, as the animal cast ashore in
+Orkney in 1808.”
+
+“Considering the derision with which, in this country, the subject of
+the sea-serpent has been treated, and the ridicule attempted to be
+thrown on all who were bold enough to assert that they had seen such
+an animal, nothing but a consciousness of his unimpeachable veracity
+could have tempted the gallant Captain M’QUHAE to encounter the sneers
+of his incredulous countrymen. From all I have heard of his character
+for sagacity and veracity, from those who intimately knew him, I have
+not the smallest doubt that he has faithfully described what he and his
+crew saw distinctly, and at a short distance from the ship.”
+
+“It was seen rapidly approaching before the _beam_.” Captain M’Quhae
+says: “On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered
+to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet
+constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of the serpent
+was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; its colour of a
+dark brown, with yellowish-white about the throat.”
+
+“The Captain could discover no fins, but “something like the mane of
+a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” He
+thought that its head did certainly resemble that of a snake; but the
+drawing which he transmitted to the Admiralty has not, to the eye of
+a naturalist, the form of that of any snake. The figure published in
+the _Illustrated London News_ for October 28, 1848, is said to be an
+accurate copy of that drawing.”
+
+“Captain M’Quhae estimates the length of its body at the surface of the
+water, “_à fleur d’eau_, at the very least equal to sixty feet, no part
+of which was to our perception used in propelling it through the water,
+either by vertical or horizontal undulations. It passed rapidly, but
+so close under our quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance,
+I should easily have recognized his features with the naked eye, and
+it did not, either in approaching the ship, or after it had passed
+our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from its course to the S.
+W., which it held on at the pace of twelve or fifteen miles an hour,
+apparently on some determined purpose.”
+
+“If we may judge from the engraving, the cranium is very convex, of
+moderate size, with a short obtuse muzzle, a mouth reaching beyond the
+eye; which last organ is round, and of a moderate size. The surface of
+the body is represented as smooth, and destitute of scales--of which
+they were enabled to judge, because it passed close under the _quarter_
+of the ship. It was in sight for twenty minutes.”
+
+“The description certainly does not belong to any Ophidian; and as
+certainly militates against an opinion thrown out by Mr. Owen, that it
+might be a specimen of the _leonine seal_, which has, it is alleged,
+occasionally reached those latitudes. The leonine seal never exceeds
+twenty-five feet in length, and such would have a circumference at its
+shoulders of twenty feet, while this appears to be eel-shaped, with a
+diameter of not more than fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head;
+the mane too, of the male of the leonine seal extends only over the
+head and neck; but in the other, it extended down the back.”
+
+“With all deference to so eminent a naturalist as Mr. Owen, I humbly
+conceive that his conjecture respecting the identity of Captain
+M’QUHAE’s animal with the leonine seal, is not more probable than
+Home’s identification of the Basking shark with the Orkney animal.”
+
+“Both M’QUHAE’s and the Orkney animal would appear to be a
+cartilaginous fish, totally different from any genus known to
+naturalists.”
+
+Three years afterwards Captain HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131) was
+published in the Times. Some days afterwards Captain FREDERIC SMITH
+published his encounter with a sea-serpent, which after being harpooned
+and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, and
+the sea-serpents of the _Daedalus_ and of Captain HARRINGTON were in
+his opinion undoubtedly pieces of the same kind of weed.
+
+Now “An Officer of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_ felt obliged to
+state again that it was a living animal. As in this letter further
+particulars of the animal are mentioned, I insert it here _in toto_,
+(_The Times_ of Febr. 16th., 1858):
+
+“Sir,--Observing in your paper of yesterday’s date a letter from a
+correspondent to the marine animal commonly called the “sea-serpent”,
+in the concluding paragraph of which he mentions that he has no doubt
+the object seen from Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_ in the month of
+August, 1848, when on the passage from the Cape of Good-Hope to St.
+Helena, was a piece of the same sea-weed observed by himself, I beg
+to state that the object seen from her Majesty’s ship was, beyond all
+question, a living animal, moving rapidly through the water against a
+cross sea, and within five points of a fresh breeze, with such velocity
+that the water was surging under its chest, as it passed along at a
+rate probably of ten miles per hour. Captain M’QUHAE’s first impulse
+was to tack in pursuit, ourselves being on a wind on the larboard tack,
+when he reflected that we could neither lay up for it nor overhaul it
+in speed. There was nothing to be done, therefore, but to observe it as
+accurately as we could with our glasses, as it came up under our lee
+quarter and passed away to windward, at its nearest position being not
+more than two hundred yards from us; the eye, the mouth, the nostril,
+the colour and form, all being most distinctly visible to us. We all
+felt greatly astonished at what we saw, though there were sailors among
+us of thirty and forty years’ standing, who had traversed most seas and
+seen many marvels in their day. The captain was the first to exclaim:
+“This must be that animal called the sea-serpent”, a conclusion which,
+after sundry guesses, we all at last settled down to. My impression
+was that it was rather of a lizard than a serpentine character, as its
+movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any
+undulatory power. It was in sight, from our first observing it, about
+ten minutes, as we were fast leaving one another on opposite tacks with
+a freshening breeze and the sea getting up.”
+
+“I feel, Sir, I have already occupied more of your time and space than
+is justifiable, and have the honour to remain your obedient servant,
+
+  “An Officer of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.”
+
+Now let us run over all the prominent important particulars in
+the reports of the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen from the
+_Daedalus_. The first report, which appeared in the _Times_ of October,
+9, 1848, contains the description of the mouth: “and when it extended
+its jaws, which were full of large and jagged teeth, they seemed
+sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between
+them.” It is not said from whom the report came, nor is it signed.
+All the details, except this last, were afterwards substantiated by
+Captain M’QUHAE himself and by Lieutenant DRUMMOND. To me it seems
+quite impossible that the head was longer than three feet; as the neck
+is estimated at 16 inches in diameter, or one foot and a third, the
+breadth of the head, according to what we already know of the relative
+dimensions, cannot have been more than about two feet, and the length
+not more than about three feet. So the jaws, when extended, may open
+the mouth to about one and a half or two feet, a space which never can
+admit “of a tall man standing upright between them!”
+
+The animal seen by the captain and some of the officers and crew of
+the _Daedalus_, was as follows: It swam with its body in a straight
+line. About sixty feet of its body were visible. Its head appeared
+to be about four feet out of the water. The part of the body hidden
+under water was estimated at thirty feet at least. The diameter of
+the neck behind the head was estimated at one foot and a third. When
+the animal opened its mouth, large jagged teeth were seen. “It moved
+with such velocity that the water was surging under its chest” (read
+throat, for the very chest, situated between the foreflappers, was
+invisible and much farther back). The head and a portion of the neck
+(Captain M’QUHAE says, though without any reason, shoulders) were kept
+above the surface of the sea. The animal was, during the time it was
+in sight, never once below the surface. Lieutenant DRUMMOND, however,
+says: the head disappeared occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief
+interval. The colour of the animal was a dark brown, with yellowish
+white under the throat. Something like the mane of a horse, or rather
+like a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back. Though the Captain
+says: it had no fins. Lieutenant DRUMMOND stated, that there was “a
+backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head, “and
+visible occasionally”. If this were a true back-fin, it ought to have
+been constantly visible. As, however, it was only occasionally seen, we
+conclude that it was nothing else but one of the animal’s foreflappers,
+occasionally coming above the surface of the water. “The captain also
+asserted that he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance
+behind it.” This of course must have been one of the animal’s hind
+flappers. Lieutenant DRUMMOND must have been mistaken as to the length
+of the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calculation
+evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover was rather
+pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper-jaw projecting
+considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in saying: “the upper
+part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown colour, and
+beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.”
+
+The three figures are tolerably well drawn; in fact they are the best
+of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if they were
+delineated after the description above, but they were in reality “made
+from a sketch taken immediately after the animal was seen.” Here, as in
+foregoing reports, the figures and the text complete one another. The
+head is not that of a serpent, but that of a mammal. The proportions
+of length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the length of the
+mouth-split, the exact place of the eye, even the flattened appearance
+of forehead and nose are true mammalian characters. No whiskers or
+bristles on the upper-lips, and no ears or earholes are drawn, or
+mentioned. The distance, when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It
+is clear that they were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are
+indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or
+muzzle, and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible.
+
+In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our
+present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as the
+sea-serpent. I only wish to point out here that in none of the three
+figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a head would
+never have been described as resembling that of a snake. It is clear
+that it is drawn too high, too short and not flat enough.
+
+I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. OWEN’s
+reply. It is the following: Prof. OWEN rejects the existence of the
+sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more
+sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours
+of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea-serpents
+ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from long before
+Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have
+never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian
+collector.” It may be true that Mssrs. SARS and LOVÉN often navigated
+along the coasts of Norway and yet never saw a sea-serpent. Prof.
+OWEN forgets that his own countryman, Mr. MORRIES STIRLING, saw one
+with his own eyes! Is this proof not decisive enough? The absence of
+remains is not a proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as
+there are whales with two backfins, which are _seen_ by three different
+_naturalists_, yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice
+of zoologists. Prof. OWEN also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers
+know well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic
+calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there
+was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however, they
+may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that it was not
+before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or gigantic calamary,
+was brought to Paris by the commander of the _Alecton_, _nota bene_
+notwithstanding Prof. OWEN’s assertion that they did not exist, as else
+the naturalists of Norway, and amongst them especially SARS and LOVÉN,
+would have found them!!
+
+Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. M’QUHAE agreed
+in details with that of Lieutenant DRUMMOND, because the latter was
+immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th., whilst the
+letter of Captain M’QUHAE was addressed to the Admiralty on the 11th.
+of October, two months afterwards and apparently written from memory.
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ says of the “fin”
+mentioned by Lieutenant DRUMMOND:
+
+“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the
+captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse”, and which the
+introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in parentheses
+after the word “rather” in his description) serves to correlate with
+the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back”.”
+
+I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant DRUMMOND
+was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and the other fin,
+“twenty feet more backward”, was one of the animal’s hind-flappers,
+and I believe that I may express my conviction that Mr. ANDREW WILSON
+was just as wrong in supposing this, as in his conviction that the
+sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE was merely an extraordinarily developed
+sea-snake! A few pages further on, viz., the writer of _Leisure Time
+Studies_, quoting the report of Captain M’QUHAE says:
+
+“The idea that the animal observed in this instance was a huge serpent,
+seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention,
+which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.” (!)
+
+And on the following page:
+
+“Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of ordinary
+latitude, and allow for slight variations and inaccuracies in the
+accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these
+ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution of this
+interesting problem.” (!!)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Though they don’t touch our subject directly, the following words of
+Mssrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE, treating of the Dodo,
+are well worth our notice; they say (_Annals and Magazine of Natural
+History_ 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15?, 1848):
+
+“In proof of the existence of the Dodo we have--unlike the assumed
+evidence of the existence of some other anomalous monsters of which
+we have lately heard much--every canon of cautious truthseeking
+fully satisfied. With no traditional superstition or belief to give
+an origin to such a story (a point of no little importance in such
+an investigation), we have here fifteen or sixteen separate and
+independant authorities all alluding incidentally to the Dodo, each
+different in language and description, yet each of which has points of
+resemblance that cannot be mistaken as referring to similar objects.
+We have moreover drawings of the creature itself, made by different
+hands, and at different times, and with different objects; some of
+them rude and coarse to grotesqueness, other finished works of art.
+Yet throughout all these there run characters which it is impossible
+to mistake, and which satisfy us that the draughtsmen drew, not from
+imagination, but from something real, and from individuals of one and
+the same species.”
+
+I am obliged to remark here that the proof of the existence of the
+_Dodo_, quoted by them, is _not_ unlike the proof of the existence of
+great sea-serpents. If they, however, had known and mentioned that a
+head and a foot of the Dodo are preserved in Kopenhague, they would
+have been right. This is _not_ the case with the sea-serpent. As far
+as I know, there is not one _material_ proof of the existence of
+sea-serpents. But it is with the sea-serpent just as with the different
+accounts and pictures of the Dodo, “throughout all which run characters
+which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us, that the
+draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, and
+from individuals of one and the same species”.
+
+I hope that every-one who has read all the accounts I have collected
+and published in this volume, and thoroughly studied the figures, will
+grant that there is no question of “assumed evidences of the existence
+of some anomalous monsters”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=119=.--1848?--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2356, we read:
+
+“Enormous undescribed animal apparently allied to the Enaliosauri,
+seen in the Gulf of California.--Captain the Hon. George Hope states
+that when in H. M. S. “Fly”, in the Gulf of California, the sea being
+perfectly calm and transparent, he saw at the bottom a large marine
+animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, except that
+the neck was much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had
+four large flappers, somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair
+being larger than the posterior; the creature was distinctly visible,
+and all its movements could be observed with ease; it appeared to be
+pursuing its prey at the bottom of the sea; its movements were somewhat
+serpentine, and an appearance of annulations, or ring-like divisions of
+the body, was distinctly perceptible. Captain Hope made this relation
+in company, and as a matter of conversation. When I heard it from the
+gentleman to whom it was narrated, I enquired whether Captain Hope was
+acquainted with those remarkable fossil animals _Ichthyosauri_ and
+_Plesiosauri_, the supposed forms of which so nearly correspond with
+what he describes as having seen alive, and I cannot find that he had
+heard of them; the alligator being the only animal he mentioned as
+bearing a partial similarity to the creature in question.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of this Journal, considers this testimony “in
+all respects, the most interesting natural-history-fact of the present
+century” (_Zoologist_, 1849, Preface, Nov. 11).
+
+Though I think that all reports of sea-serpents are very interesting
+natural-history facts, it is indisputable that this testimony is a
+very important one. If the reader for a moment brings before his mind
+the animal of the _Daedalus_, about eighty feet long, with a head of
+about three feet, a neck like the body of a serpent, the thickness
+behind the head being somewhat smaller than that of the head itself;
+at twenty feet in the rear of the head the body becoming at once
+much broader and provided there with two flappers; twenty feet more
+backwards again two flappers, and then a tail of about forty feet,
+ending in a point. If the reader now imagines this animal to be on
+the bottom of the sea, whilst he himself is placed on the deck of a
+vessel, the sea perfectly calm, is it not true that such an animal
+must make the impression of an alligator with a long neck, and having
+instead of paws flappers like those of a sea-turtle? If moreover the
+animal moved in vertical undulations, is it not very well conceivable
+and clear that, by the light and shadow falling on the animal from
+above, the curves of the animal’s back (called _bunches_ when it swims
+on the surface) must be taken as distinctly perceptible annulations or
+ring-like divisions of the body? I think that there can be no question
+but this animal was a sea-serpent. The reader will remember that
+PONTOPPIDAN relates an account of a very young sea-serpent, eighteen
+feet in length, entangled in a fisherman’s net, “a worm with four paws
+on the belly”, and that the learned Bishop himself made the comparison:
+“thus it resembled a crocodile”!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=120=.--1848, December 31.--(_Illustrated London News_ of 1849, April
+14.)
+
+  “To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”
+
+  “H. M. S. _Plumper_, Plymouth Harbour, April 10, 1849.”
+
+“Not having seen a sketch of the extraordinary creature, we passed
+between England and Lisbon, and being requested by several gentlemen to
+send you the rough one I made at the time, I shall feel much obliged by
+your giving it publicity in your instructive and amusing columns.”
+
+“On the morning of the 31th. December, 1848, in lat. 41° 13′ N., and
+long 12° 31′ W., being nearly due West of Oporto, I saw a long black
+creature with a sharp head, moving slowly, I should think about two
+knots, through the water, in a north westerly direction, there being
+a fresh breeze at the time, and some sea on. I could not ascertain
+its exact length, but its back was about twenty feet if not more above
+water; and its head, as near as I could judge, from six to eight. I had
+not time to make a closer observation, as the ship was going six knots
+through the water, her head E. half S., and wind S. S. E. The creature
+moved across our wake towards a merchant barque on our lee-quarter,
+and on the port tack. I was in hopes she would have seen it also. The
+officers and men who saw it, and who have served in parts of the world
+adjacent to whale and seal fisheries, and have seen them in the water,
+declare they have neither seen nor heard of any creature bearing the
+slightest resemblance to the one we saw. There was something on its
+back that appeared like a mane, and, as it moved through the water,
+kept washing about, but before I could examine it more closely, it was
+too far astern.--I remain, yours very truly
+
+  A Naval Officer.”
+
+Evidently the Naval Officer did not send the description of the
+appearance and the figure, before he was repeatedly requested by
+several gentlemen to do so. These gentlemen would not have been so
+pressing, if an appearance like that of the _Daedalus_ had not happened
+very recently. How many written testimonies of the existence of
+sea-serpents will not be found in log books and private journals of
+navigators!
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 31.--The sea-serpent as seen by an officer of H. M.
+S. _Plumper_.]
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=121=.--1849, February 18.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849 we read, p. 2459:
+
+“Captain Adams, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, which arrived at
+Jacksonville, Florida, on the 1^{st} of April, from New York, had sight
+of a monster in many respects resembling the sea-monsters described
+by many others. Captain Adams states that on the morning of Sunday,
+the 18th. of February, about nine o’clock, when off the south point of
+Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s (Florida)
+bar, the attention of himself, crew and passengers, was suddenly
+rivetted upon an immense sea monster, which he took to be a serpent.
+It lifted its head, which was that of a snake, several times out of
+the water, seemingly to take a survey to the vessel, and at such times
+displayed the largest portion of its body, and a pair of frightful fins
+or claws, several feet in length. His tail was not seen at any time;
+but, judging from the dimensions of the body, the captain supposes the
+leviathan to be about 90 feet in length. Its neck tapered small from
+the head to the body and it appeared to measure about seven feet across
+the broadest part of the back. The colour was that of a dirty brown.
+When first seen it was moving towards the mouth of the St. John’s. The
+monster moved from the side of the vessel, and placed itself athwart
+its track, in front of her bows; but Captain Adams, not feeling partial
+to an encounter with his snakeship, ordered the vessel to be kept off.
+A boy on the deck, not knowing his antagonist, had seized a harpoon,
+and was in the act of striking, when he was prevented by the vessel’s
+moving off”--“_Boston Atlas_”.
+
+At a glance we recognize the sea-serpent, as it appeared to HANS EGEDE.
+“The largest portion of its body” was seen, “and a pair of frightful
+fins or claws, several feet in length”. The reader may compare the fig.
+19 in our report n^o. 5.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=122=.--1849, May 30.--(_Illustrated London News_, 1850, January, 19.--)
+
+“The following is an extract from the private log of Captain Edwards
+of the _Alpha_.--“Wednesday, May 30, P. M., strong breezes at N. N.
+W., and a sharp sea on; about 1.15 I felt a strange shaking of the
+ship. Mr. Thomson, my chief officer; Mr. George Park, civil engineer,
+cabin passenger on board, ran on deck as well as myself, when we beheld
+immediately under our lee quarter a monster of huge dimensions. It had
+no fins or broad tail, as whales have. It was of a light fawn colour,
+with large brown spots behind the shoulders; the head pointed like
+that of a porpoise. It had large glossy eyes; the shoulder was much
+darker than the rest of the body, which was the thickest part of it,
+(say twenty feet in diameter), from thence diminishing to the tail, to
+about the size of our mainyard in the slings (say twenty-four inches
+diameter). He took a turn round, and we afterwards saw him astern,
+and he went away in a S. E. by S. direction, at about thirty miles an
+hour.”--_Melbourne Daily News_, July, 1.--(“A correspondent, who sends
+us the above, adds that he believes this to be the first time the
+sea-serpent is stated to have been seen so far south.”)
+
+Evidently the animal remained under water for a long time, and struck
+the vessel in coming to the surface. Seen from very near the colour
+evidently did not seem dark brown, but of a lighter hue. The absence
+of visible fins, the pointed tail, the brown spotted skin (no scales
+are mentioned, so it must have been smooth), the pointed head, the
+appearance of shoulders, the large eyes, its astonishing rapidity in
+swimming, all these statements characterize the sea-serpent. Alarmed at
+its having struck the vessel, off it went! Evidently Captain EDWARDS
+did not see the tip of the tail, which is rather pointed; he described,
+it is clear, what he took for the end of it, the extreme end being
+under water. No latitude is given in this report, but we may conclude
+that the appearance took place more towards the south than Melbourne is
+situated. This town is situated at about 38° S. lat., so the appearance
+may have taken place between 40° and 45° S. lat., and of course between
+110° and 145° W. longitude, in the common track of vessels.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=123=.--1849, September 15.--(_Illustrated London News_ for 1850,
+January 12).--Extract from a letter, dated “H. M. S. _Cleopatra_,
+Singapore, Oct. 26, 1849”, from an officer of that ship:--“Sept. 15.
+This evening they reported the _Sea-Serpent_: several of the men, as
+well as the officer of the forecastle, saw the monster; and they all
+ran aft to see it from the stern: they say it was about _thirty feet
+long_. After the report, all hands came to deck; but the evening was
+fast drawing to a close, and the ship going at eight knots, soon left
+the monster astern, going through the water very quickly to the N.
+W.”--(_From a Correspondent._)
+
+Most probably this appearance took place in the Indian Ocean between
+latitude 10 and 20 S. and longitude 50 and 70 E.
+
+If one of the gentlemen of the _Cleopatra_ is still in the land of
+the living, he will greatly oblige me by sending me some more details
+of the external appearance of the animal, and of the place where the
+animal was seen.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+“The Rev. Alfred Charles Smith, M. A., an excellent naturalist, who
+passed the three summer months of 1850 in Norway, and who published”
+his _Notes on Observations in Natural History during a Tour in Norway_
+“in the _Zoologist_ for that and the following year, thus alludes to
+his own inquiries, which, if they add nothing to the amount of fact
+accumulated, add weight to the testimonies already adduced”. (GOSSE,
+_Romance of Natural History_, 13th. Ed., Vol. I., p. 282.)
+
+“Being in the country of the renowned Bishop Pontoppidan, and in the
+fjords which are generally claimed as the home, or, at any rate, as one
+of the habitations of the sea-serpent, whose existence seems yet to be
+a disputed point in England, I lost no opportunity of making inquiries
+of all I could see, as to the general belief in the country regarding
+the animal in question; but all, with one single exception--naval
+officers, sailors, boatmen, and fishermen--concurred in affirming most
+positively that such an animal did exist, and had been repeatedly seen
+off their coasts and fjords, though I was never fortunate enough to
+meet a man who could boast of having seen him with his own eyes. All,
+however, agreed in unhesitating belief as to his existence and frequent
+appearance; and all seemed to marvel very much at the scepticism of the
+English, for refusing credence to what to the minds of the Norwegians
+seemed so incontrovertible. The single exception to which I have
+alluded, was a Norwegian officer, who ridiculed what he called the
+credulity or gullibility of his countrymen; though I am bound to add
+my belief, that he did this, not from any decided opinion of his own,
+but to make a show of superior shrewdness in the eyes of an Englishman,
+who, he at once concluded, must undoubtedly disbelieve the existence
+of the marine monster. That Englishman, however, certainly partakes of
+the credulity of the Northmen, and cannot withhold his belief in the
+existence of some huge inhabitant of those northern seas, when, to his
+mind, the fact of his existence has been so clearly proved by numerous
+eye-witnesses, many of whom were too intelligent to be deceived, and
+too honest to be doubted.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The reader will remember the splendid hoax of the _New York Tribune_
+(1852); now Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP in his _Tagsberichte über die
+Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde_, no 486, already doubted this
+report. After some time (n^o. 491) he communicated to his readers that
+according to the _Philadelphia Bulletin_, the whole was a hoax, but to
+show them how firm a believer Mr. FRORIEP, nevertheless, remained, he
+adds:
+
+“This, however, will not prevent us from bestowing further attention on
+the subject of the Sea-Serpent.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=124=.--1850?--The following evidence may be called one of the more
+interesting which tell about the habits of the sea-serpent. In the
+_Zoologist_ of 1862, p. 7850, we read:
+
+“Off Madeira, on board R. M. S. _Thames_. Made acquaintance with a
+Captain Christmas, of the Danish Navy, a proprietor in Santa Cruz, and
+holding some office about the Danish Court. He told me he once saw a
+sea-serpent between Iceland and the Faroe Islands. He was lying in
+to a gale of wind, in a frigate of which he had the command, when an
+immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship, as if pursued, and lo
+and behold a creature with a neck moving like that of a swan, about the
+thickness of a man’s waist, with a head like a horse, raised itself
+slowly and gracefully from the deep, and seeing the ship it immediately
+disappeared again, head foremost, like a duck diving. He saw it only
+for a few seconds; the part above water seemed about eighteen feet in
+length. He is a singularly intelligent man, and by no means one to
+allow his imagination to run away with him.--_Stephen Cave, M. P. for
+Shoreham; 35, Wilson Place, April 29, 1861, in a letter to Mr. Gosse._”
+
+It is a very remarkable fact that we meet here the sea-serpent
+between Iceland and the Far-Oer, a place situated between the two
+most frequented parts of the North Atlantic, i. e. the coasts of
+Norway and the coasts of the United States. But it is not the first
+time; the readers will remember the report of HANS EGEDE (n^o. 5)
+and that of Capt. BROWN (n^o. 56). Remarkable, too, is the fact that
+the sea-serpent now made its appearance in a gale of wind. Is this
+not a matter of surprise as everywhere else is stated that it appears
+only in fine weather? Is it not reasonable therefore, to conclude
+that the animal feels comfortable in fine weather, but that, being an
+air-breathing animal it must come to the surface from time to time
+and may consequently be seen at times when there is wind? There is
+the statement of Captain M’QUHAE, who speaks of a “breeze” and here
+we meet with “a gale of wind”. It is also worthy of our notice that
+Capt. CRISTMAS mentions the immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the
+ship, as if pursued, and a sea-serpent making its appearance. I need
+not remind my readers of the same observation of some gentlemen near
+Nova Scotia (n^o. 97). Later on we shall have the report in which a
+sea-serpent gripped “a whale” (of the smaller kind) in its fin, and we
+have already learned that a sea-serpent (n^o. 54) was engaged with “a
+whale” (of the smaller kind).
+
+Not less important is the description of the long neck, moving like
+that of a swan, and disappearing head foremost like a duck diving.
+Nearly exactly the same thing was observed in 1879, April 5.
+
+The thickness of the neck was that of a man’s waist, the part above
+the water measured eighteen feet in length, and yet the foreflappers
+remained hidden under water. The head is described as resembling that
+of a horse, which may be the result of the animal bearing a mane, and
+when first rising out of the water, holding its head in a nearly right
+angle with the neck. Moreover the nostrils might have been widely
+opened. The animal of Capt. M’QUHAE had also a neck of one foot and a
+third in diameter; head and neck had a length of about twenty feet, for
+at about twenty feet in the rear of the head was seen the animal’s fore
+flapper. So we may conclude that these two individuals were of the same
+or nearly of the same length.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=125=.--1853?--Dr. TRAILL says in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society
+at Edinburgh_, n^o. 44, May, 1854, that it “is said to have been seen
+lately in some of their fjords.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=126=.--1854, September 4.--(_Illustrated London News_, for 1855,
+February 17.--)
+
+“It is reported by the British Brig _Albeona_, arrived at Liverpool,
+that on the 4th. of September last, about five in the afternoon, in
+lat. 38 S., long 13 E., while the ship was under a light wind and in
+smooth water, a sea-monster of great size and singular appearance was
+descried. Attention was first directed to it by the broken action
+of the water, which otherwise was smooth all around. The animal was
+discovered protruding its head above water to the length of about 30
+feet, at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizon. His head was about 12
+feet long and was marked by a white stripe or streak down each side.
+At about six feet from the termination of the streaks, which were
+presumed to be its jaws, there was a protuberance on its back like a
+small water-cask. The creature kept its mouth shut, but its eyes were
+plainly visible. At the point of contact with the water the body seemed
+about as much as the ship’s long-boat round. The general colour of the
+body was black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like
+a pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. While under
+observation he dipped under water three times, remaining submerged
+about a minute each time. From the broken action of the water at
+different points, it seemed as if protuberances, similar to that on the
+back existed on various parts of the body. From the best conjecture
+that could be made, it was computed at 180 feet in length over all.”
+
+The length of the head may be somewhat exaggerated, the largest
+dimensions admissible are 6 feet in breadth and about 8 feet in length,
+as we shall afterwards observe from one of the most recent reports. It
+is a remarkable fact that here mention is made of a white stripe or
+streak down on each side of the head, presumed to be its jaws. In the
+deposition of Captain FINNEY (n^o. 34) too, we read “It had a white
+stripe extending the whole length of the head just above the water,
+there where the underjaw must have been”. And in the figures of the
+animal seen by the gentlemen of the _Daedalus_ (fig. 28, 29, 30) the
+underjaw is drawn white, and described whitish brown or yellowish
+white. The protuberance on its back (read on the back of its neck)
+was a fold in the animal’s skin, as may be seen in the sea-lions in
+our Zoological Gardens, when they contract their long necks, and then
+the other “protuberances, similar to that on the back” were of the
+same character. This character of having bunches occasionally, is
+well known to us. Or all these protuberances were merely vertical
+undulations.
+
+Attention was first paid to it by the broken action of the water,
+which otherwise was smooth all around. So the animal first swam for a
+moment just below the surface, a habit which we have often observed in
+foregoing reports. The general colour of the body was black, but under
+the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch, of a lighter colour
+than the rest of the animal. As to the description of the colour of
+the animal’s throat, it agreed with foregoing statements. As to the
+loose skin, and the pouch, this is also only explicable by the animal’s
+having a skin just like sea-lions. It is so loose and folds so easily,
+that if the head is bent a little downward, or if the neck is somewhat
+contracted, several folds are seen, which led Captain BROWN (n^o. 56)
+to mention “eight gills under the neck”. He had better have written
+“gill-splits”, meaning the furrows between the folds.--The length of
+180 feet may be somewhat exaggerated, though we will afterwards prove
+that individuals of still greater length must exist.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=127=.--1855, August?--In the letter from Capt. G. H. HARRINGTON to
+Rear-Admiral W. A. B. HAMILTON, dated Liverpool, February 8, 1858,
+which letter will be inserted afterwards, we read:
+
+“I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, shipowners of this place,
+that one of their captains reported a similar thing about two years
+ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took no further notice of
+it, supposing that he might have been deceived.”
+
+I am convinced that the captain really saw a sea-serpent. The reader
+will, I hope, be convinced of it himself, after having read Captain
+HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=128=.--1856, March 30.--_(Illustrated London News_ of the 3d. of May,
+1856).
+
+  “To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”
+
+  “_Imogen_, Channel, 15th. April, 1856.”
+
+“Sir.--We beg to hand you the enclosed Sketch of a Sea-Serpent we had
+the good fortune to sight on the 30th. of March last.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.--The sea-serpent as seen by
+Capt. GUY of the _Imogen_.
+
+Fig. 32 = Fig. 33, seen with a telescope.]
+
+“Imogen, from Algoa Bay, towards London. Sunday 30th. March, 1856. Lat.
+29 deg., 11 min. N., Long. 34 deg., 36 min. W., bar. 30.50; calm and
+clear. Four vessels visible to southward and westward.”
+
+“About five minutes past eleven A. M., the helmsman drew our attention
+to something moving through the water, and causing a strong ripple
+about 400 yards distant from our starboard quarter.”
+
+“In a few moments it became more distinct, presenting the appearance
+in fig. 1., and showing an apparent length of about forty feet (above
+the surface of the sea), the undulations of the water extending
+on each side to a considerable distance in its wake. Mr. Statham
+immediately ascended to the maintopsailyard, Captain Guy and Mr.
+Harries watching the animal from the deck with the telescope. After
+passing the ship about half a mile, the serpent “rounded to” and raised
+its head, seemingly to look at us (fig. 2), and then steered away to
+the northward (N. E.), possibly to the neighbourhood of the Western
+Islands, frequently lifting its head (fig. 3). We traced its course
+until nearly on the horizon, from the topsailyard, and lost sight of it
+from deck about 11 h. 45 m. A. M. No doubt remained on our minds as to
+its being an immense snake, as the undulations of its body were clearly
+perceptible, although we were unable to distinguish its eyes.”
+
+“The weather being fine and the glossy surface of the sea only
+occasionally disturbed by slight flaws (catspaws) of wind, we had a
+perfect opportunity of noticing its movements.”
+
+“In conformity to your regulations we inclose our references, and
+remain,
+
+  “Sir, your obedient servants,
+
+  “James Guy, Commander,
+
+  “J. H. Statham, Julian B. Harries, D. J. Williamson, Passengers.”
+
+After the figures of Capt. M’QUHAE of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118, fig.
+28, 29, 30), which show the animal swimming with its body in a straight
+line, these four figures of the animal are the best we have, but here
+it is swimming with vertical undulations. To the description I can add
+nothing, nor need I explain anything. Description and figures complete
+each other and give an accurate and very natural idea of a sight of the
+animal seen from afar.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=129=.--1856, July 8.--(The _Illustrated London News_ of the 4th. of
+October, 1856.)
+
+“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”
+
+“Colonial Agency, 4, Cullum-street, London, September 25th. 1856.”
+
+“We hand you the following extract from the log-book of our ship
+_Princess_, Captain A. R. N. Tremearne, in London Docks 15th. inst.,
+from China, viz:--”
+
+““Thuesday, July 8, 1856.--Latitude accurate 34° 56′ S.; Longitude
+accurate 18° 14′ E. At one P. M. saw a very large fish, with a head
+like a walrus, and twelve fins, similar to those in a black fish, but
+turned the contrary way. The back was from 20 to 30 feet long; also a
+great length of tail. It is not improbable that this monster has been
+taken for the great sea-serpent. Fired and hit it near the head with
+rifle-ball. At eight, fresh wind and fine.””
+
+“We submit that the repeated accounts of seeing a marine monster,
+whatever be its correct name or kind, yet harmonising in some leading
+descriptions forbid longer doubt of one such creature existing, and
+we inclose you a rough sketch as this one appeared, signed by Captain
+Tremearne, who has been six years in our employ, and is otherwise well
+known. His own private log contains a similar record, and we have
+interrogated others of the _Princess_ crew, who assert the fact of such
+appearance.”
+
+“Captain Tremearne states that Captain Morgan, a passenger by the
+_Princess_, but who at St. Helena joined the ship _Senator_, to command
+her to Liverpool (where she is daily expected), also saw this monster,
+and can corroborate the statements.”
+
+“Until 13th. of October the _Princess_ will be at London Dock jetty,
+loading for Melbourne, and naturalists and other scientific persons
+can there make further inquiries, provided they do not subject Captain
+Tremearne to correspondence or interrupt ship’s duties, which are
+urgent for her speedy departure. The ship’s log-book and the rough
+sketch of the fish can also be inspected at our office.”
+
+  “Edmund J. Wheeler and Co.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 36.--The sea-serpent as seen by Captains TREMEARNE
+and MORGAN.]
+
+Though the description is very short, the figure enables us to make
+the following conjecture. Captain TREMEARNE really saw a sea-serpent,
+swimming with extraordinary speed, most probably because, on coming to
+the surface, it was alarmed by the unexpected presence of the ship.
+Having remained under water a long time it suddenly exhaled on coming
+to the surface, and blew like a whale, as the figure shows. The
+extreme velocity of its motion is cause that the impression of the head
+was that of a walrus. But this is a remarkable fact. We have already
+observed that a Norwegian fisherman described the head as resembling
+that of a seal (n^o. 8), and that Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29), too described
+at first sight the head to resemble that of a seal. Afterwards Mr.
+KRIUKOF (n^o. 36) better acquainted with sea-lions, described it as
+resembling a sea-lion’s; more than once the bristles on the upper lip
+are mentioned; one of the gentlemen of the _Daedalus_ drew a head
+distinctly that of a Pinniped, and Captain TREMEARNE declares that it
+had the head of a walrus. Most probably he has seen the animal close
+to him and in its face, and saw the upper-lip with bristly whiskers,
+though this is neither mentioned nor figured. The same uncommonly rapid
+motion of the animal caused the captain to draw the neck too short and
+to see “twelve fins”. He was the dupe of an optical illusion, resulting
+from the very rapid paddling of the animal’s fore-flappers. But he
+has very well observed that the posture of the flappers when directed
+as upward as possible is “turned the contrary way to those in a black
+fish”. The head is described by him as that of a mammal, belonging to
+the order of Pinnipeds, the posture of the flappers is exactly that
+which pinnipedian mammals, as sea-lions and walruses, would exhibit,
+when swimming with extreme velocity. No reptile is able to lift up its
+fore-limbs to such a height. The animal in this position, but seen
+from behind, would have the external features as shown in the figure
+of Lieutenant HAYNES (fig. 45, n^o. 148). And captain TREMEARNE has
+also very well observed and delineated that six of the fins were on
+the left, and six on the right sight of the animal as if rising out
+of the water, and that the twelve were not situated on the animal’s
+back. The rough back, too, is a proof that the animal had a mane. The
+violent motions of the flappers must have caused a severe splashing
+and foaming of the water; it is clear that this is omitted by captain
+TREMEARNE when drawing his figure. So this report, though apparently
+of no worth, is, with the figure, one of the most valuable reports of
+an appearance of the sea-serpent, throwing light upon its rank in the
+system of nature. Remarkable is the fact that captain TREMEARNE writes:
+“it is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great
+sea-serpent”.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=130=.--1857, February 16.--The following letter was forwarded by
+Dr. Biccard to his friend Mr. FAIRBRIDGE, at his request, was then
+published in the _Cape Argus_ of the 14th. of March, 1857, and
+reprinted, with the figure, in the _Illustrated London News_ of 1857,
+June 13.--
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 37 and 38.--Two Positions of the sea-serpent as
+seen by Dr. BICCARD.]
+
+  “Cape Town, 11th. March, 1857.
+
+“My dear Fairbridge,--According to your wish, I give you a short
+description of the Sea-Serpent seen by me and others opposite the old
+light-house at Green Point.”
+
+“On Monday, the 16th. of February last, I went out to Green Point in
+the afternoon. At about 5 p. m., or a little after, I was called by
+Mr. Murray, the light-house-keeper, to “come and see a sea monster”.
+I proceeded to the light-house, and from thence I saw on the water,
+about 150 yards from the shore, the serpent, of which some details
+have already appeared in print. It was lying in the position shown
+in the accompanying sketch n^o. 1. I borrowed a rifle from Mr. Flail
+(Mr. Murray’s father-in-law), and fired at the animal. The ball fell
+short in front of it by about four yards, as shown in the sketch. The
+animal did not move, and I then fired a second shot, the ball striking
+about a foot and a half from it. The serpent, then apparently startled,
+moved from his position, straightened himself out, and went under
+water, evidently getting out of the way. He was invisible for about ten
+minutes, at the expiration of which interval he reappeared at about two
+hundred yards distance, and I should say about forty yards further off.
+He then came right on towards the place where I first saw him; but,
+before arriving there, my son, who had joined me, fired at the animal.
+Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple of the rifle, and I was thus
+prevented from further firing. Upon reaching the place he had first
+occupied, the serpent formed himself into the position delineated in
+Sketch n^o. 2. He then stood right into the bay, and soon afterwards we
+lost sight of him altogether.”
+
+“As I have stated, the distance the animal kept from shore was not
+more than 200 yards; its length was about 200 feet, but its thickness
+I cannot tell, the upper part of the body only being visible. The head
+could be seen but indistinctly, as he raised it at intervals, as shown
+in the sketch. I consider the protuberance to be the upper part of the
+head, but I could not discover the eyes, notwithstanding the short
+distance, and the telescope which was a pretty good one. The colour of
+the animal was a dark dull colour, except the head, which was maculated
+with large white spots. The weather at this time was very calm, with a
+light northwesterly breeze. Besides myself, the serpent was seen by Mr.
+Hall, Mr. Murray, Mrs. and Miss Biccard, my two sons, and my coachman,
+who all saw it distinctly.”
+
+  “Yours, &c.,
+
+  “Biccard.”
+
+Nobody can help laughing when he sees this figure, representing
+something very much like a black buoy, with white streaks and spots,
+and glittering in the sun, having a long rope attached to it! It is,
+however, pretty well done for one who cannot draw. As in so many other
+instances the figures and the text complete each other. The animal
+appears here nearly in the same position as it did in the Harbour of
+Gloucester, in 1817. The same astonishing lateral flexibility! “It
+lay down, in turning, in the form of a staple or horse-shoe” we have
+learned on that occasion, and “in doing so it nearly touched its head
+with its tail”, “the tail and the head then appeared only to be a few
+yards one from another”, once “it lay down in the form of an S”, &c.
+Though the Doctor does not describe this position, his figures tell it
+us. As the second ball apparently startled it, it changed its position,
+straightened itself out, disappeared, and came up after ten minutes,
+about forty yards further off. It behaved in the same way in the
+Harbour of Gloucester. The length may again be somewhat exaggerated,
+though I do not think such to be the case. The white streaks and spots
+on the head may have been the shining reflexion of day or sunlight,
+the head being thoroughly wet, as the animal raised and dropped it at
+intervals, which made the water run down every time, but it is also
+very possible that the individual was really spotted on its head.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=131=.--1857, December 12.--(The _Times_ of February 5, 1858; the
+_Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5989.).
+
+“I beg to enclose you a copy of an extract from the meteorological
+journal kept by me on board the ship _Castilian_, on a voyage from
+Bombay to Liverpool. I have sent the original to the Board of Trade,
+for whom the observations have been made during my last voyage. I am
+glad to confirm a statement made by the commander of Her Majesty’s ship
+_Daedalus_, some years ago, as to the existence of such an animal as
+that described by him.--G. H. Harrington; 14 and 14¹⁄₂, South Castle
+Street, Liverpool, February 2, 1858.--
+
+“Copy of an Extract from the Board of Trade Meteorological Journal,
+kept by Captain Harrington, of the ship _Castilian_, from Bombay to
+Liverpool.”
+
+“Ship _Castilian_, December 12, 1857, north-east end of St. Helena,
+bearing north-west, distance 10 miles.”
+
+“At 6.30 p. m., strong breezes and cloudy, ship sailing about twelve
+miles per hour. While myself and officers were standing on the lee-side
+of the poop, looking towards the island, we were startled by the sight
+of a huge marine animal, which reared its head out of the water within
+twenty yards of the ship, when it suddenly disappeared for about half a
+minute, and then made its appearance in the same manner again, showing
+us distinctly its neck and head about ten or twelve feet out of the
+water. Its head was shaped like a long nun-buoy, and I suppose the
+diameter to have been seven or eight feet in the largest part, with a
+kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet
+from the top; the water was discoloured for several hundred feet from
+its head, so much so that, on its first appearance, my impression was
+that the ship was in broken water, produced, as I supposed, by some
+vulcanic agency since the last time I passed the island; but the second
+appearance completely dispelled those fears, and assured us that it was
+a monster of extraordinary length, which appeared to be moving slowly
+towards the land. The ship was going too fast to enable us to reach the
+mast-head in time to form a correct estimate of its extreme length,
+but from what we saw from the deck we conclude that it must have been
+over two hundred feet long. The boatswain and several of the crew who
+observed it from the top-gallant forecastle, state that it was more
+than double the length of the ship, in which case it must have been
+five hundred feet. Be that as it may, I am convinced that it belonged
+to the serpent tribe; it was of a dark colour about the head, and was
+covered with several white spots. Having a press of canvas on the ship
+at the time, I was unable to round to without risk, and therefore was
+precluded from getting another sight of this leviathan of the deep.”
+
+  “George Henry Harrington, Commander.”
+
+  “William Davies, Chief Officer.”
+
+  “Edward Wheeler, Second Officer.”
+
+The animal seen by Captain HARRINGTON was no doubt a sea-serpent, of
+which at first sight, only the head and a small portion of the neck
+were exposed to the eyes of the spectators. Afterwards, when the animal
+moved slowly towards the land, its whole length must have been visible,
+and estimated at about two hundred feet. The head was seen in such a
+direction that it resembled a “nun-buoy”. The diameter of the head may
+have been six feet. At a moment that the animal contracted its neck, an
+annular fold was formed round the neck just behind the head, as may
+be seen in our sea-lions, and which led Captain HARRINGTON to write
+“with a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two
+feet from the top” of the head, i. e. somewhat behind the occiput. The
+discolouring of the water has of course nothing at all to do with the
+animal or its appearance.
+
+Some days afterwards (_Times_ of February 13, 1858; _Zoologist_ for
+1858, p. 5990) this document was followed by an account of FREDERIC
+SMITH, who stated that on December 28th., 1848, commanding the ship
+PEKIN, they saw an extraordinary creature, which, when harpooned, and
+hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, twenty
+feet long. “So like a huge living monster did this appear, that, had
+circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly
+have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” Captain SMITH firmly
+believes that the animals of the _Daedalus_ and of the _Castilian_ were
+pieces of the same weed.
+
+Hereupon, “An officer of H. M. S. _Daedalus_” wrote an apology in the
+_Times_ of 16th. February, which we have inserted in n^o. 118. This
+letter was immediately followed in the same paper of the same date by
+the two following:
+
+“Sir.--A letter appears in the _Times_ of to-day signed “Frederic
+Smith” on the subject of the sea-serpent.
+
+“The writer has this advantage over others who have reported the
+occasional appearance of what he fairly calls “this queer fish”--that
+he has handled as well as seen it. Still there would seem to be a
+considerable variety in the genus, for, while the specimen obtained by
+the _Pekin_ in 1848 was 4 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length,
+that seen from the _Circassian_ is described, if I remember rightly, in
+your paper of 4th. inst. as 10 feet or 11 feet in diameter, and upwards
+of 200 feet in length.”
+
+“In this latter instance it was seen only, and but a passing sight; and
+testimony of this kind is just that which naturalists may be slow to
+receive as evidence of any new fact; nevertheless the practised vision
+of the _Circassian’s_ commander should go for something, and as it
+would appear from the following letter that Captain Harrington is to be
+in town next week and ready to answer any questions, it might be worth
+the while of some of our philosophers to examine a little into the
+question of what Capt. Harrington and his officers really did see.”
+
+“I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant
+
+  “Blackheath, February 12.”      “W. A. B. Hamilton.”
+
+For _Circassian_ of course read _Castilian_.
+
+  “14, South Castle Street, Liverpool, February 8.
+
+“Dear Sir,--I am in receipt of your favour of the 6th. of February, and
+should be glad if my communication to the _Times_ might be instrumental
+in dispelling many doubts respecting the existence of such a monster as
+that described by myself and my officers.”
+
+“I communicated it to Capt. Schomberg, R. N., of this place, in the
+course of conversation, who advised me by all means to send a copy of
+it to the _Times_.”
+
+“Notwithstanding the assertions of men of science to the contrary I am
+now sure that such animals exist. I could no more be deceived than (as
+a seaman) I could mistake a porpoise for a whale. If it had been at a
+great distance it would have been different, but it was not above 20
+yards from the ship.”
+
+“I am of opinion that this animal makes its appearance at the surface
+at long intervals only. I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt,
+shipowners of this place, that one of their captains reported a similar
+thing about two years ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took
+no further notice of it, supposing, as your friend seems to do, that he
+might have been deceived.”
+
+“Twenty people, including Mrs. Harrington and my two officers, saw it
+as distinctly as I now see the gas light which I am writing by. I am
+well known in London, having commanded a steam transport during the
+Russian war belonging to the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company.”
+
+“Captain Claxton, R. N., of the Priory, Battersea, is a personal friend
+of mine. I am also well known to Sir Colin Campbell, who is now in the
+East. My present ship is 1604 tons new measurement, and a new ship,
+of which I own a good part myself. There are, therefore, many reasons
+(in addition to my holding a first-class certificate in the mercantile
+marine) to hinder me from propagating a report which can do me no
+good, and, if untrue, do injury to science in the room of assisting it
+to elicit the truth in so important a matter as the discovery of the
+inhabitants of the deep.”
+
+“I shall be in town for three or four days in the early part of next
+week. A letter addressed to me at the Jerusalem Coffee-House will meet
+with attention, and, if my limited time permit, I should be glad to
+have an interview with yourself, or any of your friends who might wish
+to have a verbal explanation in this matter.”
+
+  “I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant
+
+  “G. H. Harrington.”
+
+  “To Rear-Admiral W. A. B. Hamilton”
+
+This letter was again answered in a very witty way in the _Times_
+of Febr. 23, 1858; this however, will be inserted in our chapter on
+Explanations.
+
+In the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 6015, Mr. ALFRED CHARLES SMITH, an old
+acquaintance of ours (p. 299) now wrote the following remark:
+
+“To one who firmly believes in the existence of some huge marine
+monster of the serpent-form, such as the Northmen love to descant upon
+(and I am not ashamed to own to such credulity, as I have already
+declared in my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)), the clear and minute
+account of Capt. Harrington, on the sea-monster which he and twenty
+people saw on the 12th of December last, off the coast of St. Helena,
+was exceedingly interesting; nor did the subsequent letter of Mr. F.
+Smith tend to shake my belief in the accuracy of Capt. Harrington’s
+statement, the particulars of the two alleged appearances being so very
+different. I am not, however, about to argue the point, the premises
+before us being far too unsatisfactory and vague to argue from. I
+merely write to express my hope that as you have admitted the first
+correspondence on the subject to the pages of the _Zoologist_, you
+will give both parties fair play, and insert the remaining letters,
+which appeared in the _Times_ of February 16th and 23 respectively,
+copies of which I enclose, so that naturalists may have an opportunity
+of studying the case in all its bearings, before they form their
+conclusions.--Alfred Charles Smith; Yatesbury Rectory, Calne, March 5,
+1858.”
+
+Of course, it was but natural that also foreign newspapers should take
+great delight in this polemic. So we find in the _Revue Britannique_,
+of 1858, n^o 2, Febr. p. 496, an article full of erroneous statements:
+
+“Amongst the grave questions of the day, we did not think of meeting
+again, in the newspapers, with the famous sea-serpent, the problematic
+existence of which seemed to be banished to the world of apocryphal, or
+at least antediluvian animals; but no! three new eye-witnesses declare
+to have seen it, and very well too. Now a Captain Smith, of Newcastle,
+writes that he is convinced that these witnesses have been illuded, as
+he himself was on the 28th. of December, 1848, when after believing to
+see through his telescope an extraordinary monster, and after lowering
+the great net of the ship, he drew in only a gigantic sea-weed of
+twenty feet in length, which really had the form, attributed to
+the fantastic reptile. This indirect refutation, however, does not
+discourage the Rear-Admiral Harrington (imagine, a Rear-Admiral!) who
+in a second article in the _Times_, repeats that he is sure of the
+fact, that he has seen the sea-serpent twenty fathoms from his ship,
+that he has recognized it, as if he would have recognized a whale on
+the side of a porpoise, that his wife, who was on board, has seen it
+with him, as had his two officers, in short, that he will come to
+London, as soon as he has terminated his business at Liverpool, and
+will furnish all evidences demanded by science and scepticism. If he
+had only brought home the animal’s tail or one of its fins!”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=132=.--1858, January 26.--The _Illustrated London News_ of March 20,
+1858, mentions:
+
+“The following is a report made by Captain Suckling, of the ship
+_Carnatic_, of London, of a Sea Serpent seen by him between the Cape of
+Good Hope and St. Helena:--“On the 26th of January, in latitude 19°10′
+S., long 10°6′ W., about 5 minutes after noon, my attention was called
+by Captain Shuttleworth, a passenger on board the _Carnatic_ to a large
+spar sticking out of the water one end some thirty feet above the level
+of the sea. It appeared to me to be the lower mast of some wrecked
+vessel, and having the glass in my hand, with which I had been looking
+at an American vessel in sight, I examined it narrowly. It seemed to
+be passing very rapidly to the eastward, having altered its bearings
+several points in the course of a few minutes, when it suddenly
+disappeared, and came up shortly afterwards astern of the ship. It was
+seen by all those on deck at the time, and it is their opinion, as well
+as my own, that it was an enormous sea-serpent. The American ship _A.
+B. Thompson_ from Bombay to London, was in company at the time--wind
+light and variable, with clear weather”.--We have not space for the
+Sketch obligingly sent with this account”.
+
+The comparison with a spar, an unwrought spar, or spruce, a log
+of timber, etc., has been made more than once, as the reader will
+remember, and when we compare the figures, drawn by an officer of
+H. M. S. _Plumper_ (fig. 31), and by Major SENIOR (fig. 46), we can
+easily imagine, that in this position the animal must have illuded the
+observers more than once. It is a pity that the sketch has not been
+published. How many interesting drawings have in this way got into the
+paper-basket!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In 1860 Mr. P. H. GOSSE published his _Romance of Natural History_,
+First Series. The last chapter of this volume is entitled “the Great
+Unknown” and is entirely devoted to the Great Sea-Serpent. His manner
+of teaching Natural History to his readers was, as the able writer says
+himself, a poetical one. “In my many years’ wandering through the wide
+field of Natural History, I have always felt towards it something of
+a poet’s heart, though destitute of a poet’s genius”. I can recommend
+every zoologist and botanist to read his work in his leasure hours; I
+have read it with great interest and pleasure, increasing my knowledge,
+wandering with the writer from north to south and from east to west,
+from one pole to the other and from continents to the greatest depths
+of the ocean!
+
+The sea-serpent’s question was such a favourite one of this romantic
+naturalist, that in his preface he wrote the following about it:
+
+“If I may venture to point out one subject on which I have bestowed
+more than usual pains, and which I myself regard with more than common
+interest, it is that of the last chapter in this volume. An amount
+of evidence is adduced for the existence of the sub-mythic monster
+popularly known as “the sea-serpent”, such as has never been brought
+together before, and such as ought almost to set doubt at rest. But
+the cloudy uncertainty which has invested the very being of this
+creature; its home on the lone ocean; the fitful way in which it is
+seen and lost in its vast solitudes; its dimensions, vaguely gigantic;
+its dragon-like form; and the possibility of its association with
+beings considered to be lost in an obsolete antiquity;--all these
+are attributes which render it peculiarly precious to a romantic
+naturalist. I hope the statisticians will forgive me if they cannot see
+it with my spectacles.”
+
+His chapter on the sea-serpent will also be read with great interest.
+But there are several facts which he seems not to have been able
+to explain. In describing the animal, seen near Cape Ann, 1817, he
+writes: “_no appearance of mane was seen by any_”, without giving
+any explanation; he has evidently underlined these words to draw the
+readers’ attention to this evidence, which is so quite contradictory
+to others, mentioned before and afterwards. On the same page (p. 284)
+when repeating the expression of one of the eye-witnesses “the mode
+of progression was like that of a caterpillar”, Mr. Gosse inserts
+his opinion in the following terms: “probably a looping or geometric
+caterpillar”. Now my readers will be at one with me, that the motion
+of the geometric caterpillar is the last with which that of the
+sea-serpent can be compared! The rapid motion of a common caterpillar
+of some butterfly, when tickled on its back part, will give the best
+idea.
+
+The writer further tries to throw discredit on reports of Americans. He
+says (p. 287):
+
+“Though the position and character of some of these witnesses add
+weight to their testimony, and seem to preclude the possibility of
+their being either deceived or deceivers, on a matter which depended
+on the use of their eyes, yet, owing to a habit prevalent in the
+United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross
+exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we do naturally look with a
+lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe unusual or
+disputed phenomena.”
+
+I, however, am of the contrary opinion, and may turn his words in the
+following way: Though we generally and naturally look with a lurking
+suspicion on American statements, when they describe unusual or
+disputed phenomena, owing to a habit prevalent in the United States,
+of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross exaggerations, or
+hoaxing inventions, we are bound to admit all that is stated by such
+persons of unimpeachable character as Col. PERKINS and others, whose
+testimonies we have inserted in our papers. They evidently communicated
+what they saw, without any exaggeration and without any tendency to
+crack a joke or to hoax.
+
+Again p. 318 of his work, after having treated of only a few of the
+different reports, that had come in up to his days (1860) Mr. GOSSE
+goes on in the following terms:
+
+“A large mass of evidence has been accumulated; and I now set myself
+to examine it. In so doing, I shall eliminate from the inquiry all the
+testimony of Norwegian eye-witnesses, that obtained in Massachusetts
+in 1817, and various statements made by French and American captains
+since. Confining myself to English witnesses of known character and
+position, most of them being officers under the Crown, I have adduced
+the following testimonies.”
+
+Here again I must point out that there is not a single reason to
+exclude all testimonies not coming from British navigators. With
+such reasoning Mr. GOSSE makes himself ridiculous in the eyes of all
+reasonable persons of his own and of other nations! That it is wrong
+to exclude reports, because they are of Americans or Norwegians, the
+reader himself will be ready to admit, I think, after having read the
+different reports mentioned in this volume.
+
+“The following testimonies” now, alluded to by Mr. GOSSE, are:
+
+“1. That of five British officers, who saw the animal at Halifax, N.
+S., in 1833” (n^o. 97).
+
+“2. That of Captain M’Quhae and his officers, who saw it from the
+_Daedalus_ in 1848,” (n^o. 118).
+
+“3. That of Captain Beechy, who saw something similar from the
+_Blossom_” (n^o. 104).
+
+“4. That of Mr. Morries Stirling, who saw it in a Norwegian fjord”
+(n^o. 113).
+
+“5. That of Mr. Davidson, who saw it from the _Royal Saxon_, in 1829”
+(n^o. 93).
+
+“6. That of Captain Steele and others, who saw it from the _Barham_, in
+1852.” (See our Chapter on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, 1852, August 28).
+
+“7. That of Captain Harrington and his officers, who saw it from the
+_Castilian_, 1857” (n^o. 131).
+
+To our great astonishment Mr. Gosse also alludes to n^o. 6: That
+of Captain STEELE, who saw it from the _Barham_, in 1852. Some
+pages before, Mr. Gosse himself throws great doubt on this report,
+believing that the animal seen by Captain STEELE and his officers was
+a scabbard-fish, (the reader, I hope, will take the trouble to look up
+the report of 1852, August 28, in my Chapter on Would-Be Sea-Serpents,
+to read there again Mr. GOSSE’S own opinion of this report), and now he
+uses this report amongst others to examine to which of the recognized
+classes of created beings this rover of the ocean can be referred!
+
+Now Mr. GOSSE passes to this inquiry: first, he asks, is it an animal
+at all? And he comes to the conclusions that this must be so, for else
+the being could not move with that astonishing rapidity. Further he
+examines the sea-weed hypothesis, the seal-hypothesis, &c., and winds
+up with: “my own confident persuasion, that there exists some oceanic
+animal of immense proportions, which has not yet been received into
+the category of scientific zoology; and my strong opinion, that it
+possesses close affinities with the fossil _Enaliosauria_ of the lias.”
+
+All the above-mentioned views will be considered in Chapter V.
+
+To our great surprise we see that Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the
+_Zoologist_, who ever was a warm defender of the sea-serpent, and like
+Mr. GOSSE firmly believed that there are still living _Plesiosauri_, is
+of another opinion in 1860. In this year, a very large riband fish was
+captured on the Bermuda Isles. Three descriptions of this fish appeared
+in the _Zoologist_ (p. 6934, p. 6986, p. 6989), the last by Mr. NEWMAN
+himself, who, thinking that it was a new species, gave it the name
+of _Regalecus Jonesii_. The second description was by Mr. JONES, the
+naturalist on the Bermudas, at whose deposal the fish was placed by Mr.
+TRIMINGHAM, the captor. Mr. JONES, after his description, points out
+some striking peculiarities, which this riband-fish and the sea-serpent
+seen by captain M’QUHAE, had in common, and concludes that a part of
+the reports of the great sea-serpent must have been caused by the
+appearance of riband fishes. Now, Mr. NEWMAN, after the description of
+his new species _Regalecus Jonesii_, as I have already said, seems to
+waver in his opinion, for he adds:
+
+“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. JONES, the similarity
+of _Regalecus Jonesii_ to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent, I do not
+consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing
+for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course;
+hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and
+arranging the conflicting evidence already published in the “Zoologist.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=133=, =134=.--1861? August.--(_Zoologist_, 1862, p. 7850).--
+
+“On a Sunday afternoon, in the middle of August, above a hundred
+persons, at that time in and about the hotel, were called on to
+observe an extraordinary appearance in the sea, at no great distance
+from the shore. Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in
+great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, and
+showing all the common symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some
+wicked enemy. I had already more than once remarked this appearance
+from the rocks, but in a minor degree; and on these occasions I could
+always distinguish the shark, whose ravages among the “manhaidens”
+was the cause of such alarm. But the particular case in question was
+far different from those. The pursuer of the fugiting shoals soon
+became visible; and that it was a huge marine monster, stretching to a
+length quite beyond the dimensions of an ordinary fish, was evident
+to all observers. No one, in short, had any doubt as to its being the
+sea-serpent, or one of the species to which the animal or animals so
+frequently before seen belonged. The distance at which this one was,
+for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, visible, made it impossible to
+give a description of its apparent dimensions so accurate as to carry
+conviction to the sceptical. For us who witnessed it, it was enough to
+be convinced that the thing was a reality. But one of the spectators,
+Dr. Amos Binney, a gentleman of scientific attainments, drew up a
+minute account of it, which is deposited in the archives of one of the
+Philosophical Societies of Boston. I was and am quite satisfied that
+on this occasion I had a partial and indistinct but positive view of
+this celebrated nondescript; but had the least doubt rested on my mind
+it would have been entirely removed by the event of the day following
+the one just recorded. On that day, a little before noon, my wife was
+sitting, as was her wont, reading on the upper piazza of the hotel. She
+was alone. The gentlemen, including myself and my son, were, as usual,
+absent at Boston, and the ladies were scattered in various directions.
+She was startled by a cry from the house of “The sea-serpent! the
+sea-serpent!” But this had been so frequent, by the way of joke, since
+the event of the preceding day, and was so like “The wolf! the wolf!”
+of the fable, that it did not attract her particular attention for a
+moment or two, until she observed two women belonging to the family of
+the hotel keeper running along the piazza towards the corner nearest
+the sea, with wonder in their eyes, and the cry of “The serpent! the
+serpent! he is turning! he is turning!” spontaneously bursting from
+their lips. Then my wife did fix her looks in the direction they
+ran; and sure enough she saw, apparently quite close beyond the line
+formed by the rising ground above the rocks, a huge serpent, gliding
+gracefully through the waves, having evidently performed the action of
+turning round. In an instant it was in a straight line, moving rapidly
+on; and after coasting for a couple of minutes the north west front
+of the hotel, and (as accurately as the astonished observer could
+calculate) looking as it stretched at full-length about the length
+of the piazza,--that is to say, about ninety feet,--it sank quietly
+beneath the surface, and was seen no more. The person who was thus so
+lucky as to get this unobstructed view is one so little liable to be
+led astray by any imaginary impulse, that I may reckon on her statement
+with entirely as much confidence as if my own eyes had demonstrated
+its truth.”--_Grattan’s Civilized America_, p. 39.--
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the _Zoologist_, ought to have mentioned
+the writer of the article, the date of it and the locality where the
+appearance took place. It was most probably Nahant, the well known
+watering place near Lynn, Mass. I have had no opportunity to consult
+GRATTAN’s _Civilized America_, therefore I have placed the note of
+interrogation after the above-mentioned year.
+
+In this report only a few words are devoted to the description of the
+animal, yet the description itself is given as well as possible by the
+lady who saw it from the upper piazza of the hotel.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=135=.--1863, May 16th.--(_Zoologist_, 1863, p. 8727).
+
+“The following is a copy of a letter from an officer of the
+African mail steamer _Athenian_, addressed to a gentleman in this
+town:--“African Royal Mail Screw Steamer _Athenian_, Cape Palmas, May,
+16, 1863.--My dear Sir,--All doubts may now be set at rest about the
+great sea-serpent. On the 6th. of May the African Royal Mail Steam Ship
+_Athenian_ on her passage from Teneriffe to Bathurst, fell in with
+one. At about 7 a. m. John Chapple, quartermaster, at the wheel, saw
+something floating towards the ship. He called the attention of the
+Rev. Mr. Smith and another passenger, who were on deck at the time, to
+it. On nearing the steamer it was discovered to be a large snake about
+100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the
+body slightly under. On its head was something like a mane or sea-weed.
+The body was about the size of our mainmast. You are at liberty to
+publish this.”
+
+The reader will observe that this too is a very insignificant
+description, but it mentions one of the very few cases that the tail of
+the animal was visible above the surface of the water.
+
+The same report was published in the _Illustrated London News_ of 1863,
+June, 13.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=136=.--1871.--(G. VERSCHUUR, _Eene reis om de wereld in vier honderd
+tachtig dagen_).--After an appearance of a would-be sea-serpent on
+board the _Grenada_, which caused a dispute between those who saw it
+and those who were not so fortunate,
+
+“the second officer, who joined in the quarrel, declared to have seen
+in 1871, near the coast of Australia a sea-serpent, which was several
+meters in length.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=137=, =138=, =139=, =140=.--1872, August 20th., 21st., 23d. and
+24th.--In the _Zoologist_ of May 1873, p. 3517, the following
+statements of high respectable gentlemen are published.
+
+“Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the
+Norwegian Sea-Serpent, on the Western Coast of Scotland, in August,
+1872. By the Rev. John Macrae, Minister of Glenelg, Invernesshire, and
+the Rev. David Twopeny, Vicar of Stockbury, Kent.”
+
+“On the 20th. of August, 1872, we started from Glenelg in a small
+cutter, “the Leda”, for an excursion to Lochourn. Our party consisted,
+besides ourselves, of two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman G. B., and a
+Highland lad. Our course lay down the Sound of Sleat, which on that
+side divides the Isle of Skye from the mainland, the average of breadth
+of the Channel in that part being two miles. It was calm and sunshiny,
+not a breath of air, and the sea perfectly smooth. As we were getting
+the cutter along with oars we perceived a dark mass about two hundred
+yards astern of us, to the north. While we were looking at it with our
+glasses (we had three on board) another similar black lump rose to the
+left of the first, leaving an interval between; then an other and an
+other followed, all in regular order. We did not doubt its being one
+living creature: it moved slowly across our wake, and disappeared.
+Presently the first mass, which was evidently the head, reappeared,
+and was followed by the rising of the other black lumps, as before.
+Sometimes three appeared, sometimes four, five, or six, and then sank
+again. When they rose, the head appeared first, if it had been down,
+and the lumps rose after it in regular order, beginning always with
+that, next the head, and rising gently; but when they sank, they sank
+all together, rather abruptly, sometimes leaving the head visible. It
+gave the impression of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself.
+There was no appearance of undulation: when the lumps sank, other lumps
+did not rise in the intervals between them. The greatest number we
+counted was seven, making eight with the head, as shown in the sketch
+N^o. 1. The parts were separated from each other by intervals of about
+their own length, the head being rather smaller and flatter than the
+rest, and the nose being very slightly visible above the water; but we
+did not see the head raised above the surface either this or the next
+day, nor could we see the eye. We had no means of measuring the length
+with any accuracy, but taking the distance from the centre of one lump
+to the centre of the next to be six feet, and it could scarcely be
+less, the whole length of the portion visible, including the intervals
+submerged, would be forty-five feet.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 39 and 40.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent as
+seen by the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. TWOPENY.]
+
+“Presently, as we were watching the creature, it began to approach us
+rapidly, causing a great agitation in the sea. Nearly the whole of the
+body, if not all of it, had now disappeared, and the head advanced
+at a great rate in the midst of a shower of fine spray, which was
+evidently raised in some way by the quick movement of the animal--it
+did not appear how,--and not by spouting. F. was alarmed and retreated
+to the cabin, crying out that the creature was coming down upon us.
+When within about a hundred yards of us it sank and moved away in
+the direction of Skye, just under the surface of the water, for we
+could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea to the
+distance of a mile or more. After this it continued at intervals to
+show itself, careering about at a distance, as long as we were in that
+part of the Sound, the head and a small part only of the body being
+visible on the surface; but we did not again on that day see it so near
+nor so well as at first. At one time F. and K. and G. B. saw a fin
+striking up at a little distance back from the head, but neither of us
+were then observing.”
+
+“On our return the next day we were again becalmed on the north side
+of the opening of Lochourn, where it is about three miles wide, the
+day warm and sunshiny as before. As we were dragging slowly along in
+the afternoon the creature again appeared over towards the south side,
+at a greater distance than we saw it the first day. It now showed
+itself in three or four rather long lines, as in the sketch N^o 2, and
+looked considerably longer than it did the day before: as nearly as we
+could compute, it looked at least sixty feet in length. Soon it began
+careering about, showing but a small part of itself, as on the day
+before, and appeared to be going up Lochourn. Later in the afternoon,
+when we were still becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, and by using
+the oars had nearly reached the Island of Sandaig, it came rushing
+past us about a hundred and fifty yards to the south, on its return
+from Lochourn. It went with great rapidity, its black head only being
+visible through the clear sea, followed by a long trail of agitated
+water. As it shot along, the noise of its rush through the water
+could be distinctly heard on board. There were no organs of motion
+to be seen, nor was there any shower of spray as on the day before,
+but nearly such a commotion in the sea as its quick passage might be
+expected to make. Its progress was equable and smooth, like that of a
+log towed rapidly. For the rest of the day, as we worked our way home
+northwards through the Sound of Sleat, it was occasionally within sight
+of us until night fall, rushing about at a distance, as before, and
+showing only its head and a small part of its body on the surface. It
+seemed on each day to keep about us, and as we were always then rowing,
+we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured
+sound of the oars. Its only exit in this direction to the north was by
+the narrow Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland, and
+only a third of a mile wide, and we left our boat, wondering whether
+the strange creature had gone that way or turned back again to the
+south.”--
+
+“We have only to add to this narration of what we saw ourselves
+the following instances of its being seen by other people, of the
+correctness of which we have no doubt:
+
+“The ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea saw it pass rapidly through on
+the evening of the 21st., and heard the rush of the water: they were
+surprised, and thought it might be a shoal of porpoises, but could not
+comprehend their going so quickly.”
+
+“Finlay Macrae, of Bundaloch, in the parish of Kintail, was within the
+mouth of Lochourn on the 21st., with other men in his boat, and saw the
+creature at about the distance of one hundred and fifty yards.”
+
+“Two days after we saw it, Alexander Macmillan, boat-builder at Dornie,
+was fishing in a boat in the entrance of Lochduich, halfway between
+Druidag and Castledonan, when he saw the animal near enough to hear
+the noise and see the ripple it made in rushing along in the sea. He
+says, that what seemed its head was followed by four or more lumps,
+or “half-rounds”, as he calls them, and that they sometimes rose and
+sometimes sank all together. He estimated its length as not less
+than sixty and eighty feet. He saw it also in two subsequent days in
+Lochduich. On all these occasions his brother Farquhar was with him in
+the boat, and they were both much alarmed and pulled to the shore in
+great haste.”
+
+“A lady at Duisdale, in Skye, a place overlooking the part of the Sound
+which is opposite the opening of Lochourn said that she was looking out
+for the glass when she saw a strange object on the sea which appeared
+like eight seals in a row. This was just about the time we saw it.”
+
+“We were also informed that about the same time it was seen from the
+island of Eigg, between Eigg and the mainland about twenty miles to the
+south-west of the opening of Lochourn.”
+
+“We have not permission to mention the names in these two last
+instances.”
+
+  “John Macrae”
+
+  “David Twopeny”
+
+“P. S. The writers of the above account scarcely expect the public
+to believe in the existence of the creature which they saw. Rather
+than that, they look for the disbelief and ridicule to which the
+subject always gives rise, partly on account of the animal having
+been pronounced to be a snake, without any sufficient evidence, but
+principally because of the exaggerations and fables with which the
+whole subject is beset. Nevertheless they consider themselves bound to
+leave a record of what they saw, in order that naturalists may receive
+it as a piece of evidence, or not, according to what they think it is
+worth. The animal will very probably turn up on these coasts again,
+and it will be always in that “dead season”, so convenient to editors
+of newspapers, for it is never seen but in the still warm days of
+summer or early autumn. There is a considerable probability that it
+has visited the same coasts before. In the summer of 1871 some large
+creature was seen for some time rushing about in Lochduich, but it did
+not show itself sufficiently for any one to ascertain what it was. Also
+some years back a well-known gentleman of the west coast, now living,
+was crossing the Sound of Mull, from Mull to the mainland, “on a very
+calm afternoon, when”, as he writes, “our attention was attracted to a
+monster which had come to the surface not more than fifty yards to our
+boat. It rose without causing the slightest disturbance of the sea, or
+making the slightest noise, and floated for some time on the surface,
+but without exhibiting its head or tail, showing only the ridge of the
+back, which was not that of a whale, or any other sea-animal that I
+had ever seen. The back appeared sharp and ridgelike, and in colour
+very dark, indeed black, or almost so. It rested quietly for a few
+minutes, and then dropped quietly down into the deep, without causing
+the slightest agitation. I should say that above forty feet of it,
+certainly not less, appeared on the surface.” It should be noticed
+that the inhabitants of that western coast are quite familiar with the
+appearance of whales, seals and porpoises, and when they see them,
+they recognize them at once. Whether the creature which pursued Mr.
+Maclean’s boat off the Island of Coll in 1808, and of which there is an
+account in the Transactions of the Wernerian Society (Vol. I, p. 442),
+was one of these Norwegian animals, it is not easy to say. Survivors
+who knew Mr. Maclean say that he could quite be relied upon for truth.”
+
+“The public are not likely to believe in the creature till it is
+caught, and that does not seem likely to happen just yet, for a variety
+of reasons,--one reason being that it has, from all the accounts given
+of it, the power of moving very rapidly. On the 20th., while we were
+becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, a steam launch slowly passed us,
+and, as we watched it, we reckoned its rate at five or six miles an
+hour. When the animal rushed past us on the next day at about the same
+distance, and when we were again becalmed nearly in the same place, we
+agreed that it went quite twice as fast as the steamer, and we thought
+that its rate could not be less then ten or twelve miles an hour. It
+might be shot but would probably sink. There are three accounts of its
+being shot at in Norway; in one instance it sank, and in the other two
+it pursued the boats, which were near the shore, but disappeared when
+it found itself getting into shallow water.”
+
+“It should be mentioned that when we saw this creature and made our
+sketches of it, we had never seen Pontoppidan’s “Natural History”,
+or his print of the Norwegian sea-serpent, which has a most striking
+resemblance to the first of our own sketches. Considering the great
+body of reasonable Norwegian evidence, extending through a number of
+years, which remains after setting aside fables and exaggerations, it
+seems surprising that no naturalist of that country has ever applied
+himself to make out something about the animal. In the meantime, as the
+public will most probably be dubious about quickly giving credit to
+our account, the following explanations are open to them, all of which
+have been proposed to me, _viz_:--porpoises, lumps of sea-weed, empty
+herring-barrels, bladders, logs of wood, waves of the sea, and inflated
+pig-skins; but as all these theories present to our minds greater
+difficulties than the existence of the animal itself, we feel obliged
+to decline them.”
+
+  “D. Twopeny.”
+
+We observe at a glance that the figures show nearly exactly the same
+outlines as the figure of Mr. BENSTRUP (fig. 24). The reappearing and
+disappearing of the animal is well pictured and evidently recalls to
+my readers’ mind the “sinking down like a rock” of American reports.
+The reader will observe that the appearance took place nearly in the
+same locality as that of 1808, June (n^o. 31, 32). Moreover we need
+not add anything to the unvarnished reports. As to the appearances of
+the large creatures in 1871 and “some years back”, communicated in the
+post-scriptum, their descriptions, are too vague for me to see in them
+sea-serpents.--The fin striking up at a little distance from the head,
+of course, was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, who first was a firm
+believer in the sea-serpent, and expressed his opinion that it might be
+a still living _Plesiosaurus_ or an animal closely allied to it, and
+who afterwards evidently wavered in his opinion, after his description
+of the _Regalecus Jonesii_, a ribband-fish, (see above p. 319), now
+suddenly adds to the evidences of the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev.
+DAVID TWOPENY, the following note:
+
+“I have long since expressed my firm conviction that there exists
+a large marine animal unknown to us naturalists; I maintain this
+belief as firmly as ever. I totally reject the evidence of published
+representations; but do not allow their imaginary figures to interfere
+with a firm conviction, although I admit their tendency is always in
+that direction: the figures and exaggerated descriptions of believers
+are far more damaging to a faith in such an animal than the arguments,
+the ridicule on the explanatory guesses of unbelievers. The guess that
+a little seal was magnified by Captain M’Quhae into a monster several
+hundred feet in length is simply incredible: we smile at the conceit,
+and that is all.”
+
+So he is again converted into a firm believer, but he does not now
+express any supposition as to the kind of animal that it may be.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=141=, =142=, =143=.--1873, November 16?, 17?, 18?--I have not been
+able to get a sight at the _Times_ of Nov. 20th. of this year, but I
+have found an extract from an account in it, in the _Zoologist_ of
+December of that year, p. 3804, running as follows:
+
+“Mr. Joass, an eye-witness, writing in the _Times_ of November 20,
+says, “the ears seemed to be diaphanous and nearly semicircular flaps
+or valves over-arching the nostrils, which were in front. The cavity
+of the eye appeared to be considerably further back, and a peculiar
+glimmer in it, along with the sudden disappearance of the creature,
+presented, indeed, the only signs of its vitality, as far as I could
+see, while I watched it for half an hour, apparently drifting with
+the rising tide, but always keeping about the same distance off shore
+..... Dr. Soutar and I are more or less familiar with the forms of the
+porpoise, seal, halibut, conger, and even shark, both in and out of the
+water.”
+
+In the same journal and on the same page we read the following “Extract
+from a letter from Mr. Joass, of Golspie, to the Rev. John Macrae, of
+Glenelg:”
+
+“On Thuesday afternoon last, lady Florence Leveson Gower and the Hon.
+Mrs. Coke, driving near the sea, about eight miles east from Dunrobin,
+saw what seemed to them a large and long marine animal; on Wednesday
+morning Dr. Soutar, of Golspie, saw a large creature rushing about
+in the sea. about fifty yards from shore: it frequently raised what
+seemed a neck seven feet out of the water, and from the length of
+troubled water behind it appeared to be fifty or sixty feet long. He
+said to his family on meeting them at breakfast, “If I believed in
+sea-serpents, I should say I had seen one this morning”. I may mention
+that this gentleman is a most trustworthy observer and cautious man. On
+Thursday I saw what seemed some drift sea-weed. When your report was
+published Dr. Tayler, the author of “Thanatophidia of India” was at
+the castle; I asked him what he thought of the matter, and he said he
+was quite prepared to believe in such a monster. Mr. Vernon Harcourt
+told me that he was in a small yacht off Glenelg on the evening of the
+day mentioned in your report, and about six miles from the locality
+and that he and his crew saw what seemed a great moving mass, which,
+but for some engagement or the lateness of the hour, they would have
+examined.”
+
+It is evident that the greater part of the account of the _Times_ is
+not reprinted in the _Zoologist_.
+
+The above given descriptions are poor, giving no approximative
+measurements of the diameter of the neck, &c.
+
+This is the only appearance of the animal on the _eastern_ coasts of
+Great Britain!
+
+Again I am obliged to express my astonishment that Mr. NEWMAN does not
+mention any date, neither of the appearances, nor of Mr. JOASS’ letter.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=144=.--1875, July 8.--In the _Illustrated London News_ of November
+20th., 1875, appeared the following engraving and account:
+
+“Our Engraving is an exact representation of a sketch we have received,
+with the following letter from the Rev. E. L. Penny, M. A., Chaplain to
+H. M. S. _London_, at Zanzibar, Oct. 21:--
+
+“I send you herewith a sketch of the great sea-serpent attacking a
+spermwhale, which I have made from the descriptions of the captain and
+crew of the barque _Pauline_, and they have, after careful examination,
+pronounced it to be correct. The whale should have been placed deeper
+in the water, but I should then have been unable to depict so clearly
+the manner in which the animal was attacked.”
+
+“Captain Drevar, of the barque _Pauline_, bound with coals for her
+Majesty’s naval stores at Zanzibar, when in lat. 5 deg. 13 min. S.,
+long. 35 deg. W., on July 8 last, observed three very large sperm
+whales, and one of them was gripped round the body, with two turns, by
+what appeared to be a huge serpent. Its back was of a darkish brown
+and its belly white, with an immense head and mouth, the latter always
+open; the head and tail had a length beyond the coils about 30 ft.; its
+girth was about 8 ft. or 9 ft. Using its extremities as levers, the
+serpent whirled its victim round and round for about fifteen minutes,
+and then suddenly dragged the whale down to the bottom, head first. The
+other two whales, after attempting to release their companion, swam
+away upon its descent, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 41.--The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and
+a spermwhale”.]
+
+“On July 13 this or another sea-serpent was again seen, about 200 yards
+off the stern of the vessel, shooting itself along the surface, 40
+ft. of its body being out of the water at a time. Again, on the same
+day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite perpendicular
+out of the water to the height of 60 ft. This time it seemed as if
+determined to attack the vessel, and the crew and officers armed
+themselves with axes for self defence.”
+
+“Captain Drevar is a singularly able and observant man, and those
+of the crew and officers with whom I conversed were singularly
+intelligent; nor did any of their descriptions vary from one another in
+the least--there were no discrepancies.”
+
+This report translated into German appeared in the _Illustrirte
+Zeitung_ of Dec. 4th. 1875.
+
+We observe that the so-called fight between the sea-serpent and the
+spermwhale took place in 5° 13′ S. lat., 35° W. long, i. e. near Cape
+San Roque (Eastern coast of Brazil), and that the barque _Pauline_ on
+October 21 of that year was at Zanzibar, laden with coals. The reports
+were evidently copied from the Captain’s journal or log-book, and the
+figure was drawn by the Rev. E. L. PENNY, at Zanzibar. The barque did
+not return directly to England, but steered for Akyab (British Burmah);
+from where she sailed home, for we read in the _Illustrated London
+News_ of January 13, 1877 (p. 35, third column):
+
+“The great sea-serpent will not be ignored. He has now appeared, by
+affidavit, in a police court. The captain and crew of a vessel called
+the _Pauline_ which has arrived in the Mersey from Akyab, report that
+in July, 1875, off Cape San Roque, on the north-east coast of Brazil,
+they saw the great sea-serpent. On Thuesday, the captain, whose name
+is Drevar, appeared before the stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool,
+Mr. Raffles, and expressed a wish, on his own behalf and that of his
+crew, to make a declaration affirming the truth of their statements
+respecting the serpent. Mr. Raffles desired Captain Drevar to prepare a
+written declaration and bring it before him. This captain Drevar did,
+on Wednesday, accompanied by a number of his crew. The declaration is
+to the effect that he and others on board the Pauline, on July 8, 1875,
+while in latitude 5 deg. 13 min. S., longitude 35 deg. W., observed
+three large spermwhales, one of which was gripped round the body with
+two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. The head and tail
+appeared to have a length, beyond the coils, of about thirty feet, and
+the girth seemed to be eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its
+victim round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly
+dragged the whale to the bottom head first. Again, on July 13, a
+similar serpent was seen about 200 yards off the _Pauline_, shooting
+itself along the surface, its head and neck being several feet out of
+the water. Subsequently the head of the animal was shot sixty feet into
+the air. The declaration was signed by Captain Drevar, Horatio Thompson
+(chief officer), John Henderson Landells (second officer), William
+Lewarn (steward) and Owen Baker (seaman).
+
+1 am so fortunate as to be able to communicate the account as it
+appeared in the newspapers of the 10th. and 11th. of January, 1877. I
+have found it in ANDREW WILSON’s _Leisure Time Studies_:
+
+“The story of the mate and crew of the barque _Pauline_, of
+London, said to have arrived in port from a twenty months’ voyage
+to Akyab,--about having seen “a sea-serpent” while on a voyage in
+the Indian seas, was declared to on oath before Mr. Raffles, the
+stipendiary magistrate, at the Liverpool Police-Court. The affidavit
+was made in consequence of the doubtfullness with which anything about
+the “sea-serpent” has hitherto been received; and to show the genuine
+character of the story it has been placed judicially on record. The
+following is a copy of the declaration, which will be regarded as
+unprecedented in its way:--
+
+  “BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL, IN THE COUNTY PALATINE
+  OF LANCASTER, TO WIT.
+
+“We, the undersigned, captain, officers, and crew of the barque
+_Pauline_ (of London), of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, in the
+United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly and sincerely
+declare that on July 8, 1875, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long 35° W., we
+observed three large sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round
+the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. The head
+and tail appeared to have a length beyond the coils of about thirty
+feet, and its girth eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its victim
+round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged
+the whale to the bottom, head first”.
+
+  GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.
+
+  HORATIO THOMPSON.
+
+  JOHN HENDERSON LANDELLS.
+
+  OWEN BAKER.
+
+  WM. LEWARN.
+
+Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen about two hundred yards
+off, shooting itself along the surface, the head and neck being out
+of the water several feet. This was seen only by the captain and one
+ordinary seaman, whose signatures are affixed.”
+
+  GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.
+
+  OWEN BAKER.
+
+“A few moments after it was seen elevated some sixty feet
+perpendicularly in the air by the chief officer and the following able
+seamen, whose signatures are also affixed.”
+
+  HORATIO THOMPSON.
+
+  WILLIAM LEWARN.
+
+  OWEN BAKER.
+
+“And we make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the
+same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made and
+passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty, entitled “An
+Act to repeal an Act of the present Session of Parliament, entitled
+an Act for the more effectual abolition of oath and affirmations,
+taken and made in various departments of the State, and to substitute
+declarations in lieu thereof, and for the more entire suppression of
+voluntary and extra-judicial oaths and affidavits, and to make other
+provisions for the abolition of unnecessary oaths.” Severally declared
+and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid the tenth day of January, one
+thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven.”
+
+  GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.
+
+  WILLIAM LEWARN, _Steward_.
+
+  HORATIO THOMPSON, _Chief Officer_.
+
+  J. H. LANDELLS, _Second Officer_.
+
+  OWEN BAKER.
+
+“Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid, the tenth
+day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, before T.
+S. Raffles, J. P. for Liverpool.”
+
+In _Nature_ of February 10th., 1881, we read that “Captain Drevar has
+circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and of
+the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck out of
+the water.”
+
+Evidently this circular was a letter addressed by Captain DREVAR, when
+in Chittagong (Bengal), to the Editor of the _Calcutta Englishman_, in
+January, 1876. I have had no opportunity to consult this paper, but I
+have found an extract from it in the _Graphic_ of January 27, 1877, and
+a partial translation of it in the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of Febr. 3,
+1877. What I have found in the _Graphic_ runs as follows:
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 42.--Another representation of the so-called “Fight
+between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”.]
+
+“Captain GEORGE DREVAR, master of the barque _Pauline_, has furnished
+us a sketch of the Sea-Serpent (from which the annexed engraving
+is taken), which he encountered off the coast of South America.
+The occurrence took place on the 8th. July, 1875, at eleven A. M.,
+the _Pauline_ being at that time off Cape San Roque, lat. 5° 13′
+N., long 35° W., the north-east coast of Brazil being twenty miles
+distant. Captain Drevar says:--The weather fine and clear, wind and
+sea-moderate. Observed some black spots on the water, and a whitish
+pillar, about thirty feet high above them. At the first glace I took
+all to be breakers as the sea was splashing up fountain-like about
+them, and the pillar a pinnacle rock, bleached with the sun; but the
+pillar fell with a splash, and a similar one rose. They rose and fell
+alternately in quick succession, and good glasses showed me it was a
+monstrous sea-serpent coiled twice round a large sperm-whale. The head
+and tail parts, each about thirty feet long were acting as levers,
+twisting itself and victim round with great velocity. They sank out of
+sight about every two minutes, coming to the surface still revolving;
+and the struggles of the whale and two other whales, that were near,
+frantic with excitement, made the sea in their vicinity like a boiling
+cauldron; and a loud and confused noise was distinctly heard. This
+strange occurrence last some fifteen minutes, and finished with the
+tail portion of the whale being elevated straight in the air, then
+waving backwards and forwards, and lashing the water furiously in the
+last death struggle, when the body disappeared from our view, going
+down head foremost to the bottom, where no doubt it was gorged at the
+serpent’s leisure; and that monster of monsters may have been many
+months in a state of coma, digesting the huge mouthful. Then two of
+the largest sperm-whales that I have ever seen moved slowly thence
+towards the vessel, their bodies more than usually elevated out of
+water, and not spouting or making the least noise, but seeming quite
+paralized with fear; indeed, a cold shiver went through my own frame
+on beholding the last agonizing struggle of the poor whale that had
+seemed as helpless in the coils of the vicious monster as a small bird
+in the talons of a hawk. Allowing for two coils round the whale, I
+think the serpent was about 160 or 170 feet long, and 7 or 8 feet in
+girth. It was in colour much like a conger-eel; and the head, from the
+mouth being always open, appeared the largest part of its body. I wrote
+thus far, little thinking I would ever see the serpent again, but at
+seven A. M., July 13, in the same latitude, and some eighty miles east
+of San Roque I was astonished to see the same or a similar monster. It
+was throwing its head and about 40 feet of its body in a horizontal
+position out of water as it passed onwards by the stern of our vessel.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 43.--The sperm-whale going down head foremost to
+the bottom.--]
+
+“This narrative is extracted from a letter addressed from Chittagong
+to the editor of the _Calcutta Englishman_ in January 1876. It seems
+that Captain Drevar’s friends advised him to say nothing about this
+strange spectacle. “My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen
+a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote
+that she pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the
+sea-serpent.” On the 10th. of this month Captain Drevar and four of the
+crew attended before Mr. Raffles, the magistrate at Liverpool, and made
+a solemn declaration in support of the foregoing narrative.”
+
+The two figures, 42 and 43, are facsimiles of those accompanying the
+account in the _Graphic_.
+
+I will try to translate again into English, what the _Illustrirte
+Zeitung_ has published about this curious case, taken for granted that
+the German translation was correct, and laying all responsibility on
+the German writer.
+
+“The Barque _Pauline_ was on July 8th, 1875, about twenty miles distant
+from the north-eastern coast of Brazil, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long.
+35° W., near Cape San Roque. At 11 o’clock a. m., the weather fine
+and clear”....... etc., word for word as in the _Graphic_ up to the
+passage....... “head foremost to the bottom, where no doubt it was
+gorged at the serpent’s leisure”.
+
+“As the serpent was twice wound round the body of the whale, Captain
+Drevar estimated its length to be 160 or 170 feet; it was about seven
+or eight in girth. The mouth was always open; the head was very large.”
+
+“On the 13th. of July at 7 o’clock a. m. the barque was still in the
+same latitude, but about eighty miles from San Roque; then the same or
+a similar monster raised out of the water. Its head and about forty
+feet of its body were thrown horizontally out of the water and passed
+our stern.”
+
+“As I was still reflecting on the cause, why this strange guest so
+often paid us a visit, and concluded that it was the white stripe of
+two feet breadth, which went round our ship above the copper work and
+which the serpent probably thought to be one of its colleagues, the cry
+of “There he is again” roused me. At a short distance from the ship I
+really saw the Leviathan, balancing about sixty feet high in the air,
+looking angrily at our vessel. As I was not sure, whether it was only
+looking at the white stripe on the ship’s hull, probably thinking to
+see one of its colleagues, or whether it was preparing to attack the
+vessel, we kept ready all our axes, to give it a warm reception. But
+the animal dived and disappeared.”
+
+The German translater is convinced that the story contains truth, but
+he suggests that the whale was playing with a large tree or with a
+broken mast, “for it is known that whales like to gambol with violent
+motions”. The author further presents to his readers a reduced copy of
+the sketch of the Rev. Penny, (our fig. 41).--
+
+Mr. LEE, who usually explains every sea-serpent after each report
+quoted by him, says, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, p. 90, the
+following about these reports.
+
+“It is impossible to doubt for a moment the genuineness of the
+statement made by Captain Drevar and his crew, or their honest desire
+to describe faithfully that which they believed they had seen; but the
+height to which the snake is said to have upreared itself is evidently
+greatly exaggerated; for it is impossible that any serpent could
+“elevate its body some sixty feet perpendicularly in the air”--nearly
+one third of the height of the Monument of the Great Fire of London. I
+have no desire to force this narrative of the master and crew of the
+_Pauline_ into conformity with any preconceived idea. They may have
+seen a veritable sea-serpent; or they may have witnessed the amours of
+two whales, and have seen the great creatures rolling over and over
+that they might breathe alternately by the blow-hole of each coming
+to the surface of the water; or the supposed coils of the snake may
+have been the arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge
+cetacean. The other two appearances--1st., the animal “seen shooting
+itself along the surface with head and neck raised”, and 2nd., the
+elevation of the body to a considerable height, as in Egede’s sea
+monster, would certainly accord with this last hypothesis; but taking
+the statement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation”.
+
+It is remarkable that Mr. LEE who generally explains sea-serpents
+by calamaries, cannot give an explanation of _this_ sea-serpent,
+with which he himself is satisfied. “They may have seen a veritable
+sea-serpent”. This phrase is very surprising, for Mr. LEE has not
+yet explained what _is_ a veritable sea-serpent. Or did he mean a
+veritable sea-snake? This is improbable, for he knows very well that
+the largest snake which frequents the sea, the _Eunectes murina_,
+does not measure above 25 feet, so that it is not able to encircle a
+spermwhale, whose circumference is about forty feet. “Or they may have
+witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen the great creatures
+rolling over and over that they might breathe alternately by the
+blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the water”. This phrase,
+however, does not give any explanation of the long neck, the tail,
+the mouth being constantly open, the thick coils, which were coloured
+longitudinally, partly black, partly white, so that the captain spoke
+of a black back and a white belly!” “Or the supposed coils of the snake
+may have been the arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the
+huge cetacean.” This too is impossible, for the circumference of the
+serpent was estimated at seven or eight feet, and no arm of a calamary
+has a greater circumference than about sixteen inches, even that of the
+largest known specimens, which have a total length of eighty feet! For
+a moment I will leave Mr. LEE in his supposition that the animal, seen
+on the 13th. of July, was a swimming calamary or a similar individual
+standing upright with its tail in the air, and pass to his last phrase:
+“but, taking the statement as it stands, it must be left for further
+elucidation”. This, now, I will try to do. But first I beg the reader
+to direct his attention to the sperm-whales.
+
+The sperm-whales may attain a length of 60 to 70 feet, with a
+circumference of 40 feet at the thickest part. The females are
+smaller, growing from 30 to 40 feet. It is reported that sometimes,
+though very seldom, a male measures 90 feet. The head occupies the
+third part of the body-length, in mass, however, it is larger, for it
+is quadrangular in shape and in front just as thick and high as behind,
+whilst the bulky body tapers to the tail. The mouth lies wholly on the
+under side of the head. It is a terrible cavity when opened and may
+be up to fourteen feet in depth. The upper-jaw is toothless, but the
+under-jaw has from forty to fifty four formidable teeth, comparatively
+as sharp as the canines of a dog.
+
+The sperm-whales live in troops, numbering from a very few to some
+hundreds, and containing many females and young ones, under the command
+of some old males. The young males remain in this family till they
+are strong enough to command their own family. Some old males wander
+about solitary, wild and angry. To become the sole proprietor of some
+females, these males fight each other vehemently, and indescribably
+grand is the sight of two troops meeting! The wild and warlike nature
+and the untamable muscular strength of the sperm-whale makes its
+presence even dangerous. The greatest hatred exists between them and
+the whale-bone-whales, or the fin-fishes, or rorquals, and when a shoal
+of sperm-whales meets with a shoal of whale-bone-whales, the latter
+are immediately attacked with the greatest fury and cruelty. The fight
+between two such squadrons is terrible, but grand, and commonly ends in
+the flight of the whale-bone-whales, pursued by the sperm-whales, not,
+however, without leaving many dead and terribly wounded companions,
+on which the frightful effects are visible of the bites of the
+sperm-whales, animals that might be called “mouth and teeth”.
+
+Knowing the wild and angry nature of the warlike and pitiless
+sperm-whale, and the rather harmless character of the sea-serpent,
+we cannot believe that a sea-serpent has ever or will ever attack
+such a formidable antagonist. Every one will rather believe that a
+sperm-whale, when meeting with a sea-serpent, would suddenly attack
+it. Moreover, if the sea-serpent was the attacker, it would not have
+had “its mouth always open”,--an unfailable sign of great pain--but
+would have bitten repeatedly the whale! And so I firmly believe that
+one of the three spermwhales, had seized with its colossal mouth a
+sea-serpent by the trunk. The poor defenseless sea-serpent with its
+enormous flexible body wound round the upper jaw and forepart of the
+quadrangular head of the sperm-whale. We know that the sea-serpent
+has a rather dorso-ventral flexibility, for it can swim in vertical
+undulations, but we know too that its lateral flexibility is
+astonishing. I refer to the American reports from 1817 to 1819, wherein
+the animal in turning bent its body in the form of a staple, so that
+its head nearly touched its tail, and to the figures of Dr. BICCARD
+(fig. 37, 38.).
+
+The sea-serpent, seized by the sperm-whale by the trunk, did not bend
+itself dorsally round the spermwhale’s head, for if this had been the
+case, the captain would have seen the underpart of the animal and
+described its colour as being white. It did not bend itself ventrally,
+for if this had happened, the colour would have been described as dark,
+or black. On the contrary the coils are described as longitudinally
+divided into two sections white and black. Consequently the sea-serpent
+had bent itself laterally. Captain DREVAR was right in his statement
+that the colour of the belly (under part) was white, and that the back
+(upper part) of the animal was black.
+
+The sea-serpent in its violent pain raised its long neck high in
+the air and extended its jaws; it is even probable that it uttered
+a roaring sound or shriek, this is not mentioned; it may have been
+drowned by the dreadful noise caused by the fight of these two huge
+monsters, for we may suppose that the sea-serpent was not destitute
+of muscular strength, and must have been a formidable antagonist.
+Though it is not mentioned, I am convinced that the “two turns” of the
+sea-serpent were not always wound closely round the whale, but from
+time to time were loosened to be tightened again a moment afterwards.
+Nor do I set great value on the repeated assertion that there were
+_two_ turns; it is impossible that this has always been seen clearly
+through such a “boiling of the water like a cauldron”. The dimensions
+of the head and tail part being each about thirty feet beyond the coils
+are certainly not exaggerated, as is the circumference or girth “about
+eight or nine feet”. The sea-serpent in its agony evidently paddled
+with its formidable flappers, which caused the water to be thrown like
+a fountain into the air. They therefore cannot have been visible with
+the glasses. The rolling over and over is, in my opinion, very natural
+in animals of such dimension, fighting in the water, and cannot be a
+result of the serpent “using its extremities as levers”. And so they
+were rolling for about fifteen(?) minutes and at last the spermwhale
+(and not the sea-serpent) dragged its victim down to the depths, head
+foremost. It is a habit of spermwhales, which is to be ascribed to
+their attachment to members of their family and to their warlike
+character and hatred of their enemies, to help each other in danger,
+and so the captain’s statement is quite correct: “the two others
+attempted to release their companion” and after the disappearance of
+the combatants “swam away, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror”;
+here we may safely read “fury”, probably they followed on the surface
+their companion which was beneath it, perceptible to them, but
+invisible to the spectators of the _Pauline_.
+
+It is, however, more probable that the sea-serpent, feeling itself
+free for a moment, suddenly escaped, dived and was followed by the
+sperm-whale.
+
+It is now the right moment to say some words about the figures. I will
+be short, only observing that they are not worth our attention. The
+sketches were evidently drawn in October and December, consequently
+more than three and five months after the encounter. It is impossible
+that they can give an exact representation.
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is of another opinion
+than I, as to the fight; for he declares: “..... to my mind, the only
+feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the _Pauline_ must
+be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic
+snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently
+point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of
+large size, such as the boas and pythons”. The reader will understand
+that I do not wish to contest Mr. WILSON’S opinion.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=145=.--1875, July 13.--Now we come to the second statement of the same
+report, viz. the encounter with the animal on the 13th. of July.
+
+On that day another or the same individual was seen again shooting
+itself along the surface horizontally, forty feet of its body being
+out of the water at a time. Consequently the animal swam with its
+body in a straight line, and not with vertical undulations. Again on
+the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite
+perpendicular some sixty feet in the air, and evidently taking a survey
+towards the vessel. This case is nearly the same as that which EGEDE
+witnessed in 1734 near Gothaab. As it is often reported that whales
+and sperm-whales, when coming from the depths, do so with such an
+astonishing force and rapidity that they leap clear out of the water,
+I am convinced that the sea-serpent sometimes elevates its fore part to
+a considerable height as was seen by EGEDE (n^o 5), Captain ADAMS (n^o
+121) and Captain DREVAR. If the height of the sea-serpent rising in the
+air was really sixty feet, Captain DREVAR must have seen the animal’s
+fore-flappers, though he did not mention them. Else I think that he
+exaggerated, that the height did not surpass forty feet and that the
+flappers remained under water. See also N^o 31.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=146=.--1876, September 11.--In the number of the 15th. of January,
+1877, of the _Echo_ appeared an article by Mr. R. A. PROCTOR entitled
+“Strange Sea-Monsters”, wherein he quotes the following report. I have
+not been able to consult the _Echo_, but I have found it cited in Mr.
+WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_. Here no date, except that of September
+11th., is given, but as the report appeared in the January number
+of 1877 of the _Echo_, I conclude that the appearance took place in
+September of 1876.
+
+“Soon after the British steamship _Nestor_ anchored at Shanghai, last
+October, John K. Webster, the captain, and James Anderson, the ship’s
+surgeon, appeared before Mr. Donald Spence, Acting Law Secretary in the
+British Supreme Court, and made affidavit to the following effect:
+
+“On September 11, at 10.30 a. m., fifteen miles north-west of North
+Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straights, the weather being fine
+and the sea smooth, the captain saw an object which had been pointed
+out by the third officer as “a shoal!” Surprised at finding a shoal
+in such a well-known track, I watched the object, and found that it
+was in motion, keeping up the same speed with the ship, and retaining
+about the same distance as first seen. The shape of the creature I
+would compare to that of a gigantic frog. The head, of a pale yellowish
+colour, was about twenty feet in length, and six feet of the crown were
+above the water. I tried in vain to make out the eyes and mouth; the
+mouth may, however, have been below water. The head was immediately
+connected with the body, without any indication of a neck. The body was
+about forty-five or fifty feet long, and of an oval shape, perfectly
+smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the spine. The
+back rose some five feet above the surface. An immense tail, fully
+one hundred and fifty feet in length, rose a few inches above the
+water. This tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to
+its extremity; it seemed cylindrical, with a very slight taper, and
+I estimate its diameter at four feet. The body and tail were marked
+with alternate bands of stripes, black and pale yellow in colour. The
+stripes were distinct to the very extremity of the tail. I cannot say
+whether the tail terminated in a fin or not. The creature possessed no
+fins or paddles so far as we could perceive. I cannot say if it had
+legs. It appeared to progress by means of an undulatory motion of the
+tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down).
+
+“Mr. Anderson, the surgeon, confirmed the captain’s account in all
+essential respects. He regarded the creature as an enormous marine
+salamander. “It was apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby)
+substance. Though keeping up with us, at the rate of nearly ten knots
+an hour, its movements seemed lethargic. I saw no legs or fins, and
+am certain that the creature did not blow or spout in the manner of
+a whale. I should not compare it for a moment to a snake. The only
+creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe.””
+
+As the captain asserts that the animal kept up the same speed as the
+ship, and Mr. ANDERSON that “though keeping up with us, at the rate
+of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic”, we must
+conclude that the animal moved by paddling with its flappers, and that
+with this simple mechanism it is able to propel itself at a rate of ten
+knots an hour, steadily and uniformly. The tail of the animal, which
+trailed inactively behind the trunk, must of course have been brought
+in motion by the action of the water, so that it is easy to understand
+that the captain thought that “it appeared to progress by means of an
+undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and
+down)”. It is also very natural that the captain declared that “the
+creature possessed no fins or paddles as far as we could perceive. I
+cannot say if it had legs”, and that the surgeon ANDERSON confirmed it:
+“I saw no fins”; the flappers of the animal being entirely hidden under
+water.--The captain says: “The shape of the creature I would compare to
+that of a gigantic frog”. According to his description, however, the
+shape might have been better compared with that of a gigantic newt.
+This is done by Mr. ANDERSON, as we have seen above, who says at the
+end of his statement, “the only creatures it could be compared with
+are the newt or frog tribe”; he “should not compare it for a moment
+to a snake”. This is one of the few reports of the animal having been
+observed swimming in full length on the surface of the water. This I
+think very comprehensible. Generally the animal is swimming with the
+head and a part of the neck raised some feet out of the water, and in
+this case the trunk and the tail must carry their weight, so that the
+trunk will be visible only a few inches above the water, and the tail
+hidden for a greater part under it. But as soon as the animal drops
+its neck and head so that only the upper part of both remain above
+the surface, their weight is carried by the water itself, and body
+and tail will become more visible, lying almost _à fleur d’eau_ (to
+use Captain M’QUHAE’S term). I firmly believe that this is also one
+of the few occasions that the animal swam with its neck contracted.
+In this situation it is very difficult to decide whether the animal
+has a neck or not, and so the captain’s assertion “the head was
+immediately connected with the body, without any indication of a neck”
+is very conceivable. From the hind part of the head the contracted
+neck gradually grows thicker towards the shoulders, where the animal
+seems to have its largest diameter, and from here it tapers towards the
+hind flappers, so that seen from the ship, both neck and body, being
+visible only a few feet above the surface, must have given rise to the
+description of the captain “the body was of an oval shape”. Again the
+position was very favourable to observe the exact place where the tail
+begins, and that the animal has there its pelvis and hind flappers, so
+that, being there broader than at the tail-root, the captain observed
+“this tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to its
+extremity”. The colour of the head being described as a pale yellowish
+one, and that of the body and the tail alternately black and pale
+yellow, I conclude that the animal having swum for some time in this
+manner, had been partly dried up in the sun, while “catspaws” washing
+over it again coloured it black here and there. As to its length I am
+inclined to believe that Mr. Webster is mistaken. I cannot admit that
+“the head was twenty feet, and six feet of the crown were above the
+water”, nor can I set much value upon his assertion that the tail was
+“fully one hundred and fifty feet in length”. I willingly admit that
+the head measured eight or nine feet, and the tail about one hundred
+feet. As the animal swam just at the surface it is clear to me that no
+mouth was visible, and I think that even the nose tip will only have
+been a few inches above the water. As no eyes were seen, the distance
+must have been rather great; but this is not mentioned. The body was
+perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the
+spine. Probably this was the mane, not quite discernable on account
+of the distance. The tail is described as cylindrical, tapering to
+its end, and estimated at four feet in diameter (at its junction,
+evidently).--It is clear that the extreme end of the tail was under
+water, for Mr. WEBSTER “cannot say whether the tail terminated in a
+fin or not”. As to the supposition of Mr. ANDERSON that the animal was
+“apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance”, I cannot
+attach much importance to this, as it is impossible to decide this of
+an animal swimming at some distance, even of a calamary. The body was
+smooth, and that’s all. That the creature did not blow or spout like a
+whale, is very natural, as there was evidently no reason for doing so,
+the nose being constantly above the surface, and the animal swimming
+without diving from time to time. A whale, sleeping on the surface,
+does not spout either, as in that case the spout-holes are above the
+surface, and the breathing is regular and without puffing. So I think I
+have shown that all the parts of the statement are correct, except the
+estimated length.
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON relying upon the statement of Mr. ANDERSON, adds in a
+note:
+
+“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature
+mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of
+swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the
+details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous
+arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards,
+propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel”.”
+
+My objections against this supposition are first, that, as I have
+already stated above, it is impossible to decide whether an animal
+is gelatinous or flabby, until we have touched and handled it, and
+secondly, that the manner of swimming of a calamary is not so as Mr.
+WILSON believes; for the enormous arms of such a creature are not
+trailing behind the body, when it is swimming backwards, but are coiled
+up and retracted into two peculiar arm pockets; and thirdly, that the
+colour of a calamary does not correspond with the colour stated in
+the report, but is a very light grey one, mixed with red or crimson,
+intermixed with purple.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In the number of February 3d, 1877 of the _Illustrirte Zeitung_, an
+article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange” appeared, written
+by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain DREVAR, which
+appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January of that
+year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superficially treats
+of several already known accounts and reports of sea-serpents viz:
+our n^{os}. 144, 145, and 5, the tales of PONTOPPIDAN, the animal of
+Stronsa (p. 61-88), the appearances quoted by the Boston Linnaean
+Society (1817), our n^o. 118, the hoax of the _Daphne_ (1848, Oct. 21),
+our n^{os}. 129 and 130, the cheat of Dr. KOCH (1845), and the true
+sea-snakes (_Hydrophidae_). In two of his assertions this anonymous
+author is incorrect, viz. It was not Captain M’QUHAE who asserted that
+the animal’s mouth was large enough to admit of a tall man standing
+upright in it, but an anonymous contributor to the _Times_; Mr.
+HENDERSON was master of the ship _Mary Ann_, and not of the _Daphne_;
+the master of this ship was called TRELAWNEY. I consider these four
+names as Active (see my Chapter on hoaxes p. 34.)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=147=.--1877, May 21.--In Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we
+read in a note (p. 111):
+
+“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas is
+afforded by the report of the master of the barque _Georgina_ from
+Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September 4, 1877) put
+into Falmouth for orders on the 1st. September. On May 21, 1877, in
+latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53′ E., a large serpent about forty or
+fifty feet long, grey and yellow in colour, and ten or eleven inches
+thick, was seen by the crew. It was visible for twenty minutes, during
+which time it crossed the bow, and ultimately disappeared under the
+port-quarter.”
+
+The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the animal.
+The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me conclude that the
+animal had swum for a long time with its body in a straight line,
+without diving and that the part, exposed to the sunbeams, had dried up.
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON adds: “There can be little doubt that this
+sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I’ll not
+contest his opinion.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=148=.--1877, June 2.--Not less important than others is the report of
+the _Osborne_. In Mr. =Lee’s= _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ we read p. 93 the
+following about this occurrence:
+
+“In June, 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty that on the
+2nd. of that month, he and other officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_,
+had seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine animal, of which the
+following account and sketches were furnished by Lieutenant Haynes, and
+were confirmed by Commander Pearson, Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth,
+and Mr. Moore, engineer.”
+
+“Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, “Royal Yacht _Osborne_,
+Gibraltar, June 6”: On the evening of that day, the sea being perfectly
+smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge of fins above
+the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet, and varying from
+five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by means of a telescope,
+at about one and a-half cables’ distance, I distinctly saw a head, two
+flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder. The head, as
+nearly as I could judge, was about six feet thick, the neck narrower,
+about four to five feet, the shoulder about fifteen feet across, and
+the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the
+flappers were those of a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal,
+the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head. I could not
+see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the
+shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty feet.
+The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the ridge of fins
+to which my attention was first attracted, and which had disappeared
+by the time I got a telescope, were really the continuation of the
+shoulder to the end of the object’s body. The animal’s head was not
+always above water, but was thrown upwards, remaining above for a few
+seconds at a time, and then disappearing; there was an entire absence
+of “blowing” or “spouting”. I herewith beg to enclose a rough sketch,
+showing the view of the “ridge of fins”, and also of the animal in the
+act of propelling itself by its two fins.”
+
+Evidently Mr. LEE has not communicated the whole account as it was in
+the original periodical, nor did he mention the name of the periodical.
+
+The _Times_ of June 14th., 1877 mentions:
+
+“The _Osborne_, 2, paddle royal yacht, Commander Hugh L. Pearson, which
+arrived at Portsmouth from the Mediterranean on Monday, and at once
+proceeded to her moorings in the harbour, has forwarded an official
+report to the Admiralty, through the commander-in-chief (Admiral
+Sir George Elliot, K. C. B.), respecting a sea-monster which she
+encountered during her homeward voyage. At about five o’clock in the
+afternoon of the 2nd. instant, the sea being exceptionally calm, while
+the yacht was proceeding round the north coast of Sicily towards Cape
+Vito, the officer on the watch observed a long ridge of fins, each
+about six feet long, moving slowly along. He called for a telescope,
+and was at once joined by other officers. The _Osborne_ was steaming
+westward at ten and a half knots an hour, and, having a long passage
+before her, could not stay to make minute observations. The fins were
+progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more nearly
+approached them, they were replaced by the foremost part of a gigantic
+sea-monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen, altogether devoid
+of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal.
+The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination, being
+somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in
+diameter. Its features were only seen by one officer, who described
+them as like those of an alligator. The neck was comparatively narrow,
+but so much of the body as could be seen, developed in form like that
+of gigantic turtle, and from each side extended two fins, about fifteen
+feet in length, by which the monster paddled itself along after the
+fashion of a turtle. The appearance of the monster is accounted for
+by a submarine volcano, which occurred north of Galita, in the Gulf
+of Tunis, about the middle of May, and was reported at the time by a
+steamer which was struck by a detached fragment of submarine rock. The
+disturbance below water, it is thought probable, may have driven up the
+monster from its “native element”, as the site of the eruption is only
+one hundred miles from where it was reported to have been seen”.
+
+The _Graphic_ of June 16, 1877, tells us p. 563, 3d. column:
+
+“The Sea-Serpent has once more made his appearance, and this time
+the officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_ are the witnesses to his
+existence. The Commander, says the _Portsmouth Times and Navel
+Gazette_, has sent an official report to the Admiralty, stating that on
+the 2nd. inst. a curious creature was seen off the coast of Sicily in a
+smooth sea. The serpent was “of immense length, with a smooth scaleless
+skin, and a ridge of fins, 15 feet in length, and 6 ft. apart along
+the back, a bullet-shaped head, and a face like an alligator. It moved
+slowly, and was distinctly seen by all the officers.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 44.--The ridge of fins mentioned in the report of
+the _Osborne_.]
+
+The same Journal of the 30th. of June publishes the following account
+and sketch by Lieutenant HAYNES:
+
+“We are indebted to Lieut. W. P. Haynes, of H. M. S. _Osborne_, for
+the sketch of the sea-monster seen by the officers and crew of that
+vessel off the north coast of Sicily on the 2nd. inst. In a letter
+accompanying the sketch, he says:--“My attention was first called by
+seeing a long row of fins appearing above the surface of the water
+at a distance of about 200 yards and “away on our beam”. They were
+of irregular heights, and extending about 30 or 40 feet in line (the
+former number is the length I gave, the latter the other officers), in
+a few seconds they disappeared, giving place to the foremost part of
+the monster. By this time it had passed astern, swimming in an opposite
+direction to that we were steering, and as we were passing through the
+water at 10¹⁄₂ knots, I could only get a view of it, “and on”, which
+I have shown in the sketch. The head was bullet-shaped, and quite six
+feet thick, the neck narrow and its head was occasionally thrown back
+out of the water, remaining there for a few seconds at a time. It
+was very broad across the back or shoulders, about 15 or 20 feet, and
+the flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion, which seemed
+to paddle the monster along. They were about 15 feet in length. From
+the top of the head to the part of the back where it became immersed,
+I should consider 50 feet, and that seemed about a third of the
+whole length. All this part was smooth, resembling a seal. I cannot
+account for the fins, unless they were on the back below, where it was
+immersed.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 45.--The sea-serpent as seen by Commander PEARSON
+and Lieutenant HAYNES of the _Osborne_.]
+
+According to Mr. HENRY LEE a Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND has suggested (where?
+this is not mentioned) that “the ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly,
+belong to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order.”
+Mr. LEE himself seems to be of this opinion too. As to me, I don’t
+believe it, for the simple reason that the basking sharks only live
+in the Arctic Sea, and are never observed farther south than the
+coasts of Great-Britain and of Massachusetts. So Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND’S
+whole supposition falls to the ground. At all events the fins have
+nothing to do with the sea-serpent. This is also the opinion of Mr.
+LEE, who asserts: “The combination of them with long flippers, and the
+turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am
+unable to solve.”
+
+We will first speak of the account Lieutenant HAYNES wrote on the
+6th. of June, when at Gibraltar. The sea was perfectly smooth, and
+he saw the ridge of fins. He took his glasses and instead of fins he
+distinctly saw something quite different. In the short time that he
+fixed his glasses, the ridge of fins had no doubt disappeared, and the
+huge animal emerged. The owners of the fins were evidently frightened
+at the approach of the sea-serpent. Lieut. HAYNES “distinctly saw a
+head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder”. We
+may safely add: and a long neck connecting this head with the shoulder,
+and we may safely read for shoulder: a part of its back. The head was
+about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four or five feet;
+consequently the animal had stretched its neck as forward as possible.
+The back, on the level of the flappers, was about fifteen feet broad,
+“and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of
+the flappers were those of a turtle.” I should like to say: were those
+of a sea-lion, for a sea-turtle cannot possibly elevate its flappers
+so high above the surface of the water, while sea-lions are able to
+do so. Moreover the fashion is the same, that is to say, the paddling
+happens alternately, i. e. when the right flapper is brought as forward
+as possible to commence the act of paddling, the left one is kept as
+backward as possible, nearly touching the trunk, having just brought
+the act of paddling to an end. “The animal resembled a huge seal, the
+resemblance being strongest about the back of the head.” This is in
+my opinion the most remarkable statement of this report. We have more
+than once met with the comparison of the head or face of the animal
+with that of a seal, but Lieutenant HAYNES clearly states the _animal_
+(seen from behind) resembled a seal. “I could not see the length of
+the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where
+it became immersed) I should reckon about fifty feet.” Going by known
+descriptions and figures, we may suppose that the length of the head
+may have been between eight and nine feet. When from the top of the
+head to just below the shoulder the length is estimated at about fifty
+feet, I reckon that the neck of the animal must have been one of forty
+feet, reckoning two feet from the top of the head to the occiput, and
+eight feet from the flappers to where the animal became immersed, i.
+e. the visible part of its back. The estimated measurements of the
+individual of captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118) were: length of the head about
+three feet, breadth about two feet; diameter of neck below the head
+about one foot and a third; length of the neck to the fore-flappers
+about twenty feet; length of the trunk from the fore-flappers to the
+hind-flappers about twenty feet, length of the tail about forty feet,
+length of the whole animal between eighty and ninety feet. Let us now
+repeat those of the individual of the _Osborne_, which seems to be
+about _three times_ larger. The breadth of the head is about six feet,
+consequently the length of the head about nine feet; the diameter of
+the neck below the head about four or five feet, say four feet, i.
+e. _three times_ one foot and a third; the distance from the occiput
+to the flappers--forty feet, according to my calculation given above
+but,--comparing the dimensions of the individual of Captain M’QUHAE
+with the present, I don’t hesitate a moment to put down sixty feet
+for the distance from the head to the fore-flappers. The officers of
+the _Daedalus_ were in a more favourable situation to estimate this
+distance, the distance from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers
+and the whole length of the animal they saw,--than Lieutenant HAYNES;
+for the former saw the animal from aside, whilst the latter beheld it
+from behind, and was consequently in a bad situation to estimate the
+different lengths of the animal, but in a more favourable to estimate
+its different breadths. The length of the neck must really have been
+formidable, for though the animal (see drawing) showed hardly any neck
+at all, (resembling an enormous ball just visible above the surface
+of the water, with another smaller bullet on its top,) Lieutenant
+HAYNES estimated the distance from the top of the head to the part
+of its back, where it became immersed, at fifty feet! The remaining
+part of the back and the animal’s tail and hind-flappers were entirely
+invisible. I have already expressed my firm conviction that the ridge
+of fins has nothing at all to do with the animal. It is evident that
+Lieutenant HAYNES himself had his doubts about this point, for else he
+would not have written: “unless the ridge of fins....... were really
+the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body”.
+Evidently the animal elevated its head from time to time some feet into
+the air to take a survey before it. Evidently it never dropped its head
+so as to come with its nostrils below water, for “there was an entire
+absence of blowing or spouting”.
+
+In the account of the _Times_ only the following sentences are
+interesting. The ridge of fins moved _slowly_ along. They were
+_replaced_ by the foremost part of a sea-serpent. In my opinion this
+statement is very correct. Its skin was altogether devoid of scales,
+appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. This is a
+remarkable statement, for in the foregoing account the animal is said
+to resemble a huge seal! Again: the head was bullet-shaped (seen from
+behind) with an elongated termination (read snout) being somewhat
+similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter.
+The assertion of one of the officers who saw the animal’s features and
+described them as like those of an alligator, cannot surprise us, as
+this comparison has been made more than once. As much of the body as
+could be seen was developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle.
+Evidently this reporter did not observe that the head and trunk were
+connected by a long neck, as did Lieutenant HAYNES. I cannot approve of
+the supposition that the animal would have been started by the volcanic
+disturbance, which took place a hundred miles more southward and a
+fortnight ago!!
+
+The rough account of the _Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette_ partly
+reprinted in the _Graphic_, is as the reader will already have
+observed himself, for the greater part, wrong: the fins of the ridge
+were estimated to be from five to six feet high, and not 15 feet in
+length. They were never seen along the back. Lieutenant HAYNES clearly
+doubted of it, and I believe that nobody of my readers will admit the
+possibility of such a position! It was the ridge of fins that moved
+slowly, and not the animal. Though it is not expressed _in words_, the
+figure shows us that the sea-serpent moved with the greatest velocity,
+paddling so violently, that it lifted up its flappers as high as
+possible.
+
+In the letter which Lieutenant HAYNES forwarded to the Editor of the
+Graphic, we read that the animal passed the stern, swimming in an
+opposite direction to that they were steering to; consequently the
+animal could have been seen for a few seconds only from aside, and then
+only from behind. Most probably in passing the yacht, the animal turned
+its face once towards it, for we read in the _Times_ of 14th. June:
+“its features were seen only by one officer.” The breadth of the back
+is now stated to be about 15 or 20 feet. “The flappers appeared to have
+a semi-revolving motion,” which is indeed a nearly exact expression for
+this motion. The length of 50 feet is now considered by the gallant
+officer to seem to be about a third of the whole length. The reason of
+this estimation is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the
+water behind the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe
+that this individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again,
+the Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could have
+been the ridge of fins! No wonder!
+
+Of the second sketch (fig. 45) I will only say that it is partly wrong;
+for only _one_ flapper must have been visible _at one time_, though
+it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rapidity that it
+_seemed_ as if the two flappers were visible together. And when seen
+from aside in this position it would appear that the animal had more
+than two flappers, had a row of them, as is shown in our fig. 36.--It
+is also clear that the severe splashing and foaming of the water, which
+_must_ have been caused by the movements of the flappers, is omitted in
+the figure.
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ notes that the details
+furnished in the account of the _Times_ appear to be explicable by a
+tape-fish (_Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus_). I need not say that I am not at
+all at one with him. There is not one simple character either in the
+ridge of fins, or in the animal described, which agrees in the least
+with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape-fishes are deep-sea fishes, and
+only rise to the surface, dying or dead!
+
+Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN’S comparison of the animal with a manatee
+(_Nature_, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but the length of
+the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimensions of both animals
+differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous to dwell any longer on
+it.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In January 1879, Mr. ANDREW WILSON published his _Leisure Time
+Studies_, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth chapter
+is entitled “The sea-serpents of Science”. As might be expected the
+author treats of the various explanations of the sea-serpent given by
+men of science as well as by others, and declares himself to be a firm
+believer of the fact that large unknown animals exist. I wish to quote
+here the most interesting parts, or better said, those parts which are,
+at present, of great interest. In considering the authenticity of the
+reports and the admission that really “something” must have been seen,
+the author says:
+
+“Can we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated during past
+years, dismiss the subject _simpliciter_, as founded on no basis of
+fact? The answer to such a question must be an emphatic negative;
+since the evidence brought before our notice includes the testimony
+of several hundreds of sane and reasonable persons, who in frequent
+cases have testified on oath and by affidavit to the truth of their
+descriptions of curious marine forms, seen and observed in various
+seas. The second supposition, that all of these persons have simply
+been deceived, is one which must also be dismissed. For, after
+making all due allowance for exaggeration, and for variations in
+accounts arising from different modes of expression and even from
+mental peculiarities in the witnesses, there remains a solid body of
+testimony, which, unless there is some special tendency to mendacity on
+the part of persons who travel by sea, we are bound, by all the rules
+of fair criticism and of evidence, to receive as testimony of honest
+kind. As I have elsewhere observed: There are very many calmly and
+circumstantially related and duly verified accounts of serpentine, or
+at any rate, of anomalous marine forms, having been closely inspected
+by the crew and passengers of vessels. Either, therefore, we must
+argue that in every instance the senses of intelligent men and women
+must have played them false, or we must simply assume that they are
+describing what they have never seen. The accounts in many instances so
+minutely describe the appearance of such forms, inspected from a near
+standpoint, that the possibility of their being mistaken for inanimate
+objects, as they might be if viewed from a distance, is rendered
+entirely improbable. We may thus, then, affirm firstly that there are
+many verified pieces of evidence on record, of strange marine forms
+having been met with,--which evidences, judged according to ordinary
+and common sense rules, go to prove that certain hitherto undescribed
+marine organisms do certainly exist in the sea-depths.”
+
+“The first issue I must therefore submit to the reader, as representing
+one of a large and impartial jury, is, that the mass of evidence
+accumulated on the sea-serpent question, when weighed and tested, even
+in a _prima facie_ manner, plainly shuts us up to the belief that
+appearances, resembling those produced by the presence in the sea of
+huge serpentine forms, have been frequently noted by competent and
+trustworthy observers. Unless we are to believe that men and women
+have deliberately prevaricated, and that without the slightest excuse
+or show of reason, we must believe that they have witnessed marine
+appearances, certainly of unwonted and unusual kind. That “something”
+has assuredly been seen, must be the verdict on this first issue.
+What that “something” is or was, and whether or not the evidence
+will support the opinion that the appearances described bear out the
+existence of a “sea-serpent” in the flesh, form points for discussion
+in the next instance.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON mentions some pages further on a curious case of fear
+of popular ridicule in telling that
+
+“one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had been seen by his
+crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below; since, to use his
+own words, “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, I should have been
+considered to be a warranted liar all my life after!”
+
+In examining whether that “something” was a dead or living organism,
+Mr. WILSON concludes that:
+
+“Numerous cases exist in which the object, presumed to be a living
+being, has been scrutinized so closely that, save on the supposition
+that senses have played their owners false, or that minds have given
+way to an unaccountable impulse for lying, we must face and own the
+belief that living animals have been seen.”
+
+He now speaks of a few accounts, viz. the various reports of the animal
+seen by the officers of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118), by the crew of the
+_Pauline_ (n^o. 144, 145), and by the captain and the surgeon of the
+_Nestor_ (n^o. 146), and explains them in his own way, believing that
+these sea-serpents were gigantically developed sea-snakes, or a great
+calamary. Next he treats of the appearance of the animal as reported
+by the officers of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), explaining it to be a
+tape-fish. Finally he defends his hypothesis of gigantically developed
+sea-snakes and ribbon-fishes. These parts, however, I have inserted in
+my Chapter on various explanations.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In a review of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_, which I
+have found in _Nature_ of the 30th. of January, 1879, Vol. XIX, the
+following is written about the chapter on the sea-serpent:
+
+“The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting, both
+as giving a very fair summary of the most recent evidence on this
+subject, and as showing that the age of incredulity is past, and that
+naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct kinds of
+oceanic monsters probably exist, of which no single specimen has yet
+been obtained. Recollecting, however, the number of clever hoaxes to
+which this subject has given rise we think that the newspaper account
+at p. 104, of the declaration before a Liverpool J. P., made by the
+master and crew of a merchant-ship, to the effect that they had seen a
+huge serpent twice coiled round a sperm-whale, and a similar serpent
+with its head raised “sixty feet perpendicularly in the air,” should
+not have been inserted as evidence without first ascertaining that
+such a declaration was actually made before the magistrate named.
+The troubling of writing a single letter would probably have been
+sufficient, and would have settled the preliminary question of whether,
+from beginning to end, it was not a newspaper _canard_.”
+
+I am convinced that, after having attentively read what they find
+in this book about the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by the
+crew of the _Pauline_ (n^o. 144, 145) my readers will be convinced
+that the report of Captain DREVAR was not a _canard_. We read
+moreover in _Nature_ of Febr. 10, 1881, that Captain DREVAR has
+circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and
+of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck
+out of the water. Mr. WOOD, the writer of the article in which this
+is communicated, adds: “This is satisfactory as showing that the
+declaration was no hoax”. I quite agree with him.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 46.--The sea-serpent as seen by Major SENIOR of the
+_City of Baltimore_.]
+
+=149=.--1879, January 28.--The _Graphic_ of April, 19, 1879, says:
+
+“The following is an extract from the account given by our
+correspondent, Major H. W. J. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps,
+to whom we are indebted for the sketch from which our engraving is
+taken:--“On the 28th. of January, 1879, at about 10 a. m., I was on
+the poop deck of the steamship _City of Baltimore_ in lat. 12° 28′ N.,
+long 43° 52′ E. I observed a long black object abeam of the ship’s
+stern on the starboard side, at a distance of about three-quarters
+of a mile, darting rapidly out of the water, and splashing in again
+with a sound distinctly audible, and advancing nearer and nearer at
+a rapid pace. In a minute it had advanced to within half a mile, and
+was distinctly recognizable as the veritable “sea-serpent”. I shouted
+out “Sea-serpent! sea-serpent! call the captain!” Dr. C. Hall, the
+ship’s surgeon, who was reading on deck, jumped up in time to see
+the monster, as did also Miss. Greenfield, one of the passengers on
+board. By this time it was only about 500 yards off, and a little in
+the rear, owing to the vessel then steaming at the rate of about ten
+knots an hour in a westerly direction. On approaching the wake of the
+ship the serpent turned its course a little away, and was soon lost to
+view in the blaze of sunlight reflected on the waves of the sea. So
+rapid were its movements that when it approached the ship’s wake, I
+seized a telescope, but could not catch a view as it darted rapidly out
+of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus prevented
+from ascertaining whether it had scales or not but the best view of
+the monster obtainable when it was about three cables’ length, that is
+about 500 yards’ distant, seemed to show that it was without scales.
+I cannot, however, speak with certainty. The head and neck, about two
+feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty
+or thirty feet, and the monster opened its jaws wide as it rose, and
+closed them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive,
+reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was
+not visible at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the
+disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice, although
+occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head. The
+shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon I have often
+seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the forehead and eyebrow. When the
+monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of the water it let itself
+drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood, prior to darting forward
+under the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in
+height on either side of the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings.”
+
+“Major Senior’s statement is countersigned by the two persons whom he
+mentions as co-witnesses, and he expresses his willingness to answer
+any questions which may be put to him by any one interested in the
+subject. His address while on furlough is Rosebank Villa, Southfield
+Rode, Cotham, Bristol.”
+
+The appearance took place in the Gulf of Aden, as pointed out by the
+latitude and longitude. The account here is very correct as I now
+will try to show. The colour of the animal is called black and the
+appearance of the skin was that it was without scales. The head and
+neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height
+of about twenty or thirty feet, and the animal opened its jaws wide
+as it rose, evidently swallowing some fish, captured under water in
+its pursuit of a shoal of them, and closed them again as it lowered
+its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost immediately
+some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at all, and must
+have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the surface
+was too slight to attract notice. This is very natural, as I have
+already pointed out on a former occasion: if the head and neck are
+above the surface, the remaining parts of the body must carry their
+weight and sink a little below the surface. Not very much, however, for
+the foreflappers, as well as the hindflappers, paddling very rapidly
+caused a splash distinctly visible on the base of the neck (or on
+the shoulders), and “occasionally a splash was seen at some distance
+behind the head”. Examining the figure, which is very exact, we may
+take it that the foremost splash was caused by the foreflappers, about
+twenty-five feet in the rear of the head, the very same place where
+the officers of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118) “occasionally saw a fin”,
+and that about twenty-five feet more backward the hindmost splash
+was caused by the hindflappers, the place, where Captain M’QUHAE
+(n^o. 118) “occasionally saw another fin”. The animal seen from the
+_Daedalus_ seems to have been a little smaller than that seen from the
+_City of Baltimore_. The comparison of the head with a dragon’s is a
+little far-fetched. The animal furiously pursuing its prey, sometimes
+opening its jaws, knitting its heavy eye-brows, which as we know are
+a little prominent, in short, expressing in its features hurry and a
+wild longing for its prey, may under these circumstances have had a
+feature terrible enough to cause Mr. SENIOR’S expression “the shape of
+the head was not unlike pictures of the dragons I have often seen, with
+a bull-dog appearance of the fore-head and eye-brow”. We have learned
+already that on such occasions the animal curved its neck swan-like and
+diving head foremost like a duck, disappeared. Here we have another
+habit of pursuing: “when the monster had drawn its head sufficiently
+out of water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood,
+prior to darting forward under the water. This motion caused a splash
+of about fifteen feet in height on either side of the neck, much in
+shape of a pair of wings”. This last might have been fairly omitted
+as every one can imagine the splash of water, caused by a log of wood
+falling into it. I think this comparison also far-fetched: such a
+splash cannot be compared with an object.
+
+Our figure is taken from Mr. LEE’S often quoted work. It is the middle
+third of the one which illustrated the text in the _Graphic_, but as
+it is drawn on the same scale, I saw no reason to give my readers the
+whole illustration of the _Graphic_.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=150=.--1879, March 30th.--_Nature_ of the 24th. of July, 1879,
+contains the following of Surgeon BARNETT, respecting the appearance of
+a sea-serpent near Cape Naturaliste in Australia.
+
+“In _Nature_, Vol. XIX, p. 286, I observed some remarks respecting
+sea-serpents, and especially noted one passage which stated that “The
+age of incredulity is past, and naturalists are now prepared to admit
+that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist.”
+
+“I was pleased to read this statement, as I have for many years been
+convinced that some of the accounts published from time to time in
+the newspapers are accurate descriptions of what has actually been
+witnessed, but I little expected that I should so soon be able to
+forward to you a description of one of these creatures, as given by
+an eye-witness, of whose accuracy there can be no question, and whose
+observations were made when very close to the animal.”
+
+“Busselton is a little seaport about 150 miles south of Fremantle, on
+the west coast of Australia, situated on the shore of Geographe Bay,
+which is sheltered by Cape Naturaliste; the northern point of that
+singular projection on the south-west corner of Australia.”
+
+“During the greater part of the year the water of Geographe Bay is as
+smooth as a lake, though it is a portion of that vast Indian Ocean
+which extends unbrokenly to the African coast. The beach is of smooth
+white sand, so hard at the water’s edge that it is frequently used as
+a road for riding or driving from Busselton to Lockville; the latter
+place, a few miles to the north, is the station of the Ballarat Timber
+Company, containing their steam saw mills, the termination of their
+railway, and the jetty from which large quantities of that imperishable
+and valuable timber called jarrah is exported to be used as piles,
+railway sleepers, etc.”
+
+“Last month I heard a report that the sea-serpent had been seen
+near Busselton, and that the resident clergyman had been one of the
+spectators. Having the pleasure of personal acquaintance with that
+gentleman, I wrote to him on the subject, and received from him such
+an interesting account, that I applied to him for permission to
+communicate the facts to your paper, and verify them by publishing his
+name. It is fortunate that the principal eye-witness was an educated
+gentleman, who has for twenty seven years been a Colonial chaplain in
+this colony, and whose description of what he saw is clear, simple, and
+free from exaggeration.”
+
+“I copy from the letters of the Rev. H. W. Brown the following
+extracts:--
+
+“On Sunday, March 30, I left Lockville just as the sun was setting, on
+my way home by the beach”.
+
+“The afternoon had been oppressively hot, not a breath of wind, and the
+sea was as smooth as a glass. I met C. M’Guire and his wife walking
+towards Lockville.”
+
+“Soon afterwards, when abreast of the track to Richardson’s, I noticed
+ahead of me what looked like a black log of wood in the water a
+stone’s throw from the shore, nearly end-on to me, and apparently more
+buoyant at that end; getting nearer, I noticed that it was _drifting_
+apparently towards Lockville, and soon discovered that it was moving,
+leaving behind it a very long, narrow ridge on the smooth water. I then
+turned my horse’s head, and, at a walking pace kept just abreast of
+it, unnoticed apparently, till I had gained sufficiently on M’Guire to
+make him hear. I then coo-eed _once_; he turned and came back to meet
+me; but at the sound of my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of
+sight (under water), and doubled again in shore, but so rapidly as to
+leave both outward and inward “ridge” on the water distinctly visible
+at once, like a wide V with quite a sharp corner. It gave me the idea
+of two fishes, the one darting outward, the other crossing its track
+inward at the same moment.”
+
+“Not knowing where it might show up next, but satisfied that it had
+come in-shore again, I tried by pointing seaward to direct M’Guire’s
+attention that way”.
+
+“Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing
+gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost at
+rest, and all apparently was in view, I estimated the length to be 60
+feet, straight and taper, like a long spar, with the butt end, his head
+and shoulders, showing well above the surface.”
+
+“I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff, about
+two feet diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very distinctly
+above water, several square-topped fins.”
+
+“I here make an exact tracing from Mr. Brown’s letter of his sketch:--
+
+“It was now getting rather too dark to see details distinctly. The fish
+proceeded toward Lockville, and I turned homeward. M’Guire said he
+would go on to Lockville jetty and look out for him there.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 47.--Outline of the back of the sea-serpent as seen
+by the Rev. H. W. BROWN.]
+
+“Whether he saw him again I know not, but M’Mullan, the fisherman,
+told me next morning that he had seen it about fifty yards from that
+jetty, and it looked to him about twenty feet long. So it did to me
+while in motion; only when at rest for a moment did its whole length
+show up sufficiently. What its propelling power was I cannot say from
+observation; I saw no lateral fins and no fish-tail.”
+
+“When it started away at the sound of my voice, it was with the rapid
+movement of a pike or sword-fish, and yet the thick bluff head had but
+little resemblance to a snake.”
+
+“There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore the same
+afternoon, yet when I saw the stranger there were certainly no fish of
+which it could be in pursuit.”
+
+“Since the year 1848, when the captain and officers of a British
+man-of-war gave evidence that they passed within 100 yards of a snake,
+which they estimated to be 60 feet in length above water, with
+probably 40 feet beneath, I do not know of any more clear account
+than the above. Many independant accounts of the existence of marine
+monsters have been placed on record, and it seems mere folly to treat
+these repeated reports with ridicule.”
+
+“I trust that your readers will no longer doubt that the “age of
+credulity” is past.”
+
+  “H. C. Barnett.”
+
+  “Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.”
+
+  “Colonial surgeon.”
+
+I need not tell my readers that the figure is very rude, and only gives
+a very indistinct representation of four “bunches”, or visible parts
+of vertical undulations, called “fins” in the narrative. The blunt
+head, compared with the end of a log, the imperfect description, and
+the so-called square appearance of the bunches must be ascribed to the
+falling darkness. The other details of the report: the swimming of the
+animal in bunches, its causing the “ridges” in the water in the shape
+of a wide V, its holding its head well above the surface, its length,
+its resemblance with a spar, straight and taper, are in my opinion
+convincing enough to call this “fish” a sea-serpent.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=151=.--1879, April 5.--In the _Graphic_ of July, 19th., 1879, and in
+_Nature_ for November 18th., 1880, we find the following statement:
+
+“The accompanying engraving is a _fac-simile_ of a sketch sent to us by
+Captain Davison, of the steamship _Kiushiu-maru_, and is inserted as a
+specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us
+for insertion in the pages of this journal. Capt. Davison’s statement,
+which is countersigned by his chief officer, Mr. McKechnie, is as
+follows:--Saturday, April 5th., at 11.15 a. m. Cape Satano distant
+about nine miles, the chief officer and myself observed a whale jump
+clear out of the sea, about a quarter of a mile away. Shortly after it
+leaped out again, when I saw there was something attached to it. Got
+glasses, and on the next leap distinctly saw something holding on the
+belly of the whale. The latter gave one more spring clear of the water,
+and myself and chief then observed what appeared to be a large creature
+of the snake species rear itself about thirty feet out of the water. It
+appeared to be about the thickness of a junk’s mast and after standing
+about ten seconds in an erect position, it descended into the water,
+the upper end going first. With my glasses I made out the colour of the
+beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 48 and 49.--Two positions of the sea-serpent as
+seen by Captain DAVISON of the _Kiushiu Maru_.]
+
+It is clear that the Editor of the _Graphic_ is an unbeliever, else he
+would not have called these figures “specimens of the curious drawings
+which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this
+journal”. I think that there is nothing curious in these figures, which
+are as correct as possible.
+
+Cape Satano is the most southern point of Japan, or better, of the
+Isle of Kiu Siu. It is also called Satano Misaki, of which “Saki” or
+“Misaki” signifies “cape”. The Russians call it Cape Chichakoff. This
+is the third time that we read of the sea-serpent being seen in the
+Pacific Ocean (see n^o. 36 and 119).
+
+The most remarkable fact mentioned in this report is the gripping the
+whale. The reader will remember the report of a sea-serpent engaged
+with a whale, of course one of the smaller kind (n^o. 54). In 1833
+some British officers saw a shoal of grampuses near Halifax, Nova
+Scotia, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement” and a little
+while afterwards the sea-serpent appeared, evidently hunting after
+the grampuses (n^o. 97). Again in 1850 (?) Captain CHRISTMAS saw
+“an immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the ship, as if pursued”
+and soon afterwards a sea-serpent made its appearance, curving its
+neck swan-like, evidently keeping a lookout and disappearing “head
+foremost like a duck diving” (n^o. 124). Also Captain BROWN saw it
+“surrounded by porpoises” (n^o. 56). And now we have for the fifth
+time the sea-serpent pursuing whales, and a second time that it is
+engaged with one which it had evidently gripped in its pectoral fin. I
+am convinced that the description “holding on the belly of the whale”
+is incorrect. The dimensions of the neck estimated at thirty feet in
+length and of about the thickness of the mast of a junk are certainly
+not exaggerated. After the whale’s escape, the sea-serpent for about
+ten seconds stood in an erect position, like the animal of Captain
+BROWN (n^o. 56), taking evidently a survey all around, then bent its
+neck swan-like as in shown in the figure and finally “descended into
+the water, the upper end going first”, exactly the way in which the
+animal behaved seen by Capt. CHRISTMAS (n^o. 124). The description
+of the colour as “resembling that of a pilot-fish”, is very vague,
+for the different pilot-fishes (_Naucrates_) have different colours,
+generally grey with some hue of blue, brown, or purple. The vague
+definition may be the result of a damp atmosphere, or it must be that
+the throat was turned towards the spectators, and not the back-part of
+the neck, which is nearly black. As the sea-serpent has a very long
+and pointed tail, the fan-shaped or double finned tail in fig. 49 must
+be accounted for. This I think may be done in the following four ways:
+1. The tail represents the whale, disappearing in the water, which
+in so doing caused a severe splash as is shown in the figure. 2. The
+tail is an optical illusion and the two fins of it were in fact the
+animal’s hindflappers paddling furiously, which may be explained as an
+expression of the animal’s emotion, as the whale escaped, and in doing
+so, the flappers caused the violent splash. 3. Not the flappers but
+the tail of the animal was lashing the water vehemently, and caused
+the optical illusion and the immense splash and foam. 4. The drawer,
+believing that the animal had a cetacean tail or a fish-tail, drew one,
+lashing the water, and so represented more his own imagination than the
+reality; but in no case a double finned tail has ever belonged to an
+animal with a long swan-like curved neck, as is really believed by Mr.
+SEARLES V. WOOD in that number of _Nature_!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=152=.--1879, August 5.--(_Times_ of September 24, 1879).
+
+“Capt. J. F. COX, master of the British ship _Privateer_, which arrived
+at Delaware breakwater on the 9th. inst. from London, says:--“On the
+5th. ult., 100 miles west of Brest (France), weather fine and clear, at
+5 p. m., as I was walking the quarter deck, looking to windward, I saw
+something black rise out of the water about twenty feet, in shape like
+an immense snake about three feet in diameter. It was about 300 yards
+from the ship, coming towards us. It turned its head partly from us,
+and went down with a great splash, after staying up about five seconds,
+but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, until it had
+turned completely from us and was going from us with great speed, and
+making the water all boiling round it. I could see its eyes and shape
+perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black as coal tar,
+and appeared to be making great exertions to get away from the ship. I
+have seen many kinds of fish in five different oceans, but was never
+favoured with a sight of the great sea-snake before.”
+
+Of this unvarnished account Mr. WOOD says with reason (_Nature_,
+February 10, 1881), that it is “almost a duplicate of that of Major
+SENIOR” (n^o. 149). The colour of the animal is called black, the
+head and neck, like those of a snake, were elevated about twenty feet
+in the air. The animal stood so about five seconds, went down with a
+great splash, but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds,
+thus behaving in the same way as the individual seen from the _City of
+Baltimore_ (n^o. 149). The thickness here is estimated at three feet.
+The animal moved from the vessel with great speed. Consequently the
+captain could not discern four different splashes, two of the fore and
+two of the hind-flappers, but he reports that the water was boiling all
+around it. I think that the animal here again was pursuing a shoal of
+fish and not trying to escape the vessel.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=152 A=.--1881, Nov. 12?--The Zuid-Afrikaan, of Nov. 17, 1881, mentions:
+
+“In the _Argus_ we read the following:--“Mr. C. M. HANSEN, functionary
+to the harbour-office, mentions, that on Saturday evening a little
+after six o’clock, being occupied in his garden near Monillepoint,
+he perceived near the spot where the _Athens_ was wrecked, a great
+sea-serpent, and that he immediately drew the attention of his wife
+and children, and several of his neighbours to this appearance. After
+viewing the coast at its ease for half an hour the monster turned its
+head seaward and disappeared. Mr. HANSEN describes this sea-monster as
+being about 75 feet long, of a dark colour and with a head of the size
+of a 54 gallon hogshead, resembling that of a bull-dog, and provided
+with a long and brown mane, hanging down.”
+
+Undoubtedly the length of 75 feet is that of the part visible above the
+surface of the water. It is not mentioned whether the animal swam with
+its body in a straight line or in vertical undulations. It is not for
+the first time that we hear of the sea-serpent near Cape-Town, (for
+_Argus_ must no doubt be read _Cape Argus_), I pass the dimension of
+the head as I don’t know that of a 54 gallon hogshead. Remarkable is
+the comparison of the head with a bull-dog’s; it must have been seen in
+front, in order to make this impression. Again a mane was present and
+its colour is now called brown.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=153=.--1882, May 28th.--In the next account we read:
+
+“At our arrival in Newcastle, I learned that some days before some
+fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=154=.--1882, May 31.--(_Illustrirte Zeitung_ of 1st. of July, 1882).--
+
+“The following report, with the accompanying engraving has been
+forwarded to us by Mr. Weisz, Captain of the Stettin Lloyd Steamer
+_Kätie_.”
+
+“When the Stettin Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_, on her return from New-York
+to Newcastle, on the 31st. of May of this year, shortly after sunset
+and in that clear light which in this season takes place in fine
+weather in high northern latitudes, was about eight miles W. N. W. of
+Butt of Lewis (Hebrides), we observed on starboard before us, at a
+distance of about two miles a dark object lying on the surface, which
+was only slightly moved by the waves; first we took it for a wreck,
+as the highest end resembled the bow and the forepart of a ship, and
+the remaining hilly part resembled the broken waist-cloth of a ship
+filled with water. As we got nearer we saw with a glass on the left
+of the visible object, the water moving in a manner, as if the object
+extended there under the water, and this motion was of the same length
+as the part of the object, visible above the surface. Therefore we
+took care, not to steer too near, lest the screw should be damaged by
+some floating pieces of the wreck. But on getting nearer observed that
+the object was not a wreck, and, if we had not known with certainty
+that on these coasts there are no shallows, we should have taken this
+dark connected row of hills for cliffs. When we, however, changed our
+course obliquely from the object, which lay quite still all the time,
+to our astonishment there rose, about eighty feet from the visible end
+a fin about ten feet in height, which moved a few times, whilst the
+body gradually sunk below the surface. In consequence of this the most
+elevated end rose, and could distinctly be made out as the tail of a
+fish kind of immense dimensions.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 50.--The sea-serpent, as seen from the Stettin
+Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_, near the Hebrides, drawn under the supervision
+of the captain Mr. WEISZ, by the American animal-painter Mr. ANDREW
+SCHULTZ.--]
+
+“The length of the visible part of this animal which had in no case
+any resemblance with the back of a whale, measured, according to our
+estimation, about 150 feet, the hills, which were from three to four
+feet in height, and about six or seven feet distant from each other,
+were smaller on the tail end, than on the head end, which withdrew from
+our observation.”
+
+“At our arrival at Newcastle, I learned that some days before some
+fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal. Had I
+directly recognized the object before us, to be one of these creatures,
+which for so long time belonged to the fables, I should certainly have
+neared it with the _Kätie_ as much as possible.”
+
+It is obvious that captain WEISZ saw, and Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ sketched
+the animal, ignorant of its being a sea-serpent. It became clear
+to them, when they arrived at Newcastle where they learned that a
+“sea-serpent” was seen by some fishermen of Lewis.
+
+Here we have again the assertion that the animal showed bunches,
+though it lay still or nearly still, an observation already reported
+more than once, as the reader will remember. I am convinced that the
+dimensions are exaggerated, and that the disturbance of the water was
+caused by the length of the tail, and not of the head of the animal,
+which evidently was searching for food in a playful manner, as we may
+observe in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, and in doing
+so turned for a moment its body round, and raised once or twice first
+one of its hindflappers “which it moved a few times”, and then raised
+one of its foreflappers, which was taken for a tail by the captain
+and the drawer. The long neck here commences, but was, with the head,
+constantly under water, evidently directed downwards, for there was no
+disturbance of the water visible here. It is clear that the _Kätie_
+remained at a good distance from the animal, so that Mr. SCHULTZ,
+a well-known animal painter, could not obtain a better view of the
+flappers. The outlines of the flappers, however, are as correct as
+possible.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=155=.--1882, September 3.--(_Nature_, 1883, January 25).
+
+“Believing it to be desirable that every well-authenticated observation
+indicating the existence of large sea-serpents should be permanently
+registered, I send you the following particulars.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 51.--Outline of the sea-serpent seen near Little
+Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. Mott after three different sketches.]
+
+“About 3 p. m. on Sunday, September 3, 1882, a party of gentlemen and
+ladies were standing at the northern extremity of Llandudno pier,
+looking towards the open sea, when an unusual object was observed in
+the water near to the Little Orme’s Head, travelling rapidly westwards
+towards the Great Orme. It appeared to be just outside the mouth of the
+bay, and would therefore be about a mile distant from the observers. It
+was watched for about two minutes, and in that interval it traversed
+about half the width of the bay, and then suddenly disappeared. The bay
+is two miles wide, and therefore the object, whatever it was, must have
+travelled at the rate of thirty miles an hour. It is estimated to have
+been fully as long as a large steamer; say 200 feet; the rapidity of
+its motion was particularly remarked as being greater than that of any
+ordinary vessel. The colour appeared to be black, and the motion either
+corkscrew like or snake-like, with vertical undulations. Three of the
+observers have since made sketches from memory, quite independently of
+the impressions left on their minds, and on comparing these sketches,
+which slightly varied, they have agreed to sanction the accompanying
+outline as representing as nearly as possible the object which they
+saw. The party consisted of W. Barfoot, J. P. of Leicester, F. J.
+Marlow, solicitor, of Manchester, Mrs. Marlow, and several others. They
+discard the theories of birds or porpoises as not accounting for this
+particular phenomenon.”
+
+  “F. T. Mott.”
+
+  “Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”
+
+The appearance took place, as is stated, near Orme’s Head, a headland
+of the Northern coast of Wales, projecting in a north-western direction
+into the Irish Sea. The great rapidity of the movement through the
+water, estimated at thirty miles an hour, its great length of about 200
+feet, its black colour, its vertical undulations and the whole external
+appearance of the animal, outlines of which are represented in the
+figure, at once betray the sea-serpent.
+
+Another correspondent of _Nature_ immediately wrote to the Editor as
+follows: “I have seen four or five times something like what your
+correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, and have no doubt
+whatever that phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never,
+however, saw the _head_ your correspondent gives.” There! It is just
+the head which shows that the animal seen by the party of gentlemen
+and ladies above mentioned, was one single animal and not a row of
+porpoises!
+
+And therefore, one of the eye-witnesses, Mr. W. BARFOOT, promptly
+answered in _Nature_ of Febr. 8, 1883:
+
+“Like your correspondent, Mr. Sidebotham (in _Nature_ Vol. XXVII, p.
+315), I have frequently seen a shoal of porpoises in Llandudno Bay,
+as well as in other places, and on the occasion referred to by Mr.
+Mott, in _Nature_, Vol. XXVII, p. 293, the idea of porpoises was at
+first started but immediately abandoned. I will venture to suggest
+that no one has seen a shoal of these creatures travel at the rate of
+from twenty five to thirty miles an hour. I have seen whales in the
+ocean, and large flocks of sea-birds, such as those of the eider-duck,
+skimming its surface; but the strange appearance seen at Llandudno on
+September 3 was not to be accounted for by porpoises, whales, birds, or
+breakers, an opinion which was shared by all present.”
+
+  “William Barfoot.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In 1883 Mr. HENRY LEE published his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, one of the
+Series of publications of the International Fisheries Exhibition. This
+delightful book treats of the Kraken and the sea-serpent.
+
+In the Preface Mr. LEE remarks:
+
+“In treating of the so-called “sea-serpent”, I have been anticipated
+by many able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book “The Romance
+of Natural History”, published in 1862, devoted a chapter to it;
+and numerous articles concerning it appeared in various papers and
+periodicals.”
+
+“But, for the information from which those authors have drawn their
+inferences, and on which they have founded their opinions, they have
+been greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously to consider
+this subject, to the late experienced editor of the _Zoologist_, Mr.
+Edward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind, of great judgment, a
+profound thinker, and an able writer. At a time when, as he said, “the
+shafts of ridicule were launched against believers and unbelievers in
+the sea-serpent in a very pleasing and impartial manner”, he, in the
+true spirit of philosophical inquiry, in 1847, opened the columns of
+his magazine to correspondence on this topic, and all the more recent
+reports of marine monsters having been seen are therein recorded. To
+him, therefore, the fullest acknowledgements are due.”
+
+I too am under obligations to Mr. NEWMAN, as to one who has collected
+so many reports of the sea-serpent and published them in his journal,
+but I fail to see in him what Mr. LEE asserts him to be.
+
+As to the contents of Mr. LEE’S “Great Sea-Serpent”, the second part of
+his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, I may be allowed to note the following.
+
+First he mentions the various great snakes of antiquity and believes
+them to be merely boas (read pythons) and real sea-snakes. Next he
+represents a figure, found on a sarcophagus or coffin in the Catacombs
+of Rome, and tells us that it corresponds in many respects with some of
+the descriptions of the sea-serpent given several centuries afterwards.
+I, however, don’t observe any resemblance in them. I consider this
+monster as a singular combination of a horse and a fish, badly drawn,
+as one of the representations of those wonderful ideas or beliefs of
+antiquity concerning the existence of such monsters as sirens, tritons,
+the minotaurus, etc.
+
+Further he treats of OLAUS MAGNUS, Bishop PONTOPPIDAN, HANS EGEDE, the
+Animal of Stronsa, and of various reports of the sea-serpent, and it
+is obviously a favoured idea of his that the sea-serpent is only to
+be accounted for by a great calamary; to prove this, he makes himself
+guilty of all kinds of misrepresentations and improbabilities; he
+considers every one as having been the dupe of optical deceptions,
+or as having made exaggerations, and their observations to be “full
+of error and mistakes”! And he who has never seen a sea-serpent, but
+sits pen in hand in his chair at his desk, knows it best of all: all
+sea-serpents were calamaries, except a very few, which were a row of
+porpoises! But the more Mr. LEE has to deal with more recent reports,
+the less he is able to explain the various sea-serpents by reference to
+his favoured calamary. Of the animals seen in the Harbour of Gloucester
+in 1817 he says: “Of this I can offer no zoological explanation”.
+He neither gives an explanation of the sea-serpent seen in 1833 by
+British officers (n^o. 97), nor of that in Lochourn (n^o. 137, 138,
+139, 140). Then he says: “Many other accounts have been published of
+the appearance of serpent-like sea-monsters, but I have only space
+for two or three more of the most remarkable of them”. Truly, an easy
+way to get rid of them! One of these two or three more remarkable
+reports is the fight between the whale and the sea-serpent (n^o. 144)
+of which he proposes several explanations (I beg to refer the readers
+to that account), ending with the words: “it must be left for further
+elucidation”. The sea-serpent of the _City of Baltimore_ (n^o. 149) was
+misunderstood by him. He compares the _splash of the water_, caused by
+the animal’s dropping its neck like a log of wood into it, with the
+_caudal fins of a calamary_ (just imagine!) but ends: “but, as one with
+a bull-dog expression of eye-brow, visible at 500 yards distance, does
+not come within my ken, I will not claim it as much.” And of the animal
+of the _Osborne_ he says:
+
+“It seems to me that this description cannot be explained as applicable
+to any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly,
+as was suggested by Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND, belong to four basking sharks,
+swimming in line, in close order; but the combination of them with long
+flippers, and turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma
+which I am unable to solve.”
+
+Nevertheless, in answering the question: “To which of the recognized
+class of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred?”
+he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda” (i. e. calamaries). Such a
+contradiction I do not understand.
+
+And notwithstanding his cherished great-calamary-hypothesis, and after
+having said some words about Mr. NEWMAN’s Plesiosaurus theory and Mr.
+WILSON’s ideas of the extraordinary development of snakes, he ends his
+work with the following conclusions:
+
+“I arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without
+straining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not proved
+to be erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed “Great
+Sea-Serpent” may now be nearly all accounted for by the forms and
+habits of known animals; especially if we admit, as proposed by Dr.
+Andrew Wilson, that some of them, including the marine snakes, may,
+like the cuttles, attain to an extraordinary size.”
+
+“2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance of every
+existing marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable. It
+appears to me more than probable that many marine animals, unknown to
+science, and some of them of gigantic size, may have their ordinary
+habitat in the great depths of the sea, and only occasionally come to
+the surface; and I think it not impossible that amongst them may be
+marine snakes of greater dimensions than we are aware of, and even a
+creature having close affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil
+skeletons tell of their magnitude and abundance in past ages.”
+
+I am unable to follow out such a reasoning.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=156=.--1883, October 15?--The _Graphic_ of 20th. October, 1883,
+mentions, p. 387:
+
+“The inevitable sea-serpent has turned up again. This time he has been
+seen going down the Bristol Channel towards the Atlantic at the rate of
+twenty-five miles per hour, and afterwards he was noticed off the north
+coast of Cornwall. The monster was about half a mile long, and left a
+greasy trail behind him.”
+
+I have no doubt about the appearance of a sea-serpent in Bristol
+Channel, and a few hours or a day afterwards off the north coast of
+Cornwall, as several individuals have already been reported on the
+west coast of Great Britain. The greasy trail left behind it is not
+an improbability, but the length of half a mile is most probably an
+invention of the incredulous Editor of the Graphic!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Mr. C. HONIGH in his _Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen_ in _de Gids_ for
+1884, p. 300 speaking of strange and violent motions in the water of
+the lake of Mjösen in Norway during perfectly calm weather tells us as
+a specimen of Norwegian superstition:
+
+“People ascribe these motions to sea-serpents, in which many persons
+in Norway firmly believe upon the authority of undeniable witnesses
+and their observations. One of the most famous of these monsters
+lived some centuries ago in the lake of Mjösen, in the neighbourhood
+of Hamar, where it became entangled in the shallow. A monk killed it
+with arrow-shots in its eye, and the monster then floated to near the
+“Holy-Isle” to a place which is still called “Pilestöa”. And yet there
+is still a sea-serpent in the lake, which has coiled itself round the
+great bell of Hamar, which in the time of the seven years’ war was
+lowered to the bottom.”
+
+Mr. HONIGH adds:
+
+“After all I heard and saw at Bergen, I don’t doubt in the least that
+in the Atlantic and on the coasts of Norway really appear from time to
+time immensely large mammals of the seal-kind, known by the name of
+“great sea-serpent”, though I therefore don’t admit all fabulous tales
+about it.”
+
+The words “mammals of the seal-kind” are explained by the following
+circumstance. In November, 1881, appeared from my pen, then a student’s
+pen, a little article on the sea-serpent, in which I tried to show
+that a sea-serpent is a yet undescribed long marine animal, closely
+allied to the pinnipeds, with a long neck and a long tail. Mr. HONIGH,
+in preparing his paper for the _Gids_ requested me to let him have a
+copy of my article, which I sent him, and he evidently accepted my
+supposition.
+
+In a letter Mr. HONIGH tells me:
+
+“In the literature of the Norwegians the sea-serpent or soe-orm is
+repeatedly mentioned, and in such an indisputable manner, that in my
+opinion there is no doubt of its existence.”
+
+“On my return I learned from a gentleman of Bergen, that some time ago
+there was a part of the skeleton of a sea-serpent in the Museum of
+Natural History of Bergen.”
+
+Though I begged Mr. HONIGH, teacher at the National Agricultural School
+at Wageningen, to communicate to me further particulars about the
+sea-serpent and about its literature, learned by him on his travels
+through Norway, and repeated this my question in February 1889, I am
+still waiting for an answer.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=157=.--1885, August 16.--(_Nature_ of September 10, 1885).
+
+“It was hardly to be expected that the season should pass without the
+appearance of the sea-serpent somewhere, and if we are to believe the
+information forwarded to us from a correspondent in Norway, it has
+just visited the coast of Nordland. Three sundays ago some lads were
+returning to the Island of Röd from the church at Melö, in the middle
+of the day, when they saw far out in the fjord a streak in the sea
+which they believed to be a flock of wild ducks swimming. On proceeding
+further, however, they heard a whizzing as of a rushing fountain and in
+a few moments perceived a great sea-monster with great velocity making
+straight for the boat. It appeared to be serpentine in shape, with a
+flat scaly head, and the lads counted seventeen coils on the surface
+of the water just as it passed the stern of the boat so closely that
+they could have thrown a boathook into it. By subsequent measurements
+on land the length of the animal was estimated at about 200 feet.
+It pursued its course on the surface of the sea until close behind
+the boat when it went down with a tremendous noise, but reappeared a
+little after, shaping its course for the Melö, where it disappeared
+from view. Naturally, the lads were greatly frightened. The weather at
+the time was hot, calm, and sunny. Our informer states that the lads
+are intelligent and truthful, and that there is no reason to discredit
+their unanimous statement, made, as it were, in a terribly frightened
+condition. It might be added that the waters in which the animal was
+seen are some of the deepest on the Norwegian coast, and that it is not
+the first time fishermen have averred having seen the sea-serpent here.
+The existence of the sea-serpent is fully believed in along the coast
+of Norway.”
+
+The sea-serpent in its rapid motion made, as is often stated, the water
+curl before its throat, which rushing sound was distinctly heard by
+the lads. Notwithstanding their great fright they yet saw the head
+was flat, but they were mistaken as to its being scaly. Moreover the
+account is unvarnished and the description of the animal’s motions is
+correct.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Mr. W. E. HOYLE, busy on the article “Sea-Serpent” for the 9th.
+Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1886 (June?) a
+number of titles of books and journals, which came in his way while
+studying the subject. This bibliography contains 89 numbers. They were
+printed, as the author says: “in the hope that they might be the means
+of saving time and labor on the part of others”. Alas, his hope has
+not been realized on my part, for I had nearly finished my work when
+I happened to find Mr. HOYLE’s paper quoted in the decennial Register
+of the _Zoologischer Anzeiger_. Only 25 of the numbers published by
+Mr. HOYLE were new additions to my “Literature on the subject”, and I
+could consult only three of them, amongst which Mr. HOYLE’s article
+“Sea-Serpent” in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ quoted above.
+
+Though Mr. HOYLE states: “no satisfactory explanation has yet been
+given of certain descriptions of the sea-serpent”, among others of “the
+huge snake seen by certain of the crew of the Pauline” (n^o. 144, 145)
+and of “Lieutenant Hayne’s account” (n^o. 148), and though he ends
+his article with the words: “It would thus appear that, while, with
+very few exceptions, all the so-called sea-serpents can be explained by
+reference to some well-known animal or other natural object, there is
+still a residuum sufficient to prevent modern zoologists from denying
+the possibility that some such creature may after all exist”, he
+himself was evidently taken in by the different persons who explained
+the sea-serpent by reference to the most impossible suppositions! He
+enumerates eight different explanations and seems fully to agree with
+them. It is evident that his only purpose was to satisfy the request of
+writing an article on the Sea-Serpent for an Encyclopedia.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=158=.--1886, August.--In the _Graphic_ of September, 25, we read:
+
+“The sea-serpent has now crossed the Atlantic, and has suddenly
+appeared near Kingston Point, on the Hudson. It was seen by two
+young men, who were rowing in a boat, and who, it seems, the monster
+fruitlessly chased. They describe the animal as growing furious, when
+it found them escaping. “It lashed the water with its tail, which
+seemed to be about seventy-five feet distance from its head. The head
+was as large and round as a flour-barrel; and its eyes of a greenish
+hue, looked “devilish”. Before resuming its journey up the Hudson,
+it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff resembling long
+shavings from a pine plank.”
+
+I have no reason to consider this account as a hoax, though it
+almost reads like one. In the Norwegian accounts it is said that the
+sea-serpent very often follows boats. I have explained this by the
+animal’s curiosity, mixed with some fear. The young men may have
+observed the animal paddling with its hind flappers, a possible
+expression of some emotion, as I have also explained when speaking
+of the animal seen from the _Kiushiu Maru_ (n^o. 151), and they may
+have ascribed the foam to the lashing of its tail; or it really lashed
+its tail, as I also supposed on that occasion (n^o. 151). The length
+between head and tail estimated at seventy-five feet, is certainly not
+exaggerated. As the head is described round as a flour-barrel, it was
+evidently seen in its face. I refer to the animal of the _Osborne_
+(n^o. 148) where the head seen from behind is also described and
+figured round as a bullet. Of the young men’s description that the eyes
+“looked devilish”, and also that of their colour being “of a greenish
+hue” I will only say that it is unique. The “stream of foamy stuff
+resembling long shavings from a pine plank” was of course nothing but
+a sudden exhalation, probably held for some time from curiosity and
+fear, and then suddenly sent forth. The locality where the sea-serpent
+appeared, may be apparently strange, it is, however, very well
+explicable, owing to the animal’s habit of frequenting shores, and to
+the habit of other pinnipeds of frequenting brackish water and even
+mouths of large rivers.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=159=.--1886, August?--In the same number of the _Graphic_ it says:
+
+“The serpent was also seen by the captain of a steamer, who “gave it
+the right of way”.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=160=.--1886, August?--(On the same page):
+
+“And yet another man (appropriately) named Jonah, who at first took the
+monster to be an immense tree floating with the tide--a notion which
+was quickly dispelled by the supposed tree throwing twenty feet of its
+length out of water.”
+
+As the reader will remember, the comparison of the sea-serpent,
+swimming or lying on the surface, with a floating tree or log of wood,
+has been made more than once; evidently the animal raised its enormous
+neck for a moment out of water, to take a look-out.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=161=.--1889, May.--In the _Haagsche Courant_ of June 6, of this year,
+I read:
+
+“The sea-serpent has again appeared, and been seen by a captain sailing
+from Liverpool to Philadelphia, who hitherto obstinately refused to
+believe in its existence.”
+
+Of course I immediately wrote to the Editor, begging him for the name
+of the journal, from which this statement had been taken. The Editor
+courteously answered that one of his correspondents had forwarded
+him a written copy of the account taken from the 38th. number of the
+_Grondwet_ of May 21st., of this year, published in Holland, Michigan,
+but the written copy had already disappeared in the paper-basket, and
+the correspondent requested to send the original, answered that he was
+unable to do so for the same reason.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In the first days of December 1889, Mr. JOHN ASHTON published his
+_Curious Creatures in Zoology_. Pages 268-278 of his volume treat of
+the sea-serpent. The illustrations which accompany this part are: 1.
+A representation of a piece of sculpture on a wall of the Assyrian
+palace at Khorsabad, which as I believe, has nothing at all to do with
+the sea-serpent, but which is a bad drawing of a _Hydrophis_. 2. The
+drawing of GESNER (our fig. 16) twice reduced. 3. EGEDE’s sea-serpent,
+as it was published in PONTOPPIDAN (our fig. 22). 4. An eel-kind taken
+from ALDROVANDUS’ work, and 5. A reduced copy of Captain M’QUHAE’s
+sea-serpent (our fig. 28).--
+
+Curious is Mr. ASHTON’s assertion, when speaking of the sea-serpent of
+Khorsabad-palace and of ARISTOTELES: “These ........ were doubtless
+marine snakes, which are still in existence, and are found in the
+Indian Ocean, but the larger ones seem to have been seen in more
+northern waters”. Consequently he believes, like Mr. ANDREW WILSON that
+the _Hydrophidae_ may develop gigantically and when in this condition
+make little trips from their common tropical residences to more
+northern latitudes!
+
+Further he quotes OLAUS MAGNUS, GESNER, TOPSELL, ALDROVANDUS,
+PONTOPPIDAN, and EGEDE, but all by the way.
+
+More space is devoted to the accounts of WALTER SCOTT, and to the
+observations of Mr. MACLEAN (n^o. 31), of a party of British officers
+(n^o. 97), of Lars JOHNÖEN (n^o. 92), of Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118),
+and of Lieutenant HAYNES (n^o. 148). All this, however, without giving
+the least explanation, and ending with these words:
+
+“I think the verdict may be given that its existence although belonging
+to “Curious Zoology”, is not impossible, and can hardly be branded as a
+falsehood.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+=162=.--1890, June.--_De Amsterdammer_, _Weekblad voor Nederland_, of
+July 12th. of this year, mentions:
+
+“The sea-serpent again.--Captain David Tuits, of the British schooner
+_Anny Harper_, has been favoured with a sight of it, near Long Island,
+not far from the coast of Connecticut. He is a perfectly trustworthy
+gentleman, who hitherto has never believed in sea-serpents, but who
+has now seen one on a clear day; the tail which was coloured brown
+with black spots, was about forty feet out of the water. The captain
+estimates the total length of the monster at over one hundred feet.”
+
+I think it not too bold to consider this report almost a duplicate of
+our n^o. 135. There the sea-serpent is called “a large snake about 100
+feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the body
+slightly under”. Most probably captain Tuits also saw only the head and
+the tail of the animal, and not the trunk. The tail is described here
+to be brown with black spots. It is evident that only the upper part of
+the tail was seen.
+
+I immediately enquired of the Editor of the _Amsterdammer_ about the
+source of this article; he, however, promptly answered me that his
+correspondent did not remember from which of the five or six German
+newspapers daily read by him, he had copied it.--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+“To what class of known beings does this monster of the deep belong?”
+This question has caused various suppositions, to which we will turn
+our attention in the next chapter.--
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+The various explanations hitherto given.
+
+
+I have found the =first= explanation given about the Sea-Serpent in the
+_Report_ of the Committee of 1817, where we read an extract from a M.
+S. journal of the Rev. WILLIAM JENKS, which he communicated in a letter
+to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, and which letter is printed there. It runs as
+follows:
+
+“A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. Alden Bradford of Wiscasset, now
+Secretary of the Commonwealth,) inquired of Mr. Cummings, whether the
+appearance might not be produced by =a number of porpoises=, =following
+each other= in a train.”
+
+This passage from the private journal was written in Sept. 10, 1809;
+but after having consulted SILLIMAN’s _American Journal of Science
+and the Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1819 (1820), we are convinced that Mr.
+BRADFORD’s inquiry of Mr. CUMMINGS took place before Aug. 1803.
+
+Fig. 52 shows my readers a porpoise.
+
+As we read in SCHLEGEL’s _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, p.
+517, note, PETER ASCANIUS in his _Icones rerum naturalium_ Cahier V,
+Copenhague, 1805, says:
+
+“In summer porpoises approach the coasts and the fjords. They often
+meet in the open sea in troops of several scores, and when the weather
+is calm and fine, they range in a line after each other to play and to
+tumble: they then have the appearance of a chain of little eminences
+floating on the surface of the water; some fishermen of the North,
+seeing them at a great distance, took this resemblance for an immense
+animal and gave it the name of sea-serpent.”
+
+Again in the letter from Mr. S. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT, dated August
+20, 1817, we read:
+
+“All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of
+reports, people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it
+was only a number of porpuses following each other in rapid succession.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 52.--Phocaena phocoena (Linné).--]
+
+For the fourth time we read in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Vol. XIX, p. 193:
+
+“Christiania, September 5, 1827. Last week several persons saw large
+shoals of porpoises, and therefore uttered the supposition that the
+alleged presence of the sea-serpent was not right.”
+
+Mr. MITCHILL’S paper, of 1828, which we have inserted _in toto_ in our
+Chapter on hoaxes, also ends with the supposition that the “gambols of
+porpoises” have given rise to all the tales of the sea-serpent.
+
+SCHLEGEL in his _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837,
+p. 105, in his chapter on Fables respecting snakes says:
+
+“We are surprised to hear of a sea-serpent, monstrous in shape and
+size”,
+
+and he refers to his chapter on true sea-snakes, the _Hydrophidae_.
+There p. 517 he ends his chapter with the following words:
+
+“Before ending the history of the interesting beings of which I have
+treated, I cannot help saying a few words about an animal, observed
+through centuries by many people of all ranks, and known to every one
+from the tales which are spread about it, but which is still ignored
+by naturalists. I mean the monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which
+in reality has nothing to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we
+have treated in the foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous
+evidences given by very respectable persons to prove the existence
+of this enormous sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I
+too should be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been
+turned into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of
+1826. Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea, I
+suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the mouth of
+the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which I took for
+a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several others closely
+following each other. For the greater part hidden by the water, the
+upper part of this creature could be distinctly seen only for the
+short moment, when it was carried on the top of a wave, and plunged
+down into the precipice formed before it. The illusion caused by the
+continuous agitation of the waves indeed contributed to make doubtful
+the appearance of a great number of black objects, appearing together
+out of the water, disappearing the moment afterwards, and the whole
+of which deceitfully represented the simultaneous movements of the
+undulations of one single body. Convinced that the animals were unable
+to swim in vertical undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till
+I knew this monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of
+porpoises.”
+
+In the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, Mr. RATHKE, who published
+in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on his journey in
+Norway, says:
+
+“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we shall
+soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory
+statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend
+to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for a long
+animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what else could
+be the cause of the illusion which has created the belief in such an
+animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that what has been taken for
+a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else but a row of porpoises,
+swimming in line. But all those persons, by whom the above-mentioned
+evidences are given were too familiar with the sea, and have too often
+observed porpoises together, to be deceived by a row of such animals
+swimming on the surface of the water. If this, however, had been the
+case, all the observations related to me of the sea-serpent’s holding
+its head above the surface, and about the size of it, must have been
+mere fiction, and this I cannot admit. According to all this, it
+evidently cannot be doubted, that there is a long serpentine animal in
+the sea of Norway, which may grow to a considerable length.”
+
+Again, as we learn in FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606,
+p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the _Christiansand’s Posten_ after
+an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in the fjord of
+Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the following remarks:
+
+“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which the
+writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and
+if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their
+fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed their boats to near the
+animal, they would undoubtedly have soon observed that the supposed
+intervals between the coils were nothing else but water. This great
+sea-serpent in reality consists of a row of porpoises, which in a shoal
+of from eight to twelve often swim after each other in line. As each
+of these brown animals, eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears
+above the surface of the water at proportionably short intervals, in
+such a way, as if they were about to tumble head first, so every one,
+who sees such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the
+coils of an immense snake.”
+
+In a letter from Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to Captain HAMILTON, R. N.,
+Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage (see _Ill. Lond. News_
+of October 28, 1848, and our n^o. 113):
+
+“I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed
+that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given rise to the
+fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”
+
+In ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we read, 1879:
+
+“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming in
+line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and then, with
+a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface of the water,
+presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought about by a
+somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”
+
+Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, treating of the figure of
+Mr. BENSTRUP (see our fig. 24), says:
+
+“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the
+appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”
+
+I have treated of his explanation in the right place (n^o. 10). And on
+the following page he also asserts:
+
+“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as well
+as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances
+of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line
+in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an upraised
+head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it was either
+unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no
+serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”
+
+I repeat here what I have said above (n^o. 10): If Mr. LEE wishes to
+explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to tell me what
+was the head that resembled a horse’s head.
+
+Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the great
+calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many
+well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as some
+of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical undulations
+of the snake seen out of water have been the burly bodies of so many
+porpoises swimming in line--the connecting undulations beneath the
+surface have been supplied by the imagination.”
+
+After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s Head
+(n^o. 155), Mr. SIDEBOTHAM, a correspondent of _Nature_ writes in this
+journal (1883, Febr. 1):
+
+“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent
+describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the Little Orme’s
+Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever that the phenomenon
+was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the head your
+correspondent gives, but in other respects what I have seen was exactly
+the same; the motions of porpoises might easily be taken for those of
+a serpent; once I saw them from the top of the Little Orme, they came
+very near the base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across
+the bay.”
+
+Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the head.”
+I remind here my readers of Mr. CUMMINGS’ question “who ever saw a row
+of porpoises with a head of a seal?”
+
+I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly.
+They are in the habit of continually throwing up their bodies half
+above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is clearly
+visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each coil a
+backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment afterwards
+three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen at once, while
+the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly visible above the
+surface, moving with the greatest regularity. Every one will feel that
+this explanation is not satisfactory; it does not even explain a single
+observation. Besides, how to explain the swan-like neck, so often seen
+by reference to porpoises? To avoid repetitions, I beg the reader to
+refer to the testimonies of Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29) and Mr. PRINCE (n^o.
+63), in which they clearly bring to light the difference between the
+appearance of the sea-serpent and that of a row of porpoises.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 53.--A row of porpoises.]
+
+And where a naturalist, like Mr. SCHLEGEL, describes the effect caused
+by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those persons
+who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe of an optical
+illusion. Mr. SCHLEGEL should have said: “On one occasion I was nearly
+deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I never saw a sea-serpent!”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =second= explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean
+Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the
+Hon. Judge DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, and Mr. FRANCIS C. GRAY. This
+learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting
+reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. What
+kind of beast could it be!? and before they began to feel puzzled, a
+_deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick, illformed and lame little
+snake presented itself suddenly in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was
+killed by a working man at that place, bought by Dr. So and So, and
+presented to the Committee to examine it, because people believed that
+this animal was a spawn of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really
+examined and dissected it and gave a full account of their experience
+in their _Report_. They considered the little =snake= to be =new to
+science=, closely allied to the _Coluber constrictor_ or Black Snake,
+a common species of North-America, and gave it the name of _Scoliophis
+atlanticus_. This account is followed by two documents describing how
+the _Scoliophis_ looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under
+which it was killed. I present here to my readers the _Scoliophis
+atlanticus_ reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized
+figure of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with
+which the animal was killed.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 54.--Scoliophis atlanticus; one sixth of its
+full-size.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 55.--Its head; full-size.]
+
+Next they gave: “A few remarks on the question” (broached by the
+public) “whether the great serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester
+be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.” These “few remarks” fill three pages and
+a half and end with the words:
+
+“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous,
+important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference
+between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting that of
+size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering them
+individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same name, until a
+more close examination of the great Serpent shall have disclosed some
+difference of structure, important enough to constitute a specific
+distinction.”
+
+It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the
+conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts
+which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, was a full
+grown individual of the species they called _Scoliophis atlanticus_! If
+they had collected all these accounts, if they had seriously compared
+them, they would have come most probably to the conclusion that they
+did not know precisely what it was, but that it could never be a snake.
+
+Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the
+Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as the
+little _Scoliophis_. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which was not
+bifid, while the tongue of _Scoliophis_ is so! And the most accurate
+testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had _no_ scales!
+
+The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and no doubt
+drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE
+BLAINVILLE dared handle the subject publicly. As soon as the _Report_
+of the Committee of 1817 reached him, he made an extract from it in his
+_Journal de Physique_, etc., Vol. 86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made
+much more of the little curious snake, apparently believing too that
+it was a new species, than of the large marine animal of which he was
+unable to give any explanation. Mr. DE BLAINVILLE does not hesitate to
+express his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent
+to be a real snake and an adult of their _Scoliophis atlanticus_, and
+ended his extract:
+
+“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great
+Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the
+appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great
+length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is a true
+snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_,
+is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold that it is
+of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities which become
+null, if one is to believe that such an immense animal as that observed
+in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”
+
+For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!
+
+For Mr. DE BLAINVILLE who did not give himself the trouble to collect
+as many accounts as possible, to read OLAUS MAGNUS, PONTOPPIDAN, EGEDE,
+etc., it was of course impossible to conceive what animal had been seen
+near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the same reason, able to explain the
+very different declarations of the witnesses concerning the length of
+the animal.
+
+Mr. A. LESUEUR, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. PÉRON,
+and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. DE BLAINVILLE to
+say that he had not only seen the little snake, but had dissected
+the same portion of the vertebral column as did the members of the
+Committee, together with several inches of another portion of the
+snake, and concluded that the figure of the little snake published by
+the Committee was very well drawn, but that the figure of the portion
+of the vertebral column was very badly done; of this he gave another
+figure, and furthermore asserted that the little snake not only was
+nothing else but a true snake, closely allied to the Black Snake
+(_Coluber constrictor_), but that it was in a state of disease and
+notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent he said nothing, because he
+had not seen it himself.
+
+The dissertation of Mr. DE BLAINVILLE and the extract from Mr.
+LESUEUR’S letter translated into German are in OKEN’S _Isis_, 1819.
+
+Mr. FRORIEP in his _Notizen_, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself about
+this explanation in the following manner:
+
+“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, cannot
+depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be allowed to
+entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”
+
+Of this little _Coluber_ we find also the following passage in
+SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837, p. 80:
+
+“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the species
+called _Coluber constrictor_, of which all parts were disfigured by
+sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind of
+monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known for its
+enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published in Boston,
+will be found in the _Journal de Physique_ Vol. 86, p. 297.”
+
+Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, apparently believes
+that the little _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was the spawn of the Great
+Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:
+
+  “The Great Sea-Serpent.”
+
+  “Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.
+
+We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of
+interrogation after the scientific name.
+
+Without any doubt the _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was a difformed specimen
+of _Coluber constrictor_. It was the bunches on its back, which induced
+the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a spawn of the
+sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. After the discovery
+that the little snake was a difformed one, the explanation falls to the
+ground. Moreover the smooth skin and the presence of four flappers of
+the sea-serpent, are proofs against this supposition.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =third= explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already
+inserted the letter from Prof. T. SAY, of Philadelphia, to Prof. LEACH,
+of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of the crew of
+the vessel commanded by captain RICHARD RICH, firmly believed and
+declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but =a large tunny=. Prof. SAY’S
+letter is also printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ of January, 1819. We have
+inserted a figure of a tunny in the above mentioned Chapter, fig. 1.
+
+Prof. BIGELOW’S indignation rose against this explanation; in
+SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts._ Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:
+
+“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, in
+which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere),
+“is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a “defective
+observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” (See
+Thomson’s _Annals_, for January 1819)”.
+
+“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note from
+the same author, on the identity of _Scoliophis_ with _Coluber
+constrictor_. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on the
+subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it might have
+been decorous in him to have noticed the source from which he got his
+information.”
+
+“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more important
+than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to the public
+consideration some additional evidence in regard to the size and shape
+of this marine animal which has come to light since the publication
+of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This evidence is partly
+the result of observations during the present year, and partly the
+contents of a communication made to the American Academy of Arts
+and Sciences fifteen years ago, but which, having been mislaid, has
+not before been published. The reader will judge whether it is a
+“defective observation” which has produced a remarkable coincidence
+between witnesses in different periods and places, unknown to each
+other; or whether it was “an extravagant degree of fear” which induced
+the commander of an American frigate to man his boats and go with his
+mariners in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add
+that the original letters constituting the communication last alluded
+to, are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy,
+where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination
+of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future
+opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be
+considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural
+History.”
+
+How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, a seal,
+a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its enormous
+long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a tunny, even of
+nine or ten feet in length!?
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in
+his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_
+(_Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced
+of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are
+merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family _Hydrophidae_),
+of which I give a figure representing the _Hydrophis pelamidoides_,
+and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this
+head, proposing for them the names of _Pelamis megophias_ (_Megophias
+monstrosus_) and _Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis_.
+
+Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after discussing the
+question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion caused by
+a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark,
+a ribbon fish, or a large kind of eel, continues his considerations in
+the following terms:
+
+“To the Reptiles, however, popular opinion has pretty uniformly
+assigned this denizen of the sea, and his accepted title of
+“sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities in the
+estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. Let us, then,
+test his claims to be a serpent.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 56.--Hydrophis pelamidoides.--]
+
+“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian
+and Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes
+(_Hydrophidae_), which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are
+reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so soundly
+there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes fails to
+awaken them.”
+
+“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, so far as
+we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON on the contrary in September, 1878, declares in
+_Nature_ (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:
+
+“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large
+development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true
+explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”
+
+But a few lines further on he also tells us:
+
+“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of
+a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting
+problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions,
+might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for a
+“sea-serpent”.”--
+
+In his _Leisure Time Studies_, the same writer returns to his favourite
+idea:
+
+“The only group of animals to which our attention may be specially
+directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of the problem,
+is that of the _Vertebrata_,--the highest group of animals, which
+possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and quadrupeds as its
+highest representatives. Laying aside the class of birds, as including
+no form at all allied to our present inquiry, we are left with,
+speaking generally, three groups of animals, from the ranks of which
+various forms may be selected to aid us in solving the sea-serpent
+mystery. These three groups are the fishes, reptiles, and mammalia,
+and it may be shown that from each of these classes, but more notably
+from among the fishes and reptiles, various animals, corresponding
+more or less closely with the descriptions given of strange marine
+monsters, may be obtained. An important consideration, however, must
+not be overlooked at this stage, namely, that too frequently the
+attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent with some _known_ animal of
+serpentine form and nature, has limited the perceptions and foiled the
+labours of naturalists. Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown
+form must be a serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of
+the term “serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than
+the reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the
+subject, and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at
+once given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
+zoologists and other writers on this subject have never made allowance
+for the _abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals_. My
+own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations, but
+especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation
+of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation of
+such discrepancies as the various narrations may be shown to evince. If
+we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary animal life, or amongst
+the reptiles themselves, the representatives of the “sea-serpents”,
+I think we may nevertheless build up a most reasonable case both for
+their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking
+into account the facts, _that the term “sea-serpent”, as ordinarily
+employed, must be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals
+which possess elongated bodies; and that cases of the abnormally large
+development of ordinary serpents and of serpent-like animals will
+reasonably account for the occurrence of the animals collectively named
+sea-serpents_.”
+
+“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (n^o. 118)
+“was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without
+that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits. Whilst
+to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the
+crew of the _Pauline_” (n^o. 144, 145) “must be founded on the idea
+that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. The habits
+of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently point to a close
+correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such
+as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the animal being described
+in the various narratives as swimming with the head out of water, would
+seem to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and
+required to come more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose
+of respiration. The difficulties which appear to stand in the way of
+reconciling the sea-serpent with a marine snake, in this or in other
+cases, are two in number. The great majority of intelligent persons
+are unaware of the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively
+marine habits; and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes
+an apparent difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the
+history of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks
+of these marine snakes,--the _Hydrophidae_ of the naturalist,--which
+inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails adapted
+for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea. Whilst,
+as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the true
+serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply because
+it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development of an
+ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with most of the
+appearances described, and would in the most natural manner explain
+many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic
+size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and allow for slight
+variations or inaccuracies in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae,
+and I think we have in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a
+reasonable solution of this interesting problem”.
+
+“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of motion
+of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a dorsal or
+back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements of the
+laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath the surface,
+would serve to propel the animal forward without causing the front
+portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent motion; whilst
+the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained on the presumption
+that sea-weed may have become attached to the animal, or, that the
+upper ridge of the vertically compressed tail extended far forward and
+appeared as a fin-like structure.”
+
+“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which I may be
+desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes the strong
+points of this explanation, is the probability of the development to
+a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine serpents. This point is
+one in support of which zoology and physiology will offer strong and
+favourable testimony. There is no single fact, so far as I am aware,
+which militates in the slightest degree against the supposition that
+giant members of the sea-serpents may be occasionally developed. The
+laws which regulate human growth and structure, and in virtue of which
+veritable “sons of Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian
+giant, differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are
+developed, must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom.
+There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition that a
+giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly observe
+almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a member of the
+race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its neighbours. But
+clearer still does our case become when we consider that we have proof
+of the most absolute and direct kind of the giant development of such
+forms as cuttle-fishes, which have thus appeared as if in realisation
+of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”, which plays so important a part in
+that strange weird tale, the “Toilers of the Sea”. At the present
+time we are in full possession of the details of several undoubted
+cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes of literally gigantic
+proportions,--developed, in fact, to an extent justly comparable to
+that of the supposed “sea-serpent”, when the latter is compared with
+its ordinary representatives of the tropical oceans.”
+
+“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a gigantic
+development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable giant of its
+race--or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct species of
+monster sea-serpents--than in the production of huge cuttle-fishes,
+which, until within the past few years, remained unknown to the
+foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic developments of
+snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or reptiles, I hold we
+have at least a feasible and rational explanation of the primary fact
+of the actual existence of such organisms.”
+
+Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ (1883) also says:
+
+“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails
+adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, and
+are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible
+that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and colossal
+development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much attention to this
+subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development of ordinary
+forms we discover the true and natural law of the production of the
+giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at any rate, towards accounting
+for its supposed appearance”.
+
+But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the
+mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained.
+Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical
+undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large _Hydrophidae_,
+supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain, the United
+States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland and the
+Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends over the
+tropical seas.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =fifth= explanation. The same Mr. RAFINESQUE believed the
+sea-serpent seen by Capt. BROWN to be a fish (n^o. 56), closely allied
+to the genera _Symbranchus_ (Fam. _Symbranchidae_) and _Sphagebranchus_
+(Fam. _Muraenidae_); consequently =belonging to the eel tribe=.
+
+Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having shown that
+in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an optical illusion
+caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a
+basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:
+
+“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic
+species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar
+conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s
+figures remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be
+either so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the
+animal was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”
+
+And Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is also inclined to
+this hypothesis:
+
+“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like
+animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic
+developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the appearance
+of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the movements of a large
+conger-eel, for example, in any of our great aquaria, must have
+remarked not only its serpentine form, but also the peculiar gliding
+motion, which seems frequently to be produced independently of the
+active movements of the tail or pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however,
+that a giant eel might by most persons be readily enough referred
+to its proper place in the animal sphere, although, when viewed
+from some distance, and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner,
+the spectators--all unprepared to think of an eel being so largely
+developed--might report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”
+
+Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, too, asserts:
+
+“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”
+
+As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough known to
+all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The _Symbranchus_ has
+nearly the same external features, it has, however, no pectoral or
+ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures, or gill-splits,
+are united together on its throat. The _Sphagebranchus_ has also nearly
+the same external features; it has no ventral fins and the very end of
+its tail is destitute of a fin.
+
+The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility are
+strong proofs against this hypothesis.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =sixth= explanation is that which I have accidentally found
+mentioned in Dr. HIBBERT’S _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822.
+The passage runs as follows:
+
+“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished for, did
+not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the sea-snake,
+but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the =fable=.”
+
+I am convinced that Dr. HIBBERT is right. All fables have their
+foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible that
+the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable of Thor’s
+great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.
+
+Dr. PERCY’S explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs
+from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. H. E. STRICKLAND
+and A. G. MELVILLE in a note to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the
+_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2nd. series, Vol. 2, p. 444,
+Nov. 15? 1848:
+
+“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent,
+which first spread in modern times from Norway, was to be traced to
+the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology, of that fell offspring
+of Loki, Jormungandr,--the great world surrounding serpent, whom
+Thor fished up with the bull’s-head bait, and whom, at the great day
+of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It is curious by the way, that we are
+expressly told how Jormungandr rearing his head, poured out fountains
+of venom upon Thor, very much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great
+sea-serpent raising up its head and spouting out water.”
