diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78334-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/78334-h.htm | 30456 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 441496 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo019.jpg | bin | 0 -> 153919 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo031.jpg | bin | 0 -> 254740 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo055.jpg | bin | 0 -> 204068 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo057.jpg | bin | 0 -> 261069 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo061.jpg | bin | 0 -> 41708 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo063.jpg | bin | 0 -> 36015 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo072.jpg | bin | 0 -> 132169 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo076.jpg | bin | 0 -> 108517 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo078.jpg | bin | 0 -> 121350 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo088.jpg | bin | 0 -> 55823 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo091.jpg | bin | 0 -> 251949 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo093.jpg | bin | 0 -> 254052 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo106.jpg | bin | 0 -> 258078 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo107.jpg | bin | 0 -> 136275 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo108.jpg | bin | 0 -> 239968 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 249289 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 146890 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo114.jpg | bin | 0 -> 187328 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo115.jpg | bin | 0 -> 59048 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo116.jpg | bin | 0 -> 188008 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo119.jpg | bin | 0 -> 184126 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo120.jpg | bin | 0 -> 234916 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo126.jpg | bin | 0 -> 75915 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo127.jpg | bin | 0 -> 89144 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo207.jpg | bin | 0 -> 214172 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo234.jpg | bin | 0 -> 91882 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo273.jpg | bin | 0 -> 83942 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo274.jpg | bin | 0 -> 68368 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo276.jpg | bin | 0 -> 204915 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo296.jpg | bin | 0 -> 143671 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 242782 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 88828 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 74204 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg | bin | 0 -> 85200 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo306.jpg | bin | 0 -> 85542 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo308.jpg | bin | 0 -> 221456 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo323.jpg | bin | 0 -> 139520 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo330.jpg | bin | 0 -> 207025 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo334.jpg | bin | 0 -> 111562 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo335.jpg | bin | 0 -> 98215 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo348.jpg | bin | 0 -> 232209 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo349.jpg | bin | 0 -> 206237 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo357.jpg | bin | 0 -> 198255 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo361.jpg | bin | 0 -> 15579 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo363.jpg | bin | 0 -> 124827 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo367.jpg | bin | 0 -> 179802 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo369.jpg | bin | 0 -> 34451 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo381.jpg | bin | 0 -> 84626 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo385.jpg | bin | 0 -> 100866 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 42782 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 76573 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo390.jpg | bin | 0 -> 235729 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo398.jpg | bin | 0 -> 78827 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 69088 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 90470 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo401.jpg | bin | 0 -> 69309 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo402.jpg | bin | 0 -> 91972 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo432.jpg | bin | 0 -> 223631 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo433.jpg | bin | 0 -> 81763 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo435.jpg | bin | 0 -> 103510 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 25605 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 43644 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo442.jpg | bin | 0 -> 53657 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo445.jpg | bin | 0 -> 127713 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo449.jpg | bin | 0 -> 227818 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo475.jpg | bin | 0 -> 132836 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo482.jpg | bin | 0 -> 182652 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 24856 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 21990 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo547.jpg | bin | 0 -> 213940 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo548.jpg | bin | 0 -> 209827 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo549.jpg | bin | 0 -> 215987 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 62762 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 214693 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 155076 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 114048 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo552.jpg | bin | 0 -> 241118 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/illo553.jpg | bin | 0 -> 160407 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78334-h/images/waveline.jpg | bin | 0 -> 7741 bytes |
81 files changed, 30456 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78334-h/78334-h.htm b/78334-h/78334-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..09c1cf3 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/78334-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,30456 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <title> + The Great Sea-serpent. | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + + a + {text-decoration: none;} + a:hover + {text-decoration: underline;} + .allclear + {clear: both;} + .allsmcap + {text-transform: lowercase; font-variant: small-caps;} + .author + {margin: 2.5em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 22.5em;} + .bb + {border-bottom: solid thin;} + .bbdots + {border-bottom: dotted thin;} + body + {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .br + {border-right: solid thin;} + .bt + {border-top: solid thin;} + .caption + {font-size: .9em; text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} + .center + {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} + .centerblock + {text-align: center; margin: 0 auto;} + .centerblock p + {display: inline-block; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0;} + .chapter + {page-break-before: always;} + .container + {margin: 1.25em auto; padding: 0; text-align: center; max-width: 100%; page-break-inside: avoid;} + .container.left + {margin: 0 .75em 0 0; float: left;} + .x-ebookmaker .container.left {float: left;} + .container.notopbottom + {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;} + .container.right + {margin: 0 0 .75em 0; float: right;} + .x-ebookmaker .container.right {float: right;} + .dentition + {display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; padding: 0; text-indent: 0; + font-size: 80%;} + .dentition .lower + {padding: 0 .25em; display: block; vertical-align: top; text-indent: 0;} + .dentition .upper + {padding: 0 .25em; display: block; vertical-align: bottom; text-indent: 0;} + .fnanchor + {vertical-align: top; font-size: .7em; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap;} + .footnote + {clear: left; margin: .75em 1.25em .75em 2.5em;} + .x-ebookmaker .footnote {margin-left: 1em;} + .footnote .label + {float: left; font-size: .75em; vertical-align: top; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-indent: -3.5em;} + .x-ebookmaker .footnote .label {float: none; margin-left: 1em; text-indent: 0;} + .footnote p + {margin: .1em 0 0 0; text-indent: 1em; font-size: .9em;} + .fsize80 + {font-size: .8em;} + .fsize90 + {font-size: .9em;} + .fsize90 .pagenum + {font-size: 90%;} + .fsize125 + {font-size: 1.25em;} + .fsize150 + {font-size: 1.5em;} + .fsize175 + {font-size: 1.75em;} + .fsize225 + {font-size: 2.25em;} + .gesp2 + {letter-spacing: .2em; margin-right: -.2em;} + h1, + h2, + h3, + h4, + h5, + h6 + {text-align: center; font-size: 1em; font-weight: normal;} + h1 + {line-height: 4em; margin-top: 2em; font-size: 1.75em; font-weight: bold;} + h2 + {margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 1.5em;} + h2.appendix + {margin: 1.25em auto; font-size: 1em; font-weight: normal;} + h2 .chapno + {font-size: 1.25em;} + h2 .chapname + {font-size: 1.1em; font-weight: bold;} + h3, + h4, + h5 + {margin-top: .75em; margin-bottom: .75em;} + h2.nobreak, + h3.nobreak + {page-break-before: avoid;} + h3.appendix + {margin: .75em auto; font-size: .8em; font-weight: bold;} + hr + {width: 34%; margin: 2em 33%; color: black; clear: none;} + hr.chap + {width: 26%; margin: 3em 37%;} + hr.footnote + {width: 10%; margin: .5em 90% .5em 0;} + hr.full + {width: 100%; margin: 2em 0; clear: both;} + hr.tb + {width: 10%; margin: 1.25em 45%;} + img + {max-width: 100%; height: auto;} + .largetable + {overflow: auto;} + .left + {text-align: left;} + .melville + {margin: 6em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 30em;} + p + {margin-top: 0; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 1em;} + p.blankafter75 + {margin-bottom: .75em;} + p.blankafter4 + {margin-bottom: 4em;} + p.blankbefore75 + {margin-top: .75em;} + p.blankbefore2 + {margin-top: 2em;} + p.blankbefore4 + {margin-top: 4em;} + p.center + {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} + p.highline2 + {line-height: 2em;} + p.highline4 + {line-height: 4em;} + p.highline6 + {line-height: 6em;} + p.hind08 + {text-indent: -4em; margin-left: 4em;} + p.noindent + {text-indent: 0;} + p.thinline + {line-height: .001em;} + .padl1 + {padding-left: .5em;} + .padl2 + {padding-left: 1em;} + .padl4 + {padding-left: 2em;} + .padl6 + {padding-left: 3em;} + .padl8 + {padding-left: 4em;} + .padl10 + {padding-left: 5em;} + .padl12 + {padding-left: 6em;} + .padl14 + {padding-left: 7em;} + .padl15 + {padding-left: 7.5em;} + .padl20 + {padding-left: 10em;} + .padl26 + {padding-left: 13em;} + .padr2 + {padding-right: 1em;} + .padr4 + {padding-right: 2em;} + .padr5 + {padding-right: 2.5em;} + .padr6 + {padding-right: 3em;} + .padr8 + {padding-right: 4em;} + .padr9 + {padding-right: 4.5em;} + .padr10 + {padding-right: 5em;} + .padr12 + {padding-right: 6em;} + .padr16 + {padding-right: 8em;} + .padr18 + {padding-right: 9em;} + .padr20 + {padding-right: 10em;} + .padr24 + {padding-right: 12em;} + .pagenum + {position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: .75em; text-align: right; color: gray; text-decoration: none; + font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-indent: 0;} + .poetry-container + {text-align: center;} + .poetry + {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; display: inline-block;} + .x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;} + .poetry .stanza + {margin: 0 auto;} + .poetry .verse + {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} + .poetry .verse.indent0 + {padding-left: 3em;} + .printer + {margin: 4em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 16em;} + .reportnr + {font-size: 1.3em; padding: 0; margin: 0;} + .right + {text-align: right;} + .rightblock + {text-align: right; margin: 0 0 0 auto;} + .rightblock p + {display: inline-block; text-align: left; text-indent: 0;} + .rights + {margin: 6em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 16em;} + .righttext + {float: right; text-align: right; padding-left: 1em; display: inline-block;} + .x-ebookmaker .righttext {float: right; display: block; white-space: nowrap;} + .smcap + {font-variant: small-caps;} + .split5050 + {clear: both;} + .split5050 .left5050 + {float: left; clear: left; width: 49.5%;} + .x-ebookmaker .split5050 .left5050 {float: left;} + .split5050 .right5050 + {float: right; clear: right; width: 49.5%;} + .x-ebookmaker .split5050 .right5050 {float: right;} + sub + {font-size: .8em; vertical-align: -10%;} + sup + {font-size: .8em; vertical-align: 25%;} + table + {border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;} + table.committee + {text-align: right; max-width: 15em; margin: 0 0 0 auto; white-space: nowrap;} + table.committee td.name + {text-align: left;} + table.dimensions + {margin: .75em auto; border: solid medium; font-size: .9em;} + table.dimensions td + {padding: .25em; border: solid thin; text-align: center;} + table.dimensions td.descr + {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.25em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: middle;} + table.dimensions td.dim + {vertical-align: middle;} + table.loi + {margin: 2em auto; font-size: .9em; max-width: 50em;} + table.loi td + {padding: .25em 0 0 0;} + table.loi td.descr + {padding-right: 2em; padding-left: 3.5em; text-indent: -3.5em; vertical-align: top; text-align: left;} + table.loi td.pageno + {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap;} + table.months + {margin: .75em 2em; text-align: left;} + table.months td + {padding-top: .1em; padding-bottom: .1em;} + table.months td.latitude + {text-align: left; padding-right: 2em; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;} + table.months td.location + {text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top; padding-right: 2em;} + table.months td.month + {line-height: 1.25em; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center;} + table.months td.repno + {text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top;} + table.origin + {margin: .75em auto; white-space: nowrap;} + table.origin td + {padding: .1em 0; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; min-width: 1em; line-height: .9em;} + table.origin td.cntr + {text-align: center;} + table.origin td.lined + {border-right: dotted thin;} + table.origin td.mid + {vertical-align: middle;} + tablt.phylgen + {margin: .75em auto; white-space: nowrap;} + table.phylgen td + {padding: .1em 0; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; min-width: 1.5em;} + table.phylgen td.cntr + {text-align: center;} + table.phylgen td.lft + {text-align: left;} + table.phylgen td.lined + {border-right: dotted thin;} + table.phylgen td.mid + {vertical-align: middle;} + table.phylgen td.rght + {text-align: right;} + table.reportorder + {text-align: left; margin: 0;} + table.reportorder td.counter + {text-align: right; padding-right: .25em; vertical-align: top;} + table.reportorder td.text + {text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; vertical-align: top;} + table.reportorder td.midheight + {vertical-align: middle;} + table.sizes + {margin: .75em auto; border: double;} + table.sizes td.fracpart + {text-align: left; padding-left: 0; vertical-align: bottom;} + table.sizes td.intpart + {text-align: right; padding-right: 0; vertical-align: bottom;} + table.sizes td.ratio + {text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;} + table.sizes td.species + {text-align: left; vertical-align: top; padding-right: 1em; border-right: solid thin;} + table.sizes td.unit + {text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; border-right: solid thin;} + table.sizes th + {padding-left: .25em; padding-right: .25em;} + table.tn + {margin: .75em auto 0 0; font-size: .9em; max-width: 50em; border-collapse: separate;} + table.tn td + {padding: .25em .25em 0 0; vertical-align: top; text-align: left;} + table.tn td.where + {white-space: nowrap;} + table.tn th + {text-align: left;} + table.toc + {margin: 2em auto; font-size: .9em; max-width: 50em;} + table.toc td + {padding: .25em 0 0 0;} + table.toc td.name + {padding-right: 2em; padding-left: 1.25em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top; text-align: justify;} + table.toc td.number + {vertical-align: top; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap;} + table.toc td.pagno + {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap;} + td.brace + {width: .001em; padding: 0;} + td.thinline + {line-height: .001em;} + td.dontwrap + {white-space: nowrap;} + th + {font-weight: normal; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; padding-left: .1em; + padding-right: .1em;} + .titlepage + {margin: 2em auto; padding: 2em; text-align: center; border: solid medium; max-width: 35em;} + .tnbot + {border: dashed thin; margin-top: 2em; padding: .5em;} + .tnbot h2 + {font-size: 1em;} + .tnbot p + {text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: .25em;} + .tnbox + {border: dashed thin; margin: 1em 20%; padding: 1em;} + .w03em + {width: 3em;} + .w15em + {width: 15em;} + .w25emmax + {max-width: 25em;} + .w30emmax + {max-width: 30em;} + .w35emmax + {max-width: 35em;} + .w40emmax + {max-width: 40em;} + .w45emmax + {max-width: 45em;} + .w50emmax + {max-width: 50em;} + .w60emmax + {max-width: 60em;} + .w40pc + {width: 40%;} + .wauto + {width: auto;} + + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78334 ***</div> + +<div class="tnbox"> +<p class="center">Please see the <a href="#TN">Transcriber’s Notes</a> at the end of this text.</p> +</div> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Cover"> +<img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="Cover image"> +</div> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h1><span class="gesp2">THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT</span>.</h1> +</div> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<div class="titlepage"> + +<p class="center highline6"><span class="fsize225">THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT.</span><br> +<span class="fsize150">AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL TREATISE.</span></p> + +<p class="center blankbefore2">WITH THE REPORTS OF 187 APPEARANCES (INCLUDING<br> +THOSE OF THE APPENDIX), THE SUPPOSITIONS AND<br> +SUGGESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND<br> +NON-SCIENTIFIC PERSONS, AND THE AUTHOR’S CONCLUSIONS.</p> + +<p class="center fsize125 blankbefore2">WITH 82 ILLUSTRATIONS.</p> + +<p class="center highline6 fsize90">BY</p> + +<p class="center"><span class="fsize150">A. C. OUDEMANS, <span class="smcap">Jzn.</span>,</span><br> +<span class="fsize80">DOCTOR OF ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MEMBER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF THE<br> +NETHERLANDS, DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL<br> +SOCIETY (ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS) AT THE HAGUE.</span></p> + +<div class="author"> +<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line"> +<p class="center">PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, OCTOBER 1892.</p> +<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line"> +</div> + +<div class="split5050"> + +<div class="left5050"> +<p class="center blankbefore4">LEIDEN,<br> +E. J. BRILL,<br> +Oude Rijn 33<sup>a</sup>.</p> +</div> + +<div class="right5050"> +<p class="center blankbefore4">LONDON,<br> +LUZAC & Co.,<br> +Great Russell Street 46.</p> +</div> + +<p class="thinline allclear"> </p> + +</div><!--split--> + +</div><!--titlepage--> + +</div><!--chapter--> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<div class="rights"> +<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line"> +<p class="center fsize80">[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]</p> +<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line"> +</div> + +<div class="printer"> +<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line"> +<p class="center fsize80">PRINTED AT E. J. BRILL’S, AT LEIDEN.</p> +<img src="images/waveline.jpg" alt="Fancy line"> +</div> + +</div><!--chapter--> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center highline4 blankbefore4 blankafter4"><span class="gesp2 fsize150">THIS VOLUME</span><br> +<span class="fsize80">IS</span><br> +<span class="fsize175">DEDICATED</span><br> +<span class="fsize80">TO</span><br> +<span class="fsize125"><span class="gesp2">OWNERS OF SHIPS AND YACHTS</span>,<br> +SEA CAPTAINS</span><br> +<span class="fsize80">AND</span><br> +<span class="fsize125"><span class="gesp2">ZOOLOGISTS</span>.</span></p> +</div> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<div class="melville"> +<p class="highline2">“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that +may be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to +believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved”.—<br> +<span class="smcap">A. G. Melville.</span> (<i>See <a href="#Page397">p. 397</a> of the present volume.</i>)</p> +</div> + +</div><!--chapter--> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<p>Voyagers and sportsmen conversant with photography are requested +to take the instantaneous photograph of the animal: this +alone will convince zoologists, while all their reports and pencil-drawings +will be received with a shrug of the shoulders.</p> + +<p>As these animals are very shy, it is not advisable to approach +them with a steamboat.</p> + +<p>The <i>only</i> manner to kill one <i>instantly</i> will be by means of <i>explosive</i> +balls, or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine; but as it most +probably will sink, when dead, like most of the Pinnipeds, the +harpooning of it will probably be more successful.</p> + +<p>If an individual is killed, take the following measurements:—1. +Length of the head from nose-tip to occiput.—2. Length of the +neck from occiput to shoulders.—3. Length of the trunk from +shoulders to tail-root.—4. Length of the tail from tail-root to +end.—5. Distance from shoulders to fore-flappers.—6. Distance +from shoulders to thickest part of the body.—7. Length of a fore-flapper.—8. +Length of a hind-flapper.—9. Circumference of the +head.—10. Circumference of the neck.—11. Circumference of the +thickest part of the body.—12. Circumference of the tail-root.</p> + +<p>Give a description of the animal, especially an accurate one of +the head, the fore-flappers and the hind-flappers, and, if possible, +make a sketch.</p> + +<p>If but barely possible, preserve the whole skeleton, and the +whole skin, but if this is utterly impracticable, keep the cleaned +skull, the bones of one of the fore-flappers and those of one of the +hind-flappers, four or five vertebrae of different parts of the backbone, +neck, and tail; and preserve the skin of the head, and a ribbon of +about a foot breadth along the whole back of the neck, the trunk, +and the tail.</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Pageix">[ix]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="gesp2">PREFACE</span>.</h2> +</div> + +<p>In all ages meteoric stones have fallen on the earth. Many of +them were found by persons who were in search of them; they preserved +them, and thus collections were made in private rarity cabinets +and in natural history cabinets. Many learned persons believed in +meteoric stones, but many others were sceptical, and their attacks +were so violent, and their mockery about stones that fell from the +atmosphere, or were thrown by the men in the Moon to the inhabitants +of the Earth, so sharp as to shake the belief of many a +collector, and the happy possessor, fearing the mockery of the so-called +learned men, concealed his treasures, or threw them away on +the dust-hill, or in a ditch.</p> + +<p>But at last there appeared a firm believer in aerolites, named +<span class="smcap">Chladni</span>, who took the trouble to collect all accounts concerning observations +of meteoric stones from the ancient times up to the nineteenth +century. He showed 1. The immense number of facts. 2. The +strikingly concurrent testimony in all the accounts independent of one +another.</p> + +<p>In the year 1829 he published his work “Ueber Feuermeteore” +(i. e. on Meteoric Stones) in Vienna, and from that moment the eyes +of unbelievers were opened. Meteoric stones were again found, and +<span class="pagenum" id="Pagex">[x]</span>were proved to be quite different from terrestrial stones. From that +moment the belief in the existence of meteoric stones was fixed +for ever.</p> + +<p>The author of the present Volume has been at the pains to +collect all accounts concerning observations of Sea-Serpents. His work +has the same purpose as <span class="smcap">Chladni’s</span> had in 1829. It is his sincere +hope that it may meet with the same success.</p> + +<div class="split5050"> + +<div class="left5050"> +<p class="noindent blankbefore2"><span class="smcap padl6">The Hague</span>,<br> +<span class="padl4">February 1<sup>st</sup>, 1891.</span></p> +</div> + +<div class="right5050"> +<p class="right blankbefore2"><span class="smcap padr8">A. C. O. Jzn.</span></p> +</div> + +<p class="thinline allclear"> </p> + +</div><!--split--> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Pagexi">[xi]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak">CONTENTS.</h2> +</div> + +<table class="toc"> + +<tr> +<td colspan="7" class="right fsize80">Page</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="6" class="name">Preface</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Pageix"><span class="allsmcap">IX</span></a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="6" class="name">List of illustrations</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Pagexiii"><span class="allsmcap">XIII</span></a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">I.</td> +<td colspan="5" class="name">Literature on the subject</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page1">1</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">II.</td> +<td colspan="5" class="name">Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent, cheats and hoaxes</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page12">12</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">III.</td> +<td colspan="5" class="name">Would-be Sea-Serpents</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page60">60</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">IV.</td> +<td colspan="5" class="name">The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms on the papers written about the subject</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page102">102</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">V.</td> +<td colspan="5" class="name">The various explanations hitherto given</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page380">380</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="48" class="number">VI.</td> +<td colspan="5" class="name">Conclusions</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page485">485</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="5" class="name">List of observations</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page485">485</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">A.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="name">Fables, fictions, exaggerations and errors</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page495">495</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="42" class="number">B.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="name">Facts</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page498">498</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="4" class="number">1.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">External characters</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page498">498</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>a.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Dimensions</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page498">498</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>b.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Form</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page505">505</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>c.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Skin</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page511">511</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">2.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Internal or anatomical characters</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page512">512</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">3.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Colours, individual variations</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page513">513</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">4.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Sexual differences, mane</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page515">515</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="16" class="number">5.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Physiological characters</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page517">517</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="4" class="number"><i>a.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Nutritory functions</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page517">517</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">1.</td> +<td class="name">Eating, food</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page517">517</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">2.</td> +<td class="name">Breathing</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page518">518</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">3.</td> +<td class="name">Excretion</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page518">518</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="6" class="number"><i>b.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Functions of the senses</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">1.</td> +<td class="name">Feeling</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">2.</td> +<td class="name">Taste</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">3.</td> +<td class="name">Smell</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page519">519</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">4.</td> +<td class="name">Hearing</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">5.</td> +<td class="name">Sight</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="4" class="number"><i>c.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Functions of the muscular system</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">1.</td> +<td class="name">Relative mobility of organs</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page520">520</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">2.</td> +<td class="name">Motions</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page522">522</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">3.</td> +<td class="name">Voice</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page530">530</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>d.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Generation, growth</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page530">530</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="14" class="number">6.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Psychical characters<span class="pagenum" id="Pagexii">[xii]</span></td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>a.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Not taking notice of objects</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>b.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Taking notice of objects</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>c.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>d.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Suspicion</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page531">531</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>e.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Harmlessness</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>f.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Timidity</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>g.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Fearlessness</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>h.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Fear</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page532">532</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>i.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Fright</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>j.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Fury</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>k.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Toughness</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>l.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Playsomeness</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page533">533</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number"><i>m.</i></td> +<td colspan="2" class="name">Sensibility of fine weather</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page534">534</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">7.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Enemies</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page535">535</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">8.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Repose, sleep, death</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page535">535</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">9.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Geographical distribution</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page537">537</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">10.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Nomenclature</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page545">545</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="3" class="number">C.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="name">Conclusions</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page546">546</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">1.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Comparison with allied animals</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page546">546</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="number">2.</td> +<td colspan="3" class="name">Its rank in the System of Nature</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page560">560</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="6" class="name">Appendix</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page572">572</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="6" class="name">Last word</td> +<td class="pagno"><a href="#Page592">592</a></td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Pagexiii">[xiii]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak">LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.</h2> +</div> + +<table class="loi"> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="right"><span class="fsize90">Page.</span></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig1">Fig. 1.</a>—<i>Thynnus thynnus</i> (Linn.)</td> +<td class="pageno">19</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig2">Fig. 2.</a>—<i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i> Koch</td> +<td class="pageno">31</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig3">Fig. 3 and 4.</a>—Would-be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston</td> +<td class="pageno">55</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig5">Fig. 5.</a>—The Sea-Monster, as Mr. <span class="smcap">C. Renard</span> supposed to have seen it</td> +<td class="pageno">58</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig6">Fig. 6.</a>—The largest calamary, ever found, with a scale of 80 feet</td> +<td class="pageno">61</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig7">Fig. 7.</a>—The Animal of Stronsa</td> +<td class="pageno">63</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig8">Fig. 8.</a>—<i>Squalus maximus</i>, Linn.</td> +<td class="pageno">72</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig9">Fig. 9.</a>—<i>Chimaera monstrosa</i>, Linn.</td> +<td class="pageno">76</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig10">Fig. 10.</a>—<i>Lamna cornubica</i> (Linn.)</td> +<td class="pageno">78</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig11">Fig. 11.</a>—A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the sea</td> +<td class="pageno">88</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig12">Fig. 12.</a>—<i>Lineus longissimus</i>, Sow</td> +<td class="pageno">91</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig13">Fig. 13.</a>—<i>Gymnetrus gladius</i>, Cuv. Val.</td> +<td class="pageno">93</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig14">Fig. 14.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as represented by <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span></td> +<td class="pageno">106</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig15">Fig. 15.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the text of <span class="smcap">Gesner</span></td> +<td class="pageno">107</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig16">Fig. 16.</a>—The second Sea-Serpent, illustrating the same work</td> +<td class="pageno">108</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig17">Fig. 17.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as represented in the Basle edition of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work</td> +<td class="pageno">109</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig18">Fig. 18.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the Map of Scandinavia in the Basle edition of +<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>’ work</td> +<td class="pageno">109</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig19">Fig. 19.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, drawn by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span></td> +<td class="pageno">114</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig20">Fig. 20.</a>—The same individual, plunging back into the water</td> +<td class="pageno">115</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig21">Fig. 21.</a>—The drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, as reprinted and altered in the +<i>Illustrated London News</i> of 1848</td> +<td class="pageno">116</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig22">Fig. 22.</a>—Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing, as copied by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span></td> +<td class="pageno">119</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig23">Fig. 23.</a>—Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing, as altered in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> work</td> +<td class="pageno">120</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig24">Fig. 24.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Governor <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span></td> +<td class="pageno">126</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig25">Fig. 25.</a>—Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup’s</span> drawing, as altered in Dr. +<span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> work</td> +<td class="pageno">127</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig26">Fig. 26.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as delineated by Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span></td> +<td class="pageno">207</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig27">Fig. 27.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span></td> +<td class="pageno">234</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig28">Fig. 28.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Officers of the <i>Daedalus</i></td> +<td class="pageno">273</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig29">Fig. 29.</a>—Another sketch of the same individual</td> +<td class="pageno">274</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig30">Fig. 30.</a>—A sketch of the head of the same individual</td> +<td class="pageno">276</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig31">Fig. 31.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by an officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i></td> +<td class="pageno">296</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig32">Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.</a>—The Sea-Serpent as seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Guy</span>, of the <i>Imogen</i></td> +<td class="pageno">304</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig36">Fig. 36.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Captains <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> and +<span class="smcap">Morgan</span></td> +<td class="pageno">306</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig37">Fig. 37 and 38.</a>—Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by Dr. <span class="smcap">Biccard</span></td> +<td class="pageno">308</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig39">Fig. 39 and 40.</a>—Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. <span class="smcap">John Macrae</span> +and the Rev. <span class="smcap">David Twopeny</span></td> +<td class="pageno">323</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig41">Fig. 41.</a>—The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”</td> +<td class="pageno">330</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig42">Fig. 42.</a>—Another representation of the so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a +sperm-whale”<span class="pagenum" id="Pagexiv">[xiv]</span></td> +<td class="pageno">334</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig43">Fig. 43.</a>—The sperm-whale going down head foremost to the bottom</td> +<td class="pageno">335</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig44">Fig. 44.</a>—The ridge of fins, mentioned in the report of the <i>Osborne</i></td> +<td class="pageno">348</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig45">Fig. 45.</a>—The Sea-Serpent as seen by Commander <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> and Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> of the <i>Osborne</i></td> +<td class="pageno">349</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig46">Fig. 46.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> of the <i>City of Baltimore</i></td> +<td class="pageno">357</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig47">Fig. 47.</a>—Outline of the back of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. <span class="smcap">H. W. Brown</span></td> +<td class="pageno">361</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig48">Fig. 48 and 49.</a>—Two positions of the sea-serpent, as seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span> +of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i></td> +<td class="pageno">363</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig50">Fig. 50.</a>—The Sea-Serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer <i>Kätie</i> near the Hebrides. +Drawn under the supervision of the Captain, Mr. <span class="smcap">Weisz</span>, by the American animal-painter Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span></td> +<td class="pageno">367</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig51">Fig. 51.</a>—Outline of the Sea-Serpent seen near Little Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. <span class="smcap">F. T. Mott</span>, +after three different sketches</td> +<td class="pageno">369</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig52">Fig. 52.</a>—<i>Phocaena phocoena</i> (Linn.).</td> +<td class="pageno">381</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig53">Fig. 53.</a>—A row of porpoises</td> +<td class="pageno">385</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig54">Fig. 54.</a>—<i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>, one sixth of full size</td> +<td class="pageno">386</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig55">Fig. 55.</a>—Its head, full size</td> +<td class="pageno">386</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig56">Fig. 56.</a>—<i>Hydrophis pelamidoides</i></td> +<td class="pageno">390</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig57">Fig. 57.</a>—<i>Balaenoptera physalus</i> (Linn.).</td> +<td class="pageno">398</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig58">Fig. 58.</a>—<i>Ichthyosaurus communis</i>, skeleton</td> +<td class="pageno">400</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig59">Fig. 59.</a>—<i>Ichthyosaurus communis</i>, restored</td> +<td class="pageno">400</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig60">Fig. 60.</a>—<i>Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus</i>, skeleton</td> +<td class="pageno">401</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig61">Fig. 61.</a>—<i>Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus</i>, restored</td> +<td class="pageno">402</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig62">Fig. 62.</a>—<i>Chlamydosaurus</i></td> +<td class="pageno">432</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig63">Fig. 63.</a>—<i>Iguana tuberculata</i></td> +<td class="pageno">433</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig64">Fig. 64.</a>—<i>Catodon macrocephalus</i></td> +<td class="pageno">435</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig65">Fig. 65.</a>—<i>Basilosaurus</i>, skeleton</td> +<td class="pageno">436</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig66">Fig. 66.</a>—<i>Basilosaurus</i>, restored</td> +<td class="pageno">436</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig67">Fig. 67.</a>—<i>Basilosaurus</i> as imagined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood, Jun.</span></td> +<td class="pageno">442</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig68">Fig. 68.</a>—<i>Eurypharynx pelecanoides</i>, Vaillant</td> +<td class="pageno">445</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig69">Fig. 69.</a>—<i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i> (Linn.)</td> +<td class="pageno">449</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig70">Fig. 70.</a>—Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> explains +Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing</td> +<td class="pageno">475</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig71">Fig. 71.</a>—<i>Thrichechus manatus</i> Linné</td> +<td class="pageno">482</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig72">Fig. 72.</a>—Sea-Serpent, side view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions</td> +<td class="pageno">516</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig73">Fig. 73.</a>—Sea-Serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions</td> +<td class="pageno">516</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig74">Fig. 74.</a>—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (Lesson) Allen?—Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the +Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Jan. 6, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">547</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig75">Fig. 75.</a>—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (Lesson) Allen?—Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the +Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i>, of Jan. 6, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">548</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig76">Fig. 76.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Drawn by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> +from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">549</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig77">Fig. 77.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> +from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">550</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig78">Fig. 78.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched from a living specimen by the animal-painter +<span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">550</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig79">Fig. 79.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> +from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877<span class="pagenum" id="Pagexv">[xv]</span></td> +<td class="pageno">551</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig80">Fig. 80.</a>—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (Lesson) Peters.—Sketched by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> +from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">551</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig81">Fig. 81.</a>—<i>Otaria jubata</i> (Forster) Desmarest.—From the List of the Vertebrated Animals now or lately Living in +the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877</td> +<td class="pageno">552</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr"><a href="#Fig82">Fig. 82.</a>—<i>Callorhinus ursinus</i> (Linné). Gray.—From <span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span>, “Thierleben”</td> +<td class="pageno">553</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page1">[1]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">I.</span><br> +<span class="chapname">Literature on the Subject.</span></h2> +</div> + +<div class="fsize90"> + +<p class="blankbefore75 blankafter75">An asterisk (*), placed before the works, mentioned in the list, signifies that the +author has had no opportunity to consult them.</p> + +<p> 1555.—<b>Olaus Magnus.</b> Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, earumque diversis +statibus, conditionibus, etc., etc. Romae, 1555, p. 771.</p> + +<p>*1556.—<b>Olaus Magnus.</b> Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, etc., etc., (Editio +nec Romae nec Basileae).</p> + +<p> 1560.—<b>Gesner.</b> Nomenclator aquatilium animantium (= Historia animalium liber +IV), Tiguri, 1560, p. 93, 94.</p> + +<p> 1567.—<b>Olaus Magnus.</b> Historia de gentium septentrionalium variis conditionibus +statibusve, etc., etc., Basileae, 1567, p. 799.</p> + +<p>*1608.—<b>Edward Topsell.</b> The history of serpents, or the second booke of living +creatures. With wood cuts in-fol. London, 1608, (315 pag.).</p> + +<p> 1640.—<b>Aldrovandus.</b> Serpentum et draconum historiae libri duo. Bononiae, +1640, p. 58, 59, 296.</p> + +<p> 1653.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus +et draconibus libri II. Francofurti, 1653.</p> + +<p> 1657.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus +et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1657.</p> + +<p> 1660.—<b>Jonston.</b> Naeukeurige beschrijving van de natuur der vissen en der slangen +en draken. Amsterdam, 1660. Deel II en IV.</p> + +<p>*1665.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus +et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1665.</p> + +<p> 1667.—<b>Milton.</b> Paradise Lost. I, 192-208.</p> + +<p> 1668.—<b>Charleton.</b> Onomasticon zoicon. Londini, 1668. p. 34.</p> + +<p>*1670.—<b>Berndsen.</b> Danmarks og Norges fruchtbare Herlighed, 1670?</p> + +<p> 1674.—<b>Adam Olearius.</b> Gottorfische Kunstkammer. Schleswig, 1674.</p> + +<p>*1690.—<b>Ramus.</b> Norges Beskrivelse, 1690?</p> + +<p> 1718.—<b>Jonston.</b> Theatrum universale omnium animalium, Amstelaedami. Edidit +<b>Ruysch</b>. 1718.</p> + +<p>*1722.—<b>Jean Baptiste Labat.</b> Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, contenant +l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. Paris, Giffard, 1722. 12<sup>o</sup>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page2">[2]</span></p> + +<p> 1724.—<b>Jean Baptiste Labat.</b> Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, contenant +l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. La Haye, 1724.</p> + +<p> 1725.—<b>Père Labat.</b> Nieuwe reizen naar de franse eilanden van Amerika: In ’t +Nederlandsch in ’t ligt gebracht door <b>W. C. Dijks</b>. Amsterdam, 1725, Vol. +IV. P. I. p. 43.—Vol. IV. P. II. p. 105.</p> + +<p>*1730.—<b>P. Dass.</b> Beskrivelse over Nordland. 1730?</p> + +<p>*1740.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> (A Full and Particular Relation of his Voyage to Greenland, +as a Missionary, in the year 1734, printed in Danish at) Kjoebenhavn, +1740.</p> + +<p>*1740.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und +Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission, etc. Hamburg, 1740. 4<sup>o</sup>.</p> + +<p> 1741.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den Groenlanske +Mission, Tilstand og Beskaffenhed, Kjoebenhavn, 1741.</p> + +<p>*1741.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische Mission betreffend; +Kopenhagen, 1741.</p> + +<p> 1741.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration. Kjoebenhavn, 1741.</p> + +<p> 1742.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration. Copenhagen, 1742.</p> + +<p>*1742.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Journal of the mission to Greenland, 2<sup>d</sup>. Vol. London, 1742. +(The first Vol. by <b>Hans Egede</b>, and the third Vol. by <b>Niels Egede</b> +do not contain anything about the subject.)</p> + +<p>*1742.—<b>Labat.</b> Nouveau Voyage aux Isles françaises de l’Amérique, VII, p. 341. +Paris, 1742.</p> + +<p> 1742.—<b>Charles Owen.</b> An Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents. London, +John Gray, 1742.</p> + +<p>*1743?—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Efterretninger om Grönland. Kjöbenhavn, 1743? p. 45-46.</p> + +<p>*1745.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> A description of Greenland. London. 1745.</p> + +<p> 1746—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746.</p> + +<p>*1753—<b>Eric Pontoppidan.</b> Det förste Forsög paa Norges natuurlige Historie. +Kjoebenhavn, 2<sup>d</sup>. Vol. 1753.</p> + +<p> 1754.—<b>Erich Pontoppidan.</b> Versuch einer natuerlichen Historie von Norwegen, +2<sup>d</sup>. Vol. Cap. VIII. § 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Kopenhagen, 1754.</p> + +<p> 1755.—<b>Eric Pontoppidan.</b> The Natural History of Norway. London, 1755.</p> + +<p>*1760.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> New Natural History of Greenland. 1760.?</p> + +<p> 1763.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Description et Histoire Naturelle de Groenland. Copenhague +et Genève, 1763.</p> + +<p> 1763.—<b>Hans Egede.</b> Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland. Berlin, +1763.</p> + +<p>*1764.—<b>Jonston.</b> Theatrum universale omnium animalium. Heilbron, 1764.</p> + +<p>*1765.—<b>Knud Leems.</b> Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, 1765.</p> + +<p>*1767.—<b>Canutus Leemius.</b> De Lapponibus Finmarchiae eorumque lingua, vita +et religione historia, c. notis <b>J. E. Gruneri</b>. (Text in Latin and Danish.) +2 Vols. 4<sup>o</sup>. with 100 figgs.</p> + +<p>*1768.—<b>Jonston.</b> Historia naturalis de piscibus et cetis, et de serpentibus et draconibus. +Rouan, 1768.</p> + +<p>*1771.—<b>Knud Leems.</b> Nachrichten von den Lappen in Finmarken, ihrer Sprache, +Sitten, u. s. w. Aus dem Dän. übers. v. <b>J. J. Volckmann</b>. Leipzig, 1771. 8<sup>o</sup>.</p> + +<p>*1789.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> (Intelligences from Greenland, in the original Danish +language). Kjoebenhavn, 1789.</p> + +<p>*1790.—<b>Paul Egede.</b> Nachrichten von Groenland aus einem Tagebuch geführt +von 1721-1788. Kopenhagen, 1790.</p> + +<p>*1805.—<b>Peter Ascanius.</b> Icones rerum naturalium, ou figures enluminées d’histoire +<span class="pagenum" id="Page3">[3]</span>naturelle du Nord. Cah. V. Copenhague 1805. (In the first four +Cahiers the author does not touch the subject).</p> + +<p> 1808, Nov.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 32, p. 190.</p> + +<p> 1809, Jan.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 33, p. 90.</p> + +<p> 1809, March.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 33, p. 251.</p> + +<p> 1809, May.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. 33, p. 411.</p> + +<p> 1809, July.—<b>E. Home.</b> An anatomical account of the <i>Squalus Maximus</i>, which, +etc.—<i>Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at London</i>, 1809. +Vol. 98, p. 206-220.</p> + +<p> 1811, March.—<b>Dr. Barclay.</b> Remarks on some parts of the animal that was +cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, September 1808.—<i>Memoirs of the +Wernerian Natural History Society</i>, Vol. I.</p> + +<p> 1817, Aug. 20.—Extract from a letter from <b>S. G. Perkins</b>, Esq. dated Boston, +Aug. 20, 1817, to <b>E. Everett</b>, in Paris.—(This extract, a manuscript, +preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, has never +before been printed.)</p> + +<p>*1817, Oct. 15.—<i>The Columbian</i> (newspaper).</p> + +<p>*1817, Oct. 22 or 23.—(A New York newspaper).</p> + +<p> 1817, Nov. 13.—Letter from <b>Edward Everett</b> in Paris to the “Obermedicinalrath +und Ritter” <b>Blumenbach</b> in Göttingen.—(This letter preserved in +the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, has never before appeared +in print).</p> + +<p> 1817, Dec.—Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England +relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a sea-serpent, seen near +Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817. 8<sup>o</sup>. Boston, 1817, with two +plates, 52 pg.</p> + +<p>*1817.—<i>Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England.</i> Boston, 1817.</p> + +<p> 1818, April.—<b>H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville.</b> Sur un nouveau genre de +Serpent, <i>Scoliophis</i>, et le Serpent de mer vu en Amérique en 1817.—<i>Journal +de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle.</i> Vol. 86. Paris, 1818.</p> + +<p> 1818, June.—Sur le serpent nommé <i>Scoliophis</i>.—Extrait d’une lettre de <b>M. +A. Lesueur</b> au Rédacteur (<b>Mr. H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville</b>). <i>Journal +de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle.</i> Vol. 86. Paris 1818.</p> + +<p> 1818.—<b>Hoffmann</b> and <b>Oken</b>. Thier von Stronsa. <b>Oken’s</b> Isis, II, 1818, p. 2096.</p> + +<p> 1818.—<b>W. D. Peck.</b> Some Observations on the Sea-Serpent.—<i>Memoirs of the +American Academy of Arts and Sciences.</i> Vol. IV. Part 1. Cambridge 1818.</p> + +<p> 1818.—American Sea Serpent.—The <i>Journal of Science and the Arts</i>.—Edited +at the <i>Royal Institution of Great Britain</i>. Vol. IV. London, 1818, p. 378.</p> + +<p> 1818.—American Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature +and the Arts. R. Inst.</i> Vol. VI. London, 1818, p. 163.</p> + +<p> 1818.—Wieder eine ungeheure Meerschlange an America.—<b>Oken’s</b> Isis, 1818, +p. 2100.</p> + +<p>*1818, June 9.—<i>Commercial Advertiser</i>, Boston.</p> + +<p> 1818, Aug. 21.—(Boston Newspaper). A paragraph from this newspaper is preserved +in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen.</p> + +<p> 1818, Sept. 11.—Letter from <b>Mr. Andrews Norton</b> to <b>Mr. George Bancroft</b>, +at that time a resident at Göttingen.—The letter is preserved in +the library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and has never before appeared +in print.</p> + +<p>*1818.—W .... On the history of the Great Sea-Serpent.—<b>Blackwood’s</b> <i>Magazine</i>, +III. p. 33-42.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page4">[4]</span></p> + +<p> 1819, Jan.—American Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. LIII, p. 71.</p> + +<p> 1819.—<b>W. D. Peck.</b> Some observations on the Sea Serpent.—<i>The Quarterly +Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts. R. Inst.</i> Vol. VIII. London, +1819, p. 68.</p> + +<p> 1819.—<i>Scoliophis.</i> Eine neue Schlangen-Sippe.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819, p. 113.</p> + +<p> 1819.—Meerschlange in Amerika. <b>Lesueur</b> aus Amerika an <b>Blainville</b>.—<b>Oken’s</b> +<i>Isis</i>, 1819. p. 263.</p> + +<p> 1819.—Ueber die Meerschlange an Amerika. Von <b>T. Say</b> aus Philadelphia an +<b>Leach</b> in London.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819, p. 653.</p> + +<p> 1819.—Einige Bemerkungen über die Meerschlange von Amerika, von <b>W. D. Peck</b>, +Prof. d. N. G. in Amerika.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819, p. 1123.</p> + +<p>*1819. Aug. 19.—<i>Boston Daily Advertiser.</i></p> + +<p>*1819.—<i>Boston Centinel.</i></p> + +<p> 1819.—Amerikanische Meerschlange.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1819. p. 1754.</p> + +<p> 1819. Nov.—<b>C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.</b> Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes +and Sea-Serpents.—<i>Philosophical Magazine.</i> Vol. LIV.</p> + +<p> 1820, May.—<b>Prof. Jacob Bigelow.</b> Documents and Remarks respecting the +Sea-Serpent.—<b>Silliman’s</b> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts.</i> Vol. II, +p. 147-154. Boston (1819) 1820.</p> + +<p> 1820.—De beruchte Zeeslang op de kusten van Noord-Amerika.—<i>Vaderlandsche +Letteroefeningen voor 1820</i>, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk, Amsterdam, 1820.</p> + +<p> 1821.—On the American Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine and +Journal</i>, Vol. 57, 1821, p. 356-359.</p> + +<p> 1821.—<b>Walter Scott.</b> The Pirate, Vol. I, Chp. II.</p> + +<p> 1821.—<b>Otto von Kotzebue.</b> Entdeckungs-Reise in die Süd-See und nach der +Behrings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordöstlichen Durchfahrt. Unternommen +in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818. Weimar, 1821, Zweiter +Band, p. 108.</p> + +<p>*1821.—<b>Otto von Kotsebue.</b> Voyage of discovery into the South-Sea and +Behring’s Straits, London, 1822.</p> + +<p> 1821.—Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Philosophical Magazine and Journal</i>, Vol. 58, p. 454.</p> + +<p> 1821.—Analysis of one of the Vertebrae of the Orkney Animal.—<i>The Edinburgh +Philosophical Journal.</i> Vol. V, p. 227.</p> + +<p> 1822. Jan.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +I, n<sup>o</sup>. 19, p. 294.</p> + +<p> 1822.—<b>Dr. Hibbert.</b> Description of the Shetland-Islands. London, 1822, p. 565.</p> + +<p> 1822.—<b>Otto von Kotsebue.</b> Ontdekkingsreis in de Zuid-Zee en naar de Behrings +straat in de jaren 1815, 1816, 1817 en 1818, tweede deel p. 277. Amsterdam, +1822.</p> + +<p>*1822. June, 15.—<i>New-York</i> ... (newspaper).</p> + +<p> 1822. Aug.—Die sogenannte Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete +der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, III, n<sup>o</sup>. 48, p. 53.</p> + +<p> 1823. Febr.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +IV, n<sup>o</sup>. 68, p. 24.</p> + +<p> 1823.—<b>A. de Capell Brooke.</b> Travels through Sweden, Norway and Finmark +in the Summer of 1820. London 1823.</p> + +<p> 1823. June.—Nachrichten über die grosse Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus +dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, IV, n<sup>o</sup>. 84, p. 273.</p> + +<p>*1824.—<i>Newbury port</i> ... (newspaper).</p> + +<p> 1824.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, VIII, +n<sup>o</sup>. 168, p. 218.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page5">[5]</span></p> + +<p>*1826. June 21.—<i>New York Advertiser.</i></p> + +<p> 1826. Oct.—Sea-Serpent.—<i>The American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, conducted +by <b>Benjamin Silliman</b>, Vol. XI.</p> + +<p> 1827.—<b>Dr. Hooker.</b> Additional testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent of the American +Seas.—<i>The Edinburgh Journal of Science</i>, Vol. VI, 1827, p. 126.</p> + +<p> 1827, April.—<b>Dr. Hooker.</b> Fernere Zeugnisse über die Seeschlange in den Amerikanischen +Meere.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und +Heilkunde</i>, XVIII, n<sup>o</sup>. 256, p. 49.</p> + +<p> 1827, June.—Sea Serpent.—<i>The American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, conducted +by <b>Benjamin Silliman</b>, Vol. XII, June, 1827, New Haven.</p> + +<p>*1827, Aug.—Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.</p> + +<p>*1827, Sept. 5.—Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.</p> + +<p>*1827, Sept. 15.—Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.</p> + +<p> 1828, Jan.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XIX, n<sup>o</sup>. 409, p. 193.</p> + +<p>*1828.—<b>John Fleming.</b> A history of British Animals, etc., Edinburgh, 1828.</p> + +<p> 1829.—<b>Sam. L. Mitchill.</b> The history of Sea Serpentism.—<b>Silliman’s</b> <i>American +Journal of Science and Arts</i>, 1829.</p> + +<p> 1830, April, May.—<i>Chronicle.</i></p> + +<p> 1830, June.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XXVII, n<sup>o</sup>. 589, p. 265.</p> + +<p> 1832, Nov.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XXXV, n<sup>o</sup> 756, p. 122.</p> + +<p>*1834.—<b>Bakewell.</b> <i>Introduction to Geology.</i> Chap. XVI, p. 312; with a note of +Prof. <b>Silliman</b>.</p> + +<p> 1834. June.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XL, n<sup>o</sup> 879, p. 328.</p> + +<p>*1834.—<b>C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.</b>—Abhandlung über Wasser-Schlangen, +etc.—<b>Oken’s</b> <i>Isis</i>, 1834. Extract from <i>Phil. Mag.</i> 1819.</p> + +<p> 1835. July.—A sea-serpent.—<b>Silliman’s</b> <i>American Journal of Science and +Arts</i>, Vol. 28, New Haven, July, 1835.</p> + +<p> 1835. Aug.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XLV, n<sup>o</sup> 980. p. 186.</p> + +<p> 1837.—<b>H. Schlegel.</b> Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, Amsterdam, 1837.</p> + +<p>*1837, Sept.—The “<i>Adis</i>” of Drontheim, (newspaper).</p> + +<p> 1837, Oct.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +IV, n<sup>o</sup> 67, p. 7.</p> + +<p> 1839.—<b>Dr. R. Hamilton.</b> Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of +<b>Jardine’s</b> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>).</p> + +<p>*1839.—<i>The Athenaeum</i>, London, 1839, p. 902.</p> + +<p>*1839.—<i>Boston Mercantile.</i></p> + +<p>*1839.—<i>Kennebek Journal.</i></p> + +<p> 1839, Oct.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XII, n<sup>o</sup> 248, p. 88.</p> + +<p>*1840.—<i>Boston Daily Advertiser.</i></p> + +<p>*1840, Sept. 15.—<i>Journal du Havre.</i></p> + +<p> 1841.—<b>H. Rathke.</b> Ueber die Seeschlange der Norweger.—<i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> +7<sup>er</sup> Jahrgang, I, 1841, p. 278.</p> + +<p>*1843.—<i>Christiansund Posten.</i></p> + +<p> 1843, Nov.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XXVIII, n<sup>o</sup> 606, p. 184.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page6">[6]</span></p> + +<p>*1844.—<b>H. Schlegel.</b> Essay on the physiognomy of Serpents, Edinburgh, 1844.</p> + +<p>*1845.—<i>Cincinnati Gazette.</i></p> + +<p> 1845, Nov.—<i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History</i>, Vol. II, p. 65.</p> + +<p> 1845, Dec.—<i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History</i>, Vol. II, p. 73.</p> + +<p> 1846, Jan.—<i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History</i>, Vol. II, p. 94.</p> + +<p> 1846, Febr.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +XXXVII, n<sup>o</sup> 801, p. 134.</p> + +<p> 1847.—<b>Dr. R. Hamilton.</b> Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV, of +<b>Jardine’s</b> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>).</p> + +<p> 1847.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1604-1608.</p> + +<p>*1847.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, n<sup>o</sup> LIV, wrapper.</p> + +<p> 1847.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1714-1716.</p> + +<p> 1847.—<b>Charles Cogswell.</b> A plea for the North Atlantic Sea-Serpent.—<i>The +Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1841-1846.</p> + +<p> 1847.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, p. 1911.</p> + +<p> 1847, July.—Ueber die Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der +Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, Dritter Reihe, III, 54, p. 148.</p> + +<p> 1847, Oct.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1847, Preface.</p> + +<p> 1848.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, p. 2028.</p> + +<p> 1848, June.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, +Dritter Reihe, VI, 131, p. 328.</p> + +<p> 1848.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, p. 2192-2193.</p> + +<p>*1848, Oct. 9.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Oct. 13.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Oct. 21.—<i>The Literary Gazette.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Oct. 21.—<i>The Globe.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Oct. 23.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1848, Oct. 28.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Nov. 2.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Nov. 4.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 4.—The fossil Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1848, Nov. 11.—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b>—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 15?—Note on the subject “<i>Dodo</i>” of Mssrs. <b>Strickland</b> and <b>Melville</b>.—<i>Annals +and Magazine of Natural History</i>, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444.</p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 15?—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b> The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>Annals and +Magazine of Natural History</i>, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 458.</p> + +<p>*1848, Nov. 21.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 23.—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b> The Great Sea-Serpent.—<b>Galignani’s</b> +<i>Messenger</i>.</p> + +<p>*1848, Nov. 25.—<i>Boston Daily Advertiser.</i></p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 25.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 27.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, p. +2306-2324.</p> + +<p> 1848, Nov. 27.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1848, Preface.</p> + +<p> 1848, Dec.—<b>Prof. Richard Owen.</b> Ueber die Seeschlange. <b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen +a. d. Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, Dritter Reihe, VIII, n<sup>o</sup> 169, p. 231.</p> + +<p>*1848.—<i>Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England</i>, Boston, 1848.</p> + +<p>*1848, Dec. 30.—<i>Bombay Bi-monthly Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1849.—Life and Letters of Campbell, 1849?</p> + +<p>*1849, Jan.—<i>Westminster Review.</i></p> + +<p>*1849, Jan.—<i>Bombay Bi-monthly Times.</i></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page7">[7]</span></p> + +<p>*1849, March?—<i>Boston Atlas.</i></p> + +<p>*1849.—<i>Montrose Standard.</i></p> + +<p> 1849.—Enormous undescribed animal.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2356</p> + +<p> 1849.—Inquiries respecting the Bones of a large Marine Animal, cast ashore on +the Island of Stronsa, 1808.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2358-2363.</p> + +<p> 1849, Apr. 14.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1849.—The Sea-Serpent?—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2395-2398.</p> + +<p> 1849.—A strange Marine Animal.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2433.</p> + +<p> 1849, May, 19.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1849, July, 9.—<i>The Sun.</i></p> + +<p> 1849, July.—Ueber die Grosse Seeschlange.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Notizen aus dem Gebiete +der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, Dritter Reihe, X, n<sup>o</sup> 205, p. 97.</p> + +<p> 1849.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2458-2460.</p> + +<p> 1849.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849, p. 2541.</p> + +<p> 1849.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1849.—Preface.</p> + +<p> 1850, Jan. 12.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1850, Jan. 19.—The Great Sea-Serpent. <i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1850.—Romance of the Sea-Serpent or Ichthyosaurus. Also a collection of the +ancient and modern authorities, with letters from distinguished merchants +and men of science. Cambridge, U. S. 1850, 12<sup>o</sup>, 172 pages.</p> + +<p>*1850.—<i>Christian Mercury</i> (U. S. newspaper).</p> + +<p>*1850.—<i>Charlestown Courier.</i></p> + +<p> 1850, April 20.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1850.—The Great Sea-Serpent again.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1850, p. 2803.</p> + +<p>*1850, Sept. 2.—<i>Cork Constitution.</i></p> + +<p>*1850, Sept. 7.—<i>Cork Constitution.</i></p> + +<p> 1850, Sept. 7.—The Sea-Serpent again!—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1850, Sept. 11.—<i>Cork Reporter.</i></p> + +<p> 1850, Sept. 14.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1850.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1850, p. 2925-2928.</p> + +<p> 1850, Dec. <i>Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History.</i> Vol. III, p. 328.</p> + +<p> 1851.—Rev. <b>Alfr. Chrl. Smith</b>. Notes on Observations in Natural History during +a Tour in Norway.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1851, p. 3228.</p> + +<p> 1851, Oct.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, +Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie</i>, n<sup>o</sup> 395.</p> + +<p>*1852, Febr.—<i>New York Tribune.</i></p> + +<p> 1852, Febr.—<b>Galignani’s</b> <i>Messenger</i>.</p> + +<p>*1852, Febr.—<i>Philadelphia Bulletin.</i></p> + +<p>*1852, Mrch. 10.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1852, Mrch. 13.—The Great Sea-Serpent caught at last.—<i>The Illustrated London +News.</i></p> + +<p> 1852, Mrch.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, +Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie</i>, p. 486.</p> + +<p> 1852, Mrch.—<b>Froriep’s</b> <i>Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, +Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie</i>, p. 491.</p> + +<p> 1852, Apr.—Reported Capture of the Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, p. +3426-3429.</p> + +<p>*1852, Nov. 17.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1853, Jan.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1853, p. 3756.</p> + +<p> 1854, June?—<b>Dr. T. S. Traill.</b> On the supposed Sea-Snake, cast on shore in +the Orkneys in 1808, and the animal seen from H. M. S. “Daedalus” in</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page8">[8]</span></p> + +<p> 1848.—<i>Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh</i>, III, n<sup>o</sup> 44, p. 208.</p> + +<p> 1855, Febr. 17.—The Sea-Serpent Once More.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1855, Aug. 13.—<i>Buffalo Daily Reporter.</i></p> + +<p> 1855, Sept. 15.—The Great Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1855, Oct. 1.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1855. The Great American Snake Caught. <i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1855, p. 4896.</p> + +<p> 1856, May 3.—Another Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1856, Oct. 4.—The Sea-Serpent again. <i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1856.—The Great Sea-Serpent. <i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1856, p. 4948.</p> + +<p> 1856.—The Sea-Snake Story a fiction. <i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1856, p. 4998.</p> + +<p>*1857, Febr. and March.—<i>Cape Argus.</i></p> + +<p>*1857, March 14.—<i>Cape Argus.</i></p> + +<p> 1857, June 13.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1858, Febr. 5.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1858, Febr. 13.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1858, Febr. 16.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>*1858, Febr. 23.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1858, Febr.—<i>Revue Britannique</i>, n<sup>o</sup> 2, p. 496.</p> + +<p> 1858, March 20.—Another Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1858, July or Aug.—<i>Java Bode.</i></p> + +<p>*1858, Oct. 6.—<i>Amsterdamsche Courant.</i></p> + +<p> 1858.—Another Peep at the Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1858, p. 5989.</p> + +<p> 1858.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1858, p. 6015-6018.</p> + +<p> 1859.—Another Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1859, p. 6492.</p> + +<p> 1860.—<b>Dr. R. Hamilton</b>, Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of +<b>Jardine’s</b> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>.)</p> + +<p> 1860.—<b>P. H. Gosse.</b> The Romance of Natural History, Vol. I, Lond., Nisbet, 1860.</p> + +<p> 1860.—A Sea-Serpent in the Bermudas.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 6934.</p> + +<p> 1860.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 6985-6993.</p> + +<p> 1860.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 7051-7052.</p> + +<p> 1860.—On the Probable Origin of Some Sea-Serpents.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, +1860, p. 7237.</p> + +<p> 1860.—Captain <b>Tailor’s</b> Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1860, p. 7278.</p> + +<p> 1860, Sept.—<i>Skibbereen Eagle.</i></p> + +<p>*1860, Sept.—<i>Cork Constitution.</i></p> + +<p> 1861.—A Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1861, p. 7354.</p> + +<p>*1862.—<b>Grattan’s</b> <i>Civilized America</i>, p. 39.</p> + +<p> 1862.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1862, p. 7850-7852.</p> + +<p> 1863.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1863, p. 8727.</p> + +<p> 1863, June 13.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p>*1870, April 9.—<b>F. Buckland</b>, The Sea-Snake Again.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p> + +<p> 1872, June 13.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. VI.</p> + +<p> 1872, Aug. 1.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. VI.</p> + +<p> 1872, Aug. 17.—Sea-Serpent, lately seen near Galveston. <i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p>*1872, Sept. 7.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p> + +<p> 1872, Sept. 12.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. VI.</p> + +<p> 1873, May.—Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the +Norwegian Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1873, p. 3517-3522.</p> + +<p>*1873, Nov.—<i>The Scotsman.</i></p> + +<p>*1873, Nov. 20.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1873, Dec.—The supposed Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Zoologist</i>, London, 1873, p. 3804.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page9">[9]</span></p> + +<p> 1875, Nov. 20.—The Great Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Illustrated London News.</i></p> + +<p> 1875, Dec. 4.—<i>Illustrirte Zeitung.</i></p> + +<p> 1876, June 29.—The Sea-Serpents of the seventeenth Century.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p>*1876, June.—<i>The Scotsman.</i></p> + +<p>*1876, June.—<i>The Courant.</i></p> + +<p>*1876, Dec.?—<i>London and China Telegraph.</i></p> + +<p>*1876, Dec.—<i>Good Words.</i></p> + +<p>*1877.—<b>J. Adams.</b> Account of a supposed Sea-Serpent seen off Nepean Island. +<i>Proceedings Lit. Philosophical Society of Liverpool</i>, n<sup>o</sup> XXXI, p. LXVIII.</p> + +<p>*1877, Jan. 6.—<b>J. K. Webster.</b>—The Sea-Monster.—<i>Advertiser and Ladies’ +Journal.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, Jan. 10, sqq.—(Newspapers of Liverpool).</p> + +<p> 1877, Jan. 13.—<i>Illustrated London News</i>, p. 35, 3d column.</p> + +<p>*1877, Jan. 15.—<b>R. A. Proctor.</b> Strange Sea-Monsters.—<i>The Echo.</i></p> + +<p> 1877, Jan. 27.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p> 1877, Febr. 3.—Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange.—<i>Illustrirte Zeitung.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, Mrch.—<b>R. A. Proctor.</b> Strange Sea-Creatures.—<i>The Gentlemen’s Magazine.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, June 13?—<i>Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, June 14.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1877, June 16.—<i>The Graphic</i>, p. 563, 3<sup>d</sup>. column.</p> + +<p> 1877, June 30.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, Sept. 4.—<i>Manchester Courier.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, Sept. 8.—<b>F. Buckland.</b> Occurrence of a Sea-Serpent.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p> + +<p>*1877, Sept. 15.—<b>F. Cornish</b>, Reply to <b>Buckland</b>.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p> + +<p>*1878.—<i>Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk.</i></p> + +<p>*1878, May 24.—<b>F. Buckland.</b> Supposed Sea-Snake caught in Australia.—<i>Land +and Water.</i></p> + +<p> 1878, Sept. 5.—The Sea-Serpent explained.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII.</p> + +<p>*1878, Sept. 6.—<i>The Scotsman.</i></p> + +<p> 1878, Sept. 12.—The Sea-Serpent explained.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII.</p> + +<p> 1878, Sept. 19.—The Sea-Serpent explained.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII.</p> + +<p> 1879.—<b>Andrew Wilson.</b> Leisure Time Studies; chiefly biological; a Series of Essays +and Lectures. With Numerous Illustrations, London, Chatto and Windus, 1879.</p> + +<p> 1879, Jan. 30.—(Critic of <b>Mr. Wilson’s</b> Leisure Time Studies).—<i>Nature</i>, +Vol. XIX.</p> + +<p> 1879, April 19.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p> 1879, July 19.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p> 1879, July 24.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XX.</p> + +<p>*1879, Sept. 24.—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p> 1880.—<b>A. Günther.</b> The Study of Fishes, p. 521. Edinburgh, 1880.</p> + +<p> 1880, Nov. 18.—<b>Searles V. Wood</b>, Jun. Order Zeuglodontia.—<i>Nature</i>, +Vol. XXIII.</p> + +<p> 1881, Febr. 10.—<b>Searles V. Wood.</b> Zeuglodontia.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXIII.</p> + +<p>*1881, Sept. 8.—<i>Madras Mail.</i></p> + +<p> 1881, Oct. 8.—<i>Le Monde Illustré.</i></p> + +<p> 1881, Oct. 13.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXIV.</p> + +<p> 1881, Nov. 12.—<b>A. C. Oudemans, Jzn.</b> Iets over fabelachtige verhalen en +over het vermoedelijk bestaan van de groote Zeeslang.—<i>Album der Natuur</i>, +1882, p. 13-26. (The issue appeared already Nov. 12, 1881).</p> + +<p>*1881, Nov. 15?—<i>Cape Argus.</i></p> + +<p> 1881, Nov. 17.—<i>De Zuid-Afrikaan.</i></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page10">[10]</span></p> + +<p> 1881, Nov. 26.—<i>Nieuws van den Dag.</i></p> + +<p> 1882, Jan.—<b>P. Harting.</b> Een Zeeslang.—<i>Album der Natuur</i>, 1882, p. 66.</p> + +<p>*1882.—<b>Catherine C. Hopley.</b> Curiosities and Wonders of Serpent-Life. London, +1882, 8<sup>o</sup> p. 247-267.</p> + +<p>*1882, May, 22.—Giant cuttlefishes.—<i>Scotsman.</i></p> + +<p>*1882, June.—The Sea-Serpent at Shetland.—<i>Glasgow Herald.</i></p> + +<p>*1882, June.—<i>Newcastle Chronicle.</i></p> + +<p> 1882.—Die Neueste Seeschlange.—<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i>, p. 2035.</p> + +<p>*1882, July, 1.—A. Stradling.—<i>Land and Water.</i></p> + +<p> 1882.—<b>G. Verschuur.</b> Eene reis rondom de wereld in vierhonderd en tachtig +dagen. Haarlem, 1882.</p> + +<p> 1883.—<b>Henry Lee.</b> Sea Monsters Unmasked.—London, Clowes & Son, 1883.</p> + +<p> 1883, Jan., 25.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p> + +<p> 1883, Febr. 1.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p> + +<p> 1883, Febr. 8.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p> + +<p> 1883, Febr. 15.—The Sea-Serpent.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII.</p> + +<p> 1883, Oct. 20.—The Inevitable Sea-Serpent.—<i>The Graphic</i> p. 387.</p> + +<p>*1883, Nov. 4.—<i>Chambers’</i> <i>Journal</i>, p. 748.</p> + +<p>*1884, Sept. 14.—<i>Inverness Courier.</i></p> + +<p> 1884, Nov.—<b>C. Honigh.</b> Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen.—<i>De Gids</i>, p. 300.</p> + +<p>*1885, July, 29-Sept. 6.—<b>W. Reid.</b> History of Sea-Serpents.—<b>John O’Groat</b> +<i>Journal</i>.</p> + +<p>*1885, Sept. 1.—The Sea-Serpent again.—<i>Scotsman.</i></p> + +<p> 1885, Sept. 10.—<i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXXII.</p> + +<p>*1886, Sept. 15.—The Sea-Serpent again.—<i>Evening Dispatch</i>, Edinburgh.</p> + +<p> 1886, Sept. 25.—<i>The Graphic.</i></p> + +<p> 1886.—<b>W. E. Hoyle.</b> Sea-Serpent.—<i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i> Ed. 9.</p> + +<p> 1886.—<b>W. E. Hoyle.</b> Contribution to a Bibliography of the Sea-Serpent (read +21st. April, 1886).—<i>Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh.</i> +1886.</p> + +<p>*1889, May 21.—<i>De Grondwet</i>, n<sup>o</sup> 38.—(Journal, edited in Holland, Michigan, +U. S. A.)</p> + +<p> 1889, June 6.—<i>Haagsche Courant.</i></p> + +<p> 1889, Dec. 7?—<b>John Ashton.</b> Curious Creatures in Zoology.—With 130 Illustrations +throughout the text. London, John C. Nimmo (1890) p. 268-278.</p> + +<p> 1890, July 12.—<i>De Amsterdammer</i>, Weekblad voor Nederland.</p> + +</div><!--fsize90--> + +<p class="center highline2">and probably:</p> + +<div class="fsize90"> + +<p>*17  ?—<b>Mongitore.</b> Remarkable Objects of Sicily.</p> + +<p>*18  ?—<b>Leguat.</b> Travels to Rodrigues Island.</p> + +<p>*1888.—<b>A. Nicholson.</b> Snakes, Marsupials and Birds.</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">Should any reader know of any other contribution to the literature of the sea-serpent, +he is earnestly requested by the author of this work to inform him +about it.</p> + +</div><!--fsize90--> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page11">[11]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">II.</span><br> +<span class="chapname">Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes.</span></h2> +</div> + +<p>Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Gosse says, +are commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they +palm upon their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their +own invention, they tell the old stories they have heard when on +fine evenings they were together with the old tars talking and +chatting on the fore-deck. Of the latter many have no other origin +than the imagination of a sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes; +others again are exaggerated and garbled reports of what they +have seen with their own eyes, or of what their comrades or +their captain saw! There are the tales of the Unicorn, of the +White Whale, that terrible “Moby Dick” of the Polar Regions, +there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the +exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent!</p> + +<p>Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the +terrible tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment +even to the sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently +why our sailors do not report any more encounters with Mermaids, +or with the Kraken. They know now that they saw, or harpooned, +manatees, or dugongs, and gigantic squids, or calamaries.</p> + +<p>But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent +having been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and +by the master, several midshipmen, and some men of the crew! +The news is printed in hundreds of newspapers, and passes from +mouth to mouth, in short, it becomes the topic of the day! A +schooner, or a brig runs into a harbour, say that of Liverpool, +and the Captain, and the crew are immediately asked if they have +seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the existence of such an animal +they of course answer in the negative! But soon convinced by the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page12">[12]</span>affidavits printed in the newspapers, they swear that when on +their next voyage they meet with it, they will bring it home! +But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on the watch, +the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning home +arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon an +idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent, +yet he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly +that he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on +hoaxing the gullible!</p> + +<p>It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure +in inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some +splendid tricks on the believers!</p> + +<p>Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin +by telling my readers some of them, which I met with in the +various works I had the opportunity to consult.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for +the first time in the <i>Report</i> of 1817. There we find in a letter +from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William Jenks</span> the following:</p> + +<p>“He” (Mr. <span class="smcap">Staples</span> of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780, +as a schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay, +one of these enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts—that +the men ran into the hold for fright, and that the weight +of the serpent sunk the vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner +was of about eighteen tons.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Now follows the hoax of a <span class="smcap">Joseph Woodward</span>, who had reason +to be satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston, +New York, etc. It runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape +Anne, is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has +been drawn up and attested in proper form.”</p> + +<p>“I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant +schooner of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to +Hingham, steering W. N. W., and being about 10 leagues from +the coast, perceived last Sunday, at two P. M. something on the +surface of the water, which seemed to me to be of the size of a +large boat. Supposing that it might be part of the wreck of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page13">[13]</span>a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few fathoms of +it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole crew, +that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it +coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with +extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a +second time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most +from the bow of the ship.”</p> + +<p>“I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket +bullets. I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and myself +distinctly heard the <i>ball</i> and bullets strike against his body, +from which they rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock. +The serpent shook his head and tail in an extraordinary manner, +and advanced towards the ship with open jaws. I had caused the +cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it at his throat; but he had +come so near, that all the crew were seized with terror, and we +thought only of getting out of his way. He almost touched the +vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly have +come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear +again, with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on +the other, as if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However, +we did not feel any shock. He remained five hours near us, only +going backward and forward.”</p> + +<p>“The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided, +we were able to examine him attentively. I estimate that his length +is at least twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 130 feet; +his head is full 12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the +neck is not less than six feet; the size of the head is in proportion +to that of his body. He is of a blackish colour; his ear-holes +(ouies), are about 12 feet from the extremity of his head. In +short, the whole has a terrible look.”</p> + +<p>“When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner, +that it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in +all directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.”</p> + +<div class="split5050"> + +<div class="left5050"> +<p class="center">“(Signed)”<br> +“Joseph Woodward.”</p> +</div> + +<div class="right5050"> +<p class="center">“Hingham, May 12, 1818.”</p> +</div> + +</div><!--split--> + +<p class="allclear">“This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo, +who made affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.”</p> + +<p>This hoax was reprinted in the <i>Quarterly Journal of Science, +Literature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London</i>, Vol. VI, +1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. <span class="smcap">Oken</span> +also inserted the tale of <span class="smcap">Woodward</span> in his <i>Isis</i>, of 1818, p. 2100.—Thirty +<span class="pagenum" id="Page14">[14]</span>years afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the editor of <i>The +Zoologist</i>, published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without, +however, mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did +not he do so? Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such +an old story, and because he was aware of the fact, that the whole +account was wonderful, and contained many impossibilities!</p> + +<p>Astonishing enough, Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> translated this piece from the +<i>Zoologist</i>, and inserted it in his journal (<i>Notizen</i>, Third Series, Vol. VI, +n<sup>o</sup> 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following remark:⁠<a id="FNanchor1" href="#Footnote1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> + +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a id="Footnote1" href="#FNanchor1" class="label">[1]</a> The translations are done as literally as possible.</p> +</div> + +<p>“This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent, +published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from +the <i>Zoologist</i>. Some German newspapers have then amused themselves +with our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We, +however, shall go on to gather whatever from time to time will +still come to us to solve an apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.”</p> + +<p>The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>, +of Worcester (see <i>The Zoologist</i>, 1848, p. 2192). I will let +him speak himself:</p> + +<p>“I have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent +person than myself would offer any observation upon the statement +of Captain Woodward, published in the March number of the +Zoologist, relating to the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done +so, I beg to offer you the following: In a note which you added +in this statement, you say, “The foregoing statement was formally +signed and sworn to at Hingham, by captain Woodward, on the +12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should have told your +readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally considered as +conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to be unworthy +of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with itself. +Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till +I read the “Zoologist” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the +latter ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so +because in a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all +evidence that will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Woodward +tells us nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was +sailing from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., nor of the +date when he says he saw the serpent, except that it was on +“Sunday last at 2 p. m.” This is not sufficiently accurate. But +these are trifling points. The most extraordinary part of the statement +<span class="pagenum" id="Page15">[15]</span>will appear from this: Captain Woodward says, the beast +moved with <i>extreme</i>, or, as he afterwards expressed himself, <i>astonishing</i> +rapidity; that when he fired at the monster it was sixty +feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which appears to have +been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but after he +fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused his +cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat,—of course while +it was advancing towards his vessel,—but before he could fire +his crew were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its +way. So here we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving +with astonishing rapidity <i>towards the ship</i>, which it appears was +also moving <i>towards the animal</i>, and yet allowing time to load a +cannon, point it at its throat, and afterwards to tack to get out +of its way. Truly a most accommodating serpent! But again, the +animal remained five hours near the ship, allowing itself to be +minutely examined, but yet no further attempt to kill the beast! +And what is almost equally strange, though even the position of +the ear-holes is mentioned,—such minute observation does Capt. +Woodward seem to have made,—yet no description is given of +any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before stated, +that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and +bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as +though they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regretted +that these inconsistencies did not strike you before you made +public the statement in question; it is also to be regretted that no +one better able than myself to point them out has undertaken to +do so. But it is highly desirable, in the present state of our ignorance +upon this subject, that none but the most inexceptionable +evidence should be received. Let us have “the truth, the whole +truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need hardly add, that in +these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly feeling towards +Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of the matter; +and I should hail with delight the day when one of these monsters +of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with +which we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is +brought to our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be +at once the wonder and admiration of naturalists.—W. W. Cooper; +Claines, Worcester, June 2, 1848.”</p> + +<p>Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed!</p> + +<p>Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page16">[16]</span></p> + +<p>In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea-serpent +in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars +was offered to the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home +dead or alive. I will insert here the whole history of these attempts, +for they finished with a trick.</p> + +<p>In the copy of the <i>Report of the Committee</i> of 1817, which I +have borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, +there is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818, +the head or title of which is wanting; it runs as follows:</p> + +<div class="centerblock"> +<p><span class="padr10">“Boston, Aug. 21.”</span><br> +<span class="padl10">“Transmitted by our N. Y. Correspondents.</span></p> +</div> + +<p>“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit +of the Sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:</p> + +<p>“<i>Squam River, Aug. 20th. 12 o’clock.</i>—After several unsuccessful +attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called +the Sea-Serpent. We struck him fairly but the harpoon soon +drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he +received will make him more cautious how he approaches these +shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pursuit +of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us, +to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought we +were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly as +ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of warp +before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale. +We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our +sore disappointment.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Rich’d. Rich”.</span></p> + +<p>“Gloucester, Aug. 20.—As I thought it would be interesting +to you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, +I will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last, +he sailed from this in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones +well manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday +they met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven +hours, when they closed with him. He passed directly under the +bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon, +which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable +distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of the +boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon. I hope +they will have another opportunity before they give up the chase.”</p> + +<p>“He has <i>no</i> scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but +his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page17">[17]</span>Capt. Rich had one of his hands wounded. These particulars I +have in a letter from my brother”.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Saml. Dexter”.</span></p> + +<p>After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am +disposed to believe that the animal struck by Captain <span class="smcap">Rich</span> was +really a Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all +that I have found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time +that the animal was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been +fired at it, but it has never been killed yet. In the same copy +of the <i>Report of the Committee</i> of 1817, there was a letter from +Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrews Norton</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">George Bancroft</span>, at that time a +resident at Göttingen. I give here an extract from this letter concerning +the matter in question.</p> + +<p>“Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s, +I found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the +most interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the +expedition fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in +particular nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his +capture, and of the manner in which the information had been +received, viz. from a person whose name was given, and who had +come express from Gloucester, the evening before, to bring the +news. He was said to be 120 feet long, and the Board of Health +had sent down two boats to stop him in the Harbour. After talking +about it all breakfast time, I immediately went to Reed’s +stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my pocket, +rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to +carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him +into the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well, +and said at first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm +upon the subject, and concluded at last that it would never do +for him not to see it. When I had fairly got him into the chaise, +his spirits rose with the exertion he had made, with the thoughts +of the memoir and letters which he should write, and with the +triumph which he anticipated over the Linnaean Society and their +“diseased black snake”, as he contemptuously called it (meaning +the small serpent, killed near the shore at Gloucester); for he +pledged himself that we should find that the sea-serpent had no +bunches on his back. I too anticipated with great satisfaction the +honorable mention of me, which his gratitude would induce him +to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected confidently +to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this enormous +<span class="pagenum" id="Page18">[18]</span>animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end of +Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out +the expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose +countenance foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that +we had come in to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not +taken! (I am not in the habit of using notes of admiration, but +the present occasion seems to require one). The sailors, however, +affirmed, as he said, that they had taken some most extraordinary +fish of very large size, which he was going to see. I had little +appetite left for seeing extraordinary fishes, but went to accompany +Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the South End, and making +our way through a croud, obtained admission into the dark lower +room of a store where we found a considerable number of other +gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged in from +the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in sail. +As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was +pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be +nothing but a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size.—We +had been gradually prepared for the disappointment, so that +the shock was not so great as you might suppose. The report in +the morning’s paper had arisen from a <i>mystification</i> performed upon +the person who brought it to Boston, by the crew of the vessel +engaged in the expedition. The sailors who dragged in the fish +were part of this crew; and instead of their being tossed over the +wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their imposition, +and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would have +been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection +made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and +bringing it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded +for the honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present.—I +have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the +German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you +will assure him, that we do not consider the circumstance, connected +with the deception just mentioned, as affecting the evidence +before obtained for their real existence.—In the Messenger of +this week which I will send by the next opportunity you will +find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and p. 758.”</p> + +<p>I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned passage +from this <i>Messenger</i>. I think most of my readers know a +tunny (<i>Thynnus thynnus</i> (<i>Linn.</i>)). For those, however, who don’t, +I give here a <a href="#Fig1">figure</a> of it.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page19">[19]</span></p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig1"> +<img src="images/illo019.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 1. <span class="gesp2">Thynnus thynnus</span> (Linn.).</p> +</div> + +<p>In the <i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January +1819, we read:</p> + +<p>“T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter received from him by +Dr. Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an expedition +purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been +said in the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He +succeeded in “fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by +all the crew to be the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of +them had previously seen and made oath to): but when drawn +from the water, and full within the sphere of their vision, it proved +that this serpent, which fear had loomed to the gigantic length +of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless Tunny (<i>Scombrus Thynnus</i>) +nine or ten feet long!”</p> + +<p>We see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Norton</span> and Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> immediately recognized +the whole story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. <span class="smcap">T. Say</span> was the +dupe of it!