diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78334-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-0.txt | 26020 |
1 files changed, 26020 insertions, 0 deletions
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 *** |