+
+At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports of the
+great sea-serpent are no fables.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =seventh= explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of =basking
+sharks=” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at the
+end of Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation, printed in 1828, with which the
+reader will remember to have been made acquainted in our Chapter on
+Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our fig. 8, in the Chapter on
+Would-be Sea-Serpents.
+
+Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist
+MANTELL in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor of
+the _Illustrated London News_, and published there in the number of
+November 4, 1848:
+
+“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent, I
+would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable that an
+ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine habits described
+by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing to forbid the
+supposition that there are unknown living forms of cartilaginous fishes
+presenting the general configuration and proportions of the animals
+figured in the last Number of the Illustrated London News.”
+
+Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than thirty
+feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (_Squalus
+maximus_ of LINNÉ). The figures referred to are those of the
+sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE, (fig. 28, 29, 30).
+
+In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. A. G. MELVILLE was of
+opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in reality, but only
+in fables, and that these fables originated in the Northern mythology.
+Now, he seems to have changed his opinion in a fortnight, for in a
+letter to Dr. COGSWELL, part of which is published “with permission of
+both gentlemen” in the _Zoologist_, number of November 27th., 1848, he
+says:
+
+“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of some
+unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have astonished
+the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile of the
+authorities of science.”
+
+“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the known
+facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship
+between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri; nor do the
+recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”
+
+“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous fish
+(Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when caught the
+sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive it is just as
+probable that a shark may carry the head for short periods out of the
+water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally step aboard to
+look at us land monsters.”
+
+“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may be
+wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to believe
+that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved. Might we not
+obtain some information from the accurate Sars regarding the Norwegian
+tradition? Could not the surgeon of the Daedalus throw some light on
+the subject?”
+
+Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having treated
+of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion caused
+by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some cetacean,
+expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in the following
+terms:
+
+“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville consider
+that the _Daedalus_ animal may have been one of the sharks; and there
+is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, which was considered
+by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent, was really the _Selache
+maxima_ or basking-shark. But the identification of Captain M’Quhae’s
+figure and description with a shark is preposterous.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON, however, in _Nature_ (1878, Sept. 12, Vol. XVIII) is
+of the opinion that:
+
+“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do
+duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”
+
+Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, also believes that “the
+dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured by Mr. Buckland, may have
+furnished the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently means the ridge of
+fins as seen in fig. 44.
+
+None of the observers of the sea-serpent mention fins on its back, so
+that this explanation is not untenable either.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =eighth= explanation is given by Mr. MITCHILL in his paper “_On
+Sea-Serpentism_”, printed in 1828; (See our Chapter on Hoaxes), at the
+end of which he supposed that also the appearances of =balaenopterous
+whales= may have given rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says:
+“which have fins on their back”, and yet he cannot show me one single
+account of the sea-serpent, in which there is question of backfins.
+Moreover, who has ever heard of fin-fishes which bend their body in
+such a manner as to show bunches on their backs, or coils like a string
+of buoys? Fig. 57 shows the readers a fin-fish (_Balaenoptera physalus_
+(LINNÉ)). It is the largest kind of whales, it may obtain a length of
+106 feet. An outline of the tail, seen from above, is added above the
+hindmost part of the main-figure.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 57.--Balaenoptera physalus, (Linné).--]
+
+Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having considered
+and upset the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory says:
+
+“It is by no means impossible that the creature may prove to belong
+to the _Cetacea_ or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender
+and lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of
+Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in this
+direction.”
+
+The sea-serpent seen by Colonel STEELE, however was not a cetacean,
+although it was observed spouting, for it had a red back-fin like a saw
+(see our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, 1852, Aug. 28).--
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =ninth= explanation is Mr. R. BAKEWELL’S. In FRORIEP’S Notizen,
+Vol. 40, n^o. 879, of June, 1834, we read:
+
+“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great American
+Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of his Introduction
+to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the opinion that the
+great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the United States of
+America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles which may be analogous
+to the fossil =Ichthyosaurus=, and that the description, given of
+the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles, and formidable
+mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing more with that of a saurian
+than with that of a snake. Some of the people who saw the sea-serpent
+state that the body was very long and as thick as a water-cask.”
+
+Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent to be
+a living _Plesiosaurus_, yet we meet with the following suggestion, in
+the September number of _Nature_ of that same year.
+
+“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates
+the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters of which
+the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:--“If the sea-serpent
+continues in its present sociable state of mind, we may perhaps have
+an opportunity of deciding the vexed question regarding the formation
+of that portion of his figure which, according to English observers,
+he keeps concealed under the water. The legend of the Lambton Worm, a
+popular tale in the North of England, describes the worm as a serpent
+of enormous size, who used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the
+River Wear, just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient
+stone effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle,
+represents it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was
+made, as it probably was, _from some recollection_ on recent tradition
+of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the beast was
+one of the _winged land monsters_ which existed at the same time as
+the _Ichthyosaurus_, but would naturally become an extinct species far
+sooner than the _fish-lizard_, which can conceal itself in the depth of
+the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”
+
+The _Ichthyosaurus_ must have been destitute of scales, or better
+the scales must have been of a microscopic minuteness, and so I have
+ventured to sketch my fig. 59, showing the _Ichthyosaurus communis_, as
+it most probably looked, and of which fig. 58 represents the skeleton.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 58.--Skeleton of Ichthyosaurus communis.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 59.--Ichthyosaurus communis, restored.]
+
+Here we have an animal of really huge dimensions. Some may have had a
+length of from forty to fifty feet. Their skin was smooth, the tail was
+very long and four flappers resembling the foreflappers of whales, were
+the organs of locomotion. Most probably, however, the tail was provided
+with a vertical fin, as I have delineated. The neck was very short,
+as in whales. Now the sea-serpent has a pointed tail, and a very long
+neck. Especially this last character is enough to drop the supposition
+that the sea-serpents are still living _Ichthyosauri_. Moreover, the
+_Ichthyosaurus_ was unable to move in vertical undulations.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =tenth= explanation.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834), n^o.
+879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S latest (1834?)
+edition of his _Introduction to Geology_, above mentioned, Prof.
+BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds:
+
+“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may
+be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a
+=Plesiosaurus=, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the latter
+does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”
+
+_Plesiosaurians_, as well as the _Ichthyosaurians_, are reptiles only
+known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these
+animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in
+_liassic_ and _oolitic_ formations. Of these remains geologists are
+able to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show my
+readers a sketch in fig. 60.--If this is done, it will not be difficult
+to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more so as it is a
+well-known fact that these animals must have been destitute or nearly
+destitute of scales. The figures drawn by GOSSE, FIGUIER and ANDREW
+WILSON, don’t please me, as the necks are delineated too slender,
+and the head of the animal in Mr. GOSSE’S drawing, in my opinion, is
+wrongly represented. So I venture to present to my readers my fig. 61,
+showing how I think that the animal must have looked.
+
+Mr. RATHKE, in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, after
+publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself
+during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself is a
+firm believer in it, goes on:
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 60.--Skeleton of Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 61.--Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, restored.]
+
+“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot
+of course be asserted with any certainty. The supposition, however, is
+very near, that it is closely related to that animal which in 1816”
+(read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkney’s,” &c.
+
+After a short description of this animal with which the reader will
+remember to have been made acquainted in the Chapter on Would-be
+Sea-Serpents, Mr. RATHKE concludes:
+
+“that this animal resembled a _Plesiosaurus_, and that it thus belonged
+to the _Amphibia_, viz. to the _Saurians_. Now if such were the case,
+and if the creature found in Stronsa were closely related to the
+sea-serpent of the Norwegians, and we have every reason to believe
+this, it is astonishing that the latter has not been more observed,
+than has been the case. For being an Amphibium, which, according to its
+organization, can only breathe by lungs, the sea-serpent necessarily
+must have come very often to the surface of the water, to renew the
+inhaled air. It is, however, conceivable and probable that stretching
+out its long neck, it generally comes only with the nose tip and only
+for a very short time on the surface of the water, remaining under it
+with the rest of the body, in which circumstances it will not be easy
+to observe it amongst the beating of the waves.”
+
+We observe that Mr. RATHKE, like Prof. SILLIMAN, inclines to believe
+that the sea-serpent is, or is allied to the _Plesiosaurus_.
+
+Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, in 1847, on the
+wrapper of the 54th. number of this Journal made the suggestion that
+sea-serpents may belong to one of the _Enaliosaurians_.
+
+I have not seen this wrapper so that I am unable to give the words in
+which this supposition was written.
+
+Most probably Mr. NEWMAN took this suggestion from Mr. RATHKE’S above
+mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which he inserted (N. B.!)
+_in the same number of the Zoologist_; but it is, of course, _possible_
+that this supposition really was the product of his own brain. We hope
+that the latter was the case; but I only ask: why did he insert the
+accounts of Mr. RATHKE in the _columns_ of the issue, and why _not_ the
+above-mentioned suggestion; what was the reason to communicate it on
+the _wrapper_? It makes on me the impression as if Mr. NEWMAN waited
+to see if some one or other would perhaps find out that _both accounts
+and supposition_ were _already six years old_! But, of course, I may be
+mistaken!
+
+Immediately after reading this suggestion on the above mentioned
+wrapper, Mr. CHARLES COGSWELL wrote for the same Journal his _Plea for
+the Sea-Serpent_. For history’s sake I repeat here his whole paper. It
+runs as follows:
+
+“_A Plea for the North-Atlantic Sea-Serpent._ By CHARLES COGSWELL, M.
+D.”
+
+“Every generation of man is born to stare at something, which so long
+as it eludes their understanding, is a very African fetish to the many,
+and a Gordian knot to the few.”
+
+  HAWKIN’S _Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri_.
+
+“Of the numerous contributions supplied through the press to support
+the cause of the subject of this article, one of the most recent has
+arrested my attention, because of the particulars having been long
+since familiar to me by oral communication from the writer in person.
+I allude to the interesting narrative contained in the “Zoologist” for
+May last, describing a meeting with such an animal off the coast of
+one of the British provinces, stretching out into the Atlantic to the
+north-east of New England. It is worthy of notice that several animals
+of the Cetaceous kind (sometimes conjectured to have been a source
+of deception) were seen and scanned _in limine_, and an opportunity
+was thus afforded for immediate descrimination. Immediately subjoined
+is another statement, copied from a foreign newspaper, being the
+tribute of a French sea-captain to the same object, but qualified
+with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail
+of certain forms and measurements, as rather to display an elaborate
+view of disjoined parts, than represent them all in harmony together
+as belonging to one individual. It betrays the caution of a witness,
+who would fain keep an opening in reserve for escape from a precarious
+position. The former adventure took place in 1833, the latter in 1840,
+and now they are related almost simultaneously within the last few
+months.”
+
+“Nor is this delay to be wondered at, when we consider how much the
+reserve of unbiassed is the tribunal of public opinion, before which
+they appear. It will hardly be denied that there is no debateable point
+in the modern records of observation more complacently devoted to
+ridicule by all but universal consent, than that of the existence of
+huge serpent-like animals in the North Atlantic Ocean. The very mention
+of the name of sea-serpent in the singular number with the definite
+article prefixed, suggests to most minds an idea of some anomalous
+monster, without parentage or congeners, feigned to haunt the recesses
+of the deep, and, like the ghost of vulgar superstition, manifesting
+itself now and again for the sole conceivable end of adorning some
+wonderful legend. This impression, favoured by the circumstance of
+no actual specimen having ever occurred to the observation of a
+naturalist, much less been obtained for deliberate examination, has
+caused the subject of our notice to rank with the mermaid, the unicorn,
+the griffin, and other prodigies of the olden faith. It does not fail
+to be objected that Norway, a locality most fruitful in accounts of
+the appearance in question, has been immemorially distinguished for
+a vivid perception of the marvellous. Nor, after hearing the other
+side of the Atlantic, are we much better able to divest our minds of
+suspicion with regard to the trustworthy character of the witnesses;
+our relative in the West having acquired nearly as much celebrity for
+the endowment of a grand inventive genius as his Scandinavian ally in
+the cause of sea-serpents. They defer indeed, in so far as the latter
+believes and venerates his own creations, while the American indulges
+his fancy for the purely benevolent purpose of what is called “hoaxing”
+the unwary public. Not many years since, it may be recollected, one of
+these pleasant philosophers enlightened his fellow-mortals with a “true
+and peculiar” description of certain winged inhabitants assumed to have
+been discovered in the moon by an eminent living astronomer, giving
+the details with so much simplicity and effected candour with regard
+to some particulars, in the manner of “Gulliver’s Travels”, that many
+readers were not aware of its being a fabrication. Such proof of a
+disposition to practise on the public credulity, too often repeated,
+necessarily communicate a colouring of insincerity to all other reports
+of strange events emanating from the same source, and certainly demand
+the exercise of an unusual amount of circumspection, though they do not
+justify scepticism, in the case now before us.”
+
+“Making due allowance for these peculiarities in the testimony, we
+may, nevertheless, proceed in a spirit of induction to examine into
+the tendency of the collateral evidence. The question after all, when
+reduced to its simplest form comes to be little more than one of
+geographical distribution. That is to say, that even if we chose to
+confine the animal to the true serpents, which has been the ordinary
+conception heretofore, there is no obvious impediment to oppose it,
+either on the score of want of analogy, or of structural incapacity.
+Amphibiousness, to commence with, in its popular acceptation, or the
+capability of spending a considerable time in the water, is one of the
+most familiar properties of serpents, as illustrated in the common
+snake (_Coluber natrix_) and the viper, the only two species, if we
+except the blindworm, ascertained to be indigenous to these islands.
+“Snakes”, observes Professor Bell (“History of British Reptiles”) “are
+extremely fond of the water, taking to it readily, and swimming with
+great elegance and ease, holding the head and neck above the surface.
+It is extremely probable that they resort to the water in search
+of frogs.” In the learned System of Schlegel, translated by Prof.
+Traill--“Physiognomy of Serpents”--members of various ophidian-groups
+are characterised as living near and inhabiting lakes and rivers.
+Some belong to the genera Tropidonotus (which here includes the first
+named British species), and Homalopsis, comprised under the head of
+_Fresh Water-Serpents_. Of the Boas, this author says: “several species
+frequent fresh water, and there are some of them essentially aquatic,”
+among them the Boa murina, the largest of known serpents, and his two
+species of Acrochordus.”
+
+“Further, and what completely sets at rest the part of the case we are
+now considering, there are swarms of _marine_ ophidians inhabiting the
+warm latitudes of the pacific. These appear to have been partly known
+to the ancients. Aelian informs us that Hydrae with flat tails were
+found in the Indian Seas, and that they also existed in the marshes. He
+also tells us that these reptiles had very sharp teeth, and appeared
+to be venomous. According to Ctesias, the serpents of the river Argada
+in the province of Sittacene, remain concealed at the _bottom of the
+water_ during the day, and by night they attack persons who go to bath
+or wash linnen” (Griffith in Cuvier). Schlegel has no less than seven
+species collected under the generic name of Hydrophis, constituting his
+family of _Sea-Snake_--; they are especially fitted for aquatic life,
+having the nostrils directed vertically and furnished with valves, and
+the tail flattened like an oar; they reside in the sea exclusively,
+never going on land, and are supposed to prey on fishes. Their limits
+belong to the intertropical regions of the Indian Seas, or of the Great
+Pacific Ocean.”
+
+“The existence of _bona fide_ sea-serpents being therefore a matter of
+notoriety, (and preserved specimens are to be seen at any time on the
+shelves of the British Museum), we have but to address ourselves to the
+subordinate inquiry, whether there be sufficient reason for assigning
+to any of the family a habitat in the North Atlantic Ocean. And here
+it is necessary to put away all that idea of deviation from the common
+order of Nature, which could connect the evidence heretofore given
+with some isolated excressence so to speak, of the animal kingdom. The
+great size attributed to them has doubtless, served very materially
+to produce an infavourable impression. Schlegel limits the extreme
+length of the greatest known serpent to twenty-five feet, although
+such naturalists as Cuvier and Milne-Edwards allow an extension of
+thirty or forty feet to some of the Boas. These estimates do not
+fall so far short of those contended for in the present instance as
+to form an insuperable ground of objection. Many witnesses whose
+character and station in life command respect, whatever judgment may
+be formed of their powers of correct observation, profess to be fully
+persuaded that they have seen immense creatures, resembling serpents,
+in the vicinity of the European or the American shores. The several
+depositions from Norway that appeared in the “Zoologist” of February
+last, comprised the testimony not only of fishermen, drawing their
+subsistence from the sea, and familiar with the more prevalent forms of
+the inhabitants, but of a class commonly presumed to be well educated,
+as merchants, clergymen, and a surgeon. Their observations indeed
+vary on the subject of length (varying between forty and one hundred
+feet), and likewise on some of the details of outline, so that they
+may either relate to different specimens, or to deceptive phenomena
+producing dissimilar impressions, whichever alternative decretic may
+be inclined to profer. The first notice transmitted by an English
+gentleman, holding a responsible appointment under the crown in one of
+our transatlantic dependencies, is calculated to supply any deficiency
+on the part of the new hemisphere, so far as a faithful representation
+of what was submitted to the eye alone may remain a desideration.
+But for the resolution manifested in this periodical to allow the
+question a fair hearing on its sterling merits, there can be little
+doubt that this testimony, would not have been forthcoming; like in all
+probability, more of the same ingenious stamp, which the unwillingness
+of the principals to oppose the current of public opinion, directly
+proportioned to the value of the character they run the risk of
+compromizing for no obvious use, induces them to withhold.”
+
+“But it may be asked, how it is possible to explain the circumstance
+of these _monstra natantia_ being encountered no farther South than
+about the sixtieth or fifty-fifth parallel on the European boundary,
+while in the American water their domain approaches so much nearer the
+Equator, as Nova Scotia (or New Scotland) and New England? By a curious
+and happy coincidence, of like significance to many that are constantly
+springing up to confirm the results of independent research, such for
+instance as the print of the piscivorous gavials in a prior leaf of the
+“Stonebook” to the mammalivorous crocodiles; it happens that precisely
+a line swerving from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts
+is the boundary likewise of other marine animals of corresponding
+types. Among the divisions of the North Atlantic, recently marked out
+by Professor Edward Forbes as determined by the presence of similar
+forms of animal life, occurs what is called the “arctic and boreal”
+province, which “sweeps across the northernmost part of the North
+Atlantic from Europe, extending down the coast of North America as far
+as Massachusetts, but nothing like so far on the European side as the
+American.” (Lecture at the Royal Institution, May 14, 1847).”
+
+“Thus copiously backed by the most affirmative evidence, both positive
+and circumstantial, all contributing to establish the lawful claim to
+entity, the “great unknown” of the North Atlantic has still to overcome
+the strong feeling of discredit so widely associated with his past
+history, before he can hope to be understood as seriously claiming
+to be a subject of the animal kingdom. If men of the highest name in
+science condescend to notice him at all, it is most probably with a
+smile at the expense of what they consider a crude invention, to which
+no importance should be attached. But authority, however exalted, has
+no patent of final adjudication in cases where its means of information
+are confessedly imperfect, as compared with those enjoyed by the
+supporters of a disputed position. The learned world was centuries
+in believing the story of Herodotus about little birds resorting to
+feed on insects within the “stretched jaws” of the crocodile. Bruce
+all but ruined his credit for a time by relating that he had seen the
+Abyssinians eat the raw flesh cut from one of the haunches of a living
+cow; and there are some who, with no more reason, pretend to doubt
+the good faith of a contemporary traveller, who declares that he once
+made a brief excursion on the back of an alligator. The conflicts of
+discovery and opinion engross indeed no small share of the history of
+human knowledge. There are cases, no doubt, in which the senses and
+the judgment of incompetent persons are liable to be imposed upon by
+irrelevant facts created or qualified for the occasion. But here there
+is no hypothesis concerned requiring nature to be tortured into its
+service; physiology can have no latent objections, ready to start up
+unawares and make a mockery of belief, because some of the serpent
+kind are indubitably organized for an aquatic medium; the laws of
+geographical distribution deduced irrespectively, yield their consent,
+and the integrity of not a few of the narrator is unimpeachable. Are
+we justified in rejecting the text, because the interpretation may not
+harmonize with our views; in imputing willful dishonesty to those who
+merely describe to the best of their hability what their eyes have
+disclosed to them? We do not despice the mermaid, the triton and siren,
+as altogether imaginary but endeavour to reconcile at least their
+physical attributes with those of the seal or oriental dugong. The
+unicorn is supposed to have original in the narwhal; and the griffin
+is recognized as a well-known friend in an antiquated garb, being no
+other than the tapir, somewhat disfigured by travellers, and further
+indebted to the artist for a pair of wings and an architectural style
+of tail. Even the ghost-seer is seldom suspected of intentional fraud,
+however justly we may believe to be the dupe of an imagination acted
+on by some positive phenomenon. The collateral truths which testify
+on the affirmative side have been dwelt upon to some extent, and
+shall again be adverted to presently. On the other hand, surely there
+must be something peculiar in the economy of a vast air-breathing
+race, frequenting well-known tracts and yet never visible but by the
+merest accident; nor is it any sufficient answer to refer to the
+construction of the breathing apparatus, distinctive of the marine
+ophidians, enabling them to live long under water, and respire air with
+an almost imperceptible exposure above the surface, because the like
+provision does not prevent the Pacific denizens from being abundantly
+subject to observation. The want of conformity in some of the reported
+particulars of form and dimensions is of insignificant moment, and may
+easily be converted into a proof of innocence of design. Above all, the
+objections, be it understood, are not _of the kind_ which the public at
+large appear to imagine them. There is nothing ridiculous or abnormal
+in the idea of a sea-serpent. So far from this the philosopher should
+rather be required to give a reason why at least the warmer situations
+of the Atlantic are unprovided with occupants corresponding to those
+which dwell in the opposite region of the globe.”
+
+“If the diversity of detail be accounted too serious an objection to
+be so lightly dismissed, is there no other organization within our
+cognizance which more satisfactorily embodies the several conditions
+rather loosely intimated than prescribed throughout the problem?
+The portraits given in authors of the restored Plesiosaurus, albeit
+conceived to represent beings that “filled up the measure of their
+years long before Eden was planted, and the dominions of man made of
+the red earth, acknowledged” (Hawkins), offer several particulars
+answering to those ascribed in most of the notices on record to the
+so-named sea-serpent,--the long, over-arched neck, the huge trunk,
+the protracted tail, and sometimes (see the deposition of Archdeacon
+Deinbolt, “Zoologist” 1606) an appearance of fins or paddles. This
+coincidence is the more remarkable, because no one can suppose it
+to have been preconcerted. Hence the ingenious suggestion of the
+Editor of the “Zoologist”, that the animals may belong to one of
+the Enaliosaurian types, seems to supply the only deficient link in
+the chain of demonstration, before we arrive at the final proof,
+a spectacle open to all observers. The neck of the Plesiosaurus
+(presuming this to be the genus indicated) “is composed of upwards of
+thirty bones, a number far exceeding that of the cervical vertebrae in
+any other known animal. This reptile combines in its structure the head
+of a lizard with teeth like those of a crocodile, a neck _resembling
+the body of a serpent_, a trunk and tail of the proportions of those
+of a quadruped, with paddles like those of turtles” (Mantell’s Wonders
+of Geology). If this seemingly whimsical coaptation of incongruous
+members, which the dictum of science has consigned to the doom of
+pre-Adamic extinction, can be suspected without unpardonable heresy to
+be yet among the living, what is more allowable than to surmise that
+persons even of cultivated intellect, but quite inconscious that such
+things had ever existed, may have all honestly striven, more or less,
+to mould their visual perception into accordance with the familiar
+notion suggested by its general outline; and thus have given rise to
+the confusion objected to in their reports. Be this as it may, the
+discovery of Mr. Darwin of _marine_ saurians, though but three or
+four feet long, about some of the south sea islands, contradicts any
+assumption that animals approaching to it in character are no longer
+extant. To account upon this supposition likewise for the hide-and-seek
+sort of life which those in question seem to lead, it may be observed
+that “the breathing holes of the Plesiosaurus differ from those of
+all other existing reptiles, and resemble those of whales”. They are
+placed “near the highest part of the head, where they would enable the
+animal most readily to breathe without exposing anything more than the
+apertures themselves above the water, corresponding admirably with
+the marine habits of the animal as indicated by the structure of its
+extremities.” (Ansted’s Ancient World, 1847).
+
+“Without committing myself to anything more than a belief that the
+subject is one fairly entitled to be considered an open question--open
+to the unrestrained testimony of future casual observers, equally with
+the criticism of the scientific--I feel assured that I cannot better
+express the opinion which every candid peruser of what has been stated
+must be prepared to arrive at, than by using the words of a naturalist
+who has given his attention to these remarks: “The argument appears
+to me perfectly satisfactory in favour of at least a suspension of
+judgment on the subject. The question is whether the evidence is such
+as would induce any man to believe, whose mind was prepossessed with no
+notions at all respecting it. Should we credit the testimony, if the
+animal to which it relates were claimed to be a mere variety? I think
+we should.”--
+
+I am obliged to make a few notes or observations on this paper. The
+account, namely, of which Mr. COGSWELL speaks in the beginning of his
+“Plea”, which arrested his attention, because of the particulars having
+been long since familiar to him by oral communication, is that of the
+party of British officers (n^o. 97).--That “other statement” is that
+made by Capt. D’ABNOUR (n^o. 106a).--I beg the reader to look over the
+above-mentioned passages.--Mr. COGSWELL had better done to omit his
+observation, that the account of the French sea-captain “was qualified
+with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail of
+certain forms and measurements”. The reader himself will in most of
+the accounts of the sea-serpent, which fill this volume, have observed
+the same “precision in details” indifferently whether the account was
+recorded by a Norwegian, a German, an English, a French or an American
+witness.--His observation that the sea-serpent only occurs “in the
+North Atlantic no farther south than a line swerving from Norway in
+a southerly direction to Massachusetts” is incorrect, as the reader
+may already have observed himself. If he had read all the accounts of
+the sea-serpent up to his days, he would, of course, not have written
+this. The “deposition of Archdeacon DEINBOLT, zool. 1606” is of the
+28th. of July, 1845 (n^o. 115). Mr. COGSWELL cites here the passage in
+which he will find “an appearance of paddles”. The reader will probably
+remember that there was no question of paddles, but of a boiling of
+the water, which the witnesses _thought_ to have been caused by a
+pair of fins nearest the head, and which I have explained in another
+way.--Mr. COGSWELL calls Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, that the sea-serpents
+may belong to the _Enaliosaurian_ type, “ingenious”. I think that the
+reader, after having read only the accounts of the sea-serpent up
+to the days of Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, i. e. up to 1847, will not
+be inclined to call this suggestion “ingenious”, with regard to the
+sea-serpent being so often reported as having a mane and whiskers, and
+swimming with vertical undulations. Moreover it is the question whether
+this suggestion was Mr. NEWMAN’S or Mr. RATHKE’S.
+
+Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING too, seemed to believe that the sea-serpents
+are allied to the extinct _Plesiosauri_, for he writes in a letter to
+Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty (See _Illustrated
+London News_ of 28th. October, 1848):
+
+“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile known as the
+sea-serpent but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence
+of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the
+fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and
+other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect,
+as well as having short paws or flappers, the description of the
+Northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the
+antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence
+of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same
+animal as the kraken, or rather from the names having been used
+indiscriminately.”
+
+Another gentleman, who signed his article in the _Times_ of November
+2nd., 1848, with the initials F. G. S., came to the same suggestion.
+His letter will be found in its right place, after the statements of
+Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118).
+
+Dr. COGSWELL who perhaps feared that in spite of his “Plea” the story
+of the sea-serpent was on a fair way to be forgotten, once more took
+the subject in hand, and sent a second paper to the _Zoologist_ of
+December 1848. This dissertation is at least better than the first,
+being partly critical, partly historical. Again, for history’s sake, I
+am obliged to repeat nearly his whole paper.
+
+“It grows more and more necessary every day to acknowledge the
+_existence_ of a vast form of marine animal bearing some resemblance
+to a serpent. The recent letter of Captain M’Quhae to the Admiralty
+allows of no other alternative than either to admit the evidence, or
+invent some still more extraordinary hypothesis to explain it away.
+The forms of bearings of the strangers have been duly reported at head
+quarters, and no more deserve to be called in question, as regards
+the fidelity of the narrator, than the existence of any commissioned
+“Snake” or “Anaconda”, whose station and appointments we find recorded
+in the daily press. No preternatural messenger in “the shape that
+tempted Eve”,--he passes by on the other side without manifesting the
+slightest degree of interest in human affairs; no phantom progeny of
+light and air, although affecting literally the same haunts as the
+“Flying Dutchman”,--he steers himself by compass, and is the herald
+of no signal disaster; no herd of porpoises disporting all in a row,
+and joined together by some _Daedalian_ process of imagination into
+the semblance of unity--his head is “decidedly that of a snake”,--he
+carries it for twenty minutes at a time out of the water; and his body
+is seen for a continuous length of sixty feet on a level with the
+surface. From the standard jest of the witty, and the discarded problem
+of the wise, he has shown himself likely to be “no joke” for his
+physical powers, and well deserving the gravest scientific inquiry.”
+
+“To show what a formidable and unyielding front has been heretofore
+opposed to him, I shall quote a passage from the article under the head
+of “Serpents” in the last edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica”
+(1842): “No proper proof has yet been adduced of any of these species
+(sea-serpents) inhabiting the “American Ferry”, as we see that world
+of waters now named since the steaming days of the British Queen and
+the Great Western. Mr. Schlegel characterizes the statement as an
+assertion _que je puis contredire avec certitude_: and the author
+adds: “we shall content ourselves by stating that sea-serpents have
+not yet been observed in the Atlantic Ocean”. The following notice
+occurs in a popular compilation of the animal kingdom just issued
+from the press (1848): “Sea-serpent (or the Kraken). The appearance
+of this _fabulous_ monster is thus accounted for by Mr. A. Adams. In
+the Sooloo seas I have often watched the phenomenon which first gave
+rise to the marvellous stories of the great sea-serpent, viz., lines
+of rolling porpoises resembling a long string of buoys oftentimes
+extending seventy, eighty, or one hundred yards. These constitute the
+so-named protuberances of the monster’s back, keep in close single
+file progressing rapidly along the calm surface of the water,” &c. Had
+the _fabulous_ serpent in Aesop, who complained of being “a multis
+hominibus pessumdatus”, been aware of what laid up in the fates for his
+aquatic relative, no doubt he would have ceased to repine at his own
+hard lot.”
+
+“The official corroboration of the fundamental truth of these
+“marvellous stories” is important, not only because the author under
+the circumstances must at least receive credit for the most entire
+sincerity, but from the encouragement thus given to other credible
+witnesses to bring forward their evidence. There is no reason to
+suppose that even this would have been readily laid before the public,
+but for the desire expressed by the Board of Admiralty to learn the
+truth of an accidental rumour. As regards any additional light thrown
+on the natural history of the animal, it is not more satisfactory than
+many of the accounts we already possess. Indeed the paragraphs which
+precede the captain’s letter in the “Zoologist” viz., the extract from
+the journal of Lieut. Drummond, and the first public rumour as it
+appeared in the “Times”, tend rather to confuse the official statement,
+and will no doubt be used to create suspicions of its accuracy. The
+communication which follows it, purporting to give a report of another
+specimen seen by an American captain, is supposed to be “a hoax”, and
+as such is worthy of preservation from the ingenuity it displays.”
+
+“When a doctrine is assumed to be fanciful, people seldom take the
+trouble to inquire into its history and merits. This may account
+for the sea-serpent being commonly confounded with a very different
+prodigy, too exacting in its claims for the most extravagant credulity
+of modern days to regard with favour. As seen above, its name and
+that of Kraken are popularly used as synonymous. And nevertheless,
+Pontoppidan, Bishop of Bergen, whose “Natural History of Norway”
+(translated into English in 1755) is the usual standard of authority
+on both subjects, treats of them separately in appropriate sections
+of his work. Of the Kraken he says, “I come now to the third, and
+incontestably the largest sea-monster in the world: it is called
+Kraken, krasen, or, as some name it, krabben, that word being applied
+by way of eminence to this creature”. Its back or upper part he
+described as truly gigantic, being a mile and a half or more in
+circumference, and it is provided with limbs so strong as to be able to
+pull boats and the smaller sailing crafts under water. Some deem the
+original of this story to have been a Sepia or Medusa of enormous size;
+others set it down for an optical illusion; Pontoppidan himself thinks
+that “in all probability it may be reckoned of the polypi or of the
+starfish kind”. One cannot help being reminded, on reading the above,
+of the passage in Milton where he compares Satan, “prone on the flood”,
+to “That sea-beast””....... &c.--
+
+“Commentators have been divided in opinion whether Milton supposed
+the leviathan to be a crocodile or a whale. The former idea derives
+little support from the text; the whale, which has only lately been
+divested of its “scaly rind”, puts forward more plausible pretentions:
+nevertheless, the vast bulk of the creature alluded to, and its
+position, “slumbring in the Norway foam”, suggest the inquiry whether
+the poet may not have had in his mind a tradition of the kraken. I may
+mention here that the Norwegian Bishop believed that the Leviathan of
+Job and Isaiah had been detected in the _sea-serpent_. Of the latter
+animal Pontoppidan says: “The soe-ormen””....... &c.
+
+“It would serve little purpose to occupy these pages with mere copies
+of the published narratives and depositions tending to prove the
+existence of the animal under our consideration. Whatever discrepancies
+may perplex us with regard to subordinate details, it is important
+to remember that the one ruling form, that of a serpent, is the
+foundation of all the descriptions. The form may vary--in length,
+perhaps, from forty to a hundred feet and upwards; in the relative
+dimensions of the head and different parts of the body; in the presence
+or absence of a mane or paddles; and more particularly with respect
+to an appearance of dorsal arches or elevations, rising above the
+water like a row of casks or buoys. The greater part of the evidence
+on the subject is contained, I believe, in Pontoppidan’s “Natural
+History of Norway” (1755), the “Report of a Committee of the Linnaean
+Society of New England relative to a large Marine Animal, supposed to
+be a Sea-Serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817”
+(Boston 1817), and the last volume of “The Zoologist” (1847). In the
+Scandinavian work the principal witness is Captain L. de Ferry, of the
+Navy, who thus describes an individual which he saw while in a boat,
+rowed by eight men, within six miles of Molde, in a calm hot day of
+August, 1747. “The head of the snake””..... &c.
+
+“The Report of the Linnaean Society of New England contains the result
+of an inquiry”....... &c.
+
+“The tenor of the late observations in Norway recorded in the
+“Zoologist” (Zool. 1604) certainly might justify the inference that
+these so remarkable prominences are not persistent, but depend, as
+suggested by the American functionary, on the mode of progression
+practised at the moment. Anybody that had watched the lithe and varied
+curves of an otter in the water can have no difficulty in recording
+together the different kinds of undulations to the sea-serpent. There
+is one particular of rare occurrence worthy of notice, in one of these
+later accounts, calling to mind a peculiarity in the description of
+the animal seen by Mr. Egede, a Greenland missionary and furnished
+to us with a copy of the figure, by Pontoppidan. This creature, of
+the unusual length of 600 feet, “had under its body two flappers, or
+perhaps two broad fins”. One of the recent narratives also states of
+the progressive movement, that it appeared to be produced “by the help
+of two fins” (Zool. 1607). Thus is offered a possible solution of the
+difficulty occasioned by captain M’Quhae’s specimen having advanced
+at a rapid rate, with 60 feet of the body à fleur d’eau, without any
+visible undulation.” (I, however, refer the reader to the report of
+1845, July 28).
+
+“Here I may refer to “The Description of an Animal stranded on the
+Island of Stronsa, in the year 1808” given in the first Volume of the
+“Wernerian Transactions” by the late eminent Dr. Barclay. Evidently
+disposed to believe that this animal was a sea-serpent, Dr. Barclay
+indignantly repudiates the opinion of Mr. Home, that it was nothing
+more than a shark (_Squalus maximus_). Figures of the two are shown
+in juxtaposition, for the purpose of constrasting them, and to all
+appearance their respective peculiarities are quite sufficient to
+distinctive appellations. The Orkney animal, in fact, bears a curious
+resemblance to a _Plesiosaurus_, with _six_ legs. Nevertheless,
+anatomists have decided that a shark it really was, the anomalies being
+accounted for by the circumstance of the drawing having been taken from
+hearsay and under the supervision of persons who only saw the original
+in a very imperfect state. The “Animal of Stronsa” and the “Scoliophis
+atlanticus” leave us equally in the dark with regard to the physical
+economy of the sea-serpent; that is, unless the solution offered by
+Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310) shall prove to be correct.” (See
+our 7th. explanation.)
+
+“From what precedes it is evident, _First_, that the notion of
+the sea-serpent is not a mere growth of unlettered and credulous
+superstition, since it has been repeated and confirmed by parties than
+whom it would be difficult to select any more worthy of confidence,
+with this sole objection--that none of them have been naturalists.
+The critical eye of a Müller or an Owen would determine its true
+affinities in a moment. _Secondly_, that if we do the justice of
+rejecting all extraneous ideas, and confine ourself to what strictly
+relates to the object in question, there is a consistent tendency
+in nearly all the different narratives to invest it with the true
+characters of the reptilian class. _Thirdly_, that if there be any
+truth in the idea that the animal spends most of its time under water,
+only rising to the surface in calm weather during the summer months,
+this--however difficult to conceive of an air-breathing creature--in
+a great measure accounts for the infrequency of its occurrence. But
+are there no other forms, even of the highest stage of organization,
+which have been able to conceal themselves from the scrutinizing of
+naturalists? Not to speak of the minor accessions of unknown species,
+coming in to adorn our collections and extend the limits of science,
+it deserves to be borne in mind that perhaps the very chief of all
+the quadrumana (_Troglodytes gorilla_ of Savage), the being that
+holds the foremost rank in the scale next to man, is one of the most
+recent contributions of the African Fauna. At the beginning of this
+century a cetaceous animal (_Physeter bidens_ of Sowerby), sixteen
+feet long, was cast ashore on the coast of Elginshire, the species has
+been previously undescribed, and not another example is _commonly_
+believed to have since occurred. From the difficulty of assigning it a
+place, it has been the subject of no fewer than four or five generic
+appellations, and it is finally referred, by my friend Dr. Melville, to
+the _Delphinorhynchus micropterus_ of Dumortier, two other specimens
+of which only exist, the one _stranded_ at Havre, the other at Ostend.
+Were this animal known only by tradition, it is improbable that
+naturalists would have refused it their sanction, under an impression
+that a species of such individual magnitude could not possibly have
+escaped being captured and subjected of their criticism? And yet the
+recognition of the great _Physeter bidens_ is purely the result of an
+accident!”
+
+“If the reptilian nature of this mysterious creature be supposed
+to have been established, it becomes an interesting speculation to
+consider how far the stories of terrific dragons, transmitted to us
+by the ancients, had their origin in realities with which they were
+more conversant than ourselves. The sea-serpent, if a real existence,
+is of no modern creation. Our forefathers must have seen it. The
+utmost length at present allowed to land-snakes is twenty-five feet
+(Schlegel). Nevertheless, the very important part sustained by the
+serpent in the old mythologies,--its imposing magnitude and powers,
+and celebrated by historians and poets,--and its consequence in the
+romantic animals of the middle ages, will unstill a suspicion that,
+perhaps, not the biographers of snakes were mendaceous, but their
+heroes, like those of “the last minstrel”, have changed or disappeared
+in the progress of civilization. It is without the slightest idea of
+attaching any overstrained importance to the following passages that I
+venture to quote them, as proving that the idea of serpents frequenting
+and traversing the sea was at least not repugnant to ancient
+prejudices. The avenging ministers of Minerva, crossing the Aegean on
+their mission to destroy Laocoon, might be vindicated by an ardent
+classic as the model from which the moderns have often plagiarised
+their descriptions of the sea-serpent.
+
+    “Ecce autem gemini a tenedo _tranquilla_ per alta
+    “(Horresco referens) _immensis orbibus_ angues
+    “Incumbunt pelago, pariterque ad litora tendunt:
+    “Pectora quorum iter fluctus arrecta, jubaeque
+    “Sanguineae exuperant undas; pars caetera pontum
+    “Pone legit, sinuatque immensa volumine terga.
+    “Fit sonitus spumante salo”.--_Virgil._--[3].
+
+  [3] Look, from Tenedos there come down through the _quiet_ see (I
+  shudder in telling it) two serpents in _enormous coils_, moving
+  through the sea, and together they direct themselves to the strand:
+  their chests, held up between the waves, and their blood-red _mane_
+  are held above the waves; the remaining part lashes the sea, and they
+  bent their immense backs in coils. There arises a noise, whilst the
+  ocean skims.--Vergilius, Aeneis, II, 203, sqq.
+
+“The poet, too, is sustained by the naturalist, for here we have Pliny
+(whose facts by the way deserve to have inspired the apophthegm that
+“truth is stranger than fiction”) telling how the African _dracones_
+were wont to club together and brave the perils of the Red Sea, in
+quest of the more luxurious diet of Arabia: “Narratur in maritimis
+eorum quaternos quinosque inter se cratium modo implexos erectis
+capitibus velificantes, ad meliora pabula Arabiae vehi fluctibus.”
+(Plin. Hist. Nat. VIII, 13).[4]
+
+  [4] “And (the Asachaeans) tell that near their coasts every time four
+  or five of these (dragons) twisted together in the way of a twisted
+  work, and sailing with their heads erected in the air, sail on the
+  waves towards a better provender place of Arabia.”
+
+“On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the rare
+opportunity afforded for the discussion of the subject by the conductor
+of this journal, for the purpose of showing, first, that sea-serpents
+as a family have long been perfectly recognized in science, and that
+therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment of ridicule;
+and next, of remarking that strange as are the properties attributed
+to the great sea-serpent, there are remains of a former world in our
+museums which in their perfect state united them all or nearly all.
+Encouraged by the Editor’s referring them to the Enaliosauri [Zool.
+LIV. Wrapper] I ventured to name the Plesiosaurus as the marine animal
+of our acquaintance to which they bear the nearest resemblance. This,
+although admitted at the time to be a daring breach of the _Draconic_
+laws of geology,--laws, which, having once consigned an organized form
+to extinction, have very rarely relaxed their rigour,--seemed to be
+a necessary result to the argument _par voie d’exclusion_: if not a
+Plesiosaurus what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to
+be at all correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the “animal of
+Stronsa” after all furnish the real key to the problem? The affirmative
+side of the question is not without at least two very able supporters
+(see Zool. 2310); and yet how to reconcile the characteristics of any
+possible shark with the sea-serpent-like head, curved neck, mane, or
+certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances so often
+mentioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent of the
+“Times” (Zool. 2311) calls attention to the striking resemblance
+between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosaurus, and is surprised at its
+never having occurred to any one before. If the signature F. G. S.
+implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological Society, it is
+satisfactory to find a member of that particular body, whose favour
+was least to be expected, so pleased with the idea as to be willing
+to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been repeated and widely
+circulated by other periodicals. In the words of an elegant contributor
+in “Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal who alludes to it” one would almost
+suppose that among the buried learning of the earlier nations there
+lurked some knowledge of geology, seeing how their ideas about dragons
+came to such a conformity in some respects, with the realities of these
+preadamite reptiles.”
+
+“The determination of a great marine species, however, and even a
+knowledge of its habits and influence on the other inhabitants of the
+deep, are not, as I conceive, the most obvious advantages to be desired
+from the settlement of this question. Let it be admitted that a huge
+unknown creature of any description, provided its general appearance
+is such as to redeem the various historians of the great sea-serpent
+from the charge of wilful deception, does “swim the ocean stream”,
+and the value of the result cannot be too easily over-estimated. The
+_cui-bono_ philosopher, the bugbear of naturalists, will no doubt have
+been highly amused with the recent excitement about a discovery that
+at first sight appears of no practical consequence to the interests of
+man. I know of no subject of research he would be likely to seize upon
+with more secure self-complacency--or of one which, though indirectly,
+supplies a more triumphal answer. To have our failing confidence in
+the value of human testimony reassured (and no evidence can be more
+solemn than that which relates to the sea-serpent), is surely no
+trifling gain of itself. But more than this: no circumstance has tended
+so emphatically to stamp the “Yankee” character with the stain of a
+bold and unscrupulous love of fiction and exaggeration as the story
+of the sea-serpent. Perhaps, on the principle of Mr. Warren’s “man
+about town”, who, being called a _splendid sinner_, made it his pride
+to deserve the title, the thoughtless portion of our Trans-atlantic
+family (the generous tribute of an Agassiz is sufficient warrant for
+the _savans_) may have thence been led to indulge in a dangerous style
+of humour, through a spirit of bravads. This source of misunderstanding
+once removed, the American character may afterwards be regarded with
+more respect, and the people themselves--no longer excited to defy the
+ridicule they were not able to escape--may sober down to the legitimate
+standard of reason.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, too, could not forego the
+pleasure to publish a second time his favourite explanation of the
+_Enaliosaurians_. In the Preface to the year 1848 of his Journal, which
+appeared together with Mr. COGSWELL’S above mentioned dissertation, he
+filled some pages about the subject:
+
+“The communications made to the Admiralty by Captain M’Quhae has turned
+public attention to the possibility of the existence of a _Sea-Serpent_
+(Zool. 2307). My own views on this subject have long been known: two
+years have elapsed since I expressed an opinion (Zool. 1604), that
+although the evidence then before the public was perhaps insufficient
+to convince those who had hypotheses on their own to support, yet that
+it was far too strong for the fact-naturalist, the inquirer after
+truth, to dismiss without investigation. To advance such an opinion
+as this,--to admit the possibility of the existence of a sea-serpent
+in so enlightened an age as the nineteenth century,--of course led
+to my being loaded with ridicule; loaded, but not overwhelmed, for
+I immediately afterwards ventured on expressing a still bolder
+opinion,--no less than that of suggesting its affinity to a tribe of
+animals supposed to be extinct. I stated on the wrapper of n^o. 54 that
+the Enaliosauri of authors would, if living, present the appearances
+described. Almost immediately after this I published the statement of
+Captain Sullivan and five other British officers, who deliberately
+assert (Zool. 1715) that they saw--while on a fishing excursion on
+the coast of British America--a sea-serpent, which they supposed to
+be eighty or a hundred feet in length; its head, six feet in length,
+and its neck, also six feet in length, were the only part constantly
+above water, and resembled those of a common snake: the creature
+passed them with great rapidity, “leaving a regular wake”. Nothing
+is said of any undulating movement, or of any appearance of portions
+or coils of the body. The statement of Captain M’Quhae (Zool. 2307),
+and that obligingly furnished expressly for the “Zoologist” by Lieut.
+Drummond (Zool. 2306), essentially corroborate the evidence of Captain
+Sullivan and his companions: the length and position of the head and
+neck, and their being kept constantly above water, closely correspond;
+the estimated total length corresponds; the non-observance of any
+undulation corresponds,--indeed Captain M’Quhae expressly states that
+no portion of the animal appeared to be used in “propelling it through
+the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation”. Thus we have
+separate statements closely corresponding with each other, and each
+statement is vouched for by several British officers whose veracity has
+never been called in question: under these circumstances we may afford
+to dismiss from this inquiry all those assertions of American captains,
+which have been treated in this country with such contempt. Resting
+the evidence solely on the authority of British officers, I then wish
+to state my unhesitating conviction that a marine animal of enormous
+size does exist, and that it differs essentially from any living animal
+described in our systematic works; and here I cannot refrain from
+expressing my regret that the statement of captain Sullivan should have
+been so entirely neglected as it has been: it appears to me in all
+respects equally trustworthy with the official statement of captain
+M’Quhae.”
+
+“The next question which occurs is this--to what class of vertebrate
+animals must we refer this monster of the deep? Is it a mammal,
+bird, reptile, or fish? All these classes include animals whose home
+is the ocean. To commence with placental mammals;--we have otters,
+seals, walrusses and sea-cows, all of which breathe atmospheric air,
+and, therefore, when swimming on the surface usually keep their
+nostrils--often their heads--above the water: they also propel
+themselves by means of submerged fins or paddles, and, when inclined,
+can move along the surface with rapid direct and continuous motion.
+Professor Owen (Zool. 2312), in accordance with these views, declares
+the animal to be a seal; Phoca proboscidea or P. leonina, but his
+reasoning on the point appears to me very inconclusive: he assigns
+the animal a “capacious vaulted cranium”, whereas Lieutenant Drummond
+(Zool. 2307) declares the head was “long, pointed, and _flattened_ at
+the top”, adding that it was, “perhaps ten feet in length, the upper
+jaw projecting considerably.” Captain M’Quhae, also, subsequently to
+Professor Owen’s paper, repeats (Zool. 2333) that “the head was _flat_,
+and not a _capacious vaulted cranium_”. The captain, who must be
+annoyed at the insinuation that in an official report he had magnified
+a seal into a sea-serpent, emphatically declares that “its great length
+and its totally differing physiognomy preclude the possibility of its
+being a Phoca of any species.” This idea must therefore be abandoned;
+the other marine mammals still remaining open for future consideration.”
+
+“Among Birds we have no approach to the animal described.”
+
+“The Enaliosauri next claim our attention, and, for the present
+purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because I
+feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could urge
+many reasons in connection with the views I have long since published
+in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations which may be
+considered speculative, I would invite the intention of naturalists
+to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the
+shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character
+of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by a section of
+the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the sternum, and
+the smoothness of the skin; and when they have well-considered these
+important points, I would inquire whether these distinguishing features
+are not rather mammalian than reptilian? and, again, whether they
+are not rather marsupial than placental? I have already pointed out
+the manupedine, ferine, glirine and brutine groups of marsupials;
+why should we not also have a cetine group? Without making any other
+use of this suggestion than that of temporarily separating the
+Enaliosaurians from the Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention
+to the arguments of Mr. Morries Stirling (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. S.
+(Zool. 2311), both of whom support the opinion which I had previously
+broached as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent,--a view
+controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen (Zool. 2316),
+on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct; but here I may
+perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact, being only assumed, does
+not touch the main question.”
+
+“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion of an
+anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. COGSWELL (Zool.
+2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal may not have been
+a boa; and I may observe that the evidence concerning the head, which
+has been repeatedly described as precisely resembling that of a snake
+or serpent, together with the fact of the animal holding its head clear
+of the water, are so many points in favour of its belonging to the
+Ophidia; but, on the other hand, we must place the non-observance of
+that undulating mode of progression which every snake must employ,--and
+it amounts to more than non-observance, for Captain M’Quhae, who
+directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such
+undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length--three times that
+of a boa--militates against this hypothesis. Professor Owen lays great
+stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae; but as only two
+Ophidians have yet entered the arena as competitor for the title of
+sea-serpent,--Saccopharynx flagellum, which I have heard is a _bona
+fide_ black snake, and Boa constrictor, which is received on all kinds
+as a veritable serpent,--I think the absence of ophidian vertebrae is
+of no great moment. The Sauria offer similar coincidences with the
+Ophidia, and present a similar discrepancy: their heads and necks
+might readily be described by general observers as those of snakes or
+serpents, but the undulating motion with which they swim is almost
+precisely similar to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an
+objection to our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia
+and Chelonia have next to be considered, and these truly possess the
+submerged limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the
+surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the vertebral
+column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles absolutely
+impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned, these
+reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living animal with
+the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents. Yet
+the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles, and
+especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the idea
+of their being described--even by the veriest tyro in observation--as
+snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both crocodiles and
+tortoises floating on the surface of water, the back, and not the head
+and neck, must be the part most prominently and permanently visible.
+It is therefore manifest that no existing groups of reptiles answers
+the conditions required by the recently-recorded descriptions of the
+sea-serpent.”
+
+“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the sharks
+as offering a solution of the problem; and the record respecting the
+sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great weight to this
+view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists as Drs.
+Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the Stronsa animal, I
+entertain very great doubts of the decision in question; it certainly
+does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae of an ophidian, but then
+no naturalist desires to make it one; the boa hypothesis is applied
+only to the sea-serpent of the _Daedalus_. Leaving, however, this
+Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may observe, _first_, that all
+analogy contravenes the idea of a shark having a neck, and _secondly_,
+I would beg of those gentlemen who advocate this hypothesis, to take
+their pencils and depict a shark with a head and shoulders clear out of
+the water, and his body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think
+the most brilliant fancy could scarcely imagine a shark maintaining
+such a position for twenty minutes at the time, and, what is stranger
+still, while in this position, ploughing the ocean at the rate of
+twenty miles an hour.”
+
+“After maturely considering these various views, it will be found that
+the Enaliosaurian hypothesis presents the fewest difficulties,--in
+fine, one only, the supposition that these wonderful creatures have
+become extinct. It will be the object of a separate essay, now
+preparing for the press, to adduce evidence from other sources of
+the existence--in sea-serpents seen off the Norwegian coast--of two
+large flappers or paddles, closely corresponding in situation with the
+anterior paddles of Ichthyosaurus, and also of enormous eyes, exactly
+as indicated by the fossil remains of that animal; but this, not being
+deducible from recent observations, may be reserved for a more complete
+and careful review of the entire history of these enormous creatures
+which in all probability will eventually be found to constitute several
+genera and species.”
+
+“In throwing open the pages of the “Zoologist” to communication on
+a subject so uniformly tabooed by the scientific,--in claiming for
+that subject a calm and dispassionate investigation,--in expressing
+my unhesitating belief that the various narratives, although often
+conflicting, are nevertheless, according to the belief of the narrator,
+perfectly true,--and in attempting to assign the sea-serpent a place
+in the System of Nature,--I feel convinced that all true naturalists
+will approve the course I have taken, and will be willing to abide the
+result. Discussion must ever have the tendency to dissipate error and
+establish truth; and he who believes himself right need never shun the
+ordeal. In this spirit I invite discussion, and shall feel obliged for
+any communications tending to elicit or establish truth.”
+
+Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.
+
+The communications made by Captain M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND are
+inserted in the foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118).--The statement of Captain
+SULLIVAN and five other British officers is that of 1833, May 15th.,
+inserted above. (n^o. 97.)
+
+Ever and anon Mr. NEWMAN shows that the statements referred to by him
+are those of _British_ officers. Why so? Is a British officer more
+trustworthy than an officer of any other nation?
+
+What zoologist or palaeontologist has ever shared Mr. NEWMAN’S doubt
+of the reptilian nature of the Enaliosaurians!? Who would like to
+bring these extinct creatures under a newly founded order of Cetacean
+Marsupials!! Did not Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion originate in the two facts
+1. That he himself thought the sea-serpent to be an Enaliosaurian, and
+2. That Prof. OWEN asserted that the sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE,
+according to his description and figures, must be a mammal? I think Mr.
+NEWMAN reasoned further: “well, why should the Enaliosaurians not be
+mammals?”
+
+“The enormous length of the animal, three times that of a boa,
+militates against this hypothesis”, viz. of being a boa. This is no
+argument. In the time that only calamaries were known of 6 or 7 feet
+length, with arms of 10 or 11 feet, nobody had ever dreamt that there
+existed really individuals of 30 feet in length with long arms of 50
+feet!
+
+It is evident that Mr. NEWMAN was wrongly informed about the
+_Saccopharynx flagellum_, for this animal is a kind of _fish_,
+belonging to the eel-tribe, however not in the least resembling an eel
+in its external characters, and not a black _snake_!
+
+The “separate essay, now preparing for the press” as far as I know has
+never been published.
+
+The quotation of the _Ichthyosaurus_ shows us that Mr. NEWMAN was
+unwilling to give up his first suggestion. The evidence, referred to by
+him, where the sea-serpent had apparently two flappers near the head,
+is the same as that referred to by Dr. COGSWELL, (see pp. 409, 411, and
+n^o. 115.).
+
+After observing that other sea-serpents, e. g. that of Captain M’QUHAE
+don’t come up to his Ichthyosaurian suggestion, Mr. NEWMAN concludes
+that “the enormous creatures in all probability will eventually be
+found to constitute several genera and species!!!
+
+The favourite Plesiosaurian hypothesis is also spoken of by the writer
+of the “_Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the bones of the
+Stronsa Animal_” (which I have inserted in my Chapter on Would-be
+sea-serpents). He says:
+
+“But we must now conclude with the single remark, that if the Stronsa
+Animal was not a shark, it was certainly not the great sea-serpent,
+which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri
+of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean,
+Eigg Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong
+resemblance.” JAS. C. HOWDEN.
+
+As to the animal of Mr. MACLEAN, see our n^o. 31.
+
+Mr. NEWMAN in the Preface to the _Zoologist_ for 1849, wrote the
+following about the Reptiles mentioned in this volume. The words are
+worth quoting.
+
+“In British _Reptiles_ nothing remarkable has occurred; but I have
+been favoured with a communication, published in the February number
+(Zool. 2356), announcing the present existence of huge marine animals
+closely related to the Enaliosauri of by-gone ages, that appears
+to me in all respects the most interesting Natural History-fact of
+the present century, completely overturning as it does some of the
+most favourite and fashionable hypotheses of geological science. The
+published opinion of Mr. Agassiz (Zool. 2395) certainly favours the
+idea that Enaliosaurians may still exist: he says: it would be in
+precise conformity with analogy that an animal should exist in the
+American seas which has long been extinct and fossilized in the Eastern
+hemisphere: he instances the gar-pike of the western rivers, and says
+that, in a recent visit to Lake Superior, he has detected several
+fishes belonging to genera now extinct in Europe.”
+
+The communication mentioned here is that of Captain HOPE, who saw the
+sea-serpent in the Gulf of California (n^o. 119). In fact, since this
+opinion was expressed by AGASSIZ, (where?) numerous animals, even of
+tolerably large size, have been discovered in Australia as well as in
+the great depth of the ocean, the allies of which are only found in a
+fossilized state.
+
+The favourite _Plesiosaurus_ hypothesis is also treated of and finally
+adopted by Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_. After
+rejecting the hypotheses of the sea-serpent being only a deceitful huge
+stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a large
+ribbon-fish, some large kind of the eel tribe, a large specimen of true
+sea-snakes, a strayed large land-snake as the boas, he goes on in the
+following manner:
+
+“It yet remains to consider the hypothesis advanced by Mr. E. Newman,
+Mr. Morries Stirling, and “F. G. S.”, that the so called sea-serpent
+will find its closest affinities with those extraordinary animals, the
+_Enaliosauria_, or Marine Lizards, whose fossil skeletons are found
+so abundantly scattered through the oolite and the lias. The figure
+of _Plesiosaurus_, as restored in Professor Ansted’s _Ancient World_,
+has a cranium not less capacious or vaulted than that given in Captain
+M’Quhae’s figures; to which, indeed, but that the muzzle in the latter
+is more abbreviate, it bears a close resemblance. The head was fixed
+at the extremity of a neck composed of thirty to forty vertebrae,
+which, from its extraordinary length, slenderness, and flexibility,
+must have been the very counterpart of the body of a serpent. This
+snake-like neck merged insensibly into a compact and moderately
+slender body, which carried two pairs of paddles, very much like those
+of a sea-turtle, and terminated behind in a gradually attenuated tail”.
+
+“Thus, if the _Plesiosaur_ could have been seen alive, you would
+have discerned nearly its total length at the surface of the water,
+propelled at a rapid rate, without any undulation, by an apparatus
+altogether invisible,--the powerful paddles beneath; while the entire
+serpentine neck would probably be projected obliquely, carrying the
+reptilian head, with an eye of moderate aperture, and a mouth whose
+gape did not extend beyond the eye. Add to this a covering of the
+body not formed of scales, bony plates, or other form of solidified
+integument, but a yielding, leathery skin, probably black and smooth,
+like that of a whale; give the creature a length of some sixty feet
+or more, and you would have before you almost the very counterpart of
+the apparition that wrought such amazement on board the _Daedalus_.
+The position of the nostrils at the summit of the head indicates that
+on first coming on the surface from the depths of the sea, the animal
+would spout in the manner of the whales,--a circumstance reported by
+some observers of the sea-serpent.”
+
+“I must confess that I am myself far more disposed to acquiesce in
+this hypothesis than in any other that has been mooted. Not that I
+would identify the animal seen with the actual _Plesiosaurs_ of the
+lias. None of them yet discovered appear to exceed thirty-five feet in
+length, which is scarcely half sufficient to meet the exigencies of
+the case. I should not look for any species, scarcely even any genus,
+to be perpetuated from the oolitic period to the present. Admitting
+the actual continuation of the order _Enaliosauria_, it would be, I
+think, quite in conformity with general analogy to find important
+generic modifications, probably combining some salient features of
+several extinct forms. Thus the little known _Pliosaur_ had many of
+the peculiarities of the _Plesiosaur_, without its extraordinarily
+elongated neck, while it vastly exceeded it in dimensions. What if the
+existing form should be essentially a _Plesiosaur_, with the colossal
+magnitude of a _Pliosaur_?”
+
+“There seems to be no real structural difficulty in such a supposition
+except the “mane”, or waving appendage, which has so frequently been
+described by those who profess to have seen the modern animal. This,
+however, is a difficulty of ignorance, rather than of contradiction.
+We do not _know_ that the smooth integument of the _Enaliosaurs_ was
+destitute of any such appendage, and I do not think there is any
+insuperable unprobability in the case. The nearest analogy that I can
+suggest, however, is that of the _Chlamydosaur_, a large terrestrial
+lizard of Australia, whose lengthened neck is furnished with a very
+curious plaited frill of thin membrane, extending like wings or fins to
+a considerable distance from the animal.”
+
+(_Foot-note:_) [“It was not till after this paragraph was written that
+I noticed the very close similarity of the fins with which Hans Egede
+has adorned his figure of the sea-serpent (copied in the Illustrated
+London News, Oct. 28, 1848), to the frill of the _Chlamydosaurus_.”]
+
+“Two strong objections, however, stand in the way of our acceptance
+of the present existence of _Enaliosauria_; and these are forcibly
+presented by Professor Owen. They are,--1. The hypothetical
+improbability of such forms having been transmitted from the era of
+the secondary strata to the present time; and 2. The entire absence of
+any parts of the carcases or unfossilized skeletons of such animals in
+museums.”
+
+“My ignorance of the details of palaeontology makes me feel very
+diffident in attempting to touch the former point, especially when so
+great an authority has pronounced an opinion; still I will modestly
+express one or two thoughts on it.”
+
+“There does not seem any _à priori_ reason why early forms should not
+be perpetuated; and examples are by no means rare of animals much
+anterior, geologically, to the _Enaliosaurs_, being still extant. The
+very earliest forms of fishes are of the _Placoid_ type, and it is
+remarkable that not only is that type still living in considerable
+numbers, but the most gigantic examples of this class belong to
+it,--viz. the sharks and rays; and these exhibiting peculiarities which
+by no means remove them far from ancient types. The genus _Chimaera_
+appears in the oolite, the wealden, and the chalk; disappears (or
+rather is not found) in any of the tertiary formations, but reappears,
+somewhat rarely, in the modern seas. It is represented by two species
+inhabiting respectively the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans.”
+
+“Now, this is exactly a parallel case to what is conjectured of the
+_Enaliosaurs_. They appear in the oolite and the chalk, are not found
+in the tertiary strata, but reappear, rarely, in the modern seas,
+represented by two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern
+Oceans.”
+
+“Among Reptiles, the curious family of river tortoises named
+_Trionychidae_, distinguished by their long neck, and a broad
+cartilaginous margin to the small back-shell, appears first in the
+wealden. No traces occur of it in any subsequent formation, till the
+present period, when we find it represented by the large and savage
+inhabitants of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Ganges.”
+
+“What is still more to the purpose is, that the _Iguanodon_, a vast
+saurian which was contemporary with the _Plesiosaur_ and _Ichthyosaur_,
+though transmitting no observed representative of its form through the
+tertiary era, is yet well represented by the existing _Iguanadae_ of
+the American tropics.”
+
+“It is true the _Iguana_ is not an _Iguanodon_; but the forms are
+closely allied. I do not suppose that the so-called sea-serpent is
+an actual _Plesiosaur_, but an animal bearing a similar relation to
+that ancient type. The _Iguanodon_ has degenerated (I speak of the
+type, and not of the species) to the small size of the _Iguana_; the
+_Plesiosaurus_ may have become developed to the gigantic dimensions of
+the sea-serpent.”
+
+“A correspondent of the _Zoologist_ (2395) adduces the great authority
+of Professor Agassiz to the possibility of the present existence of the
+_Enaliosaurian_ type. That eminent palaeontologist is represented as
+saying, that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy that such
+an animal should exist in the American seas, as he had found numerous
+instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were represented
+by living types in the New. He instances the gar pike of the Western
+rivers, and said he had found several instances in his visit to Lake
+Superior, where he had detected several fishes belonging to genera now
+extinct in Europe.””
+
+“On this point, however, an actual testimony exists, to which I cannot
+but attach a very great value.”
+
+Here Mr. GOSSE cites the report of Captain HOPE (n^o. 119), and goes on:
+
+“Now, unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an animal
+which could have been no other than an _Enaliosaur_,--a marine reptile
+of large size, of sauroid figure, with turtle-like paddles. It is a
+pity that no estimate, even approximate, of the dimensions is given;
+but as the alligator affords the comparison as to form, it is most
+probable that there was a general agreement with it in size. This might
+make it some twelve or fifteen feet in length.”
+
+“I cannot, then, admit that either the _general_ substitution of
+_Cetacea_ for _Enaliosauria_ in our era, or the absence of remains of
+the latter in the tertiary deposits, is sufficient evidence of their
+non-existence in our seas; any more than the general replacement of
+_Placoid_ and _Ganoid_ fishes by the Cycloids and Ctenoids, or the
+absence of the former two from the tertiaries, is proof of _their_
+present non-existence.”
+
+“It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Darwin has ably insisted, that the
+specimens we possess of fossil organisms are very far indeed from being
+a complete series. They are rather fragments accidentally preserved, by
+favouring circumstances, in an almost total wreck. The _Enaliosauria_,
+particularly abundant in the secondary epoch, may have become
+sufficiently scarce in the tertiary to have no representative in these
+preserved fragmentary collections, and yet not have been absolutely
+extinct.”
+
+“But Professor Owen presses also the absence of any recognised recent
+remains of such animals. Let us test this evidence first by hypothesis,
+and then by actual fact.”
+
+“It may be that a true serpent, with large vesicular lungs, would float
+when dead, and be liable to be seen by navigators in that condition,
+or to be washed ashore, where its peculiar skeleton would be sure to
+attract notice. But, as I have before said, I do not by any means
+believe that the unknown creature is a _serpent_ in the zoological
+sense. Would a _Plesiosaurus_ float when dead? I think not. It is
+supposed to have had affinities with the whales. Now, a whale sinks
+like lead as soon as the blubber is removed; the surface-fat alone
+causes a whale to float. But we have no warrant for assuming that the
+_Plesiosaur_ was encased in a thick blanket of blubber; no geologist
+has suggested any such thing, and the long neck forbids it; and if
+not, doubtless it would sink, and not float, when dead. Therefore the
+stranding of such a carcase, or the washing ashore of such a skeleton,
+would most probably be an extremely rare occurrence, even if the
+animal were as abundant as the sperm whale; but, on the supposition
+that the species itself is almost extinct, we ought not to expect
+such an incident, perhaps, in a thousand years. If we add to this
+the recollection, how small a portion of the border of the ocean is
+habitually viewed by persons able to discriminate between the vertebrae
+of an _Enaliosaur_ and those of a _Cetacean_, we shall not, I think,
+attach great importance to this objection.”
+
+“The only region of the globe in which the unknown monster is reputed
+to be in any sense common, is the coast of Norway. Now this, it is
+true, is fortunately within the ken of civilized and scientific men;
+and, confessedly, no enormous ophidian or saurian carcases have ever
+been recognised on that shore. But the shore of Norway is, perhaps,
+the least favourable in the world for such a _jetsam_. Such a thing
+as a sand or shingle beach is scarcely known; the coast is almost
+exclusively what is called iron-bound; the borders of the deeply
+indented fjords rise abruptly out of the sea, so that there is
+generally from fifty to three hundred fathoms’ depth of water within a
+boat’s length of the shore. How could a carcase or a skeleton be cast
+up here, even if it floated?”
+
+“But, secondly, as to facts. Is it true, that of all the larger oceanic
+animals we find the carcases or skeletons cast up on the shore? Is it
+true even of the _Cetacea_, whose blubber-covered bodies invariably
+ensure their floating, and whose bones are so saturated with oil that
+they are but little heavier than water?”
+
+“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French coast, which
+was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so fortunate as to fall
+under the examination of so eminent a zoologist as De Blainville; and
+hence its anatomy was well investigated. It has become celebrated as
+the Toothless Whale of Havre (_Aodon Dalei_). Yet _no other example
+of this species is on record_; and, but for this accident, a whale
+_inhabiting the British Channel_ would be quite unrecognised.”
+
+“Of another Whale (_Diodon Sowerbyi_), _likewise British, our entire
+knowledge rests on a single individual_ which was cast on shore on the
+Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the naturalist Sowerby.”
+
+“There is a species of sperm whale (_Physeter tursio_) affirmed to be
+frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of sixty
+feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other _Cetacea_ by
+its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by other remarkable
+peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet _no specimen of this huge creature
+has fallen under modern scientific observation_; and zoologists are not
+yet agreed among themselves whether the high-finned Cachelot is a myth
+or a reality!”
+
+“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a Cetacean
+which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing _two
+dorsals_. The character was so abnormal that his statement was not
+received; but the eminent zoologists attached to one of the French
+exploring expeditions,--MM. Quoy and Gaimard,--saw a school of cetacea
+around their ship in the South Pacific, having this extraordinary
+character,--the supernumerary fin being placed on the back of the head.
+Here is the evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a
+most remarkable whale, _no carcase_ of which--_no skeleton--has ever
+been recognised_.”
+
+“The last example I shall adduce is from my own experience. During
+my voyage to Jamaica, when in lat. 19° N., and long. from 46° to
+48° W., the ship was surrounded for _seventeen continuous hours_
+with a troop of whales, of a species which is certainly undescribed.
+I had ample opportunity for examination, and found that it was a
+_Delphinorhynchus_, thirty feet in length, black above and white
+beneath, with the swimming paws wide on the upper surface, and isolated
+by the surrounding black of the upper parts,--a very remarkable
+character. This could not have been the Toothless Whale of Havre; and
+there is no other with which it can be confounded. _Here, then, is a
+whale of large size, occurring in great numbers in the North Atlantic,
+which on no other occasion has fallen under scientific observation._”
+
+“Are not these facts, then, sufficiently weighty to restrain us from
+rejecting so great an amount of testimony to the so-called sea-serpent,
+merely on the ground that its dead remains have not come under
+examination?”
+
+“In conclusion, I express my own confident persuasion, that there
+exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which has not
+yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; and my
+strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the fossil
+_Enaliosauria_ of the lias.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 62.--Chlamydosaurus.]
+
+We only observe that Mr. GOSSE is evidently inclined to believe that
+there are “two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern
+oceans.” It is not at all plain what circumstance has led him to this
+supposition.
+
+Curious is the comparison of the flappers, figured by Mr. BING (fig.
+19) with the frill of the _Chlamydosaurus_. I give here a figure of
+such an animal.
+
+Mr. GOSSE gets clearly entangled in his own considerations of the
+affinity of the sea-serpent with the _Plesiosaurus_ when he comes to
+the fact of the existence of a mane. It is a pity that he has not mixed
+up with his considerations the well-known _Iguana tuberculata_, a
+lizard belonging to the same family as the _Chlamydosaurus_, but which
+has a comb extending over the whole length of the neck, the back and
+the tail!
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 63.--Iguana tuberculata.]
+
+Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, considering the _Plesiosaurus_
+hypothesis, says:
+
+“I think this theory is not forced upon us.”
+
+Of the probability of living _Plesiosauri_, however, he says:
+
+“Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance of
+probability is contrary to the supposition that any of the gigantic
+marine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued to live
+up to the present time. And yet I am bound to say, that this does not
+amount to an impossibility, for the evidence against it is entirely
+negative. Nor is the conjecture that there may be in existence some
+congeners of these great reptiles inconsistent with zoological science.
+Dr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum, a strict zoologist, is
+cited by Mr. Gosse as having long ago expressed his opinion that some
+undescribed form exists which is intermediate between the tortoises and
+the serpents.”
+
+“Prof. Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the _Zoologist_
+(p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence of the
+Enaliosaurian type that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy
+that such an animal should exist in the American Seas, as he had found
+numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were
+represented by living types in the New.”
+
+It is obvious that of all animals, now living or extinct, the outlines
+of the _Plesiosaurus_ fit best to the descriptions and figures of
+the great sea-serpent. Abandoning the possibility of still living
+_Plesiosauri_, I reply to the question “Why cannot the sea-serpent be a
+_Plesiosaurus_?”
+
+_Plesiosauri_ with such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent has, are
+hitherto unknown to palaeontologists, but, as to me, this cannot be
+of much importance; for there is no reason why in the course of ages
+this appendage should not have been developed to gigantic dimensions.
+The difference between the place of the nostrils in the two animals
+cannot claim any weight either (the _Plesiosaurus_ had its nostrils
+both before its eyes and not at the end of its snout, as is the case in
+the sea-serpent) for this place may have changed in process of time.
+But there are two other differences which are of very great importance,
+and settle the question: 1. The neck of the _Plesiosaurus_ must have
+been fit to be bent in all directions, but I think no palaeontologist
+will ever admit that its trunk or backbone could be bent in such
+vertical undulations, as is the case with the sea-serpents. 2. The
+_Plesiosaurus_ may have been destitute of scales, and may have had a
+smooth skin, it can never have been provided with a hairy skin as seals
+have, and at all events it had no mane, and no whiskers.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+An =eleventh= explanation is properly a negative one. In the _American
+Journal of Science and Arts_, of 1835, viz: Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN,
+the Editor, published a report of one of his acquaintances, wherein the
+eye-witness declared: “nothing like a fin was seen”. Now Prof. SILLIMAN
+in a _Remark of the Editor_ says: “The absence of paddles or arms
+=forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian=.”
+
+I need not observe that this explanation was premature, and that the
+assertion “nothing like a fin was seen” does not exclude the presence
+of flappers, hidden under water. The flappers of a swimming sea-lion
+or seal are not generally seen either. If not a saurian, what kind of
+animal could it be then, a fish or a mammal?
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =twelfth= explanation, viz: =a row of spermwhales=, which is
+found in Prof. SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_,
+1837, p. 518, is better than that of a row of porpoises or of basking
+sharks, with their plainly visible backfins, for there is a species
+of spermwhales, viz. the _Catodon macrocephalus_ the backfin of which
+is so small as to be almost invisible. The other species, _Physeter
+tursio_ has a rather large and erected backfin.
+
+Professor SCHLEGEL, after describing the appearance of a row of
+porpoises swimming in line, goes on saying: “This habit is also common
+to the larger cetaceans, which, however, only accidentally frequent
+our” (the Dutch) “coasts. The coasts of North-America, where the
+monstrous sea-serpent has so often been observed, swarm with them, and
+I confess that from a vessel, for instance, the unexpected appearance
+of a family of spermwhales swimming in line, with the eldest at the
+head, must offer a spectacle striking enough and fit to call forth at
+once superstition, imagination and fear.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 64.--Catodon macrocephalus.]
+
+It is true that a row of sperm-whales must offer a striking spectacle,
+but in none of the accounts of the sea-serpent the “bunches” or visible
+parts of the vertical undulations surpassed the length of a fathom,
+whilst the visible parts of the backs of spermwhales measure several
+fathoms, and the distance between two of these backs in a row of
+spermwhales is enormous. The supposition, moreover, does not explain
+the head resembling that of a snake, and kept constantly above water,
+neither the long neck accidentally observed, the long and pointed tail,
+&c.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 65.--Skeleton of Basilosaurus.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 66.--Basilosaurus restored.]
+
+The =thirteenth= explanation supposes that the sea-serpent may be a
+still living =Basilosaurus=, an extinct marine mammal, first described
+by HARLAN in the year 1824; afterwards the name was changed to that of
+_Zeuglodon_ by Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Fig. 65 represents the skeleton of
+a _Basilosaurus_. This animal lived in the tertiary periods. Almost
+all the characters of the skeleton remind us of Pinnipeds, only a
+few of Cetaceans, and so it is still doubtful to which order it
+belongs. Professor D’ARCY W. THOMPSON rejects all association with the
+Cetacea (_Studies from the Museum of Zoology in University College,
+Dundee_, Vol. I. N^o. 9.) The length of the largest skeletons measured
+seventy-five feet. The teeth and molars are nearly exactly those of
+seals. The nostrils were situated at the tip of the nose, as in seals,
+most probably, however, they were directed upwards. The bones of the
+rather short fore-extremities resemble those of seals. Most probably
+these limbs were provided with nails, as in seals. But, on the other
+hand, of some of the known skulls the remaining part shows an affinity
+to cetaceans. The vertebrae again are seal-like. Till now it is unknown
+whether the animal had hind-extremities or not, for the bones of
+them are not yet discovered. The body must have been rather slender
+and cylindrical. I venture to represent to my readers in fig. 66, a
+_Basilosaurus_ restored. As the bones of the fore-extremities closely
+resemble those of seals, it is probable that small hind-extremities
+were not wanting. If the former resembled those of dolphins, the
+existence of hind-flappers would be problematic. Yet I have omitted
+them, because the bones of them are not yet discovered, as far as I
+know.
+
+The reader will remember that Dr. KOCH (see our Chapter on Hoaxes and
+Cheats) exhibited a large skeleton in Broadway, New-York, under the
+name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_. This skeleton was made by him out
+of several bones of the extinct _Basilosaurus_. The imposture was
+soon discovered by Prof. WYMAN, and, of course, immediately published
+in all kinds of newspapers, which also reached Europe. In FRORIEP’S
+_Neue Notizen_, of February, 1846, is one of these articles translated
+into German. Consequently we may conclude that the translator of this
+article knew that the _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ was, in fact, made up of
+bones of the _Basilosaurus_. Now we find in FRORIEP’S _Notizen, Third
+Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847, a suggestion of a writer who
+wrote under the initials M. J. S. (evidently the Editor, the well-known
+Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN: I have searched the _Bibliotheca
+Zoologica_ of CARUS and ENGELMANN, and not found another author whose
+name has these initials):
+
+“Is the sea-serpent perhaps identical with the _Hydrarchus_, viz.
+a still living species, a still present remainder, though in a few
+individuals, of former periods?”
+
+I think that this means: “Are there perhaps still living _Basilosauri_,
+and is the sea-serpent perhaps one of these creatures?”
+
+Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. wrote in _Nature_ of 18th. of November, 1880,
+Vol. 23, a paper, entitled: “_Order Zeuglodontia_”, in which he tries
+to show that the sea-serpent most probably belongs to this Order. The
+contents of his paper are as follows:
+
+“In August 1848 H. M. S. _Daedalus_ encountered off St. Helena a marine
+animal, of which a representation appeared in the _Illustrated News_ of
+the latter part of that year. It is thirty-two years since I saw this
+figure, but I recollect that it was one of a blunt-nosed animal with a
+neck carried about four feet above the water, which was so long as to
+present the appearance of a serpent; and I remember that Prof. Owen,
+in combating at the time the idea that this was a sea-serpent, pointed
+out that the position of the gape in relation to the eye, as shown in
+the figure in the _Illustrated News_, was that of a mammal, and not
+that of a reptile; in consequence of which he argued that the animal
+seen was probably only a leonine seal, whose track through the water
+gave an illusory impression of great length. This idea, however, seemed
+to me untenable in the face of the representation in the _Illustrated
+News_; but it was obvious that to afford the buoyancy necessary for the
+support above the water of so long a neck (estimated on that occasion
+as sixty feet though only the part near the head was actually out of
+the water), the submerged portion of the animal could not have had the
+shape of a serpent.”
+
+“Two or three years after this, on reading the description of
+_Zeuglodon cetoides_, from the Tertiary (probably Upper Eocene)
+formations of Alabama, it struck me that the animal seen from the
+_Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to which _Zeuglodon_
+belonged; and I have ever since watched with interest for reports of
+the “great sea-serpent”.”
+
+“Three years ago the following appeared in the newspapers.”
+
+Here Mr. SEARLES WOOD copies the whole affidavit of the crew of the
+_Pauline_ (n^o. 144), and adds:
+
+“The locality here specified was about thirty miles off the northern
+coast of Brazil.”
+
+And he goes on:
+
+“In this account I thought that I recognized the grip of the whale by
+the long neck of the attacking animal, the appearance being confounded
+into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the
+objects; but in face of the general ridicule which has been attached
+to this subject, and being without any assurance that the declaration
+so purporting to be made was genuine, I did not venture to ventilate
+my long-cherished idea. A relative of mine, however, just returned
+from India, chancing to say that two of the officers to the steamer
+in which she went out had on the previous voyage witnessed an immense
+animal rear its neck thirty feet out of the water, and that a sketch of
+the object had been instantly made, and on reaching port sent to the
+_Graphic_. I obtained the number of that paper for July 19, 1879, and I
+inclose a tracing of the figures in it, which are accompanied by the
+following statement in the Graphic:--”
+
+The statement of the _Kiushiu Maru_ is further copied, accompanied
+by the two figures (see n^o. 151, figg. 48 and 49), and he continues
+saying:
+
+“As I have not been able to find any description of the skeleton of
+the _Zeuglodon_, I venture to draw attention to the subject through
+your columns, in the hope that among your many readers in America this
+letter may attract the notice of some one who will tell us whether what
+is known of the osseous structure of _Zeuglodon cetoides_ is or is not
+consistent with the representation in the _Graphic_. The remains of the
+cetacean, supposed to be extinct, indicate, according to Sir Charles
+Lyell, that it was at least seventy feet in length, (He observes in
+the third edition of his “Manual of Elementary Geology”, 1851, p.
+208, that he visited the spot where a vertebral column of this length
+belonging to _Zeuglodon_ had been dug up.) while its great double-faced
+but knife-edged molars show that it was carnivorous; and as we are not
+so far removed from the period of the Alabama Tertiaries as to render
+it improbable that members of what must once have been a great Order
+of carnivorous cetacea, totally distinct from the orders of cetacea
+hitherto known as living, may still survive, I have braved the ridicule
+attaching to this subject so far as to invite attention to it.”
+
+“The second of the two figures in the _Graphic_ shows the long necked
+animal to possess the cetacean tail, and its head there seems to have
+been turned from the observer, so that the underside of it only is
+presented. The first figure shows that the whale had been seized on its
+flank by the powerful bite of its aggressor, and that to escape from
+this it had thrown itself out of the water. Having succeeded in this
+object the second figure shows the aggressor rearing its head and neck
+out of the water to discover the direction which its prey had taken,
+in order that it might follow it up; and so far from the charge of
+curious drawing made by the editor of the _Graphic_ being justified,
+the representation of the whale can be at once recognized as fairly
+correct; while that of the tail of the unknown animal (which probably
+prompted this charge), so far from being curious, forms an important
+piece of evidence as showing the animal in question to be catacean.”
+
+This paper had already been sent to the Editors of _Nature_, when Mr.
+SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN., observed that he was mistaken as to the report,
+and as soon as possible he sent a Postscript to the Editors, which
+appeared appended to his paper. The postscript runs as follows:
+
+“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my relative,
+and find that the cut in the _Graphic_ of July 19, 1879, is not that of
+the instance observed from the steamer in which she came home, which
+was the _City of Washington_; but of a separate instance which occurred
+to another ship. I have not been able yet to procure the _Graphic_
+containing the figure of the animal seen from the _City of Washington_,
+but she tells me that it was pasted up in the saloon and represented
+only the head and long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great
+height out of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for
+the _Graphic_ by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence.
+These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked are,
+however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”
+
+“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the
+_Encyclopedia Britannica_ (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description
+of _Zeuglodon cetoides_, says that “the skull is very long and narrow
+_and the nostril single_”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth on
+which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded
+the order _Zeuglodontia_, from the Miocene of Malta; and that the
+teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the Gironde
+and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under the name
+of _Squalodon_, are those of a smaller species of _Zeuglodon_. The
+remains of _Squalodon_, along with those of the shark with huge teeth,
+_Carcharodon megalodon_, and of numerous cetaceans assigned to orders
+all still living, and of which some, such as _Delphinus_, belong to
+living _genera_, occur in the “Sables inférieures” of Antwerp; which,
+though long called Miocene, are by Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as
+older Pliocene, and as the base of that series of deposits of which
+the middle and upper divisions are respectively represented by the
+Coralline and Red Crags of England; and with these “Sables inférieures”
+the so called Miocene of Malta, in which _Zeuglodon_ is associated with
+_Carcharodon_, is probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc.,
+2d. ser., vol. I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp
+species of _Carcharodon_ from both the Eocene of South Carolina and
+Miocene of Alabama. These various references bring the _Zeuglodonts_,
+with their _Carcharodon_ associates, down to a late geological period
+during which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey the
+whale in the woodcut (which looks like a _Grampus_) seems an example”.
+
+“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English
+(1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures (one
+of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves, and the other
+that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers or fins, resting
+almost on the surface of the sea, with head and tail erect out of the
+water like the letter U, and spouting water or steam from its mouth _in
+a single column_), from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen, some of
+whom had seen the animal in the position in which it was observed from
+the _Daedalus_, and others in that in which it is represented in the
+cut as seen from the _Kiushiu-maru_; for in the long narrative which he
+gives of the descriptions received from observers at numerous times,
+some of these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both
+of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his
+own.”
+
+“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of
+June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing from
+the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”
+
+I shall take the liberty to make some remarks on his paper.
+
+The reader will remember (see n^o. 118) that it was _not_ the _long
+neck_ of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, made by
+the officers of the _Daedalus_, but the roundness of its neck, the
+apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of the animal’s
+head with that of a snake.
+
+In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of
+the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the
+animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD says: “a neck,
+estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the reason of
+such a deduction!
+
+As I have not read the “description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_” I am not
+able to discover the reason _why_ it struck Mr. Wood that the animal
+seen from the _Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to
+which _Zeuglodon_ belonged.
+
+We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent
+which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance being
+confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and
+motions of the object” (See n^o. 144). I will not contest his opinion!
+
+I do not know what to think of Mr. WOOD, when he speaks of the _Kiushiu
+Maru_ in connection with a relative of his. I may suppose that his
+relative had told him she repatriated by the _City of Baltimore_
+through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous voyage” of that
+vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding this he cites
+the account of the _Kiushiu Maru_ reporting the appearance of a
+sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) in the Van Diemen’s
+Straits. Most probably the _City of Baltimore_ never was there!
+
+In short, the error took place, and Mr. WOOD sees clearly in the
+figures of the _Graphic_ his _Zeuglodon_ pointing out that this figure
+shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently the animal
+must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. WOOD was convinced that the
+_Zeuglodon_ (read _Basilosaurus_) had the following outlines!
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 67.--_Basilosaurus_, as imagined by Mr. SEARLES V.
+WOOD JUN.]
+
+It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had the
+opportunity to read “a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”. Yet he
+holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between the
+extremely _short_ neck of _Basilosaurus_ and the extraordinarily _long_
+neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events _must_ have struck him.
+
+At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations of
+PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_. It is clear that he has not
+read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that the Bishop
+concocted his two figures from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen”,
+whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first figure is a copy of a
+sketch of Mr. BENSTRUP, and the second a copy of the drawing of Mr.
+BING. Of the latter figure Mr. WOOD says “it is that of a serpent-like
+animal almost resting on the surface of the sea”. I shall be greatly
+obliged to any person who can show me a passage either in PONTOPPIDAN’S
+or in EGEDE’S work, stating that the animal presented itself in this
+way “resting on the surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself
+(n^o. 5), where it is clear that the animal must have been seen in this
+position for only the fraction of a second!
+
+Mr. WOOD, describing the drawing of Mr. BING underlines the words: _in
+a single column_, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water or steam
+from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their attention to the
+fact that the figure represents the animal’s head seen from aside),
+whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose or mouth, when seen
+from aside could ever have been decided to be single or double! If we
+look at the breath of a horse, standing just on one side of him, it
+will be observed to be single. This optical illusion will be dispelled
+as soon as we stand in front of the horse. Bing’s figure would have
+been incorrect, if he had drawn two columns, though in reality--if
+the animal exhaled through its nostrils,--the column must have been
+double.--It is remarkable that Mr. WOOD does not say anything of
+the great difference between the figure of the _Kiushiu Maru_ (with
+a cetacean tail) and that of Mr. BING, (with a long and pointed
+one).--Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent only
+preposterous conceptions of his own description!
+
+Finally he compares the animal seen from the _Osborne_ with a manatee!
+Surely we must be a Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD JUN. to find this conception
+_not_ preposterous!
+
+In a second paper in _Nature_ of February 10, 1881, Mr. WOOD quotes
+the report of the _City of Baltimore_, and correcting his second
+error, writes in parentheses “not _City of Washington_, as I had
+misunderstood.”--In treating of this report and of the accompanying
+figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving
+at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes
+were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers,
+whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is
+caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in the
+act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently
+this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According to his
+idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very long
+neck (called by him _Zeuglodon_), he ascribes the splash, caused by the
+hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal. Remarkable is his
+third error; for after having first confounded the foremost splash,
+drawn in the figure, with that described in the report as caused by
+the dropping of the neck, he now writes: “the foam around the neck may
+be due to the splash of the humeroid” (i. e. fore) “paddles which a
+cetacean should possess.”
+
+Mr. WOOD further sees in the figure of the head of the _Daedalus_
+animal (fig. 30) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead and
+eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison is far
+fetched.
+
+Of the report of Captain Cox (n^o. 152) Mr. WOOD says:
+
+“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major Senior in
+the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the water prior to
+its darting forward under it; while the boiling of the water around,
+which is so inconsistent with the motion of a snake in water (which I
+have more than once seen) evidently resulted from the strokes of the
+cetacean tail, and possibly also from those of the paddles, as in the
+case witnessed by Major Senior. The black colour also is described in
+both cases.”
+
+In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion that
+the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four flappers
+together. It is very natural that Mr. WOOD who represents the
+sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and with a
+long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally he says:
+
+“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous letter”
+(figg. 48, 49, 46, and reduced sketches of figg. 28 and 30), “it
+appears to me that the external form of the animal must resemble the
+well-known _Plesiosaurus_, if we imagine the hinder (femuroid) paddles
+of that _Enaliosaurian_ to be absent, and a cetacean tail (which is
+their homologue), to be present in their stead. Since in the direction
+of the _Porpesse_ the cetacean in external form so closely simulates
+the fish, so it may in another direction simulate this Mesozoic marine
+saurian, or the gigantic _Elasmosaurus_ of the American cretaceous
+formation, of which a nearly perfect skeleton is described by Prof.
+Cope as forty-five feet in length, the neck constituting twenty-two of
+this length.”
+
+And he expresses his firm opinion:
+
+“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists any doubt
+that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans, with necks of
+extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”
+
+In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number of the
+_Album der Natuur_ for 1882, and in this issue the author of the
+present Volume treated of the probability of the existence of the great
+sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was only a student of
+Natural History at the Utrecht University, really believed the animal
+of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and was misled by the hoax
+of Captain SEABURY of which he only knew the last part, found by
+him in the Illustrated London News. In his firm belief, however, he
+examined such characters, taken from these tales and from nearly 60
+reports then known to him, as were possible from a zoological point
+of view, and came to the conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a
+mammal, with _four_ flappers, a _long_ neck and a _long_ and _pointed_
+tail, and that the position of this marine mammal is between dolphins
+and pinnipeds. Was there such an animal known? Yes, the _Zeuglodon
+cetoides_ of Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Well, as the sea-serpent has the
+outlines of a _Plesiosaurus_, with an enormous tail, he called it
+_Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_. At that time he was the dupe of the
+Stronsa animal and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so
+many other writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the
+difficult question without reading, if not all that had been written
+about the animal, at least much more than some few reports!
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =fourteenth= explanation is that of an anonymous writer in
+one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848.
+Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. M’QUHAE and
+Lieutenant DRUMMOND, he asks whether or not the animal could be a full
+grown specimen of =Saccopharynx flagelium= of Dr. MITCHILL or the
+=Ophiognathus ampullaceus= of HARWOOD. I have only to tell my readers
+that these two names are given to two different species of the same
+genus, that the former attains a length of about five, the latter of
+about six feet, and to give the next figure, in order to enable them
+to judge themselves, whether such an animal could ever have shown
+itself in the form of a sea-serpent! They belong to the family of the
+_Muraenidae_.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 68.--_Eurypharynx pelecanoides_, Vaillant.]
+
+The figure represents the _Eurypharynx pelecanoides_ of VAILLANT,
+taken from FILHOL’S _La vie au fond des mers_. GÜNTHER, in his
+_Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger_ says on p. 262 of _Saccopharynx
+Bairdii_ (synonym with _Saccopharynx flagellum_): “It is uncertain
+whether these specimens are specifically distinct from _Saccopharynx
+pelecanoides_ VAILLANT.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before my
+readers the above figure as a representation of the general outlines of
+_Saccopharynx flagellum_.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =fifteenth= explanation is suggested by the same anonymous writer
+on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance of the
+sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether “some land species,
+as the =boas=, among which are individuals of forty feet in length,
+may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even transport
+themselves from one continent to another”.
+
+Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor
+having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round the
+trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of
+some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles
+Lyell from the _Zoological Journal_ of December, 1827. (Principles of
+Geology.)”
+
+Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_ after having shown
+that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family
+_Hydrophidae_) because “none of these are known to extend a few feet
+in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the
+Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, that a record
+exists of a serpent having been seen in the very midst of the North
+Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the historical fact of the boa
+constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes the report of the sea-serpent
+seen from the _General Coole_, (n^o. 25) and goes on saying:
+
+“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that no
+suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to have
+occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and nothing
+more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, “sixteen or
+eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”
+
+“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a true
+serpent--perhaps the _Boa Murina_, one of the largest known, and of
+very aquatic habits--carried out to sea by one of the great South
+American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to the spot where it
+was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion it affords us no help in
+the identification of the _great unknown_.”
+
+“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the
+head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly that of
+a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed to mark the
+characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal from another,
+are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at all events, is rather
+negative than positive. For example, if a person of liberal education
+and general information, but no naturalist, were to tell me he had
+seen a creature with a head “exactly like that of a snake”, I should
+understand him, that the head was not that of an ordinary beast, nor
+of a bird, nor that of the generality of fishes; but I should have
+no confidence at all that it was not as like that of a lizard as of
+a serpent, and should entertain doubt whether, if I showed him the
+form of head, even of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was
+something like _that_.”
+
+“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the colossal
+animal seen from the _Daedalus_, and on other occasions, is a
+serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A lengthened
+cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything that appears, it
+may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender cetacean, as anything. All
+analogies and probabilities are against its being an ophidian.”
+
+It is remarkable that Mr. GOSSE is disposed to believe that the
+sea-serpent of the _General Coole_ was a boa, because the report speaks
+of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of the
+_Daedalus_ was a boa, though the captain, Mr. M’QUHAE, clearly tells
+that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without any doubt, was that
+of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference between “a snake” and “a
+serpent with a head of a snake”!? What, in short, is the difference
+between a _snake_ and a _serpent_? Though he attaches a considerable
+value to the assertion of the captain of the _General Coole_ who speaks
+of “_a snake, and nothing more_”, Mr. GOSSE “does not attach much value
+to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by
+them was _undoubtedly that of a snake_”. How to make this agree?
+
+Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ says: “a marine snake of
+enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he means in
+this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents the sea, as
+the _Boa murina_, I have placed this supposition here, and I have not
+considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.
+
+As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate
+vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the boas
+are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =sixteenth= explanation is given by Professor RICHARD OWEN, viz.:
+that the sea-serpent is a swimming =large seal=. I refer my readers
+to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain M’Quhae could
+have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118). After having
+enumerated all the characters of the animal seen by captain M’QUHAE,
+taken from the figures as well as from the descriptions, Professor OWEN
+comes to the conclusion: “All these are the characters of the head
+of a warm-blooded mammal..... Guided by the above interpretation, of
+the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a
+cetacean mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size,
+or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south,
+and longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor OWEN further concludes: _Phoca
+proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_. Very remarkable is the fact that a
+few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This is
+the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so
+uncertain as to be inadmissable, _in an attempt to arrive at a right
+conclusion as to the nature of the animal_”. (The italics are mine).
+
+In fig. 69 I show my readers the _Macrorhinus leoninus_, LINNÉ, or
+sea-elephant, of which _Phoca leonina_, LINNÉ, and _Phoca proboscidea_,
+PÉRON, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated tubercular
+proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which is seen in the
+background of my drawing, have the common features of seals.
+
+Mr. H. E. STRICKLAND and Mr. A. G. MELVILLE in the note added to their
+dissertation on the Dodo, in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural
+History_, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say of Prof.
+OWEN’S letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation of the
+circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and briefly,
+but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the Great
+Sea-Serpent generally.”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 69.--_Macrorhinus leoninus_ (LINNÉ).]
+
+Captain M’QUHAE, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of a seal.
+His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I therefore
+refer my readers to it (n^o. 118).
+
+Mr. FRORIEP, in his _Notizen_, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, 1849,
+after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement of
+Lieutenant DRUMMOND, from that of Captain M’QUHAE, from the hoax of the
+_Daphne_, from the suggestion of Mr. MANTELL, from that of Prof. OWEN,
+&c. &c. finally concludes:
+
+“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is still
+fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent;
+yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must be a large
+sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a snake; but whether
+this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to the family of the
+amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful after the objections of
+Prof. OWEN.”
+
+Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_ treats of the
+seal-hypothesis in the following manner:
+
+“Among animals, the _Vertebrata_ are the only classes supposable.
+But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but _Mammalia,
+Reptilia_, _Pisces_,--there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning
+it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of
+lengthened form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each has
+the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”
+
+“Let us, then, look at the _Mammalia_. Here Professor Owen would place
+it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost the force of
+an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption if I venture
+to examine the decision of one whom I greatly respect. It is true,
+his reasoning applies directly only to the creature seen from the
+_Daedalus_; but we are bound to consider the exigencies not only of
+that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated cases.”
+
+“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:--“Head with
+a _convex, moderately capacious cranium_, short obtuse muzzle, _gape
+not extending further than the eye_; eye rather small, round, _filling
+closely the palpebral aperture_; colour, dark brown above, yellowish
+white beneath; surface smooth, _without scales_, _scutes_, or other
+conspicuous modifications of hard and naked cuticle; nostrils not
+mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by _a crescentic mark at the
+end of the nose or muzzle_; body long, dark brown, not undulating,
+without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of
+a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.”
+
+“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a
+warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or
+fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on the back to a
+horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing of hair; and,
+guided by this interpretation, the Professor judges that the animal was
+not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”
+
+“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, more than
+from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that this diagnosis
+was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made _from the life_, under
+the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing could be more legitimate
+than such a use of them. But surely it has been overlooked that they
+were made under no such circumstances. Only one of the published
+representations was original; and this was taken “immediately _after_
+the animal was seen”. That is, one of the officers, who could draw,
+went below immediately, and attempted to reproduce what his eye was
+still filled with. Now, what could one expect under such conditions?
+Of course, the artist was not a zoologist, or we should have had a
+zoologist’s report. Would the drawing so produced be of any value?
+Surely yes; of great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful
+representation of the _general appearance_ of the object seen, but
+nothing more; its form, and position, and colour, and _such_ of the
+details _as the observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down_,
+so to speak, _in his mind_, would be given; but a great deal of the
+details would be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an
+object before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles,
+relative distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them
+down _seriatim_; ever looking at the part of the original on which he
+is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was open
+to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but necessarily
+vague, idea of the whole before him as the original from which he
+drew. Who is there that could carry all the details of an object in
+the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, too, under strong
+excitement? This was not the case even of a cool professional artist,
+called in to view an object for the purpose of depicting it; in all
+probability the officer had not thought of sketching it till all was
+over, and had made no precise observations, his mind being mainly
+occupied by wonder. He sits down, pencil in hand; he dashes in the
+general outline at once; now he comes to details,--say the muzzle, the
+facial angle;--of course, his figure must have _some_ facial angle,
+_some_ outline of muzzle; but probably he had particularly noticed that
+point. What shall he do? there is no original before him, a glance at
+which would decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or
+three forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer,
+with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the head?” and
+then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so of other details.”
+
+“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making a caricature.
+I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed for nearly forty years
+to draw animals from the life; and the public are able to judge of my
+power of representing what I see; but I am quite sure that if I were
+asked to depict an object unfamiliar to me, which I had been looking at
+for a quarter of an hour, without thinking that I should have to draw
+it, I should do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed
+the officer to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your
+acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional
+artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take him into
+your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful thing in blossom;
+keep him looking at it for some ten minutes without a hint of what you
+are thinking of; then take him into your drawing-room, put paper and
+colours before him, and say, “Make me a sketch of that plant you have
+just seen!” When it is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give
+you the characters of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare
+it yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous
+blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general
+correctness.”
+
+“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the sketch
+made on board the _Daedalus_ must be for minute characters; and
+particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked with
+italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove the
+mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters could not
+possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ distance. I say
+“_mainly_ relied on”; because there is the manelike appendage yet to
+be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of a
+mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it decides the question,
+however, I will presently examine.”
+
+“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in which the
+creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to me at all to
+resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted cranium”. The summit
+of the head does not rise above the level of the summit of the neck; in
+other words, the _vertical_ diameter of the head and neck are equal,
+while there are indications that the occiput considerably exceeds the
+neck in _transverse_ diameter. This is not the case with any seal, but
+it is eminently characteristic of eels, of many serpents, and some
+lizards. Let the reader compare the lower figure (_Illustrated London
+News_, Oct. 28, 1848) with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s
+_British Fishes_ (ed. ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the
+scincoid lizards (the Jamaican _Celestus ociduus_, for instance) is not
+at all unlike that represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short,
+but a little more pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this
+point the Captain’s assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to
+Professor Owen, he distinctly asserts that “the head was _flat_, and
+not a capacious vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant
+Drummond, _published before any strictures were made on the point_,
+says, “the head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top,
+perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”
+
+“With regard to the “mane”. The great _Phoca proboscidea_ is the only
+seal which will bear comparison with the _Daedalus_ animal in question,
+reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers declare that
+upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at the surface; but
+Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance of the water
+produced by progression induced an illusive appearance of a portion of
+this length. But how much? Suppose all behind thirty feet, the extreme
+length of the elephant seal. Then it is impossible the animal could
+have been such a seal, for the following reason. The fore paws of the
+seal are placed at about one-third of the total length from the muzzle;
+that is, in a seal of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle.
+But _twenty_ feet of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and
+yet no appearance of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head
+to have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming
+sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); and
+besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”
+
+“But the great _Phoca proboscidea_ has no _mane_ at all. For this, we
+must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two kinds
+are recognized under this name, _Otaria jubata_ and _Platyrhynchus
+leoninus_; though there is some confusion in the names. Neither of
+these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, about five
+feet would be the utmost that could project from the water in swimming.
+Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant officers to have magnified
+the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; I fear even then it will not
+do. For the mane in these animals is a lengthening and thickening of
+the hair on the occiput and on the neck, just as in the lion. But the
+“serpent’s” mane was not there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of
+the head” says Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says
+Captain M’Quhae.”
+
+“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present
+possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”
+
+I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. GOSSE in discussing
+the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may add: _especially
+of the sea-serpent seen by Captain_ M’QUHAE, was prepossessed with his
+idea of the sea-serpent being an _Enaliosaurian_.--Mr. GOSSE points
+out that the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal; but he
+does _not_ fix the reader’s attention to the fact that if this were
+really the case, the estimation of the length of the head by Lieutenant
+DRUMMOND at “ten feet” and that of the diameter of the neck by Captain
+M’QUHAE at “sixteen inches” don’t agree at all!--In none of the reports
+of the animal of the _Daedalus_ there is question of the “serpent”
+being “twenty feet projected from the water”; it is only stated that
+the head was kept four feet above the water.--Neither do the reports
+mention _how much_ of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. GOSSE
+says “an equal length”.--Lieutenant DRUMMOND did _not_ say that the
+_mane_ was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the gallant
+officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!--
+
+Prof. OWEN relying upon the descriptions of Captain M’QUHAE and
+drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their statements
+to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, absolutely
+rejects the estimation of the length of the animal at “sixty-feet at
+least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly come to another
+conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, and to the question:
+“which mammal could it have been? his reply could not be otherwise
+than: “a large seal”. It is evident that for this reason he recalled
+to his mind all the sea-mammals known to him, but he seems to have
+totally overlooked the possibility of the existence of sea-mammals
+unknown to him!!! The conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads
+the Professor to write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses
+might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”.
+The Professor would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had
+examined _all_ the reports about the animal, and _all_ that had been
+written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a thorough
+investigation a sceptic _must_ remain a sceptic.
+
+I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. The
+latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant has
+no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these characters are very
+prominent in the sea-serpent.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =seventeenth= explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is
+nothing else but a gigantic =sea-weed=, detached from the bottom of the
+sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. In the
+_Zoologist_ of that year, p. 2541, we read the following statement of
+Captain HERRIMAN:
+
+“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship _Brazilian_, now lying near
+the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the following curious
+and interesting statement:--
+
+“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong
+south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. the ship
+was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, being about
+forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, R. N., is said to
+have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight o’clock on that morning,
+whilst the captain was surveying the calm, heavy, rippleless swell of
+the sea through his telescope, the ship at the same time heading N.
+N. W., he perceived something right abeam, about half a mile to the
+westward, stretched along the water to the length of about twenty-five
+or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady,
+sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above
+the waters, had something resembling a mane, running down to the
+floating portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out
+into a sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the
+monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly the same
+latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had fallen in with
+the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately called his chief
+officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, who, after surveying
+the object for some time, came to the unanimous conclusion that it must
+be the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae. As the _Brazilian_ was
+making no headway, Mr. Herriman, determining to bring all doubts to an
+issue, had a boat lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together
+with Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, who
+acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they approached
+the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow of the boat armed
+with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. The combat, however, was
+not attended with the danger which those on board apprehended; for
+on coming close to the object it was found to be nothing more than
+an immense piece of sea-weed, evidently detached from a coral reef,
+and drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the westward
+in this latitude, and which, together with the swell left by the
+subsidence of the gale, gave it the sinuous, snake-like motion.”
+
+“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity of
+examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” account
+of the great sea-serpent,--Mr. Herriman himself admitting that he
+should have remained under the impression that he had seen it. What
+appeared to be the head, crest, and mane of the _immensum volumen_,
+was but the large root which floated upwards, and to which several
+pieces of the coral reef still adhered. The Captain had it hauled on
+board, but as it began to decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now
+regrets that he had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of
+exhibition in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the
+tide and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”
+
+Again we read in the _Times_ of February 13th., 1858, republished also
+in the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5990:
+
+“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington,
+of the ship _Castilian_, stating his belief that he had seen the great
+sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened by the
+fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship _Daedalus_
+near the same position. The following circumstance which occurred on
+board the ship _Pekin_, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & W. Smith, on her
+passage from Moulmein, may be of some service respecting this “queer
+fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E.,
+nearly calm, saw, about half a mile on port beam, a very extraordinary
+looking thing in the water, of considerable length. With the telescope
+we could plainly discern a huge head and neck, covered with a long
+shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out
+of the water. This was seen by all hands, and declared to be the
+great sea-serpent. I determined on knowing something about it, and
+accordingly lowered a boat, in which my chief officer and four men
+went, taking with them a long small line in case it should be required.
+I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to regard
+their approach. At length they got close to the head. They seemed to
+hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the monster all the
+time ducking its head, and showing its great length. Presently the boat
+began pulling towards the ship, the monster following slowly. In about
+half an hour they got alongside; a tackle was got on the mainyard and
+it was hoisted on board. It appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but
+so completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen
+inches long, that we had it some time on board before it was discovered
+to be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches
+diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head of
+an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem alive.
+In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had rather an
+offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been a short time in
+England when the _Daedalus_ arrived and reported having seen the great
+sea-serpent,--to the best of my recollection near the same locality,
+and which I have no doubt was a piece of the same weed. So like a huge
+living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my
+sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the
+great sea-snake.” Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10,
+1858.”--
+
+The Editor of the _Zoologist_ adds the following quotation from
+HARVEY’S _British Algae_, p. 27, however, not as an explanation of
+the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer in its
+existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain SMITH and
+to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence of these
+large weeds. We do the same.
+
+“The plants of this family (_Laminariaceae_) are almost all of large
+size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk any other
+marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our own coasts have
+frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds expanding from
+their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong (_Chorda_)
+often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions are small,
+compared with their kindred on the shores of the Pacific ocean. The
+_Nereocystis_, a plant of this family inhabiting the north-western
+shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than whipcord, but upwards
+of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex a huge vesicle, six or
+seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and crowned with a tuft of
+upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from 30 to 40 feet in length. The
+vesicle being filled with air, buoys up this immense frond, which lies
+stretched along the surface of the sea: here the sea-otter has his
+favoured lair, resting himself upon the vesicle, or hiding among the
+leaves while he pursues his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors
+this floating tree must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly,
+we find it used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”
+
+As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. S.
+_Daedalus_” and Captain HARRINGTON repeated their assurances that the
+creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral HAMILTON
+took up the cudgels for Captain HARRINGTON, upon which Captain FREDERIC
+SMITH wrote the following paper (_The Times_ of 23 February 1858):
+
+“Sir,--I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral HAMILTON, that
+in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking
+appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three feet.
+Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson crabs,
+varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, were
+collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life could be
+furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking creatures which
+constituted the moving monstrous-looking external will assist those who
+read my account in believing what I before stated that even when the
+object was laid on deck we had difficulty in making out what it was.
+Now, sea-weeds of gigantic growth abound near the islands of the group
+of Tristan d’Acunha. From decay or other causes, these will from time
+to time be detached at the roots, and with their living attachment will
+then, floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents,
+into the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting
+himself. It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by the
+boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous specimens
+may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your insertion of
+this correspondence will cause more attention to be given to their
+capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_, to the
+forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers to “settle down”
+to the conclusion: “This must be the animal called the sea-serpent.”
+Had the monster I described not been taken, I should have believed, as
+firmly as Captain Harrington does, that I could confirm the statement
+of the commander of the _Daedalus_ and that “the animal belonged to the
+serpent tribe.””
+
+“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary and
+unexpected appearances of things as compared with the things themselves
+when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the _Daedalus_ sea-serpent
+was seen in the recollection of one spectator, the mouth in that of
+another, and so on. I take leave to question the possibility of these
+being “most distinctly visible”, when the object at its “nearest
+position” was 200 yards distant, the sea getting up, and the observers
+travelling in an opposite direction, the passing of the two being
+apparently at the rate of 20 miles an hour. Naturalists will say
+whether an animal to answer to the habits and attributes of that in
+question would have a nostril.”
+
+“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the _Castilian_, saw an
+extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression,
+and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the
+mercantile marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also
+for “Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington
+is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has
+published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless,
+these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington saw the
+sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very nearly and completely
+took me in until I took him in.”
+
+  “I am, Sir, your most obedient servant
+
+  “Fred. Smith.”
+
+Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, p. 320, inquiring
+whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the sea-weed
+hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.
+
+“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this huge
+rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal at all?
+That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting some of the
+characters described, has been already shown; and on two occasions an
+object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved on examination to be
+but a sea-weed floating; the separated and inverted roots of which,
+projecting in the role of the swell, seemed a head, and the fronds
+(in the one case), and (in the other) a number of attached barnacles,
+resembled a shaggy mane washed about in the water.”
+
+“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view of the
+floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken this for a
+living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest degree to presume
+that of such a nature could be the creatures, going rapidly through the
+water at ten or twelve miles an hour, with the head and neck elevated,
+so distinctly seen by Captain M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at
+two hundred, the latter at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly
+dismiss the sea-weed hypothesis.”
+
+Again in _Nature_ of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the
+following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers the
+sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.
+
+“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of the
+reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into masses
+of floating sea-weed.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ speaking of this
+hypothesis says:
+
+“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for some
+fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed
+by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner strongly
+suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming, is a statement to
+the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony, and to the
+truth of which even observant sea-side visitors may testify. The
+movements of an unusually long frond or group of fronds of tangle,
+attached to a rock, and set in motion at low water, by a light swell,
+has before now, and when seen indistinctly, suggested the idea of the
+existence at the spot of some large denizen of the sea, browsing on the
+sea-weeds, with the fore part of its body, represented by the tangle
+fronds, occasionally appearing at the surface of the water.”
+
+Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared in
+the _Madras Mail_, but which I take from _Nature_ of 13th. October,
+1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be explained in this
+way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his purpose. I also think
+that this was the intention of the contributor who inserted it in the
+columns of _Nature_, of the man who sent a Dutch translation of it to
+the _Nieuws van den Dag_, of 26th. Nov., 1881, and of Professor P.
+HARTING who republished this translation in the _Album der Natuur_, of
+1882, p. 66.
+
+“In a letter to the _Madras Mail_ of September 8, on the use of
+gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H. Taylor,
+the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following interesting
+“sea-serpent”-story:--“A notable incident connected with this sea-weed,
+is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s letter. About fifteen
+years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor in Table Bay, an enormous
+monster, as it appeared, was seen drifting, or advancing itself round
+Green Point, into the harbour. It was more than one hundred feet in
+length, and moved with an undulating snake-like motion. Its head was
+crowned with what appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted
+among the affrighted observers declared they could see its eyes and
+distinguish its features. The military were called out, and a brisk
+fire poured into it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was
+hit several times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were
+its evident injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite
+still, and boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction.
+It was found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its
+stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having
+left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”
+
+It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not
+deserving of any notice on our part.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =eighteenth= explanation is attempted by Mr. A. G. MORE (see
+_Zoologist_ for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:
+
+“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep, in the
+pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to sollicit
+insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality, in
+some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance. Any
+one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great =ribband or
+scabbard fishes=, or who has ever read the striking accounts of the
+huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their extreme rarety, may,
+like myself, have been thus reminded of those mysterious sea-monsters
+which are occasionally observed by the unlearned to be no less a
+puzzle to learned opinion. When, too, we know that these fishes are
+supposed often to swim at the surface, and thus to be driven ashore
+more readily, when the only example of whose healthy life we have a
+credible account, is described as advancing head above water, and by
+the undulating movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we
+not reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms
+of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might
+easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so called
+“mane” of the great sea-snake.”
+
+The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr. GOSSE
+in his _Romance of Natural History_ in the following terms:
+
+“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as the
+hair-tail, the _Vaegmaer_, and the _Gymnetrus_, are of large size,
+and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the
+North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder and
+curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in other
+respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the animal in
+question. One of their most striking characteristics, moreover, is,
+that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”
+
+In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas
+Isles. Mr. TRIMINGHAM, the captor, placed it at the disposal of Mr. J.
+MATTHEW JONES, a naturalist living there. This gentleman described the
+animal for the _Zoologist_, in which his paper appeared in the volume
+of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. JONES ended his article as follows:
+
+“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture of the
+present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction it
+will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have in
+the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save size, with
+which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster “The Great
+Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested. The lengthened
+filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by the connecting
+membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would, viewed from a vessel’s
+deck, present to the spectator the mane so accurately described as a
+singular feature in the gigantic specimen seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R.
+N., and officers of H. M. S. _Daedalus_. Then again, the rapidity with
+which that individual specimen moved through the water, would coincide
+with the capabilities of a member of this genus, for the motive
+power produced by such an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely
+compressed form of body from the head throughout, must be immense.”
+
+“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements
+which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the united presses
+of England and America, emanating from the pens of travelers, and
+usually headed--“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”--criticised, however,
+in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed to an unmerited ridicule
+at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless, firmly believed in by the
+few, who have patiently waited to see the day when the mystic cloud
+which has hitherto veiled the existence of the maned denizen of the
+deep should vanish with the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit
+more clearly the truth of the assertions of those ill-used men, who,
+endeavouring like useful members of society to extend the cause of
+natural knowledge by publishing candid accounts of what their eyes
+have seen, have always met with an amount of contempt and reproach,
+sufficient to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”
+
+“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London News at
+hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared, as it would
+have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other features in
+connection with his specimen and the present one. The facts, however,
+regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity of motion to which
+I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”
+
+Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, thinking this ribbon-fish a
+new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured it with
+the name of _Regalecus Jonesii_, but to our great astonishment, he, who
+firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an _Enaliosaurus_ (as we have
+observed above) now seems to be in doubt about the matter, for he ends
+his article with the following words:
+
+“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. Jones, the similarity
+of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, I do not consider
+myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing for the
+present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course; hereafter
+a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and arranging the
+conflicting evidence already published in the “_Zoologist_”.”
+
+The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the
+unbelievers, no doubt, as it _seems_ more plausible than the
+_Plesiosaurus_-one. An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note
+which I have found in _Nature_ of the 1st. August, 1872:
+
+“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a specimen of
+the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without the tail. It
+appears that this fish is known to distant inland fishermen as being
+forty feet long, and from its slender shape and snake-like movement
+is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so minutely described
+by navigators. From its head there is erected a plume of flexible,
+rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail along its back there is a
+conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general colour is like burnished silver.
+The eye is large and silvery, and the profile of the head comports well
+with that of the horse. The specimen could not be preserved, but there
+are two smaller specimens in the Museum.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his turn believes (see _Nature_ of Sept. 12, 1878)
+that:
+
+“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might do duty
+in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”
+
+In his _Leisure Time Studies_ he returns to his idea:
+
+“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on which
+occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved ribbon
+or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea that such an
+animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from a distance by
+persons unskilled in natural history,--and who would, therefore,
+hardly dream of associating the elongated being before them with their
+ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,--might account for certain
+of the tales of sea-serpents which have been brought under our notice.
+I had been specially struck with the mention, in several accounts of
+sea-serpents, of a very long back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and
+of a banded body covered with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several
+instances the description given of the heads of the sea-monsters
+closely correspond with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes.
+These fishes have further been described by naturalists as occasionally
+having been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion
+close to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated
+above the surface,--this latter feature, as we have observed, forming a
+remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I found, on making
+inquiry into the history of these fishes, that their serpentine form
+had struck previous observers, but, as far as I could ascertain, their
+merits as representatives of sea-serpents had never before been so
+persistently advocated.”
+
+“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle, I
+communicated to the _Scotsman_ and _Courant_ newspapers in June, 1876.
+The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given as 12 feet
+3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches, and the
+greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions in thickness,
+and the relatively long length and depth, giving to these fishes the
+popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes. The species was the well-known
+_Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus Banksii_ of naturalists; and by the Museum
+attendant at Newcastle, I was informed that a still larger specimen of
+the same species was recently obtained of the Northumberland coast, the
+length of this latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the
+thickness 5 inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The
+breast fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated
+and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very long,
+whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back, and obtains
+an average breadth of about three inches.”
+
+“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the
+ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of fish
+merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the idea that
+gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally developed. The
+gentleman in question wrote to inform me that about thirty years ago
+he engaged the smack _Sovereign_, of Hull, Baillie commander, to trawl
+in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury, then residing at Elie Lodge,
+Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in their trawling operations, the crew of
+the _Sovereign_ captured a giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at
+length on the deck, extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem
+and stern. The smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length
+may therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,--this measurement
+being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured
+from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six to seven
+inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined to view
+the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered the fish to be cut
+in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also worthy of remark that
+the trawlers seemed to express no great surprise at the size of Lord
+Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted that they had met with one much
+larger, this latter being coloured of a dirty-brown hue.”
+
+He also explains the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148) by reference to
+a ribbon-fish in the following terms:
+
+“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable
+explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views to the
+_Times_ in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal
+for June 15, 1877:--“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns
+of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently
+seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not
+meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,--such
+as giant sea-snakes themselves,--may occasionally personate the
+“sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very many
+of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on the
+supposition that giant tape-fishes--of the existence of which no
+reasonable doubt can be entertained--have been seen. The report of
+Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht _Osborne_, appears, as far as
+zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained on the
+“ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less skin, the
+rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral) fins, each
+measuring many feet in length, all form so many details corresponding
+exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer these
+observations with the view of showing that, given a recital founded, as
+I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we possess in the lists
+of living and of well-known animals adequate representatives of the
+great unknown.”
+
+“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression
+contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic
+turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in the
+absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate
+the views expressed above as to the personality of this strange tenant
+of the Mediterranean Sea.”
+
+“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared
+in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor,
+speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I offer
+“as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being
+hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in _Good Words_,
+from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the
+probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and
+appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” in Mr.
+Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes simply
+as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and not as a sole and
+universal representative of the modern leviathan.”
+
+“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear proof
+before us that these and other animals may be developed to a size
+which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can only term
+enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the sea-serpent
+question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To objectors
+of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that we have not yet
+procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, I would point out that
+I by no means maintain the frequent development of such beings. The
+most I argue for and require is their occasional production; and I
+would also remind such objectors of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes
+which, until within the past few years, remained in the same mysterious
+seclusion affected at present by the great serpentine unknown. I
+need only add that I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a
+giant serpent of the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its
+representative, or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we
+discover the true and natural law of its production.”
+
+“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully submit, as
+does a pleading counsel to his jury,--”
+
+“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified,
+when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion being
+especially supported by the want of any _prima facie_ reason for
+prevarication;”
+
+“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved to be
+deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual attitudes
+on the part of familiar animals, there remains a body of evidence only
+to be explained on the hypothesis that certain gigantic marine animals,
+at present unfamiliar or unknown to science, do certainly exist; and”
+
+“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly
+consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily
+explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development of
+gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar to the
+naturalist.”
+
+Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, too, supposes that “the
+dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew Wilson,
+may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.
+
+I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a
+ribbon-fish has only _one_ connected dorsal _fin_, and not a _ridge of
+fins_, (compare fig. 13 with fig. 44). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish
+is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly black;
+the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark brown
+above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long time in the sun
+on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow; the under parts are
+of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers, which are the organs of
+locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth of a ribbon-fish is only a
+few inches, while that of the sea-serpent, as is clearly pointed out in
+the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), may grow to more than fifteen
+feet. But I need not sum up the differences between ribbon-fishes and
+sea-serpents. We have only to ask the opinion of one of the most able
+ichthyologists of our days, and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to
+stand upon:
+
+Mr. GÜNTHER says in his _Introduction to the study of Fishes_, 1880, p.
+520:
+
+“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all parts
+of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the surface, or
+thrown ashore by the waves.....”
+
+“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion of the
+gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their muscular and
+bony system, that they can be lifted out of the water with difficulty
+only, and nearly always portions of the body and fins are broken and
+lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes live is not known; probably
+the depths vary for different species; but although none have been
+yet obtained by means of the deep-sea dredge, they must be abundant
+at the bottom of all oceans, as dead fishes or fragments of them
+are frequently obtained. Some writers have supposed from the great
+length and narrow shape of these fishes that they have been mistaken
+for “Sea-Serpents”; but as these monsters of the sea are always
+represented by those who have had the good fortune of meeting with them
+as remarkably active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes,
+which are either dying or dead, have been the objects described as
+“Sea-Serpents”.”
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =nineteenth= explanation is that of Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS (see
+_Zoologist_, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that =a floating dead tree=
+“might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another
+sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:
+
+“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon,
+which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical
+delusion that might have become a source of error, and given rise to
+yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands of the
+Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There was little
+wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the sea. I was
+sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room on the main deck,
+admiring the setting sun, and watching the rounded outlines of the
+blue mountains and distant islands against the sky, and the numbers
+of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to their nests”, when my eye rested
+on a long dark object apparently making its way steadily through the
+water. After observing it some time in silence I was sorely puzzled
+and could make nothing of it. It was neither a seal nor a diver nor a
+fishing cormorant, for with their forms I was familiar; so I went on
+deck and consulted other eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought
+to bear on the suspicious object, and the general scrutiny seemed to
+decide that it was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer
+according to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by
+lateral undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that
+the course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering.
+With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom or
+so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range up
+alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast by a
+clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this time, however, a
+closer and more critical inspection had taken place, and the supposed
+sea-monster turned himself into a long dark root, gnarled and twisted,
+of a tree, secured to the moorings of a fishing net, with the strong
+tide passing it rapidly, and thus giving it an apparent life-like
+movement and serpentine aspect.”
+
+After Mr. DREW had published in _Nature_ a case, in which he and
+many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags, another
+contributor Mr. E. H. PRINGLE wrote the following (_Nature_, September
+12, 1878):
+
+“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of
+Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits”
+concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”
+
+“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small group of
+passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss. _Rangoon_, then
+steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore. We were just within
+sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra. One of the party suddenly
+pointed out an object on the port bow, perhaps half a mile off, and
+drew from us the simultaneous exclamation of “The sea-serpent!” And
+there it was, to the naked eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the
+sea, with its head raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried
+in the water, and anon reared just above its surface. There was the
+mane, and there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards
+behind.”
+
+“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the _Rangoon_
+would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a great
+sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the lenses and
+the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards, anchored in some
+manner to the bottom--a “snag” in fact. Swayed up and down by the rapid
+current, a series of waves undulated beyond it, bearing in their crests
+dark coloured weeds or grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”
+
+“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land, and
+of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first hasty
+conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone the human
+mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we should be in
+forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON, in his _Leisure Time Studies_, speaking of this
+hypothesis says:
+
+“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus
+around which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and
+sea-acorns--producing a variegated effect by reason of their light
+colour--have attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented
+appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming
+slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of this
+latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual spectator,
+the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating in the closest
+and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,--by the same
+rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks and branches of trees one
+may frequently discern likenesses to the human face and to the forms
+of other living things. In this latter instance, the floating object
+was perceived at some miles’ distance from the deck of a yacht; and
+even when seen through a telescope, and carefully scrutinized by men
+accustomed to make out the contour and nature of objects at sea, the
+resemblance to the head of some animal was so close that the course
+of the vessel was changed and the object in due time overhauled. This
+latter, therefore, presents an example of a case, the details of which,
+when related, tempt people to maintain without further parley, that
+sea-serpents always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one
+kind or another.”
+
+The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes at
+once the idea of a dead organism.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =twentieth= explanation is: =a mass of flying birds=, of Mr. JOSEPH
+DREW, who wrote in _Nature_ of the 5th. of September, 1878:
+
+“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the Folkestone
+boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations of that
+neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from the French
+coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look at that
+extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer about a mile
+or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning in this direction
+there was seen an immense serpent apparently about a furlong in length,
+rushing furiously along at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour;
+it was blackish in front and paler behind; its elongated body was
+fairly on the surface of the water and it progressed with an undulating
+or quivering motion, mirum erat spectaculum sane.”
+
+“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account for
+this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed and settled
+into the fixed idea that the object before them could be nothing less
+than the great sea-serpent himself; for--
+
+    “Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
+    “Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge
+    “As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
+    “Leviathan, which God of all his works
+    “Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”
+
+“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses,
+and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument, the wonder was
+satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster was dark and
+glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually, fading towards
+the tail. The glass did not determine the matter until the extreme end
+was reached, and then it was seen to consist of a mass of birds in
+rapid motion; those that were strong on the wing were able to keep well
+up with the leaders, and to make the head appear thicker and darker
+by their numbers, whilst those that had not such power of flight were
+compelled to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless
+these birds were shags (_Pelecanus cristatus_) returning to their homes
+for the night from the distant waters in which they had been fishing,
+during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively as to
+the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer has often seen shags
+on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning in single or double
+file to their roosting places, and since it is stated in works of
+natural history that they have been noticed occasionally flying in this
+peculiar manner to the number of a thousand or more, it does not appear
+an unwarranted liberty in supposing that they really were _Pelecani
+cristati_.”
+
+“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt the
+interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a large
+and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds (scores of
+them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the writer has thought
+it his duty to report the circumstance to you that your readers who
+voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses in their pockets
+and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity this interpretation
+of the great sea-serpent.”
+
+This story induced Mr. BIRD (_Nature_, of 12th. September, 1878) to
+make a similar avowal:
+
+“Dr. Drew’s letter in _Nature_, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to my
+mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend on August
+8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was towards evening,
+when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without masts or funnel,
+moving through the water at enormous speed. After a minute or two it
+undulated and rose from the surface, and we saw that it was a flight of
+birds.”
+
+“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at least
+many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated, though I
+doubt whether _all_ can be explained in this manner.”
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON, on the contrary wrote the following against this
+supposition (_Nature_, in the same number):
+
+“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday
+regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the English
+Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding the
+habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me, however, to point
+out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded as explanatory of
+the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the incident only explains
+one of a number of _serpentine appearances_ of which porpoises and
+sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood with trains of sea-weed,
+&c., are also good examples. There have been placed on record numerous
+incidents of serpentine forms having been closely expected (as in
+the well-known case of the _Daedalus_, or later still of H. M. S.
+_Osborne_) where the hypothesis of the serpentine appearances assumed
+by flocks of birds or fishes could not be held as explanatory in any
+sense. It is with the view of showing that the exact personality of the
+“sea-serpent” cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew
+relates, that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer
+from the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine
+ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent”
+mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully between
+cases in which serpentine appearances have been assumed by ordinary
+animals, and those in which _one_ animal form has presented itself
+in the guise of the “great unknown”. I am far from contending that a
+sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle-fish”, presents
+the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape-fish, or
+even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of
+non-zoological observers for “a sea-serpent.”........ “At the same time
+zoologists cannot but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like
+that gentleman, note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and
+communicate such incidents to your columns.”
+
+A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing
+descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal from the
+pen of Mr. C. M. INGLEBY:
+
+“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed
+at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a cottage on
+an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view. One morning my
+attention was called to a large, dark, undulating body, which moved
+rapidly through the sea. As it was some way out from shore, I naturally
+concluded it to be of enormous length. I lost no time in making
+inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon, and was so fortunate
+as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed it. He told me it was a
+flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly have believed that I
+had seen the Great Unknown. I have often seen a similar phenomenon, but
+nothing nearly so striking as this.”
+
+In _Nature_ of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent
+is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent
+says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in the same
+locality; “I never, however, saw the _head_”. Now another correspondent
+thinking that _he_ had solved the problem, wrote the following article
+in the next issue of the same journal:
+
+“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes, on
+the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions, several
+members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance of three or
+four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a huge serpent. Its
+length was many times that of the largest steamer that ever passed,
+and its velocity equally exceeded that of the swiftest. What seemed
+its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes appeared to show signs
+of an open mouth. The general appearance of the monster was almost
+exactly similar to that of the figure in your correspondent’s letter
+published on the 25th. ult. Not the slightest appearance of this
+continuity in its structure could be perceived by the eye, although it
+seemed incredible that any muscular mechanism could really drive such
+an enormous mass through the water with such a prodigious velocity.
+I carefully watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day,
+just as one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it
+instantaneously turned through a right angle, but instead of going
+forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same
+velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved itself
+into a flock of birds.”
+
+“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being
+effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still
+perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new
+illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what
+has been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly
+this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s
+difficulty.”--W. STEADMAN ALDIS.--
+
+As to the figure, it is our fig. 51.--In the next issue of _Nature_
+again another correspondent asserts:
+
+“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in _Nature_ yesterday, I
+was reminded by a person present that some years ago, when in Orkney, I
+pointed out an appearance that most people unaccustomed to witness it
+might have taken for a great sea-monster. This was nothing more or less
+than some hundred of cormorants or “skarps” flying in a continuous line
+close to the water, the deception being increased by the resemblance
+of a head caused by several “skarps” in a cluster _heading_ the column,
+and by the “_lumpy_” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and
+hiding for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer
+to--not unnaturally--imagine that the portions so hidden had gone under
+water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be fairly estimated
+at thirty miles an hour or more.”--J. RAE.
+
+It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass of
+flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the most
+striking proofs against this hypothesis.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =twenty-first= explanation was proposed by Dr. ANDREW WILSON in his
+_Leisure Time Studies_, 1879. He presents a frontispiece to his work
+“embodying the chief representations of the various theories of the
+sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground is delineated
+=a large turtle=. Of this supposition Mr. LEE says in his _Sea Monsters
+Unmasked_:
+
+“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers and
+broad back.”
+
+The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet,
+including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. The
+breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three and a
+half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would have
+been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal well enough.
+Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized by its broad shell.
+No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian shore.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =twenty-second= explanation. I don’t know whether the note p.
+106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time
+Studies_, also appeared in the first edition, January, 1879, and so
+I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. LEE, (1883), has a superior
+claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent might be in some or
+in most instances =a giant cuttle-fish or calamary=.
+
+Mr. ANDREW WILSON, quoting the report of Messrs. WEBSTER and ANDERSON
+(n^o. 146), in which the latter says: “the creature was apparently of a
+gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes in a note:
+
+“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature
+mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of
+swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the
+details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous
+arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards,
+propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel.””
+
+Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ tries to explain all accounts
+of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one of the
+figures of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work (our fig. 14) he says: “the presumed body
+of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid” (which snatched the
+man from the vessel) “and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging
+are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its
+whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row
+of transverse septa, one on each side of it.” I have discussed this
+explanation in its right place (see p. 106).
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 70.--Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr.
+HENRY LEE explains Mr. BING’S drawing.]
+
+The “monster of EGEDE” he also explained by reference to a great
+calamary. Mr. LEE does not doubt of the accuracy of EGEDE’S
+description, but as to Mr. BING’S figure he says: “The high character
+of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that he had
+seen something previously unknown to him (he does not say it was a
+sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand what it was
+that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made by Mr. BING, one of
+his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to do this”. And Mr. LEE has
+the boldness to figure a large calamary, with the words: “the animal
+which EGEDE probably saw”, of which figure I give a facsimile in fig.
+70.--
+
+Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious
+acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a doubting
+zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the whole fabric falls
+to pieces as soon as we compare EGEDE’S description and BING’S drawing
+with the greater part of descriptions and figures given as well before
+as after EGEDE. His idea is far fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When
+a calamary propels itself with great velocity to the surface and raises
+its tail high out of the water, all its arms are turned and stretched
+downwards; not one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is
+in this position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will
+fall to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure
+to left, and not to right, as Mr. EGEDE saw very distinctly; he says:
+“backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the position
+above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube, spouts in a
+direction contrary to that which Mr. LEE has figured. The locomotor
+tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it is stretched by its
+own muscular wall towards the head, and not towards the tail, nor in a
+direction perpendicularly to the body, when the act of spouting takes
+place. Moreover HANS EGEDE saw the sea-serpent spouting (exhaling)
+through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on or below the surface of
+the water, as the calamary of Mr. HENRY LEE!
+
+Of Mr. MACLEAN’S report (n^o. 31) he says: “His description of it is
+exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”.
+If I may beg my readers to read Mr. MACLEAN’S report again, they will
+observe that _nothing_ in it indicates a calamary!
+
+About the report of Mr. J. C. LUND (n^o. 115) he writes:
+
+“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements of all
+the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There is no
+room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously
+that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, is most
+accurately and intelligently described--so clearly, indeed, that it
+furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the strange visitant.”
+
+“Here let me say--and I wish it to be distinctly understood--that I do
+not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent, or
+other great creatures at present unknown to science, and that I have
+no inclination to explain away that which others have seen, because I
+myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”, it is said, and
+it is not agreeable to have to tell a person that, in common parlance,
+he “must not trust his own eyes”. It seems presumptuous even to hint
+that one may know better what was seen than the person who saw it. And
+yet I am obliged to say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly
+and assuredly, that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not
+correctly interpret that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is
+not the eye which deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the
+imagination which is led astray by the association of the thing seen
+with an erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent
+assumption of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key to the
+mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours had not access
+to, and which has only within the last few years been placed in our
+hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster are those of an
+animal with which we are now well acquainted, but of the existence
+of which the narrators of these occasional visitations were unaware;
+namely, the great calamary, the same which gave rise to the stories of
+the Kraken, and which has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian
+seas and fjords from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have
+elsewhere said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure
+of the _Alecton_ in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or
+sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the great
+sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express belief
+in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned,
+specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted were met with
+on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of them were deposited
+in museums, to silence the incredulous and interest zoologists. When
+Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846 the declaration of Mr. Lund and
+his companions of the fishing excursion he and they knew nothing of
+there being such an animal. They had formed no conception of it, nor
+had they the instructive privilege, possessed of late years by the
+public in England, of being able to watch attentively, and at leisure,
+the habits and movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in
+great tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted
+with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed snake
+the elongated body of a giant squid.”
+
+“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by the outrush
+of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction contrary to
+that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part, therefore, goes
+in advance, and the body tapers towards this, almost to a blunt point.
+At a short distance from the actual extremity two flat fins project
+from the body, one on each side, so that this end of the squid’s body
+somewhat resembles in shape the government “broad arrow”. It is a
+habit of these squids, the small species of which are met with in some
+localities in teeming abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the
+water in hot and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised
+out of water, to a height which in a large individual might be three
+feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at the
+rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person who has
+never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed, like the
+creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in accordance
+with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad expanse. The
+elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the neck to which the
+“head” is attached; the eight arms trailing behind (the tentacles are
+always coiled away and concealed) supply the supposed mane floating
+on each side; the undulating motion in swimming, as the water is
+alternately drawn in and expelled, accords with the description, and
+the excurrent stream pouring aft from the locomotor tube, causes a
+long swirl and swell to be left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have
+often seen, may easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of
+its body. The eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone
+of colour varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey,
+as the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter
+circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”
+
+“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the forepart
+of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”, the “moving
+in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark colour”, the “waving
+motion in the water behind the animal”, from which the witnesses
+concluded that “part of the body was concealed under water”, the
+“head raised, but the lower part not visible”, the “sharp snout”, the
+“smooth skin”, and the appearance described by Mr. William Knudtzon,
+and Candidatus Theologiae Bochlum, of “the head being long and small
+in proportion to the throat, the latter appearing much greater than
+the former”, which caused them to think “it was _probably_ furnished
+with a mane”. Not that they _saw_ any mane, but as they had been told
+of it, they thought they _ought to have seen it_. Less careful and
+conscientious persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on
+oath, that they _did see it_.”
+
+“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the
+proverbially smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition
+of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance
+that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched
+out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on both sides
+of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of that would cause
+this by the effluent current from its “syphon tube.” I have seen a
+deeply laden ship push in front of her a vast hillock of water, which
+fell off on each side in foam as it was parted by her bow; but that
+was of man’s construction. Nature builds on better lines. No swimming
+creature has such unnecessary friction to overcome. Even the seemingly
+unwieldy body of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without
+a splash, and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering
+action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”
+
+Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account, that they
+may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a sea-serpent or a
+great calamary. Mr. LEE’S last views of the motion of sea-animals is
+also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all his assertions; for
+instance, he says: “Nature builds on better lines”. I say: If nature
+built on better lines, men would long ago have imitated them. All
+creatures, when swimming rapidly on the surface, cause a splash. Swans,
+when moving as rapidly as possible, cause heavy undulations before the
+chest, and I have observed myself the common porpoises in the Zuider
+Zee, which when coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a
+rushing of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.
+
+The sea-serpent of Mr. MORRIES STIRLING (n^o. 113) appeared, according
+to Mr. HENRY LEE also “to have been, like the others from the same
+locality, a large calamary.”
+
+Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE and his officers he says:
+
+“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted the
+veracity or _bona fides_ of the captain and officers of one of Her
+Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because it
+was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. Their practised
+eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true character of anything
+met with afloat even if only partially seen, as intuitively as the Red
+Indian reads the signs of the forest or the trail; and therefore they
+were not likely to be deceived by any of the objects with which sailors
+are familiar. They would not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks
+of trees, or Brobdingnagian stems of Algae; but there was one animal
+with which they were not familiar, of the existence of which they were
+unaware, and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed
+to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself--namely, the great calamary,
+the elongated form of which has certainly in some other instances been
+mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen swimming in the
+manner I have described, and endeavoured to portray, would fulfil the
+description given by Lieutenant Drummond, and would in a great measure
+account for the appearances reported by Captain M’Quhae. “_The head
+long, pointed and flat on the top_”, accords with the pointed extremity
+and caudal fin of the squid. “_Head kept horizontal with the surface of
+the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally
+beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for
+purposes of respiration._” A perfect description of the position and
+action of a squid swimming. “_No portion of it perceptibly used in
+propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal
+undulations._” The mode of propulsion of a squid--the outpouring stream
+of water from its locomotor tube--would be unseen and unsuspected,
+because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would suggest a
+prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms trailing astern
+at the surface of the water would give the appearance of a mane. I
+think it not impossible that if the officers of the _Daedalus_ had been
+acquainted with this great sea-creature the impression on their mind’s
+eye would not have taken the form of a serpent. I offer this, with much
+diffidence, as a suggestion arising from recent discoveries; and by no
+means insist on its acceptance; for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very
+close view of the animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without
+any doubt, that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently
+declared that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form
+were all most distinctly visible.”
+
+And of the sea-serpent of Mr. R. DAVIDSON (n^o. 93) he asserts: “The
+features of this incident are consistent with his having seen one of
+the, then unknown, great calamaries.”
+
+The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant SANFORD (n^o. 74) is also
+explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under
+circumstances similar to those described by HANS EGEDE”.
+
+Captain HARRINGTON’S sea-serpent (n^o. 131), according to Mr. LEE, “was
+evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal extremity and fin
+above the surface, and discolouring the water by discharging its ink.”
+
+Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given, Mr. LEE
+concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have been searching
+amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, the great
+unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their elongated
+cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have played the part
+of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated incident.”
+
+In answering, again, Mr. GOSSE’S question: “To which of the recognized
+classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be
+referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There is not one of
+the above judiciously summarized characteristics that is not supplied
+by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits and peculiar mode of
+locomotion.”
+
+With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those which
+Mr. GOSSE enumerates in his _Romance of Natural History_ (see p. 318
+of the present volume), but which, as we know, are taken by him from
+only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from a report of a would-be
+sea-serpent!
+
+The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a would-be
+sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the head was
+described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true sea-serpents
+are brownish black, and only in case the animal had swum for a long
+time in the sun and partly above the surface of the water, the colour
+is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that this colour partly
+agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at rest or when dead; but
+generally, when the animal is in motion, and especially in emotion,
+the colour becomes a reddish-purple or crimson-red. Moreover the long
+neck, the mane, the extraordinary long tail, the four flappers, are not
+explained by reference to a calamary.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The =twenty-third= explanation is proposed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD,
+JUN. in _Nature_ of November 18th., 1880. His article on the “Order
+Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:
+
+“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of
+June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing from
+the one in question, and may have been =a manatee=.]”
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 71.--_Thrichechus manatus_ LINNÉ.]
+
+This figure is our figure 45. Evidently Mr. WOOD did not read the
+account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based on a
+figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen from the
+_Osborne_, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the shoulders,
+where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and the length of
+the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal had an enormous
+neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total length of ten feet, the
+length from the crown or top to just below the shoulders is not more
+than four feet and there is no question of a neck, as our figure will
+show. Mr. WOOD committed the mistake, like so many others, that he
+explained _one_ sea-serpent, instead of first comparing _all_ the
+reports of it before giving an opinion.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According to
+different authorities, the sea-serpent may be:
+
+1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, 1803).
+
+2. _Scoliophis atlanticus_, a new species of snake with bunches on its
+back. (Hon. JOHN DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, Mr. C. F. GRAY, 1817).
+
+3. A large tunny. (Prof. THOMAS SAY, 1818).
+
+4. A true sea-snake (_Hydrophis_) of very large size. (Mr. CONSTANT
+SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).
+
+5. A gigantic individual of the eel-tribe. (Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL
+RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).
+
+6. A fable, arisen from Northern Mythology. (Dr. PERCY, 1820?).
+
+7. A basking shark, or a row of sharks. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL, 1828).
+
+8. A balaenopterous whale, or a row of them. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL,
+1828).
+
+9. An _Ichthyosaurus_, or a saurian allied to it. (Mr. R. BAKEWELL,
+1830?).
+
+10. A _Plesiosaurus_, or a saurian allied to it. (Professor BENJAMIN
+SILLIMAN, 1830?).
+
+11. Not a saurian. (Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, 1835).
+
+12. A row of spermwhales. (Professor HERMANN SCHLEGEL, 1837).
+
+13. A _Basilosaurus_. (Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN, 1847).
+
+14. A _Saccopharynx_ or an _Ophiognathus_. (Anonymous writer in one of
+the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).
+
+15. A large boa. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, 1848,
+Nov. 6?).
+
+16. A _Macrorhinus leoninus_, or sea-elephant. (Professor RICHARD OWEN,
+1848, Nov. 9).
+
+17. A large sea-weed. (Commander J. A. HERRIMAN, of the _Brazilian_,
+1849).
+
+18. A large ribbon-fish, _Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus_. (Mr. A. G. MORE,
+1856).
+
+19. A floating dead tree, or bamboo, or a weed-laden log of wood. (Mr.
+ARTHUR ADAMS, 1860).
+
+20. A mass of flying birds. (Mr. JOSEPH DREW, 1878).
+
+21. A large sea-turtle. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879).
+
+22. A gigantic calamary. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879? or Mr. HENRY LEE,
+1883).
+
+23. A manatee. (Mr. SEARLES VALENTINE WOOD JUN., 1880).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I could
+discover, were the first to express the supposition to which their name
+is added. The dates are those at which they published their supposition.
+
+Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the result
+of reading _one single_ report (1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16), which are
+not mere suppositions without any foundation (6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21,
+23), which are not offered by persons who a moment ago saw a deceitful
+object or animal (17, 18, 19, 20, 22), but which are the result of
+a _study_ of several accounts and reports. They are those marked 2,
+9 and 10. And of these n^o. 10 is the most admissible, because the
+_Plesiosaurus_ in its outlines most resembles the sea-serpent. Why,
+however, is the sea-serpent not a _Plesiosaurus_? I have already summed
+up some reasons, when treating of this explanation, but the principal
+reasons are the mammalian characters, habits and behaviour of the
+sea-serpent; I will try to prove this in the next chapter.
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+Conclusions.
+
+
+The Libraries from which I borrowed the greater part of the works
+treating of the subject were:
+
+The Royal Library at the Hague,
+
+The Library of the Leiden University,
+
+The Library of the Utrecht University,
+
+The Library of the Groningen University,
+
+The Library of the Amsterdam University,
+
+The Library of the Royal University at Göttingen,
+
+The Library of the Royal Zoological Society “Natura Artis Magistra” at
+Amsterdam,
+
+The Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam,
+
+The Library of the Museum of Natural History at Leiden,
+
+The Library of the Dutch Zoological Society at den Helder, and
+
+The Library of the Dutch Entomological Society at Leiden.
+
+In the part headed _Literature on the Subject_ I have given an idea of
+the mass of works and articles written about it. I here present to my
+readers a list of the different appearances found by me in the works
+which I have consulted. Of each appearance I have noted down as far as
+possible, the date, the locality and the names of the observers. The
+numbers correspond with those in the 4th. Chapter.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+1.--1522.--Near the Isle of Moos, Norway.
+
+2.--1640.--Most probably in the Sound between Sweden and
+Denmark.--Burgomaster of Malmö.
+
+3.--1687.--Damsfjord in Norway.--Several persons, and at one time
+eleven persons together.
+
+4.--1720.--A little inlet near Kobbervueg, in Norway.--THORLACK
+THORLACKSEN.
+
+5.--1734, July 6.--Before the harbour of Gothaab in Davis’ Straits,
+west of Greenland, at 64° N.--Rev. HANS EGEDE, Rev. BING.
+
+6.--1743?--Cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, in Norway.
+
+7.--1744?--Isle of Karmen, in Norway.
+
+8.--1745?--Near Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, in Norway.--A
+fisherman.
+
+9.--1746, August.--Jule-Naess, six miles from Molde, in Norway.--The
+Hon. LORENZ VON FERRY, NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN
+ANGLEWIGEN.
+
+10.--1747?--Coast of Norway.--Commander BENSTRUP.
+
+11.--1748?--Coast of Norway.--Mr. REUTZ.
+
+12.--1749?--Coast of Norway.--Mr. TUCHSEN.
+
+13.--1750?--Coast of Norway.--A north-sailor.
+
+14.--1751?--Near Sundsmöer.--Some fishermen.
+
+15.--1751.--Near Muscongus-Island and Round Pond in Broad Bay, Maine,
+U. S. A.--Mr. JOSEPH KENT.
+
+16.--1770?--East coast of U. S. A.--Captain PAUL REED.
+
+17.--1777 or 1778.--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Captain ELEAZAR
+CRABTREE.
+
+18.--1779?--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY.
+
+19.--1780, May.--Near Muscongus Island and Round Pond, in Broad Bay, U.
+S. A.--Captain GEORGE LITTLE, of the _Boston_ frigate.
+
+20.--1781?--Off Meduncook, east coast of U. S. A.
+
+21.--1782?--East coast of U. S. A.?--The British on their expedition to
+Bagadusa.
+
+22.--1783?--Near the Isle of Mount Desert, east of Penobscot Bay,
+Maine, U. S. A.--Inhabitants of this isle.
+
+23.--1784?--Near Ash Point on Fox and Long Island, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr.
+CROCKET.
+
+24.--1785?--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. MILLER.
+
+25.--1786, August 1.--Lat. 42° 44′ N., long. 23° 10′ W., north-east of
+the Azores.--On board the _General Coole_.
+
+26.--1787?--East coast of U. S. A.--Captain LILLIS.
+
+27.--1794?--Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.--Two inhabitants
+of these islands.
+
+28.--1799?--Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.--Two inhabitants
+of these islands.
+
+29.--1802, July.--Between Cape Rosoi and Long Island, Maine, U. S.
+A.--The Rev. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, Mrs. CUMMINGS, Miss CUMMINGS, Miss
+MARTHA SPRING.
+
+30.--1805?--Near Cape Breton and Newfoundland.--Mr. W. LEE.
+
+31.--1808, June.--Coast of Coll, west of Scotland.--Rev. DONALD MACLEAN.
+
+32.--1808, June.--Coast of Canna and Rum, west of Scotland.--The crew
+of thirteen fishing boats.
+
+33.--1810?--?--A mariner.
+
+34.--1815, June 20.--Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay,
+Mass., U. S. A.--Captain ELKANAH FINNEY, his son, and some house
+carpenters.
+
+35.--1815, June 21.--Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay,
+Mass., U. S. A.--Captain ELKANAH FINNEY.
+
+36.--1816?--Near Behring’s Island.--Mr. KRIUKOF.
+
+37.--1817, August 6.--Harbour of Cape Ann.--Two women.
+
+38.--1817, August 10.--Near Ten Pound Island in the Harbour of
+Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. AMOS STORY.
+
+39.--1817, August 12.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
+SALOMON ALLEN, 3d.
+
+40.--1817, August 13.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
+SALOMON ALLEN, 3d.
+
+41.--1817, August 14.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
+SALOMON ALLEN 3d., Mr. EPES ELLERY, Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER, Mr. MATTHEW
+GAFFNEY, Mr. DANIEL GAFFNEY, Mr. AUGUSTIN M. WEBBER, and the Hon.
+LONSON NASH.
+
+42.--1817, August 15.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
+JAMES MANSFIELD.
+
+43.--1817, August 17.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
+WILLIAM H. FOSTER, Mr. JOHN JOHNSTON, jun., Captain JOHN CORLISS, Mr.
+GEORGE MARBLE.
+
+44.--1817, August 18.--Off Cape Ann Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.--The
+Captain and crew of a vessel.--Webber’s Cove in the Harbour of
+Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. WILLIAM B. PEARSON, Mr. JAMES P.
+COLLINS, Colonel T. H. PERKINS, Mr. LEE.
+
+45.--1817, August 22?--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--A woman,
+Mr. MANSFIELD and Mrs. MANSFIELD.
+
+46.--1817, August 23.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. AMOS
+STORY.
+
+47.--1817, August 24?--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Several
+of the crews of coasting vessels.
+
+48.--1817, August 28.--Two miles east of the eastern point of Cape
+Ann, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain SEWELL TOPPAN, of the schooner _Laura_,
+WILLIAM SOMERBY, ROBERT BRAGG, mariners on board the same schooner.
+
+49.--1817, August 30?--In the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S.
+A.--One of the revenue cutters.
+
+50.--1817, October 3.--In the sound between Long Island and the State
+New York, U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES GUION.
+
+51.--1817, October 5.--Long Island Sound, N. York, U. S. A.--Mr. THOMAS
+HERTELL.
+
+52.--1818, June.--Off Cape Henry, Virg., U. S. A.--The Captain and crew
+of the brig _Wilson_.
+
+53.--1818, June 19.--In Sag Harbour, Long Island, N. Y., U. S. A.
+
+54.--1818, June 21.--East coast of U. S. A.--S. WEST, master of the
+Packet _Delia_.
+
+55.--1818, July 2.--Between Cranch Island Point and Marsh Island, about
+seven miles from Portland, Maine, U. S. A.--Mssrs. J. WEBBER and R.
+HAMILTON.
+
+56.--1818, July.--60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, between Far Öer
+and Hebrides.--Captain BROWN.
+
+57.--1818 July.--Folden fjord, Norway.--Some fishermen of Folden fjord.
+
+58.--1818 August?--Near Fieldvigen, Norway.--Fishermen of Fieldvigen.
+
+59.--1818, August 19.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain
+RICHARD RICH.
+
+60.--1819, June 6.--About 15 miles north-west of Race Point, Mass., U.
+S. A.--Captain HAWKINS WHEELER, of the sloop _Concord_, and GERSHAM
+BENNETT.
+
+61.--1819, July.--Sound between the Island of Ottersum and the
+continent, Norway.--Captain SCHILDERUP and about thirty other persons.
+
+62.--1819, August 12?--At Nahant Beach, Mass., U. S. A.
+
+63.--1819, August 13?--Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES PRINCE,
+Mr. SMITH, Mrs. PRINCE, Mr. JAMES MAGEE, Mr. SAMUEL CABOT, Mrs. CABOT,
+Mr. JAMES BOOTT, Colonel T. H. PERKINS, Mrs. PERKINS, and family.
+
+64.--1819, August.--Vieg or Veg fjord, Norway.--JOHN GREGAR.
+
+65.--1819, August?--At the North Cape.--Some fishermen.
+
+66.--1819, August?--Bay of Shuresund or Sorsund in the Drontheim
+fjord, Norway.--The Right Rev. Bishop of the Nordlands and Finmark.
+
+67.--1819? August?--In the Mageröe-Sund near North Cape, Norway.--The
+sexton of Maasöe.
+
+68.--1819, August.--Near Vadsöe, Norway.--Several persons.
+
+69.--1819, August 26.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--The Rev.
+CHEEVER FELCH, Captain WILLIAM T. MALBONE, of the schooner _Science_,
+Midshipman BLAKE, four boatsmen.
+
+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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 72. Sea-serpent, side view, drawn from the
+descriptions.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 73. Sea-serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from
+the descriptions.]
+
+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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 74.--_Zalophus californianus_ (LESS.) ALLEN?--Drawn
+by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.--From the
+_Illustrated London News_ of Jan. 6, 1877.]
+
+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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 75.--_Zalophus californianus_ (LESS.)
+ALLEN.--?--Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton
+Aquarium.--From the _Illustrated London News_ of Jan. 6., 1877.]
+
+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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 76.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON) PETERS.--Drawn
+by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
+Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of Jan.
+27, 1877.--]
+
+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”.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 77.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
+PETERS.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL, from a living
+specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
+Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877.]
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 78.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
+PETERS.--Sketched from a living specimen by the animal-painter G.
+MÜTZEL in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
+Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877.]
+
+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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 79.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
+PETERS.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living
+specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
+Zeitung_ of Jan., 27, 1877.]
+
+_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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 80.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
+PETERS.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living
+specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
+Zeitung_ of Jan., 27, 1877.]
+
+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!
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 81.--_Otaria jubata_ (FORSTER) DESM.--From the
+“List of the Vertebrated Animals now or lately living in the Gardens of
+the Zoological Society of London, 1877.”]
+
+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.
+
+[Illustration: Fig. 82.--_Callorhinus ursinus_ (LINNÉ) GRAY.--From
+BREHM’S “Thierleben”.]
+
+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.
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+Since the book was written, I have corresponded with Prof. Dr. M.
+FORSTER HEDDLE, of St. Andrews, Mr. J. A. HARVIE BROWN, of Dunipace
+(Larbert), Misses KATE and FORBES J. MACRAE, both of Heathmount
+(Inverness), Mr. GILBERT BOGLE, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Prof. R. COLLETT,
+of Christiania, and Mr. R. P. GREG, of Coles (Buntingford). The five
+first-named corresponded with me as eye-witnesses, and kindly sent me
+their statements, written immediately after the appearances they had
+witnessed; Prof. COLLETT courteously presented me with a copy of his
+dissertation _Lidt om Soe-Ormen eller Soe-Slangen_; Mr. GREG who since
+many years has been collecting with great zeal accounts and reports
+concerning the matter, had the rare liberality to send me his whole
+collection to make use of. To all these ladies and gentlemen I feel
+here called upon to tender my warmest thanks.
+
+Space does not allow me to give a verbal reprint of the various hoaxes,
+would-be sea-serpents, reports, and principal contents of papers,
+nor to treat of them separately. This I leave for an eventual second
+edition. But all the appearances which I have placed under the _Reports
+and Papers_ are explicable by reference to the _Megophias_. With the
+initials “R. P. G.” I have marked those statements, accounts, etc.,
+which I got from Mr. R. P. GREG.
+
+
+Literature.
+
+Besides the newspapers, dissertations, and books, mentioned in the
+subsequent parts, the following are additions to my first chapter:
+
+  *1707.--F. LEGUAT. Voyage et aventures en deux isles désertes des
+          Indes Orientales.
+  *18.....--_Het Nederlandsch Magazijn._
+  *1874, February.--The _Cape Monthly Magazine_.
+  *1875.--_The Shipping Gazette_, London.
+  *1875.--_The Daily Telegraph._
+   1879, September 25?--_The Royston Crow._--(R. P. G.).
+  *189...--BASSETT, Sea-phantoms; or legends and superstitions of
+           the sea and sailors in all lands and all times. Chicago.
+
+
+Hoaxes.
+
+The account of captain L. BIJL, of 1858, July 9, (see p. 96) must be
+a hoax, for 1. 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ E. long. is a point in the
+middle of North-Africa, and 2. even if E. long, were a misprint instead
+of W. long., it is impossible that a barque should travel over such a
+distance as from 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ W. long, to 37° 55′ S.
+lat. and 42° 9′ E. long. _in nine days_!
+
+A tale in the _Standard_ of 1879, March 27, of a dead sea-serpent found
+floating near Monegan (Manhegin?) Island near Portland, Me.--(R. P. G.).
+
+Collision of the Norwegian barque _Columbia_, from London to Quebec,
+with a huge floating creature on the 4th. September, 1879; the ship
+sunk.--_Manchester Guardian_ of 1879, Sept. 25.--(R. P. G.).
+
+A sea-serpent of 55 feet in length, light pink coloured. “Several times
+it opened its mouth, disclosing fangs about 4in. in length”.--It was on
+5th. August 1885, in lat. 29° 35′ N. and long 34° 50′ W.--(R. P. G.).
+
+A sea-serpent caught off Newfoundland, October 11, 1886, and
+stuffed.--_Manchester Evening Mail_, 1887, September; _Evening Mercury_
+of St. Johns, N. F., 1887, September 12; _The Marine Industrial
+News_.--The monster was from head to tail “a fraud”, or “a Yankee
+humbug”.--Letter from Mr. G. FITZ GERALD, of St. Johns, and from Prof.
+G. V. MORSE, of Portland, Me., to Mr. R. P. GREG.--(R. P. G.).
+
+_The London Globe_ of Aug. 15, 1887, mentions a fight between a
+sea-serpent and a whale, witnessed near Fort Papham in moonlight, some
+three weeks back, etc.--(R. P. G.).
+
+A stranded sea-serpent.--_Boston Courier_, 1887, November.--Cape May,
+N. Jers.--Hoax? or would-be sea-serpent? (_Regalecus?_)--(R. P. G.)
+
+_The_ sea-serpent is distinctly seen in Georgetown Harbour, on the
+20th. of August, 1888, sleeping on the surface, &c.--_Chambers’
+Journal_, 1888, Nov. 24.--(R. P. G.)
+
+“Exciting chases after boats’ crews.”--A splendid hoax.--St. Johns’ (N.
+F.) _Evening Telegram_ of Aug. 25, 1888.--(R. P. G.)
+
+The Bishop of Adelaide or a certain Mr. BISHOP of that town has found
+a sea-serpent lying dead on the shore.--_The Times_ of Nov. 11,
+1891.--(R. P. G.)--Mr. G. BOGLE wrote to the Bishop, who promptly
+answered it was entirely untrue.--(G. B.)
+
+“Narrow escape of a boats’ crew.”--_The North British Daily Mail_ of
+September 1892.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. HEDDLE.)
+
+
+Would-be Sea-Serpents.
+
+1880 August.--The sea-serpent of Captain HANNA, of Pemaquid,
+Me.--Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, Vol. III, N^o. 26, p.
+407.--Without any doubt a fish, but very problematic.--_Naturen_, 1884,
+N^o. 2.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. COLLETT.)
+
+1880 August 11.--Between Yokohama and San Francisco, lat. 48.37. long.
+180.--Captain THOS. U. BROCKLEHURST, of Henbury Hall, Macclesfield,
+Cheshire, saw on board the _Oceanic_ a snake-like fish, 40 feet long,
+about 18 inches the whole length thick.--Letter from Mr. THOS. U.
+BROCKLEHURST to Mr. R. P. GREG.--Without any doubt an eel-shaped
+fish.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1883, July or August.--A newspaper of this month mentions the capture
+of a genuine sea-serpent in the Java Sea.--_Hydrophis._--(R. P. G.)
+
+1883, October 8.--In the Red Sea, lat. 23° N., long. 37° E., on board
+the ss. _Madura_.--Witness Mr. A. Eisses, of Groningen.--_Nieuwe
+Groninger Courant_ of August 16, 1892.--The neck had the thickness
+of the upper arm of a man.--Appearance perfectly the same as that
+witnessed by Mr. G. VERSCHUUR (see p. 99).
+
+1886 or 1887.--The sea-snake-like bird, reported by Count JOACHIM
+PFEIL, the German African explorer--a little snake-like neck rising
+out of the water, which when fired at, rose into the air, proving to
+be a bird--is of course a kind of _Plotus_, and most probably _Plotus
+levaillantii_ TEMM.--A Hertford newspaper of 1887.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1888?--In Mrs. CADDY’S book _To Siam and Malasia in the Duke of
+Sutherland’s Yacht_ is a description of a sea-serpent she witnessed
+near Bangkok “which rose slowly out of the water in two large luminous
+curves, like two arches of a low bridge”.--?--(R. P. G.)
+
+1889, August.--_Standard_ of 1889, August 15.--A monstrous fish was
+seen floundering in shallow water on the Bancals Rocks, not far
+from the Island of St. Honorat, near Cannes, and had a beak like a
+parrot.--Most probably therefore it was a calamary.--(R. P. G.)
+
+
+Reports and Papers.
+
+Without date.--A sea-monster at Maringonish in the Gulf of St.
+Lawrence, judged to be a hundred feet in length, seen by two
+intelligent observers within 200 yards of the shore.--Description too
+short.--Doubtful.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1570, July.--A monstrous fish seen in Loch Fyne (Fine), having great
+eyes, and at times standing above the water as high as the mast of a
+ship.--_Diurnal and Remarkable occurrents in Scotland_, 1513-1575,
+Maitland Club, Scotland, 1833.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1639.--A vague report of a certain JOSSELIN, but most probably based on
+truth.--Cape Ann.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1779.--“In an Eastern Harbour” (which?)--Eye-witness E. PREBLE,
+midshipman in the _Protector_, and several other officers and
+crew.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1817, August 14. (N^o. 41, see p. 169).--Another confirmation of this
+appearance will be found in the _Gloucester Telegraph_ of that year.
+Here it is also mentioned that in the ROGERS family there is preserved
+a picture by “JACK” BEACH, or better a copy of this picture by JOSEPH
+H. DAVIS, representing the sea-serpent in the harbour of Gloucester on
+this day.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)--This is of
+course the drawing, spoken of on p. 173 of the present volume. Here I
+may note that PONTOPPIDAN also speaks of a picture in the collection of
+JACOB SEVERIN, representing the animal as it appeared to EGEDE.
+
+1818, August 13 and 14.--Partly about Nahant, and partly near
+Gloucester.--Multitudes of spectators.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June,
+1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1819, August 19.--This seems to be the exact date of the appearance
+witnessed by Mr. SAMUEL CABOT. Mr. PRINCE and others saw it “a few days
+previously”.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1820, August 10.--Off Swampscott.--ANDREW REINOLDS, JONATHAN B. LEWIS,
+BENJAMIN KING, Mr. JOSEPH INGALLS.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June,
+1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1823, July 12.--The animal was seen moving into the harbor (Lynn
+Harbour?) from Nahant.--Mr. FRANCIS JOHNSON (in April 7, 1884, still
+alive).--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1826.--“In 1826 it again appeared off Nahant, as is recorded very
+briefly in the _Lynn Mirror_”.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--See
+also n^o. 84, p. 236; it might have been the same individual.--(R. P.
+G.)
+
+1838? (N^o. 104, see p. 253).--Captain BEECHY made his voyage to the
+Pacific in the _Blossom_ in the years 1825, 26, 27 and 28. It is
+therefore probable that he saw the sea-serpent in one of these years,
+but also possible that he was commander of the _Blossom_ before 1825 or
+later than 1828.
+
+1841, July 14.--A monster with a straight black head, 10 feet out of
+the water, spouting “a column of water in the air”, but “it was not a
+whale”.--Gulf of Mexico.--STEPHEN’S _Central America_, 1842, Vol. II,
+p. 464.--Description too short.--Doubtful.--(R. P. G.).
+
+1849.--Seen (where?) by Mr. MARSTON, of Swampscott.--_Atlantic Monthly_
+of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.).
+
+1854, spring.--A gigantic serpent, first called by the look-out man as
+“the biggest log ever seen”, afterwards rearing its snake like head
+as high as the funnel of the steamer out of the water, and plunging
+down.--Eye witnesses: Captain PEAT, of the _Wm. Scalrook_, and Captain
+ROLLINS, of the _Isabel_.--Before the mouth of Savannah River, Georg.
+and S. Car.--Miss MURRAY, _United States, Canada and Cuba_, 1855,
+Putnam & Co., New York, p. 235.--(R. P. G.).
+
+1872.--Prof. SCHLEGEL in his _De Dierentuin van het Koninklijk
+Zoölogisch Genootschap Natura Artis Magistra te Amsterdam_, Vol. III,
+p. 45, points out that as early as 1837 he _proved_ (_nota bene_) the
+impossibility of the existence of such a more than gigantic animal.
+
+1872, August 20 and 21. (N^o. 137 and 138, see p. 322).--The following
+is the account which the Rev. J. MACRAE sent to the _Inverness
+Courier_, August 1872, prefaced by the Editors of this paper:
+
+“A gentleman on whose intelligent observation and accuracy we have
+perfect reliance, sends the following account of a strange animal now
+to be seen about the West-Coast of Invernessshire and which, if not
+the veritable or traditional sea-serpent, must be the object so often
+represented under that appellation”.
+
+“On Tuesday last, 20th. August, I went on a trip to Loch Hourn in my
+small sailing boat. I was accompanied by my friend, the Rev. Mr. T. of
+Kent, my two daughters, my grandson, and a servant lad. While we were
+proceeding along the sound of Sleat it fell calm, and we were rowing
+the boat, when we observed behind us a row of dark masses, which we
+took at the first glance for a shoal of porpoises; but a second look
+showed that these masses formed one and the same creature, for it moved
+slowly across our wake, about two hundred yards off, and disappeared.
+Soon afterwards what seemed to be its head reappeared, followed by the
+bumps, or undulations of its body, which rose in succession till we
+counted 8 of them. It approached now within about 100 yards, or less,
+and with the help of binoculars we could see it pretty distinctly. We
+did not see its eyes, nor observe any scales: but two of the party
+believed that they saw what they took to be a small fin moving above
+the water. It then slowly sunk, and moved away just under the surface
+of the water, for we could trace its course till it rose again, by the
+large waves it raised above it, to the distance of a mile and upwards”.
+
+“We had no means of measuring its size with any accuracy, but taking
+the distance from the centre of one bump or undulation of its body
+to that of another at 6ft. (it could not be less) the length of the
+portion visible above the water, would be about 50 feet, and there may
+have been 20 or 30ft. more of its length which we did not see”.
+
+“Its head seemed blunt, and looked about 18in. in diameter, and the
+bumps were rather larger than the head. When in rapid motion the bumps
+disappeared, and only the head and neck could be seen, partly above the
+surface of the water. It continued to rush about in the same manner as
+long as we remained within sight of the place, but did not again come
+so near us that day”.
+
+“On the afternoon of the next day, August 21, as we were returning
+home we encountered our strange acquaintance again within the entrance
+of Loch Hourn, and saw him careering swiftly along the surface of
+the water, which was now slightly rippled with a light air of wind.
+It passed once abeam of us, at a distance of about 150 yards, with
+its head half out of the water, and we distinctly heard the whizzing
+noise it made as it rushed through the water. There were no organs
+of locomotion to be seen, and its progress was equable and smooth,
+like that of a log towed rapidly. Neither its appearance nor mode of
+progression had any resemblance to those of any known cetacean, shark,
+or fish of any kind. In case any of your readers should imagine that
+I, as well as the subject of my report am a mere myth, you will please
+to give my name to this communication, and I believe that among a
+pretty wide circle of persons who know me there is none who consider me
+capable of stating as true what I do not believe to be so; or so little
+acquainted with the sea, as not to know a whale, a porpoise, a shark,
+or a herring barrel, when I see them. I am Sir, your obedient servant”
+
+“Glenelg Mame”.
+
+  “J. MACRAE”.
+
+Miss KATE MACRAE’S narrative, written on the spot, runs as follows:
+
+“_In the yacht “Leda”, 20th. and 21th. August 1872._--We were becalmed
+in the sound of Sleat about 3 miles from Glenelg, the day was intensely
+hot, the lads were rowing slowly. I was facing the stern, when I saw
+about a half mile behind, a dark object suddenly emerge, about the size
+of a small cask. I exclaimed, and called the attention of the others
+to it; immediately a second, third, fourth, fifth, thing appeared like
+this”. (Here Miss MACRAE has drawn six bunches exactly resembling those
+drawn by her father, see fig. 39 p. 323). “We thought at first it was
+the back of a cormorant, but were undeceived by seeing the animal swim
+swiftly just under the surface of the water towards a rowing boat of
+country people which was nearer it than we were, the people evidently
+astonished ceased rowing, and the creature disappeared quietly without
+the least agitation of the water. Our boys then resumed their oars,
+which they had dropped to gaze, and next we saw the animal coming
+swiftly towards us, from the direction of the boat; it raised the water
+before it, and left a wake on the calm sea behind it, like what a small
+steam launch would. As our rowers paused again, it turned to the outer
+side of our yacht, and disappeared, but I noticed that something like
+a rounded paddle, the breadth of two hands worked to and fro raising
+the water in a clear dome as it went down; the colour of it a dark
+brown, and shape like this”. (Here Miss MACRAE has drawn a thick curved
+line in the form of a horse-shoe, the opening turned downwards). “In a
+few minutes afterwards, the row of lumps appeared again about a mile
+behind, and this time a triangular fin stuck up from about the 4th.
+lump, and apparently 10ft. the size of our jib, and the animal moved
+slowly along on the surface”.
+
+“Next evening as we were slipping gently along near the mouth of Loch
+Hourn on the N. side, my nephew called out, that he saw the sea-serpent
+again. Swimming across from Skye, by the time I caught sight of it,
+it was far away, but showed more lumps, I counted 12, there were two
+sloops trying to get up into the Loch, and the crews were in their
+boats towing them, the animal looked 4 times as long as one of these
+vessels, it was swimming leisurely, and plainly pursued those vessels;
+then making a sweep across the mouth of the Loch came towards us, and
+passed not far outside the boat. I distinctly heard its rush through
+the water, just under the surface; the first waves it made, were
+unbroken, but some way from the head the water was broken, and foaming”.
+
+“Later, at 9 P. M. just as we neared Glenelg sailing and rowing, and
+with a good deal of ripple on the sea, we saw it coming straight
+astern, then it turned away northward and passed out of sight through
+Kyle Rhea”.
+
+  “KATE MACRAE”.
+
+Miss FORBES J. MACRAE wrote to me under date of July 22, 1892:
+
+“I fancy I have had a closer view of the sea-serpent than most people.
+About an hour before we were becalmed and saw it rise in its length
+astern of us, we had been slipping down in our boat along the coast,
+by the help of a strong tide and a very light wind. Looking at what
+I could see of the water under the edge of the mainsail of our small
+cutter yacht, I noticed at about an oar’s length from the boat a dark
+brown shining creature lying on the water, or rather a part of a
+creature for there was neither head nor tail nor fin visible, it seemed
+about six feet in length and the highest part of it was about a foot
+out of the water. None of the others were looking that way, so I was
+the only one who saw it. I asked my father if porpoises were in the
+habit of basking on the top of the water. He said he was not aware of
+their being in the habit of doing so, and we thought no more of it;
+till the next appearance of the animal made us think that it must have
+been one of its ridges I had seen as we sailed just close to it”.
+
+The following is the statement of Mr. GILBERT BOGLE in the _Newcastle
+Weekly Chronicle_ of 1877, December 31:
+
+“As considerable attention has lately been drawn in your columns to the
+sea-serpent, both mythological and otherwise, perhaps the following
+description of the strange creature seen by me and others in 1872 will
+be of some interest. An account of this creature, attested by credible
+witnesses, appeared in the May number of the _Zoologist_ in 1873:--
+
+“On the 20th. of August, 1872, the Rev. J. Macrae of Glenelg, Rev.
+David Twopenny, Miss Forbes, and Miss Kate Macrae, a servant lad, and I
+left Glenelg Bay in Mr. Macrae’s yacht Leda for a sail up Loch Hourn.
+The day was hot and calm, and, the yacht being a small one (seven
+tons), we had recourse to rowing in order to reach Sandaig, six miles
+distant, where we intended to dine. While still about a mile distant
+from Sandaig, one of the ladies called out that there was a shoal
+of porpoises playing astern, and on looking in that direction there
+appeared to me a number of dark objects, which at first sight seemed
+not unlike porpoises, making a considerable commotion on the surface of
+the sea, the only peculiarity being that they all followed each other
+in a line. As they rapidly approached, I then perceived that the black
+lumps which I at first thought porpoises could not be so, but were
+evidently parts of one and the same creature. This impression seemed to
+come over the minds of all at the same time, and every appearance of
+the creature afterwards clearly verified it”.
+
+“I was looking at it through a binocular (we had three on board), and
+when it came to within one hundred yards of the stern it dived below,
+the surface of the sea remained agitated at the spot where it had
+disappeared for some time afterwards. Just before it went down, as it
+came head on towards our stern, it raised a succession of waves. The
+first was unbroken, and through it I distinctly saw the colour of the
+creature, and what appeared to be a small fin on the back or neck,
+moving rapidly sideways, and two or three yards behind the head. Its
+colour was a dark slaty brown, somewhat similar to that of a porpoise.”
+
+“While we were all speculating about this strange creature, it suddenly
+appeared about a quarter of a mile off between us and Skye, going at a
+rapid rate along the calm surface of the sea, and leaving a large wake
+behind. It was only now that I had any idea of the creature’s length.
+It kept cruising about on the surface after this for more than an hour,
+sometimes only four or five bumps or dark raised portions of its body
+appearing above the surface, about the size of herring barrels, at
+other times up to eight. I noticed that the less the speed the more
+bumps appeared, always commencing from the first in rotation, and that
+when going very fast only one or two appeared.”
+
+“After landing on Sandaig, where we had dinner, we started for Loch
+Hourn, the weather still being very calm and sultry, with hardly a
+cat’s-paw on the water. We had barely entered the mouth of the loch
+when this creature again made its appearance, proceeding in the same
+manner as before along the surface of the sea, sometimes coming quite
+close. There was a large schooner yacht not far off, in tow of a noisy
+steam launch, which about this time probably frightened the animal, as
+it was not seen again that night.”
+
+“As evening fell, a breeze sprang up, and we reached Loch Hourn Head
+early next morning. After paying a visit to the Barrasdale oyster
+beds, we set sail for home in the afternoon, with a nice breeze on
+the quarter, but on reaching the mouth of the loch the wind died away
+again and we had to take to the sweeps. Just about the place where the
+animal was last seen, my attention was called by someone to a peculiar
+swirling of the water not far off, and I immediately noticed what was
+evidently the same creature swimming up to the yacht at a very rapid
+rate. When a short distance off it dived beneath the surface, quickly
+re-appearing off the starboard beam nearer than at any previous time,
+and going at such a great speed that I could distinctly hear the
+rushing sound of the breaking water. At this time there were no bumps
+to be seen, and I can only liken the appearance of our visitor to a log
+almost entirely submerged and dragged very rapidly through the sea, the
+water falling over each side of the head in a kind of cascade, while a
+series of broken waves formed immediately behind, gradually subsiding
+in the wake.”
+
+“It afterwards kept swimming about for a considerable time, and I had
+an opportunity of judging of its length so far as visible, compared
+with the hulls of two trading schooners of about 100 tons each some
+little distance from us. When apparently the same distance away as the
+traders, and going slowly, it appeared fully as long from the head to
+the eighth bump as the length of one of the schooners on waterline,
+which would be at least sixty feet; but how much of the animal remained
+under water I had no means of estimating. The head seemed to be square
+or blunt, but I did not see under it, and did not notice its eye or
+mouth. The bumps, or dark raised portions, appeared to me to be about
+eighteen inches above the water, and three or four feet long, with a
+distance of four or six feet between each bump. I could not say whether
+the bumps were the convolutions of a snake-like body or the raised
+portions of a large body underneath the water. I am inclined to think
+the latter, as the bumps always kept the same distance apart, and
+appeared to be protuberances on the back of, possibly, a lizard shaped
+reptile. That it caused a large displacement was evident from the waves
+and commotion raised when swimming at or near the surface, as I could
+distinctly trace its progress with the naked eye at a distance of from
+two to three miles.”
+
+“We lost sight of the creature after leaving the mouth of Loch Hourn,
+but just as night fell I noticed it going past at a rapid rate in the
+direction of Kyle Rhea, a narrow strait which separates Skye from the
+mainland. I afterwards heard that it was seen that same evening by
+fishermen and others passing through these narrows, and it struck them
+all at the time as being quite different from anything they had been
+accustomed to.”
+
+“The above is a bare statement of fact, and was written down by
+me immediately after getting ashore, while my recollection of the
+creature’s appearance was perfectly fresh and vivid. Having cruised for
+many summers amongst the West Highland lochs, I am perfectly familiar
+with the appearance and habits of whales, seals, porpoises, &c., which
+can often be seen in great numbers. To these, the creature I have
+described bore no resemblance whatever.”
+
+  “GILBERT BOGLE, Newcastle.”
+
+From this gentleman I received three splendid pen-drawings,
+representing the animal witnessed by him on that occasion, but alas too
+late to be reproduced for this edition.
+
+1872, August 22 and 23. (N^o. 139 and 140, see p. 322).--On one of
+these days it seems also to have been seen by Lord MACDONALD’S steam
+yacht in Loch Hourn.--Eye-witnesses: Lord MACDONALD, of Armadale, Skye,
+Rev. Mr. MC. NEILL, minister of Skye, Mrs. G. C. LYSONS, of Painswick,
+Strand, and others.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1873, March.--Mr. BASIL CLOCHRANE, Capt. R. N., of Windlesham House,
+Bagshot, Surrey, on board the _Orontes_, from the West Indies to
+England saw a sea-serpent.--Letter from eye-witness to Capt. GEO.
+DREVAR (see p. 329).--(R. P. G.)
+
+1875, July 8 and 13. (N^o. 144 and 145, see p. 329).--The letter from
+Capt. GEO. DREVAR to the Editor of _The Calcutta Gentleman_, 1876,
+February (?), contains no news about the two appearances.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1875, July 17.--Off Plymouth, Cape Cod Bay.--Captain GARTON of the
+ss. _Norman_, and several people on board the ss. _Roman_.--_Atlantic
+Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G).
+
+1875, July 30.--On board the yacht _Princess_, between Nahant and
+Egg-Rock.--Mr. FRANCIS W. LAWRENCE, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Rev. ARTHUR
+LAWRENCE, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Stockbridge, Mass., Miss MARY
+FOSDICK, ALBION W. REED, ROBERT O. REED, Mr. J. KELSOE and Mr. J. P.
+THOMAS, both of Swampscott.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P.
+G.)
+
+1876, September 11. (N^o. 146, see p. 341).--An account in the _Times_
+of 1876, December 28, furnishes no news.--A rough drawing made by Mr.
+ANDERSON, and now in the possession of ROBERT HOLT, of Liverpool, owner
+of the steamer, hardly agrees with the depositions, and cannot give the
+idea of a salamander, a newt, or a frog.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1876.--Some Pitcairn islanders saw a sea-serpent near Norfolk
+Island.--Letter from one of the Pitcairn islanders to Mr. PALMER of
+Liverpool.--_Liverpool Mercury_, 24 February, 1877.--“Mr. JOHN ADAMS
+and his boat’s crew saw it near Norfolk-Islands”.--Letter from Mr.
+MARCUS LOWTHER, Capt. R. N. of Penge, London, S. E., to Capt. GEO.
+DREVAR (see p. 329).--(R. P. G.)
+
+1877, March.--Mr. R. A. PROCTOR, in his “_Strange Sea-Monsters_”
+(_Gentleman’s Magazine_) says amongst other assertions: “naturalists
+have been far less disposed to be incredulous than the general public”.
+If it were only true! Hitherto at least _zoologists_ have not admitted
+even the possibility of the existence of a still unknown species,
+called “sea-serpent”.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1877, July 15.--About two miles off the mouth of Gloucester Harbour,
+Mass.--Mr. GEORGE S. WASSON and Mr. B. L. FERNALD.--_Atlantic Monthly_
+of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1878, summer.--Fjord near Aalesund.--_Naturen_, 1884, n^o.
+2.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. R. COLLETT).
+
+1882, October 11.--Near Bude, Cornwall.--Eye-witnesses: Rev. E.
+HIGHTON, Vicar of Bude, with several friends.--The _Times_ of October
+12, 1882.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1883, August 1.--The _Evening News_ of this date communicates and gives
+partly a review of Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_.--(R. P. G.).
+
+1884, February.--Prof. R. COLLETT, of Christiania, wrote a paper
+in the Norwegian language headed _Something on the sea-serpent_
+(_Naturen_, 1884, n^o 2).--The writer does not seem to be a believer
+in the existence of a sea-serpent. The arguments against its existence
+are 1. A sea-serpent of considerable dimensions would in the course
+of centuries not have failed to have been observed and caught. 2.
+In the depth of the Ocean there are undoubtedly creatures, which as
+yet are unknown, but all specimens caught, be they as abnormal as
+possible, are referred to existing well-known forms. 3. No known
+vertebrated animal, can, on account of its structure, move in vertical
+undulations.--Against these arguments I may say: 1. Before, 1861, and
+1873 the krakens were _fables_, and yet they existed! Mr. RAFINESQUE
+SCHMALTZ &c., see p. 431, line 6 from below to p. 432, line 5 from
+above. 2. Do “naturalists” not constantly refer the sea-serpents to
+existing well-known forms? 3. Among Reptiles the _Plesiosaurians_ had
+a long neck and this neck could certainly be bent vertically; among
+Birds the _swans_ are able to bend the long neck vertically, and _all
+Mammals_ can move in vertical undulations, especially the _Mustelina_,
+_Lutrina_, and _Pinnipedia_; and the horizontal position of the tail
+of the _Sirenia_ and _Plagiuri_ is a strong proof that their ancestors
+moved in vertical undulations.--Prof. COLLETT’S private opinion is
+that the sea-serpents observed in the fjords of Norway, were mostly
+specimens of the basking shark. I, however, firmly believe that the
+Norwegian fishermen know the basking shark so well, that such an animal
+would never have been taken by them for a sea-serpent! They know
+these sharks and their habits far better, I should think, than Prof.
+MITCHILL, Prof. MANTELL, Prof. MELVILLE, Mr. BUCKLAND and Prof. LÜTKEN
+all together. Moreover in none of their descriptions there is question
+of a backfin, or of backfins, which are the first visible parts of a
+basking shark!
+
+1884, June.--_The Trail of the Sea-Serpent_, by Mr. J. G. WOOD, in
+the _Atlantic Monthly_.--A very interesting paper, with historical
+notes and many new appearances, however, not without some zoological
+inaccuracies. He believes the sea-serpent to be an elongated whale, a
+_Basilosaurus_ or an animal allied to it, and that the short neck of
+the _Basilosaurus_ may be an error of the restorer (_nota bene!_).--(R.
+P. G.).
+
+1884, June 2.--_The Manchester Guardian_ gives a review of Mr. J.
+G. WOOD’S paper, and as Mr. WOOD comes to the conclusion that the
+animal must be an elongated whale, the _Manchester Guardian_ ends (how
+insipid!): “Very like a whale”.--(R. P. G.).
+
+1885, October 4.--Near Umhlali (Umlazi?) in Morewood’s Bay, South
+Africa.--(R. P. G.).
+
+1886(?), summer.--Prof. HEDDLE informs me that a few summers ago, (and
+from one sentence of his letter I deduce that it was before 1887) a
+sea-serpent was seen in Loch Duich. “The description was very much what
+we are familiar with”.
+
+1886, August. (N^o 158, see p. 376).--The description of the eyes as
+having a greenish hue struck me so, that I at first did not attach
+belief to the assertion (see p. 377 and 497), but now I know that this
+is not an impossibility, as I since observed that the _tapetum lucidum_
+of the eye of a dog may reflect the daylight as well in a reddish as in
+a greenish hue.
+
+1887, July 30.--Prof. HEDDLE wrote to me on May 6th., 1892:
+
+“I would just say that having taken bearings on the land, in order to
+estimate--(of course roughly)--the _length_, and the _speed_, I set
+down the length at from 60 to 65 feet. There was a very low flat head
+like a large skate, say 4¹⁄₂ feet--a gap not so great,--ten “hummocks”
+increasing in bulk and altitude towards the central one, but not
+much--gaps not so great as the size of the hummocks, next a space,
+about equal to two hummocks, then three hummocks, the central one
+largest, the last small”.
+
+“The thing I saw appear three times--first time end on was a worthless
+observation, except that on this occasion the whole was _rushing_
+through the water. On the other two occasions there was hardly any
+forward motion at all. The whole disappeared at the same moment, and
+reappeared also at the same moment, about two seconds thereafter more
+than its own length in advance; so that there must have been either
+an exceedingly rapid rush under water--_or_ a second animal. The
+disappearance and reappearance were both without the _least_ splash;
+but at the moment of disappearance the second time _the foremost two of
+the last three hummocks coalesced into one_”.
+
+“During one of the appearances I got the focus of the binoculars so
+sharp that I distinctly saw water falling over towards me, between some
+of the hummocks and myself. There was no consecutive filling up of the
+interspaces whatever, or appearance of vacuities where the hummocks had
+but now been”.
+
+“There was certainly no _vertical_ serpentine motion--and I could see
+no _lateral_ one”.
+
+“My impression was that, setting aside the quiescent low head, I _did
+not see a solid substance at all_,--except when the tail hummocks
+momentarily appeared--and that what I did see was water being thrown
+over laterally by the undulous lashings of a long back fin of a dark
+colour, which gave opacity”.
+
+“I cannot set the “hummocks” down to _surge waves_ of a rushing short
+fish; because I cannot so explain such surges being always the same
+both in _number_ and in _place_: nor can I so explain the appearance of
+an apparently solid head--and an apparently continuous tail”.
+
+“The above is all from memory”.
+
+The following is the
+
+“Relation regarding a _Phenomenon_ seen by the crew and Owner and
+guests of the yacht Shiantelle on the W. coast of Scotland on 30th.
+July 1887 as told by J. A. HARVIE BROWN, and seen by him, and written
+in his Journals of that date”.
+
+“At 10″ to 15″ to 10 am. I was called quickly on deck by Cowell, and I
+went up from breakfast. “What is that”? said Cowell. After some time
+I saw between me and the shore to the E., which shore was about one
+mile distant, undulations upon almost calm water (The ship was moving
+at the rate of about half a knot an hour) being similar in appearance,
+and having the motions of the (described and supposed) Sea-Serpent. I
+counted with the binoculars twelve or perhaps thirteen humps at almost
+perfectly regular distances the one from the others. The first of
+these humps appeared to be moving rapidly through the water across the
+line of vision, and to be breaking and spraying water, and the other
+eleven or twelve (I had only time to count them once) maintained all
+their relative positions with one another and collectively with the
+first, _yet_ did not appear in themselves to me to move, though slight
+ripples of water were visible, nearly throughout the whole length. The
+whole disappeared and reappeared at least four times to me, apparently
+simultaneously or almost so throughout its length. When last it was
+seen, it was moving on a course almost parallel with the shore, which
+shore runs N. E. or thereby. The distance from the ship at which time
+I first saw it, and from that time to its final disappearance was
+estimated by me at about half a mile by eye (but this may have been an
+over-estimate of distance)”.
+
+“John Campbell, seaman, and mate on board the yacht, standing at the
+helm, deposes in a seperate document--drawn up and written by R. L.
+Cowell, Steward, from his oral statement--which seperate statement, was
+at once closed, without being read by either Dr. Heddle or myself, and
+still remains so”.
+
+“R. L. Cowell, Steward, who was on deck at the same time as John
+Campbell (having laid and served our breakfast) deposes in similar
+manner in a seperate statement, also closed and not read by Dr. Heddle
+and myself”.
+
+“But John Campbell on being examined by us deposes on cross-examination
+that:--While we were at breakfast in the Saloon, he saw approaching
+from the direction of Corrie Chreachan a series of large undulations
+which passed “within 40 yards” then “within 30 yards” and again
+“within the length of the ship” (which is 56 feet) from the stern
+of the vessel, and travelling at a great pace; that he saw nothing
+above the surface of the water except broken water in front of the
+first or foremost undulation. That except this, he saw nothing
+but the perpendicular swellings (vertical swellings), as it were
+“skins of water” pushed up from beneath, and a long track or wake of
+slightly disturbed water, left for a long distance behind. It was seen
+approaching from the direction of the Sound between Scarba and Jura, or
+Corrie Chreacan, and passed the stern of the vessel. It was therefore
+heading at the time nearly E. The Ship’s head was lying about E. half
+N.”
+
+“R. L. Cowell saw it almost or quite simultaneously with John Campbell
+on its first appearance.”
+
+“N. B. The time between his calling me on deck and the time I first
+observed the appearance, I have described, I put down at _about half_
+a minute (as, before seeing it, after getting on deck, I asked one or
+two questions as to bearings, before I could get sight of it with my
+glasses). After my first look I called up Dr. Heddle. It was after
+calling up Dr. Heddle, that I made out the counting of the humps,
+and the other appearances described. I may have been 5 to 10 seconds
+between my being called up, and my reaching the deck, aft of the
+companion, and I then got the glasses and unscrewed them to focus,
+while I was asking the questions as to bearings. Roughly speaking, I
+calculate, that from the first appearance to Campbell and Cowell, till
+its final disappearance, it must have been, inclusive of disappearances
+and reappearances, about 15 minutes in sight or observation. When
+_they_ saw it, it must have been travelling very rapidly; and not
+nearly _so_ rapidly when we observed it at the greater distance. My
+estimate of distance when I saw it, _may_ be an over-estimate put at
+half a mile.”