</p> + +<p>From a letter from Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span> to Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin +Silliman</span> (<i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston, 1820) I conclude +that Prof. <span class="smcap">Say’s</span> letter was printed in <span class="smcap">Thomson’s</span> <i>Annals</i> for Jan. +1819. If anybody can tell me the exact title of <span class="smcap">Thomson’s</span> <i>Annals</i>, +he will oblige me, indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult +it. A part of this letter was translated into German, and inserted +in <span class="smcap">Oken’s</span> <i>Isis</i> of 1819, p. 653. I will try to translate this part +into English again:</p> + +<p>“I regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good +earnest treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which +is nothing but a result of defective observation connected with an +<span class="pagenum" id="Page20">[20]</span>extravagant degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. <span class="smcap">Rich</span> +has thrown light upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted +out a ship to catch this Leviathan. He succeeded.....” (etc., the +rest of the letter runs like the part from the <i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, +quoted above).</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, however, says, (see <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. +LIV, 1819):</p> + +<p>“The <i>Pelamis megophias</i>, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have +left the shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts +to catch it, probably because those attempts were conducted with +very little judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long, +and a strange shark, have been taken, of which the papers give +no description: let us hope that they will be described by the +naturalists at Boston”.</p> + +<p>And Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span>, of Boston (<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. +Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston, 1820):</p> + +<p>“In the following year” (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on +an expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent, +and after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish +of the species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the +name of Tunny, Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the <i>Scomber Thynnus</i> +of Linnaeus, and which fish he asserted to be the same as that +denominated Sea-Serpent. This disappointment of public curiosity +was attended at the time by a disbelief on the part of many, of +the existence of a distinct marine animal of the serpent-kind, or of +the dimensions and shape represented by the witnesses of Gloucester +and elsewhere.”</p> + +<p>“It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s +cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities +which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered +the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”</p> + +<p>This was written in 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet!</p> + +<p>The trick of Capt. <span class="smcap">Rich</span> is also mentioned in the paper of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Mitchill</span>, spoken of further on.</p> + +<p>Again Colonel <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> relates in the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> +of November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. <span class="smcap">Rich</span> as follows +(copied from the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2361).</p> + +<p>“As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do +much credit to the actors in it, but which served to fortify the +unbelief of our southern brethern. Believing that the possession of +the sea-serpent would be a fortune to those who should have him +<span class="pagenum" id="Page21">[21]</span>in their power, many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and +other places in the neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with harpoons +and other implements, and manned with persons used to +the whale fishery, in hopes of getting near enough to him to fasten +their harpoons in his side. Among others a Captain Rich (not +Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party, which was +fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they +cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent. +With a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they +determined to throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though +at the <i>expense of truth</i>! They spread a report that they had caught +the serpent, or what had been taken for one, and that he was to +be seen at a place mentioned in the advertisement.”</p> + +<p>“Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found +to be no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a +great natural curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds) +very much disappointed those, who had been induced to visit it. +Those who had declared their disbelief of the existence of the Sea-serpent +amongst ourselves were delighted to find their opinions +were confirmed, and gave themselves great credit for their judgment +and discrimination. The report spread from Boston to New +Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons to be a +sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even those +who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported +that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had +been themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been +seen after the capture of the macquerel was made, during that +year, Captain Rich had the laugh with him, until circumstances, +which have transpired since, have borne rather against him. Thus +much for the transactions of the past years.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><i>The Lake Erie Serpent.</i>—In Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque’s</span> <i>Dissertation +on Sea-Snakes</i>, we read (See <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. LIV, 1819):</p> + +<p>“It appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes, +as well as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in +Lake Erie, three miles from land, by the crew of a schooner, +which was 35 or 40 feet long, and one foot in diameter; its +colour was a dark mahogany, nearly black. This account is very +imperfect, and does not even notice if it had scales; therefore it +<span class="pagenum" id="Page22">[22]</span>must remain doubtful whether it was a snake or a fish. I am +inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise convinced: it +might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the above genus +<i>Octipos</i>. Until seen again, and better described, it may be recorded +under the name of <i>Anguilla gigas</i> or Gigantic Eel.”</p> + +<p>And in the <i>Additions</i> to this dissertation:</p> + +<p>“The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and described +to be of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet +long. It is added, that at a short distance balls had no effect on +him: but it is omitted to mention whether it was owing to have +hard scales (in which case it might be a real snake of the genus +<i>Enhydris</i> or <i>Pelamis</i>), or to the indexterity of the marksman.”</p> + +<p>Every one feels that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> was the dupe of a hoax, +and that he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill’s</span> +dissertation (see below) in which more hoaxes are to be found.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Ref1">Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers, +but when scientific men, they even read papers before learned +assemblies, with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there +has been no greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent, +than that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel L. Mitchill</span>. I am obliged to communicate +to my readers his whole paper, even at the risk of wearying +them. It was published in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, 1829, +and runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L. +Mitchill’s Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our +United States, for a few years past; read before the New York +Lyceum, at a succession of sittings during October, 1828.—N<sup>o</sup>. +35.—The Sea-Serpent. (Communicated for this Journal).”</p> + +<p>“This subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of +notice, before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not +happened, that during several years, it, or something so imagined +and so called, had frequently been presented for public consideration; +and that paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals, +do yet, from time to time, attract the attention of their readers.”</p> + +<p>“This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of +Massachusetts, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood +of Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and +evidence was collected to a large amount. These were so considerable +<span class="pagenum" id="Page23">[23]</span>and imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England +published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous +reptile under the name of <i>Scoliophis</i>. As the fishermen and naturalists +could not catch him and bring him ashore for inspection, +it was concluded to fortify the story by oaths. Accordingly, affidavits +were made to great extent, containing the particulars of what +the several deponents believed they had seen, and, as far as +swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a strong case. +Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was nothing +better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in +no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions +of the opinions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they +had observed in the water. I who was a believer in the first instance, +was gradually sworn into scepticism, which finally ended +in incredulity.”</p> + +<p>“About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did +me the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read +a manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my +distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express purpose +of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning the +sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had +reduced his researches into the form of letters addressed to Sir Joseph +Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evidently +intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to +acquire the honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence +known first to the sçavans of Europe. He did not vouchsafe, even +to name me in the communication. After a very pleasant interview, +during which I found that he positively considered himself +right in the investigation, and I determined on my part to enter +into no discussion about it, he requested me to receive the writing, +and engage some bookseller to cause it to be put to press without +delay. The reason for this was, that he was obliged to return +forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract in his behalf, and +directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I had a lucky +escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.”</p> + +<p>“Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the +land, somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alcoholic +spirit. This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of +the Great Scoliophis. The head, which contains the strong <i>ophiological</i> +characters, had been crushed and destroyed. But, as far as +I could judge, from the formation of the belly and tail, it had +<span class="pagenum" id="Page24">[24]</span>been a native of the land, (apparently a <i>coluber</i>,) and had, of +course, no pretention to claim kindred with its pretended parent +of the ocean.”</p> + +<p>“I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct +opinion, relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my +museum, at the time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating +friends had brought me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chinese +Sea.”</p> + +<p>“The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the +sayings and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the +benefit of the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be +written. In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must premise, +that I am one of the last persons in existence who would +presume to put a limit to creative power. I admit that the all-mighty +being could make a water-snake as easily as a fish; and +that such an animal might be as big as a <i>Kraken</i>, as easily as +the diminutive size of the <i>Stickleback</i>. Yet, on reviewing these +legends of the times, there is found such a propensity towards the +strange and the marvellous, that the men of the present day +show a credulity very much resembling that of the remote ages, +when the terraqueous globe was peopled with gorgons, mermaids, +chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of fabulous zoology.”</p> + +<p>“(a). The first tale I remember to have considered seriously relative +to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put +a steam boat in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to +convey passengers. It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse +the currents and pass among the islands with an ease and a speed +unknown to boats moved by oars and sails; and of course, much +of the business of transporting passengers would be taken away +from the small craft heretofore employed. The large boat would +thus destroy the small ones, or, as was expressed by another +word, devour them. Under these forebodings, the steam-vessel +made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag, the account +proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical description +of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and Gloucester, +and had probably come there to consume all the small fish in the +place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing +seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occurrence, +and credited accordingly.”</p> + +<p>“(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On +this fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An +<span class="pagenum" id="Page25">[25]</span>active young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land, +bought a little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to +have seen; and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves. +He named his vessel the <i>Sea-Serpent</i>. She was mostly employed in +carrying country produce to the New-York market and in bringing +manure back, with the advantage of passengers when any offered. +This boat was on her way from Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout +toward the city, and was met by a sloop from that place, a short +distance from City-Island. The captain of the latter, on arriving at +home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc for news; and being +a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor, the querist, +he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how (alluding +to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back; +how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how +the black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were +variegated; how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion +of the boom in jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly +wind); that this sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling +at least from five to six knots an hour, which made all white +before him (meaning the foam at the bows). The good man took +the joke in real earnest, went away and told it to a sensible +acquaintance. This latter wrote a formal and solemn account of it; +which, travelling an extensive round in the sheets of intelligence, +was finally embodied in the aforesaid book, where it is registered +as a part of the evidence.”</p> + +<p>“(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I received +from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a +letter, respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to +me whether that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide? +It had been found on the shore of the region which the alarming +visitor frequented; and was supposed to have been separated from +his body by one of the musket balls which had been fired at him +and washed ashore. To this serious communication I returned for +answer that it was simply a portion of skin with closely adhering +scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike (Esox osseus), an inhabitant +of the Atlantic Ocean.”</p> + +<p>“(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about +the sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The +feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared +he had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at +length concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page26">[26]</span>catching him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain +Rich. Day after day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent +had, according to information, been observed, without discovering +anything like him. At length, a creature was descried, which some +of the men on board said they had seen before, and that it was +the sea-serpent. The captain pursued the game a considerable time +longer, with much vigilance and patience, until it was at a distance +near enough to be harpooned. He was taken on board, and found +to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I saw the preparation of it in +the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself that it was an individual +of a well known species called <i>Tunny</i> in the Mediterranean, +and <i>Albicore</i> in the Atlantic sea.”</p> + +<p>“After the capture of the fish, the persons who, when they saw +him in the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent, +now changed their minds, and swore he was not.”</p> + +<p>“At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize; +and unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure +of his employers for attempting to impose upon them a <i>Horse-Mackerel</i> +(as they call it) for a <i>Sea-Serpent</i>! He told me the +story himself.”</p> + +<p>“(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that +a sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, somewhere +between Kingston and York, had several times during his +trips observed among the islands and rocks something that appeared +to be a long animal with vertical flexures of the back, resembling +lumps or humps of variegated black and white hues. He told some +of his acquaintances what peculiar appearances had presented themselves +to his view; and that he intended the next opportunity +to take a more close and correct survey. He did so, shortly after, +when the whole phenomenon ascended into the air! It turned out +to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood of young +ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head. And +as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance +so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though +a wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceived, +his belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!”</p> + +<p>“(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent. +One of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was +steering eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the +hither side of the islands called “The Sisters”, which, when she +arrived at the place of her destination on the southern shore, was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page27">[27]</span>reported by the men at the tavern and the printing office, to be +the very creature. Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject, +and inserted it in his paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It +may be relied on that this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea, +has been reduced to genus and species, by a distinguished naturalist, +and registered very orderly in zoology. Now let us find what +the production really turned out to be. The sheriff of the county, +a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and conceiving that he knew +as much about the lake as any person whatever, went on board +full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but one of the +people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning the wonderful +sight, with which he and his associates had entertained the +neighbourhood. The sailor was soon implicated in contradictions. +The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was +not ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sheriff +would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as +it was. At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and +concluding that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots +on the trunk for knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they +would have a little pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent, +which they thought their lake was as much entitled to as any +other water. The whole three had agreed to tell the same tale and +support it!”</p> + +<p>“(g). When the skin, &c. of the huge basking shark, that had +straggled from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan +Bay (Squalus Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the inhabitants +were openly and earnestly invited by notice in words at +length displayed in front of the house, to enter and behold the +sea-serpent. The conceit took very well!”</p> + +<p>“Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions +on the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the +gambols of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the +yet different appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which +have fins on their backs, may have given rise to those parts of +the narrations, not already herein commented upon.”</p> + +<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>, the editor of the journal, could not help +saying in a note:</p> + +<p>“We give place to the <i>scepticism</i> of the learned author, although +not ourselves <i>sceptical</i> on this subject. We do not see how such +evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this +Journal—particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page28">[28]</span>Boston Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr. +Cabot, can be set aside—although we have no doubt that there +have been on this subject both error and imposition; and we are +far from believing that every thing that has been called a sea-serpent +has really been such.”</p> + +<p>Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single <i>proof</i> of +the non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> gathered some +<i>hoaxes</i>, which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his +statements are sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea-serpent +<i>first</i> haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in +October 1828, had taken the trouble to look up the literature on +the subject, he would have found that the sea-serpent had already +appeared on the coasts of Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in +Davis’ Straits, in the Northern Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all +along the Eastern coasts of the United States. The Linnaean Society, +he further asserts “published a book on the subject, with the +figure of the enormous reptile under the name of <i>Scoliophis</i>”. This +is also untrue, for the Society only figured an individual of a sick +and ill-formed <i>Coluber constrictor</i>, the so-called Black Snake, having +only the length of about one yard! The “mutilated specimen of a +snake” which was brought to him in alcoholic spirit, was the +same figured by the Linnaean Society; and where Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> +says that he is convinced that the snake was a common native of +the land, “apparently a <i>Coluber</i>”, he expresses an opinion which +the Society already printed in their little book. Consequently he +cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally, where he says +that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop, called +“the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the Linnaean +Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is commonly +called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one “formal +and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and +black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed” +the water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all +white before him”.</p> + +<p>I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy +of notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours +of the Committee was unfair.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page29">[29]</span></p> + +<p>Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I +have found, translated into German, in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, of +1830, June, Vol. XXVII, n<sup>o</sup>. 589, p. 265:</p> + +<p>“Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American +newspapers. Capt. <span class="smcap">Deland</span> with the schooner <i>Eagle</i> ran into +Charlston on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and +with his crew is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the +following declaration: On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M., +at about a mile from Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of +about 300 yards a large body, resembling an alligator, which +sometimes moved with the vessel, sometimes lay motionless on the +surface. Capt. <span class="smcap">Deland</span>, who perceived that he approached the +animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered so, that he +approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it lay +quite still and apparently careless. Capt. <span class="smcap">Deland</span> aimed with great +sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just +visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster, +to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel, +and in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail, +of which the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by +every-one on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the +animal approach, jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on +deck, and the whole crew, the mate not excepted, only thought +of their safety. They all had opportunity to see their enemy and +agree that its length was about 70 feet. The body was as thick +as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of a grey colour, eel-shaped, +without visible fins and apparently covered with scales, the back +full of joints or bunches, the head and beak resembled an alligator’s, +the former 10 feet long, and as big as a hogshead. A smaller +individual was observed at a great distance (!), which, however, +disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were seen +again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they +disappeared.—Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a +similar creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four +times at it; without, however, causing such a visit as in the present +case. He believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has +strength enough to damage a vessel of the size of the <i>Eagle</i>, if +not to destroy it, and feels happy to have got rid of it in this +way. He further asserts that he has certainly not erred with regard +to the shape of the sea-monster, and that it was different from +<span class="pagenum" id="Page30">[30]</span>whales and other inhabitants of the deep, which he has ever +witnessed” (<i>Chronicle</i>).</p> + +<p>Though the description of the form might lead to the belief +that what is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent, +yet I consider the whole account as a story, because it is not the +habit of the sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck +by a ball, but to plunge down and to disappear.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario. +In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of August 1835, Vol. 45, n<sup>o</sup>. 980, p. 186, +we read:</p> + +<p>“The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American +newspapers. Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake +Ontario, 78 feet long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a +blue colour spotted with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea-serpent +at last ought to have been explained or will be so very soon”.</p> + +<p>It seems that Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> really believes, that if this report is +not the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that +the appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong +to the impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the +report can only be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Ref6">In 1845 Dr. <span class="smcap">Albert C. Koch</span> “exhibited a large skeleton of a +fossil animal, under the name of <i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i> in Broadway, +New York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent. +These remains consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring +in all 114 feet, of a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the +latter, and of parts of supposed paddles” (see <i>Proc. Boston Soc. +of Nat. Hist.</i> Nov. 1845, Vol. II, p. 65). I show here to my +readers the <a href="#Fig2">figure</a> of this skeleton, which I have found in the +<i>Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk</i> of 1878. The description of +this skeleton in full particulars is given by Prof. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span> in the +above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble my readers +with it, but only mention that Prof. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span> in the same paper +proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same +individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate +that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”. +And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones +belonged to the genus <i>Basilosaurus</i> of <span class="smcap">Harlan</span>, 1824, an animal +allied to the seals. The same genus is called <i>Zeuglodon</i> by Prof. +<span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span> in 1839, <i>Dorudon</i> by Prof. <span class="smcap">Gibbes</span> in 1845, and +<i>Saurocetus</i> by Prof. <span class="smcap">Agassiz</span>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page31">[31]</span></p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig2"> +<img src="images/illo031.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 2.—<span class="gesp2">Hydrarchos Sillimanni</span>, Koch.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page32">[32]</span></p> + +<p>In the same <i>Proceedings</i>, of Dec. 1845, Vol. II, p. 73, Prof. +<span class="smcap">H. D. Rogers</span> too states, that according to the form and structure +of some loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals +of <i>Basilosaurus</i>.</p> + +<p>In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. II, p. 94) we read +that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> also told the public that the bones had been found +together, in a position which proved that they belonged to one +individual, and that the vertebrae formed an integral series, arranged +in the order in which they were lying when discovered. That this +assertion too was a mere fabrication, is not only shown by Prof. +<span class="smcap">Wyman</span>, as we have seen above, but also in a letter by Dr. <span class="smcap">Lister</span>, +who stated that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> had dug up the bones in <i>different</i> places +in Alabama.</p> + +<p>A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York +correspondent in the <i>Cincinnati Gazette</i> which, translated into German, +appeared in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i> of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37, +n<sup>o</sup> 801, p. 134.</p> + +<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that +Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span> attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the +same individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from +any existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the +popular (and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in +our modern seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent +had been attached”.</p> + +<p>These words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or +journal, but I can hardly believe that Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span> had a share +in this imposture.</p> + +<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor +published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and +Palaeontologist <span class="smcap">Mantell</span>:</p> + +<p>“Sir,—Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared +in the last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil mentioned +at the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called +Sea-Serpent, as having been exhibited in America under the name +of <i>Hydrarchos Sillimannii</i>, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch, +from bones collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged +<span class="pagenum" id="Page33">[33]</span>to several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean, termed +<i>Basilosaurus</i> by the American naturalists, and better known in this +country by that of <i>Zeuglodon</i>, a term signifying <i>yoked teeth</i>. Mr. Koch +is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of fossil +bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an +enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly, +under the name of <i>Missourium</i>. This collection was purchased +by the trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected +the bones which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon +in our National Gallery of Organic Remains”.</p> + +<p>“Not content with the interest which the fossils which he collected +in various parts of the United States really possess, Mr. Koch, +with the view of exciting the curiosity of the ignorant multitude, +strung together all the vertebrae he could obtain of the <i>Basilosaurus</i>, +and arranged them in a serpentine form; manufactured a skull and +claws, and exhibited the monster as a fossil Sea-Serpent, under +the name above mentioned—<i>Hydrarchos</i>. But the trick was immediately +exposed by the American naturalists, and the true nature +of the fossil bones pointed out.”</p> + +<p>“Bones of the <i>Basilosaurus</i> have been found in many parts of +Alabama and South Carolina, in green sand belonging to a very +ancient (Eocene) tertiary formation. Hundreds of vertebrae, bones +of the extremities, portions of the cranium, and of the jaws with +teeth, have from time to time been collected. Remains of species +of the same genus have also been found near Bordeaux and in Malta”.</p> + +<p>“Professor Owen has shown that the original animal was a marine +cetacean, holding an intermediate place between the Cachelots and +the herbivorous species. It must have attained a length equal to +that of the largest living whales; for a series of vertebrae was observed +<i>in situ</i>, that extended in a line 65 feet. An interesting +Memoir on the <i>Basilosaurus</i> by Dr. Gibbes, of Columbia, was +published in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of +Philadelphia, Vol. I, 2<sup>d</sup>. Series, 1847; and a Memoir on the remains +of the same animal, by Prof. Owen appeared in the “Transactions +of the Geological Society of London”, Vol. VI; a brief notice of +which is inserted in my “Medals of Creation” p. 826, under the +name of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>”.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Gideon Algernon Mantell”.</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“19, Chestersquare, Pimlico, Oct. 31. 1848”.</span></p> + +<p>In the <i>Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat, Hist.</i> (Vol. III, p. 328, Dec. 1850) +we read:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page34">[34]</span></p> + +<p>“This animal” (the <i>Basilosaurus</i>) “was supposed by Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> +to be a reptile, a marine serpent, but Dr. Wyman has exposed +the fallacy of this opinion, and shown that it was a warm blooded +mammal”.</p> + +<p>I do not think this to be the true view of the matter. I firmly +believe that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> knew very well what he did, and that he +was in every way an impostor who cheated the credulous people of +their money. The honour of the discovery that the <i>Basilosaurus</i> is +a warm blooded mammal is due to Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>. Dr. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span> has +only recognized that the bones were of the <i>Basilosaurus</i>.</p> + +<p>The further history of the large skeleton exhibited in New York +is related to us in that same Journal:</p> + +<p>“Koch’s sea-serpent was carried to Dresden, where it was described +by Carus, who figured it and even restored the cranium, +of which then only a portion had been found. Carus restored the +cranium of a reptile, but this was a mere fiction of his imagination; +for an entire cranium has since been found, proving beyond a +doubt that the Zeuglodon was not a reptile but a cetacean; the +teeth being inserted by double roots into double alveoli is positive +evidence that it was a warmblooded mammal. Muller has also +carefully studied this specimen, and pronounces it unquestionably +a cetacean.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Ref5">The reader will further on see mention made of a report, generally +known as that of the <i>Daedalus</i>. It appeared in the newspapers +of October, 1848. As soon as it was published, the following +letter was addressed to the Editor of the <i>Globe</i>. It first appeared +in the number of 21. Oct., 1848, of that journal, next in the +<i>Times</i> of 23d. Oct. and in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of 28 +Oct. It runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“Mary Ann, of Glasgow, Glasgow, October 19”.</p> + +<p>“I have just reached this port, on a voyage from Malta and +Lisbon, and my attention having been called to a report relative +to an animal seen by the master and crew of Her Majesty’s ship +Daedalus, I take the liberty of communicating the following circumstance:—</p> + +<p>“When clearing out of the port of Lisbon, on the 30th of September +last, we spoke the American brig Daphne, of Boston, +Mark Trelawney master. He signalled for us to heave to, which +we did; and standing close round her counter, lay-to while the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page35">[35]</span>mate boarded us with the jolly boat, and handed a packet of letters +to be despatched per first steamer for Boston on our arrival +in England. The mate told me that when in lat. 4° 11′ S., long. +10° 15′ E., wind dead north, upon the 20th of September, a most +extraordinary animal had been seen: from his description it had +the appearance of a huge serpent or snake, with a dragon’s head. +Immediately upon its being seen, one of the deck guns was brought +to bear upon it, which having been charged with spike-nails, and +whatever other pieces of iron could be got at the moment, was +discharged at the animal, then only distant about forty yards from +the ship; it immediately reared its head in the air, and plunged +violently with its body, showing evidently that the charge had +taken effect. The Daphne was to leeward at the time, but was +put about on the starboard tack and stood towards the brute, +which was seen foaming and lashing the water at a fearful rate: +upon the brig nearing, however, it disappeared, and, though evidently +wounded, made rapidly off at the rate of 15 or 16 knots +an hour, as was judged from its appearing several times upon the +surface. The Daphne pursued for some time, but the night coming +on the master was obliged to put about and continue his voyage”.</p> + +<p>“From the description given by the mate, the brute must have +been nearly 100 feet long, and his account of it agrees in every +respect with that lately forwarded to the admiralty by the captain +of the Daedalus. The packet of letters to Boston, I have no doubt, +contains the full particulars, which, I suppose, will be made public”.</p> + +<p>“There are letters from captain Trelawney to a friend in Liverpool, +which will probably contain some further particulars, and I +have written to get a copy for the purpose of getting the full account. +James Henderson, Master, Broomielaw, Berth, n<sup>o</sup> 4”.</p> + +<p>The same story was inserted in the <i>Zoologist</i> of 27 Nov. 1848, +and Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> the Editor who half a year before had fallen +into the snare laid by the so-called captain <span class="smcap">Woodward</span>, and who +was taken to task by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>, grown more careful, now added:</p> + +<p>“Doubtless the sagacious production of some selfstyled philosophical +naturalist, who is pledged to one of the hypothetical modes of explaining +away the existence of a sea-serpent, and who hopes by a +hoax of this kind to throw discredit on Captain M’Quhae’s statement”.</p> + +<p>Now, I think, Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was on the right track!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page36">[36]</span></p> + +<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> for 1850, April 20, Supplement, +we read:</p> + +<p>“The following we extract from the <i>Christian</i> (United States) +<i>Mercury</i>.—The following letter from a gentleman of Beaufort +gives exciting news of what may, by this time, be the “seat of +war”. The old fellow has got into close quarter, and if he does +not make a sudden and fortunate dash, has nothing better than +offering himself as an oblation on the altar of science:—Beaufort, +March 15, 1850. The report of Captain Bankenship and passengers +has been verified by many other witnesses. This formidable sea-monster +has been seen again to day, we understand, in our waters. +When discovered by those on board the steamer, his “eminence” +was in Port Royal Sound, a distance of seven or eight miles from this +town. Since that time he has been lazily making his way up Broad-River, +and was seen by a gentleman, we understand, to-day in +White Branch River, an arm of the Broad, he is reported to be +making his way higher up still, when, perhaps, he may be captured. +He is described as being from 120 to 150 feet in length, +and of proportionate bulk; has the head of a serpent, which he +carries, when in motion, five or six feet out of the water, about +ten feet from his head is a hump, resembling a huge hogshead, +and as far as he could be seen, out of the water a succession of +humps was observed. He was pursued for several miles along the +bank of the river, at times the party in pursuit coming very near +to him. He was shot at with a rifle and shot gun, which had +the effect of making him timid, and caused him to sink below +the surface of the water when nearly approached. We understand +that a party from this place has been made up to capture him, +if possible. The plan is to man two large flats with a cannon to +each, one going below where he is represented to be, and the +other above, and then approach each other, and, when he is +discovered, to fire into him. In this way he may be taken if, +peradventure, he does not take them first. The Whale Branch is +not more than 100 yards wide, and there is every probability of +an animated conflict with this king of the waters within his own +dominions; and I suppose it is admitted that the battle must be +waged upon his own terms. The “Charlestown Courier” has a +letter from Beaufort, of the same date, and of a similar tenor +to which is appended the following:—Information has just +reached us that the said sea-serpent is ashore at the mouth of +Skull Creek. If so, the prize is certain, and Beaufort immortalized.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page37">[37]</span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> inserted this tale in his <i>Zoologist</i> of 1850, p. 2803, +however, not without the following introduction:</p> + +<p>“Ever since Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> attempted to confound this leviathan +with the seals, on which he probably feeds, taking in whole +shoals of them at a mouthful, and draining of the water with his +<i>seaserpentbone</i> apparatus in the manner of a whale filling his +stomach with medusae and shrimps: ever since the promulgation +of this humilating hypothesis, the great sea-serpent has felt himself +snubbed and has doggedly kept in deep water, pertinatiously +resolved, no doubt, to withhold himself in future from the incredulous +malevolence of men. But he has relented: the recurrence of +St. Valentine has warmed his heart: he has once more risen to +the surface, and has wisely concluded to shun the disparaging +Britishers, and to select, as of yore, for the scene of his auto-exhibition, +the shores of a nation, at once the smartest and most +credulous on earth. The papers of the United States are fraught +with intelligence respecting him; cannon have been discharged, +and reports say that he is actually ashore. My first extract is from +a religious newspaper, entitled the “Christian Mercury.””</p> + +<p>The reader will afterwards get acquainted with Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span> +suggestions; it is not now the right moment to enter into them; +I will only observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> also wrote the following +last word:</p> + +<p>“The London papers have repeated all this, intermixed with a +perfect flood of wit: the shafts of which are directed against believers +and unbelievers, in a very pleasing and impartial manner. +Is it still a hoax, or a Brachioptilon Hamiltoni?—<span class="smcap">Edward +Newman</span>, London, April 20, 1850.”</p> + +<p>I must confess that I too am much inclined to believe, that all +that has above been mentioned is a mere hoax, though the description +of the animal agrees with that of the Sea-serpent. It is +striking that the arm of the Broad-River is first called White-River, +and a few lines afterwards Whale-River.—As to the +<i>Brachioptilon Hamiltoni</i>, it is a kind of shark.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Again in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> for 1850, Sept. 7, appeared +a hoax in the following terms:</p> + +<p>“The <i>Cork Constitution</i> publishes the following circumstantial +letter: Courtmasherry, Aug. 29.—Sir,—The following particulars, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page38">[38]</span>the accuracy of which need not to be questioned, will, I +doubt not, interest many of your readers:—The different fishing +establishments on the shore of this extensive bay, extending from +the Old Head of Kinsale to the Seven Heads, have been within +the last few days abundantly supplied with fish of every description, +and the greatest activity prevails to profit by the bounty +which has been thus sent to us literally in shoals. It has been noticed +too, that some description of fish, haak for instance, has been +captured further within the limits of the inner harbour than was +ever known before. In fact, as I heard it observed, the fish was +literally leaping ashore. These novel appearances, however, it was +my lot to see fully accounted for yesterday (August 28). At about 1 +o’clock A. M. when sailing in my yacht, with a slight breeze off +shore, about two miles to the south of the beacon erected to the +Barrel rocks, one of the party of four gentlemen on board (M. B. +of Bandon) drew attention towards the structure, with the interrogatory +of: “Do you see anything queer about the Barrels?” In +an instant the attention of all on board was rivetted on an object +which at first struck me as like the upheaved thick end of a large +mast, but which, as it made out plainer, proved to be the head +of some huge fish or monster. On bearing down towards the object +we could distinctly see, with the naked eye, what I can best describe +as an enormous serpent without mane or fur or any like appendage. +The portion of the body above water, and which appeared to be +rubbing or scratching itself against the beacon, was fully thirty +feet long, and in diameter I should say about a fathom. With the +aid of a glass it was observed that the eyes were of immense size, +about nine inches across the ball, and the upper part of the back +appeared covered with a furrowed shell-like substance. We were +now within rifle shot of the animal, and, although some on board +exhibited pardonable nervousness at the suggestion, it was resolved +to fire a ball at the under portion of the body whenever the creature’s +unwieldy evolutions would expose its vulnerable part. The +instant the piece was discharged the monster rose as if impelled +by a painful impulse to a height which may appear incredible, say +at least thirty fathoms, and culminating with the most rapid motion +dived or dashed itself under water with a splash that almost stopped +our breath with amazement. In a few moments all disturbance of +the water subsided, and the strange visitor evidently pursued his +course to seaward. On coming up to the beacon we were gratified +to find adhering to the supports numerous connecting scaly masses, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page39">[39]</span>such as one would think to be rubbed from a creature “coating” +or changing its old skin for a new one. These interesting objects +can be seen at the Horse Rock Coast Guard station, and will repay +a visit. These particulars I have narrated in the clearest manner I +am able, and if others, in other boats, who had not so good an +opportunity of seeing the entire appearance of the animal as those +in my boat had, should send you a more readable account of it, +I pledge myself none will more strictly adhere to the real facts. I +am, Sir, your very obedient servant, “Roger W. Travers””, in the +<i>Cork Constitution</i>, Sept. 2.</p> + +<p>And in the number of September 14 of the same year, we read:</p> + +<p>“The mysterious stranger has been again seen by Mr. Travers +and his enterprising yachtsmen. They have brought four rifles to +bear upon his left eye which, it seems, he most merrily winked +at his pursuers. He would have laughed in his sleeve at the pleasant +conceit, but we learn that he had just put off his coat. He, however, +wished them a polite good morning, and descended to unknown +depths”.</p> + +<p>“On Saturday last (August 31), the weather having the appearance +of being settled fine, I put out to sea, determined, as far +as the capabilities of my little craft would permit, to go any length +in finding out the position of the stranger, hoping, by keeping a +constant look out in every direction, to discover him. Nor was I +disappointed, the animal, lured no doubt by the dense masses of +fish now off the coast, having remained within a comparatively short +distance of the land. At about 11. o’clock A. M., when off Dunwordy-head, +one of my crew on the look out sang out: “The sea-serpent +on starboard bow!” and on looking in the direction indicated, I +had the pleasure of at once recognizing the same monster that I +had before seen, and greatly do I regret, indeed, that you or some +person conversant with natural history were not on board with me. +We drew as close as I thought consistent with safety, and had ample +proof of the creature being piscivorous, he being at the time engaged +in bolting a great number of large haak or congereels. I had now +for the first time a view of his tail, which entirely differs from +the usual form of that extremity in most descriptions of fish, being +furnished with no fin, but somewhat resembling a huge elephant’s +trunk or proboscis, the end long drawn out and curling and twisting +in a very remarkable manner. I really feel afraid to hazard expressing +in figures what I judge to be the dimensions of the animal, +but I do believe that if it were stretched straight from head to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page40">[40]</span>tail it would be rather over than under thirty fathoms long, and +of that length I am satisfied fully half is seven feet in diameter. +The mouth is a most capacious organ, and opens something like +that of an alligator. The small size of the gills, for I could discern +nothing like the blowing holes of a whale, rather surprised me. +The nose, I think, is formed of a soft flesh-like substance, not +bony; and from the broken condition of the external coat of scales +I am satisfied, as before observed, that the beast is now in its +“coating” state. After a little time it appeared evident that he had +fallen asleep, as we could perceive him rapidly drifting on shore +at the east side of Dunworly-head; and I once more, although I +now feel with more rashness than discretion, resolved to try the +effect of firearms in capturing him. Four rifles were prepared, brought +simultaneously to bear on the animal’s head, and, giving the word +myself, and directing all to aim for the eye turned towards us, +bang went the pieces in a volley, the shots taking evident effect. +His first movement was to shake his head and wink the wounded +eye in a rapid manner, and then, as if to cool the painful wound, +he suddenly dived, since when I have not had the slightest trace +of him either by my own observation or through others”. <i>Cork +Constitution</i>, Sept. 7.</p> + +<p>“The <i>Cork Constitution</i>, referring to the foregoing says:—Since +the above letter was received, the following information on the +same subject came to hand. Monday last a party of gentlemen belonging +to this city were enjoying a sailing excursion in the Antelope +yacht, belonging to Mr. Wheeler, along the coast from Glandore +to Kinsale. Passing the Old Head of Kinsale, the day unusually +fine, they observed an extraordinary commotion in the sea, apparent +to every one on board. The bay at Kinsale was at the time filled +with fish. In a few moments they perceived a large serpent-like fish +on the surface, that could not be less than 120 feet in length. In +shape it resembled a long funnel of an immense steamer. Unfortunately +they were not sufficiently near the monster to give a description, +of the head and body. After lying on the surface for a +few minutes, it suddenly dashed ahead with a velocity, as far as +could be seen for a distance of two miles, of at least sixty miles +an hour. It then disappeared. It was believed that the sea-serpent +must have been in pursuit of the shoals of fish that thronged the +bay. It is a singular circumstance that, notwithstanding the unusual +quantity of fish that was observable, the Kinsale hookers were most +unsuccessful, as it was stated they did not obtain a single take +<span class="pagenum" id="Page41">[41]</span>during the evening. The gentlemen who have witnessed the visit +of the monster, and whose statement is detailed above, may be +relied on as above all suspicion”.—<i>Cork Constitution</i> Sept. 7.—</p> + +<p>The <i>Zoologist</i> of course could not overlook such statements. In +the year 1850 this journal inserted the three reports (see p. 2925):</p> + +<p>“The Great Sea-Serpent has again appeared with immense <i>éclât</i> +in the newspapers. Most respectable witnesses are called to speak +a word in his favour, as will be seen by the following extracts +from the daily press. It should, however, be premised that a number +of brief and analogous paragraphs had previously located him +“at Howth”, “off Wexford”, and “off Cork”; so that he made the +grand demonstration at Kinsale, he appeared to be taking a coasting +trip round the shores of old Ireland.”</p> + +<p>Here follow the above mentioned three hoaxes, of Courtmasherry, August +29, August 31, and September 2. Further we read in the <i>Zoologist</i>:</p> + +<p>“A few friends accompanied me on a boating excursion this +day (<i>Sept. 9</i>) whose names are William Silk, John Hunt, George +Williams, Henry Seymour, and Edward Barry, and, being off the +Souverein-Islands, our attention was directed by one of the party +to an extraordinary appearance ahead of the boat; immediately all +eyes were turned to see what it was, when, to our astonishment +and fright, the above monster of the deep was bearing down to +us; we were at once thrown into an awful fright, and thought it +best to retreat for the shore; on our landing, Mr. W. Silk, who +was armed with a double barrelled gun, discharged both barrels +at the monster, but without effect. I need not describe his appearance, +as you are aware of it before, but from inquiries from various +boatmen I am told he has been off the harbour the last three +days.”—John Good, of Kinsale.” in <i>Cork Reporter</i>, Sept. 11.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds:</p> + +<p>“The next account states that a party encountered the monster +in Ballycotton Bay, fired into him, and made him disgorge a shoal +of fishes, some of which fell into the boat, and being handled, +gave the crew the most terrific electric shocks; where upon the +naturalist of the party immediately concluded, and I think, with +great judgment, that the sea-serpent is neither more nor less than +the electric eel (<i>Gymnotus electricus</i>).”</p> + +<p>“The last account published in London, on this day (September +24), reports his capture and death at Youghal, in the county of +Cork, together with full admeasurements, and the names of the +parties concerned in the galant achievement.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page42">[42]</span></p> + +<p>“There was something that struck me as unsatisfactory about +several parts of this highly exciting narrative. One o’clock in the +morning, and without the assistance of a moon, was rather a +strange time to make such exact observations. Again, about the +scales; why not sent some to London or Dublin?—why keep +them at the light-house? And again, the bearing of Kinsale bay +did not quite correspond with my remembrance of the place: so I +epistolized the chief actors, and particularly entreated Mr. Travers +to send me a handful of scales, and a more detailed account: +alas! there was no response. After a while I bethought myself of +a friend in London who corresponds with the accountant of the +Principal Bank at Bandon. To this gentleman my friend, with +prompt kindness, applied, and I have now the pleasure of laying +his most explicit answer before the readers of the “Zoologist”.”</p> + +<p>“Dear Sir,—I reply to your note relative to the Sea-Serpent, +there is not one word of truth in the statements put forward in +the newspapers: there is no such person as Roger W. Travers, but +there is a person named James W. Travers, to whom I believe +it has been done to annoy (and indeed with great effect). Mr. +Thomson’s family has been staying in the neighbourhood, but do +not hear a word of it except what is to be seen in the papers +about it. Dear Sir, yours truly, H. O.’ Callaghan.”—Bandon, +Sep. 18, 1850.</p> + +<p>“Any comment on this would be superfluous.—Edward Newman.”</p> + +<p>The trouble Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> gave himself to get possession of the +scales, and to know whether the reports were true or not, is the +best proof that he was caught in the snare!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><i>The Sea-Serpent caught at last!</i> (See <i>The New York Tribune</i> +for 1852, February, <span class="smcap">Galignani’s</span> <i>Messenger</i> for 1852, Februari, +<i>The Illustrated London News</i> for 1852, March, 18, <i>The Times</i> +for 1852, March 10, <i>The Zoologist</i> for 1852 p. 3426—3429, +<i>Spenerische Zeitung</i> for 1852, March).</p> + +<p>“Ship Monongahela, at Sea, Feb. 6.—A small vessel has just +been reported from my mast-head, and as she is apparently bound +into some of the northern parts, I intend to speak her, purposely +to acquaint, through your widely diffused journal, the people of +the United States, of the fact of the existence and capture of the +sea-serpent—a monster deemed fabulous by many—but the truth +<span class="pagenum" id="Page43">[43]</span>of whose existence is for ever settled, and, I trust I shall be excused +in saying, by Yankee intrepidity. On the morning of January +13, when in lat. 3 deg. 10 min. south, and long. 131 deg. 50 +min. west, the man on the look out, seated on the foretopmast +cross-trees, sang out: “White Water” and in reply to my “Where +away?” said “Two points on the lee bow”. Supposing it to be +made by sperm whales, and being very anxious to obtain oil, I +ordered my ship to be kept off, and immediately went aloft with +my spyglass. I will observe that for several days we had been +struggling along with very light and baffling winds, but at day-light +of the morning of the 13th. the wind had drawn to the +south-south-west, become steady, and threatened to blow a gale. +I was aloft nearly half an hour before I observed anything like +“white water” and then I presumed it to be made by a “school”, +or rather schoal of porpoises; but wishing to be certain, I ordered +the mate, as it was seven bells, to turn up all hands, square in +the yards, and send out the port studding sails. It being my +breakfast hour I urged the man to keep both eyes open, and +came down; but before I reached the deck my attention was +called to the sudden and vehement cry of Onnetu Vanjau, a Marquesan +Islander, “Oh! look! look! Me see!—too much—too +much!” All eyes were instantly directed to the savage to ascertain +where he was looking, and then all eyes turned to the lee quarter. +I had just time to see “black skin” when it disappeared. The +native was excited, and in reply to my question said: “No whale—too +much—too big—too long. Me no see all same dat fellar—me +fraid”. Not being able to tell which way the animal or +fish was bound, I luffed and came aback, ordering the lines into +the boat and the crews to “stand by”. The horizon was scanned +in every direction for nearly an hour, when giving up all hopes I +braced forward and went below. The native continued to look +with eagerness, pushed on by the observations of the crew, who +asserted that he had seen nothing, but he proved the truth of +his sight in a few minutes by uttering another cry, and with +more vehemence than the first. I rushed on deck, and the first +look, not a mile to leeward, rested on the strangest creature I +had ever seen in the ocean. It was apparently still, but “shobbing” +up and down, as we say of sperm whales. I knew it was not a +whale. The head I could not see, but the body had a motion like +the waving of a rope when shaken and held in the hand. Every +eye in the ship regarded it attentively, and not a word was spoken +<span class="pagenum" id="Page44">[44]</span>or sound uttered. In a few minutes the whole length of the body +rose and lay on the water; it was of an enormous length. Presently +the extremity or tail moved or vibrated, agitating the water, +and then the head rose entirely above the water, and moved sideways +slowly, as if the monster was in agony or suffocating. “It is +a sea-serpent” I exclaimed; “stand by the boats”. There was a +hesitancy, and the mate said, “of what use is there lowering for +him? We only lose time, and gain nothing besides”. I abruptly +checked him, and ordered all hand to be called aft. When they +had mustered I told them I wished to “try” that fellow. I urged +them with all the eloquence I possessed, telling them there were +but few who believed in the existence of a sea-serpent, and that a +wish had been expressed that a whale ship might fall in with one +of them—that if we did not attack him, and should tell of +seeing him when we got home, we should be laughed at and derided—and +the very first question would be: “Why didn’t you +try him?” I told them our courage was at stake—our manhood, +and even the credit of the whole American whalefishery, and concluded +by appealing to their cupidity—holding out that we +might possibly get him into some southern port. “I do not order +one of you to go in the boats”, I said “but who will volunteer?” +Let me say to their credit, every American in the ship stepped +out at once, followed by all but one native and two Englishmen. +I ordered the boat-steerers and officers to examine and see that +every thing in and about the boats was in perfect order. I had +already jumped into my boat when the serpent began to move +very rapidly, and it was necessary to stand after him. The wind +was piping up strongly, but as we gained I continued to carry all +sail, hoping to be able to lower before the gale rendered it impossible. +The serpent worked to windward, which compelled me +to haul on the wind, and soon after I carried away my fore top-gallant +mast; this was most unlucky for us, and, what was still +worse, we lost sight of the monster. We repaired damages with +all possible despatch, and still kept on the wind, hoping to see +his snakeship. In less than an hour we saw him again, but some +way to windward; soon ascertaining that he partly turned, and +was headed baft for beam, I put the ship about on the other +tack. The wind had increased so much, that I was obliged to +put a single reef in the fore and mizen topsails. The serpent +disappeared for a few minutes again, but when he rose he +was a mile ahead of the ship, and going slowly to leeward, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page45">[45]</span>having made a complete circuit. I frankly admit my hopes +were feeble of ever really capturing him, and the gale made me +hesitate about lowering; but the time arrived, the serpent was +still, and we nearly half a mile to windward. I came to with the +head yards aback to have a better control of all the ship, and +told the ship-keeper to keep close to us, and by no means to +lose sight of us for an instant. We lowered, myself taking the +lead, and in a few strokes—the wind and sea carrying us to +leeward—I told the boat-steerer, James Wittemore, of Vermont, +to “stand up”. With calm and cool intrepidity he laid hold of his +iron (harpoon), and, when I beckoned with a movement of my +hand, quick as thought both of his weapons were buried to the +socket in the repulsive body before us. I shouted ’stern, but there +was no visible motion of his snakeship. I shifted ends with the boat-steerer, +and cleared away a lance as quickly as possible, beckoning +them to pull up, that I might get a lance, when a movement of +the body was visible, and the head and tail of the monster rushed +as it were to “touch the wound”. The frightfulness of the head as +it approached to boat, filled the crew with terror, and three of +them jumped over board. I instinctively held out my lance, and +its sharp point entered the eye. I was knocked over and felt a deep +churning off the water around me. I rose to the surface and caught +a glimpse of the writhing body, and was again struck and carried +down. I partly lost my consciousness under water but recovered it; +when I rose again in the bloody foam, the snake had disappeared, +and I shouted, “pick up the line”. The third mate Mr. Benson, +caught a bight at my line near the end, and bent on his, which +in an instant began to be taken out rapidly. The mate picked me +up as soon as I rose to the surface, and in a few minutes all were +picked up—one was severely bruised and another insensible, but +he recovered and both are now well. The snake had taken my line, +the third mate’s, and was taking the second mate’s, when I ordered +the mate to bend on and give his line to the ship. The snake was +sounding, and I cautioned the officers not to hold on too hard, for +fear of drawing the irons. At first the line went out rapidly, but +decreased gradually, nevertheless I was obliged to get up a spare-line +out of the fore hold and bend on. For fear that the ship would +by its weight on the line draw the irons, I put on several drags +and gave the line to the mate, when it became stationary. There +were now out four boats’ lines, 225 fathoms in a boat, and two-thirds +of another line, 100 fathoms more—in all 1,000 fathoms, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page46">[46]</span>six feet in a fathom, 6,000 feet—better than one mile and an +eighth, an enormous depth, and the pressure at that distance is +inconceivable. It was now blowing furiously, and I scarcely dared +to carry sail enough to keep the ship up, the boat was in peril, +and I was obliged to take the line to the ship again, and run the +risk of the irons drawing. I made the end of the line fast and took +in all sail but enough to keep her steady, and waited in alarm +the snake’s rising, the parting of the line, or the irons drawing. +At 4 p. m. the wind began to shift, which favoured us a little; at +5 p. m. it, to our great joy, began to abate. At 8 p. m. a sudden +lull; line taut. The night was beautiful, sky clear, wind scarcely +a breath and sea rapidly falling, no eye was closed in the ship—we +were speculating on our prey. It was evident he was on the +bottom. He stayed down a long time; but on reflection I considered +that was his <i>forte</i>—that he was at home there. At 4 a. m. of +the 14th., 16 hours after he went down, the line began to slack, +I had it taken to the windlass, when we got nearly two lines “hand +over hand”, then there came a strain again. This strain continuing, +I told every body to bear a hand and get breakfast, and just before +we were through, the cook cried out, “Here he is”. In no time +all were on deck, and sure enough he had risen; but all that was +visible was a bunch, apparently the bight of the snake, where he +had been fastened to. I lowered three boats, and we lanced the +body repeatedly without eliciting any sign of life. While we were +at work he gradually rose to the surface, and around him floated +what I took to be pieces of his lungs which we cut with our lances. +To make our work sure we continued to lance, eagerly seeking for his +life, when he drew himself up and we pulled away, and then +witnessed the terrific dying struggles of the monster. None of the +crew who witnessed that terrible scene will ever forget it; the evolutions +of the body were rapid as lightning, seeming like the revolving +of a thousand enormous black wheels. The tail and head +would occasionally appear in the surging bloody foam, and a sound +was heard, so dead, unearthy, and expressive of acute agony, that +a shrill of horror ran through our veins. The convulsive efforts lasted +10 or 15 minutes, when they suddenly stopped, the head was +partially raised—it fell—the body partly turned, and lay still. +I took off my hat, and nine terrific cheers broke simultaneously +from our throats. Our prey was dead. Luckily he floated buoyantly, +and we took him alongside, and while doing so he turned over, +lying belly up. Every eye beamed with joy as we looked at him +<span class="pagenum" id="Page47">[47]</span>over the rail, and the crew again cheered vociferously, and I joined +them. We now held a consultation as to what we should do, and +I had requested all hands to offer their opinions. After a short talk, +all of us felt convinced that it would be impossible to get him +into port, and then we concluded to try and save his skin, head, +and bones, if possible. In the first place I requested a Scotchman, +who could draw tolerably, to take a sketch of him as he lay, and +the mate to measure him. It was now quite calm, and we could +work to advantage. As I am preparing a minute description of the +serpent, I will merely give you a few general points. It was a male; +the length 103 feet 7 inches; 19 feet 1 inch around the neck; 24 +feet 6 inches around the shoulders; and the largest part of the +body, which appeared somewhat distended, 49 feet 4 inches. The +head was long and flat, with ridges; the bones of the lower jaw +are seperate; the tongue had its end like the head of a heart. The +tail ran nearly to a point, on the end of which was a flat firm +cartilage. The back was black, turning brown on the sides; then +yellow, and on the centre of the belly a narrow white streak two-thirds +of its length; there were also scattered over the body dark +spots. On examining the skin we found, to our surprise, that the +body was covered with blubber, like that of a whale, but it was +only four inches thick. The oil was clear as water, and burnt nearly +as fast as spirits of turpentine. We cut the snake up, but found +great difficulty, and had to “flense” him, the body would not roll, +and the blubber was so very elastic, that when stretched 20 feet +by the blocks, it would, when cut off, shrink to 5 or 6 feet. We +took in the head, a frightful object, and are endeavouring to preserve +it with salt. We have saved all the bones, which the men +are not done clearing yet. In cutting open the serpent we found +pieces of squid and a large blackfish, the flesh of which dropped +from the bones. One of the serpent’s lungs was three feet longer +than the other. I should have observed that there were 94 teeth +in the jaws, very sharp, all pointing backward and as large as one’s +thumb at the gum, but deeply and firmly set. We found it had +two spoutholes or spiracles, so it must breathe like a whale; it +also had four swimming paws, or imitations of paws, for they were +like hard, loose flesh. The joints of the back were loose, and it +seemed as if, when it was swimming that it moved two ribs and +a joint at a time, almost like feet. The muscular movement of the +serpent after it was dead made the body look as if it were encircled +by longitudinal ridges. We were nearly three days in getting +<span class="pagenum" id="Page48">[48]</span>the bones in, but they are now nearly clean, and are very porous +and dark coloured. The heart I was enabled to preserve in liquor, +and one of the eyes, but the head, notwithstanding it is cool, +begins to emit an offensive odour; but I am so near the coast +now that I shall hold on to it as it is; unless it is likely to breed +a distemper. Every man in the ship participates in my anxiety. 2 +p. m. I have just spoken the vessel; she proves to be the brig +Gipsy, Captain Sturges, eight days from Ponce, P. R., with +oranges and merchandise, bound to Bridgeport. He has kindly +offered to put these sheets in the post office when he arrives. As +soon as I get in I shall be enabled to furnish you a more detailed +account.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Charles Seabury, +Master, Whale-ship Monongahela, of New Bedford.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds:</p> + +<p>“Very well like a hoax, but well drawn up.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Froriep</span>, the Editor of the <i>Tagsberichte über die +Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, (Abtheilung Zoologie und +Palaeontologie n<sup>o</sup>. 486, 1852, March), says:</p> + +<p>“The picturesque description of the adventure is lively and reads +pleasantly, yet it makes the impression, as if the whole is one of +the stories, so often occurring in American newspapers. Nothing +can be concluded with any certainty from the description of the +animal of 104 feet length and 16 feet thickness, with two spout-holes +and a skin like that of whales. The intrepid captor of the +monster says that he has preserved the bones, the skin, the skull +with its flesh adhering to it, an eye and the heart, and as he +must come back ashore, a naturalist will at last have opportunity +to examine and determine these remains, and we shall learn then, +whether the fable of the Sea-Serpent is founded, and what the +Sea-Serpent may probably be. As soon as possible we will mention +more accurate reports.”</p> + +<p>Some time afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Froriep</span> wrote, (same journal +n<sup>o</sup>. 491):</p> + +<p>“As it was supposed, we learn from a communication of the +<i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i> that the story of the capture of the Sea-Serpent +is a fiction. The crew that was said by the <i>New York +Tribune</i> to have met with the ship of Captain <span class="smcap">Seabury</span> in the +open sea and to have taken home the report, has declared, that +it has nowhere met with a ship <i>Monongahela</i>, Captain <span class="smcap">Seabury</span>.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page49">[49]</span></p> + +<p>Another reported capture of a sea-serpent was published in the +<i>Buffalo Daily Republic</i>, of the 13th. of August, 1855, partly +inserted in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of the 15th. of September, +of that year, and <i>in toto</i> in the <i>Zoologist</i> of that year, p. 4896, +and in the <i>Times</i> of October, 1, 1855:</p> + +<p>“The “Buffalo Daily Republic” of the 13th. of August, announces +the capture of the great American water-snake on that day in +the Silver Lake, near Perry village, New York. On Sunday, the +12th. the snake came to the surface, displaying 30 feet length of +his body. On Monday morning all were on the alert. At nine +o’clock the snake appeared between the whaleman’s boat and the +shore: he lay quiescent on the surface, and the whaleman’s boat +moved slowly towards him, Mr. Smith, of Covington, pointing +his patent harpoon. On reaching within ten feet of the snake, the +iron whistled in the air, and he darted off towards the upper part +of the lake, almost dragging the boat under water by his movement. +Line was given him, and in half an hour his strength +seemed much exhausted. The whaleman then went ashore and +gradually hauled the line in. When within fifty feet of the shore, +the snake showed renewed life, and with one dart nearly carried +off the whole line; but he was dragged slowly ashore amid excitement +unexampled in the district. Four or five ladies fainted on +seeing the snake, who, although ashore, lashed his body into tremendous +folds, and then straightened himself out in agony with a +noise that made the earth tremble. The harpoon had penetrated a +thick muscular part, eight feet from his head. He is 59 feet 8 +inches in length, and has a most disgusting look. A slime a quarter +of an inch thick covers his body, and if removed is instantly replaced +by exudation. The body is variable in size. The head is the size of +a full grown calf. Within eight feet from the head the neck gradually +swells to the thickness of a foot in diameter; it then tapers +down, and again gradually swells to a diameter of two feet in the +centre, giving about six feet girth; it then tapers off towards the +tail, and ends in a fin, which can expand in fan-shape three feet +across, or close in a sheath. Double rows of fins are alternately placed +along the belly. The head is most singular. The eyes are large, +staring and terrific, with a transparent membrane attached to the +lids, protecting the eye without impeding the vision. No gills appear. +The mouth is like that of the fish called a sucker; it can stretch +so as to swallow a body a foot and a half in diameter: there are +no teeth; a bony substance, extending in two parallel lines, covers +<span class="pagenum" id="Page50">[50]</span>the upper and lower part of the head. The sides and back are dusky +brown; the belly is dirty white. Although sinuous like a snake, there +are hard knot-like substances along the back. The harpoon is still +in him. He lies in the water, confined with ropes, which keep his +body in a curve, so that he cannot get away. He can use his head +and tail, with which he stirs the water all around. When he rears +his head (which he generally keeps under water) he presents a fearful +aspect. In expanding his mouth he exhibits a blood-red cavity, +horribly to look at, and the air rushes forth with a heavy short puff.”</p> + +<p>The well known Mr. <span class="smcap">Spencer F. Baird</span>, the late zealous Secretary +of the <i>Smithsonian Institution</i>, Washington, U. S. on reading this +in the <i>Zoologist</i>, sent to the Editor the following letter (<i>Zoologist</i>, +1856, p. 4998):</p> + +<p>“In the November number of the “<i>Zoologist</i>” (Zool. 4896) I +notice an extract from an American paper, respecting the capture +of the “Great American Snake”. You have probably since learned +that the account is an unmitigated hoax, manufactured by a newspaper-editor, +while on a summer vacation, for the purpose of furnishing +material for his editorial correspondence.—<span class="smcap">Spencer F. Baird</span>, +Smithsonian Institution Washington, U. S. December 28, 1855.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The following splendid trick is of Captain <span class="smcap">Taylor</span>, who is even +called “a respectable and trustworthy gentleman”, nay, who, when +the truth of it was inquired into, even “confirmed the statement”!</p> + +<p>In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1860, p. 6985, we read:</p> + +<p>“The following extract from the log of the “British Banner”, +which arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last, appeared +in the Liverpool Daily Post of March 20. “On the 25th. April +in lat. 12° 7′ east, and longitude 93° 52′ south, felt a strong sensation +as if the ship were trembling. Sent second mate to see what +was up; the latter called out to me to go up the fore rigging and +look over the bows. I did so, and saw an enormous serpent shaking +the bowsprit with his mouth. There was about thirty feet of the +serpent out of the water, and I could see in the water abaft of +our stern; must have been at least three hundred feet long; was +about the circumference of a very wide crinoline petticoat, with +black back, shaggy mane, horn on his forehead, and large glaring +eyes, placed rather near the nose, and jaws about eight feet long; +he did not observe me, and continued to shake the bowsprit and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page51">[51]</span>to throw the sea alongside into a foam, until the former came +clear away of the ship. The serpent was powerful enough, although +the ship was carrying all sail, and going at about six knots at +the time, he attacked us, to stop her way completely. When the +bowsprit with the jibboom sails and rigging went by the board, +the monster swallowed the foretopmast staysail and flying jib, +with the greatest apparent ease; he also snapped the thickest of +the rigging asunder like thread. He sheered off a little after this, +and returned apparently to scratch himself against the side of the +ship, making a most extraordinary noise, resembling that on board +a steamer when the boilers are blowing off. A whale breached +within a mile of the ship at this time, and the serpent darted off +after it like a flash of lightning, striking the vessel with his tail, +and staving in all the starboard quarter gaily. Saw no more of it, +but caught a young one in the afternoon, and brought it on to +Melbourne.—<i>William Taylor, Master, “British Banner”.”</i></p> + +<p>“[The British Banner arrived here on Sunday, and is now in +the Albert Dock. Captain Taylor declares that the above statement +is perfectly correct.—<i>Editor Daily Post.</i>]”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds hereto:</p> + +<p>“It is impossible for any story to read more like a hoax than +this, but I had ready means of procuring, through a friend at +Lloyd’s, the information that there is such a ship as the “British +Banner”, that she is commanded by Mr. William Taylor, a respectable +and trustworthy gentleman, and that she did arrive at Liverpool +on Sunday, 18 March, last past, and is now in the Albert +Dock. Armed with this information I wrote to Capt. Taylor, who +has replied in the most courteous manner; he confirms the above +statement, adding that he sent it to the Daily Post himself, and +adding also that the young one reported to have been caught was +presented to the Museum at Melbourne, where it was thoroughly +inspected and pronounced to be a veritable sea-serpent.”—</p> + +<p>It is not quite clear whether Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was a second time +the dupe of a trick, or not, but I think he really was!</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">George Guyon</span>, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the contrary, +wrote the following poem (see <i>Zoologist</i>, p. 7051, 1860):</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“I’ve a story to tell—I don’t say that it’s true—</div> +<div class="verse indent0">But just as I heard it I tell it to you.</div> +<div class="verse indent0">A ship there was sailing upon the blue sea</div> +<div class="verse indent0">With her canvas all set, when the captain, said he</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“I feel that the vessel is all of a tremble,</div> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page52">[52]</span> <div class="verse indent0">A sort of sea earthquake it seems to resemble;</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Send forward the mate to see what is the matter.”</div> +<div class="verse indent0">When lo! what he saw would have made your teeth shatter,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">An enormous big snake rising out of the sea,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Some three hundred feet long it might possibly be,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">And in bulk it might equal a “wide crinoline”</div> +<div class="verse indent0">(At least seven yards round that description must mean).</div> +<div class="verse indent0">With jaws eight feet long, and with eyes fiercely glaring,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">A horn and a mane; he looked horribly daring,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">While the bowsprit he shook in his terrible mouth.</div> +<div class="verse indent0">’T was in Latitude east and in Longitude south,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">This is somewhat obscure, but I think on the whole</div> +<div class="verse indent0">It occurred th’ other side of the Antarctic pole,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">The ship making six knots—leaving foam in her wake,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Yet she stopped at the touch of this wonderful snake;</div> +<div class="verse indent0">And the jibboom and bowsprit were snapped like a straw;</div> +<div class="verse indent0">But his strength was outdone by his marvellous maw;</div> +<div class="verse indent0">For he swallowed the stay-sail and also the jib,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Like a boy gulping oysters—they went down to glib.</div> +<div class="verse indent0">With his stay to his stomac he turned him about,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">And gave with his tail such a vigorous flout,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">That some timbers to atoms were crushed by the blow,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">And what more might have happened we none of us know,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">When an object appeared for the which he set sail,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">And both object and story were much like a whale.”</div> +</div><!--stanza--> +</div><!--poetry--> +</div><!--poetry-container--> + +<p>Afterwards, (<i>Zoologist</i>, p. 7278, of the same year) we find the +following about the young sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">Taylor</span>:</p> + +<p>“Captain Taylor’s Sea-Serpent.—A friend, who has the opportunity +of communicating with Melbourne on the subject of the +young sea-serpent which Captain Taylor says (Zool. 6985) he presented +to the Museum at Melbourne, has ascertained through Mr. +Coates, of that town, that Captain Taylor is so far correct, that +he did at the time specified present a specimen of Pelamys bicolor +to the Museum in question, and Professor M’Coy exhibited the +same to Mr. Coates. Of course there is no rational ground for +concluding that this small sea snake is the young of any such +gigantic creature as Captain Taylor has described.—<i>Edward +Newman.</i>”</p> + +<p>But of a <i>great</i> Sea-Serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">Taylor</span> we don’t find +any more statements!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page53">[53]</span></p> + +<p>We have read the various hoaxes which appeared in the <i>Cork +Constitution</i> of 1850; the <i>Skibbereen Eagle</i> too is not averse to +publishing a similar hoax (See <i>Zoologist</i>, 1861, p. 7354):</p> + +<p>“As Samuel Townsend, Esq., J. P., of Whitehall, was sailing +in Whitehall Harbour, he saw, following his wake, what appeared +to him (from the many descriptions he had read of the monster) +to be a sea-serpent about twenty five or thirty feet in length; and +being in a small boat he endeavoured to keep as respectful a +distance as possible. There was, however, another boat in the +harbour at the time, in which was Mr. Samuel Kingston, his +brother, Mr. John Kingston (of Trinity College, Dublin), and a +party of ladies. These parties also saw the huge monster; and upon +raising its neck about six feet above the surface the females became +greatly alarmed, when Mr. John Kingston, who is a remarkably +good shot, fired at it, upon which it immediately disappeared. +Mr. Townsend informed us the serpent presented a beautiful appearance, +having large, brilliant scales of a yellow hue, and is of +opinion it was struck by the shot fired by Mr. Kingston. It was +likewise distinctly seen from the windows of Whitehall-House. Mr. +Robert Atkins told us he saw it the day before of Barlogue.”—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The following hoax is not inferior to any of the foregoing (Nature, +of 13th. of June 1872):</p> + +<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Cobbin</span> of Durban, forwards to the <i>Natal Colonist</i> the +following account of a “sea-serpent” seen by him:—“During my +last passage from London, I saw no less than three sea-serpents, +but an account of the last will suffice. On 30th. December last, +on board the <i>Silvery Wave</i>, in lat. about 35′ 0″ S., and long. +33′ 30″ E., at 6.20 P. M. solar time, an enormous sea-serpent +passing nearly across our bows compelled the alteration of our +course. He was at least one thousand yards long, of which about +one third appeared on the surface of the water at every stroke of +his enormous fan-shaped tail, with which he propelled himself, +raising it high above the waves, and arching his back like a land-snake +or a caterpillar. In shape and proportion he much resembled +the cobra, being marked by the same knotty and swollen protuberance +at the back of the head on the neck. The latter was the +thickest part of the serpent. His head was like a bull’s in shape, +his eyes large and glowing, his ears had circular tips and were +<span class="pagenum" id="Page54">[54]</span>level with his eyes, and his head was surrounded by a horny crest, +which he erected and depressed at pleasure. He swam with great +rapidity and lashed the sea into a foam, like breakers dashing +over jagged rocks. The sun shone brightly upon him; and with a +good glass I saw his overlapping scales open and shut with every +arch of his sinuous back coloured like the rainbow.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>I don’t know whether the following, taken from the <i>Graphic</i>, +is a true hoax, or an optical illusion, but I think it is a hoax. +There we read in the number of August, 17th., 1872:</p> + +<p>“Concerning this much discussed animal, whose existence mariners +from the earliest times have firmly asserted, and landsmen as obstinately +persisted in doubting, we have received the following +from Mr. Walthew, a well-known ship-owner and merchant in +Liverpool:—“Report of Captain A. Hassel, of barque <i>St. Olaf</i>, +from Newport to Galveston, Texas.—Two days before arrival +at Galveston, and about 4.30 P. M. on May 13, weather calm, +smooth sea, lat. 26° 52′, long. 91° 20′, I saw a shoal of sharks +passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel’s stern, but +before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About +two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something +on the weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one +called out that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall +man. On a nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with +its head out of the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay still +on the surface of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body +in a serpentine manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could +see, from the after part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of +the same thickness all the way, excepting about the head and neck, +which were smaller, and the former flat, like the head of a serpent. +It had four fins on its back, and the body of a yellow greenish colour, +with brown spots all over the upper part and underneath white. +The whole crew were looking at it for fully ten minutes before it +moved away. It was about six feet in diameter. One of the mates +has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent, which will give some +notion of its appearance.—A. Hassel, master of Norwegian barque +St. Olaf.—Witness to signature, J. Fredk. Walthew.”—</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page55">[55]</span></p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig3"> +<img src="images/illo055.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 3 and 4. Would be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page56">[56]</span></p> + +<p>The accompanying engravings are also published, and I give +facsimiles of them in <a href="#Fig3">Fig. 3 and 4</a>.—I think that Captain <span class="smcap">Hassel</span> +after having seen the shoal of sharks, two minutes afterwards saw +four of these individuals swimming perfectly in a line, the foremost +occasionally lifting its head above the surface, and the backs +with the backfin of each animal being visible. The distance between +the first and the last being about seventy feet, the whole row +looked like a huge serpent, and gave thus rise to the story, which, +as I have already said above, may be a hoax, or a true statement +of what they saw. Evidently one of the mates first drew the sketch +exactly as he saw the four sharks, but afterwards, answering his +own question: “how would the serpent look, if floating on the +surface?” sketched the second figure, where a boa or python with +four fins is represented floating on the water like a cork, or better +like the skin of such an animal puffed up!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>A splendid hoax was again communicated by a correspondent +of the <i>Monde Illustré</i> to the Editor, and published in the number +of October, 8, 1881, of that journal.</p> + +<p>“On board the steamer <i>The Don</i>, of the Royal Mail Steam +Packet Company.—Captain <span class="smcap">Robert Woolward</span>.”</p> + +<p class="right">“Sunday, August 14, 1881”.</p> + +<p class="center">“To the Editor.”</p> + +<p>“I commence my letter by asking you a correspondent’s diploma +of the journal <i>Le Monde Illustré</i> for my friend Mr. <span class="smcap">E. de Contreras +y Alcantara</span>, an inhabitant of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico, +Spanish colony.”</p> + +<p>“I owe to Mr. <span class="smcap">de Contreras</span> the subjoined sketch, the exactness of +which is guaranteed by the seven signatures of the eye witnesses, +who are:</p> + +<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">E. de Contreras y Alcantara</span>, of Ponce, Isle of Porto +Rico,</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carlo Lopez Aldana</span>, of Lima, Peru,</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Henrique Roman</span>, of Cartagena, Columbia,</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. E. Ximenes de San José</span>, of Costa Rica,</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Maurice Renard</span>, of Paris,</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">C. Renard</span>, of Paris, your correspondent.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page57">[57]</span></p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig5"> +<img src="images/illo057.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 5.—The sea-monster, as Mr. C. Renard supposed to have seen it.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page58">[58]</span></p> + +<p>“The appearance lasted for ten minutes, in full moonlight. As +I made the sketch, my son noted down his observations, Mr. <span class="smcap">Contreras</span> +too; we compared and exchanged our several observations, +these gentlemen at the little window of the smoking-saloon, and +I just above, resting upon the port-hole and supported by a rope.”</p> + +<p>“The monster seemed to measure about forty or fifty meters, +from the head to the tail, as far as the numerous coils made an +approximative estimation possible. The body from the dorsal ridge +to the midst of the belly seemed to be covered by several ranges +of scales, or a rough skin like that of sharks, but forming overlapping +layers of scales. The back is very darkish and gradually +growing lighter towards the belly, where it is a dirty grey. The +entire body is marked with alternating transversal stripes, darkish +green, chesnut coloured, and grey; the tail seems to taper in a +point, like that of eels. I preserve for the end the description of +the head, which we have properly examined, and which is very +remarkable. This head is not oval, and rather pointed, as in most +of the snakes; it forms at its cranium a great mass with rough +and irregular outlines. From the occiput it is provided with a hard +and movable crest, with very sharp points; this crest may be +lowered on the neck so as to become invisible. The upper jaw +projects, as is shown in the sketch, the end is doubled up, and a +dark hollow, like a nostril is visible there; the lower jaw, more +pointed, shows below hollow and convex outlines, like sacs, doubtless +for the act of swallowing. The teeth are sharp, enormous, and +white. From the throat, attached to a kind of cushion, projects +a hard tongue, pointed, provided with suckers, and glittering like +steel, and phosphorescing as the sea occasionally does; the eye is +round, very glittering, very movable, and seems to be able to +look backward, so rapid and “<i>bien combinées</i>” are the animal’s +evolutions; the orbit is bordered by a ring of lighter colour and +seems to be overarched by an eye-brow provided with hairs or bristles.”</p> + +<p>“The face, from the snout to the neck presents a lateral oblique +line, grey in colour, on both sides of which three other similar +lines run towards it.”</p> + +<p>“The movement of the animal in the water, seems to produce +no sound at all, but undulating waves and a very slight ripple.”</p> + +<p>“It caused a stench enough to make one ill; this smell, which +hung about us for more than half an hour, was like that of a fermentation +by heat on a large scale of the house of <span class="smcap">Lesage</span>, the +great gatherers of Asnières, mingled with that of a dozen of +charcoal-black works of Billancourt.”</p> + +<p>“To neutralize it, all the shops of several of our best perfumers +would be wanted.”</p> + +<p>“The monster seems to be old, judging partly from its dimensions, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page59">[59]</span>and partly from its colour and the roughness of its integument.”</p> + +<p>“This is not the first time that similar animals are observed.”</p> + +<p>“The first time it was seen in 1847 by the Portuguese ship +<i>Ville de Lissabonne</i>, captain <span class="smcap">Juan Alphonso Zarco y Capeda</span>.”</p> + +<p>“This date coincides with the buffooneries of the <i>Charivari</i> on +the <i>Constitutionel</i>, and with the first disease of the potatoes.”</p> + +<p>“In 1864, the second of <i>The Don</i> observed a similar animal +near the coast of Japan; he tattooed it on his arm.”</p> + +<p>“I end this series of reports by assuring you that the monster +was seen on Wednesday evening, August 10, 1881, by the undersigned, +at a quarter to ten P. M. in</p> + +<div class="centerblock"> +<p>latitude 29° 60′<br> +longitude 42° 40′</p> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">reckoning the degrees, according to the log-book on board, from +the meridian of Greenwich.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“<span class="smcap">C. Renard.</span>”</span></p> + +<p>“(Here follow the seven signatures above-mentioned).”</p> + +<p>The Editor of the <i>Monde Illustré</i> adds:</p> + +<p>“We leave to the author of this letter and of the subjoined sketch +all the responsibility of an assertion which seems to us, least to +say, strange, and the details of which we communicate to our +readers with due reserve.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Let us now pass on to reports of would-be sea-serpents.</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page60">[60]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">III.</span><br> +<span class="chapname">Would-be Sea-Serpents.</span></h2> +</div> + +<p>It is by no means astonishing that in the vast waters of the +ocean several objects, totally different from the animal generally +known as the Great Sea-Serpent, gave rise to tales of that Great +Unknown, such as wrecks, gigantic sea-weeds, or even animal +beings. So we meet with an account dated:</p> + +<p>1720.—(See <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>.) “<span class="smcap">Thorlack Thorlacksen</span> has told +me that in 1720 a Sea-Serpent had been shut up a whole week +in a little inlet, in which it came with high tide through a +narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that eight +days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or +serpent was found. One end of the skin had sunk into the water +of the inlet, so that its length could not be made out, as the +inlet was several fathoms deep, and the skin partly lay there. The +other end of this skin was washed on the shore by the current, +where everybody could see it; apparently, however, it could not +be used, for it consisted of a soft slimy mass. <span class="smcap">Thorlacksen</span> was +a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg.”</p> + +<p>It may be that a real sea-serpent remained a week in the inlet. +The Norwegian fishermen know the sea-serpent too well to make +mistakes. Another animal would not have been called a sea-serpent, +and a short description of it would have been given. But the skin +wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent, was certainly nothing else +but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a gigantic calamary. The +description “soft and slimy mass” proves this sufficiently. The great +calamary died in the fjord, or inlet, and its long dead arm was +floated ashore by the current, while the body sank. Such great +calamaries, the true Krakens, have been measured, and found to +have a body of 30 feet in length with long tentacles of 58 feet +<span class="pagenum" id="Page61">[61]</span>(see <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, London, 1883). +I give here a figure of the largest ever found. +(See our <a href="#Fig6">Fig. 6</a>.)</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig6"> +<img src="images/illo061.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 6.—The largest calamary ever found, with a scale of 80 feet.</p> +</div> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1808.—<i>The Animal of Stronsa.</i>—Perhaps no +stranded animal, even the so-called sea-monks of +the seventeenth and the eighteenth century caused +such an excitement among the learned as “the +animal of Stronsa”.</p> + +<p>The oldest report of it is certainly a letter +from Mr. <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>, in which only the following +lines refer to it:</p> + +<p>“A snake (my friend <span class="smcap">Telford</span> received a drawing +of it) has been found thrown on the Orkney-Isles, +a sea-snake with a mane like a horse, 4 +feet thick and 55 feet long, this is seriously +true. <span class="smcap">Malcolm Laing</span>, the historian saw it, and +sent a drawing of it to my friend.”</p> + +<p>The letter was first printed in the work entitled: +“<i>Life and Letters of Campbell</i>”, and +afterwards the above quoted lines were reprinted +in the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, p. 2395.</p> + +<p>In the <i>Proceedings of the Meeting of the +Wernerian Natural History Society</i> on the 19th. +of November, 1808, printed in the <i>Philosophical +Magazine</i>, Vol. 32, p. 190, we read:</p> + +<p>“At this meeting Mr. <span class="smcap">P. Neill</span> read an account +of a great Sea-Snake, lately cast ashore in Orkney. +This curious animal, it appears, was stranded +in Rothiesholm Bay, in the Island of Stronsa. +Malcolm Laing, Esq., M. P. being in Orkney +at the time, communicated the circumstance to +his brother, Gilbert Laing Esq., advocate at +Edinburgh, on whose property the animal had been cast. Through +this authentic channel Mr. Neill received his information. The +body measured fifty five feet in length, and the circumference of the +thickest part might be equal to the girth of an Orkney pony. The +head was not larger than that of a seal, and was furnished with two +blow holes. From the back a number of filaments (resembling in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page62">[62]</span>tecture the fishing-tackle known by the name of silk-worm gut) +hung down like a mane. On each side of the body were three +large fins, shaped like paws, and jointed. The body was unluckily +knocked to pieces by a tempest; but the fragments have been +collected by Mr. Laing, and are to be transmitted to the Museum +at Edinburgh. Mr. Neill concluded with remarking, that no doubt +could be entertained that this was the kind of animal described +by Ramus, Egede, and Pontoppidan, but which scientific and +systematic naturalists had hitherto rejected as spurious and ideal.”</p> + +<p>In the meeting of the same Society on the 14th. of January, +1809, (see <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. 33. p. 90.),</p> + +<p>“Dr. John Barclay communicated some highly curious observations +which he had made on the caudal vertebrae of the Great +Sea-Snake, (formerly mentioned) which exhibit in their structure +some beautiful provisions of Nature, not hitherto observed in the +vertebrae of any other animal.”</p> + +<p>“And Mr. Patric Neill read an ample and interesting account +of this new animal, collected from different sources, especially letters +of undoubted authority, which he had received from the Orkneys. +He stated, however, that owing to the tempestuous season, the +head, fin, sternum, and dorsal vertebrae, promised some weeks +ago to the University Museum at Edinburgh, had not yet arrived; +but that he had received a note from Gilbert Meason, esq., (the +gentleman on whose estate in Stronsa the sea-snake was cast,) +intimating that they might be expected by the earliest arrivals +from Orkney. In the mean time, he submitted to the Society the +first sketch of a generic character. The name proposed for this new +genus was <i>Halsydrus</i>, (from ἁλς the sea, and ὑδρος a water snake); +and as it evidently appeared to be the Soe-Ormen described above half +a century ago, by Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway, +it was suggested that its specific name should be <i>H. Pontoppidani</i>.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Malcolm Laing</span> and Dr. <span class="smcap">Grant</span>, living on Stronsa, were +requested to take down the affidavits of the eye-witnesses, and at +the meeting of the Wernerian Society on the 11th. of February, +1809, (see <i>Phil. Mag.</i> Vol. 33. p. 251),</p> + +<p>“the Secretary (Mr. P. Neill) laid before the Society copies of +those affidavits made before the justices of peace at Kirkwall in +Orkney, by several persons who saw and examined the carcass of +the great sea snake (<i>Halsydrus Pontoppidani</i>) cast ashore in Stronsa +in October last; with remarks illustrative of the meaning of some +passages in these affidavits.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page63">[63]</span></p> + +<p>The above-mentioned communication of Dr. <span class="smcap">John Barclay</span> was +printed in 1811 in the first Volume of the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian +Society</i>, and contains a detailed description of some vertebrae +of the animal. The figures of these vertebrae are splendid, also +those of the dried and shrivelled skull and a portion of one of the +pectoral fins, with the cartilages that connect it with the body. As +well the descriptions as the figures betray at a glance the shark +nature of the animal. We will not trouble our readers with them, +and we will also omit the figures, except one; it is a drawing +made after the description of one of the eye-witnesses. (See our <a href="#Fig7">Fig. 7</a>).</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig7"> +<img src="images/illo063.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 7.—The Animal of Stronsa.</p> +</div> + +<p>The Paper of Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> was entitled: <i>Remarks on some parts +of the animal that was cast ashore on the island of Stronsa, Sept. +1808.