+
+“Before J. Campbell saw it he heard a heavy splash, and saw the marks
+of the same, near the vessel--about half an hour before he saw what
+he describes--but no importance is attached to this, as a heavy fish
+some time after the disappearance, was seen shortly after to splash
+near the vessel; and Pellocks were also seen in the vicinity. The
+Pellocks however did not splash but rolled in their usual way. Not for
+one moment can their motion be compared by any of us, with the other
+appearances observed.” (Here Mr. BROWN has drawn a bunch, then a gap,
+larger than the bunch, and then eleven smaller bunches, separated one
+from the other by a gap as large as the half of one of these smaller
+bunches, the whole drawing representing exactly the animal swimming
+with vertical undulations and seen at a considerable distance.)
+
+“Without actually fixing the position of the ship we consulted the
+chart and as nearly as we could arrived at it by bearings. It will
+be seen that the deepest water runs from the E. extremity of Corrie
+Chreacan very much along the line which the object or objects seen,
+was seen to follow; and that where its appearance was last noted the
+soundings show a very rapid shoaling from 30 fathoms to 17 about the
+position of our ship, being in from 15 to 17 fathoms.--”
+
+“I think it right to add to the above account as written down on the
+spot, that after the statements which were kept sealed for a long time
+after, were consulted and every consideration given to the whole tale
+and phenomenon personally I came to the conclusion, and feel very
+certain still, that it was simply a _Tide-rip_ or _Tidal wave_ coming
+from the direction of Corrievreachan between Scarba and Jura running
+Easterly and then N. Easterly along the smooth water where soundings
+showed the meeting of the shallow of the deep. I have questioned
+Light-house-keepers since who have the most continuous chances of
+observation, within often, calm seas, and they have assured me such a
+phenomenon is not at all rare or unusual “under certain conditions of
+tides in certain localities”. Sailors have less chance to witness these
+phenomena perhaps than light-house-keepers, as they are seldom and long
+stationary at all states of tides.”
+
+Notwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. BROWN, I feel persuaded that
+he, Prof. HEDDLE and others really saw the same appearance as did the
+Rev. J. MACRAE and others (see n^o 137 and 138). The long back fin of a
+dark colour, which gave opacity and threw water over laterally by its
+lashings, of course was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.
+
+1889, August 15.--A good little paper on the subject, and partly a
+plea for the existence of the creature is in the _Standard_ of that
+date.--(R. P. G.)
+
+1891, July 24.--East coast of North Island, New-Zealand.--_The
+Standard_, 1891, September 22.--(R. P. G.):--
+
+“Mr. ALFRED FORD MATHEWS, a surveyor, living at Gisborne, on the east
+coast of the North Island, wrote to the papers to the effect that while
+on board the _Manopouri_, another of the Union Company’s steamers, on
+the voyage from Auckland to Gisborne, on Friday, July 24th., he and
+several others distinctly saw a sea-serpent resembling the one seen
+from the _Rotomahana_ off Portland Island. This time it appeared north
+of the East Cape, which is some distance to the north of where it was
+seen by the _Rotomahana_ a week later. The time, Mr. MATHEWS states,
+was between eight and nine in the morning. The “monster” was also
+seen by the ship’s officer in charge. It would from time to time lift
+its head and part of its body to a great height perpendicularly, and
+when in that position would turn its body round in a most peculiar
+manner, displaying a black back, white belly, and two armlet appendages
+of great length, which appeared to dangle about like a broken limb
+on a human being. It would then suddenly drop back into the water,
+scattering it in all directions. It had a flat head, and was about
+half a mile distant from the ship. The reason, Mr. MATHEWS added, that
+he had not mentioned the matter before was that people were likely to
+treat it with derision.”
+
+1891, August 1.--Off the East-coast of North Island, New Zealand,
+on board the _Rotomahana_, a steamer of the Union Steam-Shipping
+Company.--_Standard_ of 22th. September, 1891; _Newcastle Evening
+Chronicle_ of September 23, 1891.--(R. P. G. and GILBERT BOGLE.)
+
+“The Chief Officer, Mr. ALEXANDER LINDSAY KERR, on being interviewed by
+a newspaper reporter said:--
+
+“On Saturday morning last, August 1st., about 6.30 o’clock, we were
+off Portland Light, between Gisborne and Napier. I was on deck looking
+over the weather side, to see if I could see the land, when I saw the
+object, whatever it was, rise out of the water to the height of about
+30ft. Its shape was for all the world like a huge conger eel, with the
+exception that it had two large fins that appeared to be about 10 feet
+long. The creature was not more than 100 yards away at the outside, and
+I should estimate its girth at between ten and twelve feet. I could
+not see its back as it was coming straight towards the steamer, but
+its belly and fins were pure white. The creature’s head did not appear
+to be particularly definite, the neck running right up to the head the
+same as that of a large eel. It was broad daylight at the time, and
+the sun was shining clearly. When it went beneath the water it did not
+fall forward like a fish that is jumping, but drew itself back as if
+with a contortion. I only saw it the once which was the last time it
+rose. I looked out for it, thinking it might pass under the ship and
+reappear on the other side, but I did not see it again. Had the weather
+not been so rough the steamer might have gone alongside and ascertained
+its dimensions. One of the Quartermasters Peter Nelson, was watching
+the thing, and it so startled him that he took upon himself to rush
+on to the bridge and ask me if I had seen it, a thing a sea-man never
+does unless something very exceptional occurs. A landsman might do
+so, but a sea-man never, unless under exceptional circumstances, such
+as these. I have been to sea for twenty seven years, and have been
+engaged in nearly every known trade from whaling in Greenland to the
+slave trade, and have been in almost every part of the world, but I
+never saw any object at sea like the one that rivetted my attention on
+Saturday morning last. I have always been sceptical with regard to the
+sea-serpent stories, I have heard and read, and a smile has always come
+across my face at them, but I have been too long at sea, and have seen
+too many remarkable things, to deny positively that there was such a
+thing, had a landsman or a lady told me about the creature on Saturday,
+while I should have given them credit for being quite sincere, I should
+have taken no notice of it, as they are so apt to make mistakes at sea.
+I am too much accustomed at sea, however, to have made any mistake.
+When we got to Napier, I mentioned the circumstance there, when they
+pointed out that there had been a shock of earthquake shortly before
+the time we saw the creature, which may have been the cause of sending
+it to the surface. As to its length I could give no opinion, but as the
+creature rose some 30ft. out of the water I should imagine there were
+still two-thirds of it in the water, but that is only my supposition.”
+
+“PETER NELSON, the Quartermaster, referred to gave his story as
+follows:--
+
+“It was about 6.30 on Saturday morning last, August 1st. It was a
+bright clear morning with the sun shining brightly. The weather,
+however, was rough, with a heavy sea. I had just come from the wheel
+at six o’clock, and was standing on the lee-side looking out, and all
+at once I saw this thing appear rising out of the water about 30ft. It
+went down again. It did not go forward like a fish jumping, but seemed
+to draw itself right back under water as if it contracted itself. It
+came up and went down again in the same way about four times. The
+first time I saw it was about a mile off the ship to leeward; the last
+time I saw it was about 100 yards from the ship. The time occupied in
+traveling the distance seemed to be about two minutes. It looked like a
+huge conger-eel or snake, except that it had two large fins. The fins
+seemed to be about 10ft. long, and were situated about 20ft. from the
+head. The tips of the fins were about touching the water. Where the
+fins joined the body the latter seemed to bulge out. I did not see the
+fins the first time it rose, but I saw them each time afterwards. The
+belly and the fins were pure white. I saw the back part. It was the
+colour of an eel. The head and neck were like those of an eel. It was
+nothing like a whale. Had it been at all like a whale I should have
+taken no notice of it, as it is such a common thing to see whales at
+sea. It was not more than one hundred yards away the last time I saw
+it. The thing was glistening in the sun. I could not see its eyes. Had
+the sun not been shining, or had it been night, I might have been able
+to see its eyes. Every time it went down there was a distinct splash
+that could be heard quite plainly. The time being so early in the
+morning and the sea being so rough, there were no people about except
+the watch on deck, who were aft scraping the decks. The Chief Officer
+was on the bridge. I spoke to him about it. He said he had seen it. I
+have often heard of a sea-serpent before, but never saw one, nor have
+I ever seen any one who had seen one, but have spoken to men who have
+seen other men who professed to have seen the creatures. I have always
+laughed at the sea-serpent story but never denied it. Call it what
+you like, but after my experience of Saturday morning I am decidedly
+of opinion that what I saw is a fish or creature that is never hardly
+seen. I never saw any thing like it before, although I have been at sea
+twenty five years and have seen a great many queer things.” In reply to
+a question, Nelson said, “I am not a very frightened sort exactly, but
+I suppose I should have been frightened if it had come much closer.”
+
+I have reprinted here these three reports of two different
+appearances, because they so completely corroborate the hitherto so
+wonderful-seeming report of EGEDE (5), and figure of BING (fig. 19). As
+to the remark of Prof. HUTTON, of Canterbury College (N. Zeal.) “that
+if the animal had great fins or flappers, as reported, they would no
+doubt be used for swimming, and it is improbable that the creature
+would wave them about in the air like wings”, I only remark in my turn,
+that Prof. HUTTON seems never to have observed the movements of seals,
+and sea-lions, for these animals really “wave the flappers about in the
+air like wings”.
+
+
+
+
+LAST WORD.
+
+
+In Mr. WARBURTON’S account (83) we read:--
+
+“I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down below, but
+only five or six came up..... The remainder refused to come up, saying
+there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already.”
+
+Dr. ANDREW WILSON mentions in his _Leisure Time Studies_, p. 101:--
+
+“And so great in some minds is the fear of popular ridicule regarding
+this subject, that one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had
+been seen by his crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below;
+since, to use his own words: “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, I
+should have been considered to be a warranted liar all my life after”!”
+
+And Captain DREVAR wrote to the Editor of the Graphic (144):--
+
+“My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen a hundred
+sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote that
+she pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the
+sea-serpent.”
+
+I hope that within a few years this fear of meeting with a sea-serpent
+will no more be heard of.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Should any one be induced by this publication to make an extract of
+it, to criticize it, to write a paper against it, or to publish new
+evidences, etc., etc., I kindly request him to send me a copy of his
+work, for it is impossible for me to get hold of all what hereafter may
+be written about the subject, or to consult each notice.
+
+
+
+
+  Transcriber’s Notes
+
+  Erroneous, unusual, archaic and inconsistent spelling, hyphenation,
+  formatting, paragraph numbering, capitalisation, choice of words,
+  typography, the use of quote marks, etc. have been retained, except
+  as listed under Changes below. Proper names and names of ships,
+  species, publications, etc. may be printed inconsistently.
+
+  Depending on the hard- and software used to read this book, and their
+  settings, not all elements may display as intended.
+
+  Page 110, Burgomaster of Malmoi: possibly an error for Burgomaster of
+  Malmö.
+
+  Page 246, ... about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515 yards) ...:
+  at least one of the lengths is erroneous.
+
+  Page 267 and 271: there is no report number 216.
+
+  Page 363, ... which appeared in an unusual state of excitement” ...:
+  the opening quote mark is lacking.
+
+  Page 388, ... all parts were disfigured by sickness much so ...:
+  there are possibly some words missing.
+
+  Page 395: ... and the right and left gill-aperturus, or gill-splits,
+  ...: possibly errors for gill-apertures and or gill-slits.
+
+  Page 405-406, paragraph starting “Further, and what completely sets
+  at rest ...: there are quote marks missing or in excess.
+
+  Page 451, ... probably he had particularly noticed that point ...:
+  the author may have intended ... probably he had not particularly
+  noticed that point ....
+
+
+  Changes made:
+
+  Footnotes have been moved to under the paragraphs to which they
+  refer, illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.
+
+  Obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been
+  corrected silently.
+
+  Double quote marks and ditto marks have been standardised to “, ” and
+  „ respectively. Scotch names (like M’ Guire and M’Guire) have been
+  standardised to M’Guire (unspaced).
+
+  Place     Source document               This text
+  --------  ----------------------------- ------------------------------
+  Page 3    Closing bracket deleted from after ... the library of the
+            Royal University of Göttingen. (entry 1818, Aug. 21)
+
+  Page 6    Essay on the physionomy       Essay on the physiognomy
+
+  Page 8    Indentation removed from before 1848.--Proceedings of the
+            Royal Society
+
+  Page 11   that terrible “Maby Dick”     that terrible “Moby Dick”
+
+  Page 14   incerted it in his journal    inserted it in his journal
+
+  Page 22   haunted the coast of          haunted the coast of
+            Massachusets                  Massachusetts
+
+  Page 33   Closing quote mark inserted after ... of the fossil bones
+            pointed out.
+
+  Page 37   has felt himself snubbled     has felt himself snubbed
+
+  Page 38   It has been voticed too       It has been noticed too
+
+  Page 41   in the galant archievement    in the galant achievement
+
+  Page 44   I abrubtly checked him        I abruptly checked him
+
+  Page 51   at Melbourne, were it was     at Melbourne, where it was
+
+  Page 58   was like that of a fermention was like that of a
+                                          fermentation
+
+  Page 74   to be the first cervical      to be the first cervical
+            vertrebra                     vertebra
+
+  Page 81   individuals resident in       individuals resident in
+            Okney.                        Orkney.
+
+  Page 83   seen like toes or fingers.    seem like toes or fingers.
+
+  Page 85   Leur omoplates sont           Leurs omoplates sont
+            suspendues ... sans articuler suspendues ... sans
+                                          s’articuler
+
+  Page 88   Closing bracket deleted from after 1816.--Phil. Mag., LIV,
+            1819.
+
+  Page 93   property of a Newcaste        property of a Newcastle
+            merchant                      merchant
+
+  Page 111  Closing bracket inserted after ... quoted by Pontoppidan
+            (Report 3)
+
+  Page 117  Closing quote mark inserted after ... with the belly turned
+            upwards!
+
+  Page 118  that the sea-serpents’s head  that the sea-serpent’s head is
+            is drawn                      drawn
+
+  Page 131  a grey rabit is also called a a grey rabbit is also called a
+            blue rabit                    blue rabbit
+
+  Page 152  take a view of distant objets take a view of distant objects
+
+  Page 154  Closing quote mark inserted after ... procuring the evidence
+            on this subject.
+
+            Opening quote mark inserted before Your connection with the
+            Society
+
+  Page 158  the Red Snake a species       the Red Snake, a species
+            evidently known to him        evidently known to him
+
+  Page 159  in the Philosophical Magasine in the Philosophical Magazine
+            and Journal                   and Journal
+
+  Page 160  You directed as to return     You directed us to return
+
+  Page 165  I was on the beech            I was on the beach
+
+            Dit it appear to pursue       Did it appear to pursue
+
+  Page 170  Opening quote mark inserted before I supposed and do believe
+
+  Page 175  Closing quote mark inserted after Did it appear to pursue,
+            avoid or notice objects?
+
+            Closing quote marks inserted after How fast did it move?
+
+  Page 187  used it flappers too          used its flappers too
+
+  Page 195  Opening bracket inserted before Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts
+            (Report 52).
+
+  Page 205  Closing quote mark deleted from ... the evening before at
+            Nahant-beach”.
+
+  Page 207  by the aide of my glass       by the aid of my glass
+
+  Page 210  and to considerable adventage and to considerable advantage
+            in point of position          in point of position
+
+            Closing quote mark inserted after ... did not enter my mind
+            at the moment.
+
+  Page 211  In Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H.  On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H.
+            Perkins,                      Perkins,
+
+  Page 212  just without the brakers      just without the breakers
+
+  Page 215  Opening quote mark inserted before The last account
+            respecting
+
+  Page 216  meaning it is a laugh on me   meaning it as a laugh on me
+
+  Page 224  whose name in Jonathan        whose name is Jonathan
+            Townsend,                     Townsend,
+
+  Page 228  the Amtmand (Governor) of     the Amtmann (Governor) of
+            Finmark                       Finmark
+
+  Page 231  Opening quote mark inserted before The following statement
+            having been made
+
+  Page 233  Opening bracket inserted before New York Advertiser of June
+            21, 1826
+
+            Closing quote mark deleted from ... more than once on the
+            western coasts of Scotland.”
+
+  Page 234  of Bury Hall, Surry           of Bury Hall, Surrey
+
+  Page 237  make assurance doubtly sure   make assurance doubly sure
+
+  Page 239  Whose monstruous circle girds Whose monstrous circle girds
+            the world.                    the world.
+
+  Page 240  Opening quote mark inserted before It moved with about the
+            swiftness
+
+            Opening quote mark inserted before Christiania, Sept.
+            5.--The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number
+
+  Page 241  persons just a trustworthy as persons just as trustworthy as
+            those who                     those who
+
+  Page 243  of the Daedalus, in Aug. 6,   of the Daedalus, on Aug. 6,
+            1848                          1848
+
+  Page 246  like those of a smimming      like those of a swimming leech
+            leech
+
+  Page 249  In Froriep’s Nitizen of June  In Froriep’s Notizen of June
+            1834                          1834
+
+  Page 256  a degree of cantious reserve  a degree of cautious reserve
+
+  Page 262  Second closing quote mark inserted after ... intervals
+            between the coils were nothing else but water.”
+
+  Page 263  some of the antidiluvian      some of the antediluvian
+            species                       species
+
+  Page 272  Opening quote mark inserted before I am having a drawing of
+            the serpent made
+
+  Page 274  “The drawing above-named have “The drawings above-named have
+            been received                 been received
+
+  Page 278  Closing quote mark inserted after ... from one continent to
+            another.
+
+  Page 280  the only part of the          the only part of the
+            decription, however           description, however
+
+  Page 286  Opening and second closing quote marks inserted around ...
+            in quest of its lost iceberg.”
+
+  Page 287  Opening quote marks inserted before On our attention being
+            called to the object
+
+  Page 288  Second closing quote mark inserted after ... apparently on
+            some determined purpose.”
+
+  Page 290  more of your time and space   more of your time and space
+            than is justiable             than is justifiable
+
+  Page 298  to have been seen so far      to have been seen so far
+            south).”                      south.”)
+
+  Page 301  that it appears only in five  that it appears only in fine
+            weather?                      weather?
+
+  Page 303  Opening bracket inserted before Illustrated London News of
+            the 3d. of May, 1856)
+
+  Page 304  to helmsman drew our          the helmsman drew our
+            attention                     attention
+
+  Page 305  Closing quote marks inserted after ... in London Docks 15th.
+            inst., from China, viz:--
+
+  Page 306  One closing quote mark deleted from At eight, fresh wind and
+            fine””.
+
+  Page 309  and from thense I saw on the  and from thence I saw on the
+            water                         water
+
+            Unlickly, the discharge broke Unluckily, the discharge broke
+            the nipple                    the nipple
+
+  Page 314  Second closing bracket inserted after ... my Notes on Norway
+            (Zool. 3229)
+
+  Page 315  Opening quote mark inserted before On the 26th of January,
+
+            the Sketch obligingly send    the Sketch obligingly sent
+            with this account             with this account
+
+  Page 316  “In my many year’s wandering  “In my many years’ wandering
+
+  Page 317  turn his words in the         turn his words in the
+            following may:                following way:
+
+  Page 327  empty harring-barrels,        empty herring-barrels,
+            bladders,                     bladders,
+
+  Page 333  Opening quote mark inserted before Captain Drevar has
+            circulated
+
+  Page 335  I wrote thusfar, little       I wrote thus far, little
+            thinking                      thinking
+
+  Page 342  Second closing quote mark inserted after the first
+            occurrence of ... creatures it could be compared with are
+            the newt or frog tribe.”
+
+  Page 352  Closing quote marks deleted from They were never seen along
+            the back”.
+
+  Page 353  I nead not say that I am not  I need not say that I am not
+            at all                        at all
+
+  Page 355  Opening quote mark inserted before The lecture on “The
+            Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting
+
+  Page 360  the Ballarat Timbre Company   the Ballarat Timber Company
+
+  Page 363  The Russian call it Cape      The Russians call it Cape
+            Chichakoff                    Chichakoff
+
+  Page 369  the theories of birds or      the theories of birds or
+            purpoises                     porpoises
+
+  Page 376  round as a floar-barrel       round as a flour-barrel
+
+  Page 393  the front portion of the body the front portion of the body
+            to exihit                     to exhibit
+
+            the appearence of a fin       the appearance of a fin
+
+  Page 395  the right and left            the right and left
+            gill-aperturus                gill-apertures
+
+  Page 398  Second closing bracket inserted after ... shows the readers
+            a fin-fish (Balaenoptera physalus (LINNÉ)
+
+  Page 402  Opening quote mark inserted before ... stranded in Stronsa,
+            one of the Orkney’s,”
+
+  Page 407  parallel on the European      parallel on the European
+            boundery,                     boundary,
+
+            is the boundery likewise      is the boundary likewise
+
+  Page 408  the integrety of not a few    the integrity of not a few
+
+  Page 409  the notices on record to the  the notices on record to the
+            sonamed sea-serpent           so-named sea-serpent
+
+  Page 413  the most entire sincerety     the most entire sincerity
+
+            used to create suspicious of  used to create suspicions of
+
+            commucation which follows it  communication which follows it
+
+  Page 418  Is it an anomolous shark?     Is it an anomalous shark?
+
+            pàr voie d’exclusion          par voie d’exclusion
+
+  Page 422  that of temporarely           that of temporarily separating
+            separating
+
+  Page 423  both crocodiles and turtoises both crocodiles and tortoises
+
+  Page 428  Closing quote mark inserted after ... the Northern and
+            Southern Oceans
+
+            Arctic and Antartic Oceans    Arctic and Antarctic Oceans
+
+  Page 429  inhabitants of the Mississipi inhabitants of the Mississippi
+
+  Page 438  To or three years after this, Two or three years after this,
+
+  Page 439  Closing quote mark inserted after ... by the following
+            statement in the Graphic:--
+
+            Manuel of Elementary Geology  Manual of Elementary Geology
+
+            great double-fanced but       great double-faced but
+            knife-edged molars            knife-edged molars
+
+            bite of its agressor          bite of its aggressor
+
+            the second figure shows the   the second figure shows the
+            agressor                      aggressor
+
+  Page 458  Second closing quote mark inserted after ... the animal
+            belonged to the serpent tribe.
+
+  Page 460  the quite waters of the Bay   the quiet waters of the Bay
+
+  Page 461  most interesting race at yet  most interesting race as yet
+            uncaptured                    uncaptured
+
+            many of the peculiarities,    many of the peculiarities,
+            safe size,                    save size,
+
+  Page 462  an opportunity of             an opportunity of
+            particulirising               particularising
+
+  Page 463  at it seems more plausible    as it seems more plausible
+
+  Page 464  the Museum attendent at       the Museum attendant at
+            Newcastle                     Newcastle
+
+  Page 471  against this suppositions     against this supposition
+
+  Page 474  He presents a frontispice     He presents a frontispiece
+
+            They know these animal well   They know this animal well
+            enough                        enough
+
+            (that it flabby)              (that is flabby)
+
+  Page 475  propelled by yets of water    propelled by jets of water
+
+  Page 477  had not excess to             had not access to
+
+  Page 480  in same other instances been  in some other instances been
+            mistaken for                  mistaken for
+
+            perceptably used in           perceptibly used in propelling
+            propelling
+
+  Page 489 (item 85)
+            Christiana                    Christiania
+
+  Page 494 (item 158)
+            New Yersey                    New Jersey
+
+  Page 504  differring in age or sex.     differing in age or sex
+
+  Page 506  as round as a floar-barrel    as round as a flour-barrel
+
+  Page 507  those animals which           those animals which
+            involontarily                 involuntarily
+
+  Page 522  Closing quote mark inserted after ... the foreflappers
+            became visible.
+
+  Page 527  an enormous splash or sprey   an enormous splash or spray
+
+  Page 528  the friction and the          the friction and the
+            resistence of the water       resistance of the water
+
+  Page 530  Animals with a hairy skin,    Animals with a hairy skin,
+            safe the Monotrymata,         save the Monotrymata,
+
+            July and August are its       July and August are its
+            paring time                   pairing time
+
+  Page 533  Hithertho I have not found    Hitherto I have not found
+
+  Page 534  The surface of the sea is     The surface of the sea is
+            described as mooth            described as smooth
+
+  Page 537  the Hudson-mouth, New Yersey  the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey
+
+  Page 538  near Dunvossness, one of the  near Dunrossness, one of the
+            Shetland Isles                Shetland Isles
+
+  Page 543  Paragraph numbers 1, 2 and 3  1^o, 2^o and 3^o
+
+  Page 544  table layout changed to agree with that used on page 543.
+
+  Page 558  may be fixed upon as the      may be fixed upon as the
+            paring time                   pairing time
+
+  Page 560  The dental formulae (dentition) have been given in a
+  ff.       fraction-like notation in full-size numbers (e.g., 3/3)
+            rather than as one number above the other.
+
+  Page 562  changed to the must valuable  changed to the most valuable
+            fur                           fur
+
+  Page 568  expressed here too dicisively expressed here too decisively
+
+  Page 570  Al the members of the first   All the members of the first
+            section                       section
+
+  Page 576  Mr. Marston, of Swampsott     Mr. Marston, of Swampscott
+
+  Page 590  the one that revetted my      the one that rivetted my
+            attention                     attention
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78334 ***
diff --git a/78334-h/78334-h.htm b/78334-h/78334-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..09c1cf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/78334-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,30456 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+    <meta charset="UTF-8">
+    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
+    <title>
+      The Great Sea-serpent. | Project Gutenberg
+    </title>
+    <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover">
+    <style>
+
+    a
+          {text-decoration: none;}
+    a:hover
+          {text-decoration: underline;}
+    .allclear
+          {clear: both;}
+    .allsmcap
+          {text-transform: lowercase; font-variant: small-caps;}
+    .author
+          {margin: 2.5em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 22.5em;}
+    .bb
+          {border-bottom: solid thin;}
+    .bbdots
+          {border-bottom: dotted thin;}
+    body
+          {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    .br
+          {border-right: solid thin;}
+    .bt
+          {border-top: solid thin;}
+    .caption
+          {font-size: .9em; text-align: center; text-indent: 0;}
+    .center
+          {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;}
+    .centerblock
+          {text-align: center; margin: 0 auto;}
+    .centerblock p
+          {display: inline-block; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0;}
+    .chapter
+          {page-break-before: always;}
+    .container
+          {margin: 1.25em auto; padding: 0; text-align: center; max-width: 100%; page-break-inside: avoid;}
+    .container.left
+          {margin: 0 .75em 0 0; float: left;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .container.left {float: left;}
+    .container.notopbottom
+          {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;}
+    .container.right
+          {margin: 0 0 .75em 0; float: right;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .container.right {float: right;}
+    .dentition
+          {display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; padding: 0; text-indent: 0;
+          font-size: 80%;}
+    .dentition .lower
+          {padding: 0 .25em; display: block; vertical-align: top; text-indent: 0;}
+    .dentition .upper
+          {padding: 0 .25em; display: block; vertical-align: bottom; text-indent: 0;}
+    .fnanchor
+          {vertical-align: top; font-size: .7em; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap;}
+    .footnote
+          {clear: left; margin: .75em 1.25em .75em 2.5em;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .footnote {margin-left: 1em;}
+    .footnote .label
+          {float: left; font-size: .75em; vertical-align: top; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-indent: -3.5em;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .footnote .label {float: none; margin-left: 1em; text-indent: 0;}
+    .footnote p
+          {margin: .1em 0 0 0; text-indent: 1em; font-size: .9em;}
+    .fsize80
+          {font-size: .8em;}
+    .fsize90
+          {font-size: .9em;}
+    .fsize90 .pagenum
+          {font-size: 90%;}
+    .fsize125
+          {font-size: 1.25em;}
+    .fsize150
+          {font-size: 1.5em;}
+    .fsize175
+          {font-size: 1.75em;}
+    .fsize225
+          {font-size: 2.25em;}
+    .gesp2
+          {letter-spacing: .2em; margin-right: -.2em;}
+    h1,
+    h2,
+    h3,
+    h4,
+    h5,
+    h6
+          {text-align: center; font-size: 1em; font-weight: normal;}
+    h1
+          {line-height: 4em; margin-top: 2em; font-size: 1.75em; font-weight: bold;}
+    h2
+          {margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 1.5em;}
+    h2.appendix
+          {margin: 1.25em auto; font-size: 1em; font-weight: normal;}
+    h2 .chapno
+          {font-size: 1.25em;}
+    h2 .chapname
+          {font-size: 1.1em; font-weight: bold;}
+    h3,
+    h4,
+    h5
+          {margin-top: .75em; margin-bottom: .75em;}
+    h2.nobreak,
+    h3.nobreak
+          {page-break-before: avoid;}
+    h3.appendix
+          {margin: .75em auto; font-size: .8em; font-weight: bold;}
+    hr
+          {width: 34%; margin: 2em 33%; color: black; clear: none;}
+    hr.chap
+          {width: 26%; margin: 3em 37%;}
+    hr.footnote
+          {width: 10%; margin: .5em 90% .5em 0;}
+    hr.full
+          {width: 100%; margin: 2em 0; clear: both;}
+    hr.tb
+          {width: 10%; margin: 1.25em 45%;}
+    img
+          {max-width: 100%; height: auto;}
+    .largetable
+          {overflow: auto;}
+    .left
+          {text-align: left;}
+    .melville
+          {margin: 6em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 30em;}
+    p
+          {margin-top: 0; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 1em;}
+    p.blankafter75
+          {margin-bottom: .75em;}
+    p.blankafter4
+          {margin-bottom: 4em;}
+    p.blankbefore75
+          {margin-top: .75em;}
+    p.blankbefore2
+          {margin-top: 2em;}
+    p.blankbefore4
+          {margin-top: 4em;}
+    p.center
+          {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;}
+    p.highline2
+          {line-height: 2em;}
+    p.highline4
+          {line-height: 4em;}
+    p.highline6
+          {line-height: 6em;}
+    p.hind08
+          {text-indent: -4em; margin-left: 4em;}
+    p.noindent
+          {text-indent: 0;}
+    p.thinline
+          {line-height: .001em;}
+    .padl1
+          {padding-left: .5em;}
+    .padl2
+          {padding-left: 1em;}
+    .padl4
+          {padding-left: 2em;}
+    .padl6
+          {padding-left: 3em;}
+    .padl8
+          {padding-left: 4em;}
+    .padl10
+          {padding-left: 5em;}
+    .padl12
+          {padding-left: 6em;}
+    .padl14
+          {padding-left: 7em;}
+    .padl15
+          {padding-left: 7.5em;}
+    .padl20
+          {padding-left: 10em;}
+    .padl26
+          {padding-left: 13em;}
+    .padr2
+          {padding-right: 1em;}
+    .padr4
+          {padding-right: 2em;}
+    .padr5
+          {padding-right: 2.5em;}
+    .padr6
+          {padding-right: 3em;}
+    .padr8
+          {padding-right: 4em;}
+    .padr9
+          {padding-right: 4.5em;}
+    .padr10
+          {padding-right: 5em;}
+    .padr12
+          {padding-right: 6em;}
+    .padr16
+          {padding-right: 8em;}
+    .padr18
+          {padding-right: 9em;}
+    .padr20
+          {padding-right: 10em;}
+    .padr24
+          {padding-right: 12em;}
+    .pagenum
+          {position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: .75em; text-align: right; color: gray; text-decoration: none;
+           font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-indent: 0;}
+    .poetry-container
+          {text-align: center;}
+    .poetry
+          {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; display: inline-block;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;}
+    .poetry .stanza
+          {margin: 0 auto;}
+    .poetry .verse
+          {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;}
+    .poetry .verse.indent0
+          {padding-left: 3em;}
+    .printer
+          {margin: 4em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 16em;}
+    .reportnr
+          {font-size: 1.3em; padding: 0; margin: 0;}
+    .right
+          {text-align: right;}
+    .rightblock
+          {text-align: right; margin: 0 0 0 auto;}
+    .rightblock p
+          {display: inline-block; text-align: left; text-indent: 0;}
+    .rights
+          {margin: 6em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 16em;}
+    .righttext
+          {float: right; text-align: right; padding-left: 1em; display: inline-block;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .righttext {float: right; display: block; white-space: nowrap;}
+    .smcap
+          {font-variant: small-caps;}
+    .split5050
+          {clear: both;}
+    .split5050 .left5050
+          {float: left; clear: left; width: 49.5%;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .split5050 .left5050 {float: left;}
+    .split5050 .right5050
+          {float: right; clear: right; width: 49.5%;}
+          .x-ebookmaker .split5050 .right5050 {float: right;}
+    sub
+          {font-size: .8em; vertical-align: -10%;}
+    sup
+          {font-size: .8em; vertical-align: 25%;}
+    table
+          {border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;}
+    table.committee
+          {text-align: right; max-width: 15em; margin: 0 0 0 auto; white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.committee td.name
+          {text-align: left;}
+    table.dimensions
+          {margin: .75em auto; border: solid medium; font-size: .9em;}
+    table.dimensions td
+          {padding: .25em; border: solid thin; text-align: center;}
+    table.dimensions td.descr
+          {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.25em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: middle;}
+    table.dimensions td.dim
+          {vertical-align: middle;}
+    table.loi
+          {margin: 2em auto; font-size: .9em; max-width: 50em;}
+    table.loi td
+          {padding: .25em 0 0 0;}
+    table.loi td.descr
+          {padding-right: 2em; padding-left: 3.5em; text-indent: -3.5em; vertical-align: top; text-align: left;}
+    table.loi td.pageno
+          {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.months
+          {margin: .75em 2em; text-align: left;}
+    table.months td
+          {padding-top: .1em; padding-bottom: .1em;}
+    table.months td.latitude
+          {text-align: left; padding-right: 2em; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.months td.location
+          {text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top; padding-right: 2em;}
+    table.months td.month
+          {line-height: 1.25em; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center;}
+    table.months td.repno
+          {text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top;}
+    table.origin
+          {margin: .75em auto; white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.origin td
+          {padding: .1em 0; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; min-width: 1em; line-height: .9em;}
+    table.origin td.cntr
+          {text-align: center;}
+    table.origin td.lined
+          {border-right: dotted thin;}
+    table.origin td.mid
+          {vertical-align: middle;}
+    tablt.phylgen
+          {margin: .75em auto; white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.phylgen td
+          {padding: .1em 0; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; min-width: 1.5em;}
+    table.phylgen td.cntr
+          {text-align: center;}
+    table.phylgen td.lft
+          {text-align: left;}
+    table.phylgen td.lined
+          {border-right: dotted thin;}
+    table.phylgen td.mid
+          {vertical-align: middle;}
+    table.phylgen td.rght
+          {text-align: right;}
+    table.reportorder
+          {text-align: left; margin: 0;}
+    table.reportorder td.counter
+          {text-align: right; padding-right: .25em; vertical-align: top;}
+    table.reportorder td.text
+          {text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; vertical-align: top;}
+    table.reportorder td.midheight
+          {vertical-align: middle;}
+    table.sizes
+          {margin: .75em auto; border: double;}
+    table.sizes td.fracpart
+          {text-align: left; padding-left: 0; vertical-align: bottom;}
+    table.sizes td.intpart
+          {text-align: right; padding-right: 0; vertical-align: bottom;}
+    table.sizes td.ratio
+          {text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;}
+    table.sizes td.species
+          {text-align: left; vertical-align: top; padding-right: 1em; border-right: solid thin;}
+    table.sizes td.unit
+          {text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; border-right: solid thin;}
+    table.sizes th
+          {padding-left: .25em; padding-right: .25em;}
+    table.tn
+          {margin: .75em auto 0 0; font-size: .9em; max-width: 50em; border-collapse: separate;}
+    table.tn td
+          {padding: .25em .25em 0 0; vertical-align: top; text-align: left;}
+    table.tn td.where
+          {white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.tn th
+          {text-align: left;}
+    table.toc
+          {margin: 2em auto; font-size: .9em; max-width: 50em;}
+    table.toc td
+          {padding: .25em 0 0 0;}
+    table.toc td.name
+          {padding-right: 2em; padding-left: 1.25em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top; text-align: justify;}
+    table.toc td.number
+          {vertical-align: top; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap;}
+    table.toc td.pagno
+          {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap;}
+    td.brace
+          {width: .001em; padding: 0;}
+    td.thinline
+          {line-height: .001em;}
+    td.dontwrap
+          {white-space: nowrap;}
+    th
+          {font-weight: normal; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; padding-left: .1em;
+           padding-right: .1em;}
+    .titlepage
+          {margin: 2em auto; padding: 2em; text-align: center; border: solid medium; max-width: 35em;}
+    .tnbot
+          {border: dashed thin; margin-top: 2em; padding: .5em;}
+    .tnbot h2
+          {font-size: 1em;}
+    .tnbot p
+          {text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: .25em;}
+    .tnbox
+          {border: dashed thin; margin: 1em 20%; padding: 1em;}
+    .w03em
+          {width: 3em;}
+    .w15em
+          {width: 15em;}
+    .w25emmax
+          {max-width: 25em;}
+    .w30emmax
+          {max-width: 30em;}
+    .w35emmax
+          {max-width: 35em;}
+    .w40emmax
+          {max-width: 40em;}
+    .w45emmax
+          {max-width: 45em;}
+    .w50emmax
+          {max-width: 50em;}
+    .w60emmax
+          {max-width: 60em;}
+    .w40pc
+          {width: 40%;}
+    .wauto
+          {width: auto;}
+
+    </style>
+</head>
+<body>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78334 ***</div>
+
+<div class="tnbox">
+<p class="center">Please see the <a href="#TN">Transcriber’s Notes</a> at the end of this text.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Cover">
+<img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="Cover image">
+</div>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<h1><span class="gesp2">THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT</span>.</h1>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+
+<div class="titlepage">
+
+<p class="center highline6"><span class="fsize225">THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT.</span><br>
+<span class="fsize150">AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL TREATISE.</span></p>
+
+<p class="center blankbefore2">WITH THE REPORTS OF 187 APPEARANCES (INCLUDING<br>
+THOSE OF THE APPENDIX), THE SUPPOSITIONS AND<br>
+SUGGESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND<br>
+NON-SCIENTIFIC PERSONS, AND THE AUTHOR’S CONCLUSIONS.</p>
+
+<p class="center fsize125 blankbefore2">WITH 82 ILLUSTRATIONS.</p>
+
+<p class="center highline6 fsize90">BY</p>
+
+<p class="center"><span class="fsize150">A. C. OUDEMANS, <span class="smcap">Jzn.</span>,</span><br>
+<span class="fsize80">DOCTOR OF ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MEMBER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF THE<br>
+NETHERLANDS, DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL<br>
+SOCIETY (ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS) AT THE HAGUE.</span></p>
+
+<div class="author">
+<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line">
+<p class="center">PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, OCTOBER 1892.</p>
+<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line">
+</div>
+
+<div class="split5050">
+
+<div class="left5050">
+<p class="center blankbefore4">LEIDEN,<br>
+E. J. BRILL,<br>
+Oude Rijn 33<sup>a</sup>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="right5050">
+<p class="center blankbefore4">LONDON,<br>
+LUZAC &amp; Co.,<br>
+Great Russell Street 46.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p class="thinline allclear">&#160;</p>
+
+</div><!--split-->
+
+</div><!--titlepage-->
+
+</div><!--chapter-->
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+
+<div class="rights">
+<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line">
+<p class="center fsize80">[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]</p>
+<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line">
+</div>
+
+<div class="printer">
+<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line">
+<p class="center fsize80">PRINTED AT E. J. BRILL’S, AT LEIDEN.</p>
+<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line">
+</div>
+
+</div><!--chapter-->
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p class="center highline4 blankbefore4 blankafter4"><span class="gesp2 fsize150">THIS VOLUME</span><br>
+<span class="fsize80">IS</span><br>
+<span class="fsize175">DEDICATED</span><br>
+<span class="fsize80">TO</span><br>
+<span class="fsize125"><span class="gesp2">OWNERS OF SHIPS AND YACHTS</span>,<br>
+SEA CAPTAINS</span><br>
+<span class="fsize80">AND</span><br>
+<span class="fsize125"><span class="gesp2">ZOOLOGISTS</span>.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+
+<div class="melville">
+<p class="highline2">“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that
+may be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to
+believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved”.—<br>
+<span class="smcap">A. G. Melville.</span> (<i>See <a href="#Page397">p. 397</a> of the present volume.</i>)</p>
+</div>
+
+</div><!--chapter-->
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<p>Voyagers and sportsmen conversant with photography are requested
+to take the instantaneous photograph of the animal: this
+alone will convince zoologists, while all their reports and pencil-drawings
+will be received with a shrug of the shoulders.</p>
+
+<p>As these animals are very shy, it is not advisable to approach
+them with a steamboat.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>only</i> manner to kill one <i>instantly</i> will be by means of <i>explosive</i>
+balls, or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine; but as it most
+probably will sink, when dead, like most of the Pinnipeds, the
+harpooning of it will probably be more successful.</p>
+
+<p>If an individual is killed, take the following measurements:—1.
+Length of the head from nose-tip to occiput.—2. Length of the
+neck from occiput to shoulders.—3. Length of the trunk from
+shoulders to tail-root.—4. Length of the tail from tail-root to
+end.—5. Distance from shoulders to fore-flappers.—6. Distance
+from shoulders to thickest part of the body.—7. Length of a fore-flapper.—8.
+Length of a hind-flapper.—9. Circumference of the
+head.—10. Circumference of the neck.—11. Circumference of the
+thickest part of the body.—12. Circumference of the tail-root.</p>
+
+<p>Give a description of the animal, especially an accurate one of
+the head, the fore-flappers and the hind-flappers, and, if possible,
+make a sketch.</p>
+
+<p>If but barely possible, preserve the whole skeleton, and the
+whole skin, but if this is utterly impracticable, keep the cleaned
+skull, the bones of one of the fore-flappers and those of one of the
+hind-flappers, four or five vertebrae of different parts of the backbone,
+neck, and tail; and preserve the skin of the head, and a ribbon of
+about a foot breadth along the whole back of the neck, the trunk,
+and the tail.</p>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Pageix">[ix]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="gesp2">PREFACE</span>.</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>In all ages meteoric stones have fallen on the earth. Many of
+them were found by persons who were in search of them; they preserved
+them, and thus collections were made in private rarity cabinets
+and in natural history cabinets. Many learned persons believed in
+meteoric stones, but many others were sceptical, and their attacks
+were so violent, and their mockery about stones that fell from the
+atmosphere, or were thrown by the men in the Moon to the inhabitants
+of the Earth, so sharp as to shake the belief of many a
+collector, and the happy possessor, fearing the mockery of the so-called
+learned men, concealed his treasures, or threw them away on
+the dust-hill, or in a ditch.</p>
+
+<p>But at last there appeared a firm believer in aerolites, named
+<span class="smcap">Chladni</span>, who took the trouble to collect all accounts concerning observations
+of meteoric stones from the ancient times up to the nineteenth
+century. He showed 1. The immense number of facts. 2. The
+strikingly concurrent testimony in all the accounts independent of one
+another.</p>
+
+<p>In the year 1829 he published his work “Ueber Feuermeteore”
+(i. e. on Meteoric Stones) in Vienna, and from that moment the eyes
+of unbelievers were opened. Meteoric stones were again found, and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Pagex">[x]</span>were proved to be quite different from terrestrial stones. From that
+moment the belief in the existence of meteoric stones was fixed
+for ever.</p>
+
+<p>The author of the present Volume has been at the pains to
+collect all accounts concerning observations of Sea-Serpents. His work
+has the same purpose as <span class="smcap">Chladni’s</span> had in 1829. It is his sincere
+hope that it may meet with the same success.</p>
+
+<div class="split5050">
+
+<div class="left5050">
+<p class="noindent blankbefore2"><span class="smcap padl6">The Hague</span>,<br>
+<span class="padl4">February 1<sup>st</sup>, 1891.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="right5050">
+<p class="right blankbefore2"><span class="smcap padr8">A. C. O. Jzn.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p class="thinline allclear">&#160;</p>
+
+</div><!--split-->
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Pagexi">[xi]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak">CONTENTS.</h2>
+</div>
+
+<table class="toc">
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="7" class="right fsize80">Page</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="6" class="name">Preface</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Pageix"><span class="allsmcap">IX</span></a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="6" class="name">List of illustrations</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Pagexiii"><span class="allsmcap">XIII</span></a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">I.</td>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">Literature on the subject</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page1">1</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">II.</td>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent, cheats and hoaxes</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page12">12</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">III.</td>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">Would-be Sea-Serpents</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page60">60</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">IV.</td>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms on the papers written about the subject</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page102">102</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">V.</td>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">The various explanations hitherto given</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page380">380</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="48" class="number">VI.</td>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">Conclusions</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page485">485</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="5" class="name">List of observations</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page485">485</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">A.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="name">Fables, fictions, exaggerations and errors</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page495">495</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="42" class="number">B.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="name">Facts</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page498">498</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="4" class="number">1.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">External characters</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page498">498</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>a.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Dimensions</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page498">498</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>b.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Form</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page505">505</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>c.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Skin</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page511">511</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">2.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Internal or anatomical characters</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page512">512</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">3.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Colours, individual variations</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page513">513</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">4.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Sexual differences, mane</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page515">515</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="16" class="number">5.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Physiological characters</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page517">517</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="4" class="number"><i>a.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Nutritory functions</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page517">517</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">1.</td>
+<td class="name">Eating, food</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page517">517</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">2.</td>
+<td class="name">Breathing</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page518">518</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">3.</td>
+<td class="name">Excretion</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page518">518</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="6" class="number"><i>b.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Functions of the senses</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">1.</td>
+<td class="name">Feeling</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">2.</td>
+<td class="name">Taste</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">3.</td>
+<td class="name">Smell</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">4.</td>
+<td class="name">Hearing</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">5.</td>
+<td class="name">Sight</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="4" class="number"><i>c.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Functions of the muscular system</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">1.</td>
+<td class="name">Relative mobility of organs</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">2.</td>
+<td class="name">Motions</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page522">522</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">3.</td>
+<td class="name">Voice</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page530">530</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>d.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Generation, growth</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page530">530</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="14" class="number">6.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Psychical characters<span class="pagenum" id="Pagexii">[xii]</span></td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>a.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Not taking notice of objects</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>b.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Taking notice of objects</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>c.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>d.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Suspicion</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>e.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Harmlessness</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>f.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Timidity</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>g.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Fearlessness</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>h.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Fear</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>i.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Fright</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>j.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Fury</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>k.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Toughness</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>l.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Playsomeness</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number"><i>m.</i></td>
+<td colspan="2" class="name">Sensibility of fine weather</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page534">534</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">7.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Enemies</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page535">535</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">8.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Repose, sleep, death</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page535">535</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">9.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Geographical distribution</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page537">537</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">10.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Nomenclature</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page545">545</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="3" class="number">C.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="name">Conclusions</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page546">546</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">1.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Comparison with allied animals</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page546">546</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="number">2.</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="name">Its rank in the System of Nature</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page560">560</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="6" class="name">Appendix</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page572">572</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="6" class="name">Last word</td>
+<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page592">592</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Pagexiii">[xiii]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak">LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.</h2>
+</div>
+
+<table class="loi">
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="right"><span class="fsize90">Page.</span></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig1">Fig. 1.</a>—<i>Thynnus thynnus</i> (Linn.)</td>
+<td class="pageno">19</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig2">Fig. 2.</a>—<i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i> Koch</td>
+<td class="pageno">31</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig3">Fig. 3 and 4.</a>—Would-be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston</td>
+<td class="pageno">55</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig5">Fig. 5.</a>—The Sea-Monster, as Mr. <span class="smcap">C. Renard</span> supposed to have seen it</td>
+<td class="pageno">58</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig6">Fig. 6.</a>—The largest calamary, ever found, with a scale of 80 feet</td>
+<td class="pageno">61</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig7">Fig. 7.</a>—The Animal of Stronsa</td>
+<td class="pageno">63</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig8">Fig. 8.</a>—<i>Squalus maximus</i>, Linn.</td>
+<td class="pageno">72</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig9">Fig. 9.</a>—<i>Chimaera monstrosa</i>, Linn.</td>
+<td class="pageno">76</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig10">Fig. 10.</a>—<i>Lamna cornubica</i> (Linn.)</td>
+<td class="pageno">78</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig11">Fig. 11.</a>—A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the sea</td>
+<td class="pageno">88</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig12">Fig. 12.</a>—<i>Lineus longissimus</i>, Sow</td>
+<td class="pageno">91</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig13">Fig. 13.</a>—<i>Gymnetrus gladius</i>, Cuv. Val.</td>
+<td class="pageno">93</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig14">Fig. 14.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as represented by <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">106</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig15">Fig. 15.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the text of <span class="smcap">Gesner</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">107</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig16">Fig. 16.</a>—The second Sea-Serpent, illustrating the same work</td>
+<td class="pageno">108</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig17">Fig. 17.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as represented in the Basle edition of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work</td>
+<td class="pageno">109</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig18">Fig. 18.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the Map of Scandinavia in the Basle edition of
+<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>’ work</td>
+<td class="pageno">109</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig19">Fig. 19.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, drawn by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">114</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig20">Fig. 20.</a>—The same individual, plunging back into the water</td>
+<td class="pageno">115</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig21">Fig. 21.</a>—The drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, as reprinted and altered in the
+<i>Illustrated London News</i> of 1848</td>
+<td class="pageno">116</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig22">Fig. 22.</a>—Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing, as copied by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">119</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig23">Fig. 23.</a>—Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing, as altered in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> work</td>
+<td class="pageno">120</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig24">Fig. 24.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Governor <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">126</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig25">Fig. 25.</a>—Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup’s</span> drawing, as altered in Dr.
+<span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> work</td>
+<td class="pageno">127</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig26">Fig. 26.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as delineated by Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">207</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig27">Fig. 27.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">234</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig28">Fig. 28.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Officers of the <i>Daedalus</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">273</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig29">Fig. 29.</a>—Another sketch of the same individual</td>
+<td class="pageno">274</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig30">Fig. 30.</a>—A sketch of the head of the same individual</td>
+<td class="pageno">276</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig31">Fig. 31.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by an officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">296</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig32">Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.</a>—The Sea-Serpent as seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Guy</span>, of the <i>Imogen</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">304</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig36">Fig. 36.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Captains <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> and
+<span class="smcap">Morgan</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">306</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig37">Fig. 37 and 38.</a>—Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by Dr. <span class="smcap">Biccard</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">308</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig39">Fig. 39 and 40.</a>—Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. <span class="smcap">John Macrae</span>
+and the Rev. <span class="smcap">David Twopeny</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">323</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig41">Fig. 41.</a>—The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”</td>
+<td class="pageno">330</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig42">Fig. 42.</a>—Another representation of the so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a
+sperm-whale”<span class="pagenum" id="Pagexiv">[xiv]</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">334</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig43">Fig. 43.</a>—The sperm-whale going down head foremost to the bottom</td>
+<td class="pageno">335</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig44">Fig. 44.</a>—The ridge of fins, mentioned in the report of the <i>Osborne</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">348</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig45">Fig. 45.</a>—The Sea-Serpent as seen by Commander <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> and Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> of the <i>Osborne</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">349</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig46">Fig. 46.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> of the <i>City of Baltimore</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">357</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig47">Fig. 47.</a>—Outline of the back of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. <span class="smcap">H. W. Brown</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">361</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig48">Fig. 48 and 49.</a>—Two positions of the sea-serpent, as seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span>
+of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">363</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig50">Fig. 50.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer <i>Kätie</i> near the Hebrides.
+Drawn under the supervision of the Captain, Mr. <span class="smcap">Weisz</span>, by the American animal-painter Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">367</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig51">Fig. 51.</a>—Outline of the Sea-Serpent seen near Little Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. <span class="smcap">F. T. Mott</span>,
+after three different sketches</td>
+<td class="pageno">369</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig52">Fig. 52.</a>—<i>Phocaena phocoena</i> (Linn.).</td>
+<td class="pageno">381</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig53">Fig. 53.</a>—A row of porpoises</td>
+<td class="pageno">385</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig54">Fig. 54.</a>—<i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>, one sixth of full size</td>
+<td class="pageno">386</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig55">Fig. 55.</a>—Its head, full size</td>
+<td class="pageno">386</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig56">Fig. 56.</a>—<i>Hydrophis pelamidoides</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">390</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig57">Fig. 57.</a>—<i>Balaenoptera physalus</i> (Linn.).</td>
+<td class="pageno">398</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig58">Fig. 58.</a>—<i>Ichthyosaurus communis</i>, skeleton</td>
+<td class="pageno">400</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig59">Fig. 59.</a>—<i>Ichthyosaurus communis</i>, restored</td>
+<td class="pageno">400</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig60">Fig. 60.</a>—<i>Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus</i>, skeleton</td>
+<td class="pageno">401</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig61">Fig. 61.</a>—<i>Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus</i>, restored</td>
+<td class="pageno">402</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig62">Fig. 62.</a>—<i>Chlamydosaurus</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">432</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig63">Fig. 63.</a>—<i>Iguana tuberculata</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">433</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig64">Fig. 64.</a>—<i>Catodon macrocephalus</i></td>
+<td class="pageno">435</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig65">Fig. 65.</a>—<i>Basilosaurus</i>, skeleton</td>
+<td class="pageno">436</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig66">Fig. 66.</a>—<i>Basilosaurus</i>, restored</td>
+<td class="pageno">436</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig67">Fig. 67.</a>—<i>Basilosaurus</i> as imagined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood, Jun.</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">442</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig68">Fig. 68.</a>—<i>Eurypharynx pelecanoides</i>, Vaillant</td>
+<td class="pageno">445</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig69">Fig. 69.</a>—<i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i> (Linn.)</td>
+<td class="pageno">449</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig70">Fig. 70.</a>—Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> explains
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing</td>
+<td class="pageno">475</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig71">Fig. 71.</a>—<i>Thrichechus manatus</i> Linné</td>
+<td class="pageno">482</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig72">Fig. 72.</a>—Sea-Serpent, side view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions</td>
+<td class="pageno">516</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig73">Fig. 73.</a>—Sea-Serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions</td>
+<td class="pageno">516</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig74">Fig. 74.</a>—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (Lesson) Allen?—Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the
+Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Jan. 6, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">547</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig75">Fig. 75.</a>—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (Lesson) Allen?—Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the
+Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i>, of Jan. 6, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">548</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig76">Fig. 76.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Drawn by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>
+from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">549</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig77">Fig. 77.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>
+from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">550</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig78">Fig. 78.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched from a living specimen by the animal-painter
+<span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">550</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig79">Fig. 79.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>
+from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877<span class="pagenum" id="Pagexv">[xv]</span></td>
+<td class="pageno">551</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig80">Fig. 80.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>
+from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">551</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig81">Fig. 81.</a>—<i>Otaria jubata</i> (Forster) Desmarest.—From the List of the Vertebrated Animals now or lately Living in
+the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877</td>
+<td class="pageno">552</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig82">Fig. 82.</a>—<i>Callorhinus ursinus</i> (Linné). Gray.—From <span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span>, “Thierleben”</td>
+<td class="pageno">553</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page1">[1]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">I.</span><br>
+<span class="chapname">Literature on the Subject.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<div class="fsize90">
+
+<p class="blankbefore75 blankafter75">An asterisk (*), placed before the works, mentioned in the list, signifies that the
+author has had no opportunity to consult them.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1555.—<b>Olaus Magnus.</b> Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, earumque diversis
+statibus, conditionibus, etc., etc. Romae, 1555, p. 771.</p>
+
+<p>*1556.—<b>Olaus Magnus.</b> Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, etc., etc., (Editio
+nec Romae nec Basileae).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1560.—<b>Gesner.</b> Nomenclator aquatilium animantium (= Historia animalium liber
+IV), Tiguri, 1560, p. 93, 94.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1567.—<b>Olaus Magnus.</b> Historia de gentium septentrionalium variis conditionibus
+statibusve, etc., etc., Basileae, 1567, p. 799.</p>
+
+<p>*1608.—<b>Edward Topsell.</b> The history of serpents, or the second booke of living
+creatures. With wood cuts in-fol. London, 1608, (315 pag.).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1640.—<b>Aldrovandus.</b> Serpentum et draconum historiae libri duo. Bononiae,
+1640, p. 58, 59, 296.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1653.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus
+et draconibus libri II. Francofurti, 1653.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1657.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus
+et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1657.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1660.—<b>Jonston.</b> Naeukeurige beschrijving van de natuur der vissen en der slangen
+en draken. Amsterdam, 1660. Deel II en IV.</p>
+
+<p>*1665.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus
+et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1665.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1667.—<b>Milton.</b> Paradise Lost. I, 192-208.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1668.—<b>Charleton.</b> Onomasticon zoicon. Londini, 1668. p. 34.</p>
+
+<p>*1670.—<b>Berndsen.</b> Danmarks og Norges fruchtbare Herlighed, 1670?</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1674.—<b>Adam Olearius.</b> Gottorfische Kunstkammer. Schleswig, 1674.</p>
+
+<p>*1690.—<b>Ramus.</b> Norges Beskrivelse, 1690?</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1718.—<b>Jonston.</b> Theatrum universale omnium animalium, Amstelaedami. Edidit
+<b>Ruysch</b>. 1718.</p>
+
+<p>*1722.—<b>Jean Baptiste Labat.</b> Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, contenant
+l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. Paris, Giffard, 1722. 12<sup>o</sup>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page2">[2]</span></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1724.—<b>Jean Baptiste Labat.</b> Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, contenant
+l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. La Haye, 1724.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1725.—<b>Père Labat.</b> Nieuwe reizen naar de franse eilanden van Amerika: In ’t
+Nederlandsch in ’t ligt gebracht door <b>W. C. Dijks</b>. Amsterdam, 1725, Vol.
+IV. P. I. p. 43.—Vol. IV. P. II. p. 105.</p>
+
+<p>*1730.—<b>P. Dass.</b> Beskrivelse over Nordland. 1730?</p>
+
+<p>*1740.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> (A Full and Particular Relation of his Voyage to Greenland,
+as a Missionary, in the year 1734, printed in Danish at) Kjoebenhavn,
+1740.</p>
+
+<p>*1740.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und
+Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission, etc. Hamburg, 1740. 4<sup>o</sup>.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1741.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den Groenlanske
+Mission, Tilstand og Beskaffenhed, Kjoebenhavn, 1741.</p>
+
+<p>*1741.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische Mission betreffend;
+Kopenhagen, 1741.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1741.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration. Kjoebenhavn, 1741.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1742.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration. Copenhagen, 1742.</p>
+
+<p>*1742.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Journal of the mission to Greenland, 2<sup>d</sup>. Vol. London, 1742.
+(The first Vol. by <b>Hans Egede</b>, and the third Vol. by <b>Niels Egede</b>
+do not contain anything about the subject.)</p>
+
+<p>*1742.—<b>Labat.</b> Nouveau Voyage aux Isles françaises de l’Amérique, VII, p. 341.
+Paris, 1742.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1742.—<b>Charles Owen.</b> An Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents. London,
+John Gray, 1742.</p>
+
+<p>*1743?—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Efterretninger om Grönland. Kjöbenhavn, 1743? p. 45-46.</p>
+
+<p>*1745.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> A description of Greenland. London. 1745.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1746—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746.</p>
+
+<p>*1753—<b>Eric Pontoppidan.</b> Det förste Forsög paa Norges natuurlige Historie.
+Kjoebenhavn, 2<sup>d</sup>. Vol. 1753.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1754.—<b>Erich Pontoppidan.</b> Versuch einer natuerlichen Historie von Norwegen,
+2<sup>d</sup>. Vol. Cap. VIII. § 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Kopenhagen, 1754.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1755.—<b>Eric Pontoppidan.</b> The Natural History of Norway. London, 1755.</p>
+
+<p>*1760.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> New Natural History of Greenland. 1760.?</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1763.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Description et Histoire Naturelle de Groenland. Copenhague
+et Genève, 1763.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1763.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland. Berlin,
+1763.</p>
+
+<p>*1764.—<b>Jonston.</b> Theatrum universale omnium animalium. Heilbron, 1764.</p>
+
+<p>*1765.—<b>Knud Leems.</b> Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, 1765.</p>
+
+<p>*1767.—<b>Canutus Leemius.</b> De Lapponibus Finmarchiae eorumque lingua, vita
+et religione historia, c. notis <b>J. E. Gruneri</b>. (Text in Latin and Danish.)
+2 Vols. 4<sup>o</sup>. with 100 figgs.</p>
+
+<p>*1768.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historia naturalis de piscibus et cetis, et de serpentibus et draconibus.
+Rouan, 1768.</p>
+
+<p>*1771.—<b>Knud Leems.</b> Nachrichten von den Lappen in Finmarken, ihrer Sprache,
+Sitten, u. s. w. Aus dem Dän. übers. v. <b>J. J. Volckmann</b>. Leipzig, 1771. 8<sup>o</sup>.</p>
+
+<p>*1789.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> (Intelligences from Greenland, in the original Danish
+language). Kjoebenhavn, 1789.</p>
+
+<p>*1790.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Nachrichten von Groenland aus einem Tagebuch geführt
+von 1721-1788. Kopenhagen, 1790.</p>
+
+<p>*1805.—<b>Peter Ascanius.</b> Icones rerum naturalium, ou figures enluminées d’histoire
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page3">[3]</span>naturelle du Nord. Cah. V. Copenhague 1805. (In the first four
+Cahiers the author does not touch the subject).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1808, Nov.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 32, p. 190.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1809, Jan.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 33, p. 90.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1809, March.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 33, p. 251.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1809, May.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 33, p. 411.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1809, July.—<b>E. Home.</b> An anatomical account of the <i>Squalus Maximus</i>, which,
+etc.—<i>Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at London</i>, 1809.
+Vol. 98, p. 206-220.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1811, March.—<b>Dr. Barclay.</b> Remarks on some parts of the animal that was
+cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, September 1808.—<i>Memoirs of the
+Wernerian Natural History Society</i>, Vol. I.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1817, Aug. 20.—Extract from a letter from <b>S. G. Perkins</b>, Esq. dated Boston,
+Aug. 20, 1817, to <b>E. Everett</b>, in Paris.—(This extract, a manuscript,
+preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, has never
+before been printed.)</p>
+
+<p>*1817, Oct. 15.—<i>The Columbian</i> (newspaper).</p>
+
+<p>*1817, Oct. 22 or 23.—(A New York newspaper).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1817, Nov. 13.—Letter from <b>Edward Everett</b> in Paris to the “Obermedicinalrath
+und Ritter” <b>Blumenbach</b> in Göttingen.—(This letter preserved in
+the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, has never before appeared
+in print).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1817, Dec.—Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England
+relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a sea-serpent, seen near
+Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817. 8<sup>o</sup>. Boston, 1817, with two
+plates, 52 pg.</p>
+
+<p>*1817.—<i>Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England.</i> Boston, 1817.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818, April.—<b>H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville.</b> Sur un nouveau genre de
+Serpent, <i>Scoliophis</i>, et le Serpent de mer vu en Amérique en 1817.—<i>Journal
+de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle.</i> Vol. 86. Paris, 1818.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818, June.—Sur le serpent nommé <i>Scoliophis</i>.—Extrait d’une lettre de <b>M.
+A. Lesueur</b> au Rédacteur (<b>Mr. H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville</b>). <i>Journal
+de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle.</i> Vol. 86. Paris 1818.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818.—<b>Hoffmann</b> and <b>Oken</b>. Thier von Stronsa. <b>Oken’s</b> Isis, II, 1818, p. 2096.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818.—<b>W. D. Peck.</b> Some Observations on the Sea-Serpent.—<i>Memoirs of the
+American Academy of Arts and Sciences.</i> Vol. IV. Part 1. Cambridge 1818.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818.—American Sea Serpent.—The <i>Journal of Science and the Arts</i>.—Edited
+at the <i>Royal Institution of Great Britain</i>. Vol. IV. London, 1818, p. 378.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818.—American Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature
+and the Arts. R. Inst.</i> Vol. VI. London, 1818, p. 163.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818.—Wieder eine ungeheure Meerschlange an America.—<b>Oken’s</b> Isis, 1818,
+p. 2100.</p>
+
+<p>*1818, June 9.—<i>Commercial Advertiser</i>, Boston.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818, Aug. 21.—(Boston Newspaper). A paragraph from this newspaper is preserved
+in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1818, Sept. 11.—Letter from <b>Mr. Andrews Norton</b> to <b>Mr. George Bancroft</b>,
+at that time a resident at Göttingen.—The letter is preserved in
+the library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and has never before appeared
+in print.</p>
+
+<p>*1818.—W .... On the history of the Great Sea-Serpent.—<b>Blackwood’s</b> <i>Magazine</i>,
+III. p. 33-42.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page4">[4]</span></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819, Jan.—American Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. LIII, p. 71.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819.—<b>W. D. Peck.</b> Some observations on the Sea Serpent.—<i>The Quarterly
+Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts. R. Inst.</i> Vol. VIII. London,
+1819, p. 68.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819.—<i>Scoliophis.</i> Eine neue Schlangen-Sippe.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819, p. 113.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819.—Meerschlange in Amerika. <b>Lesueur</b> aus Amerika an <b>Blainville</b>.—<b>Oken’s</b>
+<i>Isis</i>, 1819. p. 263.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819.—Ueber die Meerschlange an Amerika. Von <b>T. Say</b> aus Philadelphia an
+<b>Leach</b> in London.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819, p. 653.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819.—Einige Bemerkungen über die Meerschlange von Amerika, von <b>W. D. Peck</b>,
+Prof. d. N. G. in Amerika.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819, p. 1123.</p>
+
+<p>*1819. Aug. 19.—<i>Boston Daily Advertiser.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1819.—<i>Boston Centinel.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819.—Amerikanische Meerschlange.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819. p. 1754.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1819. Nov.—<b>C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.</b> Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes
+and Sea-Serpents.—<i>Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. LIV.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1820, May.—<b>Prof. Jacob Bigelow.</b> Documents and Remarks respecting the
+Sea-Serpent.—<b>Silliman’s</b> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts.</i> Vol. II,
+p. 147-154. Boston (1819) 1820.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1820.—De beruchte Zeeslang op de kusten van Noord-Amerika.—<i>Vaderlandsche
+Letteroefeningen voor 1820</i>, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk, Amsterdam, 1820.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1821.—On the American Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine and
+Journal</i>, Vol. 57, 1821, p. 356-359.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1821.—<b>Walter Scott.</b> The Pirate, Vol. I, Chp. II.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1821.—<b>Otto von Kotzebue.</b> Entdeckungs-Reise in die Süd-See und nach der
+Behrings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordöstlichen Durchfahrt. Unternommen
+in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818. Weimar, 1821, Zweiter
+Band, p. 108.</p>
+
+<p>*1821.—<b>Otto von Kotsebue.</b> Voyage of discovery into the South-Sea and
+Behring’s Straits, London, 1822.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1821.—Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine and Journal</i>, Vol. 58, p. 454.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1821.—Analysis of one of the Vertebrae of the Orkney Animal.—<i>The Edinburgh
+Philosophical Journal.</i> Vol. V, p. 227.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1822. Jan.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+I, n<sup>o</sup>. 19, p. 294.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1822.—<b>Dr. Hibbert.</b> Description of the Shetland-Islands. London, 1822, p. 565.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1822.—<b>Otto von Kotsebue.</b> Ontdekkingsreis in de Zuid-Zee en naar de Behrings
+straat in de jaren 1815, 1816, 1817 en 1818, tweede deel p. 277. Amsterdam,
+1822.</p>
+
+<p>*1822. June, 15.—<i>New-York</i> ... (newspaper).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1822. Aug.—Die sogenannte Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete
+der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, III, n<sup>o</sup>. 48, p. 53.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1823. Febr.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+IV, n<sup>o</sup>. 68, p. 24.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1823.—<b>A. de Capell Brooke.</b> Travels through Sweden, Norway and Finmark
+in the Summer of 1820. London 1823.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1823. June.—Nachrichten über die grosse Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus
+dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, IV, n<sup>o</sup>. 84, p. 273.</p>
+
+<p>*1824.—<i>Newbury port</i> ... (newspaper).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1824.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, VIII,
+n<sup>o</sup>. 168, p. 218.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page5">[5]</span></p>
+
+<p>*1826. June 21.—<i>New York Advertiser.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1826. Oct.—Sea-Serpent.—<i>The American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, conducted
+by <b>Benjamin Silliman</b>, Vol. XI.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1827.—<b>Dr. Hooker.</b> Additional testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent of the American
+Seas.—<i>The Edinburgh Journal of Science</i>, Vol. VI, 1827, p. 126.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1827, April.—<b>Dr. Hooker.</b> Fernere Zeugnisse über die Seeschlange in den Amerikanischen
+Meere.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
+Heilkunde</i>, XVIII, n<sup>o</sup>. 256, p. 49.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1827, June.—Sea Serpent.—<i>The American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, conducted
+by <b>Benjamin Silliman</b>, Vol. XII, June, 1827, New Haven.</p>
+
+<p>*1827, Aug.—Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.</p>
+
+<p>*1827, Sept. 5.—Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.</p>
+
+<p>*1827, Sept. 15.—Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1828, Jan.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XIX, n<sup>o</sup>. 409, p. 193.</p>
+
+<p>*1828.—<b>John Fleming.</b> A history of British Animals, etc., Edinburgh, 1828.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1829.—<b>Sam. L. Mitchill.</b> The history of Sea Serpentism.—<b>Silliman’s</b> <i>American
+Journal of Science and Arts</i>, 1829.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1830, April, May.—<i>Chronicle.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1830, June.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XXVII, n<sup>o</sup>. 589, p. 265.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1832, Nov.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XXXV, n<sup>o</sup> 756, p. 122.</p>
+
+<p>*1834.—<b>Bakewell.</b> <i>Introduction to Geology.</i> Chap. XVI, p. 312; with a note of
+Prof. <b>Silliman</b>.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1834. June.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XL, n<sup>o</sup> 879, p. 328.</p>
+
+<p>*1834.—<b>C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.</b>—Abhandlung über Wasser-Schlangen,
+etc.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1834. Extract from <i>Phil. Mag.</i> 1819.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1835. July.—A sea-serpent.—<b>Silliman’s</b> <i>American Journal of Science and
+Arts</i>, Vol. 28, New Haven, July, 1835.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1835. Aug.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XLV, n<sup>o</sup> 980. p. 186.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1837.—<b>H. Schlegel.</b> Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, Amsterdam, 1837.</p>
+
+<p>*1837, Sept.—The “<i>Adis</i>” of Drontheim, (newspaper).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1837, Oct.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+IV, n<sup>o</sup> 67, p. 7.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1839.—<b>Dr. R. Hamilton.</b> Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of
+<b>Jardine’s</b> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>).</p>
+
+<p>*1839.—<i>The Athenaeum</i>, London, 1839, p. 902.</p>
+
+<p>*1839.—<i>Boston Mercantile.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1839.—<i>Kennebek Journal.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1839, Oct.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XII, n<sup>o</sup> 248, p. 88.</p>
+
+<p>*1840.—<i>Boston Daily Advertiser.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1840, Sept. 15.—<i>Journal du Havre.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1841.—<b>H. Rathke.</b> Ueber die Seeschlange der Norweger.—<i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>
+7<sup>er</sup> Jahrgang, I, 1841, p. 278.</p>
+
+<p>*1843.—<i>Christiansund Posten.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1843, Nov.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XXVIII, n<sup>o</sup> 606, p. 184.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page6">[6]</span></p>
+
+<p>*1844.—<b>H. Schlegel.</b> Essay on the physiognomy of Serpents, Edinburgh, 1844.</p>
+
+<p>*1845.—<i>Cincinnati Gazette.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1845, Nov.—<i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History</i>, Vol. II, p. 65.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1845, Dec.—<i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History</i>, Vol. II, p. 73.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1846, Jan.—<i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History</i>, Vol. II, p. 94.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1846, Febr.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+XXXVII, n<sup>o</sup> 801, p. 134.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847.—<b>Dr. R. Hamilton.</b> Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV, of
+<b>Jardine’s</b> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1604-1608.</p>
+
+<p>*1847.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, n<sup>o</sup> LIV, wrapper.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1714-1716.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847.—<b>Charles Cogswell.</b> A plea for the North Atlantic Sea-Serpent.—<i>The
+Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1841-1846.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1911.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847, July.—Ueber die Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der
+Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, Dritter Reihe, III, 54, p. 148.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1847, Oct.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, Preface.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, p. 2028.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, June.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>,
+Dritter Reihe, VI, 131, p. 328.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, p. 2192-2193.</p>
+
+<p>*1848, Oct. 9.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Oct. 13.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Oct. 21.—<i>The Literary Gazette.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Oct. 21.—<i>The Globe.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Oct. 23.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Oct. 28.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Nov. 2.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Nov. 4.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 4.—The fossil Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1848, Nov. 11.—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b>—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 15?—Note on the subject “<i>Dodo</i>” of Mssrs. <b>Strickland</b> and <b>Melville</b>.—<i>Annals
+and Magazine of Natural History</i>, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 15?—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b> The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>Annals and
+Magazine of Natural History</i>, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 458.</p>
+
+<p>*1848, Nov. 21.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 23.—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b> The Great Sea-Serpent.—<b>Galignani’s</b>
+<i>Messenger</i>.</p>
+
+<p>*1848, Nov. 25.—<i>Boston Daily Advertiser.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 25.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 27.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, p.
+2306-2324.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Nov. 27.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, Preface.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848, Dec.—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b> Ueber die Seeschlange. <b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen
+a. d. Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, Dritter Reihe, VIII, n<sup>o</sup> 169, p. 231.</p>
+
+<p>*1848.—<i>Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England</i>, Boston, 1848.</p>
+
+<p>*1848, Dec. 30.—<i>Bombay Bi-monthly Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1849.—Life and Letters of Campbell, 1849?</p>
+
+<p>*1849, Jan.—<i>Westminster Review.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1849, Jan.—<i>Bombay Bi-monthly Times.</i></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page7">[7]</span></p>
+
+<p>*1849, March?—<i>Boston Atlas.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1849.—<i>Montrose Standard.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—Enormous undescribed animal.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2356</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—Inquiries respecting the Bones of a large Marine Animal, cast ashore on
+the Island of Stronsa, 1808.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2358-2363.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849, Apr. 14.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—The Sea-Serpent?—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2395-2398.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—A strange Marine Animal.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2433.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849, May, 19.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1849, July, 9.—<i>The Sun.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849, July.—Ueber die Grosse Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete
+der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, Dritter Reihe, X, n<sup>o</sup> 205, p. 97.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2458-2460.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2541.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1849.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849.—Preface.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850, Jan. 12.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850, Jan. 19.—The Great Sea-Serpent. <i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1850.—Romance of the Sea-Serpent or Ichthyosaurus. Also a collection of the
+ancient and modern authorities, with letters from distinguished merchants
+and men of science. Cambridge, U. S. 1850, 12<sup>o</sup>, 172 pages.</p>
+
+<p>*1850.—<i>Christian Mercury</i> (U. S. newspaper).</p>
+
+<p>*1850.—<i>Charlestown Courier.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850, April 20.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850.—The Great Sea-Serpent again.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1850, p. 2803.</p>
+
+<p>*1850, Sept. 2.—<i>Cork Constitution.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1850, Sept. 7.—<i>Cork Constitution.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850, Sept. 7.—The Sea-Serpent again!—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1850, Sept. 11.—<i>Cork Reporter.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850, Sept. 14.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1850, p. 2925-2928.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1850, Dec. <i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History.</i> Vol. III, p. 328.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1851.—Rev. <b>Alfr. Chrl. Smith</b>. Notes on Observations in Natural History during
+a Tour in Norway.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1851, p. 3228.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1851, Oct.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde,
+Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie</i>, n<sup>o</sup> 395.</p>
+
+<p>*1852, Febr.—<i>New York Tribune.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1852, Febr.—<b>Galignani’s</b> <i>Messenger</i>.</p>
+
+<p>*1852, Febr.—<i>Philadelphia Bulletin.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1852, Mrch. 10.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1852, Mrch. 13.—The Great Sea-Serpent caught at last.—<i>The Illustrated London
+News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1852, Mrch.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde,
+Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie</i>, p. 486.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1852, Mrch.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde,
+Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie</i>, p. 491.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1852, Apr.—Reported Capture of the Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, p.
+3426-3429.</p>
+
+<p>*1852, Nov. 17.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1853, Jan.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1853, p. 3756.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1854, June?—<b>Dr. T. S. Traill.</b> On the supposed Sea-Snake, cast on shore in
+the Orkneys in 1808, and the animal seen from H. M. S. “Daedalus” in</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page8">[8]</span></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1848.—<i>Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh</i>, III, n<sup>o</sup> 44, p. 208.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1855, Febr. 17.—The Sea-Serpent Once More.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1855, Aug. 13.—<i>Buffalo Daily Reporter.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1855, Sept. 15.—The Great Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1855, Oct. 1.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1855. The Great American Snake Caught. <i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1855, p. 4896.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1856, May 3.—Another Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1856, Oct. 4.—The Sea-Serpent again. <i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1856.—The Great Sea-Serpent. <i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1856, p. 4948.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1856.—The Sea-Snake Story a fiction. <i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1856, p. 4998.</p>
+
+<p>*1857, Febr. and March.—<i>Cape Argus.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1857, March 14.—<i>Cape Argus.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1857, June 13.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1858, Febr. 5.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1858, Febr. 13.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1858, Febr. 16.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1858, Febr. 23.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1858, Febr.—<i>Revue Britannique</i>, n<sup>o</sup> 2, p. 496.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1858, March 20.—Another Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1858, July or Aug.—<i>Java Bode.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1858, Oct. 6.—<i>Amsterdamsche Courant.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1858.—Another Peep at the Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1858, p. 5989.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1858.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1858, p. 6015-6018.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1859.—Another Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1859, p. 6492.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—<b>Dr. R. Hamilton</b>, Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of
+<b>Jardine’s</b> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>.)</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—<b>P. H. Gosse.</b> The Romance of Natural History, Vol. I, Lond., Nisbet, 1860.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—A Sea-Serpent in the Bermudas.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 6934.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 6985-6993.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 7051-7052.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—On the Probable Origin of Some Sea-Serpents.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London,
+1860, p. 7237.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860.—Captain <b>Tailor’s</b> Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 7278.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1860, Sept.—<i>Skibbereen Eagle.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1860, Sept.—<i>Cork Constitution.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1861.—A Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1861, p. 7354.</p>
+
+<p>*1862.—<b>Grattan’s</b> <i>Civilized America</i>, p. 39.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1862.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1862, p. 7850-7852.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1863.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1863, p. 8727.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1863, June 13.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1870, April 9.—<b>F. Buckland</b>, The Sea-Snake Again.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1872, June 13.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. VI.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1872, Aug. 1.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. VI.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1872, Aug. 17.—Sea-Serpent, lately seen near Galveston. <i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1872, Sept. 7.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1872, Sept. 12.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. VI.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1873, May.—Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the
+Norwegian Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1873, p. 3517-3522.</p>
+
+<p>*1873, Nov.—<i>The Scotsman.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1873, Nov. 20.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1873, Dec.—The supposed Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1873, p. 3804.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page9">[9]</span></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1875, Nov. 20.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1875, Dec. 4.—<i>Illustrirte Zeitung.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1876, June 29.—The Sea-Serpents of the seventeenth Century.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1876, June.—<i>The Scotsman.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1876, June.—<i>The Courant.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1876, Dec.?—<i>London and China Telegraph.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1876, Dec.—<i>Good Words.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877.—<b>J. Adams.</b> Account of a supposed Sea-Serpent seen off Nepean Island.
+<i>Proceedings Lit. Philosophical Society of Liverpool</i>, n<sup>o</sup> XXXI, p. LXVIII.</p>
+
+<p>*1877, Jan. 6.—<b>J. K. Webster.</b>—The Sea-Monster.—<i>Advertiser and Ladies’
+Journal.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, Jan. 10, sqq.—(Newspapers of Liverpool).</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1877, Jan. 13.—<i>Illustrated London News</i>, p. 35, 3d column.</p>
+
+<p>*1877, Jan. 15.—<b>R. A. Proctor.</b> Strange Sea-Monsters.—<i>The Echo.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1877, Jan. 27.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1877, Febr. 3.—Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange.—<i>Illustrirte Zeitung.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, Mrch.—<b>R. A. Proctor.</b> Strange Sea-Creatures.—<i>The Gentlemen’s Magazine.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, June 13?—<i>Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, June 14.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1877, June 16.—<i>The Graphic</i>, p. 563, 3<sup>d</sup>. column.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1877, June 30.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, Sept. 4.—<i>Manchester Courier.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, Sept. 8.—<b>F. Buckland.</b> Occurrence of a Sea-Serpent.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1877, Sept. 15.—<b>F. Cornish</b>, Reply to <b>Buckland</b>.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1878.—<i>Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1878, May 24.—<b>F. Buckland.</b> Supposed Sea-Snake caught in Australia.—<i>Land
+and Water.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1878, Sept. 5.—The Sea-Serpent explained.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII.</p>
+
+<p>*1878, Sept. 6.—<i>The Scotsman.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1878, Sept. 12.—The Sea-Serpent explained.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1878, Sept. 19.—The Sea-Serpent explained.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1879.—<b>Andrew Wilson.</b> Leisure Time Studies; chiefly biological; a Series of Essays
+and Lectures. With Numerous Illustrations, London, Chatto and Windus, 1879.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1879, Jan. 30.—(Critic of <b>Mr. Wilson’s</b> Leisure Time Studies).—<i>Nature</i>,
+Vol. XIX.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1879, April 19.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1879, July 19.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1879, July 24.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XX.</p>
+
+<p>*1879, Sept. 24.—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1880.—<b>A. Günther.</b> The Study of Fishes, p. 521. Edinburgh, 1880.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1880, Nov. 18.—<b>Searles V. Wood</b>, Jun. Order Zeuglodontia.—<i>Nature</i>,
+Vol. XXIII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1881, Febr. 10.—<b>Searles V. Wood.</b> Zeuglodontia.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXIII.</p>
+
+<p>*1881, Sept. 8.—<i>Madras Mail.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1881, Oct. 8.—<i>Le Monde Illustré.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1881, Oct. 13.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXIV.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1881, Nov. 12.—<b>A. C. Oudemans, Jzn.</b> Iets over fabelachtige verhalen en
+over het vermoedelijk bestaan van de groote Zeeslang.—<i>Album der Natuur</i>,
+1882, p. 13-26. (The issue appeared already Nov. 12, 1881).</p>
+
+<p>*1881, Nov. 15?—<i>Cape Argus.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1881, Nov. 17.—<i>De Zuid-Afrikaan.</i></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page10">[10]</span></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1881, Nov. 26.—<i>Nieuws van den Dag.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1882, Jan.—<b>P. Harting.</b> Een Zeeslang.—<i>Album der Natuur</i>, 1882, p. 66.</p>
+
+<p>*1882.—<b>Catherine C. Hopley.</b> Curiosities and Wonders of Serpent-Life. London,
+1882, 8<sup>o</sup> p. 247-267.</p>
+
+<p>*1882, May, 22.—Giant cuttlefishes.—<i>Scotsman.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1882, June.—The Sea-Serpent at Shetland.—<i>Glasgow Herald.</i></p>
+
+<p>*1882, June.—<i>Newcastle Chronicle.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1882.—Die Neueste Seeschlange.—<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i>, p. 2035.</p>
+
+<p>*1882, July, 1.—A. Stradling.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1882.—<b>G. Verschuur.</b> Eene reis rondom de wereld in vierhonderd en tachtig
+dagen. Haarlem, 1882.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1883.—<b>Henry Lee.</b> Sea Monsters Unmasked.—London, Clowes &amp; Son, 1883.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1883, Jan., 25.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1883, Febr. 1.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1883, Febr. 8.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1883, Febr. 15.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1883, Oct. 20.—The Inevitable Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Graphic</i> p. 387.</p>
+
+<p>*1883, Nov. 4.—<i>Chambers’</i> <i>Journal</i>, p. 748.</p>
+
+<p>*1884, Sept. 14.—<i>Inverness Courier.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1884, Nov.—<b>C. Honigh.</b> Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen.—<i>De Gids</i>, p. 300.</p>
+
+<p>*1885, July, 29-Sept. 6.—<b>W. Reid.</b> History of Sea-Serpents.—<b>John O’Groat</b>
+<i>Journal</i>.</p>
+
+<p>*1885, Sept. 1.—The Sea-Serpent again.—<i>Scotsman.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1885, Sept. 10.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXXII.</p>
+
+<p>*1886, Sept. 15.—The Sea-Serpent again.—<i>Evening Dispatch</i>, Edinburgh.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1886, Sept. 25.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1886.—<b>W. E. Hoyle.</b> Sea-Serpent.—<i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i> Ed. 9.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1886.—<b>W. E. Hoyle.</b> Contribution to a Bibliography of the Sea-Serpent (read
+21st. April, 1886).—<i>Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh.</i>
+1886.</p>
+
+<p>*1889, May 21.—<i>De Grondwet</i>, n<sup>o</sup> 38.—(Journal, edited in Holland, Michigan,
+U. S. A.)</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1889, June 6.—<i>Haagsche Courant.</i></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1889, Dec. 7?—<b>John Ashton.</b> Curious Creatures in Zoology.—With 130 Illustrations
+throughout the text. London, John C. Nimmo (1890) p. 268-278.</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;1890, July 12.—<i>De Amsterdammer</i>, Weekblad voor Nederland.</p>
+
+</div><!--fsize90-->
+
+<p class="center highline2">and probably:</p>
+
+<div class="fsize90">
+
+<p>*17&#8199;&#8199;?—<b>Mongitore.</b> Remarkable Objects of Sicily.</p>
+
+<p>*18&#8199;&#8199;?—<b>Leguat.</b> Travels to Rodrigues Island.</p>
+
+<p>*1888.—<b>A. Nicholson.</b> Snakes, Marsupials and Birds.</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">Should any reader know of any other contribution to the literature of the sea-serpent,
+he is earnestly requested by the author of this work to inform him
+about it.</p>
+
+</div><!--fsize90-->
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page11">[11]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">II.</span><br>
+<span class="chapname">Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Gosse says,
+are commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they
+palm upon their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their
+own invention, they tell the old stories they have heard when on
+fine evenings they were together with the old tars talking and
+chatting on the fore-deck. Of the latter many have no other origin
+than the imagination of a sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes;
+others again are exaggerated and garbled reports of what they
+have seen with their own eyes, or of what their comrades or
+their captain saw! There are the tales of the Unicorn, of the
+White Whale, that terrible “Moby Dick” of the Polar Regions,
+there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the
+exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent!</p>
+
+<p>Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the
+terrible tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment
+even to the sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently
+why our sailors do not report any more encounters with Mermaids,
+or with the Kraken. They know now that they saw, or harpooned,
+manatees, or dugongs, and gigantic squids, or calamaries.</p>
+
+<p>But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent
+having been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and
+by the master, several midshipmen, and some men of the crew!
+The news is printed in hundreds of newspapers, and passes from
+mouth to mouth, in short, it becomes the topic of the day! A
+schooner, or a brig runs into a harbour, say that of Liverpool,
+and the Captain, and the crew are immediately asked if they have
+seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the existence of such an animal
+they of course answer in the negative! But soon convinced by the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page12">[12]</span>affidavits printed in the newspapers, they swear that when on
+their next voyage they meet with it, they will bring it home!
+But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on the watch,
+the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning home
+arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon an
+idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent,
+yet he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly
+that he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on
+hoaxing the gullible!</p>
+
+<p>It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure
+in inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some
+splendid tricks on the believers!</p>
+
+<p>Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin
+by telling my readers some of them, which I met with in the
+various works I had the opportunity to consult.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for
+the first time in the <i>Report</i> of 1817. There we find in a letter
+from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William Jenks</span> the following:</p>
+
+<p>“He” (Mr. <span class="smcap">Staples</span> of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780,
+as a schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay,
+one of these enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts—that
+the men ran into the hold for fright, and that the weight
+of the serpent sunk the vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner
+was of about eighteen tons.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Now follows the hoax of a <span class="smcap">Joseph Woodward</span>, who had reason
+to be satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston,
+New York, etc. It runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape
+Anne, is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has
+been drawn up and attested in proper form.”</p>
+
+<p>“I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant
+schooner of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to
+Hingham, steering W. N. W., and being about 10 leagues from
+the coast, perceived last Sunday, at two P. M. something on the
+surface of the water, which seemed to me to be of the size of a
+large boat. Supposing that it might be part of the wreck of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page13">[13]</span>a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few fathoms of
+it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole crew,
+that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it
+coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with
+extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a
+second time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most
+from the bow of the ship.”</p>
+
+<p>“I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket
+bullets. I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and myself
+distinctly heard the <i>ball</i> and bullets strike against his body,
+from which they rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock.
+The serpent shook his head and tail in an extraordinary manner,
+and advanced towards the ship with open jaws. I had caused the
+cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it at his throat; but he had
+come so near, that all the crew were seized with terror, and we
+thought only of getting out of his way. He almost touched the
+vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly have
+come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear
+again, with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on
+the other, as if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However,
+we did not feel any shock. He remained five hours near us, only
+going backward and forward.”</p>
+
+<p>“The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided,
+we were able to examine him attentively. I estimate that his length
+is at least twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 130 feet;
+his head is full 12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the
+neck is not less than six feet; the size of the head is in proportion
+to that of his body. He is of a blackish colour; his ear-holes
+(ouies), are about 12 feet from the extremity of his head. In
+short, the whole has a terrible look.”</p>
+
+<p>“When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner,
+that it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in
+all directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.”</p>
+
+<div class="split5050">
+
+<div class="left5050">
+<p class="center">“(Signed)”<br>
+“Joseph Woodward.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="right5050">
+<p class="center">“Hingham, May 12, 1818.”</p>
+</div>
+
+</div><!--split-->
+
+<p class="allclear">“This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo,
+who made affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.”</p>
+
+<p>This hoax was reprinted in the <i>Quarterly Journal of Science,
+Literature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London</i>, Vol. VI,
+1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. <span class="smcap">Oken</span>
+also inserted the tale of <span class="smcap">Woodward</span> in his <i>Isis</i>, of 1818, p. 2100.—Thirty
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page14">[14]</span>years afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the editor of <i>The
+Zoologist</i>, published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without,
+however, mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did
+not he do so? Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such
+an old story, and because he was aware of the fact, that the whole
+account was wonderful, and contained many impossibilities!</p>
+
+<p>Astonishing enough, Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> translated this piece from the
+<i>Zoologist</i>, and inserted it in his journal (<i>Notizen</i>, Third Series, Vol. VI,
+n<sup>o</sup> 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following remark:&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor1" href="#Footnote1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+<p><a id="Footnote1" href="#FNanchor1" class="label">[1]</a> The translations are done as literally as possible.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent,
+published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from
+the <i>Zoologist</i>. Some German newspapers have then amused themselves
+with our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We,
+however, shall go on to gather whatever from time to time will
+still come to us to solve an apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.”</p>
+
+<p>The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>,
+of Worcester (see <i>The Zoologist</i>, 1848, p. 2192). I will let
+him speak himself:</p>
+
+<p>“I have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent
+person than myself would offer any observation upon the statement
+of Captain Woodward, published in the March number of the
+Zoologist, relating to the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done
+so, I beg to offer you the following: In a note which you added
+in this statement, you say, “The foregoing statement was formally
+signed and sworn to at Hingham, by captain Woodward, on the
+12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should have told your
+readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally considered as
+conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to be unworthy
+of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with itself.
+Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till
+I read the “Zoologist” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the
+latter ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so
+because in a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all
+evidence that will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Woodward
+tells us nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was
+sailing from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., nor of the
+date when he says he saw the serpent, except that it was on
+“Sunday last at 2 p. m.” This is not sufficiently accurate. But
+these are trifling points. The most extraordinary part of the statement
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page15">[15]</span>will appear from this: Captain Woodward says, the beast
+moved with <i>extreme</i>, or, as he afterwards expressed himself, <i>astonishing</i>
+rapidity; that when he fired at the monster it was sixty
+feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which appears to have
+been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but after he
+fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused his
+cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat,—of course while
+it was advancing towards his vessel,—but before he could fire
+his crew were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its
+way. So here we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving
+with astonishing rapidity <i>towards the ship</i>, which it appears was
+also moving <i>towards the animal</i>, and yet allowing time to load a
+cannon, point it at its throat, and afterwards to tack to get out
+of its way. Truly a most accommodating serpent! But again, the
+animal remained five hours near the ship, allowing itself to be
+minutely examined, but yet no further attempt to kill the beast!
+And what is almost equally strange, though even the position of
+the ear-holes is mentioned,—such minute observation does Capt.
+Woodward seem to have made,—yet no description is given of
+any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before stated,
+that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and
+bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as
+though they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regretted
+that these inconsistencies did not strike you before you made
+public the statement in question; it is also to be regretted that no
+one better able than myself to point them out has undertaken to
+do so. But it is highly desirable, in the present state of our ignorance
+upon this subject, that none but the most inexceptionable
+evidence should be received. Let us have “the truth, the whole
+truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need hardly add, that in
+these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly feeling towards
+Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of the matter;
+and I should hail with delight the day when one of these monsters
+of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with
+which we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is
+brought to our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be
+at once the wonder and admiration of naturalists.—W. W. Cooper;
+Claines, Worcester, June 2, 1848.”</p>
+
+<p>Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed!</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page16">[16]</span></p>
+
+<p>In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea-serpent
+in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars
+was offered to the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home
+dead or alive. I will insert here the whole history of these attempts,
+for they finished with a trick.</p>
+
+<p>In the copy of the <i>Report of the Committee</i> of 1817, which I
+have borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen,
+there is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818,
+the head or title of which is wanting; it runs as follows:</p>
+
+<div class="centerblock">
+<p><span class="padr10">“Boston, Aug. 21.”</span><br>
+<span class="padl10">“Transmitted by our N. Y. Correspondents.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit
+of the Sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Squam River, Aug. 20th. 12 o’clock.</i>—After several unsuccessful
+attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called
+the Sea-Serpent. We struck him fairly but the harpoon soon
+drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he
+received will make him more cautious how he approaches these
+shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pursuit
+of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us,
+to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought we
+were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly as
+ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of warp
+before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale.
+We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our
+sore disappointment.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Rich’d. Rich”.</span></p>
+
+<p>“Gloucester, Aug. 20.—As I thought it would be interesting
+to you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance,
+I will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last,
+he sailed from this in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones
+well manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday
+they met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven
+hours, when they closed with him. He passed directly under the
+bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon,
+which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable
+distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of the
+boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon. I hope
+they will have another opportunity before they give up the chase.”</p>
+
+<p>“He has <i>no</i> scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but
+his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page17">[17]</span>Capt. Rich had one of his hands wounded. These particulars I
+have in a letter from my brother”.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Saml. Dexter”.</span></p>
+
+<p>After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am
+disposed to believe that the animal struck by Captain <span class="smcap">Rich</span> was
+really a Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all
+that I have found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time
+that the animal was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been
+fired at it, but it has never been killed yet. In the same copy
+of the <i>Report of the Committee</i> of 1817, there was a letter from
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrews Norton</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">George Bancroft</span>, at that time a
+resident at Göttingen. I give here an extract from this letter concerning
+the matter in question.</p>
+
+<p>“Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s,
+I found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the
+most interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the
+expedition fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in
+particular nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his
+capture, and of the manner in which the information had been
+received, viz. from a person whose name was given, and who had
+come express from Gloucester, the evening before, to bring the
+news. He was said to be 120 feet long, and the Board of Health
+had sent down two boats to stop him in the Harbour. After talking
+about it all breakfast time, I immediately went to Reed’s
+stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my pocket,
+rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to
+carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him
+into the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well,
+and said at first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm
+upon the subject, and concluded at last that it would never do
+for him not to see it. When I had fairly got him into the chaise,
+his spirits rose with the exertion he had made, with the thoughts
+of the memoir and letters which he should write, and with the
+triumph which he anticipated over the Linnaean Society and their
+“diseased black snake”, as he contemptuously called it (meaning
+the small serpent, killed near the shore at Gloucester); for he
+pledged himself that we should find that the sea-serpent had no
+bunches on his back. I too anticipated with great satisfaction the
+honorable mention of me, which his gratitude would induce him
+to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected confidently
+to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this enormous
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page18">[18]</span>animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end of
+Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out
+the expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose
+countenance foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that
+we had come in to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not
+taken! (I am not in the habit of using notes of admiration, but
+the present occasion seems to require one). The sailors, however,
+affirmed, as he said, that they had taken some most extraordinary
+fish of very large size, which he was going to see. I had little
+appetite left for seeing extraordinary fishes, but went to accompany
+Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the South End, and making
+our way through a croud, obtained admission into the dark lower
+room of a store where we found a considerable number of other
+gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged in from
+the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in sail.
+As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was
+pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be
+nothing but a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size.—We
+had been gradually prepared for the disappointment, so that
+the shock was not so great as you might suppose. The report in
+the morning’s paper had arisen from a <i>mystification</i> performed upon
+the person who brought it to Boston, by the crew of the vessel
+engaged in the expedition. The sailors who dragged in the fish
+were part of this crew; and instead of their being tossed over the
+wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their imposition,
+and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would have
+been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection
+made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and
+bringing it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded
+for the honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present.—I
+have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the
+German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you
+will assure him, that we do not consider the circumstance, connected
+with the deception just mentioned, as affecting the evidence
+before obtained for their real existence.—In the Messenger of
+this week which I will send by the next opportunity you will
+find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and p. 758.”</p>
+
+<p>I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned passage
+from this <i>Messenger</i>. I think most of my readers know a
+tunny (<i>Thynnus thynnus</i> (<i>Linn.</i>)). For those, however, who don’t,
+I give here a <a href="#Fig1">figure</a> of it.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page19">[19]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig1">
+<img src="images/illo019.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 1. <span class="gesp2">Thynnus thynnus</span> (Linn.).</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the <i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January
+1819, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter received from him by
+Dr. Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an expedition
+purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been
+said in the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He
+succeeded in “fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by
+all the crew to be the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of
+them had previously seen and made oath to): but when drawn
+from the water, and full within the sphere of their vision, it proved
+that this serpent, which fear had loomed to the gigantic length
+of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless Tunny (<i>Scombrus Thynnus</i>)
+nine or ten feet long!”</p>
+
+<p>We see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Norton</span> and Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> immediately recognized
+the whole story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. <span class="smcap">T. Say</span> was the
+dupe of it!</p>
+
+<p>From a letter from Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span> to Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin
+Silliman</span> (<i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston, 1820) I conclude
+that Prof. <span class="smcap">Say’s</span> letter was printed in <span class="smcap">Thomson’s</span> <i>Annals</i> for Jan.
+1819. If anybody can tell me the exact title of <span class="smcap">Thomson’s</span> <i>Annals</i>,
+he will oblige me, indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult
+it. A part of this letter was translated into German, and inserted
+in <span class="smcap">Oken’s</span> <i>Isis</i> of 1819, p. 653. I will try to translate this part
+into English again:</p>
+
+<p>“I regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good
+earnest treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which
+is nothing but a result of defective observation connected with an
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page20">[20]</span>extravagant degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. <span class="smcap">Rich</span>
+has thrown light upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted
+out a ship to catch this Leviathan. He succeeded.....” (etc., the
+rest of the letter runs like the part from the <i>Philosophical Magazine</i>,
+quoted above).</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, however, says, (see <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol.
+LIV, 1819):</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>Pelamis megophias</i>, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have
+left the shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts
+to catch it, probably because those attempts were conducted with
+very little judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long,
+and a strange shark, have been taken, of which the papers give
+no description: let us hope that they will be described by the
+naturalists at Boston”.</p>
+
+<p>And Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span>, of Boston (<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc.
+Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston, 1820):</p>
+
+<p>“In the following year” (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on
+an expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent,
+and after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish
+of the species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the
+name of Tunny, Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the <i>Scomber Thynnus</i>
+of Linnaeus, and which fish he asserted to be the same as that
+denominated Sea-Serpent. This disappointment of public curiosity
+was attended at the time by a disbelief on the part of many, of
+the existence of a distinct marine animal of the serpent-kind, or of
+the dimensions and shape represented by the witnesses of Gloucester
+and elsewhere.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s
+cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities
+which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered
+the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”</p>
+
+<p>This was written in 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet!</p>
+
+<p>The trick of Capt. <span class="smcap">Rich</span> is also mentioned in the paper of Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Mitchill</span>, spoken of further on.</p>
+
+<p>Again Colonel <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> relates in the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i>
+of November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. <span class="smcap">Rich</span> as follows
+(copied from the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2361).</p>
+
+<p>“As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do
+much credit to the actors in it, but which served to fortify the
+unbelief of our southern brethern. Believing that the possession of
+the sea-serpent would be a fortune to those who should have him
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page21">[21]</span>in their power, many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and
+other places in the neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with harpoons
+and other implements, and manned with persons used to
+the whale fishery, in hopes of getting near enough to him to fasten
+their harpoons in his side. Among others a Captain Rich (not
+Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party, which was
+fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they
+cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent.
+With a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they
+determined to throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though
+at the <i>expense of truth</i>! They spread a report that they had caught
+the serpent, or what had been taken for one, and that he was to
+be seen at a place mentioned in the advertisement.”</p>
+
+<p>“Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found
+to be no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a
+great natural curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds)
+very much disappointed those, who had been induced to visit it.
+Those who had declared their disbelief of the existence of the Sea-serpent
+amongst ourselves were delighted to find their opinions
+were confirmed, and gave themselves great credit for their judgment
+and discrimination. The report spread from Boston to New
+Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons to be a
+sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even those
+who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported
+that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had
+been themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been
+seen after the capture of the macquerel was made, during that
+year, Captain Rich had the laugh with him, until circumstances,
+which have transpired since, have borne rather against him. Thus
+much for the transactions of the past years.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><i>The Lake Erie Serpent.</i>—In Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque’s</span> <i>Dissertation
+on Sea-Snakes</i>, we read (See <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. LIV, 1819):</p>
+
+<p>“It appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes,
+as well as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in
+Lake Erie, three miles from land, by the crew of a schooner,
+which was 35 or 40 feet long, and one foot in diameter; its
+colour was a dark mahogany, nearly black. This account is very
+imperfect, and does not even notice if it had scales; therefore it
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page22">[22]</span>must remain doubtful whether it was a snake or a fish. I am
+inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise convinced: it
+might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the above genus
+<i>Octipos</i>. Until seen again, and better described, it may be recorded
+under the name of <i>Anguilla gigas</i> or Gigantic Eel.”</p>
+
+<p>And in the <i>Additions</i> to this dissertation:</p>
+
+<p>“The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and described
+to be of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet
+long. It is added, that at a short distance balls had no effect on
+him: but it is omitted to mention whether it was owing to have
+hard scales (in which case it might be a real snake of the genus
+<i>Enhydris</i> or <i>Pelamis</i>), or to the indexterity of the marksman.”</p>
+
+<p>Every one feels that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> was the dupe of a hoax,
+and that he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill’s</span>
+dissertation (see below) in which more hoaxes are to be found.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Ref1">Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers,
+but when scientific men, they even read papers before learned
+assemblies, with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there
+has been no greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent,
+than that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel L. Mitchill</span>. I am obliged to communicate
+to my readers his whole paper, even at the risk of wearying
+them. It was published in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, 1829,
+and runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L.
+Mitchill’s Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our
+United States, for a few years past; read before the New York
+Lyceum, at a succession of sittings during October, 1828.—N<sup>o</sup>.
+35.—The Sea-Serpent. (Communicated for this Journal).”</p>
+
+<p>“This subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of
+notice, before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not
+happened, that during several years, it, or something so imagined
+and so called, had frequently been presented for public consideration;
+and that paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals,
+do yet, from time to time, attract the attention of their readers.”</p>
+
+<p>“This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of
+Massachusetts, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood
+of Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and
+evidence was collected to a large amount. These were so considerable
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page23">[23]</span>and imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England
+published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous
+reptile under the name of <i>Scoliophis</i>. As the fishermen and naturalists
+could not catch him and bring him ashore for inspection,
+it was concluded to fortify the story by oaths. Accordingly, affidavits
+were made to great extent, containing the particulars of what
+the several deponents believed they had seen, and, as far as
+swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a strong case.
+Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was nothing
+better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in
+no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions
+of the opinions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they
+had observed in the water. I who was a believer in the first instance,
+was gradually sworn into scepticism, which finally ended
+in incredulity.”</p>
+
+<p>“About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did
+me the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read
+a manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my
+distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express purpose
+of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning the
+sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had
+reduced his researches into the form of letters addressed to Sir Joseph
+Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evidently
+intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to
+acquire the honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence
+known first to the sçavans of Europe. He did not vouchsafe, even
+to name me in the communication. After a very pleasant interview,
+during which I found that he positively considered himself
+right in the investigation, and I determined on my part to enter
+into no discussion about it, he requested me to receive the writing,
+and engage some bookseller to cause it to be put to press without
+delay. The reason for this was, that he was obliged to return
+forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract in his behalf, and
+directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I had a lucky
+escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.”</p>
+
+<p>“Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the
+land, somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alcoholic
+spirit. This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of
+the Great Scoliophis. The head, which contains the strong <i>ophiological</i>
+characters, had been crushed and destroyed. But, as far as
+I could judge, from the formation of the belly and tail, it had
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page24">[24]</span>been a native of the land, (apparently a <i>coluber</i>,) and had, of
+course, no pretention to claim kindred with its pretended parent
+of the ocean.”</p>
+
+<p>“I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct
+opinion, relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my
+museum, at the time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating
+friends had brought me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chinese
+Sea.”</p>
+
+<p>“The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the
+sayings and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the
+benefit of the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be
+written. In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must premise,
+that I am one of the last persons in existence who would
+presume to put a limit to creative power. I admit that the all-mighty
+being could make a water-snake as easily as a fish; and
+that such an animal might be as big as a <i>Kraken</i>, as easily as
+the diminutive size of the <i>Stickleback</i>. Yet, on reviewing these
+legends of the times, there is found such a propensity towards the
+strange and the marvellous, that the men of the present day
+show a credulity very much resembling that of the remote ages,
+when the terraqueous globe was peopled with gorgons, mermaids,
+chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of fabulous zoology.”</p>
+
+<p>“(a). The first tale I remember to have considered seriously relative
+to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put
+a steam boat in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to
+convey passengers. It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse
+the currents and pass among the islands with an ease and a speed
+unknown to boats moved by oars and sails; and of course, much
+of the business of transporting passengers would be taken away
+from the small craft heretofore employed. The large boat would
+thus destroy the small ones, or, as was expressed by another
+word, devour them. Under these forebodings, the steam-vessel
+made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag, the account
+proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical description
+of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and Gloucester,
+and had probably come there to consume all the small fish in the
+place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing
+seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occurrence,
+and credited accordingly.”</p>
+
+<p>“(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On
+this fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page25">[25]</span>active young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land,
+bought a little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to
+have seen; and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves.
+He named his vessel the <i>Sea-Serpent</i>. She was mostly employed in
+carrying country produce to the New-York market and in bringing
+manure back, with the advantage of passengers when any offered.
+This boat was on her way from Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout
+toward the city, and was met by a sloop from that place, a short
+distance from City-Island. The captain of the latter, on arriving at
+home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc for news; and being
+a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor, the querist,
+he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how (alluding
+to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back;
+how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how
+the black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were
+variegated; how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion
+of the boom in jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly
+wind); that this sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling
+at least from five to six knots an hour, which made all white
+before him (meaning the foam at the bows). The good man took
+the joke in real earnest, went away and told it to a sensible
+acquaintance. This latter wrote a formal and solemn account of it;
+which, travelling an extensive round in the sheets of intelligence,
+was finally embodied in the aforesaid book, where it is registered
+as a part of the evidence.”</p>
+
+<p>“(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I received
+from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a
+letter, respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to
+me whether that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide?
+It had been found on the shore of the region which the alarming
+visitor frequented; and was supposed to have been separated from
+his body by one of the musket balls which had been fired at him
+and washed ashore. To this serious communication I returned for
+answer that it was simply a portion of skin with closely adhering
+scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike (Esox osseus), an inhabitant
+of the Atlantic Ocean.”</p>
+
+<p>“(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about
+the sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The
+feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared
+he had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at
+length concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page26">[26]</span>catching him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain
+Rich. Day after day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent
+had, according to information, been observed, without discovering
+anything like him. At length, a creature was descried, which some
+of the men on board said they had seen before, and that it was
+the sea-serpent. The captain pursued the game a considerable time
+longer, with much vigilance and patience, until it was at a distance
+near enough to be harpooned. He was taken on board, and found
+to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I saw the preparation of it in
+the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself that it was an individual
+of a well known species called <i>Tunny</i> in the Mediterranean,
+and <i>Albicore</i> in the Atlantic sea.”</p>
+
+<p>“After the capture of the fish, the persons who, when they saw
+him in the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent,
+now changed their minds, and swore he was not.”</p>
+
+<p>“At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize;
+and unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure
+of his employers for attempting to impose upon them a <i>Horse-Mackerel</i>
+(as they call it) for a <i>Sea-Serpent</i>! He told me the
+story himself.”</p>
+
+<p>“(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that
+a sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, somewhere
+between Kingston and York, had several times during his
+trips observed among the islands and rocks something that appeared
+to be a long animal with vertical flexures of the back, resembling
+lumps or humps of variegated black and white hues. He told some
+of his acquaintances what peculiar appearances had presented themselves
+to his view; and that he intended the next opportunity
+to take a more close and correct survey. He did so, shortly after,
+when the whole phenomenon ascended into the air! It turned out
+to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood of young
+ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head. And
+as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance
+so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though
+a wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceived,
+his belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!”</p>
+
+<p>“(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent.
+One of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was
+steering eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the
+hither side of the islands called “The Sisters”, which, when she
+arrived at the place of her destination on the southern shore, was
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page27">[27]</span>reported by the men at the tavern and the printing office, to be
+the very creature. Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject,
+and inserted it in his paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It
+may be relied on that this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea,
+has been reduced to genus and species, by a distinguished naturalist,
+and registered very orderly in zoology. Now let us find what
+the production really turned out to be. The sheriff of the county,
+a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and conceiving that he knew
+as much about the lake as any person whatever, went on board
+full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but one of the
+people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning the wonderful
+sight, with which he and his associates had entertained the
+neighbourhood. The sailor was soon implicated in contradictions.
+The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was
+not ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sheriff
+would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as
+it was. At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and
+concluding that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots
+on the trunk for knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they
+would have a little pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent,
+which they thought their lake was as much entitled to as any
+other water. The whole three had agreed to tell the same tale and
+support it!”</p>
+
+<p>“(g). When the skin, &amp;c. of the huge basking shark, that had
+straggled from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan
+Bay (Squalus Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the inhabitants
+were openly and earnestly invited by notice in words at
+length displayed in front of the house, to enter and behold the
+sea-serpent. The conceit took very well!”</p>
+
+<p>“Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions
+on the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the
+gambols of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the
+yet different appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which
+have fins on their backs, may have given rise to those parts of
+the narrations, not already herein commented upon.”</p>
+
+<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>, the editor of the journal, could not help
+saying in a note:</p>
+
+<p>“We give place to the <i>scepticism</i> of the learned author, although
+not ourselves <i>sceptical</i> on this subject. We do not see how such
+evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this
+Journal—particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page28">[28]</span>Boston Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr.
+Cabot, can be set aside—although we have no doubt that there
+have been on this subject both error and imposition; and we are
+far from believing that every thing that has been called a sea-serpent
+has really been such.”</p>
+
+<p>Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single <i>proof</i> of
+the non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> gathered some
+<i>hoaxes</i>, which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his
+statements are sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea-serpent
+<i>first</i> haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in
+October 1828, had taken the trouble to look up the literature on
+the subject, he would have found that the sea-serpent had already
+appeared on the coasts of Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in
+Davis’ Straits, in the Northern Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all
+along the Eastern coasts of the United States. The Linnaean Society,
+he further asserts “published a book on the subject, with the
+figure of the enormous reptile under the name of <i>Scoliophis</i>”. This
+is also untrue, for the Society only figured an individual of a sick
+and ill-formed <i>Coluber constrictor</i>, the so-called Black Snake, having
+only the length of about one yard! The “mutilated specimen of a
+snake” which was brought to him in alcoholic spirit, was the
+same figured by the Linnaean Society; and where Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span>
+says that he is convinced that the snake was a common native of
+the land, “apparently a <i>Coluber</i>”, he expresses an opinion which
+the Society already printed in their little book. Consequently he
+cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally, where he says
+that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop, called
+“the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the Linnaean
+Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is commonly
+called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one “formal
+and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and
+black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed”
+the water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all
+white before him”.</p>
+
+<p>I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy
+of notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours
+of the Committee was unfair.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page29">[29]</span></p>
+
+<p>Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I
+have found, translated into German, in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, of
+1830, June, Vol. XXVII, n<sup>o</sup>. 589, p. 265:</p>
+
+<p>“Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American
+newspapers. Capt. <span class="smcap">Deland</span> with the schooner <i>Eagle</i> ran into
+Charlston on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and
+with his crew is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the
+following declaration: On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M.,
+at about a mile from Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of
+about 300 yards a large body, resembling an alligator, which
+sometimes moved with the vessel, sometimes lay motionless on the
+surface. Capt. <span class="smcap">Deland</span>, who perceived that he approached the
+animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered so, that he
+approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it lay
+quite still and apparently careless. Capt. <span class="smcap">Deland</span> aimed with great
+sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just
+visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster,
+to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel,
+and in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail,
+of which the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by
+every-one on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the
+animal approach, jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on
+deck, and the whole crew, the mate not excepted, only thought
+of their safety. They all had opportunity to see their enemy and
+agree that its length was about 70 feet. The body was as thick
+as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of a grey colour, eel-shaped,
+without visible fins and apparently covered with scales, the back
+full of joints or bunches, the head and beak resembled an alligator’s,
+the former 10 feet long, and as big as a hogshead. A smaller
+individual was observed at a great distance (!), which, however,
+disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were seen
+again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they
+disappeared.—Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a
+similar creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four
+times at it; without, however, causing such a visit as in the present
+case. He believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has
+strength enough to damage a vessel of the size of the <i>Eagle</i>, if
+not to destroy it, and feels happy to have got rid of it in this
+way. He further asserts that he has certainly not erred with regard
+to the shape of the sea-monster, and that it was different from
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page30">[30]</span>whales and other inhabitants of the deep, which he has ever
+witnessed” (<i>Chronicle</i>).</p>
+
+<p>Though the description of the form might lead to the belief
+that what is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent,
+yet I consider the whole account as a story, because it is not the
+habit of the sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck
+by a ball, but to plunge down and to disappear.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario.
+In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of August 1835, Vol. 45, n<sup>o</sup>. 980, p. 186,
+we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American
+newspapers. Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake
+Ontario, 78 feet long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a
+blue colour spotted with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea-serpent
+at last ought to have been explained or will be so very soon”.</p>
+
+<p>It seems that Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> really believes, that if this report is
+not the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that
+the appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong
+to the impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the
+report can only be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Ref6">In 1845 Dr. <span class="smcap">Albert C. Koch</span> “exhibited a large skeleton of a
+fossil animal, under the name of <i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i> in Broadway,
+New York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent.
+These remains consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring
+in all 114 feet, of a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the
+latter, and of parts of supposed paddles” (see <i>Proc. Boston Soc.
+of Nat. Hist.</i> Nov. 1845, Vol. II, p. 65). I show here to my
+readers the <a href="#Fig2">figure</a> of this skeleton, which I have found in the
+<i>Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk</i> of 1878. The description of
+this skeleton in full particulars is given by Prof. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span> in the
+above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble my readers
+with it, but only mention that Prof. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span> in the same paper
+proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same
+individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate
+that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”.
+And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones
+belonged to the genus <i>Basilosaurus</i> of <span class="smcap">Harlan</span>, 1824, an animal
+allied to the seals. The same genus is called <i>Zeuglodon</i> by Prof.
+<span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span> in 1839, <i>Dorudon</i> by Prof. <span class="smcap">Gibbes</span> in 1845, and
+<i>Saurocetus</i> by Prof. <span class="smcap">Agassiz</span>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page31">[31]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig2">
+<img src="images/illo031.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 2.—<span class="gesp2">Hydrarchos Sillimanni</span>, Koch.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page32">[32]</span></p>
+
+<p>In the same <i>Proceedings</i>, of Dec. 1845, Vol. II, p. 73, Prof.
+<span class="smcap">H. D. Rogers</span> too states, that according to the form and structure
+of some loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals
+of <i>Basilosaurus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. II, p. 94) we read
+that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> also told the public that the bones had been found
+together, in a position which proved that they belonged to one
+individual, and that the vertebrae formed an integral series, arranged
+in the order in which they were lying when discovered. That this
+assertion too was a mere fabrication, is not only shown by Prof.
+<span class="smcap">Wyman</span>, as we have seen above, but also in a letter by Dr. <span class="smcap">Lister</span>,
+who stated that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> had dug up the bones in <i>different</i> places
+in Alabama.</p>
+
+<p>A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York
+correspondent in the <i>Cincinnati Gazette</i> which, translated into German,
+appeared in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i> of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37,
+n<sup>o</sup> 801, p. 134.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that
+Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span> attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the
+same individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from
+any existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the
+popular (and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in
+our modern seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent
+had been attached”.</p>
+
+<p>These words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or
+journal, but I can hardly believe that Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span> had a share
+in this imposture.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor
+published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and
+Palaeontologist <span class="smcap">Mantell</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared
+in the last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil mentioned
+at the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called
+Sea-Serpent, as having been exhibited in America under the name
+of <i>Hydrarchos Sillimannii</i>, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch,
+from bones collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page33">[33]</span>to several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean, termed
+<i>Basilosaurus</i> by the American naturalists, and better known in this
+country by that of <i>Zeuglodon</i>, a term signifying <i>yoked teeth</i>. Mr. Koch
+is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of fossil
+bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an
+enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly,
+under the name of <i>Missourium</i>. This collection was purchased
+by the trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected
+the bones which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon
+in our National Gallery of Organic Remains”.</p>
+
+<p>“Not content with the interest which the fossils which he collected
+in various parts of the United States really possess, Mr. Koch,
+with the view of exciting the curiosity of the ignorant multitude,
+strung together all the vertebrae he could obtain of the <i>Basilosaurus</i>,
+and arranged them in a serpentine form; manufactured a skull and
+claws, and exhibited the monster as a fossil Sea-Serpent, under
+the name above mentioned—<i>Hydrarchos</i>. But the trick was immediately
+exposed by the American naturalists, and the true nature
+of the fossil bones pointed out.”</p>
+
+<p>“Bones of the <i>Basilosaurus</i> have been found in many parts of
+Alabama and South Carolina, in green sand belonging to a very
+ancient (Eocene) tertiary formation. Hundreds of vertebrae, bones
+of the extremities, portions of the cranium, and of the jaws with
+teeth, have from time to time been collected. Remains of species
+of the same genus have also been found near Bordeaux and in Malta”.</p>
+
+<p>“Professor Owen has shown that the original animal was a marine
+cetacean, holding an intermediate place between the Cachelots and
+the herbivorous species. It must have attained a length equal to
+that of the largest living whales; for a series of vertebrae was observed
+<i>in situ</i>, that extended in a line 65 feet. An interesting
+Memoir on the <i>Basilosaurus</i> by Dr. Gibbes, of Columbia, was
+published in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
+Philadelphia, Vol. I, 2<sup>d</sup>. Series, 1847; and a Memoir on the remains
+of the same animal, by Prof. Owen appeared in the “Transactions
+of the Geological Society of London”, Vol. VI; a brief notice of
+which is inserted in my “Medals of Creation” p. 826, under the
+name of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>”.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Gideon Algernon Mantell”.</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“19, Chestersquare, Pimlico, Oct. 31. 1848”.</span></p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat, Hist.</i> (Vol. III, p. 328, Dec. 1850)
+we read:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page34">[34]</span></p>
+
+<p>“This animal” (the <i>Basilosaurus</i>) “was supposed by Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span>
+to be a reptile, a marine serpent, but Dr. Wyman has exposed
+the fallacy of this opinion, and shown that it was a warm blooded
+mammal”.</p>
+
+<p>I do not think this to be the true view of the matter. I firmly
+believe that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> knew very well what he did, and that he
+was in every way an impostor who cheated the credulous people of
+their money. The honour of the discovery that the <i>Basilosaurus</i> is
+a warm blooded mammal is due to Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>. Dr. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span> has
+only recognized that the bones were of the <i>Basilosaurus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The further history of the large skeleton exhibited in New York
+is related to us in that same Journal:</p>
+
+<p>“Koch’s sea-serpent was carried to Dresden, where it was described
+by Carus, who figured it and even restored the cranium,
+of which then only a portion had been found. Carus restored the
+cranium of a reptile, but this was a mere fiction of his imagination;
+for an entire cranium has since been found, proving beyond a
+doubt that the Zeuglodon was not a reptile but a cetacean; the
+teeth being inserted by double roots into double alveoli is positive
+evidence that it was a warmblooded mammal. Muller has also
+carefully studied this specimen, and pronounces it unquestionably
+a cetacean.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Ref5">The reader will further on see mention made of a report, generally
+known as that of the <i>Daedalus</i>. It appeared in the newspapers
+of October, 1848. As soon as it was published, the following
+letter was addressed to the Editor of the <i>Globe</i>. It first appeared
+in the number of 21. Oct., 1848, of that journal, next in the
+<i>Times</i> of 23d. Oct. and in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of 28
+Oct. It runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Mary Ann, of Glasgow, Glasgow, October 19”.</p>
+
+<p>“I have just reached this port, on a voyage from Malta and
+Lisbon, and my attention having been called to a report relative
+to an animal seen by the master and crew of Her Majesty’s ship
+Daedalus, I take the liberty of communicating the following circumstance:—</p>
+
+<p>“When clearing out of the port of Lisbon, on the 30th of September
+last, we spoke the American brig Daphne, of Boston,
+Mark Trelawney master. He signalled for us to heave to, which
+we did; and standing close round her counter, lay-to while the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page35">[35]</span>mate boarded us with the jolly boat, and handed a packet of letters
+to be despatched per first steamer for Boston on our arrival
+in England. The mate told me that when in lat. 4° 11′ S., long.
+10° 15′ E., wind dead north, upon the 20th of September, a most
+extraordinary animal had been seen: from his description it had
+the appearance of a huge serpent or snake, with a dragon’s head.
+Immediately upon its being seen, one of the deck guns was brought
+to bear upon it, which having been charged with spike-nails, and
+whatever other pieces of iron could be got at the moment, was
+discharged at the animal, then only distant about forty yards from
+the ship; it immediately reared its head in the air, and plunged
+violently with its body, showing evidently that the charge had
+taken effect. The Daphne was to leeward at the time, but was
+put about on the starboard tack and stood towards the brute,
+which was seen foaming and lashing the water at a fearful rate:
+upon the brig nearing, however, it disappeared, and, though evidently
+wounded, made rapidly off at the rate of 15 or 16 knots
+an hour, as was judged from its appearing several times upon the
+surface. The Daphne pursued for some time, but the night coming
+on the master was obliged to put about and continue his voyage”.</p>
+
+<p>“From the description given by the mate, the brute must have
+been nearly 100 feet long, and his account of it agrees in every
+respect with that lately forwarded to the admiralty by the captain
+of the Daedalus. The packet of letters to Boston, I have no doubt,
+contains the full particulars, which, I suppose, will be made public”.</p>
+
+<p>“There are letters from captain Trelawney to a friend in Liverpool,
+which will probably contain some further particulars, and I
+have written to get a copy for the purpose of getting the full account.
+James Henderson, Master, Broomielaw, Berth, n<sup>o</sup> 4”.</p>
+
+<p>The same story was inserted in the <i>Zoologist</i> of 27 Nov. 1848,
+and Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> the Editor who half a year before had fallen
+into the snare laid by the so-called captain <span class="smcap">Woodward</span>, and who
+was taken to task by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>, grown more careful, now added:</p>
+
+<p>“Doubtless the sagacious production of some selfstyled philosophical
+naturalist, who is pledged to one of the hypothetical modes of explaining
+away the existence of a sea-serpent, and who hopes by a
+hoax of this kind to throw discredit on Captain M’Quhae’s statement”.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I think, Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was on the right track!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page36">[36]</span></p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> for 1850, April 20, Supplement,
+we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The following we extract from the <i>Christian</i> (United States)
+<i>Mercury</i>.—The following letter from a gentleman of Beaufort
+gives exciting news of what may, by this time, be the “seat of
+war”. The old fellow has got into close quarter, and if he does
+not make a sudden and fortunate dash, has nothing better than
+offering himself as an oblation on the altar of science:—Beaufort,
+March 15, 1850. The report of Captain Bankenship and passengers
+has been verified by many other witnesses. This formidable sea-monster
+has been seen again to day, we understand, in our waters.
+When discovered by those on board the steamer, his “eminence”
+was in Port Royal Sound, a distance of seven or eight miles from this
+town. Since that time he has been lazily making his way up Broad-River,
+and was seen by a gentleman, we understand, to-day in
+White Branch River, an arm of the Broad, he is reported to be
+making his way higher up still, when, perhaps, he may be captured.
+He is described as being from 120 to 150 feet in length,
+and of proportionate bulk; has the head of a serpent, which he
+carries, when in motion, five or six feet out of the water, about
+ten feet from his head is a hump, resembling a huge hogshead,
+and as far as he could be seen, out of the water a succession of
+humps was observed. He was pursued for several miles along the
+bank of the river, at times the party in pursuit coming very near
+to him. He was shot at with a rifle and shot gun, which had
+the effect of making him timid, and caused him to sink below
+the surface of the water when nearly approached. We understand
+that a party from this place has been made up to capture him,
+if possible. The plan is to man two large flats with a cannon to
+each, one going below where he is represented to be, and the
+other above, and then approach each other, and, when he is
+discovered, to fire into him. In this way he may be taken if,
+peradventure, he does not take them first. The Whale Branch is
+not more than 100 yards wide, and there is every probability of
+an animated conflict with this king of the waters within his own
+dominions; and I suppose it is admitted that the battle must be
+waged upon his own terms. The “Charlestown Courier” has a
+letter from Beaufort, of the same date, and of a similar tenor
+to which is appended the following:—Information has just
+reached us that the said sea-serpent is ashore at the mouth of
+Skull Creek. If so, the prize is certain, and Beaufort immortalized.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page37">[37]</span></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> inserted this tale in his <i>Zoologist</i> of 1850, p. 2803,
+however, not without the following introduction:</p>
+
+<p>“Ever since Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> attempted to confound this leviathan
+with the seals, on which he probably feeds, taking in whole
+shoals of them at a mouthful, and draining of the water with his
+<i>seaserpentbone</i> apparatus in the manner of a whale filling his
+stomach with medusae and shrimps: ever since the promulgation
+of this humilating hypothesis, the great sea-serpent has felt himself
+snubbed and has doggedly kept in deep water, pertinatiously
+resolved, no doubt, to withhold himself in future from the incredulous
+malevolence of men. But he has relented: the recurrence of
+St. Valentine has warmed his heart: he has once more risen to
+the surface, and has wisely concluded to shun the disparaging
+Britishers, and to select, as of yore, for the scene of his auto-exhibition,
+the shores of a nation, at once the smartest and most
+credulous on earth. The papers of the United States are fraught
+with intelligence respecting him; cannon have been discharged,
+and reports say that he is actually ashore. My first extract is from
+a religious newspaper, entitled the “Christian Mercury.””</p>
+
+<p>The reader will afterwards get acquainted with Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span>
+suggestions; it is not now the right moment to enter into them;
+I will only observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> also wrote the following
+last word:</p>
+
+<p>“The London papers have repeated all this, intermixed with a
+perfect flood of wit: the shafts of which are directed against believers
+and unbelievers, in a very pleasing and impartial manner.
+Is it still a hoax, or a Brachioptilon Hamiltoni?—<span class="smcap">Edward
+Newman</span>, London, April 20, 1850.”</p>
+
+<p>I must confess that I too am much inclined to believe, that all
+that has above been mentioned is a mere hoax, though the description
+of the animal agrees with that of the Sea-serpent. It is
+striking that the arm of the Broad-River is first called White-River,
+and a few lines afterwards Whale-River.—As to the
+<i>Brachioptilon Hamiltoni</i>, it is a kind of shark.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Again in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> for 1850, Sept. 7, appeared
+a hoax in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>Cork Constitution</i> publishes the following circumstantial
+letter: Courtmasherry, Aug. 29.—Sir,—The following particulars,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page38">[38]</span>the accuracy of which need not to be questioned, will, I
+doubt not, interest many of your readers:—The different fishing
+establishments on the shore of this extensive bay, extending from
+the Old Head of Kinsale to the Seven Heads, have been within
+the last few days abundantly supplied with fish of every description,
+and the greatest activity prevails to profit by the bounty
+which has been thus sent to us literally in shoals. It has been noticed
+too, that some description of fish, haak for instance, has been
+captured further within the limits of the inner harbour than was
+ever known before. In fact, as I heard it observed, the fish was
+literally leaping ashore. These novel appearances, however, it was
+my lot to see fully accounted for yesterday (August 28). At about 1
+o’clock A. M. when sailing in my yacht, with a slight breeze off
+shore, about two miles to the south of the beacon erected to the
+Barrel rocks, one of the party of four gentlemen on board (M. B.
+of Bandon) drew attention towards the structure, with the interrogatory
+of: “Do you see anything queer about the Barrels?” In
+an instant the attention of all on board was rivetted on an object
+which at first struck me as like the upheaved thick end of a large
+mast, but which, as it made out plainer, proved to be the head
+of some huge fish or monster. On bearing down towards the object
+we could distinctly see, with the naked eye, what I can best describe
+as an enormous serpent without mane or fur or any like appendage.
+The portion of the body above water, and which appeared to be
+rubbing or scratching itself against the beacon, was fully thirty
+feet long, and in diameter I should say about a fathom. With the
+aid of a glass it was observed that the eyes were of immense size,
+about nine inches across the ball, and the upper part of the back
+appeared covered with a furrowed shell-like substance. We were
+now within rifle shot of the animal, and, although some on board
+exhibited pardonable nervousness at the suggestion, it was resolved
+to fire a ball at the under portion of the body whenever the creature’s
+unwieldy evolutions would expose its vulnerable part. The
+instant the piece was discharged the monster rose as if impelled
+by a painful impulse to a height which may appear incredible, say
+at least thirty fathoms, and culminating with the most rapid motion
+dived or dashed itself under water with a splash that almost stopped
+our breath with amazement. In a few moments all disturbance of
+the water subsided, and the strange visitor evidently pursued his
+course to seaward. On coming up to the beacon we were gratified
+to find adhering to the supports numerous connecting scaly masses,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page39">[39]</span>such as one would think to be rubbed from a creature “coating”
+or changing its old skin for a new one. These interesting objects
+can be seen at the Horse Rock Coast Guard station, and will repay
+a visit. These particulars I have narrated in the clearest manner I
+am able, and if others, in other boats, who had not so good an
+opportunity of seeing the entire appearance of the animal as those
+in my boat had, should send you a more readable account of it,
+I pledge myself none will more strictly adhere to the real facts. I
+am, Sir, your very obedient servant, “Roger W. Travers””, in the
+<i>Cork Constitution</i>, Sept. 2.</p>
+
+<p>And in the number of September 14 of the same year, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The mysterious stranger has been again seen by Mr. Travers
+and his enterprising yachtsmen. They have brought four rifles to
+bear upon his left eye which, it seems, he most merrily winked
+at his pursuers. He would have laughed in his sleeve at the pleasant
+conceit, but we learn that he had just put off his coat. He, however,
+wished them a polite good morning, and descended to unknown
+depths”.</p>
+
+<p>“On Saturday last (August 31), the weather having the appearance
+of being settled fine, I put out to sea, determined, as far
+as the capabilities of my little craft would permit, to go any length
+in finding out the position of the stranger, hoping, by keeping a
+constant look out in every direction, to discover him. Nor was I
+disappointed, the animal, lured no doubt by the dense masses of
+fish now off the coast, having remained within a comparatively short
+distance of the land. At about 11. o’clock A. M., when off Dunwordy-head,
+one of my crew on the look out sang out: “The sea-serpent
+on starboard bow!” and on looking in the direction indicated, I
+had the pleasure of at once recognizing the same monster that I
+had before seen, and greatly do I regret, indeed, that you or some
+person conversant with natural history were not on board with me.
+We drew as close as I thought consistent with safety, and had ample
+proof of the creature being piscivorous, he being at the time engaged
+in bolting a great number of large haak or congereels. I had now
+for the first time a view of his tail, which entirely differs from
+the usual form of that extremity in most descriptions of fish, being
+furnished with no fin, but somewhat resembling a huge elephant’s
+trunk or proboscis, the end long drawn out and curling and twisting
+in a very remarkable manner. I really feel afraid to hazard expressing
+in figures what I judge to be the dimensions of the animal,
+but I do believe that if it were stretched straight from head to
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page40">[40]</span>tail it would be rather over than under thirty fathoms long, and
+of that length I am satisfied fully half is seven feet in diameter.
+The mouth is a most capacious organ, and opens something like
+that of an alligator. The small size of the gills, for I could discern
+nothing like the blowing holes of a whale, rather surprised me.
+The nose, I think, is formed of a soft flesh-like substance, not
+bony; and from the broken condition of the external coat of scales
+I am satisfied, as before observed, that the beast is now in its
+“coating” state. After a little time it appeared evident that he had
+fallen asleep, as we could perceive him rapidly drifting on shore
+at the east side of Dunworly-head; and I once more, although I
+now feel with more rashness than discretion, resolved to try the
+effect of firearms in capturing him. Four rifles were prepared, brought
+simultaneously to bear on the animal’s head, and, giving the word
+myself, and directing all to aim for the eye turned towards us,
+bang went the pieces in a volley, the shots taking evident effect.
+His first movement was to shake his head and wink the wounded
+eye in a rapid manner, and then, as if to cool the painful wound,
+he suddenly dived, since when I have not had the slightest trace
+of him either by my own observation or through others”. <i>Cork
+Constitution</i>, Sept. 7.</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>Cork Constitution</i>, referring to the foregoing says:—Since
+the above letter was received, the following information on the
+same subject came to hand. Monday last a party of gentlemen belonging
+to this city were enjoying a sailing excursion in the Antelope
+yacht, belonging to Mr. Wheeler, along the coast from Glandore
+to Kinsale. Passing the Old Head of Kinsale, the day unusually
+fine, they observed an extraordinary commotion in the sea, apparent
+to every one on board. The bay at Kinsale was at the time filled
+with fish. In a few moments they perceived a large serpent-like fish
+on the surface, that could not be less than 120 feet in length. In
+shape it resembled a long funnel of an immense steamer. Unfortunately
+they were not sufficiently near the monster to give a description,
+of the head and body. After lying on the surface for a
+few minutes, it suddenly dashed ahead with a velocity, as far as
+could be seen for a distance of two miles, of at least sixty miles
+an hour. It then disappeared. It was believed that the sea-serpent
+must have been in pursuit of the shoals of fish that thronged the
+bay. It is a singular circumstance that, notwithstanding the unusual
+quantity of fish that was observable, the Kinsale hookers were most
+unsuccessful, as it was stated they did not obtain a single take
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page41">[41]</span>during the evening. The gentlemen who have witnessed the visit
+of the monster, and whose statement is detailed above, may be
+relied on as above all suspicion”.—<i>Cork Constitution</i> Sept. 7.—</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Zoologist</i> of course could not overlook such statements. In
+the year 1850 this journal inserted the three reports (see p. 2925):</p>
+
+<p>“The Great Sea-Serpent has again appeared with immense <i>éclât</i>
+in the newspapers. Most respectable witnesses are called to speak
+a word in his favour, as will be seen by the following extracts
+from the daily press. It should, however, be premised that a number
+of brief and analogous paragraphs had previously located him
+“at Howth”, “off Wexford”, and “off Cork”; so that he made the
+grand demonstration at Kinsale, he appeared to be taking a coasting
+trip round the shores of old Ireland.”</p>
+
+<p>Here follow the above mentioned three hoaxes, of Courtmasherry, August
+29, August 31, and September 2. Further we read in the <i>Zoologist</i>:</p>
+
+<p>“A few friends accompanied me on a boating excursion this
+day (<i>Sept. 9</i>) whose names are William Silk, John Hunt, George
+Williams, Henry Seymour, and Edward Barry, and, being off the
+Souverein-Islands, our attention was directed by one of the party
+to an extraordinary appearance ahead of the boat; immediately all
+eyes were turned to see what it was, when, to our astonishment
+and fright, the above monster of the deep was bearing down to
+us; we were at once thrown into an awful fright, and thought it
+best to retreat for the shore; on our landing, Mr. W. Silk, who
+was armed with a double barrelled gun, discharged both barrels
+at the monster, but without effect. I need not describe his appearance,
+as you are aware of it before, but from inquiries from various
+boatmen I am told he has been off the harbour the last three
+days.”—John Good, of Kinsale.” in <i>Cork Reporter</i>, Sept. 11.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds:</p>
+
+<p>“The next account states that a party encountered the monster
+in Ballycotton Bay, fired into him, and made him disgorge a shoal
+of fishes, some of which fell into the boat, and being handled,
+gave the crew the most terrific electric shocks; where upon the
+naturalist of the party immediately concluded, and I think, with
+great judgment, that the sea-serpent is neither more nor less than
+the electric eel (<i>Gymnotus electricus</i>).”</p>
+
+<p>“The last account published in London, on this day (September
+24), reports his capture and death at Youghal, in the county of
+Cork, together with full admeasurements, and the names of the
+parties concerned in the galant achievement.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page42">[42]</span></p>
+
+<p>“There was something that struck me as unsatisfactory about
+several parts of this highly exciting narrative. One o’clock in the
+morning, and without the assistance of a moon, was rather a
+strange time to make such exact observations. Again, about the
+scales; why not sent some to London or Dublin?—why keep
+them at the light-house? And again, the bearing of Kinsale bay
+did not quite correspond with my remembrance of the place: so I
+epistolized the chief actors, and particularly entreated Mr. Travers
+to send me a handful of scales, and a more detailed account:
+alas! there was no response. After a while I bethought myself of
+a friend in London who corresponds with the accountant of the
+Principal Bank at Bandon. To this gentleman my friend, with
+prompt kindness, applied, and I have now the pleasure of laying
+his most explicit answer before the readers of the “Zoologist”.”</p>
+
+<p>“Dear Sir,—I reply to your note relative to the Sea-Serpent,
+there is not one word of truth in the statements put forward in
+the newspapers: there is no such person as Roger W. Travers, but
+there is a person named James W. Travers, to whom I believe
+it has been done to annoy (and indeed with great effect). Mr.
+Thomson’s family has been staying in the neighbourhood, but do
+not hear a word of it except what is to be seen in the papers
+about it. Dear Sir, yours truly, H. O.’ Callaghan.”—Bandon,
+Sep. 18, 1850.</p>
+
+<p>“Any comment on this would be superfluous.—Edward Newman.”</p>
+
+<p>The trouble Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> gave himself to get possession of the
+scales, and to know whether the reports were true or not, is the
+best proof that he was caught in the snare!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><i>The Sea-Serpent caught at last!</i> (See <i>The New York Tribune</i>
+for 1852, February, <span class="smcap">Galignani’s</span> <i>Messenger</i> for 1852, Februari,
+<i>The Illustrated London News</i> for 1852, March, 18, <i>The Times</i>
+for 1852, March 10, <i>The Zoologist</i> for 1852 p. 3426—3429,
+<i>Spenerische Zeitung</i> for 1852, March).</p>
+
+<p>“Ship Monongahela, at Sea, Feb. 6.—A small vessel has just
+been reported from my mast-head, and as she is apparently bound
+into some of the northern parts, I intend to speak her, purposely
+to acquaint, through your widely diffused journal, the people of
+the United States, of the fact of the existence and capture of the
+sea-serpent—a monster deemed fabulous by many—but the truth
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page43">[43]</span>of whose existence is for ever settled, and, I trust I shall be excused
+in saying, by Yankee intrepidity. On the morning of January
+13, when in lat. 3 deg. 10 min. south, and long. 131 deg. 50
+min. west, the man on the look out, seated on the foretopmast
+cross-trees, sang out: “White Water” and in reply to my “Where
+away?” said “Two points on the lee bow”. Supposing it to be
+made by sperm whales, and being very anxious to obtain oil, I
+ordered my ship to be kept off, and immediately went aloft with
+my spyglass. I will observe that for several days we had been
+struggling along with very light and baffling winds, but at day-light
+of the morning of the 13th. the wind had drawn to the
+south-south-west, become steady, and threatened to blow a gale.
+I was aloft nearly half an hour before I observed anything like
+“white water” and then I presumed it to be made by a “school”,
+or rather schoal of porpoises; but wishing to be certain, I ordered
+the mate, as it was seven bells, to turn up all hands, square in
+the yards, and send out the port studding sails. It being my
+breakfast hour I urged the man to keep both eyes open, and
+came down; but before I reached the deck my attention was
+called to the sudden and vehement cry of Onnetu Vanjau, a Marquesan
+Islander, “Oh! look! look! Me see!—too much—too
+much!” All eyes were instantly directed to the savage to ascertain
+where he was looking, and then all eyes turned to the lee quarter.
+I had just time to see “black skin” when it disappeared. The
+native was excited, and in reply to my question said: “No whale—too
+much—too big—too long. Me no see all same dat fellar—me
+fraid”. Not being able to tell which way the animal or
+fish was bound, I luffed and came aback, ordering the lines into
+the boat and the crews to “stand by”. The horizon was scanned
+in every direction for nearly an hour, when giving up all hopes I
+braced forward and went below. The native continued to look
+with eagerness, pushed on by the observations of the crew, who
+asserted that he had seen nothing, but he proved the truth of
+his sight in a few minutes by uttering another cry, and with
+more vehemence than the first. I rushed on deck, and the first
+look, not a mile to leeward, rested on the strangest creature I
+had ever seen in the ocean. It was apparently still, but “shobbing”
+up and down, as we say of sperm whales. I knew it was not a
+whale. The head I could not see, but the body had a motion like
+the waving of a rope when shaken and held in the hand. Every
+eye in the ship regarded it attentively, and not a word was spoken
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page44">[44]</span>or sound uttered. In a few minutes the whole length of the body
+rose and lay on the water; it was of an enormous length. Presently
+the extremity or tail moved or vibrated, agitating the water,
+and then the head rose entirely above the water, and moved sideways
+slowly, as if the monster was in agony or suffocating. “It is
+a sea-serpent” I exclaimed; “stand by the boats”. There was a
+hesitancy, and the mate said, “of what use is there lowering for
+him? We only lose time, and gain nothing besides”. I abruptly
+checked him, and ordered all hand to be called aft. When they
+had mustered I told them I wished to “try” that fellow. I urged
+them with all the eloquence I possessed, telling them there were
+but few who believed in the existence of a sea-serpent, and that a
+wish had been expressed that a whale ship might fall in with one
+of them—that if we did not attack him, and should tell of
+seeing him when we got home, we should be laughed at and derided—and
+the very first question would be: “Why didn’t you
+try him?” I told them our courage was at stake—our manhood,
+and even the credit of the whole American whalefishery, and concluded
+by appealing to their cupidity—holding out that we
+might possibly get him into some southern port. “I do not order
+one of you to go in the boats”, I said “but who will volunteer?”
+Let me say to their credit, every American in the ship stepped
+out at once, followed by all but one native and two Englishmen.
+I ordered the boat-steerers and officers to examine and see that
+every thing in and about the boats was in perfect order. I had
+already jumped into my boat when the serpent began to move
+very rapidly, and it was necessary to stand after him. The wind
+was piping up strongly, but as we gained I continued to carry all
+sail, hoping to be able to lower before the gale rendered it impossible.
+The serpent worked to windward, which compelled me
+to haul on the wind, and soon after I carried away my fore top-gallant
+mast; this was most unlucky for us, and, what was still
+worse, we lost sight of the monster. We repaired damages with
+all possible despatch, and still kept on the wind, hoping to see
+his snakeship. In less than an hour we saw him again, but some
+way to windward; soon ascertaining that he partly turned, and
+was headed baft for beam, I put the ship about on the other
+tack. The wind had increased so much, that I was obliged to
+put a single reef in the fore and mizen topsails. The serpent
+disappeared for a few minutes again, but when he rose he
+was a mile ahead of the ship, and going slowly to leeward,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page45">[45]</span>having made a complete circuit. I frankly admit my hopes
+were feeble of ever really capturing him, and the gale made me
+hesitate about lowering; but the time arrived, the serpent was
+still, and we nearly half a mile to windward. I came to with the
+head yards aback to have a better control of all the ship, and
+told the ship-keeper to keep close to us, and by no means to
+lose sight of us for an instant. We lowered, myself taking the
+lead, and in a few strokes—the wind and sea carrying us to
+leeward—I told the boat-steerer, James Wittemore, of Vermont,
+to “stand up”. With calm and cool intrepidity he laid hold of his
+iron (harpoon), and, when I beckoned with a movement of my
+hand, quick as thought both of his weapons were buried to the
+socket in the repulsive body before us. I shouted ’stern, but there
+was no visible motion of his snakeship. I shifted ends with the boat-steerer,
+and cleared away a lance as quickly as possible, beckoning
+them to pull up, that I might get a lance, when a movement of
+the body was visible, and the head and tail of the monster rushed
+as it were to “touch the wound”. The frightfulness of the head as
+it approached to boat, filled the crew with terror, and three of
+them jumped over board. I instinctively held out my lance, and
+its sharp point entered the eye. I was knocked over and felt a deep
+churning off the water around me. I rose to the surface and caught
+a glimpse of the writhing body, and was again struck and carried
+down. I partly lost my consciousness under water but recovered it;
+when I rose again in the bloody foam, the snake had disappeared,
+and I shouted, “pick up the line”. The third mate Mr. Benson,
+caught a bight at my line near the end, and bent on his, which
+in an instant began to be taken out rapidly. The mate picked me
+up as soon as I rose to the surface, and in a few minutes all were
+picked up—one was severely bruised and another insensible, but
+he recovered and both are now well. The snake had taken my line,
+the third mate’s, and was taking the second mate’s, when I ordered
+the mate to bend on and give his line to the ship. The snake was
+sounding, and I cautioned the officers not to hold on too hard, for
+fear of drawing the irons. At first the line went out rapidly, but
+decreased gradually, nevertheless I was obliged to get up a spare-line
+out of the fore hold and bend on. For fear that the ship would
+by its weight on the line draw the irons, I put on several drags
+and gave the line to the mate, when it became stationary. There
+were now out four boats’ lines, 225 fathoms in a boat, and two-thirds
+of another line, 100 fathoms more—in all 1,000 fathoms,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page46">[46]</span>six feet in a fathom, 6,000 feet—better than one mile and an
+eighth, an enormous depth, and the pressure at that distance is
+inconceivable. It was now blowing furiously, and I scarcely dared
+to carry sail enough to keep the ship up, the boat was in peril,
+and I was obliged to take the line to the ship again, and run the
+risk of the irons drawing. I made the end of the line fast and took
+in all sail but enough to keep her steady, and waited in alarm
+the snake’s rising, the parting of the line, or the irons drawing.
+At 4 p. m. the wind began to shift, which favoured us a little; at
+5 p. m. it, to our great joy, began to abate. At 8 p. m. a sudden
+lull; line taut. The night was beautiful, sky clear, wind scarcely
+a breath and sea rapidly falling, no eye was closed in the ship—we
+were speculating on our prey. It was evident he was on the
+bottom. He stayed down a long time; but on reflection I considered
+that was his <i>forte</i>—that he was at home there. At 4 a. m. of
+the 14th., 16 hours after he went down, the line began to slack,
+I had it taken to the windlass, when we got nearly two lines “hand
+over hand”, then there came a strain again. This strain continuing,
+I told every body to bear a hand and get breakfast, and just before
+we were through, the cook cried out, “Here he is”. In no time
+all were on deck, and sure enough he had risen; but all that was
+visible was a bunch, apparently the bight of the snake, where he
+had been fastened to. I lowered three boats, and we lanced the
+body repeatedly without eliciting any sign of life. While we were
+at work he gradually rose to the surface, and around him floated
+what I took to be pieces of his lungs which we cut with our lances.
+To make our work sure we continued to lance, eagerly seeking for his
+life, when he drew himself up and we pulled away, and then
+witnessed the terrific dying struggles of the monster. None of the
+crew who witnessed that terrible scene will ever forget it; the evolutions
+of the body were rapid as lightning, seeming like the revolving
+of a thousand enormous black wheels. The tail and head
+would occasionally appear in the surging bloody foam, and a sound
+was heard, so dead, unearthy, and expressive of acute agony, that
+a shrill of horror ran through our veins. The convulsive efforts lasted
+10 or 15 minutes, when they suddenly stopped, the head was
+partially raised—it fell—the body partly turned, and lay still.
+I took off my hat, and nine terrific cheers broke simultaneously
+from our throats. Our prey was dead. Luckily he floated buoyantly,
+and we took him alongside, and while doing so he turned over,
+lying belly up. Every eye beamed with joy as we looked at him
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page47">[47]</span>over the rail, and the crew again cheered vociferously, and I joined
+them. We now held a consultation as to what we should do, and
+I had requested all hands to offer their opinions. After a short talk,
+all of us felt convinced that it would be impossible to get him
+into port, and then we concluded to try and save his skin, head,
+and bones, if possible. In the first place I requested a Scotchman,
+who could draw tolerably, to take a sketch of him as he lay, and
+the mate to measure him. It was now quite calm, and we could
+work to advantage. As I am preparing a minute description of the
+serpent, I will merely give you a few general points. It was a male;
+the length 103 feet 7 inches; 19 feet 1 inch around the neck; 24
+feet 6 inches around the shoulders; and the largest part of the
+body, which appeared somewhat distended, 49 feet 4 inches. The
+head was long and flat, with ridges; the bones of the lower jaw
+are seperate; the tongue had its end like the head of a heart. The
+tail ran nearly to a point, on the end of which was a flat firm
+cartilage. The back was black, turning brown on the sides; then
+yellow, and on the centre of the belly a narrow white streak two-thirds
+of its length; there were also scattered over the body dark
+spots. On examining the skin we found, to our surprise, that the
+body was covered with blubber, like that of a whale, but it was
+only four inches thick. The oil was clear as water, and burnt nearly
+as fast as spirits of turpentine. We cut the snake up, but found
+great difficulty, and had to “flense” him, the body would not roll,
+and the blubber was so very elastic, that when stretched 20 feet
+by the blocks, it would, when cut off, shrink to 5 or 6 feet. We
+took in the head, a frightful object, and are endeavouring to preserve
+it with salt. We have saved all the bones, which the men
+are not done clearing yet. In cutting open the serpent we found
+pieces of squid and a large blackfish, the flesh of which dropped
+from the bones. One of the serpent’s lungs was three feet longer
+than the other. I should have observed that there were 94 teeth
+in the jaws, very sharp, all pointing backward and as large as one’s
+thumb at the gum, but deeply and firmly set. We found it had
+two spoutholes or spiracles, so it must breathe like a whale; it
+also had four swimming paws, or imitations of paws, for they were
+like hard, loose flesh. The joints of the back were loose, and it
+seemed as if, when it was swimming that it moved two ribs and
+a joint at a time, almost like feet. The muscular movement of the
+serpent after it was dead made the body look as if it were encircled
+by longitudinal ridges. We were nearly three days in getting
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page48">[48]</span>the bones in, but they are now nearly clean, and are very porous
+and dark coloured. The heart I was enabled to preserve in liquor,
+and one of the eyes, but the head, notwithstanding it is cool,
+begins to emit an offensive odour; but I am so near the coast
+now that I shall hold on to it as it is; unless it is likely to breed
+a distemper. Every man in the ship participates in my anxiety. 2
+p. m. I have just spoken the vessel; she proves to be the brig
+Gipsy, Captain Sturges, eight days from Ponce, P. R., with
+oranges and merchandise, bound to Bridgeport. He has kindly
+offered to put these sheets in the post office when he arrives. As
+soon as I get in I shall be enabled to furnish you a more detailed
+account.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Charles Seabury,
+Master, Whale-ship Monongahela, of New Bedford.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds:</p>
+
+<p>“Very well like a hoax, but well drawn up.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Froriep</span>, the Editor of the <i>Tagsberichte über die
+Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, (Abtheilung Zoologie und
+Palaeontologie n<sup>o</sup>. 486, 1852, March), says:</p>
+
+<p>“The picturesque description of the adventure is lively and reads
+pleasantly, yet it makes the impression, as if the whole is one of
+the stories, so often occurring in American newspapers. Nothing
+can be concluded with any certainty from the description of the
+animal of 104 feet length and 16 feet thickness, with two spout-holes
+and a skin like that of whales. The intrepid captor of the
+monster says that he has preserved the bones, the skin, the skull
+with its flesh adhering to it, an eye and the heart, and as he
+must come back ashore, a naturalist will at last have opportunity
+to examine and determine these remains, and we shall learn then,
+whether the fable of the Sea-Serpent is founded, and what the
+Sea-Serpent may probably be. As soon as possible we will mention
+more accurate reports.”</p>
+
+<p>Some time afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Froriep</span> wrote, (same journal
+n<sup>o</sup>. 491):</p>
+
+<p>“As it was supposed, we learn from a communication of the
+<i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i> that the story of the capture of the Sea-Serpent
+is a fiction. The crew that was said by the <i>New York
+Tribune</i> to have met with the ship of Captain <span class="smcap">Seabury</span> in the
+open sea and to have taken home the report, has declared, that
+it has nowhere met with a ship <i>Monongahela</i>, Captain <span class="smcap">Seabury</span>.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page49">[49]</span></p>
+
+<p>Another reported capture of a sea-serpent was published in the
+<i>Buffalo Daily Republic</i>, of the 13th. of August, 1855, partly
+inserted in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of the 15th. of September,
+of that year, and <i>in toto</i> in the <i>Zoologist</i> of that year, p. 4896,
+and in the <i>Times</i> of October, 1, 1855:</p>
+
+<p>“The “Buffalo Daily Republic” of the 13th. of August, announces
+the capture of the great American water-snake on that day in
+the Silver Lake, near Perry village, New York. On Sunday, the
+12th. the snake came to the surface, displaying 30 feet length of
+his body. On Monday morning all were on the alert. At nine
+o’clock the snake appeared between the whaleman’s boat and the
+shore: he lay quiescent on the surface, and the whaleman’s boat
+moved slowly towards him, Mr. Smith, of Covington, pointing
+his patent harpoon. On reaching within ten feet of the snake, the
+iron whistled in the air, and he darted off towards the upper part
+of the lake, almost dragging the boat under water by his movement.
+Line was given him, and in half an hour his strength
+seemed much exhausted. The whaleman then went ashore and
+gradually hauled the line in. When within fifty feet of the shore,
+the snake showed renewed life, and with one dart nearly carried
+off the whole line; but he was dragged slowly ashore amid excitement
+unexampled in the district. Four or five ladies fainted on
+seeing the snake, who, although ashore, lashed his body into tremendous
+folds, and then straightened himself out in agony with a
+noise that made the earth tremble. The harpoon had penetrated a
+thick muscular part, eight feet from his head. He is 59 feet 8
+inches in length, and has a most disgusting look. A slime a quarter
+of an inch thick covers his body, and if removed is instantly replaced
+by exudation. The body is variable in size. The head is the size of
+a full grown calf. Within eight feet from the head the neck gradually
+swells to the thickness of a foot in diameter; it then tapers
+down, and again gradually swells to a diameter of two feet in the
+centre, giving about six feet girth; it then tapers off towards the
+tail, and ends in a fin, which can expand in fan-shape three feet
+across, or close in a sheath. Double rows of fins are alternately placed
+along the belly. The head is most singular. The eyes are large,
+staring and terrific, with a transparent membrane attached to the
+lids, protecting the eye without impeding the vision. No gills appear.
+The mouth is like that of the fish called a sucker; it can stretch
+so as to swallow a body a foot and a half in diameter: there are
+no teeth; a bony substance, extending in two parallel lines, covers
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page50">[50]</span>the upper and lower part of the head. The sides and back are dusky
+brown; the belly is dirty white. Although sinuous like a snake, there
+are hard knot-like substances along the back. The harpoon is still
+in him. He lies in the water, confined with ropes, which keep his
+body in a curve, so that he cannot get away. He can use his head
+and tail, with which he stirs the water all around. When he rears
+his head (which he generally keeps under water) he presents a fearful
+aspect. In expanding his mouth he exhibits a blood-red cavity,
+horribly to look at, and the air rushes forth with a heavy short puff.”</p>
+
+<p>The well known Mr. <span class="smcap">Spencer F. Baird</span>, the late zealous Secretary
+of the <i>Smithsonian Institution</i>, Washington, U. S. on reading this
+in the <i>Zoologist</i>, sent to the Editor the following letter (<i>Zoologist</i>,
+1856, p. 4998):</p>
+
+<p>“In the November number of the “<i>Zoologist</i>” (Zool. 4896) I
+notice an extract from an American paper, respecting the capture
+of the “Great American Snake”. You have probably since learned
+that the account is an unmitigated hoax, manufactured by a newspaper-editor,
+while on a summer vacation, for the purpose of furnishing
+material for his editorial correspondence.—<span class="smcap">Spencer F. Baird</span>,
+Smithsonian Institution Washington, U. S. December 28, 1855.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The following splendid trick is of Captain <span class="smcap">Taylor</span>, who is even
+called “a respectable and trustworthy gentleman”, nay, who, when
+the truth of it was inquired into, even “confirmed the statement”!</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1860, p. 6985, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The following extract from the log of the “British Banner”,
+which arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last, appeared
+in the Liverpool Daily Post of March 20. “On the 25th. April
+in lat. 12° 7′ east, and longitude 93° 52′ south, felt a strong sensation
+as if the ship were trembling. Sent second mate to see what
+was up; the latter called out to me to go up the fore rigging and
+look over the bows. I did so, and saw an enormous serpent shaking
+the bowsprit with his mouth. There was about thirty feet of the
+serpent out of the water, and I could see in the water abaft of
+our stern; must have been at least three hundred feet long; was
+about the circumference of a very wide crinoline petticoat, with
+black back, shaggy mane, horn on his forehead, and large glaring
+eyes, placed rather near the nose, and jaws about eight feet long;
+he did not observe me, and continued to shake the bowsprit and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page51">[51]</span>to throw the sea alongside into a foam, until the former came
+clear away of the ship. The serpent was powerful enough, although
+the ship was carrying all sail, and going at about six knots at
+the time, he attacked us, to stop her way completely. When the
+bowsprit with the jibboom sails and rigging went by the board,
+the monster swallowed the foretopmast staysail and flying jib,
+with the greatest apparent ease; he also snapped the thickest of
+the rigging asunder like thread. He sheered off a little after this,
+and returned apparently to scratch himself against the side of the
+ship, making a most extraordinary noise, resembling that on board
+a steamer when the boilers are blowing off. A whale breached
+within a mile of the ship at this time, and the serpent darted off
+after it like a flash of lightning, striking the vessel with his tail,
+and staving in all the starboard quarter gaily. Saw no more of it,
+but caught a young one in the afternoon, and brought it on to
+Melbourne.—<i>William Taylor, Master, “British Banner”.”</i></p>
+
+<p>“[The British Banner arrived here on Sunday, and is now in
+the Albert Dock. Captain Taylor declares that the above statement
+is perfectly correct.—<i>Editor Daily Post.</i>]”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds hereto:</p>
+
+<p>“It is impossible for any story to read more like a hoax than
+this, but I had ready means of procuring, through a friend at
+Lloyd’s, the information that there is such a ship as the “British
+Banner”, that she is commanded by Mr. William Taylor, a respectable
+and trustworthy gentleman, and that she did arrive at Liverpool
+on Sunday, 18 March, last past, and is now in the Albert
+Dock. Armed with this information I wrote to Capt. Taylor, who
+has replied in the most courteous manner; he confirms the above
+statement, adding that he sent it to the Daily Post himself, and
+adding also that the young one reported to have been caught was
+presented to the Museum at Melbourne, where it was thoroughly
+inspected and pronounced to be a veritable sea-serpent.”—</p>
+
+<p>It is not quite clear whether Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was a second time
+the dupe of a trick, or not, but I think he really was!</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">George Guyon</span>, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the contrary,
+wrote the following poem (see <i>Zoologist</i>, p. 7051, 1860):</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“I’ve a story to tell—I don’t say that it’s true—</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">But just as I heard it I tell it to you.</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">A ship there was sailing upon the blue sea</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">With her canvas all set, when the captain, said he</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“I feel that the vessel is all of a tremble,</div>
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page52">[52]</span>      <div class="verse indent0">A sort of sea earthquake it seems to resemble;</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Send forward the mate to see what is the matter.”</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">When lo! what he saw would have made your teeth shatter,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">An enormous big snake rising out of the sea,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Some three hundred feet long it might possibly be,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">And in bulk it might equal a “wide crinoline”</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">(At least seven yards round that description must mean).</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">With jaws eight feet long, and with eyes fiercely glaring,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">A horn and a mane; he looked horribly daring,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">While the bowsprit he shook in his terrible mouth.</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">’T was in Latitude east and in Longitude south,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">This is somewhat obscure, but I think on the whole</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">It occurred th’ other side of the Antarctic pole,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">The ship making six knots—leaving foam in her wake,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Yet she stopped at the touch of this wonderful snake;</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">And the jibboom and bowsprit were snapped like a straw;</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">But his strength was outdone by his marvellous maw;</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">For he swallowed the stay-sail and also the jib,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Like a boy gulping oysters—they went down to glib.</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">With his stay to his stomac he turned him about,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">And gave with his tail such a vigorous flout,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">That some timbers to atoms were crushed by the blow,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">And what more might have happened we none of us know,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">When an object appeared for the which he set sail,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">And both object and story were much like a whale.”</div>
+</div><!--stanza-->
+</div><!--poetry-->
+</div><!--poetry-container-->
+
+<p>Afterwards, (<i>Zoologist</i>, p. 7278, of the same year) we find the
+following about the young sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">Taylor</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Taylor’s Sea-Serpent.—A friend, who has the opportunity
+of communicating with Melbourne on the subject of the
+young sea-serpent which Captain Taylor says (Zool. 6985) he presented
+to the Museum at Melbourne, has ascertained through Mr.
+Coates, of that town, that Captain Taylor is so far correct, that
+he did at the time specified present a specimen of Pelamys bicolor
+to the Museum in question, and Professor M’Coy exhibited the
+same to Mr. Coates. Of course there is no rational ground for
+concluding that this small sea snake is the young of any such
+gigantic creature as Captain Taylor has described.—<i>Edward
+Newman.</i>”</p>
+
+<p>But of a <i>great</i> Sea-Serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">Taylor</span> we don’t find
+any more statements!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page53">[53]</span></p>
+
+<p>We have read the various hoaxes which appeared in the <i>Cork
+Constitution</i> of 1850; the <i>Skibbereen Eagle</i> too is not averse to
+publishing a similar hoax (See <i>Zoologist</i>, 1861, p. 7354):</p>
+
+<p>“As Samuel Townsend, Esq., J. P., of Whitehall, was sailing
+in Whitehall Harbour, he saw, following his wake, what appeared
+to him (from the many descriptions he had read of the monster)
+to be a sea-serpent about twenty five or thirty feet in length; and
+being in a small boat he endeavoured to keep as respectful a
+distance as possible. There was, however, another boat in the
+harbour at the time, in which was Mr. Samuel Kingston, his
+brother, Mr. John Kingston (of Trinity College, Dublin), and a
+party of ladies. These parties also saw the huge monster; and upon
+raising its neck about six feet above the surface the females became
+greatly alarmed, when Mr. John Kingston, who is a remarkably
+good shot, fired at it, upon which it immediately disappeared.
+Mr. Townsend informed us the serpent presented a beautiful appearance,
+having large, brilliant scales of a yellow hue, and is of
+opinion it was struck by the shot fired by Mr. Kingston. It was
+likewise distinctly seen from the windows of Whitehall-House. Mr.
+Robert Atkins told us he saw it the day before of Barlogue.”—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The following hoax is not inferior to any of the foregoing (Nature,
+of 13th. of June 1872):</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Cobbin</span> of Durban, forwards to the <i>Natal Colonist</i> the
+following account of a “sea-serpent” seen by him:—“During my
+last passage from London, I saw no less than three sea-serpents,
+but an account of the last will suffice. On 30th. December last,
+on board the <i>Silvery Wave</i>, in lat. about 35′ 0″ S., and long.
+33′ 30″ E., at 6.20 P. M. solar time, an enormous sea-serpent
+passing nearly across our bows compelled the alteration of our
+course. He was at least one thousand yards long, of which about
+one third appeared on the surface of the water at every stroke of
+his enormous fan-shaped tail, with which he propelled himself,
+raising it high above the waves, and arching his back like a land-snake
+or a caterpillar. In shape and proportion he much resembled
+the cobra, being marked by the same knotty and swollen protuberance
+at the back of the head on the neck. The latter was the
+thickest part of the serpent. His head was like a bull’s in shape,
+his eyes large and glowing, his ears had circular tips and were
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page54">[54]</span>level with his eyes, and his head was surrounded by a horny crest,
+which he erected and depressed at pleasure. He swam with great
+rapidity and lashed the sea into a foam, like breakers dashing
+over jagged rocks. The sun shone brightly upon him; and with a
+good glass I saw his overlapping scales open and shut with every
+arch of his sinuous back coloured like the rainbow.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>I don’t know whether the following, taken from the <i>Graphic</i>,
+is a true hoax, or an optical illusion, but I think it is a hoax.
+There we read in the number of August, 17th., 1872:</p>
+
+<p>“Concerning this much discussed animal, whose existence mariners
+from the earliest times have firmly asserted, and landsmen as obstinately
+persisted in doubting, we have received the following
+from Mr. Walthew, a well-known ship-owner and merchant in
+Liverpool:—“Report of Captain A. Hassel, of barque <i>St. Olaf</i>,
+from Newport to Galveston, Texas.—Two days before arrival
+at Galveston, and about 4.30 P. M. on May 13, weather calm,
+smooth sea, lat. 26° 52′, long. 91° 20′, I saw a shoal of sharks
+passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel’s stern, but
+before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About
+two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something
+on the weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one
+called out that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall
+man. On a nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with
+its head out of the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay still
+on the surface of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body
+in a serpentine manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could
+see, from the after part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of
+the same thickness all the way, excepting about the head and neck,
+which were smaller, and the former flat, like the head of a serpent.
+It had four fins on its back, and the body of a yellow greenish colour,
+with brown spots all over the upper part and underneath white.
+The whole crew were looking at it for fully ten minutes before it
+moved away. It was about six feet in diameter. One of the mates
+has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent, which will give some
+notion of its appearance.—A. Hassel, master of Norwegian barque
+St. Olaf.—Witness to signature, J. Fredk. Walthew.”—</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page55">[55]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig3">
+<img src="images/illo055.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 3 and 4. Would be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page56">[56]</span></p>
+
+<p>The accompanying engravings are also published, and I give
+facsimiles of them in <a href="#Fig3">Fig. 3 and 4</a>.—I think that Captain <span class="smcap">Hassel</span>
+after having seen the shoal of sharks, two minutes afterwards saw
+four of these individuals swimming perfectly in a line, the foremost
+occasionally lifting its head above the surface, and the backs
+with the backfin of each animal being visible. The distance between
+the first and the last being about seventy feet, the whole row
+looked like a huge serpent, and gave thus rise to the story, which,
+as I have already said above, may be a hoax, or a true statement
+of what they saw. Evidently one of the mates first drew the sketch
+exactly as he saw the four sharks, but afterwards, answering his
+own question: “how would the serpent look, if floating on the
+surface?” sketched the second figure, where a boa or python with
+four fins is represented floating on the water like a cork, or better
+like the skin of such an animal puffed up!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>A splendid hoax was again communicated by a correspondent
+of the <i>Monde Illustré</i> to the Editor, and published in the number
+of October, 8, 1881, of that journal.</p>
+
+<p>“On board the steamer <i>The Don</i>, of the Royal Mail Steam
+Packet Company.—Captain <span class="smcap">Robert Woolward</span>.”</p>
+
+<p class="right">“Sunday, August 14, 1881”.</p>
+
+<p class="center">“To the Editor.”</p>
+
+<p>“I commence my letter by asking you a correspondent’s diploma
+of the journal <i>Le Monde Illustré</i> for my friend Mr. <span class="smcap">E. de Contreras
+y Alcantara</span>, an inhabitant of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico,
+Spanish colony.”</p>
+
+<p>“I owe to Mr. <span class="smcap">de Contreras</span> the subjoined sketch, the exactness of
+which is guaranteed by the seven signatures of the eye witnesses,
+who are:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">E. de Contreras y Alcantara</span>, of Ponce, Isle of Porto
+Rico,</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carlo Lopez Aldana</span>, of Lima, Peru,</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Henrique Roman</span>, of Cartagena, Columbia,</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. E. Ximenes de San José</span>, of Costa Rica,</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Maurice Renard</span>, of Paris,</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">C. Renard</span>, of Paris, your correspondent.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page57">[57]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig5">
+<img src="images/illo057.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 5.—The sea-monster, as Mr. C. Renard supposed to have seen it.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page58">[58]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The appearance lasted for ten minutes, in full moonlight. As
+I made the sketch, my son noted down his observations, Mr. <span class="smcap">Contreras</span>
+too; we compared and exchanged our several observations,
+these gentlemen at the little window of the smoking-saloon, and
+I just above, resting upon the port-hole and supported by a rope.”</p>
+
+<p>“The monster seemed to measure about forty or fifty meters,
+from the head to the tail, as far as the numerous coils made an
+approximative estimation possible. The body from the dorsal ridge
+to the midst of the belly seemed to be covered by several ranges
+of scales, or a rough skin like that of sharks, but forming overlapping
+layers of scales. The back is very darkish and gradually
+growing lighter towards the belly, where it is a dirty grey. The
+entire body is marked with alternating transversal stripes, darkish
+green, chesnut coloured, and grey; the tail seems to taper in a
+point, like that of eels. I preserve for the end the description of
+the head, which we have properly examined, and which is very
+remarkable. This head is not oval, and rather pointed, as in most
+of the snakes; it forms at its cranium a great mass with rough
+and irregular outlines. From the occiput it is provided with a hard
+and movable crest, with very sharp points; this crest may be
+lowered on the neck so as to become invisible. The upper jaw
+projects, as is shown in the sketch, the end is doubled up, and a
+dark hollow, like a nostril is visible there; the lower jaw, more
+pointed, shows below hollow and convex outlines, like sacs, doubtless
+for the act of swallowing. The teeth are sharp, enormous, and
+white. From the throat, attached to a kind of cushion, projects
+a hard tongue, pointed, provided with suckers, and glittering like
+steel, and phosphorescing as the sea occasionally does; the eye is
+round, very glittering, very movable, and seems to be able to
+look backward, so rapid and “<i>bien combinées</i>” are the animal’s
+evolutions; the orbit is bordered by a ring of lighter colour and
+seems to be overarched by an eye-brow provided with hairs or bristles.”</p>
+
+<p>“The face, from the snout to the neck presents a lateral oblique
+line, grey in colour, on both sides of which three other similar
+lines run towards it.”</p>
+
+<p>“The movement of the animal in the water, seems to produce
+no sound at all, but undulating waves and a very slight ripple.”</p>
+
+<p>“It caused a stench enough to make one ill; this smell, which
+hung about us for more than half an hour, was like that of a fermentation
+by heat on a large scale of the house of <span class="smcap">Lesage</span>, the
+great gatherers of Asnières, mingled with that of a dozen of
+charcoal-black works of Billancourt.”</p>
+
+<p>“To neutralize it, all the shops of several of our best perfumers
+would be wanted.”</p>
+
+<p>“The monster seems to be old, judging partly from its dimensions,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page59">[59]</span>and partly from its colour and the roughness of its integument.”</p>
+
+<p>“This is not the first time that similar animals are observed.”</p>
+
+<p>“The first time it was seen in 1847 by the Portuguese ship
+<i>Ville de Lissabonne</i>, captain <span class="smcap">Juan Alphonso Zarco y Capeda</span>.”</p>
+
+<p>“This date coincides with the buffooneries of the <i>Charivari</i> on
+the <i>Constitutionel</i>, and with the first disease of the potatoes.”</p>
+
+<p>“In 1864, the second of <i>The Don</i> observed a similar animal
+near the coast of Japan; he tattooed it on his arm.”</p>
+
+<p>“I end this series of reports by assuring you that the monster
+was seen on Wednesday evening, August 10, 1881, by the undersigned,
+at a quarter to ten P. M. in</p>
+
+<div class="centerblock">
+<p>latitude 29° 60′<br>
+longitude 42° 40′</p>
+</div>
+
+<p class="noindent">reckoning the degrees, according to the log-book on board, from
+the meridian of Greenwich.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“<span class="smcap">C. Renard.</span>”</span></p>
+
+<p>“(Here follow the seven signatures above-mentioned).”</p>
+
+<p>The Editor of the <i>Monde Illustré</i> adds:</p>
+
+<p>“We leave to the author of this letter and of the subjoined sketch
+all the responsibility of an assertion which seems to us, least to
+say, strange, and the details of which we communicate to our
+readers with due reserve.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Let us now pass on to reports of would-be sea-serpents.</p>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page60">[60]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">III.</span><br>
+<span class="chapname">Would-be Sea-Serpents.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>It is by no means astonishing that in the vast waters of the
+ocean several objects, totally different from the animal generally
+known as the Great Sea-Serpent, gave rise to tales of that Great
+Unknown, such as wrecks, gigantic sea-weeds, or even animal
+beings. So we meet with an account dated:</p>
+
+<p>1720.—(See <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>.) “<span class="smcap">Thorlack Thorlacksen</span> has told
+me that in 1720 a Sea-Serpent had been shut up a whole week
+in a little inlet, in which it came with high tide through a
+narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that eight
+days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or
+serpent was found. One end of the skin had sunk into the water
+of the inlet, so that its length could not be made out, as the
+inlet was several fathoms deep, and the skin partly lay there. The
+other end of this skin was washed on the shore by the current,
+where everybody could see it; apparently, however, it could not
+be used, for it consisted of a soft slimy mass. <span class="smcap">Thorlacksen</span> was
+a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg.”</p>
+
+<p>It may be that a real sea-serpent remained a week in the inlet.
+The Norwegian fishermen know the sea-serpent too well to make
+mistakes. Another animal would not have been called a sea-serpent,
+and a short description of it would have been given. But the skin
+wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent, was certainly nothing else
+but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a gigantic calamary. The
+description “soft and slimy mass” proves this sufficiently. The great
+calamary died in the fjord, or inlet, and its long dead arm was
+floated ashore by the current, while the body sank. Such great
+calamaries, the true Krakens, have been measured, and found to
+have a body of 30 feet in length with long tentacles of 58 feet
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page61">[61]</span>(see <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, London, 1883).
+I give here a figure of the largest ever found.
+(See our <a href="#Fig6">Fig. 6</a>.)</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig6">
+<img src="images/illo061.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 6.—The largest calamary ever found, with a scale of 80 feet.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1808.—<i>The Animal of Stronsa.</i>—Perhaps no
+stranded animal, even the so-called sea-monks of
+the seventeenth and the eighteenth century caused
+such an excitement among the learned as “the
+animal of Stronsa”.</p>
+
+<p>The oldest report of it is certainly a letter
+from Mr. <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>, in which only the following
+lines refer to it:</p>
+
+<p>“A snake (my friend <span class="smcap">Telford</span> received a drawing
+of it) has been found thrown on the Orkney-Isles,
+a sea-snake with a mane like a horse, 4
+feet thick and 55 feet long, this is seriously
+true. <span class="smcap">Malcolm Laing</span>, the historian saw it, and
+sent a drawing of it to my friend.”</p>
+
+<p>The letter was first printed in the work entitled:
+“<i>Life and Letters of Campbell</i>”, and
+afterwards the above quoted lines were reprinted
+in the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, p. 2395.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Proceedings of the Meeting of the
+Wernerian Natural History Society</i> on the 19th.
+of November, 1808, printed in the <i>Philosophical
+Magazine</i>, Vol. 32, p. 190, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“At this meeting Mr. <span class="smcap">P. Neill</span> read an account
+of a great Sea-Snake, lately cast ashore in Orkney.
+This curious animal, it appears, was stranded
+in Rothiesholm Bay, in the Island of Stronsa.
+Malcolm Laing, Esq., M. P. being in Orkney
+at the time, communicated the circumstance to
+his brother, Gilbert Laing Esq., advocate at
+Edinburgh, on whose property the animal had been cast. Through
+this authentic channel Mr. Neill received his information. The
+body measured fifty five feet in length, and the circumference of the
+thickest part might be equal to the girth of an Orkney pony. The
+head was not larger than that of a seal, and was furnished with two
+blow holes. From the back a number of filaments (resembling in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page62">[62]</span>tecture the fishing-tackle known by the name of silk-worm gut)
+hung down like a mane. On each side of the body were three
+large fins, shaped like paws, and jointed. The body was unluckily
+knocked to pieces by a tempest; but the fragments have been
+collected by Mr. Laing, and are to be transmitted to the Museum
+at Edinburgh. Mr. Neill concluded with remarking, that no doubt
+could be entertained that this was the kind of animal described
+by Ramus, Egede, and Pontoppidan, but which scientific and
+systematic naturalists had hitherto rejected as spurious and ideal.”</p>
+
+<p>In the meeting of the same Society on the 14th. of January,
+1809, (see <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. 33. p. 90.),</p>
+
+<p>“Dr. John Barclay communicated some highly curious observations
+which he had made on the caudal vertebrae of the Great
+Sea-Snake, (formerly mentioned) which exhibit in their structure
+some beautiful provisions of Nature, not hitherto observed in the
+vertebrae of any other animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“And Mr. Patric Neill read an ample and interesting account
+of this new animal, collected from different sources, especially letters
+of undoubted authority, which he had received from the Orkneys.
+He stated, however, that owing to the tempestuous season, the
+head, fin, sternum, and dorsal vertebrae, promised some weeks
+ago to the University Museum at Edinburgh, had not yet arrived;
+but that he had received a note from Gilbert Meason, esq., (the
+gentleman on whose estate in Stronsa the sea-snake was cast,)
+intimating that they might be expected by the earliest arrivals
+from Orkney. In the mean time, he submitted to the Society the
+first sketch of a generic character. The name proposed for this new
+genus was <i>Halsydrus</i>, (from ἁλς the sea, and ὑδρος a water snake);
+and as it evidently appeared to be the Soe-Ormen described above half
+a century ago, by Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway,
+it was suggested that its specific name should be <i>H. Pontoppidani</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Malcolm Laing</span> and Dr. <span class="smcap">Grant</span>, living on Stronsa, were
+requested to take down the affidavits of the eye-witnesses, and at
+the meeting of the Wernerian Society on the 11th. of February,
+1809, (see <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. 33. p. 251),</p>
+
+<p>“the Secretary (Mr. P. Neill) laid before the Society copies of
+those affidavits made before the justices of peace at Kirkwall in
+Orkney, by several persons who saw and examined the carcass of
+the great sea snake (<i>Halsydrus Pontoppidani</i>) cast ashore in Stronsa
+in October last; with remarks illustrative of the meaning of some
+passages in these affidavits.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page63">[63]</span></p>
+
+<p>The above-mentioned communication of Dr. <span class="smcap">John Barclay</span> was
+printed in 1811 in the first Volume of the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian
+Society</i>, and contains a detailed description of some vertebrae
+of the animal. The figures of these vertebrae are splendid, also
+those of the dried and shrivelled skull and a portion of one of the
+pectoral fins, with the cartilages that connect it with the body. As
+well the descriptions as the figures betray at a glance the shark
+nature of the animal. We will not trouble our readers with them,
+and we will also omit the figures, except one; it is a drawing
+made after the description of one of the eye-witnesses. (See our <a href="#Fig7">Fig. 7</a>).</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig7">
+<img src="images/illo063.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 7.—The Animal of Stronsa.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The Paper of Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> was entitled: <i>Remarks on some parts
+of the animal that was cast ashore on the island of Stronsa, Sept.
+1808.</i> The above-mentioned affidavits were also printed in 1811,
+in the first Volume of the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural
+History Society</i>, and run as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“At Kirkwall, Nov. 10. 1808.</span></p>
+
+<p>“In presence of Dr. Robert Groat, Physician in Kirkwall, and
+Malcolm Laing, Esq; M. P. Two of his Majesty’s Justices of the
+Peace of the County of Orkney.</p>
+
+<p>“Compeared Thomas Fotheringhame, house-carpenter in Kirkwall;
+who solemnly declared, That being in Stronsa during the gales of
+wind in October last; he went to see the strange fish that was
+driven ashore in Rothiesholm Bay: That he measured his length
+with a foot-rule, which was exactly fifty-five feet, from the junction
+of the head and neck, where there was the appearance of an ear,
+to the tail: That the length of the neck, from the ear to the
+shoulder, was ten feet three inches, as nearly as he recollects. And
+being shewn a drawing of the animal, he declared, That the neck
+appeared to him to be too long. That the fins or arms, or, as
+they were called on the island, the <i>wings</i> of the animal, were
+jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear
+in the drawing: That the toes were less spread out, and tapering
+more to a point, unless when purposely lifted up; but were not
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page64">[64]</span>webbed unless the space of an inch and a half in breadth, where
+they joined each other; and the length seemed to be about eight
+inches: That he measured one of the wings next the head, which
+was four feet and a half in length, and in shape, from the first
+joint to the extremity, it resembled a goose-wing without the
+feathers: That the hollow between the snout and the upper part
+of the skull, appeared to him not to be quite so deep as represented
+in the drawing: That in every other respect the drawing
+appears to be so exact, that if the fish had not been mentioned,
+it would have brought it to his recollection: That from the ridge
+of the back to the belly, the body appeared to be four feet in
+depth, and the circumference rather oval than round; but that he
+did not measure either: That the mane or bristles of the back
+extended from the shoulder to within two feet and a half of the
+tail, and were of a shining appearance when wet; but shrunk up,
+and turned yellow, when dried: That the mane was thin, about
+two inches and a half in breadth towards the shoulder, and two
+inches in breadth at the tail: That the skin seemed to be elastic
+when compressed, and of a greyish colour, without any scales: it
+was rough to the feeling, on drawing the hand over it, towards
+the head; but was smooth as velvet when the hand was drawn towards
+the tail: That the extremity of the tail was about two inches in
+thickness, and somewhat rounded; and as he saw no part of the
+bones, he cannot say whether any part of the tail had been broken
+off or not: That the eyes appeared to be no larger than those of
+a seal: That there were two spout holes on each side of the neck,
+about an inch and a fourth in diameter, and at the same distance
+from the head as appears in the drawing: That he lifted up the
+snout, and examined the throat, which was too narrow to admit
+his hand: That a part of the bones of the lower jaw, resembling
+those of a dog, were remaining at that time, with some appearance
+of teeth, which were soft, and could be bent by the strength
+of the hand: That he observed no nipples, or organs of generation;
+the belly having been burst open by the violence of the sea: That
+the stomach was about the size of a ten gallon cask; and the
+bowls about the bulk of those of a cow: That the bristles of the
+back which had been pulled off through curiosity, were luminous
+in the dark, while they continued wet. And all this he declares
+to be truth, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Thomas Fotheringhame.”</span></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page65">[65]</span></p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Kirkwall, Nov. 19, 1808.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Compeared John Peace, tenant in Dounatoun in Rothiesholm;
+and being interrogated, solemnly declares, That on the 26th. day
+of September last, he went a fishing off the east part of Rothiesholm-head,
+when he perceived as he imagined, a dead whale, on
+some sunk rocks, about a quarter of a mile from the Head: That
+his attention was first directed to it by the sea-fowl screaming and
+flocking about it; and on approach of it, in his boat, he found
+the middle part of it above the surface of the water: That he
+then observed it to be different from a whale, particularly in
+having fins or arms, one of which he raised with his boat-hook
+above the surface of the water: That this was one of the arms
+next the head, which was larger and broader than the others
+nearer the tail; and at that time the fin or arm was edged all
+around, from the body to the extremity of the toes, with a row
+of bristles about ten inches long, some of which he pulled off,
+and examined in the boat: That about ten days afterwards, a gale
+of south east wind came on, and the surge drove the fish ashore
+on Rothiesholm-Head: That he measured it by fathoms, and found
+it about fifty-four or fifty-five feet in length: That he observed the
+six arms, or wings as they are called on the island; but perceived
+no part of the bristles then round the edges of the fins or arms,
+and supposes, that being in a putrid state, they had been beaten
+off by the sea, or washed away: That a small part of the belly
+was broken up when he saw it then, from which the stomach,
+as he now supposes it to have been, had fallen out: That the
+stomach, which he took at first for the penis, from the one end
+of it being joined to the body; but on seeing it after it was
+opened, he concluded it to have been the stomach, as it resembled
+the second stomach of a cow: That he did not measure the circumference
+of the animal, but it appeared to be of the thickness of a
+middle sized horse round the girth, of twelve or thirteen hands
+high. And being shewn a drawing of the animal, and desired to
+point out the resemblance or difference, he declared, That the
+joint of the foremost leg was broader than represented in the
+drawing, being more rounded from the body to the toes, and
+narrower at the upper end than at its junction with the toes:
+That the limb itself was larger than the hinder ones, and the
+uppermost joint or shoulder was altogether attached to the body:
+That in all other respects the drawing appears to him to be an
+exact resemblance of the fish, as it lay on the beach: That the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page66">[66]</span>mane came no further than the shoulder, and extended to the
+tail, part of which appeared to have been broken off: That the
+length of the neck, the situation of the spout-holes, and of the
+eye, the shape of the snout, the position and distance of the
+limbs from each other, appear to him to be exactly preserved in
+the drawing: That the lower jaw was awanting when he saw it:
+That the fish was of a greyish colour: That he observed no nipples
+or organs of generation, unless as above mentioned: That the part
+of the belly which was burst open, and from which the stomach
+had fallen out, was between the two limbs that are situated in the
+middle of the animal. And all this he solemnly declares to be
+truth. And declares he cannot write.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“<i>Eodem die</i>”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Compeared Mr. George Sherar, tacksman of Rothiesholm in the
+island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That
+on the 20th. of October, being in Rothiesholm-head he saw the
+crew of John Peace’s boat examining something on the water, which
+he took to be a dead whale: That about ten days afterwards, a
+gale of east wind having taken place he went to see if the whale
+was driven ashore, and found it in a creek, lying on its back,
+about a foot under water; and from the view which he had of its
+figure, length and limbs, his curiosity induced him to return a
+day or two after the gale had abated, when he found it thrown
+upon the beach, a little below high water mark, and lying on its
+belly, as represented in the drawing: That he returned next
+morning, with a foot-rule, purposely to measure it, and found it
+to be exactly fifty-five feet in length, from the hole in the top of
+the skull (which he has brought to town with him), to the extremity
+of the tail: That the length of the neck was exactly fifteen
+feet, from the same hole to the beginning of the mane: That he
+measured also the circumference of the animal as accurately as he
+could, which was about ten feet, more or less; and the whole
+body, where the limbs were attached to it, was about the same
+circumference: That the lower jaw or mouth was awanting; but
+there were some substances or bones of the jaw remaining; when
+he first examined it, which are now away: That it had two holes
+on each side of the neck, besides the one on the back of the
+skull: That the mane or bristles were about fourteen inches in
+length each, of a silvery colour, and particularly luminous in the
+dark, before they were dried: That the upper part of the limbs,
+which answers to the shoulder-blade, was joined to the body like
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page67">[67]</span>the shoulder-blade of a cow, forming a part of the side: That a
+part of the tail was awanting, being incidentally broken off at the
+extremity; where the last joint of it was bare, was an inch and a
+half in breadth: That the bones were of a gristly nature, like those
+of a halibut, the back-bone excepted, which was the only solid
+one in the body: That the tail was quite flexible, turning in every
+direction, as he lifted it; and he supposes the neck to have been
+equally so, from its appearance at the time: That he has brought
+in, to deliver to Mr. Laing, the skull, two joints of one of the
+largest limbs, next the head, with different parts of the backbone,
+besides the bones that were formerly sent in: That there were either
+five or six toes upon each paw, about nine inches long, and of a
+soft substance: That the toes were separate from each other, and
+not webbed, as far as he could observe; and that the paw was
+about half a foot each way, in length and in breadth: That a few days
+thereafter, a gale of wind came on, and drove it to another part
+of the shore, where it was broken to pieces by the surge, and
+when Mr. Petrie came out to take a drawing of it, no part of the
+body remained entire: That he endeavoured to convey an idea of
+the animal to Mr. Petrie, by drawing the figure of it as accurately
+as he could, with chalk, on the table, exactly as it lay on the
+shore, after which Mr. Petrie made six or seven different sketches
+or plans of the fish, before he could bring it to correspond, in
+each minute particular, with the strong idea which he retains of
+its appearance: That he was the more attentive to its shape, dimensions
+and figure, in order to be able to give an accurate account
+of it to any travellers that might come to Rothiesholm, and that
+he is ready to make oath that the drawing is an exact resemblance
+of the fish, as it appeared when he measured it; and corresponds
+in all particulars with the idea which he entertains of the figure,
+dimensions, and proportions of the fish: That the substance of the
+body appeared like coarse, ill coloured beef, interlarded with fat
+or tallow, without the least resemblance or affinity to fish; but
+when put into a lamp, and the lamp placed on the fire, it neither
+flamed nor melted, but burned away like a gristly substance:
+That he perceived no teeth in the upper jaw; the lower jaw and
+tongue being awanting, and the palate also away: That the aperture
+of the throat appeared to be so wide, that he might have put his
+foot down through it: That the joints of the limbs were not united
+by a ball and socket but were lapped over each other, and united
+by some means which he does not comprehend: That there were
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page68">[68]</span>two canals, one above and another below the backbone, large
+enough to admit one’s finger, and extending from the vertebrae of
+the neck, to the extremity of the tail, containing two ligaments,
+which he supposed, enabled the animal to raise itself up, or to
+bend its body in a spiral form: That a tract of strong easterly
+wind had prevailed, before the body was discovered upon the
+shore, and that he saw the body on two or three different occasions,
+after he had measured it, and before it went to pieces. And
+all this he declares to be truth, &amp;c.”</p>
+
+<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Geo. Sherar.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Compeared Mr. William Folsatter, tacksman of Whitehall, in
+the island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared,
+That having heard that it was a dead whale that had come on
+shore in Rothiesholm-head, he did not see the body till about the
+28th. day of October, when it had gone to pieces: That he saw
+about nine or ten feet of the back-bone, and some bones of the
+paws, and what was supposed to be the stomach which last he
+had the curiosity to open; that it was about four feet long, and
+as thick as a firkin, but flatter: That the membranes that formed
+the divisions, extended quite across the supposed stomach, and
+were about three sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and at the
+same distance from each other, and of the same substance, with
+the stomach itself: That the section of the stomach, after it was
+opened, had the appearance of a weaver’s reed: That he opened
+about a fourth part of the supposed stomach which contained
+nothing but a reddish substance, like blood and water, and
+emitted a fetid smell: That he was very doubtful at the time
+whether it was really the stomach or not; but that each end of
+it had the appearance of terminating in a gut. And all this he
+solemnly declares to be the truth, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Wm. Folsetter.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“The said Mr. George Sherar being again interrogated, declares,
+That he examined the supposed stomach, after it had been opened
+by Mr. Folsitter, and that he laid it open to the farther end:
+That there was something like a gut at the end which he opened,
+about two inches long, with a small aperture: That the stomach
+had the same appearance from end to end, and contained nothing
+but a substance like blood and water: That the large bone of
+which a drawing was taken, was considered as the collar-bone;
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page69">[69]</span>and that it was situated with the broad and thick part downwards
+and the open part towards the vertebrae of the back: That he
+observed no appearance of fins about the neck or breast, or other
+parts of the body, except the six paws already described. And all
+this he solemnly declares to be truth, &amp;c.”</p>
+
+<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Geo. Sherar.”</span></p>
+
+<p>One of the ablest ichthyologists of those days, Mr. <span class="smcap">Everard
+Home</span> examined the “sea-snake”, and recognized it for a Basking
+shark. Immediately after his paper in the <i>Philosophical Transactions
+of the Royal Society of London</i>, Vol. 98, entitled “<i>An anatomical
+account of the Squalus maximus (of Linnaeus), which</i>, &amp;c.,” especially
+of an individual of thirty feet six inches, “entangled in the herring
+nets, belonging to the fishermen of Hastings, 13 Nov. 1808”,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Home</span> goes further:</p>
+
+<p>“I cannot close the present paper without mentioning, that
+nearly the same period, two other Squali of large dimensions were
+thrown upon our coast. The probable cause of this event, is the
+season being uncommonly boisterous and tempestuous. On the 3d.