</i> The above-mentioned affidavits were also printed in 1811, +in the first Volume of the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural +History Society</i>, and run as follows:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“At Kirkwall, Nov. 10. 1808.</span></p> + +<p>“In presence of Dr. Robert Groat, Physician in Kirkwall, and +Malcolm Laing, Esq; M. P. Two of his Majesty’s Justices of the +Peace of the County of Orkney.</p> + +<p>“Compeared Thomas Fotheringhame, house-carpenter in Kirkwall; +who solemnly declared, That being in Stronsa during the gales of +wind in October last; he went to see the strange fish that was +driven ashore in Rothiesholm Bay: That he measured his length +with a foot-rule, which was exactly fifty-five feet, from the junction +of the head and neck, where there was the appearance of an ear, +to the tail: That the length of the neck, from the ear to the +shoulder, was ten feet three inches, as nearly as he recollects. And +being shewn a drawing of the animal, he declared, That the neck +appeared to him to be too long. That the fins or arms, or, as +they were called on the island, the <i>wings</i> of the animal, were +jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear +in the drawing: That the toes were less spread out, and tapering +more to a point, unless when purposely lifted up; but were not +<span class="pagenum" id="Page64">[64]</span>webbed unless the space of an inch and a half in breadth, where +they joined each other; and the length seemed to be about eight +inches: That he measured one of the wings next the head, which +was four feet and a half in length, and in shape, from the first +joint to the extremity, it resembled a goose-wing without the +feathers: That the hollow between the snout and the upper part +of the skull, appeared to him not to be quite so deep as represented +in the drawing: That in every other respect the drawing +appears to be so exact, that if the fish had not been mentioned, +it would have brought it to his recollection: That from the ridge +of the back to the belly, the body appeared to be four feet in +depth, and the circumference rather oval than round; but that he +did not measure either: That the mane or bristles of the back +extended from the shoulder to within two feet and a half of the +tail, and were of a shining appearance when wet; but shrunk up, +and turned yellow, when dried: That the mane was thin, about +two inches and a half in breadth towards the shoulder, and two +inches in breadth at the tail: That the skin seemed to be elastic +when compressed, and of a greyish colour, without any scales: it +was rough to the feeling, on drawing the hand over it, towards +the head; but was smooth as velvet when the hand was drawn towards +the tail: That the extremity of the tail was about two inches in +thickness, and somewhat rounded; and as he saw no part of the +bones, he cannot say whether any part of the tail had been broken +off or not: That the eyes appeared to be no larger than those of +a seal: That there were two spout holes on each side of the neck, +about an inch and a fourth in diameter, and at the same distance +from the head as appears in the drawing: That he lifted up the +snout, and examined the throat, which was too narrow to admit +his hand: That a part of the bones of the lower jaw, resembling +those of a dog, were remaining at that time, with some appearance +of teeth, which were soft, and could be bent by the strength +of the hand: That he observed no nipples, or organs of generation; +the belly having been burst open by the violence of the sea: That +the stomach was about the size of a ten gallon cask; and the +bowls about the bulk of those of a cow: That the bristles of the +back which had been pulled off through curiosity, were luminous +in the dark, while they continued wet. And all this he declares +to be truth, &c.</p> + +<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Thomas Fotheringhame.”</span></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page65">[65]</span></p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Kirkwall, Nov. 19, 1808.”</span></p> + +<p>“Compeared John Peace, tenant in Dounatoun in Rothiesholm; +and being interrogated, solemnly declares, That on the 26th. day +of September last, he went a fishing off the east part of Rothiesholm-head, +when he perceived as he imagined, a dead whale, on +some sunk rocks, about a quarter of a mile from the Head: That +his attention was first directed to it by the sea-fowl screaming and +flocking about it; and on approach of it, in his boat, he found +the middle part of it above the surface of the water: That he +then observed it to be different from a whale, particularly in +having fins or arms, one of which he raised with his boat-hook +above the surface of the water: That this was one of the arms +next the head, which was larger and broader than the others +nearer the tail; and at that time the fin or arm was edged all +around, from the body to the extremity of the toes, with a row +of bristles about ten inches long, some of which he pulled off, +and examined in the boat: That about ten days afterwards, a gale +of south east wind came on, and the surge drove the fish ashore +on Rothiesholm-Head: That he measured it by fathoms, and found +it about fifty-four or fifty-five feet in length: That he observed the +six arms, or wings as they are called on the island; but perceived +no part of the bristles then round the edges of the fins or arms, +and supposes, that being in a putrid state, they had been beaten +off by the sea, or washed away: That a small part of the belly +was broken up when he saw it then, from which the stomach, +as he now supposes it to have been, had fallen out: That the +stomach, which he took at first for the penis, from the one end +of it being joined to the body; but on seeing it after it was +opened, he concluded it to have been the stomach, as it resembled +the second stomach of a cow: That he did not measure the circumference +of the animal, but it appeared to be of the thickness of a +middle sized horse round the girth, of twelve or thirteen hands +high. And being shewn a drawing of the animal, and desired to +point out the resemblance or difference, he declared, That the +joint of the foremost leg was broader than represented in the +drawing, being more rounded from the body to the toes, and +narrower at the upper end than at its junction with the toes: +That the limb itself was larger than the hinder ones, and the +uppermost joint or shoulder was altogether attached to the body: +That in all other respects the drawing appears to him to be an +exact resemblance of the fish, as it lay on the beach: That the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page66">[66]</span>mane came no further than the shoulder, and extended to the +tail, part of which appeared to have been broken off: That the +length of the neck, the situation of the spout-holes, and of the +eye, the shape of the snout, the position and distance of the +limbs from each other, appear to him to be exactly preserved in +the drawing: That the lower jaw was awanting when he saw it: +That the fish was of a greyish colour: That he observed no nipples +or organs of generation, unless as above mentioned: That the part +of the belly which was burst open, and from which the stomach +had fallen out, was between the two limbs that are situated in the +middle of the animal. And all this he solemnly declares to be +truth. And declares he cannot write.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“<i>Eodem die</i>”</span></p> + +<p>“Compeared Mr. George Sherar, tacksman of Rothiesholm in the +island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That +on the 20th. of October, being in Rothiesholm-head he saw the +crew of John Peace’s boat examining something on the water, which +he took to be a dead whale: That about ten days afterwards, a +gale of east wind having taken place he went to see if the whale +was driven ashore, and found it in a creek, lying on its back, +about a foot under water; and from the view which he had of its +figure, length and limbs, his curiosity induced him to return a +day or two after the gale had abated, when he found it thrown +upon the beach, a little below high water mark, and lying on its +belly, as represented in the drawing: That he returned next +morning, with a foot-rule, purposely to measure it, and found it +to be exactly fifty-five feet in length, from the hole in the top of +the skull (which he has brought to town with him), to the extremity +of the tail: That the length of the neck was exactly fifteen +feet, from the same hole to the beginning of the mane: That he +measured also the circumference of the animal as accurately as he +could, which was about ten feet, more or less; and the whole +body, where the limbs were attached to it, was about the same +circumference: That the lower jaw or mouth was awanting; but +there were some substances or bones of the jaw remaining; when +he first examined it, which are now away: That it had two holes +on each side of the neck, besides the one on the back of the +skull: That the mane or bristles were about fourteen inches in +length each, of a silvery colour, and particularly luminous in the +dark, before they were dried: That the upper part of the limbs, +which answers to the shoulder-blade, was joined to the body like +<span class="pagenum" id="Page67">[67]</span>the shoulder-blade of a cow, forming a part of the side: That a +part of the tail was awanting, being incidentally broken off at the +extremity; where the last joint of it was bare, was an inch and a +half in breadth: That the bones were of a gristly nature, like those +of a halibut, the back-bone excepted, which was the only solid +one in the body: That the tail was quite flexible, turning in every +direction, as he lifted it; and he supposes the neck to have been +equally so, from its appearance at the time: That he has brought +in, to deliver to Mr. Laing, the skull, two joints of one of the +largest limbs, next the head, with different parts of the backbone, +besides the bones that were formerly sent in: That there were either +five or six toes upon each paw, about nine inches long, and of a +soft substance: That the toes were separate from each other, and +not webbed, as far as he could observe; and that the paw was +about half a foot each way, in length and in breadth: That a few days +thereafter, a gale of wind came on, and drove it to another part +of the shore, where it was broken to pieces by the surge, and +when Mr. Petrie came out to take a drawing of it, no part of the +body remained entire: That he endeavoured to convey an idea of +the animal to Mr. Petrie, by drawing the figure of it as accurately +as he could, with chalk, on the table, exactly as it lay on the +shore, after which Mr. Petrie made six or seven different sketches +or plans of the fish, before he could bring it to correspond, in +each minute particular, with the strong idea which he retains of +its appearance: That he was the more attentive to its shape, dimensions +and figure, in order to be able to give an accurate account +of it to any travellers that might come to Rothiesholm, and that +he is ready to make oath that the drawing is an exact resemblance +of the fish, as it appeared when he measured it; and corresponds +in all particulars with the idea which he entertains of the figure, +dimensions, and proportions of the fish: That the substance of the +body appeared like coarse, ill coloured beef, interlarded with fat +or tallow, without the least resemblance or affinity to fish; but +when put into a lamp, and the lamp placed on the fire, it neither +flamed nor melted, but burned away like a gristly substance: +That he perceived no teeth in the upper jaw; the lower jaw and +tongue being awanting, and the palate also away: That the aperture +of the throat appeared to be so wide, that he might have put his +foot down through it: That the joints of the limbs were not united +by a ball and socket but were lapped over each other, and united +by some means which he does not comprehend: That there were +<span class="pagenum" id="Page68">[68]</span>two canals, one above and another below the backbone, large +enough to admit one’s finger, and extending from the vertebrae of +the neck, to the extremity of the tail, containing two ligaments, +which he supposed, enabled the animal to raise itself up, or to +bend its body in a spiral form: That a tract of strong easterly +wind had prevailed, before the body was discovered upon the +shore, and that he saw the body on two or three different occasions, +after he had measured it, and before it went to pieces. And +all this he declares to be truth, &c.”</p> + +<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Geo. Sherar.”</span></p> + +<p>“Compeared Mr. William Folsatter, tacksman of Whitehall, in +the island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, +That having heard that it was a dead whale that had come on +shore in Rothiesholm-head, he did not see the body till about the +28th. day of October, when it had gone to pieces: That he saw +about nine or ten feet of the back-bone, and some bones of the +paws, and what was supposed to be the stomach which last he +had the curiosity to open; that it was about four feet long, and +as thick as a firkin, but flatter: That the membranes that formed +the divisions, extended quite across the supposed stomach, and +were about three sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and at the +same distance from each other, and of the same substance, with +the stomach itself: That the section of the stomach, after it was +opened, had the appearance of a weaver’s reed: That he opened +about a fourth part of the supposed stomach which contained +nothing but a reddish substance, like blood and water, and +emitted a fetid smell: That he was very doubtful at the time +whether it was really the stomach or not; but that each end of +it had the appearance of terminating in a gut. And all this he +solemnly declares to be the truth, &c.</p> + +<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Wm. Folsetter.”</span></p> + +<p>“The said Mr. George Sherar being again interrogated, declares, +That he examined the supposed stomach, after it had been opened +by Mr. Folsitter, and that he laid it open to the farther end: +That there was something like a gut at the end which he opened, +about two inches long, with a small aperture: That the stomach +had the same appearance from end to end, and contained nothing +but a substance like blood and water: That the large bone of +which a drawing was taken, was considered as the collar-bone; +<span class="pagenum" id="Page69">[69]</span>and that it was situated with the broad and thick part downwards +and the open part towards the vertebrae of the back: That he +observed no appearance of fins about the neck or breast, or other +parts of the body, except the six paws already described. And all +this he solemnly declares to be truth, &c.”</p> + +<p class="center">“(Signed)”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Geo. Sherar.”</span></p> + +<p>One of the ablest ichthyologists of those days, Mr. <span class="smcap">Everard +Home</span> examined the “sea-snake”, and recognized it for a Basking +shark. Immediately after his paper in the <i>Philosophical Transactions +of the Royal Society of London</i>, Vol. 98, entitled “<i>An anatomical +account of the Squalus maximus (of Linnaeus), which</i>, &c.,” especially +of an individual of thirty feet six inches, “entangled in the herring +nets, belonging to the fishermen of Hastings, 13 Nov. 1808”, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Home</span> goes further:</p> + +<p>“I cannot close the present paper without mentioning, that +nearly the same period, two other Squali of large dimensions were +thrown upon our coast. The probable cause of this event, is the +season being uncommonly boisterous and tempestuous. On the 3d. +of January, 1809, a fish was thrown ashore at Penrhyn, in Cornwall. +On hearing of it from a person on the spot, I sent down a +drawing of the subject of this paper to compare with it, and the +fish proves to be of the same species, and a male, measuring +thirty-one feet in length.”</p> + +<p>“The other was thrown ashore on the 7th. of October, 1808, at +Rothiesholm, an estate of Gilbert Meason, Esq. in Stronsay, one +of the Orkney isles. It had been seen lying on some sunken rocks, +eleven days before, was in a half putrid state, and the sea fowls +were in great numbers feeding upon it. Those who saw it, reported +that the skin was rough in one direction, and smooth like +satin in the other. At the time of its being examined, the skin +and a great many other parts of the fish were wanting.”</p> + +<p>“Mr. Meason, with a zeal for science which does him infinite +credit, upon hearing the strange accounts which were given of this +sea-monster, got his brother, Malcolm Laing, Esq. and Dr. Grant, +an eminent physician (both justices of the peace), to take depositions +on the spot, from those persons who had seen the fish, that +its real appearance might be ascertained. This examination, however, +did not take place till six weeks after the fish was thrown ashore.”</p> + +<p>“These depositions were sent to Sir Joseph Banks, who put them +into my hands. (The depositions are very long, and exceedingly +<span class="pagenum" id="Page70">[70]</span>minute; they are preserved in the Board-book of the Royal Society). +I also received, a short time after, from my friend Mr. Laing, in +consequence of a request I made for that purpose, that part of +the skull, which contained the brain, the upper jaw having been +separated from it, a considerable number of the vertebrae of the +back united together by their natural attachments, a portion of +one of the pectoral fins, with the cartilages that unite it to the +spine, and a long and short cartilage forming the support of one +of the gills. On comparing these different parts, with those of the +Squalus maximus, they were found to agree, not only in their +form, but also in their dimensions. This led to the opinion of the +fish being a Squalus, a very different one from what was formed +by those who saw it in the mutilated state in which it was thrown +ashore, and who called it a <i>sea-snake</i>. In the different depositions, +several parts are accurately described, such as the valvular intestine, +which was taken for the stomach, and the bristles of the +mane, which are described as ligamentous fibres, one of them is +in my possession, and is of the same kind with the fibres forming +the margin of the fins of the squalus maximus. The drawing that +was made from memory, and which I have annexed, will enable +me in a few words to point out how much, in some things, those +who saw the fish adhered to truth, and in others allowed their +imagination to supply deficiencies, for one of them declared, with +confidence, that the drawing was so exact a representation of what +he had seen, “that he fancied he saw the beast lying before him, +at a distance on the beach.”</p> + +<p>“The drawing is correct in the representation of the head, and +anterior part of the fish, from which the skin, the upper and +lower jaw, the gills, and gullet, had been separated by putrification; +and when we consider that the liver and the other viscera +were all destroyed, except the valvular intestine, which was taken +away by the observers, the size of the body that remained would +be nearly in proportion with the drawing. The legs are tolerably +exact representations of the holders in the male Squalus maximus, +described in a former part of this paper, and therefore are not +imaginary, only that four have been added which did not exist. +This is satisfactorily determined by the pectoral fin, which is +preserved, having no resemblance to them. The mane, they said, +was composed of ligamentous fibres, one of which was sent to +London; this corresponds, in its appearance, with the fibres that +form the termination of the fins and tail of the Squalus maximus, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page71">[71]</span>such an appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met +with in the place of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continued +along the back, as in the drawing. The contortions towards the +tail are such, as the invertebral joints could not admit of, they +are therefore imaginary.”</p> + +<p>“It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by +fathoms, the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet +long. Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are +preserved correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long, +and it is rendered still more so, as the person who gives the +length in fathoms, says, he saw at that time the six legs, the +two foremost being larger than the hinder ones, and the lower +joint more rounded from the body to the toes. The pectoral fin, +which is preserved, proves this declaration to be incorrect: the +person who measured the fish with a foot-rule, declares the length, +from the hole in the head to the beginning of the mane, to be +exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a Squalus of +about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart of the +skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other measurement +must be questionable.”</p> + +<p>“It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure represented +in this drawing, which was not actually seen. The skeleton +of the holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin +of the dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only +errors are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the +fish and the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs. +(This mistake of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been +frequently made. There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library, +sent from Ireland, in which the fish is represented walking like a +duck, with broad webbed feet. The skin of a male Squalus maximus +was exhibited in London, some years ago, distended by means +of hoops, and the holders were shown as its legs, on which it +occasionably walked). And when we recollect that the drawing was +made from memory six weeks after the fish had been seen by those, +who describe it, during which interval it had been their principal +subject of conversation, we may conclude that so extraordinary an +object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when believed to be a +perfect one, would, in their different discourses, have every part +exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the depositions kept +so close to the truth as they have done.”</p> + +<p>“It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page72">[72]</span>that this fish is not a new animal unlike any of the ordinary productions +of nature, and we are indebted to the zeal and liberality +of Mr. Meason and Mr. Laing, who have collected a sufficient +body of evidence to enable me to determine that point, and prove +it to be a Squalus, and the orifices behind the eye, which communicate +with the mouth met with in the skull, renders it very +probable, that it is a Squalus maximus.”</p> + +<p>“This opinion is further confirmed by the Squalus maximus, +known by the name of the basking shark, being frequently seen +upon the coast of Scotland.”</p> + +<p>The only remark I have to make is: Mr. <span class="smcap">Home</span> will never +have believed that the animal of Stronsa really measured 56 feet, +and so made himself guilty of throwing discredit on the accurate +measuring of the eye-witnesses.</p> + +<p>I present here to my readers the <a href="#Fig8">figure</a> of a <i>Squalus maximus</i>, +or Basking-shark, thus enabling them to make this animal’s acquaintance, +if they don’t know it yet.</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig8"> +<img src="images/illo072.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 8.—Squalus maximus, Linné.</p> +</div> + +<p>Of course Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> rejected Mr. Home’s supposition, and +wrote a paper against it, printed in the first volume of the above +mentioned <i>Memoirs</i>, running as follows:</p> + +<p>“Since reading the first paper of Mr. Home, where he treats of +the vertebrae of the Squalus maximus, I have seen another, entitled +“An anatomical account of the Squalus maximus”. In this +last paper, he seems to be convinced, that the animal of Stronsa +is a Squalus maximus. The scale on which he draws his figure of +the squalus, is a scale of half an inch to a foot.”</p> + +<p>“Measuring by this scale, the head of his squalus is five feet +and a half, from the joint of the upper jaw to the gills. The +<span class="pagenum" id="Page73">[73]</span>dried and shrivelled head of the animal of Stronsa, measures only +twelve inches from the first vertebra to the farthest part that remains +of the jaw.”</p> + +<p>“The diameter of the head of the squalus maximus, from right +to left, at the angle of the mouth, was, according to Mr. Home, +five feet. The broadest part of the head of the animal of Stronsa +is, in its present state, only seven inches.”</p> + +<p>“The diameter of the larger vertebrae, near the head, in the +squalus, was, according to Mr. Home, seven inches. The first +cervical vertebra in the animal of Stronsa, is still adhering to the +head, and is only two inches in diameter.”</p> + +<p>“Yet some of the vertebrae of this animal, which are still preserved, +are six inches and a half in diameter; and the first vertebrae +which I saw, were from four to five and a half inches across.”</p> + +<p>“The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa, +confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a +neck. But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home’s figure be accurate, +had nothing resembling a neck. And, indeed, Artedi observes, +that “omnes pisces qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque carent: +Ergo soli pisces cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a +neck, therefore, as peculiar to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise +the account of the spiracula or ear-holes, ascribed to this animal +of Stronsa.”</p> + +<p>“The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches. +The length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was +fifty five feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part +of the tail was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the +animal of Stronsa was, by actual measurement, about ten feet, +meant, I suppose, at the thickest part. If the animal had been +cylindrical at that part, the diameter from the dorsal to the sternal +aspect must have been about three feet four inches. The diameter of +the squalus at the thickest part, measuring from the dorsal to the +sternal aspect, is nearly six feet; its circumference, had it been +cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.”</p> + +<p>“The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder +to near the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after +deducting the length of the head and neck, which, when together +were sixteen feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which I +got from Mr. Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought +here, confirm the accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys. +The bristles of that mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page74">[74]</span>although they were, has the squalus a fin extending from the +shoulder to the tail.”</p> + +<p>“A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and +obliging Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the +original, by Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the +dried specimen now before us. It represents the sternum and two +parts corresponding two scapulae, and those organs which are +named <i>paws</i>. Mr. Home says, that these organs resemble the pectoral +fins of his squalus. But the length of the pectoral fins, +measuring along the upper margin, is four feet, the length of +the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting; the part +that remains, measures seventeen inches.”</p> + +<p>“The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three +feet and seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in +its dried state, is only five inches and three quarters.”</p> + +<p>“Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit +articular surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.”</p> + +<p>“Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance +to science, that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a +new animal, unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.” +Of what importance it is to science to admit no new genera or +species into our catalogues of natural history, I cannot conceive. +But it is certainly of much importance to science, that the naturalist +should be cautious not to determine the species of an animal +upon vague evidence. Now what evidence had Mr. Home that this +animal was a squalus, and even to suppose that it was a squalus +maximus?”</p> + +<p>I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> +does not seem to make any difference between “a head” of a +Squalus and “a skull.” It is true that the “head” of a <i>Squalus +maximus</i> of thirty feet and a half measures five feet and a half, +but its “skull” has only a length of ten inches. It is true that the +diameter of the “head” of such a shark measures from right to +left about five feet, but its “skull” would have only a few inches +in breadth. It is true that the diameter of the larger vertebrae +near the head of such an individual may be about seven inches, +but what is indicated by Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> in the head of his “animal +of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertebra”, is (don’t laugh!) +the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous appendages!—No +wonder that the animal of Stronsa had “a neck”, +for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins, except +<span class="pagenum" id="Page75">[75]</span>the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed away, +whilst the basking shark of Mr. <span class="smcap">Home</span> had no neck, because it +was entire.—Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which +<span class="smcap">Artedi</span> is quoted!</p> + +<p>In the comparison of Mr. <span class="smcap">Home’s</span> basking shark and his own +stranded animal, Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> also wholly overlooks, when he +states the dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified +remains of an animal, and not of an undamaged being.</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> seems to entirely reject Mr. <span class="smcap">Home’s</span> idea that the +“mane” had never extended over the whole back, but what was +seen were only fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places +of the foremost and the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of +the “mane” only existed in the imagination of the witnesses.</p> + +<p>In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the <i>paws</i>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> again forgets that he has only before him a totally +mutilated specimen.</p> + +<p>An extract from the “<i>Remarks</i>” of Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> was given by +Dr. <span class="smcap">Hoffmann</span> in <span class="smcap">Oken’s</span> <i>Isis</i>, II, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst +others he says:</p> + +<p>“The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the +differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the +slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;” +but Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoffmann</span> himself is not free from inaccuracies! In +none of Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay’s</span> papers mention is made of a “membranaceous +comb extended over bony rays, which was running from the +shoulders to the end of the tail, over the back.” He has evidently +translated this (if we may use this expression) from the figure (see +our <a href="#Fig7">fig. 7</a>). But this figure was made for print by Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span>, after +a drawing made on one of the islands from the description given +there, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span> has changed the “mane” (long loose hairs +hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he figured +exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced +of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble +to compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same +Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span> in the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal +of Stronsa.”</p> + +<p>Immediately after this paper Mr. <span class="smcap">Oken</span>, the editor of the <i>Isis</i>, +wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect +description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship +with other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as +no animal with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been +<span class="pagenum" id="Page76">[76]</span>a cartilaginous fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia +(a pair of additional paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or +“holders”) were regarded as the third pair of feet, whilst the +ventral and pectoral fins were the other pairs. “It is, however, no +shark,” he goes on, and adduced 7 proofs for this theory; “it is, +neither a cetacean,” and for this opinion he gives 4 different +reasons. And yet he has the boldness to conclude: “The animal +consequently is <i>more</i> related to the sharks, and as it is not a true +shark, it must be a <i>Chimaera</i>”; but the reasons given to prove +this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I will add here +that he also says: “finally individuals of <i>Chimaera</i> of 30 feet +in length, have already been caught”, a manifest untruth, for the +largest ever measured were of three feet and a half!—For those +readers who never saw a <i>Chimaera</i>, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, +I have delineated the <i>Chimaera monstrosa</i> in our <a href="#Fig9">fig. 9</a>.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig9"> +<img src="images/illo076.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 9.—Chimaera monstrosa, Linn.</p> +</div> + +<p>In the <i>Edinb. Philos. Journ.</i> Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is published +of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis +was made by Dr. <span class="smcap">John Davy</span>, and communicated “a considerable +time ago” by Dr. <span class="smcap">Leach</span> to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my +readers with this analysis would be superfluous.</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert</span> in his <i>Description of the Shetland Islands</i>, 1822, +really believes that:</p> + +<p>“The existence of the sea-snake,—a monster of fifty-five feet +long, is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown +on shore in Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the +Edinburgh Museum.”</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> too, in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, is of the +same opinion: “We turn first” he says “to an account of an animal +which apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-serpents), +“which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the +Orkneys, in the year 1808”, and he goes on giving some details +<span class="pagenum" id="Page77">[77]</span>of the stranded animal, taken from the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian +Society</i>. Later on we learn from him that:</p> + +<p>“Dr. <span class="smcap">Fleming</span>” in his <i>History of British Animals</i>, 1828, (this +work I have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal, +suggests that these members were probably the remains of pectoral, +ventral and caudal fins.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841, after +having published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about +the sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm +believer in it, goes on:</p> + +<p>“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, +cannot be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition, +however, is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal, +which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the +Orkneys, and of which several pieces of the skeleton are said to +be preserved in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, and +in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. I have read a +note about it in the London Journal <i>the Athenaeum</i>, 1839, p. 902, +which note is taken from the work: <i>The Naturalist’s Library, Amphibious +Carnivora, including the Walrus and Seals, also of the +Herbivorous Cetacea</i>. By B. Hamilton, M. D. (Edinburgh, Lizars). +An ample description of the saved rests of the animal is said to +have been written by Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span> in the first Volume of the +<i>Memoirs of the Wernerian Society</i>. I had, however, not the +means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-mentioned +note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured +56 feet and had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet. +The head was small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15 +feet long. The organs of motion are said to have consisted of three +pairs of fins: one pair of which is believed to have been properly +a caudal fin. The foremost pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were +the longest, and their tops looked like toes, partly, however, +webbed together. From the shoulders a kind of bristly mane extended +to near the extremity of the tail. The skin was smooth, +without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as large as a +seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.”</p> + +<p>“Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the +head was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender, +and the extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the +animal stranded in Stronsa resembled a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>; and that consequently +it belonged to the <i>Amphibia</i>, viz. to the Saurians.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page78">[78]</span></p> + +<p>Prof. Dr. <span class="smcap">W. F. Erichson</span>, the well known Editor of the <i>Archiv +für Naturgeschichte</i>, expressed his opinion about the animal of +Stronsa, immediately after the appearance of Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke’s</span> dissertation. +After having given full details of Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay’s</span> paper, and +an ample description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts +belong undoubtedly to a shark,” and:</p> + +<p>“Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and +in spite of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be +so for ever, only it may not have been a <i>Selache maxima</i>, but a +<i>Lamna cornubica</i>, which also reaches a considerable length. So the +animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the +Norwegians.”</p> + +<p>I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. <span class="smcap">Erichson</span> +could arrive at this conclusion, as the <i>Lamna cornubica</i>, or porbeagle +has never attained a length above 18 feet.—Our <a href="#Fig10">fig. 10</a> +represents a porbeagle.</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig10"> +<img src="images/illo078.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 10.—Lamna cornubica (Linn.).</p> +</div> + +<p>It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor +of the <i>Zoologist</i>, after all that had been written about the animal +of Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his +journal of 1849, p. 2358, he asked the following</p> + +<p>“<i>Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast +ashore on the Island of Stronsa in 1808.</i>”</p> + +<p>“In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society” +(vol. I. p. 418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast +ashore on the island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the +Doctor figures the head with a vertebra attached, four other +vertebrae and a sternum with a paddle “and two parts corresponding +two scapulae” attached. He speaks of the originals of these +figures as specimens then before the audience he was addressing. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page79">[79]</span>He gives seven inches as the diameter of the head, and two inches +as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then still attached to the +head. The total length of the animal is given as fifty-five feet, and +this from actual admeasurement. It is now positively asserted that +the animal in question was a shark; but the utter impossibility of +a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head only seven inches +in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches in diameter, is +so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I shall esteem +it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the means +of doing so will reply to the following questions:—</p> + +<p>“1. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained?</p> + +<p>“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?</p> + +<p>“3. Where are these bones preserved?</p> + +<p>“4. What is their present state?</p> + +<p>“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc.?</p> + +<p>“6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative +anatomist? and if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?</p> + +<p>“Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the +questions at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus, +order or class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head +and sternum of the creature are still in existence.”—</p> + +<p>The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in +the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, p. 2396:</p> + +<p id="Ref8">“<i>Reply to Mr.</i> <span class="smcap">Newman</span>’<i>s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the +Stronsa Animal</i>.—Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an +animal cast on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the +“Memoirs of the Wernerian Society”,—after some little trouble +I have been able to answer most of these questions.”</p> + +<p>“1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtained?—It +will be seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that +George Sherar, one of those who saw the animal, mentions that +he brought away, to deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian), +the skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs next the head, +with different parts of the back-bone, besides the bones that were +formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, I suppose, forwarded them to Dr. +Barclay.”</p> + +<p>“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?—The +answer to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took +them from the same animal.”</p> + +<p>“3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present +state?—Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal +<span class="pagenum" id="Page80">[80]</span>College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches +in diameter; and four in the University Natural History Museum, +preserved in spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas +the other three are separate.”</p> + +<p>“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &c.?—6. +Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? +if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?—This is +answered by the annoying fact that the skull has not been preserved.”</p> + +<p>“On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae, +he tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly +those of a Shark (<i>Squalus maximus</i>), as are the skull, sternum and +scapulae, figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs”, p. 418.”</p> + +<p>“We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who +saw this extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on +closer inspection even these will be found to have little weight in +the argument. In the first place it is infortunate that no well-educated +person saw it: they were all ignorant, illiterate men, +who most likely knew nothing further of a shark than that it was +an animal with a huge mouth, capable of discussing so many +seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly adapted for amputating +limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses agreeing +in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six legs: +on this point it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing anything +of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility +of such a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it is +at once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and +scapulae with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol. +I. p. 418); the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his +“British Animals”, supposes were claspers. In the last place we +may notice one striking contradiction in the evidences: Thomas +Fotheringhame seems to have been astonished at such a large +animal having such a narrow throat,—so narrow indeed that it +would not admit his hand; while George Sherar would have had +no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there is nothing +to prove that Thomas Fotheringhame’s hand was larger than George +Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other must +have made a mistake in his calculation.”</p> + +<p>“We might further suggest the improbability of any animal +sixty feet long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and +we might even suspect the carpenter’s footrule of showing a decided +taste for the marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single +<span class="pagenum" id="Page81">[81]</span>remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was certainly +not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most +likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which +the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg-Island (Wern. +Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance.—Jas. +C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.”</p> + +<p>As to the animal seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span>, see our <a href="#Report31">report n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>, +in the following chapter.</p> + +<p>One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa” +was now set at rest. Not at all! Dr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Stewart Traill</span> +wrote a paper about it, published in the <i>Proceedings of the Royal +Society of Edinburgh</i>, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 44, 1854, June, comparing +it with the animal seen by the Captain, officers and crew of H. +M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> (see our <a href="#Report118">report n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a> in the next chapter). The +part of his dissertation, respecting the “animal of Stronsa” runs +as follows:</p> + +<p>“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal +reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain +M’Quhae, the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the +Southern Atlantic, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, +about 300 miles off the African shore, recalled my attention to +the materials I had collected respecting the vast animal cast ashore +on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys, in 1808.”</p> + +<p>“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made +by those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me +by order of Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on +whose property it was stranded; and I obtained other notes from +several individuals resident in Orkney.”</p> + +<p>“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and +measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were +transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists. +Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the +late Gilbert Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the +skull and several vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which +a portion of the pectoral fin, or <i>wing</i>, as it was termed by the +natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined +them.”</p> + +<p>“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of +what was termed the <i>mane</i> of the animal, which I now exhibit.”</p> + +<p>“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying +on a sunken rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; +<span class="pagenum" id="Page82">[82]</span>but in a few days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on +shore in a creek near the headland, where it remained for some +time tolerably entire; and it was subsequently broken up by the +fury of the waves. Before it was thus broken into several pieces it +was examined, and measured by several intelligent inhabitants of +the Island; and their testimony collected as above stated was forwarded +to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations were, however, +accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal, which was +thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather +allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the +storm abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, +to collect what information he could on the subject. But by this +time the body of the animal was completely broken up. This lad, +who was no draughtsman, and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, +from the descriptions of those who had seen the animal +most entire, to delineate with chalk on a table a figure of the +animal. The rude figure so produced was transferred by pencil to +paper, and copies of it were handed about as real representations +of the animal.”</p> + +<p>“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted +by those who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards +obtained, it would appear that the <i>jointed legs</i>, which the lad +had attached to it, are creations of his own imagination.”</p> + +<p>“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, +were never called <i>legs</i> by those who saw the animal, but were +denominated by them <i>wings</i> or <i>fins</i> or swimming paws. “That +nearest the head was broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half +feet in length, and was edged all round with bristles or fibres, +about ten inches long”. The “lower jaw was wanting when it was +cast ashore, but there remained cartilaginous teeth in portions of +the jaws”. Before it was discovered putrefaction had commenced, +especially in the <i>fins</i>. The animal had a long and slender neck, +on which there were two spiracles on each side.”</p> + +<p>“The <i>wings</i> would seem to have been the remains of fins, +altered by incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains +of pectoral, abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have +been placed, like those of some of the shark family, farther from +the centre of the abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of +the witnesses states that “the wings of the animal were jointed to +the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the +drawing”.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page83">[83]</span></p> + +<p>“The portion of the anterior fin or <i>wing</i>, which was attached to +the omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a +structure of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, +the rays might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural +science, seem like toes or fingers.”</p> + +<p>“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing +the fins of fishes:”—</p> + +<p>“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires +membraneuses representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et +des pieds.”</p> + +<p>“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal +rests on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw +it most entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew +the three principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George +Sherar, and William Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, +and of remarkable intelligence. They were not <i>ignorant fishermen</i>, +as the witnesses were represented to be; but two of them were of +the better sort of farmers in that part of Orkney; and the first +and the last of them were also very ingenious mechanics, much +accustomed to the use of the <i>footrule</i>, the instrument employed +in measuring the animal.”</p> + +<p>“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that +I can have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made +of their impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”</p> + +<p>“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months +after these accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr. +Home (afterwards Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside +the evidence of the persons who saw and measured the animal in +its most entire condition, as to its dimensions of length and thickness; +and maintains that it was nothing but a Basking shark +(Selache maximum!), which he supposes the love of the marvellous +had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those whom he is +pleased to call “<i>ignorant fishermen</i>”. Unfortunately for Home’s +hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to +those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the +Orkney Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so +totally different from the animal in question, that the two could +scarcely be confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had +ever seen them.”</p> + +<p>“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion +towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions) +<span class="pagenum" id="Page84">[84]</span>measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of +the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account +scarcely exceeds thirty six feet.”</p> + +<p>“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. +My notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body +of the Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much +towards the head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large +Basking shark, where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, +the shark-like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded +with the eel-like form of the Stronsey animal.”</p> + +<p>“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by +different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more +oval than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, +who had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized +horse in thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to +fourteen hands in height, I found their greatest circumference to +be from seventy-one to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet +eleven inches to six feet one inch), or an average of six feet, that +is less than the thickest part of our animal, but seemingly near +that of its average dimensions.)”</p> + +<p>“The <i>mane</i> as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a +decomposed fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a +fin; and the animal seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had +a mane, floating about like sea-weed; and a similar appendage +has generally been noticed in some less distinct accounts of a supposed +sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior +<i>wings</i>, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and +differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the <i>mane</i> +consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the +back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine +animal. That its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from +the specimen now exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches +in length; and in the dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, +equal to that of isinglass.”</p> + +<p>“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our +Museum, have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in +the Wernerian Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their +want of processes and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance +to those of chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent +to the cranium, measured only two inches across; while that of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page85">[85]</span>the Basking-shark, in the same situation, is about seven inches in +diameter. Dr. Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of +the omoplates, and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are +accurately given, from a drawing made from the recent remains, +by the late Mr. John T. Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman, +and able naturalist. I know the representation to be correct, for I +saw and handled the specimen. The substance of this part was a +firm, but flexible cartilage, and seemed to have been placed in the +muscles; just as Cuvier describes the omoplates of sharks to be: +Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans le chair, en arrière des Branchies, +sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à l’espine. The Orkney animal +seems to have had <i>two circular</i> spiracles on each side of its neck, +about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the Basking shark has <i>five +linear</i> spiracles on each side, a foot or more in length.”</p> + +<p>“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far +too small for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual +length of that species. It measured in its dried state no more than +twelve inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven +inches. A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a +head of at least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium +at the angles of the mouth, would have measured probably +five feet. These proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal +could not possibly be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed +to see the Basking shark, with that fish. There was a hole on the +top of the cranium, something similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans; +but its lateral spiracles and cartilaginous bones forbid us to +refer it to the order of cetacea”.</p> + +<p>“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious +<i>fish</i>, different from any described by naturalists; but +it has no pretensions to the denomination of <i>Sea Serpent</i> or <i>Sea +Snake</i>, although its general form, and probably its mode of progression +in the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order +of <i>Serpentes</i>. Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known +shark; nor does it belong to the family of Squalidae”.</p> + +<p>I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill’s</span> +paper. First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was +cast on shore by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime +tolerably entire”. This is not true, for the dead animal was already +in a very putrified and damaged state, when it floated on the surface +of the sea, for the pectoral fin was already putrified and the +fibres had become loose.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page86">[86]</span></p> + +<p>Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, +but they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by +the strength of the hand”.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span> further says that “they would seem to have been +the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six +may be remains of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there +is no fish known to Zoologists, that has <i>two</i> anal fins. The anal +fin is therefore called an <i>unpaired</i> fin!</p> + +<p>In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those +of <span class="smcap">Home’s</span> Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. <i>Barclay</i>, permanently +believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”! +Further he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of +which we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six +feet”. Consulting Prof. <span class="smcap">H. Schlegel’s</span> <i>De visschen van Nederland</i>, +I read, however:</p> + +<p>“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, +had a length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are +usually observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this +capture, which are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences, +transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop <span class="smcap">Gunner</span>, +sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than +100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”.</p> + +<p>In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the +two dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so +that their fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called +“first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. <i>Barclay</i>!</p> + +<p>The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of +course no relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not +“spiracles” as Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span> says) of the Basking-shark. These “two +spiracles on each side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”. +They may have been decomposed stems of the vascular system in +the flesh near the skull of the animal.</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span>, no more than Dr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span>, seemed to have known +the difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or +“cranium”!</p> + +<p>The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in +the engraving representing the skull in the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian +Society</i> is evidently the result of putrification and of an external +injury.</p> + +<p>I need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of +Stronsa”. They may more than once have observed that I agree +<span class="pagenum" id="Page87">[87]</span>with Mr. <span class="smcap">Everard Home’s</span> opinion in all particulars, except in +the so-called exaggerated dimensions. I firmly believe that the carcass +of the animal measured fifty-five feet from the head to the +end of the tail, and as a piece of tail seems to have been broken +off, the vertebral column may even have been one of sixty feet. +The dried and shrivelled skull measured twelve inches “from the +first cervical vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw”. +But as I have pointed out that this “first cervical vertebra” was in +reality the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous +appendages, and as this nose tip must have measured (see +the drawing of the skull in the <i>Memoirs of the Wernerian Society</i>, +Vol. I) two inches, the whole skull measured fourteen inches. But +the skull was dried and shrivelled, consequently we may safely +admit that it measured in its perfect state about twenty inches. +Consequently I conclude that: the largest Basking-shark that ever +stranded on the coasts of Great Britain measured upwards of sixty +feet, viz. the so-called “Animal of Stronsa”. The putrified body of +it was floated ashore, and the putrification had continued so far +that the almost black covering of the two backfins and the tail-fin +were not only washed away by the waves, but that their yellow +fibres had become loose. The eye-witnesses evidently reasoned that +these fibres must have been present all along the back between +these three parts, now far remote one from another, but were +washed away, and they therefore concluded that the animal had +“a mane, extending from the shoulders” (the part of the back at +the level of the pectoral fins) “to the tail”, i. e. to the end of the +tail. Or, according to another witness it extended “to within two +feet and a half of the tail”; which may be explained in two ways, +viz., either he meant that the mane extended to within two feet +and a half beyond the level of the last pair of paws (the claspers), +consequently the level where the tail begins, and here is the exact +place of the hindmost back-fin, or he meant that the mane did +not quite extend to the point of the tail, from which we in our +turn may conclude that the last two feet and a half of the tail had +already been wholly cleared from the fibres of the putrified tail-fin.</p> + +<p>Moreover putrification on one side, and the beating of the waves +on the other side, had already removed the animal’s enormous +jaws, gills, with adherent muscles and cartilages, and all the +entrails, except the valvular intestine. On persons who never saw +such a mutilated specimen of a shark, the animal <i>must</i> have made +the impression of being a sea-snake!</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page88">[88]</span></p> + +<p>As to the sketch, made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Petrie</span> after the descriptions of +one of the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat +altered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Syme</span>, it will appear at a glance that besides the +ridiculous legs, the head (read skull) of it is drawn too large. The +carrion was 56 feet long and the drawing only 74 lines, consequently +the length of one foot is represented by a space of 1.3 +line. A skull of 14 inches should therefore be in this drawing +only 1.5 line long, and not 6 lines. Last not least, the “mane” +is not delineated on only three different places, as it really was, +but from the “shoulders” to the end of the tail, according to the +wrong conclusions of those “most intelligent eye-witnesses”! This +terrible “mane” was evidently the <i>only</i> cause of all this trouble, +and of the whole puzzle!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1816.—<i>Phil. Mag.</i>, LIV, 1819.—The third sea-serpent described +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> (for he believes there are several species), +is called by him:</p> + +<p>“3. <i>The Scarlet Sea-Serpent.</i> This was observed in the Atlantic +Ocean, by the captain and crew of an American vessel from New-York, +while reposing and coiled up, near the surface of the water, +in the summer of 1816. It is very likely that it was a fish, and +perhaps might belong to the same genus with the foregoing; I +shall refer it thereto, with doubt, and name it <i>Octipos? coccineus</i>. +Entirely of a bright crimson; head acute. Nothing further descriptive +was added in the gazettes where the account was given, except +that its length was supposed to be about 40 feet.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig11"> +<img src="images/illo088.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 11.—A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the Sea.</p> +</div> + +<p>I am convinced that this “sea-serpent” was a great calamary. As +the greatest ever found, measured from the tip of the tail to the +tips of the extended shorter arms about 30 feet (a calamary reposing +or swimming in the sea always has its long tentacular arms +coiled up), the length of 40 feet probably is exaggerated. I give +here a <a href="#Fig11">figure</a> of a large calamary, swimming on the surface of the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page89">[89]</span>water (taken from Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee’s</span> Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883, +corrected, however, as to its proportions), and now my readers +most probably will agree with me that such an animal has been +seen. The hillocks of the short arms make the appearance of a long +undulating body. The body of such an animal is quite scarlet or +crimson, and the tail (the so-called head) is acute.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1822, June.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of 1822, III, we read:</p> + +<p>“Some time ago the American newspapers were filled with the +reports of a sea-serpent which showed itself in the neighbourhood. +Also more than a year ago an animal was caught, supposed to be +such a one, which, however, was recognized as a large tunny. It +appears by the New-York newspaper of June 15th., that such an +animal taken for a great sea-serpent has been caught in a bay near +Middleton-Point. This monster measured thirty feet and has a +circumference of 18 feet. It had already been seen for some days, +floating like a huge trunk. Some persons had fired at it with guns, +but without any result. Having got into shallow water it could +not regain the high sea, was killed with harpoons, towed aland +and flayed. The liver alone produced three barrels of train-oil. It +took six men two hours to drag the skin, which will be stuffed, +to a distance of about 200 yards off. None of the old whalemen +and seamen who saw the animal, knew it. There were no guts (?) +and there was no heart (??). In the beak six rows of small sharp +teeth were counted and the throat was wide enough for a tall +man to pass. The skin was lead coloured and could be used as a +stone for sharpening knives (apparently an unusual large shark?)”</p> + +<p>About the tunny I allow myself to refer the reader to our <a href="#Fig1">fig. +1</a>.—We immediately agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> that this animal +was a large shark. Evidently it was dead, “floating some days +like a huge trunk”. The reason that no whaleman recognized the +animal, that neither guts nor heart was found, is of course to be +found in the fact that the animal was putrified, irrecognizable, and +had already lost its guts and some other entrails. Evidently it was +a basking-shark, <i>Squalus maximus</i> (See our <a href="#Fig8">fig. 8</a>). The length of +30 feet and girth of 18 feet is normal in this species. Norwegian +fishermen harpoon it to procure the train-oil from the liver. The +teeth are comparatively small and conical, the skin is lead coloured +and can really be used as a whet-stone.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page90">[90]</span></p> + +<p>1849.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2335, we read:</p> + +<p>“<i>A young sea-serpent.</i>—On Friday, while some fishermen belonging +to Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what appeared +to them a young sea-serpent, and lost no time in bringing +the young monster to the secretary of our Museum. The animal, +whatever it may be called, is still alive, and we have just been +favoured with a sight of it; but whether it really be a young sea-serpent +or not, we shall leave those who are better acquainted +with Zoology than we are to determine. Be it what it may, it is +a living creature, more than 20 feet in length, less than an inch +in circumference, and of a dark brown chocolate colour. When at +rest its body is round; but when it is handled it contracts upon +itself, and assumes a flattish form. When not disturbed its motions +are slow; but when taken out of the water and extended, it contracts +like what a long cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds +itself up in spiral form, and soon begins to secrete a whitish +mucous from the skin, which cements the folds together, as for +the purpose of binding the creature into the least possible dimensions.”—“<i>Montrose +Standard.</i>”—</p> + +<p>“[This creature was probably a specimen of Gordius marinus. I +am obliged for the extract.—E. Newman.]”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> suggesting this worm to be a <i>Gordius marinus</i> +evidently did not mean the <i>Gordius marinus</i> of <span class="smcap">Linné</span>, but that of +<span class="smcap">Montagu</span>. The former is a little worm of about one half of an +inch in length, living parasitically in the entrails of some fishes, +especially in herrings, whilst the latter is identical to <i>Lineus +longissimus</i> of <span class="smcap">Sowerby</span>, belonging to the family of <i>Lineidae</i>, to +the order of <i>Nemertini</i>, to the class of <i>Platyelminthes</i> or Flat-Worms. +Of this species individuals of thirty to forty-five feet in +length have occasionally been dredged.</p> + +<p>Having the means of consulting the splendid work of the British +Nemerteans of Mr. Mc. <span class="smcap">Intosh</span>, I am able to show my readers in +fig. 12 this <i>Lineus longissimus</i>, on a reduced scale.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page91">[91]</span></p> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig12"> +<img src="images/illo091.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 12.—Lineus longissimus, Sow.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page92">[92]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1849, March 26.—Another would be sea-serpent; (Zoologist p. +2433 for 1849):</p> + +<p>“<i>A strange marine animal</i>, of great size and strength, was captured +on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By +the enclosed handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears +to be quite unknown to the neighbouring <i>savants</i>. The honest +fishermen who drew the struggling monster to land are not, however, +overscrupulous about the name, provided it be attractive +enough to extract from the pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 6<i>d.</i>; +working people 3<i>d.</i> each”: they therefore boldly announce him as +“the great sea-serpent caught at last”. My correspondent very +judiciously observes, that whatever the animal may be, it adds +another to the many evidences constantly occurring that there <i>are</i> +more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of by the most +experienced practical observers. Some thirty five years since, the +distinguished anatomist Dr. Barclay, was fain to reproach his contemporaries +with the folly of affecting to suppose that they knew +every thing. What additions have five and thirty years not given +to Science! As the animal in question must be at least a local +visitor, may we not hope, that some resident naturalist will favour +us with a notice of it?”</p> + +<p>“The great Sea-Serpent caught at last, by fourteen fishermen, +off Cullercoats, on Monday last, March 26, 1849. This most +wonderful monster of the deep was discovered by a crew of fishermen, +about six miles from the land, who, after a severe struggle, +succeeded in capturing this, the most wonderful production of the +mighty deep. This monster has been visited by numbers of the +gentry and scientific men of Newcastle, and all declare that nothing +hitherto discovered in Natural History affords any resemblance to +this. As an object of scientific inquiry, this “great unknown” must +prove a subject of peculiar interest. Many surmises as to its habits, +native shores, etc., have already been made, but nothing is really +known. The general opinion expressed by those that are best able +to judge, is, that this is the great sea-serpent, which hitherto has +only been believed to have a fabulous existence, but which recent +voyagers declare they have seen. Now exhibiting, at the shop, 57, +Grey Street, opposite the High Bridge. Admission: ladies and gentlemen +6<i>d.</i>, Working people 3<i>d.</i> each.”</p> + +<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of May 19, 1849, we find the +following account of this capture:</p> + +<p>“The Sea-Serpent.—We observe in the Newcastle papers that +a strange and hitherto unknown fish, nearly 13 feet in length, +and possessing many of the characteristics which the captain of +the <i>Daedalus</i> enumerated in his description of the great Sea-Snake, +has really been caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats’ +fishermen, and has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it +<span class="pagenum" id="Page93">[93]</span>has created the greatest sensation. The members of the National +History Society of that town have duly reported upon it, and +expressed their opinion, that it is a young specimen of the genus +<i>Gymnetrus</i>, only four of which species, and those very rare, are +known to ichthyologists, and described by Cuvier and others as +inhabiting the Indian, Mediterranean and White Seas. The present +specimen has become the property of a Newcastle merchant, who +has presented it to the museum of that town; and we understand +that, in accordance with a very general wish of most of our +distinguished naturalists, it is now exhibiting in the metropolis.”</p> + +<p>As we read in the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, p. 2460—2462, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Albany Hancock</span> and Dr. <span class="smcap">Embleton</span> now declared it to be a +probably new species of the genus of riband-fish (<i>Gymnetrus</i>).</p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig13"> +<img src="images/illo093.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 13.—Gymnetrus gladius, Cuv. Val.</p> +</div> + +<p>Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the <i>Gymnetrus +gladius</i> of <span class="smcap">Cuvier</span> and <span class="smcap">Valenciennes</span>, taken from the <i>Règne Animal</i>. +This fish is of a silvery colour, except the fins and the peculiar +articulated head-ornaments, which are crimson. Its length is about +ten feet, its home the Mediterranean. The <i>Gymnetrus Banksii</i> or +<i>Regalecus Banksii</i> of Cuvier, closely allied to it, measures about +twenty feet, sometimes more, and is, though rarely, hitherto +caught only near the British shores. The fish in question therefore +most probably belonged to this species.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page94">[94]</span></p> + +<p id="Ref4">1852, Aug. 28.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Newton</span>, of Elveden Hall, +forwarded the following report to the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> (see +this journal for 1853, p. 3756).</p> + +<p>“I have lately received the following account from my brother, +Capt. Steele, 9th. Lancers, who on his way out to India in the Barham, +saw the sea-serpent. Thinking it might be interesting to you, as +corroborating the account of the Daedalus, I have taken the liberty +of sending you the extract from my brother’s letter:—“On the +28th. of August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16′ S., about half-past +two, we had all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when +the first mate called us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight. +About five hundred yards from the ship there was the head and +neck of an enormous snake; we saw about sixteen or twenty feet +out of the water, and he <i>spouted</i> a long way from his head; down +his back he had a crest like a cock’s comb, and was going very +slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty or sixty +feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put the +ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached +him, he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. <i>He +was seen by every one on board.</i>” My brother is no naturalist, and +I think this is the first time the monster has ever been seen to +spout.”</p> + +<p>“I am told by a gentleman whose brother was on board the +ship (the Barham) referred in the following extract from “The +Times” newspaper of November 17, 1852, that the occurrence +there related took place between 35° and 40° S. lat. and 40° and +45° E. long., being about 650 miles due south of Madagascar. I +understand that the particulars of the event as there stated closely +agree with those furnished to my informant, and further, which +is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole circumstance, +that the animal was observed to “blow” or “spout” in the same +manner that a whale does.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Extract from an Officer’s Letter written between the Cape and +Madras.</i> You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen +the great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion. +Information was given by a sailor to the captain, just as we were +going to dinner. I was in my cabin at the time, and from the +noise and excitement, I thought the ship was on fire. I rushed +on deck, and on looking over the side of the vessel I saw a most +wonderful sight, which I shall recollect as long as I live. His head +appeared to be about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept +<span class="pagenum" id="Page95">[95]</span>moving it up and down, sometimes showing his enormous neck, +which was surmounted with a huge crest in the shape of a saw. +It was surrounded by hundreds of birds, and we at first thought +it was a dead whale. He left a track in the water like the wake +of a boat, and from what we could see of the head and part of +his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet in +length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away +to get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards +he slowly sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at +dinner he was seen again, and a midshipman took a sketch of +him, of which I will send you a copy.”—<i>The Times.</i></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, 1<sup>st</sup> Series, p. +311, says of these rapports:</p> + +<p>“The descriptions, however, show great discrepancy with that of +the creature, seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>” (see <a href="#Report118">report n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a> in the +next chapter) “and cannot be considered confirmatory of the former +account, otherwise than as proving that immense unrecognized +creatures of elongate form roam the ocean.”</p> + +<p>“Mr. Alfred Newton, of Elveden Hall, an excellent and well-known +naturalist, adds the guarantee of his personal acquaintance +with one of the recipients of the above letters.”</p> + +<p>“I note this, because discredit has been undeservedly cast on +the phenomena observed, by foolish fabulous stories having been +published under fictitious names, for the purpose of hoaxing.”</p> + +<p>“If it were not for the spouting—which is not mentioned by one +observer, and may possibly have been an illusion,—I should be +inclined to think that this may have been one of the scabbard +fishes, specimens of which inhabit the ocean of immense size. They +carry a high serrated dorsal fin, and swim with the head out of +the water.”</p> + +<p>By inserting these reports in the present chapter, I already +show my readers, that I agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, that this animal +cannot have been a sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>I confess that I am unable to give a decisive answer to the +question as to what kind of animal it really was. <i>Apparently</i> the +most plausible explanation is that given by Mr. Gosse, viz., that +it was a riband or scabbard fish. The dorsal fin which in these +kind of fishes begins at the occiput, is red or crimson coloured, +and serrated, so that it may have given rise to the expressions of +“a crest like a cock’s comb”, and “a huge crest in the shape of +a saw”. But riband fishes are deep-sea fishes. When floating on +<span class="pagenum" id="Page96">[96]</span>the surface they are dying or already dead. They never “swim +with their head above the surface”! Moreover the green colour +does not agree with the common silvery hue of these animals. A +riband fish is delineated in <a href="#Fig13">fig. 13</a>, p. 93.</p> + +<p>But wonderful it may seem that after having uttered this opinion, +a few pages further on Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> uses this report amongst others +to fix the class of living creatures to which the sea-serpent belongs. +And what is the conclusion he arrives at?—that it belongs to the +group of <i>Plesiosauri</i>, or at least is related to it!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1858, July 9.—<i>Another Sea-Serpent.</i>—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1859, p. +6492.)—“The Amsterdamsche Courant of October 6, 1858, inserts +the following letter from Captain L. Bijl, of the Dutch bark +“Hendrik Ido Ambacht”, to the “Jorn-Bode”:—“Sailing in the +South Atlantic, in 27° 27′ N. Lat., and 14° 51,′ E. long., we +perceived on July the 9th., between twelve and one o’clock in the +afternoon, a dangerous sea monster, which during nine days constantly +kept alongside of us to 37° 55′ S. lat., and 42° 9′ E. long. +This animal was about 90 feet long and 25 to 30 feet broad, and, +most of the time, it struck the ship with such a force as to make +it vibrate. The monster blew much water, which spread an unpleasant +stench over the deck. The captain, fearing lest the animal +might disable the rudder, did his utmost to get rid of his fearful +antagonist, but without success. After it had received more than +a hundred musket-balls, a harpoon and a long iron bar, blood +was seen to flow from various wounds, so that at last from loss +of strength, the monster could swim behind our vessel no longer, +and we were delivered of it. By its violent blows against the +copper the animal’s skin had been damaged in several places.”—J. +H. van Lennep, Zeist.”⁠<a id="FNanchor2" href="#Footnote2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> + +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a id="Footnote2" href="#FNanchor2" class="label">[2]</a> <i>Jorn Bode</i> +is most probably a misprint for <i>Java-Bode</i>. <i>Zeist</i> is the well-known +charming village, east of Utrecht, the fourth town of the Netherlands.</p> +</div> + +<p>As to the animal, seen from the <i>Hendrik Ido Ambacht</i>, I think +it must have been a sick spermwhale, which was out of temper; +why else should it have been so angry that it followed the bark +nine days, cuffing it “most of the time”? Moreover the nature +of spermwhales is well enough known as angry and war-like.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page97">[97]</span></p> + +<p id="Ref2">1860?—In the <i>Zoologist</i> for this year we read p. 6934:</p> + +<p>“<i>A sea-serpent in the Bermudas.</i>—I beg to send you the following +account of a strange sea-monster captured on these shores, +the animal being, in fact, no less than the great sea-serpent which +was described as having been seen by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. +S. “Daedalus”, a few years since. Two gentlemen named Trimingham +were walking along the shore of Hungary Bay, in Hamilton Island, +on Sunday last, about eleven o’clock, when they were attracted +by a loud rushing noise in the water, and, on reaching the spot, +they found a huge sea-monster, which had thrown itself on the +low rocks, and was dying from exhaustion in its efforts to regain +the water. They attacked it with large forks which were lying near +at hand for gathering in sea-weed, and unfortunately mauled it +much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven inches in +length, tapering from head to tail like a snake, the body being +a flatfish oval shape, the greatest depth at about a third of its +length from the head, being eleven inches. The colour was bright +and silvery; the skin destitute of scales but rough and warty; the +head in shape not unlike that of a bull-dog, but it is destitute of +teeth; the eyes were large, flat, and extremely brilliant, it had +small pectoral fins, and minute ventral fins, and large gills. There +were a series of fins running along the back, composed of short, +slender rays, united by a transparent membrane, at the interval +of something less than an inch from each other. The creature had +no bone, but a cartilage running through the body. Across the +body at certain intervals were bands, where the skin was of a +more flexible nature, evidently intended for the creature’s locomotion, +screw like, through the water. But its most remarkable +feature was a series of eight long thin spines of a bright red +colour springing from the top of the head and following each +other at an interval of about an inch; the longest was in the +centre: it is now in the possession of Colonel Munro, the acting +Governor of the Colony; and I had the opportunity of examining +it very closely. It is two feet seven inches long, about three eighth +of an inch in circumference at the base, and gradually tapering, +but flattened at the extreme end, like the blade of an oar. The +shell of these spines is hard, and, on examination by a powerful +glass, appeared to be double, some red colouring matter being +between the shells; the outside, which to the touch and natural +eye was smooth, being rough and much similar to the small claws +or feelers of the lobster or crayfish. The centre was a wide pith, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page98">[98]</span>like an ordinary quill. The three foremost of these spines were +connected for about half their length by a greasy filament; the +rest being unconnected; the serpent had the power of elevating or +depressing the crest at pleasure. The serpent was carefully examined +by several medical and scientific gentlemen; the head, dorsal +spine, and greater part of the crest are in the possession of J. M. +Jones Esq., an eminent naturalist, who will, doubtless, send home +a more learned description of this “wonder of the deep”. I regret +that the immediate departure of the mail for England prevents +my preparing you any more careful drawing of this great “sea-serpent” +than that I enclose.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, adds hereto the following +note:</p> + +<p>“Written by Captain Hawtaigne, of Her Majesty’s 39 Foot. I +place implicit reliance on the narrative, except as to the animal +being identical with that seen by Capt. M’Quhae, of which I +think there is no evidence. Mr. J. M. Jones is an old subscriber +to the <i>Zoologist</i>, and a most intelligent; but the query occurs to +me, “Is not <i>this</i> sea-serpent a ribband fish?”—</p> + +<p>Yes, <i>this</i> sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent naturalist”, +Mr. <span class="smcap">J. M. Jones</span>, soon afterwards described this species +for the <i>Zoologist</i>, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span> has “received the following particulars of this +most interesting capture from an old and valued correspondent of +the <i>Zoologist</i>. It must be read in connection with a previous note +on the same animal in the April number of the <i>Zoologist</i>. (Zool. +p. 6934)”.</p> + +<p>Now follows the description of the animal, by Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Mathew +Jones</span>, with which we will not trouble our readers, only referring +them to our <a href="#Fig13">fig. 13</a>, p. 93, of a ribband fish, closely allied to +the specimen, captured in the Bermudas.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea-serpent +seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (see <a href="#Report118">report n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>), and concludes +that part of the reports concerning the great sea-serpent +originated from the appearance of ribband fishes. His views of the +matter, however, will be treated of in our <a href="#Page380">chapter</a> on the various +explanations.</p> + +<p>Immediately after this article Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> wrote another, in +which he shows that this fish is a <i>new species</i>, giving it the name +<i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, <span class="smcap">Newman</span>. How far Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was right in +doing so, I am unable to decide. He gives a full description of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page99">[99]</span>his new species, and adds that he is not competent to express an +opinion upon the similarity of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i> to Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae’s</span> +sea-serpent.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1878.—The <i>Scotsman</i> of September 6th. of this year has inserted +in its columns the following account.</p> + +<p>“A Baby Sea-Serpent.—From Van Diemen’s Land comes news +of the capture of a queer fish. It is fourteen feet long, fifteen +inches deep from the neck to the belly, tapering two inches to the +tail, and eight inches in diameter in the thickest place. There are +no scales, but the skin is like polished silver, with eighteen dark +lines and rows of spots running from the head to the tail each +side. There is a mane on the neck twenty inches long, and continues +from the head to the tail; small head, no teeth, protrusive +mouth, capable of being extended four inches like a sucker; eyes +flat, about the size of a half crown, and like silver, with black +pupils. There are two feelers under the chin, thirty-two inches +long. The fish was alive when captured.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> who communicated this capture in <i>Nature</i> +of the 12th. of September, 1878, Vol. XVIII, thinks that this +account “seems explicable only on the tape fish theory.” I think +he might have written “<i>is</i> explicable only on the tape fish theory”, +or in short: “this was evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is identical +to a ribband fish. Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes, +some species evidently don’t live at great depth, and are occasionally +cast ashore after a storm, as had also happened, in 1860, +on the Bermudas (see <a href="#Ref2">hereabove</a>).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1879, December 23.—(<span class="smcap">G. Verschuur</span>, <i>Eene reis rondom de +wereld in 480 dagen</i>, p. 51.)</p> + +<p>On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> on board the +<i>Granada</i>, left Mazatlan, a harbour on the western coast of Mexico, +for San Francisco. Probably on the 23d. the <i>Granada</i> passed Cape +San Lucas at 23° N. lat. Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> says:</p> + +<p>“Past Cape San Lucas, one afternoon, as I am gazing at the +ocean surface, I see a long neck rising out of the water very close +to the ship. I beckon some other passengers who are on deck, +and after a few minutes the object in question appears a second +<span class="pagenum" id="Page100">[100]</span>time. It is the neck of a snake, one would say, and we estimate +the length of the visible part of the animal at about a meter. The +thickness is about that of the upper-arm of a full-grown man and +the head ends in a point, and is as large as a child’s head”.</p> + +<p>“We call the whole crew, and the captain as well as some officers +run to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless +five of us had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent altercation +arose, when one of the officers said we evidently were +mistaken, because the sea-serpent did not exist.”</p> + +<p>“Nobody of us, it is true, could affirm that it was a sea-serpent. +We could only firmly maintain that what we had seen, agreed in +all respects with the shape of a serpent.”</p> + +<p>“The second officer, who joined in the conversation, declared to +have observed in 1871 near the coast of Australia, a sea-serpent +which was several meters in length, and when this statement too +was called in question, the quarrel got warmer and warmer, and, +as it generally happens in such cases, every one kept his own opinion, +and the world did not get any the wiser for it.”</p> + +<p>“Does the sea-serpent exist, or does he not? This is a problem +which has been answered more than once in the most affirmative +manner, and also in a negative sense. I have heard the question +disputed on more than one voyage.”</p> + +<p>In order to obtain more particulars about the animal, I wrote +to Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the following +questions:</p> + +<p>“Did the features of the “snake” make on you the impression +to be those of a mammal, like those of a seal or sea-lion, though +the pointed head more resembled that of a snake?”</p> + +<p>“Or had the head, though being much larger, more the shape +of that of an eel?”</p> + +<p>“Were there just behind the head a pair of fins, as +eels have?”</p> + +<p>“Why did the visible part make on you the impression to be a +“neck”. You speak of a “neck” of a snake. Was the diameter +near the head smaller than that just above the water, as if the +animal was still thicker under water?”</p> + +<p>“Or did you observe the contrary?”</p> + +<p>“Was the “snake” perfectly round, or was it provided on its +back with a fin, as in eels?”</p> + +<p>“What colour had your snake, and had the belly and the back +the same colour?”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page101">[101]</span></p> + +<p>“Did you observe any eyes, nostrils, ears, ear holes, gills, +whiskers, or any other appendages?”</p> + +<p>“These are all questions which a zoologist wants to have answered +in order to determine somewhat, what animal may have +been seen by you.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span> had the courtesy to send me an early answer +Oct. 30th., 1889. The part of this letter referring to my questions +runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“I greatly regret to say that my answers will not help you +much. The distance at which I saw this strange animal was too +great, and the appearance too short, to observe anything of the +particulars stated by you.”</p> + +<p>“The part which we saw rise out of the sea had, if my memory +does not deceive me, the thickness of a full-grown upper-arm, and +the length of from 1 to 1¹⁄₂ meter.”</p> + +<p>“The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of +a snake’s head, i. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the +“cobra” or of the rattlesnake.”</p> + +<p>“Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., I could observe nothing, during this +short appearance. The colour seemed to me to be a greyish one.”</p> + +<p>“I regret not being able to give you more details than those +written by me in my book of travels.”</p> + +<p>I think this animal was of the eel-tribe, the dimensions were +too small even to admit the supposition that it was a spawn of +the sea-serpent.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>We observe that many so-called great sea-serpents are to be +explained by reference to <i>known</i> animals. There are, however, a +great many sea-serpents which don’t answer to the description of +any <i>known</i> being at all, unless we venture upon a suggestion which +is either wrong, forced, or premature, and which can be accepted +only with a smile or a shrug of the shoulders.</p> + +<p>Some sea-serpent explainers are in the habit of explaining <i>one +single</i> sea-serpent, say by reference to a row of porpoises, and +then try to account for others by this suggestion, the upshot of +which is that the explainer does no longer see his way clear of +the difficulties which beset him, and driven to his wits’ end, cuts +the Gordian knot, leaving a great many sea-serpents unexplained.</p> + +<p>Others, like Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry +Lee</span>, were prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea-serpent +<span class="pagenum" id="Page102">[102]</span>a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, an extraordinarily developed <i>Hydrophis</i>, or +a large Calamary (<i>Architeuthis</i>).</p> + +<p>But none of them hit on the plan to put all the accounts, +tales, and reports of this great unknown animal side by side, to +point out the statements which are immediately recognizable as +strange, or explicable by reference to some known animal, and +finally to decide which of the known animals may have been bold +enough to present itself as a deceitful serpentine creature, or, if +the result is negative and leads to the conclusion that the sea-serpent +does not belong to any known species of animal, to decide, +what kind of animal does exist, though <i>unknown</i> to zoologists! +And to this inquiry we pass now.</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page103">[103]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">IV.</span><br> +<span class="chapname">The various accounts and reports concerning observations of +Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly +discussed; and criticisms of the papers written about the subject.</span></h2> +</div> + +<p>An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in +<i>Nature</i> of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that +subject. A few months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the +<i>Album der Natuur</i>, a Dutch periodical, designed to bring the +latest progress and problems of Science in a very popular manner +under the eyes of non-scientific readers.</p> + +<p>In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an +animal which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless +existed, and gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.</p> + +<p>In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the +same subject by Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>. In this work “<i>Sea Monsters +Unmasked</i>” the sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as +having been a row of porpoises following one another, as some +gigantic sea-weed, as huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as +any still unknown animal belonging to a genus of reptiles, the +representatives of which are only known in the fossil state.</p> + +<p>Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, +and seeing that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> did not mention my supposition, I am +now so bold as to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent +in another manner; I have chosen the English language as being +known to all zoologists and to all navigators.</p> + +<p>The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, +quoted by <span class="smcap">Aristoteles</span> (<i>History of Animals</i>, Book 8, chapt. 28), +<span class="smcap">Plinius</span> (<i>Naturalis Historiae</i>, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), +<span class="smcap">Valerius Maximus</span> (<i>de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus</i>, Lib. 1, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page104">[104]</span>cap. 8, 1st. century), <span class="smcap">Florus</span> (Lib. 2), <span class="smcap">Seneca</span> (litt. 82), <span class="smcap">Silvius +Italicus</span> (Lib. 6), <span class="smcap">Aulus Gellius</span> (Lib. 6, cap. 3), <span class="smcap">Orosius</span>, <span class="smcap">Zonares</span>, +<span class="smcap">Diodorus Siculus</span>, <span class="smcap">Voleterranus</span> (<i>Commentariorum Urbanorum</i> libri +38, book 12), <span class="smcap">Petr. Martyr</span> (<i>Decad.</i> 1, lib. 10), <span class="smcap">Bakius</span> (<i>Posidonii +Vita et Reliquiae</i>, p. 115), <span class="smcap">Aelianus</span>, <span class="smcap">Vergilius</span>, etc., were most +probably nothing but pythons.</p> + +<p>The various kinds of <i>Serpens marinus</i> alluded to by <span class="smcap">Aristoteles</span> +and <span class="smcap">Plinius</span>, and afterwards described and figured by many other +authors, evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of <i>Père</i> <span class="smcap">Jean +Baptiste Labat</span> in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which +reach no greater length than about twelve feet.</p> + +<p>For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different +animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than +the year 1500 A. D.</p> + +<p>Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great +Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come +to the conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of +the so-called sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were +cuttles of extraordinary dimensions (<i>Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora</i>). +In all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes +not difficult for a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures +and their habits, to explain those observations, but the greater +part of the accounts of Great Sea-Serpents do <i>not</i> agree with the +well-known shape of sea-weeds and cuttles, <i>nor</i> with the habits of +porpoises. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent +with these kinds of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent +moving with vertical undulations, and figured it thus, knew the +habits of those animals, and some of them testified, that it could +not have been porpoises, which they knew well enough to be sure +of it. I will add here that porpoises move irregularly and have +dorsal fins, which must of course be visible whenever they appear +on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts mentioning the +sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any question +of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within +our reach, and peruse them in order of their date.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report1"><span class="reportnr"><b>1</b></span>.—1522.—(See <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, <i>Historia de gentibus</i>, etc.) +“There is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island +<span class="pagenum" id="Page105">[105]</span>called Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change +in the Kingdom of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, +as it was seen, anno 1522, raising itself high above the surface +of the water and circling like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent +was estimated by conjecture to be fifty cubits long; this event was +followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great +persecution of the Bishops; and it also showed the destruction of +the country, as Isidorus tells us of the birds of Diomedes.”</p> + +<p>In the original Latin we read <i>atque in modum sphaerae convolvens</i> +(and wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am +convinced that we have to do with a misprint, and that the author +evidently wrote <i>atque in modum spirae convolvens</i>, which I have +translated above “and circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies +that the observer saw the animal swimming with vertical undulations, +parts of which were visible above the surface of the water.</p> + +<p>Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the +animal raised itself high above the surface of the water.</p> + +<p>Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about +seventy-five feet.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as +follows:</p> + +<p>“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of +Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, +namely that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 +feet, and 20 feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the +shore of Bergen; it comes out of its caverns only on summernights +and in fine weather to devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes +into the sea to eat cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It +has a row of hairs of two feet in length, hanging from the neck, +sharp scales of a dark colour, and brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks +boats, and snatches away the men, by raising itself high out of +the water, and devours them: and commonly this does not happen +without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being +at hand, either that the princes will die or will be banished, or +that a war will soon break out.”</p> + +<p>This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores +of Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large +dimensions, and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs +<span class="pagenum" id="Page106">[106]</span>hanging down from its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant +and flaming. It only appears in fine weather.</p> + +<p>We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance +on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. +The eating of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, +or it may have been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them +with its head above water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of +snatching away a man from the ships is evidently confounded with +another tale, as it is not mentioned anywhere else with regard to +the sea-serpent. It evidently refers to gigantic calamaries which +occasionally attack boats and snatch away one of the crew. (See +<span class="smcap">Lee</span>, <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, I, <i>The Kraken</i>.). Its being covered +with scales must be fictitious too, for they who saw a sea-serpent +at a short distance, are unanimous in stating that it had no scales +but a smooth skin.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig14"> +<img src="images/illo106.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 14.—The sea-serpent as represented by Olaus Magnus.</p> +</div> + +<p>On the same page of the text, <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> has figured a +sea-serpent in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which +has just anchored on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. +I give a facsimile of that figure in <a href="#Fig14">Fig. 14</a>.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> +who mostly sees calamaries and no other animals in the tales and +figures representing the Great Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the +presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid, +and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the +illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended +to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, +one on each side of it”.—As to the snatching away a man of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page107">[107]</span>the crew, I quite agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, as already said above, but +as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced that +<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> or his draughtsman had no other intention than to +delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned +in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it +a medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="smcap">Gesner</span> in his <i>Nomenclator aquatilium animantium</i>, 1560, gives +two figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in <a href="#Fig15">Fig. 15</a> +and <a href="#Fig16">16</a>.—<span class="smcap">Gesner</span> says that there is a large map of Scandinavia +in <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work, and on this map our <a href="#Fig15">fig. 15</a> is drawn +in the Baltic Sea, and our <a href="#Fig16">fig. 16</a> in the Atlantic Ocean. In the +original edition of 1555 there is but a small map of Scandinavia, +which shows only the heads of several animals in the sea. I therefore +conclude that there still exists another edition of <span class="smcap">Magnus’</span> +work which I don’t know. Returning to our figures we immediately +observe that the drawer has delineated large <i>snakes</i>, the one without +scales, and swimming with <i>vertical</i> undulations, the other with +large scales, and that he did not intend to represent a dorsal fin +by the medial line, but only a medial row of scales, unequal to +the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of protuberances +are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long hairs hanging +down from the neck of the animal.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig15"> +<img src="images/illo107.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 15.—The sea-serpent illustrating the text of Gesner.</p> +</div> + +<p>Of the sea-serpent <span class="smcap">Gesner</span> tells us:</p> + +<p>“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents +of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked, +do not harm any one. Of these sea-serpents <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> +gives the following figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.—(See our +<a href="#Fig15">fig. 15</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page108">[108]</span></p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig16"> +<img src="images/illo108.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 16.—The second sea-serpent illustrating the same work.</p> +</div> + +<p>“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or +two hundred feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as +states the number added to the figure), which sometimes appears +near Norway in fine weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it +snatches away men from the ships. Mariners tell that it incloses +ships, as large as our trading vessels, made on our rivers and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page109">[109]</span>lakes, by laying itself round them in a circle, and that the ship +then is turned upside down. It sometimes makes such large coils +above the water, that a ship can go through one of them. I give +the figure as it is on the Map.”—(See our <a href="#Fig16">fig. 16</a>.)</p> + +<p>Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent: +it is harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns +them upside down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can +go through one of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the +sea-serpent is perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this +in almost every account. The other two are of course extraordinary +exaggerations of its dimensions.</p> + +<p>The two figures of <span class="smcap">Gesner</span> copied on a reduced scale, with an +extract of his text, appeared in the <i>Graphic</i> of January 29, 1876.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The text in the edition of +<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work printed +at Basle in 1567 is the same +as that of the first edition +printed in 1555 at Rome, +but the figure between the +text differs, and is doubtless +a combination of our <a href="#Fig14">figg. +14</a> and <a href="#Fig16">16</a>, in miniature; +see our <a href="#Fig17">fig. 17</a>.</p> + +<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig17"> +<img src="images/illo109a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 17.—The sea-serpent as represented in the +Basle edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.</p> +</div> + +<div class="container w25emmax" id="Fig18"> +<img src="images/illo109b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 18.—The sea-serpent, illustrating the +Map of Scandinavia in the Basle edition of Olaus +Magnus’ work.</p> +</div> + +<p>On the map of Scandinavia +subjoined to the work also +occurs a figure of the sea-serpent, +which we have copied +in our fig. 18.—This figure +does not claim our attention; +it represents an eel or a +snake, it has no scales.—Not +so fig. 17: it distinctly +shows dorsal scales and ventral +plates, just as snakes +have. This seems to me a +confirmation of my opinion +that in all these figures the +drawers had no other intention +than to delineate a large +<span class="pagenum" id="Page110">[110]</span>snake, without any notion of the arms of a calamary. As to the +seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary was the robber, +whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent. Last not least, +it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from its neck, a +true mane, and several credible persons declare to have seen them.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic +or Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean. +I believe he is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> +and <span class="smcap">Gesner</span>. His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map +of Scandinavia, which accompanies the edition of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work, +unknown to me, and mentioned above. He only omits the water, +the ship and the man in its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give +copies, because they are exact enlargements of our <a href="#Fig15">fig. 15</a> and <a href="#Fig16">16</a>.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report2"><span class="reportnr"><b>2</b></span>.—1640?—(See <span class="smcap">Adam Olearius</span>, <i>Gottorfische Kunstkammer</i>, +Ed. I, 1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long +ago been confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who +declared to have heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy +man, that, whilst standing on a hill on the Norwegian +coast, he saw in the calm water a large serpent, which seen from +afar, had the thickness of a wine barrel, and 25 windings. These +serpents are said to appear on the surface of the water only in +calm weather and at certain times.”</p> + +<p>Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea, +and most probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark, +a large animal was seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the +confirmation that it comes to the surface of the water only in +calm weather and at certain times. I beg the reader to fix his +attention on those apparently insignificant statements, as it will be +seen that they are given several times independant of one another.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="smcap">Jonston</span> in his <i>Historia naturalis</i>, and his <i>Theatrum universale +omnium animalium</i> of which several editions appeared in 1653, +1657, 1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by <span class="smcap">Ruysch</span>, quoted by Prof. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page111">[111]</span>W. D. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> in <i>Mem. Amer. Acad.</i> 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and +1768, repeats the tales of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, and the figures of +<span class="smcap">Gesner</span> and <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="smcap">Milton</span> in his <i>Paradise Lost</i>, printed in 1667, comparing Satan +with huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, +calling it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes</div> +<div class="verse indent0">That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Prone on the flood, extended long and large,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge</div> +<div class="verse indent0">As whom the fables name of monstrous size</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den</div> +<div class="verse indent0">By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Leviathan, which God of all his works</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream:</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">With fixed anchor in his scaly rind,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Moors by his side under the lee, while night</div> +<div class="verse indent0">Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”</div> +</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large +sea-monster on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor, +a story told about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="smcap">Charleton</span> in 1668 quotes only <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span> and <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, +giving neither description nor figures.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report3"><span class="reportnr"><b>3</b></span>.—1687.—(<span class="smcap">Ramus</span>, <i>Norges Beskrivelse</i>, +quoted by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>).</p> + +<p>“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times +by several persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons +<span class="pagenum" id="Page112">[112]</span>together. The weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and +the wind began to blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs +out a coil of rope can know the length thereof, so one could see +how long it was, before it had wound off all its coils, and +stretched itself at full length.”</p> + +<p>In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm +weather and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time +the fact is mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a +straight line. Further on we shall read this several times.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report4"><span class="reportnr"><b>4</b></span>.—1720.—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <i>Det förste Forsög paa Norges +naturlige Historie</i>).</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">Thorlack Thorlacksen</span> has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent +had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it +came by high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or eight +fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left the +inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the +skin had entirely sunk into the water of the inlet, and no one +could guess how long it was, the inlet in which the skin partly +lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of this skin was +washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see it; apparently +it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy +mass. <span class="smcap">Thorlacksen</span> was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.</p> + +<p>It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily +during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the +sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had +been an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent, +I am sure that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also +stated that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards +was certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of +a great calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently +proves my hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or +inlet, and its long dead arm was washed ashore by the current, +while the body sunk.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report5"><span class="reportnr"><b>5</b></span>.—1734, July 6.—The earliest account of <span class="smcap">Hans Egede’s</span> +encounter with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page113">[113]</span>Danish at Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “<i>A Full and Particular +Relation of his voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the +year 1734</i>”.</p> + +<p>I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the +passage about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:</p> + +<p>“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal, +which raised itself so high above the water, that its head +reached above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew +like a whale, had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it +were, covered with a hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and +uneven on its skin; moreover on the lower part it was formed +like a snake, and when it went under water again, it cast itself +backwards and in so doing it raised its tail above the water, a +whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had very bad +weather.”</p> + +<p>In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work, +entitled <i>Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und +Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission</i>, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4<sup>o</sup>, +which I have not been able to consult either.</p> + +<p>I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition. +In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of +the article <i>Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent</i> +translated the passage from a Danish copy of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> <i>Full and +Particular Relation</i> in the British Museum. Evidently he was not +very well up in the Danish language, for his translation is partly +incorrect. I am convinced that in the original text <span class="smcap">Egede</span> does not +mention the exact locality where he saw the animal. The translator +tells us that it was off the south coast of Greenland, which of +course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south coast. Of “sea-animal” +he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top” he has “on a +level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he has “it +blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were +covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with +shell-fish, or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.</p> + +<p>In 1738 <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> wrote a <i>Journal of his mission</i>, in which +he did not mention the meeting, but his son <span class="smcap">Paul Egede</span> in the +continuation of this Journal, entitled <i>Continuation af Relationerne +betreffende den Groenlandske Mission</i>, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a +full account of it, which we have translated above word for word.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page114">[114]</span></p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig19"> +<img src="images/illo114.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 19.—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Egede, drawn by Bing.</p> +</div> + +<p>I have not had the means of consulting the German translation +of this work, entitled <i>Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische</i> +<i>Mission betreffend</i>, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything +about the text or figures, but the translation which I found in +the German edition of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> <i>Natural History of Norway</i> +is correct. Not so the English translation entitled <i>Journal of the +Mission to Greenland</i>, 2d. Vol. There we find, according to Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lee</span> who quotes the passage in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, first +<i>sea-monster</i> instead of <i>sea-animal</i>, further, that <i>it spouted water +like a whale</i>, instead of <i>it blew like a whale</i>. There is a great +difference between these two expressions. A whale does not spout +<i>water</i> as is generally believed and figured. Further, that the body +seemed to be covered <i>with scales</i>, instead of <i>with a hard skin</i> or +<i>crust</i>, for the Danish <i>skiell</i> or <i>skiaell</i> is singular, and not plural. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page115">[115]</span>Finally, that the tail above the water was a whole ship-length +from the <i>head</i> instead of from the <i>body</i>, for the Danish <i>Kroppen</i> +signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything of the +figures in this edition.</p> + +<p>In the original Danish work of <span class="smcap">Paul Egede</span> there is a map of +a part of the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called +Baals Rivier, on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good +Hope (Gothaab). As it was generally done in those days, Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, +a brother-missionary of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span>, drew on his map not only the +animal but also the vessel in the sea. I give here a <a href="#Fig21">facsimile</a> of +the figure of the animal, without the ship. We distinctly see that +the animal has rather a serpentlike form with a large head, showing +formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy eye-brow, and a nostril; +two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the uneven skin, and a +tail ending in a point.</p> + +<p>On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s +tail, after it had plunged +back into the water. The tail +is again figured terminating in +a point.</p> + +<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig20"> +<img src="images/illo115.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 20.—The same individual plunging +back into the water.</p> +</div> + +<p>We shall do well to observe +the fact that the figure is an +accurate illustration of the text +with regard to the animal blowing +like a whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately +after having been under water a long time, is condensed in the +cold air and forms little curling clouds.</p> + +<p>In the original Danish work of <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, entitled <i>A Full +and Particular Relation</i>, etc., of which we have spoken above, +there is also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to +consult this work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of +Baals Rivier with the two figures of the animal are quite the +same, true facsimiles. The above mentioned translator drew this +figure on a reduced scale for his article in the <i>Illustrated London +News</i>, and as his text is incorrect, his figure is so too, for he +changed the rough skin into scales, according to his own translation. +(See our fig. 21.)</p> + +<p>Afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i> made use +of the figure of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> and so gave his +readers again an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a +true facsimile of the figure as it appeared in the <i>Illustrated London +<span class="pagenum" id="Page116">[116]</span>News</i>, Oct. 28, 1848, and in Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, +London, 1883. A reduced copy of it also appeared in the <i>Illustrirte +Zeitung</i> of February 3, 1877.</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig21"> +<img src="images/illo116.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 21.—The drawing of Bing, as reprinted and altered in the Illustrated London News of 1848.</p> +</div> + +<p>In the Danish work of <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> <i>Det gamle Groenlands nye +Perlustration</i> we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the +colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four +times longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same +as in <span class="smcap">Paul Egede’s</span> <i>Continuation</i> of the Journal.</p> + +<p>In the German edition of this work, entitled <i>Des alten Groenlands +neue Perlustration</i>, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it +was seen before the Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had +two broad flappers on the fore-part of the body”.</p> + +<p>In the Dutch edition, entitled: <i>Beschrijving van Oud Groenland</i>, +Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties +as the English and the German translators did, but was more +correct in his expressions.</p> + +<p>In the French edition, entitled <i>Description et histoire naturelle +du Groenland</i>, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed +<span class="pagenum" id="Page117">[117]</span>himself the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which +was covered <i>with scales</i>, plunged back into the water, it did so +with <i>the belly turned upwards</i>!”</p> + +<p>In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated +from the French) entitled <i>Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von +Groenland</i>, Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal +<i>lay upon the water with its belly turned upwards</i> when it plunged +back into the water!</p> + +<p>In many respects the figure of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> and <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> text complete +each other.</p> + +<p>Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We +may do this most safely, being convinced of the truth of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> +words and <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> figure. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded +man, possessing considerable powers of observation, and a +genuine love of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, +and free from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable +signs of fidelity.” (<span class="smcap">Lee</span>, <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, p. 65.)</p> + +<p>From what has been said of the animal, seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, we +gather that it appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather +before the Danish Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland; +(<span class="smcap">Egede</span> says: “the following evening we had very bad weather”, +so we may conclude that:) the weather was fine, when the animal +was seen; it had a considerable length, say a hundred feet, and +was much thicker than a snake of those dimensions would be, say +some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck and the fore-part of +its trunk high above the surface of the water, it had a long, sharp +snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal as large as +a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in those cold +regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the <a href="#Fig19">figure</a> +where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where +its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds +of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> does not say: +it had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does +not state that the figure, made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> aboard his ship, +directly after the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we +must consider it as being correct; so the animal had two large +and broad flappers on the fore-part of the trunk. The body <i>seemed</i> +to be covered with a hard skin. For truth’s sake <span class="smcap">Egede</span> wrote +<i>seemed</i>, which is well done; for a hard skin or crust would not +have been <i>wrinkled</i> when the animal bends its body. Like all +known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions the animal +<span class="pagenum" id="Page118">[118]</span>must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick layer of bacon, +and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions and seals +wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as +the Sea-Serpent of <span class="smcap">Egede</span> did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly +see that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals +have. And if the animal could have scales, they would be very +large ones, considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it +must have been easy to see the scales from a distance, though +they were wet with the water; but I can hardly believe that one +can say of an animal, seen at some distance and quite wet and +shining with the water, whether it has a crust or a soft skin. +The latter has been the case, for the animal showed wrinkles when +bending its body. Its lower part was formed like that of a snake, +by which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> evidently means to say that it was perfectly round +and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he <i>did not see</i> any +appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for the middle +part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water). The +creature plunged <i>backwards</i> into the water. It evidently has a considerable +flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently +it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility, +nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> thinks, which has no flexibility +at all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the +length of its body, which was distinctly seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and figured +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable +length, tapered in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal +nor vertical ones. The <a href="#Fig19">figure</a> shows an eye with a heavy +eye-brow, a nostril, and teeth; the flappers have external visible +fingers, as sea-lions have; those of porpoises and dolphins are +without them. Afterwards we shall more than once have occasion +to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is drawn by <span class="smcap">Bing</span> too large, +and the neck too short.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig22"> +<img src="images/illo119.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 22.—Bing’s drawing as copied by Pontoppidan.</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> says in his frequently quoted work <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, +“The sea-monster seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> was of an entirely different +kind” (viz. from those mentioned by <span class="smcap">Magnus</span> and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>). +I am of the opinion that if Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> had written: The sea-monster +seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> was the same, but seen in an entirely different +position, condition and direction, he would have been nearer the +truth; for careful inquiry has shown me that the sea-serpents of +<span class="smcap">Magnus</span> and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> are the same as those which still appear +in the Norwegian seas, and those have all the characters of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> +animal. Moreover we saw that the animal, mentioned in our <a href="#Report1">accounts +<span class="pagenum" id="Page119">[119]</span>1</a>, <a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a> +and <a href="#Report4">4</a>, and according to the descriptions of <span class="smcap">Magnus</span> and +<span class="smcap">Gesner</span> had the following characteristics: 1. It raises itself out of +the water to a considerable height. 2. It swims with vertical undulations. +3. It has an enormous length, probably upwards of a +hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the same +length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its +neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming. +8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It is +harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11. It +can stretch itself in a straight line.—Of these facts the 1st., 3d., +4th., and 10th. are stated by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>; he could not mention the 2d., +8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or eating. +Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not see the +animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its belly and +somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without a mane. +<span class="smcap">Egede</span> says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness. Its colour +was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large sea-animals, +else he would have called it brilliant white, or green, +or red. The eyes are figured by <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, though not described by +<span class="smcap">Egede</span>, but in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> work we read in a note to Chapt. +VIII, § 7, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson +<span class="smcap">Sylow</span>, at Hougs in the parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed +to be reddish and like a burning fire. So its harmlessness is the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page120">[120]</span>only fact we cannot derive with certainty from <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> account.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> relating <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> observation of the monster gives +a copy of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> figure, but as often occurred in those days, +it is not copied with great accuracy, and <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing has been +altered by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> so as to give quite another figure. (Our +<a href="#Fig22">fig. 22</a> is a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> +was right in figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> changes it wrongly into a waterspout of more than +100 feet long! <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> is convinced, when seeing <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> +figure, that there are several species of sea-serpents, all belonging +to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss this point.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig23"> +<img src="images/illo120.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 23.—Bing’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s work.</p> +</div> + +<p>Still more exaggerated is the figure of <span class="smcap">Jardine’s</span> <i>Naturalist’s +Library</i>, or rather that which Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> presents to his +readers. He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the +power of spouting a splendid set of water some twenty feet high, +a water-mass equalling nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">In his <i>Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents</i>, 1742, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports +of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> and <span class="smcap">Gesner</span>.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page121">[121]</span></p> + +<p id="Report6"><span class="reportnr"><b>6</b></span>.—1743?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 7).—“It is +said that a few years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near +Amund in Nordfjord, perhaps with high water, and died there and +the carrion also caused a dreadful smell.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report7"><span class="reportnr"><b>7</b></span>.—1744?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 7).—“It is +also told that a sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and +that the stranding of sea-serpents took place in more localities.”</p> + +<p>There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily +the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great +enough to keep them far away from them, even from their carrions, +and so these accounts don’t mention anything as a result of +closer investigation.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report8"><span class="reportnr"><b>8</b></span>.—1745?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).—“A +fisherman relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from +Bergen, he once saw a long, large and strange animal so close to +his boat, that the water, brought in motion by the animal, dashed +against it, but immediately it disappeared again under water. The +head resembled that of a seal, its skin was also as woolly, but +the body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, and +the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five feet long, tapered +towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”</p> + +<p>Though <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> did not seem to believe that this animal +was his sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the +case, because the whole description is exactly that of the animal. +It is remarkable that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so +close to their boat, as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a +smooth skin; now seals when wet have also a smooth skin, and our +fisherman was near enough to the animal to detect the real nature +of such a skin, viz. that it is <i>hairy</i>, or as he expresses himself +<i>woolly</i>. We shall afterwards more than once meet with statements +in which the head is compared with that of a seal. The head, +though resembling that of a seal, was of course much larger. The +body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, say about +forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in length, and +tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and those of +the former writers <span class="smcap">Magnus</span>, <span class="smcap">Olearius</span> and <span class="smcap">Ramus</span>, who compared +<span class="pagenum" id="Page122">[122]</span>the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the +length of the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning +of it, so that it may be supposed that there was a difference in +thickness between the body and the tail.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report9"><span class="reportnr"><b>9</b></span>.—1746, August.—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <i>Det förste Forsög</i>, +<i>etc.</i>).—<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> relates:</p> + +<p>“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and +Pilot-general at Bergen, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lorenz von Ferry</span>, and we spoke +about this subject. He told me that for a long time he had doubted +the existence of the sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences +in 1746 had convinced him. And though I could not say anything +of importance against it, he ordered to my satisfaction and that of +others, two seamen, who were with him in his boat, and had +seen the animal and its blood which coloured the water red after +a shot of <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span> at it, to appear before the public court of +justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed on oath may be +found in the following instrument which I received in original, and +which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in extenso:”</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">Albert Christian Dass</span>, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at +Bergen, <span class="smcap">Hans Christian Gartner</span>, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor +of Justice and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town, +together with <span class="smcap">Jan Clies</span>, <span class="smcap">Ole Simensen</span>, <span class="smcap">Ole Brinchmand</span>, <span class="smcap">Joergen +Koenig</span> for <span class="smcap">Conrad von Lange</span>, <span class="smcap">Matthias Gram</span> for <span class="smcap">Elias +Petrus Tuchsen</span>, <span class="smcap">Claus Natler</span> for <span class="smcap">Didrich Haslop</span>, <span class="smcap">Jochem +Foegh</span> for <span class="smcap">Henrich Hiort</span>, and <span class="smcap">Joergen Wiers</span> for <span class="smcap">Hans Christian +Byszing</span>, sworn citizens and additional deniers there, declare, +that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator <span class="smcap">Johann Reutz</span> +appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented +a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day +before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general <span class="smcap">Lorenz von +Ferry</span>. And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to +supply him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event +mentioned in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that +purpose, pointed out two men living in this town, named <span class="smcap">Niels +Petersen Kopper</span> and <span class="smcap">Niels Nielsen Anglewigen</span>, begging that +these men might be admitted to a declaration on oath, that all +has happened in particulars so as is mentioned in the paper, which +he begged to be registered in said instrument. The above mentioned +paper was read to the witnesses and runs as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page123">[123]</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl8">“Mr. <span class="smcap">Johann Reutz</span>.”</span><br> +<span class="padl14">“Sir,”</span></p> + +<p>“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a +voyage, on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot +day, having a mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when +we had arrived with my yacht within a mile of the aforesaid +Molde, being at a place called Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a +book, I heard a kind of murmuring voice from amongst the +men at the oars, who were eight in number, and observed that +the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this I inquired +what was the matter, and was informed that there was a sea-serpent +before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the land +again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard +so many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension, +they were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake +passed by us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about +in order to get nearer to it. As the snake swam faster than we +could row, I took my gun which was loaded with small shot, and +fired at it; on this he immediately plunged under water. We +rowed to the place where it sank down (which in the calm might +be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it would come +up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake +plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the +small shot might have wounded it, the distance being very little. +The head of this sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet +above the surface of the water, resembled that of a horse. It was +of a greyish colour, and the mouth was quite black, and very +large. It had black eyes, and a long white mane, which hung +down from the neck to the surface of the water. Besides the head +and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of this snake, +which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there was a +fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a +certain company, where there was a person of distinction present, +who desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail +of all that happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were +present at the same time and place where I saw this monster, +namely, <span class="smcap">Niels Petersen Kopper</span>, and <span class="smcap">Niels Nielsen Anglewigen</span>, +will appear in court, to declare on oath the truth of every particular +herein set forth; and I desire the favour of an attested copy of the +said descriptions.”</p> + +<p class="right">“I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”<br> +<span class="padr10">“<span class="smcap">L. von Ferry</span>.”</span></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page124">[124]</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Bergen, 21st. February 1751.</span></p> + +<p>“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths, +and, with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared +the aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set +forth therein to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation +was made out for the said Procurator <span class="smcap">Reutz</span>, and granted by the +Recorder. That this was transacted in our court of justice we confirm +with our hand and seals.”</p> + +<p>“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”</p> + +<div class="container notopbottom w25emmax"> + +<div class="split5050"> + +<div class="left5050"> + +<div class="centerblock"> +<p>“<span class="smcap">A. C. Dass.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">J. Clies.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">O. Brinchmand</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">M. Gram.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">J. Foegh.</span>”</p> +</div><!--centerblock--> + +</div><!--left5050--> + +<div class="right5050"> + +<div class="centerblock"> +<p>“<span class="smcap">H. C. Gartner.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">O. Simensen.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">J. Koenig.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">C. Natler.</span>”<br> +“<span class="smcap">J. Wiers.</span>”</p> +</div><!--centerblock--> + +</div><!--right5050--> + +<p class="thinline allclear"> </p> + +</div><!--split5050--> + +</div><!--container--> + +<p>As to Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry’s</span> declaration that the head of the sea-serpent +resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than +that it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck, +that the nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane +on the animal’s neck altogether must have led him to think so. +The statement that the colour of the head was greyish, apparently +contradictory to what had as yet been said about the animal’s +colour, viz., that it is a dark brown one, may be explained, I +think, as follows: the sea-serpent has a skin as woolly as seals and +sea-lions have; it had swum a long time with its head two feet +above the water, and the weather being very hot, its skin was +dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that when +being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish +black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat +dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see +that sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the +stone border of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very +soon become dry in the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow +colour. But returning to Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry’s</span> sea-serpent, the mouth, +however, was black and very large. The eyes were black, the mane +long and white (being dry) hanging down to the surface of the +water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were very thick and +the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of the coils +is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.</p> + +<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> (<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc.</i> IV, I, 1818) +calls this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which +he” (<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>) “gives seems to have been made from the description +<span class="pagenum" id="Page125">[125]</span>of Capt. <span class="smcap">de Ferry</span>, the officer above alluded to. In this +figure, the head and jugular region are raised out of the water; +a little below the head is a mane which seems to be inserted all +round the back of the neck. The appearance of this mane was +most probably an optical deception, and was nothing more than +the water displayed by the neck in the progress of the animal +through it, returning to its level. It had probably no mane. But +of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by the +Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”</p> + +<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> seems not to have read <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> so accurately +as might be expected from him, for the figure in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> +work has quite another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> +would not have written his supposition of the mane, if one of the +eye-witnesses of the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had +seen a mane. Moreover <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> asserts that nearly all agree +in representing the animal with a mane, and we shall read of +several declarations further on.</p> + +<p>As to the colour of the coils, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> seems to be at one with +me for in his frequently quoted work <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> he +says: “The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the +appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line”, and: +“I believe that in every case so far cited from <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, as +well as that given by <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, the supposed coils or protuberances +of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises +swimming in line, in accordance with their habit before mentioned.” +If Captain <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span> had described the coils of his serpent +as being white or red, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> certainly would not have +supposed that they were eight porpoises.</p> + +<p>Further Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a +horse, was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, +or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw +its body into those vertical undulations.”</p> + +<p>Very well, but if Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> wishes to explain the coils by porpoises, +he ought to account for the head which preceded them; +this he silently passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake. +A fine explanation indeed!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report10"><span class="reportnr"><b>10</b></span>.—1747?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 7).—“Governor +<span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> is said to have had some years ago a similar +meeting with the sea-serpent” (to Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry’s</span>) “and he has +<span class="pagenum" id="Page126">[126]</span>figured it. I should like to possess this +figure to show it to my readers. I, +however, show here <a href="#Fig24">another one</a> sent +to me by Parson <span class="smcap">Hans Stroem</span>, which +he himself has copied from the original.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig24"> +<img src="images/illo126.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 24.—The Sea-Serpent as seen by Governor Benstrup.</p> +</div> + +<p>The <a href="#Fig24">figure</a> shows a head with a +mane, and six coils of the body. The +nostril is indicated, the mouth has no +teeth, the eye is large.</p> + +<p>It is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> tells +us: “The figure of the sea-serpent given +by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> was drawn, he tells +us, under the inspection of a clergyman, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Hans Strom</span>, from descriptions +given of it by two of his neighbours, +Messrs. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span> and <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span>, of Herroe; +and was declared to agree in every +particular with that seen by Captain <span class="smcap">de +Ferry</span>, and another subsequent observed +by Governor <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>.”</p> + +<p>Not only does not the first part of +this statement tally with the words of +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, but also the second part +is discrepant, for the learned Bishop goes +on saying: “This figure agrees with the +descriptions given by two of his neighbours +Messrs. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span> and <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span>.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span> is not mentioned at +all on this occasion by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>!</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup’s</span> figure has also been +<a href="#Fig25">copied</a> by Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> in the +volume of <i>Phocidae</i> (seals) of <span class="smcap">Jardine’s</span> +<i>Naturalist’s Library</i>, but it has been +greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr. +<span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> thought it to be the same +animal as that seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, for he +figures both animals with the same head +and features. Of the figure of <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> +too he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming +with corkscrew motions! O horror!</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page127">[127]</span></p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig25"> +<img src="images/illo127.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 25.—Benstrup’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s work.</p> +</div> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report11"><span class="reportnr"><b>11</b></span>.—1748?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span> of Herröe declared to <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> +that the drawing of Parson <span class="smcap">Hans Stroem</span> agreed even in particulars +with what he saw of the serpent several times when he went in +his boat to church.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report12"><span class="reportnr"><b>12</b></span>.—1749?—Also Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span> of Herröe made the same +declaration. He too saw the animal several times when he went to +church in his boat. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> adds: “and then I do not even +mention many other persons of the same high rank and trustworthiness. +The same Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span> is the only one who told me that +he distinctly saw the difference in thickness between the trunk and +the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not gradually growing +smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller at once and +very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads. +The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”</p> + +<p>This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact +that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must +infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had +also hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede +saw, are flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently +the animal has four flappers.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report13"><span class="reportnr"><b>13</b></span>.—1750?—<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, telling what he has learned from +the north-sailors says:</p> + +<p>“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to +the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”</p> + +<p>Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his +boat, that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory +<span class="pagenum" id="Page128">[128]</span>to that of the fisherman (<a href="#Report8">n<sup>o</sup>. 8</a>), who declared it as woolly as a +seal-skin. The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the +hairy nature of the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report14"><span class="reportnr"><b>14</b></span>.—1751?—(<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An +incertain rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have +lately captured in their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four +paws under its belly; which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled +a crocodile. The peasants in their terror fled from their nets, and +by doing so they gave an opportunity to the serpent to do the +same.”</p> + +<p>Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I +am sure it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an +Orm is a serpent, viz., a long slender animal with a rather small +head and a pointed tail; and as it was captured in nets in the +sea, it is certain, that this animal, which <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> compares +with a crocodile, having a slender and round body like a snake +and four paws (or flappers) is the same as the animal afterwards +seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup> 119</a>) and compared by him with an +alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty feet, the animal +must have been very young.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Now let us see what <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> himself says of the sea-serpent, +after having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:</p> + +<p>“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called +Aale Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which +ought to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great +deeds of the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder +next to the Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before +describing its habit and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the +real existence of the serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”</p> + +<p>The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the +mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what +were and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our +own time. All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but +sea-cows or manatees (<i>Thrichechus manatus L.</i> and <i>Thrichechus senegalensis</i> +<span class="smcap">Desm.</span>) or dugongs (<i>Dagungus dugung</i> <span class="smcap">Gmel.</span>). Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page129">[129]</span>believes that the occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the +northern seas and even in the waters round Great-Britain and +Ireland “afford some slight hope that the remarkable rytina (<i>Rytina +borealis</i> <span class="smcap">Gmel.</span>) may not have become extinct in 1768, as has been +supposed, but that it may still exist somewhat further south than +it was met with by its original describer, <span class="smcap">Steller</span>.” Some of the +mermen of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> were nothing else but Bladdernosed seals +(<i>Cystophora cristata</i> (<span class="smcap">Erxl</span>) <span class="smcap">Nilss</span>) as I already proved in my little +paper in the <i>Album der Natuur</i> of 1882, and I see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> +comes to the same conclusion (<i>Sea Fables Explained</i>, <i>London</i>, 1883).</p> + +<p>We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian +tales and the gigantic Octopus of <span class="smcap">Denys de Montfort</span> really exist, +and that they are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles +(<i>Cephalopoda</i>).</p> + +<p>But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent +really is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest +scientific persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.</p> + +<p>“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator, +that this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea, +except in July and August, its pairing-time, during which it +appears, when the sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the +wind ruffles the surface of the water; if this arrangement, I say, +were not thus made for man’s safety, the existence of the sea-serpent +would want fewer proofs, than even in Norway, thanks to God! +is the case, the shores of which are the only ones of Europe, +frequented by this monster.”</p> + +<p>Here again it is stated that the sea-serpent is only seen in July +and August (and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> believes that these two months are +the pairing-time of the animal), that it only appears in calm +weather, and dives under water as soon as the wind rises. The +writer believes that the animal frequents only the shores of Norway. +According to an account of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, it seems, however, +that the sea-serpent was also seen in the Baltic Ocean, and we +know now for certain that the animal which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw in Davis’ +Straits at 64° N. lat., was also our Sea-Serpent. Evidently our +Bishop did not hit on the idea that the Sea-Serpent could be a +migratory animal.</p> + +<p>“Like all who are enemies to credulousness I too doubted of +the existence of the sea-serpent, when at last my doubt was dispelled +by incontestable proofs. Amongst our ablest navigators and +fishermen of this country there are many hundreds who prove the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page130">[130]</span>existence of the sea-serpent as eye-witnesses, and they agree pretty +well in their descriptions, though there are many others who +declare that they know the sea-serpent only from the tales of their +neighbours. I, however, in my inquiry hardly met with a person +who, when born in the Northern provinces, did not answer immediately +with the greatest certainty and assurance. Nay, some so-called +north-sailors, who are here (in Bergen) every year for commercial +interests, even consider it as a shame to be earnestly +questioned on that subject. They consider this question as superfluous +as that one, whether there exists a cod-fish or an eel.”</p> + +<p>We see hereby that in Norway the belief in the existence of +the sea-serpent was as firm as possible amongst the sea-faring people.</p> + +<p>“Though no one has ever been able to measure this animal, +many witnesses agree in telling that the serpent must be as long +as a cable, viz., 100 fathoms or 300 ells, whilst it lay on the +surface of the water, so that only here and there behind the head, +which is held upwards, some parts of the back were visible, +which were also held upwards, whilst the serpent bent; and from +afar one would have believed that he saw some tuns or hogsheads, +which floated in a line, so that there was a space between each +of them.”</p> + +<p>Though the length of a cable or six hundred feet given to the +sea-serpent is exaggerated, it may be more than 100 feet, why +not? For there are other sea-animals, such as the whale, which +measures more than 88 feet, and the fin-fish (<i>Balaenoptera loops</i>) +which sometimes attains a length of about 105 feet.</p> + +<p>It has been stated to <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> by most of the eye-witnesses +that the animal shows by its vertical undulations several coils above +the water, and that these coils resembled from afar tuns or hogsheads +floating in a line. It is very remarkable that these facts are +repeatedly stated by witnesses who are independent of one another, +even by persons who never heard of a sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>“The head of all these animals has rather a high and broad +forehead; some, however, have a sharp snout, others a quadrangular +beak as cows and horses have, with large nostrils, and on the +sides there are a few stiff hairs, or bristles, as other animals have +with a good nose. And that the sea-serpent has a good nose, is +proved by its flying away at the smell of castoreum, which the +people who go out in summer to fish on the great bank, will +never forget to take with them.”</p> + +<p>The various ways of describing the head may be owed to this +<span class="pagenum" id="Page131">[131]</span>that different persons saw the head in different positions, that some +of them saw it for such a short moment that it was impossible to +say with certainty what form it had. It is not always explicable +why one describes the head of an animal in one way and another +in quite another. As to me I see in the head of a seal that of +an otter, others distinctly see a man’s or a cat’s head in it, and +the people in the service of the Zoological Gardens in the Hague +exclaim “why, I can very well understand why that animal is +called a sea-dog; it has a dog’s head, to be sure!” The fact is +that we don’t know with any certainty the form of the sea-serpent’s +head, but <i>most probably</i> it resembles that of a sea-lion, +which has also a head with a broad and flattened forehead, rather +pointed, seen from one side, and blunt, seen in front. Here mention +is also made of the large nostrils and the bristles on the lips +of the animal.</p> + +<p>“The eyes are, as one says, large and blue, they are rather like +a pair of pewter plates.”</p> + +<p>The eyes again are described differently. We have already heard +them described as being black, red as fire, and now they are blue, +viz. the ordinary blue, called tin-colour, that is a bluish-grey or a +greyish-blue; so a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit; and grey +fowls are called blue-fowls; there is rather a lilac tint to be +observed in it. I cannot explain those differences otherwise than +in the following way: when an observer sees the eyes in an oblique +direction, he will always see this grey colour; when more in the +axis of the eye, the colour is a bright dark black one, and when +occasionally seen thus that the “tapetum lucidum” of the eye +reflects the day-light, it is, as if the eyes were sparkling like fire.</p> + +<p>“The serpent’s colour is dark brown over the whole body, but +thereby spotted, and with light streaks, or maculated with distinctly +visible light spots, like a turtle or a lackered table, except +in the region of mouth and eyes where it is rather dark, so that +it resembles those horses which we call moorish-heads or black-faces.”</p> + +<p>We shall repeatedly have occasion to observe that these statements +are correct. All eye-witnesses agree in this point.</p> + +<p>“That this animal spouts like a whale through its nostrils, as +Mr. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw, has never been seen here by anybody.”</p> + +<p>It is remarkable that though <span class="smcap">Egede</span> has nowhere asserted that +his animal was a sea-serpent, our learned Bishop seems to have +recognized it as such at once, believing, however, it to be another +species of the same genus. We have already stated that <span class="smcap">Egede</span> did +<span class="pagenum" id="Page132">[132]</span>not see the animal spouting water, but he only saw the warm +breath of the animal condensed in the cold air, just as <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, his +brother missionary, figured it, and just as it is mentioned by +accurate observers of whales. It is very easy to understand that +<span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw it, for the animal had apparently been under water +for a long time; it suddenly appeared with so much violence, +that a considerable part of its body was elevated above the surface +of the sea, whilst, by a violent blow, the breath, hitherto held +in, was pushed into the air. In this way parts of mucus of the +inner surface of the nostrils and the little quantity of water adhering +to the valves of the nose, must have been driven away at +the same time, and the whole effect has been very accurately described +by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and figured by <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, but has afterwards been +exaggerated and altered by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (see our <a href="#Fig22">fig. 22</a>), and +also in our century by Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> (see our <a href="#Fig23">fig. 23</a>).</p> + +<p>“But many agree in telling that when it swims rapidly through +the water, it propels before it the water with such a violence that it +murmurs like a small mill-brook.”</p> + +<p>This peculiarity has been repeatedly confirmed by the most +trustworthy eye-witnesses as we will observe more than once afterwards.</p> + +<p>“Also the common sea-serpents of our shore differ from those of +the Greenland-coasts, seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, in having no rough and +hard skin, but a smooth one like a mirror, except on the neck, +on which it has a mane, resembling sea-weed.”</p> + +<p>Remarkable again is the statement of its smooth skin, remarkable +too is the declaration of the sea-serpent having a mane, and +most remarkable the resemblance of this mane to sea-weed, an +observation made by several eye-witnesses independant of each other. +It is surprising that <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> silently passes over the difference +between his two kinds of sea-serpents: that the Greenland one has +two flappers on the fore-part of its trunk.</p> + +<p>“As they cast their skin like common snakes, some people pretend, +that a few years ago, a table-cloth has been made of such +a slough found in the harbour of Kobbervueg. This made me so +curious, that I wrote to one of the inhabitants of that harbour, +to inquire after it, and as the proverb says, to get a strap of the +skin. However, there was nothing of that skin, at least at that +time. And a man of that harbour, who came to Bergen, told me +he knew nothing at all about it.”</p> + +<p>As to the renewing of the skin, we see that the Bishop was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page133">[133]</span>taken in! But we must respect him that he did not rest before he +knew the truth or the untruth of the fact, and that he also mentions +his inquiry. Though the Bishop may have been deceived, his +endeavours to find out the truth enhance his trustworthiness.</p> + +<p>“That the flesh of these animals is soft, has been stated by some +who tell of a small, and probably young sea-serpent which was +taken unexpectedly on board a ship. It instantly died, and nobody +dared to touch it, till the crew was forced at last to cast it over +board, owing to the intolerable smell arising from the soft and +tough slime, in which it was dissolved by the action of the air. +But this animal cannot have been a sea-serpent, for, as will be +remembered, it is only seen in the calmest weather and sinks into +the deep at the least motion in the air.”</p> + +<p>We agree with the Bishop, though for other reasons than he.</p> + +<p>After having related the two strandings of a sea-serpent (<a href="#Report6">n<sup>o</sup>. 6</a>, <a href="#Report7">7</a>), +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> goes on:</p> + +<p>“I would that in such cases some one had inquired whether +this serpent had a strong backbone, which seems to be necessary +to keep together the mass of such a gigantic animal. The sharks, +however, which are also cartilaginous fishes without bones, have +such a backbone, but it is very subtile and even in the largest +sharks only ten ells long. The sea-serpent, like sharks, eels and +whales also seems to be a viviparous, not an oviparous fish, and +most probably it seeks the other sex in the above mentioned season. +It is said, that when this animal is ruttish, it looks after ships +and boats, which it probably takes for something else. If this be +true, as seamen say, those are wrong who think that the sea-serpent +is not born in the sea, but on land, and lives in forests and +among mountains, till it can no longer hide its body in it; it is +said that it then seeks some river, and floats out to the sea, as +some people pretend to have seen.”</p> + +<p>There is but one single reason why we think the sea-serpent is +a viviparous being, viz. its hairy skin. It is certain that an animal +with long hairs on its neck, has also hairs on its whole body, +which has also been stated once already (<a href="#Report8">n<sup>o</sup>. 8</a>), and hairy animals +are viviparous (except the <i>Monotrymata</i>). Most probably <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> +called the sea-serpent viviparous for the same reason, otherwise +I cannot find a single fact that would have led him to this +conclusion. Its seeking the other sex cannot be a reason, for all +animals do so in the warm season. I think that it looked after +ships because it is a curious animal, knowing no fear of strange +<span class="pagenum" id="Page134">[134]</span>things or persons. It is evidently a fable that it brings forth young +ones on the shore, probably originating in the fact that the sea-serpent +has sometimes been seen in fjords, even in small ones, or +probably originating in the fact that also seals creep ashore in the +critical moment, whelp there and return with their young ones to +the sea as soon as possible.</p> + +<p>“The question which troubles us most is the following: Is this +animal dangerous to men, and how are they to defend themselves +against this monster? <span class="smcap">Arendt Berndsen</span> (<i>Danmarks og Norges +frugtbare Herlighed</i> p. 308) answers the first question in the affirmative, +and tells us that the sea-serpent, as well as the sperm-whale, +even often runs down men and ships. That such things +happened in this region, I never heard of with certainty; but the +north-sailors tell that it had occasionally happened that the sea-serpent +raised itself and threw itself straight across a boat, nay +across a large yacht of several hundred tons, and had dragged it +to the depths. One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so +close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin; +he mentions at the same time that this serpent sometimes snatches +a man from a boat, with its head raised upward and gives the +others of the crew an opportunity to escape. Whether these reports are +to be believed or not, I don’t know, because it is uncertain whether +these serpents live on prey.”</p> + +<p>We see the Bishop weighing and considering whatever he heard, +and not accepting everything for truth. We think that <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> +is right in giving no credit to the narrative that the sea-serpents +made themselves guilty of sinking ships and eating men. It is +mentioned already twice, that the sea-serpent raised itself high +above the surface of the water; yet the flappers are not mentioned; +so we may conclude that these are situated far from the head, or, +what is the same, that the animal has a very long neck.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> further tells us that the sea-serpent sometimes encloses +ships by laying itself round them in a circle, that the +fishermen then row over its body there where a coil is visible, +for when they reach the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the +invisible parts rise. Further, that the serpent swims with an incredible +velocity, and that the fishermen who are much afraid of it, +when seeing that it follows them, throw any object, for instance +a scoop, at it, when the animal generally plunges into the deep. +But most fishermen are in the habit of taking castoreum with +them, for the serpent cannot bear the smell of it. And still +<span class="pagenum" id="Page135">[135]</span>further on he tries to explain the considerable length of the animal +some witnesses speak of; the Bishop namely believes that two or +more individuals followed each other, for they are only seen in +rutting-time. And in his tenth paragraph, trying to answer the +question, why those large serpents only frequent the northern seas, +he says:</p> + +<p>“To this question I answer that the Creator of all beings disposes +of the dwellings of His different creatures in different places by +His wise intentions, which are not to be known to us. Why won’t +the reindeer thrive anywhere but in the high and cold mountains? +Why do the whales frequent only the north pole? Why are India +and Egypt almost the only countries, where men have to fear +crocodiles? No doubt because it pleases the wise Creator.”</p> + +<p>Here <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> takes leave of the Sea-Serpent, and begins to +treat of the large snakes mentioned by <span class="smcap">Plinius</span> and other ancient +authors, and we too will take leave of our honest and trustworthy +Bishop, who has so often been laughed at for what he relates in +his chapter on monsters. And yet two of his monsters, the mermaids +and the Kraken, are unmasked, why cannot his third be accounted +for?</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Now let us again collect all the facts which are not impossible +from a zoologist’s point of view.</p> + +<p>We have before us an animal of the following imperfect description:</p> + +<p>The whole <i>length</i> of this animal far surpasses one hundred feet, +and the smallest individual ever seen measured eighteen feet. The +greatest <i>thickness</i> or diameter seems to be in the foremost third of +its whole length, and in large individuals surpasses ten or even +fifteen feet. Its <i>head</i> is small in reference to the body, its <i>neck</i> is +long and slender, round as the body of a snake or eel; the thick +<i>trunk</i> too is round: The <i>tail</i> is also round, thinner than the body +and gradually grows thinner to its end, which is pointed. The +animal has four <i>flappers</i>. The foremost are probably found about +one fourth of the length, the hindmost probably in the middle of +the whole length. The <i>skin</i> of the animal is hairy or woolly as a +seal-skin; when wet it is smooth and glittering as a mirror. A +long <i>mane</i> hangs down from the neck, and that mane is sometimes +described as resembling sea-weed; when dry, the mane is whitish, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page136">[136]</span>or pale. The <i>head</i> is described as resembling that of a seal, or +that of a horse. It tapers to the nose of the animal, so that +some witnesses declare it has a sharp snout, others, however, that +its end is like that of a cow’s, or a horse’s head, it has a broad +and high, but flattened <i>forehead</i>. The <i>nostrils</i> are large, but as +they are not always seen, it is evident that the animal can close +them like a seal; on the <i>lips</i> some stiff hairs or bristles are planted. +The <i>colour of the head</i>, when wet, is dark brown, when dry, +however, greyish, except round the mouth and the eyes, where it +is almost black. The <i>mouth</i> is large and provided with <i>teeth</i>. The +<i>eyes</i> are large, sometimes described as being bluish and dull, +sometimes black, glittering and brilliant, and sometimes reddish +as a burning fire. We have already tried to explain these different +statements. Its <i>eye-brows</i> are distinctly visible. Of the <i>neck</i> no +particulars are observed except that it is long, round, and bears +a mane, I should say like that of the Antarctic Sea-lions (<i>Otaria +jubata</i>) but much more developed. Its <i>fore-flappers</i> are broad and +large, and have probably an indented hind-edge, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> +drew externally visible fingers. Of its <i>hind-flappers</i> nothing is +mentioned. There is a visible <i>difference in thickness between the +trunk and the</i> very long <i>tail</i> of the animal: the body is not gradually +growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes small at +once, and very distinctly. Here the animal’s hind-flappers must be +placed. The <i>colour</i> of the body is said to be a dark brown, spotted +and with light streaks, or marked with distinctly visible light spots. +It has an astonishing flexibility in the neck as well as in the trunk +and in the tail. It can bend its body sideways and backwards, +and undulate it up and down like a rope. When the animal bends +till it is U- or horse-shoe shaped, the skin obtains many folds or +wrinkles. The <i>mode of swimming</i> is mostly by vertical undulations, +which are partly visible above the surface of the water; the end +of the tail is always hidden under water when the animal swims. +From afar the visible parts of the coils are said to resemble tuns, +buoys, wine-barrels or hogsheads. The coils are either very large, +and then 7 or 8 of them are visible, and a distance of a fathom +is between each two coils, or they are very small, and then it is +said that twenty-five of them are visible. This is only to be explained +by the degree of speed with which the animal undulates its body. +For the same reason it also swims more or less swiftly; it may also +swim with its body in a straight line, using in this case of course +its flappers; this, however, happens very seldom; when swimming +<span class="pagenum" id="Page137">[137]</span>rapidly it propels the water before it with such a violence, that +it boils and splashes up, with foam and a distinctly audible +rushing. When swimming, the animal holds its head two feet +above the surface of the water. Sometimes it raises its neck and +head to a considerable height. Once the condensed breath of the +animal was visible, and it was said to blow like a whale. It is +only seen in summer and in fine weather. It is harmless when +not provoked, it is curious and stupid. It feeds probably on cuttles, +lobsters and crabs, (certainly however on fish.).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Now we will go on with the perusal of the accounts concerning +the animal and we shall observe that in general the accounts or +rather the descriptions of the eye-witnesses repeat, and sometimes +even in particulars, what we have gathered from the 14 above +mentioned accounts and from what <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> has taught us. I +first invite the reader to follow me to the eastern coasts of the +United States, next to the Northern Pacific, on the western coasts +of Scotland, then again to the United States, and finally to Norway. +In all these places, nay in every part of the world we shall meet +with the animal which we shall find to be a true cosmopolitan, +though the Atlantic seems to be its proper place of residence.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report15"><span class="reportnr"><b>15</b></span>.—1751.—In a letter from Capt. <span class="smcap">George Little</span> to the +Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, printed in the second volume of <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> +<i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, we read:</p> + +<p>“A monster of the above description was seen in the same place, +by <span class="smcap">Joseph Kent</span>, of Marshfield, 1751. <span class="smcap">Kent</span> said he was longer +and larger than the main boom of his sloop, which was 85 tons. +He had a fair opportunity of viewing him, as he saw it within +ten or twelve yards of his sloop.”</p> + +<p>In the “above description” the sea-serpent is described as having +the appearance of a large black snake, from 45 to 50 feet long, +with a head of nearly the size of that of a man, which he carried +four or five feet above the water, and with the greatest diameter +of 15 inches. The individual which was seen by <span class="smcap">Joseph Kent</span> was +evidently larger; by “the same place” is meant Round Pond in +Broad Bay and near Muscongus Island.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page138">[138]</span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Knud Leems</span>, as we learn in <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke’s</span> <i>Travels +through Norway</i>, a northern divine, wrote his <i>Beskrivelse over +Finmarkens Lappen</i>, 1765, in which he mentions, p. 332, the +sea-serpent in the following terms:</p> + +<p>“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a +huge monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size +that of large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a +neck with a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly. +In the dog days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent +will come to the surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some +are partly visible above the water, whilst others remain hidden +under it. The seamen greatly fear this monster, and they do not +trust themselves on the sea, when the animal is on the surface.”</p> + +<p>The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head, +resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit +of the animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters +known to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is +whitish, which we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however, +not the belly that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The +animal’s neck being cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden +under water, the observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped, +always call its throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the +whole throat and the breast were seen, though not described, by +<span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, but that even he did not see the true belly.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report16"><span class="reportnr"><b>16</b></span>.—1770?—In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. Lean</span> to the Rev. +<span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span> written in Aug. 1803, and published in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> +<i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i> (Vol. II) we read:</p> + +<p>“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the +deceased Capt. <span class="smcap">Paul Reed</span>, of Boothbay.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report17"><span class="reportnr"><b>17</b></span>.—1777 or 1778.—(<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. +IV, Part I).</p> + +<p>“The next notice is from Capt. <span class="smcap">Eleazar Crabtree</span>, who saw it +in the same (Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated +its length at sixty feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that +of a barrel, which is about twenty two inches.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page139">[139]</span></p> + +<p>A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span> to the +American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or +mislaid.”—Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found +back, and, as Prof. <span class="smcap">Bigelow</span> (see <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i> +Vol. II) says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary +of the Academy,” Mr. <span class="smcap">John Q. Adams</span>, “where it may be seen.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Bradford</span> anxious to have all the information he could +get, did not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span>. +Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span>, however, at that time an old man did not write +this testimony himself, but had it written by another in his presence +and signed it as a correct statement. It is published in the +above mentioned Journal, Vol. II, and runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span>, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the +Bay of Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon +information of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water, +near the shore, just below his house, and having often been told +by individuals that they had before seen a similar sea-monster in +that quarter, and doubting of the correctness of their reports, was +induced to go down to the water to satisfy his own mind—that +he saw a large animal, in the form of a snake, lying almost +motionless in the sea, about thirty rods from the bank where he +stood—that his head was about four feet above water—that, +from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet in length—that +he did not go off to the animal through fear of the consequences, +and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter; +he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those +islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him +that they had seen such an animal—and that more than one +had been seen by several persons together.”</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6">“Signed”</span> +<span class="righttext padr4">“<span class="smcap">Eleazar Crabtree.</span>”</span></p> + +<p class="allclear">We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head +four feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated +at 100 feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness +which led Capt. <span class="smcap">Crabtree</span> to compare the sea-serpent with a +snake. The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably +it lay stretched out.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report18"><span class="reportnr"><b>18</b></span>.—1779.—(<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. IV. P. 1). +“It appears by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page140">[140]</span>that this serpent was first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year +1779, by Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Tuckey</span>: he compared it to an unwrought +spar (meaning probably one of spruce), which the scaly surface and +dark colour of the animal would very much resemble; he thought +it fifty or sixty feet in length.”</p> + +<p>It is evident that Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Tuckey</span> only compared it with +an unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part +to be fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> adds: “which the +scaly surface and the dark colour of the animal would very much +resemble”. I, however, take it that the animal swam with its body +in a straight line, elevating its back but very little above the +surface of the water, yet showing a length of fifty to sixty feet, +and so the back of the neck and trunk quite covered with a mane +resembling sea-weed, and the dark colour of the animal must have +led Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Tuckey</span> to the comparison with an unwrought spar.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report19"><span class="reportnr"><b>19</b></span>.—1780, May.—“Captain <span class="smcap">George Little</span>” who saw the +animal, wrote “a letter” containing his observation to the American +Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid” +(<i>Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult +<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. of Sc. and Arts</i> (Vol. II, 1820), we observe +that Mr. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span> collected for truth’s sake some affidavits +of eye-witnesses; he had learned that Capt. <span class="smcap">George Little</span> was an +eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit, which he received +and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the Academy; +after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It +runs as follows:</p> + +<p class="right">“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Sir”,</span></p> + +<p>“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that +in May, 1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a +public armed ship. At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or +monster, coming down the Bay, on the surface of the water. The +cutter was manned and armed. I went myself in the boat, and +proceeded after the serpent. When within a hundred feet, the +mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they could make +ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50 feet +in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15 +inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he +<span class="pagenum" id="Page141">[141]</span>carried four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance +of a common black snake. When he dove he came up near +Muscongus Island—we pursued him, but never came up within +a quarter of a mile of him again.”</p> + +<p>“I have the honor to be sir,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Your friend and humble servant</span><br> +<span class="padr10">“Geo. Little.”</span></p> + +<p>It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain, +who thus saw only its occiput. As the head is thought to have +nearly the size of that of a man, and the whole length to be 45 +to 50 feet, it is evident that either the head is estimated too +small, or the length too great; moreover it is clear that the +captain saw nearly the whole length; this sometimes occurs; generally, +however, only the foremost part is visible. Again it is mentioned +that the sea-serpent held its head four feet above the surface +of the water, and that the colour was black.</p> + +<p>A letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Mc. Lean</span> to the Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, +printed in the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:</p> + +<p>“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American +war, two miles from the place where I lived then.”</p> + +<p>I consider this passage as relative to Capt. <span class="smcap">George Little’s</span> +observation.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report20"><span class="reportnr"><b>20</b></span>.—1781?—In the same letter the above mentioned lines +are followed by the words:</p> + +<p>“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report21"><span class="reportnr"><b>21</b></span>.—1782?—In a letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William Jenks</span>, +of Bath, to the Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, of Boston, dated September +7, 1818, and published in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we read:</p> + +<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> observes, that the British saw him in their expedition +to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of +that which they saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> +imagines to be an exaggeration.”</p> + +<p>I think Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> is right in this supposition.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page142">[142]</span></p> + +<p id="Report22"><span class="reportnr"><b>22</b></span>.—1783? —In the same letter we read:</p> + +<p>“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report23"><span class="reportnr"><b>23</b></span>.—1784?—In the same letter we find:</p> + +<p>“June 28th., 1809. Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> observes that a Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span> +saw two of them together about twenty years since”....... “One +of those seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span> was smaller than that seen by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, and their motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular +winding, and not horizontal.”</p> + +<p>This appearance is also mentioned in the <i>Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> +(IV, I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and +Long Islands:</p> + +<p>“and one of them, a Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>, had seen two of them together +about the year 1787.”</p> + +<p>And in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i> (Vol. II, 1820) we read +in a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span> to the Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, +written Jan., 1804:</p> + +<p>“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say, +were seen by one Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>, who then lived upon Ash Point.”</p> + +<p>The fact that there were <i>two</i> animals together only claims our +attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been +a male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the +two must have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those +was smaller than that seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>”; consequently the +other was as large as or even larger than that seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, +ergo the difference in size of these two must have been +considerable. The occurrence of two together is reported only a very +few times. Evidently these animals lead solitary lives.</p> + +<p>We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784, +relying upon the words of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cumming’s</span> letter of 1804: “about +twenty years since”.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report24"><span class="reportnr"><b>24</b></span>.—1785?—In the same letter it says:</p> + +<p>“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting +the Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. <span class="smcap">Staples</span>, of Prospect, of +whom I inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. <span class="smcap">Miller</span>, of one +<span class="pagenum" id="Page143">[143]</span>of the Islands in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big +as a sloop’s boom, and about sixty or seventy feet long”.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report25"><span class="reportnr"><b>25</b></span>.—1786, August 1.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1911).—</p> + +<p>“Having seen much notice taken in the <i>Zoologist</i> of the question +of the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the +log-book of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard +the ship “<i>General Coole</i>”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.—”</p> + +<p>“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16 +or 18 feet in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back +of a light ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”</p> + +<p>“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You +may rely on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy +himself may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle +of Wight. September, 8, 1847.”</p> + +<p>Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it +would be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or +4 feet in circumference made the impression of being a serpent or +snake; the whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under +water. As the colour of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour, +I suppose that the animal having swum a long time in +the sun without diving under water, the skin had become dry and +showed the ash-colour; the colour of the belly (read throat) is +stated to be yellow. This statement already mentioned above we +shall see repeated more than once.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report26"><span class="reportnr"><b>26</b></span>.—1787?—In the letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William +Jenks</span>, dated, Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge +Davis of Boston, and printed in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we read:</p> + +<p>“Aug. 23, 1809.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles Shaw</span> (then of Bath, now an +attorney in Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. <span class="smcap">Lillis</span>, with whom +he had sailed, observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen +off the coast a very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like +a snake than a fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its +head erect, had no mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent. +He asked Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaw</span> if he had ever seen, or read, or heard of +such an animal.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page144">[144]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report27"><span class="reportnr"><b>27</b></span>.—1794?—In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenks</span>, +printed in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we find:</p> + +<p>“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long +Islands have seen such an animal”......</p> + +<p>“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands +two persons were together at both times.”</p> + +<p>It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for +one of the two times, for in the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> to the +Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the +second volume of <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, +(1820), we find the following passage:</p> + +<p>“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large +serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox +Island) “as their neighbours informed me.”</p> + +<p>Again two individuals were seen together.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report28"><span class="reportnr"><b>28</b></span>.—1799?—And the date of the second time, that the +animal was seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter +from Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> (1804), it says:</p> + +<p>“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw +an animal of this kind about five years since, as they then informed +me. They told me, that the serpent which they saw was about +sixty feet long, and appeared to have an ascending and descending +motion.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report29"><span class="reportnr"><b>29</b></span>.—1802 July.—In the letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">William +Jenks</span>, of Bath, to the Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, of Boston, dated +September 17, 1817, and published in the <i>Report</i> of 1817, we read:</p> + +<p>“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span> who has +been much employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and +navigated his own boat among the islands, &c. in the discharge +of his duty, informs me, in conversation, which was immediately +written from his lips, that in Penobscot bay has been occasionally +seen within these thirty years, a sea-serpent, supposed to be about +sixty feet in length, and of the size of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr. +<span class="smcap">Cummings</span> saw him, in company with his wife and daughter, and +a young lady of Belfast, <span class="smcap">Martha Spring</span>; and judged he was about +<span class="pagenum" id="Page145">[145]</span>three times the length of his boat, which is twenty three feet. +When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the boat, +though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but +about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden +Bradford</span> of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth) +inquired of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> whether the appearance might not be +produced by a number of porpoises following each other in a train; +but Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> asserts, that the animal held its head out of +water about five feet till he got out to sea; for when seen he was +going out of the bay, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> was ascending it. The +colour was a bluish green about the head and neck, but the water +rippled so much over his body, that it was not possible to determine +its tint. The shape of the head was that of a common snake, +flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen approaching, +passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> was as incredulous +in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The weather +was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Cummings</span> remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent +makes his appearance on the coast.”</p> + +<p>“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that, +which in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having +been communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, +but mislaid.”</p> + +<p>In the <i>Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc.</i> Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818, +we read also:</p> + +<p>“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>) “was forwarded +to the Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account +of the animal, as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is +lost or mislaid.”</p> + +<p>Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the +hands of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Q. Adams</span>, +and printed in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i> +(Vol. II, 1820). The letter runs as follows:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“My Dear Sir,”</span></p> + +<p>“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though +the urgency of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime +in July 1802 that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our +passage to Belfast, between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first +appearance was near Long Island. I then supposed it to be a large +shoal of fish with a seal at one end of it, but wondered that the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page146">[146]</span>seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual; but, as +he drew nearer to our boat, we soon discovered that this whole +appearance was but one animal in the form of a serpent. I immediately +perceived that his mode of swimming was exactly such as +had been described to me by some of the people of <span class="smcap">Fox</span> Islands, +who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm +the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal +but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders +it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable +distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was +rather larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent. +His body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head +and as much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue +colour except a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first +but moderate, but when he left us and proceeded towards the +ocean, he moved with the greatest rapidity. This monster is the +sixth of the kind, if our information be correct, which has been +seen in this bay within the term of eighteen years. Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, +my daughter and Mss. <span class="smcap">Martha Spring</span> were with me in the boat +all that time, and can attest to the above description.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“I continue yours in Christian affection</span><br> +<span class="padr6">“<span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span>.”</span><br> +<span class="padr20">“<span class="smcap">Rev. Alexander Mc. Lean.</span>”</span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. Lean</span> forwarded this letter to the Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span> +who says of it:</p> + +<p>“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular +as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and +in reply, received a statement more in detail,”</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">which runs as follows:</span></p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Rev. and Dear Sir,”</span></p> + +<p>“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description +of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this +motion was ascending and descending; all we can say is, <i>it appeared +so to us</i> (for he was seen not only by me, but by three +other persons). His real motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his +nearest distance from us was ten rods. The sea was then very +smooth, and very little wind, but still there was such a constant +rippling of the water over his body, that I could not distinctly +observe the magnitude or colour of any part but his head and neck. +The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain. But certain I am that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page147">[147]</span>he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue as possible, and a +black ring round his eye. The head was three feet in circumference +<i>at least</i>. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises moving after each +other in a right line, and in such a manner that those who formed +the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and none but +the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head +upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long +Island to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all +the time out of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so +great a distance without immerging at all? This is the best information +which you can obtain from</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“Your Friend and Servant”</span><br> +<span class="padr6">“<span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings.</span>”</span><br> +<span class="padr20">“Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>.”</span></p> + +<p>“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same +colour.”</p> + +<p>The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> +declares the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as +blue as possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.” +But I think that we must not rely too much upon this definition +of the colour, for, as we observe in daily life, different persons +will give different names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly +black colour “blue” while another does not see any blue in it at +all; consequently we may safely suppose that the colour was the +common dark brown, nearly black one, and that Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> +called such a colour “as blue as possible” or “a bluish green.” +Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents may sometimes +vary as in our common seals.</p> + +<p>It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression +the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish” +(read “porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but +wondered that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than +usual”. Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common +appearance of the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s +figure (<a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>). But as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings’</span> +boat, the resemblance diminished, because the serpent has not such +thick upper lips as our common seal, so that the snout is rather +sharp, and the forehead being moreover flat, the resemblance is +also that of a snake’s head! The mode of swimming was up and +down, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> in his second letter says “it appeared +so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page148">[148]</span>expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I think +it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the +sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly +saw the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly, +and that some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the +animal with many bunches on its back, that it moved through the +water, apparently not by undulating up and down, but they were +astonished that the sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has +the property of keeping his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently +it may show itself in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly +still with the body in a straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still, +but with many folds or bunches on its back. 3. Swimming with +its body in a straight line, using its flappers. 