+of January, 1809, a fish was thrown ashore at Penrhyn, in Cornwall.
+On hearing of it from a person on the spot, I sent down a
+drawing of the subject of this paper to compare with it, and the
+fish proves to be of the same species, and a male, measuring
+thirty-one feet in length.”</p>
+
+<p>“The other was thrown ashore on the 7th. of October, 1808, at
+Rothiesholm, an estate of Gilbert Meason, Esq. in Stronsay, one
+of the Orkney isles. It had been seen lying on some sunken rocks,
+eleven days before, was in a half putrid state, and the sea fowls
+were in great numbers feeding upon it. Those who saw it, reported
+that the skin was rough in one direction, and smooth like
+satin in the other. At the time of its being examined, the skin
+and a great many other parts of the fish were wanting.”</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Meason, with a zeal for science which does him infinite
+credit, upon hearing the strange accounts which were given of this
+sea-monster, got his brother, Malcolm Laing, Esq. and Dr. Grant,
+an eminent physician (both justices of the peace), to take depositions
+on the spot, from those persons who had seen the fish, that
+its real appearance might be ascertained. This examination, however,
+did not take place till six weeks after the fish was thrown ashore.”</p>
+
+<p>“These depositions were sent to Sir Joseph Banks, who put them
+into my hands. (The depositions are very long, and exceedingly
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page70">[70]</span>minute; they are preserved in the Board-book of the Royal Society).
+I also received, a short time after, from my friend Mr. Laing, in
+consequence of a request I made for that purpose, that part of
+the skull, which contained the brain, the upper jaw having been
+separated from it, a considerable number of the vertebrae of the
+back united together by their natural attachments, a portion of
+one of the pectoral fins, with the cartilages that unite it to the
+spine, and a long and short cartilage forming the support of one
+of the gills. On comparing these different parts, with those of the
+Squalus maximus, they were found to agree, not only in their
+form, but also in their dimensions. This led to the opinion of the
+fish being a Squalus, a very different one from what was formed
+by those who saw it in the mutilated state in which it was thrown
+ashore, and who called it a <i>sea-snake</i>. In the different depositions,
+several parts are accurately described, such as the valvular intestine,
+which was taken for the stomach, and the bristles of the
+mane, which are described as ligamentous fibres, one of them is
+in my possession, and is of the same kind with the fibres forming
+the margin of the fins of the squalus maximus. The drawing that
+was made from memory, and which I have annexed, will enable
+me in a few words to point out how much, in some things, those
+who saw the fish adhered to truth, and in others allowed their
+imagination to supply deficiencies, for one of them declared, with
+confidence, that the drawing was so exact a representation of what
+he had seen, “that he fancied he saw the beast lying before him,
+at a distance on the beach.”</p>
+
+<p>“The drawing is correct in the representation of the head, and
+anterior part of the fish, from which the skin, the upper and
+lower jaw, the gills, and gullet, had been separated by putrification;
+and when we consider that the liver and the other viscera
+were all destroyed, except the valvular intestine, which was taken
+away by the observers, the size of the body that remained would
+be nearly in proportion with the drawing. The legs are tolerably
+exact representations of the holders in the male Squalus maximus,
+described in a former part of this paper, and therefore are not
+imaginary, only that four have been added which did not exist.
+This is satisfactorily determined by the pectoral fin, which is
+preserved, having no resemblance to them. The mane, they said,
+was composed of ligamentous fibres, one of which was sent to
+London; this corresponds, in its appearance, with the fibres that
+form the termination of the fins and tail of the Squalus maximus,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page71">[71]</span>such an appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met
+with in the place of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continued
+along the back, as in the drawing. The contortions towards the
+tail are such, as the invertebral joints could not admit of, they
+are therefore imaginary.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by
+fathoms, the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet
+long. Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are
+preserved correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long,
+and it is rendered still more so, as the person who gives the
+length in fathoms, says, he saw at that time the six legs, the
+two foremost being larger than the hinder ones, and the lower
+joint more rounded from the body to the toes. The pectoral fin,
+which is preserved, proves this declaration to be incorrect: the
+person who measured the fish with a foot-rule, declares the length,
+from the hole in the head to the beginning of the mane, to be
+exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a Squalus of
+about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart of the
+skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other measurement
+must be questionable.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure represented
+in this drawing, which was not actually seen. The skeleton
+of the holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin
+of the dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only
+errors are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the
+fish and the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs.
+(This mistake of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been
+frequently made. There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library,
+sent from Ireland, in which the fish is represented walking like a
+duck, with broad webbed feet. The skin of a male Squalus maximus
+was exhibited in London, some years ago, distended by means
+of hoops, and the holders were shown as its legs, on which it
+occasionably walked). And when we recollect that the drawing was
+made from memory six weeks after the fish had been seen by those,
+who describe it, during which interval it had been their principal
+subject of conversation, we may conclude that so extraordinary an
+object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when believed to be a
+perfect one, would, in their different discourses, have every part
+exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the depositions kept
+so close to the truth as they have done.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page72">[72]</span>that this fish is not a new animal unlike any of the ordinary productions
+of nature, and we are indebted to the zeal and liberality
+of Mr. Meason and Mr. Laing, who have collected a sufficient
+body of evidence to enable me to determine that point, and prove
+it to be a Squalus, and the orifices behind the eye, which communicate
+with the mouth met with in the skull, renders it very
+probable, that it is a Squalus maximus.”</p>
+
+<p>“This opinion is further confirmed by the Squalus maximus,
+known by the name of the basking shark, being frequently seen
+upon the coast of Scotland.”</p>
+
+<p>The only remark I have to make is: Mr. <span class="smcap">Home</span> will never
+have believed that the animal of Stronsa really measured 56 feet,
+and so made himself guilty of throwing discredit on the accurate
+measuring of the eye-witnesses.</p>
+
+<p>I present here to my readers the <a href="#Fig8">figure</a> of a <i>Squalus maximus</i>,
+or Basking-shark, thus enabling them to make this animal’s acquaintance,
+if they don’t know it yet.</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig8">
+<img src="images/illo072.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 8.—Squalus maximus, Linné.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Of course Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> rejected Mr. Home’s supposition, and
+wrote a paper against it, printed in the first volume of the above
+mentioned <i>Memoirs</i>, running as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Since reading the first paper of Mr. Home, where he treats of
+the vertebrae of the Squalus maximus, I have seen another, entitled
+“An anatomical account of the Squalus maximus”. In this
+last paper, he seems to be convinced, that the animal of Stronsa
+is a Squalus maximus. The scale on which he draws his figure of
+the squalus, is a scale of half an inch to a foot.”</p>
+
+<p>“Measuring by this scale, the head of his squalus is five feet
+and a half, from the joint of the upper jaw to the gills. The
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page73">[73]</span>dried and shrivelled head of the animal of Stronsa, measures only
+twelve inches from the first vertebra to the farthest part that remains
+of the jaw.”</p>
+
+<p>“The diameter of the head of the squalus maximus, from right
+to left, at the angle of the mouth, was, according to Mr. Home,
+five feet. The broadest part of the head of the animal of Stronsa
+is, in its present state, only seven inches.”</p>
+
+<p>“The diameter of the larger vertebrae, near the head, in the
+squalus, was, according to Mr. Home, seven inches. The first
+cervical vertebra in the animal of Stronsa, is still adhering to the
+head, and is only two inches in diameter.”</p>
+
+<p>“Yet some of the vertebrae of this animal, which are still preserved,
+are six inches and a half in diameter; and the first vertebrae
+which I saw, were from four to five and a half inches across.”</p>
+
+<p>“The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa,
+confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a
+neck. But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home’s figure be accurate,
+had nothing resembling a neck. And, indeed, Artedi observes,
+that “omnes pisces qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque carent:
+Ergo soli pisces cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a
+neck, therefore, as peculiar to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise
+the account of the spiracula or ear-holes, ascribed to this animal
+of Stronsa.”</p>
+
+<p>“The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches.
+The length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was
+fifty five feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part
+of the tail was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the
+animal of Stronsa was, by actual measurement, about ten feet,
+meant, I suppose, at the thickest part. If the animal had been
+cylindrical at that part, the diameter from the dorsal to the sternal
+aspect must have been about three feet four inches. The diameter of
+the squalus at the thickest part, measuring from the dorsal to the
+sternal aspect, is nearly six feet; its circumference, had it been
+cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.”</p>
+
+<p>“The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder
+to near the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after
+deducting the length of the head and neck, which, when together
+were sixteen feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which I
+got from Mr. Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought
+here, confirm the accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys.
+The bristles of that mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page74">[74]</span>although they were, has the squalus a fin extending from the
+shoulder to the tail.”</p>
+
+<p>“A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and
+obliging Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the
+original, by Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the
+dried specimen now before us. It represents the sternum and two
+parts corresponding two scapulae, and those organs which are
+named <i>paws</i>. Mr. Home says, that these organs resemble the pectoral
+fins of his squalus. But the length of the pectoral fins,
+measuring along the upper margin, is four feet, the length of
+the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting; the part
+that remains, measures seventeen inches.”</p>
+
+<p>“The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three
+feet and seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in
+its dried state, is only five inches and three quarters.”</p>
+
+<p>“Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit
+articular surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.”</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance
+to science, that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a
+new animal, unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.”
+Of what importance it is to science to admit no new genera or
+species into our catalogues of natural history, I cannot conceive.
+But it is certainly of much importance to science, that the naturalist
+should be cautious not to determine the species of an animal
+upon vague evidence. Now what evidence had Mr. Home that this
+animal was a squalus, and even to suppose that it was a squalus
+maximus?”</p>
+
+<p>I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span>
+does not seem to make any difference between “a head” of a
+Squalus and “a skull.” It is true that the “head” of a <i>Squalus
+maximus</i> of thirty feet and a half measures five feet and a half,
+but its “skull” has only a length of ten inches. It is true that the
+diameter of the “head” of such a shark measures from right to
+left about five feet, but its “skull” would have only a few inches
+in breadth. It is true that the diameter of the larger vertebrae
+near the head of such an individual may be about seven inches,
+but what is indicated by Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> in the head of his “animal
+of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertebra”, is (don’t laugh!)
+the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous appendages!—No
+wonder that the animal of Stronsa had “a neck”,
+for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins, except
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page75">[75]</span>the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed away,
+whilst the basking shark of Mr. <span class="smcap">Home</span> had no neck, because it
+was entire.—Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which
+<span class="smcap">Artedi</span> is quoted!</p>
+
+<p>In the comparison of Mr. <span class="smcap">Home’s</span> basking shark and his own
+stranded animal, Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> also wholly overlooks, when he
+states the dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified
+remains of an animal, and not of an undamaged being.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> seems to entirely reject Mr. <span class="smcap">Home’s</span> idea that the
+“mane” had never extended over the whole back, but what was
+seen were only fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places
+of the foremost and the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of
+the “mane” only existed in the imagination of the witnesses.</p>
+
+<p>In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the <i>paws</i>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> again forgets that he has only before him a totally
+mutilated specimen.</p>
+
+<p>An extract from the “<i>Remarks</i>” of Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> was given by
+Dr. <span class="smcap">Hoffmann</span> in <span class="smcap">Oken’s</span> <i>Isis</i>, II, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst
+others he says:</p>
+
+<p>“The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the
+differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the
+slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;”
+but Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoffmann</span> himself is not free from inaccuracies! In
+none of Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay’s</span> papers mention is made of a “membranaceous
+comb extended over bony rays, which was running from the
+shoulders to the end of the tail, over the back.” He has evidently
+translated this (if we may use this expression) from the figure (see
+our <a href="#Fig7">fig. 7</a>). But this figure was made for print by Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span>, after
+a drawing made on one of the islands from the description given
+there, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span> has changed the “mane” (long loose hairs
+hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he figured
+exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced
+of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble
+to compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span> in the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal
+of Stronsa.”</p>
+
+<p>Immediately after this paper Mr. <span class="smcap">Oken</span>, the editor of the <i>Isis</i>,
+wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect
+description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship
+with other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as
+no animal with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page76">[76]</span>a cartilaginous fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia
+(a pair of additional paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or
+“holders”) were regarded as the third pair of feet, whilst the
+ventral and pectoral fins were the other pairs. “It is, however, no
+shark,” he goes on, and adduced 7 proofs for this theory; “it is,
+neither a cetacean,” and for this opinion he gives 4 different
+reasons. And yet he has the boldness to conclude: “The animal
+consequently is <i>more</i> related to the sharks, and as it is not a true
+shark, it must be a <i>Chimaera</i>”; but the reasons given to prove
+this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I will add here
+that he also says: “finally individuals of <i>Chimaera</i> of 30 feet
+in length, have already been caught”, a manifest untruth, for the
+largest ever measured were of three feet and a half!—For those
+readers who never saw a <i>Chimaera</i>, or sea-cat, or a figure of it,
+I have delineated the <i>Chimaera monstrosa</i> in our <a href="#Fig9">fig. 9</a>.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig9">
+<img src="images/illo076.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 9.—Chimaera monstrosa, Linn.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the <i>Edinb. Philos. Journ.</i> Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is published
+of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis
+was made by Dr. <span class="smcap">John Davy</span>, and communicated “a considerable
+time ago” by Dr. <span class="smcap">Leach</span> to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my
+readers with this analysis would be superfluous.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert</span> in his <i>Description of the Shetland Islands</i>, 1822,
+really believes that:</p>
+
+<p>“The existence of the sea-snake,—a monster of fifty-five feet
+long, is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown
+on shore in Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the
+Edinburgh Museum.”</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> too, in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, is of the
+same opinion: “We turn first” he says “to an account of an animal
+which apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-serpents),
+“which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the
+Orkneys, in the year 1808”, and he goes on giving some details
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page77">[77]</span>of the stranded animal, taken from the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian
+Society</i>. Later on we learn from him that:</p>
+
+<p>“Dr. <span class="smcap">Fleming</span>” in his <i>History of British Animals</i>, 1828, (this
+work I have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal,
+suggests that these members were probably the remains of pectoral,
+ventral and caudal fins.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841, after
+having published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about
+the sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm
+believer in it, goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs,
+cannot be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition,
+however, is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal,
+which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the
+Orkneys, and of which several pieces of the skeleton are said to
+be preserved in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, and
+in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. I have read a
+note about it in the London Journal <i>the Athenaeum</i>, 1839, p. 902,
+which note is taken from the work: <i>The Naturalist’s Library, Amphibious
+Carnivora, including the Walrus and Seals, also of the
+Herbivorous Cetacea</i>. By B. Hamilton, M. D. (Edinburgh, Lizars).
+An ample description of the saved rests of the animal is said to
+have been written by Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> in the first Volume of the
+<i>Memoirs of the Wernerian Society</i>. I had, however, not the
+means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-mentioned
+note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured
+56 feet and had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet.
+The head was small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15
+feet long. The organs of motion are said to have consisted of three
+pairs of fins: one pair of which is believed to have been properly
+a caudal fin. The foremost pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were
+the longest, and their tops looked like toes, partly, however,
+webbed together. From the shoulders a kind of bristly mane extended
+to near the extremity of the tail. The skin was smooth,
+without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as large as a
+seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.”</p>
+
+<p>“Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the
+head was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender,
+and the extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the
+animal stranded in Stronsa resembled a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>; and that consequently
+it belonged to the <i>Amphibia</i>, viz. to the Saurians.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page78">[78]</span></p>
+
+<p>Prof. Dr. <span class="smcap">W. F. Erichson</span>, the well known Editor of the <i>Archiv
+für Naturgeschichte</i>, expressed his opinion about the animal of
+Stronsa, immediately after the appearance of Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke’s</span> dissertation.
+After having given full details of Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay’s</span> paper, and
+an ample description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts
+belong undoubtedly to a shark,” and:</p>
+
+<p>“Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and
+in spite of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be
+so for ever, only it may not have been a <i>Selache maxima</i>, but a
+<i>Lamna cornubica</i>, which also reaches a considerable length. So the
+animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the
+Norwegians.”</p>
+
+<p>I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. <span class="smcap">Erichson</span>
+could arrive at this conclusion, as the <i>Lamna cornubica</i>, or porbeagle
+has never attained a length above 18 feet.—Our <a href="#Fig10">fig. 10</a>
+represents a porbeagle.</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig10">
+<img src="images/illo078.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 10.—Lamna cornubica (Linn.).</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor
+of the <i>Zoologist</i>, after all that had been written about the animal
+of Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his
+journal of 1849, p. 2358, he asked the following</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast
+ashore on the Island of Stronsa in 1808.</i>”</p>
+
+<p>“In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society”
+(vol. I. p. 418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast
+ashore on the island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the
+Doctor figures the head with a vertebra attached, four other
+vertebrae and a sternum with a paddle “and two parts corresponding
+two scapulae” attached. He speaks of the originals of these
+figures as specimens then before the audience he was addressing.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page79">[79]</span>He gives seven inches as the diameter of the head, and two inches
+as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then still attached to the
+head. The total length of the animal is given as fifty-five feet, and
+this from actual admeasurement. It is now positively asserted that
+the animal in question was a shark; but the utter impossibility of
+a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head only seven inches
+in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches in diameter, is
+so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I shall esteem
+it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the means
+of doing so will reply to the following questions:—</p>
+
+<p>“1. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained?</p>
+
+<p>“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?</p>
+
+<p>“3. Where are these bones preserved?</p>
+
+<p>“4. What is their present state?</p>
+
+<p>“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc.?</p>
+
+<p>“6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative
+anatomist? and if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?</p>
+
+<p>“Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the
+questions at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus,
+order or class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head
+and sternum of the creature are still in existence.”—</p>
+
+<p>The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in
+the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, p. 2396:</p>
+
+<p id="Ref8">“<i>Reply to Mr.</i> <span class="smcap">Newman</span>’<i>s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the
+Stronsa Animal</i>.—Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an
+animal cast on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the
+“Memoirs of the Wernerian Society”,—after some little trouble
+I have been able to answer most of these questions.”</p>
+
+<p>“1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtained?—It
+will be seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that
+George Sherar, one of those who saw the animal, mentions that
+he brought away, to deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian),
+the skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs next the head,
+with different parts of the back-bone, besides the bones that were
+formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, I suppose, forwarded them to Dr.
+Barclay.”</p>
+
+<p>“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?—The
+answer to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took
+them from the same animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present
+state?—Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page80">[80]</span>College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches
+in diameter; and four in the University Natural History Museum,
+preserved in spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas
+the other three are separate.”</p>
+
+<p>“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &amp;c.?—6.
+Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist?
+if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?—This is
+answered by the annoying fact that the skull has not been preserved.”</p>
+
+<p>“On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae,
+he tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly
+those of a Shark (<i>Squalus maximus</i>), as are the skull, sternum and
+scapulae, figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs”, p. 418.”</p>
+
+<p>“We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who
+saw this extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on
+closer inspection even these will be found to have little weight in
+the argument. In the first place it is infortunate that no well-educated
+person saw it: they were all ignorant, illiterate men,
+who most likely knew nothing further of a shark than that it was
+an animal with a huge mouth, capable of discussing so many
+seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly adapted for amputating
+limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses agreeing
+in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six legs:
+on this point it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing anything
+of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility
+of such a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it is
+at once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and
+scapulae with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol.
+I. p. 418); the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his
+“British Animals”, supposes were claspers. In the last place we
+may notice one striking contradiction in the evidences: Thomas
+Fotheringhame seems to have been astonished at such a large
+animal having such a narrow throat,—so narrow indeed that it
+would not admit his hand; while George Sherar would have had
+no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there is nothing
+to prove that Thomas Fotheringhame’s hand was larger than George
+Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other must
+have made a mistake in his calculation.”</p>
+
+<p>“We might further suggest the improbability of any animal
+sixty feet long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and
+we might even suspect the carpenter’s footrule of showing a decided
+taste for the marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page81">[81]</span>remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was certainly
+not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most
+likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which
+the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg-Island (Wern.
+Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance.—Jas.
+C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.”</p>
+
+<p>As to the animal seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span>, see our <a href="#Report31">report n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>,
+in the following chapter.</p>
+
+<p>One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa”
+was now set at rest. Not at all! Dr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Stewart Traill</span>
+wrote a paper about it, published in the <i>Proceedings of the Royal
+Society of Edinburgh</i>, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 44, 1854, June, comparing
+it with the animal seen by the Captain, officers and crew of H.
+M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> (see our <a href="#Report118">report n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a> in the next chapter). The
+part of his dissertation, respecting the “animal of Stronsa” runs
+as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal
+reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain
+M’Quhae, the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the
+Southern Atlantic, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena,
+about 300 miles off the African shore, recalled my attention to
+the materials I had collected respecting the vast animal cast ashore
+on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys, in 1808.”</p>
+
+<p>“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made
+by those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me
+by order of Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on
+whose property it was stranded; and I obtained other notes from
+several individuals resident in Orkney.”</p>
+
+<p>“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and
+measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were
+transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists.
+Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the
+late Gilbert Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the
+skull and several vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which
+a portion of the pectoral fin, or <i>wing</i>, as it was termed by the
+natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined
+them.”</p>
+
+<p>“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of
+what was termed the <i>mane</i> of the animal, which I now exhibit.”</p>
+
+<p>“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying
+on a sunken rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head;
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page82">[82]</span>but in a few days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on
+shore in a creek near the headland, where it remained for some
+time tolerably entire; and it was subsequently broken up by the
+fury of the waves. Before it was thus broken into several pieces it
+was examined, and measured by several intelligent inhabitants of
+the Island; and their testimony collected as above stated was forwarded
+to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations were, however,
+accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal, which was
+thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather
+allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the
+storm abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing,
+to collect what information he could on the subject. But by this
+time the body of the animal was completely broken up. This lad,
+who was no draughtsman, and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured,
+from the descriptions of those who had seen the animal
+most entire, to delineate with chalk on a table a figure of the
+animal. The rude figure so produced was transferred by pencil to
+paper, and copies of it were handed about as real representations
+of the animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted
+by those who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards
+obtained, it would appear that the <i>jointed legs</i>, which the lad
+had attached to it, are creations of his own imagination.”</p>
+
+<p>“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation,
+were never called <i>legs</i> by those who saw the animal, but were
+denominated by them <i>wings</i> or <i>fins</i> or swimming paws. “That
+nearest the head was broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half
+feet in length, and was edged all round with bristles or fibres,
+about ten inches long”. The “lower jaw was wanting when it was
+cast ashore, but there remained cartilaginous teeth in portions of
+the jaws”. Before it was discovered putrefaction had commenced,
+especially in the <i>fins</i>. The animal had a long and slender neck,
+on which there were two spiracles on each side.”</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>wings</i> would seem to have been the remains of fins,
+altered by incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains
+of pectoral, abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have
+been placed, like those of some of the shark family, farther from
+the centre of the abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of
+the witnesses states that “the wings of the animal were jointed to
+the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the
+drawing”.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page83">[83]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The portion of the anterior fin or <i>wing</i>, which was attached to
+the omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a
+structure of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition,
+the rays might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural
+science, seem like toes or fingers.”</p>
+
+<p>“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing
+the fins of fishes:”—</p>
+
+<p>“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires
+membraneuses representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et
+des pieds.”</p>
+
+<p>“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal
+rests on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw
+it most entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew
+the three principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George
+Sherar, and William Folsetter, to be men of excellent character,
+and of remarkable intelligence. They were not <i>ignorant fishermen</i>,
+as the witnesses were represented to be; but two of them were of
+the better sort of farmers in that part of Orkney; and the first
+and the last of them were also very ingenious mechanics, much
+accustomed to the use of the <i>footrule</i>, the instrument employed
+in measuring the animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that
+I can have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made
+of their impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”</p>
+
+<p>“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months
+after these accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr.
+Home (afterwards Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside
+the evidence of the persons who saw and measured the animal in
+its most entire condition, as to its dimensions of length and thickness;
+and maintains that it was nothing but a Basking shark
+(Selache maximum!), which he supposes the love of the marvellous
+had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those whom he is
+pleased to call “<i>ignorant fishermen</i>”. Unfortunately for Home’s
+hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to
+those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the
+Orkney Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so
+totally different from the animal in question, that the two could
+scarcely be confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had
+ever seen them.”</p>
+
+<p>“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion
+towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions)
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page84">[84]</span>measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of
+the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account
+scarcely exceeds thirty six feet.”</p>
+
+<p>“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different.
+My notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body
+of the Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much
+towards the head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large
+Basking shark, where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides,
+the shark-like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded
+with the eel-like form of the Stronsey animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by
+different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more
+oval than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness,
+who had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized
+horse in thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to
+fourteen hands in height, I found their greatest circumference to
+be from seventy-one to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet
+eleven inches to six feet one inch), or an average of six feet, that
+is less than the thickest part of our animal, but seemingly near
+that of its average dimensions.)”</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>mane</i> as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a
+decomposed fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a
+fin; and the animal seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had
+a mane, floating about like sea-weed; and a similar appendage
+has generally been noticed in some less distinct accounts of a supposed
+sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior
+<i>wings</i>, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and
+differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the <i>mane</i>
+consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the
+back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine
+animal. That its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from
+the specimen now exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches
+in length; and in the dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency,
+equal to that of isinglass.”</p>
+
+<p>“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our
+Museum, have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in
+the Wernerian Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their
+want of processes and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance
+to those of chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent
+to the cranium, measured only two inches across; while that of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page85">[85]</span>the Basking-shark, in the same situation, is about seven inches in
+diameter. Dr. Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of
+the omoplates, and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are
+accurately given, from a drawing made from the recent remains,
+by the late Mr. John T. Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman,
+and able naturalist. I know the representation to be correct, for I
+saw and handled the specimen. The substance of this part was a
+firm, but flexible cartilage, and seemed to have been placed in the
+muscles; just as Cuvier describes the omoplates of sharks to be:
+Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans le chair, en arrière des Branchies,
+sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à l’espine. The Orkney animal
+seems to have had <i>two circular</i> spiracles on each side of its neck,
+about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the Basking shark has <i>five
+linear</i> spiracles on each side, a foot or more in length.”</p>
+
+<p>“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far
+too small for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual
+length of that species. It measured in its dried state no more than
+twelve inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven
+inches. A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a
+head of at least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium
+at the angles of the mouth, would have measured probably
+five feet. These proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal
+could not possibly be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed
+to see the Basking shark, with that fish. There was a hole on the
+top of the cranium, something similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans;
+but its lateral spiracles and cartilaginous bones forbid us to
+refer it to the order of cetacea”.</p>
+
+<p>“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious
+<i>fish</i>, different from any described by naturalists; but
+it has no pretensions to the denomination of <i>Sea Serpent</i> or <i>Sea
+Snake</i>, although its general form, and probably its mode of progression
+in the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order
+of <i>Serpentes</i>. Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known
+shark; nor does it belong to the family of Squalidae”.</p>
+
+<p>I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill’s</span>
+paper. First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was
+cast on shore by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime
+tolerably entire”. This is not true, for the dead animal was already
+in a very putrified and damaged state, when it floated on the surface
+of the sea, for the pectoral fin was already putrified and the
+fibres had become loose.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page86">[86]</span></p>
+
+<p>Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”,
+but they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by
+the strength of the hand”.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span> further says that “they would seem to have been
+the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six
+may be remains of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there
+is no fish known to Zoologists, that has <i>two</i> anal fins. The anal
+fin is therefore called an <i>unpaired</i> fin!</p>
+
+<p>In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those
+of <span class="smcap">Home’s</span> Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. <i>Barclay</i>, permanently
+believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”!
+Further he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of
+which we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six
+feet”. Consulting Prof. <span class="smcap">H. Schlegel’s</span> <i>De visschen van Nederland</i>,
+I read, however:</p>
+
+<p>“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England,
+had a length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are
+usually observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this
+capture, which are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences,
+transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop <span class="smcap">Gunner</span>,
+sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than
+100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”.</p>
+
+<p>In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the
+two dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so
+that their fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called
+“first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. <i>Barclay</i>!</p>
+
+<p>The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of
+course no relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not
+“spiracles” as Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span> says) of the Basking-shark. These “two
+spiracles on each side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”.
+They may have been decomposed stems of the vascular system in
+the flesh near the skull of the animal.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span>, no more than Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span>, seemed to have known
+the difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or
+“cranium”!</p>
+
+<p>The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in
+the engraving representing the skull in the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian
+Society</i> is evidently the result of putrification and of an external
+injury.</p>
+
+<p>I need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of
+Stronsa”. They may more than once have observed that I agree
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page87">[87]</span>with Mr. <span class="smcap">Everard Home’s</span> opinion in all particulars, except in
+the so-called exaggerated dimensions. I firmly believe that the carcass
+of the animal measured fifty-five feet from the head to the
+end of the tail, and as a piece of tail seems to have been broken
+off, the vertebral column may even have been one of sixty feet.
+The dried and shrivelled skull measured twelve inches “from the
+first cervical vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw”.
+But as I have pointed out that this “first cervical vertebra” was in
+reality the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous
+appendages, and as this nose tip must have measured (see
+the drawing of the skull in the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian Society</i>,
+Vol. I) two inches, the whole skull measured fourteen inches. But
+the skull was dried and shrivelled, consequently we may safely
+admit that it measured in its perfect state about twenty inches.
+Consequently I conclude that: the largest Basking-shark that ever
+stranded on the coasts of Great Britain measured upwards of sixty
+feet, viz. the so-called “Animal of Stronsa”. The putrified body of
+it was floated ashore, and the putrification had continued so far
+that the almost black covering of the two backfins and the tail-fin
+were not only washed away by the waves, but that their yellow
+fibres had become loose. The eye-witnesses evidently reasoned that
+these fibres must have been present all along the back between
+these three parts, now far remote one from another, but were
+washed away, and they therefore concluded that the animal had
+“a mane, extending from the shoulders” (the part of the back at
+the level of the pectoral fins) “to the tail”, i. e. to the end of the
+tail. Or, according to another witness it extended “to within two
+feet and a half of the tail”; which may be explained in two ways,
+viz., either he meant that the mane extended to within two feet
+and a half beyond the level of the last pair of paws (the claspers),
+consequently the level where the tail begins, and here is the exact
+place of the hindmost back-fin, or he meant that the mane did
+not quite extend to the point of the tail, from which we in our
+turn may conclude that the last two feet and a half of the tail had
+already been wholly cleared from the fibres of the putrified tail-fin.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover putrification on one side, and the beating of the waves
+on the other side, had already removed the animal’s enormous
+jaws, gills, with adherent muscles and cartilages, and all the
+entrails, except the valvular intestine. On persons who never saw
+such a mutilated specimen of a shark, the animal <i>must</i> have made
+the impression of being a sea-snake!</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page88">[88]</span></p>
+
+<p>As to the sketch, made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Petrie</span> after the descriptions of
+one of the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat
+altered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span>, it will appear at a glance that besides the
+ridiculous legs, the head (read skull) of it is drawn too large. The
+carrion was 56 feet long and the drawing only 74 lines, consequently
+the length of one foot is represented by a space of 1.3
+line. A skull of 14 inches should therefore be in this drawing
+only 1.5 line long, and not 6 lines. Last not least, the “mane”
+is not delineated on only three different places, as it really was,
+but from the “shoulders” to the end of the tail, according to the
+wrong conclusions of those “most intelligent eye-witnesses”! This
+terrible “mane” was evidently the <i>only</i> cause of all this trouble,
+and of the whole puzzle!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1816.—<i>Phil. Mag.</i>, LIV, 1819.—The third sea-serpent described
+by Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> (for he believes there are several species),
+is called by him:</p>
+
+<p>“3. <i>The Scarlet Sea-Serpent.</i> This was observed in the Atlantic
+Ocean, by the captain and crew of an American vessel from New-York,
+while reposing and coiled up, near the surface of the water,
+in the summer of 1816. It is very likely that it was a fish, and
+perhaps might belong to the same genus with the foregoing; I
+shall refer it thereto, with doubt, and name it <i>Octipos? coccineus</i>.
+Entirely of a bright crimson; head acute. Nothing further descriptive
+was added in the gazettes where the account was given, except
+that its length was supposed to be about 40 feet.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig11">
+<img src="images/illo088.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 11.—A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the Sea.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>I am convinced that this “sea-serpent” was a great calamary. As
+the greatest ever found, measured from the tip of the tail to the
+tips of the extended shorter arms about 30 feet (a calamary reposing
+or swimming in the sea always has its long tentacular arms
+coiled up), the length of 40 feet probably is exaggerated. I give
+here a <a href="#Fig11">figure</a> of a large calamary, swimming on the surface of the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page89">[89]</span>water (taken from Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee’s</span> Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883,
+corrected, however, as to its proportions), and now my readers
+most probably will agree with me that such an animal has been
+seen. The hillocks of the short arms make the appearance of a long
+undulating body. The body of such an animal is quite scarlet or
+crimson, and the tail (the so-called head) is acute.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1822, June.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of 1822, III, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Some time ago the American newspapers were filled with the
+reports of a sea-serpent which showed itself in the neighbourhood.
+Also more than a year ago an animal was caught, supposed to be
+such a one, which, however, was recognized as a large tunny. It
+appears by the New-York newspaper of June 15th., that such an
+animal taken for a great sea-serpent has been caught in a bay near
+Middleton-Point. This monster measured thirty feet and has a
+circumference of 18 feet. It had already been seen for some days,
+floating like a huge trunk. Some persons had fired at it with guns,
+but without any result. Having got into shallow water it could
+not regain the high sea, was killed with harpoons, towed aland
+and flayed. The liver alone produced three barrels of train-oil. It
+took six men two hours to drag the skin, which will be stuffed,
+to a distance of about 200 yards off. None of the old whalemen
+and seamen who saw the animal, knew it. There were no guts (?)
+and there was no heart (??). In the beak six rows of small sharp
+teeth were counted and the throat was wide enough for a tall
+man to pass. The skin was lead coloured and could be used as a
+stone for sharpening knives (apparently an unusual large shark?)”</p>
+
+<p>About the tunny I allow myself to refer the reader to our <a href="#Fig1">fig.
+1</a>.—We immediately agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> that this animal
+was a large shark. Evidently it was dead, “floating some days
+like a huge trunk”. The reason that no whaleman recognized the
+animal, that neither guts nor heart was found, is of course to be
+found in the fact that the animal was putrified, irrecognizable, and
+had already lost its guts and some other entrails. Evidently it was
+a basking-shark, <i>Squalus maximus</i> (See our <a href="#Fig8">fig. 8</a>). The length of
+30 feet and girth of 18 feet is normal in this species. Norwegian
+fishermen harpoon it to procure the train-oil from the liver. The
+teeth are comparatively small and conical, the skin is lead coloured
+and can really be used as a whet-stone.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page90">[90]</span></p>
+
+<p>1849.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2335, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A young sea-serpent.</i>—On Friday, while some fishermen belonging
+to Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what appeared
+to them a young sea-serpent, and lost no time in bringing
+the young monster to the secretary of our Museum. The animal,
+whatever it may be called, is still alive, and we have just been
+favoured with a sight of it; but whether it really be a young sea-serpent
+or not, we shall leave those who are better acquainted
+with Zoology than we are to determine. Be it what it may, it is
+a living creature, more than 20 feet in length, less than an inch
+in circumference, and of a dark brown chocolate colour. When at
+rest its body is round; but when it is handled it contracts upon
+itself, and assumes a flattish form. When not disturbed its motions
+are slow; but when taken out of the water and extended, it contracts
+like what a long cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds
+itself up in spiral form, and soon begins to secrete a whitish
+mucous from the skin, which cements the folds together, as for
+the purpose of binding the creature into the least possible dimensions.”—“<i>Montrose
+Standard.</i>”—</p>
+
+<p>“[This creature was probably a specimen of Gordius marinus. I
+am obliged for the extract.—E. Newman.]”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> suggesting this worm to be a <i>Gordius marinus</i>
+evidently did not mean the <i>Gordius marinus</i> of <span class="smcap">Linné</span>, but that of
+<span class="smcap">Montagu</span>. The former is a little worm of about one half of an
+inch in length, living parasitically in the entrails of some fishes,
+especially in herrings, whilst the latter is identical to <i>Lineus
+longissimus</i> of <span class="smcap">Sowerby</span>, belonging to the family of <i>Lineidae</i>, to
+the order of <i>Nemertini</i>, to the class of <i>Platyelminthes</i> or Flat-Worms.
+Of this species individuals of thirty to forty-five feet in
+length have occasionally been dredged.</p>
+
+<p>Having the means of consulting the splendid work of the British
+Nemerteans of Mr. Mc. <span class="smcap">Intosh</span>, I am able to show my readers in
+fig. 12 this <i>Lineus longissimus</i>, on a reduced scale.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page91">[91]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig12">
+<img src="images/illo091.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 12.—Lineus longissimus, Sow.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page92">[92]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1849, March 26.—Another would be sea-serpent; (Zoologist p.
+2433 for 1849):</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A strange marine animal</i>, of great size and strength, was captured
+on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By
+the enclosed handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears
+to be quite unknown to the neighbouring <i>savants</i>. The honest
+fishermen who drew the struggling monster to land are not, however,
+overscrupulous about the name, provided it be attractive
+enough to extract from the pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 6<i>d.</i>;
+working people 3<i>d.</i> each”: they therefore boldly announce him as
+“the great sea-serpent caught at last”. My correspondent very
+judiciously observes, that whatever the animal may be, it adds
+another to the many evidences constantly occurring that there <i>are</i>
+more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of by the most
+experienced practical observers. Some thirty five years since, the
+distinguished anatomist Dr. Barclay, was fain to reproach his contemporaries
+with the folly of affecting to suppose that they knew
+every thing. What additions have five and thirty years not given
+to Science! As the animal in question must be at least a local
+visitor, may we not hope, that some resident naturalist will favour
+us with a notice of it?”</p>
+
+<p>“The great Sea-Serpent caught at last, by fourteen fishermen,
+off Cullercoats, on Monday last, March 26, 1849. This most
+wonderful monster of the deep was discovered by a crew of fishermen,
+about six miles from the land, who, after a severe struggle,
+succeeded in capturing this, the most wonderful production of the
+mighty deep. This monster has been visited by numbers of the
+gentry and scientific men of Newcastle, and all declare that nothing
+hitherto discovered in Natural History affords any resemblance to
+this. As an object of scientific inquiry, this “great unknown” must
+prove a subject of peculiar interest. Many surmises as to its habits,
+native shores, etc., have already been made, but nothing is really
+known. The general opinion expressed by those that are best able
+to judge, is, that this is the great sea-serpent, which hitherto has
+only been believed to have a fabulous existence, but which recent
+voyagers declare they have seen. Now exhibiting, at the shop, 57,
+Grey Street, opposite the High Bridge. Admission: ladies and gentlemen
+6<i>d.</i>, Working people 3<i>d.</i> each.”</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of May 19, 1849, we find the
+following account of this capture:</p>
+
+<p>“The Sea-Serpent.—We observe in the Newcastle papers that
+a strange and hitherto unknown fish, nearly 13 feet in length,
+and possessing many of the characteristics which the captain of
+the <i>Daedalus</i> enumerated in his description of the great Sea-Snake,
+has really been caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats’
+fishermen, and has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page93">[93]</span>has created the greatest sensation. The members of the National
+History Society of that town have duly reported upon it, and
+expressed their opinion, that it is a young specimen of the genus
+<i>Gymnetrus</i>, only four of which species, and those very rare, are
+known to ichthyologists, and described by Cuvier and others as
+inhabiting the Indian, Mediterranean and White Seas. The present
+specimen has become the property of a Newcastle merchant, who
+has presented it to the museum of that town; and we understand
+that, in accordance with a very general wish of most of our
+distinguished naturalists, it is now exhibiting in the metropolis.”</p>
+
+<p>As we read in the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, p. 2460—2462, Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Albany Hancock</span> and Dr. <span class="smcap">Embleton</span> now declared it to be a
+probably new species of the genus of riband-fish (<i>Gymnetrus</i>).</p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig13">
+<img src="images/illo093.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 13.—Gymnetrus gladius, Cuv. Val.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the <i>Gymnetrus
+gladius</i> of <span class="smcap">Cuvier</span> and <span class="smcap">Valenciennes</span>, taken from the <i>Règne Animal</i>.
+This fish is of a silvery colour, except the fins and the peculiar
+articulated head-ornaments, which are crimson. Its length is about
+ten feet, its home the Mediterranean. The <i>Gymnetrus Banksii</i> or
+<i>Regalecus Banksii</i> of Cuvier, closely allied to it, measures about
+twenty feet, sometimes more, and is, though rarely, hitherto
+caught only near the British shores. The fish in question therefore
+most probably belonged to this species.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page94">[94]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Ref4">1852, Aug. 28.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Newton</span>, of Elveden Hall,
+forwarded the following report to the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> (see
+this journal for 1853, p. 3756).</p>
+
+<p>“I have lately received the following account from my brother,
+Capt. Steele, 9th. Lancers, who on his way out to India in the Barham,
+saw the sea-serpent. Thinking it might be interesting to you, as
+corroborating the account of the Daedalus, I have taken the liberty
+of sending you the extract from my brother’s letter:—“On the
+28th. of August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16′ S., about half-past
+two, we had all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when
+the first mate called us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight.
+About five hundred yards from the ship there was the head and
+neck of an enormous snake; we saw about sixteen or twenty feet
+out of the water, and he <i>spouted</i> a long way from his head; down
+his back he had a crest like a cock’s comb, and was going very
+slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty or sixty
+feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put the
+ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached
+him, he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. <i>He
+was seen by every one on board.</i>” My brother is no naturalist, and
+I think this is the first time the monster has ever been seen to
+spout.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am told by a gentleman whose brother was on board the
+ship (the Barham) referred in the following extract from “The
+Times” newspaper of November 17, 1852, that the occurrence
+there related took place between 35° and 40° S. lat. and 40° and
+45° E. long., being about 650 miles due south of Madagascar. I
+understand that the particulars of the event as there stated closely
+agree with those furnished to my informant, and further, which
+is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole circumstance,
+that the animal was observed to “blow” or “spout” in the same
+manner that a whale does.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Extract from an Officer’s Letter written between the Cape and
+Madras.</i> You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen
+the great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion.
+Information was given by a sailor to the captain, just as we were
+going to dinner. I was in my cabin at the time, and from the
+noise and excitement, I thought the ship was on fire. I rushed
+on deck, and on looking over the side of the vessel I saw a most
+wonderful sight, which I shall recollect as long as I live. His head
+appeared to be about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page95">[95]</span>moving it up and down, sometimes showing his enormous neck,
+which was surmounted with a huge crest in the shape of a saw.
+It was surrounded by hundreds of birds, and we at first thought
+it was a dead whale. He left a track in the water like the wake
+of a boat, and from what we could see of the head and part of
+his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet in
+length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away
+to get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards
+he slowly sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at
+dinner he was seen again, and a midshipman took a sketch of
+him, of which I will send you a copy.”—<i>The Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, 1<sup>st</sup> Series, p.
+311, says of these rapports:</p>
+
+<p>“The descriptions, however, show great discrepancy with that of
+the creature, seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>” (see <a href="#Report118">report n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a> in the
+next chapter) “and cannot be considered confirmatory of the former
+account, otherwise than as proving that immense unrecognized
+creatures of elongate form roam the ocean.”</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Alfred Newton, of Elveden Hall, an excellent and well-known
+naturalist, adds the guarantee of his personal acquaintance
+with one of the recipients of the above letters.”</p>
+
+<p>“I note this, because discredit has been undeservedly cast on
+the phenomena observed, by foolish fabulous stories having been
+published under fictitious names, for the purpose of hoaxing.”</p>
+
+<p>“If it were not for the spouting—which is not mentioned by one
+observer, and may possibly have been an illusion,—I should be
+inclined to think that this may have been one of the scabbard
+fishes, specimens of which inhabit the ocean of immense size. They
+carry a high serrated dorsal fin, and swim with the head out of
+the water.”</p>
+
+<p>By inserting these reports in the present chapter, I already
+show my readers, that I agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, that this animal
+cannot have been a sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>I confess that I am unable to give a decisive answer to the
+question as to what kind of animal it really was. <i>Apparently</i> the
+most plausible explanation is that given by Mr. Gosse, viz., that
+it was a riband or scabbard fish. The dorsal fin which in these
+kind of fishes begins at the occiput, is red or crimson coloured,
+and serrated, so that it may have given rise to the expressions of
+“a crest like a cock’s comb”, and “a huge crest in the shape of
+a saw”. But riband fishes are deep-sea fishes. When floating on
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page96">[96]</span>the surface they are dying or already dead. They never “swim
+with their head above the surface”! Moreover the green colour
+does not agree with the common silvery hue of these animals. A
+riband fish is delineated in <a href="#Fig13">fig. 13</a>, p. 93.</p>
+
+<p>But wonderful it may seem that after having uttered this opinion,
+a few pages further on Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> uses this report amongst others
+to fix the class of living creatures to which the sea-serpent belongs.
+And what is the conclusion he arrives at?—that it belongs to the
+group of <i>Plesiosauri</i>, or at least is related to it!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1858, July 9.—<i>Another Sea-Serpent.</i>—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1859, p.
+6492.)—“The Amsterdamsche Courant of October 6, 1858, inserts
+the following letter from Captain L. Bijl, of the Dutch bark
+“Hendrik Ido Ambacht”, to the “Jorn-Bode”:—“Sailing in the
+South Atlantic, in 27° 27′ N. Lat., and 14° 51,′ E. long., we
+perceived on July the 9th., between twelve and one o’clock in the
+afternoon, a dangerous sea monster, which during nine days constantly
+kept alongside of us to 37° 55′ S. lat., and 42° 9′ E. long.
+This animal was about 90 feet long and 25 to 30 feet broad, and,
+most of the time, it struck the ship with such a force as to make
+it vibrate. The monster blew much water, which spread an unpleasant
+stench over the deck. The captain, fearing lest the animal
+might disable the rudder, did his utmost to get rid of his fearful
+antagonist, but without success. After it had received more than
+a hundred musket-balls, a harpoon and a long iron bar, blood
+was seen to flow from various wounds, so that at last from loss
+of strength, the monster could swim behind our vessel no longer,
+and we were delivered of it. By its violent blows against the
+copper the animal’s skin had been damaged in several places.”—J.
+H. van Lennep, Zeist.”&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor2" href="#Footnote2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+<p><a id="Footnote2" href="#FNanchor2" class="label">[2]</a> <i>Jorn Bode</i>
+is most probably a misprint for <i>Java-Bode</i>. <i>Zeist</i> is the well-known
+charming village, east of Utrecht, the fourth town of the Netherlands.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>As to the animal, seen from the <i>Hendrik Ido Ambacht</i>, I think
+it must have been a sick spermwhale, which was out of temper;
+why else should it have been so angry that it followed the bark
+nine days, cuffing it “most of the time”? Moreover the nature
+of spermwhales is well enough known as angry and war-like.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page97">[97]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Ref2">1860?—In the <i>Zoologist</i> for this year we read p. 6934:</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A sea-serpent in the Bermudas.</i>—I beg to send you the following
+account of a strange sea-monster captured on these shores,
+the animal being, in fact, no less than the great sea-serpent which
+was described as having been seen by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M.
+S. “Daedalus”, a few years since. Two gentlemen named Trimingham
+were walking along the shore of Hungary Bay, in Hamilton Island,
+on Sunday last, about eleven o’clock, when they were attracted
+by a loud rushing noise in the water, and, on reaching the spot,
+they found a huge sea-monster, which had thrown itself on the
+low rocks, and was dying from exhaustion in its efforts to regain
+the water. They attacked it with large forks which were lying near
+at hand for gathering in sea-weed, and unfortunately mauled it
+much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven inches in
+length, tapering from head to tail like a snake, the body being
+a flatfish oval shape, the greatest depth at about a third of its
+length from the head, being eleven inches. The colour was bright
+and silvery; the skin destitute of scales but rough and warty; the
+head in shape not unlike that of a bull-dog, but it is destitute of
+teeth; the eyes were large, flat, and extremely brilliant, it had
+small pectoral fins, and minute ventral fins, and large gills. There
+were a series of fins running along the back, composed of short,
+slender rays, united by a transparent membrane, at the interval
+of something less than an inch from each other. The creature had
+no bone, but a cartilage running through the body. Across the
+body at certain intervals were bands, where the skin was of a
+more flexible nature, evidently intended for the creature’s locomotion,
+screw like, through the water. But its most remarkable
+feature was a series of eight long thin spines of a bright red
+colour springing from the top of the head and following each
+other at an interval of about an inch; the longest was in the
+centre: it is now in the possession of Colonel Munro, the acting
+Governor of the Colony; and I had the opportunity of examining
+it very closely. It is two feet seven inches long, about three eighth
+of an inch in circumference at the base, and gradually tapering,
+but flattened at the extreme end, like the blade of an oar. The
+shell of these spines is hard, and, on examination by a powerful
+glass, appeared to be double, some red colouring matter being
+between the shells; the outside, which to the touch and natural
+eye was smooth, being rough and much similar to the small claws
+or feelers of the lobster or crayfish. The centre was a wide pith,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page98">[98]</span>like an ordinary quill. The three foremost of these spines were
+connected for about half their length by a greasy filament; the
+rest being unconnected; the serpent had the power of elevating or
+depressing the crest at pleasure. The serpent was carefully examined
+by several medical and scientific gentlemen; the head, dorsal
+spine, and greater part of the crest are in the possession of J. M.
+Jones Esq., an eminent naturalist, who will, doubtless, send home
+a more learned description of this “wonder of the deep”. I regret
+that the immediate departure of the mail for England prevents
+my preparing you any more careful drawing of this great “sea-serpent”
+than that I enclose.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds hereto the following
+note:</p>
+
+<p>“Written by Captain Hawtaigne, of Her Majesty’s 39 Foot. I
+place implicit reliance on the narrative, except as to the animal
+being identical with that seen by Capt. M’Quhae, of which I
+think there is no evidence. Mr. J. M. Jones is an old subscriber
+to the <i>Zoologist</i>, and a most intelligent; but the query occurs to
+me, “Is not <i>this</i> sea-serpent a ribband fish?”—</p>
+
+<p>Yes, <i>this</i> sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent naturalist”,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">J. M. Jones</span>, soon afterwards described this species
+for the <i>Zoologist</i>, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span> has “received the following particulars of this
+most interesting capture from an old and valued correspondent of
+the <i>Zoologist</i>. It must be read in connection with a previous note
+on the same animal in the April number of the <i>Zoologist</i>. (Zool.
+p. 6934)”.</p>
+
+<p>Now follows the description of the animal, by Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Mathew
+Jones</span>, with which we will not trouble our readers, only referring
+them to our <a href="#Fig13">fig. 13</a>, p. 93, of a ribband fish, closely allied to
+the specimen, captured in the Bermudas.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea-serpent
+seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (see <a href="#Report118">report n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>), and concludes
+that part of the reports concerning the great sea-serpent
+originated from the appearance of ribband fishes. His views of the
+matter, however, will be treated of in our <a href="#Page380">chapter</a> on the various
+explanations.</p>
+
+<p>Immediately after this article Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> wrote another, in
+which he shows that this fish is a <i>new species</i>, giving it the name
+<i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, <span class="smcap">Newman</span>. How far Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was right in
+doing so, I am unable to decide. He gives a full description of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page99">[99]</span>his new species, and adds that he is not competent to express an
+opinion upon the similarity of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i> to Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae’s</span>
+sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1878.—The <i>Scotsman</i> of September 6th. of this year has inserted
+in its columns the following account.</p>
+
+<p>“A Baby Sea-Serpent.—From Van Diemen’s Land comes news
+of the capture of a queer fish. It is fourteen feet long, fifteen
+inches deep from the neck to the belly, tapering two inches to the
+tail, and eight inches in diameter in the thickest place. There are
+no scales, but the skin is like polished silver, with eighteen dark
+lines and rows of spots running from the head to the tail each
+side. There is a mane on the neck twenty inches long, and continues
+from the head to the tail; small head, no teeth, protrusive
+mouth, capable of being extended four inches like a sucker; eyes
+flat, about the size of a half crown, and like silver, with black
+pupils. There are two feelers under the chin, thirty-two inches
+long. The fish was alive when captured.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> who communicated this capture in <i>Nature</i>
+of the 12th. of September, 1878, Vol. XVIII, thinks that this
+account “seems explicable only on the tape fish theory.” I think
+he might have written “<i>is</i> explicable only on the tape fish theory”,
+or in short: “this was evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is identical
+to a ribband fish. Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes,
+some species evidently don’t live at great depth, and are occasionally
+cast ashore after a storm, as had also happened, in 1860,
+on the Bermudas (see <a href="#Ref2">hereabove</a>).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1879, December 23.—(<span class="smcap">G. Verschuur</span>, <i>Eene reis rondom de
+wereld in 480 dagen</i>, p. 51.)</p>
+
+<p>On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> on board the
+<i>Granada</i>, left Mazatlan, a harbour on the western coast of Mexico,
+for San Francisco. Probably on the 23d. the <i>Granada</i> passed Cape
+San Lucas at 23° N. lat. Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> says:</p>
+
+<p>“Past Cape San Lucas, one afternoon, as I am gazing at the
+ocean surface, I see a long neck rising out of the water very close
+to the ship. I beckon some other passengers who are on deck,
+and after a few minutes the object in question appears a second
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page100">[100]</span>time. It is the neck of a snake, one would say, and we estimate
+the length of the visible part of the animal at about a meter. The
+thickness is about that of the upper-arm of a full-grown man and
+the head ends in a point, and is as large as a child’s head”.</p>
+
+<p>“We call the whole crew, and the captain as well as some officers
+run to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless
+five of us had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent altercation
+arose, when one of the officers said we evidently were
+mistaken, because the sea-serpent did not exist.”</p>
+
+<p>“Nobody of us, it is true, could affirm that it was a sea-serpent.
+We could only firmly maintain that what we had seen, agreed in
+all respects with the shape of a serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>“The second officer, who joined in the conversation, declared to
+have observed in 1871 near the coast of Australia, a sea-serpent
+which was several meters in length, and when this statement too
+was called in question, the quarrel got warmer and warmer, and,
+as it generally happens in such cases, every one kept his own opinion,
+and the world did not get any the wiser for it.”</p>
+
+<p>“Does the sea-serpent exist, or does he not? This is a problem
+which has been answered more than once in the most affirmative
+manner, and also in a negative sense. I have heard the question
+disputed on more than one voyage.”</p>
+
+<p>In order to obtain more particulars about the animal, I wrote
+to Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the following
+questions:</p>
+
+<p>“Did the features of the “snake” make on you the impression
+to be those of a mammal, like those of a seal or sea-lion, though
+the pointed head more resembled that of a snake?”</p>
+
+<p>“Or had the head, though being much larger, more the shape
+of that of an eel?”</p>
+
+<p>“Were there just behind the head a pair of fins, as
+eels have?”</p>
+
+<p>“Why did the visible part make on you the impression to be a
+“neck”. You speak of a “neck” of a snake. Was the diameter
+near the head smaller than that just above the water, as if the
+animal was still thicker under water?”</p>
+
+<p>“Or did you observe the contrary?”</p>
+
+<p>“Was the “snake” perfectly round, or was it provided on its
+back with a fin, as in eels?”</p>
+
+<p>“What colour had your snake, and had the belly and the back
+the same colour?”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page101">[101]</span></p>
+
+<p>“Did you observe any eyes, nostrils, ears, ear holes, gills,
+whiskers, or any other appendages?”</p>
+
+<p>“These are all questions which a zoologist wants to have answered
+in order to determine somewhat, what animal may have
+been seen by you.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> had the courtesy to send me an early answer
+Oct. 30th., 1889. The part of this letter referring to my questions
+runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“I greatly regret to say that my answers will not help you
+much. The distance at which I saw this strange animal was too
+great, and the appearance too short, to observe anything of the
+particulars stated by you.”</p>
+
+<p>“The part which we saw rise out of the sea had, if my memory
+does not deceive me, the thickness of a full-grown upper-arm, and
+the length of from 1 to 1¹⁄₂ meter.”</p>
+
+<p>“The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of
+a snake’s head, i. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the
+“cobra” or of the rattlesnake.”</p>
+
+<p>“Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., I could observe nothing, during this
+short appearance. The colour seemed to me to be a greyish one.”</p>
+
+<p>“I regret not being able to give you more details than those
+written by me in my book of travels.”</p>
+
+<p>I think this animal was of the eel-tribe, the dimensions were
+too small even to admit the supposition that it was a spawn of
+the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>We observe that many so-called great sea-serpents are to be
+explained by reference to <i>known</i> animals. There are, however, a
+great many sea-serpents which don’t answer to the description of
+any <i>known</i> being at all, unless we venture upon a suggestion which
+is either wrong, forced, or premature, and which can be accepted
+only with a smile or a shrug of the shoulders.</p>
+
+<p>Some sea-serpent explainers are in the habit of explaining <i>one
+single</i> sea-serpent, say by reference to a row of porpoises, and
+then try to account for others by this suggestion, the upshot of
+which is that the explainer does no longer see his way clear of
+the difficulties which beset him, and driven to his wits’ end, cuts
+the Gordian knot, leaving a great many sea-serpents unexplained.</p>
+
+<p>Others, like Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry
+Lee</span>, were prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea-serpent
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page102">[102]</span>a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, an extraordinarily developed <i>Hydrophis</i>, or
+a large Calamary (<i>Architeuthis</i>).</p>
+
+<p>But none of them hit on the plan to put all the accounts,
+tales, and reports of this great unknown animal side by side, to
+point out the statements which are immediately recognizable as
+strange, or explicable by reference to some known animal, and
+finally to decide which of the known animals may have been bold
+enough to present itself as a deceitful serpentine creature, or, if
+the result is negative and leads to the conclusion that the sea-serpent
+does not belong to any known species of animal, to decide,
+what kind of animal does exist, though <i>unknown</i> to zoologists!
+And to this inquiry we pass now.</p>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page103">[103]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">IV.</span><br>
+<span class="chapname">The various accounts and reports concerning observations of
+Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly
+discussed; and criticisms of the papers written about the subject.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in
+<i>Nature</i> of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that
+subject. A few months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the
+<i>Album der Natuur</i>, a Dutch periodical, designed to bring the
+latest progress and problems of Science in a very popular manner
+under the eyes of non-scientific readers.</p>
+
+<p>In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an
+animal which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless
+existed, and gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.</p>
+
+<p>In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the
+same subject by Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>. In this work “<i>Sea Monsters
+Unmasked</i>” the sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as
+having been a row of porpoises following one another, as some
+gigantic sea-weed, as huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as
+any still unknown animal belonging to a genus of reptiles, the
+representatives of which are only known in the fossil state.</p>
+
+<p>Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper,
+and seeing that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> did not mention my supposition, I am
+now so bold as to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent
+in another manner; I have chosen the English language as being
+known to all zoologists and to all navigators.</p>
+
+<p>The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions,
+quoted by <span class="smcap">Aristoteles</span> (<i>History of Animals</i>, Book 8, chapt. 28),
+<span class="smcap">Plinius</span> (<i>Naturalis Historiae</i>, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14),
+<span class="smcap">Valerius Maximus</span> (<i>de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus</i>, Lib. 1,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page104">[104]</span>cap. 8, 1st. century), <span class="smcap">Florus</span> (Lib. 2), <span class="smcap">Seneca</span> (litt. 82), <span class="smcap">Silvius
+Italicus</span> (Lib. 6), <span class="smcap">Aulus Gellius</span> (Lib. 6, cap. 3), <span class="smcap">Orosius</span>, <span class="smcap">Zonares</span>,
+<span class="smcap">Diodorus Siculus</span>, <span class="smcap">Voleterranus</span> (<i>Commentariorum Urbanorum</i> libri
+38, book 12), <span class="smcap">Petr. Martyr</span> (<i>Decad.</i> 1, lib. 10), <span class="smcap">Bakius</span> (<i>Posidonii
+Vita et Reliquiae</i>, p. 115), <span class="smcap">Aelianus</span>, <span class="smcap">Vergilius</span>, etc., were most
+probably nothing but pythons.</p>
+
+<p>The various kinds of <i>Serpens marinus</i> alluded to by <span class="smcap">Aristoteles</span>
+and <span class="smcap">Plinius</span>, and afterwards described and figured by many other
+authors, evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of <i>Père</i> <span class="smcap">Jean
+Baptiste Labat</span> in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which
+reach no greater length than about twelve feet.</p>
+
+<p>For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different
+animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than
+the year 1500 A. D.</p>
+
+<p>Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great
+Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come
+to the conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of
+the so-called sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were
+cuttles of extraordinary dimensions (<i>Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora</i>).
+In all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes
+not difficult for a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures
+and their habits, to explain those observations, but the greater
+part of the accounts of Great Sea-Serpents do <i>not</i> agree with the
+well-known shape of sea-weeds and cuttles, <i>nor</i> with the habits of
+porpoises. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent
+with these kinds of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent
+moving with vertical undulations, and figured it thus, knew the
+habits of those animals, and some of them testified, that it could
+not have been porpoises, which they knew well enough to be sure
+of it. I will add here that porpoises move irregularly and have
+dorsal fins, which must of course be visible whenever they appear
+on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts mentioning the
+sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any question
+of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within
+our reach, and peruse them in order of their date.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report1"><span class="reportnr"><b>1</b></span>.—1522.—(See <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, <i>Historia de gentibus</i>, etc.)
+“There is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page105">[105]</span>called Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change
+in the Kingdom of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world,
+as it was seen, anno 1522, raising itself high above the surface
+of the water and circling like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent
+was estimated by conjecture to be fifty cubits long; this event was
+followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great
+persecution of the Bishops; and it also showed the destruction of
+the country, as Isidorus tells us of the birds of Diomedes.”</p>
+
+<p>In the original Latin we read <i>atque in modum sphaerae convolvens</i>
+(and wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am
+convinced that we have to do with a misprint, and that the author
+evidently wrote <i>atque in modum spirae convolvens</i>, which I have
+translated above “and circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies
+that the observer saw the animal swimming with vertical undulations,
+parts of which were visible above the surface of the water.</p>
+
+<p>Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the
+animal raised itself high above the surface of the water.</p>
+
+<p>Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about
+seventy-five feet.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as
+follows:</p>
+
+<p>“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of
+Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story,
+namely that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200
+feet, and 20 feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the
+shore of Bergen; it comes out of its caverns only on summernights
+and in fine weather to devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes
+into the sea to eat cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It
+has a row of hairs of two feet in length, hanging from the neck,
+sharp scales of a dark colour, and brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks
+boats, and snatches away the men, by raising itself high out of
+the water, and devours them: and commonly this does not happen
+without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being
+at hand, either that the princes will die or will be banished, or
+that a war will soon break out.”</p>
+
+<p>This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores
+of Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large
+dimensions, and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page106">[106]</span>hanging down from its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant
+and flaming. It only appears in fine weather.</p>
+
+<p>We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance
+on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable.
+The eating of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction,
+or it may have been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them
+with its head above water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of
+snatching away a man from the ships is evidently confounded with
+another tale, as it is not mentioned anywhere else with regard to
+the sea-serpent. It evidently refers to gigantic calamaries which
+occasionally attack boats and snatch away one of the crew. (See
+<span class="smcap">Lee</span>, <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, I, <i>The Kraken</i>.). Its being covered
+with scales must be fictitious too, for they who saw a sea-serpent
+at a short distance, are unanimous in stating that it had no scales
+but a smooth skin.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig14">
+<img src="images/illo106.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 14.—The sea-serpent as represented by Olaus Magnus.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>On the same page of the text, <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> has figured a
+sea-serpent in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which
+has just anchored on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole.
+I give a facsimile of that figure in <a href="#Fig14">Fig. 14</a>.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>
+who mostly sees calamaries and no other animals in the tales and
+figures representing the Great Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the
+presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid,
+and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the
+illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended
+to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa,
+one on each side of it”.—As to the snatching away a man of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page107">[107]</span>the crew, I quite agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, as already said above, but
+as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced that
+<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> or his draughtsman had no other intention than to
+delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned
+in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it
+a medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Gesner</span> in his <i>Nomenclator aquatilium animantium</i>, 1560, gives
+two figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in <a href="#Fig15">Fig. 15</a>
+and <a href="#Fig16">16</a>.—<span class="smcap">Gesner</span> says that there is a large map of Scandinavia
+in <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work, and on this map our <a href="#Fig15">fig. 15</a> is drawn
+in the Baltic Sea, and our <a href="#Fig16">fig. 16</a> in the Atlantic Ocean. In the
+original edition of 1555 there is but a small map of Scandinavia,
+which shows only the heads of several animals in the sea. I therefore
+conclude that there still exists another edition of <span class="smcap">Magnus’</span>
+work which I don’t know. Returning to our figures we immediately
+observe that the drawer has delineated large <i>snakes</i>, the one without
+scales, and swimming with <i>vertical</i> undulations, the other with
+large scales, and that he did not intend to represent a dorsal fin
+by the medial line, but only a medial row of scales, unequal to
+the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of protuberances
+are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long hairs hanging
+down from the neck of the animal.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig15">
+<img src="images/illo107.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 15.—The sea-serpent illustrating the text of Gesner.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Of the sea-serpent <span class="smcap">Gesner</span> tells us:</p>
+
+<p>“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents
+of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked,
+do not harm any one. Of these sea-serpents <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>
+gives the following figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.—(See our
+<a href="#Fig15">fig. 15</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page108">[108]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig16">
+<img src="images/illo108.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 16.—The second sea-serpent illustrating the same work.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or
+two hundred feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as
+states the number added to the figure), which sometimes appears
+near Norway in fine weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it
+snatches away men from the ships. Mariners tell that it incloses
+ships, as large as our trading vessels, made on our rivers and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page109">[109]</span>lakes, by laying itself round them in a circle, and that the ship
+then is turned upside down. It sometimes makes such large coils
+above the water, that a ship can go through one of them. I give
+the figure as it is on the Map.”—(See our <a href="#Fig16">fig. 16</a>.)</p>
+
+<p>Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent:
+it is harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns
+them upside down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can
+go through one of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the
+sea-serpent is perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this
+in almost every account. The other two are of course extraordinary
+exaggerations of its dimensions.</p>
+
+<p>The two figures of <span class="smcap">Gesner</span> copied on a reduced scale, with an
+extract of his text, appeared in the <i>Graphic</i> of January 29, 1876.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The text in the edition of
+<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work printed
+at Basle in 1567 is the same
+as that of the first edition
+printed in 1555 at Rome,
+but the figure between the
+text differs, and is doubtless
+a combination of our <a href="#Fig14">figg.
+14</a> and <a href="#Fig16">16</a>, in miniature;
+see our <a href="#Fig17">fig. 17</a>.</p>
+
+<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig17">
+<img src="images/illo109a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 17.—The sea-serpent as represented in the
+Basle edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w25emmax" id="Fig18">
+<img src="images/illo109b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 18.—The sea-serpent, illustrating the
+Map of Scandinavia in the Basle edition of Olaus
+Magnus’ work.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>On the map of Scandinavia
+subjoined to the work also
+occurs a figure of the sea-serpent,
+which we have copied
+in our fig. 18.—This figure
+does not claim our attention;
+it represents an eel or a
+snake, it has no scales.—Not
+so fig. 17: it distinctly
+shows dorsal scales and ventral
+plates, just as snakes
+have. This seems to me a
+confirmation of my opinion
+that in all these figures the
+drawers had no other intention
+than to delineate a large
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page110">[110]</span>snake, without any notion of the arms of a calamary. As to the
+seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary was the robber,
+whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent. Last not least,
+it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from its neck, a
+true mane, and several credible persons declare to have seen them.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic
+or Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean.
+I believe he is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>
+and <span class="smcap">Gesner</span>. His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map
+of Scandinavia, which accompanies the edition of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work,
+unknown to me, and mentioned above. He only omits the water,
+the ship and the man in its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give
+copies, because they are exact enlargements of our <a href="#Fig15">fig. 15</a> and <a href="#Fig16">16</a>.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report2"><span class="reportnr"><b>2</b></span>.—1640?—(See <span class="smcap">Adam Olearius</span>, <i>Gottorfische Kunstkammer</i>,
+Ed. I, 1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long
+ago been confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who
+declared to have heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy
+man, that, whilst standing on a hill on the Norwegian
+coast, he saw in the calm water a large serpent, which seen from
+afar, had the thickness of a wine barrel, and 25 windings. These
+serpents are said to appear on the surface of the water only in
+calm weather and at certain times.”</p>
+
+<p>Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea,
+and most probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark,
+a large animal was seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the
+confirmation that it comes to the surface of the water only in
+calm weather and at certain times. I beg the reader to fix his
+attention on those apparently insignificant statements, as it will be
+seen that they are given several times independant of one another.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Jonston</span> in his <i>Historia naturalis</i>, and his <i>Theatrum universale
+omnium animalium</i> of which several editions appeared in 1653,
+1657, 1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by <span class="smcap">Ruysch</span>, quoted by Prof.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page111">[111]</span>W. D. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> in <i>Mem. Amer. Acad.</i> 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and
+1768, repeats the tales of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, and the figures of
+<span class="smcap">Gesner</span> and <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Milton</span> in his <i>Paradise Lost</i>, printed in 1667, comparing Satan
+with huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians,
+calling it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Prone on the flood, extended long and large,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">As whom the fables name of monstrous size</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Leviathan, which God of all his works</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream:</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">With fixed anchor in his scaly rind,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Moors by his side under the lee, while night</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p>We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large
+sea-monster on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor,
+a story told about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Charleton</span> in 1668 quotes only <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span> and <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>,
+giving neither description nor figures.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report3"><span class="reportnr"><b>3</b></span>.—1687.—(<span class="smcap">Ramus</span>, <i>Norges Beskrivelse</i>,
+quoted by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>).</p>
+
+<p>“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times
+by several persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page112">[112]</span>together. The weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and
+the wind began to blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs
+out a coil of rope can know the length thereof, so one could see
+how long it was, before it had wound off all its coils, and
+stretched itself at full length.”</p>
+
+<p>In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm
+weather and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time
+the fact is mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a
+straight line. Further on we shall read this several times.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report4"><span class="reportnr"><b>4</b></span>.—1720.—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <i>Det förste Forsög paa Norges
+naturlige Historie</i>).</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">Thorlack Thorlacksen</span> has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent
+had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it
+came by high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or eight
+fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left the
+inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the
+skin had entirely sunk into the water of the inlet, and no one
+could guess how long it was, the inlet in which the skin partly
+lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of this skin was
+washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see it; apparently
+it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy
+mass. <span class="smcap">Thorlacksen</span> was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily
+during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the
+sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had
+been an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent,
+I am sure that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also
+stated that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards
+was certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of
+a great calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently
+proves my hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or
+inlet, and its long dead arm was washed ashore by the current,
+while the body sunk.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report5"><span class="reportnr"><b>5</b></span>.—1734, July 6.—The earliest account of <span class="smcap">Hans Egede’s</span>
+encounter with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page113">[113]</span>Danish at Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “<i>A Full and Particular
+Relation of his voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the
+year 1734</i>”.</p>
+
+<p>I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the
+passage about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal,
+which raised itself so high above the water, that its head
+reached above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew
+like a whale, had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it
+were, covered with a hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and
+uneven on its skin; moreover on the lower part it was formed
+like a snake, and when it went under water again, it cast itself
+backwards and in so doing it raised its tail above the water, a
+whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had very bad
+weather.”</p>
+
+<p>In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work,
+entitled <i>Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und
+Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission</i>, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4<sup>o</sup>,
+which I have not been able to consult either.</p>
+
+<p>I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition.
+In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of
+the article <i>Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent</i>
+translated the passage from a Danish copy of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> <i>Full and
+Particular Relation</i> in the British Museum. Evidently he was not
+very well up in the Danish language, for his translation is partly
+incorrect. I am convinced that in the original text <span class="smcap">Egede</span> does not
+mention the exact locality where he saw the animal. The translator
+tells us that it was off the south coast of Greenland, which of
+course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south coast. Of “sea-animal”
+he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top” he has “on a
+level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he has “it
+blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were
+covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with
+shell-fish, or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.</p>
+
+<p>In 1738 <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> wrote a <i>Journal of his mission</i>, in which
+he did not mention the meeting, but his son <span class="smcap">Paul Egede</span> in the
+continuation of this Journal, entitled <i>Continuation af Relationerne
+betreffende den Groenlandske Mission</i>, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a
+full account of it, which we have translated above word for word.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page114">[114]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig19">
+<img src="images/illo114.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 19.—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Egede, drawn by Bing.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>I have not had the means of consulting the German translation
+of this work, entitled <i>Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische</i>
+<i>Mission betreffend</i>, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything
+about the text or figures, but the translation which I found in
+the German edition of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> <i>Natural History of Norway</i>
+is correct. Not so the English translation entitled <i>Journal of the
+Mission to Greenland</i>, 2d. Vol. There we find, according to Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Lee</span> who quotes the passage in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, first
+<i>sea-monster</i> instead of <i>sea-animal</i>, further, that <i>it spouted water
+like a whale</i>, instead of <i>it blew like a whale</i>. There is a great
+difference between these two expressions. A whale does not spout
+<i>water</i> as is generally believed and figured. Further, that the body
+seemed to be covered <i>with scales</i>, instead of <i>with a hard skin</i> or
+<i>crust</i>, for the Danish <i>skiell</i> or <i>skiaell</i> is singular, and not plural.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page115">[115]</span>Finally, that the tail above the water was a whole ship-length
+from the <i>head</i> instead of from the <i>body</i>, for the Danish <i>Kroppen</i>
+signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything of the
+figures in this edition.</p>
+
+<p>In the original Danish work of <span class="smcap">Paul Egede</span> there is a map of
+a part of the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called
+Baals Rivier, on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good
+Hope (Gothaab). As it was generally done in those days, Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>,
+a brother-missionary of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span>, drew on his map not only the
+animal but also the vessel in the sea. I give here a <a href="#Fig21">facsimile</a> of
+the figure of the animal, without the ship. We distinctly see that
+the animal has rather a serpentlike form with a large head, showing
+formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy eye-brow, and a nostril;
+two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the uneven skin, and a
+tail ending in a point.</p>
+
+<p>On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s
+tail, after it had plunged
+back into the water. The tail
+is again figured terminating in
+a point.</p>
+
+<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig20">
+<img src="images/illo115.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 20.—The same individual plunging
+back into the water.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>We shall do well to observe
+the fact that the figure is an
+accurate illustration of the text
+with regard to the animal blowing
+like a whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately
+after having been under water a long time, is condensed in the
+cold air and forms little curling clouds.</p>
+
+<p>In the original Danish work of <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, entitled <i>A Full
+and Particular Relation</i>, etc., of which we have spoken above,
+there is also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to
+consult this work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of
+Baals Rivier with the two figures of the animal are quite the
+same, true facsimiles. The above mentioned translator drew this
+figure on a reduced scale for his article in the <i>Illustrated London
+News</i>, and as his text is incorrect, his figure is so too, for he
+changed the rough skin into scales, according to his own translation.
+(See our fig. 21.)</p>
+
+<p>Afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i> made use
+of the figure of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> and so gave his
+readers again an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a
+true facsimile of the figure as it appeared in the <i>Illustrated London
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page116">[116]</span>News</i>, Oct. 28, 1848, and in Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>,
+London, 1883. A reduced copy of it also appeared in the <i>Illustrirte
+Zeitung</i> of February 3, 1877.</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig21">
+<img src="images/illo116.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 21.—The drawing of Bing, as reprinted and altered in the Illustrated London News of 1848.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the Danish work of <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> <i>Det gamle Groenlands nye
+Perlustration</i> we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the
+colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four
+times longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same
+as in <span class="smcap">Paul Egede’s</span> <i>Continuation</i> of the Journal.</p>
+
+<p>In the German edition of this work, entitled <i>Des alten Groenlands
+neue Perlustration</i>, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it
+was seen before the Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had
+two broad flappers on the fore-part of the body”.</p>
+
+<p>In the Dutch edition, entitled: <i>Beschrijving van Oud Groenland</i>,
+Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties
+as the English and the German translators did, but was more
+correct in his expressions.</p>
+
+<p>In the French edition, entitled <i>Description et histoire naturelle
+du Groenland</i>, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page117">[117]</span>himself the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which
+was covered <i>with scales</i>, plunged back into the water, it did so
+with <i>the belly turned upwards</i>!”</p>
+
+<p>In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated
+from the French) entitled <i>Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von
+Groenland</i>, Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal
+<i>lay upon the water with its belly turned upwards</i> when it plunged
+back into the water!</p>
+
+<p>In many respects the figure of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> and <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> text complete
+each other.</p>
+
+<p>Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We
+may do this most safely, being convinced of the truth of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span>
+words and <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> figure. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded
+man, possessing considerable powers of observation, and a
+genuine love of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate,
+and free from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable
+signs of fidelity.” (<span class="smcap">Lee</span>, <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, p. 65.)</p>
+
+<p>From what has been said of the animal, seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, we
+gather that it appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather
+before the Danish Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland;
+(<span class="smcap">Egede</span> says: “the following evening we had very bad weather”,
+so we may conclude that:) the weather was fine, when the animal
+was seen; it had a considerable length, say a hundred feet, and
+was much thicker than a snake of those dimensions would be, say
+some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck and the fore-part of
+its trunk high above the surface of the water, it had a long, sharp
+snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal as large as
+a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in those cold
+regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the <a href="#Fig19">figure</a>
+where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where
+its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds
+of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> does not say:
+it had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does
+not state that the figure, made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> aboard his ship,
+directly after the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we
+must consider it as being correct; so the animal had two large
+and broad flappers on the fore-part of the trunk. The body <i>seemed</i>
+to be covered with a hard skin. For truth’s sake <span class="smcap">Egede</span> wrote
+<i>seemed</i>, which is well done; for a hard skin or crust would not
+have been <i>wrinkled</i> when the animal bends its body. Like all
+known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions the animal
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page118">[118]</span>must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick layer of bacon,
+and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions and seals
+wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as
+the Sea-Serpent of <span class="smcap">Egede</span> did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly
+see that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals
+have. And if the animal could have scales, they would be very
+large ones, considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it
+must have been easy to see the scales from a distance, though
+they were wet with the water; but I can hardly believe that one
+can say of an animal, seen at some distance and quite wet and
+shining with the water, whether it has a crust or a soft skin.
+The latter has been the case, for the animal showed wrinkles when
+bending its body. Its lower part was formed like that of a snake,
+by which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> evidently means to say that it was perfectly round
+and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he <i>did not see</i> any
+appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for the middle
+part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water). The
+creature plunged <i>backwards</i> into the water. It evidently has a considerable
+flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently
+it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility,
+nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> thinks, which has no flexibility
+at all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the
+length of its body, which was distinctly seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and figured
+by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable
+length, tapered in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal
+nor vertical ones. The <a href="#Fig19">figure</a> shows an eye with a heavy
+eye-brow, a nostril, and teeth; the flappers have external visible
+fingers, as sea-lions have; those of porpoises and dolphins are
+without them. Afterwards we shall more than once have occasion
+to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is drawn by <span class="smcap">Bing</span> too large,
+and the neck too short.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig22">
+<img src="images/illo119.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 22.—Bing’s drawing as copied by Pontoppidan.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> says in his frequently quoted work <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>,
+“The sea-monster seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> was of an entirely different
+kind” (viz. from those mentioned by <span class="smcap">Magnus</span> and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>).
+I am of the opinion that if Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> had written: The sea-monster
+seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> was the same, but seen in an entirely different
+position, condition and direction, he would have been nearer the
+truth; for careful inquiry has shown me that the sea-serpents of
+<span class="smcap">Magnus</span> and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> are the same as those which still appear
+in the Norwegian seas, and those have all the characters of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span>
+animal. Moreover we saw that the animal, mentioned in our <a href="#Report1">accounts
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page119">[119]</span>1</a>, <a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>
+and <a href="#Report4">4</a>, and according to the descriptions of <span class="smcap">Magnus</span> and
+<span class="smcap">Gesner</span> had the following characteristics: 1. It raises itself out of
+the water to a considerable height. 2. It swims with vertical undulations.
+3. It has an enormous length, probably upwards of a
+hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the same
+length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its
+neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming.
+8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It is
+harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11. It
+can stretch itself in a straight line.—Of these facts the 1st., 3d.,
+4th., and 10th. are stated by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>; he could not mention the 2d.,
+8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or eating.
+Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not see the
+animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its belly and
+somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without a mane.
+<span class="smcap">Egede</span> says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness. Its colour
+was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large sea-animals,
+else he would have called it brilliant white, or green,
+or red. The eyes are figured by <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, though not described by
+<span class="smcap">Egede</span>, but in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> work we read in a note to Chapt.
+VIII, § 7, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson
+<span class="smcap">Sylow</span>, at Hougs in the parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed
+to be reddish and like a burning fire. So its harmlessness is the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page120">[120]</span>only fact we cannot derive with certainty from <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> account.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> relating <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> observation of the monster gives
+a copy of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> figure, but as often occurred in those days,
+it is not copied with great accuracy, and <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing has been
+altered by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> so as to give quite another figure. (Our
+<a href="#Fig22">fig. 22</a> is a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>
+was right in figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> changes it wrongly into a waterspout of more than
+100 feet long! <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> is convinced, when seeing <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span>
+figure, that there are several species of sea-serpents, all belonging
+to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss this point.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig23">
+<img src="images/illo120.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 23.—Bing’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s work.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Still more exaggerated is the figure of <span class="smcap">Jardine’s</span> <i>Naturalist’s
+Library</i>, or rather that which Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> presents to his
+readers. He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the
+power of spouting a splendid set of water some twenty feet high,
+a water-mass equalling nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">In his <i>Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents</i>, 1742,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports
+of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> and <span class="smcap">Gesner</span>.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page121">[121]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Report6"><span class="reportnr"><b>6</b></span>.—1743?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 7).—“It is
+said that a few years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near
+Amund in Nordfjord, perhaps with high water, and died there and
+the carrion also caused a dreadful smell.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report7"><span class="reportnr"><b>7</b></span>.—1744?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 7).—“It is
+also told that a sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and
+that the stranding of sea-serpents took place in more localities.”</p>
+
+<p>There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily
+the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great
+enough to keep them far away from them, even from their carrions,
+and so these accounts don’t mention anything as a result of
+closer investigation.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report8"><span class="reportnr"><b>8</b></span>.—1745?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).—“A
+fisherman relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from
+Bergen, he once saw a long, large and strange animal so close to
+his boat, that the water, brought in motion by the animal, dashed
+against it, but immediately it disappeared again under water. The
+head resembled that of a seal, its skin was also as woolly, but
+the body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, and
+the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five feet long, tapered
+towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”</p>
+
+<p>Though <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> did not seem to believe that this animal
+was his sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the
+case, because the whole description is exactly that of the animal.
+It is remarkable that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so
+close to their boat, as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a
+smooth skin; now seals when wet have also a smooth skin, and our
+fisherman was near enough to the animal to detect the real nature
+of such a skin, viz. that it is <i>hairy</i>, or as he expresses himself
+<i>woolly</i>. We shall afterwards more than once meet with statements
+in which the head is compared with that of a seal. The head,
+though resembling that of a seal, was of course much larger. The
+body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, say about
+forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in length, and
+tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and those of
+the former writers <span class="smcap">Magnus</span>, <span class="smcap">Olearius</span> and <span class="smcap">Ramus</span>, who compared
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page122">[122]</span>the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the
+length of the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning
+of it, so that it may be supposed that there was a difference in
+thickness between the body and the tail.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report9"><span class="reportnr"><b>9</b></span>.—1746, August.—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <i>Det förste Forsög</i>,
+<i>etc.</i>).—<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> relates:</p>
+
+<p>“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and
+Pilot-general at Bergen, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lorenz von Ferry</span>, and we spoke
+about this subject. He told me that for a long time he had doubted
+the existence of the sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences
+in 1746 had convinced him. And though I could not say anything
+of importance against it, he ordered to my satisfaction and that of
+others, two seamen, who were with him in his boat, and had
+seen the animal and its blood which coloured the water red after
+a shot of <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span> at it, to appear before the public court of
+justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed on oath may be
+found in the following instrument which I received in original, and
+which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in extenso:”</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">Albert Christian Dass</span>, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at
+Bergen, <span class="smcap">Hans Christian Gartner</span>, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor
+of Justice and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town,
+together with <span class="smcap">Jan Clies</span>, <span class="smcap">Ole Simensen</span>, <span class="smcap">Ole Brinchmand</span>, <span class="smcap">Joergen
+Koenig</span> for <span class="smcap">Conrad von Lange</span>, <span class="smcap">Matthias Gram</span> for <span class="smcap">Elias
+Petrus Tuchsen</span>, <span class="smcap">Claus Natler</span> for <span class="smcap">Didrich Haslop</span>, <span class="smcap">Jochem
+Foegh</span> for <span class="smcap">Henrich Hiort</span>, and <span class="smcap">Joergen Wiers</span> for <span class="smcap">Hans Christian
+Byszing</span>, sworn citizens and additional deniers there, declare,
+that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator <span class="smcap">Johann Reutz</span>
+appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented
+a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day
+before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general <span class="smcap">Lorenz von
+Ferry</span>. And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to
+supply him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event
+mentioned in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that
+purpose, pointed out two men living in this town, named <span class="smcap">Niels
+Petersen Kopper</span> and <span class="smcap">Niels Nielsen Anglewigen</span>, begging that
+these men might be admitted to a declaration on oath, that all
+has happened in particulars so as is mentioned in the paper, which
+he begged to be registered in said instrument. The above mentioned
+paper was read to the witnesses and runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page123">[123]</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl8">“Mr. <span class="smcap">Johann Reutz</span>.”</span><br>
+<span class="padl14">“Sir,”</span></p>
+
+<p>“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a
+voyage, on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot
+day, having a mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when
+we had arrived with my yacht within a mile of the aforesaid
+Molde, being at a place called Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a
+book, I heard a kind of murmuring voice from amongst the
+men at the oars, who were eight in number, and observed that
+the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this I inquired
+what was the matter, and was informed that there was a sea-serpent
+before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the land
+again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard
+so many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension,
+they were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake
+passed by us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about
+in order to get nearer to it. As the snake swam faster than we
+could row, I took my gun which was loaded with small shot, and
+fired at it; on this he immediately plunged under water. We
+rowed to the place where it sank down (which in the calm might
+be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it would come
+up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake
+plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the
+small shot might have wounded it, the distance being very little.
+The head of this sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet
+above the surface of the water, resembled that of a horse. It was
+of a greyish colour, and the mouth was quite black, and very
+large. It had black eyes, and a long white mane, which hung
+down from the neck to the surface of the water. Besides the head
+and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of this snake,
+which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there was a
+fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a
+certain company, where there was a person of distinction present,
+who desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail
+of all that happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were
+present at the same time and place where I saw this monster,
+namely, <span class="smcap">Niels Petersen Kopper</span>, and <span class="smcap">Niels Nielsen Anglewigen</span>,
+will appear in court, to declare on oath the truth of every particular
+herein set forth; and I desire the favour of an attested copy of the
+said descriptions.”</p>
+
+<p class="right">“I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”<br>
+<span class="padr10">“<span class="smcap">L. von Ferry</span>.”</span></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page124">[124]</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Bergen, 21st. February 1751.</span></p>
+
+<p>“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths,
+and, with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared
+the aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set
+forth therein to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation
+was made out for the said Procurator <span class="smcap">Reutz</span>, and granted by the
+Recorder. That this was transacted in our court of justice we confirm
+with our hand and seals.”</p>
+
+<p>“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”</p>
+
+<div class="container notopbottom w25emmax">
+
+<div class="split5050">
+
+<div class="left5050">
+
+<div class="centerblock">
+<p>“<span class="smcap">A. C. Dass.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">J. Clies.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">O. Brinchmand</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">M. Gram.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">J. Foegh.</span>”</p>
+</div><!--centerblock-->
+
+</div><!--left5050-->
+
+<div class="right5050">
+
+<div class="centerblock">
+<p>“<span class="smcap">H. C. Gartner.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">O. Simensen.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">J. Koenig.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">C. Natler.</span>”<br>
+“<span class="smcap">J. Wiers.</span>”</p>
+</div><!--centerblock-->
+
+</div><!--right5050-->
+
+<p class="thinline allclear">&#160;</p>
+
+</div><!--split5050-->
+
+</div><!--container-->
+
+<p>As to Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry’s</span> declaration that the head of the sea-serpent
+resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than
+that it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck,
+that the nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane
+on the animal’s neck altogether must have led him to think so.
+The statement that the colour of the head was greyish, apparently
+contradictory to what had as yet been said about the animal’s
+colour, viz., that it is a dark brown one, may be explained, I
+think, as follows: the sea-serpent has a skin as woolly as seals and
+sea-lions have; it had swum a long time with its head two feet
+above the water, and the weather being very hot, its skin was
+dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that when
+being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish
+black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat
+dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see
+that sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the
+stone border of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very
+soon become dry in the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow
+colour. But returning to Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry’s</span> sea-serpent, the mouth,
+however, was black and very large. The eyes were black, the mane
+long and white (being dry) hanging down to the surface of the
+water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were very thick and
+the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of the coils
+is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.</p>
+
+<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> (<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc.</i> IV, I, 1818)
+calls this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which
+he” (<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>) “gives seems to have been made from the description
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page125">[125]</span>of Capt. <span class="smcap">de Ferry</span>, the officer above alluded to. In this
+figure, the head and jugular region are raised out of the water;
+a little below the head is a mane which seems to be inserted all
+round the back of the neck. The appearance of this mane was
+most probably an optical deception, and was nothing more than
+the water displayed by the neck in the progress of the animal
+through it, returning to its level. It had probably no mane. But
+of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by the
+Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”</p>
+
+<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> seems not to have read <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> so accurately
+as might be expected from him, for the figure in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span>
+work has quite another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span>
+would not have written his supposition of the mane, if one of the
+eye-witnesses of the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had
+seen a mane. Moreover <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> asserts that nearly all agree
+in representing the animal with a mane, and we shall read of
+several declarations further on.</p>
+
+<p>As to the colour of the coils, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> seems to be at one with
+me for in his frequently quoted work <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> he
+says: “The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the
+appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line”, and:
+“I believe that in every case so far cited from <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, as
+well as that given by <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, the supposed coils or protuberances
+of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises
+swimming in line, in accordance with their habit before mentioned.”
+If Captain <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span> had described the coils of his serpent
+as being white or red, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> certainly would not have
+supposed that they were eight porpoises.</p>
+
+<p>Further Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a
+horse, was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them,
+or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw
+its body into those vertical undulations.”</p>
+
+<p>Very well, but if Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> wishes to explain the coils by porpoises,
+he ought to account for the head which preceded them;
+this he silently passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake.
+A fine explanation indeed!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report10"><span class="reportnr"><b>10</b></span>.—1747?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 7).—“Governor
+<span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> is said to have had some years ago a similar
+meeting with the sea-serpent” (to Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry’s</span>) “and he has
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page126">[126]</span>figured it. I should like to possess this
+figure to show it to my readers. I,
+however, show here <a href="#Fig24">another one</a> sent
+to me by Parson <span class="smcap">Hans Stroem</span>, which
+he himself has copied from the original.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig24">
+<img src="images/illo126.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 24.—The Sea-Serpent as seen by Governor Benstrup.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The <a href="#Fig24">figure</a> shows a head with a
+mane, and six coils of the body. The
+nostril is indicated, the mouth has no
+teeth, the eye is large.</p>
+
+<p>It is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> tells
+us: “The figure of the sea-serpent given
+by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> was drawn, he tells
+us, under the inspection of a clergyman,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Hans Strom</span>, from descriptions
+given of it by two of his neighbours,
+Messrs. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span> and <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span>, of Herroe;
+and was declared to agree in every
+particular with that seen by Captain <span class="smcap">de
+Ferry</span>, and another subsequent observed
+by Governor <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>.”</p>
+
+<p>Not only does not the first part of
+this statement tally with the words of
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, but also the second part
+is discrepant, for the learned Bishop goes
+on saying: “This figure agrees with the
+descriptions given by two of his neighbours
+Messrs. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span> and <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span>.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span> is not mentioned at
+all on this occasion by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>!</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup’s</span> figure has also been
+<a href="#Fig25">copied</a> by Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> in the
+volume of <i>Phocidae</i> (seals) of <span class="smcap">Jardine’s</span>
+<i>Naturalist’s Library</i>, but it has been
+greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr.
+<span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> thought it to be the same
+animal as that seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, for he
+figures both animals with the same head
+and features. Of the figure of <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>
+too he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming
+with corkscrew motions! O horror!</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page127">[127]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig25">
+<img src="images/illo127.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 25.—Benstrup’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s work.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report11"><span class="reportnr"><b>11</b></span>.—1748?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span> of Herröe declared to <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>
+that the drawing of Parson <span class="smcap">Hans Stroem</span> agreed even in particulars
+with what he saw of the serpent several times when he went in
+his boat to church.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report12"><span class="reportnr"><b>12</b></span>.—1749?—Also Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span> of Herröe made the same
+declaration. He too saw the animal several times when he went to
+church in his boat. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> adds: “and then I do not even
+mention many other persons of the same high rank and trustworthiness.
+The same Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span> is the only one who told me that
+he distinctly saw the difference in thickness between the trunk and
+the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not gradually growing
+smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller at once and
+very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads.
+The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”</p>
+
+<p>This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact
+that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must
+infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had
+also hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede
+saw, are flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently
+the animal has four flappers.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report13"><span class="reportnr"><b>13</b></span>.—1750?—<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, telling what he has learned from
+the north-sailors says:</p>
+
+<p>“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to
+the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”</p>
+
+<p>Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his
+boat, that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page128">[128]</span>to that of the fisherman (<a href="#Report8">n<sup>o</sup>. 8</a>), who declared it as woolly as a
+seal-skin. The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the
+hairy nature of the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report14"><span class="reportnr"><b>14</b></span>.—1751?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An
+incertain rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have
+lately captured in their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four
+paws under its belly; which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled
+a crocodile. The peasants in their terror fled from their nets, and
+by doing so they gave an opportunity to the serpent to do the
+same.”</p>
+
+<p>Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I
+am sure it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an
+Orm is a serpent, viz., a long slender animal with a rather small
+head and a pointed tail; and as it was captured in nets in the
+sea, it is certain, that this animal, which <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> compares
+with a crocodile, having a slender and round body like a snake
+and four paws (or flappers) is the same as the animal afterwards
+seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup> 119</a>) and compared by him with an
+alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty feet, the animal
+must have been very young.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Now let us see what <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> himself says of the sea-serpent,
+after having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:</p>
+
+<p>“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called
+Aale Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which
+ought to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great
+deeds of the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder
+next to the Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before
+describing its habit and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the
+real existence of the serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”</p>
+
+<p>The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the
+mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what
+were and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our
+own time. All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but
+sea-cows or manatees (<i>Thrichechus manatus L.</i> and <i>Thrichechus senegalensis</i>
+<span class="smcap">Desm.</span>) or dugongs (<i>Dagungus dugung</i> <span class="smcap">Gmel.</span>). Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page129">[129]</span>believes that the occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the
+northern seas and even in the waters round Great-Britain and
+Ireland “afford some slight hope that the remarkable rytina (<i>Rytina
+borealis</i> <span class="smcap">Gmel.</span>) may not have become extinct in 1768, as has been
+supposed, but that it may still exist somewhat further south than
+it was met with by its original describer, <span class="smcap">Steller</span>.” Some of the
+mermen of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> were nothing else but Bladdernosed seals
+(<i>Cystophora cristata</i> (<span class="smcap">Erxl</span>) <span class="smcap">Nilss</span>) as I already proved in my little
+paper in the <i>Album der Natuur</i> of 1882, and I see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>
+comes to the same conclusion (<i>Sea Fables Explained</i>, <i>London</i>, 1883).</p>
+
+<p>We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian
+tales and the gigantic Octopus of <span class="smcap">Denys de Montfort</span> really exist,
+and that they are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles
+(<i>Cephalopoda</i>).</p>
+
+<p>But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent
+really is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest
+scientific persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.</p>
+
+<p>“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator,
+that this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea,
+except in July and August, its pairing-time, during which it
+appears, when the sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the
+wind ruffles the surface of the water; if this arrangement, I say,
+were not thus made for man’s safety, the existence of the sea-serpent
+would want fewer proofs, than even in Norway, thanks to God!
+is the case, the shores of which are the only ones of Europe,
+frequented by this monster.”</p>
+
+<p>Here again it is stated that the sea-serpent is only seen in July
+and August (and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> believes that these two months are
+the pairing-time of the animal), that it only appears in calm
+weather, and dives under water as soon as the wind rises. The
+writer believes that the animal frequents only the shores of Norway.
+According to an account of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, it seems, however,
+that the sea-serpent was also seen in the Baltic Ocean, and we
+know now for certain that the animal which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw in Davis’
+Straits at 64° N. lat., was also our Sea-Serpent. Evidently our
+Bishop did not hit on the idea that the Sea-Serpent could be a
+migratory animal.</p>
+
+<p>“Like all who are enemies to credulousness I too doubted of
+the existence of the sea-serpent, when at last my doubt was dispelled
+by incontestable proofs. Amongst our ablest navigators and
+fishermen of this country there are many hundreds who prove the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page130">[130]</span>existence of the sea-serpent as eye-witnesses, and they agree pretty
+well in their descriptions, though there are many others who
+declare that they know the sea-serpent only from the tales of their
+neighbours. I, however, in my inquiry hardly met with a person
+who, when born in the Northern provinces, did not answer immediately
+with the greatest certainty and assurance. Nay, some so-called
+north-sailors, who are here (in Bergen) every year for commercial
+interests, even consider it as a shame to be earnestly
+questioned on that subject. They consider this question as superfluous
+as that one, whether there exists a cod-fish or an eel.”</p>
+
+<p>We see hereby that in Norway the belief in the existence of
+the sea-serpent was as firm as possible amongst the sea-faring people.</p>
+
+<p>“Though no one has ever been able to measure this animal,
+many witnesses agree in telling that the serpent must be as long
+as a cable, viz., 100 fathoms or 300 ells, whilst it lay on the
+surface of the water, so that only here and there behind the head,
+which is held upwards, some parts of the back were visible,
+which were also held upwards, whilst the serpent bent; and from
+afar one would have believed that he saw some tuns or hogsheads,
+which floated in a line, so that there was a space between each
+of them.”</p>
+
+<p>Though the length of a cable or six hundred feet given to the
+sea-serpent is exaggerated, it may be more than 100 feet, why
+not? For there are other sea-animals, such as the whale, which
+measures more than 88 feet, and the fin-fish (<i>Balaenoptera loops</i>)
+which sometimes attains a length of about 105 feet.</p>
+
+<p>It has been stated to <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> by most of the eye-witnesses
+that the animal shows by its vertical undulations several coils above
+the water, and that these coils resembled from afar tuns or hogsheads
+floating in a line. It is very remarkable that these facts are
+repeatedly stated by witnesses who are independent of one another,
+even by persons who never heard of a sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>“The head of all these animals has rather a high and broad
+forehead; some, however, have a sharp snout, others a quadrangular
+beak as cows and horses have, with large nostrils, and on the
+sides there are a few stiff hairs, or bristles, as other animals have
+with a good nose. And that the sea-serpent has a good nose, is
+proved by its flying away at the smell of castoreum, which the
+people who go out in summer to fish on the great bank, will
+never forget to take with them.”</p>
+
+<p>The various ways of describing the head may be owed to this
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page131">[131]</span>that different persons saw the head in different positions, that some
+of them saw it for such a short moment that it was impossible to
+say with certainty what form it had. It is not always explicable
+why one describes the head of an animal in one way and another
+in quite another. As to me I see in the head of a seal that of
+an otter, others distinctly see a man’s or a cat’s head in it, and
+the people in the service of the Zoological Gardens in the Hague
+exclaim “why, I can very well understand why that animal is
+called a sea-dog; it has a dog’s head, to be sure!” The fact is
+that we don’t know with any certainty the form of the sea-serpent’s
+head, but <i>most probably</i> it resembles that of a sea-lion,
+which has also a head with a broad and flattened forehead, rather
+pointed, seen from one side, and blunt, seen in front. Here mention
+is also made of the large nostrils and the bristles on the lips
+of the animal.</p>
+
+<p>“The eyes are, as one says, large and blue, they are rather like
+a pair of pewter plates.”</p>
+
+<p>The eyes again are described differently. We have already heard
+them described as being black, red as fire, and now they are blue,
+viz. the ordinary blue, called tin-colour, that is a bluish-grey or a
+greyish-blue; so a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit; and grey
+fowls are called blue-fowls; there is rather a lilac tint to be
+observed in it. I cannot explain those differences otherwise than
+in the following way: when an observer sees the eyes in an oblique
+direction, he will always see this grey colour; when more in the
+axis of the eye, the colour is a bright dark black one, and when
+occasionally seen thus that the “tapetum lucidum” of the eye
+reflects the day-light, it is, as if the eyes were sparkling like fire.</p>
+
+<p>“The serpent’s colour is dark brown over the whole body, but
+thereby spotted, and with light streaks, or maculated with distinctly
+visible light spots, like a turtle or a lackered table, except
+in the region of mouth and eyes where it is rather dark, so that
+it resembles those horses which we call moorish-heads or black-faces.”</p>
+
+<p>We shall repeatedly have occasion to observe that these statements
+are correct. All eye-witnesses agree in this point.</p>
+
+<p>“That this animal spouts like a whale through its nostrils, as
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw, has never been seen here by anybody.”</p>
+
+<p>It is remarkable that though <span class="smcap">Egede</span> has nowhere asserted that
+his animal was a sea-serpent, our learned Bishop seems to have
+recognized it as such at once, believing, however, it to be another
+species of the same genus. We have already stated that <span class="smcap">Egede</span> did
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page132">[132]</span>not see the animal spouting water, but he only saw the warm
+breath of the animal condensed in the cold air, just as <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, his
+brother missionary, figured it, and just as it is mentioned by
+accurate observers of whales. It is very easy to understand that
+<span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw it, for the animal had apparently been under water
+for a long time; it suddenly appeared with so much violence,
+that a considerable part of its body was elevated above the surface
+of the sea, whilst, by a violent blow, the breath, hitherto held
+in, was pushed into the air. In this way parts of mucus of the
+inner surface of the nostrils and the little quantity of water adhering
+to the valves of the nose, must have been driven away at
+the same time, and the whole effect has been very accurately described
+by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and figured by <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, but has afterwards been
+exaggerated and altered by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (see our <a href="#Fig22">fig. 22</a>), and
+also in our century by Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> (see our <a href="#Fig23">fig. 23</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“But many agree in telling that when it swims rapidly through
+the water, it propels before it the water with such a violence that it
+murmurs like a small mill-brook.”</p>
+
+<p>This peculiarity has been repeatedly confirmed by the most
+trustworthy eye-witnesses as we will observe more than once afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>“Also the common sea-serpents of our shore differ from those of
+the Greenland-coasts, seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, in having no rough and
+hard skin, but a smooth one like a mirror, except on the neck,
+on which it has a mane, resembling sea-weed.”</p>
+
+<p>Remarkable again is the statement of its smooth skin, remarkable
+too is the declaration of the sea-serpent having a mane, and
+most remarkable the resemblance of this mane to sea-weed, an
+observation made by several eye-witnesses independant of each other.
+It is surprising that <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> silently passes over the difference
+between his two kinds of sea-serpents: that the Greenland one has
+two flappers on the fore-part of its trunk.</p>
+
+<p>“As they cast their skin like common snakes, some people pretend,
+that a few years ago, a table-cloth has been made of such
+a slough found in the harbour of Kobbervueg. This made me so
+curious, that I wrote to one of the inhabitants of that harbour,
+to inquire after it, and as the proverb says, to get a strap of the
+skin. However, there was nothing of that skin, at least at that
+time. And a man of that harbour, who came to Bergen, told me
+he knew nothing at all about it.”</p>
+
+<p>As to the renewing of the skin, we see that the Bishop was
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page133">[133]</span>taken in! But we must respect him that he did not rest before he
+knew the truth or the untruth of the fact, and that he also mentions
+his inquiry. Though the Bishop may have been deceived, his
+endeavours to find out the truth enhance his trustworthiness.</p>
+
+<p>“That the flesh of these animals is soft, has been stated by some
+who tell of a small, and probably young sea-serpent which was
+taken unexpectedly on board a ship. It instantly died, and nobody
+dared to touch it, till the crew was forced at last to cast it over
+board, owing to the intolerable smell arising from the soft and
+tough slime, in which it was dissolved by the action of the air.
+But this animal cannot have been a sea-serpent, for, as will be
+remembered, it is only seen in the calmest weather and sinks into
+the deep at the least motion in the air.”</p>
+
+<p>We agree with the Bishop, though for other reasons than he.</p>
+
+<p>After having related the two strandings of a sea-serpent (<a href="#Report6">n<sup>o</sup>. 6</a>, <a href="#Report7">7</a>),
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“I would that in such cases some one had inquired whether
+this serpent had a strong backbone, which seems to be necessary
+to keep together the mass of such a gigantic animal. The sharks,
+however, which are also cartilaginous fishes without bones, have
+such a backbone, but it is very subtile and even in the largest
+sharks only ten ells long. The sea-serpent, like sharks, eels and
+whales also seems to be a viviparous, not an oviparous fish, and
+most probably it seeks the other sex in the above mentioned season.
+It is said, that when this animal is ruttish, it looks after ships
+and boats, which it probably takes for something else. If this be
+true, as seamen say, those are wrong who think that the sea-serpent
+is not born in the sea, but on land, and lives in forests and
+among mountains, till it can no longer hide its body in it; it is
+said that it then seeks some river, and floats out to the sea, as
+some people pretend to have seen.”</p>
+
+<p>There is but one single reason why we think the sea-serpent is
+a viviparous being, viz. its hairy skin. It is certain that an animal
+with long hairs on its neck, has also hairs on its whole body,
+which has also been stated once already (<a href="#Report8">n<sup>o</sup>. 8</a>), and hairy animals
+are viviparous (except the <i>Monotrymata</i>). Most probably <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>
+called the sea-serpent viviparous for the same reason, otherwise
+I cannot find a single fact that would have led him to this
+conclusion. Its seeking the other sex cannot be a reason, for all
+animals do so in the warm season. I think that it looked after
+ships because it is a curious animal, knowing no fear of strange
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page134">[134]</span>things or persons. It is evidently a fable that it brings forth young
+ones on the shore, probably originating in the fact that the sea-serpent
+has sometimes been seen in fjords, even in small ones, or
+probably originating in the fact that also seals creep ashore in the
+critical moment, whelp there and return with their young ones to
+the sea as soon as possible.</p>
+
+<p>“The question which troubles us most is the following: Is this
+animal dangerous to men, and how are they to defend themselves
+against this monster? <span class="smcap">Arendt Berndsen</span> (<i>Danmarks og Norges
+frugtbare Herlighed</i> p. 308) answers the first question in the affirmative,
+and tells us that the sea-serpent, as well as the sperm-whale,
+even often runs down men and ships. That such things
+happened in this region, I never heard of with certainty; but the
+north-sailors tell that it had occasionally happened that the sea-serpent
+raised itself and threw itself straight across a boat, nay
+across a large yacht of several hundred tons, and had dragged it
+to the depths. One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so
+close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin;
+he mentions at the same time that this serpent sometimes snatches
+a man from a boat, with its head raised upward and gives the
+others of the crew an opportunity to escape. Whether these reports are
+to be believed or not, I don’t know, because it is uncertain whether
+these serpents live on prey.”</p>
+
+<p>We see the Bishop weighing and considering whatever he heard,
+and not accepting everything for truth. We think that <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>
+is right in giving no credit to the narrative that the sea-serpents
+made themselves guilty of sinking ships and eating men. It is
+mentioned already twice, that the sea-serpent raised itself high
+above the surface of the water; yet the flappers are not mentioned;
+so we may conclude that these are situated far from the head, or,
+what is the same, that the animal has a very long neck.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> further tells us that the sea-serpent sometimes encloses
+ships by laying itself round them in a circle, that the
+fishermen then row over its body there where a coil is visible,
+for when they reach the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the
+invisible parts rise. Further, that the serpent swims with an incredible
+velocity, and that the fishermen who are much afraid of it,
+when seeing that it follows them, throw any object, for instance
+a scoop, at it, when the animal generally plunges into the deep.
+But most fishermen are in the habit of taking castoreum with
+them, for the serpent cannot bear the smell of it. And still
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page135">[135]</span>further on he tries to explain the considerable length of the animal
+some witnesses speak of; the Bishop namely believes that two or
+more individuals followed each other, for they are only seen in
+rutting-time. And in his tenth paragraph, trying to answer the
+question, why those large serpents only frequent the northern seas,
+he says:</p>
+
+<p>“To this question I answer that the Creator of all beings disposes
+of the dwellings of His different creatures in different places by
+His wise intentions, which are not to be known to us. Why won’t
+the reindeer thrive anywhere but in the high and cold mountains?
+Why do the whales frequent only the north pole? Why are India
+and Egypt almost the only countries, where men have to fear
+crocodiles? No doubt because it pleases the wise Creator.”</p>
+
+<p>Here <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> takes leave of the Sea-Serpent, and begins to
+treat of the large snakes mentioned by <span class="smcap">Plinius</span> and other ancient
+authors, and we too will take leave of our honest and trustworthy
+Bishop, who has so often been laughed at for what he relates in
+his chapter on monsters. And yet two of his monsters, the mermaids
+and the Kraken, are unmasked, why cannot his third be accounted
+for?</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Now let us again collect all the facts which are not impossible
+from a zoologist’s point of view.</p>
+
+<p>We have before us an animal of the following imperfect description:</p>
+
+<p>The whole <i>length</i> of this animal far surpasses one hundred feet,
+and the smallest individual ever seen measured eighteen feet. The
+greatest <i>thickness</i> or diameter seems to be in the foremost third of
+its whole length, and in large individuals surpasses ten or even
+fifteen feet. Its <i>head</i> is small in reference to the body, its <i>neck</i> is
+long and slender, round as the body of a snake or eel; the thick
+<i>trunk</i> too is round: The <i>tail</i> is also round, thinner than the body
+and gradually grows thinner to its end, which is pointed. The
+animal has four <i>flappers</i>. The foremost are probably found about
+one fourth of the length, the hindmost probably in the middle of
+the whole length. The <i>skin</i> of the animal is hairy or woolly as a
+seal-skin; when wet it is smooth and glittering as a mirror. A
+long <i>mane</i> hangs down from the neck, and that mane is sometimes
+described as resembling sea-weed; when dry, the mane is whitish,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page136">[136]</span>or pale. The <i>head</i> is described as resembling that of a seal, or
+that of a horse. It tapers to the nose of the animal, so that
+some witnesses declare it has a sharp snout, others, however, that
+its end is like that of a cow’s, or a horse’s head, it has a broad
+and high, but flattened <i>forehead</i>. The <i>nostrils</i> are large, but as
+they are not always seen, it is evident that the animal can close
+them like a seal; on the <i>lips</i> some stiff hairs or bristles are planted.
+The <i>colour of the head</i>, when wet, is dark brown, when dry,
+however, greyish, except round the mouth and the eyes, where it
+is almost black. The <i>mouth</i> is large and provided with <i>teeth</i>. The
+<i>eyes</i> are large, sometimes described as being bluish and dull,
+sometimes black, glittering and brilliant, and sometimes reddish
+as a burning fire. We have already tried to explain these different
+statements. Its <i>eye-brows</i> are distinctly visible. Of the <i>neck</i> no
+particulars are observed except that it is long, round, and bears
+a mane, I should say like that of the Antarctic Sea-lions (<i>Otaria
+jubata</i>) but much more developed. Its <i>fore-flappers</i> are broad and
+large, and have probably an indented hind-edge, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>
+drew externally visible fingers. Of its <i>hind-flappers</i> nothing is
+mentioned. There is a visible <i>difference in thickness between the
+trunk and the</i> very long <i>tail</i> of the animal: the body is not gradually
+growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes small at
+once, and very distinctly. Here the animal’s hind-flappers must be
+placed. The <i>colour</i> of the body is said to be a dark brown, spotted
+and with light streaks, or marked with distinctly visible light spots.
+It has an astonishing flexibility in the neck as well as in the trunk
+and in the tail. It can bend its body sideways and backwards,
+and undulate it up and down like a rope. When the animal bends
+till it is U- or horse-shoe shaped, the skin obtains many folds or
+wrinkles. The <i>mode of swimming</i> is mostly by vertical undulations,
+which are partly visible above the surface of the water; the end
+of the tail is always hidden under water when the animal swims.
+From afar the visible parts of the coils are said to resemble tuns,
+buoys, wine-barrels or hogsheads. The coils are either very large,
+and then 7 or 8 of them are visible, and a distance of a fathom
+is between each two coils, or they are very small, and then it is
+said that twenty-five of them are visible. This is only to be explained
+by the degree of speed with which the animal undulates its body.
+For the same reason it also swims more or less swiftly; it may also
+swim with its body in a straight line, using in this case of course
+its flappers; this, however, happens very seldom; when swimming
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page137">[137]</span>rapidly it propels the water before it with such a violence, that
+it boils and splashes up, with foam and a distinctly audible
+rushing. When swimming, the animal holds its head two feet
+above the surface of the water. Sometimes it raises its neck and
+head to a considerable height. Once the condensed breath of the
+animal was visible, and it was said to blow like a whale. It is
+only seen in summer and in fine weather. It is harmless when
+not provoked, it is curious and stupid. It feeds probably on cuttles,
+lobsters and crabs, (certainly however on fish.).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Now we will go on with the perusal of the accounts concerning
+the animal and we shall observe that in general the accounts or
+rather the descriptions of the eye-witnesses repeat, and sometimes
+even in particulars, what we have gathered from the 14 above
+mentioned accounts and from what <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> has taught us. I
+first invite the reader to follow me to the eastern coasts of the
+United States, next to the Northern Pacific, on the western coasts
+of Scotland, then again to the United States, and finally to Norway.
+In all these places, nay in every part of the world we shall meet
+with the animal which we shall find to be a true cosmopolitan,
+though the Atlantic seems to be its proper place of residence.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report15"><span class="reportnr"><b>15</b></span>.—1751.—In a letter from Capt. <span class="smcap">George Little</span> to the
+Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, printed in the second volume of <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span>
+<i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“A monster of the above description was seen in the same place,
+by <span class="smcap">Joseph Kent</span>, of Marshfield, 1751. <span class="smcap">Kent</span> said he was longer
+and larger than the main boom of his sloop, which was 85 tons.
+He had a fair opportunity of viewing him, as he saw it within
+ten or twelve yards of his sloop.”</p>
+
+<p>In the “above description” the sea-serpent is described as having
+the appearance of a large black snake, from 45 to 50 feet long,
+with a head of nearly the size of that of a man, which he carried
+four or five feet above the water, and with the greatest diameter
+of 15 inches. The individual which was seen by <span class="smcap">Joseph Kent</span> was
+evidently larger; by “the same place” is meant Round Pond in
+Broad Bay and near Muscongus Island.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page138">[138]</span></p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Knud Leems</span>, as we learn in <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke’s</span> <i>Travels
+through Norway</i>, a northern divine, wrote his <i>Beskrivelse over
+Finmarkens Lappen</i>, 1765, in which he mentions, p. 332, the
+sea-serpent in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a
+huge monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size
+that of large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a
+neck with a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly.
+In the dog days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent
+will come to the surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some
+are partly visible above the water, whilst others remain hidden
+under it. The seamen greatly fear this monster, and they do not
+trust themselves on the sea, when the animal is on the surface.”</p>
+
+<p>The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head,
+resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit
+of the animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters
+known to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is
+whitish, which we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however,
+not the belly that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The
+animal’s neck being cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden
+under water, the observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped,
+always call its throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the
+whole throat and the breast were seen, though not described, by
+<span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, but that even he did not see the true belly.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report16"><span class="reportnr"><b>16</b></span>.—1770?—In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. Lean</span> to the Rev.
+<span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span> written in Aug. 1803, and published in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span>
+<i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i> (Vol. II) we read:</p>
+
+<p>“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the
+deceased Capt. <span class="smcap">Paul Reed</span>, of Boothbay.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report17"><span class="reportnr"><b>17</b></span>.—1777 or 1778.—(<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol.
+IV, Part I).</p>
+
+<p>“The next notice is from Capt. <span class="smcap">Eleazar Crabtree</span>, who saw it
+in the same (Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated
+its length at sixty feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that
+of a barrel, which is about twenty two inches.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page139">[139]</span></p>
+
+<p>A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span> to the
+American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or
+mislaid.”—Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found
+back, and, as Prof. <span class="smcap">Bigelow</span> (see <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>
+Vol. II) says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary
+of the Academy,” Mr. <span class="smcap">John Q. Adams</span>, “where it may be seen.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Bradford</span> anxious to have all the information he could
+get, did not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span>.
+Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span>, however, at that time an old man did not write
+this testimony himself, but had it written by another in his presence
+and signed it as a correct statement. It is published in the
+above mentioned Journal, Vol. II, and runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span>, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the
+Bay of Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon
+information of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water,
+near the shore, just below his house, and having often been told
+by individuals that they had before seen a similar sea-monster in
+that quarter, and doubting of the correctness of their reports, was
+induced to go down to the water to satisfy his own mind—that
+he saw a large animal, in the form of a snake, lying almost
+motionless in the sea, about thirty rods from the bank where he
+stood—that his head was about four feet above water—that,
+from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet in length—that
+he did not go off to the animal through fear of the consequences,
+and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter;
+he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those
+islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him
+that they had seen such an animal—and that more than one
+had been seen by several persons together.”</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6">“Signed”</span>
+<span class="righttext padr4">“<span class="smcap">Eleazar Crabtree.</span>”</span></p>
+
+<p class="allclear">We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head
+four feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated
+at 100 feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness
+which led Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span> to compare the sea-serpent with a
+snake. The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably
+it lay stretched out.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report18"><span class="reportnr"><b>18</b></span>.—1779.—(<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. IV. P. 1).
+“It appears by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page140">[140]</span>that this serpent was first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year
+1779, by Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Tuckey</span>: he compared it to an unwrought
+spar (meaning probably one of spruce), which the scaly surface and
+dark colour of the animal would very much resemble; he thought
+it fifty or sixty feet in length.”</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Tuckey</span> only compared it with
+an unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part
+to be fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> adds: “which the
+scaly surface and the dark colour of the animal would very much
+resemble”. I, however, take it that the animal swam with its body
+in a straight line, elevating its back but very little above the
+surface of the water, yet showing a length of fifty to sixty feet,
+and so the back of the neck and trunk quite covered with a mane
+resembling sea-weed, and the dark colour of the animal must have
+led Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Tuckey</span> to the comparison with an unwrought spar.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report19"><span class="reportnr"><b>19</b></span>.—1780, May.—“Captain <span class="smcap">George Little</span>” who saw the
+animal, wrote “a letter” containing his observation to the American
+Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid”
+(<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult
+<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. of Sc. and Arts</i> (Vol. II, 1820), we observe
+that Mr. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span> collected for truth’s sake some affidavits
+of eye-witnesses; he had learned that Capt. <span class="smcap">George Little</span> was an
+eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit, which he received
+and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the Academy;
+after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It
+runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="right">“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Sir”,</span></p>
+
+<p>“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that
+in May, 1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a
+public armed ship. At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or
+monster, coming down the Bay, on the surface of the water. The
+cutter was manned and armed. I went myself in the boat, and
+proceeded after the serpent. When within a hundred feet, the
+mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they could make
+ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50 feet
+in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15
+inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page141">[141]</span>carried four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance
+of a common black snake. When he dove he came up near
+Muscongus Island—we pursued him, but never came up within
+a quarter of a mile of him again.”</p>
+
+<p>“I have the honor to be sir,</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Your friend and humble servant</span><br>
+<span class="padr10">“Geo. Little.”</span></p>
+
+<p>It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain,
+who thus saw only its occiput. As the head is thought to have
+nearly the size of that of a man, and the whole length to be 45
+to 50 feet, it is evident that either the head is estimated too
+small, or the length too great; moreover it is clear that the
+captain saw nearly the whole length; this sometimes occurs; generally,
+however, only the foremost part is visible. Again it is mentioned
+that the sea-serpent held its head four feet above the surface
+of the water, and that the colour was black.</p>
+
+<p>A letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Mc. Lean</span> to the Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>,
+printed in the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American
+war, two miles from the place where I lived then.”</p>
+
+<p>I consider this passage as relative to Capt. <span class="smcap">George Little’s</span>
+observation.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report20"><span class="reportnr"><b>20</b></span>.—1781?—In the same letter the above mentioned lines
+are followed by the words:</p>
+
+<p>“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report21"><span class="reportnr"><b>21</b></span>.—1782?—In a letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William Jenks</span>,
+of Bath, to the Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, of Boston, dated September
+7, 1818, and published in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> observes, that the British saw him in their expedition
+to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of
+that which they saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>
+imagines to be an exaggeration.”</p>
+
+<p>I think Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> is right in this supposition.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page142">[142]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Report22"><span class="reportnr"><b>22</b></span>.—1783? —In the same letter we read:</p>
+
+<p>“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report23"><span class="reportnr"><b>23</b></span>.—1784?—In the same letter we find:</p>
+
+<p>“June 28th., 1809. Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> observes that a Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>
+saw two of them together about twenty years since”....... “One
+of those seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span> was smaller than that seen by Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, and their motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular
+winding, and not horizontal.”</p>
+
+<p>This appearance is also mentioned in the <i>Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc.</i>
+(IV, I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and
+Long Islands:</p>
+
+<p>“and one of them, a Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>, had seen two of them together
+about the year 1787.”</p>
+
+<p>And in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i> (Vol. II, 1820) we read
+in a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span> to the Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>,
+written Jan., 1804:</p>
+
+<p>“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say,
+were seen by one Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>, who then lived upon Ash Point.”</p>
+
+<p>The fact that there were <i>two</i> animals together only claims our
+attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been
+a male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the
+two must have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those
+was smaller than that seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>”; consequently the
+other was as large as or even larger than that seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>,
+ergo the difference in size of these two must have been
+considerable. The occurrence of two together is reported only a very
+few times. Evidently these animals lead solitary lives.</p>
+
+<p>We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784,
+relying upon the words of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cumming’s</span> letter of 1804: “about
+twenty years since”.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report24"><span class="reportnr"><b>24</b></span>.—1785?—In the same letter it says:</p>
+
+<p>“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting
+the Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. <span class="smcap">Staples</span>, of Prospect, of
+whom I inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. <span class="smcap">Miller</span>, of one
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page143">[143]</span>of the Islands in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big
+as a sloop’s boom, and about sixty or seventy feet long”.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report25"><span class="reportnr"><b>25</b></span>.—1786, August 1.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1911).—</p>
+
+<p>“Having seen much notice taken in the <i>Zoologist</i> of the question
+of the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the
+log-book of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard
+the ship “<i>General Coole</i>”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.—”</p>
+
+<p>“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16
+or 18 feet in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back
+of a light ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”</p>
+
+<p>“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You
+may rely on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy
+himself may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle
+of Wight. September, 8, 1847.”</p>
+
+<p>Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it
+would be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or
+4 feet in circumference made the impression of being a serpent or
+snake; the whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under
+water. As the colour of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour,
+I suppose that the animal having swum a long time in
+the sun without diving under water, the skin had become dry and
+showed the ash-colour; the colour of the belly (read throat) is
+stated to be yellow. This statement already mentioned above we
+shall see repeated more than once.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report26"><span class="reportnr"><b>26</b></span>.—1787?—In the letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William
+Jenks</span>, dated, Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge
+Davis of Boston, and printed in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Aug. 23, 1809.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles Shaw</span> (then of Bath, now an
+attorney in Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. <span class="smcap">Lillis</span>, with whom
+he had sailed, observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen
+off the coast a very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like
+a snake than a fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its
+head erect, had no mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent.
+He asked Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaw</span> if he had ever seen, or read, or heard of
+such an animal.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page144">[144]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report27"><span class="reportnr"><b>27</b></span>.—1794?—In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenks</span>,
+printed in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we find:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long
+Islands have seen such an animal”......</p>
+
+<p>“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands
+two persons were together at both times.”</p>
+
+<p>It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for
+one of the two times, for in the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> to the
+Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the
+second volume of <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>,
+(1820), we find the following passage:</p>
+
+<p>“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large
+serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox
+Island) “as their neighbours informed me.”</p>
+
+<p>Again two individuals were seen together.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report28"><span class="reportnr"><b>28</b></span>.—1799?—And the date of the second time, that the
+animal was seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter
+from Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> (1804), it says:</p>
+
+<p>“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw
+an animal of this kind about five years since, as they then informed
+me. They told me, that the serpent which they saw was about
+sixty feet long, and appeared to have an ascending and descending
+motion.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report29"><span class="reportnr"><b>29</b></span>.—1802 July.—In the letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William
+Jenks</span>, of Bath, to the Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, of Boston, dated
+September 17, 1817, and published in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span> who has
+been much employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and
+navigated his own boat among the islands, &amp;c. in the discharge
+of his duty, informs me, in conversation, which was immediately
+written from his lips, that in Penobscot bay has been occasionally
+seen within these thirty years, a sea-serpent, supposed to be about
+sixty feet in length, and of the size of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Cummings</span> saw him, in company with his wife and daughter, and
+a young lady of Belfast, <span class="smcap">Martha Spring</span>; and judged he was about
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page145">[145]</span>three times the length of his boat, which is twenty three feet.
+When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the boat,
+though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but
+about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden
+Bradford</span> of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth)
+inquired of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> whether the appearance might not be
+produced by a number of porpoises following each other in a train;
+but Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> asserts, that the animal held its head out of
+water about five feet till he got out to sea; for when seen he was
+going out of the bay, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> was ascending it. The
+colour was a bluish green about the head and neck, but the water
+rippled so much over his body, that it was not possible to determine
+its tint. The shape of the head was that of a common snake,
+flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen approaching,
+passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> was as incredulous
+in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The weather
+was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Cummings</span> remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent
+makes his appearance on the coast.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that,
+which in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having
+been communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
+but mislaid.”</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc.</i> Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818,
+we read also:</p>
+
+<p>“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>) “was forwarded
+to the Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account
+of the animal, as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is
+lost or mislaid.”</p>
+
+<p>Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the
+hands of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Q. Adams</span>,
+and printed in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>
+(Vol. II, 1820). The letter runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“My Dear Sir,”</span></p>
+
+<p>“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though
+the urgency of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime
+in July 1802 that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our
+passage to Belfast, between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first
+appearance was near Long Island. I then supposed it to be a large
+shoal of fish with a seal at one end of it, but wondered that the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page146">[146]</span>seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual; but, as
+he drew nearer to our boat, we soon discovered that this whole
+appearance was but one animal in the form of a serpent. I immediately
+perceived that his mode of swimming was exactly such as
+had been described to me by some of the people of <span class="smcap">Fox</span> Islands,
+who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm
+the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal
+but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders
+it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable
+distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was
+rather larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent.
+His body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head
+and as much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue
+colour except a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first
+but moderate, but when he left us and proceeded towards the
+ocean, he moved with the greatest rapidity. This monster is the
+sixth of the kind, if our information be correct, which has been
+seen in this bay within the term of eighteen years. Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>,
+my daughter and Mss. <span class="smcap">Martha Spring</span> were with me in the boat
+all that time, and can attest to the above description.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“I continue yours in Christian affection</span><br>
+<span class="padr6">“<span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span>.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr20">“<span class="smcap">Rev. Alexander Mc. Lean.</span>”</span></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. Lean</span> forwarded this letter to the Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>
+who says of it:</p>
+
+<p>“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular
+as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and
+in reply, received a statement more in detail,”</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">which runs as follows:</span></p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Rev. and Dear Sir,”</span></p>
+
+<p>“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description
+of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this
+motion was ascending and descending; all we can say is, <i>it appeared
+so to us</i> (for he was seen not only by me, but by three
+other persons). His real motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his
+nearest distance from us was ten rods. The sea was then very
+smooth, and very little wind, but still there was such a constant
+rippling of the water over his body, that I could not distinctly
+observe the magnitude or colour of any part but his head and neck.
+The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain. But certain I am that
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page147">[147]</span>he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue as possible, and a
+black ring round his eye. The head was three feet in circumference
+<i>at least</i>. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises moving after each
+other in a right line, and in such a manner that those who formed
+the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and none but
+the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head
+upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long
+Island to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all
+the time out of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so
+great a distance without immerging at all? This is the best information
+which you can obtain from</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“Your Friend and Servant”</span><br>
+<span class="padr6">“<span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings.</span>”</span><br>
+<span class="padr20">“Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same
+colour.”</p>
+
+<p>The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>
+declares the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as
+blue as possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.”
+But I think that we must not rely too much upon this definition
+of the colour, for, as we observe in daily life, different persons
+will give different names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly
+black colour “blue” while another does not see any blue in it at
+all; consequently we may safely suppose that the colour was the
+common dark brown, nearly black one, and that Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>
+called such a colour “as blue as possible” or “a bluish green.”
+Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents may sometimes
+vary as in our common seals.</p>
+
+<p>It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression
+the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish”
+(read “porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but
+wondered that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than
+usual”. Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common
+appearance of the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s
+figure (<a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>). But as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings’</span>
+boat, the resemblance diminished, because the serpent has not such
+thick upper lips as our common seal, so that the snout is rather
+sharp, and the forehead being moreover flat, the resemblance is
+also that of a snake’s head! The mode of swimming was up and
+down, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> in his second letter says “it appeared
+so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page148">[148]</span>expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I think
+it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the
+sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly
+saw the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly,
+and that some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the
+animal with many bunches on its back, that it moved through the
+water, apparently not by undulating up and down, but they were
+astonished that the sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has
+the property of keeping his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently
+it may show itself in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly
+still with the body in a straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still,
+but with many folds or bunches on its back. 3. Swimming with
+its body in a straight line, using its flappers. 4. Swimming with
+bunches on its back, propelling itself by its flappers, not by vertical
+undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical undulations, and not
+with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical undulations and with
+its flappers.</p>
+
+<p>I repeat here the words of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>: “Who ever saw fifty
+or sixty porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in
+such a manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than
+haddock or macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head.
+Who ever saw a serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now
+who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without immerging
+at all?” And we may add: Who ever saw porpoises without
+backfins? (The white whale, <i>Beluga leucas</i> has no back fin, but
+it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is almost black.)</p>
+
+<p>I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different
+dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways:
+1. The animals may have been more or less visible above the surface
+of the water, and the hind part hidden under water is not
+always estimated in proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers
+have not always seen the same individual, but of course
+young ones, middle-aged and old individuals, males and females.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>I will insert here a letter from the <span class="smcap">Rev. Alden Bradford</span> to
+the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Q. Adams</span>, to show my readers how the former
+troubled himself about the question.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>To the Honorable</i> John Q. Adams, <i>corresponding Secretary of
+the American Academy of Arts and Sciences</i>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page149">[149]</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Sir,</span></p>
+
+<p>“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries
+in <i>Natural History</i>, I am induced to communicate to the
+society the following account of a <i>Sea-Serpent</i>, which I have lately
+collected.”</p>
+
+<p>“It will probably be within the recollection of some persons conversant
+with Navigation, that in the course of a few years past,
+there have been vague reports of an animal of this description having
+been seen in or near Penobscot Bay. But little credit, however,
+was attached to the story, and no particular authentic account has
+yet been given to the public on the subject.”</p>
+
+<p>“A few months ago I happened to hear related the story of one,
+which was seen in the Bay of Penobscot in 1802. And for my
+own satisfaction, I have been inquisitive to the truth of the account,
+and to the general evidence of the existence of such an animal.
+The first correct information I received was from the perusal of a
+letter to Rev. Alexander McLean, from Rev. Mr. Cummings of
+Sullivan; which is enclosed, and marked <i>A.</i> and some remarks
+were added by Mr. McLean at my request. The account was
+liable to some objections, and not so particular as might be wished.
+I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received a statement
+more in detail, which accompanies this, and is marked <i>B.</i>”</p>
+
+<p>“I was afterwards informed, that George Little Esq. late commander
+of the Boston frigate, saw a sea-monster similar to the
+one described by Mr. <i>Cummings</i>, in the time of the revolutionary
+war with Great-Britain; and as I was anxious for all the information
+that was to be had, I wrote him on the subject, and he forwarded
+the enclosed (marked <i>C.</i>) in answer to my letter. I have also the
+testimony of a Capt. <i>Crabtree</i> of Portland, an intelligent man,
+which is direct and positive. This is also enclosed and marked <i>D.</i>
+It was written in his presence and received his signature, as a
+correct statement.”</p>
+
+<p>“All this evidence, I think, cannot fail to establish the fact
+<i>that a large sea-serpent has been seen in and near the Bay of
+Penobscot</i>. The existence of such a <i>Monster</i> can no longer be
+reasonably disputed. But whether he constantly resides in that
+vicinity, or whether he coasts further south or north, during a
+part of the year, more particular information is necessary to ascertain.
+Nor is it known on what species of fish he subsists. By this
+communication I have it in view only to furnish evidence of the
+actual existence of the animal. It will probably operate in favour
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page150">[150]</span>of further information, and lead to a particular history of this
+hitherto undescribed Serpent.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr20">“I am with great esteem</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“Your humble servant</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“A. Bradford.”</span></p>
+
+<p>The four letters above mentioned and marked <i>A</i>, <i>B</i>, <i>C</i>, and
+<i>D</i>, are already inserted in their right places. I refer my readers
+to <a href="#Report29">n<sup>o</sup>. 29</a>, where the letters marked <i>A</i> and <i>B</i> are copied, to <a href="#Report19">n<sup>o</sup>.
+19</a>, where that marked C is inserted, and to <a href="#Report17">n<sup>o</sup>. 17</a>, where the
+letter marked D will be found back.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report30"><span class="reportnr"><b>30</b></span>.—1805? Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> (<i>Phil. Mag.</i> LIV,
+1819) in his <i>Additions</i> to his dissertation, says:</p>
+
+<p>“4. Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Lee</span> has brought to notice another Sea-Snake, seen
+by him many years ago near Cape Breton and Newfoundland,
+which was over 200 feet long, with the back of a dark green: it
+stood in the water in flexuous hillocks, and went through it with
+impetuous noise. This appears to be the largest on record and
+might well be called <i>Pelamis monstrosus</i>; but if there are other
+species of equal size, it must be called then <i>Pelamis chloronotis</i>,
+or Green-back Pelamis.”</p>
+
+<p>The length of 200 feet is estimated more than once, though in
+many instances probably exaggerated. The definition of the colour
+to be a dark green one, we have already explained above, discussing
+the report of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>. The flexuous hillocks are of course
+nothing else but the vertical undulations, the impetuous noise is
+caused by the fore-flappers as will be stated afterwards. Of Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Rafinesque’s</span> determination I will say nothing, because it is a false
+one and a proof of his credulity.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report31"><span class="reportnr"><b>31</b></span>.—1808, June.—At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural
+History Society on the 13th. of May, 1809 (<i>Phil. Mag.</i>, Vol. 33,
+p. 411) “the Secretary read a letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span>
+of Small Isles, mentioning the appearance of a vast Sea-Snake,
+between 70 and 80 feet long, among the Hebrides, in June, 1808.”</p>
+
+<p>This letter is printed in the first Volume of the <i>Memoirs of the
+Wernerian Natural History Society</i> (1811) and runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page151">[151]</span></p>
+
+<p>“To the Secretary of the Wernerian Natural History Society.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Sir”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Your letter of the first instant I received, and would have
+written in answer thereto sooner, had I not thought it desirable to
+examine others relative to the animal of which you wish me to
+give a particular account.”</p>
+
+<p>“According to my best recollection, I saw it in June 1808 not
+on the coast of Eigg, but on that of Coll. Rowing along that coast,
+I observed, at about the distance of half a mile, an object to
+windward, which gradually excited astonishment. At first view it
+appeared like a small rock. Knowing there was no rock in that
+situation, I fixed my eyes on it close. Then I saw it elevated considerably
+above the level of the sea, and after a slow movement,
+distinctly perceived one of its eyes. Alarmed at the unusual appearance
+and magnitude of the animal, I steered so as to be at no
+great distance from the shore. When nearly in a line betwixt it
+and the shore, the monster directing its head (which still continued
+above water) towards us, plunged violently under water. Certain
+that he was in chace of us, we plied hard to get ashore. Just as
+we leaped out on a rock, taking a station as high as we conveniently
+could, we saw it coming rapidly under water towards the
+stern of our boat. When within a few yards of the boat, finding
+the water shallow, it raised its monstrous head above water, and
+by a winding course get, with apparent difficulty clear of the
+creek, where our boat lay, and where the monster seemed in
+danger of being imbayed. It continued to move off, with its head
+above water, and with the wind for about half a mile, before we
+lost sight of it.—Its head was rather broad, of a form somewhat
+oval. Its neck somewhat smaller. Its shoulders, if I can so term
+them, considerably broader, and thence it tapered towards the tail,
+which last it kept pretty low in the water, so that a view of it
+could not be taken so distinctly as I wished. It had no fin that
+I could perceive, and seemed to me to move progressively by
+undulation up and down. Its length I believed to be from 70 to
+80 feet; when nearest to me, it did not raise its head wholly
+above water, so that the neck being under water, I could perceive
+no shining filaments thereon, if it had any. Its progressive motion
+under water I took to be rapid, from the shortness of the time
+it took to come up to the boat. When the head was above water,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page152">[152]</span>its motion was not near so quick; and when the head was most
+elevated it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects.</p>
+
+<p class="center">“I remain, Sir, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“<span class="smcap">Donald Maclean.</span>”</span></p>
+
+<p>To understand well what Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> meant with “shining
+filaments” which he did <i>not</i> see, I must return to the “Animal
+of Stronsa”, the putrified body of a large basking shark. My readers
+will remember that the putrified dorsal fins of that shark resembled
+bristles, which were transparent, and gave light in the dark (<a href="#Page61">p. 61</a>).
+Evidently the Secretary of the Wernerian Society writing to Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Maclean</span>, asked him to give a full description of the animal seen
+by him near “the coast of Eigg”, and whether he saw on its back
+“shining filaments” or not. Of course, Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> did not see them!</p>
+
+<p>For the first time it is mentioned by an eye-witness that the
+shoulders were visible. Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> adds: “if I can so term
+them”. This is very remarkable, for we may safely take it for
+granted, that he, like all other persons, believed to see a sea-snake,
+or serpentine animal, and yet, though he could not know,
+that it has flappers, and probably would not have believed it, when
+it was told him, he has distinctly seen that the animal at once
+became much broader behind its long neck.</p>
+
+<p>The animal plunged violently under water. When Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span>
+had reached his safe position he saw the animal swimming rapidly
+under water towards his boat. We must suppose that it swam so
+near the surface, though under water and invisible, that the surface
+rippled, and a wake was formed by the motion of the animal.
+The animal coming in shallow water, turned immediately and swam
+away. Once it did not raise its head quite above water, so that
+the neck was under water. When the head was most elevated, it
+appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects. These five
+habits as yet new to us, will be observed and reported several
+times afterwards. The other statements of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> are all
+mere repetitions of so often mentioned peculiarities.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report32"><span class="reportnr"><b>32</b></span>.—1808 June.—In the same letter we read:</p>
+
+<p>“About the time I saw it, it was seen about the Isle of Canna.
+The crew of thirteen fishing boats, I am told, were so much
+terrified at its appearance, that they in a body fled from it to the
+nearest creek for safety. On the passage from Rum to Canna the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page153">[153]</span>crew of one boat saw it coming towards them, with the wind,
+and its head high above water. One of the crew pronounced its
+head as large as a little boat, and each of its eyes as large as a
+plate. The men were much terrified, but the monster offered them
+no molestation.—From those who saw it, I could get no interesting
+particulars additional to those above mentioned.”</p>
+
+<p>The dimensions given to the head and eye may be exaggerated.
+It is remarkable that the animal is so often coming in the neighbourhood
+of a boat, and is yet perfectly harmless. This confirms
+my supposition expressed above that the animal is sometimes very
+inquisitive. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> would say “it thought to see the other
+sex, for it was pairing time!”</p>
+
+<p>The whole letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> to the Secretary of the
+Wernerian Society is reprinted in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> <i>Amphibious
+Carnivora</i> (a volume of <span class="smcap">Jardine’s</span> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>), 1839,
+without any remark or explanation.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report33"><span class="reportnr"><b>33</b></span>.—1810?—Sir <span class="smcap">Walter Scott</span> in the Notes to <i>The Pirate</i>
+says, according to Mr. <span class="smcap">Ashton</span> (<i>Curious Creatures in Zoology</i>, 1889):</p>
+
+<p>“The author knew a mariner, of some reputation in his class,
+vouch for having seen the celebrated Sea-Serpent. It appeared as
+far as could be guessed, to be about a hundred feet long, with
+the wild mane and fiery eyes which old writers ascribe to the
+monster.”</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that the adjectives “wild” and “fiery” and the
+phrase “which old writers ascribe to the monster” are no additions
+made by the mariner, who simply may have told that the sea-serpent
+seen by him was about a hundred feet long, had a mane
+like a horse, or resembling sea-weed, and had red eyes. Unluckily
+neither the date, nor the locality is mentioned. The date cannot
+be far back from 1820; so I have chosen 1810, but of the locality
+of course nothing can be guessed.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report34"><span class="reportnr"><a id="Report35"></a><b>34</b></span>,
+<span class="reportnr"><b>35</b></span>.—1815, June 20 and 21.—In the <i>Report of a
+Committee</i>, of 1817, we read that this Committee wrote a letter
+to Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Davis</span>, of Plymouth, requesting him to examine
+upon oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the
+appearance of the animal in 1815. This letter runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page154">[154]</span></p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Boston, September 1, 1817.</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Sir”,</span></p>
+
+<p>“At a meeting of the Linnaean Society of the 18th. ult., the
+subscribers there appointed a Committee for the purpose of collecting
+any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal,
+denominated a <i>Sea Serpent</i>, reported to have been recently seen
+in and near the Harbour of Gloucester. The Committee have procured
+evidence from Gloucester, which they are preparing to report
+to the Society, and this evidence is of such a character, that they
+have thought it expedient to extend their inquiry to other reported
+appearances of a similar nature on our coasts. An appearance of
+this sort is mentioned as having been noticed by some persons at
+Plymouth two or three years since. We would ask your assistence
+in procuring the evidence on this subject.</p>
+
+<p>“Your connection with the Society seems to authorize the request
+for your assistence in having the evidence on this subject, which
+may exist at Plymouth, properly taken and transmitted; but separately
+from any such claim, we know your habitual readiness to
+aid in any investigation in natural science. This subject is now of
+general interest among us, and will probably be so abroad. Any
+cooperation which you may wish from magistrates and intelligent
+gentlemen at Plymouth, we doubt not will be readily afforded
+you. We shall suspend our final report to the Society, until your
+communication shall be received.”</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Yours respectfully and</span><br>
+<span class="padl15">with esteem</span></p>
+
+<table class="committee">
+
+<tr>
+<td class="name">“John Davis</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="brace bt br bb">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="brace">-</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="left">Committee.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="name">“Jacob Bigelow</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="name">“Francis C. Gray</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p>The answer was as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Gentlemen.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Inclosed is the deposition duly authenticated of Capt. E. Finney
+of this town, descriptive of an unusual animal, which was seen
+by him in the outer harbour of Plymouth, in June 1815. Capt.
+Finney lives a few miles from town, and is much engaged in
+business, which must apologize for the delay that has followed,
+since the receipt of your letter of the first of September. His deposition
+is impartial and unbiassed—and agrees uniformly with
+his first declarations in 1815—besides he has not read, whatever
+he may have heard, of the Cape Ann descriptions; he has been
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page155">[155]</span>from his youth accustomed to a seafaring life—in the fishing
+employ, and in foreign voyages—has frequently seen whales, and
+almost every species of fish.”</p>
+
+<p>“The drawing on the other page (made by me) I have shewn
+to Capt. Finney, who says it illustrates his conceptions on the
+subject exactly. All your questions were asked him, and when his
+replies are negative, such as gills, breathing holes, &amp;c. &amp;c. it must
+not be inferred that such things were not displayed—but only
+that he did not see them, &amp;c. Certain house carpenters, who were
+at work on a building near the spot, also saw it; as well as
+many others—these persons dwell with emphasis on the long
+and distant <i>wake</i> made in the water by the passage of the fish.—As
+to the point of time, it must have been from known data
+between the 18th. and 25th. of June. And I would remark, that
+this is exactly the season when the first setting in of mackerel
+occurs in our bay.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Yours respectfully”</span><br>
+<span class="padr4">“S. Davis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>And the deposition of Captain <span class="smcap">Finney</span> as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“I, Elkanah Finney of Plymouth, in the county of Plymouth,
+Mariner, testify and say: That about the twentieth of June, A. D.
+1815, being at work near my house, which is situated near the
+sea-shore in Plymouth, at a place called Warren’s cove, where the
+beach joins the main land; my son, a boy, came from the shore
+and informed me of an unusual appearance on the surface of the
+sea in the cove. I paid little attention to his story at first; but
+as he persisted in saying that he had seen something very remarkable,
+I looked towards the cove, where I saw something which
+appeared to the naked eye to be a drift sea-weed. I then viewed
+it through a perspective glass, and was in a moment satisfied that
+it was some aquatic animal, with the form, motion, and appearance
+of which I had hitherto been unacquainted. It was about a
+quarter of a mile from the shore, and was moving with great
+rapidity to the northward. It then appeared to be about thirty
+feet in length; the animal went about half a mile to the northward;
+then turned about, and while turning, displayed a greater
+length than I had before seen; I supposed at least a hundred feet.
+It then came towards me, in a southerly direction, very rapidly,
+until he was in a line with me, when he stopped, and lay entirely
+still on the surface of the water. I then had a good view of him
+through my glass, at the distance of a quarter of a mile. His appearance
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page156">[156]</span>in this situation was like a string of buoys. I saw perhaps
+thirty or forty of these protuberances or bunches, which were about
+the size of a barrel. The head appeared to be about six or eight
+feet long, and where it was connected with the body was a little
+larger than the body. His head tapered off to the size of a horse’s
+head. I could not discern any mouth. But what I supposed to be
+his under jaw had a white stripe extending the whole length of
+the head, just above the water. While he lay in this situation,
+he appeared to be about a hundred or a hundred and twenty feet
+long. The body appeared to be of a uniform size. I saw no part
+of the animal which I supposed to be a tail. I therefore thought
+he did not discover to me his whole length. His colour was a deep
+brown or black. I could not discover any eyes, mane, gills, or
+breathing holes. I did not see any fins or legs. The animal did
+not utter any sound, and it did not appear to notice any thing.
+It remained still and motionless for five minutes or more. The wind
+was light with a clear sky, and the water quite smooth. He then
+moved to the southward; but not with so rapid a motion as I
+had observed before. He was soon out of my sight. The next
+morning I rose very early to discover him. There was a fresh
+breeze from the south, which subsided about eight o’clock. It then
+became quite calm, when I again saw the animal about a mile to
+the northward of my house, down the beach. He did not display
+so great a length as the night before, perhaps not more than
+twenty or thirty feet. He often disappeared, and was gone five or
+ten minutes under water. I thought he was diving or fishing for
+his food. He remained in nearly the same situation, and thus
+employed for two hours. I then saw him moving off, in a northeast
+direction, towards the light house. I could not determine whether
+its motion was up and down, or to the right and left. His quickest
+motion was very rapid; I should suppose at the rate of fifteen
+or twenty miles an hour. Mackerel, manhaden, herring, and other
+bait fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Elkanah Finney.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>Plymouth</i> ss. October 2, 1817. The above named Elkanah
+Finney appeared and made oath to the truth of the foregoing
+statement, by him subscribed, before me</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”</span></p>
+
+<p>In vain have I tried to get a look at the above mentioned “first
+declarations in 1815”.</p>
+
+<p>Though the Committee now possessed the long wished-for drawing
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page157">[157]</span>of the Sea-Serpent, it did not publish it, nor did it state why it
+did not. The “questions” of which Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> writes will be
+presented to our readers hereafter. We see that the animal may
+remain quite still on the surface of the water, keeping, however,
+its coils, or joints, or bunches. It was a large individual. Its head
+seemed to be from 6 to 8 feet, its whole length far above one
+hundred and twenty feet. “Its head was a little larger than the
+body”, we must of course read: “Its head was a little broader
+than the neck”. It had a white stripe extending over the whole
+length of the head, just above the water, in the place where the
+underjaw must have been. We may look upon all the statements
+of Capt. <span class="smcap">Finney</span>, as to the animal’s colour, dimensions, motions,
+&amp;c. as quite correct: he was a man too well acquainted with the
+different sea-animals, to be mistaken in any observation. Moreover,
+all his statements will soon and successively be repeated over and
+over again, till there remains not a shadow of doubt of their
+truth, which, in my opinion, is now already the case.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report36"><span class="reportnr"><b>36</b></span>.—1816?—In the “<i>Voyages</i>” of the well known <span class="smcap">Otto
+von Kotzebue</span>, which appeared in Weimar in 1821, translated
+into English, in London, 1821, and into Dutch, in Amsterdam,
+1822, we read that on the Isle of Unalaska, one of Aleutes, he
+had made the acquaintance of a Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span>, living there since
+1795, and being Agent of the American Company. <span class="smcap">Von Kotzebue</span>
+writes:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Kriukof’s description of a sea animal which pursued him
+at Behring’s Island, where he had gone for the purpose of hunting,
+is very remarkable. Several Aleutians affirm they have often seen
+this animal. It is of the shape of the Red serpent, and immensely
+long; the head resembles that of the sea-lion, and two disproportionately
+large eyes give it a frightful appearance. “It was very
+fortunate for us” said Kriukof, “that we were so near land, or
+else the monster would have swallowed us: it stretched its head
+far above the water, looked about for prey, and vanished. The
+head soon appeared again, and that considerably nearer: we rowed
+with all our might, and were very happy to have reached the
+shore before the serpent. The sea-lions were so terrified at the
+sight, that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves
+on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of flesh which, according
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page158">[158]</span>to opinion, is that of this serpent, which no animal, not
+even the raven, will touch. Some Aleutians, who had once tasted
+some of it, suddenly died.”</p>
+
+<p>This passage was told by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span> to von <span class="smcap">Kotzebue</span> in
+Aug. 1817. So we have taken 1816 as the year of the appearance,
+though it may have happened earlier. When Mr. <span class="smcap">Von Kotzebue</span>
+wrote his book in 1820, he had already heard of the Sea-Serpent,
+which appeared in 1817 in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., and
+so he adds:</p>
+
+<p>“If a sea-serpent really has been seen on the coast of North-America,
+it may have been one of this frightful species.”</p>
+
+<p>What now are the most interesting parts of this notice? First
+of all that the Sea-Serpent is a common visitor of the Northern
+South-Sea, for the Aleutians affirmed that they often saw it. But
+the description of the head claims our close attention. We already
+said that the animal must have a hairy skin, for it has a mane,
+and those persons who saw it very closely confirm this. The head
+has already been twice described as resembling that of a seal, and
+afterwards we shall meet again with such a description; generally,
+however, it is said to resemble that of a snake, or a serpent, and
+sometimes to be sharp. What head combines these characters? I
+say the head of a sea-lion. It resembles more or less that of a
+seal, and seen from aside, more or less that of a snake, is rather
+pointed, because a sea-lion has not such formidable upper lips as
+seals have, and rather blunt. Why has nobody given this description?
+I say, because nobody among the eye-witnesses ever saw a
+sea-lion, neither the Norwegian, nor the many eye-witnesses of
+Massachusetts, nor even afterwards the other witnesses. The only
+one who could make this comparison was Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span>, and the
+Aleutians, who live surrounded by these animals. The sea-lion’s
+head is rather blunt, rather pointed, rather long, and flattened
+on the forehead, has also some whiskers, which are also attributed
+to sea-serpents by eye-witnesses in Norway, according to <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>,
+and afterwards again by a person who saw it at a few yards’
+distance from him.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover <span class="smcap">Kriukof’s</span> comparison with the Red Snake, a species
+evidently known to him, the disproportionate large eyes, the habit
+of the animal to stretch its long neck far above the surface of the
+water, apparently to look about for prey, to follow a boat at some
+distance, it being supposed to be inquisitive, though harmless, are
+all statements we have already met with or will meet with afterwards.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page159">[159]</span>It seems that sea-lions too often become the prey of the
+sea-serpent, otherwise these creatures would not have been so afraid
+of it.</p>
+
+<p>As to the pieces of flesh, I am convinced that they are not of
+a sea-serpent, but either of sea-lions, of porpoises, or of another
+smaller kind of whales, which are the rests of a meal of our
+friend. They are washed ashore in a putrified state, and their not
+being to the taste of the ravens is probably a story, which, like
+the report of the death of the Aleutians who had tasted of it,
+must without doubt be considered as a mere fable. This report is
+reprinted in the <i>Magazine and Journal</i>, Vol. LVIII, 1821.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Ref3">“In the month of August, 1817,” we read in the <i>Report of a
+Committee</i>, &amp;c. printed Dec. 1817, Boston, by <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> and
+<span class="smcap">Hillard</span>,</p>
+
+<p>“In the month of August, 1817, it was currently reported on
+various authorities, that an animal of very singular appearance had
+been recently and repeatedly seen in the harbour of Gloucester,
+Cape Ann, about thirty miles distant from Boston. It was said to
+resemble a serpent in its general form and motions, to be of immense
+size, and to move with wonderful rapidity; to appear on
+the surface of the water only in calm and bright weather; and to
+seem jointed, or like a number of buoys or casks following each
+other in a line.”</p>
+
+<p>“In consequence of these reports, at a meeting of the Linnaean
+Society of New England, holden at Boston on the 18th. day of
+August, the Hon. John Davis, Jacob Bigelow, M. D. and Francis
+C. Gray, Esq. were appointed a Committee to collect evidence with
+regard to the existence and appearance of any such animal. The
+following report made by that Committee is now published by
+order of the Society.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Linnaean Society of New England.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“The Committee appointed on the 18th. of August last to collect
+evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of a Sea-Serpent,
+said to have been recently seen in the harbour of Gloucester,
+now lay before the Society the following facts and documents.”</p>
+
+<p>“On the 19th. of August your Committee wrote to the Hon.
+Lonson Nash of Gloucester, requesting him to examine upon oath
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page160">[160]</span>some of the inhabitants of that town with regard to the appearance
+of this animal, to make the examination as early as possible, to
+request the persons examined not to communicate to each other
+the substance of their respective statements, until they were all
+committed to writing; to have these statements signed and certified
+in due form, and sent to us. Our letter also contained certain rules
+with regard to the mode of conducting this examination, and
+questions to be put to the persons examined.”</p>
+
+<p>“In answer to it we received from Mr. Nash a letter, dated
+28th. August, enclosing eight depositions, duly certified, which on
+the 1st. September were read before the Society as were also three
+depositions taken in Boston, on the 30th. August and 1st. September.
+You directed us to return your thanks to Mr. Nash for
+his readiness in complying with our request, to continue the investigation
+of the subject committed to us, in such manner as we
+should deem expedient, and to lay before you a formal report of
+the whole evidence that should be procured. In compliance with
+your directions, the chairman of the Committee wrote again to
+Mr. Nash on the 2d. September, and received from him an answer,
+dated 9th. September. We also wrote to Mr. Samuel Davis of
+Plymouth on the 1st. September, requesting him to examine upon
+oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance
+of an animal said to have been seen there in the year
+1815, and to resemble the one lately seen near Gloucester; this
+letter contained the same rules and questions as were sent to Mr.
+Nash. In answer to this application, a letter from that gentleman
+was received on the 4th. October, enclosing the deposition of Capt.
+E. Finney. Your Committee have also received a communication
+from the Rev. William Jenks of Bath relative to the subject. All
+these documents are now laid before you in the following order.”</p>
+
+<table class="reportorder">
+
+<colgroup>
+<col class="wauto">
+<col class="w15em">
+<col span="3" class="wauto">
+</colgroup>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“1.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The rules and questions of your Committee.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“2.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The letter from Mr. Nash of 28th August, enclosing the eight following depositions.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“3.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The deposition of Amos Story.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“4.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of Salomon Allen.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“5.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of Eppes Ellery.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“6.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of William H. Foster.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“7.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of Matthew Gaffney.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“8.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of James Mansfield.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“9.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of John Johnston.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“10.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">That of William B. Pearson.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“11.</td>
+<td class="text">The deposition of Sewall Toppan<span class="pagenum" id="Page161">[161]</span></td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="brace bt br bb">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="brace">-</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="midheight dontwrap">taken at Boston.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“12.</td>
+<td class="text">That of Robert Bragg</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“13.</td>
+<td class="text">That of William Somerby</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“14.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The letter from our Chairman to Mr. Nash.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“15.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The answer of Mr. Nash.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“16.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">Our letter to Mr. S. Davis of Plymouth.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“17.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">His answer, containing</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“18.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The deposition of Elkanah Finney.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“19.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">The letter from the Rev. William Jenks to your Committee.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="counter">“20.</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="text">Is an account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in the North Sea, extracted from the history of Norway,
+written by the Right Rev. Erich Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in the year 1751.</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<h3>I.</h3>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Boston, Aug. 19, 1817.</span></p>
+
+<p>“The Committee appointed by the Linnaean Society, at their
+meeting on the 18th. inst. for the purpose of collecting any
+evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal, denominated
+a <i>Sea Serpent</i>, reported to have recently been seen in and
+near the harbour of <i>Cape Ann</i>, have concluded on the following
+method of proceeding in the execution of their commission.”</p>
+
+<p>“I. The examination to be confined to persons professing actually
+to have seen the animal in question.</p>
+
+<p>“II. Such persons to be examined as may be met with by either
+of the Committee, or by Hon. Lonson Nash of Gloucester, who is
+to be requested by a letter addressed to him from the Committee
+to undertake this service.”</p>
+
+<p>“III. All testimony on the subject to be taken in writing, and
+after being deliberately read to the person testifying, to be signed
+by him, and sworn before a magistrate. The examinations to be
+separate, and the matter testified by any witness not to be communicated
+until the whole evidence be taken.”</p>
+
+<p>“IV. The persons testifying to be requested first to relate their
+recollections on the subject, which being taken down, the following
+questions to be proposed, if not rendered unnecessary by the
+statement given.”</p>
+
+<h4>“Questions.”</h4>
+
+<p>&#8199;“1. When did you first see this animal?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“2. How often and how long at a time?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“3. At what times of the day?”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page162">[162]</span></p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“4. At what distance?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“5. How near the shore?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“6. What was its general appearance?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“7. Was it in motion or at rest?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“8. How fast did it move, and in what direction?”</p>
+
+<p>&#8199;“9. What parts of it were above the water and how high?”</p>
+
+<p>“10. Did it appear jointed or only serpentine?”</p>
+
+<p>“11. If serpentine, were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p>
+
+<p>“12. How many distinct portions were out of water at one time?”</p>
+
+<p>“13. What were its colour, length and thickness?”</p>
+
+<p>“14. Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p>
+
+<p>“15. What were the size and shape of its head, and had the
+head ears, horns, or other appendages?”</p>
+
+<p>“16. Describe its eyes and mouth.”</p>
+
+<p>“17. Had it gills or breathing holes, and where?”</p>
+
+<p>“18. Had it fins or legs, and where?”</p>
+
+<p>“19. Had it a mane or hairs, and where?”</p>
+
+<p>“20. How did its tail terminate?”</p>
+
+<p>“21. Did it utter any sound?”</p>
+
+<p>“22. Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice any thing?”</p>
+
+<p>“23. Did you see more than one?”</p>
+
+<p>“24. How many persons saw it?”</p>
+
+<p>“25. State any other remarkable fact.”</p>
+
+<h3>II.</h3>
+
+<p class="right">“Gloucester, August 28, 1817.”</p>
+
+<table class="reportorder">
+
+<tr>
+<td class="text"><span class="padl2">“John Davis,</span></td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="brace bt br bb">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="brace">-</td>
+<td rowspan="3" class="text midheight">Esq’rs.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="text"><span class="padl2">“Jacob Bigelow, and</span></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="text"><span class="padl2">“Francis C. Gray</span></td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl8">“Gentlemen,</span></p>
+
+<p>“I have received your favour of the 19th. inst. In that communication
+you request my assistance, in collecting evidence relative
+to a strange marine animal, that has appeared in the harbour in
+this place; and I have most cheerfully complied with your request.
+The subject is calculated to excite much interest, at home and abroad.”</p>
+
+<p>“The deponents were interrogated separately, no one knowing
+what the others had testified, and though they differ in some few
+particulars, still, for the most part, they agree.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is
+mistaken, as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical.
+I saw him, on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page163">[163]</span>judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when the
+nearest. I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and at
+other times, with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not
+take in the two extremities of the animal that were visible, <i>at one
+view</i>, with a glass. His manner of turning is well described in
+Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions. The persons who have
+deposed before me, are men of fair and unblemished characters.
+The interrogatories that you sent to me were all put to the witnesses;
+but generally, I have omitted inserting them in the depositions,
+when the witnesses declared their inability to answer them.”</p>
+
+<p>“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken, as to the distinct
+portions of the animal that were visible, at one time. I saw, at
+no time, more than eight distinct portions; though more may have
+been visible; still, I cannot believe that <i>fifty</i> distinct portions were
+seen, at one time. I believe the animal to be straight, and that,
+the apparent bunches were caused by his vertical motion.”</p>
+
+<p>“I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat with
+his brother Matthew, when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s
+answers corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”</p>
+
+<p class="center">“Respectfully, gentlemen,<br>
+<span class="padl20">“Your most ob’t</span></p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Lonson Nash.”</span></p>
+
+<p>We observe that the Linnaean Society has exerted all its energies
+in the matter and has acted with the greatest accuracy. In our
+historical treatice we, however, have not followed the above order,
+but arranged the depositions chronologically.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report37"><span class="reportnr"><b>37</b></span>.—1817, August 6?—In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span>,
+dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span> in Paris,
+preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and
+which we shall hereafter present to our readers <i>in toto</i>, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“About a fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance
+of the Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster
+come into the Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake,
+was of great length, &amp;c.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report38"><span class="reportnr"><b>38</b></span>.—1817, August, 10.—(See the <a href="#Ref3"><i>Report</i></a> of 1817).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page164">[164]</span></p>
+
+<p>“I, Amos Story of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, mariner,
+depose and say, that on the tenth day of August A. D. 1817,
+I saw a strange marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, at
+the southward and eastward of Ten Pound Island, in the harbour
+in said Gloucester. It was between the hours of twelve and one
+o’clock when I first saw him, and he continued in sight for an
+hour and half. I was setting on the shore, and was about twenty
+rods from him when he was the nearest to me. His head appeared
+shaped much like the head of a sea turtle, and he carried his head
+from ten to twelve inches above the surface of the water. His head
+at that distance appeared larger than the head of any dog that I
+ever saw. From the back part of his head to the next part of him
+that was visible, I should judge to be three or four feet. He moved
+very rapidly through the water, I should say a mile in two, or
+at most, in three minutes. I saw no bunches on his back. On this
+day, I did not see more than ten or twelve feet of his body.”</p>
+
+<p>Though Mr. <span class="smcap">Story</span> compares the animal’s head with that of a
+sea-turtle, probably because he saw it in such a direction that it
+seemed short and thick; his statement that it carried its head a
+foot above the water, and that it was larger than that of any dog
+at a distance of twenty rods,—the head may even have been of
+about two feet—, that its motion was rapid, are all mere repetitions
+of facts well known to us. He did not see bunches on its
+back, the animal consequently swam with its body in a straight
+line, a habit we have also already met with. Just behind the head
+a part of the neck of about four feet was hidden under water,
+and then twelve feet of the animal’s body were visible again.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report39"><span class="reportnr"><b>39</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><b>40</b><a id="Report40"></a></span>,
+<span class="reportnr"><b>41</b><a id="Report41"></a></span>.—1817, August 12, 13, 14.—(See the
+<a href="#Ref3"><i>Report</i></a>, printed in 1817).</p>
+
+<p>“I, Solomon Allen 3d. of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
+shipmaster, depose and say; that I have seen a strange marine
+animal, that I believe to be a sea-serpent, in the harbour in said
+Gloucester. I should judge him to be between eighty and ninety
+feet in length, and about the size of a half barrel, apparently having
+joints from his head to his tail. I was about one hundred and fifty
+yards from him, when I judged him to be of the size of a half
+barrel. His head formed something like the head of the rattle snake,
+but nearly as large as the head of a horse. When he moved on
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page165">[165]</span>the surface of the water, his motion was slow, at times playing
+about in circles, and sometimes moving nearly straight forward.
+When he disappeared, he sunk apparently directly down, and
+would next appear at two hundred yards from where he disappeared,
+in two minutes. His colour was a dark brown, and I did not
+discover any spots upon him.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Question.</i> When did you first see this animal?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Answer.</i> I saw him on the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth
+of August, A. D. 1817.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How often, and how long at a time?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I was in a boat on the twelfth inst. and was around him
+several times, within one hundred and fifty yards of him. On the
+thirteenth inst. I saw him nearly all the day, from the shore. I
+was on the beach, nearly on a level with him, and most of the
+time he was from one hundred and fifty to three hundred yards
+from me. On the fourteenth, I saw him but once, and had not
+so good a view of him.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> What parts of it were above the surface if the water, and
+how high?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Its joints or bunches, appeared about eight or ten inches
+above the surface of the water.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it bend its body up and down in moving, or to the
+right and left?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> He moved to the right and left.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many distinct portions of it were out of the water,
+at one time?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I should say fifty distinct portions.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared rough and scaly.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Had it ears, horns, or any other appendages?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I perceived none.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How did its tail terminate?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> He seemed to taper towards (what I thought) his tail,
+though I had no distinct view of his tail.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it utter any sound?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Not in my hearing.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared to me to avoid the boat where I was, though
+afterwards, I saw him make towards a boat, in which was Mr.
+Gaffney and others.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did you see more than one?”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page166">[166]</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I did not.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many persons saw it?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Twenty or thirty persons were in view of me.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he open his mouth when you saw him, and if so,
+how wide?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Yes, when I looked at him from the shore with a glass at
+about two hundred yards distance, his mouth appeared to be open
+about ten inches. I had no glass, when I saw him from the boat.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he carry his head above the surface of the water?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Yes, at times, about two feet, then again he would carry
+the top of his head just on the surface of the water.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he turn short and quick, and what was the form of
+the curve that he made?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Solomon Allen 3d.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex, ss. August 21, 1817. Personally appeared Solomon Allen
+the third, and made oath that the foregoing facts by him subscribed,
+are true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>As we have already seen, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> wrote in his letter
+to the Committee:</p>
+
+<p>“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is
+mistaken, as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical.” And:</p>
+
+<p>“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken as to the distinct portions
+of the animal, that were visible, at one time. I saw at no
+time more than eight distinct portions; though more may have been
+visible; still I cannot believe that <i>fifty</i> distinct portions were seen
+at one time.”</p>
+
+<p>As to the motion of the animal I believe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen</span> was
+really mistaken. When the animal was nearest to him, there was
+still a distance of a hundred and fifty yards between Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen</span>
+and the animal. As to the number of the bunches which Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Allen</span> reports, viz. fifty, I believe that he has not <i>counted</i> them;
+he says: I should say fifty. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> tells us that the greatest
+number ever seen was twenty-five, and I believe that this is indeed
+the case.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover its length of from eighty to ninety feet, the size of
+the visible part to be that of a half barrel, the resemblance of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page167">[167]</span>the head to a rattle-snake’s, say a common snake’s, the size of it
+to be that of a horse’s, say two feet, &amp;c., &amp;c., are all common
+statements. Of course Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen</span> is also mistaken as to its scaly
+surface. The roughness, however, may have been the result of the
+rippling of the water. When the animal disappeared it sunk directly
+down, like a rock, a statement which we have met with and shall
+meet with several times. That the teeth of the animal were not
+visible at a distance of two hundred yards cannot surprise us. In
+the animal’s turning its flexibility again is mentioned: head and
+tail approaching, nay, nearly touching each other.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report41A"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—See also <a href="#Report41">no 41</a> on p. 164.—(<i>Report
+of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p>
+
+<p>“I, Epes Ellery, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, shipmaster,
+depose and say; that on the 14th. day of August, 1817, I saw
+a sea animal that I thought to be a serpent, in the harbour in
+said Gloucester. I was on an eminence, near low water mark, and
+about thirty feet above the level of the sea, when I saw him. I
+should judge that he was about one hundred and fifty fathoms
+from me. I saw the upper part of his head, and I should say
+about forty feet of the animal. He appeared to me to have joints,
+about the size of a two-gallon keg. I was looking at him with a
+spy-glass, when I saw him open his mouth, and his mouth appeared
+like that of a serpent; the top of his head appeared flat. His motion
+when he turned was quick, but I will not express an opinion
+of his velocity. 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 together.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> At what time of the day did you see him?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> It was a little after sun set.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> What parts of it were above the surface of the water, and
+how high?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I did not count the number of bunches, but they appeared
+about six inches above the surface of the water.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Vertical.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> It did not appear to avoid any thing. He appeared to be
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page168">[168]</span>amusing himself, though there were several boats not far from him.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did you see more than one?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I did not.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many persons saw it?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> There were fifteen or twenty persons near where I was.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Epes Ellery.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Essex ss. August, 25, 1817. Personally appeared Epes Ellery,
+and made oath to the truth of the foregoing facts by him subscribed.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Not a single fact which has not been stated before.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report41B"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—(See also <a href="#Report41">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a> on p. 164 and
+<a href="#Report41A">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a> on <a href="#Page167">p. 167</a>.)—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p>
+
+<p>“I, William H. Foster, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex,
+merchant, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August,
+A. D. 1817, I first saw an uncommon sea-animal, that I believe
+to have been a serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. When
+I first discovered him, his head was above the surface of the water,
+perhaps ten inches, and he made but little progress through the
+water. He was apparently shaded with light colours. He afterwards
+went in different directions, leaving on the surface of the water,
+marks like those made by skating on the ice. Then he would
+move in a straight line west, and would almost in an instant,
+change his course to east, bringing his head, as near as I could
+judge, 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, and shewing a body at least forty feet in length.”</p>
+
+<p>Its being shaded with light colours is already mentioned by
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>. Its leaving a wake behind it has already been stated
+many times, and will often be stated afterwards. Also its mode
+of turning, giving to its body the form of a staple.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report41C"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—(See also <a href="#Report41">n°. 41</a>
+on p. 164, <a href="#Report41A">p. 167</a>, <a href="#Report41B">p. 168</a>.)—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817.).</p>
+
+<p>“I, Matthew Gaffney, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
+ship carpenter, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of
+August, A. D. 1817, between the hours of four and five o’clock
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page169">[169]</span>in the afternoon, I saw a strange marine animal, resembling a
+serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. I was in a boat, and
+was within thirty feet of him. His head appeared full as large as
+a four-gallon keg, his body as large as a barrel, and his length
+that I saw, I should judge forty feet at least. The top of his head
+was of a dark colour, and the under part of his head appeared
+nearly white, as did also several feet of his belly, that I saw. I
+supposed and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly
+white. I fired at him, when he was the nearest to me. I had a
+good gun, and took good aim. I aimed at his head, and think I
+must have hit him. He turned towards us immediately after I had
+fired, and I thought he was coming at us: but he sunk down
+and went directly under our boat, and made his appearance at
+about one hundred yards from where he sunk. He did not turn
+down like a fish, but appeared to settle directly down, like a
+rock. My gun carries a ball of eighteen to a pound; and I suppose
+there is no person in town, more accustomed to shooting than I
+am. I have seen the animal at several other times, but never had
+so good a view of him, as on this day. His motion was vertical,
+like a caterpillar.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How fast did it move?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I should say he moved at the rate of a mile in two, or
+at most three minutes.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought it smooth, when I was endeavouring to take
+aim at him, and will not say positively, that he was smooth,
+though that is still my belief.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Does he turn quick and short, and if so, what is the form
+of path that he makes, in turning?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> He turns quick and short, and the first part of the curve
+that he makes in turning, is in the form of the 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.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he appear more shy, after you had fired at him?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> He did not; but continued playing as before.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Who was in the boat with you, when you fired at the
+serpent?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> My brother Daniel, and Augustin M. Webber.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Matthew Gaffney.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex, ss. August 28, 1817. Then Matthew Gaffney made oath
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page170">[170]</span>that the foregoing, by him subscribed, is true according to his
+best knowledge and belief.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace”</span></p>
+
+<p>As we have already seen Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> in his letter to the
+Committee wrote:</p>
+
+<p>“His manner of turning is well described in Mr. Gaffney’s description......
+I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the
+boat with his brother Matthew when he fired at the animal, and
+Daniel’s answer corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”</p>
+
+<p>We read here that the underpart of the head appeared almost
+white, and several feet of its belly too (read of the underpart of
+its neck, or of its throat). Further Mr. <span class="smcap">Gaffney</span> goes on: “I supposed
+and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white”.
+This is very remarkable, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Gaffney</span> seems to be familiar
+with sea-animals, as porpoises, &amp;c., and a very good observer,
+and his conclusion is quite right from a zoological point of view.
+Very remarkable is the animal’s demeanor after the shot. Apparently
+furious, it directed itself suddenly to the shooter, but when
+very near to him, it sank down like a rock and appeared again
+far away. This manner of acting will afterwards be described again
+in Norway. Again its manner of disappearing is described as sinking
+like a rock. The mode of turning too is just the same as is mentioned
+every where.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report41D"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—(See
+also <a href="#Report41">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a> on p. 164, <a href="#Report41A">p.
+167</a>, <a href="#Report41B">p. 168</a>, <a href="#Report41C">p. 168</a>.) (<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817.)</p>
+
+<p>We read in the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> to the Committee
+that he himself saw the animal:</p>
+
+<p>“I saw him on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I
+should judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when
+the nearest. I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and
+at other times, with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not
+take in the two extremities of the animal, that were visible, at
+one view with a glass...... His motion is vertical..... His
+manner of turning is well described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s
+descriptions..... I saw, at no time, more than eight distinct
+portions; though more may have been visible..... I believe the
+animal to be straight, and that the apparent bunches were caused
+by his vertical motion.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page171">[171]</span></p>
+
+<p>The Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Davis</span> immediately
+wrote to Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> the following letter:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Boston, September 2, 1817.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl15">“Sir”,</span></p>
+
+<p>“Your letter of the 28th. ult. to the Committee of the Linnaean
+Society, and the accompanying depositions, were duly received,
+and were yesterday communicated to the Society. The Committee
+are greatly obliged to you for your ready compliance with their
+request. In these sentiments the Society unite, and I am charged
+with the agreeable office of communicating to you their vote of
+thanks for your very acceptable labours. What you have thus accomplished
+will go far in giving some precise and accurate conceptions
+on a subject, peculiarly exposed to exaggeration and
+mistake. This evidence, with some additional documents, will
+probably be published. The Committee will not make their final
+report on the subject of their Commission until evidence shall be
+procured respecting some other reputed appearances of like description,
+particularly one at Plymouth in 1815.”</p>
+
+<p>“We have been informed that the animal at Gloucester was
+once seen, and it was said by a woman, lying dormant very near
+the shore. The Committee wished this intimation to be given to
+you, that if it should point to any material circumstances, the
+evidence might be taken.”</p>
+
+<p>“The last we hear of the object of our inquiry is of his appearance
+off East Point on the 28th. ult. This we gather from the
+testimony of captain Toppan, and his crew, of the schooner Laura,
+coming from Newburyport to Boston.”</p>
+
+<p>“It appears by your letter, that you had sight of the animal.
+A letter from you, giving a detailed account of your observations,
+would be particularly acceptable.”</p>
+
+<p>“We understand that a gentleman in Gloucester, (Captain Beach)
+has a drawing, supposed to be a good representation of the animal.
+Some information respecting this drawing would be agreeable; how
+far it is considered by those who had the best view of the animal
+as a correct representation, and whether the person possessing it
+would be disposed to permit an engraving from it to be annexed
+to the publication of the evidence, and on what terms. Yours very
+respectfully,</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Jno Davis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“We have already read the report of the appearance of 1815
+(<a href="#Report34">n<sup>o</sup>. 34</a> and <a href="#Report35">35</a>); the intelligence of the encounter on the 28th. of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page172">[172]</span>August we will communicate afterwards (<a href="#Report48">n<sup>o</sup>. 48</a>). The answer of
+Judge <span class="smcap">Nash</span>, omitting the intelligence about the animal reposing
+on the rocks (this report has been discussed some pages further
+on, <a href="#Report45">n<sup>o</sup>. 45</a>) runs as follows (See <a href="#Ref3"><i>Report of a Committee</i></a>, 1817):</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Gloucester, September 9, 1817.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl15">“Sir”,</span></p>
+
+<p>“Your favoured of the 2d. inst. has been received. The vote of
+thanks of the Linnaean Society for my services was highly gratifying
+to me, not simply on account of the high consideration I
+entertain for the members of that laudable institution; but likewise
+for the agreeable manner, and respectable channel, through which
+their vote of thanks was communicated to me.”</p>
+
+<p>“You request a detailed account of my observations, relative to
+the serpent. I saw him on the fourteenth ultimo, and when nearest,
+I judged him to be about two hundred and fifty yards from
+me. At that distance I judged him (in the largest part) about the
+size of a half barrel, gradually tapering towards the two extremes.
+Twice I saw him with a glass, only for a short time, and at
+other times, with the naked eye, for nearly half an hour. His
+colour appeared nearly black—his motion was vertical. When
+he moved on the surface of the water, the track of his rear was
+visible, for at least half a mile.”</p>
+
+<p>“His velocity, when moving on the surface of the water, I
+judged was at the rate of a mile in about four minutes. When
+immersed in the water, his speed was greater, moving, I should
+say, at the rate of a mile in two or at most three minutes. 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. He apparently went as straight through
+the water, as you could draw a line. 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.
+With a glass, I could not take in, at one view, the two extremes
+of the animal, that were visible. I have looked at a vessel, at
+about the same distance, and could distinctly see forty five feet.
+If he should be taken, I have no doubt that his length will be
+found seventy feet, at least, and I should not be surprised, if he
+should be found one hundred feet long. When I saw him I was
+standing on an eminence, on the sea shore, elevated about thirty
+feet above the surface of the water, and the sea was smooth.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page173">[173]</span></p>
+
+<p>“If I saw his head, I could not distinguish it from his body;
+though there were seafaring men near me, who said that they could
+distinctly see his head. I believe they spoke truth; but not having
+been much accustomed to look through a glass, I was not so fortunate.”</p>
+
+<p>“I never saw more than seven or eight distinct portions of him
+above the water, at any one time, and he appeared rough; though
+I supposed this appearance was produced by his motion. When
+he disappeared, he apparently sunk directly down like a rock.”</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Beach has been in Boston for a week past, and I am
+informed that he is still there. An engraving from his drawing of
+the serpent has been, or is now, making at Boston, but I have
+not been able to ascertain how far his drawing is thought a correct
+representation.”</p>
+
+<p class="center">“Respectfully, Sir,<br>
+<span class="padl8">Your most obedient,</span><br>
+<span class="padl20">Lonson Nash.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> says of this declaration (<i>Mem. Am. Acad. Arts
+Sc.</i> Vol. IV. Pt. 1.)</p>
+
+<p>“The account of it by Lonson Nash Esq. Justice of the Peace
+in Gloucester, from his own observation, is perfectly free from prejudice,
+and as clear and satisfactory as can be expected of an
+object at a distance of two hundred and fifty yards.”</p>
+
+<p>Remarkable in this testimony is again the considerable wake the
+animal leaves behind it when swimming rapidly. Easy it is to
+explain why the speed is greater under water than when partly
+visible above the surface of the water. Those parts viz. which are
+above the surface must be borne by the body hidden under water,
+consequently this carries a burden, and the speed, it is evident,
+cannot be so rapid as when the animal is quite under water, in
+which position each part of the animal’s body is carried by the
+water itself, and not by the individual. It has no burden to carry,
+it is specifically lighter, and the speed can reach its maximum.—Remarkable
+too is the fact that the animal, when swimming under
+water, does so just below the surface, and causes the rippling of
+it. This is a habit of Pinnipeds.</p>
+
+<p>Where Mr. Nash thinks that the apparent roughness is produced
+by its motion, I am convinced that he is right. He could not
+distinguish its head from its body, which cannot surprise us; both
+are of the same thickness, when seen from aside, and I believe
+too that the seafaring men, more accustomed to look with a glass,
+distinctly saw the difference between head and neck. Moreover the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page174">[174]</span>mode of turning, its length of more than seventy feet, its sinking
+down like a rock, when disappearing, need not be spoken of;
+they were mere repetitions of former statements.</p>
+
+<p>I am sorry I have not been able to get a look at Mr. <span class="smcap">Beach’s</span>
+figure.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report42"><span class="reportnr"><b>42</b></span>.—1817, August 15.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p>
+
+<p>“I, James Mansfield, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex,
+merchant, depose and say: That I saw a strange creature, of
+enormous length, resembling a serpent. I think this was on the
+15th. of August, A. D. 1817. I should say he was from forty to
+sixty feet in length, extended on the surface of the water, with
+his head above the water about a foot. He remained in this position
+but a short time, and then started off very quick, with much
+greater velocity than I have seen him move with at any other
+time. I saw bunches on his back about a foot in height, when
+he lay extended on the water. His colour appeared to me black
+or very dark. It was a little before six o’clock P. M. when I saw
+him. I should say, he moved a mile in five or six minutes.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How near the shore was the serpent?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> About one hundred and eighty yards from the shore where
+I stood.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Vertical.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> What were the size and shape of its head; and had it ears,
+horns, or any other appendages?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> His head appeared to be about the size of the crown of a
+hat, at the distance from whence I saw him. The shape of his
+head I cannot describe, and I saw no ears, horns, or other appendages.
+I had no spy glass, and cannot describe him so minutely
+as I otherwise could. I have seen him at other times, but my
+view of him was not so good, as on this day.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“James Mansfield.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex, ss. August 27, 1817. Then James Mansfield made oath
+to the truth of the foregoing deposition by him subscribed.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>We have here again the statement that the animal is able to
+keep its bunches, when it lies extended on the water.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page175">[175]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report43"><span class="reportnr"><b>43</b></span>.—1817, August 17.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817.)
+The second part of the affidavit of Mr. <span class="smcap">William H. Foster</span> runs
+as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“On the seventeenth of August instant, I again saw him. He
+came into the harbour, occasionally exhibiting parts of his body,
+which appeared like rings or bunches. As he drew near, and when
+opposite to me, 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.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Might not the prong or spear that you saw, have been the
+tongue of the serpent?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought not; as I saw the prong before I saw his head;
+but it might have been.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> At what distance were you, when you saw the spear of
+the serpent?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I should judge forty rods; I had a spyglass when I saw the
+prong or spear.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did the animal appear round?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> He did.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he appear jointed, or only serpentine?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> He appeared jointed.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Vertical.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> What was its colour?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared brown.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared smooth.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> What was the size and shape of his head?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> At the distance where I was, his head appeared as large as
+a man’s head; but I cannot describe its shape.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought it appeared to notice objects.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How fast did it move?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> At the rate of a mile in a minute, at times, I have no doubt.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“William H. Foster.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex ss. August 27, 1817. Personally appeared William H.
+Foster, and made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him
+subscribed, is true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”</span></p>
+
+<p>The first statement that strikes us is the prong or spear, seen
+by Mr. <span class="smcap">Foster</span>. I am convinced that this instrument, seen by him
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page176">[176]</span>at a distance of forty rods, and with a spy-glass, rising from the
+foremost part of the head, about 12 inches, or a foot, in length,
+pointed at its end, and having six inches in circumference, or two
+in diameter, at the bottom, was nothing else but the animal’s tongue.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report43A"><span class="reportnr"><b>43</b></span>.—1817, August 17.—See also <a href="#Report43">n<sup>o</sup>. 43</a> on p. 175.—(<i>Report
+of a Committee</i>, 1817).—</p>
+
+<p>“I, John Johnston, jun, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
+of the age of seventeen years, depose and say: That on the evening
+of the seventeenth day of August, A. D. 1817, between the hours
+of eight and nine o’clock, while passing from the shore in a boat,
+to a vessel lying in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw a strange
+marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, lying extended on
+the surface of the water. His length appeared to be fifty feet at
+least, and he appeared straight, exhibiting no protuberances. Capt.
+John Corliss and George Marble were in the boat with me. We
+were within two oars length of him. We immediately rowed from
+him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail; but fearing we
+might strike it 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. There was
+not sufficient light to enable me to describe the animal.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“John Johnston, jun.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex, ss. August 25, 1817. Personally appeared John Johnston,
+jr. and made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed,
+is true according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”</span></p>
+
+<p>This account is as interesting as all the other ones; though no
+further particulars are described, it is again mentioned that more
+than fifty feet of the animal’s back part were visible, lying perfectly
+still on the surface of the water, showing no bunches at all.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report44"><span class="reportnr"><b>44</b></span>.—1817, August 18.—In the letter of Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span>
+to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span>, dated Boston Aug. 20, 1817, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at
+Beverly from the bank of New-foundland. The captain and the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page177">[177]</span>crew report that, off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea Monster
+of the Snake kind, lying on the water, of immense length. That
+the crew were so much alarmed, that they got away as soon as
+they could, and that they estimated it at 100 feet long.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report44A"><span class="reportnr"><b>44</b></span>.—1817, August 18.—See also <a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a> hereabove.—(<i>Report
+of a Committee</i>, 1817).—</p>
+
+<p>“I, William B. Pearson, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
+merchant, depose and say: That I have, several times, seen a strange
+marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, of great size. I have
+had a good view of him, only once, and this was on the 18th.
+of August, A. D. 1817. I was in a sailboat, and when off Webber’s
+cove (so called) in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw something
+coming out of the cove; we hove to, not doubting but that it
+was the same creature that had been seen several times in the
+harbour, and had excited much interest among the inhabitants of
+Gloucester. James P. Collins was the only person with me. The
+serpent passed out under the stern of our boat, towards <i>Ten Pound
+Island</i>; then he stood in towards us again, and crossed our bow.
+We immediately exclaimed: “here is the snake!” From what I
+saw of him, I should say that he was nothing short of seventy
+feet in length. I distinctly saw bunches on his back, and once he
+raised his head out of water. The top of his head appeared flat,
+and was raised seven or eight inches above the surface of the water.
+He passed by the bow of the boat, at about thirty yards distance.
+His colour was a dark brown. I saw him at this time about two
+minutes. His motion was vertical. His velocity at this time was
+not great, though at times, I have seen him move with great
+velocity, I should say at the rate of a mile in three minutes, and
+perhaps faster. His size I judged to be about the size of a half
+barrel. I saw Mr. Gaffney fire at him, at about the distance of
+thirty yards. I thought he hit him, and afterwards he appeared
+more shy. He turned very short, and appeared as limber and
+active as the eel, when compared to his size. The form of the
+curve when he turned in the water, 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.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page178">[178]</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> At what time in the day was this?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Between the hours of five and six in the afternoon.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many distinct portions of it were out of water at
+one time?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> Ten or twelve distinct portions.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> Can you describe his eyes and mouth.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought and believe, that I saw his eye at one time,
+and it was dark and sharp.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Q.</i> How did its tail terminate?”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A.</i> I had not a very distinct view of his tail; I saw no bunches
+towards, what 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.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“William B. Pearson.</span></p>
+
+<p><i>Essex</i>, ss. August 27, 1817. Then William B. Pearson made
+oath to the truth of the above.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”</span></p>
+
+<p>In this account too there is not a single fact which has not
+been mentioned before, except that the tail did not show bunches,
+while the back did. From that point of the body where Mr. <span class="smcap">Pearson</span>
+judged his navel might be towards the end of the tail, the animal
+had no bunches. It is probable that we are meant to read: from
+the middle of the visible part, where the animal seemed to be
+thickest. It is also probable that the animal’s external characters,
+though Mr. <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> says he believed it to be a serpent, made
+on him the impression of a mammal.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report44B"><span class="reportnr"><b>44</b></span>.—1817, August 18.—See also
+<a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a> p. 176 and <a href="#Report44A">hereabove</a>.—In
+the above-mentioned letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span>
+to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span> we read:</p>
+
+<p>“My Brother—Colonel Perkins—went down to Cape Ann
+two days ago to see it. He says that he is satisfied that such an
+animal is there. As he stood on the shore, it came within the
+eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it so distinctly,
+as to be able to state all its points, he has not said any thing to
+the public about it.”</p>
+
+<p>Fortunately Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> wrote down his experiences in
+a letter, dated Oct. 13, 1820, when on board the ship <i>Ann Marie</i>,
+to his friend <span class="smcap">Jno. P. Cushing</span>. He published it in the <i>Boston
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page179">[179]</span>Daily Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, after the excitement caused
+by the appearance of the sea-serpent seen by the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).
+The whole is reprinted in the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2358, which
+I had the opportunity to consult. The part of the letter, treating
+of his visit runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Boston, November, 1848.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“In the paper called the “Illustrated London News” of 28th.
+October, is an account given by Capt. M’Quhae, of H. R. M. ship
+Daedalus, of a sea-serpent, seen from his ship in August last, on
+her passage from the East-Indies, and between the Cape of Good
+Hope and St. Helena. The perusal of several articles on the subject
+leads me to send you a letter written by me on my passage from
+England to the United States, in August, 1820, to Jno. P. Cushing,
+my friend and then partner, residing at Canton in China. I also
+send you a memorandum from Commander Bolton, of the U. S.
+Navy, giving the report of the gentlemen of the Navy who were
+on board a tender called the Lynx, and who had a very favourable
+opportunity of satisfying themselves of the existence of the animal
+which had caused so much excitement. The serpent was seen in
+1817, ’19, and ’20, from the <i>shore</i>, and the reports show the
+bunches to be produced by the vertical motion of the body when
+in action. From the drawings which accompany the letter of Capt.
+M’Quhae, there are none of the protuberances, and which would
+lead to the opinion that the animal seen on the other side of the
+Equator differs in genus from that which has been seen on our
+coast. The drawings of the sea-serpent seen on the coast of Norway,
+given in the report of the Bishop Pontoppidan, are identical with
+the appearance of the animal which has been so often spoken of
+as visiting our northern seas. T. H. Perkins.”</p>
+
+<p>“On board the ship Ann Marie, at sea, lat. 46, long. 44, Oct.