4. Swimming with +bunches on its back, propelling itself by its flappers, not by vertical +undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical undulations, and not +with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical undulations and with +its flappers.</p> + +<p>I repeat here the words of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>: “Who ever saw fifty +or sixty porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in +such a manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than +haddock or macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head. +Who ever saw a serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now +who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without immerging +at all?” And we may add: Who ever saw porpoises without +backfins? (The white whale, <i>Beluga leucas</i> has no back fin, but +it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is almost black.)</p> + +<p>I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different +dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways: +1. The animals may have been more or less visible above the surface +of the water, and the hind part hidden under water is not +always estimated in proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers +have not always seen the same individual, but of course +young ones, middle-aged and old individuals, males and females.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>I will insert here a letter from the <span class="smcap">Rev. Alden Bradford</span> to +the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Q. Adams</span>, to show my readers how the former +troubled himself about the question.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”</span></p> + +<p>“<i>To the Honorable</i> John Q. Adams, <i>corresponding Secretary of +the American Academy of Arts and Sciences</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page149">[149]</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Sir,</span></p> + +<p>“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries +in <i>Natural History</i>, I am induced to communicate to the +society the following account of a <i>Sea-Serpent</i>, which I have lately +collected.”</p> + +<p>“It will probably be within the recollection of some persons conversant +with Navigation, that in the course of a few years past, +there have been vague reports of an animal of this description having +been seen in or near Penobscot Bay. But little credit, however, +was attached to the story, and no particular authentic account has +yet been given to the public on the subject.”</p> + +<p>“A few months ago I happened to hear related the story of one, +which was seen in the Bay of Penobscot in 1802. And for my +own satisfaction, I have been inquisitive to the truth of the account, +and to the general evidence of the existence of such an animal. +The first correct information I received was from the perusal of a +letter to Rev. Alexander McLean, from Rev. Mr. Cummings of +Sullivan; which is enclosed, and marked <i>A.</i> and some remarks +were added by Mr. McLean at my request. The account was +liable to some objections, and not so particular as might be wished. +I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received a statement +more in detail, which accompanies this, and is marked <i>B.</i>”</p> + +<p>“I was afterwards informed, that George Little Esq. late commander +of the Boston frigate, saw a sea-monster similar to the +one described by Mr. <i>Cummings</i>, in the time of the revolutionary +war with Great-Britain; and as I was anxious for all the information +that was to be had, I wrote him on the subject, and he forwarded +the enclosed (marked <i>C.</i>) in answer to my letter. I have also the +testimony of a Capt. <i>Crabtree</i> of Portland, an intelligent man, +which is direct and positive. This is also enclosed and marked <i>D.</i> +It was written in his presence and received his signature, as a +correct statement.”</p> + +<p>“All this evidence, I think, cannot fail to establish the fact +<i>that a large sea-serpent has been seen in and near the Bay of +Penobscot</i>. The existence of such a <i>Monster</i> can no longer be +reasonably disputed. But whether he constantly resides in that +vicinity, or whether he coasts further south or north, during a +part of the year, more particular information is necessary to ascertain. +Nor is it known on what species of fish he subsists. By this +communication I have it in view only to furnish evidence of the +actual existence of the animal. It will probably operate in favour +<span class="pagenum" id="Page150">[150]</span>of further information, and lead to a particular history of this +hitherto undescribed Serpent.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr20">“I am with great esteem</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“Your humble servant</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“A. Bradford.”</span></p> + +<p>The four letters above mentioned and marked <i>A</i>, <i>B</i>, <i>C</i>, and +<i>D</i>, are already inserted in their right places. I refer my readers +to <a href="#Report29">n<sup>o</sup>. 29</a>, where the letters marked <i>A</i> and <i>B</i> are copied, to <a href="#Report19">n<sup>o</sup>. +19</a>, where that marked C is inserted, and to <a href="#Report17">n<sup>o</sup>. 17</a>, where the +letter marked D will be found back.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report30"><span class="reportnr"><b>30</b></span>.—1805? Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> (<i>Phil. Mag.</i> LIV, +1819) in his <i>Additions</i> to his dissertation, says:</p> + +<p>“4. Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Lee</span> has brought to notice another Sea-Snake, seen +by him many years ago near Cape Breton and Newfoundland, +which was over 200 feet long, with the back of a dark green: it +stood in the water in flexuous hillocks, and went through it with +impetuous noise. This appears to be the largest on record and +might well be called <i>Pelamis monstrosus</i>; but if there are other +species of equal size, it must be called then <i>Pelamis chloronotis</i>, +or Green-back Pelamis.”</p> + +<p>The length of 200 feet is estimated more than once, though in +many instances probably exaggerated. The definition of the colour +to be a dark green one, we have already explained above, discussing +the report of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>. The flexuous hillocks are of course +nothing else but the vertical undulations, the impetuous noise is +caused by the fore-flappers as will be stated afterwards. Of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Rafinesque’s</span> determination I will say nothing, because it is a false +one and a proof of his credulity.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report31"><span class="reportnr"><b>31</b></span>.—1808, June.—At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural +History Society on the 13th. of May, 1809 (<i>Phil. Mag.</i>, Vol. 33, +p. 411) “the Secretary read a letter from the Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> +of Small Isles, mentioning the appearance of a vast Sea-Snake, +between 70 and 80 feet long, among the Hebrides, in June, 1808.”</p> + +<p>This letter is printed in the first Volume of the <i>Memoirs of the +Wernerian Natural History Society</i> (1811) and runs as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page151">[151]</span></p> + +<p>“To the Secretary of the Wernerian Natural History Society.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Sir”</span></p> + +<p>“Your letter of the first instant I received, and would have +written in answer thereto sooner, had I not thought it desirable to +examine others relative to the animal of which you wish me to +give a particular account.”</p> + +<p>“According to my best recollection, I saw it in June 1808 not +on the coast of Eigg, but on that of Coll. Rowing along that coast, +I observed, at about the distance of half a mile, an object to +windward, which gradually excited astonishment. At first view it +appeared like a small rock. Knowing there was no rock in that +situation, I fixed my eyes on it close. Then I saw it elevated considerably +above the level of the sea, and after a slow movement, +distinctly perceived one of its eyes. Alarmed at the unusual appearance +and magnitude of the animal, I steered so as to be at no +great distance from the shore. When nearly in a line betwixt it +and the shore, the monster directing its head (which still continued +above water) towards us, plunged violently under water. Certain +that he was in chace of us, we plied hard to get ashore. Just as +we leaped out on a rock, taking a station as high as we conveniently +could, we saw it coming rapidly under water towards the +stern of our boat. When within a few yards of the boat, finding +the water shallow, it raised its monstrous head above water, and +by a winding course get, with apparent difficulty clear of the +creek, where our boat lay, and where the monster seemed in +danger of being imbayed. It continued to move off, with its head +above water, and with the wind for about half a mile, before we +lost sight of it.—Its head was rather broad, of a form somewhat +oval. Its neck somewhat smaller. Its shoulders, if I can so term +them, considerably broader, and thence it tapered towards the tail, +which last it kept pretty low in the water, so that a view of it +could not be taken so distinctly as I wished. It had no fin that +I could perceive, and seemed to me to move progressively by +undulation up and down. Its length I believed to be from 70 to +80 feet; when nearest to me, it did not raise its head wholly +above water, so that the neck being under water, I could perceive +no shining filaments thereon, if it had any. Its progressive motion +under water I took to be rapid, from the shortness of the time +it took to come up to the boat. When the head was above water, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page152">[152]</span>its motion was not near so quick; and when the head was most +elevated it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects.</p> + +<p class="center">“I remain, Sir, &c.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“<span class="smcap">Donald Maclean.</span>”</span></p> + +<p>To understand well what Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> meant with “shining +filaments” which he did <i>not</i> see, I must return to the “Animal +of Stronsa”, the putrified body of a large basking shark. My readers +will remember that the putrified dorsal fins of that shark resembled +bristles, which were transparent, and gave light in the dark (<a href="#Page61">p. 61</a>). +Evidently the Secretary of the Wernerian Society writing to Mr. +<span class="smcap">Maclean</span>, asked him to give a full description of the animal seen +by him near “the coast of Eigg”, and whether he saw on its back +“shining filaments” or not. Of course, Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> did not see them!</p> + +<p>For the first time it is mentioned by an eye-witness that the +shoulders were visible. Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> adds: “if I can so term +them”. This is very remarkable, for we may safely take it for +granted, that he, like all other persons, believed to see a sea-snake, +or serpentine animal, and yet, though he could not know, +that it has flappers, and probably would not have believed it, when +it was told him, he has distinctly seen that the animal at once +became much broader behind its long neck.</p> + +<p>The animal plunged violently under water. When Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> +had reached his safe position he saw the animal swimming rapidly +under water towards his boat. We must suppose that it swam so +near the surface, though under water and invisible, that the surface +rippled, and a wake was formed by the motion of the animal. +The animal coming in shallow water, turned immediately and swam +away. Once it did not raise its head quite above water, so that +the neck was under water. When the head was most elevated, it +appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects. These five +habits as yet new to us, will be observed and reported several +times afterwards. The other statements of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> are all +mere repetitions of so often mentioned peculiarities.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report32"><span class="reportnr"><b>32</b></span>.—1808 June.—In the same letter we read:</p> + +<p>“About the time I saw it, it was seen about the Isle of Canna. +The crew of thirteen fishing boats, I am told, were so much +terrified at its appearance, that they in a body fled from it to the +nearest creek for safety. On the passage from Rum to Canna the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page153">[153]</span>crew of one boat saw it coming towards them, with the wind, +and its head high above water. One of the crew pronounced its +head as large as a little boat, and each of its eyes as large as a +plate. The men were much terrified, but the monster offered them +no molestation.—From those who saw it, I could get no interesting +particulars additional to those above mentioned.”</p> + +<p>The dimensions given to the head and eye may be exaggerated. +It is remarkable that the animal is so often coming in the neighbourhood +of a boat, and is yet perfectly harmless. This confirms +my supposition expressed above that the animal is sometimes very +inquisitive. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> would say “it thought to see the other +sex, for it was pairing time!”</p> + +<p>The whole letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> to the Secretary of the +Wernerian Society is reprinted in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> <i>Amphibious +Carnivora</i> (a volume of <span class="smcap">Jardine’s</span> <i>Naturalist’s Library</i>), 1839, +without any remark or explanation.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report33"><span class="reportnr"><b>33</b></span>.—1810?—Sir <span class="smcap">Walter Scott</span> in the Notes to <i>The Pirate</i> +says, according to Mr. <span class="smcap">Ashton</span> (<i>Curious Creatures in Zoology</i>, 1889):</p> + +<p>“The author knew a mariner, of some reputation in his class, +vouch for having seen the celebrated Sea-Serpent. It appeared as +far as could be guessed, to be about a hundred feet long, with +the wild mane and fiery eyes which old writers ascribe to the +monster.”</p> + +<p>I am convinced that the adjectives “wild” and “fiery” and the +phrase “which old writers ascribe to the monster” are no additions +made by the mariner, who simply may have told that the sea-serpent +seen by him was about a hundred feet long, had a mane +like a horse, or resembling sea-weed, and had red eyes. Unluckily +neither the date, nor the locality is mentioned. The date cannot +be far back from 1820; so I have chosen 1810, but of the locality +of course nothing can be guessed.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report34"><span class="reportnr"><a id="Report35"></a><b>34</b></span>, +<span class="reportnr"><b>35</b></span>.—1815, June 20 and 21.—In the <i>Report of a +Committee</i>, of 1817, we read that this Committee wrote a letter +to Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Davis</span>, of Plymouth, requesting him to examine +upon oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the +appearance of the animal in 1815. This letter runs as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page154">[154]</span></p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Boston, September 1, 1817.</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Sir”,</span></p> + +<p>“At a meeting of the Linnaean Society of the 18th. ult., the +subscribers there appointed a Committee for the purpose of collecting +any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal, +denominated a <i>Sea Serpent</i>, reported to have been recently seen +in and near the Harbour of Gloucester. The Committee have procured +evidence from Gloucester, which they are preparing to report +to the Society, and this evidence is of such a character, that they +have thought it expedient to extend their inquiry to other reported +appearances of a similar nature on our coasts. An appearance of +this sort is mentioned as having been noticed by some persons at +Plymouth two or three years since. We would ask your assistence +in procuring the evidence on this subject.</p> + +<p>“Your connection with the Society seems to authorize the request +for your assistence in having the evidence on this subject, which +may exist at Plymouth, properly taken and transmitted; but separately +from any such claim, we know your habitual readiness to +aid in any investigation in natural science. This subject is now of +general interest among us, and will probably be so abroad. Any +cooperation which you may wish from magistrates and intelligent +gentlemen at Plymouth, we doubt not will be readily afforded +you. We shall suspend our final report to the Society, until your +communication shall be received.”</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Yours respectfully and</span><br> +<span class="padl15">with esteem</span></p> + +<table class="committee"> + +<tr> +<td class="name">“John Davis</td> +<td rowspan="3" class="brace bt br bb"> </td> +<td rowspan="3" class="brace">-</td> +<td rowspan="3" class="left">Committee.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="name">“Jacob Bigelow</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="name">“Francis C. Gray</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p>The answer was as follows:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Gentlemen.”</span></p> + +<p>“Inclosed is the deposition duly authenticated of Capt. E. Finney +of this town, descriptive of an unusual animal, which was seen +by him in the outer harbour of Plymouth, in June 1815. Capt. +Finney lives a few miles from town, and is much engaged in +business, which must apologize for the delay that has followed, +since the receipt of your letter of the first of September. His deposition +is impartial and unbiassed—and agrees uniformly with +his first declarations in 1815—besides he has not read, whatever +he may have heard, of the Cape Ann descriptions; he has been +<span class="pagenum" id="Page155">[155]</span>from his youth accustomed to a seafaring life—in the fishing +employ, and in foreign voyages—has frequently seen whales, and +almost every species of fish.”</p> + +<p>“The drawing on the other page (made by me) I have shewn +to Capt. Finney, who says it illustrates his conceptions on the +subject exactly. All your questions were asked him, and when his +replies are negative, such as gills, breathing holes, &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 <i>wake</i> made in the water by the passage of the fish.—As +to the point of time, it must have been from known data +between the 18th. and 25th. of June. And I would remark, that +this is exactly the season when the first setting in of mackerel +occurs in our bay.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Yours respectfully”</span><br> +<span class="padr4">“S. Davis.”</span></p> + +<p>And the deposition of Captain <span class="smcap">Finney</span> as follows:</p> + +<p>“I, Elkanah Finney of Plymouth, in the county of Plymouth, +Mariner, testify and say: That about the twentieth of June, A. D. +1815, being at work near my house, which is situated near the +sea-shore in Plymouth, at a place called Warren’s cove, where the +beach joins the main land; my son, a boy, came from the shore +and informed me of an unusual appearance on the surface of the +sea in the cove. I paid little attention to his story at first; but +as he persisted in saying that he had seen something very remarkable, +I looked towards the cove, where I saw something which +appeared to the naked eye to be a drift sea-weed. I then viewed +it through a perspective glass, and was in a moment satisfied that +it was some aquatic animal, with the form, motion, and appearance +of which I had hitherto been unacquainted. It was about a +quarter of a mile from the shore, and was moving with great +rapidity to the northward. It then appeared to be about thirty +feet in length; the animal went about half a mile to the northward; +then turned about, and while turning, displayed a greater +length than I had before seen; I supposed at least a hundred feet. +It then came towards me, in a southerly direction, very rapidly, +until he was in a line with me, when he stopped, and lay entirely +still on the surface of the water. I then had a good view of him +through my glass, at the distance of a quarter of a mile. His appearance +<span class="pagenum" id="Page156">[156]</span>in this situation was like a string of buoys. I saw perhaps +thirty or forty of these protuberances or bunches, which were about +the size of a barrel. The head appeared to be about six or eight +feet long, and where it was connected with the body was a little +larger than the body. His head tapered off to the size of a horse’s +head. I could not discern any mouth. But what I supposed to be +his under jaw had a white stripe extending the whole length of +the head, just above the water. While he lay in this situation, +he appeared to be about a hundred or a hundred and twenty feet +long. The body appeared to be of a uniform size. I saw no part +of the animal which I supposed to be a tail. I therefore thought +he did not discover to me his whole length. His colour was a deep +brown or black. I could not discover any eyes, mane, gills, or +breathing holes. I did not see any fins or legs. The animal did +not utter any sound, and it did not appear to notice any thing. +It remained still and motionless for five minutes or more. The wind +was light with a clear sky, and the water quite smooth. He then +moved to the southward; but not with so rapid a motion as I +had observed before. He was soon out of my sight. The next +morning I rose very early to discover him. There was a fresh +breeze from the south, which subsided about eight o’clock. It then +became quite calm, when I again saw the animal about a mile to +the northward of my house, down the beach. He did not display +so great a length as the night before, perhaps not more than +twenty or thirty feet. He often disappeared, and was gone five or +ten minutes under water. I thought he was diving or fishing for +his food. He remained in nearly the same situation, and thus +employed for two hours. I then saw him moving off, in a northeast +direction, towards the light house. I could not determine whether +its motion was up and down, or to the right and left. His quickest +motion was very rapid; I should suppose at the rate of fifteen +or twenty miles an hour. Mackerel, manhaden, herring, and other +bait fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Elkanah Finney.”</span></p> + +<p>“<i>Plymouth</i> ss. October 2, 1817. The above named Elkanah +Finney appeared and made oath to the truth of the foregoing +statement, by him subscribed, before me</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”</span></p> + +<p>In vain have I tried to get a look at the above mentioned “first +declarations in 1815”.</p> + +<p>Though the Committee now possessed the long wished-for drawing +<span class="pagenum" id="Page157">[157]</span>of the Sea-Serpent, it did not publish it, nor did it state why it +did not. The “questions” of which Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> writes will be +presented to our readers hereafter. We see that the animal may +remain quite still on the surface of the water, keeping, however, +its coils, or joints, or bunches. It was a large individual. Its head +seemed to be from 6 to 8 feet, its whole length far above one +hundred and twenty feet. “Its head was a little larger than the +body”, we must of course read: “Its head was a little broader +than the neck”. It had a white stripe extending over the whole +length of the head, just above the water, in the place where the +underjaw must have been. We may look upon all the statements +of Capt. <span class="smcap">Finney</span>, as to the animal’s colour, dimensions, motions, +&c. as quite correct: he was a man too well acquainted with the +different sea-animals, to be mistaken in any observation. Moreover, +all his statements will soon and successively be repeated over and +over again, till there remains not a shadow of doubt of their +truth, which, in my opinion, is now already the case.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report36"><span class="reportnr"><b>36</b></span>.—1816?—In the “<i>Voyages</i>” of the well known <span class="smcap">Otto +von Kotzebue</span>, which appeared in Weimar in 1821, translated +into English, in London, 1821, and into Dutch, in Amsterdam, +1822, we read that on the Isle of Unalaska, one of Aleutes, he +had made the acquaintance of a Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span>, living there since +1795, and being Agent of the American Company. <span class="smcap">Von Kotzebue</span> +writes:</p> + +<p>“Mr. Kriukof’s description of a sea animal which pursued him +at Behring’s Island, where he had gone for the purpose of hunting, +is very remarkable. Several Aleutians affirm they have often seen +this animal. It is of the shape of the Red serpent, and immensely +long; the head resembles that of the sea-lion, and two disproportionately +large eyes give it a frightful appearance. “It was very +fortunate for us” said Kriukof, “that we were so near land, or +else the monster would have swallowed us: it stretched its head +far above the water, looked about for prey, and vanished. The +head soon appeared again, and that considerably nearer: we rowed +with all our might, and were very happy to have reached the +shore before the serpent. The sea-lions were so terrified at the +sight, that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves +on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of flesh which, according +<span class="pagenum" id="Page158">[158]</span>to opinion, is that of this serpent, which no animal, not +even the raven, will touch. Some Aleutians, who had once tasted +some of it, suddenly died.”</p> + +<p>This passage was told by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span> to von <span class="smcap">Kotzebue</span> in +Aug. 1817. So we have taken 1816 as the year of the appearance, +though it may have happened earlier. When Mr. <span class="smcap">Von Kotzebue</span> +wrote his book in 1820, he had already heard of the Sea-Serpent, +which appeared in 1817 in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., and +so he adds:</p> + +<p>“If a sea-serpent really has been seen on the coast of North-America, +it may have been one of this frightful species.”</p> + +<p>What now are the most interesting parts of this notice? First +of all that the Sea-Serpent is a common visitor of the Northern +South-Sea, for the Aleutians affirmed that they often saw it. But +the description of the head claims our close attention. We already +said that the animal must have a hairy skin, for it has a mane, +and those persons who saw it very closely confirm this. The head +has already been twice described as resembling that of a seal, and +afterwards we shall meet again with such a description; generally, +however, it is said to resemble that of a snake, or a serpent, and +sometimes to be sharp. What head combines these characters? I +say the head of a sea-lion. It resembles more or less that of a +seal, and seen from aside, more or less that of a snake, is rather +pointed, because a sea-lion has not such formidable upper lips as +seals have, and rather blunt. Why has nobody given this description? +I say, because nobody among the eye-witnesses ever saw a +sea-lion, neither the Norwegian, nor the many eye-witnesses of +Massachusetts, nor even afterwards the other witnesses. The only +one who could make this comparison was Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span>, and the +Aleutians, who live surrounded by these animals. The sea-lion’s +head is rather blunt, rather pointed, rather long, and flattened +on the forehead, has also some whiskers, which are also attributed +to sea-serpents by eye-witnesses in Norway, according to <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, +and afterwards again by a person who saw it at a few yards’ +distance from him.</p> + +<p>Moreover <span class="smcap">Kriukof’s</span> comparison with the Red Snake, a species +evidently known to him, the disproportionate large eyes, the habit +of the animal to stretch its long neck far above the surface of the +water, apparently to look about for prey, to follow a boat at some +distance, it being supposed to be inquisitive, though harmless, are +all statements we have already met with or will meet with afterwards. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page159">[159]</span>It seems that sea-lions too often become the prey of the +sea-serpent, otherwise these creatures would not have been so afraid +of it.</p> + +<p>As to the pieces of flesh, I am convinced that they are not of +a sea-serpent, but either of sea-lions, of porpoises, or of another +smaller kind of whales, which are the rests of a meal of our +friend. They are washed ashore in a putrified state, and their not +being to the taste of the ravens is probably a story, which, like +the report of the death of the Aleutians who had tasted of it, +must without doubt be considered as a mere fable. This report is +reprinted in the <i>Magazine and Journal</i>, Vol. LVIII, 1821.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Ref3">“In the month of August, 1817,” we read in the <i>Report of a +Committee</i>, &c. printed Dec. 1817, Boston, by <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> and +<span class="smcap">Hillard</span>,</p> + +<p>“In the month of August, 1817, it was currently reported on +various authorities, that an animal of very singular appearance had +been recently and repeatedly seen in the harbour of Gloucester, +Cape Ann, about thirty miles distant from Boston. It was said to +resemble a serpent in its general form and motions, to be of immense +size, and to move with wonderful rapidity; to appear on +the surface of the water only in calm and bright weather; and to +seem jointed, or like a number of buoys or casks following each +other in a line.”</p> + +<p>“In consequence of these reports, at a meeting of the Linnaean +Society of New England, holden at Boston on the 18th. day of +August, the Hon. John Davis, Jacob Bigelow, M. D. and Francis +C. Gray, Esq. were appointed a Committee to collect evidence with +regard to the existence and appearance of any such animal. The +following report made by that Committee is now published by +order of the Society.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Linnaean Society of New England.”</span></p> + +<p>“The Committee appointed on the 18th. of August last to collect +evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of a Sea-Serpent, +said to have been recently seen in the harbour of Gloucester, +now lay before the Society the following facts and documents.”</p> + +<p>“On the 19th. of August your Committee wrote to the Hon. +Lonson Nash of Gloucester, requesting him to examine upon oath +<span class="pagenum" id="Page160">[160]</span>some of the inhabitants of that town with regard to the appearance +of this animal, to make the examination as early as possible, to +request the persons examined not to communicate to each other +the substance of their respective statements, until they were all +committed to writing; to have these statements signed and certified +in due form, and sent to us. Our letter also contained certain rules +with regard to the mode of conducting this examination, and +questions to be put to the persons examined.”</p> + +<p>“In answer to it we received from Mr. Nash a letter, dated +28th. August, enclosing eight depositions, duly certified, which on +the 1st. September were read before the Society as were also three +depositions taken in Boston, on the 30th. August and 1st. September. +You directed us to return your thanks to Mr. Nash for +his readiness in complying with our request, to continue the investigation +of the subject committed to us, in such manner as we +should deem expedient, and to lay before you a formal report of +the whole evidence that should be procured. In compliance with +your directions, the chairman of the Committee wrote again to +Mr. Nash on the 2d. September, and received from him an answer, +dated 9th. September. We also wrote to Mr. Samuel Davis of +Plymouth on the 1st. September, requesting him to examine upon +oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance +of an animal said to have been seen there in the year +1815, and to resemble the one lately seen near Gloucester; this +letter contained the same rules and questions as were sent to Mr. +Nash. In answer to this application, a letter from that gentleman +was received on the 4th. October, enclosing the deposition of Capt. +E. Finney. Your Committee have also received a communication +from the Rev. William Jenks of Bath relative to the subject. All +these documents are now laid before you in the following order.”</p> + +<table class="reportorder"> + +<colgroup> +<col class="wauto"> +<col class="w15em"> +<col span="3" class="wauto"> +</colgroup> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“1.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The rules and questions of your Committee.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“2.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The letter from Mr. Nash of 28th August, enclosing the eight following depositions.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“3.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The deposition of Amos Story.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“4.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of Salomon Allen.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“5.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of Eppes Ellery.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“6.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of William H. Foster.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“7.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of Matthew Gaffney.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“8.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of James Mansfield.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“9.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of John Johnston.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“10.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">That of William B. Pearson.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“11.</td> +<td class="text">The deposition of Sewall Toppan<span class="pagenum" id="Page161">[161]</span></td> +<td rowspan="3" class="brace bt br bb"> </td> +<td rowspan="3" class="brace">-</td> +<td rowspan="3" class="midheight dontwrap">taken at Boston.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“12.</td> +<td class="text">That of Robert Bragg</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“13.</td> +<td class="text">That of William Somerby</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“14.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The letter from our Chairman to Mr. Nash.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“15.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The answer of Mr. Nash.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“16.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">Our letter to Mr. S. Davis of Plymouth.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“17.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">His answer, containing</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“18.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The deposition of Elkanah Finney.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“19.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">The letter from the Rev. William Jenks to your Committee.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="counter">“20.</td> +<td colspan="4" class="text">Is an account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in the North Sea, extracted from the history of Norway, +written by the Right Rev. Erich Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in the year 1751.</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<h3>I.</h3> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Boston, Aug. 19, 1817.</span></p> + +<p>“The Committee appointed by the Linnaean Society, at their +meeting on the 18th. inst. for the purpose of collecting any +evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal, denominated +a <i>Sea Serpent</i>, reported to have recently been seen in and +near the harbour of <i>Cape Ann</i>, have concluded on the following +method of proceeding in the execution of their commission.”</p> + +<p>“I. The examination to be confined to persons professing actually +to have seen the animal in question.</p> + +<p>“II. Such persons to be examined as may be met with by either +of the Committee, or by Hon. Lonson Nash of Gloucester, who is +to be requested by a letter addressed to him from the Committee +to undertake this service.”</p> + +<p>“III. All testimony on the subject to be taken in writing, and +after being deliberately read to the person testifying, to be signed +by him, and sworn before a magistrate. The examinations to be +separate, and the matter testified by any witness not to be communicated +until the whole evidence be taken.”</p> + +<p>“IV. The persons testifying to be requested first to relate their +recollections on the subject, which being taken down, the following +questions to be proposed, if not rendered unnecessary by the +statement given.”</p> + +<h4>“Questions.”</h4> + +<p> “1. When did you first see this animal?”</p> + +<p> “2. How often and how long at a time?”</p> + +<p> “3. At what times of the day?”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page162">[162]</span></p> + +<p> “4. At what distance?”</p> + +<p> “5. How near the shore?”</p> + +<p> “6. What was its general appearance?”</p> + +<p> “7. Was it in motion or at rest?”</p> + +<p> “8. How fast did it move, and in what direction?”</p> + +<p> “9. What parts of it were above the water and how high?”</p> + +<p>“10. Did it appear jointed or only serpentine?”</p> + +<p>“11. If serpentine, were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p> + +<p>“12. How many distinct portions were out of water at one time?”</p> + +<p>“13. What were its colour, length and thickness?”</p> + +<p>“14. Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p> + +<p>“15. What were the size and shape of its head, and had the +head ears, horns, or other appendages?”</p> + +<p>“16. Describe its eyes and mouth.”</p> + +<p>“17. Had it gills or breathing holes, and where?”</p> + +<p>“18. Had it fins or legs, and where?”</p> + +<p>“19. Had it a mane or hairs, and where?”</p> + +<p>“20. How did its tail terminate?”</p> + +<p>“21. Did it utter any sound?”</p> + +<p>“22. Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice any thing?”</p> + +<p>“23. Did you see more than one?”</p> + +<p>“24. How many persons saw it?”</p> + +<p>“25. State any other remarkable fact.”</p> + +<h3>II.</h3> + +<p class="right">“Gloucester, August 28, 1817.”</p> + +<table class="reportorder"> + +<tr> +<td class="text"><span class="padl2">“John Davis,</span></td> +<td rowspan="3" class="brace bt br bb"> </td> +<td rowspan="3" class="brace">-</td> +<td rowspan="3" class="text midheight">Esq’rs.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="text"><span class="padl2">“Jacob Bigelow, and</span></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="text"><span class="padl2">“Francis C. Gray</span></td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl8">“Gentlemen,</span></p> + +<p>“I have received your favour of the 19th. inst. In that communication +you request my assistance, in collecting evidence relative +to a strange marine animal, that has appeared in the harbour in +this place; and I have most cheerfully complied with your request. +The subject is calculated to excite much interest, at home and abroad.”</p> + +<p>“The deponents were interrogated separately, no one knowing +what the others had testified, and though they differ in some few +particulars, still, for the most part, they agree.”</p> + +<p>“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is +mistaken, as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical. +I saw him, on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should +<span class="pagenum" id="Page163">[163]</span>judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when the +nearest. I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and at +other times, with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not +take in the two extremities of the animal that were visible, <i>at one +view</i>, with a glass. His manner of turning is well described in +Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions. The persons who have +deposed before me, are men of fair and unblemished characters. +The interrogatories that you sent to me were all put to the witnesses; +but generally, I have omitted inserting them in the depositions, +when the witnesses declared their inability to answer them.”</p> + +<p>“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken, as to the distinct +portions of the animal that were visible, at one time. I saw, at +no time, more than eight distinct portions; though more may have +been visible; still, I cannot believe that <i>fifty</i> distinct portions were +seen, at one time. I believe the animal to be straight, and that, +the apparent bunches were caused by his vertical motion.”</p> + +<p>“I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat with +his brother Matthew, when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s +answers corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”</p> + +<p class="center">“Respectfully, gentlemen,<br> +<span class="padl20">“Your most ob’t</span></p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Lonson Nash.”</span></p> + +<p>We observe that the Linnaean Society has exerted all its energies +in the matter and has acted with the greatest accuracy. In our +historical treatice we, however, have not followed the above order, +but arranged the depositions chronologically.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report37"><span class="reportnr"><b>37</b></span>.—1817, August 6?—In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span>, +dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span> in Paris, +preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and +which we shall hereafter present to our readers <i>in toto</i>, we read:</p> + +<p>“About a fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance +of the Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster +come into the Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake, +was of great length, &c.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report38"><span class="reportnr"><b>38</b></span>.—1817, August, 10.—(See the <a href="#Ref3"><i>Report</i></a> of 1817).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page164">[164]</span></p> + +<p>“I, Amos Story of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, mariner, +depose and say, that on the tenth day of August A. D. 1817, +I saw a strange marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, at +the southward and eastward of Ten Pound Island, in the harbour +in said Gloucester. It was between the hours of twelve and one +o’clock when I first saw him, and he continued in sight for an +hour and half. I was setting on the shore, and was about twenty +rods from him when he was the nearest to me. His head appeared +shaped much like the head of a sea turtle, and he carried his head +from ten to twelve inches above the surface of the water. His head +at that distance appeared larger than the head of any dog that I +ever saw. From the back part of his head to the next part of him +that was visible, I should judge to be three or four feet. He moved +very rapidly through the water, I should say a mile in two, or +at most, in three minutes. I saw no bunches on his back. On this +day, I did not see more than ten or twelve feet of his body.”</p> + +<p>Though Mr. <span class="smcap">Story</span> compares the animal’s head with that of a +sea-turtle, probably because he saw it in such a direction that it +seemed short and thick; his statement that it carried its head a +foot above the water, and that it was larger than that of any dog +at a distance of twenty rods,—the head may even have been of +about two feet—, that its motion was rapid, are all mere repetitions +of facts well known to us. He did not see bunches on its +back, the animal consequently swam with its body in a straight +line, a habit we have also already met with. Just behind the head +a part of the neck of about four feet was hidden under water, +and then twelve feet of the animal’s body were visible again.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report39"><span class="reportnr"><b>39</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><b>40</b><a id="Report40"></a></span>, +<span class="reportnr"><b>41</b><a id="Report41"></a></span>.—1817, August 12, 13, 14.—(See the +<a href="#Ref3"><i>Report</i></a>, printed in 1817).</p> + +<p>“I, Solomon Allen 3d. of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, +shipmaster, depose and say; that I have seen a strange marine +animal, that I believe to be a sea-serpent, in the harbour in said +Gloucester. I should judge him to be between eighty and ninety +feet in length, and about the size of a half barrel, apparently having +joints from his head to his tail. I was about one hundred and fifty +yards from him, when I judged him to be of the size of a half +barrel. His head formed something like the head of the rattle snake, +but nearly as large as the head of a horse. When he moved on +<span class="pagenum" id="Page165">[165]</span>the surface of the water, his motion was slow, at times playing +about in circles, and sometimes moving nearly straight forward. +When he disappeared, he sunk apparently directly down, and +would next appear at two hundred yards from where he disappeared, +in two minutes. His colour was a dark brown, and I did not +discover any spots upon him.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Question.</i> When did you first see this animal?”</p> + +<p>“<i>Answer.</i> I saw him on the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth +of August, A. D. 1817.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How often, and how long at a time?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I was in a boat on the twelfth inst. and was around him +several times, within one hundred and fifty yards of him. On the +thirteenth inst. I saw him nearly all the day, from the shore. I +was on the beach, nearly on a level with him, and most of the +time he was from one hundred and fifty to three hundred yards +from me. On the fourteenth, I saw him but once, and had not +so good a view of him.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> What parts of it were above the surface if the water, and +how high?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Its joints or bunches, appeared about eight or ten inches +above the surface of the water.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it bend its body up and down in moving, or to the +right and left?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He moved to the right and left.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many distinct portions of it were out of the water, +at one time?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I should say fifty distinct portions.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared rough and scaly.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Had it ears, horns, or any other appendages?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I perceived none.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How did its tail terminate?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He seemed to taper towards (what I thought) his tail, +though I had no distinct view of his tail.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it utter any sound?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Not in my hearing.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared to me to avoid the boat where I was, though +afterwards, I saw him make towards a boat, in which was Mr. +Gaffney and others.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did you see more than one?”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page166">[166]</span></p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I did not.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many persons saw it?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Twenty or thirty persons were in view of me.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he open his mouth when you saw him, and if so, +how wide?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Yes, when I looked at him from the shore with a glass at +about two hundred yards distance, his mouth appeared to be open +about ten inches. I had no glass, when I saw him from the boat.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he carry his head above the surface of the water?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Yes, at times, about two feet, then again he would carry +the top of his head just on the surface of the water.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he turn short and quick, and what was the form of +the curve that he made?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He turned short and quick, and the first part of the curve +that he made in turning resembled the link of a chain; but when +his head came parallel with his tail, his head and tail appeared +near together.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Solomon Allen 3d.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex, ss. August 21, 1817. Personally appeared Solomon Allen +the third, and made oath that the foregoing facts by him subscribed, +are true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p> + +<p>As we have already seen, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> wrote in his letter +to the Committee:</p> + +<p>“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is +mistaken, as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical.” And:</p> + +<p>“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken as to the distinct portions +of the animal, that were visible, at one time. I saw at no +time more than eight distinct portions; though more may have been +visible; still I cannot believe that <i>fifty</i> distinct portions were seen +at one time.”</p> + +<p>As to the motion of the animal I believe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen</span> was +really mistaken. When the animal was nearest to him, there was +still a distance of a hundred and fifty yards between Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen</span> +and the animal. As to the number of the bunches which Mr. +<span class="smcap">Allen</span> reports, viz. fifty, I believe that he has not <i>counted</i> them; +he says: I should say fifty. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> tells us that the greatest +number ever seen was twenty-five, and I believe that this is indeed +the case.</p> + +<p>Moreover its length of from eighty to ninety feet, the size of +the visible part to be that of a half barrel, the resemblance of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page167">[167]</span>the head to a rattle-snake’s, say a common snake’s, the size of it +to be that of a horse’s, say two feet, &c., &c., are all common +statements. Of course Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen</span> is also mistaken as to its scaly +surface. The roughness, however, may have been the result of the +rippling of the water. When the animal disappeared it sunk directly +down, like a rock, a statement which we have met with and shall +meet with several times. That the teeth of the animal were not +visible at a distance of two hundred yards cannot surprise us. In +the animal’s turning its flexibility again is mentioned: head and +tail approaching, nay, nearly touching each other.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report41A"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—See also <a href="#Report41">no 41</a> on p. 164.—(<i>Report +of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p> + +<p>“I, Epes Ellery, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, shipmaster, +depose and say; that on the 14th. day of August, 1817, I saw +a sea animal that I thought to be a serpent, in the harbour in +said Gloucester. I was on an eminence, near low water mark, and +about thirty feet above the level of the sea, when I saw him. I +should judge that he was about one hundred and fifty fathoms +from me. I saw the upper part of his head, and I should say +about forty feet of the animal. He appeared to me to have joints, +about the size of a two-gallon keg. I was looking at him with a +spy-glass, when I saw him open his mouth, and his mouth appeared +like that of a serpent; the top of his head appeared flat. His motion +when he turned was quick, but I will not express an opinion +of his velocity. The first part of the curve that he made in turning +was of the form of a staple, and as he approached towards +his tail, he came near his body with his head, and then ran +parallel with his tail, and his head and tail then appeared together.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> At what time of the day did you see him?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> It was a little after sun set.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> What parts of it were above the surface of the water, and +how high?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I did not count the number of bunches, but they appeared +about six inches above the surface of the water.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Vertical.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> It did not appear to avoid any thing. He appeared to be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page168">[168]</span>amusing himself, though there were several boats not far from him.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did you see more than one?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I did not.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many persons saw it?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> There were fifteen or twenty persons near where I was.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Epes Ellery.”</span></p> + +<p>Essex ss. August, 25, 1817. Personally appeared Epes Ellery, +and made oath to the truth of the foregoing facts by him subscribed.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p> + +<p>Not a single fact which has not been stated before.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report41B"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—(See also <a href="#Report41">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a> on p. 164 and +<a href="#Report41A">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a> on <a href="#Page167">p. 167</a>.)—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p> + +<p>“I, William H. Foster, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, +merchant, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, +A. D. 1817, I first saw an uncommon sea-animal, that I believe +to have been a serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. When +I first discovered him, his head was above the surface of the water, +perhaps ten inches, and he made but little progress through the +water. He was apparently shaded with light colours. He afterwards +went in different directions, leaving on the surface of the water, +marks like those made by skating on the ice. Then he would +move in a straight line west, and would almost in an instant, +change his course to east, bringing his head, as near as I could +judge, to where his tail was; or in fact, to the extreme hinder +part visible, raising himself as he turned, six or eight inches out +of water, and shewing a body at least forty feet in length.”</p> + +<p>Its being shaded with light colours is already mentioned by +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>. Its leaving a wake behind it has already been stated +many times, and will often be stated afterwards. Also its mode +of turning, giving to its body the form of a staple.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report41C"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—(See also <a href="#Report41">n°. 41</a> +on p. 164, <a href="#Report41A">p. 167</a>, <a href="#Report41B">p. 168</a>.)—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817.).</p> + +<p>“I, Matthew Gaffney, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, +ship carpenter, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of +August, A. D. 1817, between the hours of four and five o’clock +<span class="pagenum" id="Page169">[169]</span>in the afternoon, I saw a strange marine animal, resembling a +serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. I was in a boat, and +was within thirty feet of him. His head appeared full as large as +a four-gallon keg, his body as large as a barrel, and his length +that I saw, I should judge forty feet at least. The top of his head +was of a dark colour, and the under part of his head appeared +nearly white, as did also several feet of his belly, that I saw. I +supposed and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly +white. I fired at him, when he was the nearest to me. I had a +good gun, and took good aim. I aimed at his head, and think I +must have hit him. He turned towards us immediately after I had +fired, and I thought he was coming at us: but he sunk down +and went directly under our boat, and made his appearance at +about one hundred yards from where he sunk. He did not turn +down like a fish, but appeared to settle directly down, like a +rock. My gun carries a ball of eighteen to a pound; and I suppose +there is no person in town, more accustomed to shooting than I +am. I have seen the animal at several other times, but never had +so good a view of him, as on this day. His motion was vertical, +like a caterpillar.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How fast did it move?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I should say he moved at the rate of a mile in two, or +at most three minutes.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought it smooth, when I was endeavouring to take +aim at him, and will not say positively, that he was smooth, +though that is still my belief.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Does he turn quick and short, and if so, what is the form +of path that he makes, in turning?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He turns quick and short, and the first part of the curve +that he makes in turning, is in the form of the staple; but his +head seems to approach rapidly towards his body, his head and +tail moving in opposite directions, and when his head and tail +came parallel, they appear almost to touch each other.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he appear more shy, after you had fired at him?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He did not; but continued playing as before.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Who was in the boat with you, when you fired at the +serpent?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> My brother Daniel, and Augustin M. Webber.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Matthew Gaffney.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex, ss. August 28, 1817. Then Matthew Gaffney made oath +<span class="pagenum" id="Page170">[170]</span>that the foregoing, by him subscribed, is true according to his +best knowledge and belief.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace”</span></p> + +<p>As we have already seen Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> in his letter to the +Committee wrote:</p> + +<p>“His manner of turning is well described in Mr. Gaffney’s description...... +I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the +boat with his brother Matthew when he fired at the animal, and +Daniel’s answer corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”</p> + +<p>We read here that the underpart of the head appeared almost +white, and several feet of its belly too (read of the underpart of +its neck, or of its throat). Further Mr. <span class="smcap">Gaffney</span> goes on: “I supposed +and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white”. +This is very remarkable, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Gaffney</span> seems to be familiar +with sea-animals, as porpoises, &c., and a very good observer, +and his conclusion is quite right from a zoological point of view. +Very remarkable is the animal’s demeanor after the shot. Apparently +furious, it directed itself suddenly to the shooter, but when +very near to him, it sank down like a rock and appeared again +far away. This manner of acting will afterwards be described again +in Norway. Again its manner of disappearing is described as sinking +like a rock. The mode of turning too is just the same as is mentioned +every where.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report41D"><span class="reportnr"><b>41</b></span>.—1817, August 14.—(See +also <a href="#Report41">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a> on p. 164, <a href="#Report41A">p. +167</a>, <a href="#Report41B">p. 168</a>, <a href="#Report41C">p. 168</a>.) (<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817.)</p> + +<p>We read in the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> to the Committee +that he himself saw the animal:</p> + +<p>“I saw him on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I +should judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when +the nearest. I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and +at other times, with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not +take in the two extremities of the animal, that were visible, at +one view with a glass...... His motion is vertical..... His +manner of turning is well described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s +descriptions..... I saw, at no time, more than eight distinct +portions; though more may have been visible..... I believe the +animal to be straight, and that the apparent bunches were caused +by his vertical motion.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page171">[171]</span></p> + +<p>The Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Davis</span> immediately +wrote to Mr. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> the following letter:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Boston, September 2, 1817.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl15">“Sir”,</span></p> + +<p>“Your letter of the 28th. ult. to the Committee of the Linnaean +Society, and the accompanying depositions, were duly received, +and were yesterday communicated to the Society. The Committee +are greatly obliged to you for your ready compliance with their +request. In these sentiments the Society unite, and I am charged +with the agreeable office of communicating to you their vote of +thanks for your very acceptable labours. What you have thus accomplished +will go far in giving some precise and accurate conceptions +on a subject, peculiarly exposed to exaggeration and +mistake. This evidence, with some additional documents, will +probably be published. The Committee will not make their final +report on the subject of their Commission until evidence shall be +procured respecting some other reputed appearances of like description, +particularly one at Plymouth in 1815.”</p> + +<p>“We have been informed that the animal at Gloucester was +once seen, and it was said by a woman, lying dormant very near +the shore. The Committee wished this intimation to be given to +you, that if it should point to any material circumstances, the +evidence might be taken.”</p> + +<p>“The last we hear of the object of our inquiry is of his appearance +off East Point on the 28th. ult. This we gather from the +testimony of captain Toppan, and his crew, of the schooner Laura, +coming from Newburyport to Boston.”</p> + +<p>“It appears by your letter, that you had sight of the animal. +A letter from you, giving a detailed account of your observations, +would be particularly acceptable.”</p> + +<p>“We understand that a gentleman in Gloucester, (Captain Beach) +has a drawing, supposed to be a good representation of the animal. +Some information respecting this drawing would be agreeable; how +far it is considered by those who had the best view of the animal +as a correct representation, and whether the person possessing it +would be disposed to permit an engraving from it to be annexed +to the publication of the evidence, and on what terms. Yours very +respectfully,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Jno Davis.”</span></p> + +<p>“We have already read the report of the appearance of 1815 +(<a href="#Report34">n<sup>o</sup>. 34</a> and <a href="#Report35">35</a>); the intelligence of the encounter on the 28th. of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page172">[172]</span>August we will communicate afterwards (<a href="#Report48">n<sup>o</sup>. 48</a>). The answer of +Judge <span class="smcap">Nash</span>, omitting the intelligence about the animal reposing +on the rocks (this report has been discussed some pages further +on, <a href="#Report45">n<sup>o</sup>. 45</a>) runs as follows (See <a href="#Ref3"><i>Report of a Committee</i></a>, 1817):</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Gloucester, September 9, 1817.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl15">“Sir”,</span></p> + +<p>“Your favoured of the 2d. inst. has been received. The vote of +thanks of the Linnaean Society for my services was highly gratifying +to me, not simply on account of the high consideration I +entertain for the members of that laudable institution; but likewise +for the agreeable manner, and respectable channel, through which +their vote of thanks was communicated to me.”</p> + +<p>“You request a detailed account of my observations, relative to +the serpent. I saw him on the fourteenth ultimo, and when nearest, +I judged him to be about two hundred and fifty yards from +me. At that distance I judged him (in the largest part) about the +size of a half barrel, gradually tapering towards the two extremes. +Twice I saw him with a glass, only for a short time, and at +other times, with the naked eye, for nearly half an hour. His +colour appeared nearly black—his motion was vertical. When +he moved on the surface of the water, the track of his rear was +visible, for at least half a mile.”</p> + +<p>“His velocity, when moving on the surface of the water, I +judged was at the rate of a mile in about four minutes. When +immersed in the water, his speed was greater, moving, I should +say, at the rate of a mile in two or at most three minutes. When +moving under water, you could often trace him by the motion of +the water, on the surface, and from this circumstance, I conclude +he did not swim deep. He apparently went as straight through +the water, as you could draw a line. When he changed his course, +he diminished his velocity but little—the two extremes that were +visible appeared rapidly moving in opposite directions, and when +they came parallel, they appeared not more than a yard apart. +With a glass, I could not take in, at one view, the two extremes +of the animal, that were visible. I have looked at a vessel, at +about the same distance, and could distinctly see forty five feet. +If he should be taken, I have no doubt that his length will be +found seventy feet, at least, and I should not be surprised, if he +should be found one hundred feet long. When I saw him I was +standing on an eminence, on the sea shore, elevated about thirty +feet above the surface of the water, and the sea was smooth.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page173">[173]</span></p> + +<p>“If I saw his head, I could not distinguish it from his body; +though there were seafaring men near me, who said that they could +distinctly see his head. I believe they spoke truth; but not having +been much accustomed to look through a glass, I was not so fortunate.”</p> + +<p>“I never saw more than seven or eight distinct portions of him +above the water, at any one time, and he appeared rough; though +I supposed this appearance was produced by his motion. When +he disappeared, he apparently sunk directly down like a rock.”</p> + +<p>“Captain Beach has been in Boston for a week past, and I am +informed that he is still there. An engraving from his drawing of +the serpent has been, or is now, making at Boston, but I have +not been able to ascertain how far his drawing is thought a correct +representation.”</p> + +<p class="center">“Respectfully, Sir,<br> +<span class="padl8">Your most obedient,</span><br> +<span class="padl20">Lonson Nash.”</span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> says of this declaration (<i>Mem. Am. Acad. Arts +Sc.</i> Vol. IV. Pt. 1.)</p> + +<p>“The account of it by Lonson Nash Esq. Justice of the Peace +in Gloucester, from his own observation, is perfectly free from prejudice, +and as clear and satisfactory as can be expected of an +object at a distance of two hundred and fifty yards.”</p> + +<p>Remarkable in this testimony is again the considerable wake the +animal leaves behind it when swimming rapidly. Easy it is to +explain why the speed is greater under water than when partly +visible above the surface of the water. Those parts viz. which are +above the surface must be borne by the body hidden under water, +consequently this carries a burden, and the speed, it is evident, +cannot be so rapid as when the animal is quite under water, in +which position each part of the animal’s body is carried by the +water itself, and not by the individual. It has no burden to carry, +it is specifically lighter, and the speed can reach its maximum.—Remarkable +too is the fact that the animal, when swimming under +water, does so just below the surface, and causes the rippling of +it. This is a habit of Pinnipeds.</p> + +<p>Where Mr. Nash thinks that the apparent roughness is produced +by its motion, I am convinced that he is right. He could not +distinguish its head from its body, which cannot surprise us; both +are of the same thickness, when seen from aside, and I believe +too that the seafaring men, more accustomed to look with a glass, +distinctly saw the difference between head and neck. Moreover the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page174">[174]</span>mode of turning, its length of more than seventy feet, its sinking +down like a rock, when disappearing, need not be spoken of; +they were mere repetitions of former statements.</p> + +<p>I am sorry I have not been able to get a look at Mr. <span class="smcap">Beach’s</span> +figure.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report42"><span class="reportnr"><b>42</b></span>.—1817, August 15.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p> + +<p>“I, James Mansfield, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, +merchant, depose and say: That I saw a strange creature, of +enormous length, resembling a serpent. I think this was on the +15th. of August, A. D. 1817. I should say he was from forty to +sixty feet in length, extended on the surface of the water, with +his head above the water about a foot. He remained in this position +but a short time, and then started off very quick, with much +greater velocity than I have seen him move with at any other +time. I saw bunches on his back about a foot in height, when +he lay extended on the water. His colour appeared to me black +or very dark. It was a little before six o’clock P. M. when I saw +him. I should say, he moved a mile in five or six minutes.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How near the shore was the serpent?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> About one hundred and eighty yards from the shore where +I stood.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Vertical.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> What were the size and shape of its head; and had it ears, +horns, or any other appendages?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> His head appeared to be about the size of the crown of a +hat, at the distance from whence I saw him. The shape of his +head I cannot describe, and I saw no ears, horns, or other appendages. +I had no spy glass, and cannot describe him so minutely +as I otherwise could. I have seen him at other times, but my +view of him was not so good, as on this day.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“James Mansfield.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex, ss. August 27, 1817. Then James Mansfield made oath +to the truth of the foregoing deposition by him subscribed.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p> + +<p>We have here again the statement that the animal is able to +keep its bunches, when it lies extended on the water.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page175">[175]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report43"><span class="reportnr"><b>43</b></span>.—1817, August 17.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817.) +The second part of the affidavit of Mr. <span class="smcap">William H. Foster</span> runs +as follows:</p> + +<p>“On the seventeenth of August instant, I again saw him. He +came into the harbour, occasionally exhibiting parts of his body, +which appeared like rings or bunches. As he drew near, and when +opposite to me, there rose from his head or the most forward part +of him, a prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six +inches in circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Might not the prong or spear that you saw, have been the +tongue of the serpent?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought not; as I saw the prong before I saw his head; +but it might have been.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> At what distance were you, when you saw the spear of +the serpent?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I should judge forty rods; I had a spyglass when I saw the +prong or spear.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did the animal appear round?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He did.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did he appear jointed, or only serpentine?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> He appeared jointed.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Vertical.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> What was its colour?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared brown.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear smooth or rough?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> It appeared smooth.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> What was the size and shape of his head?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> At the distance where I was, his head appeared as large as +a man’s head; but I cannot describe its shape.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought it appeared to notice objects.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How fast did it move?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> At the rate of a mile in a minute, at times, I have no doubt.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“William H. Foster.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex ss. August 27, 1817. Personally appeared William H. +Foster, and made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him +subscribed, is true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”</span></p> + +<p>The first statement that strikes us is the prong or spear, seen +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Foster</span>. I am convinced that this instrument, seen by him +<span class="pagenum" id="Page176">[176]</span>at a distance of forty rods, and with a spy-glass, rising from the +foremost part of the head, about 12 inches, or a foot, in length, +pointed at its end, and having six inches in circumference, or two +in diameter, at the bottom, was nothing else but the animal’s tongue.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report43A"><span class="reportnr"><b>43</b></span>.—1817, August 17.—See also <a href="#Report43">n<sup>o</sup>. 43</a> on p. 175.—(<i>Report +of a Committee</i>, 1817).—</p> + +<p>“I, John Johnston, jun, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, +of the age of seventeen years, depose and say: That on the evening +of the seventeenth day of August, A. D. 1817, between the hours +of eight and nine o’clock, while passing from the shore in a boat, +to a vessel lying in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw a strange +marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, lying extended on +the surface of the water. His length appeared to be fifty feet at +least, and he appeared straight, exhibiting no protuberances. Capt. +John Corliss and George Marble were in the boat with me. We +were within two oars length of him. We immediately rowed from +him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail; but fearing we +might strike it with the boat, concluded to pass around his head, +which we did, by altering our course. He remained in the same +position, till we lost sight of him. We approached so near to him +that I believe I could have reached him with my oar. There was +not sufficient light to enable me to describe the animal.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“John Johnston, jun.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex, ss. August 25, 1817. Personally appeared John Johnston, +jr. and made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, +is true according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”</span></p> + +<p>This account is as interesting as all the other ones; though no +further particulars are described, it is again mentioned that more +than fifty feet of the animal’s back part were visible, lying perfectly +still on the surface of the water, showing no bunches at all.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report44"><span class="reportnr"><b>44</b></span>.—1817, August 18.—In the letter of Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span> +to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span>, dated Boston Aug. 20, 1817, we read:</p> + +<p>“But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at +Beverly from the bank of New-foundland. The captain and the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page177">[177]</span>crew report that, off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea Monster +of the Snake kind, lying on the water, of immense length. That +the crew were so much alarmed, that they got away as soon as +they could, and that they estimated it at 100 feet long.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report44A"><span class="reportnr"><b>44</b></span>.—1817, August 18.—See also <a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a> hereabove.—(<i>Report +of a Committee</i>, 1817).—</p> + +<p>“I, William B. Pearson, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, +merchant, depose and say: That I have, several times, seen a strange +marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, of great size. I have +had a good view of him, only once, and this was on the 18th. +of August, A. D. 1817. I was in a sailboat, and when off Webber’s +cove (so called) in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw something +coming out of the cove; we hove to, not doubting but that it +was the same creature that had been seen several times in the +harbour, and had excited much interest among the inhabitants of +Gloucester. James P. Collins was the only person with me. The +serpent passed out under the stern of our boat, towards <i>Ten Pound +Island</i>; then he stood in towards us again, and crossed our bow. +We immediately exclaimed: “here is the snake!” From what I +saw of him, I should say that he was nothing short of seventy +feet in length. I distinctly saw bunches on his back, and once he +raised his head out of water. The top of his head appeared flat, +and was raised seven or eight inches above the surface of the water. +He passed by the bow of the boat, at about thirty yards distance. +His colour was a dark brown. I saw him at this time about two +minutes. His motion was vertical. His velocity at this time was +not great, though at times, I have seen him move with great +velocity, I should say at the rate of a mile in three minutes, and +perhaps faster. His size I judged to be about the size of a half +barrel. I saw Mr. Gaffney fire at him, at about the distance of +thirty yards. I thought he hit him, and afterwards he appeared +more shy. He turned very short, and appeared as limber and +active as the eel, when compared to his size. The form of the +curve when he turned in the water, resembled a staple; his head +seemed to approach towards his body for some feet; then his head +and tail appeared moving rapidly, in opposite directions, and when +his head and tail were on parallel lines, they appeared not more +than two or three yards apart.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page178">[178]</span></p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> At what time in the day was this?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Between the hours of five and six in the afternoon.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How many distinct portions of it were out of water at +one time?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> Ten or twelve distinct portions.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> Can you describe his eyes and mouth.”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I thought and believe, that I saw his eye at one time, +and it was dark and sharp.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Q.</i> How did its tail terminate?”</p> + +<p>“<i>A.</i> I had not a very distinct view of his tail; I saw no bunches +towards, what I thought the end of the tail, and I believe there +were none. From where I judged his navel might be, to the end +of his tail, there were no bunches visible.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“William B. Pearson.</span></p> + +<p><i>Essex</i>, ss. August 27, 1817. Then William B. Pearson made +oath to the truth of the above.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”</span></p> + +<p>In this account too there is not a single fact which has not +been mentioned before, except that the tail did not show bunches, +while the back did. From that point of the body where Mr. <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> +judged his navel might be towards the end of the tail, the animal +had no bunches. It is probable that we are meant to read: from +the middle of the visible part, where the animal seemed to be +thickest. It is also probable that the animal’s external characters, +though Mr. <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> says he believed it to be a serpent, made +on him the impression of a mammal.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report44B"><span class="reportnr"><b>44</b></span>.—1817, August 18.—See also +<a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a> p. 176 and <a href="#Report44A">hereabove</a>.—In +the above-mentioned letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span> +to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span> we read:</p> + +<p>“My Brother—Colonel Perkins—went down to Cape Ann +two days ago to see it. He says that he is satisfied that such an +animal is there. As he stood on the shore, it came within the +eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it so distinctly, +as to be able to state all its points, he has not said any thing to +the public about it.”</p> + +<p>Fortunately Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> wrote down his experiences in +a letter, dated Oct. 13, 1820, when on board the ship <i>Ann Marie</i>, +to his friend <span class="smcap">Jno. P. Cushing</span>. He published it in the <i>Boston +<span class="pagenum" id="Page179">[179]</span>Daily Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, after the excitement caused +by the appearance of the sea-serpent seen by the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>). +The whole is reprinted in the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2358, which +I had the opportunity to consult. The part of the letter, treating +of his visit runs as follows:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Boston, November, 1848.”</span></p> + +<p>“In the paper called the “Illustrated London News” of 28th. +October, is an account given by Capt. M’Quhae, of H. R. M. ship +Daedalus, of a sea-serpent, seen from his ship in August last, on +her passage from the East-Indies, and between the Cape of Good +Hope and St. Helena. The perusal of several articles on the subject +leads me to send you a letter written by me on my passage from +England to the United States, in August, 1820, to Jno. P. Cushing, +my friend and then partner, residing at Canton in China. I also +send you a memorandum from Commander Bolton, of the U. S. +Navy, giving the report of the gentlemen of the Navy who were +on board a tender called the Lynx, and who had a very favourable +opportunity of satisfying themselves of the existence of the animal +which had caused so much excitement. The serpent was seen in +1817, ’19, and ’20, from the <i>shore</i>, and the reports show the +bunches to be produced by the vertical motion of the body when +in action. From the drawings which accompany the letter of Capt. +M’Quhae, there are none of the protuberances, and which would +lead to the opinion that the animal seen on the other side of the +Equator differs in genus from that which has been seen on our +coast. The drawings of the sea-serpent seen on the coast of Norway, +given in the report of the Bishop Pontoppidan, are identical with +the appearance of the animal which has been so often spoken of +as visiting our northern seas. T. H. Perkins.”</p> + +<p>“On board the ship Ann Marie, at sea, lat. 46, long. 44, Oct. +13, 1820.”</p> + +<p>“My dear sir,—When on shore I have little time to spare +from business to devote to details which I am now to communicate.”</p> + +<p>“During the past three years you will have seen accounts in the +newspapers, or reports will have met you in another form of an +immense sea-serpent having infested our shores in Boston Bay. The +first appearance he made in the summer of 1817, in the harbour +of Cape Ann. Wishing to satisfy myself on a subject on which +there existed a great difference of opinion, I myself visited Gloucester +with Mr. Lee. On our way down we met several persons +returning, who had visited the place where he was said to have +<span class="pagenum" id="Page180">[180]</span>exhibited himself, and who reported to us that he had not been +seen for two or three days past. We however, continued our route +to Gloucester, though with fears that we should not be gratified +with the sight of the monster which we sought. I satisfied myself, +from conversation with several persons who had seen him, that the +report in circulation was not a fable. All the town were, as you +may suppose, on the alert; and almost every individual, both great +and small, had been gratified, at a greater or less distance, with +a sight of him. The weather was fine, the sea perfectly smooth, +and Mr. Lee and myself were seated on a point of land which +projects into the harbour, and about twenty feet above the level +of the water, from which we were distant about fifty or sixty +feet......</p> + +<p>“Whilst thus seated, I observed an agitation in the water at +the entrance of the harbour, like that which follows a small vessel +going five or six miles an hour through the water. As we knew +there was no shoal where the water was thus broken, I immediately +said to Mr. Lee that I had no doubt that what I had +seen was the sea serpent in pursuit of fish. Mr. Lee was not directing +his attention to the spot which I speak of, and had not +seen the foam of the water, the animal having immediately disappeared.”</p> + +<p>“In a few moments after my exclamation, I saw on the opposite +side of the harbour, at about two miles distance from where I had +first seen, or thought I saw, the snake, the same object, moving +with a rapid motion up the harbour, on the western shore. As he +approached us, it was easy to see that his motion was not that of +the common snake, either on the land or in the water, but evidently +the vertical movement of the caterpillar. As nearly as I +could judge, there was visible at a time about forty feet of his +body. It was not, to be sure, a continuity of body, as the form +from head to tail (except as the apparent bunches appeared as he +moved through the water) was seen only at three or four feet +asunder. It was very evident, however, that his length must be +much greater than what appeared, as, in his movement, he left +a considerable wake in his rear. I had a fine glass, and was within +from one-third to half a mile of him. The head was flat in the +water, and the animal was, as far as I could distinguish, of a +chocolate colour. I was struck with an appearance in the front +part of the head like a single horn, about nine inches to a foot +in length, and of the form of a marlinespike. There were a great +<span class="pagenum" id="Page181">[181]</span>many people collected by this time, many of whom had before +seen the same object, and the same appearance. From the time I +first saw him until he passed by the place where I stood, and +soon after disappeared, was not more than fifteen or twenty minutes.”</p> + +<p>“I left the place fully satisfied that the reports in circulation, +although differing in details, were essentially correct. I returned +to Boston, and having made my report, I found Mrs. Perkins and +my daughters disposed to make a visit to Gloucester with me when +the return of the animal should be again announced. A few days +after my return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies; we +had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in the object which +carried us there.”</p> + +<p>The reader knows already that I don’t agree with Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. +Perkins</span> as to the generic difference of the sea-serpent.—It is +the second time that the tongue of the animal is seen to be +thrown out.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>All these reports of course greatly alarmed the people, and divided +them into believers and unbelievers. Letters were written to +Europe. As it is of interest to know the public opinion about the +subject, it is perhaps not unnecessary to communicate here the +letters which I found, especially those hitherto unpublished. On +the 20th. of August of 1817 Mr. <span class="smcap">S. G. Perkins</span> wrote a letter +to Mr. <span class="smcap">E. Everett</span>, then at Paris; this letter is preserved in the +Library of the Royal University of Göttingen. An extract from it, +respecting the sea-serpent, here printed for the first time, runs +as follows:</p> + +<p>“You will except me to give you some account of the extraordinary +monster, which is now the subject of universal conversation +here. So far as we know anything of it, I will give it you, but +we have yet to learn its Genus, species and character. About a +fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance of the +Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster +come into the Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake, +was of great length, &c. But little attention, however, was paid +to this report, and it gained no public circulation. Within a week +the Country has been agitated with reports of the existence of the +monster, and men of reputation and character have made known, +that they have distinctly seen the animal. Many have gone off in +search of him in Boats, and muskets have been fired at him, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page182">[182]</span>without any other effect than alarming him and deterring him +from suffering the approach of the boats. He is represented to be +from 50 to 100 feet long, of the size of a barrel about the body, +which is formed into parallel rings, which—when he is on the +top of the water—are so prominent, that they resembled buoys +attached to each other. Its motions, when in pursuit of its prey, +are very rapid, and create a wake like a small vessel passing thro’ +the water. My Brother—Colonel Perkins—went down to Cape +Ann two days ago to see it. He says that he is satisfied that such +an animal is there. As he stood on the shore, it came within +the eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it so distinctly +as to be able to state all its points, he has not said any thing to +the public about it. Many persons—who are well known as men +of character—have assured me they have seen 30 or 40 feet of +it out of water at once. These reports have created various opinions +and sensations, many disbelieving the whole story, and others not +doubting it, in the least. My brother goes again to morrow morning +to pass a week at Cape Ann. It comes into the harbour daily, in +pursuit of the herrings, which resort here in great quantities. All +these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of Reports, +people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was +only a number of porpuses following each other, in rapid succession. +But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived +at Beverly from the banks of Newfoundland. The captain and crew +report that, off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea-Monster of +the Snake kind, lying on the water, of immense length. That +the crew were so much alarmed, that they got away as soon as +they could, and that they estimated it, at 100 feet long. Other +particulars were stated, which I do not recollect. This had revived +the belief, in its existence, and great efforts will be made to take +it dead or alive. I heard to day that a subscription was on foot, +and that an express has been sent to Nantucket for twenty whale +men to come up with their boats and apparatus to destroy it. The +Linnean Society have appointed a Committee to go down and +investigate it, of which Judge Davis is Chairman.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report45"><span class="reportnr"><b>45</b></span>.—1817, August 22?—We have already seen that the +Chairman of the Committee asked Judge <span class="smcap">Nash</span> to give, if possible, +an evidence of the fact that a woman saw the animal lying dormant +<span class="pagenum" id="Page183">[183]</span>very near the shore. In speaking of Mr. <span class="smcap">Nash’s</span> answer we +skipped this evidence to insert it here. It runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“I have seen and conversed with the woman, who was said to +have seen the serpent dormant on the rocks, near the water, to +whom you refer in yours; but she can give no material evidence. +She says that she saw something, resembling a large log of wood, +on the rocks, on the extreme eastern point of Ten Pound Island, +(a small island in our harbour), resting partly on the rocks, and +partly in the water. The distance was about half a mile. She took +a glass, looked at the object and saw it move. Her attention was +for a short time arrested, by some domestic avocation, and when +she looked for the object again, it had disappeared.”</p> + +<p>The letter from the Hon. <span class="smcap">John Davis</span>, the Chairman of the +Committee, was dated Sept. 2, 1817. The appearance, therefore, +took place before this date. Fortunately we have another testimony +of this position of the animal. In the letter from Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. +Perkins</span>, dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published by him in the +<i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, we read that he visited +the harbour of Gloucester. This must have been on the 18th. of +August 1817 (see <a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>. p. 178.); after having described this +visit the Colonel goes on:</p> + +<p>“A few days after my return I went again to Cape Ann with +the ladies; we had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in +the object which carried us there.”</p> + +<p>“Whilst at Cape Ann I talked with many persons who had +seen the serpent, and among others with a person of the name +of Mansfield, one of the most respectable inhabitants of the town. +His account to me was, that a few days before, as he was taking +a ride with his wife in a chair, the road taking them close to a +bank which overlooks the harbour (and is nearly a perpendicular +precipice), he saw an uncommon appearance, which induced him +to descend from the carriage, when he saw the sea-serpent, in +which until then he had been an unbeliever. The animal was +stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had four +or five feet of water upon it, and lay partly over the channel. +He desired his wife to get out of the chair, which she did. He +said he had made up his mind as to the length of the snake, +but wished the opinion of his wife on the same subject. He asked +her what she should consider his length; she answered that she +could not undertake to say how many feet in length he was, but +that she thought him as long as the wharf behind their house, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page184">[184]</span>an object with which she had always been familiar. Mr. Mansfield +said he was of the same opinion. The wharf is one hundred feet +in length. It is to be observed that the person above spoken of +had been such an unbeliever in the existence of this monster, that +he had not given himself the trouble to go from his house to the +harbour when the report was first made of such an animal being +there.”</p> + +<p>Consequently I may fix the appearance of the animal resting on +a bank, or beach, or rock, on the 22th. of August, 1817. This +is the <i>only</i> report I have found of this way of reposing of the +animal, but I cannot believe that these reports are contrary to truth.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report46"><span class="reportnr"><b>46</b></span>.—1817, August, 23.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817). +Mr. <span class="smcap">Amos Story</span> after having made affidavit of his having seen +the animal on the tenth of August, goes on:</p> + +<p>“I likewise saw, what I believe to be the same animal this day, +viz. the twenty third of August, A. D. 1817. This was in the +morning, about seven o’clock. He then lay perfectly still, extended +on the water, and I should judge that I saw fifty feet of him at +least.”</p> + +<p>“I should judge that I was forty rods from him this day. I had +a good spy glass both days when I saw him. I continued looking +at him about half an hour, and he remained still and in the same +position, until I was called away. Neither his head nor tail were +visible. His colour appeared to be a dark brown, and when the +sun shone upon him, the reflection was very bright. I thought his +body was about the size of a man’s body.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Amos Story.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex ss. Aug. 23, 1817. Personally appeared Amos Story, and +made oath that the foregoing deposition by him subscribed is true, +according to his best knowledge and belief.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p> + +<p>As we read that the animal lay perfectly still, and as Mr. +<span class="smcap">Story</span> does not mention that bunches were visible, we may conclude +that it lay with its body in a straight line. Fifty feet of its +length at least were visible. Its head and tail were not visible, +says Mr. <span class="smcap">Story</span>, and yet the animal remained about half an hour +in this position, which I think may thus be accounted for: the +animal’s head, neck and back were in a straight line just above +<span class="pagenum" id="Page185">[185]</span>the surface of the water, so that its nose was also above it, which +enabled the animal to breathe and to remain motionless, but +at the distance of forty rods, though with a good spy glass, these +particulars cannot have been distinctly seen by one who was not +acquainted with the animal’s external features, and so he believed +its head was invisible. That its tail was under water, I will believe +with him.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report47"><span class="reportnr"><b>47</b></span>.—1817, August 24?—In the letter from Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. +Perkins</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">Cushing</span>, dated Oct. 13, 1820, Col. P. mentions +the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by Mr. and Mrs. <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span> +on the 22th. of Aug., 1817 (<a href="#Report45">n<sup>o</sup>. 45</a>), and he continues:</p> + +<p>“Subsequent to the period of which I have been speaking, the +snake was seen by several of the crews of our coasting vessels, and +in some instances within a few yards.”</p> + +<p>I have therefore chosen the above date.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report48"><span class="reportnr"><b>48</b></span>.—1817, August 28.—(<i>Report of a Committee</i>, 1817).</p> + +<p>“Sewell Toppan, Master of the schooner Laura, declares: That +on thursday morning the 28th. day of August, at about 9 o’clock +A. M. at about two miles, or two and half miles east of the +eastern point of Cape Ann being becalmed, I heard one of my +men call to the man at the helm, “what is this coming towards +us”; being engaged forward, I took no further notice till they +called again.—I then got on top of the deck load, at which +time I saw a singular kind of animal or fish, which I had never +before seen, passing by our quarter, at distance of about forty +feet, standing along shore. I saw a part of the animal or fish ten +or fifteen feet from the head downwards including the head; the +head appeared to be of the size of a ten-gallon keg, and six inches +above the surface of the water. It was of a dark colour. I saw +no tongue, but heard William Somerby and Robert Bragg, my +two men, who were with me, call out, “look at his tongue”. +The motion of his head was sideways and quite moderate; the +motion of the body, up and down. I have seen whales very often; +his motion was much more rapid than whales or any other fish I +have ever seen; he left a very long wake behind him; he did not +<span class="pagenum" id="Page186">[186]</span>appear to alter his course in consequence of being so near the +vessel. I saw him much less time than either of the others, and +not in so favourable a position to notice his head.”</p> + +<p>“I have been to sea many years, and never saw any fish that +had the least resemblance to this animal. Judging from what I +saw out of water, I should judge the body was about the size of +a half barrel in circumference.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Sewell Toppan”.</span></p> + +<p>“Suffolk ss. Boston, September 1, 1817. Personally appeared +captain Sewell Toppan, and made solemn oath, that the foregoing +declaration by him subscribed is true.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p> + +<p>“Robert Bragg, of Newburyport, mariner, of the schooner Laura, +of Newburyport, Sewell Toppan Master, testifies: That on thursday +last, about ten o’clock A. M. coming in said schooner bound from +Newburyport to Boston, off Eastern Point, (Cape Ann), about a +mile and a half from the shore, I being on deck, the vessel being +becalmed, looking at the windward, I saw something break the water, +and coming very fast towards us, I mentioned it to the man at +helm, William Somerby; the animal came about 28 or 30 feet +from us, between the vessel and the shore, and passing very swiftly +by us; he left a very long wake behind him. About six inches in +height of his body and head were out of water, and as I should +judge about 14 or 15 feet in length. He had a head like a serpent, +rather larger than his body and rather blunt; did not see +his eyes; when astern of the vessel about 30 feet, he threw out +his tongue about two feet in length; the end of it appeared to +me to resemble a fisherman’s harpoon; he raised his tongue several +times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again. He was +in sight about ten minutes. I think he moved at the rate of 12 +or 14 miles an hour; he was of a dark chocolate colour, and from +what appeared out of water I should suppose he was two and a +half feet in circumference; he made no noise; his back and body +appeared smooth; a small bunch on each side of his head, just +above his eyes; he did not appear to be at all disturbed by the +vessel; his course was in the direction for the Salt Islands; his +motion was much swifter than any whale that I have ever seen, +and I have seen many—did not observe any teeth; his motion +was very steady, a little up and down.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“To this account I am willing to make oath.”</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“Robert Bragg.”</span></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page187">[187]</span></p> + +<p>“I, William Somerby of the Schooner Laura, testify and say: +That on thursday last about 10 o’clock, A. M. as I was coming +in said schooner from Newburyport, bound to Boston, off Brace’s +cove, a little eastward of Eastern Point, (Cape Ann) about two +miles from land, the sea calm, I was at helm. Robert Bragg, one +of the crew, asked me if that was not the snake coming, pointing +out a break in the water, south of us; a strange animal of the +serpent form passed very swiftly by us—the nearest distance I +should judge to be between 30 and 40 feet—the upper part of +his head and back was above water—the length that appeared +was about 12 or 15 feet, his head was like a serpent’s tapering +off to a point. He threw out his tongue a number of times, extended +about two feet from his jaws—the end of it resembled +a harpoon—he threw his tongue backwards several times over +his head, and let it fall again—I saw one of his eyes as he +passed; it appeared very bright, and about the size of the eye of +an ox. The colour of all that appeared was very dark, almost +black. He did not appear to take any notice of the vessel, and +made no noise. There appeared a bunch above the eye.—Should +judge him to be about two and a half feet in circumference. Have +often seen whales at sea. The motion of this animal was much +swifter than that of any whale. The motion of the body was rising +and falling as he advanced, the head moderately vibrating from +side to side. The colour of his tongue was a light brown.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“To this account I am willing to make oath.”</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“William Somerby.”</span></p> + +<p>“<i>Commonwealth of Massachusetts</i>, August 30, 1817. Then appeared +Robert Bragg and William Somerby, and made oath to the +truth of the above declarations, by them respectively subscribed.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”</span></p> + +<p>In these three depositions we find the same observation. As the +head was moving moderately sideways, we may conclude that the +animal, though it was also moving up and down, used its flappers +too, so that with the use of the right fore-flapper its head went +a little to the left; and otherwise went a little to the right by the +motion of the left fore-flapper.—For <span class="smcap">Robert Bragg’s</span> “larger” +in “the head was rather larger than the body”, we don’t hesitate +to read “broader”.—It is the third time that the animal’s tongue +was observed. The tongue most probably was rather pointed, which +led the two mariners to compare it with a harpoon.—Remarkable +is the statement of the animal having a small bunch on each side +<span class="pagenum" id="Page188">[188]</span>of the head just above its eyes. This is the heavy eye brow figured +by <span class="smcap">Bing</span> (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>) and so often described afterwards.</p> + +<p>In a letter from Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> dated Oct. 13, 1820, and +published in the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, we +read:</p> + +<p>“Captain Tappan, a person well known to me saw him with +his head above water two or three feet, at times moving with +great rapidity, and at others slowly. He also saw what explained +the appearance which I have described, of a horn on the front of +the head. This was doubtless what was observed by Captain Tappan +to be the tongue, thrown in an upright position from the mouth, +and having the appearance which I have given to it.”