+13, 1820.”</p>
+
+<p>“My dear sir,—When on shore I have little time to spare
+from business to devote to details which I am now to communicate.”</p>
+
+<p>“During the past three years you will have seen accounts in the
+newspapers, or reports will have met you in another form of an
+immense sea-serpent having infested our shores in Boston Bay. The
+first appearance he made in the summer of 1817, in the harbour
+of Cape Ann. Wishing to satisfy myself on a subject on which
+there existed a great difference of opinion, I myself visited Gloucester
+with Mr. Lee. On our way down we met several persons
+returning, who had visited the place where he was said to have
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page180">[180]</span>exhibited himself, and who reported to us that he had not been
+seen for two or three days past. We however, continued our route
+to Gloucester, though with fears that we should not be gratified
+with the sight of the monster which we sought. I satisfied myself,
+from conversation with several persons who had seen him, that the
+report in circulation was not a fable. All the town were, as you
+may suppose, on the alert; and almost every individual, both great
+and small, had been gratified, at a greater or less distance, with
+a sight of him. The weather was fine, the sea perfectly smooth,
+and Mr. Lee and myself were seated on a point of land which
+projects into the harbour, and about twenty feet above the level
+of the water, from which we were distant about fifty or sixty
+feet......</p>
+
+<p>“Whilst thus seated, I observed an agitation in the water at
+the entrance of the harbour, like that which follows a small vessel
+going five or six miles an hour through the water. As we knew
+there was no shoal where the water was thus broken, I immediately
+said to Mr. Lee that I had no doubt that what I had
+seen was the sea serpent in pursuit of fish. Mr. Lee was not directing
+his attention to the spot which I speak of, and had not
+seen the foam of the water, the animal having immediately disappeared.”</p>
+
+<p>“In a few moments after my exclamation, I saw on the opposite
+side of the harbour, at about two miles distance from where I had
+first seen, or thought I saw, the snake, the same object, moving
+with a rapid motion up the harbour, on the western shore. As he
+approached us, it was easy to see that his motion was not that of
+the common snake, either on the land or in the water, but evidently
+the vertical movement of the caterpillar. As nearly as I
+could judge, there was visible at a time about forty feet of his
+body. It was not, to be sure, a continuity of body, as the form
+from head to tail (except as the apparent bunches appeared as he
+moved through the water) was seen only at three or four feet
+asunder. It was very evident, however, that his length must be
+much greater than what appeared, as, in his movement, he left
+a considerable wake in his rear. I had a fine glass, and was within
+from one-third to half a mile of him. The head was flat in the
+water, and the animal was, as far as I could distinguish, of a
+chocolate colour. 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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page181">[181]</span>many people collected by this time, many of whom had before
+seen the same object, and the same appearance. From the time I
+first saw him until he passed by the place where I stood, and
+soon after disappeared, was not more than fifteen or twenty minutes.”</p>
+
+<p>“I left the place fully satisfied that the reports in circulation,
+although differing in details, were essentially correct. I returned
+to Boston, and having made my report, I found Mrs. Perkins and
+my daughters disposed to make a visit to Gloucester with me when
+the return of the animal should be again announced. A few days
+after my return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies; we
+had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in the object which
+carried us there.”</p>
+
+<p>The reader knows already that I don’t agree with Col. <span class="smcap">T. H.
+Perkins</span> as to the generic difference of the sea-serpent.—It is
+the second time that the tongue of the animal is seen to be
+thrown out.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>All these reports of course greatly alarmed the people, and divided
+them into believers and unbelievers. Letters were written to
+Europe. As it is of interest to know the public opinion about the
+subject, it is perhaps not unnecessary to communicate here the
+letters which I found, especially those hitherto unpublished. On
+the 20th. of August of 1817 Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span> wrote a letter
+to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span>, then at Paris; this letter is preserved in the
+Library of the Royal University of Göttingen. An extract from it,
+respecting the sea-serpent, here printed for the first time, runs
+as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“You will except me to give you some account of the extraordinary
+monster, which is now the subject of universal conversation
+here. So far as we know anything of it, I will give it you, but
+we have yet to learn its Genus, species and character. About a
+fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance of the
+Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster
+come into the Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake,
+was of great length, &amp;c. But little attention, however, was paid
+to this report, and it gained no public circulation. Within a week
+the Country has been agitated with reports of the existence of the
+monster, and men of reputation and character have made known,
+that they have distinctly seen the animal. Many have gone off in
+search of him in Boats, and muskets have been fired at him,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page182">[182]</span>without any other effect than alarming him and deterring him
+from suffering the approach of the boats. He is represented to be
+from 50 to 100 feet long, of the size of a barrel about the body,
+which is formed into parallel rings, which—when he is on the
+top of the water—are so prominent, that they resembled buoys
+attached to each other. Its motions, when in pursuit of its prey,
+are very rapid, and create a wake like a small vessel passing thro’
+the water. My Brother—Colonel Perkins—went down to Cape
+Ann two days ago to see it. He says that he is satisfied that such
+an animal is there. As he stood on the shore, it came within
+the eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it so distinctly
+as to be able to state all its points, he has not said any thing to
+the public about it. Many persons—who are well known as men
+of character—have assured me they have seen 30 or 40 feet of
+it out of water at once. These reports have created various opinions
+and sensations, many disbelieving the whole story, and others not
+doubting it, in the least. My brother goes again to morrow morning
+to pass a week at Cape Ann. It comes into the harbour daily, in
+pursuit of the herrings, which resort here in great quantities. All
+these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of Reports,
+people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was
+only a number of porpuses following each other, in rapid succession.
+But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived
+at Beverly from the banks of Newfoundland. The captain and crew
+report that, off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea-Monster of
+the Snake kind, lying on the water, of immense length. That
+the crew were so much alarmed, that they got away as soon as
+they could, and that they estimated it, at 100 feet long. Other
+particulars were stated, which I do not recollect. This had revived
+the belief, in its existence, and great efforts will be made to take
+it dead or alive. I heard to day that a subscription was on foot,
+and that an express has been sent to Nantucket for twenty whale
+men to come up with their boats and apparatus to destroy it. The
+Linnean Society have appointed a Committee to go down and
+investigate it, of which Judge Davis is Chairman.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report45"><span class="reportnr"><b>45</b></span>.—1817, August 22?—We have already seen that the
+Chairman of the Committee asked Judge <span class="smcap">Nash</span> to give, if possible,
+an evidence of the fact that a woman saw the animal lying dormant
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page183">[183]</span>very near the shore. In speaking of Mr. <span class="smcap">Nash’s</span> answer we
+skipped this evidence to insert it here. It runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“I have seen and conversed with the woman, who was said to
+have seen the serpent dormant on the rocks, near the water, to
+whom you refer in yours; but she can give no material evidence.
+She says that she saw something, resembling a large log of wood,
+on the rocks, on the extreme eastern point of Ten Pound Island,
+(a small island in our harbour), resting partly on the rocks, and
+partly in the water. The distance was about half a mile. She took
+a glass, looked at the object and saw it move. Her attention was
+for a short time arrested, by some domestic avocation, and when
+she looked for the object again, it had disappeared.”</p>
+
+<p>The letter from the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Davis</span>, the Chairman of the
+Committee, was dated Sept. 2, 1817. The appearance, therefore,
+took place before this date. Fortunately we have another testimony
+of this position of the animal. In the letter from Col. <span class="smcap">T. H.
+Perkins</span>, dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published by him in the
+<i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, we read that he visited
+the harbour of Gloucester. This must have been on the 18th. of
+August 1817 (see <a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>. p. 178.); after having described this
+visit the Colonel goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“A few days after my return I went again to Cape Ann with
+the ladies; we had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in
+the object which carried us there.”</p>
+
+<p>“Whilst at Cape Ann I talked with many persons who had
+seen the serpent, and among others with a person of the name
+of Mansfield, one of the most respectable inhabitants of the town.
+His account to me was, that a few days before, as he was taking
+a ride with his wife in a chair, the road taking them close to a
+bank which overlooks the harbour (and is nearly a perpendicular
+precipice), he saw an uncommon appearance, which induced him
+to descend from the carriage, when he saw the sea-serpent, in
+which until then he had been an unbeliever. The animal was
+stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had four
+or five feet of water upon it, and lay partly over the channel.
+He desired his wife to get out of the chair, which she did. He
+said he had made up his mind as to the length of the snake,
+but wished the opinion of his wife on the same subject. He asked
+her what she should consider his length; she answered that she
+could not undertake to say how many feet in length he was, but
+that she thought him as long as the wharf behind their house,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page184">[184]</span>an object with which she had always been familiar. Mr. Mansfield
+said he was of the same opinion. The wharf is one hundred feet
+in length. It is to be observed that the person above spoken of
+had been such an unbeliever in the existence of this monster, that
+he had not given himself the trouble to go from his house to the
+harbour when the report was first made of such an animal being
+there.”</p>
+
+<p>Consequently I may fix the appearance of the animal resting on
+a bank, or beach, or rock, on the 22th. of August, 1817. This
+is the <i>only</i> report I have found of this way of reposing of the
+animal, but I cannot believe that these reports are contrary to truth.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report46"><span class="reportnr"><b>46</b></span>.—1817, August, 23.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Amos Story</span> after having made affidavit of his having seen
+the animal on the tenth of August, goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“I likewise saw, what I believe to be the same animal this day,
+viz. the twenty third of August, A. D. 1817. This was in the
+morning, about seven o’clock. He then lay perfectly still, extended
+on the water, and I should judge that I saw fifty feet of him at
+least.”</p>
+
+<p>“I should judge that I was forty rods from him this day. I had
+a good spy glass both days when I saw him. I continued looking
+at him about half an hour, and he remained still and in the same
+position, until I was called away. Neither his head nor tail were
+visible. His colour appeared to be a dark brown, and when the
+sun shone upon him, the reflection was very bright. I thought his
+body was about the size of a man’s body.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Amos Story.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex ss. Aug. 23, 1817. Personally appeared Amos Story, and
+made oath that the foregoing deposition by him subscribed is true,
+according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>As we read that the animal lay perfectly still, and as Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Story</span> does not mention that bunches were visible, we may conclude
+that it lay with its body in a straight line. Fifty feet of its
+length at least were visible. Its head and tail were not visible,
+says Mr. <span class="smcap">Story</span>, and yet the animal remained about half an hour
+in this position, which I think may thus be accounted for: the
+animal’s head, neck and back were in a straight line just above
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page185">[185]</span>the surface of the water, so that its nose was also above it, which
+enabled the animal to breathe and to remain motionless, but
+at the distance of forty rods, though with a good spy glass, these
+particulars cannot have been distinctly seen by one who was not
+acquainted with the animal’s external features, and so he believed
+its head was invisible. That its tail was under water, I will believe
+with him.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report47"><span class="reportnr"><b>47</b></span>.—1817, August 24?—In the letter from Col. <span class="smcap">T. H.
+Perkins</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">Cushing</span>, dated Oct. 13, 1820, Col. P. mentions
+the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by Mr. and Mrs. <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span>
+on the 22th. of Aug., 1817 (<a href="#Report45">n<sup>o</sup>. 45</a>), and he continues:</p>
+
+<p>“Subsequent to the period of which I have been speaking, the
+snake was seen by several of the crews of our coasting vessels, and
+in some instances within a few yards.”</p>
+
+<p>I have therefore chosen the above date.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report48"><span class="reportnr"><b>48</b></span>.—1817, August 28.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p>
+
+<p>“Sewell Toppan, Master of the schooner Laura, declares: That
+on thursday morning the 28th. day of August, at about 9 o’clock
+A. M. at about two miles, or two and half miles east of the
+eastern point of Cape Ann being becalmed, I heard one of my
+men call to the man at the helm, “what is this coming towards
+us”; being engaged forward, I took no further notice till they
+called again.—I then got on top of the deck load, at which
+time I saw a singular kind of animal or fish, which I had never
+before seen, passing by our quarter, at distance of about forty
+feet, standing along shore. I saw a part of the animal or fish ten
+or fifteen feet from the head downwards including the head; the
+head appeared to be of the size of a ten-gallon keg, and six inches
+above the surface of the water. It was of a dark colour. I saw
+no tongue, but heard William Somerby and Robert Bragg, my
+two men, who were with me, call out, “look at his tongue”.
+The motion of his head was sideways and quite moderate; the
+motion of the body, up and down. I have seen whales very often;
+his motion was much more rapid than whales or any other fish I
+have ever seen; he left a very long wake behind him; he did not
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page186">[186]</span>appear to alter his course in consequence of being so near the
+vessel. I saw him much less time than either of the others, and
+not in so favourable a position to notice his head.”</p>
+
+<p>“I have been to sea many years, and never saw any fish that
+had the least resemblance to this animal. Judging from what I
+saw out of water, I should judge the body was about the size of
+a half barrel in circumference.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Sewell Toppan”.</span></p>
+
+<p>“Suffolk ss. Boston, September 1, 1817. Personally appeared
+captain Sewell Toppan, and made solemn oath, that the foregoing
+declaration by him subscribed is true.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Robert Bragg, of Newburyport, mariner, of the schooner Laura,
+of Newburyport, Sewell Toppan Master, testifies: That on thursday
+last, about ten o’clock A. M. coming in said schooner bound from
+Newburyport to Boston, off Eastern Point, (Cape Ann), about a
+mile and a half from the shore, I being on deck, the vessel being
+becalmed, looking at the windward, I saw something break the water,
+and coming very fast towards us, I mentioned it to the man at
+helm, William Somerby; the animal came about 28 or 30 feet
+from us, between the vessel and the shore, and passing very swiftly
+by us; he left a very long wake behind him. About six inches in
+height of his body and head were out of water, and as I should
+judge about 14 or 15 feet in length. He had a head like a serpent,
+rather larger than his body and rather blunt; did not see
+his eyes; when astern of the vessel about 30 feet, he threw out
+his tongue about two feet in length; the end of it appeared to
+me to resemble a fisherman’s harpoon; he raised his tongue several
+times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again. He was
+in sight about ten minutes. I think he moved at the rate of 12
+or 14 miles an hour; he was of a dark chocolate colour, and from
+what appeared out of water I should suppose he was two and a
+half feet in circumference; he made no noise; his back and body
+appeared smooth; a small bunch on each side of his head, just
+above his eyes; he did not appear to be at all disturbed by the
+vessel; his course was in the direction for the Salt Islands; his
+motion was much swifter than any whale that I have ever seen,
+and I have seen many—did not observe any teeth; his motion
+was very steady, a little up and down.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“To this account I am willing to make oath.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“Robert Bragg.”</span></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page187">[187]</span></p>
+
+<p>“I, William Somerby of the Schooner Laura, testify and say:
+That on thursday last about 10 o’clock, A. M. as I was coming
+in said schooner from Newburyport, bound to Boston, off Brace’s
+cove, a little eastward of Eastern Point, (Cape Ann) about two
+miles from land, the sea calm, I was at helm. Robert Bragg, one
+of the crew, asked me if that was not the snake coming, pointing
+out a break in the water, south of us; a strange animal of the
+serpent form passed very swiftly by us—the nearest distance I
+should judge to be between 30 and 40 feet—the upper part of
+his head and back was above water—the length that appeared
+was about 12 or 15 feet, his head was like a serpent’s tapering
+off to a point. He threw out his tongue a number of times, extended
+about two feet from his jaws—the end of it resembled
+a harpoon—he threw his tongue backwards several times over
+his head, and let it fall again—I saw one of his eyes as he
+passed; it appeared very bright, and about the size of the eye of
+an ox. The colour of all that appeared was very dark, almost
+black. He did not appear to take any notice of the vessel, and
+made no noise. There appeared a bunch above the eye.—Should
+judge him to be about two and a half feet in circumference. Have
+often seen whales at sea. The motion of this animal was much
+swifter than that of any whale. The motion of the body was rising
+and falling as he advanced, the head moderately vibrating from
+side to side. The colour of his tongue was a light brown.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“To this account I am willing to make oath.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“William Somerby.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>Commonwealth of Massachusetts</i>, August 30, 1817. Then appeared
+Robert Bragg and William Somerby, and made oath to the
+truth of the above declarations, by them respectively subscribed.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p>
+
+<p>In these three depositions we find the same observation. As the
+head was moving moderately sideways, we may conclude that the
+animal, though it was also moving up and down, used its flappers
+too, so that with the use of the right fore-flapper its head went
+a little to the left; and otherwise went a little to the right by the
+motion of the left fore-flapper.—For <span class="smcap">Robert Bragg’s</span> “larger”
+in “the head was rather larger than the body”, we don’t hesitate
+to read “broader”.—It is the third time that the animal’s tongue
+was observed. The tongue most probably was rather pointed, which
+led the two mariners to compare it with a harpoon.—Remarkable
+is the statement of the animal having a small bunch on each side
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page188">[188]</span>of the head just above its eyes. This is the heavy eye brow figured
+by <span class="smcap">Bing</span> (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>) and so often described afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>In a letter from Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> dated Oct. 13, 1820, and
+published in the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, we
+read:</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Tappan, a person well known to me saw him with
+his head above water two or three feet, at times moving with
+great rapidity, and at others slowly. He also saw what explained
+the appearance which I have described, of a horn on the front of
+the head. This was doubtless what was observed by Captain Tappan
+to be the tongue, thrown in an upright position from the mouth,
+and having the appearance which I have given to it.”</p>
+
+<p>I quite agree with Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> as to the explanation of
+the horn (see <a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>, p. 180.)—In the <i>Report</i> of 1817 the name
+is spelt <span class="smcap">Toppan</span>, whilst Col. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> writes <span class="smcap">Tappan</span>; but as the
+details of the two accounts of the prong, or spear, or horn, or
+tongue are the same, I am convinced that these two names identify
+the same person. So the statement of Captain <span class="smcap">Toppan</span>, <span class="smcap">William
+Somerby</span> and <span class="smcap">Robert Bragg</span> is substantiated by <span class="smcap">Col. Perkin’s</span>
+letter.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report49"><span class="reportnr"><b>49</b></span>.—1817, August 30?—In the same letter from Col.
+<span class="smcap">Perkins</span> we read:</p>
+
+<p>“One of the revenue cutters, whilst in the neighbourhood of
+Cape Ann, had an excellent view of him at a few yards’ distance;
+he moved slowly; and upon the approach of the vessel, sank and
+was seen no more.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report50"><span class="reportnr"><b>50</b></span>.—1817, October 3.—In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Thos.
+Herttell</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">Silvanus Miller</span>, printed in the <i>Report of a
+Committee</i>, 1817, a passage runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Understanding that Mr. James Guion, a gentleman of character
+and respectability, had seen what was supposed to be the same
+animal, I yesterday conversed with him on the subject. He states
+that on Friday the 3d. inst. while on the point of land on the
+east side of the mouth of Mamaroneck harbour, he saw a little
+distance from the rocks, usually called the Scotch Caps, which
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page189">[189]</span>lie at the extremity of Rye Point, a large marine animal, going
+with great rapidity up sound. He judged his speed to be little or
+no less than a mile in a minute. He describes the irregularity and
+unevenness of his back, about fifty feet of which appeared above
+the surface of the water, much in the way in which I have done.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report51"><span class="reportnr"><b>51</b></span>.—1817, October 5.—The abovesaid letter runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Rye-Neck, Oct. 21, 1817”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Silvanus Miller, Esq.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Sir, I observed in the Columbian of the 15th. inst. a paragraph
+stating that an animal had been seen in Long Island sound,
+corresponding with the description of the serpent lately seen in
+Gloucester harbour. That communication probably resulted from
+some observations which I made to you, and several other
+gentlemen, on the subject alluded to. When I spoke on that
+occurrence, I had no idea that it would become the subject of a
+newspaper remark; but since it has been publicly noticed, perhaps
+a more particular detail of the circumstances may not be deemed
+improper.”</p>
+
+<p>“On Sunday, the 5th. inst. at 10 o’clock A. M. while standing
+a few rods from my house on Rye-Neck, I observed at a small
+distance to the southward and eastward of Mr. Ezekiel Halsted’s
+dwelling on Rye Point, and perhaps not more than a half mile
+from the shore, a long, rough, dark looking body, progressing
+rapidly up sound (towards New York) against a brisk breeze, and
+a strong ebb tribe. Viewing it with my glass convinced me it was
+a large living animal.—His back, forty to fifty feet of which
+was seen above the surface of the water, appeared to be irregular,
+uneven, and deeply indented. I did not at this time remark that
+his head was more elevated above the water than the ridges or
+humps on his back. Some trees standing near the water, Rye Point
+soon intercepting my view of him, I hastened to a situation from
+which I obtained another sight of him as he passed that part of
+the sound opposite Hempstead bay. At this time he appeared to
+be nearly in the middle of the sound—his body more depressed
+below and his head more elevated above the water, going with
+increased velocity in the direction of Sand’s point, creating a swell
+before him not unlike that made by a boat towed rapidly at the
+stern of the vessel. From the time I first saw him till I lost sight
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page190">[190]</span>of him perhaps could not have exceeded ten minutes, in which
+short time he had gone probably not less than six or seven miles.”</p>
+
+<p>“I was yesterday informed on creditable authority, that on the
+day on which I saw the above mentioned animal, he was seen by
+some persons at or in the vicinity of the light house on Sand’s
+Point.”</p>
+
+<p>“That it was a sea animal of great bulk, to me is certain.—That
+it is what is usually called a Sea-Serpent, and the same
+which appeared in Gloucester harbour, is only probable.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“With much respect, Sir, yours, &amp;c.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“Thos. Herttell.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Though the usual statement that the animal had bunches on its
+back is here expressed in other terms, viz.: that its back was
+irregular, uneven, deeply indented, it may be seen at a glance
+that no new feature gave rise to these terms. The animal may
+moreover have had a mane, extending all over the back.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><a href="#Report20">N<sup>o</sup>. 20</a> of the <i>Report</i> is, as we have seen above (<a href="#Page161">p. 161</a>), an
+account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in the
+North-Sea, extracted from the “History of Norway” written by
+the Right Rev. <span class="smcap">Erich Pontoppidan</span>. Here is an extract from the
+matter given by that Bishop about the sea-serpent, and the whole
+affidavit of Capt. <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span>.</p>
+
+<p>After this the Committee goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“We have seen and heard sundry other statements of various
+authority relating to similar animals, said to have been seen at
+sea by different persons, but do not insert them in our report,
+because we consider the foregoing testimony sufficient to place the
+existence of the animal beyond a doubt; and because they do not
+appear so minute and so well authenticated as the preceding
+documents.”</p>
+
+<p>Poor Committee! Could they have foreseen that <i>seventy</i> years
+afterwards the existence of the sea-serpent was <i>not</i> beyond a doubt,
+at least among learned persons, they would not only have published
+all those sundry other statements, but have exerted themselves
+more in the matter than they did now. They would have gone to
+have a look at the animal and made an affidavit of their observations,
+and—even then they would not have been believed!</p>
+
+<p>I would kindly beg the Linnaean Society of Boston, or that
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page191">[191]</span>learned Society which has inherited its archives, either to publish
+<i>all</i> reports, accounts and letters in their hands, or to send them
+all to me, that I may enlarge, correct and rectify this work in
+case a second edition is called for.</p>
+
+<p>The Committee, after having published the various exceedingly
+interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the
+phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? And before the
+question had become embarrassing, a <i>deus ex machina</i> in the form
+of a sick, illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly
+in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a labourer at that
+place. And as the people believed that this was a spawn of the
+great sea-serpent, it was bought by a certain Dr. and presented
+to the Committee to examine it. The Committee really examined
+and dissected it, and gave a full account of their experience
+in their <i>Report</i>. They considered the little snake to be new to
+science, closely allied to the <i>Coluber constrictor</i> or Black Snake,
+a species common in those regions, and gave it the name of
+<i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>. This account is followed by “two documents
+relating to the appearance of the <i>Scoliophis</i>, while living, and to
+the circumstance under which it was killed.”</p>
+
+<p>Next they gave “a few remarks on the question” (raised by the
+public) “whether the great Serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester,
+be the <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>”. These “few remarks” fill three
+pages and a half, and end with their conclusion that this is indeed
+the case, “until a more close examination of the great Serpent
+shall have disclosed some differences of structure, important enough
+to constitute a specific distinction.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Now, my readers will probably say that I have not yet explained
+why none of the eye-witnesses of the animal seen near Cape Ann
+saw a mane. I hope my readers will be satisfied when I tell them
+that I am convinced that the female Sea-Serpent has no mane,
+and that the mane is only a character of full grown males. So
+most of the eye-witnesses saw a female. It is only the individual
+witnessed by Messrs. <span class="smcap">James Guion</span> and <span class="smcap">Thos. Herttell</span> which was
+most probably a male and had a mane. Seen from a distance its
+back was uneven, and deeply indented.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page192">[192]</span></p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, “Groep III”,
+devoted a few pages to the “<i>Report of a Committee</i>”, giving a
+very short extract from it.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>I will insert here an extract from a letter written by <span class="smcap">Edward
+Everett</span>, Esq., Nov. 13, 1817, then in Paris, to the “Obermedicinalrath
+und Ritter” <span class="smcap">Blumenbach</span> in Göttingen. This extract, here printed
+for the first time, is preserved in the Library of the Royal University
+of Göttingen; it runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“With Respect to the monstrous Serpent, of which I furnished
+you some account, before leaving Göttingen, I am sorry to say
+that the Reports, which circulated in the newspapers of his capture,
+were incorrect, and that he has escaped. Great attempts were made,
+and large sums of money offered, in Vain. I begun to collect a
+full account of him out of 300 American Newspapers, which I
+intended for You, but as I hear that a pamphlet, on the subject,
+is preparing by our Linnaean Society, which will contain depositions
+made on Oath, I have prefered waiting, till this appears, and I
+shall have it sent to you immediately. I have received to-day a
+letter of Oct. 25 from my brother, in which he informs me,
+that—a few days after the Serpent disappeared—a Young
+Serpent, 3 feet long, corresponding with the large one in appearance,
+was taken. This was brought to Boston, has been dissected,
+and pronounced a Non-descript, by the Connoisseurs there. This
+will also be described in the pamphlet of the Linnaean Society.
+Upon the subject of the Serpent four letters have been written by
+Gen. Humphreys of Boston—a member of the Royal Society—to
+Sir Joseph Banks; so that it is possible something may appear
+in the Philosophical Transactions about it.”</p>
+
+<p>Afterwards we shall read more of the attempts to catch the Sea-Serpent.
+It is a pity that Mr. <span class="smcap">Everett</span> never published his collection!
+Most probably it has gradually disappeared in the paper-basket!
+Apparently Mr. <span class="smcap">Everett</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Blumenbach</span> corresponded much
+about the serpent: I also found a list of ancient works in which
+the sea-serpent and large snakes are mentioned, forwarded by the
+former to the latter, and in the above-mentioned letter <span class="smcap">Everett</span>
+calls the Sea-Serpent “Our old friend the Serpent.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page193">[193]</span></p>
+
+<p>As soon as the <i>Report</i> reached Europe, Mr. <span class="smcap">H. M. Ducrotay
+de Blainville</span> made an extract from it in his <i>Journal de Physique,
+de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle</i>, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Apparently
+he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and
+therefore paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal,
+which he doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did
+not trouble himself much. In one respect Mr. <span class="smcap">De Blainville</span> tried
+to throw ridicule on two reports, viz. those of <span class="smcap">Robert Bragg</span> and
+<span class="smcap">William Somerby</span>: “and the imagination of some sailors is cause
+that they saw a tongue or spear coming out of his mouth, to
+which they gave a length of twelve feet, a circumference of 6
+inches at the bottom and a termination as a lancet.” As we saw,
+the two sailors only mentioned a <i>tongue</i> of <i>two</i> feet; they did not
+use the expression of spear, they neither gave the circumference at
+the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as a <i>lancet</i>’s
+but as a <i>harpoon</i>’s. It was Mr. <span class="smcap">Foster</span> who saw a <i>prong</i> or <i>spear</i>,
+but only of twelve <i>inches</i> and terminating in a <i>small point</i>. At all
+events Mr. <span class="smcap">De Blainville</span> has read badly!</p>
+
+<p>But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus:</p>
+
+<p>“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent,
+we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the
+appearance of an animal of very great length, very slender, and
+swimming with rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it
+is a true snake, this is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as
+the <i>Scoliophis</i>, this assertion is still more doubtful, and finally
+that it is of the same species, here the number of probabilities
+still diminishes, and becomes totally null, if one believes that such
+an immense animal, as that which is observed in the sea has gone
+ashore to lay its eggs.”</p>
+
+<p>For this is firmly believed by the Committee!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (<i>Mem.
+Am. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says:</p>
+
+<p>“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in
+the portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.”</p>
+
+<p>After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> says:</p>
+
+<p>“These are the earliest notices I can find of this animal on our
+shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence
+lately brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society,
+of men of fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page194">[194]</span></p>
+
+<p>After having given an extract from these evidences, Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> says:</p>
+
+<p>“The accounts of all these persons are very consistent; to the
+greater part it appeared to be straight, or without gibbosities or
+protuberances on the back; one person thought it had protuberances,
+but it seems probable that the upper flexures of its undulations
+occasioned this opinion.”</p>
+
+<p>“Its velocity is variously estimated; by some it was thought to
+move a mile in a minute, by others in three, four, or five minutes.
+It has great lateral flexibility, as is shewn by its turning short and
+moving in an exactly contrary direction, advancing the head in a
+line parallel with the body; hence its undulations when under water
+and equally surrounded by the medium, may be either vertical or
+horizontal at the will of the animal. The judgment of its velocity,
+however, without knowing its precise distance and without instruments
+to observe it, is extremely liable to err.”</p>
+
+<p>“In the testimonies above referred to, the imagination seems to
+have had no influence, and we certainly know from them, that
+the existence of the animal to which they relate is indisputable;
+we know that it moves by vertical undulations, at least while near
+the surface of the sea; that it is laterally as flexible as other serpents;
+and that its motion, at times, is very swift; but our knowledge
+is circumscribed by these limits. It is to be hoped, that if it again
+visits our shores, some successful means may be devised of taking
+it and presenting an opportunity of completing our knowledge of
+so interesting a link in the chain of animated beings.”</p>
+
+<p>“It has been seen in Long Island sound, progressing southward;
+it seems from this circumstance to be migratory, like the Coluber
+natrix in Hungary, and may pass the winter season in Mexico or
+South America.”</p>
+
+<p>A remarkable fact is it that Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> really believes that it
+was a sea-snake of enormous dimensions!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <i>Journal of Science and the Arts</i>, edited at the Royal Institution
+of Great Britain, republished in its fourth Vol. (London,
+1818) the affidavits of Messrs. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> and <span class="smcap">William B. Pearson</span>,
+(<a href="#Report41D">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a>, p. 170, and <a href="#Report44B">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>, p. 177) and the writer of the article
+declares: “the existence of the animal is placed beyond doubt.”
+Now we are in 1892, and yet it is doubted!</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page195">[195]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report52"><span class="reportnr"><b>52</b></span>.—1818 June.—(<i>Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst.
+Gr. Britt.</i> VI, 1818.)</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>Commercial Advertiser</i> of June 9th. contains a letter from a
+Captain of the brig <i>Wilson</i>, of Salem, bound to Norfolk, wherein
+he states, that during his passage, off Cape Henry, he fell in
+with, as he at first supposed, the wreck of a vessel, when he
+ordered his boat to be lowered; but to his great astonishment he
+found it to be the sea-serpent; he says, he then examined it, and
+such an object he never before witnessed; he believed it to be
+190 feet in length, and its mouth and head were of an enormous
+size. After returning to the ship they bore off, fearing the consequences
+that might result from its coming in contact with the vessel.”</p>
+
+<p>The only characters mentioned here are the enormous head and
+the length of about 190 feet. Both may be exaggerated though
+greater dimensions are mentioned in later trustworthy reports.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report53"><span class="reportnr"><b>53</b></span>.—1818, June 19.—(<i>Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R.
+Inst. Gr. Brit.</i> VI, 1818).—</p>
+
+<p>“On the 19th of June he appeared in Sag-Harbour, and rewards
+were offered to the whalers to secure it.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report54"><span class="reportnr"><b>54</b></span>.—1818, June 21.—(<i>Ibidem</i>).</p>
+
+<p>“S. West, of Hallowell, master of the Packet <i>Delia</i>, describes it
+as seen on the 21st. of June, engaged with a whale.”</p>
+
+<p>The writer does not mean to say that it was a whale-bone-whale
+or a sperm-whale, but a whale of the smaller kind, viz. a dolphin,
+a grampus, or a porpoise. We shall come across an account stating
+that the eye-witnesses saw a panic amongst a shoal of porpoises,
+evidently caused by a sea-serpent pursuing them (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>); and
+across another account, stating that a sea-serpent was seen seizing a
+porpoise in one of its lateral fins (<a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>). It is evident that
+when the opportunity offers, a sea-serpent also preys on the grampuses,
+porpoises and dolphins.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page196">[196]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Report55"><span class="reportnr"><b>55</b></span>.—1818 July 2.—(<i>Ibidem</i>).</p>
+
+<p>“and on July 2d. two persons, J. Webber and R. Hamilton,
+saw it about seven miles from Portland, between Cranch Island
+point and Marsh-Island.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report56"><span class="reportnr"><b>56</b></span>.—1818 July.—(<i>Phil. Mag.</i> LIV, 1819). The second
+Sea Serpent described by Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> (for he believes
+there are several species) is called by him:</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Capt.</i> <span class="smcap">Brown</span><i>’s Sea-Serpent</i>. This fish was observed by Capt.
+Brown in a voyage from America to St. Petersburg, in July 1818,
+near 60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, or north of Ireland. In
+swimming the head, neck and forepart of the body stood upright
+like a mast: it was surrounded by porpoises and fishes. It was
+smooth, without scales, and had eight gills under the neck; which
+decidedly evinces that it is not a snake, but a new genus of fish!
+belonging to the eighth order <i>Tremapnea</i>, 28th. family <i>Ophictia</i>,
+and 3d. subfamily <i>Catremia</i>, along with the genera <i>Sphagebranchus</i>
+and <i>Symbranchus</i> of Bloch, which differ by having only one or
+two round gills under the neck. I shall call this new genus <i>Octipos</i>
+(meaning eight gills beneath); head depressed, mouth transverse,
+large, eight transverse gills under the neck, and its specific name
+and definition will be <i>Octipos bicolor</i>. Dark brown above, muddy
+white beneath: head obtuse. Capt. Brown adds, that the head was
+two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches, and the eyes over the
+jaws, similar to the horse’s; the whole length might be 58 feet.”</p>
+
+<p>Immediately we recognize our well-known Sea-Serpent, an individual
+of which the length is estimated at 58 feet, which held its
+head and very long neck upright whilst swimming. Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span>
+says: “and the forepart of the body”; of course, for he thought
+to see a snake; if he had really seen the forepart of the body,
+(trunk) he would have seen the shoulders and the fore-flappers. It
+was surrounded by porpoises and fishes. Evidently the animal swam
+between them with the purpose to snatch one of them. It had a
+smooth skin, no scales, and eight gills under its neck. Dark brown
+above (i. e. on the dorsal part of head and neck), muddy white
+beneath (i. e. on its throat); head obtuse (read rather obtuse, seen
+from above or from below, or in front; just from aside it is rather
+pointed). The head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches
+(of course estimated dimensions), and the eyes over the jaws similar
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page197">[197]</span>to those of a horse (this definition was caused by the heavy eye-brows
+and by the little bunch above each eye). The whole description
+is exactly that of our animal in the above-mentioned position
+and seen from a certain direction. For “eight gills” we may safely
+read “eight gillsplits”, or eight splits caused by and lying between
+nine folds or wrinkles, which in their turn are caused by the
+animal bending its head rectangularly towards the throat. Such
+folds or wrinkles are also seen in sea-lions, when they make the
+same motion, and stout corpulent persons will know what is meant
+by a double chin!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report57"><span class="reportnr"><b>57</b></span>.—1818, July?—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels
+through Sweden</i> in 1820, p. 187, says:—</p>
+
+<p>“The fishermen at Sejerstad said a sea-serpent was seen two
+years ago in the Folden Fjord, the length of which, as far as it
+was visible was 60 feet. This had been told them by those who
+had seen it in the Folden.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report58"><span class="reportnr"><b>58</b></span>.—1818, August?—At p. 203 the same author mentions:</p>
+
+<p>“On being asked (viz. the merchant of Fieldvigen) his opinion
+respecting the serpent, he said he had never seen it himself, though
+others had in that neighbourhood.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report59"><span class="reportnr"><b>59</b></span>.—1818, August 19.—In 1818 in the United States many
+rewards were offered to whalers to catch the animal, and many
+attempts were made to do this, and to bring it home, dead or
+alive. Amongst others this was the case at Boston. In the copy of
+the <i>Report of a Committee</i> of 1817, which I borrowed from the
+Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there was a paragraph
+from a newspaper of August 21, 1818, the head or title of which
+was not noted down; the cutting runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6">“Boston Aug. 21.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="right">“Transmitted by our N. Y. correspondents.”</p>
+
+<p>“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit
+of the sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page198">[198]</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>Squam River, Aug. 20th., 12 o’clock.</i>—After several unsuccessful
+attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing
+called the sea-serpent. We struck him fairly, but the harpoon soon
+drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he
+received will make him more cautious how he approaches these
+shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pursuit
+of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us,
+to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought
+we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly
+as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of
+warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as
+a whale. We had but a short ride when we were all loose from
+him to our sore disappointment.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Rich’d. Rich.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“<i>Gloucester, Aug. 20.</i>—As I thought it would be interesting to
+you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I
+will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last he
+sailed from this in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well
+manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they
+met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven hours,
+when they closed with him. He passed directly under the bows of
+Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon, which
+pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable
+distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of
+the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon.
+I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up
+the chase.”</p>
+
+<p>“He has <i>no</i> scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but
+his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack,
+Capt. Rich had one of his hands wound. These particulars I have
+in a letter from my brother.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Saml. Dexter.”</span></p>
+
+<p>As far as I can judge after having read what I could find about
+the Sea-Serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck
+with a harpoon. Evidently the animal then swam with its body in a
+straight line. Interesting to us are the words: “He has <i>no</i> scales
+on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth,
+and looks similar to an eel”.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page199">[199]</span></p>
+
+<p>The attempts mentioned above were continued, and, as my
+readers already read in my Chapter on hoaxes, ended with a hoax;
+at last a large tunny was brought in, and many persons believed
+it to be the animal! Among those who were present there was a Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Andrews Norton</span>; he wrote, Sept. 11, 1818, a letter about this
+affair to Mr. <span class="smcap">George Bancroft</span>, an extract from which is also
+inserted in our Chapter on hoaxes. I will repeat here his last words:</p>
+
+<p>“I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of
+the German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg
+you will assure him that we” (Mr. <span class="smcap">Norton</span> and Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span>) “do
+not consider the circumstance connected with the deception just
+mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real
+existence.”—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><i>The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts R.
+Inst. Gr. Brit.</i> repeats in its Vol. VII, London, 1819, the whole
+paper of Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span>, and a translation into German appeared in
+<span class="smcap">Oken</span>’s Isis of 1819.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The well-known <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, when in America, made
+the sea-serpent a subject of study and inquiry as Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> had
+done. He too wrote a paper about it, entitled: <i>Dissertation on
+Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents</i>. It seems that his
+dissertation appeared in an American Journal or in American
+Transactions, and that it was afterwards reprinted in the <i>Philosophical
+Magazine</i>, Vol. LIV, 1819. He is a believer in Sea-Serpents,
+is evidently convinced that several species exist, belonging to the
+family of the <i>Hydrophidae</i>, or real Sea-Snakes.</p>
+
+<p>After having mentioned 9 species of real Sea-Snakes, of which
+the last was 8 to 10 feet long, he goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“This last species appears to be the largest real Sea-Snake which
+has fallen under the personal observation of naturalists as yet. But
+larger species still have been noticed at different periods. If I had
+the time and opportunity of perusing all the accounts of travellers
+and historians, I could probably bring many into notice; but this
+tedious labour must be postponed, and I must warn those who
+may be inclined to inquire into the subject, not to be deceived
+by the imperfect and exaggerated accounts of ancient and unknown
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page200">[200]</span>writers. Whenever they mention neither the scales nor tail of their
+Sea-Serpents, or when they assert they had no scales, or had gills
+or fins, you must in all those instances be certain that they are
+real fishes rather than serpents. There might, however, be found
+some Sea-Snakes without scales, since there are such land snakes;
+and there are fishes with scales and yet without fins: but there
+are no fishes without gills, and no snakes or serpents with gills!—in
+that important character the classical distinction consists.”</p>
+
+<p>“Nearly all the writers whom I can remember, have been
+unacquainted with that obvious distinction; and they have, in
+imitation of the ancient Greek and Roman writers, given the name
+of Sea-Snakes to the large eels or fishes they happened to observe.
+This I apprehend is the case with Pontoppidan, in his Natural
+History of Norway; with Mongitore in his Remarkable Objects of
+Sicily; with Leguat, in his Travels to Rodriguez Island, &amp;c. Their
+observations, and the facts they record, are notwithstanding equally
+valuable, since they relate to monstrous unknown fishes, which
+seldom fall under the observation of men. The individuals of huge
+species are not numerous in nature, either on land or in water,
+and it is probable they often become extinct for want of food or
+reproduction.”</p>
+
+<p>“Among the four different animals which have lately been observed
+by Americans, and named Sea-Serpents, only one (the
+Massachusetts Serpent) appears to be such; another is evidently a
+fish, and two are doubtful. I shall refer a few remarks on each.”</p>
+
+<p>“1. <i>The Massachusetts Sea Serpent.</i> From the various and contradictory
+accounts given of this monster by witnesses, the following
+description may be collected.—It is about 100 feet long; the
+body is round and nearly two feet in diameter, of a dark brown,
+and covered with large scales in transverse rows; its head is scaly,
+brown mixed with white, of the size of a horse’s and nearly the
+shape of a dog’s; the mouth is large with teeth like a shark; its
+tail is compressed, obtuse, and shaped like an oar. This animal
+came in August last into the bay of Massachusetts in pursuit of
+shoals of fishes, herrings, squids, &amp;c. on which it feeds. Its motions
+are very quick: it was seen by a great many; but all attempts
+to catch it have failed, although 5000 dollars have been offered
+for its spoils. It is evidently a real Sea Snake, belonging probably
+to the genus <i>Pelamis</i>, and I propose to call it <i>Pelamis megophias</i>,
+which means Great Sea Snake Pelamis. It might however be a
+peculiar genus, which the long equal scales seem to indicate and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page201">[201]</span>which a closer examination might have decided: in that case the
+name of <i>Megophias monstrosus</i> might have been appropriated to it.”</p>
+
+<p>We observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> gives here some characters to
+the Massachusetts’s Sea-Serpent, with which we have met nowhere
+else, apparently only for the purpose of rendering his supposition
+more plausible: 1. “The scales”. It is true that some of the eye-witnesses
+have declared the skin to be rough and scaly, but against
+<i>one</i> who says so, there are <i>twenty</i> who deny it, describing the skin
+to be smooth and having no scales. 2. “The scales are in transverse
+rows.” This assertion is made nowhere else. 3. “Its head
+brown mixed with white.” A new statement. The head is only
+described as white on its throat and lower jaws. 4. “The head of the
+shape of a dog’s.” I did not find this expression any where else; on the
+contrary all agree in its resembling a serpent’s or a snake’s head.
+5. “The teeth like a shark’s, the tail compressed, obtuse, shaped
+like an oar.” Nobody saw either teeth or tail! Indeed a splendid
+description after the reports given of the animal’s external features!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report60"><span class="reportnr"><b>60</b></span>.—1819, June 6.—(<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of
+Science and the Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston 1820.)</p>
+
+<p>“I, Hawkins Wheeler, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield,
+and state of Connecticut, mariner, Commander of the sloop Concord,
+of said Fairfield, in her late passage from New York to
+Salem, in the County of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
+on oath declare, that during the said passage from New
+York to Salem, to wit, on Monday, the 6th. day of June instant,
+at about five o’clock in the morning, the sloop being as near as
+I could judge, 15 miles N. W. of Race Point, and within sight
+of Cape Ann, I was at the helm of the sloop, and saw directly
+a-head, (the course of the vessel being N. W.) something that resembled
+a snake, about 100 yards distance from the sloop, moving
+in a S. W. direction. The animal moved in that direction, till he
+had passed athwart the course of the sloop, and appeared directly
+over the weather bow, when he altered his course to S. E. At this
+time he had been visible about five minutes, when he sunk, and
+in about six or eight minutes after, appeared again directly over
+the weather quarter, about the same distance from the sloop—he
+continued in that course about five or six minutes, when he
+sunk again, and I saw him no more. His motion was at the rate
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page202">[202]</span>of about four miles an hour, when he passed ahead; but after
+he appeared again on the quarter, his motion was less rapid. To
+the best of my judgment he was not more than 100 yards of the
+vessel—the weather was good and clear—it was almost calm,
+with a light air of wind from the S., the vessel was going about
+two knots—I had a fair and distinct view of the creature, and
+from his appearance am satisfied that it was of the serpent kind.
+The creature was entirely black; the head, which perfectly resembled
+a snake’s, was elevated from four to seven feet above the
+surface of the water, and his back appeared to be composed of
+bunches or humps, apparently about as large as, or a little larger
+than a half barrel; I think I saw as many as ten or twelve, but
+did not count them; I considered them to be caused by the undulatory
+motion of the animal—the tail was not visible, but
+from the head to the last hump that could be seen, was, I should
+judge, 50 feet. The first view I had of him appeared like a string
+of empty barrels tied together, rising over what little swell of the
+sea there was. What motion I could discern in the body of the
+animal was undulatory, but he evidently moved his tail under
+water, and the ripples produced by it indicated a sweeping motion,
+making a wake as large as that made by the sloop.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Hawkins Wheeler.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Essex, ss. June 9th. 1819.—Then Hawkins Wheeler personally
+appeared, and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him
+subscribed, contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
+the truth. Before me</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“I, Gersham Bennet, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield,
+and State of Connecticut, mariner, on oath declare, that I was
+mate of the sloop Concord, Hawkins Wheeler, master, in her late
+passage from New York to Salem, Mass., that on Monday, the
+6th. day of June inst., at seven o’clock in the morning, I was on
+the deck of the sloop, sitting on the hatches—the vessel was
+steering N. W. and was then about eighteen miles from Race
+Point—the man at the helm made an outcry, and said there
+was something alongside that he wanted me to look at. I looked,
+and saw something on the larboard side of the vessel, about twelve
+rods, certainly not exceeding fourteen, from the vessel, that resembled
+a serpent or snake. I immediately arose and went to the
+side of the vessel, and took a position on the rough tree, holding
+on by the shrouds; I there saw a serpent of an enormous size and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page203">[203]</span>uncommon appearance, upon the water; his head was about the
+length of the anchor stock above the surface of the water, viz.
+about seven feet. I looked at the anchor stock at the time, and
+formed my opinion by comparing the two objects. The weather
+was very clear and good and the water almost calm; and I had,
+I think, as good a view of the animal as if I had been within
+two rods of him. The colour of the animal throughout, as far as
+could be seen, was black, and the surface appeared to be smooth,
+without scales—his head was about as long as a horse’s and was
+a proper snake’s head—there was a degree of flatness, with a
+slight hollow on the top of his head—his eyes were prominent,
+and stood out considerably from the surface, resembling in that
+respect the eyes of a toad, and were nearer to the mouth of the
+animal than to the back of the head. I had a full view of him
+for seven or eight minutes. He was moving in the same direction
+with the sloop, and about as fast. The back was composed of
+bunches about the size of a flour barrel, which were apparently
+about three feet apart—they appeared to be fixed, but might
+be occasioned by the motion of the animal, and looked like a
+string of casks or barrels tied together—the tail was not visible,
+but the wake of his tail which he evidently moved under water,
+showed a horizontal or sweeping motion, producing a wake as large
+as the vessel made. He turned his head two or three times slowly
+round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of some
+object on board. I went up on the rigging, for the purpose of
+taking a view of him from above; but before I had reached my
+station, he sunk below the surface of the water, and did not
+appear again. Gersham Bennett.”</p>
+
+<p>“Essex ss. June 9th. 1819.—Then Gersham Bennett personally
+appeared and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed,
+contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
+truth. Before me,</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”</span></p>
+
+<p>It is probable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bennett</span> is right in considering the “wake
+as large as the vessel made” was produced by a horizontal or sweeping
+motion of the tail, but it is far more probable that it was caused
+by the motion of the hind-flappers, supposed the animal nearly
+touched the surface of the water with the hinder part of the body.</p>
+
+<p>New characters to us are these: that there is a slight hollow on
+the top of its head, that its eyes are prominent, and stand out
+considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page204">[204]</span>of a toad, and that they are nearer to the mouth of the animal
+than to the back of the head.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report61"><span class="reportnr"><b>61</b></span>.—1819, July.—<span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels
+through Sweden, in the Summer of 1820</i>, says at p. 187:</p>
+
+<p>“As I had determined, on arriving at the coast, to make every
+inquiry respecting the truth of the accounts, which had reached
+England the preceeding year, of the sea-serpent having recently
+seen off this part of Norway, I shall simply give the different reports,
+I received of it during my voyage to the North Cape,
+leaving others to their own conclusions, and without expressing,
+at least for the present, any opinion respecting them.”</p>
+
+<p class="noindent">and at p. 198:</p>
+
+<p>“From him (the postmaster Mr. <span class="smcap">Schilderup</span>) I learned some
+curious particulars respecting the sea-serpent, which had caused so
+much alarm and wonder in Norway, and the report of which, as
+I have said, had even reached England. From having formerly been
+in the Norwegian sea service, he was called Captain Schilderup;
+and seemed a quick intelligent man. It appeared, that the serpent
+had actually been off the island for a considerable length of time
+during the preceding summer, in the narrow part of the Sound,
+between this island (Ottersum) and the continent; and the description
+he gave of it was as follows.”</p>
+
+<p>“It made its appearance for the first time in the month of July,
+1819, off Ottersum, in the sound above mentioned. Previous to
+this he had often heard of the existence of these creatures, but
+never before believed it. During the whole of that month the weather
+was excessively sultry and calm; and the serpent was seen
+every day, nearly in the same part of the Sound. It continued
+there while the warm weather lasted, lying motionless, and as if
+dozing in the sun-beams.—This part of his account reminded
+me of the monster of the deep, so finely described by Milton.”</p>
+
+<p>“The number of persons living on the island, he said, was about
+thirty; the whole of whom, from motives of curiosity, went to look
+at it while it remained. This was confirmed to me by subsequent
+inquiries among the inhabitants, who gave a similar account of it.
+The first time that he saw it, he was in a boat, at a distance of
+about 200 yards. The length of it he supposes to have been about
+300 ells, or 600 feet. Of this he could not speak accurately; but
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page205">[205]</span>it was of very considerable length; and longer than it appeared,
+as it lay in large coils above the water to the height of many feet.
+Its colour was greyish. At the distance at which he was, he could
+not ascertain whether it were covered with scales; but when it
+moved, it made a loud crackling noise, which he distinctly heard.
+Its head was shaped like that of a serpent, but he could not tell
+whether it had teeth or not. He said it emitted a very strong
+odour, and that the boatmen were afraid to approach near it, and
+looked on its coming as a bad sign, as the fish left the coast in
+consequence. Such were the particulars he related to me. Thanking
+him for his information, I took my leave of him, and proceeded
+on my voyage.”</p>
+
+<p>And at p. 200:</p>
+
+<p>“Near Ottersum is the small Island of Krogoën”, (upon which
+a merchant lived, who hearing that Mr. <span class="smcap">Brooke</span> was an Englishman,
+who travelled to North-Cape, put to him numberless questions.)
+“Having answered all these questions as well as I could, and a
+momentary pause ensuing I seized the opportunity now to have
+my turn; and wishing to hear something still farther respecting
+the sea-monster, I began to overwhelm him with interrogations,
+as to its length, colour, appearance, time it staid, by whom seen,
+and many others that occurred to me. However ludicrous the
+earnest loquacity on both sides might have been, I had the satisfaction
+of hearing him confirm, in every particular, the account of
+Capt. Schilderup at Ottersum; and that many of the people at
+Krogoën had also witnessed it. It did not appear, however, that any one
+had ventured very near it, from the dread that was entertained of it.”</p>
+
+<p>Of course the length of the animal, estimated from a distance
+of 200 yards, is exaggerated. The greyish colour is that which the
+animal obtains when drying in the sunshine, as I have already
+explained before. For the first time we meet with the statement
+that the animal emits a very strong odour, which is twice stated
+here. As we shall once more come across this statement, we must
+needs believe it. In my last chapter I will return to this fact,
+proving that it is not an impossible character of sea-serpents.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report62"><span class="reportnr"><b>62</b></span>.—1819, August 12?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span> informed us the sea-serpent
+had been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach. (Part
+of the following report.)</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page206">[206]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report63"><span class="reportnr"><b>63</b></span>.—1819, August 13?—There appeared an interesting account
+of an eye-witness about a sea-serpent in the <i>Boston Daily
+Advertiser</i> of 19th. August, 1819. I have not been able to consult
+this journal. The report was translated in <span class="smcap">Oken</span>’s <i>Isis</i> of 1819, p.
+1754, accompanied by the figure, made by the eye-witness. Happily
+I found the same in <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>’s <i>American Journal Sc. Arts</i>, Vol.
+II, Boston, 1820, but without the figure. It runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The recent appearance of this animal at Nahant, in the view
+of several hundred persons, has furnished, perhaps, more conclusive
+proof of his existence, than any that has before been made public.
+For the satisfaction of our readers, we have procured a copy of
+the following letter, which gives a very clear and intelligible description
+of his appearance and movements. We have heard verbal
+statements from a great number of gentlemen, all of whom agree
+in substance with what is here related.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Copy of a letter from</i> James Prince, <i>Marshal of the District,
+to the Hon. Judge</i> Davis, <i>dated</i>”:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Nahant, Aug. 16th., 1819.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl15">“Dear Sir,”</span></p>
+
+<p>“I presume I may have seen what is generally thought to be
+the sea-serpent—I have also seen my name inserted in the evening
+newspaper printed at Boston on Saturday, in a communication on
+this subject. For your gratification, and from a desire that my
+name may not sanction any thing beyond what was presented and
+passed in a review before me, I will now state that which, in
+the presence of more than two hundred other witnesses, took place
+near the long beach of Nahant, on Saturday morning last.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig26">
+<img src="images/illo207.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 26.—The sea-serpent as delineated by Mr. Prince.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Intending to pass two or three days at Nahant, with my family,
+we left Boston early on Saturday morning. On passing the halfway
+house, on the Salem turn pike, Mr. Smith informed us the
+sea-serpent had been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach, and
+that a vast number of people from Lynn, had gone to the beach
+that morning, in hopes of being gratified with a sight of him:
+This was confirmed at the hotel. I was glad to find I had brought
+my famous mast-head spy-glass with me, as it would enable me,
+from its form and size, to view him to advantage, if I might be
+so fortunate as to see him. On our arrival on the beach, we associated
+with a considerable number of persons, on foot and in chaises,
+and very soon an animal of the fish-kind made his appearance.
+His head appeared about three feet out of water; I counted thirteen
+bunches on his back: my family thought there were fifteen—he
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page207">[207]</span>passed three times at a moderate rate across the bay, but so fleet
+as to occasion a foam in the water—and my family and myself,
+who were in carriage, judged he was fifty feet in length, and, at
+the extend, not more than sixty; whether, however, the wake
+might not add to the appearance of his length; or whether the
+undulation of the water, or his peculiar manner of propelling himself,
+might not cause the appearance of protuberances, I leave for
+your better judgment. The first view of the animal occasioned
+some agitation, and the novelty perhaps prevented that precise
+discrimination which afterwards took place—as he swam up the
+bay, we and the other spectators moved on, and kept abreast of
+him; he occasionally withdrew himself under water, and the idea
+occurred to me that this occasionally raising his head above the
+level of the water, was to take breath, as the time he kept under
+water was of an average about eight minutes; after being accustomed
+to view him, we became more composed; and made the annexed
+figure of his outlines. Mrs. Prince and the coachman having better
+eyes than myself, were of great assistance to me in marking the
+progress of the animal; they would say he is now turning, and
+by the aid of my glass I saw him distinctly in this movement;
+he did not turn without occupying some space, and taking into
+view the time and space which he found necessary for his ease
+and accommodation, I adopted it as a criterium to form some
+judgment of his length—I had seven distinct views of him from
+the long beach so called, and at some of them the animal was
+not more than a hundred yards distance. After being on the long
+beach about an hour, the animal disappeared, and I proceeded on
+towards Nahant; but on passing the second beach, I met Mr.
+James Magee, of Boston, with several ladies in a carriage, prompted
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page208">[208]</span>by curiosity to endeavor to see the animal, and we were again
+gratified beyond even what we saw in the other bay; which
+I concluded he had left in consequence of the number of
+boats in the offing in pursuit of him—the noise of whose oars
+must have disturbed him, as he appeared to us to be a harmless
+timid animal. We had more than a dozen different views of him,
+and each similar to the other; one however so near, that the
+coachman exclaimed: “Oh, see his glistening eye”. Thinking I
+might form some calculation of his length by the time and distance
+of each turn; and taking an angle with my two hands of the
+length he exhibited, that is to say, from his head to his last
+protuberance, and applying the same angle to other objects, I feel
+satisfied of the correctness of my decision that he is sixty feet
+long, unless the ripple of his wake deceived me—nor my dear
+sir, do I undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though
+this was the general impression on my family, the spectators and
+myself. Certainly it is a very strange animal. I have been accustomed
+to see whales, grampuses, porpoises, and other large fishes, but
+he partook of the appearance of none of these. The whale and the
+grampus would have spouted—the shark never raises his head out
+of water, and the porpoise skips and plays; neither of these has
+such appearances on the back or such a head as this animal. The
+shark it is true, has a fin on his back, and often the fluke of his
+tail is out of water; but these appendages would not display the
+form, and certainly not the number of protuberances, which this
+animal exhibited; nor is it the habit of the shark to avoid a boat.
+The water was extremely smooth, and the weather clear: we had
+been so habituated to see him, that we were cool and composed—the
+time occupied was from a quarter past eight to half past
+eleven—a cloud of witnesses exceeding two hundred, brought
+together for a single purpose, were all alike satisfied and united
+as to appearances, and as to the length and size of the animal;
+but you must deduct the influence which his passage through
+the water and the manner he propelled himself might have
+as to the apparent protuberances on his back, and the ripple
+occasioned by his motion on his real length, of all which you can
+judge equally well and better than myself. I must conclude there
+is a strange animal on our coast—and I have thought an unvarnished
+statement might be gratifying to a mind attached to the
+pursuit of natural science, and aid in the inquiries on a controverted
+question, which I knew to have interested you. I have ventured
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page209">[209]</span>on the description, being also induced to hope, that if
+anything on the marvellous is stated as coming from me, you
+will correct it.</p>
+
+<p class="center"><span class="padl10">“Accept the respects and attention of</span><br>
+<span class="padl10">“Dear Sir, yours sincerely</span><br>
+<span class="padl10">“James Prince.”</span></p>
+
+<p>We see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> uses many words to give a very short
+description of the animal. Yet we are able to gather the following
+details. Its head appeared about three feet out of the water, there
+were 13 or 15 bunches on its back, sometimes the rapidity was
+moderate, occasioning, however, a foam in the water; length 50
+to 60 feet; the animal left behind it a wake; sometimes it withdrew
+itself under water; it appeared to be a harmless timid animal;
+its eyes were glistening. All these characters, external features and
+habits are long known to us. Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> first said the animal
+belonged to the fish-kind; afterwards, however, he dared not say
+whether it was of the snake or eel-kind; yet his figure shows large
+scales and a fish-tail. It is astonishing that the person who is so
+careful in his expressions, is so inaccurate when handling the pencil.
+The head of the animal in his figure is more that of a young
+duck than of a serpent or snake, which the head of the sea-serpent
+is said to resemble closely. The coils are badly drawn, and though
+13 to 15 bunches were seen, only six are delineated. The rippling
+of the water on the animal’s left side and before it is well represented,
+on its right side, however, it is quite wrong. The two
+racked-formed wings are certainly the representation of the foam,
+caused in the water by the animal’s rapid motion. And finally the
+scales and the fish-tail are drawn by Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> though he has
+not seen them! I am obliged to state again that this figure is a
+facsimile of that which I found in <span class="smcap">Oken</span>’s <i>Isis</i>; the very one of
+the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> I have had no opportunity to see.</p>
+
+<p>The letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> is translated into Dutch in the
+<i>Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk</i>.</p>
+
+<p>On the same day it was seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cabot</span>, who wrote the
+following letter (<span class="smcap">Silliman</span>’s <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, II, 1820) to our
+well known</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Col. T. H. Perkins”</span></p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Brookline, August 19, 1819.</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Dear Sir”</span></p>
+
+<p>“I very willingly comply with your request to state what I saw
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page210">[210]</span>of the <i>Sea-Serpent</i> at <i>Nahant</i>, on Saturday last, particularly as I
+happened to see it under favourable circumstances to form a judgment,
+and to considerable advantage in point of position and
+distance.”</p>
+
+<p>“I got into my chaise about seven o’clock in the morning to
+come to Boston, and on reaching the long Beach observed a number
+of people collected there and several boats pushing off and in the
+offing. I was speculating on what should have occasioned so great
+an assemblage there without any apparent object, and finally had
+concluded that they were embarking in those boats on a party of
+pleasure to Egg Rock, or some other point.”</p>
+
+<p>“I had not heard of the <i>Sea-Serpent</i> being in that neighbourhood,
+and I had not lately paid much attention to the evidences which
+had been given of its existence, the idea of this animal did not
+enter my mind at the moment.”</p>
+
+<p>“As my curiosity was directed towards the boats to ascertain
+the course they were taking, my attention was suddenly arrested
+by an object emerging from the water at the distance of about one
+hundred or one hundred and fifty yards, which gave to my mind at the
+first glance the idea of a horse’s head. As my eye ranged along I
+perceived at a short distance eight or ten regular bunches or protuberances,
+and at a short interval three or four more. I was now
+satisfied that the <i>Sea-Serpent</i> was before me, and after the first
+moment of excitement produced by the unexpected sight of so
+strange a monster taxed myself to investigate his appearance as
+accurately as I could.”</p>
+
+<p>“My first object was the Head, which I satisfied myself was
+serpent shaped, it was elevated about two feet from the water,
+and he depressed it gradually, to within six or eight inches as
+he moved along. I could always see under his chin, which appeared
+to hollow underneath or to curve downward. His motion was at
+that time very slow along the Beach, inclining towards the shore;
+he at first moved his head from side to side as if to look about
+him. I did not see his eyes, though I have no doubt I could
+have seen them if I had thought to attend to this. 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. My
+next object was to ascertain his length. For this purpose I directed
+my eye to several whale boats at about the same distance, one of
+which was beyond him, and by comparing the relative length, I
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page211">[211]</span>calculated that the distance from the animal’s head to the last
+protuberance I had noticed, would be equal to about five of those
+boats. I felt persuaded by this examination that he could not be
+less than eighty feet long; as he approached the shore and came
+between me and a point of land which projects from the eastern
+end of the Beach, I had another means of satisfying myself on
+this point.”</p>
+
+<p>“After I had viewed him thus attentively for about four or five
+minutes, he sunk gradually into the water and disappeared; he
+afterwards again made his appearance for a moment at a short
+distance.”</p>
+
+<p>“My first reflection after the animal was gone, was, that the
+idea I had received from the description you gave of the animal
+you saw at <i>Gloucester</i>, in 1817, was perfectly realized in this
+instance; and that I had discovered nothing you had not before
+described. The most authentic testimony given of his first appearance
+there seemed to me remarkably correct; and I felt as if the appearance
+of this monster had been already familiar to me.”</p>
+
+<p>“After remaining some two or three hours on the Beach, without
+again seeing him, I returned towards Nahant; and in crossing
+the small beach, had another good view of him, for a longer time,
+but at a greater distance. At this time he moved more rapidly,
+causing a white foam under the chin, and a long wake, and his
+protuberances had a more uniform appearance. At this time he
+must have been seen by two or three hundred persons on the
+beach and on the heights each side, some of whom were very
+favourable situated to observe him.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“I am very respectfully”</span><br>
+<span class="padr6">“your obedient servant”</span><br>
+<span class="padr8">“Samuel Cabot.”</span></p>
+
+<p>The Editor of the American Journal, Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, adds:</p>
+
+<p>“It is almost superfluous to add, that Mr. Cabot and his friend
+Col. Perkins, are gentlemen of the first standing and consideration.”</p>
+
+<p>On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span>, when on board the
+<i>Ann Marie</i>, wrote a letter to his friend Mr. <span class="smcap">Jno. P. Cushing</span>; he
+published it in the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> of 1848, Nov. 25; a
+passage of it runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Besides the instances I have mentioned, there were many others
+reported of his having been seen the same year. In that year, 1817,
+although there were several reports of his having been seen, yet they
+were not well authenticated, nor do I place any confidence in them.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page212">[212]</span></p>
+
+<p>“In the month of August, in the last year, he again made his
+appearance in our vicinity, and under very satisfactory circumstances.
+The weather being hot, many of our citizens resorted to Nahant
+to pass a few weeks. On the number were Mr. and Mrs. Cabot
+and their children. Mr. Cabot had a view of him for more than
+half an hour at one time. He was in a chair, and had reached
+what is termed the long beach, when he saw several persons collected
+half a mile from him, which called his attention to the
+object which occupied them. Mr. C. had heard me often describe
+the view I had had of the serpent in 1817, and recognized in
+what was visible just without the breakers, and within a quarter
+of a mile, the monster which was supposed by many to exist
+nowhere but in the imaginations of those who had reported to have
+seen him. Mr. Cabot immediately rode back to Nahant; took Mrs.
+Cabot into his chair and returned to the beach; but the animal
+was no longer visible. By this time the inhabitants of Lynn had
+assembled to the number of some hundreds, on and near the beach,
+and all the visitors of Nahant were upon the alert. Having given
+over the hope of seeing him, Mr. Cabot was returning to leave
+his wife at her lodgings, when, to their mutual delight, he came
+in view just without the surf of the little beach, and within a
+quarter of a mile or less of where they stood.”</p>
+
+<p>“Marshal Prince, James Magee, and many persons of my acquaintance
+had a fine sight of him, and all agreed in their account
+of him in the principal particulars. They all agreed as to the
+rapidity of his movements, being very much beyond anything living
+they had ever seen. The apparent bunches on his back they consider
+as arising from the construction of his body, and that the
+movement was vertical and not horizontal. At one time his head
+was about two or three feet above water, but soon depressed to
+the level of the sea. When not swimming to be in pursuit of his
+prey, his motion was not rapid. They saw him turn and bring
+his body into a letter S, the head being at right angles with the
+tail. From fifteen to twenty three bunches, or apparent bunches,
+were counted by the different persons who saw him, and his size
+round they thought to be that of a common firkin or half barrel”.</p>
+
+<p>“No one thought they saw the whole of the body at a time,
+the tail seeming always to be considerably under water. The greatest
+length given to him was one hundred feet and no one who
+had a good sight of him thought him less than eighty feet in
+length. If the number of protuberances is twenty-three (and it
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page213">[213]</span>seems there are at least this number), and calculating them to be
+distant from centre to centre four feet (and I think, considering
+their thickness, they cannot be less than this), he would be ninety
+two feet long. They all agreed, too, as to the colour being quite
+dark, approaching to black.”</p>
+
+<p>In a letter from Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span> to Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, dated London, Nov.
+4, 1826, part of which was published in the <i>Edinb. Journ. of Sc.</i>,
+we read that he visited Boston to gather testimony from eye-witnesses.
+He then says:</p>
+
+<p>“During this visit I distinctly remember the news coming from
+Nahant one morning, of the Serpent being in the bay of that
+place, distant about sixteen miles from Boston. Many hurried down
+to see it, and among them my brother Mr. James Boott. I was
+prevented from some cause leaving Boston. My brother reported
+that he distinctly saw a large serpent, about a mile from the shore;
+and that thousands were watching its motion on the beach and
+rocks. The first idea that occurred to my brother was that it was
+a horse swimming, its head at the time bearing a resemblance to
+that of the latter creature. He afterwards saw the undulating line
+of its back, and remained several hours watching the animal. Colonel
+Perkins of Boston, his wife, and family, were present at
+this time, as far as I recollect.”</p>
+
+<p>So we have of this appearance three different statements of
+respectable persons, who distinctly saw the animal on the same spot.</p>
+
+<p>This appearance of the sea-serpent near Nahant is also mentioned
+in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>’s <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report64"><span class="reportnr"><b>64</b></span>.—1819, August.—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. De Capell Brooke</span> says in
+his <i>Travels through Sweden, &amp;c.</i>, at p. 207:</p>
+
+<p>“I there” (Stenesöen) “obtained from his” (<span class="smcap">Peder Greger’s</span>) “son
+John Greger, a young man, who employed himself in the fishery,
+still further information respecting the sea-serpent; it was in August
+of the preceding year, while fishing with others in the Vieg or
+Vegfjord, that he saw it; at that time they were on shore, hauling
+in their nets, and it appeared about sixty yards distant from them,
+at which they were not a little alarmed, and immediately retreated.
+What was seen of it above water, he said, appeared six times the
+length of their boat, of a grey colour, and lying in coils a great
+height above the surface. Their fright prevented them from attending
+more accurately to other particulars. In fact they all fairly
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page214">[214]</span>took to their heels, when they found the monster so near them.
+The weather at the time was very hot and calm. Farther to the
+south (at Stenesöen) he said it was seen several times, and it remained
+there for a considerable period.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report65"><span class="reportnr"><b>65</b></span>.—1819, August.—The same author at p. 216 of his
+volume relates:</p>
+
+<p>“My honest boatmen who had brought me all the way from
+Leköe, a distance of near sixty miles, now left me. Previous to
+their departure they gave me the following account of the sea-serpent,
+which is here inserted as they related it, without the least
+variation. They were fishermen and had been up at the North Cape.
+During the time they remained there they saw the serpent twice,
+once at no very great distance from them. It was of a grey colour;
+the head blackish, with teeth. What they discerned of it they
+judged to be at least five times the length of their boat, which
+is about thirty feet. It moved in large folds on the water; and
+when they saw it, they rowed away from it as fast as they could.
+The weather was very calm at the time.”</p>
+
+<p>This is the most northern appearance of the sea-serpent. The
+teeth are mentioned here, though not described.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report66"><span class="reportnr"><b>66</b></span>.—1819? August?—The same author at p. 222 of his
+<i>Travels</i> tells us:</p>
+
+<p>“To the testimony of others respecting the existence of the sea-serpent,
+I shall now add that of the bishop” (of the Nordlands and
+Finmark) “himself, who was eye-witness to the appearance of two
+in the bay of the Shuresund, or Sorsund, in the Drontheim <i>fjord</i>,
+about eight Norway miles from Drontheim. He was but a short
+distance from them, and saw them plainly. They were swimming
+in large folds, part of which was seen above the water, and the
+length of what appeared the largest he judged to be about 100
+feet. They were of a darkish grey colour; the heads hardly discernable,
+from their being almost under water; and they were
+visible for only a short time. Before that period he had treated
+the account of them as fabulous; but it was now impossible, he
+said, to doubt their existence, as such numbers of respectable
+people, since that time had likewise seen them on different occasions.”</p>
+
+<p>Not a single fact that need astonish us. That <i>two</i> were seen
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page215">[215]</span>together is not reported for the first time, as the reader will
+remember. The swimming “in large folds, part of which was seen
+above water”, is a very accurate description of the effect made by
+the swimming animals. The colour is described as a darkish grey,
+which is exactly the colour of the animal, when seen at a short
+distance. Their holding their heads very low, only just above the
+surface of the water, is a common habit of them too.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report67"><span class="reportnr"><b>67</b></span>.—1819? August?—The same author relates (p. 403):</p>
+
+<p>“The last account respecting the existence of the sea-serpent I
+received from him” (the sexton of Maasöe) “during our journey.
+He was fishing, as he said, with others in the Mageröe-Sund,
+when they discerned the monster of the deep, stretching out his
+bulk in many a spiral fold, and basking on the surface of the
+water. Its colour was dark and as to its length, he assured me,
+with looks of wonder and almost of alarm, that it nearly reached
+from the Mageröe side to the mainland opposite. In this measurement
+fear, doubtless, was the principal agent; for as to any accurate
+observations made by himself, they were out of the question. My
+friend the sexton was much too prudent a man, to hazard any at
+such a juncture. A glance was sufficient for him to commence his
+flight forthwith, as fast as his arms would enable him.”</p>
+
+<p>Of course I agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">de Capell Brooke</span> as to the exaggerated
+dimensions attributed to the animal by the sexton of
+Maasöe. The words “spiral folds”, of course, are wrong, the author
+meant the sinuosities in which the animal moves. Its colour is
+here described dark, which corresponds with so many other testimonies.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report68"><span class="reportnr"><b>68</b></span>.—1819? August?—At page 406 of the volume of
+this author we read in a note:</p>
+
+<p>“The account of the serpent, received by him” (Prösten <span class="smcap">Deinbolt</span>
+of Vadsöe) “from several persons on that part of the coast, agreed
+with those which have been already given.”</p>
+
+<p>This, of course, is only a report of the appearance of the sea-serpent
+near Vadsöe.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page216">[216]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report69"><span class="reportnr"><b>69</b></span>.—1819, Aug. 26.—“<i>Extract of a letter from</i> Mr.
+Cheever Felch, Chaplan to the United States’ ship Independance
+of 74 guns, to the Editor of the Boston Centinel.” (<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span>
+<i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. II).</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Gloucester, August 26, 1819.</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Dear Sir.</span></p>
+
+<p>“Others having taken in hand to give some account of the Sea-Serpent,
+I know not why I should not have the same liberty.
+Being on this station, in the United States’ schooner Science, for
+the purpose of surveying this harbor, we were proceeding this
+morning down the harbor, in the schooner’s boat; when abreast
+of Dallivan’s Neck, William T. Malbone, Esq. Commander of the
+Schooner, seeing some appearance on the water, said—“<i>there is
+your sea-serpent</i>”, meaning it as a laugh on me, for believing in
+its existence; but it prooved to be no joke. The animal was then
+between thirty and forty yards distance from us. Mr. Malbone,
+Midshipman Blake, myself, and our four boatmen, had a distinct
+view of him. He soon sunk; but not so deep but we could trace
+his course. He rose again within twenty yards distance of us, and
+lay sometime on the water. He then turned, and steered for Ten
+Pound Island; we pulled after him; but finding that he was not
+pleased with the noise of our oars, they were laid in, and the
+boat skulled. We again approached very near him. He continued
+some length of time, playing between Ten Pound Island and Stage
+Point. As he often came near the Point, we thought we could
+get a better view of him there, than from the boat, of which he
+seemed conspicuous. Mr. Malbone and myself landed; and the boat
+was sent to order the schooner down, for the purpose of trying
+what effect a twelve pound carronade would have upon him. He
+did not remain long after we landed, so that I was unable to
+effect my intention, of ascertaining, accurately, his length, with
+my instruments. From my knowledge of aquatic animals, and
+habits, and intimacy with marine appearances, I could not be deceived.
+We had a good view of him, except the very short period while
+he was under water, for half an hour.—His colour is a dark
+brown, with white under the throat. His size, we could not accurately
+ascertain, but his head is about three feet in circumference,
+flat and much smaller than his body. We did not see his tail;
+but from the end of the head to the fartherest protuberance, was
+not far from one hundred feet. I speak with a degree of certainty,
+from being much accustomed to measure and estimate distances
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page217">[217]</span>and length. I counted fourteen bunches on his back, the first one,
+say ten or twelve feet from his head, and the others about seven
+feet apart. They decreased in size towards the tail. These bunches
+were sometimes counted with, and sometimes without a glass. Mr.
+Malbone counted thirteen, Mr. Blake thirteen and fourteen, and
+the boatman about the same number. His motion was sometimes
+very rapid, and at other times he lay nearly still. He turned
+slowly, and took up considerable room in doing it. He sometimes
+darted under water, with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey.
+The protuberances were not from his motion, as they were the
+same whether in slow or rapid movement. His motion was partly
+vertical and partly horizontal, like that of fresh water snakes. I
+have been much acquainted with the snakes in our interior waters.
+His motion was the same. I have given you in round numbers,
+one hundred feet, for his length, that is, what we saw; but I
+should say he must be one hundred and thirty feet in length,
+allowing for his tail. There were a considerable number of birds
+about the sea-serpent as I have seen them about a snake on shore.
+That there is an aquatic animal in the form of a snake, is not to
+be doubted. Mr. Malbone, till this day, was incredulous. No man
+would now convince him, there was not such a being. The sketch
+or picture of Marshal Prince, is perfectly correct. I could not,
+with my own pencil, give a more correct likeness.”</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“With respect”</span><br>
+<span class="padl20">“Your obedient servant”</span><br>
+<span class="padl26">“Cheever Felch”</span></p>
+
+<p class="center">“Major B. Russell.”</p>
+
+<p>I will not contest Mr. <span class="smcap">Felch’s</span> opinion about Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince’s</span> figure!
+As to the letter itself there is not a single statement which can
+detract from or add to our present notions of the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>In 1846 Col. T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, of whom we have spoken more
+than once, requested Mr. <span class="smcap">Bolton</span>, who was first Lieutenant of the
+<i>Independence</i> in 1819, to send him some particulars about this appearance.
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Bolton</span> promptly replied under date of July 14,
+1846. This letter, published by Col. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> in the <i>Boston Daily
+Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“In the year 1817 I was the first lieutenant of the Independence,
+of 74 guns, then lying in the harbour of Boston.”</p>
+
+<p>“In the course of the spring or summer a party of officers were
+detailed, by order of Commodore Bainbridge, to survey the coast of the
+bay, to a limited extent northeastward and outside of the light-house.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page218">[218]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The officers selected for this duty were the sailingmaster of the
+ship, Wm. T. Malbone, and the Rev. Cheever Fetch, the instructor
+of the midshipmen.”</p>
+
+<p>“To assist in the service several of the most competent and elder
+midshipmen were designated. As they alternated periodically with
+other gentlemen of the same grade, I cannot with any degree of
+precision venture to name them. I hope that some of them are
+yet living, and, further, that they have advanced in professional
+distinction. There were also added a sufficient number of seamen
+and boys.”</p>
+
+<p>“Commodore Bainbridge, Mr. Malbone and Mr. Felch died some
+years ago.”</p>
+
+<p>“I recollect that on the first occasion, when the Lynx returned
+to the Independence, of which ship she was the tender, that Mr.
+Malbone reported as having seen a monstrous sea-animal, not before
+known to him, of the snake species; the length doubtful, but
+estimated at some eighty or more feet; and added as an accident,
+that the officers and men employed in a small boat to carry out the
+soundings had returned in haste, and indeed alarm, to the Lynx,
+which was at anchor.”</p>
+
+<p>“These statements were corroborated by Mr. Felch, the officers
+and crew.”</p>
+
+<p>“Subsequently it was seen several times, by some of the party,
+who, being soon satisfied that it was harmless approached comparatively
+near, and no doubt gave me a minute description of its
+appearance as it presented itself to them; but if so, the particular
+details have escaped my memory.”</p>
+
+<p>“These facts are all that I can with distinctness and certainty
+mention. Wm. Compton Bolton, Captain in the Navy of the United
+States, Saratonga Springs, July 14, 1846; to Hon. T. H. Perkins,
+Boston.”—</p>
+
+<p>It cannot surprise us that in some particulars, as “in the year
+1817”, and in some others this letter does not agree with the
+foregoing letter from the Rev. <span class="smcap">Cheever Felch</span> himself, as twenty-seven
+years had since elapsed.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report70"><span class="reportnr"><b>70</b></span>.—1819, September?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Francis Boott</span> in a letter to
+Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, and published in the
+<i>Edinb. Journ. Sc.</i>, VI, 1827, says:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page219">[219]</span></p>
+
+<p>“I remember also that a letter appeared in the <i>Boston Centinel</i>,
+soon after, published by an officer in the American Navy, who
+reported that, on his return from a survey of some part of the
+coast, he saw, when out of sight of land, a large serpent. He was
+so near that he drew an outline of it, and that outline accompanied
+the paragraph. When you showed me Mr. Warburton’s figure on
+the card, I at first thought it was a copy of that of the <i>Centinel</i>.
+I can only add, for your own satisfaction, that <i>I</i> have no doubt
+of the existence of this remarkable animal.”</p>
+
+<p>As Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span> is speaking of a visit at Boston in August 1819,
+the words “soon after” of course signify in the latter part of August
+or in the beginning of September. As the officer was “on his return”
+and published his encounter in the <i>Boston Centinel</i>, the appearance
+most probably occurred not far from Boston. The reader will find
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton’s</span> drawing further on (<a href="#Report83">n°. 83</a>).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report71"><span class="reportnr"><b>71</b></span>.—1819, September 13?—(<i>Phil. Mag.</i> LIV, 1819).</p>
+
+<p>“The great Sea-Snake has been seen again towards the middle
+of September, in the bay of Massachusetts, and three yellow collars
+observed on his neck, which has led some to believe it might be
+another individual and species; but this circumstance might have
+been overlooked before. It is not stated whether it had streaks of
+a lighter hue on the body, as the first was represented to have
+by some witnesses. It is therefore likely that the two characters
+of “streaks of a lighter hue on the body and three yellow collars
+on the neck”, may be added to its description. The collars are
+described as about two inches broad, and one foot apart.”</p>
+
+<p>The three yellow collars observed on its neck may be explained
+as follows: The animal has a hairy skin, as we have already seen,
+like a seal-skin. Now, when the neck is wet and contracted by the
+animal, its skin gets wrinkles, of course running round the neck,
+as is also the case in sea-lions. Those parts of these wrinkles, which
+are deepest, remain wet for a very long time, because they are
+not exposed to the air; those, however, which are highest, if we
+may use this expression, are not only most exposed to the air,
+but the hairs on those parts diverge and dry as soon as possible;
+and—when dry, they have a yellow greyish colour. If the animal
+now stretches its neck, it may show one, two, &amp;c., even eight or
+more yellow-coloured collars round its dark brown neck, which
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page220">[220]</span>may have a breadth of about two inches and a distance of one
+foot between them. This phenomenon or appearance, as already
+stated, is often to be seen in our zoological gardens on sea-lions
+and seals.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In the <i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. LIV, 1819, Dr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span>
+says:</p>
+
+<p>“Dr. Mitchill informs me that General Hawkins has written a
+memoir on the sea-serpent of Massachusetts, which he has sent,
+with a drawing, to Sir Joseph Banks; it is a paper of some length,
+and much interest, as it relates facts, and all the circumstances
+attending the appearance and natural history of those huge animals,
+taken upon oath of eye-witnesses. He attempts to prove, with much
+probability, that several individuals have been seen, and two at
+least, if not three species; one with three collars, another without
+any, and a smaller one.”</p>
+
+<p>In <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. II, 1820, I have found
+the following extract from a letter to the Editor, dated Boston,
+April 8, 1820:</p>
+
+<p>“I have lately received a letter from Sir Joseph Banks, written
+by his own hand, in which he expresses his full faith in the
+existence of our Serpent in the Sea, and not only as it regards
+himself, but his friends, and he is grateful for every new communication
+I have given him on that subject, and writes with the
+same enthusiasm that he did several years ago. Although he is now
+very infirm.”</p>
+
+<p>Evidently this was a letter from General <span class="smcap">Hawkins</span>.</p>
+
+<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, the Editor of this journal adds:</p>
+
+<p>“Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society of London,
+the Companion of Capt. Cook, is now at a very advanced age but
+still vigourous in his intellectual powers, and ardent in the promotion
+of every species of useful knowledge.”</p>
+
+<p>In Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke’s</span> <i>Travels through Sweden</i>, we
+find at p. 411:</p>
+
+<p>“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated
+relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally
+considered as the fabric of American invention; and there are
+many, I believe, in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not
+consider it in any other light than that of a hoax. Judging, however,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page221">[221]</span>from the detailed accounts of the circumstance which are
+preserved among the papers of sir Joseph Banks, the principal
+facts appear to be these.”</p>
+
+<p>And at p. 413:</p>
+
+<p>“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted
+the attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members
+was deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of
+them. This was accordingly done; and the above is the general
+substance of the various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys.
+This gentleman, who was a corresponding member of the
+Society, despatched to Sir Joseph Banks copies of the whole of
+these, which are still preserved in his library. Sir Joseph entered
+with warmth into this curious investigation; and the minuteness,
+with which every particular was supplied, showed how greatly he
+felt interested in the question.”</p>
+
+<p>In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. <span class="smcap">Francis Boott</span> wrote a letter to Dr.
+<span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, a part of which was published in the <i>Edinburgh Journal
+of Science</i>, Vol. VI, 1827. Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span>, after some general remarks,
+goes on to express himself in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph
+Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal,
+and the respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight
+of him. The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet
+published by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question
+as to the real appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts,
+was put to rest by that publication. There could be no
+doubt of the fact, and the testimony of thousands who saw the
+animal <i>for one or two years afterwards</i>, must have been sufficient
+to satisfy the most incredulous.”</p>
+
+<p>“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph
+Banks, that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast;
+at all events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to
+him on the subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate
+of a similar animal in Pontoppidan’s <i>History of Norway</i>. I myself
+had no doubt of the truth of the assertions of the early observers
+of it, for many of them were known to me, and I was anxious
+to convince Sir Joseph of the discovery of a new and remarkable
+animal. I therefore was in the habit of sending him every information
+I could collect respecting it. In one of my last visits to
+Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and from the public
+papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe, that Sir
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page222">[222]</span>Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though he
+continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake
+(figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>In October, 1828, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> read a paper before the New
+York Lyceum, which paper will be found in our Chapter on <a href="#Page12">Hoaxes</a>.
+As we have already observed, this paper also contains a particular
+account concerning the letters addressed by General <span class="smcap">Humphreys</span> to
+Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph Banks</span>.</p>
+
+<p>Again Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, asserts:</p>
+
+<p>“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted
+a copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance,
+to the late Sir Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are
+still preserved.”</p>
+
+<p>Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph
+Banks</span> himself, neither in the <i>Transactions of the Royal Society
+of London</i>, nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this
+Very Learned Body to give me the loan of all the papers about
+the subject, or to publish them in their next volume.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report72"><span class="reportnr"><b>72</b></span>.—1820, July?—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels
+through Sweden, during the Summer of 1820</i>, relates at p. 263:</p>
+
+<p>“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance
+occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house,
+and thinking little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had
+heard nothing for some time, a young man, the master of a small
+fishing yacht, which had just come in from Drontheim, joint our
+party; in the course of conversation, he mentioned that a few
+hours before, whilst close to Hundholm, and previous to his entering
+the harbour, two sea-snakes passed immediately under his yacht.
+When he saw them he was on the deck, and, seizing a handspike,
+he struck at them as they came up close to the vessel on the
+other side, upon which they disappeared. Their length was very
+great, and their colour greyish; but from the very short time they
+were visible, he could not notice any other particulars. He had no
+doubt of their being snakes as he called them, and the circumstance
+was related entirely of his own accord.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page223">[223]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report73"><span class="reportnr"><b>73</b></span>.—1820, August.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2361,
+we read:</p>
+
+<p>“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from
+the piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report74"><span class="reportnr"><b>74</b></span>.—1820?—The following report was published in the
+<i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2460.</p>
+
+<p>“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to
+me a subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view
+of gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would
+hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this
+sort has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without
+being at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the
+same fate; yet if it can afford any amusement or information for
+intelligent and scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely
+give it to the press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the
+truth of what I am about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P.
+M., being then in latitude 46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning,
+observed an immense body on the surface of the water, apparently
+without motion, but water spouting from it, not unlike the blowing
+of a whale. I immediately got my glass; and, from its rugged
+appearance and showing nothing where the water issued from, I
+began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been the
+vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and,
+so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be
+taken in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s
+company were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought
+not unlikely, and went into the main cat harpens to look more
+distinctly at it: the appearance then was still steady, but irregular.
+I saw neither head nor tail above the water, but a hump from
+one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular
+rock: this tapered to a distance,—I certainly believe 70 or 100
+feet, and the water broke over it, a little beyond it: it discharged
+the spout; but nothing showing itself, undetermined in mind what
+it could be, or whether I should tack the ship, it all at once
+disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head and neck—resembling
+something of a serpent’s—made its appearance, erected
+about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a survey
+towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of conjecture
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page224">[224]</span>and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the
+above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan
+Townsend, was in the main top, and saw the creature I have
+described, and would feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.—George
+Sanford, Lieutenant R. N.”</p>
+
+<p>[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated
+by Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above
+statement, but it is presumed to have been written about the year
+1820. Lieut. Sanford then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady
+Combermere.—E. N.”]</p>
+
+<p>No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that
+the appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.—The act of breathing
+of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under
+the surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance
+generally called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head
+just at water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water
+issued from”. The rugged appearance may have been caused by
+the animal lying with several bunches on its back, as afterwards
+was also reported by the Lloydsteamer <i>Kätie</i> (<a href="#Report154">n°. 154</a>) or by its
+having a mane, extending all along the neck and back. The “hump
+from one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular
+rock” must have been the animal’s head which it lifted up just
+above the surface. Nearly the same appearance will be observed in
+the figure of one of the officers of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i> (<a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>).
+Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat exaggerated, the “head
+and neck resembling something of a serpent’s erected about six
+feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking a survey towards
+the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all comment superfluous;
+all these characters have more than once been reported of
+this creature.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In the <i>Philosophical Magazine and Journal</i>, Vol. LVII, 1821,
+we find an extract from the numerous reports communicated by
+Prof <span class="smcap">Bigelow</span> in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of Science and the
+Arts</i>, Boston, Vol. II, 1820, May.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>We have already quoted <span class="smcap">Milton</span>, who in his <i>Paradise Lost</i>,
+printed in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst
+others the sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page225">[225]</span>once cited by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but
+express my surprise at this custom, for there is not one single
+word or expression in <span class="smcap">Milton’s</span> verses, which is taken from accounts,
+reports, or tales of the sea-serpent itself. <span class="smcap">Walter Scott</span>,
+however, in his <i>Pirate</i>: which was published in 1821, vol. I,
+chapt. II, says a few words about the animal, which are so correct,
+that they must have been taken from some or other report:</p>
+
+<p>“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”</p>
+
+<p>“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths
+of Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with
+a mane like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering
+eyes, raised mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder
+or for victims.”</p>
+
+<p>The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a
+mane are known characters, and the rising from the depths high
+into the air, standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment
+all around, evidently taking a survey, is a habit observed more
+than once.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report75"><span class="reportnr"><b>75</b></span>.—1821, Summer.—Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> on the 13th.
+of Oct. 1820, when on board the <i>Ann Marie</i>, wrote a letter to
+his friend <span class="smcap">Jno P. Cushing</span>, which he published in the <i>Boston
+Daily Advertiser</i> of 25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused
+by the appearance of an individual on the 6th. of August, 1848.
+The different parts of this letter are inserted partly in our Chapter
+on Hoaxes (<a href="#Page20">p. 20</a>, <a href="#Page21">21</a>) and partly in
+<a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>,
+<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>.
+The Editor of the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> now goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent
+gives letters from several members of his family, who <i>the
+next summer</i> had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the
+appearance of the animal is minutely described. This correspondence
+is very interesting; the description of the animal agrees entirely
+with that given above, and we regret that want of space must
+prevent the insertion of it.”</p>
+
+<p>It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published.
+Perhaps they are now lost for ever!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report76"><span class="reportnr"><b>76</b></span>.—1821.—In a letter from <span class="smcap">William Warburton</span> to
+<span class="smcap">Robert Barclay</span>, Esq. printed in the <i>Edinburgh Journal of Science</i>,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page226">[226]</span>Vol. VI, 1827, p. 130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak
+Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, which was
+reported to have been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about
+five years back.”</p>
+
+<p>Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report77"><span class="reportnr"><b>77</b></span>.—1821, September 25? In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of Jan.
+1822, I, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years,
+has been clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses,
+and it is described by all of them and the descriptions
+agree pretty well with each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished
+merchant of Nantucket, Mr. Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration
+of it on oath before the justice of the peace.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report78"><span class="reportnr"><b>78</b></span>.—1821?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert</span> in his <i>Description of the Shetland
+Islands</i> says at p. 565:</p>
+
+<p>“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the
+Isle of Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”</p>
+
+<p>This report is also quoted by Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> in his <i>Amphibious
+Carnivora</i>, 1839.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report79"><span class="reportnr"><b>79</b></span>.—1822.—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his Travels
+through Sweden, &amp;c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:</p>
+
+<p>“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark,
+founded on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have
+appeared off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen
+by many of the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal
+is described as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of
+a full grown ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather
+when it made its appearance, calm and fine.”</p>
+
+<p>Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour,
+the calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels through Sweden &amp;c.</i>,
+1823, at p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page227">[227]</span>of the fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820)
+with those, related by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>. The passage runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of
+Maasöe) “gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share
+of attention. It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at
+any time they found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds
+of the serpent, and obliged to pass over a part of it, never to
+attempt making their way between the openings, caused by part
+of the body of the animal being concealed under water, for fear
+of its raising and upsetting the boat. On the contrary, they rowed
+with all their strength against one of the visible folds, as the serpent,
+as soon as he feels the touch of the boat, naturally sinks
+down and enables it thus to pass over in safety. It will appear
+perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking afterward into
+Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very substance
+of what is related in his work, which may be said to be unknown
+in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”</p>
+
+<p>Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the scrupulousness
+with which fables are told unchanged! The passages
+from <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> referred to by our traveller have been discussed
+by me—<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>.</p>
+
+<p>For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all
+that has been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to
+insert all that Mr. <span class="smcap">Brooke</span> further says about it. After having
+repeated nearly all what <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> mentioned about it, he goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts
+related in the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable
+person can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary
+dimensions, and in all probability of the serpent tribe,
+having been repeatedly seen by various persons along the Norway
+and Finmark coasts. These accounts, for the most part, have been
+given verbally from the mouths of the fishermen; an honest and
+artless class of men who, having no motive for misrepresentation,
+cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive. Could this idea, however,
+be entertained, the circumstance alone, of their assertions having
+been so fully confirmed by others in more distant parts, would be
+sufficient to free them from any imputation of this kind. The
+simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full 700 miles of
+coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have been
+received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an
+animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page228">[228]</span>some degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several
+relations as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions,
+the state of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars
+are so fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable
+intervening distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied
+of the truth of the main fact. Many of the informants, besides,
+were of superior rank and education; and the opinions of such
+men as the <i>Amtmann</i> (Governor) of Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe,
+<i>Prösten</i> (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and the Bishop of Nordland
+and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought not to be
+disregarded. There does not appear the least probability, or even
+possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on the
+northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent.
+The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well
+known to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity
+in shape, appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be
+sufficiently obvious.”</p>
+
+<p>Remarkable is the fact that Mr. <span class="smcap">de Capell Brooke</span> considers
+the animal to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with
+which he of course means <i>snakes</i>.</p>
+
+<p>“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account
+received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected,
+the serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short
+distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part
+of that month, and having been seen during that time by the
+whole of the population of the island. The information collected,
+indeed, is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining
+so considerable a time; but the talent of observation in
+fishermen is far from considerable, and their curiosity is easily
+gratified. To these circumstances, and the general dread entertained
+of this animal, may be attributed the want of any attempt to
+take it. At the neighbouring island of Krogöen also, it will be
+remembered, that its having appeared was confirmed; and this
+would be sufficient at least to cause a wavering in the minds of
+those naturalists, who have treated former accounts as the mere
+offspring of imagination.”</p>
+
+<p>We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but
+their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from
+investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or
+more curious person would do!</p>
+
+<p>Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page229">[229]</span>Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently
+<span class="smcap">Milton’s</span> <i>Paradise Lost</i> led him. I am far from admitting any
+relation between the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He
+further quotes <span class="smcap">Knud Leems</span> (<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>),
+<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> (<a href="#Report1">n°. 1</a>, <a href="#Page105">p.
+105</a>, <a href="#Page109">109</a>), <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>
+(<a href="#Report5">n°. 5</a>), <span class="smcap">Eric Pontoppidan</span>, and speaks of
+the letters written to and preserved in the library of Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph
+Banks</span>, then president of the Royal Society, by General <span class="smcap">Hawkins</span>
+and General <span class="smcap">Humphreys</span>.</p>
+
+<p>I am also obliged to repeat here <i>in extenso</i> his plea for the sea-serpent
+(p. 415-419):</p>
+
+<p>“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally
+guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and
+there are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who,
+if told of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen
+feet, such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced
+one like the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only
+stare with astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of
+these assertions, as if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but
+natural; their knowledge of the world and its productions, deprived
+as they are of other means of attaining it, must be confined to
+the narrow sphere they live in; and the ideas they possess of life
+must necessarily be contracted.”</p>
+
+<p>“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded
+by no country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees
+with admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature
+gradually unfolding itself to the researches of science, and
+finds his imperfect catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the
+existence of some new and extraordinary animal, which before was
+unknown to the world, or considered as living in the imagination
+alone. By the exertions of the present age, he has become acquainted
+with many creatures, in their forms and habits the most
+singular and strange; and thus he is taught never to deny the
+existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is, by whatever he
+beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator; and conscious,
+that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a knowledge
+of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers the
+various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects
+produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of
+chemistry and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea
+of that great superior force, which not only sets in motion this
+master machine, and indues it with powers of sense and reflection,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page230">[230]</span>but causes it to act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation
+and reproduction of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his
+researches regard the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally
+prepared for the wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid
+of the mikroscoop makes known to him the existence of myriads
+of living creatures, some of such incredible smallness, that the
+utmost powers of the magnifier can with difficulty render them
+visible; and of which thousands if put together, would not equal
+a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that the human body itself
+is filled with them; and that the structure of their own internal
+parts is equally complex and curious. When, however, he reflects,
+that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may perhaps
+contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter
+tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look
+forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted
+to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of
+the universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the
+deep gnoom of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild
+inhabitants, he sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of
+the Creator; whether he meets with the elephant supporting its
+enormous bulk with peaceful and dignified steps, or views the huge
+trunk of the stupendous boa serpent, extended to the length of
+fifty feet, and viing in size with the stately trees, between which
+it glides, the terror of all, and the sovereign of the forest. The
+secrets of the great deep alone are veiled from his inquiring eyes;
+and he regrets, that his structure prevents him from cleaving, like
+the finny tribe, the watery fluid, and gazing on the wonders below.
+Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay even a new world,
+would there be opened to his inspection, did not the grosser materials
+of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From the marine
+animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his observation,
+he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that
+they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them;
+and he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown
+regions of the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit
+may be deemed but as a spot, and the depth of which is not
+merely that of some miles, but extends, for any thing that is
+known to the contrary, even from pole to pole; there may be a
+variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even those which, on
+this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that their bulk
+may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they inhabit;
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page231">[231]</span>and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever
+rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may
+be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown
+to us, subservient to the use and benefit of man.”</p>
+
+<p>“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more
+interesting and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel
+insensible, that I have wandered very far, and that the thoughts,
+to which the sea-serpent gave rise, have already comprised the
+whole globe.”</p>
+
+<p>The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell
+Brooke</span> are translated in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report80"><span class="reportnr"><b>80</b></span>.—1824 January.—In the <i>American Journal of Science
+and Arts</i> conducted by Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, Vol. 28, July,
+1835, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of
+great intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who
+has travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates,
+the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he
+is permitted to publish without the name of the author; with him
+he is, however, well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his
+integrity and in his freedom from any influence of imagination.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“To Prof. Silliman,—Dear Sir,—On my passage from the
+River La Plata to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂°
+South, and 48° West longitude, I saw what was first supposed
+to be a fish called an Albicore; but, on further examination it was
+discovered to be a serpent of which I cannot give a clearer description
+than to say that a common dark coloured land snake is,
+in miniature, a perfect representation. A light breeze prevailed at
+the time and the sea was quite smooth. It first appeared within
+ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps, two feet above the
+water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg; the eye was
+distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about half
+the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference
+of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin
+was seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail.
+The serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head
+above water and eyes directed towards the vessel.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page232">[232]</span></p>
+
+<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span> adds to it a</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Remark of the Editor.</i>—The distance of the place of observation
+being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this
+serpent must have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land
+snake of South America could not navigate so far out to sea if
+indeed they ever take to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly
+quiet, and appeared quite comfortable and at home on the waves.
+We must therefore consider this case as settling the question of
+the real existence of a Sea-Serpent. The absence of paddles or arms
+forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian.”</p>
+
+<p>We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent
+of Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> acquaintance agree with those which are already
+known to us, and that the supposition or negative explanation of
+Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>, that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian
+is at least premature, for the assertion of the eye-witness that
+“nothing like a fin was seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles
+or arms”, which of course remained hidden under water!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report81"><span class="reportnr"><b>81</b></span>.—1824, Summer.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of Oct. 1824,
+Vol. VIII, n°. 168, p. 218, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this
+summer. A Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned
+by the Newburyport Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad
+Cove at a distance of about 100 feet. The head was two feet long
+and of a brown colour. Mr. R. could distinctly observe the teeth
+in the mouth when opened. He could not discern the tail, but
+several times, about thirty feet behind the head, he observed parts
+of the animal in an undulating motion”.</p>
+
+<p>Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned
+to have been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report82"><span class="reportnr"><b>82</b></span>.—1825?—In a paper by Dr. <span class="smcap">T. S. Traill</span>, printed
+in n<sup>o</sup>. 44, May, 1854, of the <i>Proceedings of the Royal Society
+of Edinburgh</i>, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed
+by persons worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance
+related to me many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page233">[233]</span>Mr. Andrew Strang, a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once,
+when on a deep-sea fishing, he saw pass below his boat, at the
+depth of eight or ten feet, an enormously long fish, of an eel-shape.
+It was swimming slowly with a vermicular motion, and
+appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.” It appeared to take
+no notice of them; but they hastily removed from what they considered
+a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was shy in
+mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should class
+him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable
+reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once
+on the western coasts of Scotland.</p>
+
+<p>Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put
+the date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825,
+and to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because
+of all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented
+by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast
+of Scotland, of which I have three observations (<a href="#Report141">n<sup>o</sup>. 141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>,
+<a href="#Report143">143</a>). I am convinced that the animal seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Strang</span>
+was a sea-serpent. Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its
+<i>vermicular</i> motion, its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the
+animal moved only by vertical undulations, holding its four flappers
+pressed against its body, otherwise Mr. <span class="smcap">Strang</span> would have compared
+it with “an alligator with flappers like those of a sea-turtle
+and with a long neck,” as did Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup>. 119</a>.)</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report83"><span class="reportnr"><b>83</b></span>.—1826, June 16.—(<i>New York Advertiser</i> of June 21,
+1826, and <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, Vol. XI, 1826.)</p>
+
+<p>“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived
+yesterday from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank,
+five days since, he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about
+ten rods from the ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part
+which appeared out of water about sixty feet in length. The head
+and protuberances were similar to the representations which have
+frequently been given to him by persons who had seen him near
+Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow rate, and appeared unmindful
+of the ship. He was visible about seven minutes to the
+passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A certificate
+has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with a
+drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page234">[234]</span>of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the
+witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal
+as a sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>Of this occurrence we learn more in the <i>Edinb. Journ. Sc.</i>, Vol.
+VI, 1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present
+this imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had
+the pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury
+Hall, Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the
+house of Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman,
+proceeding in his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards,
+New York packet, Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding
+this sea-monster on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s
+Banks. But his own plain statement must be presumed far more
+satisfactory to every candid mind than any account extracted from
+his letter.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Pentonville, 20th September 1826”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Dear Sir,”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds,
+that you were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as
+seen by me in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of
+the same; in compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a
+rough pencil <a href="#Fig27">drawing</a> of the monster as it appeared during the
+time when its head was elevated above the water, and I shall state
+the particulars attending this novel exhibition.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig27">
+<img src="images/illo234.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 27.—The sea-serpent as seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of
+the vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly
+smooth was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock
+P. M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in
+the water a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a
+whale spouting, and turning to the quarter whence the sound
+proceeded, we observed the serpent in the position as it appears in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page235">[235]</span>the sketch, slowly approaching at not more than the rate of two
+miles an hour, in a straight direction. I suppose we were hardly
+going through the water so fast, for there was scarcely a breath
+of wind. I must premise that I had never heard of the existence
+of such an animal. I instantly exclaimed, why, there is a <i>sea-snake</i>!
+“That is the sea-serpent”, exclaimed the captain, “and I
+would give my ship and cargo to catch the monster”. I immediately
+called to the passengers, who were all down below, but only five
+or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the daughter of
+a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up,
+saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I
+was too eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to
+the captain. In the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel
+at about the distance of 50 yards from us, neither turning his
+head to the right or left. As soon as his head had reached the
+stern of the vessel, he gradually laid it down in a horizontal
+position with his body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel.
+That there was upwards of 60 feet visible, is clearly shown by the
+circumstance, that the length of the ship was upwards of 120 feet,
+and at the time his head was off the stern, the other end (as
+much as was above the surface) had not passed the main mast.
+The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two
+minutes and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him
+for about twenty minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous
+log of timber. His motion in the water was meandering like that
+of an eel, and the rake he left behind was like that occasioned
+by the passing of a small craft through the water. We had but
+one harpoon on board, and the ship’s long-boat was, for the time
+being converted into a <i>cow-house</i>. We had two guns on board,
+but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel of New York with
+Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal,
+which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet of Boston
+about five years back; but as I assured him I had never heard
+previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an
+<i>Englishman</i>, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also
+corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time.
+The humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the
+dromedary. I remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“William Warburton.”</span></p>
+
+<p>I give in <a href="#Fig27">fig. 27</a> a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the
+paper of Mr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> (<i>Edinb. Journ. Sc.</i> Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page236">[236]</span></p>
+
+<p>The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed
+up in the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing
+of the water was heard. The part which appeared out of water
+was about sixty feet in length. It held its head some feet above
+the surface of the water, swimming at a rate of two miles an
+hour, and showing bunches on its back. After some moments it
+gradually laid down its head in a horizontal position with its
+body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel, evidently swimming
+with its body in a straight line, using its flappers. The wake
+which it left behind was equal to that of a small vessel. Nothing
+is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth, otherwise the
+scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal appeared
+not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any
+scales. The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a
+right angle with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled
+that of a horse, if we take moreover in consideration that some
+individuals have a mane. The individual seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Holdrege</span>
+and Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> evidently had no mane.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report84"><span class="reportnr"><b>84</b></span>.—1826, June 18.—In the same letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>
+to <span class="smcap">Robert Barclay</span> there is a passage which we have
+omitted above and which runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off
+Cape Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance
+to us. This intelligence reached New York about four days after
+we arrived there, and the description given exactly corresponds with
+the foregoing.”</p>
+
+<p>Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In 1827 Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> wrote the following paper for the <i>Edinburgh
+Journal of Science</i>, Vol. VI:</p>
+
+<p>“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural
+History, which at various periods have been detected, it is
+not surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary,
+qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think
+that the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning
+the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony
+which has been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page237">[237]</span>that vague reports had been spread abroad with regard to this
+enormous animal long ere any just foundation was afforded for
+them, and indeed before we had heard of any who professed to
+have seen it. This may have very far conduced to produce that
+scepticism which now is perfectly unwarrantable. We are so accustomed,
+whenever the subject is introduced in conversation, to couple
+it with the preposterous fables of the <i>Kraken</i>, that it would be
+extremely difficult to break down the barriers against belief which
+prejudice has so long assisted to support. The accounts of the most
+credible witnesses have thus been rejected, although, “<i>to make
+assurance doubly sure</i>”, the generality of them have been taken
+upon oath.”</p>
+
+<p>“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences,
+have been made within the last century, that it is astonishing
+how the existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so
+marvellous or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity
+of Bruce, and we must leave it to time to do the same office
+with regard to the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is
+this monster more disproportionate to the extent of the sea than
+the elephant to that of the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a
+solid bulk, (even according to late most extravagant accounts),
+nearly approaching in magnitude to that of the whale? Geology
+has been infinitely more fortunate than zoology in many respects;
+theories only partially sustained have been received; and while the
+recent discoveries of the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> and <i>Megalosaurus</i> have made
+demands upon our powers of credence far greater than the <i>serpent</i>,
+the descriptions of the latter animal have received very little trust,
+and even much ridicule and contempt. In general, however, it
+must be confessed, that people do not object to the extraordinary
+proportions of such a creature, so much as to what they consider
+the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We trust to advance,
+in the sequel, such additional evidence to that already
+presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely the
+truth of the existence of such an animal,—an animal concerning
+which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its
+more immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery
+in which it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting
+to the most casual admirer of nature:—which must be interesting
+even from the element in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored
+in its inmost recesses. We can have so little information with regard
+to an animal which has so mighty an habitation, that it acquires
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page238">[238]</span>a grandeur in our estimation far surpassing those which inhabit
+the earth. The monsters of the deep appear so independent of our
+influence, and so far removed from any connection with us, that
+any increase of our knowledge in reference to them must be highly
+gratifying.”</p>
+
+<p>“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported,
+that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in
+America, an animal, in general construction nearly resembling a
+serpent, had been frequently seen. These rumours created a good
+deal of excitement, insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean
+Society of New England, it was determined more fully to investigate
+the matter. The Honourable Lonson Nash of Gloucester was
+appointed by a Committee to gather together all the information
+which might be obtained.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence
+which his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From
+different quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated
+all the information which it was in their power to
+proffer, and all declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon
+the accuracy of their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting
+from those who professed to have been personal witnesses of
+the monster: no weight was given to their accounts deduced from
+the reports which were everywhere circulated:—the unadorned
+and unexaggerated style in which their statements were worded is
+of itself perfectly sufficient to win over to all unqualified trust. The
+witnesses for the most part, unite in ascribing a vertical motion
+to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was no uncommon distance
+between it and the spectators, and it was never seen except in
+weather the most calm and bright. But these facts, along with
+the various depositions, have been long laid before the public in the
+“Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England”,
+and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative circumstances
+which have lately occurred, and which <i>we</i> think puts
+the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;—facts
+which have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen,
+who before were entirely sceptical.”</p>
+
+<p>He next gives the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>, of which we
+have spoken above, and the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span>, parts of which
+we have inserted in <a href="#Report63">n<sup>o</sup>. 63</a> and <a href="#Report70">70</a>. After the different passages
+from various transactions and journals referring to the papers in
+Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph Banks’</span> library (<a href="#Page220">p. 220</a>), Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> goes on:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page239">[239]</span></p>
+
+<p>“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all
+upon this much agitated question; at least we think they must
+remove the ideal connection between <i>our</i> serpent, and</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“That sea-snake, enormous curled,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”</div>
+</div><!--stanza-->
+</div><!--poetry-->
+</div><!--container-->
+
+<p>“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras
+and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it
+inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober
+fact in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits
+of the <i>God Thor</i>, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian
+mythology. We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can
+now continue to doubt with regard to facts attested by such
+highly respectable witnesses.”</p>
+
+<p>It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent
+scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have
+been in vain!</p>
+
+<p>German translations of the whole of Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker’s</span> paper as well
+as of the letters from Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> are in
+<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n<sup>o</sup>. 356, p. 49.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, Vol. XII, June
+1827, the editor, Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, says:</p>
+
+<p>“To us it seems a matter of surprise, that any person who has
+examined the testimony, can doubt the existence of the Sea-Serpent;
+the documents communicated by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and
+published in the second volume of this Journal, in 1820, were
+in our judgment alone sufficient, to settle the question: the following
+letter is an important additional document.”</p>
+
+<p>This is the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span>, reprinted
+evidently from the <i>Edinb. Journal</i> (<a href="#Report83">n<sup>o</sup>. 83</a>, <a href="#Report84">84</a>).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report85"><span class="reportnr"><b>85</b></span>.—1827, August 24.—According to <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>
+Vol. XIX, n<sup>o</sup>. 409, p. 193,</p>
+
+<p>“the <i>Norwegische Handelszeitung</i>” (apparently of the 3d. or 4th.
+of September, 1827), “contains fresh intelligence of the Sea-Serpent,
+which confirms what has been published by Captain de Capell Brooke.”</p>
+
+<p>“In the last days of the last month an animal was seen by
+several trustworthy men in Christianiafjord, which, according to
+the description, appears to be a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions.
+On the 1st of this month five eyewitnesses were heard before
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page240">[240]</span>the justice of peace, and according to their agreeing declarations,
+the animal held its head, which was dark and black, above the
+surface of the water, and showed at least ten coils; there was a
+distance of about twenty ells” (60 feet) “between each two coils,
+and the coils themselves were about six ells” (18 feet) “so that the
+total length of the animal may be estimated at 250 ells” (750
+feet). “It moved with about the swiftness of a common boat, rowed
+by a man in still water, and caused a heavy rushing, like a strong
+motion in the water. The thickness was about that of a large wine-barrel
+or pipe. No tail, nor fins were observed. The rushing, it
+is believed, was caused by the head. The coils were movable, i. e.
+what was above the water one moment, was under it the next.
+Two eye-witnesses also declared, that what they saw, was one
+coherent whole and were not several animals. On Friday, the 24th.
+of August, at 10 o’clock A. M. the animal was seen moving from
+the Vakkerö-Bay into the Bonnefjord. The animal was seen from
+a distance of 200 fathoms.”</p>
+
+<p>Although the dimensions are exaggerated, the other features of
+the animal, viz. the head which is dark and black, and held above
+the water, the undulating motion of the animal, its visible coils,
+the rushing sound made by it, the apparent want of fins and the
+tail, which were hidden under water, are correct and known to us.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report86"><span class="reportnr"><b>86</b></span>.—1827, August 26.—(The same journal, the same issue).</p>
+
+<p>“And on Sunday, the 26th. of August at 7 o’clock in the evening
+it came again from the fjord and swam towards the ship-wharf,
+passing Liob-, and Principal-Islands.—It was then seen
+from a distance of 120 fathoms. The eye-witnesses declared, that,
+if asked, they were ready to make oath to those declarations.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report87"><span class="reportnr"><b>87</b></span>.—1827, September 3.—(The same journal, the same
+issue).—</p>
+
+<p>“Christiania, Sept. 5.—The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number,
+has been seen again the day before yesterday off
+Nusodden.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page241">[241]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report88"><span class="reportnr"><b>88</b></span>.—1827, September 5.—(The same journal, the same
+issue).</p>
+
+<p>“and to-day, off Lepager, by persons just as trustworthy as those
+who were heard before the justice. Their affidavit in principal points
+agrees with that of the former. A reward is offered to whoever
+will kill it and bring it home.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report89"><span class="reportnr"><b>89</b></span>.—1827, September 9.—(The same journal, the same
+issue).—</p>
+
+<p>“Christiania, September 15.—Sunday last the sea-serpent appeared
+also off Dröbak. Last week several persons saw large shoals
+of porpoises, and therefore supposed that the alleged presence of
+the former could not be true. But as among those who saw the
+sea-serpent, are many fishermen and seamen, who know very well
+how to distinguish the several sea-animals, and as it is not at all
+uncommon, that porpoises and whales of the smaller kind appear
+here in the fjord, so there is no reason to condemn the judicial
+concurrent testimonies.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report90"><span class="reportnr"><b>90</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><b>91</b></span>.—1828?<a id="Report91"></a>
+The well-known Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span>,
+when on a journey in Norway, noted down the following evidence,
+which he published in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841.</p>
+
+<p>“Nils Roe, workman at Mr. William Knutszon’s, an elderly
+and simple man, relates: I saw the serpent twice, once at noon,
+and two days afterwards towards the evening, in the fjord” (near
+Christiansund) “at the back of Mr. Knutszon’s garden. The first
+time, when it was nearest to me, it was about a hundred feet
+distant. It swam first along the fjord, afterwards over against the
+spot, where I stood. I then observed it for more than half an
+hour. Some strangers, who were on the opposite shore, fired at
+it, when it disappeared.”</p>
+
+<p>“The second time it was farther from me. It was small, perhaps
+twice as long as this room (about forty-four feet); while swimming
+it made serpentine movements, some to left and right, others up
+and down. I cannot state its correct thickness, but it appeared to
+be about as a common snake in proportion to its length. It was
+much thinner towards the tail. Several times it raised its head
+wholly above the water, but so, that it was just above the surface;
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page242">[242]</span>the neck, however, and the other part of the body were but partly
+visible above the surface. The front of the head was rather pointed:
+the eyes were very large and glistened like those of a cat. I did
+not see a tongue and did not observe that it opened its mouth.
+I cannot state that the neck just behind the head is much thinner
+than the head itself, for from the back of the head commenced a
+mane like that of a horse, which waved to and fro in the water.
+Just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further
+backwards; in general it was not very long. The colour of the
+animal was a blackish brown.”</p>
+
+<p>Again we meet with no character that is not known to us. All
+of them have already been stated.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report92"><span class="reportnr"><b>92</b></span>.—1829?—The following is an evidence given before the
+same Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, being at Christiansund, and published by him
+in the journal mentioned above.</p>
+
+<p>“Lars Johnöen, a fisherman at Smölen, about 50 years of age.
+I have seen the sea-serpent several times, but for the longest time
+and nearest to me, twelve years ago in the dog-days in the fjord
+not far from here (Christiansund), when I was alone, one noon,
+angling in a boat. Then I saw it within two hours three times for
+a considerable time, quite near to me. It came close to my boat,
+so that it was only about six feet from me. (He placed himself in
+the room at a distance of nearly six feet from the wall, and said,
+this was about the distance between him and the serpent.) I became
+alarmed; recommended my soul to God, laid myself down
+in the boat, and only held my head so far over it, that I could
+observe the serpent. It swam now past the boat, that was vehemently
+agitated by the ripple caused by its movements in the water,
+which was previously smooth as a mirror, and afterwards took itself
+off. After it had swam a considerable distance from me, I wound
+my angling line round the little instrument commonly used (a
+frame, moving on an axis) and I began again to fish. Not long
+afterwards, however, the serpent came again quite close to the
+boat, which again was violently agitated by the movements made
+by it in the water. I lay down again, and remained quite still,
+keeping, however, a watchful eye on the animal. Again it passed
+me, disappeared far off, and returned, though not so close as before,
+and at last disappeared, when a light wind rose, and ruffled
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page243">[243]</span>the water. Notwithstanding my fright I yet observed the animal
+very accurately. Its length was about five to six fathoms, and the
+body, which was as round as a snake’s, was about two feet in
+diameter. (Lars Johnöen measured on a table before him with his
+hands a space of about two feet). The tail too appeared to me to
+be round. The head was about as long and as thick as a brandy
+anker (a ten gallon cask), it was not pointed but bluntly round.
+The eyes were very large and glistening. Their size (or diameter)
+was about that of this box here (five inches), and they were as
+red as my neckerchief (crimson). The animal did not open its
+mouth, therefore I cannot give its size. It constantly held its
+head above the surface of the water in an acute angle; not so high,
+however, that the nose should come over the board of a boat.
+Close behind the head, a mane like a horse’s commenced, extending
+rather far down the neck, and spreading on both sides; floated
+on the water; it was of tolerably long hair. The mane as well as
+the head and the rest of the body was brown as this looking glass
+frame (dark brown of old mahogany). I could not observe spots,
+or stripes of other colours, nor were there any scales; it seemed
+as if the body was quite smooth. The movements of the serpent
+were by turns fast and slow; they were also slow when the animal approached
+my boat. At the moment in which I could observe it
+best, its movements were serpentine, up and down. The few undulations,
+made by those parts of the body and the tail that were
+out of the water, were scarcely a fathom in length. These undulations
+were not so high, that I could see between them and the water.—When
+Lars Johnöen had given this declaration, the drawing which
+Pontoppidan had given of the animal was shown to him. He
+looked at it with astonishment, smiled and said that he saw a
+great resemblance between it and the animal he had seen. He
+likewise said, that some of the other sea-serpents he had seen were
+a great deal longer than the one described above.”</p>
+
+<p>This unvarnished account describes very well the animal’s general
+doings, and accurately pictures its curiosity and harmlessness.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report93"><span class="reportnr"><b>93</b></span>.—1829, July.—We shall soon be acquainted with the
+appearance of the sea-serpent seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> of the
+<i>Daedalus</i>, on Aug. 6, 1848. Prof. <span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span>, questioned
+whether this animal could be a snake or not, gave his answer in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page244">[244]</span>an article published in the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 11, 1848, wherein he
+expresses his opinion that it must have been a large seal. This
+article seems to have been reprinted in the <i>Bombay Bi-monthly
+Times</i>. In the same journal for January, 1849, appeared the following
+statement and objections against Professor <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span> suggestions.</p>
+
+<p>“I see, in your paper of the 30th December, a paragraph in
+which a doubt is expressed of the authenticity of the account given
+by Captain M’Quhae of the “great sea-serpent”. When returning
+to India, in the year 1829, I was standing on the poop of the
+<i>Royal Saxon</i>, in conversation with Captain Petrie, the commander
+of that ship. We were at a considerable distance south-west of the
+Cape of Good Hope, in the usual track of vessels to this country,
+going rapidly along (seven or eight knots) in fine smooth water.
+It was in the middle of the day, and the other passengers were
+at luncheon; the man at the wheel, a steerage passenger, and
+ourselves, being the only persons on the poop. Captain Petrie and
+myself, at the same instant, were literally fixed in astonishment
+by the appearance, a short distance ahead, of an animal of which
+no more generally correct description could be given than that by
+Captain M’Quhae. It passed within thirty-five yards of the ship,
+without altering its course in the least; but as it came right abreast
+of us, it slowly turned its head towards us. Apparently about
+one third of the upper part of its body was above water, in nearly
+its whole length; and we could see the water curling up on its
+breast as it moved along, but by what means it moved we
+could not perceive. We watched it going astern with intense
+interest until it had nearly disappeared, when my companion,
+turning to me with a countenance expressive of the utmost astonishment,
+exclaimed, “Good heavens! what can that be?” It was
+strange that we never thought of calling the party engaged at
+luncheon to witness the extraordinary sight we had seen; but the
+fact is, we were so absorbed in it ourselves, that we never spoke,
+and scarcely moved, until it had nearly disappeared. Captain Petrie,
+a superior and most intelligent man, has since perished in the
+exercise of his profession. Of the fate of the others then on deck
+I am ignorant; so the story rests on my own unsupported word,
+but I pledge that word to its correctness. Professor Owen’s supposition,
+that the animal seen by the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> was a
+gigantic seal, I believe to be incorrect, because we saw this apparently
+similar creature in its whole length, with the exception
+of a small portion of the tail, which was under water; and, by
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page245">[245]</span>comparing its length with that of the <i>Royal Saxon</i> (about six
+hundred feet), when exactly alongside in passing, we calculated it
+to be in that, as well as in its other dimensions, greater than the
+animal described by Captain M’Quhae. Should the foregoing account
+be of any interest to you, it is at your service; it is an old
+story, but a true one. I am not quite sure of our latitude and
+longitude at the time, nor do I exactly remember the date, but
+it was about the end of July.—<span class="smcap">R. Davidson</span>, Superintending
+Surgeon, Nagpore Subsidiary Force, Kamptee, 3d January 1849.”</p>
+
+<p>At present we have only to fix our attention on the animal’s
+appearance, and not on Mr. <span class="smcap">Davidson’s</span> objections. As the reader
+will observe, the whole description agrees with other accounts already
+given. There is nothing in it that is new or unknown to us.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report94"><span class="reportnr"><b>94</b></span>.—1830?—The well-known Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span>, on
+his journey in Norway, being in Christiansund, noted down the
+following evidence, to publish it in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>
+of 1841.</p>
+
+<p>“John Johnson, merchant, about 60 years of age, says in German:
+I saw the animal some years ago in the fjord” (of Christiansund);
+“it was about a thousand paces distant, when nearest to
+me; I observed it for more than half an hour. It swam very
+swiftly, for in the same time that we rowed about a quarter of a
+mile aside of it, it had swum about one half of a mile. I saw it
+best when it swam in a semicircle round a tolerable large rock
+that obstructed its passage, coming to that side of it which was
+turned towards me; in doing this it partly raised itself above the
+surface of the water. Its colour was blackish; its length was about
+that of this house (55 feet). Except the head, I did not observe
+much of its body, as it appeared but little above the surface.
+Judging from what I observed now and then, I think its thickness
+to be that of a stout man’s body. Its head was apparently
+as large as a hat. It was not pointed, but seemed rather blunt;
+in general, however, in comparison with its thickness, it was not
+very long. It was held but little above the surface of the water,
+making an acute angle with it; and it remained above the surface,
+as long as I saw it. Owing to the distance I could not discern
+the eyes. Also on account of the distance or because the neck was
+seldom elevated above the surface, I could observe nothing of a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page246">[246]</span>mane. The agitation which it caused in the water was very strong.
+The movements of the animal itself were serpentine, up and down,
+like those of a swimming leech. When the animal had reached a
+spot, where the water was ruffled by a rising gentle wind, it
+disappeared. Moreover, I believe, that the animal is not much to
+be feared and that it would not easily harm men.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report95"><span class="reportnr"><b>95</b></span>.—1831?—The same Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> also noted down the
+following declaration (published in the above mentioned journal.)</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. William Knutszon and Candidatus Theologiae Booklune
+gave the following written account: We together saw the sea-serpent
+in a narrow fjord, at a distance of about one sixteenth of a
+mile” (about 515 yards) “for about a quarter of an hour; afterwards
+it dived, and came up so far from us, that we could not see it
+plainly. The water was as smooth as a mirror, and the animal
+had, as it moved on the surface, quite the appearance of a worm,
+or of a snake. Its motions were in undulations, and so strong,
+that white foam appeared before it, and waves were caused at its
+sides, which extended over several fathoms. It did not appear very
+high above the water, and it was principally its length, which
+was quite considerable. Once, however, it stretched its head quite
+erect in the air. The body was somewhat dark, and the head
+nearly black; the body had nearly the form of an eel or of a
+snake, a length of about fifty ells” (above one hundred feet) “and
+in proportion to it an inconsiderable thickness. The breadth diminished
+considerably from the head to the tail, so that the latter
+ended in a point. The head was long and narrow in proportion
+to the throat, as the latter appeared much greater than the former,
+which probably was the consequence of its being provided with a
+mane. The details of the head were not to be discerned, as the
+distance was too great.”</p>
+
+<p>I may observe here that if these eye-witnesses declare that the
+head seemed to be narrower than the throat, this may probably
+also be the consequence of the animal’s contracting its neck. This
+may be often seen in seals and sea-lions. If a common seal has
+contracted its neck, it appears as if the animal has no neck, as
+if the head is immediately connected with the body. In reality the
+neck is shortened, and has become thicker than the head. If stretched,
+the neck on the contrary is very well visible, and narrower than
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page247">[247]</span>the head. The same in sea-lions. If contracted, several rings of
+blubber surround the hind part of the head, which appears smaller
+than the neck; if stretched, the neck immediately gets much narrower
+and the head is broader than the neck. The expression
+“which probably was the consequence of its being provided with
+a mane” distinctly shows that the eye-witnesses, knowing that
+others at other times saw a mane, intended to explain the phenomenon
+they observed by the presence of this mane, which they
+could impossibly see, “as the distance was too great.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report96"><span class="reportnr"><b>96</b></span>.—1832, Summer.—(<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, XXXV,
+n<sup>o</sup>. 756).</p>
+
+<p>“There is again question in Norway of the sea-serpent. It is said
+to have appeared and remained rather a long time in the Rödö-
+and Södelöw fjords this summer, and to have been seen by many
+persons. Distinct traces of it are said to have been found in the
+fields (??).”</p>
+
+<p>We observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> adds two notes of interrogation
+after the last words. Evidently he is unable to explain them. I am
+convinced of the truth that the sea-serpent appeared in the fjords
+above mentioned. As to the traces of it, I must tell my readers
+that the superstition of the Norwegian people has forged this fable
+ever since they first became aware that the sea-serpent frequented
+their fjords. We have already met with this tale in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span>
+<i>Natural History of Norway</i>, and probably the Norwegians will
+tell it us again, if we ask them now!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report97"><span class="reportnr"><b>97</b></span>.—1833, May, 15.—(Zoologist p. 1714, 1847).</p>
+
+<p>“On the 15th. of May, 1833, a party, consisting of Captain
+Sullivan, Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle Brigade,
+Lieutenant Lyster of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the Ordnance,
+started from Halifax in a small yacht for Mahone Bay, some forty
+miles eastward, on a fishing excursion. The morning was cloudy,
+and the wind at S. S. E., and apparently rising. By the time we
+reached Chebucto Head, as we had taken no pilot with us, we
+deliberated whether we should proceed or turn back; but, after a
+consultation, we determined on the former, having lots of ports
+on our lee. Previous to our leaving town, an old man-of-war’s-man
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page248">[248]</span>we had along with us busied himself in inquiries as to our right
+course; he was told to take his departure from the Bull Rock,
+off Pennant Point, and that a W. N. W. course would bring us
+direct on Iron Bound Island, at the entrance of Mahone or Mecklenburgh
+Bay. He, however, unfortunately told us to steer W. S.
+W., nor corrected his error for five or six hours; consequently we
+had gone a long distance off the coast. We had run about half
+the distance, as we supposed, and were enjoying ourselves on deck,
+smoking our cigars, and getting our tackle ready for the approaching
+campaign against the salmon, when we were surprised by
+the sight of an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in
+an unusual state of excitement, and which in their gambols approached
+so close to our little craft, that some of the party amused
+themselves by firing at them with rifles. At this time we were
+jogging on at about five miles an hour, and must have been
+crossing Margaret’s Bay. I merely conjecture where we were, as
+we had not seen land since a short time after leaving Pennant
+Bay. Our attention was presently diverted from the whales and
+“such small deer”, by an exclamation from Dowling, our man-of-war’s-man,
+who was sitting to leeward, of, “Oh sirs, look here!”
+We were started into a ready compliance, and saw an object which
+banished all other thoughts, save wonder and surprise.”</p>
+
+<p>“At the distance of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred
+yards on our starboard bow, we saw the head and neck of some
+denizen of the deep, precisely like those of a common snake, in
+the act of swimming, the head so far elevated and thrown forward
+by the curve of the neck, as to enable us to see the water
+under and beyond it. The creature rapidly passed, leaving a
+regular wake, from the commencement of which, to the fore
+part, which was out of water, we judged its length to be
+about eighty feet, and this within, rather than beyond the
+mark. We were, of course, all taken aback at the sight, and,
+with staring eyes and in speechless wonder, stood gazing at it for
+full half a minute. There could be no mistake, no delusion, and
+we were all perfectly satisfied that we had been favoured with a
+view of the “true and veritable sea-serpent”, which had been generally
+considered to have existed only in the brain of some Yankee
+skipper, and treated as a tale not much entitled to belief. Dowling’s
+exclamation is worthy of record. “Well, I’ve sailed in all parts of
+the world, and have seen rum sights too in my time, but this is
+the queerest thing I ever see!” and surely Jack Dowling was right.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page249">[249]</span>It is most difficult to give correctly the dimensions of any object
+in the water. The head of the creature we set down at about six
+feet in length, and that portion of the neck which we saw at the
+same; the extreme length, as before stated, at between eighty and
+one hundred feet. The neck in thickness equalled the bole of a
+moderate-sized tree. The head and neck of a dark brown or nearly
+black colour, streaked with white in irregular streaks. I do not
+recollect seeing any part of the body.”</p>
+
+<p>“Such is the rough account of the sea-serpent, and all the party
+who saw it are still in the land of the living,—Lyster in England,
+Malcolm in New South Wales with his regiment, and the
+remainder still vegetating in Halifax.”</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">W. Sullivan</span>, Captain, Rifle Brigade, June 21, 1831.</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">A. Maclachlan</span>, Lieutenant, ditto, August 5, 1824.</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">G. P. Malcolm</span>, Ensign, ditto, August 13, 1830.</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">B. O’Neal Lyster</span>, Lieut. Artillery, June 7, 1816.</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">Henry Ince</span>, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> adds between parentheses:</p>
+
+<p>“The dates are those on which the gentlemen received their
+respective Commission, I am not aware of their present rank. I
+am indebted to Mr. W. H. Ince for this interesting communication:
+this gentleman received it from his brother, Commander J. M. R.
+Ince, R. N. It is written by their uncle, Mr. Henry Ince, the
+Ordnance store-keeper at Halifax, Nova Scotia.”—</p>
+
+<p>We observe that the colour of the head and neck is described
+as “streaked with white in irregular streaks”, and that evidently
+the sea-serpent hunted after the grampuses “which appeared in an
+unusual state of excitement”.</p>
+
+<p>This account translated into German is in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>,
+Third Series, III, n<sup>o</sup>. 54, p. 148.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report98"><span class="reportnr"><b>98</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><b>99</b></span>.<a id="Report99"></a>—1833,
+July.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of June 1834
+we read that Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span> in a note to Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell’s</span>
+<i>Introduction to Geology</i>, stated that</p>
+
+<p>“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased,
+and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in
+such reports.”</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, says:</p>
+
+<p>“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page250">[250]</span>date July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date
+state, that the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was
+first seen on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and
+the Promuntory, winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again
+on Sunday morning, heading for South-shores. He was seen by
+forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen, who insist that they could not
+have been deceived.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>It is evident that many reports of great sea-serpents have been
+published here and there, especially in Norwegian and North-American
+newspapers, which I have had no opportunity to consult,
+and which probably will never come within my reach. As we learn
+from Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, Vol. XL, n<sup>o</sup>. 879, p. 328, “Mr. R.
+Bakewell in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology
+(1833?) states: that there are descriptions of the sea-serpent,
+wherein it is ascertained that it “has flappers like sea-turtles”. I
+have not been able to consult Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell’s</span> work, but I insert
+this statement here, because we shall observe afterwards more than
+once this comparison of the flappers with analogous members of turtles.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report100"><span class="reportnr"><b>100</b></span>.—1834, Summer.—In Captain <span class="smcap">Shibbles’</span> report (<a href="#Report101">n<sup>o</sup>.
+101</a>) a passage runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“One of the crew told us that his appearance and motion are
+precisely like that he saw last summer while in the bay” (of
+Gloucester) “which was said to be a sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>Though no particulars are mentioned, I am convinced that the
+appearance took place.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report101"><span class="reportnr"><b>101</b></span>.—1835, March or April.—(<i>Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts</i> Vol.
+28, 1835, July.—)</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Shibbles, of the brig Mangehan, of Thomastown, from
+Boston, for New-Orleans, which arrived here (Gloucester, Mass.,
+March or April, 1835) on Saturday last, states that he saw when
+about nine or ten miles from Race Point light, what he, as well
+as the whole crew, supposed to be a sea-serpent,—he could
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page251">[251]</span>distinctly see it with the naked eye, but to be certain, he took
+his glass and saw his eyes, neck and head, which was about as
+large as a barrel—the neck had something that looked like a
+mane upon the top of it; several times he raised his head seven
+or eight feet above the water, and for thirty or forty minutes he
+swam backward and forward with great swiftness. There were two
+other vessels near, the crews of which were in the rigging looking
+at the same object. Capt. S. states that it was very long, and that
+his head, neck and tail and his motion in the water, was exactly
+like those of a snake; every time he put his head out of water,
+he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler
+of a steam-boat..... The Captain and crew attest to the correctness
+of this statement.”</p>
+
+<p>As to the swimming backward and forward, I think that Captain
+<span class="smcap">Shibbles</span> meant that the animal swam to and fro, and that he
+used these expressions in reference to the direction of the brig.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report102"><span class="reportnr"><b>102</b></span>.—1836?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span> published in the
+<i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> the following evidence, which he noted
+down when being in Christiansund in Norway:</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>Sorenskriver</i> Gaeschke (a kind of judge of the same rank
+as the German country-judges, or the British sheriffs) gave me the
+following evidence: I saw the sea-serpent for a considerable time
+in a small fjord, first from a boat, afterwards from the beach,
+and from there during several minutes, at a distance of from
+thirty to thirty-six feet. In the beginning it swam round the fjord
+at Torvig, afterwards it went towards the mouth of the fjord. I
+saw its head stretched considerably out of the water. I noticed as
+well two or three undulations of the forepart of the body. Its
+motion was not like that of an eel, but consisted in vertical undulations.
+They were so strong, that they caused rather large waves;
+they were largest at the forepart of the animal and gradually lessened
+towards the back. The traces of them I discerned in a length
+of eight to ten fathoms, and in a breadth of two or three fathoms.
+The head, apparently blunt in front, had the size and nearly also
+the shape of an anker (ten-gallon cask) and the visible coils of the
+body were round and their thickness was that of a good timber-stock
+(twelve to fourteen inches square). I could not judge the
+entire length of the animal, as I could not discern the animal’s
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page252">[252]</span>hindpart. The colour of the animal seemed to me to be a very
+dark grey one. What I believed to be the eyes, had according to
+my estimation the size of the outlines of a tea-cup (3¹⁄₂ inches).
+At the back of the head there was a mane, which had the same
+colour as the rest of the body.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report103"><span class="reportnr"><b>103</b></span>.—1837, end of July.—(<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, Vol.
+IV, n<sup>o</sup>. 67, p. 7, October, 1837).</p>
+
+<p>“About the much mentioned Sea-Serpent the Drontheim Newspaper
+contains, as is ascertained, from an enlightened and trustworthy
+gentleman, the following statement: “Uncommonly early
+in this Summer our coasts and fjords were blessed with a mass of
+fat herrings, of which till to-day very few were cleaned and pickled,
+because the uncommon greasiness of the herrings made it difficult
+to preserve them in the warm air, which, however, was so beneficient
+to agriculture. Since the beginning of the dog-days the sea-serpent
+appeared on different spots in this country; one of these
+sea-monsters seems to have constantly remained near Storfosen and
+the Krovaag Isles; several fishermen were terrified in the highest
+degree, when the sea-serpent suddenly came down so near to them,
+that they had no time to think, to which side they should fly.
+It is true this terrible visitor properly has not made an attack,
+but it has followed the boat for a long distance, when one has
+tried to fly in a great hurry, so that the men overworked themselves,
+and some of the runaways fell ill afterwards. It is ascertained
+by quite trustworthy persons, that the length of the sea-serpent
+may be estimated from 600 to 800 ells, or perhaps still more,
+because if one was near its head, the other end of the sea-animal
+was not to be discerned distinctly. The sea-serpent is thickest just
+behind the head, apparently as thick as a large horse; its black
+and dark eyes are as large as an ordinary plate, without being
+glossy or very movable; the skin is smooth and of a dark colour;
+on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three
+quarters of an ell long, also on the neck there is something movable,
+which resembles the mane of a horse; the mouth, as far
+as the writer knows, has not been seen distinctly, and it is quite
+uncertain whether the animal is a beast of prey or not. Rarely
+does the sea-serpent appear but in calm weather; its motions and
+shape are serpentine. These observations are distinctly made in these
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page253">[253]</span>days, amongst others by a trustworthy and intelligent gentleman,
+who with his two sons had reached a small islet, where the sea-serpent,
+after having followed their boat, passed closely and slowly.”</p>
+
+<p>Those who made the statement that when they were near the
+head, the tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke
+the truth, for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who
+afterwards thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have
+a length of from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous
+manner. Again we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in
+great dread of the sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour
+is quite the same as told us <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> a century ago.
+Again we read of the habit of the sea-serpent of following boats,
+but never attacking them, which may only be the effect of mere
+curiosity. The description, moreover, given by the not mentioned
+trustworthy and intelligent observer is quite correct. All the characters
+given by him are already known to us, and where he states
+that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in contradiction with former
+statements, it is natural that in a certain direction and in
+certain moments they need not give the impression of being so.
+Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on its
+upper-lips, as in seals.</p>
+
+<p>In Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared
+in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of
+1837, and we confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.</p>
+
+<p>And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that
+it was the <i>Adis</i> of Drontheim which contained those particulars.
+The Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> the Kerchvang
+Islands, and strange enough, the very interesting particulars about
+the skin, the eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the
+nose are omitted.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report104"><span class="reportnr"><b>104</b></span>.—1838?—The reader will soon be made acquainted
+with the well known report of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, of the <i>Daedalus</i>.
+As the report was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848,
+Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span>, of the <i>Blossom</i>, “one of the most scientific officers
+and ablest naval surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Beaufort</span>,
+F. R. S., Admiralty Hydrographer. An extract from this
+letter appeared in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. 28, 1848,
+and runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page254">[254]</span></p>
+
+<p>“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have
+fallen in with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary
+appearance we witnessed in the <i>Blossom</i>, in crossing the South
+Atlantic: I took it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I
+could get my glass upon deck it had disappeared, and I could
+nowhere find it—fresh breezes at the time.”</p>
+
+<p>As Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span> writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary
+appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say
+ten years; so I have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which
+it happened. If I may ever get the opportunity to learn the exact
+year or date, I shall be glad to correct my supposition in an
+eventual second edition. But for the present I am sure that the
+“trunk of a large tree” which had so suddenly disappeared, really
+was a sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> work about
+the <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, which appeared in the year 1839. The
+writer sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited
+from other works, or from which he gave only short extracts. One
+would say that Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> is an unbeliever, for he ends his
+chapter on this animal with the words:</p>
+
+<p>“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close
+our account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till
+favouring circumstances bring the animal under the examination of
+Naturalists, the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is
+scarcely to be expected.”</p>
+
+<p>I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and
+that he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated
+of Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions
+and sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation
+between them and the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after
+the sea-serpent he treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And
+why did he end in such a vague way? May it be, because he could
+not give an explanation, or because he hesitated to show the public
+that he was really a believer?</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report105"><span class="reportnr"><b>105</b></span>.—1839, August?—According to <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>,
+vol. XII, n<sup>o</sup>. 248, of Oct., 1839, the <i>Boston Mercantile</i>
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page255">[255]</span>mentions that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bubier</span>, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms
+to have seen the sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to
+Nahant, near Boston, and estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report106"><span class="reportnr"><b>106</b></span>.—1839.—In the same periodical on the same page
+we read that Captain <span class="smcap">Smith</span> who had been a long time in the
+whale fishery, asserts in the <i>Kennebek Journal</i>, that he never before
+saw such a creature, and that if he had had a harpoon and
+lines on board, he would have harpooned it.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report106A"><span class="reportnr"><b>106</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><span class="allsmcap"><b>A</b></span></span>.—1840,
+April 21.—(<i>Journal du Havre</i>, 1840,
+Sept. 15, <i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1716).—As I have not had the
+opportunity to consult the first paper, I give the account as I have
+found it in the <i>Zoologist</i>.</p>
+
+<p>“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance,
+which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a
+degree of cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the
+obstinacy of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by
+the remark that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have
+been seen at different points along the whole line of the American
+coast. Captain d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort,
+makes the following statements:</p>
+
+<p>“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13
+min. N. latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated
+from the meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running
+under a light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather.
+In a few hours we distinguished something like a long chain of
+rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities,
+and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of
+the sea. Against this object the sea broke softly. As we approached
+we remarked that its different parts changed their position, and
+even their form, and we became perfectly certain that it was not
+a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the assistance of a telescope
+a long chain of enormous rings, resembling a number of
+barrels linked together, and in form very like the back of a silk
+worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we had
+first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page256">[256]</span>more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous
+tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black.
+This tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the
+object itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane
+rising to the height of about two <i>metres</i> from the water, and
+inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the mass (without
+leaving it, however); and this led me to conjecture that the monster
+before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of
+respiration, like the lampreys. At last we perceived something like
+an <i>antenna</i> rising from the water, to the great height of nearly
+eight <i>metres</i>, terminated by a crescent of at least five <i>metres</i> from
+one extremity to the other. We could not approach sufficiently near
+to acquire any very positive idea as to what we had seen; but
+everything led us to believe that it was an enormous serpent of at
+least 100 <i>metres</i> in length.”</p>
+
+<p>Although the editors of the <i>Journal du Havre</i> believed that
+Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve
+would shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on
+the contrary his narrative has had quite another effect. Every
+sceptic, I think, will smile or even laugh when he reads this report,
+for who can help laughing when he reads of a “membrane
+which led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided
+with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys”,
+and of an “antenna of eight metres, terminated by a crescent of
+at least five metres from one extremity to the other.” We find
+here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the names of
+the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal kingdom.
+A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly
+transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was
+one, I don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent,
+how could they see from such a great distance, that it was thin;
+what reason was there to call it a “membrane”?</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that Captain d’<span class="smcap">Abnour</span> really saw a sea-serpent.
+The animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still,
+showing numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and
+invisible. Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain
+<span class="smcap">Weisz</span>, of the <i>Kätie</i> (<a href="#Report154">n°. 154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). We know that sea-serpents
+lying still may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a
+long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two
+extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over
+the level of the sea”. The sea broke gently against it. As they approached,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page257">[257]</span>the animal seen through a telescope had the appearance
+of “a long chain of numerous rings, resembling a number of
+barrels linked together”. We remember that this comparison has
+often been made by different witnesses. The other comparison of
+the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of a silk worm” is
+also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached, these appearances
+became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in a playful
+manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections,
+white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are
+longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly
+black above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that
+also the trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The
+supposition of this division of colours had already been made by
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> (<a href="#Report41">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a>, <a href="#Page169">p. 169</a>). It is, therefore, very
+remarkable that Captain d’<span class="smcap">Abnour</span> really saw that the tail too is
+coloured black above and white beneath! The animal curled its
+tail and let it for a moment “repose on a part of” its body. Then,
+“at the other extremity” the animal elevated its foreflapper to the
+height of about two metres (six feet) from the water. The flapper
+“inclined itself at a considerable angle upon the” body, consequently
+the animal made the same movement with its foreflapper as the
+individual afterwards witnessed by Captain <span class="smcap">Weisz</span> (<a href="#Report154">n<sup>o</sup>. 154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>).
+At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale elevated above
+the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to the height
+of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of course has
+nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’<span class="smcap">Abnour</span> says:
+that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its relative
+position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far from it.
+The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all events
+exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under
+the water.</p>
+
+<p>The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in
+<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, <i>Third Series</i>, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 54, p. 148, 1847.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report106B"><span class="reportnr"><b>106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></b></span>.—1840, June?—In the <i>Journal du Havre</i>, of 15th
+September, 1840, (see <i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Not long since the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> announced a new
+appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world
+is so naturally incredulous.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page258">[258]</span></p>
+
+<p>I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in
+the month of June of that year.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report107"><span class="reportnr"><b>107</b></span>.—1840, July?—In his Postscript Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> (<i>Archiv
+für Naturgeschichte</i>, 1841, Vol. I) says:</p>
+
+<p>“According to a letter addressed to me by Dr. Hoffmann, a
+respectable physician in Molde, which is situated several miles
+south of Christiansund on one of the largest fjords, the school-inspector
+<span class="smcap">Hammer</span>, the adjunct <span class="smcap">Kraft</span>, and some other persons,
+who in 1840 made together an excursion in a boat on this fjord,
+saw very distinctly a so-called sea-serpent of considerable length.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report107A"><span class="reportnr"><b>107 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></b>.</span>—1840, August?—The Editor of the <i>Journal du
+Havre</i> before publishing Capt. <span class="smcap">d’Abnour’s</span> report (<a href="#Report106">n<sup>o</sup>. 106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>) says,
+(see <i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1715):</p>
+
+<p>“We shall preface his narrative by the remark, that the sea-serpent
+has been recently alleged to have been seen, at different
+points along the whole line of the American coast.”</p>
+
+<p>The Editor would have done better if he had published all the
+reports of the sea-serpent, that had come within his reach. The
+reader must know that with the terms “the whole line of the
+American coast” the Editor can only have meant the east coast of
+British America and of the United States, from Newfoundland to
+Cape Canaveral, Florida.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report108"><span class="reportnr"><b>108</b></span>.—1841.—In a Postscript to his paper (<i>Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte</i>, 1841, Vol. I) Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> tells us:</p>
+
+<p>“According to a letter which I received some time ago from
+Mr. Soern Knutszon, a sea-serpent is again seen there some weeks
+after I had left Christiansund, by several persons.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The well known Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span> in 1841 published in
+the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, 7th year, Vol. I, his dissertation
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page259">[259]</span>“On the Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a
+translation of his paper:</p>
+
+<p>“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself
+of the opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical
+and even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in
+the language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity
+offered in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal
+is said to have often been observed. The general notices which I
+received about the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is
+mostly seen in the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the
+open sea. In the fjord of Christiansund, which has such a considerable
+extent, manifold ramifications, and in which numerous islets
+are found, it appears almost every year. It is said to have been
+especially observed in that part of the fjord on which the village
+of Lorvig is situated. This only happens in the warmest part of
+the year, viz. in the dog days, and only then when the weather
+is quite still and the surface of the water smooth. When after its
+appearance the water is ruffled, however slightly, it immediately
+disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that in the dog days many
+fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into the sea, without
+taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive away the
+animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the
+fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches,
+and therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise
+attracts it still more.”</p>
+
+<p>“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which
+are spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who
+were said to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who
+at the request of <span class="smcap">Soeren</span> and <span class="smcap">Wilhelm Knudtszon</span> Brothers, two
+distinguished and very intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I
+questioned personally; for others I had put down several questions
+to which I received a written answer. I will communicate here the
+result of my inquiry.”</p>
+
+<p>Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> publishes the affidavits which I have inserted
+above (<a href="#Report90">n<sup>o</sup>. 90</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>,
+<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>), and his Postscript (see <a href="#Report107">n<sup>o</sup>.
+107</a> and <a href="#Report108">108</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“If one” Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> goes on, “were to submit the above mentioned
+evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they
+not only contain several contradictory statements, but also that each
+evidence by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that
+we may at least admit so much of them, to be right, that what
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page260">[260]</span>those persons who bear the evidences, took for a long animal, was
+really such a one. For I should not know, what could be the
+cause of the illusion, which had created the belief in such an animal.
+Some persons, as I know, believe that what has been taken
+for a so-called sea-serpent, was nothing else but a row of porpoises,
+swimming in a line. But all those persons by whom the above
+mentioned evidences are borne were too familiar with the sea, and
+had observed porpoises together too often to be deceived by a row
+of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If this,
+however, had been the case, all the observations related to me of
+the sea-serpent holding its head above the surface, and about its
+size, must have been mere fictions, and this I cannot believe. According
+to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted that there is
+a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow
+to a considerable length.”</p>
+
+<p>Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> weighs and considers to what kind of animals
+the sea-serpent may belong. This, however, we omit here, as we
+have partly discussed these views in our Chapter on Would-be
+Sea-Serpents, where we spoke of the Animal of Stronsa, and as
+we shall once more refer to it in our Chapter of Explanations.</p>
+
+<p>Every one, I think, will agree with me, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> has
+committed two faults. 1. He criticises the correctness of the statements
+in question, apparently without having taken the trouble
+to read all that had been written about the subject. If he had
+done so, he would never have said that the particulars of the
+evidences collected by him in Norway were sometimes contradictory;
+on the contrary, he would have observed that they completed
+one another! 2. He was the first scientific man and zoologist who
+had an opportunity to see the sea-serpent, probably even to kill
+it, and yet he returns to Germany without having made one single
+effort either to kill or to see it!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Immediately after Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke’s</span> dissertation, the Editor
+of the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, the well-known Prof. Dr. <span class="smcap">W.
+F. Erichson</span>, wrote a paper, in which he gave full details of the
+Animal of Stronsa and descriptions of the saved bones. He ends
+this extract with the words:</p>
+
+<p>“Consequently the Animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with
+the sea-serpent of the Norwegians; the animal, however, seen by
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page261">[261]</span>the Rev. Maclean” (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>) “might be considered as such an animal.”</p>
+
+<p>These words convince me of the fact that Mr. <span class="smcap">Erichson</span>, like
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> firmly believed that there are in the Norwegian seas
+animals still unknown to them, which are called “sea-serpents”.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report109"><span class="reportnr"><b>109</b></span>.—1842?—(<i>Times</i>, Nov. 4, 1848).—</p>
+
+<p>“A parish priest residing on Romsdal fjord, about two days
+journey south of Drontheim, an intelligent person, whose veracity
+I have no reason to doubt, gave me a circumstantial account of
+one, which he had himself seen. It rose within 30 yards of the
+boat in which he was, and swam parallel with it for a considerable
+time. Its head he described as equalling a small cask in size, and
+its mouth, which it repeatedly opened and shut, was furnished
+with formidable teeth; its neck was smaller, but its body—of
+which he supposed that he saw about half on the surface of the
+water—was not less in girth than that of a moderate sized horse.”
+(Part of a letter from “<span class="smcap">Oxoniensis</span>”).—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report110"><span class="reportnr"><b>110</b></span>.—1842?—“Another gentleman, in whose house I
+stayed, had also seen one, and gave a similar account of it: it
+also came near his boat upon the fjord, when it was fired at, upon
+which it turned and pursued them to the shore, which was luckily
+near, when it disappeared” (Also a part of the letter from <span class="smcap">Oxoniensis</span>,
+<i>Times</i>, Nov. 4, 1848).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report111"><span class="reportnr"><b>111</b></span>.—1843, Summer.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, Vol.
+XXVIII, n<sup>o</sup>. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Some months ago the sea-serpent again appeared between the
+islets and inlets of the fjord of Christiansund.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report111A"><span class="reportnr"><b>111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></b></span>.—1843,
+October?—(<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, Vol.
+28, n<sup>o</sup>. 606, p. 184).</p>
+
+<p>“The Editors of the <i>Christiansands Posten</i> add the following remarks:
+“This whole description accurately fits on an appearance,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page262">[262]</span>which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the
+North Sea, and when the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad,
+if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had
+rowed with their boats towards the animal, they would soon have
+observed without any doubt that the supposed intervals between
+the coils were nothing else but water.””</p>
+
+<p>The number of the <i>Christiansands Posten</i> was most probably
+one of the beginning of November or of the end of October. Consequently
+the appearance spoken of must have taken place some
+days before. At all events this is a proof of an appearance of the
+sea-serpent, swimming in vertical undulations, near Ibbestad, in
+Norway, at that time.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report112"><span class="reportnr"><b>112</b></span>,
+<span class="reportnr"><b>113</b></span>.<a id="Report113"></a>—1845.—The report of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>,
+which we shall meet with a little further on, induced Mr. <span class="smcap">J. D.
+Morries Stirling</span> to write a letter on the sea-serpent to the Admiralty.</p>
+
+<p>“By the courtesy” says the Editor of the <i>Illustrated London News</i>
+in his number of Oct., 28, 1848, “of the Secretary to the Admiralty,
+we have been favoured with the following letter from a
+gentleman long resident in Norway.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“13, Great Cumberland Street, October 25, 1848.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“My dear Sir,—I regret that I have not found the volumes
+referred to in our conversation respecting the recent authentication
+of the existence of the sea-serpent by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M.
+frigate Daedalus, but I will give you that part of the information
+which I remember best. Several years ago, a museum was established
+at Bergen, in Norway, the directors of which have, amongst other
+subjects of interest, turned their study to Natural History in
+general, and to the elucidation of some of its more doubtful or
+less known subdivisions. The question of the sea-serpent’s existence
+had previously attracted the attention of several scientific men in
+Northern Europe; and my friend, the late Dr. Newmann, Bishop
+of Bergen—a man much and justly respected for his learning,
+research and energy—made it the subject of inquiry within the
+last twenty or twenty-five years among his clergy and those of the
+adjoining dioceses. The amount of proof thus collected was sufficient
+to convince any one, however sceptical, as it is not mere
+hearsay evidence, but the testimony of known and respectable
+persons in various walks of life. One of the most striking statements
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page263">[263]</span>is made by some fishermen, who saw the animal quite close
+to them, and of whom one more hardy than the rest struck it
+with a boat-hook, upon which it immediately gave them chase;
+and, had they not been very near a small island or rock, on which
+they took refuge, in all probability they would have been destroyed.”</p>
+
+<p>“The size of the sea-serpents seen in the Norwegian fjords varies
+much; and I do not now remember what the dimensions of the
+largest are said to be. As far as I can tax my memory, none of
+them lately seen are larger than that described by Capt. M’Quhae.
+The one seen by the fishermen above alluded to, was, I think,
+not above 70 feet long. I have written to my colleagues in the
+direction of the Bergen Museum, and as soon as their answer
+arrives I will give you a more full account.”</p>
+
+<p>“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile, known as
+the sea-serpent, but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence
+of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several
+of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size
+and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this
+respect, as well as having short paws or flappers, the descriptions
+of the northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of
+some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in
+the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed
+to be the same animal as the Kraken, or rather from the names
+having been used indiscriminately.”</p>
+
+<p>“In concluding this hurried statement, allow me to add my
+own testimony as to the existence of a large fish or reptile of
+cylindrical form. (I will not say sea-serpent.) Three years ago,
+while becalmed in a yacht between Bergen and Sogn in Norway,
+I saw (at about a quarter of a mile astern) what appeared to be
+a large fish ruffling the otherwise smooth surface of the fjord,
+and, on looking attentively, I observed what looked like the convolutions
+of a snake. I immediately got my glass, and distinctly
+made out three convolutions, which drew themselves slowly through
+the water. The greatest diameter was about ten or twelve inches.
+No head was visible; and from the size of each convolution, I
+supposed the length to be about thirty feet. The master of my
+yacht (who, as navigator, seaman, and fisherman, had known the
+Norwegian coast and North Sea for many years), as well as a
+friend who was with me, an experienced Norwegian sportsman
+and porpoise shooter, saw the same appearance at the same time,
+and formed the same opinion as to form and size. I mention my
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page264">[264]</span>friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed that a shoal
+of porpoises following each other has given rise to the fable, as
+they called it, of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report114"><span class="reportnr"><b>114</b></span>.—1845 or 1846, Summer.—(Copied in the <i>Illustrated
+London News</i> of June, 13, 1857, from the <i>Cape Argus</i> of March,
+14, 1857).</p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—I inclose a letter addressed to me by a friend Dr. Biccard
+(with a drawing) containing an interesting account of the
+sea-serpent seen by him and others off the old lighthouse at the
+entrance of Table Bay on the 16th. of last month. It savours not
+a little of presumption to maintain that such a marine monster
+does exist, in the face of the deliberately recorded opinion of the
+greatest living Zoologist, Professor Owen, yet I venture to do so
+upon the simple testimony of my own eyes. In the year 1845, or
+6, Mr. G. D. Brunette (of St. George’s-street, the conveyancer)
+and myself were fishing at Camp’s Bay one bright, clear summer
+day. There was not a breath of air, and the water was as smooth
+as the surface of a pond. About midday we were leaving the rocks
+to proceed to the marine villa, when Mr. Brunette suddenly
+directed my attention to what he at first thought was a whale. A
+moment’s inspection was sufficient, however, to detect the real
+nature of the animal. At about a mile from the shore we saw a
+line of shining black objects, like a string of large casks, floating
+on the surface of the water, lying parallel with the shore. It kept
+gently bobbing up and down, and on one occasion we saw the
+whole length for a few seconds above the water. Judging from the
+size of an Indiaman, 1000 tons, at a similar distance, I should
+say the animal’s length was from 150 to 200 feet. Of its girth I
+can form no estimate; but, from the show it made at so great a
+distance, it must have been at least three feet above the level of
+the sea. Nor could we distinguish head from tail, though near
+one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth, as though
+the animal was blowing water in a lateral direction. It seemed to
+be basking in the warm sun, with no other motion than that I
+have described, or dipping under occasionally. After watching it
+for about a quarter of an hour we started for the villa, for the
+purpose of borrowing a telescope, but we had scarcely walked ten
+yards when we observed the animal turn slowly round and then
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page265">[265]</span>made off in a straight line to seawards, towards the N.W. It
+moved at a rapid rate; so much so that when we got to the house
+and procured the glass it had reached such a distance that we
+could not distinguish it better than we had done with our naked
+eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving off was undulatory,
+the cask like substances submerging and emerging from time to
+time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them altogether,
+which was about an hour after first seeing the animal. That this
+animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet,
+knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brunette
+nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so
+we said nothing about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at
+my request, furnished me with particulars, for general information,
+of the animal seen by him under such favourable circumstances,
+I am induced to add my own poor testimony to the many facts
+now on record, proving conclusively the existence of a great marine
+saurian or some similar animal. I would point out that a
+gentleman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific attainments is
+not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the six or
+seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at so
+short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by
+a piece of seaweed, or by a seal.”</p>
+
+<p>“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and
+I beg to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on
+the Great Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.”</p>
+
+<p>“Yours, &amp;c.,”
+<span class="righttext"><span class="padr6">“Chas. A. Fairbridge.”</span></span></p>
+
+<p>“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”</p>
+
+<p>The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place
+hereafter, (<a href="#Report130">n°. 130</a>). It is clear enough that we have here an unvarnished
+account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The appearance
+of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large
+casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150
+feet, is surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As
+the animal raised itself at least three feet above the level of the
+sea, its diameter may have been some fifteen feet. The animal
+evidently lay with its nostrils just at water-level, so that in exhaling
+it caused “a foam or froth, as though blowing water in a
+lateral direction”. I think, that the observer was a little mistaken
+as to the direction, which cannot have been quite a lateral one.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page266">[266]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Report115"><span class="reportnr"><b>115</b></span>.—1845, July 28.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1606).</p>
+
+<p>“The Rev. Mr. P. W. Deinbolt, Archdeacon of Molde, gives
+the following account of one, which was seen last summer near
+Molde. The 28th. of July, 1845, J. C. Lund, bookseller and
+printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant; Christian Flang, Lund’s apprentice,
+and John Elgenses, labourer, were out on Romsdale-fjord,
+fishing. The sea was, after a warm, sunshiny day, quite calm.
+About seven o’clock in the afternoon, at a little distance from the
+shore, near the ballast place and Molde Hove, they saw a long
+marine animal, which slowly moved itself forward, as it appeared
+to them, with the help of two fins, on the fore-part of the body
+nearest the head, which they judged by the boiling of the water
+on both sides of it. The visible part of the body appeared to be
+between forty and fifty feet in length, and moved in undulations,
+like a snake. The body was round and of a dark colour, and
+seemed to be several ells (an ell two feet) in thickness. As they
+discerned a waving motion in the water behind the animal, they
+concluded that part of the body was concealed under water. That
+it was one connected animal they saw plainly from its movement.
+When the animal was about one hundred yards from the boat,
+they noticed tolerably correctly its fore-part, which ended in a
+sharp snout; its colossal head raised itself above the water in the
+form of a semi-circle; the lower part was not visible. The colour
+of the head was dark brown and the skin smooth; they did not
+notice the eyes, or any mane or bristles on the throat. When the
+serpent came about a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and
+was certain the shots hit it in the head. After the shot it dived,
+but came up immediately. It raised its neck in the air, like a
+snake preparing to dart on his prey. After he had turned and got
+his body in a straight line, which he appeared to do with great
+difficulty, he darted like an arrow against the boat. They reached
+the shore, and the animal, perceiving it had come into shallow
+water, dived immediately and disappeared in the deep. Such is
+the declaration of these four men, and no one has cause to question
+their veracity, or imagine that they were so seized with fear that
+they could not observe what took place so near them. There are
+not many here, or on other parts of the Norwegian coast, who
+longer doubt the existence of the sea-serpent. The writer of this
+narrative was a long time sceptical, as he had not been so fortunate
+as to see this monster of the deep; but after the many accounts
+he has read, and the relations he has received from credible
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page267">[267]</span>witnesses, he does not dare longer to doubt the existence of the
+sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“P. W. Deinbolt.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl8">“Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”</span></p>
+
+<p>I need scarcely observe that the eye-witnesses of this appearance
+were deceived as to their opinion that the “boiling of the water
+on both sides of the head” was caused by “two fins on the forepart
+of the body, nearest the head”. The two fore-flappers of the
+sea-serpent are situated at rather a great distance from the head.
+The animal has a very long neck. This assertion is proved by their
+own words: “it raised its neck in the air”. If there were two fins
+near the head, large enough to cause any boiling of water, they
+would have been seen then by the persons, who would have mentioned
+them. The so-called boiling of the water was nothing but
+the commonly observed rushing caused by the animal’s motion
+through the water.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report117"><span class="reportnr"><b>117</b></span>.—1846, August 8.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1608).</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“On Saturday, the 8th. inst., in the course between the islands
+of Sartor Leer and Tös, a sea-monster, supposed to be a sea-serpent,
+was seen by several persons. Early on this day as the steamer
+Biörgvin passed through Rognefjord towing a vessel to Bergen,
+Daniel Salomonson, a cotter, saw a sea-monster, whose like he
+declares he never met with although accustomed to the sea and
+its inhabitants from his earliest years. The animal came swimming
+from Rognefjord in a westerly direction towards his dwelling at
+Grönnevigskioeset, in the northern part of the parish of Sund. The
+head appeared like a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) keel
+uppermost, and from behind it raised itself forward in three, and
+sometimes four and five undulations, each apparently about twelve
+feet long: its rate appeared to be that of a light boat rowed by
+four active men. When it reached Grönnevigskioeset at a distance
+of two rifle-shots it turned with considerable noise and continued
+its course towards Lundenoes. Later about eleven o’clock on the
+same day his wife Ingeborg, in Daniel’s absence, heard a loud
+noise in the sea, and she and two little children saw a great sea
+monster, such as described above, take a northerly course, close
+by their place at such a rate that the waves were dashed on the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page268">[268]</span>shore in the same way as when a steamer is passing by. Neither
+of them say that they saw anything like eyes or fins, or indeed
+anything projecting from its round form, but they declare that the
+colour of the animal was dark brown, and that it often rose up
+with gentle undulations, sometimes, however, sinking below the
+surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid course of the
+gigantic body.—On the same morning a lad, by name Abraham
+Abrahamsen Hagenoes, was out fishing in the Rognefjord, not far
+from Lundenoes, and just ready to throw out his line, when he,
+as he asserts, became aware that on about one hundred fathoms a
+monster with a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet
+long) and a long body lay upon the sea like large kegs and was
+nearing his boat: seized with a panic he exerted all his strength
+to reach the shore, and as the animal, apparently following him,
+was only about forty fathoms off, he leaped ashore, drew up the
+boat and ran up the bank, whence he viewed the monster which
+had by this time approached the shore within twenty fathoms. He
+says that that part of the body which was visible was about sixty
+feet in length, and that its undulating course was similar to the
+eel: that the colour of the back was blackish, shining strongly, and
+as far as he could distinguish there was a whitish stripe under
+the belly.”</p>
+
+<p>“Report also says that the sea-serpent was seen by several persons
+in Biornfjord causing a great deal of dread, but of this our informants
+want authentic accounts. Our informant further says that
+he has no reason whatever to doubt the truth of the story of the
+man and his wife, or the truthworthiness of the lad Abraham,
+except as far as that his fears may have caused him to see several
+things through a magnifying glass.”</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that by a head as large as a Foering boat
+(about twenty feet long) must be meant the head and a great
+part of the neck. The other characters are mere repetitions of what
+we have so often observed. Very interesting again is the statement
+of the lad that the animal had a white stripe “under the belly”.
+As the lad cannot have seen the proper belly of the animal, it
+must have been the throat; the boy thought that he saw a snake,
+and I think that he, being questioned, would tell me that a
+snake has a head, a trunk and a tail, and hardly any neck and
+throat. I am also convinced, that the boy has not seen with a
+magnifying glass: the measurements, he gives, are not exaggerated.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page269">[269]</span></p>
+
+<p>In 1847, Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newmann</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>
+had the courage to open the columns of his Journal to all kinds
+of reports and discussions about the great sea-serpent. He says
+(p. 1604):</p>
+
+<p>“It has been the fashion for so many years to deride all records
+of this very celebrated monster, that it is not without hesitation I
+venture to quote the following paragraphs in his defence. A month
+only has elapsed since I had occasion to quote with approbation,
+a very marked passage from the pen of Sir J. W. Hershell (Zool.
+1586): I may apply it with equal propriety to the enquiry of the
+era of the Irish deer, or of the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent.
+Naturalists, or rather those who choose thus to designate themselves,
+set up an authority above that of fact and observation, the
+gist of their enquiries is whether such things <i>ought to be</i>, and
+whether such things <i>ought not to be</i>; now fact-naturalists take a
+different road to knowledge, they enquire whether such things
+<i>are</i> and whether such things <i>are not</i>. The <i>Zoologist</i>, if not in
+itself the fountain-head of this <i>fact</i> movement, may at least claim
+to be the only public advocate of that movement; and it is therefore
+most desirable, that it should call the attention of its readers
+to the following remarkable paragraphs. They are quoted from one
+of our daily papers, which gives them as literal translations from
+the Norse papers, in which they originally appeared; the localities
+mentioned are intimately known to all travellers in Norway; and
+the witnesses are generally highly respectable and of unimpeachable
+veracity. The very discrepancies in the accounts prove the
+entire absence of any preconcerted scheme of deception. The only
+question therefore for the fact-naturalists to decide, is simply,
+whether all of the records now collected, can refer to whales,
+fishes, or any other marine animals with which we are at present
+acquainted.”</p>
+
+<p>I have no reason to doubt Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>’s veracity, and so I am
+willing to believe that the five reports which follow this introduction
+“are quoted from one of” the British “daily papers, which gives
+them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they
+originally appeared”. I only ask why Mr. <span class="smcap">Newmann</span> did not mention
+the daily paper? For the assertion of this daily paper that they
+are “literal translations from <i>Norse</i> papers in which they originally
+appeared” is at all events a fabrication, as the reports which Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Newman</span> published here are the evidences which Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich
+Rathke</span> took, when on a journey in Norway, near Christiansund,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page270">[270]</span>apparently in the year 1840, and which he published in the <i>Archiv
+für Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841, six years later! I have inserted them
+above (<a href="#Report90">n°. 90</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>,
+<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>). As to the “discrepancies in
+the accounts” I have already showed that there are, in fact,
+hardly any discrepancies, but that the accounts complete one another.
+I must also observe here that the accounts are not translated
+<i>literally</i>. Many, and among them very interesting passages, are
+omitted. The reader, who will convince himself of the truth of
+my assertion, has only to compare the accounts, as they are inserted
+in the <i>Zoologist</i> with my translations of the German originals, or
+with the originals themselves.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, too, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, 1860,
+writes: “The public papers of Norway, during the summer of 1846,
+were occupied with statements of the following effect”, and he too
+publishes extracts from the evidences printed in the <i>Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841!</p>
+
+<p>Also Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, 1883, says: “In
+1847 there appeared in a London daily paper a long account
+translated from the Norse journals of fresh appearances of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>And Mr. <span class="smcap">John Ashton</span> in his <i>Curious Creatures in Zoology</i>,
+1889, asserts: “In 1847 a sea-serpent was seen frequently in the
+neighbourhood of Christiansund and Molde, by many persons, and
+by one Lars Johnöen, fisherman at Smölen, especially.”</p>
+
+<p>All these writers have copied Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, and have therefore
+quite overlooked the fact that the originals were in the <i>Archiv für
+Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841, and that the appearances took place long
+before the year 1847!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The last number of the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1847 appeared in October
+of that year. The reader must know that the matter of this journal
+is arranged according to the class of the animals, treated of in each
+article. This I must mention for the better understanding of the
+following passage which Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> wrote in his preface to the
+above mentioned volume of the <i>Zoologist</i>.</p>
+
+<p>“In Reptiles, the communications and quotations about “the
+Sea-Serpent” are well worthy of attentive perusal: it is impossible
+to suppose all the records bearing this title to be fabricated for
+the purpose of deception. A natural phenomenon of some kind has
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page271">[271]</span>been witnessed: let us seek a satisfactory solution rather than
+terminate enquiry by the shafts of ridicule. The grave and learned
+have often avowed a belief that toads can exist some thousands of
+years without food, light or air, and immured in solid stone:
+surely it is not requiring too much to solicit a suspension of judgment
+on the question whether a monster may exist in the sea
+which does not adorn our collections.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, viz. believed that the sea-serpent belonged to the
+class of Reptiles. The “communications and quotations” spoken of
+here, have already been inserted above (<a href="#Report25">n°. 25</a>, <a href="#Report90">90</a>,
+<a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>,
+<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>,
+<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, 116, <a href="#Report11">117</a>.).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report118"><span class="reportnr"><b>118</b></span>.—1848, August 6.—No report of the sea-serpent has
+ever more shaken the incredulity of hundreds and thousands than
+that generally known as the account of the <i>Daedalus</i>, after the
+frigate from which the sea-serpent was seen.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Times</i> newspaper of October, 9, 1848, published the following
+paragraph:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Intelligence from Plymouth, dated 7 Oct.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“When the <i>Daedalus</i> frigate, Captain M’Quhae, which arrived at
+Plymouth on the 4th. instant, was on her passage home from the
+East Indies, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, her
+captain, and most of her officers and crew, at four o’clock one
+afternoon, saw a sea-serpent. The creature was twenty minutes in
+sight of the frigate, and passed under her quarter. Its head appeared
+to be about four feet out of the water, and there was
+about sixty feet of its body in a straight line on the surface. It
+is calculated that there must have been under water a length of
+thirty-three or forty feet more, by which it propelled itself at the
+rate of fifteen miles an hour. The diameter of the exposed part of
+the body was about sixteen inches; and when it extended its jaws,
+which were full of large jagged teeth, they seemed sufficiently
+capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between them”.</p>
+
+<p>The Admiralty instantly inquired into the truth of the statement,
+and in the <i>Times</i> of the 13th. the gallant captain’s official reply
+was published in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus,</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">Hamoaze, <i>Oct. 11</i>.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—In reply to your letter of this date, requiring information
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page272">[272]</span>as to the truth of a statement published in <i>The Times</i> newspaper,
+of a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions having been
+seen from Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>, under my command, on
+her passage from the East Indies, I have the honour to acquaint
+you, for the information of my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty,
+that at five o’clock P. M., on the 6th. of August last,
+in latitude 24° 44′ S., and longitude 9° 22′ E., the weather dark
+and cloudy, wind fresh from the N. W., with a long ocean swell
+from the S. W., the ship on the port tack heading N. E. by N.,
+something very unusual was seen by Mr. Sartoris, midshipman,
+rapidly approaching the ship from before the beam. The circumstance
+was immediately reported by him to the officer of the watch,
+Lieutenant Edgar Drummond, with whom and Mr. William Barrett,
+the master, I was at the time walking the quarterdeck. The
+ship’s company were at supper.”</p>
+
+<p>“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered
+to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about
+four feet constantly above the surface of the sea, and, as nearly
+as we could approximate, by comparing it with the length of what
+our main-topsail yard would show in the water, there was at the
+very least sixty feet of the animal <i>à fleur d’eau</i>, no portion of
+which was, to our perception, used in propelling it through the
+water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation. It passed rapidly,
+but so close under our lee quarter, that had it been a man of
+my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his features with
+the naked eye; and it did not, either in approaching the ship or
+after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from
+its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace of from
+twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on some determined
+purpose.”</p>
+
+<p>“The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches
+behind the head, which was, without any doubt, that of a snake;
+and it was never, during the twenty minutes that it continued in
+sight of our glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour
+a dark brown, with yellowish white about the throat. It had no
+fins, but something like a mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of
+seaweed, washed about its back. It was seen by the quartermaster,
+the boatswain’s mate, and the man at the wheel, in addition to
+myself and officers above-mentioned.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken
+immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page273">[273]</span>transmission to my Lords Commissioners
+of the Admiralty by to-morrow’s post.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“To Admiral Sir W. H. Gage, G. C. H., Devonport.”</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Literary Gazette</i> of Oct. 21st.,
+1848, the Editor published an engraving
+of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>’s representation, and adds
+some accompanying conclusions, appended
+to copious extracts from the learned Bishop’s
+work:</p>
+
+<p>“We have now only to point to the very
+remarkable resemblance between Captain
+M’Quhae and Pontoppidan’s description.
+One might fancy the galant Captain had
+read the old Dane, and was copying him,
+when he tells of the dark brown colour
+and white about the throat, and the neck
+clothed as if by a horse’s mane or a bunch
+of sea-weed—the exact words of the historian.
+This snake, however, did not seem
+to care for the fresh wind and ruffish weather,
+but kept, as in the calm, its head several
+feet above the water, and stretched out its
+length so as to be visible for some sixty
+or eighty feet. The motion was not perceptibly
+impelled by vermicular or lent-serpent
+action! Had it then large fins? There must
+be some power. The picture engraved in
+the folio represents it like a series of six
+barrels, or risings, with the intermediate
+parts under the sea.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig28">
+<img src="images/illo273.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 28.—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the officers of the Daedalus.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct.
+28st. was reprinted all that has been mentioned
+above, and there appeared three representations
+of the sea-serpent, as seen from
+the <i>Daedalus</i>, which I here show my readers
+in <a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a> and <a href="#Fig30">30</a>, omitting, however, the
+ship’s stern, because the drawings would be
+too large for our pages. The Editor of the <i>Illustrated
+London News</i> adds:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page274">[274]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The drawings above-named have been received by the Lord Commissioners
+to the Admiralty, and by the courtesy of Capt. M’Quhae,
+our artist has been permitted to copy this pictorial evidence, as
+well as further to illustrate the appearance of the Serpent, under
+the supervision of Captain M’Quhae,
+and with his approval of the Authenticity
+of their details as to position
+and form.”</p>
+
+<p>On the 28th. of October Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, the officer of the
+watch, mentioned in the report of
+Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, published his own
+impressions of the animal, in the form
+of an extract from his own journal.
+As far as I can discover it did not
+appear before the 1st. of December,
+in the <i>Zoologist</i> (p. 2306) and runs
+as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“I beg to send you the following
+extract from my journal.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig29">
+<img src="images/illo274.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 29.—Another sketch of the same individual.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>, August, 6,
+1848, lat. 25° S., long 9° 37′ E., St.,
+Helena 1015 miles. In the 4 to 6
+watch, at about five o’clock, we observed
+a most remarkable fish on our
+lee quarter, crossing the stern in a
+S. W. direction; the appearance of its
+head, which, with the back fin, was
+the only portion of the animal visible,
+was long, pointed, and flattened at
+the top, perhaps ten feet in length,
+the upper jaw projecting considerably;
+the fin was perhaps twenty feet in
+the rear of the head, and visible occasionally;
+the captain also asserted
+that he saw the tail, or another fin
+about the same distance behind it;
+the upper part of the head and shoulders
+appeared of a dark brown colour,
+and beneath the under jaw a brownish
+white. It pursued a steady undeviating
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page275">[275]</span>course, keeping its head horizontal with the surface of the
+water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally
+beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for
+purposes of respiration. It was going at the rate of perhaps from
+twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest, was perhaps
+one hundred yards distant. In fact it gave one quite the idea of a
+large snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen anything
+similar, so it is at least extraordinary. It was visible to the naked
+eye for five minutes, and with a glass for perhaps fifteen more.
+The weather was dark and squally at the time, with some sea
+running.”</p>
+
+<p>The following article appeared in the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 2d.:</p>
+
+<p>“Amidst the numerous suggestions of those of your correspondents
+who are disposed to admit the account given by Captain M’Quhae
+of the marine monster seen by him and several of his brother
+officers, on the 6th. of August last, as not altogether imaginary,
+it appears surprising that it should not have occurred to any one
+to suggest an explanation of some apparent anomalies in the
+account, which have no doubt tended to stagger the belief even of
+some readers who are not disposed to assume (any more than myself)
+that a number of officers in Her Majesty’s navy would
+deliberately invent a falsehood, or could have been deceived in an
+appearance which they describe with such precise details”</p>
+
+<p>“One of the greatest difficulties on the face of the narrative and
+which must be allowed to destroy the analogy of the motions of
+the so called “sea-serpent” with those of all known snakes and
+anguilliform fishes, is that no less than sixty feet of the animal
+were seen advancing <i>à fleur d’eau</i> at the rate of from twelve to
+fifteen miles an hour, without it being possible to perceive, upon
+the closest and most attentive inspection, any undulatory motion
+to which its rapid advance could be ascribed. It need scarcely be
+observed that neither an eel nor a snake, if either of those animals
+could swim at all with the neck elevated, could do so without the
+front part of its body being thrown into undulation by the propulsive
+efforts of its tail.”</p>
+
+<p>“But, it may be asked, if the animal seen by Captain M’Quhae
+was not allied to the snakes or to the eels, to what class of
+animals could it have belonged? To this I would reply, that it
+appears more likely that the enormous reptile in question was
+allied to the gigantic Saurians, hitherto believed only to exist in
+the fossil state, and, among them, to the Plesiosaurus.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page276">[276]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig30">
+<img src="images/illo276.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 30.—A sketch of the head of the same individual.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“From the known anatomical characters of the <i>Plesiosauri</i>, derived
+from the examination of their organic remains, geologists are
+agreed in the inference that those animals carried their necks
+(which must have resembled the bodies of serpents) above the
+water, while their progression was effected by large paddles working
+beneath—the short but stout tail acting the part of a rudder.
+It would be superfluous to point out how closely the surmises of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page277">[277]</span>philosophers resemble, in these particulars, the description of the
+eye-witnesses of the living animal, as given in the letter and drawings
+of Captain M’Quhae. In the latter we have many of the
+external characters of the former, as predicated from the examination
+of the skeleton. The short head, the serpent-like neck, carried
+several feet above the water, forcibly recall the idea conceived of
+the extinct animal; and even the bristly mane in certain parts of
+the back, so unlike anything found in serpents, has its analogy
+in the <i>Iguana</i>, to which animal the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> has been compared
+by some geologists. But I would most of all insist upon the peculiarity
+of the animal’s progression, which could only have been
+effected with the evenness, and at the rate described, by an apparatus
+of fins or paddles, not possessed by serpents, but existing
+in the highest perfection in the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>.”—F. G. S.—</p>
+
+<p>In the number of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of November 4,
+1848, the letter of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> was published in which he
+expresses his special approbation of the figures:</p>
+
+<p>“I have observed with very great satisfaction the Engravings of
+the “Sea-Serpent” in the Illustrated London News of the 28th.
+inst.; they most faithfully represent the appearance of the animal,
+as seen from Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i> on the 6th. of August
+last; and it is evident that much care has been bestowed upon
+the subject by the artist employed, to whom I beg to acknowledge
+myself greatly indebted for the patience and attention with which
+he listened to the various alterations suggested by me during the
+progress of the drawings.”</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 4th., we find the following remark:</p>
+
+<p>“As some interest has been excited by the alleged appearance
+of a sea-serpent, I venture to transmit a few remarks on the subject,
+which you may or not may think worthy of insertion in your
+columns. There does not appear to be a single well authenticated
+instance of these monsters having been seen in any southern latitudes;
+but in the north of Europe, notwithstanding the fabulous
+character so long ascribed to Pontoppidan’s description, I am convinced
+that they both exist and are frequently seen. During three
+summers spent in Norway I have repeatedly conversed with the
+natives on this subject.”</p>
+
+<p>Here follow the descriptions of two appearances which I have
+inserted above, (<a href="#Report109">n<sup>o</sup>. 109</a>, <a href="#Report110">110</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“They expressed great surprise at the general disbelief attaching
+to the existence of these animals amongst naturalists, and assured
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page278">[278]</span>me that there was scarcely a sailor accustomed to those inland
+lakes, who had not seen them at one time or another.”—<span class="smcap">Oxoniensis.</span></p>
+
+<p>An unknown writer in one of the daily papers, after suggesting,
+whether the animals in question might not be full grown specimens
+of the <i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i> of Dr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> (described in the
+<i>Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History</i>, for March,
+1824), or of the <i>Ophiognathus ampullaceus</i> of Dr. <span class="smcap">Harwood</span> (<i>Phil.
+Trans.</i>, 1827), gives Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> the benefit of a further
+conjecture, viz., whether some land species, as the boas, among
+which are individuals “forty feet” in length, may not sometimes
+betake themselves to the sea, or even “transport themselves from
+one continent to another.” (See <i>Zoologist</i>, 1848; p. 2320).</p>
+
+<p>Some days after the figures of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> were published,
+a nobleman, whose name is not mentioned, wrote to Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>
+to know his opinion about the animal seen by the Captain. The
+Professor, it would seem, did not answer the nobleman directly,
+but sent his answer to the Editor of the <i>Times</i>, evidently with a
+view of bringing his opinion under the eyes of thousands. This
+letter is too important to be abridged; I therefore give it in extenso;
+it appeared in the <i>Times</i> of November 11, 1848.</p>
+
+
+<p class="center"><i>The Great Sea-Serpent.</i></p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—Subjoined is the answer to a question relative to the
+animal seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>, addressed to me by a nobleman
+distinguished in literature, and taking much interest in science.”</p>
+
+<p>“As it contains the substance of the explanation I have endeavoured
+to give to numerous inquirers, in the Hunterian Museum
+and elsewhere, and as I continue to receive many applications for
+my opinion of the “Great Sea Serpent,” I am desirous to give it
+once for all through the medium of your columns, if space of such
+value may be allotted to it.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr18">“Richard Owen.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr24">“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“The sketch (this was a reduced copy of the drawing of the
+head of the animal seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>; attached to the
+submerged body of a large seal, showing the long eddy produced
+by the action of the terminal flippers) will suggest the reply to
+your query, “Whether the monster seen from the <i>Daedalus</i> be
+anything but a saurian?” If it be the true answer, it destroys
+the romance of the incident, and will be anything but acceptable
+to those who prefer the excitement of the imagination to the satisfaction
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page279">[279]</span>of the judgment. I am far from insensible to the pleasures
+of the discovery of a new and rare animal; but before I can enjoy
+them, certain conditions—e. g. reasonable proof or evidence of
+its existence—must be fulfilled. I am also far from undervaluing
+the information which Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> has given us of what he
+saw. When fairly analized, it lies in a small compass, but my
+knowledge of the animal kingdom compels me to draw other conclusions
+from the phenomena than those which the gallant captain
+seems to have jumped at. He evidently saw a large animal moving
+through the water, very different from anything he had before
+witnessed—neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an alligator,
+nor any of the larger surface swimming creatures which are
+fallen in with in ordinary voyages. He writes—“On our attention
+being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous
+serpent” (read “animal”), “with the head and shoulders kept
+about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter
+of the serpent” (animal) “was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind
+the head; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish white about the
+throat”. No fins were seen (the captain says there were none; but
+from his own account, he did not see enough of the animal to prove
+the negative). “Something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch
+of sea-weed, washed about its back.” So much of the body as was
+seen was “not used in propelling the animal through the water, either
+by vertical or horizontal undulation.” A calculation of its length
+was made under a strong preconception of the nature of the
+beast. The head, e. g., is stated to be, “without any doubt,
+that of a snake;” and yet a snake would be the last species to
+which a naturalist conversant with the forms and characters of the
+heads of animals, would refer such a head as that of which Captain
+M’Quhae has transmitted a drawing to the Admirality, and
+which he certifies to have been accurately copied in the <i>Illustrated
+London News</i> for October 28, 1848, p. 265. Your Lordship will
+observe that no sooner was the captain’s attention called to the
+object, than “it was discovered to be an enormous serpent”, and
+yet the closest inspection of as much of the body as was visible,
+<i>à fleur d’eau</i>, failed to detect any undulations of the body, although
+such actions constitute the very character which would distinguish
+a serpent or serpentiform swimmer from any other marine species.
+The foregone conclusion, therefore, of the beast’s being a sea-serpent,
+notwithstanding its capacious vaulted cranium, and stiff,
+inflexible trunk, must be kept in mind in estimating the value of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page280">[280]</span>the approximation made to the total length of the animal, as “(at
+the very least) sixty feet”. This is the only part of the description,
+however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as to be inadmissible,
+in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as to the nature
+of the animal. The more certain characters of the animal are
+these:—Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short
+obtuse muzzle, gape of the mouth not extending further than to
+beneath the eye, which is rather small, round, filling closely the
+palpebral aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white
+beneath; surface smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous
+modifications or hard and naked cuticle. And the captain says,
+“Had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should have easily
+recognized his features with my naked eye.” Nostrils not mentioned,
+but indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of
+the nose or muzzle. All these are the characters of the head of a
+warm-blooded mammal—none of them those of a cold-blooded
+reptile or fish. Body long, dark brown, not undulating, without
+dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of a
+horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.”
+The character of the integuments would be a most important one
+for the zoologist in the determination to the class to which the
+above defined creature belonged. If an opinion can be deduced as
+to the integuments from the above indication, it is that the species
+had hair, which, if it was too short and close to be distinguished
+on the head, was visible where it usually is the longest,
+on the middle line of the shoulders or advanced part of the back,
+where it was not stiff and upright like the rays of a fin, but
+“washed about.” Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane
+of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetaceous
+mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large
+size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24°
+44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east—viz. about three hundred
+miles from the western shore of the southern end of Afrika? The
+most likely species to be there met with are the largest of the
+seal tribe, <i>e. g.</i> Anson’s sea lion, or that known to the southern
+whalers by the name of the sea-elephant, the <i>Phoca proboscidea</i>,
+which attains the length of from twenty to thirty feet. These great
+seals abound in certain of the islands of the southern and antarctic
+seas, from which an individual is occasionally floated off upon an
+iceberg. The sea lion exhibited in London last spring, which was
+a young individual of the <i>Phoca proboscidea</i> was actually captured
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page281">[281]</span>in that predicament; having been carried by the currents that set
+northwards towards the Cape, where its temporary resting-place
+was rapidly melting away. When a large individual of the <i>Phoca
+proboscidea</i> or <i>Phoca leonina</i> is thus borne off to a distance from
+its native shore, it is compelled to return for rest to its floating
+abode, after it has made its daily excursions in quest of the fishes
+or squids that constitute its food. It is thus brought by the iceberg
+into the latitudes of the Cape, and perhaps farther north, before
+the berg was melted away. Then the poor seal is compelled to
+swim as long as strength endures, and in such a predicament I
+imagine the creature was that Mr. Sartoris saw rapidly approaching
+the <i>Daedalus</i> from before the beam, scanning, probably, its
+capabilities as a resting-place, as it paddled its long stiff body
+past the ship. In so doing, it would raise a head of the form and
+colour described and delineated by Captain M’Quhae, supported
+on a neck also of the diameter given; the thick neck passing into
+an inflexible trunk, the longer and coarser hair on the upper part
+of which would give rise to the idea, especially if the species
+were the <i>Phoca leonina</i>, explained by the similes above cited. The
+organs of locomotion would be out of sight. The pectoral fins being
+set on very low down, as in my sketch, the chief impelling force
+would be the action of the deeper immersed terminal fins and
+tail, which would create a long eddy, readily mistakable, by one
+looking at the strange phenomenon with a sea-serpent in his mind’s
+eye, for an indefinite prolongation of the body.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is very probable, that not one on board the <i>Daedalus</i> ever
+before beheld a gigantic seal freely swimming in the open ocean.
+Entering unexpectedly from that vast and commonly blank desert
+of waters, it would be a strange and exciting spectacle, and might
+well be interpreted as a marvel; but the creative powers of the
+human mind appear to be really very limited, and, on all the
+occasions where the true source of the “great unknown” has been
+detected—whether it has proved to be a file of sportive porpoises,
+or a pair of gigantic sharks—old Pontoppidan’s sea-serpent with
+the mane has uniformly suggested itself as the representative of
+the portent, until the mystery has been unravelled.”</p>
+
+<p>“The vertebrae of the sea-serpent described and delineated in the
+<i>Wernerian Transactions</i>, vol. I., and sworn to by the fishermen
+who saw it off the Isle of Stronsa (one of the Orkneys), in 1808,
+two of which vertebrae are in the Museum of the College of
+Surgeons, are certainly those of a great shark, of the genus
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page282">[282]</span><i>Selache</i>, and are not distinguishable from those of the species
+called “basking-shark”, of which individuals from thirty to thirty-five
+feet in length have been from time to time captured or
+stranded on our coasts.”</p>
+
+<p>“I have no unmeet confidence in the exactitude of my interpretation
+of the phenomena witnessed by the captain and others of
+the <i>Daedalus</i>. I am too sensible of the inadequacy of the characters
+which the opportunity of a rapidly passing animal, “in a long
+ocean swell”, enabled them to note, for the determination of its
+species or genus. Giving due credence to the most probably accurate
+elements of their description, they do little more than guide
+the zoologist to the class, which, in the present instance, is not
+that of the serpent or the saurian.”</p>
+
+<p>“But I am usually asked, after each endeavour to explain Captain
+M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, “Why should there not be a great
+sea-serpent?”—often, too, in a tone which seems to imply, “Do
+you think, then, there are not more marvels in the deep, than
+are dreamt of in your philosophy?” And, freely conceding that
+point, I have felt bound to give a reason for scepticism as well as
+faith. If a gigantic sea-serpent actually exists, the species must, of
+course, have been perpetuated through successive generations, from
+its first creation and introduction into the seas of this planet.