</p> + +<p>I quite agree with Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> as to the explanation of +the horn (see <a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>, p. 180.)—In the <i>Report</i> of 1817 the name +is spelt <span class="smcap">Toppan</span>, whilst Col. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> writes <span class="smcap">Tappan</span>; but as the +details of the two accounts of the prong, or spear, or horn, or +tongue are the same, I am convinced that these two names identify +the same person. So the statement of Captain <span class="smcap">Toppan</span>, <span class="smcap">William +Somerby</span> and <span class="smcap">Robert Bragg</span> is substantiated by <span class="smcap">Col. Perkin’s</span> +letter.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report49"><span class="reportnr"><b>49</b></span>.—1817, August 30?—In the same letter from Col. +<span class="smcap">Perkins</span> we read:</p> + +<p>“One of the revenue cutters, whilst in the neighbourhood of +Cape Ann, had an excellent view of him at a few yards’ distance; +he moved slowly; and upon the approach of the vessel, sank and +was seen no more.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report50"><span class="reportnr"><b>50</b></span>.—1817, October 3.—In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Thos. +Herttell</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">Silvanus Miller</span>, printed in the <i>Report of a +Committee</i>, 1817, a passage runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“Understanding that Mr. James Guion, a gentleman of character +and respectability, had seen what was supposed to be the same +animal, I yesterday conversed with him on the subject. He states +that on Friday the 3d. inst. while on the point of land on the +east side of the mouth of Mamaroneck harbour, he saw a little +distance from the rocks, usually called the Scotch Caps, which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page189">[189]</span>lie at the extremity of Rye Point, a large marine animal, going +with great rapidity up sound. He judged his speed to be little or +no less than a mile in a minute. He describes the irregularity and +unevenness of his back, about fifty feet of which appeared above +the surface of the water, much in the way in which I have done.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report51"><span class="reportnr"><b>51</b></span>.—1817, October 5.—The abovesaid letter runs as follows:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Rye-Neck, Oct. 21, 1817”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“Silvanus Miller, Esq.”</span></p> + +<p>“Sir, I observed in the Columbian of the 15th. inst. a paragraph +stating that an animal had been seen in Long Island sound, +corresponding with the description of the serpent lately seen in +Gloucester harbour. That communication probably resulted from +some observations which I made to you, and several other +gentlemen, on the subject alluded to. When I spoke on that +occurrence, I had no idea that it would become the subject of a +newspaper remark; but since it has been publicly noticed, perhaps +a more particular detail of the circumstances may not be deemed +improper.”</p> + +<p>“On Sunday, the 5th. inst. at 10 o’clock A. M. while standing +a few rods from my house on Rye-Neck, I observed at a small +distance to the southward and eastward of Mr. Ezekiel Halsted’s +dwelling on Rye Point, and perhaps not more than a half mile +from the shore, a long, rough, dark looking body, progressing +rapidly up sound (towards New York) against a brisk breeze, and +a strong ebb tribe. Viewing it with my glass convinced me it was +a large living animal.—His back, forty to fifty feet of which +was seen above the surface of the water, appeared to be irregular, +uneven, and deeply indented. I did not at this time remark that +his head was more elevated above the water than the ridges or +humps on his back. Some trees standing near the water, Rye Point +soon intercepting my view of him, I hastened to a situation from +which I obtained another sight of him as he passed that part of +the sound opposite Hempstead bay. At this time he appeared to +be nearly in the middle of the sound—his body more depressed +below and his head more elevated above the water, going with +increased velocity in the direction of Sand’s point, creating a swell +before him not unlike that made by a boat towed rapidly at the +stern of the vessel. From the time I first saw him till I lost sight +<span class="pagenum" id="Page190">[190]</span>of him perhaps could not have exceeded ten minutes, in which +short time he had gone probably not less than six or seven miles.”</p> + +<p>“I was yesterday informed on creditable authority, that on the +day on which I saw the above mentioned animal, he was seen by +some persons at or in the vicinity of the light house on Sand’s +Point.”</p> + +<p>“That it was a sea animal of great bulk, to me is certain.—That +it is what is usually called a Sea-Serpent, and the same +which appeared in Gloucester harbour, is only probable.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“With much respect, Sir, yours, &c.”</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“Thos. Herttell.”</span></p> + +<p>Though the usual statement that the animal had bunches on its +back is here expressed in other terms, viz.: that its back was +irregular, uneven, deeply indented, it may be seen at a glance +that no new feature gave rise to these terms. The animal may +moreover have had a mane, extending all over the back.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><a href="#Report20">N<sup>o</sup>. 20</a> of the <i>Report</i> is, as we have seen above (<a href="#Page161">p. 161</a>), an +account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in the +North-Sea, extracted from the “History of Norway” written by +the Right Rev. <span class="smcap">Erich Pontoppidan</span>. Here is an extract from the +matter given by that Bishop about the sea-serpent, and the whole +affidavit of Capt. <span class="smcap">von Ferry</span>.</p> + +<p>After this the Committee goes on:</p> + +<p>“We have seen and heard sundry other statements of various +authority relating to similar animals, said to have been seen at +sea by different persons, but do not insert them in our report, +because we consider the foregoing testimony sufficient to place the +existence of the animal beyond a doubt; and because they do not +appear so minute and so well authenticated as the preceding +documents.”</p> + +<p>Poor Committee! Could they have foreseen that <i>seventy</i> years +afterwards the existence of the sea-serpent was <i>not</i> beyond a doubt, +at least among learned persons, they would not only have published +all those sundry other statements, but have exerted themselves +more in the matter than they did now. They would have gone to +have a look at the animal and made an affidavit of their observations, +and—even then they would not have been believed!</p> + +<p>I would kindly beg the Linnaean Society of Boston, or that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page191">[191]</span>learned Society which has inherited its archives, either to publish +<i>all</i> reports, accounts and letters in their hands, or to send them +all to me, that I may enlarge, correct and rectify this work in +case a second edition is called for.</p> + +<p>The Committee, after having published the various exceedingly +interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the +phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? And before the +question had become embarrassing, a <i>deus ex machina</i> in the form +of a sick, illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly +in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a labourer at that +place. And as the people believed that this was a spawn of the +great sea-serpent, it was bought by a certain Dr. and presented +to the Committee to examine it. The Committee really examined +and dissected it, and gave a full account of their experience +in their <i>Report</i>. They considered the little snake to be new to +science, closely allied to the <i>Coluber constrictor</i> or Black Snake, +a species common in those regions, and gave it the name of +<i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>. This account is followed by “two documents +relating to the appearance of the <i>Scoliophis</i>, while living, and to +the circumstance under which it was killed.”</p> + +<p>Next they gave “a few remarks on the question” (raised by the +public) “whether the great Serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester, +be the <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>”. These “few remarks” fill three +pages and a half, and end with their conclusion that this is indeed +the case, “until a more close examination of the great Serpent +shall have disclosed some differences of structure, important enough +to constitute a specific distinction.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Now, my readers will probably say that I have not yet explained +why none of the eye-witnesses of the animal seen near Cape Ann +saw a mane. I hope my readers will be satisfied when I tell them +that I am convinced that the female Sea-Serpent has no mane, +and that the mane is only a character of full grown males. So +most of the eye-witnesses saw a female. It is only the individual +witnessed by Messrs. <span class="smcap">James Guion</span> and <span class="smcap">Thos. Herttell</span> which was +most probably a male and had a mane. Seen from a distance its +back was uneven, and deeply indented.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page192">[192]</span></p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, “Groep III”, +devoted a few pages to the “<i>Report of a Committee</i>”, giving a +very short extract from it.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>I will insert here an extract from a letter written by <span class="smcap">Edward +Everett</span>, Esq., Nov. 13, 1817, then in Paris, to the “Obermedicinalrath +und Ritter” <span class="smcap">Blumenbach</span> in Göttingen. This extract, here printed +for the first time, is preserved in the Library of the Royal University +of Göttingen; it runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“With Respect to the monstrous Serpent, of which I furnished +you some account, before leaving Göttingen, I am sorry to say +that the Reports, which circulated in the newspapers of his capture, +were incorrect, and that he has escaped. Great attempts were made, +and large sums of money offered, in Vain. I begun to collect a +full account of him out of 300 American Newspapers, which I +intended for You, but as I hear that a pamphlet, on the subject, +is preparing by our Linnaean Society, which will contain depositions +made on Oath, I have prefered waiting, till this appears, and I +shall have it sent to you immediately. I have received to-day a +letter of Oct. 25 from my brother, in which he informs me, +that—a few days after the Serpent disappeared—a Young +Serpent, 3 feet long, corresponding with the large one in appearance, +was taken. This was brought to Boston, has been dissected, +and pronounced a Non-descript, by the Connoisseurs there. This +will also be described in the pamphlet of the Linnaean Society. +Upon the subject of the Serpent four letters have been written by +Gen. Humphreys of Boston—a member of the Royal Society—to +Sir Joseph Banks; so that it is possible something may appear +in the Philosophical Transactions about it.”</p> + +<p>Afterwards we shall read more of the attempts to catch the Sea-Serpent. +It is a pity that Mr. <span class="smcap">Everett</span> never published his collection! +Most probably it has gradually disappeared in the paper-basket! +Apparently Mr. <span class="smcap">Everett</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Blumenbach</span> corresponded much +about the serpent: I also found a list of ancient works in which +the sea-serpent and large snakes are mentioned, forwarded by the +former to the latter, and in the above-mentioned letter <span class="smcap">Everett</span> +calls the Sea-Serpent “Our old friend the Serpent.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page193">[193]</span></p> + +<p>As soon as the <i>Report</i> reached Europe, Mr. <span class="smcap">H. M. Ducrotay +de Blainville</span> made an extract from it in his <i>Journal de Physique, +de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle</i>, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Apparently +he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and +therefore paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal, +which he doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did +not trouble himself much. In one respect Mr. <span class="smcap">De Blainville</span> tried +to throw ridicule on two reports, viz. those of <span class="smcap">Robert Bragg</span> and +<span class="smcap">William Somerby</span>: “and the imagination of some sailors is cause +that they saw a tongue or spear coming out of his mouth, to +which they gave a length of twelve feet, a circumference of 6 +inches at the bottom and a termination as a lancet.” As we saw, +the two sailors only mentioned a <i>tongue</i> of <i>two</i> feet; they did not +use the expression of spear, they neither gave the circumference at +the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as a <i>lancet</i>’s +but as a <i>harpoon</i>’s. It was Mr. <span class="smcap">Foster</span> who saw a <i>prong</i> or <i>spear</i>, +but only of twelve <i>inches</i> and terminating in a <i>small point</i>. At all +events Mr. <span class="smcap">De Blainville</span> has read badly!</p> + +<p>But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus:</p> + +<p>“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent, +we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the +appearance of an animal of very great length, very slender, and +swimming with rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it +is a true snake, this is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as +the <i>Scoliophis</i>, this assertion is still more doubtful, and finally +that it is of the same species, here the number of probabilities +still diminishes, and becomes totally null, if one believes that such +an immense animal, as that which is observed in the sea has gone +ashore to lay its eggs.”</p> + +<p>For this is firmly believed by the Committee!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">W. D. Peck</span> in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (<i>Mem. +Am. Acad. Arts Sc.</i> Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says:</p> + +<p>“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in +the portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.”</p> + +<p>After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> says:</p> + +<p>“These are the earliest notices I can find of this animal on our +shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence +lately brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society, +of men of fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page194">[194]</span></p> + +<p>After having given an extract from these evidences, Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> says:</p> + +<p>“The accounts of all these persons are very consistent; to the +greater part it appeared to be straight, or without gibbosities or +protuberances on the back; one person thought it had protuberances, +but it seems probable that the upper flexures of its undulations +occasioned this opinion.”</p> + +<p>“Its velocity is variously estimated; by some it was thought to +move a mile in a minute, by others in three, four, or five minutes. +It has great lateral flexibility, as is shewn by its turning short and +moving in an exactly contrary direction, advancing the head in a +line parallel with the body; hence its undulations when under water +and equally surrounded by the medium, may be either vertical or +horizontal at the will of the animal. The judgment of its velocity, +however, without knowing its precise distance and without instruments +to observe it, is extremely liable to err.”</p> + +<p>“In the testimonies above referred to, the imagination seems to +have had no influence, and we certainly know from them, that +the existence of the animal to which they relate is indisputable; +we know that it moves by vertical undulations, at least while near +the surface of the sea; that it is laterally as flexible as other serpents; +and that its motion, at times, is very swift; but our knowledge +is circumscribed by these limits. It is to be hoped, that if it again +visits our shores, some successful means may be devised of taking +it and presenting an opportunity of completing our knowledge of +so interesting a link in the chain of animated beings.”</p> + +<p>“It has been seen in Long Island sound, progressing southward; +it seems from this circumstance to be migratory, like the Coluber +natrix in Hungary, and may pass the winter season in Mexico or +South America.”</p> + +<p>A remarkable fact is it that Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> really believes that it +was a sea-snake of enormous dimensions!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <i>Journal of Science and the Arts</i>, edited at the Royal Institution +of Great Britain, republished in its fourth Vol. (London, +1818) the affidavits of Messrs. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span> and <span class="smcap">William B. Pearson</span>, +(<a href="#Report41D">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a>, p. 170, and <a href="#Report44B">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>, p. 177) and the writer of the article +declares: “the existence of the animal is placed beyond doubt.” +Now we are in 1892, and yet it is doubted!</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page195">[195]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report52"><span class="reportnr"><b>52</b></span>.—1818 June.—(<i>Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. +Gr. Britt.</i> VI, 1818.)</p> + +<p>“The <i>Commercial Advertiser</i> of June 9th. contains a letter from a +Captain of the brig <i>Wilson</i>, of Salem, bound to Norfolk, wherein +he states, that during his passage, off Cape Henry, he fell in +with, as he at first supposed, the wreck of a vessel, when he +ordered his boat to be lowered; but to his great astonishment he +found it to be the sea-serpent; he says, he then examined it, and +such an object he never before witnessed; he believed it to be +190 feet in length, and its mouth and head were of an enormous +size. After returning to the ship they bore off, fearing the consequences +that might result from its coming in contact with the vessel.”</p> + +<p>The only characters mentioned here are the enormous head and +the length of about 190 feet. Both may be exaggerated though +greater dimensions are mentioned in later trustworthy reports.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report53"><span class="reportnr"><b>53</b></span>.—1818, June 19.—(<i>Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. +Inst. Gr. Brit.</i> VI, 1818).—</p> + +<p>“On the 19th of June he appeared in Sag-Harbour, and rewards +were offered to the whalers to secure it.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report54"><span class="reportnr"><b>54</b></span>.—1818, June 21.—(<i>Ibidem</i>).</p> + +<p>“S. West, of Hallowell, master of the Packet <i>Delia</i>, describes it +as seen on the 21st. of June, engaged with a whale.”</p> + +<p>The writer does not mean to say that it was a whale-bone-whale +or a sperm-whale, but a whale of the smaller kind, viz. a dolphin, +a grampus, or a porpoise. We shall come across an account stating +that the eye-witnesses saw a panic amongst a shoal of porpoises, +evidently caused by a sea-serpent pursuing them (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>); and +across another account, stating that a sea-serpent was seen seizing a +porpoise in one of its lateral fins (<a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>). It is evident that +when the opportunity offers, a sea-serpent also preys on the grampuses, +porpoises and dolphins.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page196">[196]</span></p> + +<p id="Report55"><span class="reportnr"><b>55</b></span>.—1818 July 2.—(<i>Ibidem</i>).</p> + +<p>“and on July 2d. two persons, J. Webber and R. Hamilton, +saw it about seven miles from Portland, between Cranch Island +point and Marsh-Island.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report56"><span class="reportnr"><b>56</b></span>.—1818 July.—(<i>Phil. Mag.</i> LIV, 1819). The second +Sea Serpent described by Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> (for he believes +there are several species) is called by him:</p> + +<p>“<i>Capt.</i> <span class="smcap">Brown</span><i>’s Sea-Serpent</i>. This fish was observed by Capt. +Brown in a voyage from America to St. Petersburg, in July 1818, +near 60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, or north of Ireland. In +swimming the head, neck and forepart of the body stood upright +like a mast: it was surrounded by porpoises and fishes. It was +smooth, without scales, and had eight gills under the neck; which +decidedly evinces that it is not a snake, but a new genus of fish! +belonging to the eighth order <i>Tremapnea</i>, 28th. family <i>Ophictia</i>, +and 3d. subfamily <i>Catremia</i>, along with the genera <i>Sphagebranchus</i> +and <i>Symbranchus</i> of Bloch, which differ by having only one or +two round gills under the neck. I shall call this new genus <i>Octipos</i> +(meaning eight gills beneath); head depressed, mouth transverse, +large, eight transverse gills under the neck, and its specific name +and definition will be <i>Octipos bicolor</i>. Dark brown above, muddy +white beneath: head obtuse. Capt. Brown adds, that the head was +two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches, and the eyes over the +jaws, similar to the horse’s; the whole length might be 58 feet.”</p> + +<p>Immediately we recognize our well-known Sea-Serpent, an individual +of which the length is estimated at 58 feet, which held its +head and very long neck upright whilst swimming. Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span> +says: “and the forepart of the body”; of course, for he thought +to see a snake; if he had really seen the forepart of the body, +(trunk) he would have seen the shoulders and the fore-flappers. It +was surrounded by porpoises and fishes. Evidently the animal swam +between them with the purpose to snatch one of them. It had a +smooth skin, no scales, and eight gills under its neck. Dark brown +above (i. e. on the dorsal part of head and neck), muddy white +beneath (i. e. on its throat); head obtuse (read rather obtuse, seen +from above or from below, or in front; just from aside it is rather +pointed). The head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches +(of course estimated dimensions), and the eyes over the jaws similar +<span class="pagenum" id="Page197">[197]</span>to those of a horse (this definition was caused by the heavy eye-brows +and by the little bunch above each eye). The whole description +is exactly that of our animal in the above-mentioned position +and seen from a certain direction. For “eight gills” we may safely +read “eight gillsplits”, or eight splits caused by and lying between +nine folds or wrinkles, which in their turn are caused by the +animal bending its head rectangularly towards the throat. Such +folds or wrinkles are also seen in sea-lions, when they make the +same motion, and stout corpulent persons will know what is meant +by a double chin!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report57"><span class="reportnr"><b>57</b></span>.—1818, July?—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels +through Sweden</i> in 1820, p. 187, says:—</p> + +<p>“The fishermen at Sejerstad said a sea-serpent was seen two +years ago in the Folden Fjord, the length of which, as far as it +was visible was 60 feet. This had been told them by those who +had seen it in the Folden.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report58"><span class="reportnr"><b>58</b></span>.—1818, August?—At p. 203 the same author mentions:</p> + +<p>“On being asked (viz. the merchant of Fieldvigen) his opinion +respecting the serpent, he said he had never seen it himself, though +others had in that neighbourhood.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report59"><span class="reportnr"><b>59</b></span>.—1818, August 19.—In 1818 in the United States many +rewards were offered to whalers to catch the animal, and many +attempts were made to do this, and to bring it home, dead or +alive. Amongst others this was the case at Boston. In the copy of +the <i>Report of a Committee</i> of 1817, which I borrowed from the +Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there was a paragraph +from a newspaper of August 21, 1818, the head or title of which +was not noted down; the cutting runs as follows:</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6">“Boston Aug. 21.”</span></p> + +<p class="right">“Transmitted by our N. Y. correspondents.”</p> + +<p>“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit +of the sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page198">[198]</span></p> + +<p>“<i>Squam River, Aug. 20th., 12 o’clock.</i>—After several unsuccessful +attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing +called the sea-serpent. We struck him fairly, but the harpoon soon +drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he +received will make him more cautious how he approaches these +shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pursuit +of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us, +to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought +we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly +as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of +warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as +a whale. We had but a short ride when we were all loose from +him to our sore disappointment.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Rich’d. Rich.”</span></p> + +<p>“<i>Gloucester, Aug. 20.</i>—As I thought it would be interesting to +you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I +will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last he +sailed from this in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well +manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they +met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven hours, +when they closed with him. He passed directly under the bows of +Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon, which +pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable +distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of +the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon. +I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up +the chase.”</p> + +<p>“He has <i>no</i> scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but +his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, +Capt. Rich had one of his hands wound. These particulars I have +in a letter from my brother.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Saml. Dexter.”</span></p> + +<p>As far as I can judge after having read what I could find about +the Sea-Serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck +with a harpoon. Evidently the animal then swam with its body in a +straight line. Interesting to us are the words: “He has <i>no</i> scales +on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, +and looks similar to an eel”.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page199">[199]</span></p> + +<p>The attempts mentioned above were continued, and, as my +readers already read in my Chapter on hoaxes, ended with a hoax; +at last a large tunny was brought in, and many persons believed +it to be the animal! Among those who were present there was a Mr. +<span class="smcap">Andrews Norton</span>; he wrote, Sept. 11, 1818, a letter about this +affair to Mr. <span class="smcap">George Bancroft</span>, an extract from which is also +inserted in our Chapter on hoaxes. I will repeat here his last words:</p> + +<p>“I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of +the German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg +you will assure him that we” (Mr. <span class="smcap">Norton</span> and Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span>) “do +not consider the circumstance connected with the deception just +mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real +existence.”—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><i>The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts R. +Inst. Gr. Brit.</i> repeats in its Vol. VII, London, 1819, the whole +paper of Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span>, and a translation into German appeared in +<span class="smcap">Oken</span>’s Isis of 1819.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The well-known <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, when in America, made +the sea-serpent a subject of study and inquiry as Prof. <span class="smcap">Peck</span> had +done. He too wrote a paper about it, entitled: <i>Dissertation on +Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents</i>. It seems that his +dissertation appeared in an American Journal or in American +Transactions, and that it was afterwards reprinted in the <i>Philosophical +Magazine</i>, Vol. LIV, 1819. He is a believer in Sea-Serpents, +is evidently convinced that several species exist, belonging to the +family of the <i>Hydrophidae</i>, or real Sea-Snakes.</p> + +<p>After having mentioned 9 species of real Sea-Snakes, of which +the last was 8 to 10 feet long, he goes on:</p> + +<p>“This last species appears to be the largest real Sea-Snake which +has fallen under the personal observation of naturalists as yet. But +larger species still have been noticed at different periods. If I had +the time and opportunity of perusing all the accounts of travellers +and historians, I could probably bring many into notice; but this +tedious labour must be postponed, and I must warn those who +may be inclined to inquire into the subject, not to be deceived +by the imperfect and exaggerated accounts of ancient and unknown +<span class="pagenum" id="Page200">[200]</span>writers. Whenever they mention neither the scales nor tail of their +Sea-Serpents, or when they assert they had no scales, or had gills +or fins, you must in all those instances be certain that they are +real fishes rather than serpents. There might, however, be found +some Sea-Snakes without scales, since there are such land snakes; +and there are fishes with scales and yet without fins: but there +are no fishes without gills, and no snakes or serpents with gills!—in +that important character the classical distinction consists.”</p> + +<p>“Nearly all the writers whom I can remember, have been +unacquainted with that obvious distinction; and they have, in +imitation of the ancient Greek and Roman writers, given the name +of Sea-Snakes to the large eels or fishes they happened to observe. +This I apprehend is the case with Pontoppidan, in his Natural +History of Norway; with Mongitore in his Remarkable Objects of +Sicily; with Leguat, in his Travels to Rodriguez Island, &c. Their +observations, and the facts they record, are notwithstanding equally +valuable, since they relate to monstrous unknown fishes, which +seldom fall under the observation of men. The individuals of huge +species are not numerous in nature, either on land or in water, +and it is probable they often become extinct for want of food or +reproduction.”</p> + +<p>“Among the four different animals which have lately been observed +by Americans, and named Sea-Serpents, only one (the +Massachusetts Serpent) appears to be such; another is evidently a +fish, and two are doubtful. I shall refer a few remarks on each.”</p> + +<p>“1. <i>The Massachusetts Sea Serpent.</i> From the various and contradictory +accounts given of this monster by witnesses, the following +description may be collected.—It is about 100 feet long; the +body is round and nearly two feet in diameter, of a dark brown, +and covered with large scales in transverse rows; its head is scaly, +brown mixed with white, of the size of a horse’s and nearly the +shape of a dog’s; the mouth is large with teeth like a shark; its +tail is compressed, obtuse, and shaped like an oar. This animal +came in August last into the bay of Massachusetts in pursuit of +shoals of fishes, herrings, squids, &c. on which it feeds. Its motions +are very quick: it was seen by a great many; but all attempts +to catch it have failed, although 5000 dollars have been offered +for its spoils. It is evidently a real Sea Snake, belonging probably +to the genus <i>Pelamis</i>, and I propose to call it <i>Pelamis megophias</i>, +which means Great Sea Snake Pelamis. It might however be a +peculiar genus, which the long equal scales seem to indicate and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page201">[201]</span>which a closer examination might have decided: in that case the +name of <i>Megophias monstrosus</i> might have been appropriated to it.”</p> + +<p>We observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> gives here some characters to +the Massachusetts’s Sea-Serpent, with which we have met nowhere +else, apparently only for the purpose of rendering his supposition +more plausible: 1. “The scales”. It is true that some of the eye-witnesses +have declared the skin to be rough and scaly, but against +<i>one</i> who says so, there are <i>twenty</i> who deny it, describing the skin +to be smooth and having no scales. 2. “The scales are in transverse +rows.” This assertion is made nowhere else. 3. “Its head +brown mixed with white.” A new statement. The head is only +described as white on its throat and lower jaws. 4. “The head of the +shape of a dog’s.” I did not find this expression any where else; on the +contrary all agree in its resembling a serpent’s or a snake’s head. +5. “The teeth like a shark’s, the tail compressed, obtuse, shaped +like an oar.” Nobody saw either teeth or tail! Indeed a splendid +description after the reports given of the animal’s external features!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report60"><span class="reportnr"><b>60</b></span>.—1819, June 6.—(<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of +Science and the Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston 1820.)</p> + +<p>“I, Hawkins Wheeler, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, +and state of Connecticut, mariner, Commander of the sloop Concord, +of said Fairfield, in her late passage from New York to +Salem, in the County of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, +on oath declare, that during the said passage from New +York to Salem, to wit, on Monday, the 6th. day of June instant, +at about five o’clock in the morning, the sloop being as near as +I could judge, 15 miles N. W. of Race Point, and within sight +of Cape Ann, I was at the helm of the sloop, and saw directly +a-head, (the course of the vessel being N. W.) something that resembled +a snake, about 100 yards distance from the sloop, moving +in a S. W. direction. The animal moved in that direction, till he +had passed athwart the course of the sloop, and appeared directly +over the weather bow, when he altered his course to S. E. At this +time he had been visible about five minutes, when he sunk, and +in about six or eight minutes after, appeared again directly over +the weather quarter, about the same distance from the sloop—he +continued in that course about five or six minutes, when he +sunk again, and I saw him no more. His motion was at the rate +<span class="pagenum" id="Page202">[202]</span>of about four miles an hour, when he passed ahead; but after +he appeared again on the quarter, his motion was less rapid. To +the best of my judgment he was not more than 100 yards of the +vessel—the weather was good and clear—it was almost calm, +with a light air of wind from the S., the vessel was going about +two knots—I had a fair and distinct view of the creature, and +from his appearance am satisfied that it was of the serpent kind. +The creature was entirely black; the head, which perfectly resembled +a snake’s, was elevated from four to seven feet above the +surface of the water, and his back appeared to be composed of +bunches or humps, apparently about as large as, or a little larger +than a half barrel; I think I saw as many as ten or twelve, but +did not count them; I considered them to be caused by the undulatory +motion of the animal—the tail was not visible, but +from the head to the last hump that could be seen, was, I should +judge, 50 feet. The first view I had of him appeared like a string +of empty barrels tied together, rising over what little swell of the +sea there was. What motion I could discern in the body of the +animal was undulatory, but he evidently moved his tail under +water, and the ripples produced by it indicated a sweeping motion, +making a wake as large as that made by the sloop.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Hawkins Wheeler.”</span></p> + +<p>“Essex, ss. June 9th. 1819.—Then Hawkins Wheeler personally +appeared, and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him +subscribed, contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but +the truth. Before me</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”</span></p> + +<p>“I, Gersham Bennet, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, +and State of Connecticut, mariner, on oath declare, that I was +mate of the sloop Concord, Hawkins Wheeler, master, in her late +passage from New York to Salem, Mass., that on Monday, the +6th. day of June inst., at seven o’clock in the morning, I was on +the deck of the sloop, sitting on the hatches—the vessel was +steering N. W. and was then about eighteen miles from Race +Point—the man at the helm made an outcry, and said there +was something alongside that he wanted me to look at. I looked, +and saw something on the larboard side of the vessel, about twelve +rods, certainly not exceeding fourteen, from the vessel, that resembled +a serpent or snake. I immediately arose and went to the +side of the vessel, and took a position on the rough tree, holding +on by the shrouds; I there saw a serpent of an enormous size and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page203">[203]</span>uncommon appearance, upon the water; his head was about the +length of the anchor stock above the surface of the water, viz. +about seven feet. I looked at the anchor stock at the time, and +formed my opinion by comparing the two objects. The weather +was very clear and good and the water almost calm; and I had, +I think, as good a view of the animal as if I had been within +two rods of him. The colour of the animal throughout, as far as +could be seen, was black, and the surface appeared to be smooth, +without scales—his head was about as long as a horse’s and was +a proper snake’s head—there was a degree of flatness, with a +slight hollow on the top of his head—his eyes were prominent, +and stood out considerably from the surface, resembling in that +respect the eyes of a toad, and were nearer to the mouth of the +animal than to the back of the head. I had a full view of him +for seven or eight minutes. He was moving in the same direction +with the sloop, and about as fast. The back was composed of +bunches about the size of a flour barrel, which were apparently +about three feet apart—they appeared to be fixed, but might +be occasioned by the motion of the animal, and looked like a +string of casks or barrels tied together—the tail was not visible, +but the wake of his tail which he evidently moved under water, +showed a horizontal or sweeping motion, producing a wake as large +as the vessel made. He turned his head two or three times slowly +round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of some +object on board. I went up on the rigging, for the purpose of +taking a view of him from above; but before I had reached my +station, he sunk below the surface of the water, and did not +appear again. Gersham Bennett.”</p> + +<p>“Essex ss. June 9th. 1819.—Then Gersham Bennett personally +appeared and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, +contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth. Before me,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”</span></p> + +<p>It is probable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bennett</span> is right in considering the “wake +as large as the vessel made” was produced by a horizontal or sweeping +motion of the tail, but it is far more probable that it was caused +by the motion of the hind-flappers, supposed the animal nearly +touched the surface of the water with the hinder part of the body.</p> + +<p>New characters to us are these: that there is a slight hollow on +the top of its head, that its eyes are prominent, and stand out +considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes +<span class="pagenum" id="Page204">[204]</span>of a toad, and that they are nearer to the mouth of the animal +than to the back of the head.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report61"><span class="reportnr"><b>61</b></span>.—1819, July.—<span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels +through Sweden, in the Summer of 1820</i>, says at p. 187:</p> + +<p>“As I had determined, on arriving at the coast, to make every +inquiry respecting the truth of the accounts, which had reached +England the preceeding year, of the sea-serpent having recently +seen off this part of Norway, I shall simply give the different reports, +I received of it during my voyage to the North Cape, +leaving others to their own conclusions, and without expressing, +at least for the present, any opinion respecting them.”</p> + +<p class="noindent">and at p. 198:</p> + +<p>“From him (the postmaster Mr. <span class="smcap">Schilderup</span>) I learned some +curious particulars respecting the sea-serpent, which had caused so +much alarm and wonder in Norway, and the report of which, as +I have said, had even reached England. From having formerly been +in the Norwegian sea service, he was called Captain Schilderup; +and seemed a quick intelligent man. It appeared, that the serpent +had actually been off the island for a considerable length of time +during the preceding summer, in the narrow part of the Sound, +between this island (Ottersum) and the continent; and the description +he gave of it was as follows.”</p> + +<p>“It made its appearance for the first time in the month of July, +1819, off Ottersum, in the sound above mentioned. Previous to +this he had often heard of the existence of these creatures, but +never before believed it. During the whole of that month the weather +was excessively sultry and calm; and the serpent was seen +every day, nearly in the same part of the Sound. It continued +there while the warm weather lasted, lying motionless, and as if +dozing in the sun-beams.—This part of his account reminded +me of the monster of the deep, so finely described by Milton.”</p> + +<p>“The number of persons living on the island, he said, was about +thirty; the whole of whom, from motives of curiosity, went to look +at it while it remained. This was confirmed to me by subsequent +inquiries among the inhabitants, who gave a similar account of it. +The first time that he saw it, he was in a boat, at a distance of +about 200 yards. The length of it he supposes to have been about +300 ells, or 600 feet. Of this he could not speak accurately; but +<span class="pagenum" id="Page205">[205]</span>it was of very considerable length; and longer than it appeared, +as it lay in large coils above the water to the height of many feet. +Its colour was greyish. At the distance at which he was, he could +not ascertain whether it were covered with scales; but when it +moved, it made a loud crackling noise, which he distinctly heard. +Its head was shaped like that of a serpent, but he could not tell +whether it had teeth or not. He said it emitted a very strong +odour, and that the boatmen were afraid to approach near it, and +looked on its coming as a bad sign, as the fish left the coast in +consequence. Such were the particulars he related to me. Thanking +him for his information, I took my leave of him, and proceeded +on my voyage.”</p> + +<p>And at p. 200:</p> + +<p>“Near Ottersum is the small Island of Krogoën”, (upon which +a merchant lived, who hearing that Mr. <span class="smcap">Brooke</span> was an Englishman, +who travelled to North-Cape, put to him numberless questions.) +“Having answered all these questions as well as I could, and a +momentary pause ensuing I seized the opportunity now to have +my turn; and wishing to hear something still farther respecting +the sea-monster, I began to overwhelm him with interrogations, +as to its length, colour, appearance, time it staid, by whom seen, +and many others that occurred to me. However ludicrous the +earnest loquacity on both sides might have been, I had the satisfaction +of hearing him confirm, in every particular, the account of +Capt. Schilderup at Ottersum; and that many of the people at +Krogoën had also witnessed it. It did not appear, however, that any one +had ventured very near it, from the dread that was entertained of it.”</p> + +<p>Of course the length of the animal, estimated from a distance +of 200 yards, is exaggerated. The greyish colour is that which the +animal obtains when drying in the sunshine, as I have already +explained before. For the first time we meet with the statement +that the animal emits a very strong odour, which is twice stated +here. As we shall once more come across this statement, we must +needs believe it. In my last chapter I will return to this fact, +proving that it is not an impossible character of sea-serpents.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report62"><span class="reportnr"><b>62</b></span>.—1819, August 12?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span> informed us the sea-serpent +had been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach. (Part +of the following report.)</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page206">[206]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report63"><span class="reportnr"><b>63</b></span>.—1819, August 13?—There appeared an interesting account +of an eye-witness about a sea-serpent in the <i>Boston Daily +Advertiser</i> of 19th. August, 1819. I have not been able to consult +this journal. The report was translated in <span class="smcap">Oken</span>’s <i>Isis</i> of 1819, p. +1754, accompanied by the figure, made by the eye-witness. Happily +I found the same in <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>’s <i>American Journal Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. +II, Boston, 1820, but without the figure. It runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“The recent appearance of this animal at Nahant, in the view +of several hundred persons, has furnished, perhaps, more conclusive +proof of his existence, than any that has before been made public. +For the satisfaction of our readers, we have procured a copy of +the following letter, which gives a very clear and intelligible description +of his appearance and movements. We have heard verbal +statements from a great number of gentlemen, all of whom agree +in substance with what is here related.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Copy of a letter from</i> James Prince, <i>Marshal of the District, +to the Hon. Judge</i> Davis, <i>dated</i>”:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Nahant, Aug. 16th., 1819.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl15">“Dear Sir,”</span></p> + +<p>“I presume I may have seen what is generally thought to be +the sea-serpent—I have also seen my name inserted in the evening +newspaper printed at Boston on Saturday, in a communication on +this subject. For your gratification, and from a desire that my +name may not sanction any thing beyond what was presented and +passed in a review before me, I will now state that which, in +the presence of more than two hundred other witnesses, took place +near the long beach of Nahant, on Saturday morning last.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig26"> +<img src="images/illo207.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 26.—The sea-serpent as delineated by Mr. Prince.</p> +</div> + +<p>“Intending to pass two or three days at Nahant, with my family, +we left Boston early on Saturday morning. On passing the halfway +house, on the Salem turn pike, Mr. Smith informed us the +sea-serpent had been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach, and +that a vast number of people from Lynn, had gone to the beach +that morning, in hopes of being gratified with a sight of him: +This was confirmed at the hotel. I was glad to find I had brought +my famous mast-head spy-glass with me, as it would enable me, +from its form and size, to view him to advantage, if I might be +so fortunate as to see him. On our arrival on the beach, we associated +with a considerable number of persons, on foot and in chaises, +and very soon an animal of the fish-kind made his appearance. +His head appeared about three feet out of water; I counted thirteen +bunches on his back: my family thought there were fifteen—he +<span class="pagenum" id="Page207">[207]</span>passed three times at a moderate rate across the bay, but so fleet +as to occasion a foam in the water—and my family and myself, +who were in carriage, judged he was fifty feet in length, and, at +the extend, not more than sixty; whether, however, the wake +might not add to the appearance of his length; or whether the +undulation of the water, or his peculiar manner of propelling himself, +might not cause the appearance of protuberances, I leave for +your better judgment. The first view of the animal occasioned +some agitation, and the novelty perhaps prevented that precise +discrimination which afterwards took place—as he swam up the +bay, we and the other spectators moved on, and kept abreast of +him; he occasionally withdrew himself under water, and the idea +occurred to me that this occasionally raising his head above the +level of the water, was to take breath, as the time he kept under +water was of an average about eight minutes; after being accustomed +to view him, we became more composed; and made the annexed +figure of his outlines. Mrs. Prince and the coachman having better +eyes than myself, were of great assistance to me in marking the +progress of the animal; they would say he is now turning, and +by the aid of my glass I saw him distinctly in this movement; +he did not turn without occupying some space, and taking into +view the time and space which he found necessary for his ease +and accommodation, I adopted it as a criterium to form some +judgment of his length—I had seven distinct views of him from +the long beach so called, and at some of them the animal was +not more than a hundred yards distance. After being on the long +beach about an hour, the animal disappeared, and I proceeded on +towards Nahant; but on passing the second beach, I met Mr. +James Magee, of Boston, with several ladies in a carriage, prompted +<span class="pagenum" id="Page208">[208]</span>by curiosity to endeavor to see the animal, and we were again +gratified beyond even what we saw in the other bay; which +I concluded he had left in consequence of the number of +boats in the offing in pursuit of him—the noise of whose oars +must have disturbed him, as he appeared to us to be a harmless +timid animal. We had more than a dozen different views of him, +and each similar to the other; one however so near, that the +coachman exclaimed: “Oh, see his glistening eye”. Thinking I +might form some calculation of his length by the time and distance +of each turn; and taking an angle with my two hands of the +length he exhibited, that is to say, from his head to his last +protuberance, and applying the same angle to other objects, I feel +satisfied of the correctness of my decision that he is sixty feet +long, unless the ripple of his wake deceived me—nor my dear +sir, do I undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though +this was the general impression on my family, the spectators and +myself. Certainly it is a very strange animal. I have been accustomed +to see whales, grampuses, porpoises, and other large fishes, but +he partook of the appearance of none of these. The whale and the +grampus would have spouted—the shark never raises his head out +of water, and the porpoise skips and plays; neither of these has +such appearances on the back or such a head as this animal. The +shark it is true, has a fin on his back, and often the fluke of his +tail is out of water; but these appendages would not display the +form, and certainly not the number of protuberances, which this +animal exhibited; nor is it the habit of the shark to avoid a boat. +The water was extremely smooth, and the weather clear: we had +been so habituated to see him, that we were cool and composed—the +time occupied was from a quarter past eight to half past +eleven—a cloud of witnesses exceeding two hundred, brought +together for a single purpose, were all alike satisfied and united +as to appearances, and as to the length and size of the animal; +but you must deduct the influence which his passage through +the water and the manner he propelled himself might have +as to the apparent protuberances on his back, and the ripple +occasioned by his motion on his real length, of all which you can +judge equally well and better than myself. I must conclude there +is a strange animal on our coast—and I have thought an unvarnished +statement might be gratifying to a mind attached to the +pursuit of natural science, and aid in the inquiries on a controverted +question, which I knew to have interested you. I have ventured +<span class="pagenum" id="Page209">[209]</span>on the description, being also induced to hope, that if +anything on the marvellous is stated as coming from me, you +will correct it.</p> + +<p class="center"><span class="padl10">“Accept the respects and attention of</span><br> +<span class="padl10">“Dear Sir, yours sincerely</span><br> +<span class="padl10">“James Prince.”</span></p> + +<p>We see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> uses many words to give a very short +description of the animal. Yet we are able to gather the following +details. Its head appeared about three feet out of the water, there +were 13 or 15 bunches on its back, sometimes the rapidity was +moderate, occasioning, however, a foam in the water; length 50 +to 60 feet; the animal left behind it a wake; sometimes it withdrew +itself under water; it appeared to be a harmless timid animal; +its eyes were glistening. All these characters, external features and +habits are long known to us. Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> first said the animal +belonged to the fish-kind; afterwards, however, he dared not say +whether it was of the snake or eel-kind; yet his figure shows large +scales and a fish-tail. It is astonishing that the person who is so +careful in his expressions, is so inaccurate when handling the pencil. +The head of the animal in his figure is more that of a young +duck than of a serpent or snake, which the head of the sea-serpent +is said to resemble closely. The coils are badly drawn, and though +13 to 15 bunches were seen, only six are delineated. The rippling +of the water on the animal’s left side and before it is well represented, +on its right side, however, it is quite wrong. The two +racked-formed wings are certainly the representation of the foam, +caused in the water by the animal’s rapid motion. And finally the +scales and the fish-tail are drawn by Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> though he has +not seen them! I am obliged to state again that this figure is a +facsimile of that which I found in <span class="smcap">Oken</span>’s <i>Isis</i>; the very one of +the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> I have had no opportunity to see.</p> + +<p>The letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> is translated into Dutch in the +<i>Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk</i>.</p> + +<p>On the same day it was seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Cabot</span>, who wrote the +following letter (<span class="smcap">Silliman</span>’s <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, II, 1820) to our +well known</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Col. T. H. Perkins”</span></p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Brookline, August 19, 1819.</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Dear Sir”</span></p> + +<p>“I very willingly comply with your request to state what I saw +<span class="pagenum" id="Page210">[210]</span>of the <i>Sea-Serpent</i> at <i>Nahant</i>, on Saturday last, particularly as I +happened to see it under favourable circumstances to form a judgment, +and to considerable advantage in point of position and +distance.”</p> + +<p>“I got into my chaise about seven o’clock in the morning to +come to Boston, and on reaching the long Beach observed a number +of people collected there and several boats pushing off and in the +offing. I was speculating on what should have occasioned so great +an assemblage there without any apparent object, and finally had +concluded that they were embarking in those boats on a party of +pleasure to Egg Rock, or some other point.”</p> + +<p>“I had not heard of the <i>Sea-Serpent</i> being in that neighbourhood, +and I had not lately paid much attention to the evidences which +had been given of its existence, the idea of this animal did not +enter my mind at the moment.”</p> + +<p>“As my curiosity was directed towards the boats to ascertain +the course they were taking, my attention was suddenly arrested +by an object emerging from the water at the distance of about one +hundred or one hundred and fifty yards, which gave to my mind at the +first glance the idea of a horse’s head. As my eye ranged along I +perceived at a short distance eight or ten regular bunches or protuberances, +and at a short interval three or four more. I was now +satisfied that the <i>Sea-Serpent</i> was before me, and after the first +moment of excitement produced by the unexpected sight of so +strange a monster taxed myself to investigate his appearance as +accurately as I could.”</p> + +<p>“My first object was the Head, which I satisfied myself was +serpent shaped, it was elevated about two feet from the water, +and he depressed it gradually, to within six or eight inches as +he moved along. I could always see under his chin, which appeared +to hollow underneath or to curve downward. His motion was at +that time very slow along the Beach, inclining towards the shore; +he at first moved his head from side to side as if to look about +him. I did not see his eyes, though I have no doubt I could +have seen them if I had thought to attend to this. His bunches +appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he moved +along some appeared to be depressed, and others brought above +the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them. My +next object was to ascertain his length. For this purpose I directed +my eye to several whale boats at about the same distance, one of +which was beyond him, and by comparing the relative length, I +<span class="pagenum" id="Page211">[211]</span>calculated that the distance from the animal’s head to the last +protuberance I had noticed, would be equal to about five of those +boats. I felt persuaded by this examination that he could not be +less than eighty feet long; as he approached the shore and came +between me and a point of land which projects from the eastern +end of the Beach, I had another means of satisfying myself on +this point.”</p> + +<p>“After I had viewed him thus attentively for about four or five +minutes, he sunk gradually into the water and disappeared; he +afterwards again made his appearance for a moment at a short +distance.”</p> + +<p>“My first reflection after the animal was gone, was, that the +idea I had received from the description you gave of the animal +you saw at <i>Gloucester</i>, in 1817, was perfectly realized in this +instance; and that I had discovered nothing you had not before +described. The most authentic testimony given of his first appearance +there seemed to me remarkably correct; and I felt as if the appearance +of this monster had been already familiar to me.”</p> + +<p>“After remaining some two or three hours on the Beach, without +again seeing him, I returned towards Nahant; and in crossing +the small beach, had another good view of him, for a longer time, +but at a greater distance. At this time he moved more rapidly, +causing a white foam under the chin, and a long wake, and his +protuberances had a more uniform appearance. At this time he +must have been seen by two or three hundred persons on the +beach and on the heights each side, some of whom were very +favourable situated to observe him.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“I am very respectfully”</span><br> +<span class="padr6">“your obedient servant”</span><br> +<span class="padr8">“Samuel Cabot.”</span></p> + +<p>The Editor of the American Journal, Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, adds:</p> + +<p>“It is almost superfluous to add, that Mr. Cabot and his friend +Col. Perkins, are gentlemen of the first standing and consideration.”</p> + +<p>On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span>, when on board the +<i>Ann Marie</i>, wrote a letter to his friend Mr. <span class="smcap">Jno. P. Cushing</span>; he +published it in the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> of 1848, Nov. 25; a +passage of it runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“Besides the instances I have mentioned, there were many others +reported of his having been seen the same year. In that year, 1817, +although there were several reports of his having been seen, yet they +were not well authenticated, nor do I place any confidence in them.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page212">[212]</span></p> + +<p>“In the month of August, in the last year, he again made his +appearance in our vicinity, and under very satisfactory circumstances. +The weather being hot, many of our citizens resorted to Nahant +to pass a few weeks. On the number were Mr. and Mrs. Cabot +and their children. Mr. Cabot had a view of him for more than +half an hour at one time. He was in a chair, and had reached +what is termed the long beach, when he saw several persons collected +half a mile from him, which called his attention to the +object which occupied them. Mr. C. had heard me often describe +the view I had had of the serpent in 1817, and recognized in +what was visible just without the breakers, and within a quarter +of a mile, the monster which was supposed by many to exist +nowhere but in the imaginations of those who had reported to have +seen him. Mr. Cabot immediately rode back to Nahant; took Mrs. +Cabot into his chair and returned to the beach; but the animal +was no longer visible. By this time the inhabitants of Lynn had +assembled to the number of some hundreds, on and near the beach, +and all the visitors of Nahant were upon the alert. Having given +over the hope of seeing him, Mr. Cabot was returning to leave +his wife at her lodgings, when, to their mutual delight, he came +in view just without the surf of the little beach, and within a +quarter of a mile or less of where they stood.”</p> + +<p>“Marshal Prince, James Magee, and many persons of my acquaintance +had a fine sight of him, and all agreed in their account +of him in the principal particulars. They all agreed as to the +rapidity of his movements, being very much beyond anything living +they had ever seen. The apparent bunches on his back they consider +as arising from the construction of his body, and that the +movement was vertical and not horizontal. At one time his head +was about two or three feet above water, but soon depressed to +the level of the sea. When not swimming to be in pursuit of his +prey, his motion was not rapid. They saw him turn and bring +his body into a letter S, the head being at right angles with the +tail. From fifteen to twenty three bunches, or apparent bunches, +were counted by the different persons who saw him, and his size +round they thought to be that of a common firkin or half barrel”.</p> + +<p>“No one thought they saw the whole of the body at a time, +the tail seeming always to be considerably under water. The greatest +length given to him was one hundred feet and no one who +had a good sight of him thought him less than eighty feet in +length. If the number of protuberances is twenty-three (and it +<span class="pagenum" id="Page213">[213]</span>seems there are at least this number), and calculating them to be +distant from centre to centre four feet (and I think, considering +their thickness, they cannot be less than this), he would be ninety +two feet long. They all agreed, too, as to the colour being quite +dark, approaching to black.”</p> + +<p>In a letter from Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span> to Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, dated London, Nov. +4, 1826, part of which was published in the <i>Edinb. Journ. of Sc.</i>, +we read that he visited Boston to gather testimony from eye-witnesses. +He then says:</p> + +<p>“During this visit I distinctly remember the news coming from +Nahant one morning, of the Serpent being in the bay of that +place, distant about sixteen miles from Boston. Many hurried down +to see it, and among them my brother Mr. James Boott. I was +prevented from some cause leaving Boston. My brother reported +that he distinctly saw a large serpent, about a mile from the shore; +and that thousands were watching its motion on the beach and +rocks. The first idea that occurred to my brother was that it was +a horse swimming, its head at the time bearing a resemblance to +that of the latter creature. He afterwards saw the undulating line +of its back, and remained several hours watching the animal. Colonel +Perkins of Boston, his wife, and family, were present at +this time, as far as I recollect.”</p> + +<p>So we have of this appearance three different statements of +respectable persons, who distinctly saw the animal on the same spot.</p> + +<p>This appearance of the sea-serpent near Nahant is also mentioned +in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>’s <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report64"><span class="reportnr"><b>64</b></span>.—1819, August.—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. De Capell Brooke</span> says in +his <i>Travels through Sweden, &c.</i>, at p. 207:</p> + +<p>“I there” (Stenesöen) “obtained from his” (<span class="smcap">Peder Greger’s</span>) “son +John Greger, a young man, who employed himself in the fishery, +still further information respecting the sea-serpent; it was in August +of the preceding year, while fishing with others in the Vieg or +Vegfjord, that he saw it; at that time they were on shore, hauling +in their nets, and it appeared about sixty yards distant from them, +at which they were not a little alarmed, and immediately retreated. +What was seen of it above water, he said, appeared six times the +length of their boat, of a grey colour, and lying in coils a great +height above the surface. Their fright prevented them from attending +more accurately to other particulars. In fact they all fairly +<span class="pagenum" id="Page214">[214]</span>took to their heels, when they found the monster so near them. +The weather at the time was very hot and calm. Farther to the +south (at Stenesöen) he said it was seen several times, and it remained +there for a considerable period.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report65"><span class="reportnr"><b>65</b></span>.—1819, August.—The same author at p. 216 of his +volume relates:</p> + +<p>“My honest boatmen who had brought me all the way from +Leköe, a distance of near sixty miles, now left me. Previous to +their departure they gave me the following account of the sea-serpent, +which is here inserted as they related it, without the least +variation. They were fishermen and had been up at the North Cape. +During the time they remained there they saw the serpent twice, +once at no very great distance from them. It was of a grey colour; +the head blackish, with teeth. What they discerned of it they +judged to be at least five times the length of their boat, which +is about thirty feet. It moved in large folds on the water; and +when they saw it, they rowed away from it as fast as they could. +The weather was very calm at the time.”</p> + +<p>This is the most northern appearance of the sea-serpent. The +teeth are mentioned here, though not described.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report66"><span class="reportnr"><b>66</b></span>.—1819? August?—The same author at p. 222 of his +<i>Travels</i> tells us:</p> + +<p>“To the testimony of others respecting the existence of the sea-serpent, +I shall now add that of the bishop” (of the Nordlands and +Finmark) “himself, who was eye-witness to the appearance of two +in the bay of the Shuresund, or Sorsund, in the Drontheim <i>fjord</i>, +about eight Norway miles from Drontheim. He was but a short +distance from them, and saw them plainly. They were swimming +in large folds, part of which was seen above the water, and the +length of what appeared the largest he judged to be about 100 +feet. They were of a darkish grey colour; the heads hardly discernable, +from their being almost under water; and they were +visible for only a short time. Before that period he had treated +the account of them as fabulous; but it was now impossible, he +said, to doubt their existence, as such numbers of respectable +people, since that time had likewise seen them on different occasions.”</p> + +<p>Not a single fact that need astonish us. That <i>two</i> were seen +<span class="pagenum" id="Page215">[215]</span>together is not reported for the first time, as the reader will +remember. The swimming “in large folds, part of which was seen +above water”, is a very accurate description of the effect made by +the swimming animals. The colour is described as a darkish grey, +which is exactly the colour of the animal, when seen at a short +distance. Their holding their heads very low, only just above the +surface of the water, is a common habit of them too.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report67"><span class="reportnr"><b>67</b></span>.—1819? August?—The same author relates (p. 403):</p> + +<p>“The last account respecting the existence of the sea-serpent I +received from him” (the sexton of Maasöe) “during our journey. +He was fishing, as he said, with others in the Mageröe-Sund, +when they discerned the monster of the deep, stretching out his +bulk in many a spiral fold, and basking on the surface of the +water. Its colour was dark and as to its length, he assured me, +with looks of wonder and almost of alarm, that it nearly reached +from the Mageröe side to the mainland opposite. In this measurement +fear, doubtless, was the principal agent; for as to any accurate +observations made by himself, they were out of the question. My +friend the sexton was much too prudent a man, to hazard any at +such a juncture. A glance was sufficient for him to commence his +flight forthwith, as fast as his arms would enable him.”</p> + +<p>Of course I agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">de Capell Brooke</span> as to the exaggerated +dimensions attributed to the animal by the sexton of +Maasöe. The words “spiral folds”, of course, are wrong, the author +meant the sinuosities in which the animal moves. Its colour is +here described dark, which corresponds with so many other testimonies.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report68"><span class="reportnr"><b>68</b></span>.—1819? August?—At page 406 of the volume of +this author we read in a note:</p> + +<p>“The account of the serpent, received by him” (Prösten <span class="smcap">Deinbolt</span> +of Vadsöe) “from several persons on that part of the coast, agreed +with those which have been already given.”</p> + +<p>This, of course, is only a report of the appearance of the sea-serpent +near Vadsöe.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page216">[216]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report69"><span class="reportnr"><b>69</b></span>.—1819, Aug. 26.—“<i>Extract of a letter from</i> Mr. +Cheever Felch, Chaplan to the United States’ ship Independance +of 74 guns, to the Editor of the Boston Centinel.” (<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> +<i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. II).</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Gloucester, August 26, 1819.</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Dear Sir.</span></p> + +<p>“Others having taken in hand to give some account of the Sea-Serpent, +I know not why I should not have the same liberty. +Being on this station, in the United States’ schooner Science, for +the purpose of surveying this harbor, we were proceeding this +morning down the harbor, in the schooner’s boat; when abreast +of Dallivan’s Neck, William T. Malbone, Esq. Commander of the +Schooner, seeing some appearance on the water, said—“<i>there is +your sea-serpent</i>”, meaning it as a laugh on me, for believing in +its existence; but it prooved to be no joke. The animal was then +between thirty and forty yards distance from us. Mr. Malbone, +Midshipman Blake, myself, and our four boatmen, had a distinct +view of him. He soon sunk; but not so deep but we could trace +his course. He rose again within twenty yards distance of us, and +lay sometime on the water. He then turned, and steered for Ten +Pound Island; we pulled after him; but finding that he was not +pleased with the noise of our oars, they were laid in, and the +boat skulled. We again approached very near him. He continued +some length of time, playing between Ten Pound Island and Stage +Point. As he often came near the Point, we thought we could +get a better view of him there, than from the boat, of which he +seemed conspicuous. Mr. Malbone and myself landed; and the boat +was sent to order the schooner down, for the purpose of trying +what effect a twelve pound carronade would have upon him. He +did not remain long after we landed, so that I was unable to +effect my intention, of ascertaining, accurately, his length, with +my instruments. From my knowledge of aquatic animals, and +habits, and intimacy with marine appearances, I could not be deceived. +We had a good view of him, except the very short period while +he was under water, for half an hour.—His colour is a dark +brown, with white under the throat. His size, we could not accurately +ascertain, but his head is about three feet in circumference, +flat and much smaller than his body. We did not see his tail; +but from the end of the head to the fartherest protuberance, was +not far from one hundred feet. I speak with a degree of certainty, +from being much accustomed to measure and estimate distances +<span class="pagenum" id="Page217">[217]</span>and length. I counted fourteen bunches on his back, the first one, +say ten or twelve feet from his head, and the others about seven +feet apart. They decreased in size towards the tail. These bunches +were sometimes counted with, and sometimes without a glass. Mr. +Malbone counted thirteen, Mr. Blake thirteen and fourteen, and +the boatman about the same number. His motion was sometimes +very rapid, and at other times he lay nearly still. He turned +slowly, and took up considerable room in doing it. He sometimes +darted under water, with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey. +The protuberances were not from his motion, as they were the +same whether in slow or rapid movement. His motion was partly +vertical and partly horizontal, like that of fresh water snakes. I +have been much acquainted with the snakes in our interior waters. +His motion was the same. I have given you in round numbers, +one hundred feet, for his length, that is, what we saw; but I +should say he must be one hundred and thirty feet in length, +allowing for his tail. There were a considerable number of birds +about the sea-serpent as I have seen them about a snake on shore. +That there is an aquatic animal in the form of a snake, is not to +be doubted. Mr. Malbone, till this day, was incredulous. No man +would now convince him, there was not such a being. The sketch +or picture of Marshal Prince, is perfectly correct. I could not, +with my own pencil, give a more correct likeness.”</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl10">“With respect”</span><br> +<span class="padl20">“Your obedient servant”</span><br> +<span class="padl26">“Cheever Felch”</span></p> + +<p class="center">“Major B. Russell.”</p> + +<p>I will not contest Mr. <span class="smcap">Felch’s</span> opinion about Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince’s</span> figure! +As to the letter itself there is not a single statement which can +detract from or add to our present notions of the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>In 1846 Col. T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, of whom we have spoken more +than once, requested Mr. <span class="smcap">Bolton</span>, who was first Lieutenant of the +<i>Independence</i> in 1819, to send him some particulars about this appearance. +Mr. <span class="smcap">Bolton</span> promptly replied under date of July 14, +1846. This letter, published by Col. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> in the <i>Boston Daily +Advertiser</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“In the year 1817 I was the first lieutenant of the Independence, +of 74 guns, then lying in the harbour of Boston.”</p> + +<p>“In the course of the spring or summer a party of officers were +detailed, by order of Commodore Bainbridge, to survey the coast of the +bay, to a limited extent northeastward and outside of the light-house.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page218">[218]</span></p> + +<p>“The officers selected for this duty were the sailingmaster of the +ship, Wm. T. Malbone, and the Rev. Cheever Fetch, the instructor +of the midshipmen.”</p> + +<p>“To assist in the service several of the most competent and elder +midshipmen were designated. As they alternated periodically with +other gentlemen of the same grade, I cannot with any degree of +precision venture to name them. I hope that some of them are +yet living, and, further, that they have advanced in professional +distinction. There were also added a sufficient number of seamen +and boys.”</p> + +<p>“Commodore Bainbridge, Mr. Malbone and Mr. Felch died some +years ago.”</p> + +<p>“I recollect that on the first occasion, when the Lynx returned +to the Independence, of which ship she was the tender, that Mr. +Malbone reported as having seen a monstrous sea-animal, not before +known to him, of the snake species; the length doubtful, but +estimated at some eighty or more feet; and added as an accident, +that the officers and men employed in a small boat to carry out the +soundings had returned in haste, and indeed alarm, to the Lynx, +which was at anchor.”</p> + +<p>“These statements were corroborated by Mr. Felch, the officers +and crew.”</p> + +<p>“Subsequently it was seen several times, by some of the party, +who, being soon satisfied that it was harmless approached comparatively +near, and no doubt gave me a minute description of its +appearance as it presented itself to them; but if so, the particular +details have escaped my memory.”</p> + +<p>“These facts are all that I can with distinctness and certainty +mention. Wm. Compton Bolton, Captain in the Navy of the United +States, Saratonga Springs, July 14, 1846; to Hon. T. H. Perkins, +Boston.”—</p> + +<p>It cannot surprise us that in some particulars, as “in the year +1817”, and in some others this letter does not agree with the +foregoing letter from the Rev. <span class="smcap">Cheever Felch</span> himself, as twenty-seven +years had since elapsed.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report70"><span class="reportnr"><b>70</b></span>.—1819, September?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Francis Boott</span> in a letter to +Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, and published in the +<i>Edinb. Journ. Sc.</i>, VI, 1827, says:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page219">[219]</span></p> + +<p>“I remember also that a letter appeared in the <i>Boston Centinel</i>, +soon after, published by an officer in the American Navy, who +reported that, on his return from a survey of some part of the +coast, he saw, when out of sight of land, a large serpent. He was +so near that he drew an outline of it, and that outline accompanied +the paragraph. When you showed me Mr. Warburton’s figure on +the card, I at first thought it was a copy of that of the <i>Centinel</i>. +I can only add, for your own satisfaction, that <i>I</i> have no doubt +of the existence of this remarkable animal.”</p> + +<p>As Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span> is speaking of a visit at Boston in August 1819, +the words “soon after” of course signify in the latter part of August +or in the beginning of September. As the officer was “on his return” +and published his encounter in the <i>Boston Centinel</i>, the appearance +most probably occurred not far from Boston. The reader will find +Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton’s</span> drawing further on (<a href="#Report83">n°. 83</a>).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report71"><span class="reportnr"><b>71</b></span>.—1819, September 13?—(<i>Phil. Mag.</i> LIV, 1819).</p> + +<p>“The great Sea-Snake has been seen again towards the middle +of September, in the bay of Massachusetts, and three yellow collars +observed on his neck, which has led some to believe it might be +another individual and species; but this circumstance might have +been overlooked before. It is not stated whether it had streaks of +a lighter hue on the body, as the first was represented to have +by some witnesses. It is therefore likely that the two characters +of “streaks of a lighter hue on the body and three yellow collars +on the neck”, may be added to its description. The collars are +described as about two inches broad, and one foot apart.”</p> + +<p>The three yellow collars observed on its neck may be explained +as follows: The animal has a hairy skin, as we have already seen, +like a seal-skin. Now, when the neck is wet and contracted by the +animal, its skin gets wrinkles, of course running round the neck, +as is also the case in sea-lions. Those parts of these wrinkles, which +are deepest, remain wet for a very long time, because they are +not exposed to the air; those, however, which are highest, if we +may use this expression, are not only most exposed to the air, +but the hairs on those parts diverge and dry as soon as possible; +and—when dry, they have a yellow greyish colour. If the animal +now stretches its neck, it may show one, two, &c., even eight or +more yellow-coloured collars round its dark brown neck, which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page220">[220]</span>may have a breadth of about two inches and a distance of one +foot between them. This phenomenon or appearance, as already +stated, is often to be seen in our zoological gardens on sea-lions +and seals.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In the <i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. LIV, 1819, Dr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> +says:</p> + +<p>“Dr. Mitchill informs me that General Hawkins has written a +memoir on the sea-serpent of Massachusetts, which he has sent, +with a drawing, to Sir Joseph Banks; it is a paper of some length, +and much interest, as it relates facts, and all the circumstances +attending the appearance and natural history of those huge animals, +taken upon oath of eye-witnesses. He attempts to prove, with much +probability, that several individuals have been seen, and two at +least, if not three species; one with three collars, another without +any, and a smaller one.”</p> + +<p>In <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts</i>, Vol. II, 1820, I have found +the following extract from a letter to the Editor, dated Boston, +April 8, 1820:</p> + +<p>“I have lately received a letter from Sir Joseph Banks, written +by his own hand, in which he expresses his full faith in the +existence of our Serpent in the Sea, and not only as it regards +himself, but his friends, and he is grateful for every new communication +I have given him on that subject, and writes with the +same enthusiasm that he did several years ago. Although he is now +very infirm.”</p> + +<p>Evidently this was a letter from General <span class="smcap">Hawkins</span>.</p> + +<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, the Editor of this journal adds:</p> + +<p>“Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society of London, +the Companion of Capt. Cook, is now at a very advanced age but +still vigourous in his intellectual powers, and ardent in the promotion +of every species of useful knowledge.”</p> + +<p>In Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke’s</span> <i>Travels through Sweden</i>, we +find at p. 411:</p> + +<p>“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated +relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally +considered as the fabric of American invention; and there are +many, I believe, in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not +consider it in any other light than that of a hoax. Judging, however, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page221">[221]</span>from the detailed accounts of the circumstance which are +preserved among the papers of sir Joseph Banks, the principal +facts appear to be these.”</p> + +<p>And at p. 413:</p> + +<p>“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted +the attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members +was deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of +them. This was accordingly done; and the above is the general +substance of the various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys. +This gentleman, who was a corresponding member of the +Society, despatched to Sir Joseph Banks copies of the whole of +these, which are still preserved in his library. Sir Joseph entered +with warmth into this curious investigation; and the minuteness, +with which every particular was supplied, showed how greatly he +felt interested in the question.”</p> + +<p>In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. <span class="smcap">Francis Boott</span> wrote a letter to Dr. +<span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, a part of which was published in the <i>Edinburgh Journal +of Science</i>, Vol. VI, 1827. Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span>, after some general remarks, +goes on to express himself in the following terms:</p> + +<p>“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph +Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal, +and the respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight +of him. The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet +published by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question +as to the real appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts, +was put to rest by that publication. There could be no +doubt of the fact, and the testimony of thousands who saw the +animal <i>for one or two years afterwards</i>, must have been sufficient +to satisfy the most incredulous.”</p> + +<p>“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph +Banks, that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast; +at all events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to +him on the subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate +of a similar animal in Pontoppidan’s <i>History of Norway</i>. I myself +had no doubt of the truth of the assertions of the early observers +of it, for many of them were known to me, and I was anxious +to convince Sir Joseph of the discovery of a new and remarkable +animal. I therefore was in the habit of sending him every information +I could collect respecting it. In one of my last visits to +Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and from the public +papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe, that Sir +<span class="pagenum" id="Page222">[222]</span>Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though he +continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake +(figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”</p> + +<p>In October, 1828, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> read a paper before the New +York Lyceum, which paper will be found in our Chapter on <a href="#Page12">Hoaxes</a>. +As we have already observed, this paper also contains a particular +account concerning the letters addressed by General <span class="smcap">Humphreys</span> to +Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph Banks</span>.</p> + +<p>Again Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, asserts:</p> + +<p>“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted +a copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance, +to the late Sir Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are +still preserved.”</p> + +<p>Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph +Banks</span> himself, neither in the <i>Transactions of the Royal Society +of London</i>, nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this +Very Learned Body to give me the loan of all the papers about +the subject, or to publish them in their next volume.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report72"><span class="reportnr"><b>72</b></span>.—1820, July?—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels +through Sweden, during the Summer of 1820</i>, relates at p. 263:</p> + +<p>“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance +occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house, +and thinking little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had +heard nothing for some time, a young man, the master of a small +fishing yacht, which had just come in from Drontheim, joint our +party; in the course of conversation, he mentioned that a few +hours before, whilst close to Hundholm, and previous to his entering +the harbour, two sea-snakes passed immediately under his yacht. +When he saw them he was on the deck, and, seizing a handspike, +he struck at them as they came up close to the vessel on the +other side, upon which they disappeared. Their length was very +great, and their colour greyish; but from the very short time they +were visible, he could not notice any other particulars. He had no +doubt of their being snakes as he called them, and the circumstance +was related entirely of his own accord.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page223">[223]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report73"><span class="reportnr"><b>73</b></span>.—1820, August.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2361, +we read:</p> + +<p>“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from +the piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report74"><span class="reportnr"><b>74</b></span>.—1820?—The following report was published in the +<i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2460.</p> + +<p>“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to +me a subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view +of gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would +hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this +sort has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without +being at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the +same fate; yet if it can afford any amusement or information for +intelligent and scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely +give it to the press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the +truth of what I am about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P. +M., being then in latitude 46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning, +observed an immense body on the surface of the water, apparently +without motion, but water spouting from it, not unlike the blowing +of a whale. I immediately got my glass; and, from its rugged +appearance and showing nothing where the water issued from, I +began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been the +vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and, +so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be +taken in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s +company were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought +not unlikely, and went into the main cat harpens to look more +distinctly at it: the appearance then was still steady, but irregular. +I saw neither head nor tail above the water, but a hump from +one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular +rock: this tapered to a distance,—I certainly believe 70 or 100 +feet, and the water broke over it, a little beyond it: it discharged +the spout; but nothing showing itself, undetermined in mind what +it could be, or whether I should tack the ship, it all at once +disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head and neck—resembling +something of a serpent’s—made its appearance, erected +about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a survey +towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of conjecture +<span class="pagenum" id="Page224">[224]</span>and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the +above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan +Townsend, was in the main top, and saw the creature I have +described, and would feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.—George +Sanford, Lieutenant R. N.”</p> + +<p>[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated +by Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above +statement, but it is presumed to have been written about the year +1820. Lieut. Sanford then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady +Combermere.—E. N.”]</p> + +<p>No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that +the appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.—The act of breathing +of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under +the surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance +generally called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head +just at water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water +issued from”. The rugged appearance may have been caused by +the animal lying with several bunches on its back, as afterwards +was also reported by the Lloydsteamer <i>Kätie</i> (<a href="#Report154">n°. 154</a>) or by its +having a mane, extending all along the neck and back. The “hump +from one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular +rock” must have been the animal’s head which it lifted up just +above the surface. Nearly the same appearance will be observed in +the figure of one of the officers of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i> (<a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>). +Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat exaggerated, the “head +and neck resembling something of a serpent’s erected about six +feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking a survey towards +the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all comment superfluous; +all these characters have more than once been reported of +this creature.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In the <i>Philosophical Magazine and Journal</i>, Vol. LVII, 1821, +we find an extract from the numerous reports communicated by +Prof <span class="smcap">Bigelow</span> in <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>American Journal of Science and the +Arts</i>, Boston, Vol. II, 1820, May.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>We have already quoted <span class="smcap">Milton</span>, who in his <i>Paradise Lost</i>, +printed in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst +others the sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than +<span class="pagenum" id="Page225">[225]</span>once cited by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but +express my surprise at this custom, for there is not one single +word or expression in <span class="smcap">Milton’s</span> verses, which is taken from accounts, +reports, or tales of the sea-serpent itself. <span class="smcap">Walter Scott</span>, +however, in his <i>Pirate</i>: which was published in 1821, vol. I, +chapt. II, says a few words about the animal, which are so correct, +that they must have been taken from some or other report:</p> + +<p>“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”</p> + +<p>“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths +of Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with +a mane like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering +eyes, raised mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder +or for victims.”</p> + +<p>The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a +mane are known characters, and the rising from the depths high +into the air, standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment +all around, evidently taking a survey, is a habit observed more +than once.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report75"><span class="reportnr"><b>75</b></span>.—1821, Summer.—Col. <span class="smcap">T. H. Perkins</span> on the 13th. +of Oct. 1820, when on board the <i>Ann Marie</i>, wrote a letter to +his friend <span class="smcap">Jno P. Cushing</span>, which he published in the <i>Boston +Daily Advertiser</i> of 25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused +by the appearance of an individual on the 6th. of August, 1848. +The different parts of this letter are inserted partly in our Chapter +on Hoaxes (<a href="#Page20">p. 20</a>, <a href="#Page21">21</a>) and partly in +<a href="#Report44">n<sup>o</sup>. 44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>, +<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>. +The Editor of the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> now goes on:</p> + +<p>“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent +gives letters from several members of his family, who <i>the +next summer</i> had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the +appearance of the animal is minutely described. This correspondence +is very interesting; the description of the animal agrees entirely +with that given above, and we regret that want of space must +prevent the insertion of it.”</p> + +<p>It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published. +Perhaps they are now lost for ever!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report76"><span class="reportnr"><b>76</b></span>.—1821.—In a letter from <span class="smcap">William Warburton</span> to +<span class="smcap">Robert Barclay</span>, Esq. printed in the <i>Edinburgh Journal of Science</i>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page226">[226]</span>Vol. VI, 1827, p. 130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:</p> + +<p>“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak +Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, which was +reported to have been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about +five years back.”</p> + +<p>Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report77"><span class="reportnr"><b>77</b></span>.—1821, September 25? In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of Jan. +1822, I, we read:</p> + +<p>“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years, +has been clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses, +and it is described by all of them and the descriptions +agree pretty well with each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished +merchant of Nantucket, Mr. Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration +of it on oath before the justice of the peace.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report78"><span class="reportnr"><b>78</b></span>.—1821?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert</span> in his <i>Description of the Shetland +Islands</i> says at p. 565:</p> + +<p>“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the +Isle of Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”</p> + +<p>This report is also quoted by Dr. <span class="smcap">R. Hamilton</span> in his <i>Amphibious +Carnivora</i>, 1839.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report79"><span class="reportnr"><b>79</b></span>.—1822.—Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his Travels +through Sweden, &c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:</p> + +<p>“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark, +founded on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have +appeared off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen +by many of the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal +is described as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of +a full grown ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather +when it made its appearance, calm and fine.”</p> + +<p>Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour, +the calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell Brooke</span> in his <i>Travels through Sweden &c.</i>, +1823, at p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement +<span class="pagenum" id="Page227">[227]</span>of the fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820) +with those, related by <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>. The passage runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of +Maasöe) “gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share +of attention. It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at +any time they found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds +of the serpent, and obliged to pass over a part of it, never to +attempt making their way between the openings, caused by part +of the body of the animal being concealed under water, for fear +of its raising and upsetting the boat. On the contrary, they rowed +with all their strength against one of the visible folds, as the serpent, +as soon as he feels the touch of the boat, naturally sinks +down and enables it thus to pass over in safety. It will appear +perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking afterward into +Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very substance +of what is related in his work, which may be said to be unknown +in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”</p> + +<p>Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the scrupulousness +with which fables are told unchanged! The passages +from <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> referred to by our traveller have been discussed +by me—<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>.</p> + +<p>For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all +that has been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to +insert all that Mr. <span class="smcap">Brooke</span> further says about it. After having +repeated nearly all what <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> mentioned about it, he goes on:</p> + +<p>“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts +related in the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable +person can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary +dimensions, and in all probability of the serpent tribe, +having been repeatedly seen by various persons along the Norway +and Finmark coasts. These accounts, for the most part, have been +given verbally from the mouths of the fishermen; an honest and +artless class of men who, having no motive for misrepresentation, +cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive. Could this idea, however, +be entertained, the circumstance alone, of their assertions having +been so fully confirmed by others in more distant parts, would be +sufficient to free them from any imputation of this kind. The +simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full 700 miles of +coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have been +received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an +animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce +<span class="pagenum" id="Page228">[228]</span>some degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several +relations as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions, +the state of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars +are so fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable +intervening distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied +of the truth of the main fact. Many of the informants, besides, +were of superior rank and education; and the opinions of such +men as the <i>Amtmann</i> (Governor) of Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe, +<i>Prösten</i> (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and the Bishop of Nordland +and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought not to be +disregarded. There does not appear the least probability, or even +possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on the +northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent. +The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well +known to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity +in shape, appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be +sufficiently obvious.”</p> + +<p>Remarkable is the fact that Mr. <span class="smcap">de Capell Brooke</span> considers +the animal to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with +which he of course means <i>snakes</i>.</p> + +<p>“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account +received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected, +the serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short +distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part +of that month, and having been seen during that time by the +whole of the population of the island. The information collected, +indeed, is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining +so considerable a time; but the talent of observation in +fishermen is far from considerable, and their curiosity is easily +gratified. To these circumstances, and the general dread entertained +of this animal, may be attributed the want of any attempt to +take it. At the neighbouring island of Krogöen also, it will be +remembered, that its having appeared was confirmed; and this +would be sufficient at least to cause a wavering in the minds of +those naturalists, who have treated former accounts as the mere +offspring of imagination.”</p> + +<p>We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but +their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from +investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or +more curious person would do!</p> + +<p>Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page229">[229]</span>Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently +<span class="smcap">Milton’s</span> <i>Paradise Lost</i> led him. I am far from admitting any +relation between the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He +further quotes <span class="smcap">Knud Leems</span> (<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>), +<span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> (<a href="#Report1">n°. 1</a>, <a href="#Page105">p. +105</a>, <a href="#Page109">109</a>), <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> +(<a href="#Report5">n°. 5</a>), <span class="smcap">Eric Pontoppidan</span>, and speaks of +the letters written to and preserved in the library of Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph +Banks</span>, then president of the Royal Society, by General <span class="smcap">Hawkins</span> +and General <span class="smcap">Humphreys</span>.</p> + +<p>I am also obliged to repeat here <i>in extenso</i> his plea for the sea-serpent +(p. 415-419):</p> + +<p>“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally +guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and +there are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who, +if told of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen +feet, such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced +one like the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only +stare with astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of +these assertions, as if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but +natural; their knowledge of the world and its productions, deprived +as they are of other means of attaining it, must be confined to +the narrow sphere they live in; and the ideas they possess of life +must necessarily be contracted.”</p> + +<p>“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded +by no country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees +with admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature +gradually unfolding itself to the researches of science, and +finds his imperfect catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the +existence of some new and extraordinary animal, which before was +unknown to the world, or considered as living in the imagination +alone. By the exertions of the present age, he has become acquainted +with many creatures, in their forms and habits the most +singular and strange; and thus he is taught never to deny the +existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is, by whatever he +beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator; and conscious, +that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a knowledge +of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers the +various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects +produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of +chemistry and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea +of that great superior force, which not only sets in motion this +master machine, and indues it with powers of sense and reflection, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page230">[230]</span>but causes it to act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation +and reproduction of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his +researches regard the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally +prepared for the wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid +of the mikroscoop makes known to him the existence of myriads +of living creatures, some of such incredible smallness, that the +utmost powers of the magnifier can with difficulty render them +visible; and of which thousands if put together, would not equal +a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that the human body itself +is filled with them; and that the structure of their own internal +parts is equally complex and curious. When, however, he reflects, +that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may perhaps +contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter +tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look +forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted +to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of +the universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the +deep gnoom of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild +inhabitants, he sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of +the Creator; whether he meets with the elephant supporting its +enormous bulk with peaceful and dignified steps, or views the huge +trunk of the stupendous boa serpent, extended to the length of +fifty feet, and viing in size with the stately trees, between which +it glides, the terror of all, and the sovereign of the forest. The +secrets of the great deep alone are veiled from his inquiring eyes; +and he regrets, that his structure prevents him from cleaving, like +the finny tribe, the watery fluid, and gazing on the wonders below. +Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay even a new world, +would there be opened to his inspection, did not the grosser materials +of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From the marine +animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his observation, +he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that +they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them; +and he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown +regions of the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit +may be deemed but as a spot, and the depth of which is not +merely that of some miles, but extends, for any thing that is +known to the contrary, even from pole to pole; there may be a +variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even those which, on +this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that their bulk +may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they inhabit; +<span class="pagenum" id="Page231">[231]</span>and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever +rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may +be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown +to us, subservient to the use and benefit of man.”</p> + +<p>“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more +interesting and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel +insensible, that I have wandered very far, and that the thoughts, +to which the sea-serpent gave rise, have already comprised the +whole globe.”</p> + +<p>The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. <span class="smcap">A. de Capell +Brooke</span> are translated in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report80"><span class="reportnr"><b>80</b></span>.—1824 January.—In the <i>American Journal of Science +and Arts</i> conducted by Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, Vol. 28, July, +1835, we read:</p> + +<p>“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of +great intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who +has travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates, +the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he +is permitted to publish without the name of the author; with him +he is, however, well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his +integrity and in his freedom from any influence of imagination.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”</span></p> + +<p>“To Prof. Silliman,—Dear Sir,—On my passage from the +River La Plata to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂° +South, and 48° West longitude, I saw what was first supposed +to be a fish called an Albicore; but, on further examination it was +discovered to be a serpent of which I cannot give a clearer description +than to say that a common dark coloured land snake is, +in miniature, a perfect representation. A light breeze prevailed at +the time and the sea was quite smooth. It first appeared within +ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps, two feet above the +water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg; the eye was +distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about half +the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference +of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin +was seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail. +The serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head +above water and eyes directed towards the vessel.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page232">[232]</span></p> + +<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span> adds to it a</p> + +<p>“<i>Remark of the Editor.</i>—The distance of the place of observation +being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this +serpent must have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land +snake of South America could not navigate so far out to sea if +indeed they ever take to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly +quiet, and appeared quite comfortable and at home on the waves. +We must therefore consider this case as settling the question of +the real existence of a Sea-Serpent. The absence of paddles or arms +forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian.”</p> + +<p>We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent +of Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> acquaintance agree with those which are already +known to us, and that the supposition or negative explanation of +Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>, that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian +is at least premature, for the assertion of the eye-witness that +“nothing like a fin was seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles +or arms”, which of course remained hidden under water!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report81"><span class="reportnr"><b>81</b></span>.—1824, Summer.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of Oct. 1824, +Vol. VIII, n°. 168, p. 218, we read:</p> + +<p>“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this +summer. A Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned +by the Newburyport Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad +Cove at a distance of about 100 feet. The head was two feet long +and of a brown colour. Mr. R. could distinctly observe the teeth +in the mouth when opened. He could not discern the tail, but +several times, about thirty feet behind the head, he observed parts +of the animal in an undulating motion”.</p> + +<p>Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned +to have been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report82"><span class="reportnr"><b>82</b></span>.—1825?—In a paper by Dr. <span class="smcap">T. S. Traill</span>, printed +in n<sup>o</sup>. 44, May, 1854, of the <i>Proceedings of the Royal Society +of Edinburgh</i>, we read:</p> + +<p>“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed +by persons worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance +related to me many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late +<span class="pagenum" id="Page233">[233]</span>Mr. Andrew Strang, a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once, +when on a deep-sea fishing, he saw pass below his boat, at the +depth of eight or ten feet, an enormously long fish, of an eel-shape. +It was swimming slowly with a vermicular motion, and +appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.” It appeared to take +no notice of them; but they hastily removed from what they considered +a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was shy in +mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should class +him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable +reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once +on the western coasts of Scotland.</p> + +<p>Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put +the date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825, +and to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because +of all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented +by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast +of Scotland, of which I have three observations (<a href="#Report141">n<sup>o</sup>. 141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, +<a href="#Report143">143</a>). I am convinced that the animal seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Strang</span> +was a sea-serpent. Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its +<i>vermicular</i> motion, its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the +animal moved only by vertical undulations, holding its four flappers +pressed against its body, otherwise Mr. <span class="smcap">Strang</span> would have compared +it with “an alligator with flappers like those of a sea-turtle +and with a long neck,” as did Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup>. 119</a>.)</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report83"><span class="reportnr"><b>83</b></span>.—1826, June 16.—(<i>New York Advertiser</i> of June 21, +1826, and <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, Vol. XI, 1826.)</p> + +<p>“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived +yesterday from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank, +five days since, he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about +ten rods from the ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part +which appeared out of water about sixty feet in length. The head +and protuberances were similar to the representations which have +frequently been given to him by persons who had seen him near +Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow rate, and appeared unmindful +of the ship. He was visible about seven minutes to the +passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A certificate +has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with a +drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description +<span class="pagenum" id="Page234">[234]</span>of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the +witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal +as a sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>Of this occurrence we learn more in the <i>Edinb. Journ. Sc.</i>, Vol. +VI, 1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>:</p> + +<p>“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present +this imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had +the pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury +Hall, Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the +house of Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman, +proceeding in his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards, +New York packet, Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding +this sea-monster on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s +Banks. But his own plain statement must be presumed far more +satisfactory to every candid mind than any account extracted from +his letter.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Pentonville, 20th September 1826”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl12">“Dear Sir,”</span></p> + +<p>“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds, +that you were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as +seen by me in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of +the same; in compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a +rough pencil <a href="#Fig27">drawing</a> of the monster as it appeared during the +time when its head was elevated above the water, and I shall state +the particulars attending this novel exhibition.”</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig27"> +<img src="images/illo234.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 27.—The sea-serpent as seen by Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of +the vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly +smooth was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock +P. M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in +the water a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a +whale spouting, and turning to the quarter whence the sound +proceeded, we observed the serpent in the position as it appears in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page235">[235]</span>the sketch, slowly approaching at not more than the rate of two +miles an hour, in a straight direction. I suppose we were hardly +going through the water so fast, for there was scarcely a breath +of wind. I must premise that I had never heard of the existence +of such an animal. I instantly exclaimed, why, there is a <i>sea-snake</i>! +“That is the sea-serpent”, exclaimed the captain, “and I +would give my ship and cargo to catch the monster”. I immediately +called to the passengers, who were all down below, but only five +or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the daughter of +a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up, +saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I +was too eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to +the captain. In the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel +at about the distance of 50 yards from us, neither turning his +head to the right or left. As soon as his head had reached the +stern of the vessel, he gradually laid it down in a horizontal +position with his body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel. +That there was upwards of 60 feet visible, is clearly shown by the +circumstance, that the length of the ship was upwards of 120 feet, +and at the time his head was off the stern, the other end (as +much as was above the surface) had not passed the main mast. +The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two +minutes and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him +for about twenty minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous +log of timber. His motion in the water was meandering like that +of an eel, and the rake he left behind was like that occasioned +by the passing of a small craft through the water. We had but +one harpoon on board, and the ship’s long-boat was, for the time +being converted into a <i>cow-house</i>. We had two guns on board, +but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel of New York with +Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, +which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet of Boston +about five years back; but as I assured him I had never heard +previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an +<i>Englishman</i>, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also +corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time. +The humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the +dromedary. I remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“William Warburton.”</span></p> + +<p>I give in <a href="#Fig27">fig. 27</a> a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the +paper of Mr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> (<i>Edinb. Journ. Sc.</i> Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page236">[236]</span></p> + +<p>The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed +up in the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing +of the water was heard. The part which appeared out of water +was about sixty feet in length. It held its head some feet above +the surface of the water, swimming at a rate of two miles an +hour, and showing bunches on its back. After some moments it +gradually laid down its head in a horizontal position with its +body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel, evidently swimming +with its body in a straight line, using its flappers. The wake +which it left behind was equal to that of a small vessel. Nothing +is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth, otherwise the +scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal appeared +not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any +scales. The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a +right angle with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled +that of a horse, if we take moreover in consideration that some +individuals have a mane. The individual seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Holdrege</span> +and Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> evidently had no mane.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report84"><span class="reportnr"><b>84</b></span>.—1826, June 18.—In the same letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> +to <span class="smcap">Robert Barclay</span> there is a passage which we have +omitted above and which runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off +Cape Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance +to us. This intelligence reached New York about four days after +we arrived there, and the description given exactly corresponds with +the foregoing.”</p> + +<p>Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In 1827 Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> wrote the following paper for the <i>Edinburgh +Journal of Science</i>, Vol. VI:</p> + +<p>“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural +History, which at various periods have been detected, it is +not surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary, +qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think +that the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning +the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony +which has been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true +<span class="pagenum" id="Page237">[237]</span>that vague reports had been spread abroad with regard to this +enormous animal long ere any just foundation was afforded for +them, and indeed before we had heard of any who professed to +have seen it. This may have very far conduced to produce that +scepticism which now is perfectly unwarrantable. We are so accustomed, +whenever the subject is introduced in conversation, to couple +it with the preposterous fables of the <i>Kraken</i>, that it would be +extremely difficult to break down the barriers against belief which +prejudice has so long assisted to support. The accounts of the most +credible witnesses have thus been rejected, although, “<i>to make +assurance doubly sure</i>”, the generality of them have been taken +upon oath.”</p> + +<p>“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences, +have been made within the last century, that it is astonishing +how the existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so +marvellous or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity +of Bruce, and we must leave it to time to do the same office +with regard to the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is +this monster more disproportionate to the extent of the sea than +the elephant to that of the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a +solid bulk, (even according to late most extravagant accounts), +nearly approaching in magnitude to that of the whale? Geology +has been infinitely more fortunate than zoology in many respects; +theories only partially sustained have been received; and while the +recent discoveries of the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> and <i>Megalosaurus</i> have made +demands upon our powers of credence far greater than the <i>serpent</i>, +the descriptions of the latter animal have received very little trust, +and even much ridicule and contempt. In general, however, it +must be confessed, that people do not object to the extraordinary +proportions of such a creature, so much as to what they consider +the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We trust to advance, +in the sequel, such additional evidence to that already +presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely the +truth of the existence of such an animal,—an animal concerning +which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its +more immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery +in which it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting +to the most casual admirer of nature:—which must be interesting +even from the element in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored +in its inmost recesses. We can have so little information with regard +to an animal which has so mighty an habitation, that it acquires +<span class="pagenum" id="Page238">[238]</span>a grandeur in our estimation far surpassing those which inhabit +the earth. The monsters of the deep appear so independent of our +influence, and so far removed from any connection with us, that +any increase of our knowledge in reference to them must be highly +gratifying.”</p> + +<p>“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported, +that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in +America, an animal, in general construction nearly resembling a +serpent, had been frequently seen. These rumours created a good +deal of excitement, insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean +Society of New England, it was determined more fully to investigate +the matter. The Honourable Lonson Nash of Gloucester was +appointed by a Committee to gather together all the information +which might be obtained.”</p> + +<p>“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence +which his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From +different quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated +all the information which it was in their power to +proffer, and all declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon +the accuracy of their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting +from those who professed to have been personal witnesses of +the monster: no weight was given to their accounts deduced from +the reports which were everywhere circulated:—the unadorned +and unexaggerated style in which their statements were worded is +of itself perfectly sufficient to win over to all unqualified trust. The +witnesses for the most part, unite in ascribing a vertical motion +to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was no uncommon distance +between it and the spectators, and it was never seen except in +weather the most calm and bright. But these facts, along with +the various depositions, have been long laid before the public in the +“Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England”, +and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative circumstances +which have lately occurred, and which <i>we</i> think puts +the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;—facts +which have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen, +who before were entirely sceptical.”</p> + +<p>He next gives the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>, of which we +have spoken above, and the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span>, parts of which +we have inserted in <a href="#Report63">n<sup>o</sup>. 63</a> and <a href="#Report70">70</a>. After the different passages +from various transactions and journals referring to the papers in +Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph Banks’</span> library (<a href="#Page220">p. 220</a>), Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> goes on:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page239">[239]</span></p> + +<p>“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all +upon this much agitated question; at least we think they must +remove the ideal connection between <i>our</i> serpent, and</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“That sea-snake, enormous curled,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”</div> +</div><!--stanza--> +</div><!--poetry--> +</div><!--container--> + +<p>“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras +and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it +inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober +fact in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits +of the <i>God Thor</i>, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian +mythology. We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can +now continue to doubt with regard to facts attested by such +highly respectable witnesses.”</p> + +<p>It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent +scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have +been in vain!</p> + +<p>German translations of the whole of Dr. <span class="smcap">Hooker’s</span> paper as well +as of the letters from Dr. <span class="smcap">Boott</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> are in +<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n<sup>o</sup>. 356, p. 49.</p> + +<p>In the <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, Vol. XII, June +1827, the editor, Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, says:</p> + +<p>“To us it seems a matter of surprise, that any person who has +examined the testimony, can doubt the existence of the Sea-Serpent; +the documents communicated by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and +published in the second volume of this Journal, in 1820, were +in our judgment alone sufficient, to settle the question: the following +letter is an important additional document.”</p> + +<p>This is the letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">Barclay</span>, reprinted +evidently from the <i>Edinb. Journal</i> (<a href="#Report83">n<sup>o</sup>. 83</a>, <a href="#Report84">84</a>).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report85"><span class="reportnr"><b>85</b></span>.—1827, August 24.—According to <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> +Vol. XIX, n<sup>o</sup>. 409, p. 193,</p> + +<p>“the <i>Norwegische Handelszeitung</i>” (apparently of the 3d. or 4th. +of September, 1827), “contains fresh intelligence of the Sea-Serpent, +which confirms what has been published by Captain de Capell Brooke.”</p> + +<p>“In the last days of the last month an animal was seen by +several trustworthy men in Christianiafjord, which, according to +the description, appears to be a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions. +On the 1st of this month five eyewitnesses were heard before +<span class="pagenum" id="Page240">[240]</span>the justice of peace, and according to their agreeing declarations, +the animal held its head, which was dark and black, above the +surface of the water, and showed at least ten coils; there was a +distance of about twenty ells” (60 feet) “between each two coils, +and the coils themselves were about six ells” (18 feet) “so that the +total length of the animal may be estimated at 250 ells” (750 +feet). “It moved with about the swiftness of a common boat, rowed +by a man in still water, and caused a heavy rushing, like a strong +motion in the water. The thickness was about that of a large wine-barrel +or pipe. No tail, nor fins were observed. The rushing, it +is believed, was caused by the head. The coils were movable, i. e. +what was above the water one moment, was under it the next. +Two eye-witnesses also declared, that what they saw, was one +coherent whole and were not several animals. On Friday, the 24th. +of August, at 10 o’clock A. M. the animal was seen moving from +the Vakkerö-Bay into the Bonnefjord. The animal was seen from +a distance of 200 fathoms.”</p> + +<p>Although the dimensions are exaggerated, the other features of +the animal, viz. the head which is dark and black, and held above +the water, the undulating motion of the animal, its visible coils, +the rushing sound made by it, the apparent want of fins and the +tail, which were hidden under water, are correct and known to us.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report86"><span class="reportnr"><b>86</b></span>.—1827, August 26.—(The same journal, the same issue).</p> + +<p>“And on Sunday, the 26th. of August at 7 o’clock in the evening +it came again from the fjord and swam towards the ship-wharf, +passing Liob-, and Principal-Islands.—It was then seen +from a distance of 120 fathoms. The eye-witnesses declared, that, +if asked, they were ready to make oath to those declarations.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report87"><span class="reportnr"><b>87</b></span>.—1827, September 3.—(The same journal, the same +issue).—</p> + +<p>“Christiania, Sept. 5.—The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number, +has been seen again the day before yesterday off +Nusodden.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page241">[241]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report88"><span class="reportnr"><b>88</b></span>.—1827, September 5.—(The same journal, the same +issue).</p> + +<p>“and to-day, off Lepager, by persons just as trustworthy as those +who were heard before the justice. Their affidavit in principal points +agrees with that of the former. A reward is offered to whoever +will kill it and bring it home.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report89"><span class="reportnr"><b>89</b></span>.—1827, September 9.—(The same journal, the same +issue).—</p> + +<p>“Christiania, September 15.—Sunday last the sea-serpent appeared +also off Dröbak. Last week several persons saw large shoals +of porpoises, and therefore supposed that the alleged presence of +the former could not be true. But as among those who saw the +sea-serpent, are many fishermen and seamen, who know very well +how to distinguish the several sea-animals, and as it is not at all +uncommon, that porpoises and whales of the smaller kind appear +here in the fjord, so there is no reason to condemn the judicial +concurrent testimonies.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report90"><span class="reportnr"><b>90</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><b>91</b></span>.—1828?<a id="Report91"></a> +The well-known Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span>, +when on a journey in Norway, noted down the following evidence, +which he published in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841.</p> + +<p>“Nils Roe, workman at Mr. William Knutszon’s, an elderly +and simple man, relates: I saw the serpent twice, once at noon, +and two days afterwards towards the evening, in the fjord” (near +Christiansund) “at the back of Mr. Knutszon’s garden. The first +time, when it was nearest to me, it was about a hundred feet +distant. It swam first along the fjord, afterwards over against the +spot, where I stood. I then observed it for more than half an +hour. Some strangers, who were on the opposite shore, fired at +it, when it disappeared.”</p> + +<p>“The second time it was farther from me. It was small, perhaps +twice as long as this room (about forty-four feet); while swimming +it made serpentine movements, some to left and right, others up +and down. I cannot state its correct thickness, but it appeared to +be about as a common snake in proportion to its length. It was +much thinner towards the tail. Several times it raised its head +wholly above the water, but so, that it was just above the surface; +<span class="pagenum" id="Page242">[242]</span>the neck, however, and the other part of the body were but partly +visible above the surface. The front of the head was rather pointed: +the eyes were very large and glistened like those of a cat. I did +not see a tongue and did not observe that it opened its mouth. +I cannot state that the neck just behind the head is much thinner +than the head itself, for from the back of the head commenced a +mane like that of a horse, which waved to and fro in the water. +Just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further +backwards; in general it was not very long. The colour of the +animal was a blackish brown.”</p> + +<p>Again we meet with no character that is not known to us. All +of them have already been stated.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report92"><span class="reportnr"><b>92</b></span>.—1829?—The following is an evidence given before the +same Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, being at Christiansund, and published by him +in the journal mentioned above.</p> + +<p>“Lars Johnöen, a fisherman at Smölen, about 50 years of age. +I have seen the sea-serpent several times, but for the longest time +and nearest to me, twelve years ago in the dog-days in the fjord +not far from here (Christiansund), when I was alone, one noon, +angling in a boat. Then I saw it within two hours three times for +a considerable time, quite near to me. It came close to my boat, +so that it was only about six feet from me. (He placed himself in +the room at a distance of nearly six feet from the wall, and said, +this was about the distance between him and the serpent.) I became +alarmed; recommended my soul to God, laid myself down +in the boat, and only held my head so far over it, that I could +observe the serpent. It swam now past the boat, that was vehemently +agitated by the ripple caused by its movements in the water, +which was previously smooth as a mirror, and afterwards took itself +off. After it had swam a considerable distance from me, I wound +my angling line round the little instrument commonly used (a +frame, moving on an axis) and I began again to fish. Not long +afterwards, however, the serpent came again quite close to the +boat, which again was violently agitated by the movements made +by it in the water. I lay down again, and remained quite still, +keeping, however, a watchful eye on the animal. Again it passed +me, disappeared far off, and returned, though not so close as before, +and at last disappeared, when a light wind rose, and ruffled +<span class="pagenum" id="Page243">[243]</span>the water. Notwithstanding my fright I yet observed the animal +very accurately. Its length was about five to six fathoms, and the +body, which was as round as a snake’s, was about two feet in +diameter. (Lars Johnöen measured on a table before him with his +hands a space of about two feet). The tail too appeared to me to +be round. The head was about as long and as thick as a brandy +anker (a ten gallon cask), it was not pointed but bluntly round. +The eyes were very large and glistening. Their size (or diameter) +was about that of this box here (five inches), and they were as +red as my neckerchief (crimson). The animal did not open its +mouth, therefore I cannot give its size. It constantly held its +head above the surface of the water in an acute angle; not so high, +however, that the nose should come over the board of a boat. +Close behind the head, a mane like a horse’s commenced, extending +rather far down the neck, and spreading on both sides; floated +on the water; it was of tolerably long hair. The mane as well as +the head and the rest of the body was brown as this looking glass +frame (dark brown of old mahogany). I could not observe spots, +or stripes of other colours, nor were there any scales; it seemed +as if the body was quite smooth. The movements of the serpent +were by turns fast and slow; they were also slow when the animal approached +my boat. At the moment in which I could observe it +best, its movements were serpentine, up and down. The few undulations, +made by those parts of the body and the tail that were +out of the water, were scarcely a fathom in length. These undulations +were not so high, that I could see between them and the water.—When +Lars Johnöen had given this declaration, the drawing which +Pontoppidan had given of the animal was shown to him. He +looked at it with astonishment, smiled and said that he saw a +great resemblance between it and the animal he had seen. He +likewise said, that some of the other sea-serpents he had seen were +a great deal longer than the one described above.”</p> + +<p>This unvarnished account describes very well the animal’s general +doings, and accurately pictures its curiosity and harmlessness.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report93"><span class="reportnr"><b>93</b></span>.—1829, July.—We shall soon be acquainted with the +appearance of the sea-serpent seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> of the +<i>Daedalus</i>, on Aug. 6, 1848. Prof. <span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span>, questioned +whether this animal could be a snake or not, gave his answer in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page244">[244]</span>an article published in the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 11, 1848, wherein he +expresses his opinion that it must have been a large seal. This +article seems to have been reprinted in the <i>Bombay Bi-monthly +Times</i>. In the same journal for January, 1849, appeared the following +statement and objections against Professor <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span> suggestions.</p> + +<p>“I see, in your paper of the 30th December, a paragraph in +which a doubt is expressed of the authenticity of the account given +by Captain M’Quhae of the “great sea-serpent”. When returning +to India, in the year 1829, I was standing on the poop of the +<i>Royal Saxon</i>, in conversation with Captain Petrie, the commander +of that ship. We were at a considerable distance south-west of the +Cape of Good Hope, in the usual track of vessels to this country, +going rapidly along (seven or eight knots) in fine smooth water. +It was in the middle of the day, and the other passengers were +at luncheon; the man at the wheel, a steerage passenger, and +ourselves, being the only persons on the poop. Captain Petrie and +myself, at the same instant, were literally fixed in astonishment +by the appearance, a short distance ahead, of an animal of which +no more generally correct description could be given than that by +Captain M’Quhae. It passed within thirty-five yards of the ship, +without altering its course in the least; but as it came right abreast +of us, it slowly turned its head towards us. Apparently about +one third of the upper part of its body was above water, in nearly +its whole length; and we could see the water curling up on its +breast as it moved along, but by what means it moved we +could not perceive. We watched it going astern with intense +interest until it had nearly disappeared, when my companion, +turning to me with a countenance expressive of the utmost astonishment, +exclaimed, “Good heavens! what can that be?” It was +strange that we never thought of calling the party engaged at +luncheon to witness the extraordinary sight we had seen; but the +fact is, we were so absorbed in it ourselves, that we never spoke, +and scarcely moved, until it had nearly disappeared. Captain Petrie, +a superior and most intelligent man, has since perished in the +exercise of his profession. Of the fate of the others then on deck +I am ignorant; so the story rests on my own unsupported word, +but I pledge that word to its correctness. Professor Owen’s supposition, +that the animal seen by the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> was a +gigantic seal, I believe to be incorrect, because we saw this apparently +similar creature in its whole length, with the exception +of a small portion of the tail, which was under water; and, by +<span class="pagenum" id="Page245">[245]</span>comparing its length with that of the <i>Royal Saxon</i> (about six +hundred feet), when exactly alongside in passing, we calculated it +to be in that, as well as in its other dimensions, greater than the +animal described by Captain M’Quhae. Should the foregoing account +be of any interest to you, it is at your service; it is an old +story, but a true one. I am not quite sure of our latitude and +longitude at the time, nor do I exactly remember the date, but +it was about the end of July.—<span class="smcap">R. Davidson</span>, Superintending +Surgeon, Nagpore Subsidiary Force, Kamptee, 3d January 1849.”</p> + +<p>At present we have only to fix our attention on the animal’s +appearance, and not on Mr. <span class="smcap">Davidson’s</span> objections. As the reader +will observe, the whole description agrees with other accounts already +given. There is nothing in it that is new or unknown to us.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report94"><span class="reportnr"><b>94</b></span>.—1830?—The well-known Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span>, on +his journey in Norway, being in Christiansund, noted down the +following evidence, to publish it in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> +of 1841.</p> + +<p>“John Johnson, merchant, about 60 years of age, says in German: +I saw the animal some years ago in the fjord” (of Christiansund); +“it was about a thousand paces distant, when nearest to +me; I observed it for more than half an hour. It swam very +swiftly, for in the same time that we rowed about a quarter of a +mile aside of it, it had swum about one half of a mile. I saw it +best when it swam in a semicircle round a tolerable large rock +that obstructed its passage, coming to that side of it which was +turned towards me; in doing this it partly raised itself above the +surface of the water. Its colour was blackish; its length was about +that of this house (55 feet). Except the head, I did not observe +much of its body, as it appeared but little above the surface. +Judging from what I observed now and then, I think its thickness +to be that of a stout man’s body. Its head was apparently +as large as a hat. It was not pointed, but seemed rather blunt; +in general, however, in comparison with its thickness, it was not +very long. It was held but little above the surface of the water, +making an acute angle with it; and it remained above the surface, +as long as I saw it. Owing to the distance I could not discern +the eyes. Also on account of the distance or because the neck was +seldom elevated above the surface, I could observe nothing of a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page246">[246]</span>mane. The agitation which it caused in the water was very strong. +The movements of the animal itself were serpentine, up and down, +like those of a swimming leech. When the animal had reached a +spot, where the water was ruffled by a rising gentle wind, it +disappeared. Moreover, I believe, that the animal is not much to +be feared and that it would not easily harm men.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report95"><span class="reportnr"><b>95</b></span>.—1831?—The same Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> also noted down the +following declaration (published in the above mentioned journal.)</p> + +<p>“Mr. William Knutszon and Candidatus Theologiae Booklune +gave the following written account: We together saw the sea-serpent +in a narrow fjord, at a distance of about one sixteenth of a +mile” (about 515 yards) “for about a quarter of an hour; afterwards +it dived, and came up so far from us, that we could not see it +plainly. The water was as smooth as a mirror, and the animal +had, as it moved on the surface, quite the appearance of a worm, +or of a snake. Its motions were in undulations, and so strong, +that white foam appeared before it, and waves were caused at its +sides, which extended over several fathoms. It did not appear very +high above the water, and it was principally its length, which +was quite considerable. Once, however, it stretched its head quite +erect in the air. The body was somewhat dark, and the head +nearly black; the body had nearly the form of an eel or of a +snake, a length of about fifty ells” (above one hundred feet) “and +in proportion to it an inconsiderable thickness. The breadth diminished +considerably from the head to the tail, so that the latter +ended in a point. The head was long and narrow in proportion +to the throat, as the latter appeared much greater than the former, +which probably was the consequence of its being provided with a +mane. The details of the head were not to be discerned, as the +distance was too great.”</p> + +<p>I may observe here that if these eye-witnesses declare that the +head seemed to be narrower than the throat, this may probably +also be the consequence of the animal’s contracting its neck. This +may be often seen in seals and sea-lions. If a common seal has +contracted its neck, it appears as if the animal has no neck, as +if the head is immediately connected with the body. In reality the +neck is shortened, and has become thicker than the head. If stretched, +the neck on the contrary is very well visible, and narrower than +<span class="pagenum" id="Page247">[247]</span>the head. The same in sea-lions. If contracted, several rings of +blubber surround the hind part of the head, which appears smaller +than the neck; if stretched, the neck immediately gets much narrower +and the head is broader than the neck. The expression +“which probably was the consequence of its being provided with +a mane” distinctly shows that the eye-witnesses, knowing that +others at other times saw a mane, intended to explain the phenomenon +they observed by the presence of this mane, which they +could impossibly see, “as the distance was too great.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report96"><span class="reportnr"><b>96</b></span>.—1832, Summer.—(<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, XXXV, +n<sup>o</sup>. 756).</p> + +<p>“There is again question in Norway of the sea-serpent. It is said +to have appeared and remained rather a long time in the Rödö- +and Södelöw fjords this summer, and to have been seen by many +persons. Distinct traces of it are said to have been found in the +fields (??).”</p> + +<p>We observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> adds two notes of interrogation +after the last words. Evidently he is unable to explain them. I am +convinced of the truth that the sea-serpent appeared in the fjords +above mentioned. As to the traces of it, I must tell my readers +that the superstition of the Norwegian people has forged this fable +ever since they first became aware that the sea-serpent frequented +their fjords. We have already met with this tale in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> +<i>Natural History of Norway</i>, and probably the Norwegians will +tell it us again, if we ask them now!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report97"><span class="reportnr"><b>97</b></span>.—1833, May, 15.—(Zoologist p. 1714, 1847).</p> + +<p>“On the 15th. of May, 1833, a party, consisting of Captain +Sullivan, Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle Brigade, +Lieutenant Lyster of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the Ordnance, +started from Halifax in a small yacht for Mahone Bay, some forty +miles eastward, on a fishing excursion. The morning was cloudy, +and the wind at S. S. E., and apparently rising. By the time we +reached Chebucto Head, as we had taken no pilot with us, we +deliberated whether we should proceed or turn back; but, after a +consultation, we determined on the former, having lots of ports +on our lee. Previous to our leaving town, an old man-of-war’s-man +<span class="pagenum" id="Page248">[248]</span>we had along with us busied himself in inquiries as to our right +course; he was told to take his departure from the Bull Rock, +off Pennant Point, and that a W. N. W. course would bring us +direct on Iron Bound Island, at the entrance of Mahone or Mecklenburgh +Bay. He, however, unfortunately told us to steer W. S. +W., nor corrected his error for five or six hours; consequently we +had gone a long distance off the coast. We had run about half +the distance, as we supposed, and were enjoying ourselves on deck, +smoking our cigars, and getting our tackle ready for the approaching +campaign against the salmon, when we were surprised by +the sight of an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in +an unusual state of excitement, and which in their gambols approached +so close to our little craft, that some of the party amused +themselves by firing at them with rifles. At this time we were +jogging on at about five miles an hour, and must have been +crossing Margaret’s Bay. I merely conjecture where we were, as +we had not seen land since a short time after leaving Pennant +Bay. Our attention was presently diverted from the whales and +“such small deer”, by an exclamation from Dowling, our man-of-war’s-man, +who was sitting to leeward, of, “Oh sirs, look here!” +We were started into a ready compliance, and saw an object which +banished all other thoughts, save wonder and surprise.”</p> + +<p>“At the distance of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred +yards on our starboard bow, we saw the head and neck of some +denizen of the deep, precisely like those of a common snake, in +the act of swimming, the head so far elevated and thrown forward +by the curve of the neck, as to enable us to see the water +under and beyond it. The creature rapidly passed, leaving a +regular wake, from the commencement of which, to the fore +part, which was out of water, we judged its length to be +about eighty feet, and this within, rather than beyond the +mark. We were, of course, all taken aback at the sight, and, +with staring eyes and in speechless wonder, stood gazing at it for +full half a minute. There could be no mistake, no delusion, and +we were all perfectly satisfied that we had been favoured with a +view of the “true and veritable sea-serpent”, which had been generally +considered to have existed only in the brain of some Yankee +skipper, and treated as a tale not much entitled to belief. Dowling’s +exclamation is worthy of record. “Well, I’ve sailed in all parts of +the world, and have seen rum sights too in my time, but this is +the queerest thing I ever see!” and surely Jack Dowling was right. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page249">[249]</span>It is most difficult to give correctly the dimensions of any object +in the water. The head of the creature we set down at about six +feet in length, and that portion of the neck which we saw at the +same; the extreme length, as before stated, at between eighty and +one hundred feet. The neck in thickness equalled the bole of a +moderate-sized tree. The head and neck of a dark brown or nearly +black colour, streaked with white in irregular streaks. I do not +recollect seeing any part of the body.”</p> + +<p>“Such is the rough account of the sea-serpent, and all the party +who saw it are still in the land of the living,—Lyster in England, +Malcolm in New South Wales with his regiment, and the +remainder still vegetating in Halifax.”</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">W. Sullivan</span>, Captain, Rifle Brigade, June 21, 1831.</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">A. Maclachlan</span>, Lieutenant, ditto, August 5, 1824.</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">G. P. Malcolm</span>, Ensign, ditto, August 13, 1830.</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">B. O’Neal Lyster</span>, Lieut. Artillery, June 7, 1816.</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">Henry Ince</span>, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> adds between parentheses:</p> + +<p>“The dates are those on which the gentlemen received their +respective Commission, I am not aware of their present rank. I +am indebted to Mr. W. H. Ince for this interesting communication: +this gentleman received it from his brother, Commander J. M. R. +Ince, R. N. It is written by their uncle, Mr. Henry Ince, the +Ordnance store-keeper at Halifax, Nova Scotia.”—</p> + +<p>We observe that the colour of the head and neck is described +as “streaked with white in irregular streaks”, and that evidently +the sea-serpent hunted after the grampuses “which appeared in an +unusual state of excitement”.</p> + +<p>This account translated into German is in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, +Third Series, III, n<sup>o</sup>. 54, p. 148.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report98"><span class="reportnr"><b>98</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><b>99</b></span>.<a id="Report99"></a>—1833, +July.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i> of June 1834 +we read that Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span> in a note to Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell’s</span> +<i>Introduction to Geology</i>, stated that</p> + +<p>“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased, +and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in +such reports.”</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, says:</p> + +<p>“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears +<span class="pagenum" id="Page250">[250]</span>date July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date +state, that the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was +first seen on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and +the Promuntory, winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again +on Sunday morning, heading for South-shores. He was seen by +forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen, who insist that they could not +have been deceived.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>It is evident that many reports of great sea-serpents have been +published here and there, especially in Norwegian and North-American +newspapers, which I have had no opportunity to consult, +and which probably will never come within my reach. As we learn +from Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, Vol. XL, n<sup>o</sup>. 879, p. 328, “Mr. R. +Bakewell in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology +(1833?) states: that there are descriptions of the sea-serpent, +wherein it is ascertained that it “has flappers like sea-turtles”. I +have not been able to consult Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell’s</span> work, but I insert +this statement here, because we shall observe afterwards more than +once this comparison of the flappers with analogous members of turtles.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report100"><span class="reportnr"><b>100</b></span>.—1834, Summer.—In Captain <span class="smcap">Shibbles’</span> report (<a href="#Report101">n<sup>o</sup>. +101</a>) a passage runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“One of the crew told us that his appearance and motion are +precisely like that he saw last summer while in the bay” (of +Gloucester) “which was said to be a sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>Though no particulars are mentioned, I am convinced that the +appearance took place.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report101"><span class="reportnr"><b>101</b></span>.—1835, March or April.—(<i>Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts</i> Vol. +28, 1835, July.—)</p> + +<p>“Captain Shibbles, of the brig Mangehan, of Thomastown, from +Boston, for New-Orleans, which arrived here (Gloucester, Mass., +March or April, 1835) on Saturday last, states that he saw when +about nine or ten miles from Race Point light, what he, as well +as the whole crew, supposed to be a sea-serpent,—he could +<span class="pagenum" id="Page251">[251]</span>distinctly see it with the naked eye, but to be certain, he took +his glass and saw his eyes, neck and head, which was about as +large as a barrel—the neck had something that looked like a +mane upon the top of it; several times he raised his head seven +or eight feet above the water, and for thirty or forty minutes he +swam backward and forward with great swiftness. There were two +other vessels near, the crews of which were in the rigging looking +at the same object. Capt. S. states that it was very long, and that +his head, neck and tail and his motion in the water, was exactly +like those of a snake; every time he put his head out of water, +he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler +of a steam-boat..... The Captain and crew attest to the correctness +of this statement.”</p> + +<p>As to the swimming backward and forward, I think that Captain +<span class="smcap">Shibbles</span> meant that the animal swam to and fro, and that he +used these expressions in reference to the direction of the brig.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report102"><span class="reportnr"><b>102</b></span>.—1836?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span> published in the +<i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i> the following evidence, which he noted +down when being in Christiansund in Norway:</p> + +<p>“The <i>Sorenskriver</i> Gaeschke (a kind of judge of the same rank +as the German country-judges, or the British sheriffs) gave me the +following evidence: I saw the sea-serpent for a considerable time +in a small fjord, first from a boat, afterwards from the beach, +and from there during several minutes, at a distance of from +thirty to thirty-six feet. In the beginning it swam round the fjord +at Torvig, afterwards it went towards the mouth of the fjord. I +saw its head stretched considerably out of the water. I noticed as +well two or three undulations of the forepart of the body. Its +motion was not like that of an eel, but consisted in vertical undulations. +They were so strong, that they caused rather large waves; +they were largest at the forepart of the animal and gradually lessened +towards the back. The traces of them I discerned in a length +of eight to ten fathoms, and in a breadth of two or three fathoms. +The head, apparently blunt in front, had the size and nearly also +the shape of an anker (ten-gallon cask) and the visible coils of the +body were round and their thickness was that of a good timber-stock +(twelve to fourteen inches square). I could not judge the +entire length of the animal, as I could not discern the animal’s +<span class="pagenum" id="Page252">[252]</span>hindpart. The colour of the animal seemed to me to be a very +dark grey one. What I believed to be the eyes, had according to +my estimation the size of the outlines of a tea-cup (3¹⁄₂ inches). +At the back of the head there was a mane, which had the same +colour as the rest of the body.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report103"><span class="reportnr"><b>103</b></span>.—1837, end of July.—(<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, Vol. +IV, n<sup>o</sup>. 67, p. 7, October, 1837).</p> + +<p>“About the much mentioned Sea-Serpent the Drontheim Newspaper +contains, as is ascertained, from an enlightened and trustworthy +gentleman, the following statement: “Uncommonly early +in this Summer our coasts and fjords were blessed with a mass of +fat herrings, of which till to-day very few were cleaned and pickled, +because the uncommon greasiness of the herrings made it difficult +to preserve them in the warm air, which, however, was so beneficient +to agriculture. Since the beginning of the dog-days the sea-serpent +appeared on different spots in this country; one of these +sea-monsters seems to have constantly remained near Storfosen and +the Krovaag Isles; several fishermen were terrified in the highest +degree, when the sea-serpent suddenly came down so near to them, +that they had no time to think, to which side they should fly. +It is true this terrible visitor properly has not made an attack, +but it has followed the boat for a long distance, when one has +tried to fly in a great hurry, so that the men overworked themselves, +and some of the runaways fell ill afterwards. It is ascertained +by quite trustworthy persons, that the length of the sea-serpent +may be estimated from 600 to 800 ells, or perhaps still more, +because if one was near its head, the other end of the sea-animal +was not to be discerned distinctly. The sea-serpent is thickest just +behind the head, apparently as thick as a large horse; its black +and dark eyes are as large as an ordinary plate, without being +glossy or very movable; the skin is smooth and of a dark colour; +on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three +quarters of an ell long, also on the neck there is something movable, +which resembles the mane of a horse; the mouth, as far +as the writer knows, has not been seen distinctly, and it is quite +uncertain whether the animal is a beast of prey or not. Rarely +does the sea-serpent appear but in calm weather; its motions and +shape are serpentine. These observations are distinctly made in these +<span class="pagenum" id="Page253">[253]</span>days, amongst others by a trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, +who with his two sons had reached a small islet, where the sea-serpent, +after having followed their boat, passed closely and slowly.”</p> + +<p>Those who made the statement that when they were near the +head, the tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke +the truth, for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who +afterwards thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have +a length of from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous +manner. Again we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in +great dread of the sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour +is quite the same as told us <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> a century ago. +Again we read of the habit of the sea-serpent of following boats, +but never attacking them, which may only be the effect of mere +curiosity. The description, moreover, given by the not mentioned +trustworthy and intelligent observer is quite correct. All the characters +given by him are already known to us, and where he states +that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in contradiction with former +statements, it is natural that in a certain direction and in +certain moments they need not give the impression of being so. +Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on its +upper-lips, as in seals.</p> + +<p>In Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, we read:</p> + +<p>“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared +in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of +1837, and we confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.</p> + +<p>And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that +it was the <i>Adis</i> of Drontheim which contained those particulars. +The Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> the Kerchvang +Islands, and strange enough, the very interesting particulars about +the skin, the eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the +nose are omitted.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report104"><span class="reportnr"><b>104</b></span>.—1838?—The reader will soon be made acquainted +with the well known report of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, of the <i>Daedalus</i>. +As the report was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848, +Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span>, of the <i>Blossom</i>, “one of the most scientific officers +and ablest naval surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Beaufort</span>, +F. R. S., Admiralty Hydrographer. An extract from this +letter appeared in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. 28, 1848, +and runs as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page254">[254]</span></p> + +<p>“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have +fallen in with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary +appearance we witnessed in the <i>Blossom</i>, in crossing the South +Atlantic: I took it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I +could get my glass upon deck it had disappeared, and I could +nowhere find it—fresh breezes at the time.”</p> + +<p>As Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span> writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary +appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say +ten years; so I have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which +it happened. If I may ever get the opportunity to learn the exact +year or date, I shall be glad to correct my supposition in an +eventual second edition. But for the present I am sure that the +“trunk of a large tree” which had so suddenly disappeared, really +was a sea-serpent.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton’s</span> work about +the <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, which appeared in the year 1839. The +writer sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited +from other works, or from which he gave only short extracts. One +would say that Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> is an unbeliever, for he ends his +chapter on this animal with the words:</p> + +<p>“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close +our account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till +favouring circumstances bring the animal under the examination of +Naturalists, the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is +scarcely to be expected.”</p> + +<p>I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and +that he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated +of Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions +and sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation +between them and the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after +the sea-serpent he treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And +why did he end in such a vague way? May it be, because he could +not give an explanation, or because he hesitated to show the public +that he was really a believer?</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report105"><span class="reportnr"><b>105</b></span>.—1839, August?—According to <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, +vol. XII, n<sup>o</sup>. 248, of Oct., 1839, the <i>Boston Mercantile</i> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page255">[255]</span>mentions that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bubier</span>, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms +to have seen the sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to +Nahant, near Boston, and estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report106"><span class="reportnr"><b>106</b></span>.—1839.—In the same periodical on the same page +we read that Captain <span class="smcap">Smith</span> who had been a long time in the +whale fishery, asserts in the <i>Kennebek Journal</i>, that he never before +saw such a creature, and that if he had had a harpoon and +lines on board, he would have harpooned it.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report106A"><span class="reportnr"><b>106</b></span>, <span class="reportnr"><span class="allsmcap"><b>A</b></span></span>.—1840, +April 21.—(<i>Journal du Havre</i>, 1840, +Sept. 15, <i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1716).—As I have not had the +opportunity to consult the first paper, I give the account as I have +found it in the <i>Zoologist</i>.</p> + +<p>“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance, +which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a +degree of cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the +obstinacy of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by +the remark that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have +been seen at different points along the whole line of the American +coast. Captain d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort, +makes the following statements:</p> + +<p>“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13 +min. N. latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated +from the meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running +under a light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather. +In a few hours we distinguished something like a long chain of +rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, +and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of +the sea. Against this object the sea broke softly. As we approached +we remarked that its different parts changed their position, and +even their form, and we became perfectly certain that it was not +a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the assistance of a telescope +a long chain of enormous rings, resembling a number of +barrels linked together, and in form very like the back of a silk +worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we had +first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became +<span class="pagenum" id="Page256">[256]</span>more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous +tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. +This tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the +object itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane +rising to the height of about two <i>metres</i> from the water, and +inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the mass (without +leaving it, however); and this led me to conjecture that the monster +before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of +respiration, like the lampreys. At last we perceived something like +an <i>antenna</i> rising from the water, to the great height of nearly +eight <i>metres</i>, terminated by a crescent of at least five <i>metres</i> from +one extremity to the other. We could not approach sufficiently near +to acquire any very positive idea as to what we had seen; but +everything led us to believe that it was an enormous serpent of at +least 100 <i>metres</i> in length.”</p> + +<p>Although the editors of the <i>Journal du Havre</i> believed that +Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve +would shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on +the contrary his narrative has had quite another effect. Every +sceptic, I think, will smile or even laugh when he reads this report, +for who can help laughing when he reads of a “membrane +which led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided +with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys”, +and of an “antenna of eight metres, terminated by a crescent of +at least five metres from one extremity to the other.” We find +here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the names of +the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal kingdom. +A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly +transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was +one, I don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent, +how could they see from such a great distance, that it was thin; +what reason was there to call it a “membrane”?</p> + +<p>I am convinced that Captain d’<span class="smcap">Abnour</span> really saw a sea-serpent. +The animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still, +showing numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and +invisible. Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain +<span class="smcap">Weisz</span>, of the <i>Kätie</i> (<a href="#Report154">n°. 154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). We know that sea-serpents +lying still may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a +long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two +extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over +the level of the sea”. The sea broke gently against it. As they approached, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page257">[257]</span>the animal seen through a telescope had the appearance +of “a long chain of numerous rings, resembling a number of +barrels linked together”. We remember that this comparison has +often been made by different witnesses. The other comparison of +the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of a silk worm” is +also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached, these appearances +became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in a playful +manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, +white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are +longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly +black above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that +also the trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The +supposition of this division of colours had already been made by +Mr. <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> (<a href="#Report41">n<sup>o</sup>. 41</a>, <a href="#Page169">p. 169</a>). It is, therefore, very +remarkable that Captain d’<span class="smcap">Abnour</span> really saw that the tail too is +coloured black above and white beneath! The animal curled its +tail and let it for a moment “repose on a part of” its body. Then, +“at the other extremity” the animal elevated its foreflapper to the +height of about two metres (six feet) from the water. The flapper +“inclined itself at a considerable angle upon the” body, consequently +the animal made the same movement with its foreflapper as the +individual afterwards witnessed by Captain <span class="smcap">Weisz</span> (<a href="#Report154">n<sup>o</sup>. 154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). +At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale elevated above +the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to the height +of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of course has +nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’<span class="smcap">Abnour</span> says: +that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its relative +position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far from it. +The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all events +exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under +the water.</p> + +<p>The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in +<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, <i>Third Series</i>, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 54, p. 148, 1847.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report106B"><span class="reportnr"><b>106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></b></span>.—1840, June?—In the <i>Journal du Havre</i>, of 15th +September, 1840, (see <i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:</p> + +<p>“Not long since the <i>Boston Daily Advertiser</i> announced a new +appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world +is so naturally incredulous.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page258">[258]</span></p> + +<p>I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in +the month of June of that year.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report107"><span class="reportnr"><b>107</b></span>.—1840, July?—In his Postscript Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> (<i>Archiv +für Naturgeschichte</i>, 1841, Vol. I) says:</p> + +<p>“According to a letter addressed to me by Dr. Hoffmann, a +respectable physician in Molde, which is situated several miles +south of Christiansund on one of the largest fjords, the school-inspector +<span class="smcap">Hammer</span>, the adjunct <span class="smcap">Kraft</span>, and some other persons, +who in 1840 made together an excursion in a boat on this fjord, +saw very distinctly a so-called sea-serpent of considerable length.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report107A"><span class="reportnr"><b>107 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></b>.</span>—1840, August?—The Editor of the <i>Journal du +Havre</i> before publishing Capt. <span class="smcap">d’Abnour’s</span> report (<a href="#Report106">n<sup>o</sup>. 106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>) says, +(see <i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1715):</p> + +<p>“We shall preface his narrative by the remark, that the sea-serpent +has been recently alleged to have been seen, at different +points along the whole line of the American coast.”</p> + +<p>The Editor would have done better if he had published all the +reports of the sea-serpent, that had come within his reach. The +reader must know that with the terms “the whole line of the +American coast” the Editor can only have meant the east coast of +British America and of the United States, from Newfoundland to +Cape Canaveral, Florida.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report108"><span class="reportnr"><b>108</b></span>.—1841.—In a Postscript to his paper (<i>Archiv für +Naturgeschichte</i>, 1841, Vol. I) Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> tells us:</p> + +<p>“According to a letter which I received some time ago from +Mr. Soern Knutszon, a sea-serpent is again seen there some weeks +after I had left Christiansund, by several persons.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The well known Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke</span> in 1841 published in +the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, 7th year, Vol. I, his dissertation +<span class="pagenum" id="Page259">[259]</span>“On the Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a +translation of his paper:</p> + +<p>“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself +of the opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical +and even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in +the language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity +offered in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal +is said to have often been observed. The general notices which I +received about the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is +mostly seen in the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the +open sea. In the fjord of Christiansund, which has such a considerable +extent, manifold ramifications, and in which numerous islets +are found, it appears almost every year. It is said to have been +especially observed in that part of the fjord on which the village +of Lorvig is situated. This only happens in the warmest part of +the year, viz. in the dog days, and only then when the weather +is quite still and the surface of the water smooth. When after its +appearance the water is ruffled, however slightly, it immediately +disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that in the dog days many +fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into the sea, without +taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive away the +animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the +fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches, +and therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise +attracts it still more.”</p> + +<p>“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which +are spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who +were said to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who +at the request of <span class="smcap">Soeren</span> and <span class="smcap">Wilhelm Knudtszon</span> Brothers, two +distinguished and very intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I +questioned personally; for others I had put down several questions +to which I received a written answer. I will communicate here the +result of my inquiry.”</p> + +<p>Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> publishes the affidavits which I have inserted +above (<a href="#Report90">n<sup>o</sup>. 90</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, +<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>), and his Postscript (see <a href="#Report107">n<sup>o</sup>. +107</a> and <a href="#Report108">108</a>).</p> + +<p>“If one” Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> goes on, “were to submit the above mentioned +evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they +not only contain several contradictory statements, but also that each +evidence by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that +we may at least admit so much of them, to be right, that what +<span class="pagenum" id="Page260">[260]</span>those persons who bear the evidences, took for a long animal, was +really such a one. For I should not know, what could be the +cause of the illusion, which had created the belief in such an animal. +Some persons, as I know, believe that what has been taken +for a so-called sea-serpent, was nothing else but a row of porpoises, +swimming in a line. But all those persons by whom the above +mentioned evidences are borne were too familiar with the sea, and +had observed porpoises together too often to be deceived by a row +of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If this, +however, had been the case, all the observations related to me of +the sea-serpent holding its head above the surface, and about its +size, must have been mere fictions, and this I cannot believe. According +to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted that there is +a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow +to a considerable length.”</p> + +<p>Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> weighs and considers to what kind of animals +the sea-serpent may belong. This, however, we omit here, as we +have partly discussed these views in our Chapter on Would-be +Sea-Serpents, where we spoke of the Animal of Stronsa, and as +we shall once more refer to it in our Chapter of Explanations.</p> + +<p>Every one, I think, will agree with me, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> has +committed two faults. 1. He criticises the correctness of the statements +in question, apparently without having taken the trouble +to read all that had been written about the subject. If he had +done so, he would never have said that the particulars of the +evidences collected by him in Norway were sometimes contradictory; +on the contrary, he would have observed that they completed +one another! 2. He was the first scientific man and zoologist who +had an opportunity to see the sea-serpent, probably even to kill +it, and yet he returns to Germany without having made one single +effort either to kill or to see it!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Immediately after Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich Rathke’s</span> dissertation, the Editor +of the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, the well-known Prof. Dr. <span class="smcap">W. +F. Erichson</span>, wrote a paper, in which he gave full details of the +Animal of Stronsa and descriptions of the saved bones. He ends +this extract with the words:</p> + +<p>“Consequently the Animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with +the sea-serpent of the Norwegians; the animal, however, seen by +<span class="pagenum" id="Page261">[261]</span>the Rev. Maclean” (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>) “might be considered as such an animal.”</p> + +<p>These words convince me of the fact that Mr. <span class="smcap">Erichson</span>, like +Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> firmly believed that there are in the Norwegian seas +animals still unknown to them, which are called “sea-serpents”.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report109"><span class="reportnr"><b>109</b></span>.—1842?—(<i>Times</i>, Nov. 4, 1848).—</p> + +<p>“A parish priest residing on Romsdal fjord, about two days +journey south of Drontheim, an intelligent person, whose veracity +I have no reason to doubt, gave me a circumstantial account of +one, which he had himself seen. It rose within 30 yards of the +boat in which he was, and swam parallel with it for a considerable +time. Its head he described as equalling a small cask in size, and +its mouth, which it repeatedly opened and shut, was furnished +with formidable teeth; its neck was smaller, but its body—of +which he supposed that he saw about half on the surface of the +water—was not less in girth than that of a moderate sized horse.” +(Part of a letter from “<span class="smcap">Oxoniensis</span>”).—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report110"><span class="reportnr"><b>110</b></span>.—1842?—“Another gentleman, in whose house I +stayed, had also seen one, and gave a similar account of it: it +also came near his boat upon the fjord, when it was fired at, upon +which it turned and pursued them to the shore, which was luckily +near, when it disappeared” (Also a part of the letter from <span class="smcap">Oxoniensis</span>, +<i>Times</i>, Nov. 4, 1848).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report111"><span class="reportnr"><b>111</b></span>.—1843, Summer.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, Vol. +XXVIII, n<sup>o</sup>. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, we read:</p> + +<p>“Some months ago the sea-serpent again appeared between the +islets and inlets of the fjord of Christiansund.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report111A"><span class="reportnr"><b>111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></b></span>.—1843, +October?—(<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, Vol. +28, n<sup>o</sup>. 606, p. 184).</p> + +<p>“The Editors of the <i>Christiansands Posten</i> add the following remarks: +“This whole description accurately fits on an appearance, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page262">[262]</span>which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the +North Sea, and when the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, +if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had +rowed with their boats towards the animal, they would soon have +observed without any doubt that the supposed intervals between +the coils were nothing else but water.””</p> + +<p>The number of the <i>Christiansands Posten</i> was most probably +one of the beginning of November or of the end of October. Consequently +the appearance spoken of must have taken place some +days before. At all events this is a proof of an appearance of the +sea-serpent, swimming in vertical undulations, near Ibbestad, in +Norway, at that time.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report112"><span class="reportnr"><b>112</b></span>, +<span class="reportnr"><b>113</b></span>.<a id="Report113"></a>—1845.—The report of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, +which we shall meet with a little further on, induced Mr. <span class="smcap">J. D. +Morries Stirling</span> to write a letter on the sea-serpent to the Admiralty.</p> + +<p>“By the courtesy” says the Editor of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> +in his number of Oct., 28, 1848, “of the Secretary to the Admiralty, +we have been favoured with the following letter from a +gentleman long resident in Norway.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“13, Great Cumberland Street, October 25, 1848.”</span></p> + +<p>“My dear Sir,—I regret that I have not found the volumes +referred to in our conversation respecting the recent authentication +of the existence of the sea-serpent by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. +frigate Daedalus, but I will give you that part of the information +which I remember best. Several years ago, a museum was established +at Bergen, in Norway, the directors of which have, amongst other +subjects of interest, turned their study to Natural History in +general, and to the elucidation of some of its more doubtful or +less known subdivisions. The question of the sea-serpent’s existence +had previously attracted the attention of several scientific men in +Northern Europe; and my friend, the late Dr. Newmann, Bishop +of Bergen—a man much and justly respected for his learning, +research and energy—made it the subject of inquiry within the +last twenty or twenty-five years among his clergy and those of the +adjoining dioceses. The amount of proof thus collected was sufficient +to convince any one, however sceptical, as it is not mere +hearsay evidence, but the testimony of known and respectable +persons in various walks of life. One of the most striking statements +<span class="pagenum" id="Page263">[263]</span>is made by some fishermen, who saw the animal quite close +to them, and of whom one more hardy than the rest struck it +with a boat-hook, upon which it immediately gave them chase; +and, had they not been very near a small island or rock, on which +they took refuge, in all probability they would have been destroyed.”</p> + +<p>“The size of the sea-serpents seen in the Norwegian fjords varies +much; and I do not now remember what the dimensions of the +largest are said to be. As far as I can tax my memory, none of +them lately seen are larger than that described by Capt. M’Quhae. +The one seen by the fishermen above alluded to, was, I think, +not above 70 feet long. I have written to my colleagues in the +direction of the Bergen Museum, and as soon as their answer +arrives I will give you a more full account.”</p> + +<p>“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile, known as +the sea-serpent, but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence +of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several +of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size +and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this +respect, as well as having short paws or flappers, the descriptions +of the northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of +some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in +the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed +to be the same animal as the Kraken, or rather from the names +having been used indiscriminately.”</p> + +<p>“In concluding this hurried statement, allow me to add my +own testimony as to the existence of a large fish or reptile of +cylindrical form. (I will not say sea-serpent.) Three years ago, +while becalmed in a yacht between Bergen and Sogn in Norway, +I saw (at about a quarter of a mile astern) what appeared to be +a large fish ruffling the otherwise smooth surface of the fjord, +and, on looking attentively, I observed what looked like the convolutions +of a snake. I immediately got my glass, and distinctly +made out three convolutions, which drew themselves slowly through +the water. The greatest diameter was about ten or twelve inches. +No head was visible; and from the size of each convolution, I +supposed the length to be about thirty feet. The master of my +yacht (who, as navigator, seaman, and fisherman, had known the +Norwegian coast and North Sea for many years), as well as a +friend who was with me, an experienced Norwegian sportsman +and porpoise shooter, saw the same appearance at the same time, +and formed the same opinion as to form and size. I mention my +<span class="pagenum" id="Page264">[264]</span>friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed that a shoal +of porpoises following each other has given rise to the fable, as +they called it, of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report114"><span class="reportnr"><b>114</b></span>.—1845 or 1846, Summer.—(Copied in the <i>Illustrated +London News</i> of June, 13, 1857, from the <i>Cape Argus</i> of March, +14, 1857).</p> + +<p>“Sir,—I inclose a letter addressed to me by a friend Dr. Biccard +(with a drawing) containing an interesting account of the +sea-serpent seen by him and others off the old lighthouse at the +entrance of Table Bay on the 16th. of last month. It savours not +a little of presumption to maintain that such a marine monster +does exist, in the face of the deliberately recorded opinion of the +greatest living Zoologist, Professor Owen, yet I venture to do so +upon the simple testimony of my own eyes. In the year 1845, or +6, Mr. G. D. Brunette (of St. George’s-street, the conveyancer) +and myself were fishing at Camp’s Bay one bright, clear summer +day. There was not a breath of air, and the water was as smooth +as the surface of a pond. About midday we were leaving the rocks +to proceed to the marine villa, when Mr. Brunette suddenly +directed my attention to what he at first thought was a whale. A +moment’s inspection was sufficient, however, to detect the real +nature of the animal. At about a mile from the shore we saw a +line of shining black objects, like a string of large casks, floating +on the surface of the water, lying parallel with the shore. It kept +gently bobbing up and down, and on one occasion we saw the +whole length for a few seconds above the water. Judging from the +size of an Indiaman, 1000 tons, at a similar distance, I should +say the animal’s length was from 150 to 200 feet. Of its girth I +can form no estimate; but, from the show it made at so great a +distance, it must have been at least three feet above the level of +the sea. Nor could we distinguish head from tail, though near +one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth, as though +the animal was blowing water in a lateral direction. It seemed to +be basking in the warm sun, with no other motion than that I +have described, or dipping under occasionally. After watching it +for about a quarter of an hour we started for the villa, for the +purpose of borrowing a telescope, but we had scarcely walked ten +yards when we observed the animal turn slowly round and then +<span class="pagenum" id="Page265">[265]</span>made off in a straight line to seawards, towards the N.W. It +moved at a rapid rate; so much so that when we got to the house +and procured the glass it had reached such a distance that we +could not distinguish it better than we had done with our naked +eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving off was undulatory, +the cask like substances submerging and emerging from time to +time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them altogether, +which was about an hour after first seeing the animal. That this +animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet, +knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brunette +nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so +we said nothing about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at +my request, furnished me with particulars, for general information, +of the animal seen by him under such favourable circumstances, +I am induced to add my own poor testimony to the many facts +now on record, proving conclusively the existence of a great marine +saurian or some similar animal. I would point out that a +gentleman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific attainments is +not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the six or +seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at so +short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by +a piece of seaweed, or by a seal.”</p> + +<p>“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and +I beg to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on +the Great Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.”</p> + +<p>“Yours, &c.,” +<span class="righttext"><span class="padr6">“Chas. A. Fairbridge.”</span></span></p> + +<p>“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”</p> + +<p>The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place +hereafter, (<a href="#Report130">n°. 130</a>). It is clear enough that we have here an unvarnished +account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The appearance +of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large +casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150 +feet, is surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As +the animal raised itself at least three feet above the level of the +sea, its diameter may have been some fifteen feet. The animal +evidently lay with its nostrils just at water-level, so that in exhaling +it caused “a foam or froth, as though blowing water in a +lateral direction”. I think, that the observer was a little mistaken +as to the direction, which cannot have been quite a lateral one.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page266">[266]</span></p> + +<p id="Report115"><span class="reportnr"><b>115</b></span>.—1845, July 28.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1606).</p> + +<p>“The Rev. Mr. P. W. Deinbolt, Archdeacon of Molde, gives +the following account of one, which was seen last summer near +Molde. The 28th. of July, 1845, J. C. Lund, bookseller and +printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant; Christian Flang, Lund’s apprentice, +and John Elgenses, labourer, were out on Romsdale-fjord, +fishing. The sea was, after a warm, sunshiny day, quite calm. +About seven o’clock in the afternoon, at a little distance from the +shore, near the ballast place and Molde Hove, they saw a long +marine animal, which slowly moved itself forward, as it appeared +to them, with the help of two fins, on the fore-part of the body +nearest the head, which they judged by the boiling of the water +on both sides of it. The visible part of the body appeared to be +between forty and fifty feet in length, and moved in undulations, +like a snake. The body was round and of a dark colour, and +seemed to be several ells (an ell two feet) in thickness. As they +discerned a waving motion in the water behind the animal, they +concluded that part of the body was concealed under water. That +it was one connected animal they saw plainly from its movement. +When the animal was about one hundred yards from the boat, +they noticed tolerably correctly its fore-part, which ended in a +sharp snout; its colossal head raised itself above the water in the +form of a semi-circle; the lower part was not visible. The colour +of the head was dark brown and the skin smooth; they did not +notice the eyes, or any mane or bristles on the throat. When the +serpent came about a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and +was certain the shots hit it in the head. After the shot it dived, +but came up immediately. It raised its neck in the air, like a +snake preparing to dart on his prey. After he had turned and got +his body in a straight line, which he appeared to do with great +difficulty, he darted like an arrow against the boat. They reached +the shore, and the animal, perceiving it had come into shallow +water, dived immediately and disappeared in the deep. Such is +the declaration of these four men, and no one has cause to question +their veracity, or imagine that they were so seized with fear that +they could not observe what took place so near them. There are +not many here, or on other parts of the Norwegian coast, who +longer doubt the existence of the sea-serpent. The writer of this +narrative was a long time sceptical, as he had not been so fortunate +as to see this monster of the deep; but after the many accounts +he has read, and the relations he has received from credible +<span class="pagenum" id="Page267">[267]</span>witnesses, he does not dare longer to doubt the existence of the +sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“P. W. Deinbolt.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl8">“Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”</span></p> + +<p>I need scarcely observe that the eye-witnesses of this appearance +were deceived as to their opinion that the “boiling of the water +on both sides of the head” was caused by “two fins on the forepart +of the body, nearest the head”. The two fore-flappers of the +sea-serpent are situated at rather a great distance from the head. +The animal has a very long neck. This assertion is proved by their +own words: “it raised its neck in the air”. If there were two fins +near the head, large enough to cause any boiling of water, they +would have been seen then by the persons, who would have mentioned +them. The so-called boiling of the water was nothing but +the commonly observed rushing caused by the animal’s motion +through the water.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report117"><span class="reportnr"><b>117</b></span>.—1846, August 8.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1847, p. 1608).</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”</span></p> + +<p>“On Saturday, the 8th. inst., in the course between the islands +of Sartor Leer and Tös, a sea-monster, supposed to be a sea-serpent, +was seen by several persons. Early on this day as the steamer +Biörgvin passed through Rognefjord towing a vessel to Bergen, +Daniel Salomonson, a cotter, saw a sea-monster, whose like he +declares he never met with although accustomed to the sea and +its inhabitants from his earliest years. The animal came swimming +from Rognefjord in a westerly direction towards his dwelling at +Grönnevigskioeset, in the northern part of the parish of Sund. The +head appeared like a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) keel +uppermost, and from behind it raised itself forward in three, and +sometimes four and five undulations, each apparently about twelve +feet long: its rate appeared to be that of a light boat rowed by +four active men. When it reached Grönnevigskioeset at a distance +of two rifle-shots it turned with considerable noise and continued +its course towards Lundenoes. Later about eleven o’clock on the +same day his wife Ingeborg, in Daniel’s absence, heard a loud +noise in the sea, and she and two little children saw a great sea +monster, such as described above, take a northerly course, close +by their place at such a rate that the waves were dashed on the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page268">[268]</span>shore in the same way as when a steamer is passing by. Neither +of them say that they saw anything like eyes or fins, or indeed +anything projecting from its round form, but they declare that the +colour of the animal was dark brown, and that it often rose up +with gentle undulations, sometimes, however, sinking below the +surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid course of the +gigantic body.—On the same morning a lad, by name Abraham +Abrahamsen Hagenoes, was out fishing in the Rognefjord, not far +from Lundenoes, and just ready to throw out his line, when he, +as he asserts, became aware that on about one hundred fathoms a +monster with a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet +long) and a long body lay upon the sea like large kegs and was +nearing his boat: seized with a panic he exerted all his strength +to reach the shore, and as the animal, apparently following him, +was only about forty fathoms off, he leaped ashore, drew up the +boat and ran up the bank, whence he viewed the monster which +had by this time approached the shore within twenty fathoms. He +says that that part of the body which was visible was about sixty +feet in length, and that its undulating course was similar to the +eel: that the colour of the back was blackish, shining strongly, and +as far as he could distinguish there was a whitish stripe under +the belly.”</p> + +<p>“Report also says that the sea-serpent was seen by several persons +in Biornfjord causing a great deal of dread, but of this our informants +want authentic accounts. Our informant further says that +he has no reason whatever to doubt the truth of the story of the +man and his wife, or the truthworthiness of the lad Abraham, +except as far as that his fears may have caused him to see several +things through a magnifying glass.”</p> + +<p>I am convinced that by a head as large as a Foering boat +(about twenty feet long) must be meant the head and a great +part of the neck. The other characters are mere repetitions of what +we have so often observed. Very interesting again is the statement +of the lad that the animal had a white stripe “under the belly”. +As the lad cannot have seen the proper belly of the animal, it +must have been the throat; the boy thought that he saw a snake, +and I think that he, being questioned, would tell me that a +snake has a head, a trunk and a tail, and hardly any neck and +throat. I am also convinced, that the boy has not seen with a +magnifying glass: the measurements, he gives, are not exaggerated.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page269">[269]</span></p> + +<p>In 1847, Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newmann</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> +had the courage to open the columns of his Journal to all kinds +of reports and discussions about the great sea-serpent. He says +(p. 1604):</p> + +<p>“It has been the fashion for so many years to deride all records +of this very celebrated monster, that it is not without hesitation I +venture to quote the following paragraphs in his defence. A month +only has elapsed since I had occasion to quote with approbation, +a very marked passage from the pen of Sir J. W. Hershell (Zool. +1586): I may apply it with equal propriety to the enquiry of the +era of the Irish deer, or of the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent. +Naturalists, or rather those who choose thus to designate themselves, +set up an authority above that of fact and observation, the +gist of their enquiries is whether such things <i>ought to be</i>, and +whether such things <i>ought not to be</i>; now fact-naturalists take a +different road to knowledge, they enquire whether such things +<i>are</i> and whether such things <i>are not</i>. The <i>Zoologist</i>, if not in +itself the fountain-head of this <i>fact</i> movement, may at least claim +to be the only public advocate of that movement; and it is therefore +most desirable, that it should call the attention of its readers +to the following remarkable paragraphs. They are quoted from one +of our daily papers, which gives them as literal translations from +the Norse papers, in which they originally appeared; the localities +mentioned are intimately known to all travellers in Norway; and +the witnesses are generally highly respectable and of unimpeachable +veracity. The very discrepancies in the accounts prove the +entire absence of any preconcerted scheme of deception. The only +question therefore for the fact-naturalists to decide, is simply, +whether all of the records now collected, can refer to whales, +fishes, or any other marine animals with which we are at present +acquainted.”</p> + +<p>I have no reason to doubt Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>’s veracity, and so I am +willing to believe that the five reports which follow this introduction +“are quoted from one of” the British “daily papers, which gives +them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they +originally appeared”. I only ask why Mr. <span class="smcap">Newmann</span> did not mention +the daily paper? For the assertion of this daily paper that they +are “literal translations from <i>Norse</i> papers in which they originally +appeared” is at all events a fabrication, as the reports which Mr. +<span class="smcap">Newman</span> published here are the evidences which Mr. <span class="smcap">Heinrich +Rathke</span> took, when on a journey in Norway, near Christiansund, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page270">[270]</span>apparently in the year 1840, and which he published in the <i>Archiv +für Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841, six years later! I have inserted them +above (<a href="#Report90">n°. 90</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, +<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>). As to the “discrepancies in +the accounts” I have already showed that there are, in fact, +hardly any discrepancies, but that the accounts complete one another. +I must also observe here that the accounts are not translated +<i>literally</i>. Many, and among them very interesting passages, are +omitted. The reader, who will convince himself of the truth of +my assertion, has only to compare the accounts, as they are inserted +in the <i>Zoologist</i> with my translations of the German originals, or +with the originals themselves.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, too, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, 1860, +writes: “The public papers of Norway, during the summer of 1846, +were occupied with statements of the following effect”, and he too +publishes extracts from the evidences printed in the <i>Archiv für +Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841!</p> + +<p>Also Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, 1883, says: “In +1847 there appeared in a London daily paper a long account +translated from the Norse journals of fresh appearances of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>And Mr. <span class="smcap">John Ashton</span> in his <i>Curious Creatures in Zoology</i>, +1889, asserts: “In 1847 a sea-serpent was seen frequently in the +neighbourhood of Christiansund and Molde, by many persons, and +by one Lars Johnöen, fisherman at Smölen, especially.”