+Conceive, then, the number of individuals that must have lived,
+and died, and have left their remains to attest the actuality of
+the species during the enormous lapse of time, from its beginning,
+to the 6th. of August last! Now, a serpent, being an air
+breathing animal, with long vesicular and receptacular lungs, dives
+with an effort and commonly floats when dead; and so would the
+sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident had opened the tough
+integument, and let out the imprisoned gases. Then it would
+sink, and, if in deep water, be seen no more until the sea rendered
+up its dead, after the lapse of the aeons requisite for the
+yielding of its place to dry land,—a change which has actually
+revealed to the present generation the old saurian monsters that
+were entombed at the bottom of the ocean, of the secondary geological
+periods of our earth’s history. During life the exigencies of
+the respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel him
+frequently to the surface; and when dead and swollen—</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,”</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p class="noindent">he would</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“Lie floating many a rood; in bulk as huge,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,<span class="pagenum" id="Page283">[283]</span></div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove.”</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has
+not hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who
+have traversed the seas in so many directions. Considering, too,
+the tides and currents of the ocean, it seems still more reasonable
+to suppose that the dead sea-serpent would be occasionally cast on
+shore. However, I do not ask for the entire carcase. The structure
+of the back-bone of the serpent tribe is so peculiar, that a single
+vertebra would suffice to determine the existence of the hypothetical
+Ophidian; and this will not be deemed an unreasonable request,
+when it is remembered that the vertebrae are more numerous in
+serpents than in any other animals. Such large blanched and scattered
+bones on any sea-shore, would be likely to attract even common
+curiosity; yet there is no vertebra of a serpent larger than
+the ordinary pythons and boas in any museum in Europe.”</p>
+
+<p>“Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more
+acute naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén), than
+those of Norway. Krakens and sea serpents ought to have been
+living and dying thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time
+to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed
+a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector;
+whilst the great denizens of those seas have been by no means so
+chary. No museums, in fact, are so rich in skeletons, skulls, bones
+and teeth of the numerous kind of whales, cachelots, grampuses,
+walrusses, sea unicorns, seals, etc., as those of Denmark, Norway,
+and Sweden; but of any large marine nondescript or indeterminable
+monster they cannot show a trace.”</p>
+
+<p>“I have inquired repeatedly whether the natural history collections
+of Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities of the United States,
+might possess any unusually large ophidian vertebrae or any of
+such peculiar form as to indicate some large and unknown marine
+animal; but they have received no such specimens.”</p>
+
+<p>“The frequency with which the sea-serpent has been supposed
+to have appeared near the shores and harbours of the United States,
+has led to its being specified as the “American sea-serpent;” yet,
+out of the two hundred vertebrae of every individual that should
+have lived and died in the Atlantic since the creation of the species,
+not one has yet been picked up on the shores of America.
+The diminutive snake, less than a yard in length, “killed upon
+the sea-shore”, apparently beaten to death, “by some labouring
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page284">[284]</span>people of Cape Ann,” United States (see the 8vo pamphlet, 1817,
+Boston, page 38), and figured in the <i>Illustrated London News</i>,
+October 28, 1848, from the original American memoir, by no
+means satisfies the conditions of the problem. Neither does the
+<i>Saccopharynx</i> of Mitchill, nor the <i>Ophiognathus</i> of Harwood—the
+one four and a half feet, the other six feet long: both are
+surpassed by some of the congers of our own coasts, and, like
+other muraenoid fishes and the known small sea snake (<i>Hydrophis</i>),
+swim by undulatory movements of the body.”</p>
+
+<p>“The fossil vertebrae and skull which were exhibited by Mr.
+Koch, in New York and Boston, as those of the great sea-serpent,
+and which are now in Berlin, belonged to different individuals of
+a species which I had previously proved to be an extinct whale;
+a determination which has subsequently been confirmed by Professors
+Müller and Agassiz. Mr. Dixon of Worthing has discovered
+many fossil vertebrae, in the Eocene tertiary clay at Bracklesham,
+which belong to a larger species of an extinct genus of serpent
+(<i>Palaeophis</i>), founded on similar vertebrae from the same formation
+in the Isle of Sheppey. The largest of these ancient British snakes
+was twenty feet in length; but there is no evidence that they
+were marine.”</p>
+
+<p>“The sea saurians of the secondary periods of geology have been
+replaced in the tertiary and actual seas by marine mammals. No
+remains of <i>Cetacea</i> have been found in lias or oolite, and no remains
+of Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur, or any other secondary reptile,
+have been found in Eocene or later tertiary deposits, or recent,
+on the actual sea-shores; and that the old air-breathing saurians
+floated when they died has been shown in the <i>Geological Transactions</i>
+(vol. V., second series, p. 512). The inference that may
+reasonably be drawn from no recent carcase or fragment of such
+having ever been discovered, is strengthened by the corresponding
+absence of any trace of their remains in the tertiary beds.”</p>
+
+<p>“Now, on weighing the question, whether creatures meriting
+the name of “great sea serpent” do exist, or whether any of the
+gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits may have continued
+to live up to the present time, it seems to me less probable
+that no part of the carcase of such reptiles should have ever
+been discovered in a recent or unfossilized state, than that men
+should have been deceived by a cursory view of a partly submerged
+and rapidly moving animal, which might only be strange to themselves.
+In other words, I regard the negative evidence from the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page285">[285]</span>utter absence of any of the recent remains of great sea serpents,
+krakens, or <i>Enaliosauria</i>, as stronger against their actual existence,
+than the positive statements which have hitherto weighed with the
+public mind in favour of their existence. A larger body of evidence
+from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than
+of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>What speaks for itself, this letter appeared in several journals
+and newspapers. So I have found it in the <i>Annals and Magazine
+of Natural History</i>, 2d. Ser. Vol. II, p. 458 (15? Nov. 1848), in
+<span class="smcap">Galignani</span>’s <i>Messenger</i> of Nov. 23, 1848, in the <i>Illustrated London
+News</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, and in the <i>Zoologist</i>, of Nov. 27, 1848.
+As it came from such a quarter it is not surprising that many
+persons were willing to acquiesce in the decision.</p>
+
+<p>Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, however, promptly replied to Professor <span class="smcap">Owen</span>.
+His answer was also addressed to the Editor of the <i>Times</i> (<i>Times</i>,
+Nov. 21, 1848):</p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—Will you do me the very great favour to give a place
+in your widely-circulating columns to the following reply to the
+animadversions of Professor Owen on the serpent or animal seen
+by me and others from Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i> on the 6th.
+of August last, and which were published in the Times of the
+14th. inst.?</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr18">“I am, Sir, your obedient servant</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“P. M’Quhae.</span><br>
+“Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>“London, November 18.</p>
+
+<p>“Professor Owen correctly states that I “evidently saw a large
+creature moving rapidly through the water very different from
+anything I had before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a
+great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming
+creatures fallen in with in ordinary voyages”. I now assert, neither
+was it a common seal nor a sea elephant; its great length, and
+its totally differing physiognomy, precluding the possibility of its
+being a <i>Phoca</i> of any species. The head was flat, and not a
+“capacious vaulted cranium;” nor had it “a stiff inflexible trunk”—a
+conclusion to which Professor Owen has jumped, most certainly
+not justified by the simple statement, that “no portion of the
+sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it through the water,
+either by vertical or horizontal undulation.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is also assumed that the “calculation of its length was made
+under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;” another
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page286">[286]</span>conclusion quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the
+great length was developed by its nearest approach to the ship,
+and until after that most important point had been duly considered
+and debated, as well as such could be in the brief space of time
+allowed for so doing, that it was pronounced to be a serpent by
+all who saw it, and who are too well accustomed to judge of
+lengths and breadths of objects in the sea to mistake a real substance
+and an actual living body, coolly and dispassionately contemplated,
+at so short a distance too, for the “eddy caused by
+the action of the deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly moving
+gigantic seal raising its head above the water,” as Professor
+Owen imagines, “in quest of its lost iceberg.””</p>
+
+<p>“The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited.
+On this occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose
+and desire being, throughout, to furnish eminent naturalists, such
+as the learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated
+representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed
+from optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan’s
+having clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have
+suggested the idea of ornamenting the creature seen from the
+<i>Daedalus</i> with a similar appendage, for the simple reason that I
+had never seen his account, or even heard of his sea-serpent,
+until my arrival in London. Some other solution must therefore
+be found for the very remarkable coincidence between us in that
+particular, in order to unravel the mystery.”</p>
+
+<p>“Finally, I deny the existence of excitement, or the possibility
+of optical illusion. I adhere to the statement, as to form, colour,
+and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty;
+and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific
+may exercise the “pleasures of imagination” until some more
+fortunate opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance
+with the “great unknown”,—in the present instance assuredly
+no ghost.”</p>
+
+<p>It also appeared in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Nov. 25
+1848.</p>
+
+<p>And a gentleman, who signed his letter with the initials J. C.,
+wrote a letter to the Editor of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> (see
+this Journal of Nov. 25, 1848) to rectify another statement of the
+learned Professor:</p>
+
+<p>“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain
+M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite satisfactory
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page287">[287]</span>as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt
+we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my
+object in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to
+by Mr. Owen, in his letter to the Editor of the <i>Times</i>, of November
+9th., that it was <i>not</i> of the serpent species, because “they
+failed to detect any undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of
+there being “no vertical or horizontal undulations perceptible”
+stamps the character of the animal; for it is well known by all
+observers of snakes in India, that when the animal is in chase of
+game, small or great, or when scared away, and moving at a
+<i>rapid</i> pace, he is propelled entirely by the tail, or the smaller
+half of the body, while the other portion, with a curve of the
+head, is kept quite <i>stiff</i>—and this exactly corresponds with the
+Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to fifteen
+miles an hour, <i>apparently on some determined purpose</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>In May, 1854, Dr. <span class="smcap">T. S. Traill</span> read a paper before the Royal
+Society of Edinburgh, comparing the animal of the <i>Daedalus</i>, with
+the Animal of Stronsa. The part of his dissertation concerning the
+present occurrence runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“In their statements there are no suspicious affectations of minute
+detail. Their simple narrative appears to deserve more attention
+than it has yet received from naturalists; and I strongly incline
+to the belief, that the animal seen by the crew of the <i>Daedalus</i>
+was an analogue of, if not the very same species, as the animal
+cast ashore in Orkney in 1808.”</p>
+
+<p>“Considering the derision with which, in this country, the subject
+of the sea-serpent has been treated, and the ridicule attempted
+to be thrown on all who were bold enough to assert that they had
+seen such an animal, nothing but a consciousness of his unimpeachable
+veracity could have tempted the gallant Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>
+to encounter the sneers of his incredulous countrymen. From all
+I have heard of his character for sagacity and veracity, from those
+who intimately knew him, I have not the smallest doubt that he
+has faithfully described what he and his crew saw distinctly, and
+at a short distance from the ship.”</p>
+
+<p>“It was seen rapidly approaching before the <i>beam</i>.” Captain M’Quhae
+says: “On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered
+to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about
+four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of
+the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head;
+its colour of a dark brown, with yellowish-white about the throat.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page288">[288]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The Captain could discover no fins, but “something like the
+mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about
+its back.” He thought that its head did certainly resemble that
+of a snake; but the drawing which he transmitted to the Admiralty
+has not, to the eye of a naturalist, the form of that of any
+snake. The figure published in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> for
+October 28, 1848, is said to be an accurate copy of that drawing.”</p>
+
+<p>“Captain M’Quhae estimates the length of its body at the surface
+of the water, “<i>à fleur d’eau</i>, at the very least equal to sixty
+feet, no part of which was to our perception used in propelling
+it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations.
+It passed rapidly, but so close under our quarter, that had it been
+a man of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his
+features with the naked eye, and it did not, either in approaching
+the ship, or after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest
+degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace
+of twelve or fifteen miles an hour, apparently on some determined
+purpose.””</p>
+
+<p>“If we may judge from the engraving, the cranium is very
+convex, of moderate size, with a short obtuse muzzle, a mouth
+reaching beyond the eye; which last organ is round, and of a
+moderate size. The surface of the body is represented as smooth,
+and destitute of scales—of which they were enabled to judge,
+because it passed close under the <i>quarter</i> of the ship. It was in
+sight for twenty minutes.”</p>
+
+<p>“The description certainly does not belong to any Ophidian; and
+as certainly militates against an opinion thrown out by Mr. Owen,
+that it might be a specimen of the <i>leonine seal</i>, which has, it is
+alleged, occasionally reached those latitudes. The leonine seal never
+exceeds twenty-five feet in length, and such would have a circumference
+at its shoulders of twenty feet, while this appears to be
+eel-shaped, with a diameter of not more than fifteen or sixteen
+inches behind the head; the mane too, of the male of the leonine
+seal extends only over the head and neck; but in the other, it
+extended down the back.”</p>
+
+<p>“With all deference to so eminent a naturalist as Mr. Owen, I
+humbly conceive that his conjecture respecting the identity of Captain
+<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s animal with the leonine seal, is not more probable
+than Home’s identification of the Basking shark with the Orkney
+animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“Both <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s and the Orkney animal would appear to be
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page289">[289]</span>a cartilaginous fish, totally different from any genus known to
+naturalists.”</p>
+
+<p>Three years afterwards Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span>’s report (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>)
+was published in the Times. Some days afterwards Captain <span class="smcap">Frederic
+Smith</span> published his encounter with a sea-serpent, which after
+being harpooned and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a
+gigantic sea-weed, and the sea-serpents of the <i>Daedalus</i> and of
+Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> were in his opinion undoubtedly pieces of the
+same kind of weed.</p>
+
+<p>Now “An Officer of Her Majesty’s Ship <i>Daedalus</i> felt obliged
+to state again that it was a living animal. As in this letter further
+particulars of the animal are mentioned, I insert it here <i>in toto</i>,
+(<i>The Times</i> of Febr. 16th., 1858):</p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—Observing in your paper of yesterday’s date a letter
+from a correspondent to the marine animal commonly called the
+“sea-serpent”, in the concluding paragraph of which he mentions
+that he has no doubt the object seen from Her Majesty’s Ship
+<i>Daedalus</i> in the month of August, 1848, when on the passage
+from the Cape of Good-Hope to St. Helena, was a piece of the
+same sea-weed observed by himself, I beg to state that the object
+seen from her Majesty’s ship was, beyond all question, a living
+animal, moving rapidly through the water against a cross sea, and
+within five points of a fresh breeze, with such velocity that the
+water was surging under its chest, as it passed along at a rate
+probably of ten miles per hour. Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s first impulse
+was to tack in pursuit, ourselves being on a wind on the larboard
+tack, when he reflected that we could neither lay up for it nor
+overhaul it in speed. There was nothing to be done, therefore,
+but to observe it as accurately as we could with our glasses, as
+it came up under our lee quarter and passed away to windward,
+at its nearest position being not more than two hundred yards
+from us; the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour and form,
+all being most distinctly visible to us. We all felt greatly astonished
+at what we saw, though there were sailors among us of thirty and
+forty years’ standing, who had traversed most seas and seen many
+marvels in their day. The captain was the first to exclaim: “This
+must be that animal called the sea-serpent”, a conclusion which,
+after sundry guesses, we all at last settled down to. My impression
+was that it was rather of a lizard than a serpentine character, as
+its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not
+by any undulatory power. It was in sight, from our first observing
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page290">[290]</span>it, about ten minutes, as we were fast leaving one another on opposite
+tacks with a freshening breeze and the sea getting up.”</p>
+
+<p>“I feel, Sir, I have already occupied more of your time and
+space than is justifiable, and have the honour to remain your obedient
+servant,</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“An Officer of Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Now let us run over all the prominent important particulars in
+the reports of the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen from the
+<i>Daedalus</i>. The first report, which appeared in the <i>Times</i> of October,
+9, 1848, contains the description of the mouth: “and when
+it extended its jaws, which were full of large and jagged teeth,
+they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing
+upright between them.” It is not said from whom the report came,
+nor is it signed. All the details, except this last, were afterwards
+substantiated by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> himself and by Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Drummond</span>. To me it seems quite impossible that the head was
+longer than three feet; as the neck is estimated at 16 inches in
+diameter, or one foot and a third, the breadth of the head, according
+to what we already know of the relative dimensions, cannot
+have been more than about two feet, and the length not more than
+about three feet. So the jaws, when extended, may open the mouth
+to about one and a half or two feet, a space which never can
+admit “of a tall man standing upright between them!”</p>
+
+<p>The animal seen by the captain and some of the officers and
+crew of the <i>Daedalus</i>, was as follows: It swam with its body in
+a straight line. About sixty feet of its body were visible. Its head
+appeared to be about four feet out of the water. The part of the
+body hidden under water was estimated at thirty feet at least.
+The diameter of the neck behind the head was estimated at one
+foot and a third. When the animal opened its mouth, large jagged
+teeth were seen. “It moved with such velocity that the water was
+surging under its chest” (read throat, for the very chest, situated
+between the foreflappers, was invisible and much farther back).
+The head and a portion of the neck (Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> says,
+though without any reason, shoulders) were kept above the surface
+of the sea. The animal was, during the time it was in sight,
+never once below the surface. Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, however,
+says: the head disappeared occasionally beneath a wave for a very
+brief interval. The colour of the animal was a dark brown, with
+yellowish white under the throat. Something like the mane of a
+horse, or rather like a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page291">[291]</span>Though the Captain says: it had no fins. Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>
+stated, that there was “a backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet
+in the rear of the head, “and visible occasionally”. If this were a
+true back-fin, it ought to have been constantly visible. As, however,
+it was only occasionally seen, we conclude that it was nothing
+else but one of the animal’s foreflappers, occasionally coming above
+the surface of the water. “The captain also asserted that he saw
+the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it.” This
+of course must have been one of the animal’s hind flappers. Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Drummond</span> must have been mistaken as to the length of
+the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calculation
+evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover
+was rather pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper-jaw
+projecting considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in
+saying: “the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a
+dark brown colour, and beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.”</p>
+
+<p>The three figures are tolerably well drawn; in fact they are the
+best of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if
+they were delineated after the description above, but they were
+in reality “made from a sketch taken immediately after the animal
+was seen.” Here, as in foregoing reports, the figures and the text
+complete one another. The head is not that of a serpent, but that
+of a mammal. The proportions of length and height, the outlines
+of the jaws, the length of the mouth-split, the exact place of the
+eye, even the flattened appearance of forehead and nose are true
+mammalian characters. No whiskers or bristles on the upper-lips,
+and no ears or earholes are drawn, or mentioned. The distance,
+when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It is clear that they
+were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are indicated in the
+drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle,
+and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible.</p>
+
+<p>In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our
+present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as
+the sea-serpent. I only wish to point out here that in none of the
+three figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a
+head would never have been described as resembling that of a
+snake. It is clear that it is drawn too high, too short and not
+flat enough.</p>
+
+<p>I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>’s
+reply. It is the following: Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> rejects the existence of the
+sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page292">[292]</span>sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours
+of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea-serpents
+ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from
+long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true;
+yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton
+to any Scandinavian collector.” It may be true that Mssrs. <span class="smcap">Sars</span>
+and <span class="smcap">Lovén</span> often navigated along the coasts of Norway and yet
+never saw a sea-serpent. Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> forgets that his own countryman,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Morries Stirling</span>, saw one with his own eyes! Is
+this proof not decisive enough? The absence of remains is not a
+proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as there are whales
+with two backfins, which are <i>seen</i> by three different <i>naturalists</i>,
+yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice of zoologists.
+Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers know
+well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic
+calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there
+was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however,
+they may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that
+it was not before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or
+gigantic calamary, was brought to Paris by the commander of the
+<i>Alecton</i>, <i>nota bene</i> notwithstanding Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>’s assertion that they
+did not exist, as else the naturalists of Norway, and amongst them
+especially <span class="smcap">Sars</span> and <span class="smcap">Lovén</span>, would have found them!!</p>
+
+<p>Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>
+agreed in details with that of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, because the
+latter was immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th.,
+whilst the letter of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> was addressed to the Admiralty
+on the 11th. of October, two months afterwards and apparently
+written from memory.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> says of the
+“fin” mentioned by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the
+captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse”, and which
+the introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in parentheses
+after the word “rather” in his description) serves to correlate
+with the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back”.”</p>
+
+<p>I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Drummond</span> was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and
+the other fin, “twenty feet more backward”, was one of the
+animal’s hind-flappers, and I believe that I may express my conviction
+that Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> was just as wrong in supposing
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page293">[293]</span>this, as in his conviction that the sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>
+was merely an extraordinarily developed sea-snake! A few pages
+further on, viz., the writer of <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, quoting the
+report of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> says:</p>
+
+<p>“The idea that the animal observed in this instance was a huge
+serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due
+attention, which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.” (!)</p>
+
+<p>And on the following page:</p>
+
+<p>“Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of
+ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations and inaccuracies
+in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have
+in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution
+of this interesting problem.” (!!)</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Though they don’t touch our subject directly, the following
+words of Mssrs. <span class="smcap">H. E. Strickland</span> and <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span>, treating
+of the Dodo, are well worth our notice; they say (<i>Annals and
+Magazine of Natural History</i> 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov.
+15?, 1848):</p>
+
+<p>“In proof of the existence of the Dodo we have—unlike the
+assumed evidence of the existence of some other anomalous monsters
+of which we have lately heard much—every canon of cautious
+truthseeking fully satisfied. With no traditional superstition or belief
+to give an origin to such a story (a point of no little importance
+in such an investigation), we have here fifteen or sixteen separate
+and independant authorities all alluding incidentally to the Dodo,
+each different in language and description, yet each of which has
+points of resemblance that cannot be mistaken as referring to
+similar objects. We have moreover drawings of the creature itself,
+made by different hands, and at different times, and with different
+objects; some of them rude and coarse to grotesqueness, other
+finished works of art. Yet throughout all these there run characters
+which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us that the
+draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real,
+and from individuals of one and the same species.”</p>
+
+<p>I am obliged to remark here that the proof of the existence of
+the <i>Dodo</i>, quoted by them, is <i>not</i> unlike the proof of the existence
+of great sea-serpents. If they, however, had known and mentioned
+that a head and a foot of the Dodo are preserved in Kopenhague,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page294">[294]</span>they would have been right. This is <i>not</i> the case with the sea-serpent.
+As far as I know, there is not one <i>material</i> proof of the
+existence of sea-serpents. But it is with the sea-serpent just as
+with the different accounts and pictures of the Dodo, “throughout
+all which run characters which it is impossible to mistake, and
+which satisfy us, that the draughtsmen drew, not from imagination,
+but from something real, and from individuals of one and the
+same species”.</p>
+
+<p>I hope that every-one who has read all the accounts I have
+collected and published in this volume, and thoroughly studied
+the figures, will grant that there is no question of “assumed
+evidences of the existence of some anomalous monsters”.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report119"><span class="reportnr"><b>119</b></span>.—1848?—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2356, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Enormous undescribed animal apparently allied to the Enaliosauri,
+seen in the Gulf of California.—Captain the Hon. George Hope
+states that when in H. M. S. “Fly”, in the Gulf of California, the
+sea being perfectly calm and transparent, he saw at the bottom a
+large marine animal with the head and general figure of the alligator,
+except that the neck was much longer, and that instead of
+legs the creature had four large flappers, somewhat like those of
+turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior; the
+creature was distinctly visible, and all its movements could be
+observed with ease; it appeared to be pursuing its prey at the
+bottom of the sea; its movements were somewhat serpentine, and
+an appearance of annulations, or ring-like divisions of the body,
+was distinctly perceptible. Captain Hope made this relation in
+company, and as a matter of conversation. When I heard it from
+the gentleman to whom it was narrated, I enquired whether Captain
+Hope was acquainted with those remarkable fossil animals
+<i>Ichthyosauri</i> and <i>Plesiosauri</i>, the supposed forms of which so
+nearly correspond with what he describes as having seen alive,
+and I cannot find that he had heard of them; the alligator being
+the only animal he mentioned as bearing a partial similarity to
+the creature in question.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of this Journal, considers this testimony
+“in all respects, the most interesting natural-history-fact of the
+present century” (<i>Zoologist</i>, 1849, Preface, Nov. 11).</p>
+
+<p>Though I think that all reports of sea-serpents are very interesting
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page295">[295]</span>natural-history facts, it is indisputable that this testimony
+is a very important one. If the reader for a moment brings before
+his mind the animal of the <i>Daedalus</i>, about eighty feet long,
+with a head of about three feet, a neck like the body of a serpent,
+the thickness behind the head being somewhat smaller than
+that of the head itself; at twenty feet in the rear of the head the
+body becoming at once much broader and provided there with
+two flappers; twenty feet more backwards again two flappers, and
+then a tail of about forty feet, ending in a point. If the reader
+now imagines this animal to be on the bottom of the sea, whilst
+he himself is placed on the deck of a vessel, the sea perfectly
+calm, is it not true that such an animal must make the impression
+of an alligator with a long neck, and having instead of paws flappers
+like those of a sea-turtle? If moreover the animal moved in
+vertical undulations, is it not very well conceivable and clear that,
+by the light and shadow falling on the animal from above, the
+curves of the animal’s back (called <i>bunches</i> when it swims on the
+surface) must be taken as distinctly perceptible annulations or ring-like
+divisions of the body? I think that there can be no question
+but this animal was a sea-serpent. The reader will remember that
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> relates an account of a very young sea-serpent, eighteen
+feet in length, entangled in a fisherman’s net, “a worm with four
+paws on the belly”, and that the learned Bishop himself made the
+comparison: “thus it resembled a crocodile”!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report120"><span class="reportnr"><b>120</b></span>.—1848, December 31.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i>
+of 1849, April 14.)</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr2">“H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i>, Plymouth Harbour, April 10, 1849.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Not having seen a sketch of the extraordinary creature, we passed
+between England and Lisbon, and being requested by several gentlemen
+to send you the rough one I made at the time, I shall feel
+much obliged by your giving it publicity in your instructive and
+amusing columns.”</p>
+
+<p>“On the morning of the 31th. December, 1848, in lat. 41° 13′ N.,
+and long 12° 31′ W., being nearly due West of Oporto, I saw a
+long black creature with a sharp head, moving slowly, I should
+think about two knots, through the water, in a north westerly
+direction, there being a fresh breeze at the time, and some sea
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page296">[296]</span>on. I could not ascertain its exact length, but its back was about
+twenty feet if not more above water; and its head, as near as I
+could judge, from six to eight. I had not time to make a closer
+observation, as the ship was going six knots through the water,
+her head E. half S., and wind S. S. E. The creature moved across
+our wake towards a merchant barque on our lee-quarter, and on
+the port tack. I was in hopes she would have seen it also. The
+officers and men who saw it, and who have served in parts of
+the world adjacent to whale and seal fisheries, and have seen them
+in the water, declare they have neither seen nor heard of any
+creature bearing the slightest resemblance to the one we saw. There
+was something on its back that appeared like a mane, and, as it
+moved through the water, kept washing about, but before I could
+examine it more closely, it was too far astern.—I remain, yours
+very truly</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr18">A Naval Officer.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Evidently the Naval Officer did not send the description of the
+appearance and the figure, before he was repeatedly requested by
+several gentlemen to do so. These gentlemen would not have been
+so pressing, if an appearance like that of the <i>Daedalus</i> had not
+happened very recently. How many written testimonies of the existence
+of sea-serpents will not be found in log books and private
+journals of navigators!</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig31">
+<img src="images/illo296.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 31.—The sea-serpent as seen by an officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report121"><span class="reportnr"><b>121</b></span>.—1849, February 18.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849 we
+read, p. 2459:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page297">[297]</span></p>
+
+<p>“Captain Adams, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, which arrived
+at Jacksonville, Florida, on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April, from New York,
+had sight of a monster in many respects resembling the sea-monsters
+described by many others. Captain Adams states that on the morning
+of Sunday, the 18th. of February, about nine o’clock, when
+off the south point of Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from
+the St. John’s (Florida) bar, the attention of himself, crew and
+passengers, was suddenly rivetted upon an immense sea monster,
+which he took to be a serpent. It lifted its head, which was that
+of a snake, several times out of the water, seemingly to take a
+survey to the vessel, and at such times displayed the largest portion
+of its body, and a pair of frightful fins or claws, several feet
+in length. His tail was not seen at any time; but, judging from
+the dimensions of the body, the captain supposes the leviathan to
+be about 90 feet in length. Its neck tapered small from the head
+to the body and it appeared to measure about seven feet across
+the broadest part of the back. The colour was that of a dirty
+brown. When first seen it was moving towards the mouth of the
+St. John’s. The monster moved from the side of the vessel, and
+placed itself athwart its track, in front of her bows; but Captain
+Adams, not feeling partial to an encounter with his snakeship,
+ordered the vessel to be kept off. A boy on the deck, not knowing
+his antagonist, had seized a harpoon, and was in the act of striking,
+when he was prevented by the vessel’s moving off”—“<i>Boston Atlas</i>”.</p>
+
+<p>At a glance we recognize the sea-serpent, as it appeared to <span class="smcap">Hans
+Egede</span>. “The largest portion of its body” was seen, “and a pair of
+frightful fins or claws, several feet in length”. The reader may
+compare the <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a> in our report <a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup>. 5</a>.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report122"><span class="reportnr"><b>122</b></span>.—1849, May 30.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i>, 1850,
+January, 19.—)</p>
+
+<p>“The following is an extract from the private log of Captain
+Edwards of the <i>Alpha</i>.—“Wednesday, May 30, P. M., strong
+breezes at N. N. W., and a sharp sea on; about 1.15 I felt a
+strange shaking of the ship. Mr. Thomson, my chief officer; Mr.
+George Park, civil engineer, cabin passenger on board, ran on deck
+as well as myself, when we beheld immediately under our lee
+quarter a monster of huge dimensions. It had no fins or broad
+tail, as whales have. It was of a light fawn colour, with large
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page298">[298]</span>brown spots behind the shoulders; the head pointed like that of
+a porpoise. It had large glossy eyes; the shoulder was much darker
+than the rest of the body, which was the thickest part of it, (say
+twenty feet in diameter), from thence diminishing to the tail, to
+about the size of our mainyard in the slings (say twenty-four inches
+diameter). He took a turn round, and we afterwards saw him astern,
+and he went away in a S. E. by S. direction, at about thirty miles
+an hour.”—<i>Melbourne Daily News</i>, July, 1.—(“A correspondent,
+who sends us the above, adds that he believes this to
+be the first time the sea-serpent is stated to have been seen so
+far south.”)</p>
+
+<p>Evidently the animal remained under water for a long time,
+and struck the vessel in coming to the surface. Seen from very
+near the colour evidently did not seem dark brown, but of a
+lighter hue. The absence of visible fins, the pointed tail, the
+brown spotted skin (no scales are mentioned, so it must have been
+smooth), the pointed head, the appearance of shoulders, the large
+eyes, its astonishing rapidity in swimming, all these statements
+characterize the sea-serpent. Alarmed at its having struck the vessel,
+off it went! Evidently Captain <span class="smcap">Edwards</span> did not see the tip
+of the tail, which is rather pointed; he described, it is clear,
+what he took for the end of it, the extreme end being under
+water. No latitude is given in this report, but we may conclude
+that the appearance took place more towards the south than Melbourne
+is situated. This town is situated at about 38° S. lat., so
+the appearance may have taken place between 40° and 45° S. lat.,
+and of course between 110° and 145° W. longitude, in the common
+track of vessels.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report123"><span class="reportnr"><b>123</b></span>.—1849, September 15.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i> for
+1850, January 12).—Extract from a letter, dated “H. M. S. <i>Cleopatra</i>,
+Singapore, Oct. 26, 1849”, from an officer of that ship:—“Sept.
+15. This evening they reported the <i>Sea-Serpent</i>: several of
+the men, as well as the officer of the forecastle, saw the monster;
+and they all ran aft to see it from the stern: they say it was
+about <i>thirty feet long</i>. After the report, all hands came to deck;
+but the evening was fast drawing to a close, and the ship going
+at eight knots, soon left the monster astern, going through the
+water very quickly to the N. W.”—(<i>From a Correspondent.</i>)</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page299">[299]</span></p>
+
+<p>Most probably this appearance took place in the Indian Ocean
+between latitude 10 and 20 S. and longitude 50 and 70 E.</p>
+
+<p>If one of the gentlemen of the <i>Cleopatra</i> is still in the land of
+the living, he will greatly oblige me by sending me some more
+details of the external appearance of the animal, and of the place
+where the animal was seen.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>“The Rev. Alfred Charles Smith, M. A., an excellent naturalist,
+who passed the three summer months of 1850 in Norway, and
+who published” his <i>Notes on Observations in Natural History
+during a Tour in Norway</i> “in the <i>Zoologist</i> for that and the following
+year, thus alludes to his own inquiries, which, if they add
+nothing to the amount of fact accumulated, add weight to the
+testimonies already adduced”. (<span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, <i>Romance of Natural History</i>,
+13th. Ed., Vol. I., p. 282.)</p>
+
+<p>“Being in the country of the renowned Bishop Pontoppidan,
+and in the fjords which are generally claimed as the home, or,
+at any rate, as one of the habitations of the sea-serpent, whose
+existence seems yet to be a disputed point in England, I lost no
+opportunity of making inquiries of all I could see, as to the
+general belief in the country regarding the animal in question;
+but all, with one single exception—naval officers, sailors, boatmen,
+and fishermen—concurred in affirming most positively that
+such an animal did exist, and had been repeatedly seen off their
+coasts and fjords, though I was never fortunate enough to meet
+a man who could boast of having seen him with his own eyes.
+All, however, agreed in unhesitating belief as to his existence and
+frequent appearance; and all seemed to marvel very much at the
+scepticism of the English, for refusing credence to what to the
+minds of the Norwegians seemed so incontrovertible. The single
+exception to which I have alluded, was a Norwegian officer, who
+ridiculed what he called the credulity or gullibility of his countrymen;
+though I am bound to add my belief, that he did this,
+not from any decided opinion of his own, but to make a show
+of superior shrewdness in the eyes of an Englishman, who, he at
+once concluded, must undoubtedly disbelieve the existence of the
+marine monster. That Englishman, however, certainly partakes of
+the credulity of the Northmen, and cannot withhold his belief in
+the existence of some huge inhabitant of those northern seas,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page300">[300]</span>when, to his mind, the fact of his existence has been so clearly
+proved by numerous eye-witnesses, many of whom were too intelligent
+to be deceived, and too honest to be doubted.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The reader will remember the splendid hoax of the <i>New York
+Tribune</i> (1852); now Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Froriep</span> in his <i>Tagsberichte über
+die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, no 486, already doubted
+this report. After some time (n<sup>o</sup>. 491) he communicated to his
+readers that according to the <i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i>, the whole was
+a hoax, but to show them how firm a believer Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span>,
+nevertheless, remained, he adds:</p>
+
+<p>“This, however, will not prevent us from bestowing further
+attention on the subject of the Sea-Serpent.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report124"><span class="reportnr"><b>124</b></span>.—1850?—The following evidence may be called one of
+the more interesting which tell about the habits of the sea-serpent.
+In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1862, p. 7850, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“Off Madeira, on board R. M. S. <i>Thames</i>. Made acquaintance
+with a Captain Christmas, of the Danish Navy, a proprietor in
+Santa Cruz, and holding some office about the Danish Court. He
+told me he once saw a sea-serpent between Iceland and the Faroe
+Islands. He was lying in to a gale of wind, in a frigate of which
+he had the command, when an immense shoal of porpoises rushed
+by the ship, as if pursued, and lo and behold a creature with a
+neck moving like that of a swan, about the thickness of a man’s
+waist, with a head like a horse, raised itself slowly and gracefully
+from the deep, and seeing the ship it immediately disappeared
+again, head foremost, like a duck diving. He saw it only for a
+few seconds; the part above water seemed about eighteen feet in
+length. He is a singularly intelligent man, and by no means one
+to allow his imagination to run away with him.—<i>Stephen Cave,
+M. P. for Shoreham; 35, Wilson Place, April 29, 1861, in a
+letter to Mr. Gosse.</i>”</p>
+
+<p>It is a very remarkable fact that we meet here the sea-serpent between
+Iceland and the Far-Oer, a place situated between the two most frequented
+parts of the North Atlantic, i. e. the coasts of Norway and the
+coasts of the United States. But it is not the first time; the readers will
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page301">[301]</span>remember the report of
+<span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup>. 5</a>) and that of Capt.
+<span class="smcap">Brown</span> (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>). Remarkable, too, is the fact that the sea-serpent
+now made its appearance in a gale of wind. Is this not a matter
+of surprise as everywhere else is stated that it appears only in fine
+weather? Is it not reasonable therefore, to conclude that the animal
+feels comfortable in fine weather, but that, being an air-breathing
+animal it must come to the surface from time to time and may
+consequently be seen at times when there is wind? There is the
+statement of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, who speaks of a “breeze” and
+here we meet with “a gale of wind”. It is also worthy of our
+notice that Capt. <span class="smcap">Cristmas</span> mentions the immense shoal of porpoises
+rushing by the ship, as if pursued, and a sea-serpent making its
+appearance. I need not remind my readers of the same observation
+of some gentlemen near Nova Scotia (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>). Later on we shall
+have the report in which a sea-serpent gripped “a whale” (of the
+smaller kind) in its fin, and we have already learned that a sea-serpent
+(<a href="#Report54">n<sup>o</sup>. 54</a>) was engaged with “a whale” (of the smaller kind).</p>
+
+<p>Not less important is the description of the long neck, moving
+like that of a swan, and disappearing head foremost like a duck
+diving. Nearly exactly the same thing was observed in 1879, April 5.</p>
+
+<p>The thickness of the neck was that of a man’s waist, the part
+above the water measured eighteen feet in length, and yet the
+foreflappers remained hidden under water. The head is described
+as resembling that of a horse, which may be the result of the
+animal bearing a mane, and when first rising out of the water,
+holding its head in a nearly right angle with the neck. Moreover
+the nostrils might have been widely opened. The animal of Capt.
+<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> had also a neck of one foot and a third in diameter;
+head and neck had a length of about twenty feet, for at about
+twenty feet in the rear of the head was seen the animal’s fore
+flapper. So we may conclude that these two individuals were of
+the same or nearly of the same length.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report125"><span class="reportnr"><b>125</b></span>.—1853?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span> says in the <i>Proceedings of the
+Royal Society at Edinburgh</i>, n<sup>o</sup>. 44, May, 1854, that it “is said
+to have been seen lately in some of their fjords.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page302">[302]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report126"><span class="reportnr"><b>126</b></span>.—1854, September 4.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i>,
+for 1855, February 17.—)</p>
+
+<p>“It is reported by the British Brig <i>Albeona</i>, arrived at Liverpool,
+that on the 4th. of September last, about five in the afternoon,
+in lat. 38 S., long 13 E., while the ship was under a light wind
+and in smooth water, a sea-monster of great size and singular appearance
+was descried. Attention was first directed to it by the
+broken action of the water, which otherwise was smooth all around.
+The animal was discovered protruding its head above water to the
+length of about 30 feet, at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizon.
+His head was about 12 feet long and was marked by a white
+stripe or streak down each side. At about six feet from the termination
+of the streaks, which were presumed to be its jaws, there
+was a protuberance on its back like a small water-cask. The creature
+kept its mouth shut, but its eyes were plainly visible. At the
+point of contact with the water the body seemed about as much
+as the ship’s long-boat round. The general colour of the body was
+black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a
+pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. While under
+observation he dipped under water three times, remaining submerged
+about a minute each time. From the broken action of the
+water at different points, it seemed as if protuberances, similar to
+that on the back existed on various parts of the body. From the
+best conjecture that could be made, it was computed at 180 feet
+in length over all.”</p>
+
+<p>The length of the head may be somewhat exaggerated, the largest
+dimensions admissible are 6 feet in breadth and about 8 feet
+in length, as we shall afterwards observe from one of the most
+recent reports. It is a remarkable fact that here mention is made
+of a white stripe or streak down on each side of the head, presumed
+to be its jaws. In the deposition of Captain <span class="smcap">Finney</span> (<a href="#Report34">n<sup>o</sup>. 34</a>)
+too, we read “It had a white stripe extending the whole length
+of the head just above the water, there where the underjaw must
+have been”. And in the figures of the animal seen by the gentlemen
+of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>) the underjaw is drawn
+white, and described whitish brown or yellowish white. The protuberance
+on its back (read on the back of its neck) was a fold
+in the animal’s skin, as may be seen in the sea-lions in our Zoological
+Gardens, when they contract their long necks, and then
+the other “protuberances, similar to that on the back” were of
+the same character. This character of having bunches occasionally,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page303">[303]</span>is well known to us. Or all these protuberances were merely vertical
+undulations.</p>
+
+<p>Attention was first paid to it by the broken action of the water,
+which otherwise was smooth all around. So the animal first swam
+for a moment just below the surface, a habit which we have often
+observed in foregoing reports. The general colour of the body was
+black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a
+pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. As to the
+description of the colour of the animal’s throat, it agreed with
+foregoing statements. As to the loose skin, and the pouch, this is
+also only explicable by the animal’s having a skin just like sea-lions.
+It is so loose and folds so easily, that if the head is bent
+a little downward, or if the neck is somewhat contracted, several
+folds are seen, which led Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span> (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>) to mention
+“eight gills under the neck”. He had better have written “gill-splits”,
+meaning the furrows between the folds.—The length of
+180 feet may be somewhat exaggerated, though we will afterwards
+prove that individuals of still greater length must exist.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report127"><span class="reportnr"><b>127</b></span>.—1855, August?—In the letter from Capt. <span class="smcap">G. H.
+Harrington</span> to Rear-Admiral <span class="smcap">W. A. B. Hamilton</span>, dated Liverpool,
+February 8, 1858, which letter will be inserted afterwards,
+we read:</p>
+
+<p>“I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, shipowners of
+this place, that one of their captains reported a similar thing about
+two years ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took no
+further notice of it, supposing that he might have been deceived.”</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that the captain really saw a sea-serpent. The
+reader will, I hope, be convinced of it himself, after having read
+Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span>’s report (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report128"><span class="reportnr"><b>128</b></span>.—1856, March 30.—<i>(Illustrated London News</i> of the
+3d. of May, 1856).</p>
+
+<p>  “To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”</p>
+
+<p>“<i>Imogen</i>, Channel, 15th. April, 1856.”</p>
+
+<p>“Sir.—We beg to hand you the enclosed Sketch of a Sea-Serpent
+we had the good fortune to sight on the 30th. of March last.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page304">[304]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig32">
+<img src="images/illo304a.jpg" alt="">
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig33">
+<img src="images/illo304b.jpg" alt="">
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig34">
+<img src="images/illo304c.jpg" alt="">
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig35">
+<img src="images/illo304d.jpg" alt="">
+
+<p class="caption">Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.—The sea-serpent as seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Guy</span> of the <i>Imogen</i>.<br>
+Fig. 32 = Fig. 33, seen with a telescope.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<p>“Imogen, from Algoa Bay, towards London. Sunday 30th. March,
+1856. Lat. 29 deg., 11 min. N., Long. 34 deg., 36 min. W.,
+bar. 30.50; calm and clear. Four vessels visible to southward and
+westward.”</p>
+
+<p>“About five minutes past eleven A. M., the helmsman drew
+our attention to something moving through the water, and causing
+a strong ripple about 400 yards distant from our starboard quarter.”</p>
+
+<p>“In a few moments it became more distinct, presenting the appearance
+in <a href="#Fig32">fig. 1.</a>, and showing an apparent length of about forty
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page305">[305]</span>feet (above the surface of the sea), the undulations of the water
+extending on each side to a considerable distance in its wake. Mr.
+Statham immediately ascended to the maintopsailyard, Captain Guy
+and Mr. Harries watching the animal from the deck with the
+telescope. After passing the ship about half a mile, the serpent
+“rounded to” and raised its head, seemingly to look at us (<a href="#Fig34">fig.
+2</a>), and then steered away to the northward (N. E.), possibly to
+the neighbourhood of the Western Islands, frequently lifting its
+head (<a href="#Fig35">fig. 3</a>). We traced its course until nearly on the horizon,
+from the topsailyard, and lost sight of it from deck about 11 h.
+45 m. A. M. No doubt remained on our minds as to its being
+an immense snake, as the undulations of its body were clearly
+perceptible, although we were unable to distinguish its eyes.”</p>
+
+<p>“The weather being fine and the glossy surface of the sea only
+occasionally disturbed by slight flaws (catspaws) of wind, we had
+a perfect opportunity of noticing its movements.”</p>
+
+<p>“In conformity to your regulations we inclose our references,
+and remain,</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr24">“Sir, your obedient servants,</span><br>
+<span class="padr18">“James Guy, Commander,</span><br>
+“J. H. Statham, Julian B. Harries, D. J. Williamson, Passengers.”</p>
+
+<p>After the figures of Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>,
+<a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), which show the animal swimming with its body
+in a straight line, these four figures of the animal are the best
+we have, but here it is swimming with vertical undulations. To
+the description I can add nothing, nor need I explain anything.
+Description and figures complete each other and give an accurate
+and very natural idea of a sight of the animal seen from afar.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report129"><span class="reportnr"><b>129</b></span>.—1856, July 8.—(The <i>Illustrated London News</i> of the
+4th. of October, 1856.)</p>
+
+<p>“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”</p>
+
+<p>“Colonial Agency, 4, Cullum-street, London, September 25th.
+1856.”</p>
+
+<p>“We hand you the following extract from the log-book of our
+ship <i>Princess</i>, Captain A. R. N. Tremearne, in London Docks
+15th. inst., from China, viz:—”</p>
+
+<p>““Thuesday, July 8, 1856.—Latitude accurate 34° 56′ S.; Longitude
+accurate 18° 14′ E. At one P. M. saw a very large fish,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page306">[306]</span>with a head like a walrus, and twelve fins, similar to those in a
+black fish, but turned the contrary way. The back was from 20
+to 30 feet long; also a great length of tail. It is not improbable
+that this monster has been taken for the great sea-serpent. Fired
+and hit it near the head with rifle-ball. At eight, fresh wind and fine.”</p>
+
+<p>“We submit that the repeated accounts of
+seeing a marine monster, whatever be its correct
+name or kind, yet harmonising in some
+leading descriptions forbid longer doubt of
+one such creature existing, and we inclose
+you a rough sketch as this one appeared,
+signed by Captain Tremearne, who has been
+six years in our employ, and is otherwise
+well known. His own private log contains a
+similar record, and we have interrogated
+others of the <i>Princess</i> crew, who assert the
+fact of such appearance.”</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Tremearne states that Captain
+Morgan, a passenger by the <i>Princess</i>, but
+who at St. Helena joined the ship <i>Senator</i>,
+to command her to Liverpool (where she is
+daily expected), also saw this monster, and
+can corroborate the statements.”</p>
+
+<p>“Until 13th. of October the <i>Princess</i> will
+be at London Dock jetty, loading for Melbourne,
+and naturalists and other scientific
+persons can there make further inquiries, provided
+they do not subject Captain Tremearne
+to correspondence or interrupt ship’s duties,
+which are urgent for her speedy departure.
+The ship’s log-book and the rough sketch of
+the fish can also be inspected at our office.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Edmund J. Wheeler and Co.”</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig36">
+<img src="images/illo306.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 36.—The sea-serpent as seen by Captains <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> and <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Though the description is very short, the
+<a href="#Fig36">figure</a> enables us to make the following conjecture.
+Captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> really saw a sea-serpent,
+swimming with extraordinary speed,
+most probably because, on coming to the
+surface, it was alarmed by the unexpected presence of the ship.
+Having remained under water a long time it suddenly exhaled on
+coming to the surface, and blew like a whale, as the figure shows.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page307">[307]</span>The extreme velocity of its motion is cause that the impression of
+the head was that of a walrus. But this is a remarkable fact. We
+have already observed that a Norwegian fisherman described the
+head as resembling that of a seal (<a href="#Report8">n<sup>o</sup>. 8</a>), and that Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>
+(<a href="#Report29">n<sup>o</sup>. 29</a>), too described at first sight the head to resemble that
+of a seal. Afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span> (<a href="#Report36">n<sup>o</sup>. 36</a>) better acquainted
+with sea-lions, described it as resembling a sea-lion’s; more than
+once the bristles on the upper lip are mentioned; one of the gentlemen
+of the <i>Daedalus</i> drew a head distinctly that of a Pinniped,
+and Captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> declares that it had the head of a walrus.
+Most probably he has seen the animal close to him and in its
+face, and saw the upper-lip with bristly whiskers, though this is
+neither mentioned nor figured. The same uncommonly rapid motion
+of the animal caused the captain to draw the neck too short and to see
+“twelve fins”. He was the dupe of an optical illusion, resulting from the
+very rapid paddling of the animal’s fore-flappers. But he has very well
+observed that the posture of the flappers when directed as upward
+as possible is “turned the contrary way to those in a black fish”. The
+head is described by him as that of a mammal, belonging to the
+order of Pinnipeds, the posture of the flappers is exactly that which
+pinnipedian mammals, as sea-lions and walruses, would exhibit,
+when swimming with extreme velocity. No reptile is able to lift
+up its fore-limbs to such a height. The animal in this position,
+but seen from behind, would have the external features as shown
+in the figure of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>
+(<a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>, <a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>). And captain
+<span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> has also very well observed and delineated that six of
+the fins were on the left, and six on the right sight of the animal
+as if rising out of the water, and that the twelve were not situated
+on the animal’s back. The rough back, too, is a proof that the
+animal had a mane. The violent motions of the flappers must have
+caused a severe splashing and foaming of the water; it is clear
+that this is omitted by captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> when drawing his
+figure. So this report, though apparently of no worth, is, with
+the figure, one of the most valuable reports of an appearance of
+the sea-serpent, throwing light upon its rank in the system of
+nature. Remarkable is the fact that captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> writes: “it
+is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great
+sea-serpent”.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page308">[308]</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report130"><span class="reportnr"><b>130</b></span>.—1857, February 16.—The following letter was forwarded
+by Dr. Biccard to his friend Mr. <span class="smcap">Fairbridge</span>, at his
+request, was then published in the <i>Cape Argus</i> of the 14th. of
+March, 1857, and reprinted, with the figure, in the <i>Illustrated
+London News</i> of 1857, June 13.—</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig37"><a id="Fig38"></a>
+<img src="images/illo308.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 37 and 38.—Two Positions of the sea-serpent as seen by Dr. <span class="smcap">Biccard</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Cape Town, 11th. March, 1857.</span></p>
+
+<p>“My dear Fairbridge,—According to your wish, I give you a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page309">[309]</span>short description of the Sea-Serpent seen by me and others opposite
+the old light-house at Green Point.”</p>
+
+<p>“On Monday, the 16th. of February last, I went out to Green
+Point in the afternoon. At about 5 p. m., or a little after, I was
+called by Mr. Murray, the light-house-keeper, to “come and see a
+sea monster”. I proceeded to the light-house, and from thence I
+saw on the water, about 150 yards from the shore, the serpent,
+of which some details have already appeared in print. It was
+lying in the position shown in the accompanying sketch <a href="#Fig37">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>. I
+borrowed a rifle from Mr. Flail (Mr. Murray’s father-in-law), and
+fired at the animal. The ball fell short in front of it by about
+four yards, as shown in the sketch. The animal did not move,
+and I then fired a second shot, the ball striking about a foot and
+a half from it. The serpent, then apparently startled, moved from
+his position, straightened himself out, and went under water,
+evidently getting out of the way. He was invisible for about ten
+minutes, at the expiration of which interval he reappeared at about
+two hundred yards distance, and I should say about forty yards
+further off. He then came right on towards the place where I first
+saw him; but, before arriving there, my son, who had joined
+me, fired at the animal. Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple
+of the rifle, and I was thus prevented from further firing. Upon
+reaching the place he had first occupied, the serpent formed himself
+into the position delineated in Sketch <a href="#Fig38">n<sup>o</sup>. 2</a>. He then stood
+right into the bay, and soon afterwards we lost sight of him
+altogether.”</p>
+
+<p>“As I have stated, the distance the animal kept from shore was
+not more than 200 yards; its length was about 200 feet, but its
+thickness I cannot tell, the upper part of the body only being
+visible. The head could be seen but indistinctly, as he raised it at
+intervals, as shown in the <a href="#Fig37">sketch</a>. I consider the protuberance to
+be the upper part of the head, but I could not discover the eyes,
+notwithstanding the short distance, and the telescope which was a
+pretty good one. The colour of the animal was a dark dull colour,
+except the head, which was maculated with large white spots.
+The weather at this time was very calm, with a light northwesterly
+breeze. Besides myself, the serpent was seen by Mr. Hall, Mr.
+Murray, Mrs. and Miss Biccard, my two sons, and my coachman,
+who all saw it distinctly.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Yours, &amp;c.,</span><br>
+<span class="padr6">“Biccard.”</span></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page310">[310]</span></p>
+
+<p>Nobody can help laughing when he sees this <a href="#Fig37">figure</a>, representing
+something very much like a black buoy, with white streaks and
+spots, and glittering in the sun, having a long rope attached to
+it! It is, however, pretty well done for one who cannot draw. As
+in so many other instances the figures and the text complete each
+other. The animal appears here nearly in the same position as it
+did in the Harbour of Gloucester, in 1817. The same astonishing
+lateral flexibility! “It lay down, in turning, in the form of a
+staple or horse-shoe” we have learned on that occasion, and “in
+doing so it nearly touched its head with its tail”, “the tail and
+the head then appeared only to be a few yards one from another”,
+once “it lay down in the form of an S”, &amp;c. Though the Doctor
+does not describe this position, his figures tell it us. As the
+second ball apparently startled it, it changed its position, straightened
+itself out, disappeared, and came up after ten minutes,
+about forty yards further off. It behaved in the same way in the
+Harbour of Gloucester. The length may again be somewhat exaggerated,
+though I do not think such to be the case. The white
+streaks and spots on the head may have been the shining reflexion
+of day or sunlight, the head being thoroughly wet, as the animal
+raised and dropped it at intervals, which made the water run
+down every time, but it is also very possible that the individual
+was really spotted on its head.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report131"><span class="reportnr"><b>131</b></span>.—1857, December 12.—(The <i>Times</i> of February 5,
+1858; the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1858, p. 5989.).</p>
+
+<p>“I beg to enclose you a copy of an extract from the meteorological
+journal kept by me on board the ship <i>Castilian</i>, on a voyage
+from Bombay to Liverpool. I have sent the original to the Board
+of Trade, for whom the observations have been made during my
+last voyage. I am glad to confirm a statement made by the commander
+of Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>, some years ago, as to
+the existence of such an animal as that described by him.—G.
+H. Harrington; 14 and 14¹⁄₂, South Castle Street, Liverpool,
+February 2, 1858.—</p>
+
+<p>“Copy of an Extract from the Board of Trade Meteorological
+Journal, kept by Captain Harrington, of the ship <i>Castilian</i>, from
+Bombay to Liverpool.”</p>
+
+<p>“Ship <i>Castilian</i>, December 12, 1857, north-east end of St. Helena,
+bearing north-west, distance 10 miles.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page311">[311]</span></p>
+
+<p>“At 6.30 p. m., strong breezes and cloudy, ship sailing about
+twelve miles per hour. While myself and officers were standing on
+the lee-side of the poop, looking towards the island, we were
+startled by the sight of a huge marine animal, which reared its
+head out of the water within twenty yards of the ship, when it
+suddenly disappeared for about half a minute, and then made its
+appearance in the same manner again, showing us distinctly its
+neck and head about ten or twelve feet out of the water. Its head
+was shaped like a long nun-buoy, and I suppose the diameter to
+have been seven or eight feet in the largest part, with a kind of
+scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet from the
+top; the water was discoloured for several hundred feet from its
+head, so much so that, on its first appearance, my impression
+was that the ship was in broken water, produced, as I supposed,
+by some vulcanic agency since the last time I passed the island;
+but the second appearance completely dispelled those fears, and
+assured us that it was a monster of extraordinary length, which
+appeared to be moving slowly towards the land. The ship was
+going too fast to enable us to reach the mast-head in time to
+form a correct estimate of its extreme length, but from what we
+saw from the deck we conclude that it must have been over two
+hundred feet long. The boatswain and several of the crew who
+observed it from the top-gallant forecastle, state that it was more
+than double the length of the ship, in which case it must have
+been five hundred feet. Be that as it may, I am convinced that
+it belonged to the serpent tribe; it was of a dark colour about
+the head, and was covered with several white spots. Having a
+press of canvas on the ship at the time, I was unable to round
+to without risk, and therefore was precluded from getting another
+sight of this leviathan of the deep.”</p>
+
+<div class="rightblock">
+<p>“George Henry Harrington, Commander.”<br>
+“William Davies, Chief Officer.”<br>
+“Edward Wheeler, Second Officer.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The animal seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> was no doubt a sea-serpent,
+of which at first sight, only the head and a small portion
+of the neck were exposed to the eyes of the spectators. Afterwards,
+when the animal moved slowly towards the land, its whole length
+must have been visible, and estimated at about two hundred feet.
+The head was seen in such a direction that it resembled a “nun-buoy”.
+The diameter of the head may have been six feet. At a
+moment that the animal contracted its neck, an annular fold was
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page312">[312]</span>formed round the neck just behind the head, as may be seen in
+our sea-lions, and which led Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> to write “with
+a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet
+from the top” of the head, i. e. somewhat behind the occiput.
+The discolouring of the water has of course nothing at all to do
+with the animal or its appearance.</p>
+
+<p>Some days afterwards (<i>Times</i> of February 13, 1858; <i>Zoologist</i>
+for 1858, p. 5990) this document was followed by an account of
+<span class="smcap">Frederic Smith</span>, who stated that on December 28th., 1848, commanding
+the ship <span class="smcap">Pekin</span>, they saw an extraordinary creature, which,
+when harpooned, and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of
+a gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long. “So like a huge living monster
+did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my sending
+a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the great
+sea-snake.” Captain <span class="smcap">Smith</span> firmly believes that the animals of the
+<i>Daedalus</i> and of the <i>Castilian</i> were pieces of the same weed.</p>
+
+<p>Hereupon, “An officer of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>” wrote an apology
+in the <i>Times</i> of 16th. February, which we have inserted in <a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>.
+118</a>. This letter was immediately followed in the same paper of the
+same date by the two following:</p>
+
+<p>“Sir.—A letter appears in the <i>Times</i> of to-day signed “Frederic
+Smith” on the subject of the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>“The writer has this advantage over others who have reported
+the occasional appearance of what he fairly calls “this queer fish”—that
+he has handled as well as seen it. Still there would seem to
+be a considerable variety in the genus, for, while the specimen
+obtained by the <i>Pekin</i> in 1848 was 4 inches in diameter and 20
+feet in length, that seen from the <i>Circassian</i> is described, if I
+remember rightly, in your paper of 4th. inst. as 10 feet or 11
+feet in diameter, and upwards of 200 feet in length.”</p>
+
+<p>“In this latter instance it was seen only, and but a passing
+sight; and testimony of this kind is just that which naturalists
+may be slow to receive as evidence of any new fact; nevertheless
+the practised vision of the <i>Circassian’s</i> commander should go for
+something, and as it would appear from the following letter that
+Captain Harrington is to be in town next week and ready to answer
+any questions, it might be worth the while of some of our philosophers
+to examine a little into the question of what Capt. Harrington
+and his officers really did see.”</p>
+
+<p>“I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant</p>
+
+<p>“Blackheath, February 12.”
+<span class="righttext"><span class="padr2">“W. A. B. Hamilton.”</span></span></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page313">[313]</span></p>
+
+<p>For <i>Circassian</i> of course read <i>Castilian</i>.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“14, South Castle Street, Liverpool, February 8.</span></p>
+
+<p>“Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your favour of the 6th. of
+February, and should be glad if my communication to the <i>Times</i>
+might be instrumental in dispelling many doubts respecting the
+existence of such a monster as that described by myself and my
+officers.”</p>
+
+<p>“I communicated it to Capt. Schomberg, R. N., of this place,
+in the course of conversation, who advised me by all means to
+send a copy of it to the <i>Times</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“Notwithstanding the assertions of men of science to the contrary
+I am now sure that such animals exist. I could no more be deceived
+than (as a seaman) I could mistake a porpoise for a whale.
+If it had been at a great distance it would have been different,
+but it was not above 20 yards from the ship.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am of opinion that this animal makes its appearance at the
+surface at long intervals only. I am informed by Messrs. Lamport
+and Holt, shipowners of this place, that one of their captains reported
+a similar thing about two years ago, off the Island of St.
+Helena, but they took no further notice of it, supposing, as your
+friend seems to do, that he might have been deceived.”</p>
+
+<p>“Twenty people, including Mrs. Harrington and my two officers,
+saw it as distinctly as I now see the gas light which I am writing
+by. I am well known in London, having commanded a steam transport
+during the Russian war belonging to the North of Europe
+Steam Navigation Company.”</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Claxton, R. N., of the Priory, Battersea, is a personal
+friend of mine. I am also well known to Sir Colin Campbell, who
+is now in the East. My present ship is 1604 tons new measurement,
+and a new ship, of which I own a good part myself. There
+are, therefore, many reasons (in addition to my holding a first-class
+certificate in the mercantile marine) to hinder me from propagating
+a report which can do me no good, and, if untrue, do
+injury to science in the room of assisting it to elicit the truth
+in so important a matter as the discovery of the inhabitants of
+the deep.”</p>
+
+<p>“I shall be in town for three or four days in the early part of
+next week. A letter addressed to me at the Jerusalem Coffee-House
+will meet with attention, and, if my limited time permit, I should
+be glad to have an interview with yourself, or any of your friends
+who might wish to have a verbal explanation in this matter.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page314">[314]</span></p>
+
+<p class="right">“I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“G. H. Harrington.”</span><br>
+<span class="padr2">“To Rear-Admiral W. A. B. Hamilton”</span></p>
+
+<p>This letter was again answered in a very witty way in the <i>Times</i>
+of Febr. 23, 1858; this however, will be inserted in our chapter
+on <a href="#Page380">Explanations</a>.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1858, p. 6015, Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Charles Smith</span>,
+an old acquaintance of ours (<a href="#Page299">p. 299</a>) now wrote the following
+remark:</p>
+
+<p>“To one who firmly believes in the existence of some huge
+marine monster of the serpent-form, such as the Northmen love to
+descant upon (and I am not ashamed to own to such credulity,
+as I have already declared in my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)),
+the clear and minute account of Capt. Harrington, on the sea-monster
+which he and twenty people saw on the 12th of December
+last, off the coast of St. Helena, was exceedingly interesting; nor
+did the subsequent letter of Mr. F. Smith tend to shake my belief
+in the accuracy of Capt. Harrington’s statement, the particulars of
+the two alleged appearances being so very different. I am not,
+however, about to argue the point, the premises before us being
+far too unsatisfactory and vague to argue from. I merely write to
+express my hope that as you have admitted the first correspondence
+on the subject to the pages of the <i>Zoologist</i>, you will give both
+parties fair play, and insert the remaining letters, which appeared
+in the <i>Times</i> of February 16th and 23 respectively, copies of which
+I enclose, so that naturalists may have an opportunity of studying
+the case in all its bearings, before they form their conclusions.—Alfred
+Charles Smith; Yatesbury Rectory, Calne, March 5, 1858.”</p>
+
+<p>Of course, it was but natural that also foreign newspapers should
+take great delight in this polemic. So we find in the <i>Revue Britannique</i>,
+of 1858, n<sup>o</sup> 2, Febr. p. 496, an article full of erroneous
+statements:</p>
+
+<p>“Amongst the grave questions of the day, we did not think of
+meeting again, in the newspapers, with the famous sea-serpent, the
+problematic existence of which seemed to be banished to the world
+of apocryphal, or at least antediluvian animals; but no! three new
+eye-witnesses declare to have seen it, and very well too. Now a
+Captain Smith, of Newcastle, writes that he is convinced that these
+witnesses have been illuded, as he himself was on the 28th. of
+December, 1848, when after believing to see through his telescope
+an extraordinary monster, and after lowering the great net of the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page315">[315]</span>ship, he drew in only a gigantic sea-weed of twenty feet in length,
+which really had the form, attributed to the fantastic reptile. This
+indirect refutation, however, does not discourage the Rear-Admiral
+Harrington (imagine, a Rear-Admiral!) who in a second article in
+the <i>Times</i>, repeats that he is sure of the fact, that he has seen
+the sea-serpent twenty fathoms from his ship, that he has recognized
+it, as if he would have recognized a whale on the side of a porpoise,
+that his wife, who was on board, has seen it with him,
+as had his two officers, in short, that he will come to London,
+as soon as he has terminated his business at Liverpool, and will
+furnish all evidences demanded by science and scepticism. If he
+had only brought home the animal’s tail or one of its fins!”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report132"><span class="reportnr"><b>132</b></span>.—1858, January 26.—The <i>Illustrated London News</i>
+of March 20, 1858, mentions:</p>
+
+<p>“The following is a report made by Captain Suckling, of the
+ship <i>Carnatic</i>, of London, of a Sea Serpent seen by him between
+the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena:—“On the 26th of January,
+in latitude 19°10′ S., long 10°6′ W., about 5 minutes after noon,
+my attention was called by Captain Shuttleworth, a passenger on
+board the <i>Carnatic</i> to a large spar sticking out of the water one end
+some thirty feet above the level of the sea. It appeared to me to be
+the lower mast of some wrecked vessel, and having the glass in my
+hand, with which I had been looking at an American vessel in
+sight, I examined it narrowly. It seemed to be passing very rapidly
+to the eastward, having altered its bearings several points in the
+course of a few minutes, when it suddenly disappeared, and came
+up shortly afterwards astern of the ship. It was seen by all those
+on deck at the time, and it is their opinion, as well as my own,
+that it was an enormous sea-serpent. The American ship <i>A. B.
+Thompson</i> from Bombay to London, was in company at the time—wind
+light and variable, with clear weather”.—We have not
+space for the Sketch obligingly sent with this account”.</p>
+
+<p>The comparison with a spar, an unwrought spar, or spruce, a
+log of timber, etc., has been made more than once, as the reader
+will remember, and when we compare the figures, drawn by an
+officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i> (<a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>), and by Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> (<a href="#Fig46">fig.
+46</a>), we can easily imagine, that in this position the animal must
+have illuded the observers more than once. It is a pity that the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page316">[316]</span>sketch has not been published. How many interesting drawings
+have in this way got into the paper-basket!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In 1860 Mr. P. H. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> published his <i>Romance of Natural
+History</i>, First Series. The last chapter of this volume is entitled
+“the Great Unknown” and is entirely devoted to the Great Sea-Serpent.
+His manner of teaching Natural History to his readers
+was, as the able writer says himself, a poetical one. “In my many
+years’ wandering through the wide field of Natural History, I have
+always felt towards it something of a poet’s heart, though destitute
+of a poet’s genius”. I can recommend every zoologist and
+botanist to read his work in his leasure hours; I have read it
+with great interest and pleasure, increasing my knowledge, wandering
+with the writer from north to south and from east to west,
+from one pole to the other and from continents to the greatest
+depths of the ocean!</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent’s question was such a favourite one of this romantic
+naturalist, that in his preface he wrote the following about it:</p>
+
+<p>“If I may venture to point out one subject on which I have
+bestowed more than usual pains, and which I myself regard with
+more than common interest, it is that of the last chapter in this
+volume. An amount of evidence is adduced for the existence of
+the sub-mythic monster popularly known as “the sea-serpent”,
+such as has never been brought together before, and such as
+ought almost to set doubt at rest. But the cloudy uncertainty
+which has invested the very being of this creature; its home on
+the lone ocean; the fitful way in which it is seen and lost in its
+vast solitudes; its dimensions, vaguely gigantic; its dragon-like
+form; and the possibility of its association with beings considered
+to be lost in an obsolete antiquity;—all these are attributes which
+render it peculiarly precious to a romantic naturalist. I hope the statisticians
+will forgive me if they cannot see it with my spectacles.”</p>
+
+<p>His chapter on the sea-serpent will also be read with great
+interest. But there are several facts which he seems not to have
+been able to explain. In describing the animal, seen near Cape
+Ann, 1817, he writes: “<i>no appearance of mane was seen by any</i>”,
+without giving any explanation; he has evidently underlined these
+words to draw the readers’ attention to this evidence, which is so
+quite contradictory to others, mentioned before and afterwards. On
+the same page (p. 284) when repeating the expression of one of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page317">[317]</span>the eye-witnesses “the mode of progression was like that of a
+caterpillar”, Mr. Gosse inserts his opinion in the following terms:
+“probably a looping or geometric caterpillar”. Now my readers
+will be at one with me, that the motion of the geometric caterpillar
+is the last with which that of the sea-serpent can be compared!
+The rapid motion of a common caterpillar of some butterfly,
+when tickled on its back part, will give the best idea.</p>
+
+<p>The writer further tries to throw discredit on reports of Americans.
+He says (p. 287):</p>
+
+<p>“Though the position and character of some of these witnesses
+add weight to their testimony, and seem to preclude the possibility
+of their being either deceived or deceivers, on a matter which
+depended on the use of their eyes, yet, owing to a habit prevalent
+in the United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit
+in gross exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we do naturally look
+with a lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe
+unusual or disputed phenomena.”</p>
+
+<p>I, however, am of the contrary opinion, and may turn his words
+in the following way: Though we generally and naturally look
+with a lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe
+unusual or disputed phenomena, owing to a habit prevalent
+in the United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit
+in gross exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we are bound to
+admit all that is stated by such persons of unimpeachable character
+as Col. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> and others, whose testimonies we have inserted
+in our papers. They evidently communicated what they saw, without
+any exaggeration and without any tendency to crack a joke or to hoax.</p>
+
+<p>Again p. 318 of his work, after having treated of only a few
+of the different reports, that had come in up to his days (1860)
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> goes on in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“A large mass of evidence has been accumulated; and I now
+set myself to examine it. In so doing, I shall eliminate from the
+inquiry all the testimony of Norwegian eye-witnesses, that obtained
+in Massachusetts in 1817, and various statements made by French
+and American captains since. Confining myself to English witnesses
+of known character and position, most of them being officers under
+the Crown, I have adduced the following testimonies.”</p>
+
+<p>Here again I must point out that there is not a single reason
+to exclude all testimonies not coming from British navigators.
+With such reasoning Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> makes himself ridiculous in the
+eyes of all reasonable persons of his own and of other nations!
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page318">[318]</span>That it is wrong to exclude reports, because they are of Americans
+or Norwegians, the reader himself will be ready to admit, I
+think, after having read the different reports mentioned in this volume.</p>
+
+<p>“The following testimonies” now, alluded to by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, are:</p>
+
+<p>“1. That of five British officers, who saw the animal at Halifax,
+N. S., in 1833” (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“2. That of Captain M’Quhae and his officers, who saw it from
+the <i>Daedalus</i> in 1848,” (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“3. That of Captain Beechy, who saw something similar from
+the <i>Blossom</i>” (<a href="#Report104">n<sup>o</sup>. 104</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“4. That of Mr. Morries Stirling, who saw it in a Norwegian
+fjord” (<a href="#Report113">n<sup>o</sup>. 113</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“5. That of Mr. Davidson, who saw it from the <i>Royal Saxon</i>,
+in 1829” (<a href="#Report93">n<sup>o</sup>. 93</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“6. That of Captain Steele and others, who saw it from the
+<i>Barham</i>, in 1852.” (See our <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-Be Sea-Serpents,
+<a href="#Ref4">1852, August 28</a>).</p>
+
+<p>“7. That of Captain Harrington and his officers, who saw it
+from the <i>Castilian</i>, 1857” (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>).</p>
+
+<p>To our great astonishment Mr. Gosse also alludes to <a href="#Report6">n<sup>o</sup>. 6</a>:
+That of Captain <span class="smcap">Steele</span>, who saw it from the <i>Barham</i>, in 1852.
+Some pages before, Mr. Gosse himself throws great doubt on this
+report, believing that the animal seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Steele</span> and his
+officers was a scabbard-fish, (the reader, I hope, will take the
+trouble to look up the <a href="#Ref4">report</a> of 1852, August 28, in my <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a>
+on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, to read there again Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse’s</span> own
+opinion of this report), and now he uses this report amongst others
+to examine to which of the recognized classes of created beings
+this rover of the ocean can be referred!</p>
+
+<p>Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> passes to this inquiry: first, he asks, is it an
+animal at all? And he comes to the conclusions that this must
+be so, for else the being could not move with that astonishing
+rapidity. Further he examines the sea-weed hypothesis, the seal-hypothesis,
+&amp;c., and winds up with: “my own confident persuasion,
+that there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions,
+which has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology;
+and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with
+the fossil <i>Enaliosauria</i> of the lias.”</p>
+
+<p>All the above-mentioned views will be considered in <a href="#Page380">Chapter V</a>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page319">[319]</span></p>
+
+<p>To our great surprise we see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the editor of
+the <i>Zoologist</i>, who ever was a warm defender of the sea-serpent,
+and like Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> firmly believed that there are still living <i>Plesiosauri</i>,
+is of another opinion in 1860. In this year, a very large
+riband fish was captured on the Bermuda Isles. Three descriptions
+of this fish appeared in the <i>Zoologist</i> (p. 6934, p. 6986, p. 6989),
+the last by Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> himself, who, thinking that it was a
+new species, gave it the name of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>. The second
+description was by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>, the naturalist on the Bermudas,
+at whose deposal the fish was placed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Trimingham</span>, the
+captor. Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>, after his description, points out some striking
+peculiarities, which this riband-fish and the sea-serpent seen by
+captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, had in common, and concludes that a part of
+the reports of the great sea-serpent must have been caused by the
+appearance of riband fishes. Now, Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, after the description
+of his new species <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, as I have already
+said, seems to waver in his opinion, for he adds:</p>
+
+<p>“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>, the
+similarity of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i> to Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae’s</span> sea-serpent, I
+do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite
+willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its
+own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on
+comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published
+in the “Zoologist.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report133"><span class="reportnr"><b>133</b></span>,
+<a id="Report134"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>134</b></span>.—1861? August.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1862, p. 7850).—</p>
+
+<p>“On a Sunday afternoon, in the middle of August, above a
+hundred persons, at that time in and about the hotel, were called
+on to observe an extraordinary appearance in the sea, at no great
+distance from the shore. Large shoals of small fish were rushing
+landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding
+on each other, and showing all the common symptoms of flight
+from the pursuit of some wicked enemy. I had already more than
+once remarked this appearance from the rocks, but in a minor
+degree; and on these occasions I could always distinguish the shark,
+whose ravages among the “manhaidens” was the cause of such alarm.
+But the particular case in question was far different from those.
+The pursuer of the fugiting shoals soon became visible; and that
+it was a huge marine monster, stretching to a length quite beyond
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page320">[320]</span>the dimensions of an ordinary fish, was evident to all observers.
+No one, in short, had any doubt as to its being the sea-serpent,
+or one of the species to which the animal or animals so frequently
+before seen belonged. The distance at which this one was, for ten
+minutes or a quarter of an hour, visible, made it impossible to
+give a description of its apparent dimensions so accurate as to carry
+conviction to the sceptical. For us who witnessed it, it was enough
+to be convinced that the thing was a reality. But one of the spectators,
+Dr. Amos Binney, a gentleman of scientific attainments,
+drew up a minute account of it, which is deposited in the archives
+of one of the Philosophical Societies of Boston. I was and am
+quite satisfied that on this occasion I had a partial and indistinct
+but positive view of this celebrated nondescript; but had the least
+doubt rested on my mind it would have been entirely removed
+by the event of the day following the one just recorded. On that
+day, a little before noon, my wife was sitting, as was her wont,
+reading on the upper piazza of the hotel. She was alone. The gentlemen,
+including myself and my son, were, as usual, absent at
+Boston, and the ladies were scattered in various directions. She
+was startled by a cry from the house of “The sea-serpent! the sea-serpent!”
+But this had been so frequent, by the way of joke, since
+the event of the preceding day, and was so like “The wolf! the
+wolf!” of the fable, that it did not attract her particular attention
+for a moment or two, until she observed two women belonging to
+the family of the hotel keeper running along the piazza towards
+the corner nearest the sea, with wonder in their eyes, and the
+cry of “The serpent! the serpent! he is turning! he is turning!”
+spontaneously bursting from their lips. Then my wife did fix her
+looks in the direction they ran; and sure enough she saw, apparently
+quite close beyond the line formed by the rising ground
+above the rocks, a huge serpent, gliding gracefully through the
+waves, having evidently performed the action of turning round. In
+an instant it was in a straight line, moving rapidly on; and after
+coasting for a couple of minutes the north west front of the hotel,
+and (as accurately as the astonished observer could calculate) looking
+as it stretched at full-length about the length of the piazza,—that
+is to say, about ninety feet,—it sank quietly beneath the
+surface, and was seen no more. The person who was thus so lucky
+as to get this unobstructed view is one so little liable to be led
+astray by any imaginary impulse, that I may reckon on her statement
+with entirely as much confidence as if my own eyes had
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page321">[321]</span>demonstrated its truth.”—<i>Grattan’s Civilized America</i>, p. 39.—</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, ought to have mentioned
+the writer of the article, the date of it and the locality where
+the appearance took place. It was most probably Nahant, the well
+known watering place near Lynn, Mass. I have had no opportunity
+to consult <span class="smcap">Grattan</span>’s <i>Civilized America</i>, therefore I have placed the
+note of interrogation after the above-mentioned year.</p>
+
+<p>In this report only a few words are devoted to the description
+of the animal, yet the description itself is given as well as possible
+by the lady who saw it from the upper piazza of the hotel.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report135"><span class="reportnr"><b>135</b></span>.—1863, May 16th.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1863, p. 8727).</p>
+
+<p>“The following is a copy of a letter from an officer of the African
+mail steamer <i>Athenian</i>, addressed to a gentleman in this
+town:—“African Royal Mail Screw Steamer <i>Athenian</i>, Cape
+Palmas, May, 16, 1863.—My dear Sir,—All doubts may now
+be set at rest about the great sea-serpent. On the 6th. of May
+the African Royal Mail Steam Ship <i>Athenian</i> on her passage from
+Teneriffe to Bathurst, fell in with one. At about 7 a. m. John
+Chapple, quartermaster, at the wheel, saw something floating towards
+the ship. He called the attention of the Rev. Mr. Smith
+and another passenger, who were on deck at the time, to it. On
+nearing the steamer it was discovered to be a large snake about
+100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water,
+the body slightly under. On its head was something like a mane
+or sea-weed. The body was about the size of our mainmast. You
+are at liberty to publish this.”</p>
+
+<p>The reader will observe that this too is a very insignificant description,
+but it mentions one of the very few cases that the tail
+of the animal was visible above the surface of the water.</p>
+
+<p>The same report was published in the <i>Illustrated London News</i>
+of 1863, June, 13.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report136"><span class="reportnr"><b>136</b></span>.—1871.—(G. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span>, <i>Eene reis om de wereld in
+vier honderd tachtig dagen</i>).—After an appearance of a would-be
+sea-serpent on board the <i>Grenada</i>, which caused a dispute between
+those who saw it and those who were not so fortunate,</p>
+
+<p>“the second officer, who joined in the quarrel, declared to have
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page322">[322]</span>seen in 1871, near the coast of Australia a sea-serpent, which
+was several meters in length.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report137"><span class="reportnr"><b>137</b></span>,
+<a id="Report138"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>138</b></span>, <a id="Report139"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>139</b></span>,
+<a id="Report140"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>140</b></span>.—1872, August 20th., 21st.,
+23d. and 24th.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of May 1873, p. 3517, the
+following statements of high respectable gentlemen are published.</p>
+
+<p>“Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called
+the Norwegian Sea-Serpent, on the Western Coast of Scotland, in
+August, 1872. By the Rev. John Macrae, Minister of Glenelg,
+Invernesshire, and the Rev. David Twopeny, Vicar of Stockbury,
+Kent.”</p>
+
+<p>“On the 20th. of August, 1872, we started from Glenelg in a
+small cutter, “the Leda”, for an excursion to Lochourn. Our party
+consisted, besides ourselves, of two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman
+G. B., and a Highland lad. Our course lay down the Sound of
+Sleat, which on that side divides the Isle of Skye from the
+mainland, the average of breadth of the Channel in that part
+being two miles. It was calm and sunshiny, not a breath of air,
+and the sea perfectly smooth. As we were getting the cutter along
+with oars we perceived a dark mass about two hundred yards
+astern of us, to the north. While we were looking at it with our
+glasses (we had three on board) another similar black lump rose
+to the left of the first, leaving an interval between; then an other
+and an other followed, all in regular order. We did not doubt its
+being one living creature: it moved slowly across our wake, and
+disappeared. Presently the first mass, which was evidently the
+head, reappeared, and was followed by the rising of the other
+black lumps, as before. Sometimes three appeared, sometimes four,
+five, or six, and then sank again. When they rose, the head appeared
+first, if it had been down, and the lumps rose after it in
+regular order, beginning always with that, next the head, and
+rising gently; but when they sank, they sank all together, rather
+abruptly, sometimes leaving the head visible. It gave the impression
+of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself. There was no
+appearance of undulation: when the lumps sank, other lumps did
+not rise in the intervals between them. The greatest number we
+counted was seven, making eight with the head, as shown in the
+sketch <a href="#Fig39">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>. The parts were separated from each other by intervals
+of about their own length, the head being rather smaller and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page323">[323]</span>flatter than the rest, and the nose being very slightly visible above
+the water; but we did not see the head raised above the surface
+either this or the next day, nor could we see the eye. We had
+no means of measuring the length with any accuracy, but taking
+the distance from the centre of one lump to the centre of the
+next to be six feet, and it could scarcely be less, the whole length
+of the portion visible, including the intervals submerged, would
+be forty-five feet.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig39"><a id="Fig40"></a>
+<img src="images/illo323.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 39 and 40.—Two positions of the Sea-Serpent as seen by the Rev. <span class="smcap">John Macrae</span> and
+the Rev. <span class="smcap">Twopeny</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Presently, as we were watching the creature, it began to approach
+us rapidly, causing a great agitation in the sea. Nearly the
+whole of the body, if not all of it, had now disappeared, and the
+head advanced at a great rate in the midst of a shower of fine
+spray, which was evidently raised in some way by the quick movement
+of the animal—it did not appear how,—and not by
+spouting. F. was alarmed and retreated to the cabin, crying out
+that the creature was coming down upon us. When within about
+a hundred yards of us it sank and moved away in the direction of
+Skye, just under the surface of the water, for we could trace its
+course by the waves it raised on the still sea to the distance of a
+mile or more. After this it continued at intervals to show itself,
+careering about at a distance, as long as we were in that part of
+the Sound, the head and a small part only of the body being visible
+on the surface; but we did not again on that day see it so near
+nor so well as at first. At one time F. and K. and G. B. saw
+a fin striking up at a little distance back from the head, but neither
+of us were then observing.”</p>
+
+<p>“On our return the next day we were again becalmed on the
+north side of the opening of Lochourn, where it is about three
+miles wide, the day warm and sunshiny as before. As we were
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page324">[324]</span>dragging slowly along in the afternoon the creature again appeared
+over towards the south side, at a greater distance than we saw it
+the first day. It now showed itself in three or four rather long
+lines, as in the <a href="#Fig40">sketch N<sup>o</sup> 2</a>, and looked considerably longer than
+it did the day before: as nearly as we could compute, it looked at
+least sixty feet in length. Soon it began careering about, showing
+but a small part of itself, as on the day before, and appeared to
+be going up Lochourn. Later in the afternoon, when we were still
+becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, and by using the oars had
+nearly reached the Island of Sandaig, it came rushing past us
+about a hundred and fifty yards to the south, on its return from
+Lochourn. It went with great rapidity, its black head only being
+visible through the clear sea, followed by a long trail of agitated
+water. As it shot along, the noise of its rush through the water
+could be distinctly heard on board. There were no organs of motion
+to be seen, nor was there any shower of spray as on the day
+before, but nearly such a commotion in the sea as its quick passage
+might be expected to make. Its progress was equable and
+smooth, like that of a log towed rapidly. For the rest of the day,
+as we worked our way home northwards through the Sound of
+Sleat, it was occasionally within sight of us until night fall, rushing
+about at a distance, as before, and showing only its head and
+a small part of its body on the surface. It seemed on each day
+to keep about us, and as we were always then rowing, we were
+inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured
+sound of the oars. Its only exit in this direction to the north was
+by the narrow Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland,
+and only a third of a mile wide, and we left our boat,
+wondering whether the strange creature had gone that way or turned
+back again to the south.”—</p>
+
+<p>“We have only to add to this narration of what we saw ourselves
+the following instances of its being seen by other people, of the
+correctness of which we have no doubt:</p>
+
+<p>“The ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea saw it pass rapidly
+through on the evening of the 21st., and heard the rush of the
+water: they were surprised, and thought it might be a shoal of
+porpoises, but could not comprehend their going so quickly.”</p>
+
+<p>“Finlay Macrae, of Bundaloch, in the parish of Kintail, was
+within the mouth of Lochourn on the 21st., with other men in
+his boat, and saw the creature at about the distance of one hundred
+and fifty yards.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page325">[325]</span></p>
+
+<p>“Two days after we saw it, Alexander Macmillan, boat-builder
+at Dornie, was fishing in a boat in the entrance of Lochduich,
+halfway between Druidag and Castledonan, when he saw the animal
+near enough to hear the noise and see the ripple it made in
+rushing along in the sea. He says, that what seemed its head was
+followed by four or more lumps, or “half-rounds”, as he calls them,
+and that they sometimes rose and sometimes sank all together. He
+estimated its length as not less than sixty and eighty feet. He saw
+it also in two subsequent days in Lochduich. On all these occasions
+his brother Farquhar was with him in the boat, and they were
+both much alarmed and pulled to the shore in great haste.”</p>
+
+<p>“A lady at Duisdale, in Skye, a place overlooking the part of
+the Sound which is opposite the opening of Lochourn said that
+she was looking out for the glass when she saw a strange object
+on the sea which appeared like eight seals in a row. This was just
+about the time we saw it.”</p>
+
+<p>“We were also informed that about the same time it was seen
+from the island of Eigg, between Eigg and the mainland about
+twenty miles to the south-west of the opening of Lochourn.”</p>
+
+<p>“We have not permission to mention the names in these two
+last instances.”</p>
+
+<div class="rightblock padr6">
+<p class="noindent">“John Macrae”<br>
+“David Twopeny”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“P. S. The writers of the above account scarcely expect the public
+to believe in the existence of the creature which they saw.
+Rather than that, they look for the disbelief and ridicule to which
+the subject always gives rise, partly on account of the animal having
+been pronounced to be a snake, without any sufficient evidence,
+but principally because of the exaggerations and fables with which
+the whole subject is beset. Nevertheless they consider themselves
+bound to leave a record of what they saw, in order that naturalists
+may receive it as a piece of evidence, or not, according to
+what they think it is worth. The animal will very probably turn
+up on these coasts again, and it will be always in that “dead
+season”, so convenient to editors of newspapers, for it is never seen
+but in the still warm days of summer or early autumn. There is
+a considerable probability that it has visited the same coasts before.
+In the summer of 1871 some large creature was seen for
+some time rushing about in Lochduich, but it did not show itself
+sufficiently for any one to ascertain what it was. Also some years
+back a well-known gentleman of the west coast, now living, was
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page326">[326]</span>crossing the Sound of Mull, from Mull to the mainland, “on a
+very calm afternoon, when”, as he writes, “our attention was attracted
+to a monster which had come to the surface not more than
+fifty yards to our boat. It rose without causing the slightest disturbance
+of the sea, or making the slightest noise, and floated for
+some time on the surface, but without exhibiting its head or tail,
+showing only the ridge of the back, which was not that of a whale,
+or any other sea-animal that I had ever seen. The back appeared
+sharp and ridgelike, and in colour very dark, indeed black, or
+almost so. It rested quietly for a few minutes, and then dropped
+quietly down into the deep, without causing the slightest agitation.
+I should say that above forty feet of it, certainly not less, appeared
+on the surface.” It should be noticed that the inhabitants of
+that western coast are quite familiar with the appearance of whales,
+seals and porpoises, and when they see them, they recognize them
+at once. Whether the creature which pursued Mr. Maclean’s boat
+off the Island of Coll in 1808, and of which there is an account
+in the Transactions of the Wernerian Society (Vol. I, p. 442), was
+one of these Norwegian animals, it is not easy to say. Survivors
+who knew Mr. Maclean say that he could quite be relied upon
+for truth.”</p>
+
+<p>“The public are not likely to believe in the creature till it is
+caught, and that does not seem likely to happen just yet, for a
+variety of reasons,—one reason being that it has, from all the
+accounts given of it, the power of moving very rapidly. On the
+20th., while we were becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, a steam
+launch slowly passed us, and, as we watched it, we reckoned its
+rate at five or six miles an hour. When the animal rushed past
+us on the next day at about the same distance, and when we
+were again becalmed nearly in the same place, we agreed that it
+went quite twice as fast as the steamer, and we thought that its
+rate could not be less then ten or twelve miles an hour. It might
+be shot but would probably sink. There are three accounts of its
+being shot at in Norway; in one instance it sank, and in the
+other two it pursued the boats, which were near the shore, but
+disappeared when it found itself getting into shallow water.”</p>
+
+<p>“It should be mentioned that when we saw this creature and
+made our sketches of it, we had never seen Pontoppidan’s “Natural
+History”, or his print of the Norwegian sea-serpent, which
+has a most striking resemblance to the first of our own sketches.
+Considering the great body of reasonable Norwegian evidence,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page327">[327]</span>extending through a number of years, which remains after setting
+aside fables and exaggerations, it seems surprising that no naturalist
+of that country has ever applied himself to make out something
+about the animal. In the meantime, as the public will most
+probably be dubious about quickly giving credit to our account,
+the following explanations are open to them, all of which have
+been proposed to me, <i>viz</i>:—porpoises, lumps of sea-weed, empty
+herring-barrels, bladders, logs of wood, waves of the sea, and
+inflated pig-skins; but as all these theories present to our minds
+greater difficulties than the existence of the animal itself, we feel
+obliged to decline them.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“D. Twopeny.”</span></p>
+
+<p>We observe at a glance that the figures show nearly exactly the
+same outlines as the figure of Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> (<a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>). The reappearing
+and disappearing of the animal is well pictured and evidently
+recalls to my readers’ mind the “sinking down like a rock”
+of American reports. The reader will observe that the appearance
+took place nearly in the same locality as that of 1808, June (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>.
+31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>). Moreover we need not add anything to the unvarnished
+reports. As to the appearances of the large creatures in 1871 and
+“some years back”, communicated in the post-scriptum, their descriptions,
+are too vague for me to see in them sea-serpents.—The
+fin striking up at a little distance from the head, of course,
+was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, who first
+was a firm believer in the sea-serpent, and expressed his opinion
+that it might be a still living <i>Plesiosaurus</i> or an animal closely
+allied to it, and who afterwards evidently wavered in his opinion,
+after his description of the <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, a ribband-fish, (see
+above <a href="#Page319">p. 319</a>), now suddenly adds to the evidences of the Rev.
+<span class="smcap">John Macrae</span> and the Rev. <span class="smcap">David Twopeny</span>, the following note:</p>
+
+<p>“I have long since expressed my firm conviction that there
+exists a large marine animal unknown to us naturalists; I maintain
+this belief as firmly as ever. I totally reject the evidence of
+published representations; but do not allow their imaginary figures
+to interfere with a firm conviction, although I admit their tendency
+is always in that direction: the figures and exaggerated descriptions
+of believers are far more damaging to a faith in such an
+animal than the arguments, the ridicule on the explanatory guesses
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page328">[328]</span>of unbelievers. The guess that a little seal was magnified by Captain
+M’Quhae into a monster several hundred feet in length is
+simply incredible: we smile at the conceit, and that is all.”</p>
+
+<p>So he is again converted into a firm believer, but he does not
+now express any supposition as to the kind of animal that it may be.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report141"><span class="reportnr"><b>141</b></span>, <a id="Report142"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>142</b></span>,
+<a id="Report143"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>143</b></span>.—1873, November 16?, 17?, 18?—I
+have not been able to get a sight at the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 20th. of
+this year, but I have found an extract from an account in it, in
+the <i>Zoologist</i> of December of that year, p. 3804, running as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Joass, an eye-witness, writing in the <i>Times</i> of November 20,
+says, “the ears seemed to be diaphanous and nearly semicircular
+flaps or valves over-arching the nostrils, which were in front. The
+cavity of the eye appeared to be considerably further back, and a
+peculiar glimmer in it, along with the sudden disappearance of the
+creature, presented, indeed, the only signs of its vitality, as far as
+I could see, while I watched it for half an hour, apparently drifting
+with the rising tide, but always keeping about the same distance
+off shore ..... Dr. Soutar and I are more or less familiar
+with the forms of the porpoise, seal, halibut, conger, and even
+shark, both in and out of the water.”</p>
+
+<p>In the same journal and on the same page we read the following
+“Extract from a letter from Mr. Joass, of Golspie, to the Rev.
+John Macrae, of Glenelg:”</p>
+
+<p>“On Thuesday afternoon last, lady Florence Leveson Gower and
+the Hon. Mrs. Coke, driving near the sea, about eight miles east
+from Dunrobin, saw what seemed to them a large and long marine
+animal; on Wednesday morning Dr. Soutar, of Golspie, saw a
+large creature rushing about in the sea. about fifty yards from shore:
+it frequently raised what seemed a neck seven feet out of the
+water, and from the length of troubled water behind it appeared
+to be fifty or sixty feet long. He said to his family on meeting
+them at breakfast, “If I believed in sea-serpents, I should say I
+had seen one this morning”. I may mention that this gentleman
+is a most trustworthy observer and cautious man. On Thursday I
+saw what seemed some drift sea-weed. When your report was
+published Dr. Tayler, the author of “Thanatophidia of India” was
+at the castle; I asked him what he thought of the matter, and
+he said he was quite prepared to believe in such a monster.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page329">[329]</span>Mr. Vernon Harcourt told me that he was in a small yacht off Glenelg
+on the evening of the day mentioned in your report, and about
+six miles from the locality and that he and his crew saw what
+seemed a great moving mass, which, but for some engagement or
+the lateness of the hour, they would have examined.”</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that the greater part of the account of the <i>Times</i>
+is not reprinted in the <i>Zoologist</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The above given descriptions are poor, giving no approximative
+measurements of the diameter of the neck, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>This is the only appearance of the animal on the <i>eastern</i> coasts
+of Great Britain!</p>
+
+<p>Again I am obliged to express my astonishment that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>
+does not mention any date, neither of the appearances, nor
+of Mr. <span class="smcap">Joass</span>’ letter.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report144"><span class="reportnr"><b>144</b></span>.—1875, July 8.—In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of
+November 20th., 1875, appeared the following <a href="#Fig41">engraving</a> and
+account:</p>
+
+<p>“Our <a href="#Fig41">Engraving</a> is an exact representation of a sketch we have
+received, with the following letter from the Rev. E. L. Penny,
+M. A., Chaplain to H. M. S. <i>London</i>, at Zanzibar, Oct. 21:—</p>
+
+<p>“I send you herewith a sketch of the great sea-serpent attacking
+a spermwhale, which I have made from the descriptions of the
+captain and crew of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, and they have, after
+careful examination, pronounced it to be correct. The whale should
+have been placed deeper in the water, but I should then have
+been unable to depict so clearly the manner in which the animal
+was attacked.”</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Drevar, of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, bound with coals for
+her Majesty’s naval stores at Zanzibar, when in lat. 5 deg. 13 min.
+S., long. 35 deg. W., on July 8 last, observed three very large
+sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round the body,
+with two turns, by what appeared to be a huge serpent. Its back
+was of a darkish brown and its belly white, with an immense head
+and mouth, the latter always open; the head and tail had a length
+beyond the coils about 30 ft.; its girth was about 8 ft. or 9 ft.
+Using its extremities as levers, the serpent whirled its victim round
+and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged
+the whale down to the bottom, head first. The other two whales,
+after attempting to release their companion, swam away upon its
+descent, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page330">[330]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig41">
+<img src="images/illo330.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 41.—The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a spermwhale”.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page331">[331]</span></p>
+
+<p>“On July 13 this or another sea-serpent was again seen, about
+200 yards off the stern of the vessel, shooting itself along the
+surface, 40 ft. of its body being out of the water at a time. Again,
+on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing
+quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of 60 ft. This
+time it seemed as if determined to attack the vessel, and the crew
+and officers armed themselves with axes for self defence.”</p>
+
+<p>“Captain Drevar is a singularly able and observant man, and
+those of the crew and officers with whom I conversed were singularly
+intelligent; nor did any of their descriptions vary from one
+another in the least—there were no discrepancies.”</p>
+
+<p>This report translated into German appeared in the <i>Illustrirte
+Zeitung</i> of Dec. 4th. 1875.</p>
+
+<p>We observe that the so-called fight between the sea-serpent and
+the spermwhale took place in 5° 13′ S. lat., 35° W. long, i. e. near
+Cape San Roque (Eastern coast of Brazil), and that the barque
+<i>Pauline</i> on October 21 of that year was at Zanzibar, laden with
+coals. The reports were evidently copied from the Captain’s journal
+or log-book, and the figure was drawn by the Rev. <span class="smcap">E. L. Penny</span>,
+at Zanzibar. The barque did not return directly to England, but
+steered for Akyab (British Burmah); from where she sailed home,
+for we read in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of January 13, 1877
+(p. 35, third column):</p>
+
+<p>“The great sea-serpent will not be ignored. He has now appeared,
+by affidavit, in a police court. The captain and crew of a
+vessel called the <i>Pauline</i> which has arrived in the Mersey from
+Akyab, report that in July, 1875, off Cape San Roque, on the
+north-east coast of Brazil, they saw the great sea-serpent. On
+Thuesday, the captain, whose name is Drevar, appeared before the
+stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool, Mr. Raffles, and expressed a
+wish, on his own behalf and that of his crew, to make a declaration
+affirming the truth of their statements respecting the serpent.
+Mr. Raffles desired Captain Drevar to prepare a written declaration
+and bring it before him. This captain Drevar did, on Wednesday,
+accompanied by a number of his crew. The declaration is
+to the effect that he and others on board the Pauline, on July 8,
+1875, while in latitude 5 deg. 13 min. S., longitude 35 deg. W.,
+observed three large spermwhales, one of which was gripped round
+the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page332">[332]</span>The head and tail appeared to have a length, beyond the coils,
+of about thirty feet, and the girth seemed to be eight or nine
+feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about
+fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the
+bottom head first. Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen
+about 200 yards off the <i>Pauline</i>, shooting itself along the surface,
+its head and neck being several feet out of the water. Subsequently
+the head of the animal was shot sixty feet into the air. The declaration
+was signed by Captain Drevar, Horatio Thompson (chief
+officer), John Henderson Landells (second officer), William Lewarn
+(steward) and Owen Baker (seaman).</p>
+
+<p>1 am so fortunate as to be able to communicate the account as
+it appeared in the newspapers of the 10th. and 11th. of January,
+1877. I have found it in <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>’s <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>:</p>
+
+<p>“The story of the mate and crew of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, of
+London, said to have arrived in port from a twenty months’ voyage
+to Akyab,—about having seen “a sea-serpent” while on a
+voyage in the Indian seas, was declared to on oath before Mr.
+Raffles, the stipendiary magistrate, at the Liverpool Police-Court.
+The affidavit was made in consequence of the doubtfullness with
+which anything about the “sea-serpent” has hitherto been received;
+and to show the genuine character of the story it has been placed
+judicially on record. The following is a copy of the declaration,
+which will be regarded as unprecedented in its way:—</p>
+
+<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">Borough of Liverpool, in the County Palatine</span><br>
+<span class="smcap">of Lancaster, to wit.</span></p>
+
+<p>“We, the undersigned, captain, officers, and crew of the barque
+<i>Pauline</i> (of London), of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, in
+the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly
+and sincerely declare that on July 8, 1875, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long
+35° W., we observed three large sperm whales, and one of them
+was gripped round the body with two turns of what appeared to
+be a huge serpent. The head and tail appeared to have a length
+beyond the coils of about thirty feet, and its girth eight or nine
+feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about
+fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the bottom,
+head first”.</p>
+
+<div class="rightblock padr9">
+<p><span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, <i>Master</i>.<br>
+<span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson.</span><br>
+<span class="smcap">John Henderson Landells.</span><br>
+<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span><br>
+<span class="smcap">Wm. Lewarn.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page333">[333]</span></p>
+
+<p>Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen about two hundred
+yards off, shooting itself along the surface, the head and neck
+being out of the water several feet. This was seen only by the
+captain and one ordinary seaman, whose signatures are affixed.”</p>
+
+<div class="rightblock padr12">
+<p><span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, <i>Master</i>.<br>
+<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“A few moments after it was seen elevated some sixty feet perpendicularly
+in the air by the chief officer and the following able
+seamen, whose signatures are also affixed.”</p>
+
+<div class="rightblock padr16">
+<p><span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson.</span><br>
+<span class="smcap">William Lewarn.</span><br>
+<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“And we make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing
+the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act
+made and passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty,
+entitled “An Act to repeal an Act of the present Session of Parliament,
+entitled an Act for the more effectual abolition of oath
+and affirmations, taken and made in various departments of the
+State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof, and for the
+more entire suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths and
+affidavits, and to make other provisions for the abolition of unnecessary
+oaths.” Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool
+aforesaid the tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred
+and seventy-seven.”</p>
+
+<div class="rightblock padr5">
+<p><span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, <i>Master</i>.<br>
+<span class="smcap">William Lewarn</span>, <i>Steward</i>.<br>
+<span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson</span>, <i>Chief Officer</i>.<br>
+<span class="smcap">J. H. Landells</span>, <i>Second Officer</i>.<br>
+<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid, the
+tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven,
+before T. S. Raffles, J. P. for Liverpool.”</p>
+
+<p>In <i>Nature</i> of February 10th., 1881, we read that “Captain
+Drevar has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he
+witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing
+its long neck out of the water.”</p>
+
+<p>Evidently this circular was a letter addressed by Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>,
+when in Chittagong (Bengal), to the Editor of the <i>Calcutta Englishman</i>,
+in January, 1876. I have had no opportunity to consult
+this paper, but I have found an extract from it in the <i>Graphic</i> of
+January 27, 1877, and a partial translation of it in the <i>Illustrirte
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page334">[334]</span>Zeitung</i> of Febr. 3, 1877. What I have found in the <i>Graphic</i>
+runs as follows:</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig42">
+<img src="images/illo334.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 42.—Another representation of the so-called “Fight
+between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Captain <span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, master of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, has
+furnished us a sketch of the Sea-Serpent (from which the annexed
+<a href="#Fig42">engraving</a> is taken), which he encountered off the coast of South
+America. The occurrence took place on the 8th. July, 1875, at
+eleven A. M., the <i>Pauline</i> being at that time off Cape San Roque,
+lat. 5° 13′ N., long 35° W., the north-east coast of Brazil being
+twenty miles distant.
+Captain Drevar says:—The
+weather fine
+and clear, wind and
+sea-moderate. Observed
+some black spots on the
+water, and a whitish
+pillar, about thirty feet
+high above them. At
+the first glace I took
+all to be breakers as
+the sea was splashing
+up fountain-like about them, and the pillar a pinnacle rock,
+bleached with the sun; but the pillar fell with a splash, and a
+similar one rose. They rose and fell alternately in quick succession,
+and good glasses showed me it was a monstrous sea-serpent coiled
+twice round a large sperm-whale. The head and tail parts, each
+about thirty feet long were acting as levers, twisting itself and
+victim round with great velocity. They sank out of sight about
+every two minutes, coming to the surface still revolving; and the
+struggles of the whale and two other whales, that were near,
+frantic with excitement, made the sea in their vicinity like a
+boiling cauldron; and a loud and confused noise was distinctly
+heard. This strange occurrence last some fifteen minutes, and
+finished with the tail portion of the whale being elevated straight
+in the air, then waving backwards and forwards, and lashing the
+water furiously in the last death struggle, when the body disappeared
+from our view, going down head foremost to the bottom,
+where no doubt it was gorged at the serpent’s leisure; and that
+monster of monsters may have been many months in a state of
+coma, digesting the huge mouthful. Then two of the largest sperm-whales
+that I have ever seen moved slowly thence towards the
+vessel, their bodies more than usually elevated out of water, and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page335">[335]</span>not spouting or making
+the least noise,
+but seeming quite paralized
+with fear; indeed,
+a cold shiver
+went through my own
+frame on beholding the
+last agonizing struggle
+of the poor whale that
+had seemed as helpless
+in the coils of the vicious
+monster as a small bird in the talons of a hawk. Allowing
+for two coils round the whale, I think the serpent was about 160
+or 170 feet long, and 7 or 8 feet in girth. It was in colour much
+like a conger-eel; and the head, from the mouth being always
+open, appeared the largest part of its body. I wrote thus far, little
+thinking I would ever see the serpent again, but at seven A. M.,
+July 13, in the same latitude, and some eighty miles east of San
+Roque I was astonished to see the same or a similar monster. It
+was throwing its head and about 40 feet of its body in a horizontal
+position out of water as it passed onwards by the stern of
+our vessel.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig43">
+<img src="images/illo335.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 43.—The sperm-whale going down head foremost
+to the bottom.—</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“This narrative is extracted from a letter addressed from Chittagong
+to the editor of the <i>Calcutta Englishman</i> in January 1876.
+It seems that Captain Drevar’s friends advised him to say nothing
+about this strange spectacle. “My relatives wrote saying that they
+would have seen a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it,
+and a lady also wrote that she pitied any one that was related
+to any one who had seen the sea-serpent.” On the 10th. of this
+month Captain Drevar and four of the crew attended before Mr.
+Raffles, the magistrate at Liverpool, and made a solemn declaration
+in support of the foregoing narrative.”</p>
+
+<p>The two figures, <a href="#Fig42">42</a> and <a href="#Fig43">43</a>, are facsimiles of those accompanying
+the account in the <i>Graphic</i>.</p>
+
+<p>I will try to translate again into English, what the <i>Illustrirte
+Zeitung</i> has published about this curious case, taken for granted
+that the German translation was correct, and laying all responsibility
+on the German writer.</p>
+
+<p>“The Barque <i>Pauline</i> was on July 8th, 1875, about twenty
+miles distant from the north-eastern coast of Brazil, in lat. 5° 13′
+S., long. 35° W., near Cape San Roque. At 11 o’clock a. m.,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page336">[336]</span>the weather fine and clear”....... etc., word for word as in the
+<i>Graphic</i> up to the passage....... “head foremost to the bottom,
+where no doubt it was gorged at the serpent’s leisure”.</p>
+
+<p>“As the serpent was twice wound round the body of the whale,
+Captain Drevar estimated its length to be 160 or 170 feet; it
+was about seven or eight in girth. The mouth was always open;
+the head was very large.”</p>
+
+<p>“On the 13th. of July at 7 o’clock a. m. the barque was still
+in the same latitude, but about eighty miles from San Roque;
+then the same or a similar monster raised out of the water. Its
+head and about forty feet of its body were thrown horizontally out
+of the water and passed our stern.”</p>
+
+<p>“As I was still reflecting on the cause, why this strange guest
+so often paid us a visit, and concluded that it was the white
+stripe of two feet breadth, which went round our ship above the
+copper work and which the serpent probably thought to be one
+of its colleagues, the cry of “There he is again” roused me. At a
+short distance from the ship I really saw the Leviathan, balancing
+about sixty feet high in the air, looking angrily at our vessel. As
+I was not sure, whether it was only looking at the white stripe
+on the ship’s hull, probably thinking to see one of its colleagues,
+or whether it was preparing to attack the vessel, we kept ready
+all our axes, to give it a warm reception. But the animal dived
+and disappeared.”</p>
+
+<p>The German translater is convinced that the story contains
+truth, but he suggests that the whale was playing with a large
+tree or with a broken mast, “for it is known that whales like to
+gambol with violent motions”. The author further presents to his
+readers a reduced copy of the sketch of the Rev. Penny, (our <a href="#Fig41">fig.
+41</a>).—</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, who usually explains every sea-serpent after each
+report quoted by him, says, in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, p.
+90, the following about these reports.</p>
+
+<p>“It is impossible to doubt for a moment the genuineness of the
+statement made by Captain Drevar and his crew, or their honest
+desire to describe faithfully that which they believed they had seen;
+but the height to which the snake is said to have upreared itself
+is evidently greatly exaggerated; for it is impossible that any serpent
+could “elevate its body some sixty feet perpendicularly in the
+air”—nearly one third of the height of the Monument of the
+Great Fire of London. I have no desire to force this narrative of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page337">[337]</span>the master and crew of the <i>Pauline</i> into conformity with any preconceived
+idea. They may have seen a veritable sea-serpent; or
+they may have witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen
+the great creatures rolling over and over that they might breathe
+alternately by the blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the
+water; or the supposed coils of the snake may have been the arms
+of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean. The
+other two appearances—1st., the animal “seen shooting itself
+along the surface with head and neck raised”, and 2nd., the elevation
+of the body to a considerable height, as in Egede’s sea monster,
+would certainly accord with this last hypothesis; but taking
+the statement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation”.</p>
+
+<p>It is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> who generally explains sea-serpents
+by calamaries, cannot give an explanation of <i>this</i> sea-serpent, with
+which he himself is satisfied. “They may have seen a veritable sea-serpent”.
+This phrase is very surprising, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has not yet
+explained what <i>is</i> a veritable sea-serpent. Or did he mean a veritable
+sea-snake? This is improbable, for he knows very well that
+the largest snake which frequents the sea, the <i>Eunectes murina</i>,
+does not measure above 25 feet, so that it is not able to encircle
+a spermwhale, whose circumference is about forty feet. “Or they
+may have witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen the
+great creatures rolling over and over that they might breathe alternately
+by the blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the water”.
+This phrase, however, does not give any explanation of the long
+neck, the tail, the mouth being constantly open, the thick coils,
+which were coloured longitudinally, partly black, partly white, so
+that the captain spoke of a black back and a white belly!” “Or
+the supposed coils of the snake may have been the arms of a great
+calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean.” This too is
+impossible, for the circumference of the serpent was estimated at
+seven or eight feet, and no arm of a calamary has a greater
+circumference than about sixteen inches, even that of the largest
+known specimens, which have a total length of eighty feet! For
+a moment I will leave Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his supposition that the animal,
+seen on the 13th. of July, was a swimming calamary or a similar
+individual standing upright with its tail in the air, and pass to his
+last phrase: “but, taking the statement as it stands, it must be
+left for further elucidation”. This, now, I will try to do. But first
+I beg the reader to direct his attention to the sperm-whales.</p>
+
+<p>The sperm-whales may attain a length of 60 to 70 feet, with a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page338">[338]</span>circumference of 40 feet at the thickest part. The females are smaller,
+growing from 30 to 40 feet. It is reported that sometimes, though
+very seldom, a male measures 90 feet. The head occupies the third
+part of the body-length, in mass, however, it is larger, for it is
+quadrangular in shape and in front just as thick and high as behind,
+whilst the bulky body tapers to the tail. The mouth lies wholly
+on the under side of the head. It is a terrible cavity when opened
+and may be up to fourteen feet in depth. The upper-jaw is toothless,
+but the under-jaw has from forty to fifty four formidable
+teeth, comparatively as sharp as the canines of a dog.</p>
+
+<p>The sperm-whales live in troops, numbering from a very few to
+some hundreds, and containing many females and young ones,
+under the command of some old males. The young males remain
+in this family till they are strong enough to command their own
+family. Some old males wander about solitary, wild and angry.
+To become the sole proprietor of some females, these males fight
+each other vehemently, and indescribably grand is the sight of two
+troops meeting! The wild and warlike nature and the untamable
+muscular strength of the sperm-whale makes its presence even dangerous.
+The greatest hatred exists between them and the whale-bone-whales,
+or the fin-fishes, or rorquals, and when a shoal of
+sperm-whales meets with a shoal of whale-bone-whales, the latter
+are immediately attacked with the greatest fury and cruelty. The
+fight between two such squadrons is terrible, but grand, and commonly
+ends in the flight of the whale-bone-whales, pursued by the
+sperm-whales, not, however, without leaving many dead and terribly
+wounded companions, on which the frightful effects are visible
+of the bites of the sperm-whales, animals that might be called
+“mouth and teeth”.</p>
+
+<p>Knowing the wild and angry nature of the warlike and pitiless
+sperm-whale, and the rather harmless character of the sea-serpent,
+we cannot believe that a sea-serpent has ever or will ever attack
+such a formidable antagonist. Every one will rather believe that a
+sperm-whale, when meeting with a sea-serpent, would suddenly
+attack it. Moreover, if the sea-serpent was the attacker, it would
+not have had “its mouth always open”,—an unfailable sign of
+great pain—but would have bitten repeatedly the whale! And so
+I firmly believe that one of the three spermwhales, had seized
+with its colossal mouth a sea-serpent by the trunk. The poor defenseless
+sea-serpent with its enormous flexible body wound round
+the upper jaw and forepart of the quadrangular head of the sperm-whale.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page339">[339]</span>We know that the sea-serpent has a rather dorso-ventral
+flexibility, for it can swim in vertical undulations, but we know
+too that its lateral flexibility is astonishing. I refer to the American
+reports from 1817 to 1819, wherein the animal in turning bent
+its body in the form of a staple, so that its head nearly touched
+its tail, and to the figures of Dr. <span class="smcap">Biccard</span> (<a href="#Fig37">fig. 37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">38</a>.).</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent, seized by the sperm-whale by the trunk, did
+not bend itself dorsally round the spermwhale’s head, for if this
+had been the case, the captain would have seen the underpart of
+the animal and described its colour as being white. It did not
+bend itself ventrally, for if this had happened, the colour would
+have been described as dark, or black. On the contrary the coils
+are described as longitudinally divided into two sections white and
+black. Consequently the sea-serpent had bent itself laterally. Captain
+<span class="smcap">Drevar</span> was right in his statement that the colour of the
+belly (under part) was white, and that the back (upper part) of
+the animal was black.</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent in its violent pain raised its long neck high in
+the air and extended its jaws; it is even probable that it uttered
+a roaring sound or shriek, this is not mentioned; it may have
+been drowned by the dreadful noise caused by the fight of these
+two huge monsters, for we may suppose that the sea-serpent was
+not destitute of muscular strength, and must have been a formidable
+antagonist. Though it is not mentioned, I am convinced
+that the “two turns” of the sea-serpent were not always wound
+closely round the whale, but from time to time were loosened to
+be tightened again a moment afterwards. Nor do I set great value
+on the repeated assertion that there were <i>two</i> turns; it is impossible
+that this has always been seen clearly through such a “boiling
+of the water like a cauldron”. The dimensions of the head and
+tail part being each about thirty feet beyond the coils are certainly
+not exaggerated, as is the circumference or girth “about eight or
+nine feet”. The sea-serpent in its agony evidently paddled with its
+formidable flappers, which caused the water to be thrown like a
+fountain into the air. They therefore cannot have been visible with
+the glasses. The rolling over and over is, in my opinion, very
+natural in animals of such dimension, fighting in the water, and
+cannot be a result of the serpent “using its extremities as levers”.
+And so they were rolling for about fifteen(?) minutes and at last
+the spermwhale (and not the sea-serpent) dragged its victim down
+to the depths, head foremost. It is a habit of spermwhales, which
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page340">[340]</span>is to be ascribed to their attachment to members of their family
+and to their warlike character and hatred of their enemies, to
+help each other in danger, and so the captain’s statement is
+quite correct: “the two others attempted to release their companion”
+and after the disappearance of the combatants “swam away,
+exhibiting signs of the greatest terror”; here we may safely read
+“fury”, probably they followed on the surface their companion which
+was beneath it, perceptible to them, but invisible to the spectators
+of the <i>Pauline</i>.</p>
+
+<p>It is, however, more probable that the sea-serpent, feeling itself
+free for a moment, suddenly escaped, dived and was followed by
+the sperm-whale.</p>
+
+<p>It is now the right moment to say some words about the figures.
+I will be short, only observing that they are not worth our attention.
+The sketches were evidently drawn in October and December,
+consequently more than three and five months after the encounter.
+It is impossible that they can give an exact representation.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> is of another
+opinion than I, as to the fight; for he declares: “..... to my
+mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of
+the <i>Pauline</i> must be founded on the idea that the animals observed
+by them were gigantic snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking
+the whales, evidently point to a close correspondence with those
+of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons”.
+The reader will understand that I do not wish to contest Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson’s</span>
+opinion.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report145"><span class="reportnr"><b>145</b></span>.—1875, July 13.—Now we come to the second statement
+of the same report, viz. the encounter with the animal on
+the 13th. of July.</p>
+
+<p>On that day another or the same individual was seen again shooting
+itself along the surface horizontally, forty feet of its body
+being out of the water at a time. Consequently the animal swam
+with its body in a straight line, and not with vertical undulations.
+Again on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body
+standing quite perpendicular some sixty feet in the air, and evidently
+taking a survey towards the vessel. This case is nearly the
+same as that which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> witnessed in 1734 near Gothaab. As it
+is often reported that whales and sperm-whales, when coming from
+the depths, do so with such an astonishing force and rapidity that
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page341">[341]</span>they leap clear out of the water, I am convinced that the sea-serpent
+sometimes elevates its fore part to a considerable height as was
+seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup> 5</a>),
+Captain <span class="smcap">Adams</span> (<a href="#Report121">n<sup>o</sup> 121</a>) and Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>.
+If the height of the sea-serpent rising in the air was really sixty
+feet, Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span> must have seen the animal’s fore-flappers,
+though he did not mention them. Else I think that he exaggerated,
+that the height did not surpass forty feet and that the flappers
+remained under water. See also <a href="#Report31">N<sup>o</sup> 31</a>.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report146"><span class="reportnr"><b>146</b></span>.—1876, September 11.—In the number of the 15th.
+of January, 1877, of the <i>Echo</i> appeared an article by Mr. R. A.
+<span class="smcap">Proctor</span> entitled “Strange Sea-Monsters”, wherein he quotes the
+following report. I have not been able to consult the <i>Echo</i>, but I
+have found it cited in Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>. Here
+no date, except that of September 11th., is given, but as the report
+appeared in the January number of 1877 of the <i>Echo</i>, I conclude
+that the appearance took place in September of 1876.</p>
+
+<p>“Soon after the British steamship <i>Nestor</i> anchored at Shanghai,
+last October, John K. Webster, the captain, and James Anderson,
+the ship’s surgeon, appeared before Mr. Donald Spence, Acting Law
+Secretary in the British Supreme Court, and made affidavit to the
+following effect:</p>
+
+<p>“On September 11, at 10.30 a. m., fifteen miles north-west of
+North Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straights, the weather
+being fine and the sea smooth, the captain saw an object which
+had been pointed out by the third officer as “a shoal!” Surprised
+at finding a shoal in such a well-known track, I watched the
+object, and found that it was in motion, keeping up the same
+speed with the ship, and retaining about the same distance as
+first seen. The shape of the creature I would compare to that of a
+gigantic frog. The head, of a pale yellowish colour, was about
+twenty feet in length, and six feet of the crown were above the
+water. I tried in vain to make out the eyes and mouth; the mouth
+may, however, have been below water. The head was immediately
+connected with the body, without any indication of a neck. The
+body was about forty-five or fifty feet long, and of an oval shape,
+perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along
+the spine. The back rose some five feet above the surface. An immense
+tail, fully one hundred and fifty feet in length, rose a few
+inches above the water. This tail I saw distinctly from its junction
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page342">[342]</span>with the body to its extremity; it seemed cylindrical, with a very
+slight taper, and I estimate its diameter at four feet. The body
+and tail were marked with alternate bands of stripes, black and
+pale yellow in colour. The stripes were distinct to the very extremity
+of the tail. I cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin
+or not. The creature possessed no fins or paddles so far as we could
+perceive. I cannot say if it had legs. It appeared to progress by
+means of an undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that
+is, up and down).</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Anderson, the surgeon, confirmed the captain’s account in
+all essential respects. He regarded the creature as an enormous
+marine salamander. “It was apparently of a gelatinous (that is,
+flabby) substance. Though keeping up with us, at the rate of
+nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic. I saw
+no legs or fins, and am certain that the creature did not blow or
+spout in the manner of a whale. I should not compare it for a
+moment to a snake. The only creatures it could be compared with
+are the newt or frog tribe.””</p>
+
+<p>As the captain asserts that the animal kept up the same speed
+as the ship, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> that “though keeping up with us,
+at the rate of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed
+lethargic”, we must conclude that the animal moved by paddling
+with its flappers, and that with this simple mechanism it is able
+to propel itself at a rate of ten knots an hour, steadily and uniformly.
+The tail of the animal, which trailed inactively behind the
+trunk, must of course have been brought in motion by the action
+of the water, so that it is easy to understand that the captain
+thought that “it appeared to progress by means of an undulatory
+motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down)”. It
+is also very natural that the captain declared that “the creature
+possessed no fins or paddles as far as we could perceive. I cannot
+say if it had legs”, and that the surgeon <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> confirmed it:
+“I saw no fins”; the flappers of the animal being entirely hidden
+under water.—The captain says: “The shape of the creature I
+would compare to that of a gigantic frog”. According to his description,
+however, the shape might have been better compared
+with that of a gigantic newt. This is done by Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, as we
+have seen above, who says at the end of his statement, “the only
+creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe”;
+he “should not compare it for a moment to a snake”. This is one
+of the few reports of the animal having been observed swimming
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page343">[343]</span>in full length on the surface of the water. This I think very comprehensible.
+Generally the animal is swimming with the head and
+a part of the neck raised some feet out of the water, and in this
+case the trunk and the tail must carry their weight, so that the
+trunk will be visible only a few inches above the water, and the
+tail hidden for a greater part under it. But as soon as the animal
+drops its neck and head so that only the upper part of both
+remain above the surface, their weight is carried by the water
+itself, and body and tail will become more visible, lying almost
+<i>à fleur d’eau</i> (to use Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae’s</span> term). I firmly believe
+that this is also one of the few occasions that the animal swam
+with its neck contracted. In this situation it is very difficult to
+decide whether the animal has a neck or not, and so the captain’s
+assertion “the head was immediately connected with the body,
+without any indication of a neck” is very conceivable. From the
+hind part of the head the contracted neck gradually grows thicker
+towards the shoulders, where the animal seems to have its largest
+diameter, and from here it tapers towards the hind flappers, so
+that seen from the ship, both neck and body, being visible only
+a few feet above the surface, must have given rise to the description
+of the captain “the body was of an oval shape”. Again the
+position was very favourable to observe the exact place where the
+tail begins, and that the animal has there its pelvis and hind
+flappers, so that, being there broader than at the tail-root,
+the captain observed “this tail I saw distinctly from its junction
+with the body to its extremity”. The colour of the head being
+described as a pale yellowish one, and that of the body and the
+tail alternately black and pale yellow, I conclude that the animal
+having swum for some time in this manner, had been partly dried
+up in the sun, while “catspaws” washing over it again coloured
+it black here and there. As to its length I am inclined to
+believe that Mr. Webster is mistaken. I cannot admit that “the
+head was twenty feet, and six feet of the crown were above the
+water”, nor can I set much value upon his assertion that the tail
+was “fully one hundred and fifty feet in length”. I willingly admit
+that the head measured eight or nine feet, and the tail about one
+hundred feet. As the animal swam just at the surface it is clear
+to me that no mouth was visible, and I think that even the nose
+tip will only have been a few inches above the water. As no eyes
+were seen, the distance must have been rather great; but this is
+not mentioned. The body was perfectly smooth, but there may
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page344">[344]</span>have been a slight ridge along the spine. Probably this was the
+mane, not quite discernable on account of the distance. The tail
+is described as cylindrical, tapering to its end, and estimated at
+four feet in diameter (at its junction, evidently).—It is clear that
+the extreme end of the tail was under water, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span>
+“cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin or not”. As to
+the supposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> that the animal was “apparently
+of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance”, I cannot attach much
+importance to this, as it is impossible to decide this of an animal
+swimming at some distance, even of a calamary. The body was
+smooth, and that’s all. That the creature did not blow or spout
+like a whale, is very natural, as there was evidently no reason
+for doing so, the nose being constantly above the surface, and
+the animal swimming without diving from time to time. A whale,
+sleeping on the surface, does not spout either, as in that case
+the spout-holes are above the surface, and the breathing is regular
+and without puffing. So I think I have shown that all the parts
+of the statement are correct, except the estimated length.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> relying upon the statement of Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>,
+adds in a note:</p>
+
+<p>“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature
+mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner
+of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond
+with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be
+the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as
+it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing
+“funnel”.”</p>
+
+<p>My objections against this supposition are first, that, as I have
+already stated above, it is impossible to decide whether an animal
+is gelatinous or flabby, until we have touched and handled it, and
+secondly, that the manner of swimming of a calamary is not so as
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> believes; for the enormous arms of such a creature
+are not trailing behind the body, when it is swimming backwards,
+but are coiled up and retracted into two peculiar arm pockets;
+and thirdly, that the colour of a calamary does not correspond
+with the colour stated in the report, but is a very light grey one,
+mixed with red or crimson, intermixed with purple.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In the number of February 3d, 1877 of the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i>,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page345">[345]</span>an article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange” appeared, written
+by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>,
+which appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January
+of that year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superficially
+treats of several already known accounts and reports of sea-serpents
+viz: our <a href="#Report144">n<sup>os</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>, and <a href="#Report5">5</a>, the tales of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>,
+the animal of Stronsa (<a href="#Page61">p. 61-88</a>), the appearances quoted by the
+Boston Linnaean Society (1817), our <a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>, the hoax of the
+<a href="#Ref5"><i>Daphne</i></a> (1848, Oct. 21), our <a href="#Report129">n<sup>os</sup>. 129</a> and
+<a href="#Report130">130</a>, the <a href="#Ref6">cheat</a> of Dr.
+<span class="smcap">Koch</span> (1845), and the true sea-snakes (<i>Hydrophidae</i>). In two of his
+assertions this anonymous author is incorrect, viz. It was not Captain
+<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> who asserted that the animal’s mouth was large
+enough to admit of a tall man standing upright in it, but an
+anonymous contributor to the <i>Times</i>; Mr. <span class="smcap">Henderson</span> was master
+of the ship <i>Mary Ann</i>, and not of the <i>Daphne</i>; the master of
+this ship was called <span class="smcap">Trelawney</span>. I consider these four names as
+Active (see my <a href="#Page12">Chapter on hoaxes</a> <a href="#Page34">p. 34</a>.)</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report147"><span class="reportnr"><b>147</b></span>.—1877, May 21.—In Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure
+Time Studies</i> we read in a note (p. 111):</p>
+
+<p>“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas
+is afforded by the report of the master of the barque <i>Georgina</i>
+from Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September
+4, 1877) put into Falmouth for orders on the 1st. September. On
+May 21, 1877, in latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53′ E., a
+large serpent about forty or fifty feet long, grey and yellow in
+colour, and ten or eleven inches thick, was seen by the crew. It
+was visible for twenty minutes, during which time it crossed the
+bow, and ultimately disappeared under the port-quarter.”</p>
+
+<p>The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the animal.
+The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me conclude
+that the animal had swum for a long time with its body in
+a straight line, without diving and that the part, exposed to the
+sunbeams, had dried up.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> adds: “There can be little doubt that
+this sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I’ll
+not contest his opinion.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report148"><span class="reportnr"><b>148</b></span>.—1877, June 2.—Not less important than others
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page346">[346]</span>is the report of the <i>Osborne</i>. In Mr. <b>Lee’s</b> <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>
+we read p. 93 the following about this occurrence:</p>
+
+<p>“In June, 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty
+that on the 2nd. of that month, he and other officers of the Royal
+Yacht <i>Osborne</i>, had seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine
+animal, of which the following account and sketches were furnished
+by Lieutenant Haynes, and were confirmed by Commander Pearson,
+Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth, and Mr. Moore, engineer.”</p>
+
+<p>“Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, “Royal Yacht <i>Osborne</i>,
+Gibraltar, June 6”: On the evening of that day, the sea being
+perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge
+of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet,
+and varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by
+means of a telescope, at about one and a-half cables’ distance, I
+distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an
+animal’s shoulder. The head, as nearly as I could judge, was about
+six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four to five feet, the
+shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers each about fifteen
+feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of
+a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance
+being strongest about the back of the head. I could not see the
+length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the
+shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty
+feet. The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the
+ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and which
+had disappeared by the time I got a telescope, were really the
+continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body. The
+animal’s head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards,
+remaining above for a few seconds at a time, and then
+disappearing; there was an entire absence of “blowing” or “spouting”.
+I herewith beg to enclose a rough <a href="#Fig44">sketch</a>, showing the view
+of the “ridge of fins”, and also of the animal in the act of propelling
+itself by its two fins.”</p>
+
+<p>Evidently Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has not communicated the whole account as
+it was in the original periodical, nor did he mention the name of
+the periodical.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Times</i> of June 14th., 1877 mentions:</p>
+
+<p>“The <i>Osborne</i>, 2, paddle royal yacht, Commander Hugh L.
+Pearson, which arrived at Portsmouth from the Mediterranean on
+Monday, and at once proceeded to her moorings in the harbour,
+has forwarded an official report to the Admiralty, through the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page347">[347]</span>commander-in-chief (Admiral Sir George Elliot, K. C. B.), respecting
+a sea-monster which she encountered during her homeward
+voyage. At about five o’clock in the afternoon of the 2nd. instant,
+the sea being exceptionally calm, while the yacht was proceeding
+round the north coast of Sicily towards Cape Vito, the officer on
+the watch observed a long ridge of fins, each about six feet long,
+moving slowly along. He called for a telescope, and was at once
+joined by other officers. The <i>Osborne</i> was steaming westward at
+ten and a half knots an hour, and, having a long passage before
+her, could not stay to make minute observations. The fins were
+progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more
+nearly approached them, they were replaced by the foremost part
+of a gigantic sea-monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen,
+altogether devoid of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness
+that of a seal. The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination,
+being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and
+was about six feet in diameter. Its features were only seen by one
+officer, who described them as like those of an alligator. The neck
+was comparatively narrow, but so much of the body as could be
+seen, developed in form like that of gigantic turtle, and from each
+side extended two fins, about fifteen feet in length, by which the
+monster paddled itself along after the fashion of a turtle. The appearance
+of the monster is accounted for by a submarine volcano,
+which occurred north of Galita, in the Gulf of Tunis, about the
+middle of May, and was reported at the time by a steamer which
+was struck by a detached fragment of submarine rock. The disturbance
+below water, it is thought probable, may have driven up
+the monster from its “native element”, as the site of the eruption
+is only one hundred miles from where it was reported to have
+been seen”.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Graphic</i> of June 16, 1877, tells us p. 563, 3d. column:</p>
+
+<p>“The Sea-Serpent has once more made his appearance, and this
+time the officers of the Royal Yacht <i>Osborne</i> are the witnesses to
+his existence. The Commander, says the <i>Portsmouth Times and
+Navel Gazette</i>, has sent an official report to the Admiralty, stating
+that on the 2nd. inst. a curious creature was seen off the coast of
+Sicily in a smooth sea. The serpent was “of immense length, with
+a smooth scaleless skin, and a ridge of fins, 15 feet in length,
+and 6 ft. apart along the back, a bullet-shaped head, and a face
+like an alligator. It moved slowly, and was distinctly seen by all
+the officers.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page348">[348]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig44">
+<img src="images/illo348.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 44.—The ridge of fins mentioned in the report of the <i>Osborne</i>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The same Journal of the 30th. of June publishes the following
+account and sketch by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“We are indebted to Lieut. W. P. Haynes, of H. M. S. <i>Osborne</i>,
+for the sketch of the sea-monster seen by the officers and crew of
+that vessel off the north coast of Sicily on the 2nd. inst. In a
+letter accompanying the sketch, he says:—“My attention was
+first called by seeing a long row of fins appearing above the surface
+of the water at a distance of about 200 yards and “away on our
+beam”. They were of irregular heights, and extending about 30
+or 40 feet in line (the former number is the length I gave, the
+latter the other officers), in a few seconds they disappeared, giving
+place to the foremost part of the monster. By this time it had
+passed astern, swimming in an opposite direction to that we were
+steering, and as we were passing through the water at 10¹⁄₂ knots,
+I could only get a view of it, “and on”, which I have shown in
+the <a href="#Fig45">sketch</a>. The head was bullet-shaped, and quite six feet thick,
+the neck narrow and its head was occasionally thrown back out
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page349">[349]</span>of the water, remaining there for a few seconds at a time. It was
+very broad across the back or shoulders, about 15 or 20 feet, and
+the flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion, which
+seemed to paddle the monster along. They were about 15 feet in
+length. From the top of the head to the part of the back where
+it became immersed, I should consider 50 feet, and that seemed
+about a third of the whole length. All this part was smooth,
+resembling a seal. I cannot account for the fins, unless they were
+on the back below, where it was immersed.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig45">
+<img src="images/illo349.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 45.—The sea-serpent as seen by Commander <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> and Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> of the <i>Osborne</i>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>According to Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> a Mr. <span class="smcap">Frank Buckland</span> has suggested
+(where? this is not mentioned) that “the ridge of dorsal
+fins might, possibly, belong to four basking sharks, swimming in
+line, in close order.” Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> himself seems to be of this opinion
+too. As to me, I don’t believe it, for the simple reason that the
+basking sharks only live in the Arctic Sea, and are never observed
+farther south than the coasts of Great-Britain and of Massachusetts.
+So Mr. <span class="smcap">Frank Buckland’s</span> whole supposition falls to the ground.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page350">[350]</span>At all events the fins have nothing to do with the sea-serpent.
+This is also the opinion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, who asserts: “The combination
+of them with long flippers, and the turtle-like mode of swimming,
+forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”</p>
+
+<p>We will first speak of the account Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> wrote on
+the 6th. of June, when at Gibraltar. The sea was perfectly smooth,
+and he saw the ridge of fins. He took his glasses and instead of
+fins he distinctly saw something quite different. In the short time
+that he fixed his glasses, the ridge of fins had no doubt disappeared,
+and the huge animal emerged. The owners of the fins
+were evidently frightened at the approach of the sea-serpent. Lieut.
+<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> “distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty
+feet of an animal’s shoulder”. We may safely add: and a long
+neck connecting this head with the shoulder, and we may safely
+read for shoulder: a part of its back. The head was about six
+feet thick, the neck narrower, about four or five feet; consequently
+the animal had stretched its neck as forward as possible. The back,
+on the level of the flappers, was about fifteen feet broad, “and
+the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of
+the flappers were those of a turtle.” I should like to say: were
+those of a sea-lion, for a sea-turtle cannot possibly elevate its
+flappers so high above the surface of the water, while sea-lions
+are able to do so. Moreover the fashion is the same, that is to
+say, the paddling happens alternately, i. e. when the right flapper
+is brought as forward as possible to commence the act of paddling,
+the left one is kept as backward as possible, nearly touching the
+trunk, having just brought the act of paddling to an end. “The
+animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest
+about the back of the head.” This is in my opinion the most
+remarkable statement of this report. We have more than once met
+with the comparison of the head or face of the animal with that
+of a seal, but Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> clearly states the <i>animal</i> (seen
+from behind) resembled a seal. “I could not see the length of the
+head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where
+it became immersed) I should reckon about fifty feet.” Going by
+known descriptions and figures, we may suppose that the length
+of the head may have been between eight and nine feet. When
+from the top of the head to just below the shoulder the length is
+estimated at about fifty feet, I reckon that the neck of the animal
+must have been one of forty feet, reckoning two feet from the
+top of the head to the occiput, and eight feet from the flappers
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page351">[351]</span>to where the animal became immersed, i. e. the visible part of
+its back. The estimated measurements of the individual of captain
+<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) were: length of the head about three feet,
+breadth about two feet; diameter of neck below the head about
+one foot and a third; length of the neck to the fore-flappers about
+twenty feet; length of the trunk from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers
+about twenty feet, length of the tail about forty feet,
+length of the whole animal between eighty and ninety feet. Let us now
+repeat those of the individual of the <i>Osborne</i>, which seems to be
+about <i>three times</i> larger. The breadth of the head is about six
+feet, consequently the length of the head about nine feet; the
+diameter of the neck below the head about four or five feet, say
+four feet, i. e. <i>three times</i> one foot and a third; the distance from
+the occiput to the flappers—forty feet, according to my calculation
+given above but,—comparing the dimensions of the individual of
+Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> with the present, I don’t hesitate a moment to
+put down sixty feet for the distance from the head to the fore-flappers.
+The officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> were in a more favourable
+situation to estimate this distance, the distance from the fore-flappers
+to the hind-flappers and the whole length of the animal
+they saw,—than Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>; for the former saw the
+animal from aside, whilst the latter beheld it from behind, and
+was consequently in a bad situation to estimate the different
+lengths of the animal, but in a more favourable to estimate its
+different breadths. The length of the neck must really have been
+formidable, for though the animal (see drawing) showed hardly
+any neck at all, (resembling an enormous ball just visible above
+the surface of the water, with another smaller bullet on its top,)
+Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> estimated the distance from the top of the
+head to the part of its back, where it became immersed, at fifty
+feet! The remaining part of the back and the animal’s tail and
+hind-flappers were entirely invisible. I have already expressed my
+firm conviction that the ridge of fins has nothing at all to do
+with the animal. It is evident that Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> himself
+had his doubts about this point, for else he would not have
+written: “unless the ridge of fins....... were really the continuation
+of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body”. Evidently
+the animal elevated its head from time to time some feet into the
+air to take a survey before it. Evidently it never dropped its head
+so as to come with its nostrils below water, for “there was an
+entire absence of blowing or spouting”.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page352">[352]</span></p>
+
+<p>In the account of the <i>Times</i> only the following sentences are
+interesting. The ridge of fins moved <i>slowly</i> along. They were <i>replaced</i>
+by the foremost part of a sea-serpent. In my opinion this
+statement is very correct. Its skin was altogether devoid of scales,
+appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. This is a
+remarkable statement, for in the foregoing account the animal is
+said to resemble a huge seal! Again: the head was bullet-shaped
+(seen from behind) with an elongated termination (read snout) being
+somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six
+feet in diameter. The assertion of one of the officers who saw the
+animal’s features and described them as like those of an alligator,
+cannot surprise us, as this comparison has been made more than
+once. As much of the body as could be seen was developed in
+form like that of a gigantic turtle. Evidently this reporter did not
+observe that the head and trunk were connected by a long neck,
+as did Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>. I cannot approve of the supposition
+that the animal would have been started by the volcanic disturbance,
+which took place a hundred miles more southward and a
+fortnight ago!!</p>
+
+<p>The rough account of the <i>Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette</i>
+partly reprinted in the <i>Graphic</i>, is as the reader will already have
+observed himself, for the greater part, wrong: the fins of the ridge
+were estimated to be from five to six feet high, and not 15 feet
+in length. They were never seen along the back. Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> clearly doubted of it, and I believe that nobody of my
+readers will admit the possibility of such a position! It was the
+ridge of fins that moved slowly, and not the animal. Though it
+is not expressed <i>in words</i>, the figure shows us that the sea-serpent
+moved with the greatest velocity, paddling so violently, that it
+lifted up its flappers as high as possible.</p>
+
+<p>In the letter which Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> forwarded to the Editor
+of the Graphic, we read that the animal passed the stern, swimming
+in an opposite direction to that they were steering to; consequently
+the animal could have been seen for a few seconds only
+from aside, and then only from behind. Most probably in passing
+the yacht, the animal turned its face once towards it, for we read
+in the <i>Times</i> of 14th. June: “its features were seen only by one
+officer.” The breadth of the back is now stated to be about 15
+or 20 feet. “The flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion,”
+which is indeed a nearly exact expression for this motion. The length
+of 50 feet is now considered by the gallant officer to seem to be
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page353">[353]</span>about a third of the whole length. The reason of this estimation
+is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the water behind
+the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe that this
+individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again, the
+Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could
+have been the ridge of fins! No wonder!</p>
+
+<p>Of the second sketch (<a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>) I will only say that it is partly
+wrong; for only <i>one</i> flapper must have been visible <i>at one time</i>,
+though it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rapidity
+that it <i>seemed</i> as if the two flappers were visible together.
+And when seen from aside in this position it would appear that
+the animal had more than two flappers, had a row of them, as
+is shown in our <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>.—It is also clear that the severe splashing
+and foaming of the water, which <i>must</i> have been caused by the
+movements of the flappers, is omitted in the figure.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> notes that
+the details furnished in the account of the <i>Times</i> appear to be
+explicable by a tape-fish (<i>Gymnetrus</i> or <i>Regalecus</i>). I need not say
+that I am not at all at one with him. There is not one simple
+character either in the ridge of fins, or in the animal described,
+which agrees in the least with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape-fishes
+are deep-sea fishes, and only rise to the surface, dying or dead!</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood</span>, <span class="smcap">Jun’s</span> comparison of the animal with
+a manatee (<i>Nature</i>, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but
+the length of the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimensions
+of both animals differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous
+to dwell any longer on it.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In January 1879, Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> published his <i>Leisure
+Time Studies</i>, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth
+chapter is entitled “The sea-serpents of Science”. As might be
+expected the author treats of the various explanations of the sea-serpent
+given by men of science as well as by others, and declares
+himself to be a firm believer of the fact that large unknown animals
+exist. I wish to quote here the most interesting parts, or
+better said, those parts which are, at present, of great interest.
+In considering the authenticity of the reports and the admission
+that really “something” must have been seen, the author says:</p>
+
+<p>“Can we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated during
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page354">[354]</span>past years, dismiss the subject <i>simpliciter</i>, as founded on no
+basis of fact? The answer to such a question must be an emphatic
+negative; since the evidence brought before our notice includes the
+testimony of several hundreds of sane and reasonable persons, who
+in frequent cases have testified on oath and by affidavit to the
+truth of their descriptions of curious marine forms, seen and observed
+in various seas. The second supposition, that all of these
+persons have simply been deceived, is one which must also be
+dismissed. For, after making all due allowance for exaggeration,
+and for variations in accounts arising from different modes of expression
+and even from mental peculiarities in the witnesses, there
+remains a solid body of testimony, which, unless there is some
+special tendency to mendacity on the part of persons who travel
+by sea, we are bound, by all the rules of fair criticism and of
+evidence, to receive as testimony of honest kind. As I have elsewhere
+observed: There are very many calmly and circumstantially
+related and duly verified accounts of serpentine, or at any rate,
+of anomalous marine forms, having been closely inspected by the
+crew and passengers of vessels. Either, therefore, we must argue
+that in every instance the senses of intelligent men and women
+must have played them false, or we must simply assume that they
+are describing what they have never seen. The accounts in many
+instances so minutely describe the appearance of such forms, inspected
+from a near standpoint, that the possibility of their being
+mistaken for inanimate objects, as they might be if viewed from
+a distance, is rendered entirely improbable. We may thus, then,
+affirm firstly that there are many verified pieces of evidence on
+record, of strange marine forms having been met with,—which
+evidences, judged according to ordinary and common sense rules,
+go to prove that certain hitherto undescribed marine organisms do
+certainly exist in the sea-depths.”</p>
+
+<p>“The first issue I must therefore submit to the reader, as representing
+one of a large and impartial jury, is, that the mass of
+evidence accumulated on the sea-serpent question, when weighed
+and tested, even in a <i>prima facie</i> manner, plainly shuts us up to
+the belief that appearances, resembling those produced by the
+presence in the sea of huge serpentine forms, have been frequently
+noted by competent and trustworthy observers. Unless we are to
+believe that men and women have deliberately prevaricated, and
+that without the slightest excuse or show of reason, we must
+believe that they have witnessed marine appearances, certainly of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page355">[355]</span>unwonted and unusual kind. That “something” has assuredly been
+seen, must be the verdict on this first issue. What that “something”
+is or was, and whether or not the evidence will support
+the opinion that the appearances described bear out the existence
+of a “sea-serpent” in the flesh, form points for discussion in the
+next instance.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> mentions some pages further on a curious
+case of fear of popular ridicule in telling that</p>
+
+<p>“one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had been seen
+by his crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below;
+since, to use his own words, “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent,
+I should have been considered to be a warranted liar all
+my life after!”</p>
+
+<p>In examining whether that “something” was a dead or living
+organism, Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> concludes that:</p>
+
+<p>“Numerous cases exist in which the object, presumed to be a
+living being, has been scrutinized so closely that, save on the supposition
+that senses have played their owners false, or that minds
+have given way to an unaccountable impulse for lying, we must
+face and own the belief that living animals have been seen.”</p>
+
+<p>He now speaks of a few accounts, viz. the various reports of
+the animal seen by the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>), by the
+crew of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>), and by the captain and the
+surgeon of the <i>Nestor</i> (<a href="#Report146">n<sup>o</sup>. 146</a>), and explains them in his own
+way, believing that these sea-serpents were gigantically developed
+sea-snakes, or a great calamary. Next he treats of the appearance
+of the animal as reported by the officers of the <i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>),
+explaining it to be a tape-fish. Finally he defends his hypothesis of
+gigantically developed sea-snakes and ribbon-fishes. These parts,
+however, I have inserted in my <a href="#Page380">Chapter</a> on various explanations.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In a review of Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>,
+which I have found in <i>Nature</i> of the 30th. of January, 1879,
+Vol. XIX, the following is written about the chapter on the sea-serpent:</p>
+
+<p>“The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting, both
+as giving a very fair summary of the most recent evidence on this
+subject, and as showing that the age of incredulity is past, and
+that naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page356">[356]</span>kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist, of which no single
+specimen has yet been obtained. Recollecting, however, the number
+of clever hoaxes to which this subject has given rise we think
+that the newspaper account at p. 104, of the declaration before a
+Liverpool J. P., made by the master and crew of a merchant-ship,
+to the effect that they had seen a huge serpent twice coiled round
+a sperm-whale, and a similar serpent with its head raised “sixty
+feet perpendicularly in the air,” should not have been inserted as
+evidence without first ascertaining that such a declaration was actually
+made before the magistrate named. The troubling of writing
+a single letter would probably have been sufficient, and would
+have settled the preliminary question of whether, from beginning
+to end, it was not a newspaper <i>canard</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that, after having attentively read what they
+find in this book about the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen
+by the crew of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>) my readers will be
+convinced that the report of Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span> was not a <i>canard</i>.
+We read moreover in <i>Nature</i> of Febr. 10, 1881, that Captain
+<span class="smcap">Drevar</span> has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he
+witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing
+its long neck out of the water. Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>, the writer of the article
+in which this is communicated, adds: “This is satisfactory as
+showing that the declaration was no hoax”. I quite agree with him.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig46">
+<img src="images/illo357.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 46.—The sea-serpent as seen by Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> of the
+<i>City of Baltimore</i>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p id="Report149"><span class="reportnr"><b>149</b></span>.—1879, January 28.—The <i>Graphic</i> of April, 19,
+1879, says:</p>
+
+<p>“The following is an extract from the account given by our
+correspondent, Major H. W. J. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps,
+to whom we are indebted for the sketch from which our <a href="#Fig46">engraving</a>
+is taken:—“On the 28th. of January, 1879, at about 10
+a. m., I was on the poop deck of the steamship <i>City of Baltimore</i>
+in lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E. I observed a long black object
+abeam of the ship’s stern on the starboard side, at a distance of
+about three-quarters of a mile, darting rapidly out of the water,
+and splashing in again with a sound distinctly audible, and advancing
+nearer and nearer at a rapid pace. In a minute it had
+advanced to within half a mile, and was distinctly recognizable as
+the veritable “sea-serpent”. I shouted out “Sea-serpent! sea-serpent!
+call the captain!” Dr. C. Hall, the ship’s surgeon, who was reading
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page357">[357]</span>on deck, jumped
+up in time to
+see the monster,
+as did also Miss.
+Greenfield, one of
+the passengers on
+board. By this time
+it was only about
+500 yards off, and
+a little in the rear,
+owing to the vessel
+then steaming at
+the rate of about
+ten knots an hour
+in a westerly direction.
+On approaching
+the wake
+of the ship the
+serpent turned its
+course a little away,
+and was soon lost
+to view in the blaze
+of sunlight reflected
+on the waves
+of the sea. So rapid
+were its movements that when it approached the ship’s wake, I
+seized a telescope, but could not catch a view as it darted rapidly
+out of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus
+prevented from ascertaining whether it had scales or not but the
+best view of the monster obtainable when it was about three
+cables’ length, that is about 500 yards’ distant, seemed to show
+that it was without scales. I cannot, however, speak with certainty.
+The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the
+water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the monster
+opened its jaws wide as it rose, and closed them again as it
+lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost
+immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible
+at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the
+disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice, although
+occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head.
+The shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon I
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page358">[358]</span>have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the forehead and
+eyebrow. When the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out
+of the water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of
+wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion
+caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of
+the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings.”</p>
+
+<p>“Major Senior’s statement is countersigned by the two persons
+whom he mentions as co-witnesses, and he expresses his willingness
+to answer any questions which may be put to him by any one
+interested in the subject. His address while on furlough is Rosebank
+Villa, Southfield Rode, Cotham, Bristol.”</p>
+
+<p>The appearance took place in the Gulf of Aden, as pointed out
+by the latitude and longitude. The account here is very correct as
+I now will try to show. The colour of the animal is called black
+and the appearance of the skin was that it was without scales.
+The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the
+water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the animal
+opened its jaws wide as it rose, evidently swallowing some fish,
+captured under water in its pursuit of a shoal of them, and closed
+them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive,
+reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The
+body was not visible at all, and must have been some depth
+under water, as the disturbance on the surface was too slight to
+attract notice. This is very natural, as I have already pointed out
+on a former occasion: if the head and neck are above the surface,
+the remaining parts of the body must carry their weight and sink
+a little below the surface. Not very much, however, for the
+foreflappers, as well as the hindflappers, paddling very rapidly
+caused a splash distinctly visible on the base of the neck (or on
+the shoulders), and “occasionally a splash was seen at some distance
+behind the head”. Examining the figure, which is very exact, we
+may take it that the foremost splash was caused by the foreflappers,
+about twenty-five feet in the rear of the head, the very same place
+where the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) “occasionally saw a
+fin”, and that about twenty-five feet more backward the hindmost
+splash was caused by the hindflappers, the place, where Captain
+<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) “occasionally saw another fin”. The animal
+seen from the <i>Daedalus</i> seems to have been a little smaller than
+that seen from the <i>City of Baltimore</i>. The comparison of the head
+with a dragon’s is a little far-fetched. The animal furiously pursuing
+its prey, sometimes opening its jaws, knitting its heavy eye-brows,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page359">[359]</span>which as we know are a little prominent, in short, expressing in
+its features hurry and a wild longing for its prey, may under
+these circumstances have had a feature terrible enough to cause
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Senior’s</span> expression “the shape of the head was not unlike
+pictures of the dragons I have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance
+of the fore-head and eye-brow”. We have learned already that
+on such occasions the animal curved its neck swan-like and diving
+head foremost like a duck, disappeared. Here we have another
+habit of pursuing: “when the monster had drawn its head sufficiently
+out of water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log
+of wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion
+caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of
+the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings”. This last might
+have been fairly omitted as every one can imagine the splash of
+water, caused by a log of wood falling into it. I think this comparison
+also far-fetched: such a splash cannot be compared with
+an object.</p>
+
+<p>Our <a href="#Fig46">figure</a> is taken from Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> often quoted work. It is
+the middle third of the one which illustrated the text in the
+<i>Graphic</i>, but as it is drawn on the same scale, I saw no reason
+to give my readers the whole illustration of the <i>Graphic</i>.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report150"><span class="reportnr"><b>150</b></span>.—1879, March 30th.—<i>Nature</i> of the 24th. of July,
+1879, contains the following of Surgeon <span class="smcap">Barnett</span>, respecting the
+appearance of a sea-serpent near Cape Naturaliste in Australia.</p>
+
+<p>“In <i>Nature</i>, Vol. XIX, p. 286, I observed some remarks respecting
+sea-serpents, and especially noted one passage which stated
+that “The age of incredulity is past, and naturalists are now prepared
+to admit that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters
+probably exist.”</p>
+
+<p>“I was pleased to read this statement, as I have for many years
+been convinced that some of the accounts published from time to
+time in the newspapers are accurate descriptions of what has actually
+been witnessed, but I little expected that I should so soon
+be able to forward to you a description of one of these creatures,
+as given by an eye-witness, of whose accuracy there can be no
+question, and whose observations were made when very close to
+the animal.”</p>
+
+<p>“Busselton is a little seaport about 150 miles south of Fremantle,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page360">[360]</span>on the west coast of Australia, situated on the shore of Geographe
+Bay, which is sheltered by Cape Naturaliste; the northern point
+of that singular projection on the south-west corner of Australia.”</p>
+
+<p>“During the greater part of the year the water of Geographe
+Bay is as smooth as a lake, though it is a portion of that vast
+Indian Ocean which extends unbrokenly to the African coast. The
+beach is of smooth white sand, so hard at the water’s edge that
+it is frequently used as a road for riding or driving from Busselton
+to Lockville; the latter place, a few miles to the north, is the
+station of the Ballarat Timber Company, containing their steam
+saw mills, the termination of their railway, and the jetty from
+which large quantities of that imperishable and valuable timber
+called jarrah is exported to be used as piles, railway sleepers, etc.”</p>
+
+<p>“Last month I heard a report that the sea-serpent had been seen
+near Busselton, and that the resident clergyman had been one of
+the spectators. Having the pleasure of personal acquaintance with
+that gentleman, I wrote to him on the subject, and received from
+him such an interesting account, that I applied to him for permission
+to communicate the facts to your paper, and verify them
+by publishing his name. It is fortunate that the principal eye-witness
+was an educated gentleman, who has for twenty seven
+years been a Colonial chaplain in this colony, and whose description
+of what he saw is clear, simple, and free from exaggeration.”</p>
+
+<p>“I copy from the letters of the Rev. H. W. Brown the following
+extracts:—</p>
+
+<p>“On Sunday, March 30, I left Lockville just as the sun was
+setting, on my way home by the beach”.</p>
+
+<p>“The afternoon had been oppressively hot, not a breath of wind,
+and the sea was as smooth as a glass. I met C. M’Guire and his
+wife walking towards Lockville.”</p>
+
+<p>“Soon afterwards, when abreast of the track to Richardson’s, I
+noticed ahead of me what looked like a black log of wood in the
+water a stone’s throw from the shore, nearly end-on to me, and
+apparently more buoyant at that end; getting nearer, I noticed
+that it was <i>drifting</i> apparently towards Lockville, and soon discovered
+that it was moving, leaving behind it a very long, narrow
+ridge on the smooth water. I then turned my horse’s head, and,
+at a walking pace kept just abreast of it, unnoticed apparently,
+till I had gained sufficiently on M’Guire to make him hear. I
+then coo-eed <i>once</i>; he turned and came back to meet me; but at
+the sound of my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page361">[361]</span>(under water), and doubled again in shore, but so rapidly as to
+leave both outward and inward “ridge” on the water distinctly
+visible at once, like a wide V with quite a sharp corner. It gave
+me the idea of two fishes, the one darting outward, the other
+crossing its track inward at the same moment.”</p>
+
+<p>“Not knowing where it might show up next, but satisfied that
+it had come in-shore again, I tried by pointing seaward to direct
+M’Guire’s attention that way”.</p>
+
+<p>“Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing
+gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost
+at rest, and all apparently was in view, I estimated the length to
+be 60 feet, straight and taper, like a long spar, with the butt
+end, his head and shoulders, showing well above the surface.”</p>
+
+<p>“I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff,
+about two feet diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very
+distinctly above water, several square-topped fins.”</p>
+
+<p>“I here make an exact tracing from Mr. Brown’s letter of his
+sketch:—</p>
+
+<p>“It was now getting
+rather too dark to see
+details distinctly. The
+fish proceeded toward
+Lockville, and I turned
+homeward. M’Guire said he would go on to Lockville jetty
+and look out for him there.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig47">
+<img src="images/illo361.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 47.—Outline of the back of the sea-serpent as seen
+by the Rev. <span class="smcap">H. W. Brown</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“Whether he saw him again I know not, but M’Mullan, the
+fisherman, told me next morning that he had seen it about fifty
+yards from that jetty, and it looked to him about twenty feet
+long. So it did to me while in motion; only when at rest for a
+moment did its whole length show up sufficiently. What its propelling
+power was I cannot say from observation; I saw no lateral
+fins and no fish-tail.”</p>
+
+<p>“When it started away at the sound of my voice, it was with
+the rapid movement of a pike or sword-fish, and yet the thick
+bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake.”</p>
+
+<p>“There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore the same
+afternoon, yet when I saw the stranger there were certainly no
+fish of which it could be in pursuit.”</p>
+
+<p>“Since the year 1848, when the captain and officers of a British
+man-of-war gave evidence that they passed within 100 yards of a
+snake, which they estimated to be 60 feet in length above water,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page362">[362]</span>with probably 40 feet beneath, I do not know of any more clear
+account than the above. Many independant accounts of the existence
+of marine monsters have been placed on record, and it seems mere
+folly to treat these repeated reports with ridicule.”</p>
+
+<p>“I trust that your readers will no longer doubt that the “age
+of credulity” is past.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“H. C. Barnett.”</span></p>
+
+<p>“Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.”
+<span class="righttext"><span class="padr2">“Colonial surgeon.”</span></span></p>
+
+<p>I need not tell my readers that the figure is very rude, and
+only gives a very indistinct representation of four “bunches”, or
+visible parts of vertical undulations, called “fins” in the narrative.
+The blunt head, compared with the end of a log, the imperfect
+description, and the so-called square appearance of the bunches
+must be ascribed to the falling darkness. The other details of the
+report: the swimming of the animal in bunches, its causing the
+“ridges” in the water in the shape of a wide V, its holding its
+head well above the surface, its length, its resemblance with a
+spar, straight and taper, are in my opinion convincing enough to
+call this “fish” a sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report151"><span class="reportnr"><b>151</b></span>.—1879, April 5.—In the <i>Graphic</i> of July, 19th., 1879,
+and in <i>Nature</i> for November 18th., 1880, we find the following
+statement:</p>
+
+<p>“The accompanying <a href="#Fig48">engraving</a> is a <i>fac-simile</i> of a sketch sent
+to us by Captain Davison, of the steamship <i>Kiushiu-maru</i>, and is
+inserted as a specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently
+forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this journal. Capt.
+Davison’s statement, which is countersigned by his chief officer,
+Mr. McKechnie, is as follows:—Saturday, April 5th., at 11.15
+a. m. Cape Satano distant about nine miles, the chief officer and
+myself observed a whale jump clear out of the sea, about a quarter
+of a mile away. Shortly after it leaped out again, when I saw
+there was something attached to it. Got glasses, and on the next
+leap distinctly saw something holding on the belly of the whale.
+The latter gave one more spring clear of the water, and myself
+and chief then observed what appeared to be a large creature of
+the snake species rear itself about thirty feet out of the water. It
+appeared to be about the thickness of a junk’s mast and after
+standing about ten seconds in an erect position, it descended into
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page363">[363]</span>the water, the upper end going first. With my glasses I made out
+the colour of the beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig48"><a id="Fig49"></a>
+<img src="images/illo363.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 48 and 49.—Two positions of the sea-serpent as seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span> of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>It is clear that the Editor of the <i>Graphic</i> is an unbeliever, else
+he would not have called these figures “specimens of the curious
+drawings which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the
+pages of this journal”. I think that there is nothing curious in
+these figures, which are as correct as possible.</p>
+
+<p>Cape Satano is the most southern point of Japan, or better, of
+the Isle of Kiu Siu. It is also called Satano Misaki, of which
+“Saki” or “Misaki” signifies “cape”. The Russians call it Cape
+Chichakoff. This is the third time that we read of the sea-serpent
+being seen in the Pacific Ocean (see <a href="#Report36">n<sup>o</sup>. 36</a> and <a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The most remarkable fact mentioned in this report is the gripping
+the whale. The reader will remember the report of a sea-serpent
+engaged with a whale, of course one of the smaller kind
+(<a href="#Report54">n<sup>o</sup>. 54</a>). In 1833 some British officers saw a shoal of grampuses
+near Halifax, Nova Scotia, which appeared in an unusual state of
+excitement” and a little while afterwards the sea-serpent appeared,
+evidently hunting after the grampuses (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>). Again in 1850 (?)
+Captain <span class="smcap">Christmas</span> saw “an immense shoal of porpoises rushing
+by the ship, as if pursued” and soon afterwards a sea-serpent made
+its appearance, curving its neck swan-like, evidently keeping a lookout
+and disappearing “head foremost like a duck diving” (<a href="#Report124">n<sup>o</sup>. 124</a>).
+Also Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span> saw it “surrounded by porpoises” (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>).
+And now we have for the fifth time the sea-serpent pursuing
+whales, and a second time that it is engaged with one which it
+had evidently gripped in its pectoral fin. I am convinced that the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page364">[364]</span>description “holding on the belly of the whale” is incorrect. The
+dimensions of the neck estimated at thirty feet in length and of
+about the thickness of the mast of a junk are certainly not exaggerated.
+After the whale’s escape, the sea-serpent for about ten
+seconds stood in an erect position, like the animal of Captain
+<span class="smcap">Brown</span> (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>), taking evidently a survey all around, then bent
+its neck swan-like as in shown in the figure and finally “descended
+into the water, the upper end going first”, exactly the way in
+which the animal behaved seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Christmas</span> (<a href="#Report124">n<sup>o</sup>. 124</a>).
+The description of the colour as “resembling that of a pilot-fish”,
+is very vague, for the different pilot-fishes (<i>Naucrates</i>) have different
+colours, generally grey with some hue of blue, brown, or purple.
+The vague definition may be the result of a damp atmosphere, or
+it must be that the throat was turned towards the spectators, and
+not the back-part of the neck, which is nearly black. As the sea-serpent
+has a very long and pointed tail, the fan-shaped or double
+finned tail in fig. 49 must be accounted for. This I think may be
+done in the following four ways: 1. The tail represents the whale,
+disappearing in the water, which in so doing caused a severe splash
+as is shown in the figure. 2. The tail is an optical illusion and
+the two fins of it were in fact the animal’s hindflappers paddling
+furiously, which may be explained as an expression of the animal’s
+emotion, as the whale escaped, and in doing so, the flappers
+caused the violent splash. 3. Not the flappers but the tail of the
+animal was lashing the water vehemently, and caused the optical
+illusion and the immense splash and foam. 4. The drawer, believing
+that the animal had a cetacean tail or a fish-tail, drew one, lashing
+the water, and so represented more his own imagination than
+the reality; but in no case a double finned tail has ever belonged
+to an animal with a long swan-like curved neck, as is really believed
+by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood</span> in that number of <i>Nature</i>!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report152"><span class="reportnr"><b>152</b></span>.—1879, August 5.—(<i>Times</i> of September 24, 1879).</p>
+
+<p>“Capt. <span class="smcap">J. F. Cox</span>, master of the British ship <i>Privateer</i>, which
+arrived at Delaware breakwater on the 9th. inst. from London,
+says:—“On the 5th. ult., 100 miles west of Brest (France),
+weather fine and clear, at 5 p. m., as I was walking the quarter
+deck, looking to windward, I saw something black rise out of the
+water about twenty feet, in shape like an immense snake about
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page365">[365]</span>three feet in diameter. It was about 300 yards from the ship,
+coming towards us. It turned its head partly from us, and went
+down with a great splash, after staying up about five seconds,
+but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, until it had
+turned completely from us and was going from us with great speed,
+and making the water all boiling round it. I could see its eyes
+and shape perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black
+as coal tar, and appeared to be making great exertions to get
+away from the ship. I have seen many kinds of fish in five
+different oceans, but was never favoured with a sight of the great
+sea-snake before.”</p>
+
+<p>Of this unvarnished account Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> says with reason (<i>Nature</i>,
+February 10, 1881), that it is “almost a duplicate of that of Major
+<span class="smcap">Senior</span>” (<a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>). The colour of the animal is called black, the
+head and neck, like those of a snake, were elevated about twenty
+feet in the air. The animal stood so about five seconds, went
+down with a great splash, but rose again three times at intervals
+of ten seconds, thus behaving in the same way as the individual
+seen from the <i>City of Baltimore</i> (<a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>). The thickness here is
+estimated at three feet. The animal moved from the vessel with
+great speed. Consequently the captain could not discern four
+different splashes, two of the fore and two of the hind-flappers,
+but he reports that the water was boiling all around it. I think
+that the animal here again was pursuing a shoal of fish and not
+trying to escape the vessel.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report152A"><span class="reportnr"><b>152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></b></span>.—1881, Nov. 12?—The Zuid-Afrikaan, of Nov. 17,
+1881, mentions:</p>
+
+<p>“In the <i>Argus</i> we read the following:—“Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Hansen</span>,
+functionary to the harbour-office, mentions, that on Saturday evening
+a little after six o’clock, being occupied in his garden near
+Monillepoint, he perceived near the spot where the <i>Athens</i> was
+wrecked, a great sea-serpent, and that he immediately drew the
+attention of his wife and children, and several of his neighbours
+to this appearance. After viewing the coast at its ease for half an
+hour the monster turned its head seaward and disappeared. Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Hansen</span> describes this sea-monster as being about 75 feet long, of
+a dark colour and with a head of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead,
+resembling that of a bull-dog, and provided with a long and brown
+mane, hanging down.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page366">[366]</span></p>
+
+<p>Undoubtedly the length of 75 feet is that of the part visible
+above the surface of the water. It is not mentioned whether the
+animal swam with its body in a straight line or in vertical undulations.
+It is not for the first time that we hear of the sea-serpent
+near Cape-Town, (for <i>Argus</i> must no doubt be read <i>Cape Argus</i>),
+I pass the dimension of the head as I don’t know that of a 54
+gallon hogshead. Remarkable is the comparison of the head with
+a bull-dog’s; it must have been seen in front, in order to make
+this impression. Again a mane was present and its colour is now
+called brown.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report153"><span class="reportnr"><b>153</b></span>.—1882, May 28th.—In the next account we read:</p>
+
+<p>“At our arrival in Newcastle, I learned that some days before
+some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report154"><span class="reportnr"><b>154</b></span>.—1882, May 31.—(<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of 1st. of July,
+1882).—</p>
+
+<p>“The following report, with the accompanying <a href="#Fig50">engraving</a> has
+been forwarded to us by Mr. Weisz, Captain of the Stettin Lloyd
+Steamer <i>Kätie</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“When the Stettin Lloyd Steamer <i>Kätie</i>, on her return from
+New-York to Newcastle, on the 31st. of May of this year, shortly
+after sunset and in that clear light which in this season takes place
+in fine weather in high northern latitudes, was about eight miles
+W. N. W. of Butt of Lewis (Hebrides), we observed on starboard
+before us, at a distance of about two miles a dark object lying
+on the surface, which was only slightly moved by the waves; first
+we took it for a wreck, as the highest end resembled the bow
+and the forepart of a ship, and the remaining hilly part resembled
+the broken waist-cloth of a ship filled with water. As we got
+nearer we saw with a glass on the left of the visible object, the
+water moving in a manner, as if the object extended there under
+the water, and this motion was of the same length as the part of
+the object, visible above the surface. Therefore we took care, not
+to steer too near, lest the screw should be damaged by some floating
+pieces of the wreck. But on getting nearer observed that the
+object was not a wreck, and, if we had not known with certainty
+that on these coasts there are no shallows, we should have taken
+this dark connected row of hills for cliffs. When we, however,
+changed our course obliquely from the object, which lay quite
+still all the time, to our astonishment there rose, about eighty
+feet from the visible end a fin about ten feet in height, which
+moved a few times, whilst the body gradually sunk below the
+surface. In consequence of this the most elevated end rose, and
+could distinctly be made out as the tail of a fish kind of immense
+dimensions.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page367">[367]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig50">
+<img src="images/illo367.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 50.—The sea-serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer <i>Kätie</i>, near the Hebrides,
+drawn under the supervision of the captain Mr. <span class="smcap">Weisz</span>, by the
+American animal-painter Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span>.—</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page368">[368]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The length of the visible part of this animal which had in no
+case any resemblance with the back of a whale, measured, according
+to our estimation, about 150 feet, the hills, which were
+from three to four feet in height, and about six or seven feet
+distant from each other, were smaller on the tail end, than on
+the head end, which withdrew from our observation.”</p>
+
+<p>“At our arrival at Newcastle, I learned that some days before
+some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.
+Had I directly recognized the object before us, to be one of
+these creatures, which for so long time belonged to the fables, I
+should certainly have neared it with the <i>Kätie</i> as much as possible.”</p>
+
+<p>It is obvious that captain <span class="smcap">Weisz</span> saw, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span>
+sketched the animal, ignorant of its being a sea-serpent. It became
+clear to them, when they arrived at Newcastle where they learned
+that a “sea-serpent” was seen by some fishermen of Lewis.</p>
+
+<p>Here we have again the assertion that the animal showed bunches,
+though it lay still or nearly still, an observation already
+reported more than once, as the reader will remember. I am convinced
+that the dimensions are exaggerated, and that the disturbance
+of the water was caused by the length of the tail, and not
+of the head of the animal, which evidently was searching for food
+in a playful manner, as we may observe in seals and sea-lions in
+our Zoological Gardens, and in doing so turned for a moment its
+body round, and raised once or twice first one of its hindflappers
+“which it moved a few times”, and then raised one of its foreflappers,
+which was taken for a tail by the captain and the drawer.
+The long neck here commences, but was, with the head, constantly
+under water, evidently directed downwards, for there was no disturbance
+of the water visible here. It is clear that the <i>Kätie</i> remained
+at a good distance from the animal, so that Mr. <span class="smcap">Schultz</span>,
+a well-known animal painter, could not obtain a better view of
+the flappers. The outlines of the flappers, however, are as correct
+as possible.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page369">[369]</span></p>
+
+<p id="Report155"><span class="reportnr"><b>155</b></span>.—1882, September 3.—(<i>Nature</i>, 1883, January 25).</p>
+
+<p>“Believing it to be desirable that every well-authenticated observation
+indicating the existence of large sea-serpents should be permanently
+registered, I send you the following particulars.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig51">
+<img src="images/illo369.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 51.—Outline of the sea-serpent seen near Little Orme’s
+Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. Mott after three different sketches.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“About 3 p. m. on Sunday, September 3, 1882, a party of
+gentlemen and ladies were standing at the northern extremity of
+Llandudno pier, looking towards the open sea, when an unusual
+object was observed in the water near to the Little Orme’s Head,
+travelling rapidly westwards towards the Great Orme. It appeared
+to be just outside the mouth of the bay, and would therefore be
+about a mile distant from the observers. It was watched for about
+two minutes, and in that interval it traversed about half the width
+of the bay, and then suddenly disappeared. The bay is two miles
+wide, and therefore the object, whatever it was, must have travelled
+at the rate of thirty miles an hour. It is estimated to have been
+fully as long as a large steamer; say 200 feet; the rapidity of its
+motion was particularly remarked as being greater than that of
+any ordinary vessel. The colour appeared to be black, and the
+motion either corkscrew like or snake-like, with vertical undulations.
+Three of the observers have since made sketches from memory,
+quite independently of the impressions left on their minds, and
+on comparing these sketches, which slightly varied, they have
+agreed to sanction the
+accompanying outline
+as representing as nearly
+as possible the object
+which they saw. The
+party consisted of W.
+Barfoot, J. P. of Leicester,
+F. J. Marlow,
+solicitor, of Manchester, Mrs. Marlow, and several others. They
+discard the theories of birds or porpoises as not accounting for
+this particular phenomenon.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“F. T. Mott.”</span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6">“Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”</span></p>
+
+<p>The appearance took place, as is stated, near Orme’s Head, a
+headland of the Northern coast of Wales, projecting in a north-western
+direction into the Irish Sea. The great rapidity of the movement
+through the water, estimated at thirty miles an hour, its
+great length of about 200 feet, its black colour, its vertical undulations
+and the whole external appearance of the animal, outlines
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page370">[370]</span>of which are represented in the figure, at once betray the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>Another correspondent of <i>Nature</i> immediately wrote to the Editor
+as follows: “I have seen four or five times something like what
+your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, and have
+no doubt whatever that phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises.
+I never, however, saw the <i>head</i> your correspondent gives.”
+There! It is just the head which shows that the animal seen by
+the party of gentlemen and ladies above mentioned, was one single
+animal and not a row of porpoises!</p>
+
+<p>And therefore, one of the eye-witnesses, Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Barfoot</span>,
+promptly answered in <i>Nature</i> of Febr. 8, 1883:</p>
+
+<p>“Like your correspondent, Mr. Sidebotham (in <i>Nature</i> Vol.
+XXVII, p. 315), I have frequently seen a shoal of porpoises in
+Llandudno Bay, as well as in other places, and on the occasion
+referred to by Mr. Mott, in <i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII, p. 293, the
+idea of porpoises was at first started but immediately abandoned.
+I will venture to suggest that no one has seen a shoal of these
+creatures travel at the rate of from twenty five to thirty miles an
+hour. I have seen whales in the ocean, and large flocks of sea-birds,
+such as those of the eider-duck, skimming its surface; but
+the strange appearance seen at Llandudno on September 3 was not
+to be accounted for by porpoises, whales, birds, or breakers, an
+opinion which was shared by all present.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“William Barfoot.”</span></p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In 1883 Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> published his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>,
+one of the Series of publications of the International Fisheries Exhibition.
+This delightful book treats of the Kraken and the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p>In the Preface Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> remarks:</p>
+
+<p>“In treating of the so-called “sea-serpent”, I have been anticipated
+by many able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book
+“The Romance of Natural History”, published in 1862, devoted
+a chapter to it; and numerous articles concerning it appeared in
+various papers and periodicals.”</p>
+
+<p>“But, for the information from which those authors have drawn
+their inferences, and on which they have founded their opinions,
+they have been greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously
+to consider this subject, to the late experienced editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>,
+Mr. Edward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page371">[371]</span>of great judgment, a profound thinker, and an able writer. At a
+time when, as he said, “the shafts of ridicule were launched against
+believers and unbelievers in the sea-serpent in a very pleasing and
+impartial manner”, he, in the true spirit of philosophical inquiry,
+in 1847, opened the columns of his magazine to correspondence
+on this topic, and all the more recent reports of marine monsters
+having been seen are therein recorded. To him, therefore, the fullest
+acknowledgements are due.”</p>
+
+<p>I too am under obligations to Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, as to one who has
+collected so many reports of the sea-serpent and published them in
+his journal, but I fail to see in him what Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> asserts him to be.</p>
+
+<p>As to the contents of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> “Great Sea-Serpent”, the second
+part of his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, I may be allowed to note
+the following.</p>
+
+<p>First he mentions the various great snakes of antiquity and believes
+them to be merely boas (read pythons) and real sea-snakes.
+Next he represents a figure, found on a sarcophagus or coffin in
+the Catacombs of Rome, and tells us that it corresponds in many
+respects with some of the descriptions of the sea-serpent given several
+centuries afterwards. I, however, don’t observe any resemblance
+in them. I consider this monster as a singular combination
+of a horse and a fish, badly drawn, as one of the representations
+of those wonderful ideas or beliefs of antiquity concerning the
+existence of such monsters as sirens, tritons, the minotaurus, etc.</p>
+
+<p>Further he treats of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, Bishop <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <span class="smcap">Hans
+Egede</span>, the Animal of Stronsa, and of various reports of the sea-serpent,
+and it is obviously a favoured idea of his that the sea-serpent
+is only to be accounted for by a great calamary; to prove
+this, he makes himself guilty of all kinds of misrepresentations
+and improbabilities; he considers every one as having been the
+dupe of optical deceptions, or as having made exaggerations, and
+their observations to be “full of error and mistakes”! And he who
+has never seen a sea-serpent, but sits pen in hand in his chair at
+his desk, knows it best of all: all sea-serpents were calamaries,
+except a very few, which were a row of porpoises! But the more
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has to deal with more recent reports, the less he is able
+to explain the various sea-serpents by reference to his favoured
+calamary. Of the animals seen in the Harbour of Gloucester in 1817
+he says: “Of this I can offer no zoological explanation”. He neither
+gives an explanation of the sea-serpent seen in 1833 by British
+officers (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>), nor of that in Lochourn (<a href="#Report137">n<sup>o</sup>. 137</a>,
+<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>).
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page372">[372]</span>Then he says: “Many other accounts have been published of the
+appearance of serpent-like sea-monsters, but I have only space for
+two or three more of the most remarkable of them”. Truly, an
+easy way to get rid of them! One of these two or three more remarkable
+reports is the fight between the whale and the sea-serpent
+(<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>) of which he proposes several explanations (I beg to refer
+the readers to that account), ending with the words: “it must be
+left for further elucidation”. The sea-serpent of the <i>City of Baltimore</i>
+(<a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>) was misunderstood by him. He compares the <i>splash of
+the water</i>, caused by the animal’s dropping its neck like a log of
+wood into it, with the <i>caudal fins of a calamary</i> (just imagine!)
+but ends: “but, as one with a bull-dog expression of eye-brow,
+visible at 500 yards distance, does not come within my ken, I
+will not claim it as much.” And of the animal of the <i>Osborne</i>
+he says:</p>
+
+<p>“It seems to me that this description cannot be explained as
+applicable to any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins
+might, possibly, as was suggested by Mr. <span class="smcap">Frank Buckland</span>, belong
+to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order; but
+the combination of them with long flippers, and turtle-like mode
+of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”</p>
+
+<p>Nevertheless, in answering the question: “To which of the recognized
+class of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean
+be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda” (i. e. calamaries).
+Such a contradiction I do not understand.</p>
+
+<p>And notwithstanding his cherished great-calamary-hypothesis, and
+after having said some words about Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>’s Plesiosaurus
+theory and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>’s ideas of the extraordinary development
+of snakes, he ends his work with the following conclusions:</p>
+
+<p>“I arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without
+straining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not
+proved to be erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed
+“Great Sea-Serpent” may now be nearly all accounted for by the
+forms and habits of known animals; especially if we admit, as
+proposed by Dr. Andrew Wilson, that some of them, including
+the marine snakes, may, like the cuttles, attain to an extraordinary
+size.”</p>
+
+<p>“2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance
+of every existing marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable.
+It appears to me more than probable that many
+marine animals, unknown to science, and some of them of gigantic
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page373">[373]</span>size, may have their ordinary habitat in the great depths of the
+sea, and only occasionally come to the surface; and I think it not
+impossible that amongst them may be marine snakes of greater
+dimensions than we are aware of, and even a creature having close
+affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil skeletons tell of their
+magnitude and abundance in past ages.”</p>
+
+<p>I am unable to follow out such a reasoning.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report156"><span class="reportnr"><b>156</b></span>.—1883, October 15?—The <i>Graphic</i> of 20th. October,
+1883, mentions, p. 387:</p>
+
+<p>“The inevitable sea-serpent has turned up again. This time he
+has been seen going down the Bristol Channel towards the Atlantic
+at the rate of twenty-five miles per hour, and afterwards he was
+noticed off the north coast of Cornwall. The monster was about
+half a mile long, and left a greasy trail behind him.”</p>
+
+<p>I have no doubt about the appearance of a sea-serpent in Bristol
+Channel, and a few hours or a day afterwards off the north coast
+of Cornwall, as several individuals have already been reported on
+the west coast of Great Britain. The greasy trail left behind it is
+not an improbability, but the length of half a mile is most probably
+an invention of the incredulous Editor of the Graphic!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Mr. C. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span> in his <i>Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen</i> in <i>de Gids</i>
+for 1884, p. 300 speaking of strange and violent motions in the
+water of the lake of Mjösen in Norway during perfectly calm
+weather tells us as a specimen of Norwegian superstition:</p>
+
+<p>“People ascribe these motions to sea-serpents, in which many
+persons in Norway firmly believe upon the authority of undeniable
+witnesses and their observations. One of the most famous of these
+monsters lived some centuries ago in the lake of Mjösen, in the
+neighbourhood of Hamar, where it became entangled in the shallow.
+A monk killed it with arrow-shots in its eye, and the monster
+then floated to near the “Holy-Isle” to a place which is still called
+“Pilestöa”. And yet there is still a sea-serpent in the lake, which
+has coiled itself round the great bell of Hamar, which in the time
+of the seven years’ war was lowered to the bottom.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span> adds:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page374">[374]</span></p>
+
+<p>“After all I heard and saw at Bergen, I don’t doubt in the
+least that in the Atlantic and on the coasts of Norway really
+appear from time to time immensely large mammals of the seal-kind,
+known by the name of “great sea-serpent”, though I therefore
+don’t admit all fabulous tales about it.”</p>
+
+<p>The words “mammals of the seal-kind” are explained by the
+following circumstance. In November, 1881, appeared from my
+pen, then a student’s pen, a little article on the sea-serpent,
+in which I tried to show that a sea-serpent is a yet undescribed
+long marine animal, closely allied to the pinnipeds, with a long neck
+and a long tail. Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span>, in preparing his paper for the <i>Gids</i>
+requested me to let him have a copy of my article, which I sent
+him, and he evidently accepted my supposition.</p>
+
+<p>In a letter Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span> tells me:</p>
+
+<p>“In the literature of the Norwegians the sea-serpent or soe-orm
+is repeatedly mentioned, and in such an indisputable manner,
+that in my opinion there is no doubt of its existence.”</p>
+
+<p>“On my return I learned from a gentleman of Bergen, that
+some time ago there was a part of the skeleton of a sea-serpent
+in the Museum of Natural History of Bergen.”</p>
+
+<p>Though I begged Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span>, teacher at the National Agricultural
+School at Wageningen, to communicate to me further particulars
+about the sea-serpent and about its literature, learned by
+him on his travels through Norway, and repeated this my question
+in February 1889, I am still waiting for an answer.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report157"><span class="reportnr"><b>157</b></span>.—1885, August 16.—(<i>Nature</i> of September 10, 1885).</p>
+
+<p>“It was hardly to be expected that the season should pass without
+the appearance of the sea-serpent somewhere, and if we are to
+believe the information forwarded to us from a correspondent in
+Norway, it has just visited the coast of Nordland. Three sundays
+ago some lads were returning to the Island of Röd from the church
+at Melö, in the middle of the day, when they saw far out in the
+fjord a streak in the sea which they believed to be a flock of
+wild ducks swimming. On proceeding further, however, they heard
+a whizzing as of a rushing fountain and in a few moments perceived
+a great sea-monster with great velocity making straight for
+the boat. It appeared to be serpentine in shape, with a flat scaly
+head, and the lads counted seventeen coils on the surface of the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page375">[375]</span>water just as it passed the stern of the boat so closely that they
+could have thrown a boathook into it. By subsequent measurements
+on land the length of the animal was estimated at about 200 feet.
+It pursued its course on the surface of the sea until close behind
+the boat when it went down with a tremendous noise, but reappeared
+a little after, shaping its course for the Melö, where it
+disappeared from view. Naturally, the lads were greatly frightened.
+The weather at the time was hot, calm, and sunny. Our informer
+states that the lads are intelligent and truthful, and that
+there is no reason to discredit their unanimous statement, made,
+as it were, in a terribly frightened condition. It might be added
+that the waters in which the animal was seen are some of the
+deepest on the Norwegian coast, and that it is not the first time
+fishermen have averred having seen the sea-serpent here. The existence
+of the sea-serpent is fully believed in along the coast of Norway.”</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent in its rapid motion made, as is often stated,
+the water curl before its throat, which rushing sound was distinctly
+heard by the lads. Notwithstanding their great fright they yet saw
+the head was flat, but they were mistaken as to its being scaly.
+Moreover the account is unvarnished and the description of the animal’s
+motions is correct.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Mr. W. E. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span>, busy on the article “Sea-Serpent” for the
+9th. Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1886
+(June?) a number of titles of books and journals, which came in
+his way while studying the subject. This bibliography contains 89
+numbers. They were printed, as the author says: “in the hope
+that they might be the means of saving time and labor on the
+part of others”. Alas, his hope has not been realized on my part,
+for I had nearly finished my work when I happened to find Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Hoyle</span>’s paper quoted in the decennial Register of the <i>Zoologischer
+Anzeiger</i>. Only 25 of the numbers published by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span> were
+new additions to my “Literature on the subject”, and I could
+consult only three of them, amongst which Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span>’s article
+“Sea-Serpent” in the <i>Encyclopedia Britannica</i> quoted above.</p>
+
+<p>Though Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span> states: “no satisfactory explanation has yet
+been given of certain descriptions of the sea-serpent”, among others
+of “the huge snake seen by certain of the crew of the Pauline”
+(<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, 145) and of “Lieutenant Hayne’s account” (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>),
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page376">[376]</span>and though he ends his article with the words: “It would thus
+appear that, while, with very few exceptions, all the so-called
+sea-serpents can be explained by reference to some well-known animal
+or other natural object, there is still a residuum sufficient to
+prevent modern zoologists from denying the possibility that some
+such creature may after all exist”, he himself was evidently taken
+in by the different persons who explained the sea-serpent by reference
+to the most impossible suppositions! He enumerates eight
+different explanations and seems fully to agree with them. It is
+evident that his only purpose was to satisfy the request of writing
+an article on the Sea-Serpent for an Encyclopedia.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report158"><span class="reportnr"><b>158</b></span>.—1886, August.—In the <i>Graphic</i> of September, 25,
+we read:</p>
+
+<p>“The sea-serpent has now crossed the Atlantic, and has suddenly
+appeared near Kingston Point, on the Hudson. It was seen by
+two young men, who were rowing in a boat, and who, it seems,
+the monster fruitlessly chased. They describe the animal as growing
+furious, when it found them escaping. “It lashed the water with
+its tail, which seemed to be about seventy-five feet distance from
+its head. The head was as large and round as a flour-barrel; and
+its eyes of a greenish hue, looked “devilish”. Before resuming its
+journey up the Hudson, it squirted from its mouth a stream of
+foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank.”</p>
+
+<p>I have no reason to consider this account as a hoax, though it
+almost reads like one. In the Norwegian accounts it is said that the
+sea-serpent very often follows boats. I have explained this by the animal’s
+curiosity, mixed with some fear. The young men may have observed
+the animal paddling with its hind flappers, a possible expression
+of some emotion, as I have also explained when speaking of the
+animal seen from the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> (<a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>), and they may have
+ascribed the foam to the lashing of its tail; or it really lashed its
+tail, as I also supposed on that occasion (<a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>). The length
+between head and tail estimated at seventy-five feet, is certainly
+not exaggerated. As the head is described round as a flour-barrel,
+it was evidently seen in its face. I refer to the animal of the
+<i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>) where the head seen from behind is also described
+and figured round as a bullet. Of the young men’s description
+that the eyes “looked devilish”, and also that of their colour being
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page377">[377]</span>“of a greenish hue” I will only say that it is unique. The “stream
+of foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank” was
+of course nothing but a sudden exhalation, probably held for some
+time from curiosity and fear, and then suddenly sent forth. The
+locality where the sea-serpent appeared, may be apparently strange,
+it is, however, very well explicable, owing to the animal’s habit
+of frequenting shores, and to the habit of other pinnipeds of frequenting
+brackish water and even mouths of large rivers.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report159"><span class="reportnr"><b>159</b></span>.—1886, August?—In the same number of the <i>Graphic</i>
+it says:</p>
+
+<p>“The serpent was also seen by the captain of a steamer, who
+“gave it the right of way”.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report160"><span class="reportnr"><b>160</b></span>.—1886, August?—(On the same page):</p>
+
+<p>“And yet another man (appropriately) named Jonah, who at
+first took the monster to be an immense tree floating with the
+tide—a notion which was quickly dispelled by the supposed tree
+throwing twenty feet of its length out of water.”</p>
+
+<p>As the reader will remember, the comparison of the sea-serpent,
+swimming or lying on the surface, with a floating tree or log of
+wood, has been made more than once; evidently the animal raised
+its enormous neck for a moment out of water, to take a look-out.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report161"><span class="reportnr"><b>161</b></span>.—1889, May.—In the <i>Haagsche Courant</i> of June 6, of
+this year, I read:</p>
+
+<p>“The sea-serpent has again appeared, and been seen by a captain
+sailing from Liverpool to Philadelphia, who hitherto obstinately
+refused to believe in its existence.”</p>
+
+<p>Of course I immediately wrote to the Editor, begging him for
+the name of the journal, from which this statement had been taken.
+The Editor courteously answered that one of his correspondents
+had forwarded him a written copy of the account taken from the
+38th. number of the <i>Grondwet</i> of May 21st., of this year, published
+in Holland, Michigan, but the written copy had already disappeared
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page378">[378]</span>in the paper-basket, and the correspondent requested to send
+the original, answered that he was unable to do so for the same
+reason.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>In the first days of December 1889, Mr. <span class="smcap">John Ashton</span> published
+his <i>Curious Creatures in Zoology</i>. Pages 268-278 of his volume
+treat of the sea-serpent. The illustrations which accompany this
+part are: 1. A representation of a piece of sculpture on a wall of
+the Assyrian palace at Khorsabad, which as I believe, has nothing
+at all to do with the sea-serpent, but which is a bad drawing of
+a <i>Hydrophis</i>. 2. The drawing of <span class="smcap">Gesner</span> (our <a href="#Fig16">fig. 16</a>) twice reduced.
+3. <span class="smcap">Egede</span>’s sea-serpent, as it was published in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (our
+<a href="#Fig22">fig. 22</a>). 4. An eel-kind taken from <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>’ work, and 5. A
+reduced copy of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s sea-serpent (our <a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>).—</p>
+
+<p>Curious is Mr. <span class="smcap">Ashton</span>’s assertion, when speaking of the sea-serpent
+of Khorsabad-palace and of <span class="smcap">Aristoteles</span>: “These ........
+were doubtless marine snakes, which are still in existence, and
+are found in the Indian Ocean, but the larger ones seem to have
+been seen in more northern waters”. Consequently he believes, like
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> that the <i>Hydrophidae</i> may develop gigantically
+and when in this condition make little trips from their
+common tropical residences to more northern latitudes!</p>
+
+<p>Further he quotes <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, <span class="smcap">Gesner</span>, <span class="smcap">Topsell</span>, <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>,
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, and <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, but all by the way.</p>
+
+<p>More space is devoted to the accounts of <span class="smcap">Walter Scott</span>, and
+to the observations of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>), of a party of British
+officers (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>), of Lars <span class="smcap">Johnöen</span> (<a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a>), of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>
+(<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>), and of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>). All this, however,
+without giving the least explanation, and ending with these words:</p>
+
+<p>“I think the verdict may be given that its existence although
+belonging to “Curious Zoology”, is not impossible, and can hardly
+be branded as a falsehood.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Report162"><span class="reportnr"><b>162</b></span>.—1890, June.—<i>De Amsterdammer</i>, <i>Weekblad voor Nederland</i>,
+of July 12th. of this year, mentions:</p>
+
+<p>“The sea-serpent again.—Captain David Tuits, of the British
+schooner <i>Anny Harper</i>, has been favoured with a sight of it, near
+Long Island, not far from the coast of Connecticut. He is a perfectly
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page379">[379]</span>trustworthy gentleman, who hitherto has never believed in
+sea-serpents, but who has now seen one on a clear day; the tail
+which was coloured brown with black spots, was about forty feet
+out of the water. The captain estimates the total length of the
+monster at over one hundred feet.”</p>
+
+<p>I think it not too bold to consider this report almost a duplicate
+of our <a href="#Report135">n<sup>o</sup>. 135</a>. There the sea-serpent is called “a large snake
+about 100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out
+of water, the body slightly under”. Most probably captain Tuits also
+saw only the head and the tail of the animal, and not the trunk.
+The tail is described here to be brown with black spots. It is
+evident that only the upper part of the tail was seen.</p>
+
+<p>I immediately enquired of the Editor of the <i>Amsterdammer</i> about
+the source of this article; he, however, promptly answered me that
+his correspondent did not remember from which of the five or six
+German newspapers daily read by him, he had copied it.—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>“To what class of known beings does this monster of the deep
+belong?” This question has caused various suppositions, to which
+we will turn our attention in the next chapter.—</p>
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page380">[380]</span></p>
+<h2><span class="chapno">V.</span><br>
+<span class="chapname">The various explanations hitherto given.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>I have found the <b>first</b> explanation given about the Sea-Serpent
+in the <i>Report</i> of the Committee of 1817, where we read an extract
+from a M. S. journal of the Rev. <span class="smcap">William Jenks</span>, which he communicated
+in a letter to the Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, and which letter
+is printed there. It runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. Alden Bradford of Wiscasset,
+now Secretary of the Commonwealth,) inquired of Mr. Cummings,
+whether the appearance might not be produced by <b>a number of
+porpoises</b>, <b>following each other</b> in a train.”</p>
+
+<p>This passage from the private journal was written in Sept. 10,
+1809; but after having consulted <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>’s <i>American Journal of
+Science and the Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston 1819 (1820), we are convinced
+that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bradford</span>’s inquiry of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> took place
+before Aug. 1803.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig52">Fig. 52</a> shows my readers a porpoise.</p>
+
+<p>As we read in <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span>’s <i>Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens</i>,
+p. 517, note, <span class="smcap">Peter Ascanius</span> in his <i>Icones rerum naturalium</i>
+Cahier V, Copenhague, 1805, says:</p>
+
+<p>“In summer porpoises approach the coasts and the fjords. They
+often meet in the open sea in troops of several scores, and when
+the weather is calm and fine, they range in a line after each other
+to play and to tumble: they then have the appearance of a chain
+of little eminences floating on the surface of the water; some fishermen
+of the North, seeing them at a great distance, took this
+resemblance for an immense animal and gave it the name of sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>Again in the letter from Mr. S. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> to Mr. E. <span class="smcap">Everett</span>,
+dated August 20, 1817, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page381">[381]</span>reports, people had gotten to doubt
+their foundation, and supposed it
+was only a number of porpuses
+following each other in rapid succession.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig52">
+<img src="images/illo381.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 52.—Phocaena phocoena (Linné).—</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>For the fourth time we read in
+<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, Vol. XIX, p. 193:</p>
+
+<p>“Christiania, September 5, 1827.
+Last week several persons saw large
+shoals of porpoises, and therefore
+uttered the supposition that the
+alleged presence of the sea-serpent
+was not right.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill’s</span> paper, of 1828,
+which we have inserted <i>in toto</i> in
+our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on hoaxes, also ends
+with the supposition that the “gambols
+of porpoises” have given rise
+to all the tales of the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Schlegel</span> in his <i>Essai sur la
+physionomie des Serpens</i>, La Haye,
+1837, p. 105, in his chapter on
+Fables respecting snakes says:</p>
+
+<p>“We are surprised to hear of a
+sea-serpent, monstrous in shape
+and size”,</p>
+
+<p>and he refers to his chapter on
+true sea-snakes, the <i>Hydrophidae</i>.
+There p. 517 he ends his chapter
+with the following words:</p>
+
+<p>“Before ending the history of the
+interesting beings of which I have
+treated, I cannot help saying a few
+words about an animal, observed
+through centuries by many people
+of all ranks, and known to every
+one from the tales which are spread
+about it, but which is still ignored by naturalists. I mean the
+monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which in reality has nothing
+to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we have treated in the
+foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous evidences given
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page382">[382]</span>by very respectable persons to prove the existence of this enormous
+sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I too should
+be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been turned
+into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of 1826.
+Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea,
+I suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the
+mouth of the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which
+I took for a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several
+others closely following each other. For the greater part hidden
+by the water, the upper part of this creature could be distinctly
+seen only for the short moment, when it was carried on the top
+of a wave, and plunged down into the precipice formed before it.
+The illusion caused by the continuous agitation of the waves indeed
+contributed to make doubtful the appearance of a great number of
+black objects, appearing together out of the water, disappearing
+the moment afterwards, and the whole of which deceitfully represented
+the simultaneous movements of the undulations of one single
+body. Convinced that the animals were unable to swim in vertical
+undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till I knew this
+monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of porpoises.”</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, of 1841, Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, who
+published in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on
+his journey in Norway, says:</p>
+
+<p>“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we
+shall soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory
+statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend
+to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for
+a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know,
+what else could be the cause of the illusion which has created the
+belief in such an animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that
+what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else
+but a row of porpoises, swimming in line. But all those persons, by
+whom the above-mentioned evidences are given were too familiar with
+the sea, and have too often observed porpoises together, to be deceived
+by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water.
+If this, however, had been the case, all the observations related
+to me of the sea-serpent’s holding its head above the surface, and
+about the size of it, must have been mere fiction, and this I
+cannot admit. According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted,
+that there is a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which
+may grow to a considerable length.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page383">[383]</span></p>
+
+<p>Again, as we learn in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII,
+n<sup>o</sup>. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the <i>Christiansand’s
+Posten</i> after an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in
+the fjord of Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the
+following remarks:</p>
+
+<p>“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which
+the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North
+Sea, and if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not
+withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed
+their boats to near the animal, they would undoubtedly have
+soon observed that the supposed intervals between the coils were
+nothing else but water. This great sea-serpent in reality consists of
+a row of porpoises, which in a shoal of from eight to twelve often
+swim after each other in line. As each of these brown animals,
+eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears above the surface
+of the water at proportionably short intervals, in such a way, as
+if they were about to tumble head first, so every one, who sees
+such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the coils
+of an immense snake.”</p>
+
+<p>In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">J. D. Morries Stirling</span> to Captain <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>,
+R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage
+(see <i>Ill. Lond. News</i> of October 28, 1848, and our <a href="#Report113">n<sup>o</sup>. 113</a>):</p>
+
+<p>“I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have
+believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given
+rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>In <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> we read, 1879:</p>
+
+<p>“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming
+in line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and
+then, with a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface
+of the water, presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought
+about by a somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, 1883, treating of the
+figure of Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> (see our <a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>), says:</p>
+
+<p>“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the
+appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”</p>
+
+<p>I have treated of his explanation in the right place (<a href="#Report10">n<sup>o</sup>. 10</a>). And
+on the following page he also asserts:</p>
+
+<p>“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as
+well as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances
+of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming
+in line in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page384">[384]</span>upraised head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it
+was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of
+a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical
+undulations.”</p>
+
+<p>I repeat here what I have said above (<a href="#Report10">n<sup>o</sup>. 10</a>): If Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>
+wishes to explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to
+tell me what was the head that resembled a horse’s head.</p>
+
+<p>Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the
+great calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many
+well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as
+some of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical
+undulations of the snake seen out of water have been the burly
+bodies of so many porpoises swimming in line—the connecting
+undulations beneath the surface have been supplied by the imagination.”</p>
+
+<p>After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s
+Head (<a href="#Report155">n<sup>o</sup>. 155</a>), Mr. <span class="smcap">Sidebotham</span>, a correspondent of <i>Nature</i> writes
+in this journal (1883, Febr. 1):</p>
+
+<p>“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent
+describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the
+Little Orme’s Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever
+that the phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never,
+however, saw the head your correspondent gives, but in other
+respects what I have seen was exactly the same; the motions of
+porpoises might easily be taken for those of a serpent; once I saw
+them from the top of the Little Orme, they came very near the
+base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across the bay.”</p>
+
+<p>Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the
+head.” I remind here my readers of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings’</span> question “who
+ever saw a row of porpoises with a head of a seal?”</p>
+
+<p>I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly.
+They are in the habit of continually throwing up their
+bodies half above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is
+clearly visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each
+coil a backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment
+afterwards three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen
+at once, while the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly
+visible above the surface, moving with the greatest regularity.
+Every one will feel that this explanation is not satisfactory; it does
+not even explain a single observation. Besides, how to explain the
+swan-like neck, so often seen by reference to porpoises? To avoid
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page385">[385]</span>repetitions, I beg the reader to refer to the testimonies of Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Cummings</span> (<a href="#Report29">n<sup>o</sup>. 29</a>) and Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Prince</span> (<a href="#Report63">n<sup>o</sup>. 63</a>), in which they clearly
+bring to light the difference between the appearance of the sea-serpent
+and that of a row of porpoises.</p>
+
+<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig53">
+<img src="images/illo385.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 53.—A row of porpoises.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>And where a naturalist, like Mr. <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span>, describes the effect
+caused by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those
+persons who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe
+of an optical illusion. Mr. <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span> should have said: “On one
+occasion I was nearly deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I
+never saw a sea-serpent!”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>second</b> explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean
+Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the
+Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis C. Gray</span>.
+This learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting
+reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon.
+What kind of beast could it be!? and before they began
+to feel puzzled, a <i>deus ex machina</i> in the form of a sick, illformed
+and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field near
+Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a working man at that place,
+bought by Dr. So and So, and presented to the Committee to
+examine it, because people believed that this animal was a spawn
+of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really examined and dissected
+it and gave a full account of their experience in their <i>Report</i>.
+They considered the little <b>snake</b> to be <b>new to science</b>, closely allied
+to the <i>Coluber constrictor</i> or Black Snake, a common species
+of North-America, and gave it the name of <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>.
+This account is followed by two documents describing how the
+<i>Scoliophis</i> looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under
+which it was killed. I present here to my readers the <i>Scoliophis
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page386">[386]</span>atlanticus</i> reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized figure
+of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with
+which the animal was killed.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig54">
+<img src="images/illo386a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 54.—Scoliophis atlanticus; one sixth of its full-size.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig55">
+<img src="images/illo386b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 55.—Its head; full-size.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Next they gave: “A few
+remarks on the question”
+(broached by the public)
+“whether the great serpent,
+seen in the Harbour of Gloucester
+be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.”
+These “few remarks” fill three pages and a half and end
+with the words:</p>
+
+<p>“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous,
+important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference
+between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting
+that of size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering
+them individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same
+name, until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall
+have disclosed some difference of structure, important enough to
+constitute a specific distinction.”</p>
+
+<p>It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the
+conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts
+which the Committee could have gathered up to their days,
+was a full grown individual of the species they called <i>Scoliophis
+atlanticus</i>! If they had collected all these accounts, if they had
+seriously compared them, they would have come most probably to
+the conclusion that they did not know precisely what it was, but
+that it could never be a snake.</p>
+
+<p>Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the
+Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as
+the little <i>Scoliophis</i>. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which
+was not bifid, while the tongue of <i>Scoliophis</i> is so! And the most
+accurate testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had <i>no</i>
+scales!</p>
+
+<p>The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and
+no doubt drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page387">[387]</span>M. <span class="smcap">Ducrotay de Blainville</span> dared handle the subject publicly.
+As soon as the <i>Report</i> of the Committee of 1817 reached him,
+he made an extract from it in his <i>Journal de Physique</i>, etc., Vol.
+86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made much more of the little curious
+snake, apparently believing too that it was a new species,
+than of the large marine animal of which he was unable to give
+any explanation. Mr. <span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> does not hesitate to express
+his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent to
+be a real snake and an adult of their <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>, and
+ended his extract:</p>
+
+<p>“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great
+Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the
+appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great
+length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is
+a true snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the
+<i>Scoliophis</i>, is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold
+that it is of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities
+which become null, if one is to believe that such an immense
+animal as that observed in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”</p>
+
+<p>For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!</p>
+
+<p>For Mr. <span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> who did not give himself the trouble
+to collect as many accounts as possible, to read <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>,
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive
+what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the
+same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the
+witnesses concerning the length of the animal.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Lesueur</span>, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Péron</span>, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. <span class="smcap">de
+Blainville</span> to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but
+had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the
+members of the Committee, together with several inches of another
+portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little
+snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that
+the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly
+done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted
+that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake,
+closely allied to the Black Snake (<i>Coluber constrictor</i>), but that it
+was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent
+he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself.</p>
+
+<p>The dissertation of Mr. <span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> and the extract from Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Lesueur’s</span> letter translated into German are in <span class="smcap">Oken’s</span> <i>Isis</i>, 1819.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page388">[388]</span></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> in his <i>Notizen</i>, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself
+about this explanation in the following manner:</p>
+
+<p>“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation,
+cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be
+allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”</p>
+
+<p>Of this little <i>Coluber</i> we find also the following passage in
+<span class="smcap">Schlegel’s</span> <i>Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens</i>, La Haye, 1837,
+p. 80:</p>
+
+<p>“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the
+species called <i>Coluber constrictor</i>, of which all parts were disfigured
+by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind
+of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known
+for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published
+in Boston, will be found in the <i>Journal de Physique</i> Vol. 86,
+p. 297.”</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, apparently
+believes that the little <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i> was the spawn of the
+Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:</p>
+
+<p class="center">“The Great Sea-Serpent.”<br>
+“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.</p>
+
+<p>We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of
+interrogation after the scientific name.</p>
+
+<p>Without any doubt the <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i> was a difformed
+specimen of <i>Coluber constrictor</i>. It was the bunches on its back,
+which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a
+spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back.
+After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the
+explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and
+the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against
+this supposition.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>third</b> explanation. In the <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes I have already
+inserted the letter from Prof. T. <span class="smcap">Say</span>, of Philadelphia, to Prof.
+<span class="smcap">Leach</span>, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of
+the crew of the vessel commanded by captain <span class="smcap">Richard Rich</span>, firmly
+believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but <b>a large
+tunny</b>. Prof. <span class="smcap">Say’s</span> letter is also printed in <span class="smcap">Thomson’s</span> <i>Annals</i> of
+January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above
+mentioned Chapter, <a href="#Fig1">fig. 1</a>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page389">[389]</span></p>
+
+<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Bigelow’s</span> indignation rose against this explanation; in
+<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts.</i> Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published,
+in which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere),
+“is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a
+“defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear”
+(See Thomson’s <i>Annals</i>, for January 1819)”.</p>
+
+<p>“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note
+from the same author, on the identity of <i>Scoliophis</i> with <i>Coluber
+constrictor</i>. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on
+the subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it
+might have been decorous in him to have noticed the source from
+which he got his information.”</p>
+
+<p>“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more
+important than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to
+the public consideration some additional evidence in regard to the
+size and shape of this marine animal which has come to light
+since the publication of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This
+evidence is partly the result of observations during the present
+year, and partly the contents of a communication made to the
+American Academy of Arts and Sciences fifteen years ago, but
+which, having been mislaid, has not before been published. The
+reader will judge whether it is a “defective observation” which
+has produced a remarkable coincidence between witnesses in different
+periods and places, unknown to each other; or whether it was
+“an extravagant degree of fear” which induced the commander of
+an American frigate to man his boats and go with his mariners
+in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add that
+the original letters constituting the communication last alluded to,
+are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy,
+where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination
+of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving
+any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may
+now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the
+science of Natural History.”</p>
+
+<p>How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake,
+a seal, a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its
+enormous long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a
+tunny, even of nine or ten feet in length!?</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page390">[390]</span></p>
+
+<p>The <b>fourth</b> explanation. Mr. <span class="smcap">Constant Samuel Rafinesque
+Smaltz</span>, in his <i>Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and
+Sea-Serpents</i> (<i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently
+convinced of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents,
+which are merely <b>sea-snakes of a very large size</b>. (Family <i>Hydrophidae</i>),
+of which I give a <a href="#Fig56">figure</a> representing the <i>Hydrophis
+pelamidoides</i>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> classes two different sea-serpents
+under this head, proposing for them the names of <i>Pelamis
+megophias</i> (<i>Megophias monstrosus</i>) and <i>Pelamis monstrosus s.
+chloronotis</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, after discussing
+the question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion
+caused by a huge
+stem of sea-weed,
+or a large seal, a
+cetacean, a basking
+shark, a ribbon fish,
+or a large kind of
+eel, continues his
+considerations in the
+following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“To the Reptiles,
+however, popular
+opinion has pretty
+uniformly assigned
+this denizen of the
+sea, and his accepted
+title of “sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities
+in the estimation of the majority of those who believe in him.
+Let us, then, test his claims to be a serpent.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig56">
+<img src="images/illo390.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 56.—Hydrophis pelamidoides.—</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian and
+Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes (<i>Hydrophidae</i>),
+which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are
+reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so
+soundly there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes
+fails to awaken them.”</p>
+
+<p>“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and,
+so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> on the contrary in September, 1878, declares
+in <i>Nature</i> (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:</p>
+
+<p>“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page391">[391]</span>development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true
+explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”</p>
+
+<p>But a few lines further on he also tells us:</p>
+
+<p>“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the
+ratio of a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this
+interesting problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark
+of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological
+observers for a “sea-serpent”.”—</p>
+
+<p>In his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, the same writer returns to his favourite
+idea:</p>
+
+<p>“The only group of animals to which our attention may be
+specially directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of
+the problem, is that of the <i>Vertebrata</i>,—the highest group of
+animals, which possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and
+quadrupeds as its highest representatives. Laying aside the class of
+birds, as including no form at all allied to our present inquiry,
+we are left with, speaking generally, three groups of animals, from
+the ranks of which various forms may be selected to aid us in
+solving the sea-serpent mystery. These three groups are the fishes,
+reptiles, and mammalia, and it may be shown that from each of
+these classes, but more notably from among the fishes and reptiles,
+various animals, corresponding more or less closely with the descriptions
+given of strange marine monsters, may be obtained. An
+important consideration, however, must not be overlooked at this
+stage, namely, that too frequently the attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent
+with some <i>known</i> animal of serpentine form and nature,
+has limited the perceptions and foiled the labours of naturalists.
+Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown form must be a
+serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of the term
+“serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than the
+reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the subject,
+and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at once
+given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists
+and other writers on this subject have never made allowance
+for the <i>abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals</i>.
+My own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations,
+but especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation
+of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation
+of such discrepancies as the various narrations may be
+shown to evince. If we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary
+animal life, or amongst the reptiles themselves, the representatives
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page392">[392]</span>of the “sea-serpents”, I think we may nevertheless build up a most
+reasonable case both for their existence and for the explanation of
+their true nature, by taking into account the facts, <i>that the term
+“sea-serpent”, as ordinarily employed, must be extended to include
+other forms of vertebrate animals which possess elongated bodies;
+and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordinary
+serpents and of serpent-like animals will reasonably account for the
+occurrence of the animals collectively named sea-serpents</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>)
+“was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over
+without that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.
+Whilst to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative
+of the crew of the <i>Pauline</i>” (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>) “must be founded
+on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes.
+The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently
+point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of
+large size, such as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the
+animal being described in the various narratives as swimming
+with the head out of water, would seem to indicate that, like all
+reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come more or less
+frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration. The difficulties
+which appear to stand in the way of reconciling the sea-serpent
+with a marine snake, in this or in other cases, are two in
+number. The great majority of intelligent persons are unaware of
+the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively marine habits;
+and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes an apparent
+difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the history
+of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks of
+these marine snakes,—the <i>Hydrophidae</i> of the naturalist,—which
+inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails
+adapted for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea.
+Whilst, as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the
+true serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply
+because it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development
+of an ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with
+most of the appearances described, and would in the most natural
+manner explain many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake
+of gigantic size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and
+allow for slight variations or inaccuracies in the accounts given by
+Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these ideas the nearest
+possible approach to a reasonable solution of this interesting problem”.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page393">[393]</span></p>
+
+<p>“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of
+motion of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a
+dorsal or back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements
+of the laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath
+the surface, would serve to propel the animal forward without
+causing the front portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent
+motion; whilst the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained
+on the presumption that sea-weed may have become attached
+to the animal, or, that the upper ridge of the vertically
+compressed tail extended far forward and appeared as a fin-like
+structure.”</p>
+
+<p>“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which
+I may be desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes
+the strong points of this explanation, is the probability of
+the development to a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine
+serpents. This point is one in support of which zoology and physiology
+will offer strong and favourable testimony. There is no
+single fact, so far as I am aware, which militates in the slightest
+degree against the supposition that giant members of the sea-serpents
+may be occasionally developed. The laws which regulate human
+growth and structure, and in virtue of which veritable “sons of
+Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian giant,
+differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are developed,
+must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom.
+There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition
+that a giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly
+observe almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a
+member of the race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its
+neighbours. But clearer still does our case become when we consider
+that we have proof of the most absolute and direct kind of
+the giant development of such forms as cuttle-fishes, which have
+thus appeared as if in realisation of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”,
+which plays so important a part in that strange weird tale, the
+“Toilers of the Sea”. At the present time we are in full possession
+of the details of several undoubted cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes
+of literally gigantic proportions,—developed, in fact, to
+an extent justly comparable to that of the supposed “sea-serpent”,
+when the latter is compared with its ordinary representatives of
+the tropical oceans.”</p>
+
+<p>“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a
+gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page394">[394]</span>giant of its race—or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct
+species of monster sea-serpents—than in the production of huge
+cuttle-fishes, which, until within the past few years, remained
+unknown to the foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic
+developments of snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or
+reptiles, I hold we have at least a feasible and rational explanation
+of the primary fact of the actual existence of such organisms.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> (1883) also says:</p>
+
+<p>“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails
+adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range,
+and are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible
+that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and
+colossal development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much
+attention to this subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development
+of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law
+of the production of the giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at
+any rate, towards accounting for its supposed appearance”.</p>
+
+<p>But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the
+mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained.
+Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical
+undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large <i>Hydrophidae</i>,
+supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain,
+the United States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland
+and the Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends
+over the tropical seas.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>fifth</b> explanation. The same Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> believed the
+sea-serpent seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> to be a fish (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>), closely
+allied to the genera <i>Symbranchus</i> (Fam. <i>Symbranchidae</i>) and <i>Sphagebranchus</i>
+(Fam. <i>Muraenidae</i>); consequently <b>belonging to the eel tribe</b>.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, after having
+shown that in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an
+optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large
+seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:</p>
+
+<p>“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic
+species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar
+conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s figures
+remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be either
+so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the animal
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page395">[395]</span>was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”</p>
+
+<p>And Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> is also
+inclined to this hypothesis:</p>
+
+<p>“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like
+animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic
+developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the
+appearance of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the
+movements of a large conger-eel, for example, in any of our great
+aquaria, must have remarked not only its serpentine form, but
+also the peculiar gliding motion, which seems frequently to be
+produced independently of the active movements of the tail or
+pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however, that a giant eel might
+by most persons be readily enough referred to its proper place in
+the animal sphere, although, when viewed from some distance,
+and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner, the spectators—all
+unprepared to think of an eel being so largely developed—might
+report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, too, asserts:</p>
+
+<p>“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”</p>
+
+<p>As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough
+known to all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The
+<i>Symbranchus</i> has nearly the same external features, it has, however,
+no pectoral or ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures,
+or gill-splits, are united together on its throat. The <i>Sphagebranchus</i>
+has also nearly the same external features; it has no ventral fins
+and the very end of its tail is destitute of a fin.</p>
+
+<p>The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility
+are strong proofs against this hypothesis.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>sixth</b> explanation is that which I have accidentally found
+mentioned in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert’s</span> <i>Description of the Shetland Islands</i>,
+1822. The passage runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished
+for, did not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the
+sea-snake, but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the <b>fable</b>.”</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert</span> is right. All fables have their
+foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible
+that the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable
+of Thor’s great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Percy’s</span> explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page396">[396]</span>from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. <span class="smcap">H. E. Strickland</span>
+and <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span> in a note to their dissertation on the
+Dodo, in the <i>Annals and Magazine of Natural History</i>, 2nd.
+series, Vol. 2, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848:</p>
+
+<p>“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent,
+which first spread in modern times from Norway, was
+to be traced to the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology,
+of that fell offspring of Loki, Jormungandr,—the great world
+surrounding serpent, whom Thor fished up with the bull’s-head
+bait, and whom, at the great day of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It
+is curious by the way, that we are expressly told how Jormungandr
+rearing his head, poured out fountains of venom upon Thor, very
+much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great sea-serpent raising
+up its head and spouting out water.”</p>
+
+<p>At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports
+of the great sea-serpent are no fables.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p id="Ref7">The <b>seventh</b> explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of <b>basking
+sharks</b>” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at
+the end of Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill’s</span> dissertation, printed in 1828, with
+which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in
+our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our <a href="#Fig8">fig.
+8</a>, in the <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-be Sea-Serpents.</p>
+
+<p>Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist
+<span class="smcap">Mantell</span> in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor
+of the <i>Illustrated London News</i>, and published there in the
+number of November 4, 1848:</p>
+
+<p>“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent,
+I would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable
+that an ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine
+habits described by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing
+to forbid the supposition that there are unknown living forms of
+cartilaginous fishes presenting the general configuration and proportions
+of the animals figured in the last Number of the Illustrated
+London News.”</p>
+
+<p>Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than
+thirty feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (<i>Squalus
+maximus</i> of <span class="smcap">Linné</span>). The figures referred to are those of the sea-serpent
+seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, (<a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page397">[397]</span></p>
+
+<p>In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span>
+was of opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in
+reality, but only in fables, and that these fables originated in the
+Northern mythology. Now, he seems to have changed his opinion
+in a fortnight, for in a letter to Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span>, part of which is
+published “with permission of both gentlemen” in the <i>Zoologist</i>,
+number of November 27th., 1848, he says:</p>
+
+<p>“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of
+some unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have
+astonished the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile
+of the authorities of science.”</p>
+
+<p>“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the
+known facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship
+between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri;
+nor do the recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”</p>
+
+<p>“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous
+fish (Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when
+caught the sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive
+it is just as probable that a shark may carry the head for short
+periods out of the water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally
+step aboard to look at us land monsters.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may
+be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to
+believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved.
+Might we not obtain some information from the accurate Sars
+regarding the Norwegian tradition? Could not the surgeon of the
+Daedalus throw some light on the subject?”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, after having
+treated of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion
+caused by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some
+cetacean, expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in
+the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville
+consider that the <i>Daedalus</i> animal may have been one of the
+sharks; and there is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal,
+which was considered by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent,
+was really the <i>Selache maxima</i> or basking-shark. But the identification
+of Captain M’Quhae’s figure and description with a shark
+is preposterous.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, however, in <i>Nature</i> (1878, Sept. 12,
+Vol. XVIII) is of the opinion that:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page398">[398]</span></p>
+
+<p>“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might
+do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>,
+1883, also believes that “the
+dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured
+by Mr. Buckland, may have furnished
+the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently
+means the ridge of fins as seen in <a href="#Fig44">fig. 44</a>.</p>
+
+<p>None of the observers of the sea-serpent
+mention fins on its back, so that this
+explanation is not untenable either.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>eighth</b> explanation is given by
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> in his paper “<i>On Sea-Serpentism</i>”,
+printed in 1828; (See our
+<a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes), at the end of which
+he supposed that also the appearances of
+<b>balaenopterous whales</b> may have given
+rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says:
+“which have fins on their back”, and yet
+he cannot show me one single account of
+the sea-serpent, in which there is question
+of backfins. Moreover, who has ever heard
+of fin-fishes which bend their body in
+such a manner as to show bunches on
+their backs, or coils like a string of
+buoys? <a href="#Fig57">Fig. 57</a> shows the readers a fin-fish
+(<i>Balaenoptera physalus</i> (<span class="smcap">Linné</span>)). It is
+the largest kind of whales, it may obtain
+a length of 106 feet. An outline of the
+tail, seen from above, is added above
+the hindmost part of the main-figure.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig57">
+<img src="images/illo398.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 57.—Balaenoptera physalus, (Linné).—</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in his <i>Romance of Natural
+History</i>, after having considered and upset
+the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory
+says:</p>
+
+<p>“It is by no means impossible that the
+creature may prove to belong to the
+<i>Cetacea</i> or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page399">[399]</span>lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of
+Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in
+this direction.”</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent seen by Colonel <span class="smcap">Steele</span>, however was not a
+cetacean, although it was observed spouting, for it had a red
+back-fin like a saw (see our <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-be Sea-Serpents,
+1852, Aug. 28).—</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>ninth</b> explanation is Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Bakewell’s</span>. In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> Notizen,
+Vol. 40, n<sup>o</sup>. 879, of June, 1834, we read:</p>
+
+<p>“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great
+American Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of
+his Introduction to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the
+opinion that the great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the
+United States of America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles
+which may be analogous to the fossil <b>Ichthyosaurus</b>, and that the
+description, given of the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles,
+and formidable mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing
+more with that of a saurian than with that of a snake. Some of
+the people who saw the sea-serpent state that the body was very
+long and as thick as a water-cask.”</p>
+
+<p>Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent
+to be a living <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, yet we meet with the following suggestion,
+in the September number of <i>Nature</i> of that same year.</p>
+
+<p>“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates
+the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters
+of which the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:—“If
+the sea-serpent continues in its present sociable state of mind, we
+may perhaps have an opportunity of deciding the vexed question
+regarding the formation of that portion of his figure which, according
+to English observers, he keeps concealed under the water. The
+legend of the Lambton Worm, a popular tale in the North of
+England, describes the worm as a serpent of enormous size, who
+used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the River Wear,
+just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient stone
+effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle, represents
+it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was
+made, as it probably was, <i>from some recollection</i> on recent tradition
+of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the
+beast was one of the <i>winged land monsters</i> which existed at the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page400">[400]</span>same time as the <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>, but would naturally become an
+extinct species far sooner than the <i>fish-lizard</i>, which can conceal
+itself in the depth of the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Ichthyosaurus</i> must
+have been destitute of
+scales, or better the scales
+must have been of a
+microscopic minuteness,
+and so I have ventured
+to sketch my <a href="#Fig59">fig. 59</a>,
+showing the <i>Ichthyosaurus
+communis</i>, as it most
+probably looked, and of
+which <a href="#Fig58">fig. 58</a> represents
+the skeleton.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig58">
+<img src="images/illo400a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 58.—Skeleton of Ichthyosaurus communis.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig59">
+<img src="images/illo400b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 59.—Ichthyosaurus communis, restored.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Here we have an animal
+of really huge dimensions.
+Some may have
+had a length of from forty
+to fifty feet. Their skin
+was smooth, the tail was
+very long and four flappers
+resembling the foreflappers
+of whales, were
+the organs of locomotion.
+Most probably, however,
+the tail was provided with
+a vertical fin, as I have
+delineated. The neck was
+very short, as in whales.
+Now the sea-serpent has
+a pointed tail, and a very
+long neck. Especially this
+last character is enough
+to drop the supposition
+that the sea-serpents are
+still living <i>Ichthyosauri</i>.
+Moreover, the <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>
+was unable to move in vertical undulations.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page401">[401]</span></p>
+
+<p>The <b>tenth</b> explanation.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834),
+n<sup>o</sup>. 879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell’s</span>
+latest (1834?) edition of his <i>Introduction to Geology</i>, above mentioned,
+Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span> adds:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may
+be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a
+<b>Plesiosaurus</b>, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the
+latter does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p><i>Plesiosaurians</i>, as well as the <i>Ichthyosaurians</i>, are reptiles only
+known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these
+animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in
+<i>liassic</i> and <i>oolitic</i> formations. Of these remains geologists are able
+to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show
+my readers a sketch in <a href="#Fig60">fig. 60</a>.—If this is done, it will not be
+difficult to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more
+so as it is a well-known fact that these animals must have been
+destitute or nearly destitute of scales. The figures drawn by <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>,
+<span class="smcap">Figuier</span> and <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, don’t please me, as the necks are
+delineated too slender, and the head of the animal in Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse’s</span>
+drawing, in my opinion, is wrongly represented. So I venture to
+present to my readers my <a href="#Fig61">fig. 61</a>, showing how I think that the
+animal must have looked.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, of 1841, after
+publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself
+during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself
+is a firm believer in it, goes on:</p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig60">
+<img src="images/illo401.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 60.—Skeleton of Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page402">[402]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig61">
+<img src="images/illo402.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 61.—Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, restored.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs,
+cannot of course be asserted with any certainty. The supposition,
+however, is very near, that it is closely related to that animal
+which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the
+Orkney’s,” &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>After a short description of this animal with which the reader
+will remember to have been made acquainted in the <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on
+Would-be Sea-Serpents, Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> concludes:</p>
+
+<p>“that this animal resembled a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, and that it thus
+belonged to the <i>Amphibia</i>, viz. to the <i>Saurians</i>. Now if such were
+the case, and if the creature found in Stronsa were closely related
+to the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, and we have every reason
+to believe this, it is astonishing that the latter has not been more
+observed, than has been the case. For being an Amphibium, which,
+according to its organization, can only breathe by lungs, the sea-serpent
+necessarily must have come very often to the surface of
+the water, to renew the inhaled air. It is, however, conceivable
+and probable that stretching out its long neck, it generally comes
+only with the nose tip and only for a very short time on the
+surface of the water, remaining under it with the rest of the body,
+in which circumstances it will not be easy to observe it amongst
+the beating of the waves.”</p>
+
+<p>We observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, like Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>, inclines to
+believe that the sea-serpent is, or is allied to the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page403">[403]</span></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, in 1847, on
+the wrapper of the 54th. number of this Journal made the suggestion
+that sea-serpents may belong to one of the <i>Enaliosaurians</i>.</p>
+
+<p>I have not seen this wrapper so that I am unable to give the
+words in which this supposition was written.</p>
+
+<p>Most probably Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> took this suggestion from Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Rathke’s</span> above mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which
+he inserted (N. B.!) <i>in the same number of the Zoologist</i>; but it
+is, of course, <i>possible</i> that this supposition really was the product
+of his own brain. We hope that the latter was the case; but I only
+ask: why did he insert the accounts of Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> in the <i>columns</i>
+of the issue, and why <i>not</i> the above-mentioned suggestion;
+what was the reason to communicate it on the <i>wrapper</i>? It makes
+on me the impression as if Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> waited to see if some
+one or other would perhaps find out that <i>both accounts and supposition</i>
+were <i>already six years old</i>! But, of course, I may be
+mistaken!</p>
+
+<p>Immediately after reading this suggestion on the above mentioned
+wrapper, Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles Cogswell</span> wrote for the same Journal his
+<i>Plea for the Sea-Serpent</i>. For history’s sake I repeat here his
+whole paper. It runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“<i>A Plea for the North-Atlantic Sea-Serpent.</i> By <span class="smcap">Charles Cogswell</span>,
+M. D.”</p>
+
+<p>“Every generation of man is born to stare at something, which
+so long as it eludes their understanding, is a very African fetish
+to the many, and a Gordian knot to the few.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Hawkin’s</span> <i>Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri</i>.</p>
+
+<p>“Of the numerous contributions supplied through the press to
+support the cause of the subject of this article, one of the most
+recent has arrested my attention, because of the particulars having
+been long since familiar to me by oral communication from the
+writer in person. I allude to the interesting narrative contained in
+the “Zoologist” for May last, describing a meeting with such an
+animal off the coast of one of the British provinces, stretching out
+into the Atlantic to the north-east of New England. It is worthy
+of notice that several animals of the Cetaceous kind (sometimes
+conjectured to have been a source of deception) were seen and
+scanned <i>in limine</i>, and an opportunity was thus afforded for immediate
+descrimination. Immediately subjoined is another statement,
+copied from a foreign newspaper, being the tribute of a French
+sea-captain to the same object, but qualified with so much of the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page404">[404]</span>characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms and
+measurements, as rather to display an elaborate view of disjoined
+parts, than represent them all in harmony together as belonging
+to one individual. It betrays the caution of a witness, who would
+fain keep an opening in reserve for escape from a precarious position.
+The former adventure took place in 1833, the latter in 1840,
+and now they are related almost simultaneously within the last
+few months.”</p>
+
+<p>“Nor is this delay to be wondered at, when we consider how
+much the reserve of unbiassed is the tribunal of public opinion,
+before which they appear. It will hardly be denied that there is
+no debateable point in the modern records of observation more
+complacently devoted to ridicule by all but universal consent, than
+that of the existence of huge serpent-like animals in the North
+Atlantic Ocean. The very mention of the name of sea-serpent in
+the singular number with the definite article prefixed, suggests to
+most minds an idea of some anomalous monster, without parentage
+or congeners, feigned to haunt the recesses of the deep, and, like
+the ghost of vulgar superstition, manifesting itself now and again
+for the sole conceivable end of adorning some wonderful legend.
+This impression, favoured by the circumstance of no actual specimen
+having ever occurred to the observation of a naturalist, much
+less been obtained for deliberate examination, has caused the subject
+of our notice to rank with the mermaid, the unicorn, the
+griffin, and other prodigies of the olden faith. It does not fail to
+be objected that Norway, a locality most fruitful in accounts of
+the appearance in question, has been immemorially distinguished
+for a vivid perception of the marvellous. Nor, after hearing the
+other side of the Atlantic, are we much better able to divest our
+minds of suspicion with regard to the trustworthy character of the
+witnesses; our relative in the West having acquired nearly as much
+celebrity for the endowment of a grand inventive genius as his
+Scandinavian ally in the cause of sea-serpents. They defer indeed,
+in so far as the latter believes and venerates his own creations,
+while the American indulges his fancy for the purely benevolent
+purpose of what is called “hoaxing” the unwary public. Not many
+years since, it may be recollected, one of these pleasant philosophers
+enlightened his fellow-mortals with a “true and peculiar”
+description of certain winged inhabitants assumed to have been
+discovered in the moon by an eminent living astronomer, giving
+the details with so much simplicity and effected candour with regard
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page405">[405]</span>to some particulars, in the manner of “Gulliver’s Travels”,
+that many readers were not aware of its being a fabrication. Such
+proof of a disposition to practise on the public credulity, too often
+repeated, necessarily communicate a colouring of insincerity to all
+other reports of strange events emanating from the same source,
+and certainly demand the exercise of an unusual amount of circumspection,
+though they do not justify scepticism, in the case
+now before us.”</p>
+
+<p>“Making due allowance for these peculiarities in the testimony,
+we may, nevertheless, proceed in a spirit of induction to examine
+into the tendency of the collateral evidence. The question after all,
+when reduced to its simplest form comes to be little more than
+one of geographical distribution. That is to say, that even if we
+chose to confine the animal to the true serpents, which has been
+the ordinary conception heretofore, there is no obvious impediment
+to oppose it, either on the score of want of analogy, or of structural
+incapacity. Amphibiousness, to commence with, in its popular acceptation,
+or the capability of spending a considerable time in the
+water, is one of the most familiar properties of serpents, as illustrated
+in the common snake (<i>Coluber natrix</i>) and the viper, the
+only two species, if we except the blindworm, ascertained to be
+indigenous to these islands. “Snakes”, observes Professor Bell (“History
+of British Reptiles”) “are extremely fond of the water, taking
+to it readily, and swimming with great elegance and ease, holding
+the head and neck above the surface. It is extremely probable that
+they resort to the water in search of frogs.” In the learned System
+of Schlegel, translated by Prof. Traill—“Physiognomy of Serpents”—members
+of various ophidian-groups are characterised as living near
+and inhabiting lakes and rivers. Some belong to the genera Tropidonotus
+(which here includes the first named British species), and
+Homalopsis, comprised under the head of <i>Fresh Water-Serpents</i>.
+Of the Boas, this author says: “several species frequent fresh water,
+and there are some of them essentially aquatic,” among them the
+Boa murina, the largest of known serpents, and his two species
+of Acrochordus.”</p>
+
+<p>“Further, and what completely sets at rest the part of the case
+we are now considering, there are swarms of <i>marine</i> ophidians
+inhabiting the warm latitudes of the pacific. These appear to have
+been partly known to the ancients. Aelian informs us that Hydrae
+with flat tails were found in the Indian Seas, and that they also
+existed in the marshes. He also tells us that these reptiles had
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page406">[406]</span>very sharp teeth, and appeared to be venomous. According to
+Ctesias, the serpents of the river Argada in the province of Sittacene,
+remain concealed at the <i>bottom of the water</i> during the day,
+and by night they attack persons who go to bath or wash linnen”
+(Griffith in Cuvier). Schlegel has no less than seven species collected
+under the generic name of Hydrophis, constituting his family of
+<i>Sea-Snake</i>—; they are especially fitted for aquatic life, having
+the nostrils directed vertically and furnished with valves, and the
+tail flattened like an oar; they reside in the sea exclusively, never
+going on land, and are supposed to prey on fishes. Their limits
+belong to the intertropical regions of the Indian Seas, or of the
+Great Pacific Ocean.”</p>
+
+<p>“The existence of <i>bona fide</i> sea-serpents being therefore a matter
+of notoriety, (and preserved specimens are to be seen at any time
+on the shelves of the British Museum), we have but to address
+ourselves to the subordinate inquiry, whether there be sufficient
+reason for assigning to any of the family a habitat in the North
+Atlantic Ocean. And here it is necessary to put away all that idea
+of deviation from the common order of Nature, which could connect
+the evidence heretofore given with some isolated excressence
+so to speak, of the animal kingdom. The great size attributed to
+them has doubtless, served very materially to produce an infavourable
+impression. Schlegel limits the extreme length of the greatest
+known serpent to twenty-five feet, although such naturalists as
+Cuvier and Milne-Edwards allow an extension of thirty or forty
+feet to some of the Boas. These estimates do not fall so far short
+of those contended for in the present instance as to form an insuperable
+ground of objection. Many witnesses whose character and
+station in life command respect, whatever judgment may be formed
+of their powers of correct observation, profess to be fully persuaded
+that they have seen immense creatures, resembling serpents, in the
+vicinity of the European or the American shores. The several depositions
+from Norway that appeared in the “Zoologist” of February
+last, comprised the testimony not only of fishermen, drawing their
+subsistence from the sea, and familiar with the more prevalent
+forms of the inhabitants, but of a class commonly presumed to
+be well educated, as merchants, clergymen, and a surgeon. Their
+observations indeed vary on the subject of length (varying between
+forty and one hundred feet), and likewise on some of the details
+of outline, so that they may either relate to different specimens,
+or to deceptive phenomena producing dissimilar impressions, whichever
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page407">[407]</span>alternative decretic may be inclined to profer. The first notice
+transmitted by an English gentleman, holding a responsible appointment
+under the crown in one of our transatlantic dependencies,
+is calculated to supply any deficiency on the part of the new
+hemisphere, so far as a faithful representation of what was submitted
+to the eye alone may remain a desideration. But for the
+resolution manifested in this periodical to allow the question a fair
+hearing on its sterling merits, there can be little doubt that this
+testimony, would not have been forthcoming; like in all probability,
+more of the same ingenious stamp, which the unwillingness of the
+principals to oppose the current of public opinion, directly proportioned
+to the value of the character they run the risk of compromizing
+for no obvious use, induces them to withhold.”</p>
+
+<p>“But it may be asked, how it is possible to explain the circumstance
+of these <i>monstra natantia</i> being encountered no farther South
+than about the sixtieth or fifty-fifth parallel on the European boundary,
+while in the American water their domain approaches so
+much nearer the Equator, as Nova Scotia (or New Scotland) and
+New England? By a curious and happy coincidence, of like significance
+to many that are constantly springing up to confirm the
+results of independent research, such for instance as the print of
+the piscivorous gavials in a prior leaf of the “Stonebook” to the
+mammalivorous crocodiles; it happens that precisely a line swerving
+from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts is the boundary
+likewise of other marine animals of corresponding types. Among
+the divisions of the North Atlantic, recently marked out by Professor
+Edward Forbes as determined by the presence of similar
+forms of animal life, occurs what is called the “arctic and boreal”
+province, which “sweeps across the northernmost part of the North
+Atlantic from Europe, extending down the coast of North America
+as far as Massachusetts, but nothing like so far on the European
+side as the American.” (Lecture at the Royal Institution, May
+14, 1847).”</p>
+
+<p>“Thus copiously backed by the most affirmative evidence, both
+positive and circumstantial, all contributing to establish the lawful
+claim to entity, the “great unknown” of the North Atlantic has
+still to overcome the strong feeling of discredit so widely associated
+with his past history, before he can hope to be understood as
+seriously claiming to be a subject of the animal kingdom. If men
+of the highest name in science condescend to notice him at all,
+it is most probably with a smile at the expense of what they consider
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page408">[408]</span>a crude invention, to which no importance should be attached.
+But authority, however exalted, has no patent of final adjudication
+in cases where its means of information are confessedly imperfect,
+as compared with those enjoyed by the supporters of a disputed
+position. The learned world was centuries in believing the story
+of Herodotus about little birds resorting to feed on insects within
+the “stretched jaws” of the crocodile. Bruce all but ruined his
+credit for a time by relating that he had seen the Abyssinians eat
+the raw flesh cut from one of the haunches of a living cow; and
+there are some who, with no more reason, pretend to doubt the
+good faith of a contemporary traveller, who declares that he once
+made a brief excursion on the back of an alligator. The conflicts
+of discovery and opinion engross indeed no small share of the history
+of human knowledge. There are cases, no doubt, in which
+the senses and the judgment of incompetent persons are liable to
+be imposed upon by irrelevant facts created or qualified for the
+occasion. But here there is no hypothesis concerned requiring nature
+to be tortured into its service; physiology can have no latent
+objections, ready to start up unawares and make a mockery of
+belief, because some of the serpent kind are indubitably organized
+for an aquatic medium; the laws of geographical distribution deduced
+irrespectively, yield their consent, and the integrity of not
+a few of the narrator is unimpeachable. Are we justified in rejecting
+the text, because the interpretation may not harmonize with
+our views; in imputing willful dishonesty to those who merely
+describe to the best of their hability what their eyes have disclosed
+to them? We do not despice the mermaid, the triton and siren,
+as altogether imaginary but endeavour to reconcile at least their
+physical attributes with those of the seal or oriental dugong. The
+unicorn is supposed to have original in the narwhal; and the griffin
+is recognized as a well-known friend in an antiquated garb, being
+no other than the tapir, somewhat disfigured by travellers, and
+further indebted to the artist for a pair of wings and an architectural
+style of tail. Even the ghost-seer is seldom suspected of intentional
+fraud, however justly we may believe to be the dupe of an
+imagination acted on by some positive phenomenon. The collateral
+truths which testify on the affirmative side have been dwelt upon
+to some extent, and shall again be adverted to presently. On the
+other hand, surely there must be something peculiar in the economy
+of a vast air-breathing race, frequenting well-known tracts and
+yet never visible but by the merest accident; nor is it any sufficient
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page409">[409]</span>answer to refer to the construction of the breathing apparatus,
+distinctive of the marine ophidians, enabling them to live long
+under water, and respire air with an almost imperceptible exposure
+above the surface, because the like provision does not prevent
+the Pacific denizens from being abundantly subject to observation.
+The want of conformity in some of the reported particulars of form
+and dimensions is of insignificant moment, and may easily be
+converted into a proof of innocence of design. Above all, the objections,
+be it understood, are not <i>of the kind</i> which the public
+at large appear to imagine them. There is nothing ridiculous or
+abnormal in the idea of a sea-serpent. So far from this the philosopher
+should rather be required to give a reason why at least
+the warmer situations of the Atlantic are unprovided with occupants
+corresponding to those which dwell in the opposite region
+of the globe.”</p>
+
+<p>“If the diversity of detail be accounted too serious an objection
+to be so lightly dismissed, is there no other organization within
+our cognizance which more satisfactorily embodies the several conditions
+rather loosely intimated than prescribed throughout the
+problem? The portraits given in authors of the restored Plesiosaurus,
+albeit conceived to represent beings that “filled up the measure of
+their years long before Eden was planted, and the dominions of
+man made of the red earth, acknowledged” (Hawkins), offer several
+particulars answering to those ascribed in most of the notices on
+record to the so-named sea-serpent,—the long, over-arched neck,
+the huge trunk, the protracted tail, and sometimes (see the deposition
+of Archdeacon Deinbolt, “Zoologist” 1606) an appearance of
+fins or paddles. This coincidence is the more remarkable, because
+no one can suppose it to have been preconcerted. Hence the ingenious
+suggestion of the Editor of the “Zoologist”, that the animals
+may belong to one of the Enaliosaurian types, seems to supply
+the only deficient link in the chain of demonstration, before we
+arrive at the final proof, a spectacle open to all observers. The
+neck of the Plesiosaurus (presuming this to be the genus indicated)
+“is composed of upwards of thirty bones, a number far exceeding
+that of the cervical vertebrae in any other known animal. This
+reptile combines in its structure the head of a lizard with teeth
+like those of a crocodile, a neck <i>resembling the body of a serpent</i>,
+a trunk and tail of the proportions of those of a quadruped, with
+paddles like those of turtles” (Mantell’s Wonders of Geology). If
+this seemingly whimsical coaptation of incongruous members, which
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page410">[410]</span>the dictum of science has consigned to the doom of pre-Adamic
+extinction, can be suspected without unpardonable heresy to be
+yet among the living, what is more allowable than to surmise that
+persons even of cultivated intellect, but quite inconscious that such
+things had ever existed, may have all honestly striven, more or
+less, to mould their visual perception into accordance with the
+familiar notion suggested by its general outline; and thus have
+given rise to the confusion objected to in their reports. Be this as
+it may, the discovery of Mr. Darwin of <i>marine</i> saurians, though
+but three or four feet long, about some of the south sea islands,
+contradicts any assumption that animals approaching to it in character
+are no longer extant. To account upon this supposition
+likewise for the hide-and-seek sort of life which those in question
+seem to lead, it may be observed that “the breathing holes of the
+Plesiosaurus differ from those of all other existing reptiles, and
+resemble those of whales”. They are placed “near the highest part
+of the head, where they would enable the animal most readily to
+breathe without exposing anything more than the apertures themselves
+above the water, corresponding admirably with the marine
+habits of the animal as indicated by the structure of its extremities.”
+(Ansted’s Ancient World, 1847).</p>
+
+<p>“Without committing myself to anything more than a belief
+that the subject is one fairly entitled to be considered an open
+question—open to the unrestrained testimony of future casual
+observers, equally with the criticism of the scientific—I feel
+assured that I cannot better express the opinion which every candid
+peruser of what has been stated must be prepared to arrive at,
+than by using the words of a naturalist who has given his attention
+to these remarks: “The argument appears to me perfectly
+satisfactory in favour of at least a suspension of judgment on the
+subject. The question is whether the evidence is such as would
+induce any man to believe, whose mind was prepossessed with no
+notions at all respecting it. Should we credit the testimony, if the
+animal to which it relates were claimed to be a mere variety? I
+think we should.”—</p>
+
+<p>I am obliged to make a few notes or observations on this paper.
+The account, namely, of which Mr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> speaks in the beginning
+of his “Plea”, which arrested his attention, because of
+the particulars having been long since familiar to him by oral
+communication, is that of the party of British officers (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>).—That
+“other statement” is that made by Capt. <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> (<a href="#Report106A">n<sup>o</sup>. 106a</a>).—I
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page411">[411]</span>beg the reader to look over the above-mentioned passages.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> had better done to omit his observation, that the account
+of the French sea-captain “was qualified with so much of
+the characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms
+and measurements”. The reader himself will in most of the accounts
+of the sea-serpent, which fill this volume, have observed the same
+“precision in details” indifferently whether the account was recorded
+by a Norwegian, a German, an English, a French or an
+American witness.—His observation that the sea-serpent only
+occurs “in the North Atlantic no farther south than a line swerving
+from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts” is
+incorrect, as the reader may already have observed himself. If he
+had read all the accounts of the sea-serpent up to his days, he
+would, of course, not have written this. The “deposition of Archdeacon
+<span class="smcap">Deinbolt</span>, zool. 1606” is of the 28th. of July, 1845 (<a href="#Report115">n<sup>o</sup>.
+115</a>). Mr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> cites here the passage in which he will find “an
+appearance of paddles”. The reader will probably remember that
+there was no question of paddles, but of a boiling of the water,
+which the witnesses <i>thought</i> to have been caused by a pair of fins
+nearest the head, and which I have explained in another way.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> calls Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> suggestion, that the sea-serpents
+may belong to the <i>Enaliosaurian</i> type, “ingenious”. I think that
+the reader, after having read only the accounts of the sea-serpent
+up to the days of Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> suggestion, i. e. up to 1847,
+will not be inclined to call this suggestion “ingenious”, with regard
+to the sea-serpent being so often reported as having a mane
+and whiskers, and swimming with vertical undulations. Moreover
+it is the question whether this suggestion was Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> or
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke’s</span>.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">J. D. Morries Stirling</span> too, seemed to believe that the
+sea-serpents are allied to the extinct <i>Plesiosauri</i>, for he writes in
+a letter to Captain <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty
+(See <i>Illustrated London News</i> of 28th. October, 1848):</p>
+
+<p>“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile known as
+the sea-serpent but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence
+of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several
+of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size
+and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect,
+as well as having short paws or flappers, the description
+of the Northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance
+of some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page412">[412]</span>in the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed
+to be the same animal as the kraken, or rather from the
+names having been used indiscriminately.”</p>
+
+<p>Another gentleman, who signed his article in the <i>Times</i> of November
+2nd., 1848, with the initials F. G. S., came to the same
+suggestion. His letter will be found in its right place, after the
+statements of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> who perhaps feared that in spite of his “Plea”
+the story of the sea-serpent was on a fair way to be forgotten,
+once more took the subject in hand, and sent a second paper to
+the <i>Zoologist</i> of December 1848. This dissertation is at least better
+than the first, being partly critical, partly historical. Again, for
+history’s sake, I am obliged to repeat nearly his whole paper.</p>
+
+<p>“It grows more and more necessary every day to acknowledge
+the <i>existence</i> of a vast form of marine animal bearing some resemblance
+to a serpent. The recent letter of Captain M’Quhae to the
+Admiralty allows of no other alternative than either to admit the
+evidence, or invent some still more extraordinary hypothesis to
+explain it away. The forms of bearings of the strangers have been
+duly reported at head quarters, and no more deserve to be called
+in question, as regards the fidelity of the narrator, than the existence
+of any commissioned “Snake” or “Anaconda”, whose station
+and appointments we find recorded in the daily press. No preternatural
+messenger in “the shape that tempted Eve”,—he passes
+by on the other side without manifesting the slightest degree of
+interest in human affairs; no phantom progeny of light and air,
+although affecting literally the same haunts as the “Flying Dutchman”,—he
+steers himself by compass, and is the herald of no
+signal disaster; no herd of porpoises disporting all in a row, and
+joined together by some <i>Daedalian</i> process of imagination into the
+semblance of unity—his head is “decidedly that of a snake”,—he
+carries it for twenty minutes at a time out of the water; and
+his body is seen for a continuous length of sixty feet on a level
+with the surface. From the standard jest of the witty, and the
+discarded problem of the wise, he has shown himself likely to be
+“no joke” for his physical powers, and well deserving the gravest
+scientific inquiry.”</p>
+
+<p>“To show what a formidable and unyielding front has been
+heretofore opposed to him, I shall quote a passage from the article
+under the head of “Serpents” in the last edition of the “Encyclopedia
+Britannica” (1842): “No proper proof has yet been adduced
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page413">[413]</span>of any of these species (sea-serpents) inhabiting the “American
+Ferry”, as we see that world of waters now named since the
+steaming days of the British Queen and the Great Western. Mr.
+Schlegel characterizes the statement as an assertion <i>que je puis
+contredire avec certitude</i>: and the author adds: “we shall content
+ourselves by stating that sea-serpents have not yet been observed
+in the Atlantic Ocean”. The following notice occurs in a popular
+compilation of the animal kingdom just issued from the press
+(1848): “Sea-serpent (or the Kraken). The appearance of this
+<i>fabulous</i> monster is thus accounted for by Mr. A. Adams. In the
+Sooloo seas I have often watched the phenomenon which first gave
+rise to the marvellous stories of the great sea-serpent, viz., lines
+of rolling porpoises resembling a long string of buoys oftentimes
+extending seventy, eighty, or one hundred yards. These constitute
+the so-named protuberances of the monster’s back, keep in close
+single file progressing rapidly along the calm surface of the water,”
+&amp;c. Had the <i>fabulous</i> serpent in Aesop, who complained of being
+“a multis hominibus pessumdatus”, been aware of what laid up
+in the fates for his aquatic relative, no doubt he would have
+ceased to repine at his own hard lot.”</p>
+
+<p>“The official corroboration of the fundamental truth of these
+“marvellous stories” is important, not only because the author
+under the circumstances must at least receive credit for the most
+entire sincerity, but from the encouragement thus given to other
+credible witnesses to bring forward their evidence. There is no
+reason to suppose that even this would have been readily laid
+before the public, but for the desire expressed by the Board of
+Admiralty to learn the truth of an accidental rumour. As regards
+any additional light thrown on the natural history of the animal,
+it is not more satisfactory than many of the accounts we already
+possess. Indeed the paragraphs which precede the captain’s letter
+in the “Zoologist” viz., the extract from the journal of Lieut.
+Drummond, and the first public rumour as it appeared in the
+“Times”, tend rather to confuse the official statement, and will no
+doubt be used to create suspicions of its accuracy. The communication
+which follows it, purporting to give a report of another specimen
+seen by an American captain, is supposed to be “a hoax”,
+and as such is worthy of preservation from the ingenuity it displays.”</p>
+
+<p>“When a doctrine is assumed to be fanciful, people seldom take
+the trouble to inquire into its history and merits. This may account
+for the sea-serpent being commonly confounded with a very different
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page414">[414]</span>prodigy, too exacting in its claims for the most extravagant credulity
+of modern days to regard with favour. As seen above, its name
+and that of Kraken are popularly used as synonymous. And nevertheless,
+Pontoppidan, Bishop of Bergen, whose “Natural History
+of Norway” (translated into English in 1755) is the usual standard
+of authority on both subjects, treats of them separately in appropriate
+sections of his work. Of the Kraken he says, “I come now
+to the third, and incontestably the largest sea-monster in the
+world: it is called Kraken, krasen, or, as some name it, krabben,
+that word being applied by way of eminence to this creature”. Its
+back or upper part he described as truly gigantic, being a mile
+and a half or more in circumference, and it is provided with limbs
+so strong as to be able to pull boats and the smaller sailing crafts
+under water. Some deem the original of this story to have been a
+Sepia or Medusa of enormous size; others set it down for an optical
+illusion; Pontoppidan himself thinks that “in all probability it may
+be reckoned of the polypi or of the starfish kind”. One cannot help
+being reminded, on reading the above, of the passage in Milton
+where he compares Satan, “prone on the flood”, to “That sea-beast””.......
+&amp;c.—</p>
+
+<p>“Commentators have been divided in opinion whether Milton
+supposed the leviathan to be a crocodile or a whale. The former
+idea derives little support from the text; the whale, which has
+only lately been divested of its “scaly rind”, puts forward more
+plausible pretentions: nevertheless, the vast bulk of the creature
+alluded to, and its position, “slumbring in the Norway foam”,
+suggest the inquiry whether the poet may not have had in his
+mind a tradition of the kraken. I may mention here that the
+Norwegian Bishop believed that the Leviathan of Job and Isaiah
+had been detected in the <i>sea-serpent</i>. Of the latter animal Pontoppidan
+says: “The soe-ormen””....... &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>“It would serve little purpose to occupy these pages with mere
+copies of the published narratives and depositions tending to prove
+the existence of the animal under our consideration. Whatever
+discrepancies may perplex us with regard to subordinate details,
+it is important to remember that the one ruling form, that of a
+serpent, is the foundation of all the descriptions. The form may
+vary—in length, perhaps, from forty to a hundred feet and
+upwards; in the relative dimensions of the head and different parts
+of the body; in the presence or absence of a mane or paddles;
+and more particularly with respect to an appearance of dorsal
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page415">[415]</span>arches or elevations, rising above the water like a row of casks or
+buoys. The greater part of the evidence on the subject is contained,
+I believe, in Pontoppidan’s “Natural History of Norway” (1755),
+the “Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England
+relative to a large Marine Animal, supposed to be a Sea-Serpent,
+seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817”
+(Boston 1817), and the last volume of “The Zoologist” (1847). In
+the Scandinavian work the principal witness is Captain L. de Ferry,
+of the Navy, who thus describes an individual which he saw while
+in a boat, rowed by eight men, within six miles of Molde, in a
+calm hot day of August, 1747. “The head of the snake””..... &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>“The Report of the Linnaean Society of New England contains
+the result of an inquiry”....... &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>“The tenor of the late observations in Norway recorded in the
+“Zoologist” (Zool. 1604) certainly might justify the inference that
+these so remarkable prominences are not persistent, but depend,
+as suggested by the American functionary, on the mode of progression
+practised at the moment. Anybody that had watched the
+lithe and varied curves of an otter in the water can have no
+difficulty in recording together the different kinds of undulations
+to the sea-serpent. There is one particular of rare occurrence worthy
+of notice, in one of these later accounts, calling to mind a peculiarity
+in the description of the animal seen by Mr. Egede, a
+Greenland missionary and furnished to us with a copy of the figure,
+by Pontoppidan. This creature, of the unusual length of 600 feet,
+“had under its body two flappers, or perhaps two broad fins”.
+One of the recent narratives also states of the progressive movement,
+that it appeared to be produced “by the help of two fins”
+(Zool. 1607). Thus is offered a possible solution of the difficulty
+occasioned by captain M’Quhae’s specimen having advanced at a
+rapid rate, with 60 feet of the body à fleur d’eau, without any
+visible undulation.” (I, however, refer the reader to the <a href="#Report115">report</a> of
+1845, July 28).</p>
+
+<p>“Here I may refer to “The Description of an Animal stranded
+on the Island of Stronsa, in the year 1808” given in the first
+Volume of the “Wernerian Transactions” by the late eminent Dr.
+Barclay. Evidently disposed to believe that this animal was a sea-serpent,
+Dr. Barclay indignantly repudiates the opinion of Mr.
+Home, that it was nothing more than a shark (<i>Squalus maximus</i>).
+Figures of the two are shown in juxtaposition, for the purpose of
+constrasting them, and to all appearance their respective peculiarities
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page416">[416]</span>are quite sufficient to distinctive appellations. The Orkney
+animal, in fact, bears a curious resemblance to a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>,
+with <i>six</i> legs. Nevertheless, anatomists have decided that a shark
+it really was, the anomalies being accounted for by the circumstance
+of the drawing having been taken from hearsay and under
+the supervision of persons who only saw the original in a very
+imperfect state. The “Animal of Stronsa” and the “Scoliophis atlanticus”
+leave us equally in the dark with regard to the physical
+economy of the sea-serpent; that is, unless the solution offered by
+Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310) shall prove to be correct.”
+(See our <a href="#Ref7">7th. explanation</a>.)</p>
+
+<p>“From what precedes it is evident, <i>First</i>, that the notion of
+the sea-serpent is not a mere growth of unlettered and credulous
+superstition, since it has been repeated and confirmed by parties
+than whom it would be difficult to select any more worthy of
+confidence, with this sole objection—that none of them have
+been naturalists. The critical eye of a Müller or an Owen would
+determine its true affinities in a moment. <i>Secondly</i>, that if we do
+the justice of rejecting all extraneous ideas, and confine ourself to
+what strictly relates to the object in question, there is a consistent
+tendency in nearly all the different narratives to invest it with the
+true characters of the reptilian class. <i>Thirdly</i>, that if there be any
+truth in the idea that the animal spends most of its time under
+water, only rising to the surface in calm weather during the summer
+months, this—however difficult to conceive of an air-breathing
+creature—in a great measure accounts for the infrequency
+of its occurrence. But are there no other forms, even of the highest
+stage of organization, which have been able to conceal themselves
+from the scrutinizing of naturalists? Not to speak of the minor
+accessions of unknown species, coming in to adorn our collections
+and extend the limits of science, it deserves to be borne in mind
+that perhaps the very chief of all the quadrumana (<i>Troglodytes
+gorilla</i> of Savage), the being that holds the foremost rank in the
+scale next to man, is one of the most recent contributions of the
+African Fauna. At the beginning of this century a cetaceous animal
+(<i>Physeter bidens</i> of Sowerby), sixteen feet long, was cast ashore
+on the coast of Elginshire, the species has been previously undescribed,
+and not another example is <i>commonly</i> believed to have
+since occurred. From the difficulty of assigning it a place, it has
+been the subject of no fewer than four or five generic appellations,
+and it is finally referred, by my friend Dr. Melville, to the <i>Delphinorhynchus
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page417">[417]</span>micropterus</i> of Dumortier, two other specimens of
+which only exist, the one <i>stranded</i> at Havre, the other at Ostend.
+Were this animal known only by tradition, it is improbable that
+naturalists would have refused it their sanction, under an impression
+that a species of such individual magnitude could not possibly
+have escaped being captured and subjected of their criticism? And
+yet the recognition of the great <i>Physeter bidens</i> is purely the result
+of an accident!”</p>
+
+<p>“If the reptilian nature of this mysterious creature be supposed
+to have been established, it becomes an interesting speculation to
+consider how far the stories of terrific dragons, transmitted to us
+by the ancients, had their origin in realities with which they were
+more conversant than ourselves. The sea-serpent, if a real existence,
+is of no modern creation. Our forefathers must have seen it. The
+utmost length at present allowed to land-snakes is twenty-five feet
+(Schlegel). Nevertheless, the very important part sustained by the
+serpent in the old mythologies,—its imposing magnitude and
+powers, and celebrated by historians and poets,—and its consequence
+in the romantic animals of the middle ages, will unstill
+a suspicion that, perhaps, not the biographers of snakes were mendaceous,
+but their heroes, like those of “the last minstrel”, have
+changed or disappeared in the progress of civilization. It is without
+the slightest idea of attaching any overstrained importance to the
+following passages that I venture to quote them, as proving that
+the idea of serpents frequenting and traversing the sea was at least
+not repugnant to ancient prejudices. The avenging ministers of Minerva,
+crossing the Aegean on their mission to destroy Laocoon,
+might be vindicated by an ardent classic as the model from which
+the moderns have often plagiarised their descriptions of the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“Ecce autem gemini a tenedo <i>tranquilla</i> per alta</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“(Horresco referens) <i>immensis orbibus</i> angues</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Incumbunt pelago, pariterque ad litora tendunt:</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Pectora quorum iter fluctus arrecta, jubaeque</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Sanguineae exuperant undas; pars caetera pontum</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Pone legit, sinuatque immensa volumine terga.</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Fit sonitus spumante salo”.—<i>Virgil.</i>—&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor3" href="#Footnote3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>.</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+<p><a id="Footnote3" href="#FNanchor3" class="label">[3]</a> Look, from Tenedos there come down through the <i>quiet</i> see (I shudder in
+telling it) two serpents in <i>enormous coils</i>, moving through the sea, and together
+they direct themselves to the strand: their chests, held up between the waves, and
+their blood-red <i>mane</i> are held above the waves; the remaining part lashes the sea,
+and they bent their immense backs in coils. There arises a noise, whilst the ocean
+skims.—Vergilius, Aeneis, II, 203, sqq.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page418">[418]</span></p>
+
+<p>“The poet, too, is sustained by the naturalist, for here we have
+Pliny (whose facts by the way deserve to have inspired the apophthegm
+that “truth is stranger than fiction”) telling how the African
+<i>dracones</i> were wont to club together and brave the perils of
+the Red Sea, in quest of the more luxurious diet of Arabia: “Narratur
+in maritimis eorum quaternos quinosque inter se cratium modo
+implexos erectis capitibus velificantes, ad meliora pabula Arabiae
+vehi fluctibus.” (Plin. Hist. Nat. VIII, 13).&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor4" href="#Footnote4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+<p><a id="Footnote4" href="#FNanchor4" class="label">[4]</a> “And (the Asachaeans) tell that near their coasts every time four or five of
+these (dragons) twisted together in the way of a twisted work, and sailing with
+their heads erected in the air, sail on the waves towards a better provender place
+of Arabia.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>“On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the
+rare opportunity afforded for the discussion of the subject by the
+conductor of this journal, for the purpose of showing, first, that
+sea-serpents as a family have long been perfectly recognized in
+science, and that therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment
+of ridicule; and next, of remarking that strange as are the
+properties attributed to the great sea-serpent, there are remains of
+a former world in our museums which in their perfect state united
+them all or nearly all. Encouraged by the Editor’s referring them
+to the Enaliosauri [Zool. LIV. Wrapper] I ventured to name the
+Plesiosaurus as the marine animal of our acquaintance to which
+they bear the nearest resemblance. This, although admitted at the
+time to be a daring breach of the <i>Draconic</i> laws of geology,—laws,
+which, having once consigned an organized form to extinction,
+have very rarely relaxed their rigour,—seemed to be a necessary
+result to the argument <i>par voie d’exclusion</i>: if not a Plesiosaurus
+what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to be at all
+correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the “animal of Stronsa”
+after all furnish the real key to the problem? The affirmative side
+of the question is not without at least two very able supporters
+(see Zool. 2310); and yet how to reconcile the characteristics of
+any possible shark with the sea-serpent-like head, curved neck,
+mane, or certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances
+so often mentioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent
+of the “Times” (Zool. 2311) calls attention to the striking resemblance
+between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosaurus, and is surprised
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page419">[419]</span>at its never having occurred to any one before. If the signature
+F. G. S. implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological
+Society, it is satisfactory to find a member of that particular body,
+whose favour was least to be expected, so pleased with the idea
+as to be willing to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been
+repeated and widely circulated by other periodicals. In the words
+of an elegant contributor in “Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal who
+alludes to it” one would almost suppose that among the buried
+learning of the earlier nations there lurked some knowledge of
+geology, seeing how their ideas about dragons came to such a conformity
+in some respects, with the realities of these preadamite
+reptiles.”</p>
+
+<p>“The determination of a great marine species, however, and
+even a knowledge of its habits and influence on the other inhabitants
+of the deep, are not, as I conceive, the most obvious
+advantages to be desired from the settlement of this question. Let
+it be admitted that a huge unknown creature of any description,
+provided its general appearance is such as to redeem the various
+historians of the great sea-serpent from the charge of wilful deception,
+does “swim the ocean stream”, and the value of the result
+cannot be too easily over-estimated. The <i>cui-bono</i> philosopher, the
+bugbear of naturalists, will no doubt have been highly amused
+with the recent excitement about a discovery that at first sight
+appears of no practical consequence to the interests of man. I
+know of no subject of research he would be likely to seize upon
+with more secure self-complacency—or of one which, though
+indirectly, supplies a more triumphal answer. To have our failing
+confidence in the value of human testimony reassured (and no
+evidence can be more solemn than that which relates to the sea-serpent),
+is surely no trifling gain of itself. But more than this:
+no circumstance has tended so emphatically to stamp the “Yankee”
+character with the stain of a bold and unscrupulous love of fiction
+and exaggeration as the story of the sea-serpent. Perhaps, on the
+principle of Mr. Warren’s “man about town”, who, being called
+a <i>splendid sinner</i>, made it his pride to deserve the title, the
+thoughtless portion of our Trans-atlantic family (the generous tribute
+of an Agassiz is sufficient warrant for the <i>savans</i>) may have
+thence been led to indulge in a dangerous style of humour, through
+a spirit of bravads. This source of misunderstanding once removed,
+the American character may afterwards be regarded with more
+respect, and the people themselves—no longer excited to defy
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page420">[420]</span>the ridicule they were not able to escape—may sober down to
+the legitimate standard of reason.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, too, could not forego
+the pleasure to publish a second time his favourite explanation of
+the <i>Enaliosaurians</i>. In the Preface to the year 1848 of his Journal,
+which appeared together with Mr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell’s</span> above mentioned
+dissertation, he filled some pages about the subject:</p>
+
+<p>“The communications made to the Admiralty by Captain M’Quhae
+has turned public attention to the possibility of the existence of a
+<i>Sea-Serpent</i> (Zool. 2307). My own views on this subject have long
+been known: two years have elapsed since I expressed an opinion
+(Zool. 1604), that although the evidence then before the public
+was perhaps insufficient to convince those who had hypotheses on
+their own to support, yet that it was far too strong for the fact-naturalist,
+the inquirer after truth, to dismiss without investigation.
+To advance such an opinion as this,—to admit the possibility
+of the existence of a sea-serpent in so enlightened an age
+as the nineteenth century,—of course led to my being loaded
+with ridicule; loaded, but not overwhelmed, for I immediately
+afterwards ventured on expressing a still bolder opinion,—no
+less than that of suggesting its affinity to a tribe of animals supposed
+to be extinct. I stated on the wrapper of n<sup>o</sup>. 54 that the
+Enaliosauri of authors would, if living, present the appearances
+described. Almost immediately after this I published the statement
+of Captain Sullivan and five other British officers, who deliberately
+assert (Zool. 1715) that they saw—while on a fishing excursion
+on the coast of British America—a sea-serpent, which they supposed
+to be eighty or a hundred feet in length; its head, six feet
+in length, and its neck, also six feet in length, were the only
+part constantly above water, and resembled those of a common
+snake: the creature passed them with great rapidity, “leaving a
+regular wake”. Nothing is said of any undulating movement, or
+of any appearance of portions or coils of the body. The statement
+of Captain M’Quhae (Zool. 2307), and that obligingly furnished
+expressly for the “Zoologist” by Lieut. Drummond (Zool. 2306),
+essentially corroborate the evidence of Captain Sullivan and his
+companions: the length and position of the head and neck, and
+their being kept constantly above water, closely correspond; the
+estimated total length corresponds; the non-observance of any undulation
+corresponds,—indeed Captain M’Quhae expressly states
+that no portion of the animal appeared to be used in “propelling
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page421">[421]</span>it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation”.
+Thus we have separate statements closely corresponding with each
+other, and each statement is vouched for by several British officers
+whose veracity has never been called in question: under these circumstances
+we may afford to dismiss from this inquiry all those
+assertions of American captains, which have been treated in this
+country with such contempt. Resting the evidence solely on the
+authority of British officers, I then wish to state my unhesitating
+conviction that a marine animal of enormous size does exist, and
+that it differs essentially from any living animal described in our
+systematic works; and here I cannot refrain from expressing my
+regret that the statement of captain Sullivan should have been so
+entirely neglected as it has been: it appears to me in all respects
+equally trustworthy with the official statement of captain M’Quhae.”</p>
+
+<p>“The next question which occurs is this—to what class of
+vertebrate animals must we refer this monster of the deep? Is it
+a mammal, bird, reptile, or fish? All these classes include animals
+whose home is the ocean. To commence with placental mammals;—we
+have otters, seals, walrusses and sea-cows, all of which
+breathe atmospheric air, and, therefore, when swimming on the
+surface usually keep their nostrils—often their heads—above the
+water: they also propel themselves by means of submerged fins or
+paddles, and, when inclined, can move along the surface with
+rapid direct and continuous motion. Professor Owen (Zool. 2312),
+in accordance with these views, declares the animal to be a seal;
+Phoca proboscidea or P. leonina, but his reasoning on the point
+appears to me very inconclusive: he assigns the animal a “capacious
+vaulted cranium”, whereas Lieutenant Drummond (Zool. 2307)
+declares the head was “long, pointed, and <i>flattened</i> at the top”,
+adding that it was, “perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw
+projecting considerably.” Captain M’Quhae, also, subsequently to
+Professor Owen’s paper, repeats (Zool. 2333) that “the head was
+<i>flat</i>, and not a <i>capacious vaulted cranium</i>”. The captain, who must
+be annoyed at the insinuation that in an official report he had
+magnified a seal into a sea-serpent, emphatically declares that “its
+great length and its totally differing physiognomy preclude the
+possibility of its being a Phoca of any species.” This idea must
+therefore be abandoned; the other marine mammals still remaining
+open for future consideration.”</p>
+
+<p>“Among Birds we have no approach to the animal described.”</p>
+
+<p>“The Enaliosauri next claim our attention, and, for the present
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page422">[422]</span>purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because
+I feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could
+urge many reasons in connection with the views I have long since
+published in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations
+which may be considered speculative, I would invite the intention
+of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists,
+to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes,
+the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited
+by a section of the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the
+sternum, and the smoothness of the skin; and when they have
+well-considered these important points, I would inquire whether
+these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian?
+and, again, whether they are not rather marsupial than placental?
+I have already pointed out the manupedine, ferine, glirine
+and brutine groups of marsupials; why should we not also have
+a cetine group? Without making any other use of this suggestion
+than that of temporarily separating the Enaliosaurians from the
+Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention to the arguments of
+Mr. Morries Stirling (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. S. (Zool. 2311),
+both of whom support the opinion which I had previously broached
+as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent,—a
+view controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen
+(Zool. 2316), on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct;
+but here I may perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact,
+being only assumed, does not touch the main question.”</p>
+
+<p>“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion
+of an anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span>
+(Zool. 2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal
+may not have been a boa; and I may observe that the evidence
+concerning the head, which has been repeatedly described as precisely
+resembling that of a snake or serpent, together with the
+fact of the animal holding its head clear of the water, are so many
+points in favour of its belonging to the Ophidia; but, on the
+other hand, we must place the non-observance of that undulating
+mode of progression which every snake must employ,—and it
+amounts to more than non-observance, for Captain M’Quhae, who
+directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such
+undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length—three
+times that of a boa—militates against this hypothesis. Professor
+Owen lays great stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae;
+but as only two Ophidians have yet entered the arena as competitor
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page423">[423]</span>for the title of sea-serpent,—Saccopharynx flagellum, which
+I have heard is a <i>bona fide</i> black snake, and Boa constrictor,
+which is received on all kinds as a veritable serpent,—I think
+the absence of ophidian vertebrae is of no great moment. The
+Sauria offer similar coincidences with the Ophidia, and present a
+similar discrepancy: their heads and necks might readily be described
+by general observers as those of snakes or serpents, but the
+undulating motion with which they swim is almost precisely similar
+to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an objection to
+our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia and Chelonia
+have next to be considered, and these truly possess the submerged
+limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the
+surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the vertebral
+column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles absolutely
+impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned,
+these reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living animal
+with the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents.
+Yet the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles,
+and especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the
+idea of their being described—even by the veriest tyro in observation—as
+snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both
+crocodiles and tortoises floating on the surface of water, the back,
+and not the head and neck, must be the part most prominently
+and permanently visible. It is therefore manifest that no existing
+groups of reptiles answers the conditions required by the recently-recorded
+descriptions of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the
+sharks as offering a solution of the problem; and the record respecting
+the sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great
+weight to this view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists
+as Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the
+Stronsa animal, I entertain very great doubts of the decision in
+question; it certainly does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae
+of an ophidian, but then no naturalist desires to make it one;
+the boa hypothesis is applied only to the sea-serpent of the <i>Daedalus</i>.
+Leaving, however, this Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may
+observe, <i>first</i>, that all analogy contravenes the idea of a shark
+having a neck, and <i>secondly</i>, I would beg of those gentlemen
+who advocate this hypothesis, to take their pencils and depict a
+shark with a head and shoulders clear out of the water, and his
+body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think the most
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page424">[424]</span>brilliant fancy could scarcely imagine a shark maintaining such a
+position for twenty minutes at the time, and, what is stranger
+still, while in this position, ploughing the ocean at the rate of
+twenty miles an hour.”</p>
+
+<p>“After maturely considering these various views, it will be found
+that the Enaliosaurian hypothesis presents the fewest difficulties,—in
+fine, one only, the supposition that these wonderful creatures
+have become extinct. It will be the object of a separate essay, now
+preparing for the press, to adduce evidence from other sources of
+the existence—in sea-serpents seen off the Norwegian coast—of
+two large flappers or paddles, closely corresponding in situation
+with the anterior paddles of Ichthyosaurus, and also of enormous
+eyes, exactly as indicated by the fossil remains of that animal; but
+this, not being deducible from recent observations, may be reserved
+for a more complete and careful review of the entire history of
+these enormous creatures which in all probability will eventually
+be found to constitute several genera and species.”</p>
+
+<p>“In throwing open the pages of the “Zoologist” to communication
+on a subject so uniformly tabooed by the scientific,—in
+claiming for that subject a calm and dispassionate investigation,—in
+expressing my unhesitating belief that the various narratives,
+although often conflicting, are nevertheless, according to the belief
+of the narrator, perfectly true,—and in attempting to assign the
+sea-serpent a place in the System of Nature,—I feel convinced
+that all true naturalists will approve the course I have taken,
+and will be willing to abide the result. Discussion must ever have
+the tendency to dissipate error and establish truth; and he who
+believes himself right need never shun the ordeal. In this spirit I
+invite discussion, and shall feel obliged for any communications
+tending to elicit or establish truth.”</p>
+
+<p>Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.</p>
+
+<p>The communications made by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> and Lieutenant
+<span class="smcap">Drummond</span> are inserted in the foregoing Chapter (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).—The
+statement of Captain <span class="smcap">Sullivan</span> and five other British officers
+is that of 1833, May 15th., inserted above. (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>.)</p>
+
+<p>Ever and anon Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> shows that the statements referred
+to by him are those of <i>British</i> officers. Why so? Is a British
+officer more trustworthy than an officer of any other nation?</p>
+
+<p>What zoologist or palaeontologist has ever shared Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span>
+doubt of the reptilian nature of the Enaliosaurians!? Who would
+like to bring these extinct creatures under a newly founded order
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page425">[425]</span>of Cetacean Marsupials!! Did not Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> suggestion originate
+in the two facts 1. That he himself thought the sea-serpent
+to be an Enaliosaurian, and 2. That Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> asserted that the
+sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, according to his description and
+figures, must be a mammal? I think Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> reasoned
+further: “well, why should the Enaliosaurians not be mammals?”</p>
+
+<p>“The enormous length of the animal, three times that of a boa,
+militates against this hypothesis”, viz. of being a boa. This is no
+argument. In the time that only calamaries were known of 6 or 7
+feet length, with arms of 10 or 11 feet, nobody had ever dreamt
+that there existed really individuals of 30 feet in length with long
+arms of 50 feet!</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was wrongly informed about the
+<i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i>, for this animal is a kind of <i>fish</i>, belonging
+to the eel-tribe, however not in the least resembling an eel in
+its external characters, and not a black <i>snake</i>!</p>
+
+<p>The “separate essay, now preparing for the press” as far as I
+know has never been published.</p>
+
+<p>The quotation of the <i>Ichthyosaurus</i> shows us that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>
+was unwilling to give up his first suggestion. The evidence, referred
+to by him, where the sea-serpent had apparently two flappers
+near the head, is the same as that referred to by Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span>,
+(see <a href="#Page409">pp. 409</a>, <a href="#Page411">411</a>, and <a href="#Report115">n<sup>o</sup>. 115</a>.).</p>
+
+<p>After observing that other sea-serpents, e. g. that of Captain
+<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> don’t come up to his Ichthyosaurian suggestion, Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Newman</span> concludes that “the enormous creatures in all probability
+will eventually be found to constitute several genera and species!!!</p>
+
+<p>The favourite Plesiosaurian hypothesis is also spoken of by the
+writer of the “<i>Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the
+bones of the Stronsa Animal</i>” (which I have <a href="#Ref8">inserted</a> in my <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a>
+on Would-be sea-serpents). He says:</p>
+
+<p>“But we must now conclude with the single remark, that if
+the Stronsa Animal was not a shark, it was certainly not the great
+sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to
+the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by
+the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems
+to have borne a strong resemblance.” <span class="smcap">Jas. C. Howden.</span></p>
+
+<p>As to the animal of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span>, see our <a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> in the Preface to the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, wrote
+the following about the Reptiles mentioned in this volume. The
+words are worth quoting.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page426">[426]</span></p>
+
+<p>“In British <i>Reptiles</i> nothing remarkable has occurred; but I
+have been favoured with a communication, published in the February
+number (Zool. 2356), announcing the present existence of
+huge marine animals closely related to the Enaliosauri of by-gone
+ages, that appears to me in all respects the most interesting Natural
+History-fact of the present century, completely overturning
+as it does some of the most favourite and fashionable hypotheses
+of geological science. The published opinion of Mr. Agassiz (Zool.
+2395) certainly favours the idea that Enaliosaurians may still exist:
+he says: it would be in precise conformity with analogy that an
+animal should exist in the American seas which has long been
+extinct and fossilized in the Eastern hemisphere: he instances the
+gar-pike of the western rivers, and says that, in a recent visit to
+Lake Superior, he has detected several fishes belonging to genera
+now extinct in Europe.”</p>
+
+<p>The communication mentioned here is that of Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span>,
+who saw the sea-serpent in the Gulf of California (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup>. 119</a>). In
+fact, since this opinion was expressed by <span class="smcap">Agassiz</span>, (where?) numerous
+animals, even of tolerably large size, have been discovered
+in Australia as well as in the great depth of the ocean, the allies
+of which are only found in a fossilized state.</p>
+
+<p>The favourite <i>Plesiosaurus</i> hypothesis is also treated of and finally
+adopted by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>.
+After rejecting the hypotheses of the sea-serpent being only a
+deceitful huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a
+basking shark, a large ribbon-fish, some large kind of the eel
+tribe, a large specimen of true sea-snakes, a strayed large land-snake
+as the boas, he goes on in the following manner:</p>
+
+<p>“It yet remains to consider the hypothesis advanced by Mr. E.
+Newman, Mr. Morries Stirling, and “F. G. S.”, that the so called
+sea-serpent will find its closest affinities with those extraordinary
+animals, the <i>Enaliosauria</i>, or Marine Lizards, whose fossil skeletons
+are found so abundantly scattered through the oolite and the lias.
+The figure of <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, as restored in Professor Ansted’s <i>Ancient
+World</i>, has a cranium not less capacious or vaulted than that
+given in Captain M’Quhae’s figures; to which, indeed, but that
+the muzzle in the latter is more abbreviate, it bears a close resemblance.
+The head was fixed at the extremity of a neck composed
+of thirty to forty vertebrae, which, from its extraordinary
+length, slenderness, and flexibility, must have been the very counterpart
+of the body of a serpent. This snake-like neck merged
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page427">[427]</span>insensibly into a compact and moderately slender body, which
+carried two pairs of paddles, very much like those of a sea-turtle,
+and terminated behind in a gradually attenuated tail”.</p>
+
+<p>“Thus, if the <i>Plesiosaur</i> could have been seen alive, you would
+have discerned nearly its total length at the surface of the water,
+propelled at a rapid rate, without any undulation, by an apparatus
+altogether invisible,—the powerful paddles beneath; while the
+entire serpentine neck would probably be projected obliquely, carrying
+the reptilian head, with an eye of moderate aperture, and
+a mouth whose gape did not extend beyond the eye. Add to this
+a covering of the body not formed of scales, bony plates, or other
+form of solidified integument, but a yielding, leathery skin, probably
+black and smooth, like that of a whale; give the creature
+a length of some sixty feet or more, and you would have before
+you almost the very counterpart of the apparition that wrought
+such amazement on board the <i>Daedalus</i>. The position of the nostrils
+at the summit of the head indicates that on first coming on
+the surface from the depths of the sea, the animal would spout
+in the manner of the whales,—a circumstance reported by some
+observers of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>“I must confess that I am myself far more disposed to acquiesce
+in this hypothesis than in any other that has been mooted. Not
+that I would identify the animal seen with the actual <i>Plesiosaurs</i>
+of the lias. None of them yet discovered appear to exceed thirty-five
+feet in length, which is scarcely half sufficient to meet the
+exigencies of the case. I should not look for any species, scarcely
+even any genus, to be perpetuated from the oolitic period to the
+present. Admitting the actual continuation of the order <i>Enaliosauria</i>,
+it would be, I think, quite in conformity with general analogy
+to find important generic modifications, probably combining some
+salient features of several extinct forms. Thus the little known <i>Pliosaur</i>
+had many of the peculiarities of the <i>Plesiosaur</i>, without its
+extraordinarily elongated neck, while it vastly exceeded it in dimensions.
+What if the existing form should be essentially a <i>Plesiosaur</i>,
+with the colossal magnitude of a <i>Pliosaur</i>?”</p>
+
+<p>“There seems to be no real structural difficulty in such a supposition
+except the “mane”, or waving appendage, which has so
+frequently been described by those who profess to have seen the
+modern animal. This, however, is a difficulty of ignorance, rather
+than of contradiction. We do not <i>know</i> that the smooth integument
+of the <i>Enaliosaurs</i> was destitute of any such appendage, and I do
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page428">[428]</span>not think there is any insuperable unprobability in the case. The
+nearest analogy that I can suggest, however, is that of the <i>Chlamydosaur</i>,
+a large terrestrial lizard of Australia, whose lengthened
+neck is furnished with a very curious plaited frill of thin membrane,
+extending like wings or fins to a considerable distance from
+the animal.”</p>
+
+<p>(<i>Foot-note:</i>) [“It was not till after this paragraph was written that
+I noticed the very close similarity of the fins with which Hans
+Egede has adorned his figure of the sea-serpent (copied in the Illustrated
+London News, Oct. 28, 1848), to the frill of the <i>Chlamydosaurus</i>.”]</p>
+
+<p>“Two strong objections, however, stand in the way of our acceptance
+of the present existence of <i>Enaliosauria</i>; and these are
+forcibly presented by Professor Owen. They are,—1. The hypothetical
+improbability of such forms having been transmitted from
+the era of the secondary strata to the present time; and 2. The
+entire absence of any parts of the carcases or unfossilized skeletons
+of such animals in museums.”</p>
+
+<p>“My ignorance of the details of palaeontology makes me feel
+very diffident in attempting to touch the former point, especially
+when so great an authority has pronounced an opinion; still I will
+modestly express one or two thoughts on it.”</p>
+
+<p>“There does not seem any <i>à priori</i> reason why early forms
+should not be perpetuated; and examples are by no means rare of
+animals much anterior, geologically, to the <i>Enaliosaurs</i>, being still
+extant. The very earliest forms of fishes are of the <i>Placoid</i> type,
+and it is remarkable that not only is that type still living in considerable
+numbers, but the most gigantic examples of this class
+belong to it,—viz. the sharks and rays; and these exhibiting
+peculiarities which by no means remove them far from ancient
+types. The genus <i>Chimaera</i> appears in the oolite, the wealden,
+and the chalk; disappears (or rather is not found) in any of the
+tertiary formations, but reappears, somewhat rarely, in the modern
+seas. It is represented by two species inhabiting respectively the
+Arctic and Antarctic Oceans.”</p>
+
+<p>“Now, this is exactly a parallel case to what is conjectured of
+the <i>Enaliosaurs</i>. They appear in the oolite and the chalk, are not
+found in the tertiary strata, but reappear, rarely, in the modern
+seas, represented by two or more species inhabiting the Northern
+and Southern Oceans.”</p>
+
+<p>“Among Reptiles, the curious family of river tortoises named
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page429">[429]</span><i>Trionychidae</i>, distinguished by their long neck, and a broad cartilaginous
+margin to the small back-shell, appears first in the
+wealden. No traces occur of it in any subsequent formation, till
+the present period, when we find it represented by the large and
+savage inhabitants of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Ganges.”</p>
+
+<p>“What is still more to the purpose is, that the <i>Iguanodon</i>, a
+vast saurian which was contemporary with the <i>Plesiosaur</i> and
+<i>Ichthyosaur</i>, though transmitting no observed representative of its
+form through the tertiary era, is yet well represented by the
+existing <i>Iguanadae</i> of the American tropics.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is true the <i>Iguana</i> is not an <i>Iguanodon</i>; but the forms are
+closely allied. I do not suppose that the so-called sea-serpent is an
+actual <i>Plesiosaur</i>, but an animal bearing a similar relation to that
+ancient type. The <i>Iguanodon</i> has degenerated (I speak of the type,
+and not of the species) to the small size of the <i>Iguana</i>; the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>
+may have become developed to the gigantic dimensions
+of the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>“A correspondent of the <i>Zoologist</i> (2395) adduces the great authority
+of Professor Agassiz to the possibility of the present existence
+of the <i>Enaliosaurian</i> type. That eminent palaeontologist is
+represented as saying, that “it would be in precise conformity
+with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American
+seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms
+of the Old World were represented by living types in the New.
+He instances the gar pike of the Western rivers, and said he had
+found several instances in his visit to Lake Superior, where he
+had detected several fishes belonging to genera now extinct in
+Europe.””</p>
+
+<p>“On this point, however, an actual testimony exists, to which
+I cannot but attach a very great value.”</p>
+
+<p>Here Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> cites the report of Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup>. 119</a>),
+and goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“Now, unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an
+animal which could have been no other than an <i>Enaliosaur</i>,—a
+marine reptile of large size, of sauroid figure, with turtle-like
+paddles. It is a pity that no estimate, even approximate, of the
+dimensions is given; but as the alligator affords the comparison as
+to form, it is most probable that there was a general agreement
+with it in size. This might make it some twelve or fifteen feet
+in length.”</p>
+
+<p>“I cannot, then, admit that either the <i>general</i> substitution of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page430">[430]</span><i>Cetacea</i> for <i>Enaliosauria</i> in our era, or the absence of remains of
+the latter in the tertiary deposits, is sufficient evidence of their
+non-existence in our seas; any more than the general replacement
+of <i>Placoid</i> and <i>Ganoid</i> fishes by the Cycloids and Ctenoids, or the
+absence of the former two from the tertiaries, is proof of <i>their</i>
+present non-existence.”</p>
+
+<p>“It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Darwin has ably insisted,
+that the specimens we possess of fossil organisms are very far indeed
+from being a complete series. They are rather fragments accidentally
+preserved, by favouring circumstances, in an almost total
+wreck. The <i>Enaliosauria</i>, particularly abundant in the secondary
+epoch, may have become sufficiently scarce in the tertiary to have
+no representative in these preserved fragmentary collections, and
+yet not have been absolutely extinct.”</p>
+
+<p>“But Professor Owen presses also the absence of any recognised
+recent remains of such animals. Let us test this evidence first by
+hypothesis, and then by actual fact.”</p>
+
+<p>“It may be that a true serpent, with large vesicular lungs,
+would float when dead, and be liable to be seen by navigators in
+that condition, or to be washed ashore, where its peculiar skeleton
+would be sure to attract notice. But, as I have before said, I do
+not by any means believe that the unknown creature is a <i>serpent</i>
+in the zoological sense. Would a <i>Plesiosaurus</i> float when dead? I
+think not. It is supposed to have had affinities with the whales.
+Now, a whale sinks like lead as soon as the blubber is removed;
+the surface-fat alone causes a whale to float. But we have no warrant
+for assuming that the <i>Plesiosaur</i> was encased in a thick blanket
+of blubber; no geologist has suggested any such thing, and
+the long neck forbids it; and if not, doubtless it would sink, and
+not float, when dead. Therefore the stranding of such a carcase,
+or the washing ashore of such a skeleton, would most probably be
+an extremely rare occurrence, even if the animal were as abundant
+as the sperm whale; but, on the supposition that the species itself
+is almost extinct, we ought not to expect such an incident,
+perhaps, in a thousand years. If we add to this the recollection,
+how small a portion of the border of the ocean is habitually viewed
+by persons able to discriminate between the vertebrae of an <i>Enaliosaur</i>
+and those of a <i>Cetacean</i>, we shall not, I think, attach
+great importance to this objection.”</p>
+
+<p>“The only region of the globe in which the unknown monster
+is reputed to be in any sense common, is the coast of Norway.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page431">[431]</span>Now this, it is true, is fortunately within the ken of civilized and
+scientific men; and, confessedly, no enormous ophidian or saurian
+carcases have ever been recognised on that shore. But the shore
+of Norway is, perhaps, the least favourable in the world for such
+a <i>jetsam</i>. Such a thing as a sand or shingle beach is scarcely
+known; the coast is almost exclusively what is called iron-bound;
+the borders of the deeply indented fjords rise abruptly out of the
+sea, so that there is generally from fifty to three hundred fathoms’
+depth of water within a boat’s length of the shore. How could a
+carcase or a skeleton be cast up here, even if it floated?”</p>
+
+<p>“But, secondly, as to facts. Is it true, that of all the larger
+oceanic animals we find the carcases or skeletons cast up on the
+shore? Is it true even of the <i>Cetacea</i>, whose blubber-covered bodies
+invariably ensure their floating, and whose bones are so saturated
+with oil that they are but little heavier than water?”</p>
+
+<p>“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French
+coast, which was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so
+fortunate as to fall under the examination of so eminent a zoologist
+as De Blainville; and hence its anatomy was well investigated. It
+has become celebrated as the Toothless Whale of Havre (<i>Aodon
+Dalei</i>). Yet <i>no other example of this species is on record</i>; and,
+but for this accident, a whale <i>inhabiting the British Channel</i>
+would be quite unrecognised.”</p>
+
+<p>“Of another Whale (<i>Diodon Sowerbyi</i>), <i>likewise British, our
+entire knowledge rests on a single individual</i> which was cast on
+shore on the Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the
+naturalist Sowerby.”</p>
+
+<p>“There is a species of sperm whale (<i>Physeter tursio</i>) affirmed to
+be frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of
+sixty feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other
+<i>Cetacea</i> by its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by
+other remarkable peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet <i>no specimen of
+this huge creature has fallen under modern scientific observation</i>;
+and zoologists are not yet agreed among themselves whether the
+high-finned Cachelot is a myth or a reality!”</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a
+Cetacean which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing
+<i>two dorsals</i>. The character was so abnormal that his statement
+was not received; but the eminent zoologists attached to
+one of the French exploring expeditions,—MM. Quoy and
+Gaimard,—saw a school of cetacea around their ship in the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page432">[432]</span>South Pacific, having this extraordinary character,—the supernumerary
+fin being placed on the back of the head. Here is the
+evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a most
+remarkable whale, <i>no carcase</i> of which—<i>no skeleton—has ever
+been recognised</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“The last example I shall adduce is from my own experience.
+During my voyage to Jamaica, when in lat. 19° N., and long.
+from 46° to 48° W., the ship was surrounded for <i>seventeen continuous
+hours</i> with a troop of whales, of a species which is certainly
+undescribed. I had ample opportunity for examination, and found
+that it was a <i>Delphinorhynchus</i>, thirty feet in length, black above
+and white beneath, with the swimming paws wide on the upper
+surface, and isolated by the surrounding black of the upper parts,—a
+very remarkable character. This could not have been the
+Toothless Whale of Havre; and there is no other with which it
+can be confounded. <i>Here, then, is a whale of large size, occurring
+in great numbers in the North Atlantic, which on no other
+occasion has fallen under scientific observation.</i>”</p>
+
+<p>“Are not these facts, then, sufficiently weighty to restrain us
+from rejecting so great an amount of testimony to the so-called
+sea-serpent, merely on the ground that its dead remains have not
+come under examination?”</p>
+
+<p>“In conclusion, I express my own confident persuasion, that
+there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which
+has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology;
+and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the
+fossil <i>Enaliosauria</i> of the lias.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig62">
+<img src="images/illo432.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 62.—Chlamydosaurus.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page433">[433]</span></p>
+
+<p>We only observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> is evidently inclined to believe
+that there are “two or more species inhabiting the Northern and
+Southern oceans.” It is not at all plain what circumstance has led
+him to this supposition.</p>
+
+<p>Curious is the comparison of the flappers, figured by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>)
+with the frill of the <i>Chlamydosaurus</i>. I give here a <a href="#Fig62">figure</a> of such an animal.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> gets clearly entangled in his own considerations of
+the affinity of the sea-serpent with the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> when he comes
+to the fact of the existence of a mane. It is a pity that he has
+not mixed up with his considerations the well-known <i>Iguana tuberculata</i>,
+a lizard belonging to the same family as the <i>Chlamydosaurus</i>,
+but which has a comb extending over the whole length
+of the neck, the back and the tail!</p>
+
+<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig63">
+<img src="images/illo433.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 63.—Iguana tuberculata.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, considering the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>
+hypothesis, says:</p>
+
+<p>“I think this theory is not forced upon us.”</p>
+
+<p>Of the probability of living <i>Plesiosauri</i>, however, he says:</p>
+
+<p>“Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance
+of probability is contrary to the supposition that any of the
+gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued
+to live up to the present time. And yet I am bound to
+say, that this does not amount to an impossibility, for the evidence
+against it is entirely negative. Nor is the conjecture that there may
+be in existence some congeners of these great reptiles inconsistent
+with zoological science. Dr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page434">[434]</span>a strict zoologist, is cited by Mr. Gosse as having long ago
+expressed his opinion that some undescribed form exists which is
+intermediate between the tortoises and the serpents.”</p>
+
+<p>“Prof. Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the <i>Zoologist</i>
+(p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence
+of the Enaliosaurian type that “it would be in precise conformity
+with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American
+Seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms
+of the Old World were represented by living types in the New.”</p>
+
+<p>It is obvious that of all animals, now living or extinct, the
+outlines of the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> fit best to the descriptions and figures
+of the great sea-serpent. Abandoning the possibility of still living
+<i>Plesiosauri</i>, I reply to the question “Why cannot the sea-serpent
+be a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>?”</p>
+
+<p><i>Plesiosauri</i> with such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent has,
+are hitherto unknown to palaeontologists, but, as to me, this cannot
+be of much importance; for there is no reason why in the
+course of ages this appendage should not have been developed to
+gigantic dimensions. The difference between the place of the nostrils
+in the two animals cannot claim any weight either (the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>
+had its nostrils both before its eyes and not at the end
+of its snout, as is the case in the sea-serpent) for this place may
+have changed in process of time. But there are two other differences
+which are of very great importance, and settle the question:
+1. The neck of the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> must have been fit to be bent in
+all directions, but I think no palaeontologist will ever admit that
+its trunk or backbone could be bent in such vertical undulations,
+as is the case with the sea-serpents. 2. The <i>Plesiosaurus</i> may have
+been destitute of scales, and may have had a smooth skin, it can
+never have been provided with a hairy skin as seals have, and at
+all events it had no mane, and no whiskers.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>An <b>eleventh</b> explanation is properly a negative one. In the
+<i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, of 1835, viz: Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin
+Silliman</span>, the Editor, published a report of one of his acquaintances,
+wherein the eye-witness declared: “nothing like a fin was
+seen”. Now Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span> in a <i>Remark of the Editor</i> says:
+“The absence of paddles or arms <b>forbids us from supposing that
+this was a swimming saurian</b>.”</p>
+
+<p>I need not observe that this explanation was premature, and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page435">[435]</span>that the assertion “nothing like a fin was seen” does not exclude
+the presence of flappers, hidden under water. The flappers of a
+swimming sea-lion or seal are not
+generally seen either. If not a saurian,
+what kind of animal could
+it be then, a fish or a mammal?</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>twelfth</b> explanation, viz:
+<b>a row of spermwhales</b>, which is
+found in Prof. <span class="smcap">Schlegel’s</span> <i>Essai
+sur la physionomie des Serpens</i>,
+1837, p. 518, is better than that
+of a row of porpoises or of basking
+sharks, with their plainly visible
+backfins, for there is a species of
+spermwhales, viz. the <i>Catodon macrocephalus</i>
+the backfin of which is
+so small as to be almost invisible.
+The other species, <i>Physeter tursio</i>
+has a rather large and erected
+backfin.</p>
+
+<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span>, after describing
+the appearance of a row of
+porpoises swimming in line, goes
+on saying: “This habit is also common
+to the larger cetaceans, which,
+however, only accidentally frequent
+our” (the Dutch) “coasts. The
+coasts of North-America, where the
+monstrous sea-serpent has so often
+been observed, swarm with them,
+and I confess that from a vessel,
+for instance, the unexpected appearance
+of a family of spermwhales
+swimming in line, with the eldest
+at the head, must offer a spectacle
+striking enough and fit to call forth
+at once superstition, imagination
+and fear.”</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig64">
+<img src="images/illo435.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 64.—Catodon macrocephalus.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>It is true that a row of sperm-whales
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page436">[436]</span>must offer a striking spectacle, but in none of the accounts
+of the sea-serpent the “bunches” or visible parts of the vertical
+undulations surpassed the length of a fathom, whilst the visible
+parts of the backs of spermwhales measure several fathoms, and
+the distance between two of these
+backs in a row of spermwhales is
+enormous. The supposition, moreover,
+does not explain the head
+resembling that of a snake, and
+kept constantly above water, neither
+the long neck accidentally observed,
+the long and pointed tail, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig65">
+<img src="images/illo436a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 65.—Skeleton of Basilosaurus.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig66">
+<img src="images/illo436b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 66.—Basilosaurus restored.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The <b>thirteenth</b> explanation supposes
+that the sea-serpent may be
+a still living <b>Basilosaurus</b>, an extinct
+marine mammal, first described
+by <span class="smcap">Harlan</span> in the year 1824; afterwards
+the name was changed to
+that of <i>Zeuglodon</i> by Prof. <span class="smcap">Richard
+Owen</span>. <a href="#Fig65">Fig. 65</a> represents the skeleton
+of a <i>Basilosaurus</i>. This animal
+lived in the tertiary periods. Almost
+all the characters of the skeleton
+remind us of Pinnipeds, only a
+few of Cetaceans, and so it is still
+doubtful to which order it belongs.
+Professor <span class="smcap">D’Arcy W. Thompson</span>
+rejects all association with the Cetacea
+(<i>Studies from the Museum of Zoology
+in University College, Dundee</i>, Vol.
+I. n<sup>o</sup>. 9.) The length of the largest
+skeletons measured seventy-five feet.
+The teeth and molars are nearly
+exactly those of seals. The nostrils
+were situated at the tip of the
+nose, as in seals, most probably,
+however, they were directed upwards.
+The bones of the rather short fore-extremities
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page437">[437]</span>resemble those of seals. Most probably these limbs
+were provided with nails, as in seals. But, on the other hand, of
+some of the known skulls the remaining part shows an affinity to
+cetaceans. The vertebrae again are seal-like. Till now it is unknown
+whether the animal had hind-extremities or not, for the bones of
+them are not yet discovered. The body must have been rather
+slender and cylindrical. I venture to represent to my readers in
+<a href="#Fig66">fig. 66</a>, a <i>Basilosaurus</i> restored. As the bones of the fore-extremities
+closely resemble those of seals, it is probable that small hind-extremities
+were not wanting. If the former resembled those of dolphins,
+the existence of hind-flappers would be problematic. Yet I have
+omitted them, because the bones of them are not yet discovered,
+as far as I know.</p>
+
+<p>The reader will remember that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> (see our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on
+Hoaxes and Cheats) exhibited a large skeleton in Broadway, New-York,
+under the name of <i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i>. This skeleton
+was made by him out of several bones of the extinct <i>Basilosaurus</i>.
+The imposture was soon discovered by Prof. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span>, and, of
+course, immediately published in all kinds of newspapers, which
+also reached Europe. In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, of February,
+1846, is one of these articles translated into German. Consequently
+we may conclude that the translator of this article knew that
+the <i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i> was, in fact, made up of bones
+of the <i>Basilosaurus</i>. Now we find in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen, Third
+Series</i>, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 54, p. 148, 1847, a suggestion of a writer
+who wrote under the initials M. J. S. (evidently the Editor, the
+well-known Professor <span class="smcap">Matthias Jacob Schleiden</span>: I have searched
+the <i>Bibliotheca Zoologica</i> of <span class="smcap">Carus</span> and <span class="smcap">Engelmann</span>, and not found
+another author whose name has these initials):</p>
+
+<p>“Is the sea-serpent perhaps identical with the <i>Hydrarchus</i>, viz.
+a still living species, a still present remainder, though in a few
+individuals, of former periods?”</p>
+
+<p>I think that this means: “Are there perhaps still living <i>Basilosauri</i>,
+and is the sea-serpent perhaps one of these creatures?”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood, Jun.</span> wrote in <i>Nature</i> of 18th. of November,
+1880, Vol. 23, a paper, entitled: “<i>Order Zeuglodontia</i>”, in
+which he tries to show that the sea-serpent most probably belongs
+to this Order. The contents of his paper are as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“In August 1848 H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> encountered off St. Helena
+a marine animal, of which a representation appeared in the
+<i>Illustrated News</i> of the latter part of that year. It is thirty-two
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page438">[438]</span>years since I saw this figure, but I recollect that it was one of a
+blunt-nosed animal with a neck carried about four feet above the
+water, which was so long as to present the appearance of a serpent;
+and I remember that Prof. Owen, in combating at the time the
+idea that this was a sea-serpent, pointed out that the position of
+the gape in relation to the eye, as shown in the figure in the
+<i>Illustrated News</i>, was that of a mammal, and not that of a reptile;
+in consequence of which he argued that the animal seen was probably
+only a leonine seal, whose track through the water gave an illusory
+impression of great length. This idea, however, seemed to me untenable
+in the face of the representation in the <i>Illustrated News</i>;
+but it was obvious that to afford the buoyancy necessary for the
+support above the water of so long a neck (estimated on that
+occasion as sixty feet though only the part near the head was
+actually out of the water), the submerged portion of the animal
+could not have had the shape of a serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>“Two or three years after this, on reading the description of
+<i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>, from the Tertiary (probably Upper Eocene) formations
+of Alabama, it struck me that the animal seen from the
+<i>Daedalus</i> may have been a descendant of the order to which
+<i>Zeuglodon</i> belonged; and I have ever since watched with interest
+for reports of the “great sea-serpent”.”</p>
+
+<p>“Three years ago the following appeared in the newspapers.”</p>
+
+<p>Here Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles Wood</span> copies the whole affidavit of the crew
+of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>), and adds:</p>
+
+<p>“The locality here specified was about thirty miles off the northern
+coast of Brazil.”</p>
+
+<p>And he goes on:</p>
+
+<p>“In this account I thought that I recognized the grip of the
+whale by the long neck of the attacking animal, the appearance
+being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance
+and motions of the objects; but in face of the general ridicule
+which has been attached to this subject, and being without any
+assurance that the declaration so purporting to be made was genuine,
+I did not venture to ventilate my long-cherished idea. A
+relative of mine, however, just returned from India, chancing to
+say that two of the officers to the steamer in which she went out
+had on the previous voyage witnessed an immense animal rear its
+neck thirty feet out of the water, and that a sketch of the object
+had been instantly made, and on reaching port sent to the <i>Graphic</i>.
+I obtained the number of that paper for July 19, 1879, and I
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page439">[439]</span>inclose a tracing of the figures in it, which are accompanied by
+the following statement in the Graphic:—”</p>
+
+<p>The statement of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> is further copied, accompanied by
+the two figures (see <a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>, <a href="#Fig48">figg. 48</a> and <a href="#Fig49">49</a>), and he continues saying:</p>
+
+<p>“As I have not been able to find any description of the skeleton
+of the <i>Zeuglodon</i>, I venture to draw attention to the subject through
+your columns, in the hope that among your many readers in America
+this letter may attract the notice of some one who will tell
+us whether what is known of the osseous structure of <i>Zeuglodon
+cetoides</i> is or is not consistent with the representation in the <i>Graphic</i>.
+The remains of the cetacean, supposed to be extinct, indicate, according
+to Sir Charles Lyell, that it was at least seventy feet in
+length, (He observes in the third edition of his “Manual of Elementary
+Geology”, 1851, p. 208, that he visited the spot where
+a vertebral column of this length belonging to <i>Zeuglodon</i> had been
+dug up.) while its great double-faced but knife-edged molars show
+that it was carnivorous; and as we are not so far removed from
+the period of the Alabama Tertiaries as to render it improbable
+that members of what must once have been a great Order of carnivorous
+cetacea, totally distinct from the orders of cetacea hitherto
+known as living, may still survive, I have braved the ridicule attaching
+to this subject so far as to invite attention to it.”</p>
+
+<p>“The second of the two figures in the <i>Graphic</i> shows the long
+necked animal to possess the cetacean tail, and its head there seems
+to have been turned from the observer, so that the underside of
+it only is presented. The first figure shows that the whale had
+been seized on its flank by the powerful bite of its aggressor, and
+that to escape from this it had thrown itself out of the water.
+Having succeeded in this object the second figure shows the aggressor
+rearing its head and neck out of the water to discover the
+direction which its prey had taken, in order that it might follow
+it up; and so far from the charge of curious drawing made by
+the editor of the <i>Graphic</i> being justified, the representation of the
+whale can be at once recognized as fairly correct; while that of
+the tail of the unknown animal (which probably prompted this
+charge), so far from being curious, forms an important piece of
+evidence as showing the animal in question to be catacean.”</p>
+
+<p>This paper had already been sent to the Editors of <i>Nature</i>, when
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood, Jun.</span>, observed that he was mistaken as to the
+report, and as soon as possible he sent a Postscript to the Editors,
+which appeared appended to his paper. The postscript runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page440">[440]</span></p>
+
+<p>“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my
+relative, and find that the cut in the <i>Graphic</i> of July 19, 1879,
+is not that of the instance observed from the steamer in which
+she came home, which was the <i>City of Washington</i>; but of a separate
+instance which occurred to another ship. I have not been
+able yet to procure the <i>Graphic</i> containing the figure of the animal
+seen from the <i>City of Washington</i>, but she tells me that it
+was pasted up in the saloon and represented only the head and
+long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great height out
+of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for the
+<i>Graphic</i> by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence.
+These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked
+are, however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”</p>
+
+<p>“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the
+<i>Encyclopedia Britannica</i> (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description
+of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>, says that “the skull is very long and
+narrow <i>and the nostril single</i>”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth
+on which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded
+the order <i>Zeuglodontia</i>, from the Miocene of Malta; and that
+the teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the
+Gironde and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under
+the name of <i>Squalodon</i>, are those of a smaller species of <i>Zeuglodon</i>.
+The remains of <i>Squalodon</i>, along with those of the shark
+with huge teeth, <i>Carcharodon megalodon</i>, and of numerous cetaceans
+assigned to orders all still living, and of which some, such
+as <i>Delphinus</i>, belong to living <i>genera</i>, occur in the “Sables inférieures”
+of Antwerp; which, though long called Miocene, are by
+Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as older Pliocene, and as the base
+of that series of deposits of which the middle and upper divisions
+are respectively represented by the Coralline and Red Crags of
+England; and with these “Sables inférieures” the so called Miocene
+of Malta, in which <i>Zeuglodon</i> is associated with <i>Carcharodon</i>, is
+probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc., 2d. ser., vol.
+I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp species of
+<i>Carcharodon</i> from both the Eocene of South Carolina and Miocene
+of Alabama. These various references bring the <i>Zeuglodonts</i>, with
+their <i>Carcharodon</i> associates, down to a late geological period during
+which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey
+the whale in the woodcut (which looks like a <i>Grampus</i>) seems an
+example”.</p>
+
+<p>“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page441">[441]</span>(1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures
+(one of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves,
+and the other that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers
+or fins, resting almost on the surface of the sea, with head and
+tail erect out of the water like the letter U, and spouting water
+or steam from its mouth <i>in a single column</i>), from accounts given
+him by Norwegian seamen, some of whom had seen the animal
+in the position in which it was observed from the <i>Daedalus</i>, and
+others in that in which it is represented in the cut as seen from
+the <i>Kiushiu-maru</i>; for in the long narrative which he gives of the
+descriptions received from observers at numerous times, some of
+these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both
+of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of
+his own.”</p>
+
+<p>“[The animal seen from the <i>Osborne</i>, and figured in the <i>Graphic</i>
+of June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing
+from the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”</p>
+
+<p>I shall take the liberty to make some remarks on his paper.</p>
+
+<p>The reader will remember (see <a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) that it was <i>not</i> the
+<i>long neck</i> of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake,
+made by the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i>, but the roundness of its
+neck, the apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of
+the animal’s head with that of a snake.</p>
+
+<p>In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of
+the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the
+animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood</span> says:
+“a neck, estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the
+reason of such a deduction!</p>
+
+<p>As I have not read the “description of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>” I
+am not able to discover the reason <i>why</i> it struck Mr. Wood that
+the animal seen from the <i>Daedalus</i> may have been a descendant
+of the order to which <i>Zeuglodon</i> belonged.</p>
+
+<p>We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent
+which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance
+being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the
+distance and motions of the object” (See <a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>). I will not contest
+his opinion!</p>
+
+<p>I do not know what to think of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>, when he speaks
+of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> in connection with a relative of his. I may
+suppose that his relative had told him she repatriated by the
+<i>City of Baltimore</i> through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page442">[442]</span>voyage” of that vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding
+this he cites the account of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> reporting
+the appearance of a sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan)
+in the Van Diemen’s Straits. Most probably the <i>City of Baltimore</i>
+never was there!</p>
+
+<p>In short, the error took place, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> sees clearly in
+the figures of the <i>Graphic</i> his <i>Zeuglodon</i> pointing out that this
+figure shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently
+the animal must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>
+was convinced that the <i>Zeuglodon</i> (read <i>Basilosaurus</i>) had the following
+outlines!</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig67">
+<img src="images/illo442.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 67.—<i>Basilosaurus</i>, as imagined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood Jun.</span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had
+the opportunity to read “a description of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>”. Yet
+he holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between
+the extremely <i>short</i> neck of <i>Basilosaurus</i> and the extraordinarily
+<i>long</i> neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events <i>must</i> have
+struck him.</p>
+
+<p>At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations
+of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> <i>Natural History of Norway</i>. It is clear that he
+has not read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that
+the Bishop concocted his two figures from accounts given him by
+Norwegian seamen”, whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first
+figure is a copy of a sketch of Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>, and the second a
+copy of the drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>. Of the latter figure Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>
+says “it is that of a serpent-like animal almost resting on the surface
+of the sea”. I shall be greatly obliged to any person who can
+show me a passage either in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> or in <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> work,
+stating that the animal presented itself in this way “resting on the
+surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself (<a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup>. 5</a>), where it
+is clear that the animal must have been seen in this position for
+only the fraction of a second!</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>, describing the drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> underlines the
+words: <i>in a single column</i>, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page443">[443]</span>or steam from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their
+attention to the fact that the figure represents the animal’s head
+seen from aside), whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose
+or mouth, when seen from aside could ever have been decided to
+be single or double! If we look at the breath of a horse, standing
+just on one side of him, it will be observed to be single. This
+optical illusion will be dispelled as soon as we stand in front of
+the horse. Bing’s figure would have been incorrect, if he had
+drawn two columns, though in reality—if the animal exhaled
+through its nostrils,—the column must have been double.—It
+is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> does not say anything of the
+great difference between the figure of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> (with a
+cetacean tail) and that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, (with a long and pointed
+one).—Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent
+only preposterous conceptions of his own description!</p>
+
+<p>Finally he compares the animal seen from the <i>Osborne</i> with a
+manatee! Surely we must be a Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood Jun.</span> to
+find this conception <i>not</i> preposterous!</p>
+
+<p>In a second paper in <i>Nature</i> of February 10, 1881, Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>
+quotes the report of the <i>City of Baltimore</i>, and correcting his second
+error, writes in parentheses “not <i>City of Washington</i>, as I had misunderstood.”—In
+treating of this report and of the accompanying
+figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving
+at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes
+were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers,
+whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is
+caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in
+the act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently
+this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According
+to his idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very
+long neck (called by him <i>Zeuglodon</i>), he ascribes the splash, caused
+by the hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal.
+Remarkable is his third error; for after having first confounded
+the foremost splash, drawn in the figure, with that described in
+the report as caused by the dropping of the neck, he now writes:
+“the foam around the neck may be due to the splash of the humeroid”
+(i. e. fore) “paddles which a cetacean should possess.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> further sees in the figure of the head of the <i>Daedalus</i>
+animal (<a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead
+and eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison
+is far fetched.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page444">[444]</span></p>
+
+<p>Of the report of Captain Cox (<a href="#Report152">n<sup>o</sup>. 152</a>) Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> says:</p>
+
+<p>“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major
+Senior in the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the
+water prior to its darting forward under it; while the boiling of
+the water around, which is so inconsistent with the motion of a
+snake in water (which I have more than once seen) evidently
+resulted from the strokes of the cetacean tail, and possibly also
+from those of the paddles, as in the case witnessed by Major Senior.
+The black colour also is described in both cases.”</p>
+
+<p>In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion
+that the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four
+flappers together. It is very natural that Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> who represents
+the sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and
+with a long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally
+he says:</p>
+
+<p>“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous
+letter” (<a href="#Fig48">figg. 48</a>, <a href="#Fig49">49</a>, <a href="#Fig46">46</a>, and reduced sketches of <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>
+and <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), “it appears to me that the external form of the animal
+must resemble the well-known <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, if we imagine the
+hinder (femuroid) paddles of that <i>Enaliosaurian</i> to be absent, and
+a cetacean tail (which is their homologue), to be present in their
+stead. Since in the direction of the <i>Porpesse</i> the cetacean in external
+form so closely simulates the fish, so it may in another direction
+simulate this Mesozoic marine saurian, or the gigantic <i>Elasmosaurus</i>
+of the American cretaceous formation, of which a nearly perfect
+skeleton is described by Prof. Cope as forty-five feet in length, the
+neck constituting twenty-two of this length.”</p>
+
+<p>And he expresses his firm opinion:</p>
+
+<p>“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists
+any doubt that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans,
+with necks of extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”</p>
+
+<p>In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number
+of the <i>Album der Natuur</i> for 1882, and in this issue the author
+of the present Volume treated of the probability of the existence
+of the great sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was
+only a student of Natural History at the Utrecht University, really
+believed the animal of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and
+was misled by the hoax of Captain <span class="smcap">Seabury</span> of which he only
+knew the last part, found by him in the Illustrated London News.
+In his firm belief, however, he examined such characters, taken
+from these tales and from nearly 60 reports then known to him,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page445">[445]</span>as were possible from a zoological point of view, and came to the
+conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a mammal, with <i>four</i>
+flappers, a <i>long</i> neck and a <i>long</i> and <i>pointed</i> tail, and that the
+position of this marine mammal is between dolphins and pinnipeds.
+Was there such an animal known? Yes, the <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i> of
+Prof. <span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span>. Well, as the sea-serpent has the outlines of
+a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, with an enormous tail, he called it <i>Zeuglodon
+plesiosauroides</i>. At that time he was the dupe of the Stronsa animal
+and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so many other
+writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the difficult
+question without reading, if not all that had been written about
+the animal, at least much more than some few reports!</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>fourteenth</b> explanation is that of an anonymous writer in
+one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848.
+Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>
+and Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, he asks whether or not the animal
+could be a full grown specimen of <b>Saccopharynx flagelium</b> of Dr.
+<span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> or the <b>Ophiognathus ampullaceus</b> of <span class="smcap">Harwood</span>. I have
+only to tell my readers that these two names are given to two
+different species of the same genus, that the former attains a length
+of about five, the latter of about six feet, and to give the next
+figure, in order to enable them to judge themselves, whether such
+an animal could ever have shown itself in the form of a sea-serpent!
+They belong to the family of the <i>Muraenidae</i>.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig68">
+<img src="images/illo445.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 68.—<i>Eurypharynx pelecanoides</i>, Vaillant.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page446">[446]</span></p>
+
+<p>The figure represents the <i>Eurypharynx pelecanoides</i> of <span class="smcap">Vaillant</span>,
+taken from <span class="smcap">Filhol’s</span> <i>La vie au fond des mers</i>. <span class="smcap">Günther</span>, in his
+<i>Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger</i> says on p. 262 of <i>Saccopharynx
+Bairdii</i> (synonym with <i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i>): “It is uncertain
+whether these specimens are specifically distinct from <i>Saccopharynx
+pelecanoides</i> <span class="smcap">Vaillant</span>.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before
+my readers the above figure as a representation of the general
+outlines of <i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i>.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>fifteenth</b> explanation is suggested by the same anonymous
+writer on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance
+of the sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether
+“some land species, as the <b>boas</b>, among which are individuals of
+forty feet in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the
+sea, or even transport themselves from one continent to another”.</p>
+
+<p>Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor
+having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round
+the trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the
+banks of some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by
+Sir Charles Lyell from the <i>Zoological Journal</i> of December, 1827.
+(Principles of Geology.)”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> after having shown
+that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family
+<i>Hydrophidae</i>) because “none of these are known to extend a few
+feet in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been
+found in the Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however,
+that a record exists of a serpent having been seen in the
+very midst of the North Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the
+historical fact of the boa constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes
+the report of the sea-serpent seen from the <i>General Coole</i>, (<a href="#Report25">n<sup>o</sup>. 25</a>)
+and goes on saying:</p>
+
+<p>“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that
+no suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to
+have occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and
+nothing more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise,
+“sixteen or eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”</p>
+
+<p>“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a
+true serpent—perhaps the <i>Boa Murina</i>, one of the largest known,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page447">[447]</span>and of very aquatic habits—carried out to sea by one of the
+great South American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to
+the spot where it was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion
+it affords us no help in the identification of the <i>great unknown</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that
+the head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly
+that of a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed
+to mark the characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal
+from another, are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at
+all events, is rather negative than positive. For example, if a person
+of liberal education and general information, but no naturalist,
+were to tell me he had seen a creature with a head “exactly
+like that of a snake”, I should understand him, that the head
+was not that of an ordinary beast, nor of a bird, nor that of the
+generality of fishes; but I should have no confidence at all that it
+was not as like that of a lizard as of a serpent, and should entertain
+doubt whether, if I showed him the form of head, even
+of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was something
+like <i>that</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the
+colossal animal seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>, and on other occasions,
+is a serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A
+lengthened cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything
+that appears, it may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender
+cetacean, as anything. All analogies and probabilities are against
+its being an ophidian.”</p>
+
+<p>It is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> is disposed to believe that the sea-serpent
+of the <i>General Coole</i> was a boa, because the report speaks
+of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of
+the <i>Daedalus</i> was a boa, though the captain, Mr. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>,
+clearly tells that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without
+any doubt, was that of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference
+between “a snake” and “a serpent with a head of a snake”!?
+What, in short, is the difference between a <i>snake</i> and a <i>serpent</i>?
+Though he attaches a considerable value to the assertion of the
+captain of the <i>General Coole</i> who speaks of “<i>a snake, and nothing
+more</i>”, Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> “does not attach much value to the assertions
+of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them was <i>undoubtedly
+that of a snake</i>”. How to make this agree?</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> says: “a marine snake
+of enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page448">[448]</span>means in this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents
+the sea, as the <i>Boa murina</i>, I have placed this supposition here, and
+I have not considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.</p>
+
+<p>As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate
+vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the
+boas are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>sixteenth</b> explanation is given by Professor <span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span>,
+viz.: that the sea-serpent is a swimming <b>large seal</b>. I refer my
+readers to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain
+M’Quhae could have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>.
+118</a>). After having enumerated all the characters of the animal
+seen by captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, taken from the figures as well as from
+the descriptions, Professor <span class="smcap">Owen</span> comes to the conclusion: “All
+these are the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal.....
+Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or
+a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetacean mammal,
+but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size, or indeed of
+any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south, and
+longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor <span class="smcap">Owen</span> further concludes: <i>Phoca
+proboscidea</i> or <i>Phoca leonina</i>. Very remarkable is the fact that a
+few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This
+is the only part of the description, however, which seems to me
+to be so uncertain as to be inadmissable, <i>in an attempt to arrive
+at a right conclusion as to the nature of the animal</i>”. (The italics
+are mine).</p>
+
+<p>In <a href="#Fig69">fig. 69</a> I show my readers the <i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i>, <span class="smcap">Linné</span>,
+or sea-elephant, of which <i>Phoca leonina</i>, <span class="smcap">Linné</span>, and <i>Phoca proboscidea</i>,
+<span class="smcap">Péron</span>, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated
+tubercular proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which
+is seen in the background of my drawing, have the common
+features of seals.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">H. E. Strickland</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span> in the note added
+to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the <i>Annals and Magazine of
+Natural History</i>, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say
+of Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span> letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation
+of the circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and
+briefly, but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the
+Great Sea-Serpent generally.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page449">[449]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig69">
+<img src="images/illo449.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 69.—<i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i> (<span class="smcap">Linné</span>).</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of
+a seal. His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I
+therefore refer my readers to it (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span>, in his <i>Notizen</i>, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July,
+1849, after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement
+of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, from that of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>,
+from the hoax of the <i>Daphne</i>, from the suggestion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Mantell</span>,
+from that of Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>, &amp;c. &amp;c. finally concludes:</p>
+
+<p>“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is
+still fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent;
+yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must
+be a large sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a
+snake; but whether this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to
+the family of the amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful
+after the objections of Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> treats of the
+seal-hypothesis in the following manner:</p>
+
+<p>“Among animals, the <i>Vertebrata</i> are the only classes supposable.
+But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but <i>Mammalia,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page450">[450]</span>Reptilia</i>, <i>Pisces</i>,—there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning
+it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of lengthened
+form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each
+has the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”</p>
+
+<p>“Let us, then, look at the <i>Mammalia</i>. Here Professor Owen
+would place it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost
+the force of an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption
+if I venture to examine the decision of one whom I greatly
+respect. It is true, his reasoning applies directly only to the creature
+seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>; but we are bound to consider the exigencies
+not only of that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated
+cases.”</p>
+
+<p>“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:—“Head
+with a <i>convex, moderately capacious cranium</i>, short obtuse
+muzzle, <i>gape not extending further than the eye</i>; eye rather
+small, round, <i>filling closely the palpebral aperture</i>; colour, dark
+brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, <i>without
+scales</i>, <i>scutes</i>, or other conspicuous modifications of hard and naked
+cuticle; nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by
+<i>a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle</i>; body long,
+dark brown, not undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins;
+“but something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of
+sea-weed, washed about its back.”</p>
+
+<p>“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a
+warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded
+reptile or fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on
+the back to a horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing
+of hair; and, guided by this interpretation, the Professor
+judges that the animal was not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”</p>
+
+<p>“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches,
+more than from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that
+this diagnosis was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made
+<i>from the life</i>, under the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing
+could be more legitimate than such a use of them. But surely it
+has been overlooked that they were made under no such circumstances.
+Only one of the published representations was original;
+and this was taken “immediately <i>after</i> the animal was seen”. That
+is, one of the officers, who could draw, went below immediately,
+and attempted to reproduce what his eye was still filled with. Now,
+what could one expect under such conditions? Of course, the artist
+was not a zoologist, or we should have had a zoologist’s report.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page451">[451]</span>Would the drawing so produced be of any value? Surely yes; of
+great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful representation
+of the <i>general appearance</i> of the object seen, but nothing more;
+its form, and position, and colour, and <i>such</i> of the details <i>as the
+observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down</i>, so to speak, <i>in
+his mind</i>, would be given; but a great deal of the details would
+be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an object
+before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles, relative
+distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them
+down <i>seriatim</i>; ever looking at the part of the original on which
+he is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was
+open to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but
+necessarily vague, idea of the whole before him as the original
+from which he drew. Who is there that could carry all the details
+of an object in the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that,
+too, under strong excitement? This was not the case even of a
+cool professional artist, called in to view an object for the purpose
+of depicting it; in all probability the officer had not thought
+of sketching it till all was over, and had made no precise observations,
+his mind being mainly occupied by wonder. He sits down,
+pencil in hand; he dashes in the general outline at once; now he
+comes to details,—say the muzzle, the facial angle;—of course,
+his figure must have <i>some</i> facial angle, <i>some</i> outline of muzzle;
+but probably he had particularly noticed that point. What shall
+he do? there is no original before him, a glance at which would
+decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or three
+forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer,
+with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the
+head?” and then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so
+of other details.”</p>
+
+<p>“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making
+a caricature. I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed
+for nearly forty years to draw animals from the life; and the public
+are able to judge of my power of representing what I see;
+but I am quite sure that if I were asked to depict an object unfamiliar
+to me, which I had been looking at for a quarter of an
+hour, without thinking that I should have to draw it, I should
+do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed the officer
+to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your
+acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional
+artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page452">[452]</span>him into your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful
+thing in blossom; keep him looking at it for some ten minutes
+without a hint of what you are thinking of; then take him into
+your drawing-room, put paper and colours before him, and say,
+“Make me a sketch of that plant you have just seen!” When it
+is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give you the characters
+of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare it
+yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous
+blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general
+correctness.”</p>
+
+<p>“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the
+sketch made on board the <i>Daedalus</i> must be for minute characters;
+and particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked
+with italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove
+the mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters
+could not possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’
+distance. I say “<i>mainly</i> relied on”; because there is the manelike
+appendage yet to be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly
+in favour of a mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it
+decides the question, however, I will presently examine.”</p>
+
+<p>“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in
+which the creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to
+me at all to resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted
+cranium”. The summit of the head does not rise above the level
+of the summit of the neck; in other words, the <i>vertical</i> diameter
+of the head and neck are equal, while there are indications that
+the occiput considerably exceeds the neck in <i>transverse</i> diameter.
+This is not the case with any seal, but it is eminently characteristic
+of eels, of many serpents, and some lizards. Let the reader
+compare the lower figure (<i>Illustrated London News</i>, Oct. 28, 1848)
+with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s <i>British Fishes</i> (ed.
+ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the scincoid lizards (the
+Jamaican <i>Celestus ociduus</i>, for instance) is not at all unlike that
+represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short, but a little more
+pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this point the Captain’s
+assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to Professor Owen,
+he distinctly asserts that “the head was <i>flat</i>, and not a capacious
+vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant Drummond,
+<i>published before any strictures were made on the point</i>, says, “the
+head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps
+ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page453">[453]</span></p>
+
+<p>“With regard to the “mane”. The great <i>Phoca proboscidea</i> is
+the only seal which will bear comparison with the <i>Daedalus</i> animal
+in question, reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers
+declare that upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at
+the surface; but Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance
+of the water produced by progression induced an illusive
+appearance of a portion of this length. But how much? Suppose
+all behind thirty feet, the extreme length of the elephant seal.
+Then it is impossible the animal could have been such a seal, for
+the following reason. The fore paws of the seal are placed at about
+one-third of the total length from the muzzle; that is, in a seal
+of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle. But <i>twenty</i> feet
+of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and yet no appearance
+of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head to
+have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming
+sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees);
+and besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”</p>
+
+<p>“But the great <i>Phoca proboscidea</i> has no <i>mane</i> at all. For this,
+we must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two
+kinds are recognized under this name, <i>Otaria jubata</i> and <i>Platyrhynchus
+leoninus</i>; though there is some confusion in the names.
+Neither of these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which,
+about five feet would be the utmost that could project from the
+water in swimming. Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant
+officers to have magnified the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions;
+I fear even then it will not do. For the mane in these animals
+is a lengthening and thickening of the hair on the occiput and on
+the neck, just as in the lion. But the “serpent’s” mane was not
+there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head” says
+Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says Captain
+M’Quhae.”</p>
+
+<p>“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present
+possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”</p>
+
+<p>I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in discussing
+the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may
+add: <i>especially of the sea-serpent seen by Captain</i> <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, was
+prepossessed with his idea of the sea-serpent being an <i>Enaliosaurian</i>.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Gosse</span> points out that the vertical diameter of the head and
+neck are equal; but he does <i>not</i> fix the reader’s attention to the
+fact that if this were really the case, the estimation of the length
+of the head by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span> at “ten feet” and that of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page454">[454]</span>the diameter of the neck by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> at “sixteen inches”
+don’t agree at all!—In none of the reports of the animal of the
+<i>Daedalus</i> there is question of the “serpent” being “twenty feet
+projected from the water”; it is only stated that the head was
+kept four feet above the water.—Neither do the reports mention
+<i>how much</i> of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>
+says “an equal length”.—Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span> did <i>not</i> say that
+the <i>mane</i> was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the
+gallant officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!—</p>
+
+<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> relying upon the descriptions of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>
+and drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their
+statements to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible,
+absolutely rejects the estimation of the length of the animal
+at “sixty-feet at least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly
+come to another conclusion than that the animal was a mammal,
+and to the question: “which mammal could it have been? his
+reply could not be otherwise than: “a large seal”. It is evident
+that for this reason he recalled to his mind all the sea-mammals
+known to him, but he seems to have totally overlooked the possibility
+of the existence of sea-mammals unknown to him!!! The
+conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads the Professor to
+write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses might be
+got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”. The Professor
+would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had
+examined <i>all</i> the reports about the animal, and <i>all</i> that had been
+written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a
+thorough investigation a sceptic <i>must</i> remain a sceptic.</p>
+
+<p>I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant.
+The latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant
+has no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these
+characters are very prominent in the sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>seventeenth</b> explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is
+nothing else but a gigantic <b>sea-weed</b>, detached from the bottom
+of the sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion.
+In the <i>Zoologist</i> of that year, p. 2541, we read the following
+statement of Captain <span class="smcap">Herriman</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship <i>Brazilian</i>, now
+lying near the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the
+following curious and interesting statement:—</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page455">[455]</span></p>
+
+<p>“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong
+south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th.
+the ship was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East,
+being about forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae,
+R. N., is said to have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight
+o’clock on that morning, whilst the captain was surveying the
+calm, heavy, rippleless swell of the sea through his telescope, the
+ship at the same time heading N. N. W., he perceived something
+right abeam, about half a mile to the westward, stretched along
+the water to the length of about twenty-five or thirty feet, and
+perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady, sinuous motion.
+The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above the waters,
+had something resembling a mane, running down to the floating
+portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out into a
+sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the
+monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly
+the same latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had
+fallen in with the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately
+called his chief officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers,
+who, after surveying the object for some time, came to the unanimous
+conclusion that it must be the sea-serpent seen by Captain
+M’Quhae. As the <i>Brazilian</i> was making no headway, Mr. Herriman,
+determining to bring all doubts to an issue, had a boat
+lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together with
+Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers,
+who acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they
+approached the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow
+of the boat armed with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught.
+The combat, however, was not attended with the danger which
+those on board apprehended; for on coming close to the object it
+was found to be nothing more than an immense piece of sea-weed,
+evidently detached from a coral reef, and drifting with the current,
+which sets constantly to the westward in this latitude, and which,
+together with the swell left by the subsidence of the gale, gave it
+the sinuous, snake-like motion.”</p>
+
+<p>“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity
+of examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness”
+account of the great sea-serpent,—Mr. Herriman himself
+admitting that he should have remained under the impression
+that he had seen it. What appeared to be the head, crest, and
+mane of the <i>immensum volumen</i>, was but the large root which
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page456">[456]</span>floated upwards, and to which several pieces of the coral reef still
+adhered. The Captain had it hauled on board, but as it began to
+decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now regrets that he
+had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of exhibition
+in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the tide
+and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”</p>
+
+<p>Again we read in the <i>Times</i> of February 13th., 1858, republished
+also in the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1858, p. 5990:</p>
+
+<p>“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington,
+of the ship <i>Castilian</i>, stating his belief that he had seen
+the great sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened
+by the fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship
+<i>Daedalus</i> near the same position. The following circumstance which
+occurred on board the ship <i>Pekin</i>, then belonging to Mrrs. T. &amp;
+W. Smith, on her passage from Moulmein, may be of some service
+respecting this “queer fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then
+in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E., nearly calm, saw, about half a mile
+on port beam, a very extraordinary looking thing in the water,
+of considerable length. With the telescope we could plainly discern
+a huge head and neck, covered with a long shaggy-looking kind
+of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out of the water. This
+was seen by all hands, and declared to be the great sea-serpent.
+I determined on knowing something about it, and accordingly lowered
+a boat, in which my chief officer and four men went, taking
+with them a long small line in case it should be required.
+I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to
+regard their approach. At length they got close to the head. They
+seemed to hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the
+monster all the time ducking its head, and showing its great length.
+Presently the boat began pulling towards the ship, the monster
+following slowly. In about half an hour they got alongside; a
+tackle was got on the mainyard and it was hoisted on board. It
+appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but so completely covered
+with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen inches long,
+that we had it some time on board before it was discovered to
+be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches
+diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head
+of an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem
+alive. In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had
+rather an offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been
+a short time in England when the <i>Daedalus</i> arrived and reported
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page457">[457]</span>having seen the great sea-serpent,—to the best of my recollection
+near the same locality, and which I have no doubt was a piece
+of the same weed. So like a huge living monster did this appear,
+that, had circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I
+should certainly have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.”
+Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10, 1858.”—</p>
+
+<p>The Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> adds the following quotation from
+<span class="smcap">Harvey’s</span> <i>British Algae</i>, p. 27, however, not as an explanation
+of the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer
+in its existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain
+<span class="smcap">Smith</span> and to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence
+of these large weeds. We do the same.</p>
+
+<p>“The plants of this family (<i>Laminariaceae</i>) are almost all of
+large size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk
+any other marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our
+own coasts have frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds
+expanding from their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong
+(<i>Chorda</i>) often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions
+are small, compared with their kindred on the shores of
+the Pacific ocean. The <i>Nereocystis</i>, a plant of this family inhabiting
+the north-western shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than
+whipcord, but upwards of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex
+a huge vesicle, six or seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and
+crowned with a tuft of upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from
+30 to 40 feet in length. The vesicle being filled with air, buoys
+up this immense frond, which lies stretched along the surface of
+the sea: here the sea-otter has his favoured lair, resting himself
+upon the vesicle, or hiding among the leaves while he pursues
+his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors this floating tree
+must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly, we find it
+used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”</p>
+
+<p>As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M.
+S. <i>Daedalus</i>” and Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> repeated their assurances
+that the creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral
+<span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> took up the cudgels for Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span>,
+upon which Captain <span class="smcap">Frederic Smith</span> wrote the following paper
+(<i>The Times</i> of 23 February 1858):</p>
+
+<p>“Sir,—I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>,
+that in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking
+appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three
+feet. Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page458">[458]</span>crabs, varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand,
+were collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life
+could be furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking
+creatures which constituted the moving monstrous-looking external
+will assist those who read my account in believing what I before
+stated that even when the object was laid on deck we had difficulty
+in making out what it was. Now, sea-weeds of gigantic
+growth abound near the islands of the group of Tristan d’Acunha.
+From decay or other causes, these will from time to time be detached
+at the roots, and with their living attachment will then,
+floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents, into
+the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting himself.
+It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by
+the boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous
+specimens may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your
+insertion of this correspondence will cause more attention to be
+given to their capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship
+<i>Daedalus</i>, to the forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers
+to “settle down” to the conclusion: “This must be the animal
+called the sea-serpent.” Had the monster I described not been
+taken, I should have believed, as firmly as Captain Harrington
+does, that I could confirm the statement of the commander of the
+<i>Daedalus</i> and that “the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.””</p>
+
+<p>“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary
+and unexpected appearances of things as compared with
+the things themselves when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the
+<i>Daedalus</i> sea-serpent was seen in the recollection of one spectator,
+the mouth in that of another, and so on. I take leave to question
+the possibility of these being “most distinctly visible”, when the
+object at its “nearest position” was 200 yards distant, the sea
+getting up, and the observers travelling in an opposite direction,
+the passing of the two being apparently at the rate of 20 miles
+an hour. Naturalists will say whether an animal to answer to the
+habits and attributes of that in question would have a nostril.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the <i>Castilian</i>, saw an
+extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression,
+and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the mercantile
+marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also for
+“Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington
+is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has
+published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page459">[459]</span>these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington
+saw the sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very
+nearly and completely took me in until I took him in.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant</span><br>
+<span class="padr12">“Fred. Smith.”</span></p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, p. 320, inquiring
+whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the
+sea-weed hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.</p>
+
+<p>“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this
+huge rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal
+at all? That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting
+some of the characters described, has been already shown; and
+on two occasions an object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved
+on examination to be but a sea-weed floating; the separated and
+inverted roots of which, projecting in the role of the swell, seemed
+a head, and the fronds (in the one case), and (in the other) a
+number of attached barnacles, resembled a shaggy mane washed
+about in the water.”</p>
+
+<p>“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view
+of the floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken
+this for a living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest
+degree to presume that of such a nature could be the creatures,
+going rapidly through the water at ten or twelve miles an hour,
+with the head and neck elevated, so distinctly seen by Captain
+M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at two hundred, the latter
+at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly dismiss the sea-weed
+hypothesis.”</p>
+
+<p>Again in <i>Nature</i> of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the
+following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers
+the sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.</p>
+
+<p>“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of
+the reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into
+masses of floating sea-weed.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> speaking of
+this hypothesis says:</p>
+
+<p>“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for
+some fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed
+by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner
+strongly suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming,
+is a statement to the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony,
+and to the truth of which even observant sea-side visitors
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page460">[460]</span>may testify. The movements of an unusually long frond or group
+of fronds of tangle, attached to a rock, and set in motion at low
+water, by a light swell, has before now, and when seen indistinctly,
+suggested the idea of the existence at the spot of some large denizen
+of the sea, browsing on the sea-weeds, with the fore part of
+its body, represented by the tangle fronds, occasionally appearing
+at the surface of the water.”</p>
+
+<p>Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared
+in the <i>Madras Mail</i>, but which I take from <i>Nature</i> of
+13th. October, 1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be
+explained in this way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his
+purpose. I also think that this was the intention of the contributor
+who inserted it in the columns of <i>Nature</i>, of the man who sent
+a Dutch translation of it to the <i>Nieuws van den Dag</i>, of 26th.
+Nov., 1881, and of Professor <span class="smcap">P. Harting</span> who republished this
+translation in the <i>Album der Natuur</i>, of 1882, p. 66.</p>
+
+<p>“In a letter to the <i>Madras Mail</i> of September 8, on the use of
+gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H.
+Taylor, the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following
+interesting “sea-serpent”-story:—“A notable incident connected
+with this sea-weed, is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s
+letter. About fifteen years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor
+in Table Bay, an enormous monster, as it appeared, was seen
+drifting, or advancing itself round Green Point, into the harbour.
+It was more than one hundred feet in length, and moved with an
+undulating snake-like motion. Its head was crowned with what
+appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted among the affrighted
+observers declared they could see its eyes and distinguish its features.
+The military were called out, and a brisk fire poured into
+it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was hit several
+times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were its evident
+injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite still, and
+boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction. It was
+found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its
+stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having
+left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”</p>
+
+<p>It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not
+deserving of any notice on our part.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page461">[461]</span></p>
+
+<p>The <b>eighteenth</b> explanation is attempted by Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. More</span>
+(see <i>Zoologist</i> for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep,
+in the pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to
+sollicit insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality,
+in some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance.
+Any one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great
+<b>ribband or scabbard fishes</b>, or who has ever read the striking accounts
+of the huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their
+extreme rarety, may, like myself, have been thus reminded of
+those mysterious sea-monsters which are occasionally observed by
+the unlearned to be no less a puzzle to learned opinion. When,
+too, we know that these fishes are supposed often to swim at the
+surface, and thus to be driven ashore more readily, when the only
+example of whose healthy life we have a credible account, is described
+as advancing head above water, and by the undulating
+movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we not
+reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms
+of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might
+easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so
+called “mane” of the great sea-snake.”</p>
+
+<p>The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as
+the hair-tail, the <i>Vaegmaer</i>, and the <i>Gymnetrus</i>, are of large size,
+and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the
+North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder
+and curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in
+other respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the
+animal in question. One of their most striking characteristics,
+moreover, is, that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”</p>
+
+<p>In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas
+Isles. Mr. <span class="smcap">Trimingham</span>, the captor, placed it at the disposal
+of Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Matthew Jones</span>, a naturalist living there. This gentleman
+described the animal for the <i>Zoologist</i>, in which his paper
+appeared in the volume of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>
+ended his article as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture
+of the present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction
+it will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have
+in the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page462">[462]</span>size, with which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster
+“The Great Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested.
+The lengthened filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by
+the connecting membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would,
+viewed from a vessel’s deck, present to the spectator the mane so
+accurately described as a singular feature in the gigantic specimen
+seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R. N., and officers of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>.
+Then again, the rapidity with which that individual specimen
+moved through the water, would coincide with the capabilities of
+a member of this genus, for the motive power produced by such
+an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely compressed form of
+body from the head throughout, must be immense.”</p>
+
+<p>“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements
+which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the
+united presses of England and America, emanating from the pens
+of travelers, and usually headed—“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”—criticised,
+however, in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed
+to an unmerited ridicule at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless,
+firmly believed in by the few, who have patiently waited to
+see the day when the mystic cloud which has hitherto veiled the
+existence of the maned denizen of the deep should vanish with
+the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit more clearly the truth of
+the assertions of those ill-used men, who, endeavouring like useful
+members of society to extend the cause of natural knowledge by
+publishing candid accounts of what their eyes have seen, have
+always met with an amount of contempt and reproach, sufficient
+to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London
+News at hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared,
+as it would have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other
+features in connection with his specimen and the present one. The
+facts, however, regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity
+of motion to which I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, thinking this ribbon-fish
+a new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured
+it with the name of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, but to our great astonishment,
+he, who firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an <i>Enaliosaurus</i>
+(as we have observed above) now seems to be in doubt
+about the matter, for he ends his article with the following words:</p>
+
+<p>“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. Jones, the
+similarity of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, I
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page463">[463]</span>do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am
+quite willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on
+its own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on
+comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published
+in the “<i>Zoologist</i>”.”</p>
+
+<p>The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the
+unbelievers, no doubt, as it <i>seems</i> more plausible than the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>-one.
+An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note
+which I have found in <i>Nature</i> of the 1st. August, 1872:</p>
+
+<p>“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a
+specimen of the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without
+the tail. It appears that this fish is known to distant inland
+fishermen as being forty feet long, and from its slender shape and
+snake-like movement is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so
+minutely described by navigators. From its head there is erected
+a plume of flexible, rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail
+along its back there is a conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general
+colour is like burnished silver. The eye is large and silvery, and
+the profile of the head comports well with that of the horse. The
+specimen could not be preserved, but there are two smaller specimens
+in the Museum.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his turn believes (see <i>Nature</i> of Sept.
+12, 1878) that:</p>
+
+<p>“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might
+do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>In his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> he returns to his idea:</p>
+
+<p>“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on
+which occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved
+ribbon or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea
+that such an animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from
+a distance by persons unskilled in natural history,—and who
+would, therefore, hardly dream of associating the elongated being
+before them with their ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,—might
+account for certain of the tales of sea-serpents which have
+been brought under our notice. I had been specially struck with
+the mention, in several accounts of sea-serpents, of a very long
+back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and of a banded body covered
+with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several instances the
+description given of the heads of the sea-monsters closely correspond
+with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes. These fishes
+have further been described by naturalists as occasionally having
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page464">[464]</span>been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion close
+to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated
+above the surface,—this latter feature, as we have observed,
+forming a remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I
+found, on making inquiry into the history of these fishes, that
+their serpentine form had struck previous observers, but, as far as
+I could ascertain, their merits as representatives of sea-serpents had
+never before been so persistently advocated.”</p>
+
+<p>“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle,
+I communicated to the <i>Scotsman</i> and <i>Courant</i> newspapers in June,
+1876. The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given
+as 12 feet 3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches,
+and the greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions
+in thickness, and the relatively long length and depth,
+giving to these fishes the popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes.
+The species was the well-known <i>Gymnetrus</i> or <i>Regalecus Banksii</i>
+of naturalists; and by the Museum attendant at Newcastle, I was
+informed that a still larger specimen of the same species was recently
+obtained of the Northumberland coast, the length of this
+latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the thickness 5
+inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The breast
+fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated
+and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very
+long, whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back,
+and obtains an average breadth of about three inches.”</p>
+
+<p>“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the
+ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of
+fish merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the
+idea that gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally
+developed. The gentleman in question wrote to inform me that
+about thirty years ago he engaged the smack <i>Sovereign</i>, of Hull,
+Baillie commander, to trawl in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury,
+then residing at Elie Lodge, Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in
+their trawling operations, the crew of the <i>Sovereign</i> captured a
+giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at length on the deck,
+extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem and stern. The
+smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length may
+therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,—this measurement
+being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured
+from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six
+to seven inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page465">[465]</span>to view the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered
+the fish to be cut in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also
+worthy of remark that the trawlers seemed to express no great
+surprise at the size of Lord Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted
+that they had met with one much larger, this latter being coloured
+of a dirty-brown hue.”</p>
+
+<p>He also explains the animal of the <i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>) by reference
+to a ribbon-fish in the following terms:</p>
+
+<p>“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable
+explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views
+to the <i>Times</i> in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal
+for June 15, 1877:—“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns
+of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently
+seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not
+meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,—such
+as giant sea-snakes themselves,—may occasionally personate
+the “sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very
+many of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on
+the supposition that giant tape-fishes—of the existence of which
+no reasonable doubt can be entertained—have been seen. The
+report of Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht <i>Osborne</i>, appears,
+as far as zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained
+on the “ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less
+skin, the rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral)
+fins, each measuring many feet in length, all form so many details
+corresponding exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer
+these observations with the view of showing that, given a recital
+founded, as I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we
+possess in the lists of living and of well-known animals adequate
+representatives of the great unknown.”</p>
+
+<p>“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression
+contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic
+turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in
+the absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate
+the views expressed above as to the personality of this
+strange tenant of the Mediterranean Sea.”</p>
+
+<p>“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared
+in the <i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i> for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor,
+speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I
+offer “as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being
+hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in <i>Good Words</i>,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page466">[466]</span>from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the
+probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and
+appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only”
+in Mr. Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes
+simply as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and
+not as a sole and universal representative of the modern leviathan.”</p>
+
+<p>“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear
+proof before us that these and other animals may be developed to
+a size which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can
+only term enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the
+sea-serpent question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To
+objectors of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that
+we have not yet procured even a single bone of a giant serpent,
+I would point out that I by no means maintain the frequent development
+of such beings. The most I argue for and require is
+their occasional production; and I would also remind such objectors
+of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes which, until within the
+past few years, remained in the same mysterious seclusion affected
+at present by the great serpentine unknown. I need only add that
+I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a giant serpent of
+the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its representative,
+or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we discover the
+true and natural law of its production.”</p>
+
+<p>“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully
+submit, as does a pleading counsel to his jury,—”</p>
+
+<p>“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified,
+when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion
+being especially supported by the want of any <i>prima facie</i> reason
+for prevarication;”</p>
+
+<p>“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved
+to be deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual
+attitudes on the part of familiar animals, there remains a
+body of evidence only to be explained on the hypothesis that certain
+gigantic marine animals, at present unfamiliar or unknown
+to science, do certainly exist; and”</p>
+
+<p>“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly
+consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily
+explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development
+of gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar
+to the naturalist.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, too, supposes that
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page467">[467]</span>“the dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew
+Wilson, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.</p>
+
+<p>I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a
+ribbon-fish has only <i>one</i> connected dorsal <i>fin</i>, and not a <i>ridge of
+fins</i>, (compare <a href="#Fig13">fig. 13</a> with <a href="#Fig44">fig. 44</a>). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish
+is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly
+black; the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark
+brown above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long
+time in the sun on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow;
+the under parts are of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers,
+which are the organs of locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth
+of a ribbon-fish is only a few inches, while that of the sea-serpent,
+as is clearly pointed out in the animal of the <i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>),
+may grow to more than fifteen feet. But I need not sum up the
+differences between ribbon-fishes and sea-serpents. We have only to
+ask the opinion of one of the most able ichthyologists of our days,
+and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to stand upon:</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Günther</span> says in his <i>Introduction to the study of Fishes</i>,
+1880, p. 520:</p>
+
+<p>“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all
+parts of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the
+surface, or thrown ashore by the waves.....”</p>
+
+<p>“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion
+of the gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their
+muscular and bony system, that they can be lifted out of the
+water with difficulty only, and nearly always portions of the body
+and fins are broken and lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes
+live is not known; probably the depths vary for different species;
+but although none have been yet obtained by means of the deep-sea
+dredge, they must be abundant at the bottom of all oceans,
+as dead fishes or fragments of them are frequently obtained. Some
+writers have supposed from the great length and narrow shape of
+these fishes that they have been mistaken for “Sea-Serpents”; but
+as these monsters of the sea are always represented by those who
+have had the good fortune of meeting with them as remarkably
+active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes, which are
+either dying or dead, have been the objects described as “Sea-Serpents”.”</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page468">[468]</span></p>
+
+<p>The <b>nineteenth</b> explanation is that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Arthur Adams</span> (see
+<i>Zoologist</i>, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that <b>a floating dead tree</b>
+“might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another
+sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon,
+which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical
+delusion that might have become a source of error, and given
+rise to yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands
+of the Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There
+was little wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the
+sea. I was sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room
+on the main deck, admiring the setting sun, and watching the
+rounded outlines of the blue mountains and distant islands against
+the sky, and the numbers of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to
+their nests”, when my eye rested on a long dark object apparently
+making its way steadily through the water. After observing it some time
+in silence I was sorely puzzled and could make nothing of it. It
+was neither a seal nor a diver nor a fishing cormorant, for with
+their forms I was familiar; so I went on deck and consulted other
+eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought to bear on the suspicious
+object, and the general scrutiny seemed to decide that it
+was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer according
+to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by lateral
+undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that the
+course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering.
+With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom
+or so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range
+up alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast
+by a clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this
+time, however, a closer and more critical inspection had taken
+place, and the supposed sea-monster turned himself into a long
+dark root, gnarled and twisted, of a tree, secured to the moorings
+of a fishing net, with the strong tide passing it rapidly, and thus
+giving it an apparent life-like movement and serpentine aspect.”</p>
+
+<p>After Mr. <span class="smcap">Drew</span> had published in <i>Nature</i> a case, in which he
+and many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags,
+another contributor Mr. <span class="smcap">E. H. Pringle</span> wrote the following (<i>Nature</i>,
+September 12, 1878):</p>
+
+<p>“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of
+Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits”
+concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page469">[469]</span></p>
+
+<p>“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small
+group of passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss.
+<i>Rangoon</i>, then steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore.
+We were just within sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra.
+One of the party suddenly pointed out an object on the port bow,
+perhaps half a mile off, and drew from us the simultaneous exclamation
+of “The sea-serpent!” And there it was, to the naked
+eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the sea, with its head
+raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried in the water,
+and anon reared just above its surface. There was the mane, and
+there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards behind.”</p>
+
+<p>“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the
+<i>Rangoon</i> would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a
+great sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the
+lenses and the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards,
+anchored in some manner to the bottom—a “snag” in fact.
+Swayed up and down by the rapid current, a series of waves undulated
+beyond it, bearing in their crests dark coloured weeds or
+grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”</p>
+
+<p>“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land,
+and of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first
+hasty conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone
+the human mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we
+should be in forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, speaking of
+this hypothesis says:</p>
+
+<p>“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus around
+which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and sea-acorns—producing
+a variegated effect by reason of their light colour—have
+attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented
+appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming
+slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of
+this latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual
+spectator, the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating
+in the closest and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,—by
+the same rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks
+and branches of trees one may frequently discern likenesses to the
+human face and to the forms of other living things. In this latter
+instance, the floating object was perceived at some miles’ distance
+from the deck of a yacht; and even when seen through a telescope,
+and carefully scrutinized by men accustomed to make out the contour
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page470">[470]</span>and nature of objects at sea, the resemblance to the head of
+some animal was so close that the course of the vessel was changed
+and the object in due time overhauled. This latter, therefore, presents
+an example of a case, the details of which, when related,
+tempt people to maintain without further parley, that sea-serpents
+always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one kind or
+another.”</p>
+
+<p>The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes
+at once the idea of a dead organism.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>twentieth</b> explanation is: <b>a mass of flying birds</b>, of Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Joseph Drew</span>, who wrote in <i>Nature</i> of the 5th. of September, 1878:</p>
+
+<p>“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the
+Folkestone boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations
+of that neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from
+the French coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look
+at that extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer
+about a mile or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning
+in this direction there was seen an immense serpent apparently
+about a furlong in length, rushing furiously along at the rate of
+fifteen or twenty miles an hour; it was blackish in front and paler
+behind; its elongated body was fairly on the surface of the water
+and it progressed with an undulating or quivering motion, mirum
+erat spectaculum sane.”</p>
+
+<p>“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account
+for this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed
+and settled into the fixed idea that the object before them
+could be nothing less than the great sea-serpent himself; for—</p>
+
+<div class="poetry-container">
+<div class="poetry">
+<div class="stanza">
+<div class="verse indent0">“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Leviathan, which God of all his works</div>
+<div class="verse indent0">“Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p>“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses,
+and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument,
+the wonder was satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster
+was dark and glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually,
+fading towards the tail. The glass did not determine the
+matter until the extreme end was reached, and then it was seen
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page471">[471]</span>to consist of a mass of birds in rapid motion; those that were
+strong on the wing were able to keep well up with the leaders,
+and to make the head appear thicker and darker by their numbers,
+whilst those that had not such power of flight were compelled
+to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless
+these birds were shags (<i>Pelecanus cristatus</i>) returning to their homes
+for the night from the distant waters in which they had been
+fishing, during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively
+as to the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer
+has often seen shags on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning
+in single or double file to their roosting places, and since
+it is stated in works of natural history that they have been noticed
+occasionally flying in this peculiar manner to the number of a
+thousand or more, it does not appear an unwarranted liberty in
+supposing that they really were <i>Pelecani cristati</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt
+the interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a
+large and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds
+(scores of them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the
+writer has thought it his duty to report the circumstance to you
+that your readers who voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses
+in their pockets and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity
+this interpretation of the great sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>This story induced Mr. <span class="smcap">Bird</span> (<i>Nature</i>, of 12th. September, 1878)
+to make a similar avowal:</p>
+
+<p>“Dr. Drew’s letter in <i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to
+my mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend
+on August 8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was
+towards evening, when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without
+masts or funnel, moving through the water at enormous speed.
+After a minute or two it undulated and rose from the surface,
+and we saw that it was a flight of birds.”</p>
+
+<p>“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at
+least many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated,
+though I doubt whether <i>all</i> can be explained in this manner.”</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, on the contrary wrote the following
+against this supposition (<i>Nature</i>, in the same number):</p>
+
+<p>“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday
+regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the
+English Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding
+the habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page472">[472]</span>however, to point out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded
+as explanatory of the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the
+incident only explains one of a number of <i>serpentine appearances</i>
+of which porpoises and sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood
+with trains of sea-weed, &amp;c., are also good examples. There have
+been placed on record numerous incidents of serpentine forms
+having been closely expected (as in the well-known case of the
+<i>Daedalus</i>, or later still of H. M. S. <i>Osborne</i>) where the hypothesis
+of the serpentine appearances assumed by flocks of birds or fishes
+could not be held as explanatory in any sense. It is with the
+view of showing that the exact personality of the “sea-serpent”
+cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew relates,
+that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer from
+the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine
+ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent”
+mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully
+between cases in which serpentine appearances have been
+assumed by ordinary animals, and those in which <i>one</i> animal
+form has presented itself in the guise of the “great unknown”.
+I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio
+of a giant “cuttle-fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting
+problem. A long tape-fish, or even a basking shark of huge
+dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers
+for “a sea-serpent.”........ “At the same time zoologists cannot
+but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like that gentleman,
+note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and
+communicate such incidents to your columns.”</p>
+
+<p>A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing
+descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal
+from the pen of Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Ingleby</span>:</p>
+
+<p>“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed
+at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a
+cottage on an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view.
+One morning my attention was called to a large, dark, undulating
+body, which moved rapidly through the sea. As it was some way
+out from shore, I naturally concluded it to be of enormous length.
+I lost no time in making inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon,
+and was so fortunate as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed
+it. He told me it was a flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly
+have believed that I had seen the Great Unknown. I have often
+seen a similar phenomenon, but nothing nearly so striking as this.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page473">[473]</span></p>
+
+<p>In <i>Nature</i> of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent
+is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent
+says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in
+the same locality; “I never, however, saw the <i>head</i>”. Now another
+correspondent thinking that <i>he</i> had solved the problem, wrote the
+following article in the next issue of the same journal:</p>
+
+<p>“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes,
+on the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions,
+several members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance
+of three or four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a
+huge serpent. Its length was many times that of the largest steamer
+that ever passed, and its velocity equally exceeded that of the
+swiftest. What seemed its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes
+appeared to show signs of an open mouth. The general appearance
+of the monster was almost exactly similar to that of the
+figure in your correspondent’s letter published on the 25th. ult.
+Not the slightest appearance of this continuity in its structure could
+be perceived by the eye, although it seemed incredible that any
+muscular mechanism could really drive such an enormous mass
+through the water with such a prodigious velocity. I carefully
+watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day, just as
+one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it instantaneously
+turned through a right angle, but instead of going
+forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same
+velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved
+itself into a flock of birds.”</p>
+
+<p>“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being
+effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still
+perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new
+illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what has
+been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly
+this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s difficulty.”—<span class="smcap">W.
+Steadman Aldis.</span>—</p>
+
+<p>As to the figure, it is our <a href="#Fig51">fig. 51</a>.—In the next issue of <i>Nature</i>
+again another correspondent asserts:</p>
+
+<p>“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in <i>Nature</i> yesterday,
+I was reminded by a person present that some years ago,
+when in Orkney, I pointed out an appearance that most people
+unaccustomed to witness it might have taken for a great sea-monster.
+This was nothing more or less than some hundred of cormorants
+or “skarps” flying in a continuous line close to the water,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page474">[474]</span>the deception being increased by the resemblance of a head caused
+by several “skarps” in a cluster <i>heading</i> the column, and by the
+“<i>lumpy</i>” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and hiding
+for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer to—not
+unnaturally—imagine that the portions so hidden had gone
+under water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be
+fairly estimated at thirty miles an hour or more.”—<span class="smcap">J. Rae.</span></p>
+
+<p>It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass
+of flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the
+most striking proofs against this hypothesis.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>twenty-first</b> explanation was proposed by Dr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>
+in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, 1879. He presents a frontispiece
+to his work “embodying the chief representations of the various
+theories of the sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground
+is delineated <b>a large turtle</b>. Of this supposition Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>
+says in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>:</p>
+
+<p>“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers
+and broad back.”</p>
+
+<p>The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet,
+including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible.
+The breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three
+and a half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would
+have been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal
+well enough. Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized
+by its broad shell. No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian
+shore.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>twenty-second</b> explanation. I don’t know whether the note
+p. 106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure
+Time Studies</i>, also appeared in the first edition, January,
+1879, and so I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>,
+(1883), has a superior claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent
+might be in some or in most instances <b>a giant cuttle-fish
+or calamary</b>.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, quoting the report of Messrs. <span class="smcap">Webster</span>
+and <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> (<a href="#Report146">n<sup>o</sup>. 146</a>), in which the latter says: “the creature
+was apparently of a gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes
+in a note:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page475">[475]</span></p>
+
+<p>“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature
+mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner
+of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond
+with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be
+the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as
+it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing
+“funnel.””</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> tries to explain all accounts
+of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one
+of the figures of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work (our <a href="#Fig14">fig. 14</a>) he says: “the
+presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid”
+(which snatched the man from the vessel) “and the two rows of
+suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the
+medial line traversing its whole length (intended to represent a
+dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each
+side of it.” I have discussed this explanation in its right place
+(see <a href="#Page106">p. 106</a>).</p>
+
+<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig70">
+<img src="images/illo475.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 70.—Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>
+explains Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The “monster of <span class="smcap">Egede</span>” he also explained by reference to a
+great calamary. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> does not doubt of the accuracy of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span>
+description, but as to Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> figure he says: “The high character
+of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that
+he had seen something previously unknown to him (he does not
+say it was a sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page476">[476]</span>what it was that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made
+by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, one of his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to
+do this”. And Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has the boldness to figure a large calamary,
+with the words: “the animal which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> probably saw”,
+of which figure I give a facsimile in <a href="#Fig70">fig. 70</a>.—</p>
+
+<p>Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious
+acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a
+doubting zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the
+whole fabric falls to pieces as soon as we compare <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> description
+and <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing with the greater part of descriptions
+and figures given as well before as after <span class="smcap">Egede</span>. His idea is far
+fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When a calamary propels itself
+with great velocity to the surface and raises its tail high out of
+the water, all its arms are turned and stretched downwards; not
+one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is in this
+position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will fall
+to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure to
+left, and not to right, as Mr. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw very distinctly; he says:
+“backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the
+position above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube,
+spouts in a direction contrary to that which Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has figured.
+The locomotor tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it
+is stretched by its own muscular wall towards the head, and not
+towards the tail, nor in a direction perpendicularly to the body, when
+the act of spouting takes place. Moreover <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> saw the sea-serpent
+spouting (exhaling) through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on
+or below the surface of the water, as the calamary of Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>!</p>
+
+<p>Of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean’s</span> report (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>) he says: “His description of
+it is exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”.
+If I may beg my readers to read Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean’s</span> report
+again, they will observe that <i>nothing</i> in it indicates a calamary!</p>
+
+<p>About the report of Mr. <span class="smcap">J. C. Lund</span> (<a href="#Report115">n<sup>o</sup>. 115</a>) he writes:</p>
+
+<p>“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements
+of all the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There
+is no room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously
+that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially,
+is most accurately and intelligently described—so clearly,
+indeed, that it furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the
+strange visitant.”</p>
+
+<p>“Here let me say—and I wish it to be distinctly understood—that
+I do not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page477">[477]</span>or other great creatures at present unknown to science,
+and that I have no inclination to explain away that which others
+have seen, because I myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”,
+it is said, and it is not agreeable to have to tell a person
+that, in common parlance, he “must not trust his own eyes”. It
+seems presumptuous even to hint that one may know better what
+was seen than the person who saw it. And yet I am obliged to
+say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly and assuredly,
+that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not correctly interpret
+that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is not the eye which
+deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the imagination
+which is led astray by the association of the thing seen with an
+erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent assumption
+of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key
+to the mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours
+had not access to, and which has only within the last few years
+been placed in our hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster
+are those of an animal with which we are now well acquainted,
+but of the existence of which the narrators of these
+occasional visitations were unaware; namely, the great calamary,
+the same which gave rise to the stories of the Kraken, and which
+has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian seas and fjords
+from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have elsewhere
+said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure
+of the <i>Alecton</i> in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or
+sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the
+great sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express
+belief in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned,
+specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted
+were met with on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of
+them were deposited in museums, to silence the incredulous and
+interest zoologists. When Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846
+the declaration of Mr. Lund and his companions of the fishing
+excursion he and they knew nothing of there being such an animal.
+They had formed no conception of it, nor had they the instructive
+privilege, possessed of late years by the public in England, of
+being able to watch attentively, and at leisure, the habits and
+movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in great
+tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted
+with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed
+snake the elongated body of a giant squid.”</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page478">[478]</span></p>
+
+<p>“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by
+the outrush of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction
+contrary to that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part,
+therefore, goes in advance, and the body tapers towards this,
+almost to a blunt point. At a short distance from the actual extremity
+two flat fins project from the body, one on each side, so
+that this end of the squid’s body somewhat resembles in shape
+the government “broad arrow”. It is a habit of these squids, the
+small species of which are met with in some localities in teeming
+abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the water in hot
+and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised out of
+water, to a height which in a large individual might be three
+feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at
+the rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person
+who has never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed,
+like the creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in
+accordance with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad
+expanse. The elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the
+neck to which the “head” is attached; the eight arms trailing
+behind (the tentacles are always coiled away and concealed) supply
+the supposed mane floating on each side; the undulating motion
+in swimming, as the water is alternately drawn in and expelled,
+accords with the description, and the excurrent stream pouring
+aft from the locomotor tube, causes a long swirl and swell to be
+left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have often seen, may
+easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of its body. The
+eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone of colour
+varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey, as
+the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter
+circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”</p>
+
+<p>“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the
+forepart of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”,
+the “moving in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark
+colour”, the “waving motion in the water behind the animal”,
+from which the witnesses concluded that “part of the body was
+concealed under water”, the “head raised, but the lower part not
+visible”, the “sharp snout”, the “smooth skin”, and the appearance
+described by Mr. William Knudtzon, and Candidatus Theologiae
+Bochlum, of “the head being long and small in proportion to the
+throat, the latter appearing much greater than the former”, which
+caused them to think “it was <i>probably</i> furnished with a mane”.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page479">[479]</span>Not that they <i>saw</i> any mane, but as they had been told of it,
+they thought they <i>ought to have seen it</i>. Less careful and conscientious
+persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on
+oath, that they <i>did see it</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the proverbially
+smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition
+of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance
+that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched
+out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on
+both sides of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of
+that would cause this by the effluent current from its “syphon
+tube.” I have seen a deeply laden ship push in front of her a
+vast hillock of water, which fell off on each side in foam as it
+was parted by her bow; but that was of man’s construction. Nature
+builds on better lines. No swimming creature has such unnecessary
+friction to overcome. Even the seemingly unwieldy body
+of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without a splash,
+and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering
+action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”</p>
+
+<p>Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account,
+that they may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a
+sea-serpent or a great calamary. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> last views of the motion
+of sea-animals is also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all
+his assertions; for instance, he says: “Nature builds on better
+lines”. I say: If nature built on better lines, men would long ago
+have imitated them. All creatures, when swimming rapidly on the
+surface, cause a splash. Swans, when moving as rapidly as possible,
+cause heavy undulations before the chest, and I have observed
+myself the common porpoises in the Zuider Zee, which when
+coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a rushing
+of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent of Mr. <span class="smcap">Morries Stirling</span> (<a href="#Report113">n<sup>o</sup>. 113</a>) appeared,
+according to Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> also “to have been, like the others
+from the same locality, a large calamary.”</p>
+
+<p>Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> and his officers
+he says:</p>
+
+<p>“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted
+the veracity or <i>bona fides</i> of the captain and officers of one of Her
+Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because
+it was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea.
+Their practised eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page480">[480]</span>character of anything met with afloat even if only partially seen,
+as intuitively as the Red Indian reads the signs of the forest or
+the trail; and therefore they were not likely to be deceived by
+any of the objects with which sailors are familiar. They would
+not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks of trees, or Brobdingnagian
+stems of Algae; but there was one animal with which they
+were not familiar, of the existence of which they were unaware,
+and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed
+to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself—namely, the great calamary,
+the elongated form of which has certainly in some other
+instances been mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen
+swimming in the manner I have described, and endeavoured to
+portray, would fulfil the description given by Lieutenant Drummond,
+and would in a great measure account for the appearances
+reported by Captain M’Quhae. “<i>The head long, pointed and flat
+on the top</i>”, accords with the pointed extremity and caudal fin of
+the squid. “<i>Head kept horizontal with the surface of the water,
+and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally beneath
+a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for purposes
+of respiration.</i>” A perfect description of the position and action of
+a squid swimming. “<i>No portion of it perceptibly used in propelling
+it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations.</i>”
+The mode of propulsion of a squid—the outpouring stream
+of water from its locomotor tube—would be unseen and unsuspected,
+because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would
+suggest a prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms
+trailing astern at the surface of the water would give the appearance
+of a mane. I think it not impossible that if the officers of
+the <i>Daedalus</i> had been acquainted with this great sea-creature the
+impression on their mind’s eye would not have taken the form of
+a serpent. I offer this, with much diffidence, as a suggestion arising
+from recent discoveries; and by no means insist on its acceptance;
+for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very close view of the
+animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without any doubt,
+that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently declared
+that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form
+were all most distinctly visible.”</p>
+
+<p>And of the sea-serpent of Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Davidson</span> (<a href="#Report93">n<sup>o</sup>. 93</a>) he asserts:
+“The features of this incident are consistent with his having seen
+one of the, then unknown, great calamaries.”</p>
+
+<p>The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Sanford</span> (<a href="#Report74">n<sup>o</sup>. 74</a>) is also
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page481">[481]</span>explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under circumstances
+similar to those described by <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>”.</p>
+
+<p>Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington’s</span> sea-serpent (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>), according to Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Lee</span>, “was evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal
+extremity and fin above the surface, and discolouring the water
+by discharging its ink.”</p>
+
+<p>Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have
+been searching amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem,
+the great unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their
+elongated cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have
+played the part of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated
+incident.”</p>
+
+<p>In answering, again, Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse’s</span> question: “To which of the
+recognized classes of created beings can this huge rover of the
+ocean be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There
+is not one of the above judiciously summarized characteristics that
+is not supplied by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits
+and peculiar mode of locomotion.”</p>
+
+<p>With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those
+which Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> enumerates in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>
+(see <a href="#Page318">p. 318</a> of the present volume), but which, as we know, are
+taken by him from only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from
+a report of a would-be sea-serpent!</p>
+
+<p>The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a
+would-be sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the
+head was described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true
+sea-serpents are brownish black, and only in case the animal had
+swum for a long time in the sun and partly above the surface of
+the water, the colour is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that
+this colour partly agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at
+rest or when dead; but generally, when the animal is in motion,
+and especially in emotion, the colour becomes a reddish-purple or
+crimson-red. Moreover the long neck, the mane, the extraordinary
+long tail, the four flappers, are not explained by reference to a
+calamary.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>The <b>twenty-third</b> explanation is proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V.
+Wood, Jun.</span> in <i>Nature</i> of November 18th., 1880. His article on
+the “Order Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page482">[482]</span></p>
+
+<p>“[The animal seen from the <i>Osborne</i>, and figured in the <i>Graphic</i>
+of June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing
+from the one in question, and may have been <b>a manatee</b>.]”</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig71">
+<img src="images/illo482.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 71.—<i>Thrichechus manatus</i> <span class="smcap">Linné</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>This figure is our <a href="#Fig45">figure 45</a>. Evidently Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> did not read
+the account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based
+on a figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen
+from the <i>Osborne</i>, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the
+shoulders, where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and
+the length of the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal
+had an enormous neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total
+length of ten feet, the length from the crown or top to just below
+the shoulders is not more than four feet and there is no question
+of a neck, as our <a href="#Fig71">figure</a> will show. Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> committed the
+mistake, like so many others, that he explained <i>one</i> sea-serpent,
+instead of first comparing <i>all</i> the reports of it before giving an
+opinion.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According
+to different authorities, the sea-serpent may be:</p>
+
+<p>1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, 1803).</p>
+
+<p>2. <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>, a new species of snake with bunches on
+its back. (Hon. <span class="smcap">John Davis</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span>, Mr. C. F.
+<span class="smcap">Gray</span>, 1817).</p>
+
+<p>3. A large tunny. (Prof. <span class="smcap">Thomas Say</span>, 1818).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page483">[483]</span></p>
+
+<p>4. A true sea-snake (<i>Hydrophis</i>) of very large size. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Constant
+Samuel Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, 1819).</p>
+
+<p>5. A gigantic individual of the eel-tribe. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Constant Samuel
+Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, 1819).</p>
+
+<p>6. A fable, arisen from Northern Mythology. (Dr. <span class="smcap">Percy</span>, 1820?).</p>
+
+<p>7. A basking shark, or a row of sharks. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel L. Mitchill</span>,
+1828).</p>
+
+<p>8. A balaenopterous whale, or a row of them. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel L.
+Mitchill</span>, 1828).</p>
+
+<p>9. An <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>, or a saurian allied to it. (Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Bakewell</span>,
+1830?).</p>
+
+<p>10. A <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, or a saurian allied to it. (Professor <span class="smcap">Benjamin
+Silliman</span>, 1830?).</p>
+
+<p>11. Not a saurian. (Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, 1835).</p>
+
+<p>12. A row of spermwhales. (Professor <span class="smcap">Hermann Schlegel</span>, 1837).</p>
+
+<p>13. A <i>Basilosaurus</i>. (Professor <span class="smcap">Matthias Jacob Schleiden</span>, 1847).</p>
+
+<p>14. A <i>Saccopharynx</i> or an <i>Ophiognathus</i>. (Anonymous writer in
+one of the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).</p>
+
+<p>15. A large boa. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers,
+1848, Nov. 6?).</p>
+
+<p>16. A <i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i>, or sea-elephant. (Professor <span class="smcap">Richard
+Owen</span>, 1848, Nov. 9).</p>
+
+<p>17. A large sea-weed. (Commander <span class="smcap">J. A. Herriman</span>, of the <i>Brazilian</i>,
+1849).</p>
+
+<p>18. A large ribbon-fish, <i>Gymnetrus</i> or <i>Regalecus</i>. (Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G.
+More</span>, 1856).</p>
+
+<p>19. A floating dead tree, or bamboo, or a weed-laden log of
+wood. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Arthur Adams</span>, 1860).</p>
+
+<p>20. A mass of flying birds. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Drew</span>, 1878).</p>
+
+<p>21. A large sea-turtle. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, 1879).</p>
+
+<p>22. A gigantic calamary. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, 1879? or Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>, 1883).</p>
+
+<p>23. A manatee. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles Valentine Wood Jun.</span>, 1880).</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I
+could discover, were the first to express the supposition to which
+their name is added. The dates are those at which they published
+their supposition.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page484">[484]</span></p>
+
+<p>Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the
+result of reading <i>one single</i> report (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>,
+<a href="#Report4">4</a>, <a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report14">14</a>,
+<a href="#Report15">15</a>, <a href="#Report16">16</a>),
+which are not mere suppositions without any foundation (<a href="#Report6">6</a>, <a href="#Report7">7</a>, <a href="#Report8">8</a>,
+<a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report13">13</a>, <a href="#Report21">21</a>, <a href="#Report23">23</a>), which are not offered by persons who a moment
+ago saw a deceitful object or animal (<a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>,
+<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report20">20</a>, <a href="#Report22">22</a>), but
+which are the result of a <i>study</i> of several accounts and reports.
+They are those marked <a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a> and <a href="#Report10">10</a>. And of these <a href="#Report10">n<sup>o</sup>. 10</a> is the
+most admissible, because the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> in its outlines most resembles
+the sea-serpent. Why, however, is the sea-serpent not a
+<i>Plesiosaurus</i>? I have already summed up some reasons, when treating
+of this explanation, but the principal reasons are the mammalian
+characters, habits and behaviour of the sea-serpent; I will
+try to prove this in the next chapter.</p>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page485">[485]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">VI.</span><br>
+<span class="chapname">Conclusions.</span></h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>The Libraries from which I borrowed the greater part of the
+works treating of the subject were:</p>
+
+<p>The Royal Library at the Hague,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Leiden University,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Utrecht University,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Groningen University,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Amsterdam University,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Royal University at Göttingen,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Royal Zoological Society “Natura Artis Magistra”
+at Amsterdam,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Museum of Natural History at Leiden,</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Dutch Zoological Society at den Helder, and</p>
+
+<p>The Library of the Dutch Entomological Society at Leiden.</p>
+
+<p>In the <a href="#Page1">part</a> headed <i>Literature on the Subject</i> I have given an
+idea of the mass of works and articles written about it. I here
+present to my readers a list of the different appearances found by
+me in the works which I have consulted. Of each appearance I
+have noted down as far as possible, the date, the locality and the
+names of the observers. The numbers correspond with those in the
+<a href="#Page102">4th. Chapter</a>.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>1.—1522.—Near the Isle of Moos, Norway.</p>
+
+<p>2.—1640.—Most probably in the Sound between Sweden and
+Denmark.—Burgomaster of Malmö.</p>
+
+<p>3.—1687.—Damsfjord in Norway.—Several persons, and at
+one time eleven persons together.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page486">[486]</span></p>
+
+<p>4.—1720.—A little inlet near Kobbervueg, in Norway.—<span class="smcap">Thorlack
+Thorlacksen</span>.</p>
+
+<p>5.—1734, July 6.—Before the harbour of Gothaab in Davis’
+Straits, west of Greenland, at 64° N.—Rev. <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>.</p>
+
+<p>6.—1743?—Cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, in Norway.</p>
+
+<p>7.—1744?—Isle of Karmen, in Norway.</p>
+
+<p>8.—1745?—Near Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, in Norway.—A
+fisherman.</p>
+
+<p>9.—1746, August.—Jule-Naess, six miles from Molde, in
+Norway.—The Hon. <span class="smcap">Lorenz von Ferry</span>, <span class="smcap">Niels Petersen Kopper</span>,
+and <span class="smcap">Niels Nielsen Anglewigen</span>.</p>
+
+<p>10.—1747?—Coast of Norway.—Commander <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>.</p>
+
+<p>11.—1748?—Coast of Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span>.</p>
+
+<p>12.—1749?—Coast of Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span>.</p>
+
+<p>13.—1750?—Coast of Norway.—A north-sailor.</p>
+
+<p>14.—1751?—Near Sundsmöer.—Some fishermen.</p>
+
+<p>15.—1751.—Near Muscongus-Island and Round Pond in Broad
+Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Kent</span>.</p>
+
+<p>16.—1770?—East coast of U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Paul Reed</span>.</p>
+
+<p>17.—1777 or 1778.—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Captain
+<span class="smcap">Eleazar Crabtree</span>.</p>
+
+<p>18.—1779?—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan
+Tuckey</span>.</p>
+
+<p>19.—1780, May.—Near Muscongus Island and Round Pond, in
+Broad Bay, U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">George Little</span>, of the <i>Boston</i> frigate.</p>
+
+<p>20.—1781?—Off Meduncook, east coast of U. S. A.</p>
+
+<p>21.—1782?—East coast of U. S. A.?—The British on their
+expedition to Bagadusa.</p>
+
+<p>22.—1783?—Near the Isle of Mount Desert, east of Penobscot
+Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Inhabitants of this isle.</p>
+
+<p>23.—1784?—Near Ash Point on Fox and Long Island, Maine,
+U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>.</p>
+
+<p>24.—1785?—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Miller</span>.</p>
+
+<p>25.—1786, August 1.—Lat. 42° 44′ N., long. 23° 10′ W.,
+north-east of the Azores.—On board the <i>General Coole</i>.</p>
+
+<p>26.—1787?—East coast of U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Lillis</span>.</p>
+
+<p>27.—1794?—Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.—Two
+inhabitants of these islands.</p>
+
+<p>28.—1799?—Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.—Two
+inhabitants of these islands.</p>
+
+<p>29.—1802, July.—Between Cape Rosoi and Long Island,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page487">[487]</span>Maine, U. S. A.—The Rev. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>,
+Miss <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, Miss <span class="smcap">Martha Spring</span>.</p>
+
+<p>30.—1805?—Near Cape Breton and Newfoundland.—Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Lee</span>.</p>
+
+<p>31.—1808, June.—Coast of Coll, west of Scotland.—Rev.
+<span class="smcap">Donald Maclean</span>.</p>
+
+<p>32.—1808, June.—Coast of Canna and Rum, west of Scotland.—The
+crew of thirteen fishing boats.</p>
+
+<p>33.—1810?—?—A mariner.</p>
+
+<p>34.—1815, June 20.—Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape
+Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Elkanah Finney</span>, his son,
+and some house carpenters.</p>
+
+<p>35.—1815, June 21.—Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape
+Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Elkanah Finney</span>.</p>
+
+<p>36.—1816?—Near Behring’s Island.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span>.</p>
+
+<p>37.—1817, August 6.—Harbour of Cape Ann.—Two women.</p>
+
+<p>38.—1817, August 10.—Near Ten Pound Island in the Harbour
+of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Amos Story</span>.</p>
+
+<p>39.—1817, August 12.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Salomon Allen</span>, 3d.</p>
+
+<p>40.—1817, August 13.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Salomon Allen</span>, 3d.</p>
+
+<p>41.—1817, August 14.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Salomon Allen</span> 3d., Mr. <span class="smcap">Epes Ellery</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">William H. Foster</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Daniel Gaffney</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Augustin
+M. Webber</span>, and the Hon. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span>.</p>
+
+<p>42.—1817, August 15.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James Mansfield</span>.</p>
+
+<p>43.—1817, August 17.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">William H. Foster</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">John Johnston</span>, jun., Captain
+<span class="smcap">John Corliss</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">George Marble</span>.</p>
+
+<p>44.—1817, August 18.—Off Cape Ann Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.—The
+Captain and crew of a vessel.—Webber’s Cove in the Harbour
+of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">William B. Pearson</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">James P. Collins</span>, Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>.</p>
+
+<p>45.—1817, August 22?—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—A woman, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span> and Mrs. <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span>.</p>
+
+<p>46.—1817, August 23.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Amos Story</span>.</p>
+
+<p>47.—1817, August 24?—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Several of the crews of coasting vessels.</p>
+
+<p>48.—1817, August 28.—Two miles east of the eastern point
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page488">[488]</span>of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Sewell Toppan</span>,
+of the schooner <i>Laura</i>, <span class="smcap">William Somerby</span>,
+<span class="smcap">Robert Bragg</span>, mariners on board the same schooner.</p>
+
+<p>49.—1817, August 30?—In the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.—One of the revenue cutters.</p>
+
+<p>50.—1817, October 3.—In the sound between Long Island and the State New York, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James Guion</span>.</p>
+
+<p>51.—1817, October 5.—Long Island Sound, N. York, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Hertell</span>.</p>
+
+<p>52.—1818, June.—Off Cape Henry, Virg., U. S. A.—The Captain and crew of the brig <i>Wilson</i>.</p>
+
+<p>53.—1818, June 19.—In Sag Harbour, Long Island, N. Y., U. S. A.</p>
+
+<p>54.—1818, June 21.—East coast of U. S. A.—S. <span class="smcap">West</span>, master of the Packet <i>Delia</i>.</p>
+
+<p>55.—1818, July 2.—Between Cranch Island Point and Marsh Island, about seven miles from Portland, Maine, U. S. A.—Mssrs. J. <span class="smcap">Webber</span>
+and R. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>.</p>
+
+<p>56.—1818, July.—60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, between Far Öer and Hebrides.—Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span>.</p>
+
+<p>57.—1818 July.—Folden fjord, Norway.—Some fishermen of Folden fjord.</p>
+
+<p>58.—1818 August?—Near Fieldvigen, Norway.—Fishermen of Fieldvigen.</p>
+
+<p>59.—1818, August 19.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Richard Rich</span>.</p>
+
+<p>60.—1819, June 6.—About 15 miles north-west of Race Point, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Hawkins Wheeler</span>, of the sloop <i>Concord</i>,
+and <span class="smcap">Gersham Bennett</span>.</p>
+
+<p>61.—1819, July.—Sound between the Island of Ottersum and the continent, Norway.—Captain <span class="smcap">Schilderup</span> and about thirty other persons.</p>
+
+<p>62.—1819, August 12?—At Nahant Beach, Mass., U. S. A.</p>
+
+<p>63.—1819, August 13?—Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James Prince</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Prince</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">James Magee</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Cabot</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cabot</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">James Boott</span>,
+Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, and family.</p>
+
+<p>64.—1819, August.—Vieg or Veg fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">John Gregar</span>.</p>
+
+<p>65.—1819, August?—At the North Cape.—Some fishermen.</p>
+
+<p>66.—1819, August?—Bay of Shuresund or Sorsund in the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page489">[489]</span>Drontheim fjord, Norway.—The Right Rev. Bishop of the Nordlands and Finmark.</p>
+
+<p>67.—1819? August?—In the Mageröe-Sund near North Cape, Norway.—The sexton of Maasöe.</p>
+
+<p>68.—1819, August.—Near Vadsöe, Norway.—Several persons.</p>
+
+<p>69.—1819, August 26.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—The Rev. <span class="smcap">Cheever Felch</span>, Captain <span class="smcap">William T. Malbone</span>, of the schooner <i>Science</i>,
+Midshipman <span class="smcap">Blake</span>, four boatsmen.</p>
+
+<p>70.—1819, September?—Near Boston, Mass., U. S. A.—An Officer of the American Navy.</p>
+
+<p>71.—1819, September 13?—Bay of Massachusetts, U. S. A.</p>
+
+<p>72.—1820, July?—Near Hundsholm, Norway.—A young man, master of a small fishing yacht.</p>
+
+<p>73.—1820, August.—Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>.</p>
+
+<p>74.—1820?—About latitude 46°, longitude 3°, Bay of Biscay.—Lieutenant <span class="smcap">George Sandford</span>, Captain of the <i>Lady of Combermere</i>.</p>
+
+<p>75.—1821, Summer.—Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>.</p>
+
+<p>76.—1821.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Bennett</span>.</p>
+
+<p>77.—1821, September 25?—Near Nantucket Isle.—Many persons, Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Joy Jun.</span></p>
+
+<p>78.—1821.—Off the Isles of Stenness, Vaily and Dunrossness (Shetland Islands).</p>
+
+<p>79.—1822, Summer.—Off Soröe, Norway.—Many inhabitants of Soröe.</p>
+
+<p>80.—1824, January.—Lat. 34° 31′ South, long. 48° West, about sixty miles east of Uruguay.</p>
+
+<p>81.—1824, Summer.—Off Plum Island and in Shad Cove (Rhode Island?), U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruggles</span>.</p>
+
+<p>82.—1825?—West coast of Scotland?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Strang</span>.</p>
+
+<p>83.—1826, June 16.—George’s Bank, South of Newfoundland.—Captain <span class="smcap">Holdrege</span> of the ship <i>Silas Richards</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>,
+Miss. <span class="smcap">Magee</span>.</p>
+
+<p>84.—1826, June 18.—Off Cape Cod, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain and crew of a vessel.</p>
+
+<p>85.—1827, August 24.—Christiania fjord, Norway.—Five persons.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page490">[490]</span></p>
+
+<p>86.—1827, August 26.—Christiania fjord, Norway.—Several
+persons.</p>
+
+<p>87.—1827, September 3.—Off Nusodden, Norway (Christiania
+fjord?).</p>
+
+<p>88.—1827, September 5.—Off Lepager (Christiania fjord?),
+Norway.</p>
+
+<p>89.—1827, September 9.—Off Dröbak, Christiania fjord,
+Norway.—Several persons.</p>
+
+<p>90.—1828?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">Nils Roe.</span></p>
+
+<p>91.—1828?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">Nils Roe.</span></p>
+
+<p>92.—1829? July.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">Lars
+Johnöen.</span></p>
+
+<p>93.—1829, the end of July.—A considerable distance south-west
+of the Cape of Good Hope.—Captain <span class="smcap">Petrie</span>, of the <i>Royal
+Saxon</i>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Davidson</span>.</p>
+
+<p>94.—1830?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">John Johnson.</span></p>
+
+<p>95.—1831?—In a narrow fjord near Christiansund, Norway.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">William Knudtzon</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Booklune</span>.</p>
+
+<p>96.—1832, Summer.—Rödö and Södelöw fjords, Norway.—Many
+persons.</p>
+
+<p>97.—1833, May, 15.—Some miles from Margaret’s Bay, Nova
+Scotia.—Captain <span class="smcap">W. Sullivan</span>, Lieutenants <span class="smcap">A. Maclachlan</span>, <span class="smcap">G.
+P. Malcolm</span>, <span class="smcap">B. O’Neal Lyster</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Ince</span>.</p>
+
+<p>98.—1833, July, on a Saturday.—Off Nahant, Mass., U. S.
+A.—Several persons.</p>
+
+<p>99.—1833, July, the next Sunday.—Lynn Harbour, Mass.,
+U. S. A.—Forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen.</p>
+
+<p>100.—1834, Summer.—Bay of Gloucester Mass., U. S. A.—One
+of the crew of the Brig <i>Mangehan</i>.</p>
+
+<p>101.—1835, March or April.—A few miles from Race Point
+Light, near Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Shibbles</span>, and
+the crew, of the brig <i>Mangehan</i>.</p>
+
+<p>102.—1836?—In Christiansund fjord, at Torvig, Norway.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Gaeschke</span>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>104.—1838?—The South Atlantic.—Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span>, of the
+<i>Blossom</i>.</p>
+
+<p>105.—1839, August?—Near Boston.—Captain <span class="smcap">Bubier</span>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page491">[491]</span></p>
+
+<p>106.—1839, September?—Coast of Maine, U. S. A.—Captain
+<span class="smcap">Smith</span>.</p>
+
+<p>106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1840, April 21.—24° 13′ N. latitude, 89° 52′ W.
+longitude, in the Gulf of Mexico.—Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span>.</p>
+
+<p>106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span>.—1840, June?—Near Boston?</p>
+
+<p>107.—1840, July?—Molde fjord, Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Hammer</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Kraft</span>, and some other persons.</p>
+
+<p>107 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1840, August?—“Along the whole line of the American
+coast”, i. e. of the east coast of the U. S.</p>
+
+<p>108.—1841.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—Several persons.</p>
+
+<p>109.—1842?—Romsdal fjord, Norway.—A parish priest.</p>
+
+<p>110.—1842?—Romsdal fjord, Norway.—A gentleman.</p>
+
+<p>111.—1843, Summer.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.</p>
+
+<p>111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1843, October?—Near Ibbestad, not far from Christiansand,
+Norway.—Some fishermen.</p>
+
+<p>112.—1845?—Near Bergen? Norway.—Some fishermen.</p>
+
+<p>113.—1845.—Between Bergen and Sogn, Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">J.
+D. Morries Stirling</span>, and two other gentlemen.</p>
+
+<p>114.—1845 or 1846, Summer.—Camp’s Bay, near Cape
+Town.—Mr. <span class="smcap">G. D. Brunette</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles A. Fairbridge</span>.</p>
+
+<p>115.—1845, July 28.—Romsdale fjord, Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">J.
+C. Lund</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">G. S. Kroch</span>, <span class="smcap">Christian Flang</span> and <span class="smcap">John Elgenses</span>.</p>
+
+<p>117.—1846, August 8.—Between the islands of Sartor Leer
+and Tös, and in Bjornfjord, near Bergen, Norway.—Several persons,
+<span class="smcap">Daniel Salomonson</span>, his wife <span class="smcap">Ingeborg</span>, <span class="smcap">Abraham Abrahamsen
+Hagenoes</span>.</p>
+
+<p>118.—1848, August 6.—Lat. 24° 44′ S., long 9° 22′ E., between
+the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Sartoris</span>,
+midshipman, Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Edgar Drummond</span>, Captain <span class="smcap">Peter M’Quhae</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">William Barrett</span>, master, and most of the officers and crew
+of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>119.—1848?—The Gulf of California.—Captain the Hon.
+<span class="smcap">George Hope</span>.</p>
+
+<p>120.—1848, December 31.—Lat. 41° 13′ N., long. 12° 31′ W.,
+west of Oporto.—An officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i>.</p>
+
+<p>121.—1849, February 18.—Off the south point of Cumberland
+Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s bar, Florida.—Captain
+<span class="smcap">Adams</span>, of the schooner <i>Lucy and Nancy</i>, and the crew
+and passengers of it.</p>
+
+<p>122.—1849, May 30.—South of Australia, between 40° and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page492">[492]</span>45° S. lat., and 110° and 145° W. long.—Captain <span class="smcap">Edwards</span>, of
+the <i>Alpha</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomson</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">George Park</span>.</p>
+
+<p>123.—1849, September 15.—Indian Ocean, between lat.
+10° and 20° S., and long. 50° and 70° E.—An officer of H. M.
+S. <i>Cleopatra</i>.</p>
+
+<p>124.—1850?—Between Iceland and the Far Öer.—Captain
+<span class="smcap">Cristmas</span>.</p>
+
+<p>125.—1853?—Fjords of Norway.</p>
+
+<p>126.—1854, September 4.—Lat. 38° S., long. 13° E.—The
+Brig <i>Albeona</i>.</p>
+
+<p>127.—1855, August?—Off St. Helena.—A Captain.</p>
+
+<p>128.—1856, March 30.—Lat 29° 11′ N., long. 34° 26′ W.—Mr.
+<span class="smcap">J. H. Statham</span>, Captain <span class="smcap">James Guy</span>, of the <i>Imogen</i>, Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Julian B. Harries</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">D. J. Williamson</span>.</p>
+
+<p>129.—1856, July 8.—Lat. 34° 56′ S., long. 18° 41′ E.—Captain
+A. K. W. Tremearne of the ship <i>Princess</i>, Captain <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>,
+of the ship <i>Senator</i>.</p>
+
+<p>130.—1857, February 16.—In Table Bay, Cape Town.—Dr.
+<span class="smcap">Biccard</span>, his wife, daughter and two sons, Mr. <span class="smcap">Murray</span> and
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span>.</p>
+
+<p>131.—1857, December 12.—North east end of St. Helena
+distant 10 miles.—Captain <span class="smcap">George Henry Harrington</span>, of the
+ship <i>Castilian</i>, <span class="smcap">William Davies</span>, chief officer, <span class="smcap">Edward Wheeler</span>,
+second officer.</p>
+
+<p>132.—1858, January 26.—Lat. 19° 10′ S., long. 10° 6′ W.,
+between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.—Captain <span class="smcap">Suckling</span>
+of the <i>Carnatic</i>, Captain <span class="smcap">Shuttleworth</span>.</p>
+
+<p>133.—1861? August, on a Sunday.—Nahant?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Amos
+Binney</span>, and above a hundred persons.</p>
+
+<p>134.—1861? August, the following Monday.—Nahant? from
+the piazza of the hôtel.</p>
+
+<p>135.—1863, May 16.—Between the Isles of Canary and the
+Cape Verde Isles.—Mr. <span class="smcap">John Chapple</span>, Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, on board
+the Screw Steamer <i>Athenian</i>.</p>
+
+<p>136.—1871.—Near the coast of Australia.—A second officer.</p>
+
+<p>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. <span class="smcap">John Macray</span>, Minister of Glenelg, Rev.
+<span class="smcap">David Twopeny</span>, Vicar of Stockbury, two ladies, F. and K., a
+gentleman, G. B., and a Highland lad, on board the cutter <i>Leda</i>;
+also a Lady at Duisdale, in Skye.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page493">[493]</span></p>
+
+<p>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 <a href="#Report137">n<sup>o</sup>. 137</a>; the ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea, <span class="smcap">Finlay
+Macrae</span>, and other people.</p>
+
+<p>139.—1872, August 23.—In the entrance of Lochduich.—<span class="smcap">Alexander
+Macmillan</span> and his brother <span class="smcap">Farquhar</span>.</p>
+
+<p>140.—1872, August 24.—In the same locality.—The same
+witnesses.</p>
+
+<p>141.—1873, Nov. 16?—Near Dunrobin castle, east coast of
+Sutherland, Scotland.—Lady <span class="smcap">Florence Leveson Gower</span> and the
+Hon. Mrs. <span class="smcap">Coke</span>.</p>
+
+<p>142.—1873, Nov. 17?—Near Golspie, east coast of Sutherland,
+Scotland.—Dr. <span class="smcap">Soutar</span>.</p>
+
+<p>143.—1873, Nov. 18?—The same locality.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>.</p>
+
+<p>144.—1875, July 8.—Lat. 5° 13′ S., long. 35° W., twenty
+miles from Cape San Roque.—Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>, of the barque
+<i>Pauline</i>, <span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson</span>, <span class="smcap">John Henderson Landells</span>, <span class="smcap">William
+Lewarn</span>, <span class="smcap">Owen Baker</span>.</p>
+
+<p>145.—1875, July 13.—Lat. 5° S., long 34° 10′ W., eighty
+miles from Cape San Roque.—The same witnesses.</p>
+
+<p>146.—1876, September 11.—Fifteen miles north west of North
+Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straits.—<span class="smcap">John K. Webster</span>,
+Captain of the British s. s. <i>Nestor</i>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">James Anderson</span>.</p>
+
+<p>147.—1877, May 21.—Lat. 2° N., long. 90° 53′ E., Indian
+Ocean.—The master of the barque <span class="smcap">Georgina</span>.</p>
+
+<p>148.—1877, June 2.—Off Cape Vito, Sicily.—Commander
+<span class="smcap">Pearson</span> of H. M. Yacht <i>Osborne</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Douglas Haynes</span>, Mr.
+<span class="smcap">Forsyth</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>.</p>
+
+<p>149.—1879, January 28.—Lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E.,
+Gulf of Aden.—Major <span class="smcap">H. W. J. Senior</span>, Dr. <span class="smcap">C. Hall</span>, Miss.
+<span class="smcap">Greenfield</span>, on board the s. s. <i>City of Baltimore</i>.</p>
+
+<p>150.—1879, March 30.—In Geographe Bay, Australia, near
+Lockville and Busselton.—Rev. <span class="smcap">H. W. Brown</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M’Guire</span>
+and his wife, Mr. <span class="smcap">M’Mullan</span>.</p>
+
+<p>151.—1879, April 5.—Cape Satano, the most southern point
+of Japan, distant about nine miles.—Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc.
+Kechnie</span>, of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i>.</p>
+
+<p>152.—1879, August 5.—100 miles west of Brest, France.—Captain
+<span class="smcap">J. F. Cox</span>, of the <i>Privateer</i>.</p>
+
+<p>152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1881, Nov. 12?—Near Monillepoint, not far from
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page494">[494]</span>Cape Town.—Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Hansen</span>, his wife and children, and
+several of his neighbours.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>154.—1882, May 31.—The same locality.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Weisz</span> of
+the Lloydsteamer <i>Kätie</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span>.</p>
+
+<p>155.—1882, September 3.—Near Orme’s Heads, northern
+coast of Wales, Irish Sea.—Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Barfoot</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">F. J. Marlow</span>,
+Mrs. <span class="smcap">Marlow</span>, and several other ladies and gentlemen.</p>
+
+<p>156.—1883, October 15.—Bristol Channel.</p>
+
+<p>157.—1885, August 16.—Between Rödö and Melö Isles,
+Nordland, Norway, at lat. 66° 35′ N., long. 13° 21′ E.—Some
+lads.</p>
+
+<p>158.—1886, August.—Near Kingston Point on the Hudson,
+New Jersey, U. S. A.—Two young men.</p>
+
+<p>159.—1886, August.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.</p>
+
+<p>160.—1886, August.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.—<span class="smcap">Jonah.</span></p>
+
+<p>161.—1889, May.—In the common track from Liverpool to
+Philadelphia.—A captain.</p>
+
+<p>162.—1890, June.—Near Long Island, not far from the coast
+of Connecticut.—Captain <span class="smcap">David Tuits</span> of the schooner <i>Anny
+Harper</i>.</p>
+
+<hr class="tb">
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page495">[495]</span></p>
+
+<h3><b>A. Fables, Fictions, Exaggerations and Errors.</b></h3>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report1">1</a>). 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 (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>). The Norwegian fishermen looked
+upon its coming as a bad sign, for the fish would leave the coast
+(<a href="#Report61">61</a>). 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
+(<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>). The eating of cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs
+(<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>) 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” (<a href="#Page111">p. 111</a>).</p>
+
+<p>It is also said to enclose ships by laying itself round them in
+a circle; and to upset the ship (<a href="#Page109">p. 109</a>) 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 (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>,
+<a href="#Page227">p. 227</a>). <span class="smcap">Arend Berndsen</span> tells us that sea-serpents, as well as
+spermwhales, often run down whole ships with all aboard (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>),
+and some north sailors know that it had occasionally thrown itself
+across a yacht of several hundred tons and dragged it to the bottom
+(<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>). Mr. Lee has sufficiently shown in his <i>Sea Monsters
+Unmasked</i>, 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 (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>, <a href="#Page108">p. 108</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>).</p>
+
+<p>It is not astonishing that by such people the sea-serpent is called
+dangerous to seamen (<a href="#Page108">p. 108</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>) and that they are very much
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page496">[496]</span>afraid of it (<a href="#Report7">7</a>, <a href="#Report14">14</a>,
+<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report65">65</a>,
+<a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>,
+<a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), and will never forget to take with them asa foetida or
+castoreum, the smell of which the animal cannot bear (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Page134">p.
+134</a>, <a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>) Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a
+sea-serpent approaches, and to avoid rowing, because the least noise
+attracts the animal (<a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>). Some believe that it casts its skin,
+as common snakes do (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>), 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 (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>). 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
+(<a href="#Report103">103</a>). 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 (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>, <a href="#Report21">21</a>), about 320 feet
+(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>),
+six hundred and seventy feet (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>), about a fourth of an
+English mile (<a href="#Report79">79</a>), about 750 feet (<a href="#Report85">85</a>), from six hundred to 800
+ells, i. e. from 1340 to 1780 feet (<a href="#Report103">103</a>), more than 500 feet (<a href="#Report130">130</a>)
+or half a mile long (<a href="#Report156">156</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The thickness too is sometimes exaggerated (twenty feet, <a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>);
+the head is described in some instances to be as large as a foering
+boat, i. e. about twenty feet long (<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), or twelve feet long
+(<a href="#Report126">126</a>), or perhaps ten feet long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), and the tail fully a hundred
+and fifty feet in length (<a href="#Report146">146</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). It may
+be that the alleged serpentine shape of the animal caused some
+writers to give scales to the sea-serpent (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), or that the distance
+was too large for a closer examination, so that the observers
+thought it might have a hard skin (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), or a rough coating (<a href="#Report41">41</a>,
+<a href="#Report51">51</a>), or even a scaly one (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), or it was the fear which made them
+see scales (<a href="#Report157">157</a>) which in reality did not exist. Scales are also occasionally
+delineated (<a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>) though the eye-witness does not mention
+them, and even believed it belonged to the eel-tribe (<a href="#Report63">63</a>). No
+wonder that such a terrible animal is often called Leviathan (<a href="#Page111">p.
+111</a>), an animal which raises its coils so high above the water,
+that a ship can go through one of them (<a href="#Page109">p. 109</a>). Norwegian fishermen
+really believe that the animal sometimes comes on land as <span class="smcap">Olaus
+Magnus</span> (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>) and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>) tell us, and as is stated
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page497">[497]</span>afterwards, when even distinct traces of it were said to have been
+found in the fields (<a href="#Report96">96</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In my opinion it is an error to believe that there are <i>two</i> species
+of sea-serpents (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>) or that there are several species of them
+all belonging to the same genus (<a href="#Report112">112</a>). And also that the animal
+ever takes a boat for one of the other sex, which induces it to
+follow the boat (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report158">158</a>), or
+that it may ever destroy them, even after being struck with a
+boat-hook (<a href="#Report112">112</a>). That the shores of Norway are the only in Europe,
+which are frequented by this monster (<a href="#Page135">p. 135</a>) is a positive error,
+since the animal is known to appear also on the coasts of Great
+Britain, France, and even in the Mediterranean.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>). The cetacean tail delineated
+in <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a> is explained in <a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>, the fish tail of <a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>
+in <a href="#Report63">n<sup>o</sup>. 63</a>. 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 (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), or of a blue
+colour (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), or as blue as possible (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), and that of the back of
+a dark green (<a href="#Report30">30</a>), these definitions are the result of optical illusion,
+or the observers may have been colour-blind.</p>
+
+<p>The twelve fins (<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>) 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 <a href="#Report129">n<sup>o</sup>. 129</a>.—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
+(<a href="#Report146">146</a>), and that it seemed to be of a gelatinous, that is flabby,
+substance (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), and that the motion of it was apparently cork-screw-like
+(<a href="#Report155">155</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In no case the antenna, ending in a crescent (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>) or the
+ridge of fins (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), or the discolouring of the water (<a href="#Report131">131</a>) observed,
+have anything to do with the animal or with its appearance.</p>
+
+<p>But let us now pass to the <i>facts</i> which may be inferred from
+what is reported of the animal.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page498">[498]</span></p>
+
+<h3><b>B. Facts.</b></h3>
+
+<p>These are so numerous that I am obliged to bring them together
+under several heads.</p>
+
+<h4>1. EXTERNAL CHARACTERS.</h4>
+
+<h5>a. Dimensions.</h5>
+
+<p><i>The length of what was visible of the animal</i> above the surface
+of the water was estimated to be: from sixteen to eighteen feet
+(<a href="#Report25">25</a>), several meters (<a href="#Report136">136</a>), about twenty feet (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), from twenty
+to thirty feet (<a href="#Report35">35</a>), thirty feet (<a href="#Report113">113</a>,
+<a href="#Report123">123</a>), about thirty-six feet (<a href="#Report92">92</a>),
+about forty feet (<a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>,
+<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>,
+<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>), forty-five feet
+(<a href="#Report137">137</a>), between forty and fifty feet (<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report147">147</a>), fifty feet at least
+(<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>),
+about fifty-five feet (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), from fifty to sixty
+feet (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), sixty feet (<a href="#Report57">57</a>,
+<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>,
+<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>), seventy-five
+feet (<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), eighty feet at least (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), a hundred and fifty feet
+(<a href="#Report154">154</a>), 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 <a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>. 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
+<a href="#Report154">n<sup>o</sup>. 154</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>whole length of the animal</i> is spoken of as: great (<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>),
+large (<a href="#Report119">119</a>), very large (<a href="#Report2">2</a>), considerable (<a href="#Report107">107</a>), immense (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), astonishing
+(<a href="#Report1">1</a>), enormous (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), as a yacht of fifty tons (<a href="#Report8">8</a>), three
+or four times larger than the ship (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), eighteen feet (<a href="#Report14">14</a>), from
+fifty to fifty-five feet (<a href="#Report19">19</a>), from fifty to sixty feet (<a href="#Report18">18</a>), sixty feet
+(<a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report28">28</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>), at least sixty feet
+(<a href="#Report82">82</a>), more than sixty feet (<a href="#Report29">29</a>),
+from sixty to seventy feet (<a href="#Report24">24</a>), from sixty to eighty feet (<a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>),
+about seventy feet (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), not above seventy feet (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), at least
+seventy feet (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), from seventy to eighty feet (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), from seventy
+to one hundred feet (<a href="#Report74">74</a>), seventy five feet (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>), about eighty
+feet (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), from eighty to ninety feet (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>), about ninety feet
+(<a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>), one hundred feet (<a href="#Report17">17</a>,
+<a href="#Report33">33</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>,
+<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report135">135</a>),
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page499">[499]</span>at least a
+hundred feet (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), more than one hundred feet (<a href="#Report95">95</a>),
+greater than the animal of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, consequently probably
+more than one hundred feet (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), one hundred and twenty
+feet (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and thirty
+feet (<a href="#Report105">105</a>), one hundred and thirty feet (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), about one hundred
+and fifty feet (<a href="#Report65">65</a>), from one hundred and fifty to two hundred
+feet (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy
+feet (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report144">144</a>), one hundred and eighty feet (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), one hundred
+and ninety feet (<a href="#Report52">52</a>), about 200 feet (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>,
+<a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>,
+<a href="#Report157">157</a>), more than two hundred feet (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>, <a href="#Report30">30</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>), and though
+estimated by the eye witnesses (see <a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>) 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 <i>a fact</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>length of the head</i> is, according to the different declarations:
+nearly as that of a man (<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>), about the size of the crown of
+a hat (<a href="#Report42">42</a>), larger than that of any dog (<a href="#Report38">38</a>), as large as a hat
+(<a href="#Report94">94</a>), about as that of a pail (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), full as large as a four gallon
+keg (<a href="#Report42">42</a>), equal to a small cask (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), nearly as large as the head
+of a horse (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), rather larger than that of a horse (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), two feet
+long (<a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>), of the size of a ten gallon keg (<a href="#Report48">48</a>,
+<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>),
+as large as a barrel (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), as large as a flour barrel (<a href="#Report158">158</a>), of the
+size of a 54 gallon hogshead (<a href="#Report152A">152 A</a>), long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), with regard to
+its thickness not very long (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), long in proportion to the throat
+(<a href="#Report95">95</a>), about six feet in length (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), about six or eight feet long
+(<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), as large as a little boat (<a href="#Report32">32</a>), colossal (<a href="#Report115">115</a>). The head
+of the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> cannot
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page500">[500]</span>have been longer than three feet, as the neck is estimated sixteen
+inches in diameter, though it is called long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>) or even ten feet
+long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>); evidently a portion of the neck was included in the
+calculation. The head of the individual seen by the officers of the
+royal yacht <i>Osborne</i> must have been from eight to nine feet long,
+as its breadth is estimated at six feet (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>length of the neck</i> is said to be: long (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>, <a href="#Report124">124</a>),
+enormous (<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>), a length of ten feet was visible (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), about
+eighteen feet (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), about twenty feet (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), at least twenty feet
+(<a href="#Report160">160</a>), the neck together with the body fifty or forty-five feet, i. e.
+the neck alone must have been about twenty-five feet (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), about
+twenty five feet (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), at least twenty five feet (<a href="#Report152">152</a>), about thirty
+feet (<a href="#Report151">151</a>), about sixty feet (<a href="#Report145">145</a>); “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 (<a href="#Report148">148</a>). The long neck is delineated in <a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">48</a>
+and <a href="#Fig49">49</a>.</p>
+
+<p><i>The length of the trunk</i> 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. <i>Daedalus</i> 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 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>).
+Consequently we may decide that the individual observed by the
+Captain and the surgeon of the <i>Nestor</i>, who saw the animal swimming
+evidently with its neck contracted, had a neck and a
+trunk each of about forty feet (<a href="#Report146">146</a>). In the same way we may
+conclude that the individual observed by the captain and crew of
+the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report145">145</a>) and that seen by the officers of the royal yacht
+<i>Obsorne</i> (<a href="#Report148">148</a>) had both a neck and a trunk of each about sixty feet.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>tail</i> delineated in <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, has only three times been actually
+estimated. Once it is called thirty five feet long (<a href="#Report8">8</a>), then forty
+feet long (<a href="#Report162">162</a>), and once a hundred and fifty feet (<a href="#Report146">146</a>). 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,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page501">[501]</span>neck and trunk together. The length of the individual observed by
+the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> 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
+<span class="smcap">Egede</span> and <span class="smcap">Bing</span> did not observe them, because the middle part
+of the whole length remained hidden from them (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>). Captain
+<span class="smcap">Hope</span> states (<a href="#Report119">119</a>) 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 <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> says “also a great length of tail” he
+seems to me to have included in his estimation a portion of the
+animal’s trunk (<a href="#Report129">129</a>). The individuals seen by the officers of the
+<i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report145">145</a>), and of the <i>Kätie</i> (<a href="#Report154">154</a>), undoubtedly
+had a tail of about one hundred or even of one hundred
+and twenty feet in length. Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> called the tail enormous
+(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p>
+
+<p>Twice (<a href="#Report14">14</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>) it has been stated that the <i>four flappers</i> were
+seen together; the two <i>fore flappers</i> were seen four times (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>,
+<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>, see also <a href="#Page250">p. 250</a>);
+and delineated in <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig36">36</a>, and <a href="#Fig45">45</a>;
+it is possible that the two <i>hind flappers</i> were twice seen (<a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>),
+and delineated in <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>. Four times one of the fore-flappers was
+visible above the surface (<a href="#Report106A">106 A</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>) and twice one of
+the hindflappers (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>). The foreflappers are called broad and
+large (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), frightful, several feet in length (<a href="#Report121">121</a>), larger than the
+posterior (<a href="#Report119">119</a>), about fifteen feet in length (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and of immense
+dimensions (<a href="#Report154">154</a>); judging from the drawing illustrating this last
+instance (<a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>), I should estimate its length also at fifteen feet.
+Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> 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 (<a href="#Report106A">106 A</a>). The hindflappers are said to
+be smaller than the anterior (<a href="#Report119">119</a>), and about ten feet long (<a href="#Report154">154</a>).</p>
+
+<p>As to the <i>breadth of the head</i>, 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 (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), where the head was
+connected with the body (read neck) it was a little larger than
+the body (read neck) (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), the head was rather larger than
+the body (read neck) (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), much smaller than the body (<a href="#Report69">69</a>),
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page502">[502]</span>narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently the animal had contracted
+its neck, so that this latter grew much thicker (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), about two
+feet in diameter (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), about three feet in circumference (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), at
+least three feet in circumference (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), about as thick as a ten
+gallon keg (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), about six feet thick (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>neck</i> is somewhat smaller than the head (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), as is also
+stated in other accounts: smaller than the head (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), much thinner
+than the head (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), comparatively narrow (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and may be two
+and a half feet in circumference (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), just behind the head sixteen
+inches thick (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), about the thickness of a man’s waist (<a href="#Report124">124</a>),
+about two feet in diameter (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), or about four feet thick (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>thickness of the animal</i> 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 (<a href="#Report147">147</a>), about twelve inches (<a href="#Report113">113</a>),
+about fourteen inches (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), fifteen inches (<a href="#Report19">19</a>), as thick as a half-barrel
+(<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>,
+<a href="#Report63">63</a>), as thick as a common firkin (<a href="#Report63">63</a>),
+about twenty two inches (<a href="#Report17">17</a>), as thick as a barrel (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>),
+as thick as a man’s body (<a href="#Report46">46</a>), as thick as a wine barrel (<a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>),
+as thick as a stout man (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads
+(<a href="#Report12">12</a>), three feet (<a href="#Report17">17</a>), as thick as a sloop’s boom (<a href="#Report24">24</a>), three to four
+feet in circumference (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), as thick as a full-grown ox (<a href="#Report79">79</a>), about
+two feet in diameter (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), inconsiderable (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), as thick as a large
+horse (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), he is the thickest just behind the head (<a href="#Report103">103</a>), several
+ells (<a href="#Report115">115</a>), as thick as our main mast (<a href="#Report135">135</a>), thirty feet from its
+head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat
+(<a href="#Report126">126</a>), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the
+back (<a href="#Report121">121</a>), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), the
+shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (<a href="#Report122">122</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>tail-root</i> had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet
+(<a href="#Report146">146</a>), but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a
+few instances that it was actually observed.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>tail ends</i> in a point (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig20">fig. 20</a>), and consequently is
+mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page503">[503]</span>said to be as pointed as a boat-hook (<a href="#Report8">8</a>),
+or very pointed (<a href="#Report12">12</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>Comparison of the dimensions.</i> 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 <i>Daedalus</i> that the vertical diameter of the neck was about
+1¹⁄₃ feet. From the officers of the <i>Osborne</i> 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 <i>Daedalus</i> 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 <i>Osborne</i>
+individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to the
+foreflapper in the <i>Daedalus</i> 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 <i>Osborne</i>. As to the question
+whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done
+hitherto? I answer without hesitation <i>no</i>, 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 <i>Osborne</i> had a neck of about
+53 feet. As the size of the individual of the <i>Daedalus</i> was
+about one third of that of the <i>Osborne</i>, its neck was about
+17¹⁄₂ feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the <i>Daedalus</i>
+individual were five feet in length. The distance from the
+foreflapper to the hind flapper in the <i>Daedalus</i> animal measured
+about 20 feet, consequently the <i>trunk</i> measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that
+the distance from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the <i>Osborne</i>
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page504">[504]</span>animal must have been about 60 feet, and the length of its <i>trunk</i>
+about 67 feet. Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck,
+and the trunk, we have for the <i>Daedalus</i> animal 43 feet. This
+individual swam with its body in a straight line; “sixty feet at
+least were visible <i>à fleur d’eau</i>” are the words of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>,
+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 <i>Osborne</i>
+measured about 120 feet. Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> who had the opportunity
+to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position,
+states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (<a href="#Report119">119</a>). 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 <i>Osborne</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions
+only from the reports of the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> and of the
+<i>Osborne</i>, 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 <i>lengths</i>
+of the portions of the body could easily be estimated. And the
+latter saw the animal just from behind, so that the different
+<i>breadths</i> of the animal could be seen; moreover the dimensions of
+the foreflappers were visible.</p>
+
+<p>I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s
+proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page505">[505]</span></p>
+
+<table class="dimensions">
+
+<colgroup>
+<col class="wauto">
+<col span="10" class="w03em">
+</colgroup>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Length of head.</td>
+<td class="dim">³⁄₄</td>
+<td class="dim">1</td>
+<td class="dim">2</td>
+<td class="dim">3</td>
+<td class="dim">4</td>
+<td class="dim">5</td>
+<td class="dim">6</td>
+<td class="dim">7</td>
+<td class="dim">8</td>
+<td class="dim">9</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Length of neck.</td>
+<td class="dim">4</td>
+<td class="dim">6</td>
+<td class="dim">11²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">17¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">23¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">29¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">35¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">41¹⁄₆</td>
+<td class="dim">47</td>
+<td class="dim">53</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Length of trunk.</td>
+<td class="dim">4⁷⁄₁₂</td>
+<td class="dim">7¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">15</td>
+<td class="dim">22¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">29²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">37¹⁄₆</td>
+<td class="dim">44²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">52¹⁄₉</td>
+<td class="dim">59¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">67</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Length of tail.</td>
+<td class="dim">8²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">13¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">26²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">40</td>
+<td class="dim">53¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">66²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">80</td>
+<td class="dim">93¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">106²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">120</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Total length.</td>
+<td class="dim">18</td>
+<td class="dim">27²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">55¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">83</td>
+<td class="dim">110²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">138¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">166</td>
+<td class="dim">193²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">221¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">249</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">From occiput to foreflappers.</td>
+<td class="dim">4¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">6²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">13¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">20</td>
+<td class="dim">26²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">33¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">40</td>
+<td class="dim">46²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">53¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">60</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Breadth of head.</td>
+<td class="dim">⁵⁄₁₂</td>
+<td class="dim">²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">1¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">2</td>
+<td class="dim">2²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">3¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">4</td>
+<td class="dim">4²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">5¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">6</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Breadth of neck.</td>
+<td class="dim">³⁄₁₂</td>
+<td class="dim">⁴⁄₉</td>
+<td class="dim">⁸⁄₉</td>
+<td class="dim">1¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">1²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">2¹⁄₆</td>
+<td class="dim">2²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">3¹⁄₉</td>
+<td class="dim">3¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">4</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Breadth of trunk.</td>
+<td class="dim">1¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">2¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">4²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">7</td>
+<td class="dim">9¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">11²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">14</td>
+<td class="dim">16¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">18²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">21</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Length of foreflapper.</td>
+<td class="dim">1</td>
+<td class="dim">1²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">3¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">5</td>
+<td class="dim">6²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">8¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">10</td>
+<td class="dim">11²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">13¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">15</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="descr">Length of hindflapper.</td>
+<td class="dim">⁷⁄₉</td>
+<td class="dim">1¹⁄₆</td>
+<td class="dim">2¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">3¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">4¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">5¹⁄₂</td>
+<td class="dim">6²⁄₃</td>
+<td class="dim">7⁵⁄₆</td>
+<td class="dim">9</td>
+<td class="dim">10</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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!</p>
+
+
+<h5>b. Form.</h5>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report60">60</a>),
+or a most remarkable fish (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), or a very large fish (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), and to
+be eel-shaped (<a href="#Report33">33</a>), or to resemble a large eel (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>). Some
+persons say it appeared to be of a uniform size (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), and others
+that it gradually tapers towards the two extremes (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), and appeared
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page506">[506]</span>round
+(<a href="#Report43">43</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report63">63</a>). Generally
+it is compared with a snake (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>,
+<a href="#Report25">25</a>, <a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report37">37</a>,
+<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>,
+<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report135">135</a>,
+<a href="#Report152">152</a>) or serpent (<a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>,
+<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>,
+<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>,
+<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>,
+<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report147">147</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>). Curious is the statement of one
+that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without, however, having
+ever heard of such an animal (<a href="#Report132">132</a>)! Remarkable is the opinion of
+an officer of the <i>Daedalus</i>: 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 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). Remarkable
+too is <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> 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 (<a href="#Report14">14</a>). Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> 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 (<a href="#Report119">119</a>). In my opinion the comparison
+of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>, of the <i>Osborne</i>, 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 (<a href="#Report148">148</a>, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>shape of the head</i> has also been described in different ways.
+There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (<a href="#Report31">31</a>);
+here it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that
+it was as round as a flour-barrel (<a href="#Report158">158</a>, evidently seen in front), and
+bullet-shaped (<a href="#Report148">148</a>, seen from behind, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>). The head is also
+said to appear like a triangular rock (<a href="#Report74">74</a>), or like a nun buoy (<a href="#Report131">131</a>),
+or like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at
+our <a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another
+instance the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon
+cask (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat
+oval”. Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> asserts that the shape of the head was
+not unlike pictures of the dragon he has often seen (<a href="#Report149">149</a>); the
+explanation of this curious comparison I have given in treating of
+his report. The head, says somebody, resembled the end of a log
+(<a href="#Report150">150</a>), and: the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a
+snake’s (<a href="#Report150">150</a>); but he saw the animal in late evening twilight.
+But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble that of a snake (<a href="#Page137">p.137</a>,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page507">[507]</span> <a href="#Report29">29</a>,
+<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>,
+<a href="#Report121">121</a>), or serpent (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>,
+<a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>),
+or something that of a rattle snake (<a href="#Report39">39</a>); and evidently seen in a
+somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped much like
+that of a sea-turtle (<a href="#Report38">38</a>). 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 <i>Daedalus</i>, too, compared
+it with that of a snake, their drawing (<a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>) 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
+(<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), that of a walrus (<a href="#Report129">129</a>),
+that of a seal (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>), and
+that of a sea-lion (<a href="#Report36">36</a>). 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
+(<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report124">124</a>). We observe that the head is compared with <i>seven</i> different
+head-shapes, <i>five</i> 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. <span class="smcap">Kriukof’s</span>
+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 <i>Zalophus californianus</i> has some resemblance to a snake’s.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>neck</i> being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page508">[508]</span>(74), or of a common snake’s (<a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>), and tapering small
+from the head to the body (<a href="#Report121">121</a>). 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.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>trunk</i> must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may
+be inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably
+broader than the head (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), from the shoulders it tapered
+towards the tail (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>), the breadth diminished remarkably
+towards the tail (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), from the shoulder (estimated to
+be about twenty feet) diminishing towards the tail to about twenty
+four inches (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), evidently the end of the latter was hidden under
+water. Moreover, the body is said to be round (<a href="#Report102">102</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>,
+<a href="#Report117">117</a>), even as a snake’s (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), and on one occasion, when seen from
+behind, is said to be developed in form like that of a gigantic
+turtle (<a href="#Report148">148</a>, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>), 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” (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>);
+for such an animal has rumps, and consequently also thighs and
+hind-limbs.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>tail</i> itself is cylindrical (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), like that of a snake (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), and
+tapering to its end (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>,
+<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>). Twice the animal’s
+head and tail were plainly visible above the surface (<a href="#Report135">135</a>,
+<a href="#Report162">162</a>), 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 <a href="#Report152A">n<sup>o</sup>. 152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>; the
+observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.</p>
+
+<p><i>Position and shape of flappers.</i> <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> said that the animal
+had two flappers on the fore-part of the body (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), but the
+drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, his brother missionary (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>), is not accurate,
+as the animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page509">[509]</span>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. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>. Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell</span> asserts that the flappers are
+described to resemble those of turtles (<a href="#Page250">p. 250</a>); 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 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> states that the flappers were
+somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than
+the posterior (<a href="#Report110">110</a>). According to the <a href="#Fig36">figures 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a> and <a href="#Fig50">50</a> on the
+right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion. In the <a href="#Fig36">figures
+36</a> and <a href="#Fig45">45</a> the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the animal
+of the <i>Daedalus</i>, 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 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). Of course they were invisible to <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and <span class="smcap">Bing</span>,
+as the middle part of the animal’s body was hidden under water
+(<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>fore-head</i> is described as high and broad (<a href="#Page144">p. 144</a>) and flat
+(<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>,
+<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>,
+<a href="#Report157">157</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>), or depressed (<a href="#Report56">56</a>) and
+once Mr. <span class="smcap">Senior</span> thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow,
+a bull dog appearance (<a href="#Report149">149</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>snout or muzzle</i> is called long and sharp (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>), sharp
+(<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>),
+tapering to a point (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), rather pointed (<a href="#Report91">91</a>),
+pointed (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), though the accompanying figure (<a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>) contradicts
+this, pointed like that of a porpoise (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), an elongated termination
+(<a href="#Report148">148</a>), not pointed but bluntly round (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), not pointed but
+seemed rather blunt (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows
+and horses have (<a href="#Page144">p. 144</a>), evidently with the nostrils opened as
+wide as possible, rather blunt (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), apparently blunt (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), bluff
+(<a href="#Report150">150</a>), obtuse (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), the head, estimated at eight or six feet long,
+consequently at five or four feet broad, tapered to the size of a
+horse’s (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), the snout being somewhat similar in form to that of
+a seal (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>upperjaw</i> projects considerably (<a href="#Report118">118</a>); we may safely read
+projects.</p>
+
+<p><i>Under the jaw</i> there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch
+(<a href="#Report126">126</a>). This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible
+as it even occurs in allied animals.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page510">[510]</span></p>
+
+<p>The <i>nostrils</i> are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal
+is able to close them; they are, however, delineated (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig24">fig.
+24</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>), or indicated with a crescentic mark (<a href="#Fig80">fig. 80</a>), and
+mentioned to have been distinctly visible (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), and described as
+large (<a href="#Page180">p. 180</a>). 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 (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>). 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” (<a href="#Report143">143</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Of the <i>whiskers</i> <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> 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 (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>). 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” (<a href="#Report103">103</a>). Were
+these whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that
+of a seal (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>), with that of a walrus (<a href="#Report129">129</a>), or with that of a
+sea-lion (<a href="#Report36">36</a>)? I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency,
+they are not mentioned in the reports.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>mouth</i> is transverse (<a href="#Report56">56</a>) and large (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>); it is rarely mentioned,
+but once stated to have been distinctly visible (<a href="#Report118">118</a>); once
+it was estimated at fifteen inches (<a href="#Report56">56</a>) (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! (<a href="#Report41">41</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>eyes</i> were not always seen; it may be that the distance was
+too large, or that the animal kept them closed (<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>,
+<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>). They are mentioned as to have been only visible in
+<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>,
+<a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>; but sometimes we get a short
+description. They are round (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>), about the size of an ox’s
+(<a href="#Report48">48</a>), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in diameter (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), about <a href="#Report5">5</a> inches in diameter
+(<a href="#Report92">92</a>), large (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>,
+<a href="#Report122">122</a>), large as a plate (<a href="#Report32">32</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>),
+disproportionately large (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), broad (<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>), very large (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), relatively
+large (<a href="#Report112">112</a>). 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 <a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a> and <a href="#Report102">102</a>, 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 (<a href="#Report103">103</a>), generally, however, glossy
+(<a href="#Report122">122</a>), brilliant (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), flaming
+(<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), sharp (<a href="#Report44">44</a>), very bright
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page511">[511]</span>(<a href="#Report48">48</a>), and glittering (<a href="#Report63">63</a>,
+<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>). It seems that the eyes, seen
+in their axis are dark (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>), or black (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>), 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 (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>). We also conclude that when seen in the axis and
+reflecting the daylight by their <i>tapetum lucidum</i> they glisten like
+those of a cat (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), or have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity
+(<a href="#Report143">143</a>), and this glimmer or glistening was said to be red (<a href="#Report33">33</a>), or
+reddish like a burning fire (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), or crimson (<a href="#Report92">92</a>). The eye is delineated
+in <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig24">24</a>, <a href="#Fig27">27</a>,
+<a href="#Fig28">28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>, <a href="#Fig31">31</a>, <a href="#Fig36">36</a>.—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 (<a href="#Report48">48</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report60">60</a>). It is easy to understand
+that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), and that
+another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (<a href="#Report149">149</a>).
+This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig26">26</a>). The situation
+of the eyes is over the jaws (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), and nearer to the mouth of the
+animal than to the back of the head (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Neither <i>ear-holes</i> nor <i>external ears</i> 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”
+(<a href="#Report143">143</a>).</p>
+
+<p>There is a slight hollow at the <i>top of the head</i> (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>features</i> resemble those of an alligator (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), but made on
+others the impression as being those of a seal (<a href="#Report29">29</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>c. Skin.</h5>
+
+<p>Except in two cases (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>) when the animal was very near,
+scales are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (<a href="#Report9">9</a>,
+<a href="#Report10">10</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report13">13</a>, &amp;c., &amp;c., &amp;c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales
+(<a href="#Report149">149</a>), altogether devoid of scales (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), smooth (<a href="#Report13">13</a>,
+<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>,
+<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>,
+<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>,
+<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Fig27">fig. 27</a>, <a href="#Fig28">28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>,
+<a href="#Fig30">30</a>, <a href="#Fig31">31</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>), like a mirror (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>),
+shining (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), shining strongly
+(<a href="#Report117">117</a>), with a very bright reflexion (<a href="#Report46">46</a>), looking similar to an eel’s
+(<a href="#Report59">59</a>). But an animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, <i>must
+have a hairy skin</i>. Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page512">[512]</span>appeared rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and
+still more: that it is as woolly as a seal’s (<a href="#Report8">8</a>). 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.</p>
+
+<h4>2. INTERNAL OR ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.</h4>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), as if the observer watched an opportunity
+to see it opening its mouth. Though we have several
+accounts mentioning the animal opening its mouth (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>,
+<a href="#Report65">65</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>,
+<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>), <i>teeth</i> are not always seen, either
+because the distance was too great, or because the position was
+not favourable. Teeth are delineated (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>); they are mentioned in <a href="#Report65">65</a>,
+<a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, described as
+formidable in <a href="#Report109">109</a>, and as jagged in <a href="#Report118">118</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Of the animal’s <i>tongue</i> 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” (<a href="#Report43">43</a>, 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” (<a href="#Report44">44</a>); “he threw out his tongue
+about two feet in length, the end of it appeared to me to resemble
+a fisherman’s harpoon” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “he raised his tongue several times
+perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “he threw
+out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from
+his jaws, the end of it resembled a harpoon” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “he threw his
+tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall
+again” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “the colour of his tongue was a light brown” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page513">[513]</span></p>
+
+<h4>3. COLOURS, INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS.</h4>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>), a light
+ash-colour (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), grey and yellow (<a href="#Report147">147</a>),
+pale yellowish (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), or yellow (<a href="#Report71">71</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report65">65</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>,
+<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report72">72</a>), that of one a few yards distant,
+light fawn coloured (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), at about thirty feet distance the colour
+seemed to be a very dark grey (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), still farther a greyish brown (<a href="#Report79">79</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The dark colour of the upper part seems to vary a little,
+as may be seen from the following appellations: dark (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>,
+<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>,
+<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>,
+<a href="#Report154">154</a>), very dark (<a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>),
+somewhat dark (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), dark dull (<a href="#Report130">130</a>), evidently a chocolate brown,
+or mahogany brown, or chestnut brown, for it was compared with
+a red snake (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), chocolate colour (<a href="#Report44">44</a>), dark chocolate colour (<a href="#Report48">48</a>),
+colour of a pilot fish (<a href="#Report151">151</a>), old mahogany brown (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), dirty brown
+(<a href="#Report121">121</a>), brown (<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>,
+<a href="#Report144">144</a>), deep brown (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), dark brown
+(<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>,
+<a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>,
+<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report135">135</a>), blackish
+brown (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), approaching to black (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), nearly black (<a href="#Report41">41</a>,
+<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>)
+almost black (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), blackish (<a href="#Report65">65</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>,
+<a href="#Report117">117</a>), black (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>,
+<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>,
+<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), as black as coal-tar
+(<a href="#Report152">152</a>). The tints of the figures also evidently represent a dark
+colour (<a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>, <a href="#Fig41">41</a>,
+<a href="#Fig45">45</a>, <a href="#Fig46">46</a>). By some witnesses the colour
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page514">[514]</span>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
+(<a href="#Report122">122</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report144">144</a>), spotted, and
+with light flames, or maculated, with distinctly visible light spots
+like a turtle or a lackered table (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>), apparently shaded with
+light colours (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), streaked with white in irregular streaks (<a href="#Report97">97</a>),
+on an under ground of fawn colour there were large brown spots
+behind the shoulders (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), maculated with large white spots (<a href="#Report130">130</a>),
+covered with several white spots (<a href="#Report131">131</a>), brown with black spots
+(<a href="#Report162">162</a>). See also <a href="#Fig37">figg. 37</a> and <a href="#Fig38">38</a>.</p>
+
+<p>In some individuals there is a black ring round the eye (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>,
+<a href="#Report29">29</a>), and the region of the mouth is also black, so that they resemble
+those horses which we call moorish heads or blackfaces (<a href="#Page131">p.
+131</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The sides of the underjaw seem to be very light coloured:
+white (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>,
+<a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), as is also the throat: whitish
+(<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>,
+<a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), yellow (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), muddy white (<a href="#Report56">56</a>),
+yellowish white (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), brownish white (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), light coloured (<a href="#Report126">126</a>),
+white (<a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report144">144</a>), “the underpart of its head appeared nearly white”
+(<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “several feet of its belly” (read throat) “which were visible
+appeared nearly white” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); very remarkable is the supposition of
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span>: “I suppose and do believe that the whole
+of his belly was nearly white” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), this really seems to be the
+case, for we read in <a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a> that the tail is longitudinally divided
+into two sections, white and black, and in <a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a> 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 <a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>.</p>
+
+<p>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 <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a> and <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, will ever
+be found to come up to reality.</p>
+
+<p>The representation of the colours in <a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page515">[515]</span></p>
+
+<h4>4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE.</h4>
+
+<p>It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and
+that others have not.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report135">135</a>); at the back of the head (<a href="#Fig17">figg. 17</a>,
+<a href="#Fig24">24</a>, <a href="#Report102">n<sup>o</sup>. 102</a>), which no doubt means just behind the occiput. Further:
+on the neck (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>, <a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>,
+<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>,
+<a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>), from the back of the head a mane commenced (<a href="#Report91">91</a>),
+just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further
+backwards (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), close behind the head a mane commences along
+the neck (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), the
+head was provided with a mane hanging down (<a href="#Report152">152</a> <span class="allsmcap">A</span>); evidently
+the mane extends from the head over the whole length of the neck
+and the trunk (<a href="#Report18">18</a>? <a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">fig. 29</a>). The mane near the head is
+long (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), tolerably long
+(<a href="#Report92">92</a>), two feet long (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), and
+all along the neck and back: not very long (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), that it is of
+some length, we must suppose, for it is said to wash about to
+and fro in the water (<a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), and to spread to left and to
+right floating on the water (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), when the animal swims. The
+colour of the mane seems to be white (<a href="#Report9">9</a>) when dried up by the
+sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the body
+(<a href="#Report102">102</a>), brown (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>). The mane resembles that of a horse
+(<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, <a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>,
+<a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>) or rather seaweed (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>,
+<a href="#Report135">135</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Probably a mane was present in <a href="#Report51">n<sup>o</sup>. 51</a>, and <a href="#Report74">74</a>; the back from
+afar, was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and
+had a rugged appearance; see also <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Twice it is stated that there was no mane (<a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, see also
+<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a> and <a href="#Fig27">27</a>), 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.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page516">[516]</span>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.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig72">
+<img src="images/illo516a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 72. Sea-serpent, side view, drawn from the descriptions.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig73">
+<img src="images/illo516b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 73. Sea-serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>I have ventured to
+draw the outlines of
+the animal from the
+descriptions. <a href="#Fig72">Fig. 72</a>
+represents it as seen
+from aside, with the
+divisions of the colours,
+and <a href="#Fig73">fig. 73</a> as seen
+on the back with the
+whiskers and the extension
+of the mane
+in the males.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page517">[517]</span></p>
+
+<h4>5. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.</h4>
+
+<h5>a. <span class="gesp2">Nutritory functions</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>1. <i>Eating, Food.</i>—Its eating cuttles, lobsters and all kind of
+sea-crabs (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), 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” (<a href="#Report35">35</a>). “It sometimes darted under water with the greatest
+velocity, as if seizing prey” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), 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” (<a href="#Report133">133</a>), and suddenly a sea-serpent appeared. “There
+was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore” (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), a sea-serpent
+soon made its appearance.</p>
+
+<p>Not only does the animal prey on fish, but, by way of change,
+also on sea-mammals. When on Behring’s Isle Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span> 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” (<a href="#Report36">36</a>). 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 <i>flesh</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>There is moreover no doubt, that sea-serpents sometimes prey
+on the smaller kind of whales, as dolphins, porpoises, grampuses,
+&amp;c. It sometimes appears suddenly amidst a shoal of these animals:
+“It was surrounded by porpoises and grampuses” (<a href="#Report56">56</a>); “There
+was an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual
+state of excitement”, no doubt because they were pursued by a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page518">[518]</span>sea-serpent
+(<a href="#Report97">97</a>); “an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the
+ship as if pursued” (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), 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 <span class="smcap">S. West</span>, who saw the
+sea-serpent “engaged with a whale” (<a href="#Report54">54</a>), and of Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span>,
+stating that a sea-serpent seized a whale on the belly (read pectoral
+fin) (<a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The manner of darting on its prey is well described in <a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>
+and <a href="#Report152">152</a>. I am convinced that the individuals in <a href="#Report154">n<sup>o</sup>. 154</a> and <a href="#Report106">106</a> a
+were diving for food in a playful manner, with their body and
+part of their tail floating on the surface.</p>
+
+<p>2. <i>Breathing.</i> 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 (<a href="#Report63">63</a>).
+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” (<a href="#Report83">83</a>),
+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”
+(<a href="#Report101">101</a>). The same noise is usually heard when a whale “spouts”
+(See <span class="smcap">H. Lee</span>, <i>Sea Fables Explained</i>, 1883, London), see also <a href="#Fig36">fig.
+36</a>. 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” (<a href="#Report74">74</a>); “near one extremity
+we saw what looked like foam or froth as though it was
+spouting water” (<a href="#Report114">114</a>). The breath of the animal is occasionally
+also seen condensed by the cold, forming little curling clouds, “it
+blew like a whale”, said <span class="smcap">Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>), “it squirted from its
+mouth a stream of foamy stuff, resembling long shavings from a
+pine plank” (<a href="#Report158">158</a>). 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”
+(<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p>3. <i>Excretion.</i> In one report we read that the animal left a greasy
+trail behind him (<a href="#Report156">156</a>). It is very probable that such a large sea-animal,
+provided as it is with rather a thick layer of bacon under
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page519">[519]</span>its skin, secretes a quantity of liquid fat, large enough to leave
+a greasy trail”; this will certainly happen when it is severely
+wounded.</p>
+
+<p>Without any doubt it is true that it may “emit a very strong
+odour” (<a href="#Report61">61</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>b. <span class="gesp2">Functions of the senses</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>1. <i>Feeling.</i>—Of course but little can be noticed about the
+animal’s feeling. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> 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, &amp;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, &amp;c., and also sea-serpents
+will on numerous occasions find their whiskers of great use
+for the purpose of feeling with them.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Page129">p. 129</a>, <a href="#Page133">p.
+133</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>); they even seem to be very sensible of the least wind.</p>
+
+<p>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
+(<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>).</p>
+
+<p>2. <i>Taste.</i> The taste of the animal is, of course, only to be known
+by the food it takes.</p>
+
+<p>3. <i>Smell.</i> 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 <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>
+(1840) would never forget to bring one of these drugs with them,
+to drive them away. (<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>, <a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>).</p>
+
+<p>As far as I know, zoologists accept three reasons why some
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page520">[520]</span>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.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Report4">4</a>. <i>Hearing.</i> 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”
+(<a href="#Report69">69</a>); “the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent
+approaches and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts
+it still more” (<a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>); “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” (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>); “on my coo-ee the fish started off seawards
+out of sight and under water” (<a href="#Report150">150</a>).</p>
+
+<p>5. <i>Sight.</i>—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 (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>,
+<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>,
+<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>,
+<a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p>
+
+<h5>c. <span class="gesp2">Functions of the muscular system</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>1. <i>Relative mobility of organs.</i> 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 (<a href="#Report103">103</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The head may be held at right angles with the neck (<a href="#Report70">70</a>, <a href="#Fig24">fig.
+24</a>). The animal can bend its neck in several directions, moving
+it like that of a swan (<a href="#Report124">124</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), or bent in a semi-circle
+(<a href="#Report115">115</a>). It can also turn its head a little sideways (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>,
+<a href="#Report93">93</a>). The swimming in vertical undulations is surely a proof of
+dorso-ventral flexibility. It has the power to hold its body in a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page521">[521]</span>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 (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>,
+<a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>,
+<a href="#Report154">154</a>). In this condition it may even swim (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>). These bunches
+according to its body-length, may be of the size of a barrel (<a href="#Report34">34</a>),
+or from six to seven feet from each other, and from three to four
+feet high (<a href="#Report154">154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). On some occasions it gave the impression
+of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), for there
+was no appearance of undulation; when the lumps sunk, other
+lumps did not rise in the intervals between them (<a href="#Report137">137</a>). Twice it
+is observed only with its head and its tail above water, the body
+slightly under (<a href="#Report135">135</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), and once casting itself backwards, and
+in doing so, its tail rose high above the water (<a href="#Report5">5</a>) so that the
+animal was bent dorsally in the form of an U or horse-shoe (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>); in turning twice immediately after each
+other or in playing, its body is bent in the form of the letter S
+(<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Fig37">fig. 37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">fig. 38</a>). Also it may play in circles (<a href="#Report39">39</a>). Once,
+seized by a spermwhale, evidently in its trunk, it wound itself
+laterally round the head and upperjaw of its attacker (<a href="#Report144">144</a>). Its
+tail is said to lash the water (<a href="#Report151">151</a>? <a href="#Report158">158</a>), and to wind itself up,
+and to rest for a moment on a part of the trunk (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>). In short
+it is as limber and active as an eel (<a href="#Report44">44</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report5">5</a>) 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”, <a href="#Report56">56</a>). 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” (<a href="#Report71">71</a>). It may also be that “at
+about six feet from the jaws there is a protuberance on its back
+like a small watercask” (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), or that “a kind of scroll, or tuft
+of loose skin, encircles the neck about two feet from the head” (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page522">[522]</span></p>
+
+<p>The flappers may be lifted up so high that they are occasionally
+visible above the surface (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>,
+<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>); when
+the animal is swimming with extreme rapidity, they may be raised
+still higher, so that they are almost entirely above the surface
+(<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>), but then they are not directed hindwards,
+but forwards, “they were turned to the contrary way”
+(<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). 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” (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and have “a semi-revolving
+motion” (<a href="#Report148">148</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report82">82</a>).</p>
+
+<p>2. <i>Motions.</i> Hitherto we have considered the animal by itself,
+let us now see how it moves in the water.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>first</i> 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” (<a href="#Report83">83</a>),
+“attention was first directed to it by the broken action of the
+water” (<a href="#Report126">126</a>). Apparently this happened also in the animal of Captain
+<span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> (<a href="#Report129">129</a>). In the <i>other</i> 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 (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>), even so high that the foreflappers became
+visible” (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>); “arising out of the depths of Ocean, stretches to
+the skies its enormous neck, masthead high” (<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>); “it raised
+itself slowly and gracefully from the deep” (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), “it suddenly
+stood quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of sixty
+feet” (<a href="#Report145">145</a>); “a head and neck rose out of the water to a height
+of about twenty or thirty feet (<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>, see also <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page523">[523]</span><a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">fig. 48</a>,
+<a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>). Once it struck a vessel in coming to the
+surface (<a href="#Report122">122</a>) so that it may be supposed that the animal had its
+eyes shut.</p>
+
+<p>Generally it swims with vertical undulations (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>,
+<a href="#Report10">10</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>,
+<a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, <a href="#Report23">23</a>,
+<a href="#Report28">28</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report30">30</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>,
+<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>,
+<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report65">65</a>,
+<a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report70">70</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report82">82</a>,
+<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>,
+<a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report113">113</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>,
+<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>,
+<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>,
+<a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>, see also the following figures
+<a href="#Fig24">24</a>, <a href="#Fig26">26</a>, <a href="#Fig27">27</a>, <a href="#Fig32">32</a>,
+<a href="#Fig33">33</a>, <a href="#Fig34">34</a>, <a href="#Fig35">35</a>, <a href="#Fig39">39</a>,
+<a href="#Fig47">47</a>, <a href="#Fig51">51</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), three
+(<a href="#Report113">113</a>), three to four (<a href="#Report138">138</a>), three to five (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), four or more (<a href="#Report139">139</a>),
+seven (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), not more than seven (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), seven or eight (<a href="#Report9">9</a>),
+not more than eight (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), at least ten (<a href="#Report85">85</a>), ten or twelve (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>),
+thirteen to fifteen (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), fifteen to twenty three (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), fourteen (<a href="#Report69">69</a>),
+several (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), twenty five (<a href="#Report2">2</a>). In our illustrations we find four (<a href="#Fig40">fig.
+40</a>, <a href="#Fig47">fig. 47</a>, <a href="#Fig51">fig. 51</a>), six (<a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>), seven
+(<a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>, <a href="#Fig39">fig. 39</a>), eight (<a href="#Fig35">fig.
+35</a>), eleven (<a href="#Fig27">fig. 27</a>, <a href="#Fig34">fig. 34</a>) and twenty (<a href="#Fig33">fig. 33</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The motion of the animal is said to be <i>wrongly</i> serpentine (<a href="#Report29">29</a>,
+<a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), like that of a snake (<a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), like
+that of an eel (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), and <i>rightly</i> vermicular (<a href="#Report82">82</a>), like that of a
+caterpillar (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), like that of a leech (<a href="#Report94">94</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The coils are said to resemble or to be as large as ten-gallon
+kegs (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), half-barrels (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), flour barrels (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), large kegs (<a href="#Report117">117</a>),
+those of a dromedary (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), about three feet long (<a href="#Report117">117</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The space between the coils, for there is always a space visible
+between them (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>), is sometimes large, at other times small;
+it was a space of one fathom (<a href="#Report9">9</a>), of seven feet (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), or of three feet (<a href="#Report60">60</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The whole animal swimming with vertical undulations, and seen
+from afar, resembles a string of tuns or hogsheads (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>), a large
+shoal of fish (read porpoises) with a seal at one end of it (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), a
+string of empty barrels tied together (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), a string of casks tied
+together (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), a string of large casks, gently bubbing up and down
+(<a href="#Report114">114</a>), a long chain of rocks (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), a long chain of enormous
+rings (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), a number of barrels linked
+together (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), eight
+seals in a row (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), a flock of wild ducks swimming (<a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), eight or ten inches (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), at least three
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page524">[524]</span>feet (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), only a few feet
+(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>); we also find the notices: “apparently
+about one third of the upperpart of its body was above
+water” (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), “it partly raised itself above the surface of the water” (<a href="#Report94">94</a>).</p>
+
+<p>As is to be expected, the bunches decrease in size towards the
+tail (<a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>); of coarse this will always be the case.</p>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report44">44</a>); “the first bunch appeared ten or twelve
+feet from his head” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>); “about thirty feet behind the head appeared
+the first coil” (<a href="#Report81">81</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The reader will remember (see <i>Relative mobility of organs</i>) 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” (<a href="#Report60">60</a>); “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”
+(<a href="#Report63">63</a>); “the protuberances were not from his motion, as they were
+the same whether in slow or in rapid movement” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>). See also
+<a href="#Report137">n<sup>o</sup>. 137</a>.</p>
+
+<p>I am convinced that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations,
+usually presses its flappers to its body. Once it was seen
+from above (<a href="#Report82">82</a>) 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report119">119</a>). And when we
+read: “the motion of his body was rising and falling, the head
+moderately vibrating from side to side” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), “the motion of his
+head was sideways and quite moderate, and the motion of his body
+was up and down” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), “his motion was partly vertical, partly
+horizontal” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), “serpentine movements, some up and down, some
+to the side” (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), 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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page525">[525]</span>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>,
+<a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>,
+<a href="#Report104">104</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>,
+<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>,
+<a href="#Report145">145</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report147">147</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>,
+<a href="#Report160">160</a>, see also <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig31">31</a>, <a href="#Fig36">36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>). The
+animal in this position resembled some drift of sea-weed (<a href="#Report143">143</a>), a
+mast of a vessel floating (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), an enormous log of timber floating
+(<a href="#Report83">83</a>), a trunk of a large tree floating (<a href="#Report104">104</a>), an unwrought spar
+(<a href="#Report18">18</a>), a long spar (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), a log of wood (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), an immense tree
+floating (<a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In swimming the end of the tail only (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), or nearly
+the whole tail (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>,
+<a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>,
+<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>,
+<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>,
+<a href="#Report150">150</a>) is concealed under water and invisible.
+The flappers are always below the surface of the water and invisible
+(<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>,
+<a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>), save the above-mentioned
+four times (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>). The head may be held just at
+the surface of the water (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>,
+<a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>,
+<a href="#Fig32">figg. 32</a>, <a href="#Fig33">33</a>, <a href="#Fig37">37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">38</a>), so that it sometimes is recorded as not
+having been visible (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report113">113</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>), or may be, and this is generally
+the case, held above water (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>,
+<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>,
+<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Fig24">figg. 24</a>, <a href="#Fig26">26</a>, <a href="#Fig27">27</a>, <a href="#Fig28">28</a>,
+<a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig51">51</a>). The height above water is said
+to be but little (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), some feet (<a href="#Report70">70</a>), well above water (<a href="#Report150">150</a>),
+several feet (<a href="#Report155">155</a>), high (<a href="#Report32">32</a>), considerable (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), quite erect in the
+air (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), six inches (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>), eight inches
+(<a href="#Report44">44</a>), one foot (<a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>,
+<a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>), two feet
+(<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>,
+<a href="#Report138">138</a>), three feet (<a href="#Report63">63</a>),
+four feet (<a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>,
+<a href="#Report118">118</a>), five feet (<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), six feet
+(<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>), seven feet
+(<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>), eight feet (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), ten or
+twelve feet (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The head may, of course, sometimes be gradually laid down
+(<a href="#Report63">63</a>), or gradually raised higher (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), is generally held in an acute
+angle (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report97">97</a>) in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page526">[526]</span>the form of a semicircle
+(<a href="#Report115">115</a>). The head may be held constantly
+above water as long as the animal was visible (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>,
+<a href="#Report118">118</a>), or raised and lowered at intervals (<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), “the whole neck raised above water
+like a snake preparing to dart on his prey” (<a href="#Report115">115</a>), “the animal
+protruded its head above water to the length of about thirty feet
+at an angle of sixty degree to the horizon” (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), “a large spar
+sticking out of the water one end, and some thirty feet above
+the level of the sea” (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), “it resembled the lower mast of some
+wrecked vessel, passing rapidly” (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), “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” (<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>), “head and
+neck reared about thirty feet out of water” (<a href="#Report151">151</a>), “a neck rose
+out of the water, about twenty feet, moving with great speed”
+(<a href="#Report152">152</a>), “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” (<a href="#Report160">160</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>,
+<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>,
+<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>,
+<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>,
+<a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The speed is said to be: faster than we could row (<a href="#Report9">9</a>), rapid
+(<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>,
+<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), an incredible velocity, like an
+arrow (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>), moderate (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), the greatest rapidity (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), a great
+rapidity (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>), slow (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>,
+<a href="#Report120">120</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), much more
+rapid than whales or any other fish (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), very rapid (<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>),
+nearly still (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), very slow (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), very swiftly (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), a great swiftness
+(<a href="#Report101">101</a>), that of a light boat rowed by four active men (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), very
+quick (<a href="#Report123">123</a>), at a great rate (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), at a rapid pace (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), a great
+speed (<a href="#Report152">152</a>), a great velocity (<a href="#Report157">157</a>)—or it was estimated at—two
+miles an hour (<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), three miles an hour (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), four miles
+(<a href="#Report60">60</a>), ten miles (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), ten to twelve miles (<a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>), twelve to
+fourteen miles (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), fifteen miles (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>), fifteen or twenty
+miles (<a href="#Report35">35</a>), twenty miles (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report156">156</a>), twenty four miles (<a href="#Report38">38</a>), twenty
+to thirty miles (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), thirty miles (<a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), thirty-six to forty-two
+miles (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), sixty miles (<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The animal may swim for a considerable time with the same
+speed, steadily and uniformly (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>,
+<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), or decreasing,
+or increasing it (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page527">[527]</span></p>
+
+<p>Of course the animal swimming rapidly propels the water before
+it, so that the water curls up before its throat (<a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>), or
+even foams (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>,
+<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>), and when it swiftly
+darts forwards for prey and elevates its flappers above water, the
+motion of its flappers causes distinctly visible splashes (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>,
+<a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>, of course in <a href="#Report129">n<sup>o</sup>. 129</a> and <a href="#Report148">148</a> the movements of the
+flappers must also have caused a severe splashing, though this is
+neither mentioned nor delineated, <a href="#Fig36">figg. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>). Also when it drops
+its neck like a log of wood into the water, an enormous splash or
+spray on both sides was visible (<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In the open sea the animal generally swims “as straight forward
+as you could draw a line” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>), “not deviating in
+the slightest degree from its course, which it held on apparently
+on some determined purpose” (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), seldom it is recorded as
+“taking a turn” (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>), but when in a harbour it may
+move “in several directions” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), as if “playing” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>,
+<a href="#Report130">130</a>), “in circles” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), or “bringing the body into a letter S” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>).
+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” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>),—“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” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“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” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“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”
+(<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“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” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“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,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page528">[528]</span>and when his head and tail were on parallel lines they appeared
+not more than two or three yards apart” (<a href="#Report44">44</a>),—“he turned
+slowly, and took up considerable room in doing it” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>),—“it
+turned with considerable noise” (<a href="#Report117">117</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), “when immersed in the
+water his speed was greater” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>). 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” (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), 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” (<a href="#Report149">149</a>),
+and that “the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract
+notice” (<a href="#Report149">149</a>). Therefore <a href="#Fig33">figg. 33</a>, <a href="#Fig34">34</a>, <a href="#Fig35">35</a>,
+<a href="#Fig37">37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">38</a>, <a href="#Fig46">46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">48</a> and <a href="#Fig49">49</a>,
+are tolerably well delineated. <a href="#Fig33">Fig. 33</a> 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 <a href="#Fig34">fig. 34</a> the head is held a little above the surface, and the
+end of the tail is already below it. <a href="#Fig35">Fig. 35</a> shows the head still
+more elevated while of the tail nothing more is visible. <a href="#Fig37">Figg. 37</a>
+and <a href="#Fig38">38</a> represent the animal floating on the surface, showing the
+ridge of its whole back. In <a href="#Fig46">figg. 46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">48</a> and <a href="#Fig49">49</a> the animal’s neck
+is elevated as high as possible, but its body is of course too deep
+to be seen.</p>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), “when moving
+under water you could often trace him by the motion of the water
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page529">[529]</span>on the surface, and from this circumstance I conclude he did not
+swim deep” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “we could trace his course under water” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>),
+“swimming below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the
+rapid course” (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), “in swimming under the surface the animal
+swims not deeply, for on the surface one can trace its course”
+(<a href="#Report126">126</a>), “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”
+(<a href="#Report137">137</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), and once
+“it passed below the boat at the depth of eight or ten feet,
+swimming slowly with a vermicular motion” (<a href="#Report82">82</a>), 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 <span class="smcap">Hope</span> saw it
+at still greater depths swimming evidently with its flappers and
+with vertical undulations (<a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), “it all at once vanished”
+(<a href="#Report74">74</a>), “it all at once disappeared” (<a href="#Report74">74</a>), “it suddenly disappeared”
+(<a href="#Report132">132</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), evidently withdrawing itself beneath the surface
+of the water deep enough to avoid a rippling of it. In other instances
+the <i>way how</i> it disappeared is more circumstantially described:
+“it sank” (<a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>,
+<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), “it sunk gradually into the
+water” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), “it sank quietly beneath the surface” (<a href="#Report134">134</a>), “it sank
+rather abruptly” (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), “it sunk apparently down” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), “he did
+not turn down like a fish, but appeared to settle down like a
+rock” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “he apparently sunk directly down like a rock” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>);
+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 (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), or go down with a
+tremendous splash (<a href="#Report157">157</a>), or when it is swimming with its neck
+high elevated above the surface, it dives like a duck head foremost
+(<a href="#Report124">124</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), and disappearing under
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page530">[530]</span>the waves, the last part which is visible of it, is the end of the
+tail (<a href="#Fig20">fig. 20</a>). 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.</p>
+
+<p>3. <i>Voice.</i>—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 (<a href="#Report144">144</a>) uttered a sound which,
+however, was not heard amidst the tremendous noise, made by
+the two animals fighting.</p>
+
+<h5>d. <span class="gesp2">Generation, Growth</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>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 <i>Monotrymata</i>, are viviparous, consequently sea-serpents are
+viviparous.</p>
+
+<p>Though <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> believes that sea-serpents “seek the other
+sex most probably in July and August” (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>), and that “July
+and August are its pairing time” (<a href="#Page129">p. 129</a>), 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.</p>
+
+<p>A new born pup most probably has a length of about twenty
+feet (<a href="#Report14">14</a>).</p>
+
+<p>It seems that the months during which two sea-serpents were
+seen together are July and August, probably also September (<a href="#Report23">23</a>,
+<a href="#Report27">27</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report72">72</a>). 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.</p>
+
+<p>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
+(<a href="#Report23">23</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>). 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page531">[531]</span></p>
+
+<h4>6. PSYCHICAL CHARACTERS.</h4>
+
+<h5>a. <span class="gesp2">Not taking notice of objects</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>There are instances that the animal is reported as taking no
+notice at all of men, vessels or other objects (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>,
+<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report82">82</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>b. <span class="gesp2">Taking notice of objects</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>At other instances, however, the animal was thought to notice
+objects (<a href="#Report43">43</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), or that it slowly turned its head towards
+the observers (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>,
+<a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>,
+<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>,
+<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p>
+
+<h5>c. <span class="gesp2">Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>The many instances that sea-serpents are said to have followed a
+boat (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>,
+<a href="#Report110">110</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>) 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 <a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a>: the individual
+swam towards a boat, passed within a few feet or some
+fathoms, and swam away, to repeat the same movement two times.</p>
+
+<h5>d. <span class="gesp2">Suspicion</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), “he seemed
+suspicious of the boat” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), “they chased the animal fruitless for
+seven hours” (<a href="#Report59">59</a>), “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” (<a href="#Report19">19</a>), “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.” (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page532">[532]</span></p>
+
+<h5>e. <span class="gesp2">Harmlessness</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>The animal is evidently a quite harmless creature (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>).
+Though very close to several boats, it offered them no molestation (<a href="#Report32">32</a>).
+“After the shot” of <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> “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” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “he appeared to us to be a harmless
+animal” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), “it was harmless” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>). A proof of perfect harmlessness
+may be found in <a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a>: it approached a fisherman in his
+boat to within six feet and offered him no molestation. See also
+<a href="#Report94">n<sup>o</sup>. 94</a> and <a href="#Report112">112</a>.</p>
+
+<h5>f. <span class="gesp2">Timidity</span>.</h5>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> 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” (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>), and Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> also says: “he
+appeared to us to be a timid animal” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>g. <span class="gesp2">Fearlessness</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>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” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “it appeared to be amusing itself, though
+there were several boats not far from it” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); after the shot of
+<span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> “it did not appear more shy” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); 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 (<a href="#Report43">43</a>), “it did not appear to be at
+all disturbed by the vessel” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>,
+<a href="#Report112">112</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>); it may swim
+or come to the surface very close to boats, and swim parallel with
+them (<a href="#Report72">72</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report112">112</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>h. <span class="gesp2">Fear</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report49">49</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page533">[533]</span></p>
+
+<h5>i. <span class="gesp2">Fright</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>I think that in the following we see true expressions of fright.
+When <span class="smcap">Lorenz von Ferry</span> fired at it, the animal plunged down
+under water and was seen no more (<a href="#Report9">9</a>); some strangers fired at it
+and it suddenly disappeared (<a href="#Report90">90</a>); it gracefully rose once from the
+deep, but seeing a ship, it immediately disappeared (<a href="#Report124">124</a>); 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 (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>j. <span class="gesp2">Fury</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>The animal does not always plunge down after a shot, and is
+then seen no more: <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> 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 (<a href="#Report41">41</a>);
+once when it was fired at, it turned and pursued the boat to the
+shore and then disappeared (<a href="#Report110">110</a>); a boatmen struck it with a
+boathook, upon which it immediately gave him chase (<a href="#Report112">112</a>); when
+<span class="smcap">Lund</span> 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
+<span class="smcap">Lund</span>, who reached the shore in time (<a href="#Report115">115</a>). 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.</p>
+
+<h5>k. <span class="gesp2">Toughness</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<h5>l. <span class="gesp2">Playsomeness</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>Like the seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, sea-serpents
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page534">[534]</span>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 (<a href="#Report135">135</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), stretching
+itself comfortably; at other times crooking up its back to sun
+itself (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>).</p>
+
+<h5>m. <span class="gesp2">Sensibility of fine weather</span>.</h5>
+
+<p>Evidently the animals feel comfortable <i>in fine weather</i> and when
+there is <i>no wind</i>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>When the animal appeared, the <i>weather</i> is reported to have been
+calm (<a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report25">25</a>,
+<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report79">79</a>,
+<a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>,
+<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>),
+quite calm (<a href="#Report35">35</a>), good (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), clear (<a href="#Report34">34</a>,
+<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>,
+<a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), very clear (<a href="#Report60">60</a>),
+fine (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report79">79</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>,
+<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>,
+<a href="#Report152">152</a>), brisk (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), sunshiny (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>,
+<a href="#Report157">157</a>), warm and sunshiny
+(<a href="#Report138">138</a>), hot (<a href="#Report150">150</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), very hot (<a href="#Report64">64</a>),
+excessively sultry (<a href="#Report61">61</a>), cloudy
+(<a href="#Report131">131</a>), dark and cloudy (<a href="#Report118">118</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The <i>surface of the sea</i> is described as smooth (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>),
+quite smooth (<a href="#Report80">80</a>), very smooth (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), perfectly smooth (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>,
+<a href="#Report148">148</a>), extremely smooth (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), smooth as a mirror (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>), as
+smooth as a glass (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), as smooth as the surface of a pond (<a href="#Report114">114</a>),
+calm (<a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), quite calm (p. <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>),
+almost calm (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), perfectly
+calm (<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>), exceptionally calm (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), moderate (<a href="#Report144">144</a>).
+But there may be also some sea on (<a href="#Report120">120</a>), or a sharp sea on (<a href="#Report122">122</a>),
+or the surface may be only little moved by waves (<a href="#Report154">154</a>), or occasionally
+disturbed by slight flaws of wind, “catpaws” (<a href="#Report128">128</a>), or
+there may be a long ocean swell (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), or a strong ebb tribe (<a href="#Report51">51</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In the reports we read that there was no <i>wind</i> (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), not a breath
+of wind (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), not a breath of air (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), a very little wind
+(<a href="#Report29">29</a>), a light wind (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>,
+<a href="#Report132">132</a>), a light air of wind (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), a fresh
+wind (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>), a variable wind (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), a moderate wind (<a href="#Report144">144</a>),
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page535">[535]</span>a gale of wind (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), a light breeze
+(<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>), a brisk breeze (<a href="#Report51">51</a>),
+a fresh breeze (<a href="#Report104">104</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), or there were strong breezes
+(<a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p>
+
+<h4>7. ENEMIES.</h4>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report144">144</a>), the latter on account
+of their nets (<a href="#Report14">14</a>), boathooks (<a href="#Report112">112</a>), harpoons (<a href="#Report59">59</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>), and rifles
+(<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report90">90</a>,
+<a href="#Report110">110</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>).</p>
+
+<h4>8. REPOSE, SLEEP, DEATH.</h4>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report80">80</a>); 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 (<a href="#Report74">74</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report17">17</a>). 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” (<a href="#Report43">43</a>). 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 (<a href="#Report46">46</a>). Very seldom it seems to avail itself of an
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page536">[536]</span>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” (<a href="#Report45">45</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report144">144</a>) 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.</p>
+
+<p>Generally, however, I believe that these animals die a natural
+death.</p>
+
+<p>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. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> reports that a dead sea-serpent
+stranded on the cliffs near Amond in Nordfjord and that its carrion
+caused a dreadful smell (<a href="#Report6">6</a>), and that another stranded near the
+isle of Karmen (<a href="#Report7">7</a>), and that the stranding of dead sea-serpents
+took place in more localities (<a href="#Report7">7</a>). Such carrions must be a dainty
+to all kinds of mews, which sometimes even follow living individuals
+(<a href="#Report69">69</a>). 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” (<a href="#Page374">p. 374</a>). 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 <i>Platypus</i> or <i>Ornithorhynchus</i>,
+which reached the Manchester Museum in the year 1829, and
+remained there for some years, till they were condemned to the
+rubbish hill (<i>Nature</i>, 11 Dec. 1884, p. 133), and it was not before
+September 1884 that zoologists knew that <i>Ornithorhynchus</i> and
+<i>Echidna</i> are really oviparous, and that the Manchester Museum
+was once in the possession of two eggs!!</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page537">[537]</span></p>
+
+<h4>9. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.</h4>
+
+<p>The Rev. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span>, 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”
+(<a href="#Report29">29</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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.
+(<a href="#Report158">158</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Moreover they are sea-animals, and according to their air-breathing
+condition, live on the surface, though they may sometimes
+seek great depths (<a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p>
+
+<p>I have already shown that these animals like <i>sunshiny</i> and <i>hot</i>
+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
+<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> to suggest that they “perpetually live in the depths of the
+sea, except in July and August” (<a href="#Page129">p. 129</a>). The Bishop seems not to have
+hit upon the idea that the sea-serpents could be migratory animals.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report4">4</a>, <a href="#Report96">96</a>) or in the same place
+or harbour (<a href="#Report31">31</a> and <a href="#Report32">32</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a> and <a href="#Report35">35</a>,
+<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>,
+<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>,
+<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>,
+<a href="#Report48">48</a> and <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a> and <a href="#Report51">51</a>, &amp;c., &amp;c.). But then, it
+may be that the fish is flown for the enemy, or that the season
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page538">[538]</span>proceeds, the sea-serpents look for an other provender place, or
+swim to a warmer part of the ocean, i. e. <i>they migrate</i>.</p>
+
+<p>And so we come to their <i>horizontal geographical distribution</i>.
+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.</p>
+
+<p>Up to this time the animals have appeared 1. In the <i>Arctic
+Ocean</i>, and 2. In the <i>Atlantic Ocean</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>a.</i> All along the coasts of Norway from North Cape up to the
+boundary of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>,
+<a href="#Report4">4</a>, <a href="#Report6">6</a>, <a href="#Report7">7</a>, <a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>,
+<a href="#Report10">10</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report13">13</a>, <a href="#Report14">14</a>,
+<a href="#Report57">57</a>, <a href="#Report58">58</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report65">65</a>,
+<a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>,
+<a href="#Report68">68</a>, <a href="#Report72">72</a>, <a href="#Report79">79</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>,
+<a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>, <a href="#Report89">89</a>, <a href="#Report90">90</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>,
+<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report96">96</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>,
+<a href="#Report107">107</a>, <a href="#Report108">108</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report110">110</a>,
+<a href="#Report111">111</a>, <a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, <a href="#Report112">112</a>,
+<a href="#Report113">113</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report125">125</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>).
+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 (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>). It seems that they appear along
+these coasts almost every year.</p>
+
+<p><i>b.</i> 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 (<a href="#Report2">2</a>), and the locality of
+the appearance of the animal I have <i>supposed</i> to have been in the
+Sund near Malmö.</p>
+
+<p><i>c.</i> In the Baltic or Swedish Sea. According to <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>
+it is also recorded from this sea, but I think that this happens
+no more.</p>
+
+<p><i>d.</i> North of Scotland: between Iceland and the Faroe Isles (<a href="#Report124">124</a>),
+between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides (<a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report153">153</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>), and near
+Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles (<a href="#Report78">78</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>e.</i> On the eastern coast of Scotland (<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>f.</i> Along the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England
+(<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>, <a href="#Report82">82</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>,
+<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>, <a href="#Report156">156</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>g.</i> A hundred miles west of Brest, France, (<a href="#Report152">152</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>h.</i> In the Gulf of Biscay (<a href="#Report74">74</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>i.</i> West of Portugal (<a href="#Report120">120</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>j.</i> In the Mediterranean (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>k.</i> North-east of the Azores (<a href="#Report25">25</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>l.</i> South of the Azores and west of the Canaries, 29° N., 34°
+W., (<a href="#Report128">128</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>m.</i> From the Canaries to Cape Verde (<a href="#Report135">135</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>n.</i> In a line from Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page539">[539]</span>a little further south
+(<a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>,
+<a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>),
+not along the coast, except three appearances in Table Bay (<a href="#Report114">114</a>,
+<a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>o.</i> In Davis Straits, 64° N., (<a href="#Report5">5</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>p.</i> Along the east coast of North America from Newfoundland
+to Florida (<a href="#Report15">15</a>, <a href="#Report16">16</a>, <a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>,
+<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report20">20</a>, <a href="#Report21">21</a>, <a href="#Report22">22</a>,
+<a href="#Report23">23</a>, <a href="#Report24">24</a>, <a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report27">27</a>, <a href="#Report28">28</a>,
+<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report30">30</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report35">35</a>,
+<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>,
+<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>,
+<a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>,
+<a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report52">52</a>,
+<a href="#Report53">53</a>, <a href="#Report54">54</a>, <a href="#Report55">55</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>,
+<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report62">62</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>,
+<a href="#Report70">70</a>, <a href="#Report71">71</a>, <a href="#Report73">73</a>, <a href="#Report75">75</a>,
+<a href="#Report76">76</a>, <a href="#Report77">77</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>,
+<a href="#Report84">84</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report98">98</a>, <a href="#Report99">99</a>,
+<a href="#Report100">100</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report105">105</a>, <a href="#Report106">106</a>,
+<a href="#Report106B">106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></a>, <a href="#Report107A">107 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>,
+<a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report133">133</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>,
+<a href="#Report159">159</a>, <a href="#Report160">160</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>). So these coasts seem to be
+frequented almost every year. In Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span>’s paper on the subject
+(<i>Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb.</i> 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 <a href="#Report161">n<sup>o</sup>. 161</a> is also one of these
+“notices received of a sea-serpent seen by a mariner in crossing
+the Atlantic <i>from</i> America”.</p>
+
+<p><i>q.</i> In the Gulf of Mexico (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>.)</p>
+
+<p><i>r.</i> East of Cape San Roque (<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>s.</i> East of La Plata river mouth (<a href="#Report80">80</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>t.</i> In the South Atlantic (<a href="#Report104">104</a>).</p>
+
+<p>3. In the <i>Indian Ocean</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>a.</i> In the Gulf of Aden (<a href="#Report149">149</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>b.</i> Probably between 40° lat. and 20° lat. S., and between 50°
+and 70° long. E. (<a href="#Report123">123</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>c.</i> In lat. 2° N., long. 90° E. (<a href="#Report147">147</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>d.</i> In the Malacca Straits (<a href="#Report146">146</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>e.</i> Near the coast of Australia (<a href="#Report136">136</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>f.</i> In Geographe Bay (<a href="#Report150">150</a>).</p>
+
+<p>4. In the <i>Pacific Ocean</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>a.</i> South of Australia (<a href="#Report122">122</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>b.</i> Near Cape Satano, the southmost point of the Isle of Kiu
+Siu (Japan) (<a href="#Report151">151</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>c.</i> Near Behring Isle (<a href="#Report36">36</a>). The Aleutians declare that they have
+often seen this animal (<a href="#Report36">36</a>).</p>
+
+<p><i>d.</i> In the Gulf of California (<a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Along the coasts of Norway they appear only “at certain times”
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page540">[540]</span>(2) i. e. evidently “in the dog days” (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report61">61</a>,
+<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>) and August (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>,
+<a href="#Report68">68</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), 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 (<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>, <a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>,
+<a href="#Report89">89</a>), and in the month of October (?)
+an individual was observed near Ibbestad, in the neighbourhood
+of Christiansand (<a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>). The occurrences between the Faroe Isles
+and the Hebrides took place in the last days of May (<a href="#Report153">153</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>)
+and in July (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), those on the east coast of Scotland in the middle
+of November (<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>), those on the western coasts of Scotland,
+Wales and England: in June in the neighbourhood of Coll
+and Eigg (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>), in the last days of August in the neighbourhood
+of Loch-Hourn (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>), in the beginning of
+September near Orme’s Heads, Wales, (<a href="#Report155">155</a>), and in the middle
+of October in Bristol Channel (<a href="#Report156">156</a>). The occurrence a hundred
+miles west of Brest, France, took place on the 5th. of August
+(<a href="#Report152">152</a>), that west of Portugal on the 31st. of December (<a href="#Report120">120</a>), that
+in the Mediterranean on the 2d. of June (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), that north-east of
+the Azores on the 1st. of August (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), that south of the Azores
+and west of the Canaries on the 30th. of March (<a href="#Report128">128</a>), that between
+the Canaries and Cape Verde on the 16th. of May (<a href="#Report135">135</a>), and those
+between Cape Verde and Cape of Good Hope and southwest of
+the latter: on January 26 (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), February 16 (<a href="#Report130">130</a>), July 8 (<a href="#Report129">129</a>),
+in the end of July (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), in the summer (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), on August 6 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>),
+on November 12 (<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), and on December 12 (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw an individual in Davis’ Straits in July (<a href="#Report5">5</a>); the sea-serpents
+frequent the coast of North America from Newfoundland
+to Florida in February (<a href="#Report121">121</a>), March or April (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), May (<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>,
+<a href="#Report161">161</a>), June (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report35">35</a>, <a href="#Report53">53</a>,
+<a href="#Report54">54</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report84">84</a>,
+<a href="#Report106B">106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></a>?, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), July (<a href="#Report29">29</a>,
+<a href="#Report55">55</a>, <a href="#Report75">75</a>?, <a href="#Report81">81</a>?, <a href="#Report98">98</a>,
+<a href="#Report99">99</a>, <a href="#Report100">100</a>?), August (<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>,
+<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>,
+<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>,
+<a href="#Report47">47</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>,
+<a href="#Report62">62</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report73">73</a>,
+<a href="#Report105">105</a>?, <a href="#Report133">133</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>,
+<a href="#Report158">158</a>, <a href="#Report159">159</a>, <a href="#Report160">160</a>), September (<a href="#Report70">70</a>,
+<a href="#Report71">71</a>, <a href="#Report77">77</a>, <a href="#Report106">106</a>?), and October (<a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>).
+It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), was east of
+Cape San Roque in July (<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>), and visited the South Atlantic
+east of Uruguay in January (<a href="#Report80">80</a>).</p>
+
+<p>January was the month in which it appeared in the Gulf of
+Aden (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), September in about lat. 15° S. and 60° E. (<a href="#Report123">123</a>),
+May in about lat. 2° N. and long. 91° E. (<a href="#Report147">147</a>), September in the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page541">[541]</span>Malacca Straits (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), and March in Geographe Bay (<a href="#Report150">150</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In May it was observed south of Australia (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), and in April
+south of Kiu Siu, Japan (<a href="#Report151">151</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>generally</i> observed (and I purposely draw the reader’s
+attention to the expression “generally”, for animals are not bound
+by <i>laws</i> of nature), in the northern hemisphere when summer is
+there, and they will <i>generally</i> appear in the southern hemisphere
+when summer visits those parts of our globe. To follow this <i>rule</i>
+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 <i>generally</i> this rule is followed, for
+in the Indian Ocean the animals are checked in their course towards
+the north by the continent of Asia.</p>
+
+<p>We are therefore obliged to take no account of the appearances
+which occurred in the Indian Ocean. And as we have <i>only two</i>
+appearances observed in the Pacific, of which the dates are mentioned,
+we are also obliged to pass over those in the Pacific too.</p>
+
+<p>Let us now see where the animals were met with in the different
+months.</p>
+
+<table class="months">
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">January.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">South of St. Helena.</td>
+<td class="latitude">19° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report132">132</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East of Uruguay.</td>
+<td class="latitude">34¹⁄₂° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report80">80</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">February.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">31° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report121">121</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Table Bay.</td>
+<td class="latitude">34° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report130">130</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">March.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report101">101</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">South of the Azores.</td>
+<td class="latitude">29° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report128">128</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">April.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report101">101</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Gulf of Mexico.</td>
+<td class="latitude">24° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">May.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Near Butt of Lewis.</td>
+<td class="latitude">58¹⁄₂° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report153">153</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">44° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report19">19</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">43° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report97">97</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">40° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report161">161</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Between Canaries and Cape Verde.</td>
+<td class="latitude">22° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report135">135</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">June.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">64° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report103">103</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">West coast of Scotland.<span class="pagenum" id="Page542">[542]</span></td>
+<td class="latitude">57° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">45° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report83">83</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report35">35</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report84">84</a>,
+<a href="#Report106B">106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">41° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report53">53</a>, <a href="#Report54">54</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Mediterranean.</td>
+<td class="latitude">38° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">37° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report52">52</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">July.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">65° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report61">61</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">64° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report103">103</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Davis’ Straits.</td>
+<td class="latitude">64° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report5">5</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">63° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Between the Far-Öer and the Hebrides.</td>
+<td class="latitude">60° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report56">56</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">44° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report55">55</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report98">98</a>, <a href="#Report99">99</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East of Cape San Roque.</td>
+<td class="latitude">5° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">West of Cape of Good Hope.</td>
+<td class="latitude">35° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report129">129</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">South West of Cape of Good Hope.</td>
+<td class="latitude">38° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report93">93</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">August.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">70° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report68">68</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">66¹⁄₂° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report157">157</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">66° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report64">64</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">63° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report9">9</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">60° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report117">117</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">59° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">West coast of Scotland.</td>
+<td class="latitude">57° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">100 miles west of Brest.</td>
+<td class="latitude">48° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report152">152</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">North east of the Azores.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report25">25</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>,
+<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>,
+<a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>,
+<a href="#Report62">62</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report73">73</a>, <a href="#Report133">133</a>,
+<a href="#Report134">134</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">41° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report158">158</a>, <a href="#Report159">159</a>, <a href="#Report160">160</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Between St. Helena and Cape of G. H.</td>
+<td class="latitude">24° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report118">118</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">September.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td>
+<td class="latitude">59° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>, <a href="#Report89">89</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">North of Wales.</td>
+<td class="latitude">53¹⁄₂° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report155">155</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">42° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report71">71</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">41° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report77">77</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">South west of Cape of Good Hope.<span class="pagenum" id="Page543">[543]</span></td>
+<td class="latitude">38° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report126">126</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">October.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Near Ibbestad, Christiansand.</td>
+<td class="latitude">58° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Bristol Channel.</td>
+<td class="latitude">51° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report156">156</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td>
+<td class="latitude">41° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">November.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">East of Scotland.</td>
+<td class="latitude">58° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Near Monillepoint.</td>
+<td class="latitude">34° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">December.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">West of Portugal.</td>
+<td class="latitude">41° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report120">120</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">North-east of St. Helena.</td>
+<td class="latitude">15° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p>What conclusions may now be drawn from these facts?</p>
+
+<p>1<sup>o</sup>. That these animals seldom appear in the North Sea, between
+Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark
+(<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>); that they don’t frequent the Baltic Ocean since
+two centuries; that they seldom appear in the so-called Skagerrak
+(<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>, <a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>,
+<a href="#Report89">89</a>, <a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>); rarely show themselves in the Gulf
+of Mexico (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>) or in the Mediterranean (<a href="#Report148">148</a>); but that they
+moreover inhabit the whole of the Atlantic Ocean.</p>
+
+<p>2<sup>o</sup>. That, when they remove their quarters, they seem to swim
+<i>as much as possible</i> 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 <i>against</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>3<sup>o</sup>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page544">[544]</span></p>
+
+<p>4<sup>o</sup>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>5<sup>o</sup>. 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 <i>towards the S. W.</i>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>The two appearances which happened in the Pacific, and of which
+the dates are mentioned, are:</p>
+
+<table class="months">
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">April.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">South of Japan</td>
+<td class="latitude">31° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report151">151</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">May.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">South of Australia</td>
+<td class="latitude">43° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report122">122</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p>And those of the Indian Ocean:</p>
+
+<table class="months">
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">January.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Gulf of Aden</td>
+<td class="latitude">12° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report149">149</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">March.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Geographe Bay</td>
+<td class="latitude">33° S.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report150">150</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">May.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Indian Ocean</td>
+<td class="latitude">&#8199;2° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report147">147</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="month">September.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Straits of Malacca</td>
+<td class="latitude">&#8199;3° N.</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report146">146</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="location">Indian Ocean</td>
+<td class="latitude">15° S.?</td>
+<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report123">123</a>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p>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,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page545">[545]</span>or in the South Pacific, at times that one would not expect
+to find any.</p>
+
+
+<h4>10. NOMENCLATURE.</h4>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Gesner</span> (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>) and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>) believed that there
+were at least two species of the same genus. <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>, however,
+doubted of this, and thought that there was only one species
+(<a href="#Page110">p. 110</a>). Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> was evidently of the same opinion (<a href="#Page126">p. 126</a>).
+<span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> at last believed that there were several species
+(<a href="#Page199">p. 199</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In his <i>Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents</i>,
+(Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names.
+Of the Massachusetts Sea-Serpent (his n<sup>o</sup>. 1) he says:</p>
+
+<p>“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus
+<i>Pelamis</i>, and I propose to call it <i>Pelamis megophias</i>. It might,
+however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of <i>Megophias
+monstrosus</i> might have been appropriated to it” (see <a href="#Page200">p. 200</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Of Captain <span class="smcap">Brown’s</span> sea-serpent (his n<sup>o</sup>. 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
+<i>Octipos</i> (meaning eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will
+be <i>Octipos bicolor</i>” (see <a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Lee’s</span> sea-serpent according to <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>
+(n<sup>o</sup>. 4 of his “Additions”) “appears to be the largest on record,
+and might well be called <i>Pelamis monstrosus</i>; but if there are other
+species of equal size, it must be called <i>Pelamis chloronotis</i> (see <a href="#Report30">n<sup>o</sup>. 30</a>).</p>
+
+<p>The author of the present volume proposed in Nov. 1881 to give
+it the name of <i>Zeuglodon plesiosauroides</i> (see <a href="#Page445">p. 445</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is <i>megophias</i>,
+and this specific name must be kept. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> placed
+his species in the genus <i>Pelamis</i>. This genus, however, was established
+by <span class="smcap">Daudin</span>, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with
+some other genera it forms the family of <i>Hydrophidae</i> Sws. It
+must, therefore, be rejected.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea-Serpent
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page546">[546]</span>with the common small sea-snakes, proposes in that case
+the name of <i>Megophias monstrosus</i>. Here we have the oldest <i>generic</i>
+name for these animals, viz. <i>Megophias</i>. In my opinion, the only
+name to be given to the sea-serpent is that of</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6"><i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span></span></p>
+
+<p>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 <i>must</i> these animals be called according to the <i>law</i> of nomenclature,
+and then I say:</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6"><i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span></span></p>
+
+<p class="noindent">and its synonyms are:</p>
+
+<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6"><i>Pelamis megophias</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (<a href="#Report1">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>),</span><br>
+<span class="padl6"><i>Megophias monstrosus</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (<a href="#Report1">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>),</span><br>
+<span class="padl6"><i>Octipos bicolor</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (<a href="#Report2">n<sup>o</sup>. 2</a>),</span><br>
+<span class="padl6"><i>Pelamis monstrosus</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (Add. <a href="#Report4">n<sup>o</sup>. 4</a>),</span><br>
+<span class="padl6"><i>Pelamis chloronotis</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (Add. <a href="#Report4">n<sup>o</sup>. 4</a>),</span><br>
+<span class="padl6"><i>Zeuglodon plesiosauroides</i>, <span class="smcap">Oud.</span>, Nov., 1881.</span></p>
+
+<p>The name of <i>Halsydrus Pontoppidani</i>, proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Patric
+Neill</span>, 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 <i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span> (See our <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-be
+Sea-Serpents.)</p>
+
+<p>Nor can there be any question to consider the name of <i>Hydrarchos
+Sillimanni</i>, proposed by Dr <span class="smcap">Koch</span> for his so-called fossil sea-serpent,
+as a synonym of <i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span> (See
+our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes).</p>
+
+<h3><b>C. Conclusions.</b></h3>
+
+<h4>1. COMPARISON WITH ALLIED ANIMALS.</h4>
+
+<p>It will be quite superfluous to tell my readers to which order
+of animals I think that this <i>Megophias megophias</i> belongs. It runs
+like a red thread through my whole volume, that I firmly believe
+that it belongs to the Order of <i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page547">[547]</span></p>
+
+<p>I will first show my readers some drawings and sketches of sea-lions
+and of a sea-bear.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig74">
+<img src="images/illo547.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 74.—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (<span class="smcap">Less.</span>) <span class="smcap">Allen</span>?—Drawn by W. P. from a living
+specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Jan. 6, 1877.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig74">Fig. 74</a> represents a sea-lion of the Brighton Aquarium. I think
+it is a <i>Zalophus californianus</i> (<span class="smcap">Less.</span>) <span class="smcap">Allen</span>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig75">Fig. 75</a> 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,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page548">[548]</span>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 <a href="#Fig36">figg. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>, and <a href="#Fig50">50</a>. The skin is smooth
+and shining, though when dry it is hairy and dull.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig75">
+<img src="images/illo548.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 75.—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (<span class="smcap">Less.</span>) <span class="smcap">Allen</span>.—?—Drawn by W. P. from a living
+specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Jan. 6., 1877.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig76">Fig. 76</a> is a drawing of <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>,
+also a sea-lion. This genus is characterized by its considerably
+vaulted fore head (<i>eu</i> = well developed, <i>metopion</i> = 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.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig77">Fig. 77</a> represents the same species. Here the animal swims
+with vertical undulations.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig78">Fig. 78</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig79">Fig. 79</a> shows us the same species standing nearly upright in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page549">[549]</span>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.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig76">
+<img src="images/illo549.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 76.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Drawn
+by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>
+from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the
+<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877.—</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig80">Fig. 80</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig81">Fig. 81</a> is a drawing of <i>Otaria jubata</i>, 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 <a href="#Fig36">figg. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a> and <a href="#Fig50">50</a>. The body is round and slender.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Fig82">Fig. 82</a> represents a sea-bear, <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>, quite dry.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page550">[550]</span>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
+<span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span> “Thierleben”.</p>
+
+<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig77">
+<img src="images/illo550a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 77.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched by the animal-painter
+<span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>, from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From the
+<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig78">
+<img src="images/illo550b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 78.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched from a living specimen
+by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From the <i>Illustrirte
+Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page551">[551]</span></p>
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig79">
+<img src="images/illo551a.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 79.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched
+by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> from a living
+specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From
+the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan., 27, 1877.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><i>Dimensions.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig80">
+<img src="images/illo551b.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 80.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched
+by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> from a living
+specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From
+the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan., 27, 1877.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The largest known now
+living cartilaginous fishes
+are of 36 (<i>Selache maxima</i>)
+and of 42 feet (<i>Carcharodon
+Rondeletii</i>); but
+a fossil species of the
+latter genus reached a
+length of 81 feet (<i>Carcharodon
+megalodon</i>), and
+earlier Northern truthful
+and accurate writers even
+mention 100 feet as
+occasional dimension of
+the <i>Selache maxima</i>, an
+animal eagerly pursued by the Norwegians for the oil of its liver.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<i>Thynnus thynnus</i>), of 15 (<i>Arapaima
+gigas</i>), or of 20 feet (<i>Regalecus Banksii</i>).</p>
+
+<p>The largest known living Amphibium is 4 feet long (<i>Cryptobranchus</i>),
+and caused great astonishment, when it was discovered,
+but fossil <i>Amphibia</i> have been found larger than 15 feet (<i>Mastodonsaurus</i>).</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page552">[552]</span></p>
+
+<p>The largest actually measured living Reptile has a length of 30
+feet (<i>Crocodilus</i>), but some fossilized reptiles show a length of 38
+feet (<i>Hadrosaurus</i>, <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>), 45 feet (<i>Elasmosaurus</i>), 58 feet
+(<i>Rhamphosuchus</i>), 70 feet (<i>Brontosaurus</i>) nay even of 100 (<i>Liodon</i>)
+and of 115 feet (<i>Atlantosaurus</i>), and probably many kinds of Reptiles
+are still longer, the skeletons of which have been dug up
+only partially!</p>
+
+<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig81">
+<img src="images/illo552.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 81.—<i>Otaria jubata</i> (<span class="smcap">Forster</span>) <span class="smcap">Desm.</span>—From the “List of the Vertebrated Animals
+now or lately living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>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!</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Atlantosaurus</i> and the <i>Balaenoptera</i>
+were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the case:
+they are surpassed by the <i>Megophias</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Of all Pinnipeds the family of the <i>Auriculata</i> (Eared Seals) has
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page553">[553]</span>the longest necks. In this particular they are surpassed by sea-serpents.</p>
+
+<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig82">
+<img src="images/illo553.jpg" alt="">
+<p class="caption">Fig. 82.—<i>Callorhinus ursinus</i> (<span class="smcap">Linné</span>) <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.—From <span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span> “Thierleben”.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>None of the hitherto known living Pinnipeds has such an enormous
+tail as the sea-serpent, but the fossil <i>Basilosaurus</i>, 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 <i>Simiidae</i> have no tails, whilst the other families have
+generally long tails. Amongst the tailed monkeys we find in one
+<i>genus</i> species with very long tails, as the <i>Macacus cynamolgos</i> (the
+Macaque Monkey), and others with very short tails, as the <i>Macacus
+maurus</i> (Moor Macaque). This difference in the length of the
+tail is present <i>in all orders</i> of the <i>Quadrupedia</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>Form.</i>—The shape of <i>Megophias megophias</i> is exactly that of
+<i>Zalophus californianus</i>, 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 <i>Zalophus californianus</i> 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 <i>Auriculata</i>,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page554">[554]</span>especially in <i>Zalophus californianus</i>, 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”. (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>History of North
+American Pinnipeds</i>, 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 <i>Zalophus californianus.</i>
+The snout or muzzle too, is of all Pinnipeds most resembling
+that of <i>Zalophus californianus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>All Pinnipeds have whiskers. In some species they are large,
+as in <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>, the sea-bear, in other comparatively
+small, as in <i>Monachus tropicalis</i> <span class="smcap">Gray</span>, and in the males of the
+genus <i>Macrorhinus</i>, and even very small in the <i>Trichecidae</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The eyes of <i>Megophias megophias</i> seem to be comparatively larger
+than those in other species of Pinnipeds, though <i>Otaria jubata</i>
+and <i>Phoca foetida</i> are known to have comparatively large eyes. I
+have nowhere found any remark about the colour of the eye, with
+regard to its <i>tapetum lucidum</i>, and till now I have had no opportunity
+to convince myself of the <i>tapetum</i> of <i>Zalophus</i> or <i>Eumetopias</i>
+being red. But is it not remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">H. W. Elliot</span> too
+asserts of <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i>: “it has a really leonine appearance
+and bearing, greatly enhanced by the rich, golden-rufous of its
+coat, ferocity of expression, and <i>bull-dog-like muzzle and cast of eye</i>”?
+(<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> p. 258).</p>
+
+<p><i>Skin.</i>—As in all Pinnipeds the skin is hairy, most probably
+the hairs are quite stiff and not woolly like fur.</p>
+
+<p><i>Colours, Individual Variations.</i>—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
+(<i>Cystophora cristata</i>, (<span class="smcap">Erxl</span>) <span class="smcap">Nilss.</span>). 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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page555">[555]</span>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 <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> “the end of the nose.... is
+naked and.... dull blue black” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i>
+p. 234, 235); of <i>Zalophus californianus</i> we read: “A third is.... blackish
+around the eyes and nostrils” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i>
+p. 277). In a foetal specimen: “nose and face, to and around the
+eyes” are “black” (Ibid., p. 278); and <span class="smcap">Nilsson’s</span> black variety of
+the Ringed Seal (<i>Phoca foetida</i> <span class="smcap">Fabr.</span>) has “nose and eye-rings
+uniform black” (Ibid. p. 602).</p>
+
+<p><i>Sexual differences, Mane.</i>—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 <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> “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.”
+(<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> p. 234). Of the hairs of <i>Callorhinus
+ursinus</i> 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
+<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i>.” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> p. 315).</p>
+
+<p>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:</p>
+
+<table class="sizes">
+
+<tr class="bb">
+<th class="br">NAME</th>
+<th colspan="3" class="br">VERY OLD<br>MALE.</th>
+<th colspan="3" class="br">VERY OLD<br>FEMALE.</th>
+<th>RATIO.</th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Zalophus californianus</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">8</td>
+<td class="fracpart">¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="unit">ft.</td>
+<td class="intpart">6</td>
+<td class="fracpart">³⁄₄</td>
+<td class="unit">ft.</td>
+<td class="ratio">100:81&#8200;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">13</td>
+<td rowspan="4">&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">9</td>
+<td rowspan="4">&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="ratio">100:69&#8200;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">25</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">15</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="ratio">100:60&#8200;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Macrorhinus angustirostris</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">22</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">13</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="ratio">100:59&#8200;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Callorhinus ursinus</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">8</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">4</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="ratio">100:50.</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page556">[556]</span></p>
+
+<p>In <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>The losing of hair when the animals grow very old, is very
+striking in both <i>Odobaenus rosmarus</i> and in <i>Odobaenus obesus</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>Food.</i> 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. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> says of <i>Odobaenus rosmarus</i>: “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 <i>crammed</i> full of the
+<i>krang</i> or flesh of that <i>Cetacean</i>” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i>
+p. 135). <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> occasionally eats birds (Ibid. p. 274).</p>
+
+<p><i>Breathing.</i>—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. <span class="smcap">Allen’s</span> work (p. 180) that also
+walruses “blow not unlike a whale”.</p>
+
+<p><i>Excretion.</i>—The emitting a very strong odour is also known
+in Pinnipeds. <span class="smcap">Krascheninikow</span> says of <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>: “Such
+as are old, or have no mistresses, live apart; and the first that
+our people found upon <i>Behring</i>’s Island were such old ones, and
+all males, extremely fat and stinking” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, p. 342). Of <i>Eumetopias
+Stelleri</i> <span class="smcap">Choris</span> reports: “L’odeur qu’ils répandent est insupportable.
+Ces animaux étaient alors dans le temps du rut” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>,
+p. 254), and of <i>Phoca foetida</i> <span class="smcap">Kumlien</span> asserts:</p>
+
+<p>“It is only the adult males (called <i>Tigak</i>, = 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.” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, p. 624).</p>
+
+<p>Respecting the foetid odour emitted by this species, Dr. <span class="smcap">Rink</span>
+observes as follows:</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page557">[557]</span></p>
+
+<p>“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”.—<i>Danish
+Greenland, its People and its Products</i> p. 123 (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N.
+Am. Pinn.</i> p. 624).</p>
+
+<p><i>Feeling.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Smell, Hearing, Sight.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Relative mobility of organs.</i> Every one who has ever witnessed
+the graceful movements of seals and sea-lions, especially those of
+<i>Zalophus californianus</i> 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 <i>Zalophus californianus</i>,
+save the movement of the tail.</p>
+
+<p><i>Motion.</i> The same may be observed in comparing the motions
+of sea-serpents with those of <i>Zalophus californianus</i>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page558">[558]</span></p>
+
+<p>I don’t know if sea-lions have ever been seen swimming with
+<i>fixed bunches</i>, or folds. When at rest their skin may enormously
+wrinkle, like that of walruses, and as is shown in our <a href="#Fig78">fig. 78</a>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Owing to the form and size of its flappers the speed of the sea-lion
+is really astonishing; it is much less in seals.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Zalophus californianus</i>, are in the habit of swimming in this way.</p>
+
+<p>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”.</p>
+
+<p>As to the <i>voice</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Generation.</i>—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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<table class="sizes">
+
+<tr class="bb">
+<th class="br">NAME.</th>
+<th colspan="3" class="br">VERY OLD<br>MALE.</th>
+<th colspan="3" class="br">NEW BORN<br>YOUNG<br>ONE.</th>
+<th>RATIO.</th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Zalophus californianus</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">8</td>
+<td class="fracpart">¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="unit">ft.</td>
+<td class="intpart">2</td>
+<td class="fracpart">¹⁄₃</td>
+<td class="unit">ft.</td>
+<td class="ratio">¹⁄₃-¹⁄₄</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Macrorhinus angustirostris</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">22</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">4</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="ratio">¹⁄₅-¹⁄₆</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">13</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">2</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="ratio">¹⁄₆-¹⁄₇</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="species"><i>Callorhinus ursinus</i></td>
+<td class="intpart">8</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">„</td>
+<td class="intpart">10</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="unit">in.</td>
+<td class="ratio">¹⁄₈-¹⁄₉</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p><i>Taking notice of objects.</i> It is well enough known that seals
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page559">[559]</span>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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Curiosity and Suspicion</i> are known characters in all kinds of
+Pinnipeds, and it is noteworthy that they are most striking in
+walruses and seals.</p>
+
+<p><i>Harmlessness and Timidity.</i> There is hardly any Pinniped which
+is not harmless and timid.</p>
+
+<p><i>Fearlessness</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Fear</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Fright.</i> It is superfluous to touch upon this subject in Pinnipeds;
+every one knows the effects and consequences of a shot at these
+timid animals.</p>
+
+<p><i>Fury.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Toughness.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><i>Playsomeness</i> is a well known character of all Pinnipeds; it may
+of course be less observable in the bulky and unwieldy walruses.</p>
+
+<p><i>Remark.</i> 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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page560">[560]</span>sea-serpents with Pinnipeds, to read <span class="smcap">Allen’s</span> often quoted work
+“<i>History of North-American Pinnipeds</i>”, and his “<i>On Eared Seals</i>”,
+(<i>Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard College.</i> Cambr. Mass. Vol. II,
+n<sup>o</sup>. 1.), and <span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span> <i>Thierleben</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<i>Megophias megophias</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<h4>2. ITS RANK IN THE SYSTEM OF NATURE.</h4>
+
+<p>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. <i>Herpestes Widdringtonii</i>. The dentition must
+have been the typical carnivorous one:
+i <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>,
+c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>,
+m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">7</span><span class="lower">7</span></span>; or there
+were more molars, perhaps
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">8</span><span class="lower">8</span></span>, as a genus of wild dogs, <i>Otocyon</i>,
+has 8 molars on each side of each jaw; its dentition is
+i <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>,
+c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>,
+m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">8</span><span class="lower">8</span></span>.
+(The <i>Cynoidea</i>, or dog-like animals are also considered as
+having their origin in Viverrine animals.)</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>long-tailed
+ancestors of weasels and stoats</i>, for our common weasel (<i>Putorius
+vulgaris</i> L.) and our common stoat (<i>Putorius ermineus</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>Some of these <i>long-tailed ancestors of weasels and stoats</i> took
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page561">[561]</span>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 <i>long-tailed ancestors of
+polecats and minks</i>, for our common polecat (<i>Putorius putorius</i> L.)
+and the Russian minks (<i>Putorius lutreolus</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>Some of these <i>long-tailed ancestors of polecats and minks</i> 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 <i>long-tailed ancestors of otters</i>, for all the known
+species of otters (<i>Lutra</i>) 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: <i>Lutra</i> <span class="smcap">Storr</span>, but even to establish for it a
+new subfamily <i>Lutrina</i> <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.</p>
+
+<p>These <i>long-tailed ancestors of otters</i> were again survived by their
+congeners which were still better adapted to the new medium, so
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page562">[562]</span>that from them another group gradually arose, which had broader
+webs on the hind feet. This group may be called <i>long-tailed ancestors
+of fin-tailed otters</i>, for the fin-tailed otter (<i>Lutra Sanbachii</i>
+<span class="smcap">Gray</span>) 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 (<i>Lutra</i>), 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: <i>Pteronura</i> <span class="smcap">Gray</span>. Its
+ancestors, however, were not provided with these lateral fin-like
+dilatations on the tail.</p>
+
+<p>Some of these <i>long-tailed ancestors of the fin-tailed otter</i> 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 <i>long-tailed
+ancestors of sea-otters</i>, for our sea-otters (<i>Lutra lutris</i> L.) are still
+living descendants of them. But as these animals have accustomed
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page563">[563]</span>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 <i>Enhydra</i> <span class="smcap">Cuv</span>.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the <i>long-tailed ancestors of sea-otters</i> 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 <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>,
+c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>,
+m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">7</span><span class="lower">7</span></span>), 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 <i>Propinnipedia</i>, 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 <i>Propinnipedia</i> gave origin to two groups of
+animals, which are marked below with A and B.</p>
+
+<p>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 <span class="smcap">D’Arcy W. Thompson</span> (<i>Studies
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page564">[564]</span>from the Museum of Zoology in University College</i>, Dundee,
+Vol. I, N<sup>o</sup>. 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 <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>,
+c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>,
+m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">7</span><span class="lower">7</span></span>); 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 <i>resembled</i> that of
+a slender and elongated dolphin, or whale, with an enormous
+<i>pointed</i> 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
+<i>Basilosaurus</i> by <span class="smcap">Harlan</span> in 1824 (afterwards <span class="smcap">Owen</span> gave them the
+name of <i>Zeuglodon</i>, 1839).</p>
+
+<p>B.—This second group is called <i>Pinnipedia</i> by <span class="smcap">Illiger</span> in 1811,
+and <span class="smcap">Allen</span> gives of it the following characters:</p>
+
+<p>“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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page565">[565]</span>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
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span> or
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, sometimes
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">2</span></span> (<i>Cystophora</i> and <i>Macrorhinus</i>) or even
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">2</span><span class="lower">2</span></span>
+(<i>Odobaenus</i>); canines
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">2</span><span class="lower">2</span></span>; molars
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">5</span><span class="lower">5</span></span>,
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">5</span></span>, or
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">5</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>.”</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Already very early the Pinnipeds divided themselves into two
+different branches, marked below with I and II.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Inauriculata</i> by <span class="smcap">Péron</span> in
+1816 (afterwards called <i>Phocidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1825, and <i>Reptigrada</i>
+by <span class="smcap">Elliot Coues</span>, invited thereto by <span class="smcap">Allen</span> in 1880). The characters
+are described by <span class="smcap">Allen</span> as follows:</p>
+
+<p>“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
+(<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>,
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, or
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">2</span></span>). Deciduous dentition
+not persistent beyond foetal life.”</p>
+
+<p>The group includes all true seals and sea-elephants.</p>
+
+<p>II.—This branch is called <i>Gressigrada</i> by <span class="smcap">Elliot Coues</span> in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page566">[566]</span>1880, who was thereto invited by <span class="smcap">Allen</span>, 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 <i>Gressigrada</i>, to avoid the increase of synonyms. The
+early forms of the <i>Gressigrada</i> 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 <i>Gressigrada</i> divided itself into two sections,
+which are marked below with a and b.—</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">6</span></span>; of permanent
+dentition
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">2</span><span class="lower">6</span></span>. No postorbital processes, and the surface of the mastoid
+processes continuous with the auditory bullae.”—This section is
+called <i>Trichecidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1821 (afterwards it was named
+<i>Trichechidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1825, <i>Broca</i> by <span class="smcap">Latreille</span> in 1825,
+<i>Campodontia</i> by <span class="smcap">Brookes</span> in 1828, <i>Trichecina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1837,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page567">[567]</span><i>Trichechoidea</i> by <span class="smcap">Giebel</span> in 1847, <i>Trichechina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1850,
+<i>Rosmaridae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gill</span> in 1866, <i>Rosmaroidea</i> by <span class="smcap">Gill</span> in 1872, and
+<i>Odobaenidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Allen</span> in 1880!!!). The section contains only the
+walruses.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>somewhat more
+elongated</i>; 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 <i>Tenuia</i>, or Animals which are slender.—Very early the
+section of the <i>Tenuia</i> divided itself into two smaller divisions which
+are marked below with 1 and 2.—</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, only the outer on either side cutting the
+gum; of permanent dentition
+<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, 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 <i>Auriculata</i> by <span class="smcap">Péron</span> in 1816,
+(afterwards also called <i>Otariina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1825, <i>Otariadae</i> by
+<span class="smcap">Brookes</span> in 1828, <i>Arctocephalina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1837, and <i>Otariidae</i>
+by <span class="smcap">Gill</span> in 1866) containing the sea-bears and sea-lions.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page568">[568]</span>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 <i>Longicaudata</i>, or
+Long-tailed Animals, consists only of one genus: <i>Megophias</i> <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>,
+including only one species <i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span>, the
+sea-serpent.</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">I purposely have not mentioned the genera <i>Squalodon</i> and <i>Stenodon</i>,
+and the group of <i>Plagiuri</i> (<span class="smcap">Art.</span>, 1735; <i>Physeteres</i>, <span class="smcap">Klein</span>, 1741;
+<i>Cetacea</i>, <span class="smcap">Briss</span>, 1756; <i>Cete</i>, <span class="smcap">Linn</span>, 1758), as the recent cetologists
+still differ in opinions as to their relation to <i>Basilosaurus</i> and the
+<i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">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.</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">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 <i>Auriculata</i>) 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 <i>Auriculata</i> 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 <i>at all events the sea-serpent
+is a true Pinniped</i>. It has four flappers, a hairy skin, and strong
+whiskers. Its head <i>resembles</i> that of a sea-lion, its long neck <i>resembles</i>
+that of a sea-lion, its trunk and its foreflappers <i>resemble</i>
+those of a sea-lion. But these <i>resemblances</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page569">[569]</span></p>
+
+<div class="largetable" id="Ref9">
+
+<table class="origin">
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="23" class="text">Putorius vulgaris.<br>Putorius ermineus.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="9" colspan="3" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="9">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="19">Putorius putorius.<br>Putorius lutreolus.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="8" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="8">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="17">Lutra.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="7" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="7">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="15">Pteronura Sanbachii.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="6" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="6">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="13">Enhydra lutris.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="5" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="5" colspan="4">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="8">Inauriculata.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="4" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="4">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="6">Trichecidae.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="3" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="3">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4">Auriculata.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="2">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2">Longicaudata.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr class="bbdots">
+<td class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="17" colspan="3" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="15" colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="13" colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="11" colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="9" colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="7">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="lined">Basilosaurus.</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="3" colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of Tenuia.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="3">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="6">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of Gressigrada.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="5">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="8">Long-tailed early<br>forms of Pinnipedia.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="7">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="10">Propinnipedia,<br>long-tailed ancestors<br>of Pinnipedia and Basilosaurus.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="3" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="9">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="13">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of sea-otters.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="12">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="15">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of fin-tailed otters.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="14">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="17">Long-tailed ancestors of otters.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="16">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="19">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of polecats and minks.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="18">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="22">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of weasels and stoats.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="4" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="19">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="cntr">Long-tailed<br>Viverrine<br>ancestors.</td>
+<td colspan="18">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+</div><!--largetable-->
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page570">[570]</span></p>
+
+<p>The ancestors of <i>Pinnipedia</i> and <i>Basilosaurus</i>, which I have
+called <i>Propinnipedia</i>, 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 <i>Propinnipedia</i> 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 <i>Propinnipedia</i>
+divided themselves into two branches.</p>
+
+<p>All the members of the <i>first</i> 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 <i>Basilosaurus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>All the members of the <i>second</i> 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 <i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Already very early they divided themselves into two sections.</p>
+
+<p>All the members of the <i>first</i> section accustomed themselves to
+crawl more on land, ice, and rocks, and as the long tail must
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page571">[571]</span>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 <i>Brevicaudata</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Longicaudata</i>. They form with
+the <i>Brevicaudata</i> the order of <i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p>
+
+<p>If this view is better, (and who will tell us this with any certainty?)
+the phylogenetic table should be altered as follows:</p>
+
+<table class="phylgen">
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="6" class="mid bbdots"><span class="padr2">Living.</span></td>
+<td colspan="4" class="rght">Auriculata.</td>
+<td colspan="2">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="lft">Trichecidae.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="4" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="3">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4">Gressigrada.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lft">Inauriculata.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="6" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="4" class="rght">Longicaudata.</td>
+<td colspan="2">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4" class="lft">Brevicaudata.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr class="bbdots">
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="5" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="4">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="4" class="mid"><span class="padr2">Extinct.</span></td>
+<td rowspan="2" colspan="7">Long-tailed early forms<br>of Pinnipedia.</td>
+<td>&#160;</td>
+<td rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="lft">Basilosaurus.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="lined">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="5" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="3" class="lined">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="2">&#160;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="5">&#160;</td>
+<td colspan="5">Propinnipedia, long-tailed<br>ancestors of Pinnipedia<br>and Basilosaurus.</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<p>In the <a href="#Ref9">first table</a> I have tried to show two things.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page572">[572]</span>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 <i>Basilosaurus</i> are already found
+in Eocene layers together with remains of Viverrine ancestors of
+<i>Carnivora</i>, <i>Pinnipedia</i> and <i>Basilosaurus</i>, whilst those of true <i>Pinnipedia</i>,
+<i>Lutrina</i> and <i>Mustelina</i> appear for the first time during
+the Miocene period, and whilst remains of true <i>Viverra</i>’s (the
+genus) do not seem to have made their appearance before the
+Pliocene period.</p>
+
+<h2 class="appendix nobreak">APPENDIX.</h2>
+
+<p>Since the book was written, I have corresponded with Prof. Dr.
+<span class="smcap">M. Forster Heddle</span>, of St. Andrews, Mr. <span class="smcap">J. A. Harvie Brown</span>,
+of Dunipace (Larbert), Misses <span class="smcap">Kate</span> and <span class="smcap">Forbes J. Macrae</span>, both
+of Heathmount (Inverness), Mr. <span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span>, of Newcastle-on-Tyne,
+Prof. <span class="smcap">R. Collett</span>, of Christiania, and Mr. <span class="smcap">R. P. Greg</span>, of
+Coles (Buntingford). The five first-named corresponded with me as
+eye-witnesses, and kindly sent me their statements, written immediately
+after the appearances they had witnessed; Prof. <span class="smcap">Collett</span>
+courteously presented me with a copy of his dissertation <i>Lidt om
+Soe-Ormen eller Soe-Slangen</i>; Mr. <span class="smcap">Greg</span> who since many years has
+been collecting with great zeal accounts and reports concerning the
+matter, had the rare liberality to send me his whole collection to
+make use of. To all these ladies and gentlemen I feel here called
+upon to tender my warmest thanks.</p>
+
+<p>Space does not allow me to give a verbal reprint of the various
+hoaxes, would-be sea-serpents, reports, and principal contents of
+papers, nor to treat of them separately. This I leave for an eventual
+second edition. But all the appearances which I have placed
+under the <i>Reports and Papers</i> are explicable by reference to the
+<i>Megophias</i>. With the initials “R. P. G.” I have marked those
+statements, accounts, etc., which I got from Mr. R. P. <span class="smcap">Greg</span>.</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="appendix">Literature.</h3>
+
+<p>Besides the newspapers, dissertations, and books, mentioned in
+the subsequent parts, the following are additions to my first chapter:</p>
+
+<p class="hind08">*1707.—<span class="smcap">F. Leguat.</span> Voyage et aventures en deux isles désertes
+des Indes Orientales.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page573">[573]</span></p>
+
+<p class="hind08">*18.....—<i>Het Nederlandsch Magazijn.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hind08">*1874, February.—The <i>Cape Monthly Magazine</i>.</p>
+
+<p class="hind08">*1875.—<i>The Shipping Gazette</i>, London.</p>
+
+<p class="hind08">*1875.—<i>The Daily Telegraph.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hind08"><span class="padl1">1879, September 25?—<i>The Royston Crow.</i>—(R. P. G.).</span></p>
+
+<p class="hind08">*189...—<span class="smcap">Bassett</span>, Sea-phantoms; or legends and superstitions of
+  the sea and sailors in all lands and all times. Chicago.</p>
+
+<h3 class="appendix">Hoaxes.</h3>
+
+<p>The account of captain <span class="smcap">L. Bijl</span>, of 1858, July 9, (see <a href="#Page96">p. 96</a>)
+must be a hoax, for 1. 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ E. long. is a
+point in the middle of North-Africa, and 2. even if E. long, were
+a misprint instead of W. long., it is impossible that a barque
+should travel over such a distance as from 27° 27′ N. lat. and
+14° 51′ W. long, to 37° 55′ S. lat. and 42° 9′ E. long. <i>in nine days</i>!</p>
+
+<p>A tale in the <i>Standard</i> of 1879, March 27, of a dead sea-serpent
+found floating near Monegan (Manhegin?) Island near Portland,
+Me.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>Collision of the Norwegian barque <i>Columbia</i>, from London to
+Quebec, with a huge floating creature on the 4th. September,
+1879; the ship sunk.—<i>Manchester Guardian</i> of 1879, Sept. 25.—(R.
+P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>A sea-serpent of 55 feet in length, light pink coloured. “Several
+times it opened its mouth, disclosing fangs about 4in. in length”.—It
+was on 5th. August 1885, in lat. 29° 35′ N. and long 34° 50′ W.—(R.
+P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>A sea-serpent caught off Newfoundland, October 11, 1886,
+and stuffed.—<i>Manchester Evening Mail</i>, 1887, September; <i>Evening
+Mercury</i> of St. Johns, N. F., 1887, September 12; <i>The Marine
+Industrial News</i>.—The monster was from head to tail “a fraud”,
+or “a Yankee humbug”.—Letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">G. Fitz Gerald</span>, of
+St. Johns, and from Prof. <span class="smcap">G. V. Morse</span>, of Portland, Me., to
+Mr. <span class="smcap">R. P. Greg</span>.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p><i>The London Globe</i> of Aug. 15, 1887, mentions a fight between
+a sea-serpent and a whale, witnessed near Fort Papham in moonlight,
+some three weeks back, etc.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>A stranded sea-serpent.—<i>Boston Courier</i>, 1887, November.—Cape
+May, N. Jers.—Hoax? or would-be sea-serpent? (<i>Regalecus?</i>)—(R.
+P. G.)</p>
+
+<p><i>The</i> sea-serpent is distinctly seen in Georgetown Harbour, on
+the 20th. of August, 1888, sleeping on the surface, &amp;c.—<i>Chambers’
+Journal</i>, 1888, Nov. 24.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page574">[574]</span></p>
+
+<p>“Exciting chases after boats’ crews.”—A splendid hoax.—St.
+Johns’ (N. F.) <i>Evening Telegram</i> of Aug. 25, 1888.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>The Bishop of Adelaide or a certain Mr. <span class="smcap">Bishop</span> of that town
+has found a sea-serpent lying dead on the shore.—<i>The Times</i> of
+Nov. 11, 1891.—(R. P. G.)—Mr. <span class="smcap">G. Bogle</span> wrote to the Bishop,
+who promptly answered it was entirely untrue.—(G. B.)</p>
+
+<p>“Narrow escape of a boats’ crew.”—<i>The North British Daily
+Mail</i> of September 1892.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span>.)</p>
+
+<h3 class="appendix">Would-be Sea-Serpents.</h3>
+
+<p>1880 August.—The sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">Hanna</span>, of Pemaquid,
+Me.—Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 26,
+p. 407.—Without any doubt a fish, but very problematic.—<i>Naturen</i>,
+1884, N<sup>o</sup>. 2.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. <span class="smcap">Collett</span>.)</p>
+
+<p>1880 August 11.—Between Yokohama and San Francisco, lat.
+48.37. long. 180.—Captain <span class="smcap">Thos. U. Brocklehurst</span>, of Henbury
+Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire, saw on board the <i>Oceanic</i> a snake-like
+fish, 40 feet long, about 18 inches the whole length thick.—Letter
+from Mr. <span class="smcap">Thos. U. Brocklehurst</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">R. P. Greg</span>.—Without
+any doubt an eel-shaped fish.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1883, July or August.—A newspaper of this month mentions the
+capture of a genuine sea-serpent in the Java Sea.—<i>Hydrophis.</i>—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1883, October 8.—In the Red Sea, lat. 23° N., long. 37° E.,
+on board the ss. <i>Madura</i>.—Witness Mr. A. Eisses, of Groningen.—<i>Nieuwe
+Groninger Courant</i> of August 16, 1892.—The neck
+had the thickness of the upper arm of a man.—Appearance perfectly
+the same as that witnessed by Mr. <span class="smcap">G. Verschuur</span> (see <a href="#Page99">p. 99</a>).</p>
+
+<p>1886 or 1887.—The sea-snake-like bird, reported by Count <span class="smcap">Joachim
+Pfeil</span>, the German African explorer—a little snake-like neck rising
+out of the water, which when fired at, rose into the air, proving to be
+a bird—is of course a kind of <i>Plotus</i>, and most probably <i>Plotus
+levaillantii</i> <span class="smcap">Temm.</span>—A Hertford newspaper of 1887.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1888?—In Mrs. <span class="smcap">Caddy’s</span> book <i>To Siam and Malasia in the
+Duke of Sutherland’s Yacht</i> is a description of a sea-serpent she
+witnessed near Bangkok “which rose slowly out of the water in
+two large luminous curves, like two arches of a low bridge”.—?—(R.
+P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1889, August.—<i>Standard</i> of 1889, August 15.—A monstrous
+fish was seen floundering in shallow water on the Bancals Rocks,
+not far from the Island of St. Honorat, near Cannes, and had a
+beak like a parrot.—Most probably therefore it was a calamary.—(R.
+P. G.)</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page575">[575]</span></p>
+
+<h3 class="appendix">Reports and Papers.</h3>
+
+<p>Without date.—A sea-monster at Maringonish in the Gulf of
+St. Lawrence, judged to be a hundred feet in length, seen by two
+intelligent observers within 200 yards of the shore.—Description
+too short.—Doubtful.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1570, July.—A monstrous fish seen in Loch Fyne (Fine),
+having great eyes, and at times standing above the water as high
+as the mast of a ship.—<i>Diurnal and Remarkable occurrents in
+Scotland</i>, 1513-1575, Maitland Club, Scotland, 1833.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1639.—A vague report of a certain <span class="smcap">Josselin</span>, but most probably
+based on truth.—Cape Ann.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June,
+1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1779.—“In an Eastern Harbour” (which?)—Eye-witness <span class="smcap">E.
+Preble</span>, midshipman in the <i>Protector</i>, and several other officers
+and crew.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1817, August 14. (<a href="#Page168">N<sup>o</sup>. 41</a>, see <a href="#Page169">p. 169</a>).—Another confirmation
+of this appearance will be found in the <i>Gloucester Telegraph</i> of
+that year. Here it is also mentioned that in the <span class="smcap">Rogers</span> family
+there is preserved a picture by <span class="smcap">“Jack” Beach</span>, or better a copy
+of this picture by <span class="smcap">Joseph H. Davis</span>, representing the sea-serpent
+in the harbour of Gloucester on this day.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of
+June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)—This is of course the drawing, spoken
+of on <a href="#Page173">p. 173</a> of the present volume. Here I may note that <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>
+also speaks of a picture in the collection of <span class="smcap">Jacob Severin</span>,
+representing the animal as it appeared to <span class="smcap">Egede</span>.</p>
+
+<p>1818, August 13 and 14.—Partly about Nahant, and partly
+near Gloucester.—Multitudes of spectators.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of
+June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1819, August 19.—This seems to be the exact date of the appearance
+witnessed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Cabot</span>. Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> and others saw it “a few
+days previously”.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1820, August 10.—Off Swampscott.—<span class="smcap">Andrew Reinolds</span>, <span class="smcap">Jonathan
+B. Lewis</span>, <span class="smcap">Benjamin King</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Ingalls</span>.—<i>Atlantic
+Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1823, July 12.—The animal was seen moving into the harbor
+(Lynn Harbour?) from Nahant.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Johnson</span> (in April
+7, 1884, still alive).—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1826.—“In 1826 it again appeared off Nahant, as is recorded
+very briefly in the <i>Lynn Mirror</i>”.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June,
+1884.—See also <a href="#Report84">n<sup>o</sup>. 84</a>, p. 236; it might have been the same
+individual.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page576">[576]</span></p>
+
+<p>1838? (<a href="#Report104">N<sup>o</sup>. 104</a>, see p. 253).—Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span> made his
+voyage to the Pacific in the <i>Blossom</i> in the years 1825, 26, 27
+and 28. It is therefore probable that he saw the sea-serpent in one
+of these years, but also possible that he was commander of the
+<i>Blossom</i> before 1825 or later than 1828.</p>
+
+<p>1841, July 14.—A monster with a straight black head, 10
+feet out of the water, spouting “a column of water in the air”,
+but “it was not a whale”.—Gulf of Mexico.—<span class="smcap">Stephen’s</span> <i>Central
+America</i>, 1842, Vol. II, p. 464.—Description too short.—Doubtful.—(R.
+P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1849.—Seen (where?) by Mr. <span class="smcap">Marston</span>, of Swampscott.—<i>Atlantic
+Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1854, spring.—A gigantic serpent, first called by the look-out
+man as “the biggest log ever seen”, afterwards rearing its snake
+like head as high as the funnel of the steamer out of the water,
+and plunging down.—Eye witnesses: Captain <span class="smcap">Peat</span>, of the <i>Wm.
+Scalrook</i>, and Captain <span class="smcap">Rollins</span>, of the <i>Isabel</i>.—Before the mouth
+of Savannah River, Georg. and S. Car.—Miss <span class="smcap">Murray</span>, <i>United
+States, Canada and Cuba</i>, 1855, Putnam &amp; Co., New York,
+p. 235.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1872.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span> in his <i>De Dierentuin van het Koninklijk
+Zoölogisch Genootschap Natura Artis Magistra te Amsterdam</i>, Vol. III,
+p. 45, points out that as early as 1837 he <i>proved</i> (<i>nota bene</i>) the impossibility
+of the existence of such a more than gigantic animal.</p>
+
+<p>1872, August 20 and 21. (<a href="#Report137">N<sup>o</sup>. 137</a> and <a href="#Report138">138</a>, see p. 322).—The
+following is the account which the Rev. <span class="smcap">J. Macrae</span> sent to
+the <i>Inverness Courier</i>, August 1872, prefaced by the Editors of
+this paper:</p>
+
+<p>“A gentleman on whose intelligent observation and accuracy we
+have perfect reliance, sends the following account of a strange
+animal now to be seen about the West-Coast of Invernessshire and
+which, if not the veritable or traditional sea-serpent, must be the
+object so often represented under that appellation”.</p>
+
+<p>“On Tuesday last, 20th. August, I went on a trip to Loch
+Hourn in my small sailing boat. I was accompanied by my friend,
+the Rev. Mr. T. of Kent, my two daughters, my grandson, and a
+servant lad. While we were proceeding along the sound of Sleat
+it fell calm, and we were rowing the boat, when we observed behind
+us a row of dark masses, which we took at the first glance
+for a shoal of porpoises; but a second look showed that these masses
+formed one and the same creature, for it moved slowly across
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page577">[577]</span>our wake, about two hundred yards off, and disappeared. Soon
+afterwards what seemed to be its head reappeared, followed by
+the bumps, or undulations of its body, which rose in succession
+till we counted 8 of them. It approached now within about 100
+yards, or less, and with the help of binoculars we could see it
+pretty distinctly. We did not see its eyes, nor observe any scales:
+but two of the party believed that they saw what they took to be
+a small fin moving above the water. It then slowly sunk, and
+moved away just under the surface of the water, for we could trace
+its course till it rose again, by the large waves it raised above it,
+to the distance of a mile and upwards”.</p>
+
+<p>“We had no means of measuring its size with any accuracy,
+but taking the distance from the centre of one bump or undulation
+of its body to that of another at 6ft. (it could not be less)
+the length of the portion visible above the water, would be about
+50 feet, and there may have been 20 or 30ft. more of its length
+which we did not see”.</p>
+
+<p>“Its head seemed blunt, and looked about 18in. in diameter,
+and the bumps were rather larger than the head. When in rapid
+motion the bumps disappeared, and only the head and neck
+could be seen, partly above the surface of the water. It continued
+to rush about in the same manner as long as we remained
+within sight of the place, but did not again come so near us
+that day”.</p>
+
+<p>“On the afternoon of the next day, August 21, as we were
+returning home we encountered our strange acquaintance again
+within the entrance of Loch Hourn, and saw him careering swiftly
+along the surface of the water, which was now slightly rippled
+with a light air of wind. It passed once abeam of us, at a distance
+of about 150 yards, with its head half out of the water, and we
+distinctly heard the whizzing noise it made as it rushed through
+the water. There were no organs of locomotion to be seen, and
+its progress was equable and smooth, like that of a log towed
+rapidly. Neither its appearance nor mode of progression had any
+resemblance to those of any known cetacean, shark, or fish of any
+kind. In case any of your readers should imagine that I, as well
+as the subject of my report am a mere myth, you will please to
+give my name to this communication, and I believe that among
+a pretty wide circle of persons who know me there is none who
+consider me capable of stating as true what I do not believe to be
+so; or so little acquainted with the sea, as not to know a whale,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page578">[578]</span>a porpoise, a shark, or a herring barrel, when I see them. I am
+Sir, your obedient servant”</p>
+
+<p>“Glenelg Mame”.
+<span class="righttext"><span class="padr4">“<span class="smcap">J. Macrae</span>”.</span></span></p>
+
+<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Kate Macrae’s</span> narrative, written on the spot, runs as
+follows:</p>
+
+<p>“<i>In the yacht “Leda”, 20th. and 21th. August 1872.</i>—We
+were becalmed in the sound of Sleat about 3 miles from Glenelg,
+the day was intensely hot, the lads were rowing slowly. I was
+facing the stern, when I saw about a half mile behind, a dark
+object suddenly emerge, about the size of a small cask. I exclaimed,
+and called the attention of the others to it; immediately a
+second, third, fourth, fifth, thing appeared like this”. (Here Miss
+<span class="smcap">Macrae</span> has drawn six bunches exactly resembling those drawn
+by her father, see <a href="#Fig39">fig. 39</a> p. 323). “We thought at first it was
+the back of a cormorant, but were undeceived by seeing the animal
+swim swiftly just under the surface of the water towards a
+rowing boat of country people which was nearer it than we were,
+the people evidently astonished ceased rowing, and the creature
+disappeared quietly without the least agitation of the water. Our
+boys then resumed their oars, which they had dropped to gaze,
+and next we saw the animal coming swiftly towards us, from the
+direction of the boat; it raised the water before it, and left a wake
+on the calm sea behind it, like what a small steam launch would.
+As our rowers paused again, it turned to the outer side of our
+yacht, and disappeared, but I noticed that something like a rounded
+paddle, the breadth of two hands worked to and fro raising the
+water in a clear dome as it went down; the colour of it a dark
+brown, and shape like this”. (Here Miss <span class="smcap">Macrae</span> has drawn a thick
+curved line in the form of a horse-shoe, the opening turned downwards).
+“In a few minutes afterwards, the row of lumps appeared
+again about a mile behind, and this time a triangular fin stuck
+up from about the 4th. lump, and apparently 10ft. the size of our
+jib, and the animal moved slowly along on the surface”.</p>
+
+<p>“Next evening as we were slipping gently along near the mouth
+of Loch Hourn on the N. side, my nephew called out, that he
+saw the sea-serpent again. Swimming across from Skye, by the
+time I caught sight of it, it was far away, but showed more
+lumps, I counted 12, there were two sloops trying to get up into
+the Loch, and the crews were in their boats towing them, the
+animal looked 4 times as long as one of these vessels, it was swimming
+leisurely, and plainly pursued those vessels; then making a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page579">[579]</span>sweep across the mouth of the Loch came towards us, and passed
+not far outside the boat. I distinctly heard its rush through the
+water, just under the surface; the first waves it made, were unbroken,
+but some way from the head the water was broken, and
+foaming”.</p>
+
+<p>“Later, at 9 P. M. just as we neared Glenelg sailing and rowing,
+and with a good deal of ripple on the sea, we saw it coming
+straight astern, then it turned away northward and passed out of
+sight through Kyle Rhea”.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“<span class="smcap">Kate Macrae</span>”.</span></p>
+
+<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Forbes J. Macrae</span> wrote to me under date of July 22, 1892:</p>
+
+<p>“I fancy I have had a closer view of the sea-serpent than most
+people. About an hour before we were becalmed and saw it rise
+in its length astern of us, we had been slipping down in our boat
+along the coast, by the help of a strong tide and a very light
+wind. Looking at what I could see of the water under the edge
+of the mainsail of our small cutter yacht, I noticed at about an
+oar’s length from the boat a dark brown shining creature lying on
+the water, or rather a part of a creature for there was neither
+head nor tail nor fin visible, it seemed about six feet in length
+and the highest part of it was about a foot out of the water. None
+of the others were looking that way, so I was the only one who
+saw it. I asked my father if porpoises were in the habit of basking
+on the top of the water. He said he was not aware of their being
+in the habit of doing so, and we thought no more of it; till the
+next appearance of the animal made us think that it must have
+been one of its ridges I had seen as we sailed just close to it”.</p>
+
+<p>The following is the statement of Mr. <span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span> in the
+<i>Newcastle Weekly Chronicle</i> of 1877, December 31:</p>
+
+<p>“As considerable attention has lately been drawn in your columns
+to the sea-serpent, both mythological and otherwise, perhaps the
+following description of the strange creature seen by me and others
+in 1872 will be of some interest. An account of this creature,
+attested by credible witnesses, appeared in the May number of the
+<i>Zoologist</i> in 1873:—</p>
+
+<p>“On the 20th. of August, 1872, the Rev. J. Macrae of Glenelg,
+Rev. David Twopenny, Miss Forbes, and Miss Kate Macrae, a
+servant lad, and I left Glenelg Bay in Mr. Macrae’s yacht Leda
+for a sail up Loch Hourn. The day was hot and calm, and, the
+yacht being a small one (seven tons), we had recourse to rowing
+in order to reach Sandaig, six miles distant, where we intended
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page580">[580]</span>to dine. While still about a mile distant from Sandaig, one of
+the ladies called out that there was a shoal of porpoises playing
+astern, and on looking in that direction there appeared to me a
+number of dark objects, which at first sight seemed not unlike
+porpoises, making a considerable commotion on the surface of the
+sea, the only peculiarity being that they all followed each other
+in a line. As they rapidly approached, I then perceived that the
+black lumps which I at first thought porpoises could not be so,
+but were evidently parts of one and the same creature. This impression
+seemed to come over the minds of all at the same time,
+and every appearance of the creature afterwards clearly verified it”.</p>
+
+<p>“I was looking at it through a binocular (we had three on
+board), and when it came to within one hundred yards of the
+stern it dived below, the surface of the sea remained agitated at
+the spot where it had disappeared for some time afterwards. Just
+before it went down, as it came head on towards our stern, it
+raised a succession of waves. The first was unbroken, and through
+it I distinctly saw the colour of the creature, and what appeared
+to be a small fin on the back or neck, moving rapidly sideways,
+and two or three yards behind the head. Its colour was a dark
+slaty brown, somewhat similar to that of a porpoise.”</p>
+
+<p>“While we were all speculating about this strange creature, it
+suddenly appeared about a quarter of a mile off between us and Skye,
+going at a rapid rate along the calm surface of the sea, and leaving
+a large wake behind. It was only now that I had any idea of
+the creature’s length. It kept cruising about on the surface after
+this for more than an hour, sometimes only four or five bumps or
+dark raised portions of its body appearing above the surface, about
+the size of herring barrels, at other times up to eight. I noticed
+that the less the speed the more bumps appeared, always commencing
+from the first in rotation, and that when going very fast
+only one or two appeared.”</p>
+
+<p>“After landing on Sandaig, where we had dinner, we started for
+Loch Hourn, the weather still being very calm and sultry, with
+hardly a cat’s-paw on the water. We had barely entered the mouth
+of the loch when this creature again made its appearance, proceeding
+in the same manner as before along the surface of the sea,
+sometimes coming quite close. There was a large schooner yacht
+not far off, in tow of a noisy steam launch, which about this time
+probably frightened the animal, as it was not seen again that night.”</p>
+
+<p>“As evening fell, a breeze sprang up, and we reached Loch
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page581">[581]</span>Hourn Head early next morning. After paying a visit to the Barrasdale
+oyster beds, we set sail for home in the afternoon, with
+a nice breeze on the quarter, but on reaching the mouth of the
+loch the wind died away again and we had to take to the sweeps.
+Just about the place where the animal was last seen, my attention
+was called by someone to a peculiar swirling of the water not far
+off, and I immediately noticed what was evidently the same creature
+swimming up to the yacht at a very rapid rate. When a short
+distance off it dived beneath the surface, quickly re-appearing off
+the starboard beam nearer than at any previous time, and going
+at such a great speed that I could distinctly hear the rushing
+sound of the breaking water. At this time there were no bumps
+to be seen, and I can only liken the appearance of our visitor to
+a log almost entirely submerged and dragged very rapidly through
+the sea, the water falling over each side of the head in a kind of
+cascade, while a series of broken waves formed immediately behind,
+gradually subsiding in the wake.”</p>
+
+<p>“It afterwards kept swimming about for a considerable time,
+and I had an opportunity of judging of its length so far as visible,
+compared with the hulls of two trading schooners of about 100 tons
+each some little distance from us. When apparently the same distance
+away as the traders, and going slowly, it appeared fully as
+long from the head to the eighth bump as the length of one of
+the schooners on waterline, which would be at least sixty feet;
+but how much of the animal remained under water I had no
+means of estimating. The head seemed to be square or blunt, but
+I did not see under it, and did not notice its eye or mouth. The
+bumps, or dark raised portions, appeared to me to be about
+eighteen inches above the water, and three or four feet long,
+with a distance of four or six feet between each bump. I could
+not say whether the bumps were the convolutions of a snake-like
+body or the raised portions of a large body underneath the water.
+I am inclined to think the latter, as the bumps always kept the
+same distance apart, and appeared to be protuberances on the
+back of, possibly, a lizard shaped reptile. That it caused a large
+displacement was evident from the waves and commotion raised
+when swimming at or near the surface, as I could distinctly trace
+its progress with the naked eye at a distance of from two to three
+miles.”</p>
+
+<p>“We lost sight of the creature after leaving the mouth of Loch
+Hourn, but just as night fell I noticed it going past at a rapid
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page582">[582]</span>rate in the direction of Kyle Rhea, a narrow strait which separates
+Skye from the mainland. I afterwards heard that it was seen that
+same evening by fishermen and others passing through these
+narrows, and it struck them all at the time as being quite different
+from anything they had been accustomed to.”</p>
+
+<p>“The above is a bare statement of fact, and was written down
+by me immediately after getting ashore, while my recollection of
+the creature’s appearance was perfectly fresh and vivid. Having
+cruised for many summers amongst the West Highland lochs, I
+am perfectly familiar with the appearance and habits of whales,
+seals, porpoises, &amp;c., which can often be seen in great numbers.
+To these, the creature I have described bore no resemblance
+whatever.”</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“<span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span>, Newcastle.”</span></p>
+
+<p>From this gentleman I received three splendid pen-drawings,
+representing the animal witnessed by him on that occasion, but
+alas too late to be reproduced for this edition.</p>
+
+<p>1872, August 22 and 23. (<a href="#Report139">N<sup>o</sup>. 139</a> and <a href="#Report140">140</a>, see p. 322).—On
+one of these days it seems also to have been seen by Lord
+<span class="smcap">Macdonald’s</span> steam yacht in Loch Hourn.—Eye-witnesses: Lord
+<span class="smcap">Macdonald</span>, of Armadale, Skye, Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. Neill</span>, minister
+of Skye, Mrs. <span class="smcap">G. C. Lysons</span>, of Painswick, Strand, and others.—(R.
+P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1873, March.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Basil Clochrane</span>, Capt. R. N., of Windlesham
+House, Bagshot, Surrey, on board the <i>Orontes</i>, from the
+West Indies to England saw a sea-serpent.—Letter from eye-witness
+to Capt. <span class="smcap">Geo. Drevar</span> (see <a href="#Page329">p. 329</a>).—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1875, July 8 and 13. (<a href="#Report144">N<sup>o</sup>. 144</a> and <a href="#Report145">145</a>, see p. 329).—The
+letter from Capt. <span class="smcap">Geo. Drevar</span> to the Editor of <i>The Calcutta
+Gentleman</i>, 1876, February (?), contains no news about the two
+appearances.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1875, July 17.—Off Plymouth, Cape Cod Bay.—Captain
+<span class="smcap">Garton</span> of the ss. <i>Norman</i>, and several people on board the ss.
+<i>Roman</i>.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G).</p>
+
+<p>1875, July 30.—On board the yacht <i>Princess</i>, between Nahant
+and Egg-Rock.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis W. Lawrence</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Lawrence</span>,
+Rev. <span class="smcap">Arthur Lawrence</span>, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Stockbridge,
+Mass., Miss <span class="smcap">Mary Fosdick</span>, <span class="smcap">Albion W. Reed</span>, <span class="smcap">Robert O. Reed</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Kelsoe</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">J. P. Thomas</span>, both of Swampscott.—<i>Atlantic
+Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1876, September 11. (<a href="#Report146">N<sup>o</sup>. 146</a>, see p. 341).—An account in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page583">[583]</span>the <i>Times</i> of 1876, December 28, furnishes no news.—A rough
+drawing made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, and now in the possession of
+<span class="smcap">Robert Holt</span>, of Liverpool, owner of the steamer, hardly agrees
+with the depositions, and cannot give the idea of a salamander, a
+newt, or a frog.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1876.—Some Pitcairn islanders saw a sea-serpent near Norfolk
+Island.—Letter from one of the Pitcairn islanders to Mr. <span class="smcap">Palmer</span>
+of Liverpool.—<i>Liverpool Mercury</i>, 24 February, 1877.—“Mr. <span class="smcap">John
+Adams</span> and his boat’s crew saw it near Norfolk-Islands”.—Letter
+from Mr. <span class="smcap">Marcus Lowther</span>, Capt. R. N. of Penge, London, S. E.,
+to Capt. <span class="smcap">Geo. Drevar</span> (see <a href="#Page329">p. 329</a>).—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1877, March.—Mr. <span class="smcap">R. A. Proctor</span>, in his “<i>Strange Sea-Monsters</i>”
+(<i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i>) says amongst other assertions: “naturalists
+have been far less disposed to be incredulous than the general
+public”. If it were only true! Hitherto at least <i>zoologists</i> have not
+admitted even the possibility of the existence of a still unknown
+species, called “sea-serpent”.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1877, July 15.—About two miles off the mouth of Gloucester
+Harbour, Mass.—Mr. <span class="smcap">George S. Wasson</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">B. L. Fernald</span>.—<i>Atlantic
+Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1878, summer.—Fjord near Aalesund.—<i>Naturen</i>, 1884, <a href="#Report2">n<sup>o</sup>. 2</a>.—(Forwarded
+to me by Prof. <span class="smcap">R. Collett</span>).</p>
+
+<p>1882, October 11.—Near Bude, Cornwall.—Eye-witnesses:
+Rev. <span class="smcap">E. Highton</span>, Vicar of Bude, with several friends.—The
+<i>Times</i> of October 12, 1882.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1883, August 1.—The <i>Evening News</i> of this date communicates
+and gives partly a review of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>.—(R.
+P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1884, February.—Prof. <span class="smcap">R. Collett</span>, of Christiania, wrote a
+paper in the Norwegian language headed <i>Something on the sea-serpent</i>
+(<i>Naturen</i>, 1884, n<sup>o</sup> 2).—The writer does not seem to
+be a believer in the existence of a sea-serpent. The arguments
+against its existence are 1. A sea-serpent of considerable dimensions
+would in the course of centuries not have failed to have been
+observed and caught. 2. In the depth of the Ocean there are undoubtedly
+creatures, which as yet are unknown, but all specimens
+caught, be they as abnormal as possible, are referred to existing
+well-known forms. 3. No known vertebrated animal, can, on account
+of its structure, move in vertical undulations.—Against
+these arguments I may say: 1. Before, 1861, and 1873 the krakens
+were <i>fables</i>, and yet they existed! Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page584">[584]</span>&amp;c., see <a href="#Page431">p. 431</a>, line 6 from below to <a href="#Page432">p. 432</a>, line 5 from above.
+2. Do “naturalists” not constantly refer the sea-serpents to existing
+well-known forms? 3. Among Reptiles the <i>Plesiosaurians</i> had a
+long neck and this neck could certainly be bent vertically; among
+Birds the <i>swans</i> are able to bend the long neck vertically, and <i>all
+Mammals</i> can move in vertical undulations, especially the <i>Mustelina</i>,
+<i>Lutrina</i>, and <i>Pinnipedia</i>; and the horizontal position of the tail
+of the <i>Sirenia</i> and <i>Plagiuri</i> is a strong proof that their ancestors
+moved in vertical undulations.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Collett’s</span> private opinion
+is that the sea-serpents observed in the fjords of Norway, were
+mostly specimens of the basking shark. I, however, firmly believe
+that the Norwegian fishermen know the basking shark so well,
+that such an animal would never have been taken by them for a
+sea-serpent! They know these sharks and their habits far better,
+I should think, than Prof. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Mantell</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Melville</span>,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Buckland</span> and Prof. <span class="smcap">Lütken</span> all together. Moreover in
+none of their descriptions there is question of a backfin, or of backfins,
+which are the first visible parts of a basking shark!</p>
+
+<p>1884, June.—<i>The Trail of the Sea-Serpent</i>, by Mr. <span class="smcap">J. G. Wood</span>,
+in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>.—A very interesting paper, with historical
+notes and many new appearances, however, not without some
+zoological inaccuracies. He believes the sea-serpent to be an elongated
+whale, a <i>Basilosaurus</i> or an animal allied to it, and that
+the short neck of the <i>Basilosaurus</i> may be an error of the restorer
+(<i>nota bene!</i>).—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1884, June 2.—<i>The Manchester Guardian</i> gives a review of
+Mr. <span class="smcap">J. G. Wood’s</span> paper, and as Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> comes to the conclusion
+that the animal must be an elongated whale, the <i>Manchester
+Guardian</i> ends (how insipid!): “Very like a whale”.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1885, October 4.—Near Umhlali (Umlazi?) in Morewood’s
+Bay, South Africa.—(R. P. G.).</p>
+
+<p>1886(?), summer.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span> informs me that a few summers
+ago, (and from one sentence of his letter I deduce that it
+was before 1887) a sea-serpent was seen in Loch Duich. “The
+description was very much what we are familiar with”.</p>
+
+<p>1886, August. (<a href="#Report158">N<sup>o</sup> 158</a>, see p. 376).—The description of the
+eyes as having a greenish hue struck me so, that I at first did
+not attach belief to the assertion (see <a href="#Page377">p. 377</a> and <a href="#Page497">497</a>), but now
+I know that this is not an impossibility, as I since observed that
+the <i>tapetum lucidum</i> of the eye of a dog may reflect the daylight
+as well in a reddish as in a greenish hue.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page585">[585]</span></p>
+
+<p>1887, July 30.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span> wrote to me on May 6th., 1892:</p>
+
+<p>“I would just say that having taken bearings on the land, in
+order to estimate—(of course roughly)—the <i>length</i>, and the
+<i>speed</i>, I set down the length at from 60 to 65 feet. There was a
+very low flat head like a large skate, say 4¹⁄₂ feet—a gap not
+so great,—ten “hummocks” increasing in bulk and altitude towards
+the central one, but not much—gaps not so great as the
+size of the hummocks, next a space, about equal to two hummocks,
+then three hummocks, the central one largest, the last small”.</p>
+
+<p>“The thing I saw appear three times—first time end on was
+a worthless observation, except that on this occasion the whole was
+<i>rushing</i> through the water. On the other two occasions there was
+hardly any forward motion at all. The whole disappeared at the
+same moment, and reappeared also at the same moment, about
+two seconds thereafter more than its own length in advance; so
+that there must have been either an exceedingly rapid rush under
+water—<i>or</i> a second animal. The disappearance and reappearance
+were both without the <i>least</i> splash; but at the moment of disappearance
+the second time <i>the foremost two of the last three hummocks
+coalesced into one</i>”.</p>
+
+<p>“During one of the appearances I got the focus of the binoculars
+so sharp that I distinctly saw water falling over towards me,
+between some of the hummocks and myself. There was no consecutive
+filling up of the interspaces whatever, or appearance of vacuities
+where the hummocks had but now been”.</p>
+
+<p>“There was certainly no <i>vertical</i> serpentine motion—and I could
+see no <i>lateral</i> one”.</p>
+
+<p>“My impression was that, setting aside the quiescent low head,
+I <i>did not see a solid substance at all</i>,—except when the tail
+hummocks momentarily appeared—and that what I did see was
+water being thrown over laterally by the undulous lashings of a
+long back fin of a dark colour, which gave opacity”.</p>
+
+<p>“I cannot set the “hummocks” down to <i>surge waves</i> of a rushing
+short fish; because I cannot so explain such surges being always
+the same both in <i>number</i> and in <i>place</i>: nor can I so explain the
+appearance of an apparently solid head—and an apparently continuous
+tail”.</p>
+
+<p>“The above is all from memory”.</p>
+
+<p>The following is the</p>
+
+<p>“Relation regarding a <i>Phenomenon</i> seen by the crew and Owner
+and guests of the yacht Shiantelle on the W. coast of Scotland on
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page586">[586]</span>30th. July 1887 as told by <span class="smcap">J. A. Harvie Brown</span>, and seen by
+him, and written in his Journals of that date”.</p>
+
+<p>“At 10″ to 15″ to 10 am. I was called quickly on deck by
+Cowell, and I went up from breakfast. “What is that”? said
+Cowell. After some time I saw between me and the shore to the
+E., which shore was about one mile distant, undulations upon almost
+calm water (The ship was moving at the rate of about half
+a knot an hour) being similar in appearance, and having the motions
+of the (described and supposed) Sea-Serpent. I counted with
+the binoculars twelve or perhaps thirteen humps at almost perfectly
+regular distances the one from the others. The first of these humps
+appeared to be moving rapidly through the water across the line
+of vision, and to be breaking and spraying water, and the other
+eleven or twelve (I had only time to count them once) maintained
+all their relative positions with one another and collectively with
+the first, <i>yet</i> did not appear in themselves to me to move, though
+slight ripples of water were visible, nearly throughout the whole
+length. The whole disappeared and reappeared at least four times
+to me, apparently simultaneously or almost so throughout its length.
+When last it was seen, it was moving on a course almost parallel
+with the shore, which shore runs N. E. or thereby. The distance
+from the ship at which time I first saw it, and from that time
+to its final disappearance was estimated by me at about half a
+mile by eye (but this may have been an over-estimate of distance)”.</p>
+
+<p>“John Campbell, seaman, and mate on board the yacht, standing
+at the helm, deposes in a seperate document—drawn up and
+written by R. L. Cowell, Steward, from his oral statement—which
+seperate statement, was at once closed, without being read
+by either Dr. Heddle or myself, and still remains so”.</p>
+
+<p>“R. L. Cowell, Steward, who was on deck at the same time as
+John Campbell (having laid and served our breakfast) deposes in
+similar manner in a seperate statement, also closed and not read
+by Dr. Heddle and myself”.</p>
+
+<p>“But John Campbell on being examined by us deposes on cross-examination
+that:—While we were at breakfast in the Saloon,
+he saw approaching from the direction of Corrie Chreachan a series
+of large undulations which passed “within 40 yards” then “within
+30 yards” and again “within the length of the ship” (which is 56
+feet) from the stern of the vessel, and travelling at a great pace;
+that he saw nothing above the surface of the water except broken
+water in front of the first or foremost undulation. That except
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page587">[587]</span>this, he saw nothing but the perpendicular swellings (vertical
+swellings), as it were “skins of water” pushed up from beneath,
+and a long track or wake of slightly disturbed water, left for a
+long distance behind. It was seen approaching from the direction
+of the Sound between Scarba and Jura, or Corrie Chreacan, and
+passed the stern of the vessel. It was therefore heading at the
+time nearly E. The Ship’s head was lying about E. half N.”</p>
+
+<p>“R. L. Cowell saw it almost or quite simultaneously with John
+Campbell on its first appearance.”</p>
+
+<p>“N. B. The time between his calling me on deck and the time
+I first observed the appearance, I have described, I put down at
+<i>about half</i> a minute (as, before seeing it, after getting on deck,
+I asked one or two questions as to bearings, before I could get
+sight of it with my glasses). After my first look I called up Dr.
+Heddle. It was after calling up Dr. Heddle, that I made out the
+counting of the humps, and the other appearances described. I
+may have been 5 to 10 seconds between my being called up, and
+my reaching the deck, aft of the companion, and I then got the
+glasses and unscrewed them to focus, while I was asking the
+questions as to bearings. Roughly speaking, I calculate, that from
+the first appearance to Campbell and Cowell, till its final disappearance,
+it must have been, inclusive of disappearances and reappearances,
+about 15 minutes in sight or observation. When <i>they</i>
+saw it, it must have been travelling very rapidly; and not nearly
+<i>so</i> rapidly when we observed it at the greater distance. My estimate
+of distance when I saw it, <i>may</i> be an over-estimate put at half a
+mile.”</p>
+
+<p>“Before J. Campbell saw it he heard a heavy splash, and saw
+the marks of the same, near the vessel—about half an hour
+before he saw what he describes—but no importance is attached
+to this, as a heavy fish some time after the disappearance, was
+seen shortly after to splash near the vessel; and Pellocks were also
+seen in the vicinity. The Pellocks however did not splash but rolled
+in their usual way. Not for one moment can their motion be compared
+by any of us, with the other appearances observed.” (Here
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> has drawn a bunch, then a gap, larger than the bunch,
+and then eleven smaller bunches, separated one from the other by
+a gap as large as the half of one of these smaller bunches, the
+whole drawing representing exactly the animal swimming with
+vertical undulations and seen at a considerable distance.)</p>
+
+<p>“Without actually fixing the position of the ship we consulted
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page588">[588]</span>the chart and as nearly as we could arrived at it by bearings. It
+will be seen that the deepest water runs from the E. extremity of
+Corrie Chreacan very much along the line which the object or objects
+seen, was seen to follow; and that where its appearance was
+last noted the soundings show a very rapid shoaling from 30 fathoms
+to 17 about the position of our ship, being in from 15 to 17
+fathoms.—”</p>
+
+<p>“I think it right to add to the above account as written down
+on the spot, that after the statements which were kept sealed for
+a long time after, were consulted and every consideration given to
+the whole tale and phenomenon personally I came to the conclusion,
+and feel very certain still, that it was simply a <i>Tide-rip</i> or
+<i>Tidal wave</i> coming from the direction of Corrievreachan between
+Scarba and Jura running Easterly and then N. Easterly along the
+smooth water where soundings showed the meeting of the shallow
+of the deep. I have questioned Light-house-keepers since who have
+the most continuous chances of observation, within often, calm
+seas, and they have assured me such a phenomenon is not at all
+rare or unusual “under certain conditions of tides in certain localities”.
+Sailors have less chance to witness these phenomena perhaps
+than light-house-keepers, as they are seldom and long stationary at
+all states of tides.”</p>
+
+<p>Notwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span>, I feel persuaded that
+he, Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span> and others really saw the same appearance as did the
+Rev. <span class="smcap">J. Macrae</span> and others (see n<sup>o</sup> 137 and 138). The long back fin of
+a dark colour, which gave opacity and threw water over laterally
+by its lashings, of course was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.</p>
+
+<p>1889, August 15.—A good little paper on the subject, and
+partly a plea for the existence of the creature is in the <i>Standard</i>
+of that date.—(R. P. G.)</p>
+
+<p>1891, July 24.—East coast of North Island, New-Zealand.—<i>The
+Standard</i>, 1891, September 22.—(R. P. G.):—</p>
+
+<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Ford Mathews</span>, a surveyor, living at Gisborne,
+on the east coast of the North Island, wrote to the papers to the
+effect that while on board the <i>Manopouri</i>, another of the Union
+Company’s steamers, on the voyage from Auckland to Gisborne,
+on Friday, July 24th., he and several others distinctly saw a sea-serpent
+resembling the one seen from the <i>Rotomahana</i> off Portland
+Island. This time it appeared north of the East Cape, which is
+some distance to the north of where it was seen by the <i>Rotomahana</i>
+a week later. The time, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mathews</span> states, was between
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page589">[589]</span>eight and nine in the morning. The “monster” was also seen by
+the ship’s officer in charge. It would from time to time lift its
+head and part of its body to a great height perpendicularly, and
+when in that position would turn its body round in a most peculiar
+manner, displaying a black back, white belly, and two armlet appendages
+of great length, which appeared to dangle about like a
+broken limb on a human being. It would then suddenly drop back
+into the water, scattering it in all directions. It had a flat head,
+and was about half a mile distant from the ship. The reason,
+Mr. <span class="smcap">Mathews</span> added, that he had not mentioned the matter before
+was that people were likely to treat it with derision.”</p>
+
+<p>1891, August 1.—Off the East-coast of North Island, New
+Zealand, on board the <i>Rotomahana</i>, a steamer of the Union Steam-Shipping
+Company.—<i>Standard</i> of 22th. September, 1891; <i>Newcastle
+Evening Chronicle</i> of September 23, 1891.—(R. P. G. and
+<span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span>.)</p>
+
+<p>“The Chief Officer, Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander Lindsay Kerr</span>, on being
+interviewed by a newspaper reporter said:—</p>
+
+<p>“On Saturday morning last, August 1st., about 6.30 o’clock,
+we were off Portland Light, between Gisborne and Napier. I was
+on deck looking over the weather side, to see if I could see the
+land, when I saw the object, whatever it was, rise out of the
+water to the height of about 30ft. Its shape was for all the world
+like a huge conger eel, with the exception that it had two large
+fins that appeared to be about 10 feet long. The creature was not
+more than 100 yards away at the outside, and I should estimate
+its girth at between ten and twelve feet. I could not see its back
+as it was coming straight towards the steamer, but its belly and
+fins were pure white. The creature’s head did not appear to be
+particularly definite, the neck running right up to the head the
+same as that of a large eel. It was broad daylight at the time,
+and the sun was shining clearly. When it went beneath the water
+it did not fall forward like a fish that is jumping, but drew itself
+back as if with a contortion. I only saw it the once which was
+the last time it rose. I looked out for it, thinking it might pass
+under the ship and reappear on the other side, but I did not see
+it again. Had the weather not been so rough the steamer might
+have gone alongside and ascertained its dimensions. One of the
+Quartermasters Peter Nelson, was watching the thing, and it so
+startled him that he took upon himself to rush on to the bridge
+and ask me if I had seen it, a thing a sea-man never does unless
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page590">[590]</span>something very exceptional occurs. A landsman might do so, but
+a sea-man never, unless under exceptional circumstances, such as
+these. I have been to sea for twenty seven years, and have been
+engaged in nearly every known trade from whaling in Greenland
+to the slave trade, and have been in almost every part of the
+world, but I never saw any object at sea like the one that rivetted
+my attention on Saturday morning last. I have always been sceptical
+with regard to the sea-serpent stories, I have heard and read, and
+a smile has always come across my face at them, but I have been
+too long at sea, and have seen too many remarkable things, to
+deny positively that there was such a thing, had a landsman or a
+lady told me about the creature on Saturday, while I should have
+given them credit for being quite sincere, I should have taken no
+notice of it, as they are so apt to make mistakes at sea. I am too
+much accustomed at sea, however, to have made any mistake.
+When we got to Napier, I mentioned the circumstance there,
+when they pointed out that there had been a shock of earthquake
+shortly before the time we saw the creature, which may have been
+the cause of sending it to the surface. As to its length I could
+give no opinion, but as the creature rose some 30ft. out of the
+water I should imagine there were still two-thirds of it in the
+water, but that is only my supposition.”</p>
+
+<p>“<span class="smcap">Peter Nelson</span>, the Quartermaster, referred to gave his story
+as follows:—</p>
+
+<p>“It was about 6.30 on Saturday morning last, August 1st. It
+was a bright clear morning with the sun shining brightly. The
+weather, however, was rough, with a heavy sea. I had just come
+from the wheel at six o’clock, and was standing on the lee-side
+looking out, and all at once I saw this thing appear rising out
+of the water about 30ft. It went down again. It did not go forward
+like a fish jumping, but seemed to draw itself right back
+under water as if it contracted itself. It came up and went down
+again in the same way about four times. The first time I saw it
+was about a mile off the ship to leeward; the last time I saw it
+was about 100 yards from the ship. The time occupied in traveling
+the distance seemed to be about two minutes. It looked like a
+huge conger-eel or snake, except that it had two large fins. The
+fins seemed to be about 10ft. long, and were situated about 20ft.
+from the head. The tips of the fins were about touching the water.
+Where the fins joined the body the latter seemed to bulge out. I
+did not see the fins the first time it rose, but I saw them each
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page591">[591]</span>time afterwards. The belly and the fins were pure white. I saw
+the back part. It was the colour of an eel. The head and neck
+were like those of an eel. It was nothing like a whale. Had it
+been at all like a whale I should have taken no notice of it, as
+it is such a common thing to see whales at sea. It was not more
+than one hundred yards away the last time I saw it. The thing
+was glistening in the sun. I could not see its eyes. Had the sun
+not been shining, or had it been night, I might have been able
+to see its eyes. Every time it went down there was a distinct
+splash that could be heard quite plainly. The time being so early
+in the morning and the sea being so rough, there were no people
+about except the watch on deck, who were aft scraping the decks.
+The Chief Officer was on the bridge. I spoke to him about it.
+He said he had seen it. I have often heard of a sea-serpent before,
+but never saw one, nor have I ever seen any one who had seen
+one, but have spoken to men who have seen other men who professed
+to have seen the creatures. I have always laughed at the
+sea-serpent story but never denied it. Call it what you like, but
+after my experience of Saturday morning I am decidedly of opinion
+that what I saw is a fish or creature that is never hardly seen. I
+never saw any thing like it before, although I have been at sea
+twenty five years and have seen a great many queer things.” In
+reply to a question, Nelson said, “I am not a very frightened
+sort exactly, but I suppose I should have been frightened if it
+had come much closer.”</p>
+
+<p>I have reprinted here these three reports of two different appearances,
+because they so completely corroborate the hitherto so wonderful-seeming
+report of <span class="smcap">Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), and figure of <span class="smcap">Bing</span> (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>).
+As to the remark of Prof. <span class="smcap">Hutton</span>, of Canterbury College (N.
+Zeal.) “that if the animal had great fins or flappers, as reported,
+they would no doubt be used for swimming, and it is improbable
+that the creature would wave them about in the air like wings”,
+I only remark in my turn, that Prof. <span class="smcap">Hutton</span> seems never to have
+observed the movements of seals, and sea-lions, for these animals
+really “wave the flappers about in the air like wings”.</p>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page592">[592]</span></p>
+<h2 class="nobreak appendix">LAST WORD.</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p>In Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton’s</span> account (<a href="#Report83">83</a>) we read:—</p>
+
+<p>“I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down
+below, but only five or six came up..... The remainder refused
+to come up, saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind
+already.”</p>
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> mentions in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, p.
+101:—</p>
+
+<p>“And so great in some minds is the fear of popular ridicule
+regarding this subject, that one ship-captain related that when a
+sea-serpent had been seen by his crew from the deck of the vessel,
+he remained below; since, to use his own words: “had I said I
+had seen the sea-serpent, I should have been considered to be a
+warranted liar all my life after”!”</p>
+
+<p>And Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span> wrote to the Editor of the Graphic (<a href="#Report144">144</a>):—</p>
+
+<p>“My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen a hundred
+sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote that she
+pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the sea-serpent.”</p>
+
+<p>I hope that within a few years this fear of meeting with a sea-serpent
+will no more be heard of.</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">Should any one be induced by this publication to make an
+extract of it, to criticize it, to write a paper against it, or to
+publish new evidences, etc., etc., I kindly request him to send
+me a copy of his work, for it is impossible for me to get hold of
+all what hereafter may be written about the subject, or to consult
+each notice.</p>
+
+<hr class="full">
+
+<div class="tnbot" id="TN">
+
+<h2>Transcriber’s Notes</h2>
+
+<p>Erroneous, unusual, archaic and inconsistent spelling, hyphenation, formatting, paragraph numbering, capitalisation, choice of words,
+typography, the use of quote marks, etc. have been retained, except as listed under Changes below. Proper names and names of ships, species,
+publications, etc. may be printed inconsistently.</p>
+
+<p>Internal hyperlinks (if possible to individual reports rather than to pages) are provided only when the target is clear and unambiguous.</p>
+
+<p>Depending on the hard- and software used to read this book, and their settings, not all elements may display as intended.</p>
+
+<p>Page 110, Burgomaster of Malmoi: possibly an error for Burgomaster of Malmö.</p>
+
+<p>Page 246, ... about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515 yards): at least one of the lengths is erroneous.</p>
+
+<p>Page 267 and 271: there is no report number 216.</p>
+
+<p>Page 363, ... which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”: the opening quote mark is lacking.</p>
+
+<p>Page 388, ... all parts were disfigured by sickness much so: there are possibly some words missing.</p>
+
+<p>Page 395: ... and the right and left gill-aperturus, or gill-splits,: possibly errors for gill-apertures and or gill-slits.</p>
+
+<p>Page 405-406, paragraph starting “Further, and what completely sets at rest ...: there are quote marks missing or in excess.</p>
+
+<p>Page 451, ... probably he had particularly noticed that point: the author may have intended ... probably he had not particularly noticed that point ....</p>
+
+<p class="blankbefore75">Changes made:</p>
+
+<p>Footnotes have been moved to under the paragraphs to which they refer, illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.</p>
+
+<p>Obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected silently.</p>
+
+<p>Double quote marks and ditto marks have been standardised to “, ” and „ respectively. Scotch names (like M’ Guire and M’Guire)
+have been standardised to M’Guire (unspaced).</p>
+
+<table class="tn">
+
+<colgroup>
+<col class="wauto">
+<col span="2" class="w40pc">
+</colgroup>
+
+<tr>
+<th><span class="bb">Place</span></th>
+<th><span class="bb">Source document</span></th>
+<th><span class="bb">This text</span></th>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 3</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing bracket deleted from after ... the library of the Royal University of Göttingen. (entry 1818, Aug. 21)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 6</td>
+<td>Essay on the physionomy</td>
+<td>Essay on the physiognomy</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 8</td>
+<td colspan="2">Indentation removed from before 1848.—Proceedings of the Royal Society</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 11</td>
+<td>that terrible “Maby Dick”</td>
+<td>that terrible “Moby Dick”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 14</td>
+<td>incerted it in his journal</td>
+<td>inserted it in his journal</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 22</td>
+<td>haunted the coast of Massachusets</td>
+<td>haunted the coast of Massachusetts</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 33</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... of the fossil bones pointed out.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 37</td>
+<td>has felt himself snubbled</td>
+<td>has felt himself snubbed</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 38</td>
+<td>It has been voticed too</td>
+<td>It has been noticed too</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 41</td>
+<td>in the galant archievement</td>
+<td>in the galant achievement</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 44</td>
+<td>I abrubtly checked him</td>
+<td>I abruptly checked him</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 51</td>
+<td>at Melbourne, were it was</td>
+<td>at Melbourne, where it was</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 58</td>
+<td>was like that of a fermention</td>
+<td>was like that of a fermentation</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 74</td>
+<td>to be the first cervical vertrebra</td>
+<td>to be the first cervical vertebra</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 81</td>
+<td>individuals resident in Okney.</td>
+<td>individuals resident in Orkney.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 83</td>
+<td>seen like toes or fingers.</td>
+<td>seem like toes or fingers.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 85</td>
+<td>Leur omoplates sont suspendues ... sans articuler</td>
+<td>Leurs omoplates sont suspendues ... sans s’articuler</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 88</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing bracket deleted from after 1816.—Phil. Mag., LIV, 1819.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 93</td>
+<td>property of a Newcaste merchant</td>
+<td>property of a Newcastle merchant</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 111</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing bracket inserted after ... quoted by Pontoppidan (Report 3)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 117</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... with the belly turned upwards!</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 118</td>
+<td>that the sea-serpents’s head is drawn</td>
+<td>that the sea-serpent’s head is drawn</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 131</td>
+<td>a grey rabit is also called a blue rabit</td>
+<td>a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 152</td>
+<td>take a view of distant objets</td>
+<td>take a view of distant objects</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 154</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... procuring the evidence on this subject.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before Your connection with the Society</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 158</td>
+<td>the Red Snake a species evidently known to him</td>
+<td>the Red Snake, a species evidently known to him</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 159</td>
+<td>in the Philosophical Magasine and Journal</td>
+<td>in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 160</td>
+<td>You directed as to return</td>
+<td>You directed us to return</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 165</td>
+<td>I was on the beech</td>
+<td>I was on the beach</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Dit it appear to pursue</td>
+<td>Did it appear to pursue</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 170</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before I supposed and do believe</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 175</td>
+<td>Closing quote mark inserted after Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?</td>
+<td>Closing quote marks inserted after How fast did it move?</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 187</td>
+<td>used it flappers too</td>
+<td>used its flappers too</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 195</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening bracket inserted before Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts (Report 52).</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 205</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark deleted from the evening before at Nahant-beach”.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 207</td>
+<td>by the aide of my glass</td>
+<td>by the aid of my glass</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 210</td>
+<td>and to considerable adventage in point of position</td>
+<td>and to considerable advantage in point of position</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... did not enter my mind at the moment.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 211</td>
+<td>In Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. Perkins,</td>
+<td>On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. Perkins,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 212</td>
+<td>just without the brakers</td>
+<td>just without the breakers</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 215</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before The last account respecting</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 216</td>
+<td>meaning it is a laugh on me</td>
+<td>meaning it as a laugh on me</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 224</td>
+<td>whose name in Jonathan Townsend,</td>
+<td>whose name is Jonathan Townsend,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 228</td>
+<td>the Amtmand (Governor) of Finmark</td>
+<td>the Amtmann (Governor) of Finmark</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 231</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before The following statement having been made</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 233</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening bracket inserted before New York Advertiser of June 21, 1826</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark deleted from ... more than once on the western coasts of Scotland.”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 234</td>
+<td>of Bury Hall, Surry</td>
+<td>of Bury Hall, Surrey</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 237</td>
+<td>make assurance doubtly sure</td>
+<td>make assurance doubly sure</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 239</td>
+<td>Whose monstruous circle girds the world.</td>
+<td>Whose monstrous circle girds the world.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 240</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before It moved with about the swiftness</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before Christiania, Sept. 5.—The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 241</td>
+<td>persons just a trustworthy as those who</td>
+<td>persons just as trustworthy as those who</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 243</td>
+<td>of the Daedalus, in Aug. 6, 1848</td>
+<td>of the Daedalus, on Aug. 6, 1848</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 246</td>
+<td>like those of a smimming leech</td>
+<td>like those of a swimming leech</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 249</td>
+<td>In Froriep’s Nitizen of June 1834</td>
+<td>In Froriep’s Notizen of June 1834</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 256</td>
+<td>a degree of cantious reserve</td>
+<td>a degree of cautious reserve</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 262</td>
+<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after ... intervals between the coils were nothing else but water.”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 263</td>
+<td>some of the antidiluvian species</td>
+<td>some of the antediluvian species</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 272</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before I am having a drawing of the serpent made</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 274</td>
+<td>“The drawing above-named have been received</td>
+<td>“The drawings above-named have been received</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 278</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... from one continent to another.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 280</td>
+<td>the only part of the decription, however</td>
+<td>the only part of the description, however</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 286</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening and second closing quote marks inserted around ... in quest of its lost iceberg.”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 287</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote marks inserted before On our attention being called to the object</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 288</td>
+<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after ... apparently on some determined purpose.”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 290</td>
+<td>more of your time and space than is justiable</td>
+<td>more of your time and space than is justifiable</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 298</td>
+<td>to have been seen so far south).”</td>
+<td>to have been seen so far south.”)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 301</td>
+<td>that it appears only in five weather?</td>
+<td>that it appears only in fine weather?</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 303</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening bracket inserted before Illustrated London News of the 3d. of May, 1856)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 304</td>
+<td>to helmsman drew our attention</td>
+<td>the helmsman drew our attention</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 305</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote marks inserted after ... in London Docks 15th. inst., from China, viz:—</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 306</td>
+<td colspan="2">One closing quote mark deleted from At eight, fresh wind and fine””.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 309</td>
+<td>and from thense I saw on the water</td>
+<td>and from thence I saw on the water</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Unlickly, the discharge broke the nipple</td>
+<td>Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 314</td>
+<td colspan="2">Second closing bracket inserted after ... my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 315</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before On the 26th of January,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">the Sketch obligingly send with this account</td>
+<td>the Sketch obligingly sent with this account</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 316</td>
+<td>“In my many year’s wandering</td>
+<td>“In my many years’ wandering</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 317</td>
+<td>turn his words in the following may:</td>
+<td>turn his words in the following way:</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 327</td>
+<td>empty harring-barrels, bladders,</td>
+<td>empty herring-barrels, bladders,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 333</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before Captain Drevar has circulated</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 335</td>
+<td>I wrote thusfar, little thinking</td>
+<td>I wrote thus far, little thinking</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 342</td>
+<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after the first occurrence of ... creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe.”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 352</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote marks deleted from They were never seen along the back”.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 353</td>
+<td>I nead not say that I am not at all</td>
+<td>I need not say that I am not at all</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 355</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 360</td>
+<td>the Ballarat Timbre Company</td>
+<td>the Ballarat Timber Company</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 363</td>
+<td>The Russian call it Cape Chichakoff.</td>
+<td>The Russians call it Cape Chichakoff.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 369</td>
+<td>the theories of birds or purpoises</td>
+<td>the theories of birds or porpoises</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 376</td>
+<td>round as a floar-barrel</td>
+<td>round as a flour-barrel</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 393</td>
+<td>the front portion of the body to exihit</td>
+<td>the front portion of the body to exhibit</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">the appearence of a fin</td>
+<td>the appearance of a fin</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 395</td>
+<td>the right and left gill-aperturus</td>
+<td>the right and left gill-apertures</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 398</td>
+<td colspan="2">Second closing bracket inserted after ... shows the readers a fin-fish (<i>Balaenoptera physalus</i>
+(<span class="smcap">Linné</span>)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 402</td>
+<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before ... stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkney's,”</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 407</td>
+<td>parallel on the European boundery,</td>
+<td>parallel on the European boundary,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">is the boundery likewise</td>
+<td>is the boundary likewise</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 408</td>
+<td>the integrety of not a few</td>
+<td>the integrity of not a few</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 409</td>
+<td>the notices on record to the sonamed sea-serpent</td>
+<td>the notices on record to the so-named sea-serpent</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="3" class="where">Page 413</td>
+<td>the most entire sincerety</td>
+<td>the most entire sincerity</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">used to create suspicious of</td>
+<td>used to create suspicions of</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">commucation which follows it</td>
+<td>communication which follows it</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 418</td>
+<td>Is it an anomolous shark?</td>
+<td>Is it an anomalous shark?</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">pàr voie d’exclusion</td>
+<td>par voie d’exclusion</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 422</td>
+<td>that of temporarely separating</td>
+<td>that of temporarily separating</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 423</td>
+<td>both crocodiles and turtoises</td>
+<td>both crocodiles and tortoises</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 428</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... the Northern and Southern Oceans</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Arctic and Antartic Oceans</td>
+<td>Arctic and Antarctic Oceans</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 429</td>
+<td>inhabitants of the Mississipi</td>
+<td>inhabitants of the Mississippi</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 438</td>
+<td>To or three years after this,</td>
+<td>Two or three years after this,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="5" class="where">Page 439</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... by the following statement in the Graphic:—</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Manuel of Elementary Geology</td>
+<td>Manual of Elementary Geology</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">great double-fanced but knife-edged molars</td>
+<td>great double-faced but knife-edged molars</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">bite of its agressor</td>
+<td>bite of its aggressor</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">the second figure shows the agressor</td>
+<td>the second figure shows the aggressor</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 458</td>
+<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after ... the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 460</td>
+<td>the quite waters of the Bay</td>
+<td>the quiet waters of the Bay</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 461</td>
+<td>most interesting race at yet uncaptured</td>
+<td>most interesting race as yet uncaptured</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">many of the peculiarities, safe size,</td>
+<td>many of the peculiarities, save size,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 462</td>
+<td>an opportunity of particulirising</td>
+<td>an opportunity of particularising</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 463</td>
+<td>at it seems more plausible</td>
+<td>as it seems more plausible</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 464</td>
+<td>the Museum attendent at Newcastle</td>
+<td>the Museum attendant at Newcastle</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 471</td>
+<td>against this suppositions</td>
+<td>against this supposition</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="3" class="where">Page 474</td>
+<td>He presents a frontispice</td>
+<td>He presents a frontispiece</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">They know these animal well enough</td>
+<td>They know this animal well enough</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where"> (that it flabby)</td>
+<td> (that is flabby)</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 475</td>
+<td>propelled by yets of water</td>
+<td>propelled by jets of water</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 477</td>
+<td>had not excess to</td>
+<td>had not access to</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 480</td>
+<td>in same other instances been mistaken for</td>
+<td>in some other instances been mistaken for</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">perceptably used in propelling</td>
+<td>perceptibly used in propelling</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 489<br>(item 85)</td>
+<td>Christiana</td>
+<td>Christiania</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 494<br>(item 158)</td>
+<td>New Yersey</td>
+<td>New Jersey</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 504</td>
+<td>differring in age or sex</td>
+<td>differing in age or sex</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 506</td>
+<td>as round as a floar-barrel</td>
+<td>as round as a flour-barrel</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 507</td>
+<td>those animals which involontarily</td>
+<td>those animals which involuntarily</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 522</td>
+<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... the foreflappers became visible.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 527</td>
+<td>an enormous splash or sprey</td>
+<td>an enormous splash or spray</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 528</td>
+<td>the friction and the resistence of the water</td>
+<td>the friction and the resistance of the water</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 530</td>
+<td>Animals with a hairy skin, safe the <i>Monotrymata</i>,</td>
+<td>Animals with a hairy skin, save the <i>Monotrymata</i>,</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">July and August are its paring time</td>
+<td>July and August are its pairing time</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 533</td>
+<td>Hithertho I have not found</td>
+<td>Hitherto I have not found</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 534</td>
+<td>The surface of the sea is described as mooth</td>
+<td>The surface of the sea is described as smooth</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 537</td>
+<td>the Hudson-mouth, New Yersey</td>
+<td>the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 538</td>
+<td>near Dunvossness, one of the Shetland Isles</td>
+<td>near Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 543</td>
+<td>Paragraph numbers 1, 2 and 3</td>
+<td>1<sup>o</sup>, 2<sup>o</sup> and 3<sup>o</sup></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 544</td>
+<td colspan="2">table layout changed to agree with that used on page 543.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 558</td>
+<td>may be fixed upon as the paring time</td>
+<td>may be fixed upon as the pairing time</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 562</td>
+<td>changed to the must valuable fur</td>
+<td>changed to the most valuable fur</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 568</td>
+<td>expressed here too dicisively</td>
+<td>expressed here too decisively</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 570</td>
+<td>Al the members of the first section</td>
+<td>All the members of the first section</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 576</td>
+<td>Mr. Marston, of Swampsott</td>
+<td>Mr. Marston, of Swampscott</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class="where">Page 590</td>
+<td>the one that revetted my attention</td>
+<td>the one that rivetted my attention</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+</div><!--TN-->
+
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78334 ***</div>
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/78334-h/images/cover.jpg b/78334-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c526df0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo019.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo019.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cfe25db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo019.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo031.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo031.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d04765f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo031.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo055.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo055.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c70a911
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo055.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo057.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo057.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c73986
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo057.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo061.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo061.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c14bf7d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo061.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo063.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo063.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a02171a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo063.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo072.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo072.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bd2e874
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo072.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo076.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo076.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b47b61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo076.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo078.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo078.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d88c6e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo078.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo088.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo088.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d45374c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo088.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo091.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo091.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e17fa0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo091.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo093.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo093.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fcdbb6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo093.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo106.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo106.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..905daf5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo106.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo107.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo107.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1a13e6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo107.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo108.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo108.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8f87c36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo108.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0925bbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d64defe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo114.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo114.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..52b4d50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo114.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo115.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo115.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40e6673
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo115.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo116.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo116.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d41f5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo116.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo119.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo119.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..72ce38a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo119.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo120.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo120.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..68687a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo120.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo126.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo126.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..434824b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo126.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo127.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo127.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..80e75ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo127.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo207.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo207.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..214b034
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo207.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo234.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo234.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bfc4b6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo234.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo273.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo273.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7027969
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo273.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo274.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo274.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be12ef8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo274.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo276.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo276.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f9f4b21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo276.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo296.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo296.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..344e1c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo296.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b31a431
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5005081
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..184f3d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..13e9e2f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo306.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo306.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5db3606
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo306.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo308.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo308.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..33375c4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo308.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo323.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo323.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..83ed717
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo323.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo330.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo330.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a9724f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo330.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo334.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo334.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c1fca75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo334.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo335.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo335.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c4ff338
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo335.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo348.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo348.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3afdd00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo348.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo349.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo349.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e6137f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo349.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo357.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo357.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..604b504
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo357.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo361.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo361.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb8a6b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo361.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo363.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo363.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..697ec4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo363.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo367.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo367.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..591aab9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo367.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo369.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo369.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f81f46c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo369.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo381.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo381.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6bcfca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo381.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo385.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo385.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4fb75a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo385.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d3c08fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c0de83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo390.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo390.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0259dd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo390.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo398.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo398.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a000e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo398.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..32f6bce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1f37580
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo401.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo401.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e4dc380
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo401.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo402.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo402.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..809d0d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo402.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo432.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo432.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..704188d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo432.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo433.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo433.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f7be2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo433.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo435.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo435.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d5a5b3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo435.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7217286
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f76931
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo442.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo442.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea307d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo442.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo445.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo445.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a5978c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo445.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo449.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo449.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c962242
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo449.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo475.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo475.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f8875a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo475.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo482.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo482.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b1448c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo482.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ccf0c1c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..32e39c7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo547.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo547.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..392c0ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo547.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo548.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo548.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..da9c7c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo548.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo549.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo549.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..407227e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo549.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f426d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a0b8b83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b5e4d15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b2ed940
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo552.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo552.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4feb6f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo552.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo553.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo553.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fb7c43a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/illo553.jpg
diff --git a/78334-h/images/waveline.jpg b/78334-h/images/waveline.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7f2453b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78334-h/images/waveline.jpg
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c72794
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This book, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d902c3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for eBook #78334
+(https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78334)