</p> + +<p>All these writers have copied Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, and have therefore +quite overlooked the fact that the originals were in the <i>Archiv für +Naturgeschichte</i> of 1841, and that the appearances took place long +before the year 1847!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The last number of the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1847 appeared in October +of that year. The reader must know that the matter of this journal +is arranged according to the class of the animals, treated of in each +article. This I must mention for the better understanding of the +following passage which Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> wrote in his preface to the +above mentioned volume of the <i>Zoologist</i>.</p> + +<p>“In Reptiles, the communications and quotations about “the +Sea-Serpent” are well worthy of attentive perusal: it is impossible +to suppose all the records bearing this title to be fabricated for +the purpose of deception. A natural phenomenon of some kind has +<span class="pagenum" id="Page271">[271]</span>been witnessed: let us seek a satisfactory solution rather than +terminate enquiry by the shafts of ridicule. The grave and learned +have often avowed a belief that toads can exist some thousands of +years without food, light or air, and immured in solid stone: +surely it is not requiring too much to solicit a suspension of judgment +on the question whether a monster may exist in the sea +which does not adorn our collections.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, viz. believed that the sea-serpent belonged to the +class of Reptiles. The “communications and quotations” spoken of +here, have already been inserted above (<a href="#Report25">n°. 25</a>, <a href="#Report90">90</a>, +<a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, +<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>, +<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, 116, <a href="#Report11">117</a>.).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report118"><span class="reportnr"><b>118</b></span>.—1848, August 6.—No report of the sea-serpent has +ever more shaken the incredulity of hundreds and thousands than +that generally known as the account of the <i>Daedalus</i>, after the +frigate from which the sea-serpent was seen.</p> + +<p>The <i>Times</i> newspaper of October, 9, 1848, published the following +paragraph:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Intelligence from Plymouth, dated 7 Oct.”</span></p> + +<p>“When the <i>Daedalus</i> frigate, Captain M’Quhae, which arrived at +Plymouth on the 4th. instant, was on her passage home from the +East Indies, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, her +captain, and most of her officers and crew, at four o’clock one +afternoon, saw a sea-serpent. The creature was twenty minutes in +sight of the frigate, and passed under her quarter. Its head appeared +to be about four feet out of the water, and there was +about sixty feet of its body in a straight line on the surface. It +is calculated that there must have been under water a length of +thirty-three or forty feet more, by which it propelled itself at the +rate of fifteen miles an hour. The diameter of the exposed part of +the body was about sixteen inches; and when it extended its jaws, +which were full of large jagged teeth, they seemed sufficiently +capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between them”.</p> + +<p>The Admiralty instantly inquired into the truth of the statement, +and in the <i>Times</i> of the 13th. the gallant captain’s official reply +was published in the following terms:</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr8">“Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus,</span><br> +<span class="padr12">Hamoaze, <i>Oct. 11</i>.”</span></p> + +<p>“Sir,—In reply to your letter of this date, requiring information +<span class="pagenum" id="Page272">[272]</span>as to the truth of a statement published in <i>The Times</i> newspaper, +of a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions having been +seen from Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>, under my command, on +her passage from the East Indies, I have the honour to acquaint +you, for the information of my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, +that at five o’clock P. M., on the 6th. of August last, +in latitude 24° 44′ S., and longitude 9° 22′ E., the weather dark +and cloudy, wind fresh from the N. W., with a long ocean swell +from the S. W., the ship on the port tack heading N. E. by N., +something very unusual was seen by Mr. Sartoris, midshipman, +rapidly approaching the ship from before the beam. The circumstance +was immediately reported by him to the officer of the watch, +Lieutenant Edgar Drummond, with whom and Mr. William Barrett, +the master, I was at the time walking the quarterdeck. The +ship’s company were at supper.”</p> + +<p>“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered +to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about +four feet constantly above the surface of the sea, and, as nearly +as we could approximate, by comparing it with the length of what +our main-topsail yard would show in the water, there was at the +very least sixty feet of the animal <i>à fleur d’eau</i>, no portion of +which was, to our perception, used in propelling it through the +water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation. It passed rapidly, +but so close under our lee quarter, that had it been a man of +my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his features with +the naked eye; and it did not, either in approaching the ship or +after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from +its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace of from +twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on some determined +purpose.”</p> + +<p>“The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches +behind the head, which was, without any doubt, that of a snake; +and it was never, during the twenty minutes that it continued in +sight of our glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour +a dark brown, with yellowish white about the throat. It had no +fins, but something like a mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of +seaweed, washed about its back. It was seen by the quartermaster, +the boatswain’s mate, and the man at the wheel, in addition to +myself and officers above-mentioned.”</p> + +<p>“I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken +immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for +<span class="pagenum" id="Page273">[273]</span>transmission to my Lords Commissioners +of the Admiralty by to-morrow’s post.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”</span></p> + +<p>“To Admiral Sir W. H. Gage, G. C. H., Devonport.”</p> + +<p>In the <i>Literary Gazette</i> of Oct. 21st., +1848, the Editor published an engraving +of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>’s representation, and adds +some accompanying conclusions, appended +to copious extracts from the learned Bishop’s +work:</p> + +<p>“We have now only to point to the very +remarkable resemblance between Captain +M’Quhae and Pontoppidan’s description. +One might fancy the galant Captain had +read the old Dane, and was copying him, +when he tells of the dark brown colour +and white about the throat, and the neck +clothed as if by a horse’s mane or a bunch +of sea-weed—the exact words of the historian. +This snake, however, did not seem +to care for the fresh wind and ruffish weather, +but kept, as in the calm, its head several +feet above the water, and stretched out its +length so as to be visible for some sixty +or eighty feet. The motion was not perceptibly +impelled by vermicular or lent-serpent +action! Had it then large fins? There must +be some power. The picture engraved in +the folio represents it like a series of six +barrels, or risings, with the intermediate +parts under the sea.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig28"> +<img src="images/illo273.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 28.—The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the officers of the Daedalus.</p> +</div> + +<p>In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Oct. +28st. was reprinted all that has been mentioned +above, and there appeared three representations +of the sea-serpent, as seen from +the <i>Daedalus</i>, which I here show my readers +in <a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a> and <a href="#Fig30">30</a>, omitting, however, the +ship’s stern, because the drawings would be +too large for our pages. The Editor of the <i>Illustrated +London News</i> adds:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page274">[274]</span></p> + +<p>“The drawings above-named have been received by the Lord Commissioners +to the Admiralty, and by the courtesy of Capt. M’Quhae, +our artist has been permitted to copy this pictorial evidence, as +well as further to illustrate the appearance of the Serpent, under +the supervision of Captain M’Quhae, +and with his approval of the Authenticity +of their details as to position +and form.”</p> + +<p>On the 28th. of October Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, the officer of the +watch, mentioned in the report of +Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, published his own +impressions of the animal, in the form +of an extract from his own journal. +As far as I can discover it did not +appear before the 1st. of December, +in the <i>Zoologist</i> (p. 2306) and runs +as follows:</p> + +<p>“I beg to send you the following +extract from my journal.”</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig29"> +<img src="images/illo274.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 29.—Another sketch of the same individual.</p> +</div> + +<p>“H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>, August, 6, +1848, lat. 25° S., long 9° 37′ E., St., +Helena 1015 miles. In the 4 to 6 +watch, at about five o’clock, we observed +a most remarkable fish on our +lee quarter, crossing the stern in a +S. W. direction; the appearance of its +head, which, with the back fin, was +the only portion of the animal visible, +was long, pointed, and flattened at +the top, perhaps ten feet in length, +the upper jaw projecting considerably; +the fin was perhaps twenty feet in +the rear of the head, and visible occasionally; +the captain also asserted +that he saw the tail, or another fin +about the same distance behind it; +the upper part of the head and shoulders +appeared of a dark brown colour, +and beneath the under jaw a brownish +white. It pursued a steady undeviating +<span class="pagenum" id="Page275">[275]</span>course, keeping its head horizontal with the surface of the +water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally +beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for +purposes of respiration. It was going at the rate of perhaps from +twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest, was perhaps +one hundred yards distant. In fact it gave one quite the idea of a +large snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen anything +similar, so it is at least extraordinary. It was visible to the naked +eye for five minutes, and with a glass for perhaps fifteen more. +The weather was dark and squally at the time, with some sea +running.”</p> + +<p>The following article appeared in the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 2d.:</p> + +<p>“Amidst the numerous suggestions of those of your correspondents +who are disposed to admit the account given by Captain M’Quhae +of the marine monster seen by him and several of his brother +officers, on the 6th. of August last, as not altogether imaginary, +it appears surprising that it should not have occurred to any one +to suggest an explanation of some apparent anomalies in the +account, which have no doubt tended to stagger the belief even of +some readers who are not disposed to assume (any more than myself) +that a number of officers in Her Majesty’s navy would +deliberately invent a falsehood, or could have been deceived in an +appearance which they describe with such precise details”</p> + +<p>“One of the greatest difficulties on the face of the narrative and +which must be allowed to destroy the analogy of the motions of +the so called “sea-serpent” with those of all known snakes and +anguilliform fishes, is that no less than sixty feet of the animal +were seen advancing <i>à fleur d’eau</i> at the rate of from twelve to +fifteen miles an hour, without it being possible to perceive, upon +the closest and most attentive inspection, any undulatory motion +to which its rapid advance could be ascribed. It need scarcely be +observed that neither an eel nor a snake, if either of those animals +could swim at all with the neck elevated, could do so without the +front part of its body being thrown into undulation by the propulsive +efforts of its tail.”</p> + +<p>“But, it may be asked, if the animal seen by Captain M’Quhae +was not allied to the snakes or to the eels, to what class of +animals could it have belonged? To this I would reply, that it +appears more likely that the enormous reptile in question was +allied to the gigantic Saurians, hitherto believed only to exist in +the fossil state, and, among them, to the Plesiosaurus.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page276">[276]</span></p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig30"> +<img src="images/illo276.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 30.—A sketch of the head of the same individual.</p> +</div> + +<p>“From the known anatomical characters of the <i>Plesiosauri</i>, derived +from the examination of their organic remains, geologists are +agreed in the inference that those animals carried their necks +(which must have resembled the bodies of serpents) above the +water, while their progression was effected by large paddles working +beneath—the short but stout tail acting the part of a rudder. +It would be superfluous to point out how closely the surmises of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page277">[277]</span>philosophers resemble, in these particulars, the description of the +eye-witnesses of the living animal, as given in the letter and drawings +of Captain M’Quhae. In the latter we have many of the +external characters of the former, as predicated from the examination +of the skeleton. The short head, the serpent-like neck, carried +several feet above the water, forcibly recall the idea conceived of +the extinct animal; and even the bristly mane in certain parts of +the back, so unlike anything found in serpents, has its analogy +in the <i>Iguana</i>, to which animal the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> has been compared +by some geologists. But I would most of all insist upon the peculiarity +of the animal’s progression, which could only have been +effected with the evenness, and at the rate described, by an apparatus +of fins or paddles, not possessed by serpents, but existing +in the highest perfection in the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>.”—F. G. S.—</p> + +<p>In the number of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of November 4, +1848, the letter of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> was published in which he +expresses his special approbation of the figures:</p> + +<p>“I have observed with very great satisfaction the Engravings of +the “Sea-Serpent” in the Illustrated London News of the 28th. +inst.; they most faithfully represent the appearance of the animal, +as seen from Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i> on the 6th. of August +last; and it is evident that much care has been bestowed upon +the subject by the artist employed, to whom I beg to acknowledge +myself greatly indebted for the patience and attention with which +he listened to the various alterations suggested by me during the +progress of the drawings.”</p> + +<p>In the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 4th., we find the following remark:</p> + +<p>“As some interest has been excited by the alleged appearance +of a sea-serpent, I venture to transmit a few remarks on the subject, +which you may or not may think worthy of insertion in your +columns. There does not appear to be a single well authenticated +instance of these monsters having been seen in any southern latitudes; +but in the north of Europe, notwithstanding the fabulous +character so long ascribed to Pontoppidan’s description, I am convinced +that they both exist and are frequently seen. During three +summers spent in Norway I have repeatedly conversed with the +natives on this subject.”</p> + +<p>Here follow the descriptions of two appearances which I have +inserted above, (<a href="#Report109">n<sup>o</sup>. 109</a>, <a href="#Report110">110</a>).</p> + +<p>“They expressed great surprise at the general disbelief attaching +to the existence of these animals amongst naturalists, and assured +<span class="pagenum" id="Page278">[278]</span>me that there was scarcely a sailor accustomed to those inland +lakes, who had not seen them at one time or another.”—<span class="smcap">Oxoniensis.</span></p> + +<p>An unknown writer in one of the daily papers, after suggesting, +whether the animals in question might not be full grown specimens +of the <i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i> of Dr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> (described in the +<i>Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History</i>, for March, +1824), or of the <i>Ophiognathus ampullaceus</i> of Dr. <span class="smcap">Harwood</span> (<i>Phil. +Trans.</i>, 1827), gives Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> the benefit of a further +conjecture, viz., whether some land species, as the boas, among +which are individuals “forty feet” in length, may not sometimes +betake themselves to the sea, or even “transport themselves from +one continent to another.” (See <i>Zoologist</i>, 1848; p. 2320).</p> + +<p>Some days after the figures of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> were published, +a nobleman, whose name is not mentioned, wrote to Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> +to know his opinion about the animal seen by the Captain. The +Professor, it would seem, did not answer the nobleman directly, +but sent his answer to the Editor of the <i>Times</i>, evidently with a +view of bringing his opinion under the eyes of thousands. This +letter is too important to be abridged; I therefore give it in extenso; +it appeared in the <i>Times</i> of November 11, 1848.</p> + + +<p class="center"><i>The Great Sea-Serpent.</i></p> + +<p>“Sir,—Subjoined is the answer to a question relative to the +animal seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>, addressed to me by a nobleman +distinguished in literature, and taking much interest in science.”</p> + +<p>“As it contains the substance of the explanation I have endeavoured +to give to numerous inquirers, in the Hunterian Museum +and elsewhere, and as I continue to receive many applications for +my opinion of the “Great Sea Serpent,” I am desirous to give it +once for all through the medium of your columns, if space of such +value may be allotted to it.”</p> + +<p>“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr18">“Richard Owen.”</span><br> +<span class="padr24">“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”</span></p> + +<p>“The sketch (this was a reduced copy of the drawing of the +head of the animal seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>; attached to the +submerged body of a large seal, showing the long eddy produced +by the action of the terminal flippers) will suggest the reply to +your query, “Whether the monster seen from the <i>Daedalus</i> be +anything but a saurian?” If it be the true answer, it destroys +the romance of the incident, and will be anything but acceptable +to those who prefer the excitement of the imagination to the satisfaction +<span class="pagenum" id="Page279">[279]</span>of the judgment. I am far from insensible to the pleasures +of the discovery of a new and rare animal; but before I can enjoy +them, certain conditions—e. g. reasonable proof or evidence of +its existence—must be fulfilled. I am also far from undervaluing +the information which Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> has given us of what he +saw. When fairly analized, it lies in a small compass, but my +knowledge of the animal kingdom compels me to draw other conclusions +from the phenomena than those which the gallant captain +seems to have jumped at. He evidently saw a large animal moving +through the water, very different from anything he had before +witnessed—neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, +nor any of the larger surface swimming creatures which are +fallen in with in ordinary voyages. He writes—“On our attention +being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous +serpent” (read “animal”), “with the head and shoulders kept +about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter +of the serpent” (animal) “was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind +the head; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish white about the +throat”. No fins were seen (the captain says there were none; but +from his own account, he did not see enough of the animal to prove +the negative). “Something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch +of sea-weed, washed about its back.” So much of the body as was +seen was “not used in propelling the animal through the water, either +by vertical or horizontal undulation.” A calculation of its length +was made under a strong preconception of the nature of the +beast. The head, e. g., is stated to be, “without any doubt, +that of a snake;” and yet a snake would be the last species to +which a naturalist conversant with the forms and characters of the +heads of animals, would refer such a head as that of which Captain +M’Quhae has transmitted a drawing to the Admirality, and +which he certifies to have been accurately copied in the <i>Illustrated +London News</i> for October 28, 1848, p. 265. Your Lordship will +observe that no sooner was the captain’s attention called to the +object, than “it was discovered to be an enormous serpent”, and +yet the closest inspection of as much of the body as was visible, +<i>à fleur d’eau</i>, failed to detect any undulations of the body, although +such actions constitute the very character which would distinguish +a serpent or serpentiform swimmer from any other marine species. +The foregone conclusion, therefore, of the beast’s being a sea-serpent, +notwithstanding its capacious vaulted cranium, and stiff, +inflexible trunk, must be kept in mind in estimating the value of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page280">[280]</span>the approximation made to the total length of the animal, as “(at +the very least) sixty feet”. This is the only part of the description, +however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as to be inadmissible, +in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as to the nature +of the animal. The more certain characters of the animal are +these:—Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short +obtuse muzzle, gape of the mouth not extending further than to +beneath the eye, which is rather small, round, filling closely the +palpebral aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white +beneath; surface smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous +modifications or hard and naked cuticle. And the captain says, +“Had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should have easily +recognized his features with my naked eye.” Nostrils not mentioned, +but indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of +the nose or muzzle. All these are the characters of the head of a +warm-blooded mammal—none of them those of a cold-blooded +reptile or fish. Body long, dark brown, not undulating, without +dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of a +horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” +The character of the integuments would be a most important one +for the zoologist in the determination to the class to which the +above defined creature belonged. If an opinion can be deduced as +to the integuments from the above indication, it is that the species +had hair, which, if it was too short and close to be distinguished +on the head, was visible where it usually is the longest, +on the middle line of the shoulders or advanced part of the back, +where it was not stiff and upright like the rays of a fin, but +“washed about.” Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane +of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetaceous +mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large +size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° +44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east—viz. about three hundred +miles from the western shore of the southern end of Afrika? The +most likely species to be there met with are the largest of the +seal tribe, <i>e. g.</i> Anson’s sea lion, or that known to the southern +whalers by the name of the sea-elephant, the <i>Phoca proboscidea</i>, +which attains the length of from twenty to thirty feet. These great +seals abound in certain of the islands of the southern and antarctic +seas, from which an individual is occasionally floated off upon an +iceberg. The sea lion exhibited in London last spring, which was +a young individual of the <i>Phoca proboscidea</i> was actually captured +<span class="pagenum" id="Page281">[281]</span>in that predicament; having been carried by the currents that set +northwards towards the Cape, where its temporary resting-place +was rapidly melting away. When a large individual of the <i>Phoca +proboscidea</i> or <i>Phoca leonina</i> is thus borne off to a distance from +its native shore, it is compelled to return for rest to its floating +abode, after it has made its daily excursions in quest of the fishes +or squids that constitute its food. It is thus brought by the iceberg +into the latitudes of the Cape, and perhaps farther north, before +the berg was melted away. Then the poor seal is compelled to +swim as long as strength endures, and in such a predicament I +imagine the creature was that Mr. Sartoris saw rapidly approaching +the <i>Daedalus</i> from before the beam, scanning, probably, its +capabilities as a resting-place, as it paddled its long stiff body +past the ship. In so doing, it would raise a head of the form and +colour described and delineated by Captain M’Quhae, supported +on a neck also of the diameter given; the thick neck passing into +an inflexible trunk, the longer and coarser hair on the upper part +of which would give rise to the idea, especially if the species +were the <i>Phoca leonina</i>, explained by the similes above cited. The +organs of locomotion would be out of sight. The pectoral fins being +set on very low down, as in my sketch, the chief impelling force +would be the action of the deeper immersed terminal fins and +tail, which would create a long eddy, readily mistakable, by one +looking at the strange phenomenon with a sea-serpent in his mind’s +eye, for an indefinite prolongation of the body.”</p> + +<p>“It is very probable, that not one on board the <i>Daedalus</i> ever +before beheld a gigantic seal freely swimming in the open ocean. +Entering unexpectedly from that vast and commonly blank desert +of waters, it would be a strange and exciting spectacle, and might +well be interpreted as a marvel; but the creative powers of the +human mind appear to be really very limited, and, on all the +occasions where the true source of the “great unknown” has been +detected—whether it has proved to be a file of sportive porpoises, +or a pair of gigantic sharks—old Pontoppidan’s sea-serpent with +the mane has uniformly suggested itself as the representative of +the portent, until the mystery has been unravelled.”</p> + +<p>“The vertebrae of the sea-serpent described and delineated in the +<i>Wernerian Transactions</i>, vol. I., and sworn to by the fishermen +who saw it off the Isle of Stronsa (one of the Orkneys), in 1808, +two of which vertebrae are in the Museum of the College of +Surgeons, are certainly those of a great shark, of the genus +<span class="pagenum" id="Page282">[282]</span><i>Selache</i>, and are not distinguishable from those of the species +called “basking-shark”, of which individuals from thirty to thirty-five +feet in length have been from time to time captured or +stranded on our coasts.”</p> + +<p>“I have no unmeet confidence in the exactitude of my interpretation +of the phenomena witnessed by the captain and others of +the <i>Daedalus</i>. I am too sensible of the inadequacy of the characters +which the opportunity of a rapidly passing animal, “in a long +ocean swell”, enabled them to note, for the determination of its +species or genus. Giving due credence to the most probably accurate +elements of their description, they do little more than guide +the zoologist to the class, which, in the present instance, is not +that of the serpent or the saurian.”</p> + +<p>“But I am usually asked, after each endeavour to explain Captain +M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, “Why should there not be a great +sea-serpent?”—often, too, in a tone which seems to imply, “Do +you think, then, there are not more marvels in the deep, than +are dreamt of in your philosophy?” And, freely conceding that +point, I have felt bound to give a reason for scepticism as well as +faith. If a gigantic sea-serpent actually exists, the species must, of +course, have been perpetuated through successive generations, from +its first creation and introduction into the seas of this planet. +Conceive, then, the number of individuals that must have lived, +and died, and have left their remains to attest the actuality of +the species during the enormous lapse of time, from its beginning, +to the 6th. of August last! Now, a serpent, being an air +breathing animal, with long vesicular and receptacular lungs, dives +with an effort and commonly floats when dead; and so would the +sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident had opened the tough +integument, and let out the imprisoned gases. Then it would +sink, and, if in deep water, be seen no more until the sea rendered +up its dead, after the lapse of the aeons requisite for the +yielding of its place to dry land,—a change which has actually +revealed to the present generation the old saurian monsters that +were entombed at the bottom of the ocean, of the secondary geological +periods of our earth’s history. During life the exigencies of +the respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel him +frequently to the surface; and when dead and swollen—</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,”</div> +</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">he would</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“Lie floating many a rood; in bulk as huge,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,<span class="pagenum" id="Page283">[283]</span></div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove.”</div> +</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>“Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has +not hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who +have traversed the seas in so many directions. Considering, too, +the tides and currents of the ocean, it seems still more reasonable +to suppose that the dead sea-serpent would be occasionally cast on +shore. However, I do not ask for the entire carcase. The structure +of the back-bone of the serpent tribe is so peculiar, that a single +vertebra would suffice to determine the existence of the hypothetical +Ophidian; and this will not be deemed an unreasonable request, +when it is remembered that the vertebrae are more numerous in +serpents than in any other animals. Such large blanched and scattered +bones on any sea-shore, would be likely to attract even common +curiosity; yet there is no vertebra of a serpent larger than +the ordinary pythons and boas in any museum in Europe.”</p> + +<p>“Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more +acute naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén), than +those of Norway. Krakens and sea serpents ought to have been +living and dying thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time +to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed +a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector; +whilst the great denizens of those seas have been by no means so +chary. No museums, in fact, are so rich in skeletons, skulls, bones +and teeth of the numerous kind of whales, cachelots, grampuses, +walrusses, sea unicorns, seals, etc., as those of Denmark, Norway, +and Sweden; but of any large marine nondescript or indeterminable +monster they cannot show a trace.”</p> + +<p>“I have inquired repeatedly whether the natural history collections +of Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities of the United States, +might possess any unusually large ophidian vertebrae or any of +such peculiar form as to indicate some large and unknown marine +animal; but they have received no such specimens.”</p> + +<p>“The frequency with which the sea-serpent has been supposed +to have appeared near the shores and harbours of the United States, +has led to its being specified as the “American sea-serpent;” yet, +out of the two hundred vertebrae of every individual that should +have lived and died in the Atlantic since the creation of the species, +not one has yet been picked up on the shores of America. +The diminutive snake, less than a yard in length, “killed upon +the sea-shore”, apparently beaten to death, “by some labouring +<span class="pagenum" id="Page284">[284]</span>people of Cape Ann,” United States (see the 8vo pamphlet, 1817, +Boston, page 38), and figured in the <i>Illustrated London News</i>, +October 28, 1848, from the original American memoir, by no +means satisfies the conditions of the problem. Neither does the +<i>Saccopharynx</i> of Mitchill, nor the <i>Ophiognathus</i> of Harwood—the +one four and a half feet, the other six feet long: both are +surpassed by some of the congers of our own coasts, and, like +other muraenoid fishes and the known small sea snake (<i>Hydrophis</i>), +swim by undulatory movements of the body.”</p> + +<p>“The fossil vertebrae and skull which were exhibited by Mr. +Koch, in New York and Boston, as those of the great sea-serpent, +and which are now in Berlin, belonged to different individuals of +a species which I had previously proved to be an extinct whale; +a determination which has subsequently been confirmed by Professors +Müller and Agassiz. Mr. Dixon of Worthing has discovered +many fossil vertebrae, in the Eocene tertiary clay at Bracklesham, +which belong to a larger species of an extinct genus of serpent +(<i>Palaeophis</i>), founded on similar vertebrae from the same formation +in the Isle of Sheppey. The largest of these ancient British snakes +was twenty feet in length; but there is no evidence that they +were marine.”</p> + +<p>“The sea saurians of the secondary periods of geology have been +replaced in the tertiary and actual seas by marine mammals. No +remains of <i>Cetacea</i> have been found in lias or oolite, and no remains +of Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur, or any other secondary reptile, +have been found in Eocene or later tertiary deposits, or recent, +on the actual sea-shores; and that the old air-breathing saurians +floated when they died has been shown in the <i>Geological Transactions</i> +(vol. V., second series, p. 512). The inference that may +reasonably be drawn from no recent carcase or fragment of such +having ever been discovered, is strengthened by the corresponding +absence of any trace of their remains in the tertiary beds.”</p> + +<p>“Now, on weighing the question, whether creatures meriting +the name of “great sea serpent” do exist, or whether any of the +gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits may have continued +to live up to the present time, it seems to me less probable +that no part of the carcase of such reptiles should have ever +been discovered in a recent or unfossilized state, than that men +should have been deceived by a cursory view of a partly submerged +and rapidly moving animal, which might only be strange to themselves. +In other words, I regard the negative evidence from the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page285">[285]</span>utter absence of any of the recent remains of great sea serpents, +krakens, or <i>Enaliosauria</i>, as stronger against their actual existence, +than the positive statements which have hitherto weighed with the +public mind in favour of their existence. A larger body of evidence +from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than +of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>What speaks for itself, this letter appeared in several journals +and newspapers. So I have found it in the <i>Annals and Magazine +of Natural History</i>, 2d. Ser. Vol. II, p. 458 (15? Nov. 1848), in +<span class="smcap">Galignani</span>’s <i>Messenger</i> of Nov. 23, 1848, in the <i>Illustrated London +News</i> of Nov. 25, 1848, and in the <i>Zoologist</i>, of Nov. 27, 1848. +As it came from such a quarter it is not surprising that many +persons were willing to acquiesce in the decision.</p> + +<p>Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, however, promptly replied to Professor <span class="smcap">Owen</span>. +His answer was also addressed to the Editor of the <i>Times</i> (<i>Times</i>, +Nov. 21, 1848):</p> + +<p>“Sir,—Will you do me the very great favour to give a place +in your widely-circulating columns to the following reply to the +animadversions of Professor Owen on the serpent or animal seen +by me and others from Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i> on the 6th. +of August last, and which were published in the Times of the +14th. inst.?</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr18">“I am, Sir, your obedient servant</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“P. M’Quhae.</span><br> +“Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>.</p> + +<p>“London, November 18.</p> + +<p>“Professor Owen correctly states that I “evidently saw a large +creature moving rapidly through the water very different from +anything I had before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a +great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming +creatures fallen in with in ordinary voyages”. I now assert, neither +was it a common seal nor a sea elephant; its great length, and +its totally differing physiognomy, precluding the possibility of its +being a <i>Phoca</i> of any species. The head was flat, and not a +“capacious vaulted cranium;” nor had it “a stiff inflexible trunk”—a +conclusion to which Professor Owen has jumped, most certainly +not justified by the simple statement, that “no portion of the +sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it through the water, +either by vertical or horizontal undulation.”</p> + +<p>“It is also assumed that the “calculation of its length was made +under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;” another +<span class="pagenum" id="Page286">[286]</span>conclusion quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the +great length was developed by its nearest approach to the ship, +and until after that most important point had been duly considered +and debated, as well as such could be in the brief space of time +allowed for so doing, that it was pronounced to be a serpent by +all who saw it, and who are too well accustomed to judge of +lengths and breadths of objects in the sea to mistake a real substance +and an actual living body, coolly and dispassionately contemplated, +at so short a distance too, for the “eddy caused by +the action of the deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly moving +gigantic seal raising its head above the water,” as Professor +Owen imagines, “in quest of its lost iceberg.””</p> + +<p>“The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited. +On this occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose +and desire being, throughout, to furnish eminent naturalists, such +as the learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated +representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed +from optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan’s +having clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have +suggested the idea of ornamenting the creature seen from the +<i>Daedalus</i> with a similar appendage, for the simple reason that I +had never seen his account, or even heard of his sea-serpent, +until my arrival in London. Some other solution must therefore +be found for the very remarkable coincidence between us in that +particular, in order to unravel the mystery.”</p> + +<p>“Finally, I deny the existence of excitement, or the possibility +of optical illusion. I adhere to the statement, as to form, colour, +and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty; +and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific +may exercise the “pleasures of imagination” until some more +fortunate opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance +with the “great unknown”,—in the present instance assuredly +no ghost.”</p> + +<p>It also appeared in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Nov. 25 +1848.</p> + +<p>And a gentleman, who signed his letter with the initials J. C., +wrote a letter to the Editor of the <i>Illustrated London News</i> (see +this Journal of Nov. 25, 1848) to rectify another statement of the +learned Professor:</p> + +<p>“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain +M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite satisfactory +<span class="pagenum" id="Page287">[287]</span>as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt +we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my +object in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to +by Mr. Owen, in his letter to the Editor of the <i>Times</i>, of November +9th., that it was <i>not</i> of the serpent species, because “they +failed to detect any undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of +there being “no vertical or horizontal undulations perceptible” +stamps the character of the animal; for it is well known by all +observers of snakes in India, that when the animal is in chase of +game, small or great, or when scared away, and moving at a +<i>rapid</i> pace, he is propelled entirely by the tail, or the smaller +half of the body, while the other portion, with a curve of the +head, is kept quite <i>stiff</i>—and this exactly corresponds with the +Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to fifteen +miles an hour, <i>apparently on some determined purpose</i>.”</p> + +<p>In May, 1854, Dr. <span class="smcap">T. S. Traill</span> read a paper before the Royal +Society of Edinburgh, comparing the animal of the <i>Daedalus</i>, with +the Animal of Stronsa. The part of his dissertation concerning the +present occurrence runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“In their statements there are no suspicious affectations of minute +detail. Their simple narrative appears to deserve more attention +than it has yet received from naturalists; and I strongly incline +to the belief, that the animal seen by the crew of the <i>Daedalus</i> +was an analogue of, if not the very same species, as the animal +cast ashore in Orkney in 1808.”</p> + +<p>“Considering the derision with which, in this country, the subject +of the sea-serpent has been treated, and the ridicule attempted +to be thrown on all who were bold enough to assert that they had +seen such an animal, nothing but a consciousness of his unimpeachable +veracity could have tempted the gallant Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> +to encounter the sneers of his incredulous countrymen. From all +I have heard of his character for sagacity and veracity, from those +who intimately knew him, I have not the smallest doubt that he +has faithfully described what he and his crew saw distinctly, and +at a short distance from the ship.”</p> + +<p>“It was seen rapidly approaching before the <i>beam</i>.” Captain M’Quhae +says: “On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered +to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about +four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of +the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; +its colour of a dark brown, with yellowish-white about the throat.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page288">[288]</span></p> + +<p>“The Captain could discover no fins, but “something like the +mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about +its back.” He thought that its head did certainly resemble that +of a snake; but the drawing which he transmitted to the Admiralty +has not, to the eye of a naturalist, the form of that of any +snake. The figure published in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> for +October 28, 1848, is said to be an accurate copy of that drawing.”</p> + +<p>“Captain M’Quhae estimates the length of its body at the surface +of the water, “<i>à fleur d’eau</i>, at the very least equal to sixty +feet, no part of which was to our perception used in propelling +it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations. +It passed rapidly, but so close under our quarter, that had it been +a man of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his +features with the naked eye, and it did not, either in approaching +the ship, or after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest +degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace +of twelve or fifteen miles an hour, apparently on some determined +purpose.””</p> + +<p>“If we may judge from the engraving, the cranium is very +convex, of moderate size, with a short obtuse muzzle, a mouth +reaching beyond the eye; which last organ is round, and of a +moderate size. The surface of the body is represented as smooth, +and destitute of scales—of which they were enabled to judge, +because it passed close under the <i>quarter</i> of the ship. It was in +sight for twenty minutes.”</p> + +<p>“The description certainly does not belong to any Ophidian; and +as certainly militates against an opinion thrown out by Mr. Owen, +that it might be a specimen of the <i>leonine seal</i>, which has, it is +alleged, occasionally reached those latitudes. The leonine seal never +exceeds twenty-five feet in length, and such would have a circumference +at its shoulders of twenty feet, while this appears to be +eel-shaped, with a diameter of not more than fifteen or sixteen +inches behind the head; the mane too, of the male of the leonine +seal extends only over the head and neck; but in the other, it +extended down the back.”</p> + +<p>“With all deference to so eminent a naturalist as Mr. Owen, I +humbly conceive that his conjecture respecting the identity of Captain +<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s animal with the leonine seal, is not more probable +than Home’s identification of the Basking shark with the Orkney +animal.”</p> + +<p>“Both <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s and the Orkney animal would appear to be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page289">[289]</span>a cartilaginous fish, totally different from any genus known to +naturalists.”</p> + +<p>Three years afterwards Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span>’s report (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>) +was published in the Times. Some days afterwards Captain <span class="smcap">Frederic +Smith</span> published his encounter with a sea-serpent, which after +being harpooned and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a +gigantic sea-weed, and the sea-serpents of the <i>Daedalus</i> and of +Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> were in his opinion undoubtedly pieces of the +same kind of weed.</p> + +<p>Now “An Officer of Her Majesty’s Ship <i>Daedalus</i> felt obliged +to state again that it was a living animal. As in this letter further +particulars of the animal are mentioned, I insert it here <i>in toto</i>, +(<i>The Times</i> of Febr. 16th., 1858):</p> + +<p>“Sir,—Observing in your paper of yesterday’s date a letter +from a correspondent to the marine animal commonly called the +“sea-serpent”, in the concluding paragraph of which he mentions +that he has no doubt the object seen from Her Majesty’s Ship +<i>Daedalus</i> in the month of August, 1848, when on the passage +from the Cape of Good-Hope to St. Helena, was a piece of the +same sea-weed observed by himself, I beg to state that the object +seen from her Majesty’s ship was, beyond all question, a living +animal, moving rapidly through the water against a cross sea, and +within five points of a fresh breeze, with such velocity that the +water was surging under its chest, as it passed along at a rate +probably of ten miles per hour. Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s first impulse +was to tack in pursuit, ourselves being on a wind on the larboard +tack, when he reflected that we could neither lay up for it nor +overhaul it in speed. There was nothing to be done, therefore, +but to observe it as accurately as we could with our glasses, as +it came up under our lee quarter and passed away to windward, +at its nearest position being not more than two hundred yards +from us; the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour and form, +all being most distinctly visible to us. We all felt greatly astonished +at what we saw, though there were sailors among us of thirty and +forty years’ standing, who had traversed most seas and seen many +marvels in their day. The captain was the first to exclaim: “This +must be that animal called the sea-serpent”, a conclusion which, +after sundry guesses, we all at last settled down to. My impression +was that it was rather of a lizard than a serpentine character, as +its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not +by any undulatory power. It was in sight, from our first observing +<span class="pagenum" id="Page290">[290]</span>it, about ten minutes, as we were fast leaving one another on opposite +tacks with a freshening breeze and the sea getting up.”</p> + +<p>“I feel, Sir, I have already occupied more of your time and +space than is justifiable, and have the honour to remain your obedient +servant,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“An Officer of Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>.”</span></p> + +<p>Now let us run over all the prominent important particulars in +the reports of the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen from the +<i>Daedalus</i>. The first report, which appeared in the <i>Times</i> of October, +9, 1848, contains the description of the mouth: “and when +it extended its jaws, which were full of large and jagged teeth, +they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing +upright between them.” It is not said from whom the report came, +nor is it signed. All the details, except this last, were afterwards +substantiated by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> himself and by Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Drummond</span>. To me it seems quite impossible that the head was +longer than three feet; as the neck is estimated at 16 inches in +diameter, or one foot and a third, the breadth of the head, according +to what we already know of the relative dimensions, cannot +have been more than about two feet, and the length not more than +about three feet. So the jaws, when extended, may open the mouth +to about one and a half or two feet, a space which never can +admit “of a tall man standing upright between them!”</p> + +<p>The animal seen by the captain and some of the officers and +crew of the <i>Daedalus</i>, was as follows: It swam with its body in +a straight line. About sixty feet of its body were visible. Its head +appeared to be about four feet out of the water. The part of the +body hidden under water was estimated at thirty feet at least. +The diameter of the neck behind the head was estimated at one +foot and a third. When the animal opened its mouth, large jagged +teeth were seen. “It moved with such velocity that the water was +surging under its chest” (read throat, for the very chest, situated +between the foreflappers, was invisible and much farther back). +The head and a portion of the neck (Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> says, +though without any reason, shoulders) were kept above the surface +of the sea. The animal was, during the time it was in sight, +never once below the surface. Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, however, +says: the head disappeared occasionally beneath a wave for a very +brief interval. The colour of the animal was a dark brown, with +yellowish white under the throat. Something like the mane of a +horse, or rather like a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page291">[291]</span>Though the Captain says: it had no fins. Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span> +stated, that there was “a backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet +in the rear of the head, “and visible occasionally”. If this were a +true back-fin, it ought to have been constantly visible. As, however, +it was only occasionally seen, we conclude that it was nothing +else but one of the animal’s foreflappers, occasionally coming above +the surface of the water. “The captain also asserted that he saw +the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it.” This +of course must have been one of the animal’s hind flappers. Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Drummond</span> must have been mistaken as to the length of +the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calculation +evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover +was rather pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper-jaw +projecting considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in +saying: “the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a +dark brown colour, and beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.”</p> + +<p>The three figures are tolerably well drawn; in fact they are the +best of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if +they were delineated after the description above, but they were +in reality “made from a sketch taken immediately after the animal +was seen.” Here, as in foregoing reports, the figures and the text +complete one another. The head is not that of a serpent, but that +of a mammal. The proportions of length and height, the outlines +of the jaws, the length of the mouth-split, the exact place of the +eye, even the flattened appearance of forehead and nose are true +mammalian characters. No whiskers or bristles on the upper-lips, +and no ears or earholes are drawn, or mentioned. The distance, +when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It is clear that they +were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are indicated in the +drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle, +and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible.</p> + +<p>In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our +present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as +the sea-serpent. I only wish to point out here that in none of the +three figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a +head would never have been described as resembling that of a +snake. It is clear that it is drawn too high, too short and not +flat enough.</p> + +<p>I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>’s +reply. It is the following: Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> rejects the existence of the +sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more +<span class="pagenum" id="Page292">[292]</span>sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours +of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea-serpents +ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from +long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; +yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton +to any Scandinavian collector.” It may be true that Mssrs. <span class="smcap">Sars</span> +and <span class="smcap">Lovén</span> often navigated along the coasts of Norway and yet +never saw a sea-serpent. Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> forgets that his own countryman, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Morries Stirling</span>, saw one with his own eyes! Is +this proof not decisive enough? The absence of remains is not a +proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as there are whales +with two backfins, which are <i>seen</i> by three different <i>naturalists</i>, +yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice of zoologists. +Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers know +well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic +calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there +was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however, +they may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that +it was not before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or +gigantic calamary, was brought to Paris by the commander of the +<i>Alecton</i>, <i>nota bene</i> notwithstanding Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>’s assertion that they +did not exist, as else the naturalists of Norway, and amongst them +especially <span class="smcap">Sars</span> and <span class="smcap">Lovén</span>, would have found them!!</p> + +<p>Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> +agreed in details with that of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, because the +latter was immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th., +whilst the letter of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> was addressed to the Admiralty +on the 11th. of October, two months afterwards and apparently +written from memory.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> says of the +“fin” mentioned by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>:</p> + +<p>“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the +captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse”, and which +the introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in parentheses +after the word “rather” in his description) serves to correlate +with the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back”.”</p> + +<p>I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Drummond</span> was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and +the other fin, “twenty feet more backward”, was one of the +animal’s hind-flappers, and I believe that I may express my conviction +that Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> was just as wrong in supposing +<span class="pagenum" id="Page293">[293]</span>this, as in his conviction that the sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> +was merely an extraordinarily developed sea-snake! A few pages +further on, viz., the writer of <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, quoting the +report of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> says:</p> + +<p>“The idea that the animal observed in this instance was a huge +serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due +attention, which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.” (!)</p> + +<p>And on the following page:</p> + +<p>“Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of +ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations and inaccuracies +in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have +in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution +of this interesting problem.” (!!)</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Though they don’t touch our subject directly, the following +words of Mssrs. <span class="smcap">H. E. Strickland</span> and <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span>, treating +of the Dodo, are well worth our notice; they say (<i>Annals and +Magazine of Natural History</i> 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. +15?, 1848):</p> + +<p>“In proof of the existence of the Dodo we have—unlike the +assumed evidence of the existence of some other anomalous monsters +of which we have lately heard much—every canon of cautious +truthseeking fully satisfied. With no traditional superstition or belief +to give an origin to such a story (a point of no little importance +in such an investigation), we have here fifteen or sixteen separate +and independant authorities all alluding incidentally to the Dodo, +each different in language and description, yet each of which has +points of resemblance that cannot be mistaken as referring to +similar objects. We have moreover drawings of the creature itself, +made by different hands, and at different times, and with different +objects; some of them rude and coarse to grotesqueness, other +finished works of art. Yet throughout all these there run characters +which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us that the +draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, +and from individuals of one and the same species.”</p> + +<p>I am obliged to remark here that the proof of the existence of +the <i>Dodo</i>, quoted by them, is <i>not</i> unlike the proof of the existence +of great sea-serpents. If they, however, had known and mentioned +that a head and a foot of the Dodo are preserved in Kopenhague, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page294">[294]</span>they would have been right. This is <i>not</i> the case with the sea-serpent. +As far as I know, there is not one <i>material</i> proof of the +existence of sea-serpents. But it is with the sea-serpent just as +with the different accounts and pictures of the Dodo, “throughout +all which run characters which it is impossible to mistake, and +which satisfy us, that the draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, +but from something real, and from individuals of one and the +same species”.</p> + +<p>I hope that every-one who has read all the accounts I have +collected and published in this volume, and thoroughly studied +the figures, will grant that there is no question of “assumed +evidences of the existence of some anomalous monsters”.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report119"><span class="reportnr"><b>119</b></span>.—1848?—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849, p. 2356, we read:</p> + +<p>“Enormous undescribed animal apparently allied to the Enaliosauri, +seen in the Gulf of California.—Captain the Hon. George Hope +states that when in H. M. S. “Fly”, in the Gulf of California, the +sea being perfectly calm and transparent, he saw at the bottom a +large marine animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, +except that the neck was much longer, and that instead of +legs the creature had four large flappers, somewhat like those of +turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior; the +creature was distinctly visible, and all its movements could be +observed with ease; it appeared to be pursuing its prey at the +bottom of the sea; its movements were somewhat serpentine, and +an appearance of annulations, or ring-like divisions of the body, +was distinctly perceptible. Captain Hope made this relation in +company, and as a matter of conversation. When I heard it from +the gentleman to whom it was narrated, I enquired whether Captain +Hope was acquainted with those remarkable fossil animals +<i>Ichthyosauri</i> and <i>Plesiosauri</i>, the supposed forms of which so +nearly correspond with what he describes as having seen alive, +and I cannot find that he had heard of them; the alligator being +the only animal he mentioned as bearing a partial similarity to +the creature in question.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of this Journal, considers this testimony +“in all respects, the most interesting natural-history-fact of the +present century” (<i>Zoologist</i>, 1849, Preface, Nov. 11).</p> + +<p>Though I think that all reports of sea-serpents are very interesting +<span class="pagenum" id="Page295">[295]</span>natural-history facts, it is indisputable that this testimony +is a very important one. If the reader for a moment brings before +his mind the animal of the <i>Daedalus</i>, about eighty feet long, +with a head of about three feet, a neck like the body of a serpent, +the thickness behind the head being somewhat smaller than +that of the head itself; at twenty feet in the rear of the head the +body becoming at once much broader and provided there with +two flappers; twenty feet more backwards again two flappers, and +then a tail of about forty feet, ending in a point. If the reader +now imagines this animal to be on the bottom of the sea, whilst +he himself is placed on the deck of a vessel, the sea perfectly +calm, is it not true that such an animal must make the impression +of an alligator with a long neck, and having instead of paws flappers +like those of a sea-turtle? If moreover the animal moved in +vertical undulations, is it not very well conceivable and clear that, +by the light and shadow falling on the animal from above, the +curves of the animal’s back (called <i>bunches</i> when it swims on the +surface) must be taken as distinctly perceptible annulations or ring-like +divisions of the body? I think that there can be no question +but this animal was a sea-serpent. The reader will remember that +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> relates an account of a very young sea-serpent, eighteen +feet in length, entangled in a fisherman’s net, “a worm with four +paws on the belly”, and that the learned Bishop himself made the +comparison: “thus it resembled a crocodile”!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report120"><span class="reportnr"><b>120</b></span>.—1848, December 31.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i> +of 1849, April 14.)</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”</span><br> +<span class="padr2">“H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i>, Plymouth Harbour, April 10, 1849.”</span></p> + +<p>“Not having seen a sketch of the extraordinary creature, we passed +between England and Lisbon, and being requested by several gentlemen +to send you the rough one I made at the time, I shall feel +much obliged by your giving it publicity in your instructive and +amusing columns.”</p> + +<p>“On the morning of the 31th. December, 1848, in lat. 41° 13′ N., +and long 12° 31′ W., being nearly due West of Oporto, I saw a +long black creature with a sharp head, moving slowly, I should +think about two knots, through the water, in a north westerly +direction, there being a fresh breeze at the time, and some sea +<span class="pagenum" id="Page296">[296]</span>on. I could not ascertain its exact length, but its back was about +twenty feet if not more above water; and its head, as near as I +could judge, from six to eight. I had not time to make a closer +observation, as the ship was going six knots through the water, +her head E. half S., and wind S. S. E. The creature moved across +our wake towards a merchant barque on our lee-quarter, and on +the port tack. I was in hopes she would have seen it also. The +officers and men who saw it, and who have served in parts of +the world adjacent to whale and seal fisheries, and have seen them +in the water, declare they have neither seen nor heard of any +creature bearing the slightest resemblance to the one we saw. There +was something on its back that appeared like a mane, and, as it +moved through the water, kept washing about, but before I could +examine it more closely, it was too far astern.—I remain, yours +very truly</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr18">A Naval Officer.”</span></p> + +<p>Evidently the Naval Officer did not send the description of the +appearance and the figure, before he was repeatedly requested by +several gentlemen to do so. These gentlemen would not have been +so pressing, if an appearance like that of the <i>Daedalus</i> had not +happened very recently. How many written testimonies of the existence +of sea-serpents will not be found in log books and private +journals of navigators!</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig31"> +<img src="images/illo296.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 31.—The sea-serpent as seen by an officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i>.</p> +</div> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report121"><span class="reportnr"><b>121</b></span>.—1849, February 18.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1849 we +read, p. 2459:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page297">[297]</span></p> + +<p>“Captain Adams, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, which arrived +at Jacksonville, Florida, on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April, from New York, +had sight of a monster in many respects resembling the sea-monsters +described by many others. Captain Adams states that on the morning +of Sunday, the 18th. of February, about nine o’clock, when +off the south point of Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from +the St. John’s (Florida) bar, the attention of himself, crew and +passengers, was suddenly rivetted upon an immense sea monster, +which he took to be a serpent. It lifted its head, which was that +of a snake, several times out of the water, seemingly to take a +survey to the vessel, and at such times displayed the largest portion +of its body, and a pair of frightful fins or claws, several feet +in length. His tail was not seen at any time; but, judging from +the dimensions of the body, the captain supposes the leviathan to +be about 90 feet in length. Its neck tapered small from the head +to the body and it appeared to measure about seven feet across +the broadest part of the back. The colour was that of a dirty +brown. When first seen it was moving towards the mouth of the +St. John’s. The monster moved from the side of the vessel, and +placed itself athwart its track, in front of her bows; but Captain +Adams, not feeling partial to an encounter with his snakeship, +ordered the vessel to be kept off. A boy on the deck, not knowing +his antagonist, had seized a harpoon, and was in the act of striking, +when he was prevented by the vessel’s moving off”—“<i>Boston Atlas</i>”.</p> + +<p>At a glance we recognize the sea-serpent, as it appeared to <span class="smcap">Hans +Egede</span>. “The largest portion of its body” was seen, “and a pair of +frightful fins or claws, several feet in length”. The reader may +compare the <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a> in our report <a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup>. 5</a>.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report122"><span class="reportnr"><b>122</b></span>.—1849, May 30.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i>, 1850, +January, 19.—)</p> + +<p>“The following is an extract from the private log of Captain +Edwards of the <i>Alpha</i>.—“Wednesday, May 30, P. M., strong +breezes at N. N. W., and a sharp sea on; about 1.15 I felt a +strange shaking of the ship. Mr. Thomson, my chief officer; Mr. +George Park, civil engineer, cabin passenger on board, ran on deck +as well as myself, when we beheld immediately under our lee +quarter a monster of huge dimensions. It had no fins or broad +tail, as whales have. It was of a light fawn colour, with large +<span class="pagenum" id="Page298">[298]</span>brown spots behind the shoulders; the head pointed like that of +a porpoise. It had large glossy eyes; the shoulder was much darker +than the rest of the body, which was the thickest part of it, (say +twenty feet in diameter), from thence diminishing to the tail, to +about the size of our mainyard in the slings (say twenty-four inches +diameter). He took a turn round, and we afterwards saw him astern, +and he went away in a S. E. by S. direction, at about thirty miles +an hour.”—<i>Melbourne Daily News</i>, July, 1.—(“A correspondent, +who sends us the above, adds that he believes this to +be the first time the sea-serpent is stated to have been seen so +far south.”)</p> + +<p>Evidently the animal remained under water for a long time, +and struck the vessel in coming to the surface. Seen from very +near the colour evidently did not seem dark brown, but of a +lighter hue. The absence of visible fins, the pointed tail, the +brown spotted skin (no scales are mentioned, so it must have been +smooth), the pointed head, the appearance of shoulders, the large +eyes, its astonishing rapidity in swimming, all these statements +characterize the sea-serpent. Alarmed at its having struck the vessel, +off it went! Evidently Captain <span class="smcap">Edwards</span> did not see the tip +of the tail, which is rather pointed; he described, it is clear, +what he took for the end of it, the extreme end being under +water. No latitude is given in this report, but we may conclude +that the appearance took place more towards the south than Melbourne +is situated. This town is situated at about 38° S. lat., so +the appearance may have taken place between 40° and 45° S. lat., +and of course between 110° and 145° W. longitude, in the common +track of vessels.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report123"><span class="reportnr"><b>123</b></span>.—1849, September 15.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i> for +1850, January 12).—Extract from a letter, dated “H. M. S. <i>Cleopatra</i>, +Singapore, Oct. 26, 1849”, from an officer of that ship:—“Sept. +15. This evening they reported the <i>Sea-Serpent</i>: several of +the men, as well as the officer of the forecastle, saw the monster; +and they all ran aft to see it from the stern: they say it was +about <i>thirty feet long</i>. After the report, all hands came to deck; +but the evening was fast drawing to a close, and the ship going +at eight knots, soon left the monster astern, going through the +water very quickly to the N. W.”—(<i>From a Correspondent.</i>)</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page299">[299]</span></p> + +<p>Most probably this appearance took place in the Indian Ocean +between latitude 10 and 20 S. and longitude 50 and 70 E.</p> + +<p>If one of the gentlemen of the <i>Cleopatra</i> is still in the land of +the living, he will greatly oblige me by sending me some more +details of the external appearance of the animal, and of the place +where the animal was seen.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“The Rev. Alfred Charles Smith, M. A., an excellent naturalist, +who passed the three summer months of 1850 in Norway, and +who published” his <i>Notes on Observations in Natural History +during a Tour in Norway</i> “in the <i>Zoologist</i> for that and the following +year, thus alludes to his own inquiries, which, if they add +nothing to the amount of fact accumulated, add weight to the +testimonies already adduced”. (<span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, +13th. Ed., Vol. I., p. 282.)</p> + +<p>“Being in the country of the renowned Bishop Pontoppidan, +and in the fjords which are generally claimed as the home, or, +at any rate, as one of the habitations of the sea-serpent, whose +existence seems yet to be a disputed point in England, I lost no +opportunity of making inquiries of all I could see, as to the +general belief in the country regarding the animal in question; +but all, with one single exception—naval officers, sailors, boatmen, +and fishermen—concurred in affirming most positively that +such an animal did exist, and had been repeatedly seen off their +coasts and fjords, though I was never fortunate enough to meet +a man who could boast of having seen him with his own eyes. +All, however, agreed in unhesitating belief as to his existence and +frequent appearance; and all seemed to marvel very much at the +scepticism of the English, for refusing credence to what to the +minds of the Norwegians seemed so incontrovertible. The single +exception to which I have alluded, was a Norwegian officer, who +ridiculed what he called the credulity or gullibility of his countrymen; +though I am bound to add my belief, that he did this, +not from any decided opinion of his own, but to make a show +of superior shrewdness in the eyes of an Englishman, who, he at +once concluded, must undoubtedly disbelieve the existence of the +marine monster. That Englishman, however, certainly partakes of +the credulity of the Northmen, and cannot withhold his belief in +the existence of some huge inhabitant of those northern seas, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page300">[300]</span>when, to his mind, the fact of his existence has been so clearly +proved by numerous eye-witnesses, many of whom were too intelligent +to be deceived, and too honest to be doubted.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The reader will remember the splendid hoax of the <i>New York +Tribune</i> (1852); now Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Froriep</span> in his <i>Tagsberichte über +die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde</i>, no 486, already doubted +this report. After some time (n<sup>o</sup>. 491) he communicated to his +readers that according to the <i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i>, the whole was +a hoax, but to show them how firm a believer Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span>, +nevertheless, remained, he adds:</p> + +<p>“This, however, will not prevent us from bestowing further +attention on the subject of the Sea-Serpent.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report124"><span class="reportnr"><b>124</b></span>.—1850?—The following evidence may be called one of +the more interesting which tell about the habits of the sea-serpent. +In the <i>Zoologist</i> of 1862, p. 7850, we read:</p> + +<p>“Off Madeira, on board R. M. S. <i>Thames</i>. Made acquaintance +with a Captain Christmas, of the Danish Navy, a proprietor in +Santa Cruz, and holding some office about the Danish Court. He +told me he once saw a sea-serpent between Iceland and the Faroe +Islands. He was lying in to a gale of wind, in a frigate of which +he had the command, when an immense shoal of porpoises rushed +by the ship, as if pursued, and lo and behold a creature with a +neck moving like that of a swan, about the thickness of a man’s +waist, with a head like a horse, raised itself slowly and gracefully +from the deep, and seeing the ship it immediately disappeared +again, head foremost, like a duck diving. He saw it only for a +few seconds; the part above water seemed about eighteen feet in +length. He is a singularly intelligent man, and by no means one +to allow his imagination to run away with him.—<i>Stephen Cave, +M. P. for Shoreham; 35, Wilson Place, April 29, 1861, in a +letter to Mr. Gosse.</i>”</p> + +<p>It is a very remarkable fact that we meet here the sea-serpent between +Iceland and the Far-Oer, a place situated between the two most frequented +parts of the North Atlantic, i. e. the coasts of Norway and the +coasts of the United States. But it is not the first time; the readers will +<span class="pagenum" id="Page301">[301]</span>remember the report of +<span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup>. 5</a>) and that of Capt. +<span class="smcap">Brown</span> (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>). Remarkable, too, is the fact that the sea-serpent +now made its appearance in a gale of wind. Is this not a matter +of surprise as everywhere else is stated that it appears only in fine +weather? Is it not reasonable therefore, to conclude that the animal +feels comfortable in fine weather, but that, being an air-breathing +animal it must come to the surface from time to time and may +consequently be seen at times when there is wind? There is the +statement of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, who speaks of a “breeze” and +here we meet with “a gale of wind”. It is also worthy of our +notice that Capt. <span class="smcap">Cristmas</span> mentions the immense shoal of porpoises +rushing by the ship, as if pursued, and a sea-serpent making its +appearance. I need not remind my readers of the same observation +of some gentlemen near Nova Scotia (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>). Later on we shall +have the report in which a sea-serpent gripped “a whale” (of the +smaller kind) in its fin, and we have already learned that a sea-serpent +(<a href="#Report54">n<sup>o</sup>. 54</a>) was engaged with “a whale” (of the smaller kind).</p> + +<p>Not less important is the description of the long neck, moving +like that of a swan, and disappearing head foremost like a duck +diving. Nearly exactly the same thing was observed in 1879, April 5.</p> + +<p>The thickness of the neck was that of a man’s waist, the part +above the water measured eighteen feet in length, and yet the +foreflappers remained hidden under water. The head is described +as resembling that of a horse, which may be the result of the +animal bearing a mane, and when first rising out of the water, +holding its head in a nearly right angle with the neck. Moreover +the nostrils might have been widely opened. The animal of Capt. +<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> had also a neck of one foot and a third in diameter; +head and neck had a length of about twenty feet, for at about +twenty feet in the rear of the head was seen the animal’s fore +flapper. So we may conclude that these two individuals were of +the same or nearly of the same length.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report125"><span class="reportnr"><b>125</b></span>.—1853?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span> says in the <i>Proceedings of the +Royal Society at Edinburgh</i>, n<sup>o</sup>. 44, May, 1854, that it “is said +to have been seen lately in some of their fjords.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page302">[302]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report126"><span class="reportnr"><b>126</b></span>.—1854, September 4.—(<i>Illustrated London News</i>, +for 1855, February 17.—)</p> + +<p>“It is reported by the British Brig <i>Albeona</i>, arrived at Liverpool, +that on the 4th. of September last, about five in the afternoon, +in lat. 38 S., long 13 E., while the ship was under a light wind +and in smooth water, a sea-monster of great size and singular appearance +was descried. Attention was first directed to it by the +broken action of the water, which otherwise was smooth all around. +The animal was discovered protruding its head above water to the +length of about 30 feet, at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizon. +His head was about 12 feet long and was marked by a white +stripe or streak down each side. At about six feet from the termination +of the streaks, which were presumed to be its jaws, there +was a protuberance on its back like a small water-cask. The creature +kept its mouth shut, but its eyes were plainly visible. At the +point of contact with the water the body seemed about as much +as the ship’s long-boat round. The general colour of the body was +black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a +pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. While under +observation he dipped under water three times, remaining submerged +about a minute each time. From the broken action of the +water at different points, it seemed as if protuberances, similar to +that on the back existed on various parts of the body. From the +best conjecture that could be made, it was computed at 180 feet +in length over all.”</p> + +<p>The length of the head may be somewhat exaggerated, the largest +dimensions admissible are 6 feet in breadth and about 8 feet +in length, as we shall afterwards observe from one of the most +recent reports. It is a remarkable fact that here mention is made +of a white stripe or streak down on each side of the head, presumed +to be its jaws. In the deposition of Captain <span class="smcap">Finney</span> (<a href="#Report34">n<sup>o</sup>. 34</a>) +too, we read “It had a white stripe extending the whole length +of the head just above the water, there where the underjaw must +have been”. And in the figures of the animal seen by the gentlemen +of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>) the underjaw is drawn +white, and described whitish brown or yellowish white. The protuberance +on its back (read on the back of its neck) was a fold +in the animal’s skin, as may be seen in the sea-lions in our Zoological +Gardens, when they contract their long necks, and then +the other “protuberances, similar to that on the back” were of +the same character. This character of having bunches occasionally, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page303">[303]</span>is well known to us. Or all these protuberances were merely vertical +undulations.</p> + +<p>Attention was first paid to it by the broken action of the water, +which otherwise was smooth all around. So the animal first swam +for a moment just below the surface, a habit which we have often +observed in foregoing reports. The general colour of the body was +black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a +pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. As to the +description of the colour of the animal’s throat, it agreed with +foregoing statements. As to the loose skin, and the pouch, this is +also only explicable by the animal’s having a skin just like sea-lions. +It is so loose and folds so easily, that if the head is bent +a little downward, or if the neck is somewhat contracted, several +folds are seen, which led Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span> (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>) to mention +“eight gills under the neck”. He had better have written “gill-splits”, +meaning the furrows between the folds.—The length of +180 feet may be somewhat exaggerated, though we will afterwards +prove that individuals of still greater length must exist.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report127"><span class="reportnr"><b>127</b></span>.—1855, August?—In the letter from Capt. <span class="smcap">G. H. +Harrington</span> to Rear-Admiral <span class="smcap">W. A. B. Hamilton</span>, dated Liverpool, +February 8, 1858, which letter will be inserted afterwards, +we read:</p> + +<p>“I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, shipowners of +this place, that one of their captains reported a similar thing about +two years ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took no +further notice of it, supposing that he might have been deceived.”</p> + +<p>I am convinced that the captain really saw a sea-serpent. The +reader will, I hope, be convinced of it himself, after having read +Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span>’s report (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report128"><span class="reportnr"><b>128</b></span>.—1856, March 30.—<i>(Illustrated London News</i> of the +3d. of May, 1856).</p> + +<p> “To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”</p> + +<p>“<i>Imogen</i>, Channel, 15th. April, 1856.”</p> + +<p>“Sir.—We beg to hand you the enclosed Sketch of a Sea-Serpent +we had the good fortune to sight on the 30th. of March last.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page304">[304]</span></p> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig32"> +<img src="images/illo304a.jpg" alt=""> +</div> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig33"> +<img src="images/illo304b.jpg" alt=""> +</div> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig34"> +<img src="images/illo304c.jpg" alt=""> +</div> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig35"> +<img src="images/illo304d.jpg" alt=""> + +<p class="caption">Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.—The sea-serpent as seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Guy</span> of the <i>Imogen</i>.<br> +Fig. 32 = Fig. 33, seen with a telescope.</p> + +</div> + +<p>“Imogen, from Algoa Bay, towards London. Sunday 30th. March, +1856. Lat. 29 deg., 11 min. N., Long. 34 deg., 36 min. W., +bar. 30.50; calm and clear. Four vessels visible to southward and +westward.”</p> + +<p>“About five minutes past eleven A. M., the helmsman drew +our attention to something moving through the water, and causing +a strong ripple about 400 yards distant from our starboard quarter.”</p> + +<p>“In a few moments it became more distinct, presenting the appearance +in <a href="#Fig32">fig. 1.</a>, and showing an apparent length of about forty +<span class="pagenum" id="Page305">[305]</span>feet (above the surface of the sea), the undulations of the water +extending on each side to a considerable distance in its wake. Mr. +Statham immediately ascended to the maintopsailyard, Captain Guy +and Mr. Harries watching the animal from the deck with the +telescope. After passing the ship about half a mile, the serpent +“rounded to” and raised its head, seemingly to look at us (<a href="#Fig34">fig. +2</a>), and then steered away to the northward (N. E.), possibly to +the neighbourhood of the Western Islands, frequently lifting its +head (<a href="#Fig35">fig. 3</a>). We traced its course until nearly on the horizon, +from the topsailyard, and lost sight of it from deck about 11 h. +45 m. A. M. No doubt remained on our minds as to its being +an immense snake, as the undulations of its body were clearly +perceptible, although we were unable to distinguish its eyes.”</p> + +<p>“The weather being fine and the glossy surface of the sea only +occasionally disturbed by slight flaws (catspaws) of wind, we had +a perfect opportunity of noticing its movements.”</p> + +<p>“In conformity to your regulations we inclose our references, +and remain,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr24">“Sir, your obedient servants,</span><br> +<span class="padr18">“James Guy, Commander,</span><br> +“J. H. Statham, Julian B. Harries, D. J. Williamson, Passengers.”</p> + +<p>After the figures of Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>, +<a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), which show the animal swimming with its body +in a straight line, these four figures of the animal are the best +we have, but here it is swimming with vertical undulations. To +the description I can add nothing, nor need I explain anything. +Description and figures complete each other and give an accurate +and very natural idea of a sight of the animal seen from afar.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report129"><span class="reportnr"><b>129</b></span>.—1856, July 8.—(The <i>Illustrated London News</i> of the +4th. of October, 1856.)</p> + +<p>“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”</p> + +<p>“Colonial Agency, 4, Cullum-street, London, September 25th. +1856.”</p> + +<p>“We hand you the following extract from the log-book of our +ship <i>Princess</i>, Captain A. R. N. Tremearne, in London Docks +15th. inst., from China, viz:—”</p> + +<p>““Thuesday, July 8, 1856.—Latitude accurate 34° 56′ S.; Longitude +accurate 18° 14′ E. At one P. M. saw a very large fish, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page306">[306]</span>with a head like a walrus, and twelve fins, similar to those in a +black fish, but turned the contrary way. The back was from 20 +to 30 feet long; also a great length of tail. It is not improbable +that this monster has been taken for the great sea-serpent. Fired +and hit it near the head with rifle-ball. At eight, fresh wind and fine.”</p> + +<p>“We submit that the repeated accounts of +seeing a marine monster, whatever be its correct +name or kind, yet harmonising in some +leading descriptions forbid longer doubt of +one such creature existing, and we inclose +you a rough sketch as this one appeared, +signed by Captain Tremearne, who has been +six years in our employ, and is otherwise +well known. His own private log contains a +similar record, and we have interrogated +others of the <i>Princess</i> crew, who assert the +fact of such appearance.”</p> + +<p>“Captain Tremearne states that Captain +Morgan, a passenger by the <i>Princess</i>, but +who at St. Helena joined the ship <i>Senator</i>, +to command her to Liverpool (where she is +daily expected), also saw this monster, and +can corroborate the statements.”</p> + +<p>“Until 13th. of October the <i>Princess</i> will +be at London Dock jetty, loading for Melbourne, +and naturalists and other scientific +persons can there make further inquiries, provided +they do not subject Captain Tremearne +to correspondence or interrupt ship’s duties, +which are urgent for her speedy departure. +The ship’s log-book and the rough sketch of +the fish can also be inspected at our office.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“Edmund J. Wheeler and Co.”</span></p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig36"> +<img src="images/illo306.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 36.—The sea-serpent as seen by Captains <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> and <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>Though the description is very short, the +<a href="#Fig36">figure</a> enables us to make the following conjecture. +Captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> really saw a sea-serpent, +swimming with extraordinary speed, +most probably because, on coming to the +surface, it was alarmed by the unexpected presence of the ship. +Having remained under water a long time it suddenly exhaled on +coming to the surface, and blew like a whale, as the figure shows. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page307">[307]</span>The extreme velocity of its motion is cause that the impression of +the head was that of a walrus. But this is a remarkable fact. We +have already observed that a Norwegian fisherman described the +head as resembling that of a seal (<a href="#Report8">n<sup>o</sup>. 8</a>), and that Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> +(<a href="#Report29">n<sup>o</sup>. 29</a>), too described at first sight the head to resemble that +of a seal. Afterwards Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span> (<a href="#Report36">n<sup>o</sup>. 36</a>) better acquainted +with sea-lions, described it as resembling a sea-lion’s; more than +once the bristles on the upper lip are mentioned; one of the gentlemen +of the <i>Daedalus</i> drew a head distinctly that of a Pinniped, +and Captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> declares that it had the head of a walrus. +Most probably he has seen the animal close to him and in its +face, and saw the upper-lip with bristly whiskers, though this is +neither mentioned nor figured. The same uncommonly rapid motion +of the animal caused the captain to draw the neck too short and to see +“twelve fins”. He was the dupe of an optical illusion, resulting from the +very rapid paddling of the animal’s fore-flappers. But he has very well +observed that the posture of the flappers when directed as upward +as possible is “turned the contrary way to those in a black fish”. The +head is described by him as that of a mammal, belonging to the +order of Pinnipeds, the posture of the flappers is exactly that which +pinnipedian mammals, as sea-lions and walruses, would exhibit, +when swimming with extreme velocity. No reptile is able to lift +up its fore-limbs to such a height. The animal in this position, +but seen from behind, would have the external features as shown +in the figure of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> +(<a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>, <a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>). And captain +<span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> has also very well observed and delineated that six of +the fins were on the left, and six on the right sight of the animal +as if rising out of the water, and that the twelve were not situated +on the animal’s back. The rough back, too, is a proof that the +animal had a mane. The violent motions of the flappers must have +caused a severe splashing and foaming of the water; it is clear +that this is omitted by captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> when drawing his +figure. So this report, though apparently of no worth, is, with +the figure, one of the most valuable reports of an appearance of +the sea-serpent, throwing light upon its rank in the system of +nature. Remarkable is the fact that captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> writes: “it +is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great +sea-serpent”.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page308">[308]</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report130"><span class="reportnr"><b>130</b></span>.—1857, February 16.—The following letter was forwarded +by Dr. Biccard to his friend Mr. <span class="smcap">Fairbridge</span>, at his +request, was then published in the <i>Cape Argus</i> of the 14th. of +March, 1857, and reprinted, with the figure, in the <i>Illustrated +London News</i> of 1857, June 13.—</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig37"><a id="Fig38"></a> +<img src="images/illo308.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 37 and 38.—Two Positions of the sea-serpent as seen by Dr. <span class="smcap">Biccard</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“Cape Town, 11th. March, 1857.</span></p> + +<p>“My dear Fairbridge,—According to your wish, I give you a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page309">[309]</span>short description of the Sea-Serpent seen by me and others opposite +the old light-house at Green Point.”</p> + +<p>“On Monday, the 16th. of February last, I went out to Green +Point in the afternoon. At about 5 p. m., or a little after, I was +called by Mr. Murray, the light-house-keeper, to “come and see a +sea monster”. I proceeded to the light-house, and from thence I +saw on the water, about 150 yards from the shore, the serpent, +of which some details have already appeared in print. It was +lying in the position shown in the accompanying sketch <a href="#Fig37">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>. I +borrowed a rifle from Mr. Flail (Mr. Murray’s father-in-law), and +fired at the animal. The ball fell short in front of it by about +four yards, as shown in the sketch. The animal did not move, +and I then fired a second shot, the ball striking about a foot and +a half from it. The serpent, then apparently startled, moved from +his position, straightened himself out, and went under water, +evidently getting out of the way. He was invisible for about ten +minutes, at the expiration of which interval he reappeared at about +two hundred yards distance, and I should say about forty yards +further off. He then came right on towards the place where I first +saw him; but, before arriving there, my son, who had joined +me, fired at the animal. Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple +of the rifle, and I was thus prevented from further firing. Upon +reaching the place he had first occupied, the serpent formed himself +into the position delineated in Sketch <a href="#Fig38">n<sup>o</sup>. 2</a>. He then stood +right into the bay, and soon afterwards we lost sight of him +altogether.”</p> + +<p>“As I have stated, the distance the animal kept from shore was +not more than 200 yards; its length was about 200 feet, but its +thickness I cannot tell, the upper part of the body only being +visible. The head could be seen but indistinctly, as he raised it at +intervals, as shown in the <a href="#Fig37">sketch</a>. I consider the protuberance to +be the upper part of the head, but I could not discover the eyes, +notwithstanding the short distance, and the telescope which was a +pretty good one. The colour of the animal was a dark dull colour, +except the head, which was maculated with large white spots. +The weather at this time was very calm, with a light northwesterly +breeze. Besides myself, the serpent was seen by Mr. Hall, Mr. +Murray, Mrs. and Miss Biccard, my two sons, and my coachman, +who all saw it distinctly.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“Yours, &c.,</span><br> +<span class="padr6">“Biccard.”</span></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page310">[310]</span></p> + +<p>Nobody can help laughing when he sees this <a href="#Fig37">figure</a>, representing +something very much like a black buoy, with white streaks and +spots, and glittering in the sun, having a long rope attached to +it! It is, however, pretty well done for one who cannot draw. As +in so many other instances the figures and the text complete each +other. The animal appears here nearly in the same position as it +did in the Harbour of Gloucester, in 1817. The same astonishing +lateral flexibility! “It lay down, in turning, in the form of a +staple or horse-shoe” we have learned on that occasion, and “in +doing so it nearly touched its head with its tail”, “the tail and +the head then appeared only to be a few yards one from another”, +once “it lay down in the form of an S”, &c. Though the Doctor +does not describe this position, his figures tell it us. As the +second ball apparently startled it, it changed its position, straightened +itself out, disappeared, and came up after ten minutes, +about forty yards further off. It behaved in the same way in the +Harbour of Gloucester. The length may again be somewhat exaggerated, +though I do not think such to be the case. The white +streaks and spots on the head may have been the shining reflexion +of day or sunlight, the head being thoroughly wet, as the animal +raised and dropped it at intervals, which made the water run +down every time, but it is also very possible that the individual +was really spotted on its head.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report131"><span class="reportnr"><b>131</b></span>.—1857, December 12.—(The <i>Times</i> of February 5, +1858; the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1858, p. 5989.).</p> + +<p>“I beg to enclose you a copy of an extract from the meteorological +journal kept by me on board the ship <i>Castilian</i>, on a voyage +from Bombay to Liverpool. I have sent the original to the Board +of Trade, for whom the observations have been made during my +last voyage. I am glad to confirm a statement made by the commander +of Her Majesty’s ship <i>Daedalus</i>, some years ago, as to +the existence of such an animal as that described by him.—G. +H. Harrington; 14 and 14¹⁄₂, South Castle Street, Liverpool, +February 2, 1858.—</p> + +<p>“Copy of an Extract from the Board of Trade Meteorological +Journal, kept by Captain Harrington, of the ship <i>Castilian</i>, from +Bombay to Liverpool.”</p> + +<p>“Ship <i>Castilian</i>, December 12, 1857, north-east end of St. Helena, +bearing north-west, distance 10 miles.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page311">[311]</span></p> + +<p>“At 6.30 p. m., strong breezes and cloudy, ship sailing about +twelve miles per hour. While myself and officers were standing on +the lee-side of the poop, looking towards the island, we were +startled by the sight of a huge marine animal, which reared its +head out of the water within twenty yards of the ship, when it +suddenly disappeared for about half a minute, and then made its +appearance in the same manner again, showing us distinctly its +neck and head about ten or twelve feet out of the water. Its head +was shaped like a long nun-buoy, and I suppose the diameter to +have been seven or eight feet in the largest part, with a kind of +scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet from the +top; the water was discoloured for several hundred feet from its +head, so much so that, on its first appearance, my impression +was that the ship was in broken water, produced, as I supposed, +by some vulcanic agency since the last time I passed the island; +but the second appearance completely dispelled those fears, and +assured us that it was a monster of extraordinary length, which +appeared to be moving slowly towards the land. The ship was +going too fast to enable us to reach the mast-head in time to +form a correct estimate of its extreme length, but from what we +saw from the deck we conclude that it must have been over two +hundred feet long. The boatswain and several of the crew who +observed it from the top-gallant forecastle, state that it was more +than double the length of the ship, in which case it must have +been five hundred feet. Be that as it may, I am convinced that +it belonged to the serpent tribe; it was of a dark colour about +the head, and was covered with several white spots. Having a +press of canvas on the ship at the time, I was unable to round +to without risk, and therefore was precluded from getting another +sight of this leviathan of the deep.”</p> + +<div class="rightblock"> +<p>“George Henry Harrington, Commander.”<br> +“William Davies, Chief Officer.”<br> +“Edward Wheeler, Second Officer.”</p> +</div> + +<p>The animal seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> was no doubt a sea-serpent, +of which at first sight, only the head and a small portion +of the neck were exposed to the eyes of the spectators. Afterwards, +when the animal moved slowly towards the land, its whole length +must have been visible, and estimated at about two hundred feet. +The head was seen in such a direction that it resembled a “nun-buoy”. +The diameter of the head may have been six feet. At a +moment that the animal contracted its neck, an annular fold was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page312">[312]</span>formed round the neck just behind the head, as may be seen in +our sea-lions, and which led Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> to write “with +a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet +from the top” of the head, i. e. somewhat behind the occiput. +The discolouring of the water has of course nothing at all to do +with the animal or its appearance.</p> + +<p>Some days afterwards (<i>Times</i> of February 13, 1858; <i>Zoologist</i> +for 1858, p. 5990) this document was followed by an account of +<span class="smcap">Frederic Smith</span>, who stated that on December 28th., 1848, commanding +the ship <span class="smcap">Pekin</span>, they saw an extraordinary creature, which, +when harpooned, and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of +a gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long. “So like a huge living monster +did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my sending +a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the great +sea-snake.” Captain <span class="smcap">Smith</span> firmly believes that the animals of the +<i>Daedalus</i> and of the <i>Castilian</i> were pieces of the same weed.</p> + +<p>Hereupon, “An officer of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>” wrote an apology +in the <i>Times</i> of 16th. February, which we have inserted in <a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. +118</a>. This letter was immediately followed in the same paper of the +same date by the two following:</p> + +<p>“Sir.—A letter appears in the <i>Times</i> of to-day signed “Frederic +Smith” on the subject of the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>“The writer has this advantage over others who have reported +the occasional appearance of what he fairly calls “this queer fish”—that +he has handled as well as seen it. Still there would seem to +be a considerable variety in the genus, for, while the specimen +obtained by the <i>Pekin</i> in 1848 was 4 inches in diameter and 20 +feet in length, that seen from the <i>Circassian</i> is described, if I +remember rightly, in your paper of 4th. inst. as 10 feet or 11 +feet in diameter, and upwards of 200 feet in length.”</p> + +<p>“In this latter instance it was seen only, and but a passing +sight; and testimony of this kind is just that which naturalists +may be slow to receive as evidence of any new fact; nevertheless +the practised vision of the <i>Circassian’s</i> commander should go for +something, and as it would appear from the following letter that +Captain Harrington is to be in town next week and ready to answer +any questions, it might be worth the while of some of our philosophers +to examine a little into the question of what Capt. Harrington +and his officers really did see.”</p> + +<p>“I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant</p> + +<p>“Blackheath, February 12.” +<span class="righttext"><span class="padr2">“W. A. B. Hamilton.”</span></span></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page313">[313]</span></p> + +<p>For <i>Circassian</i> of course read <i>Castilian</i>.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“14, South Castle Street, Liverpool, February 8.</span></p> + +<p>“Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your favour of the 6th. of +February, and should be glad if my communication to the <i>Times</i> +might be instrumental in dispelling many doubts respecting the +existence of such a monster as that described by myself and my +officers.”</p> + +<p>“I communicated it to Capt. Schomberg, R. N., of this place, +in the course of conversation, who advised me by all means to +send a copy of it to the <i>Times</i>.”</p> + +<p>“Notwithstanding the assertions of men of science to the contrary +I am now sure that such animals exist. I could no more be deceived +than (as a seaman) I could mistake a porpoise for a whale. +If it had been at a great distance it would have been different, +but it was not above 20 yards from the ship.”</p> + +<p>“I am of opinion that this animal makes its appearance at the +surface at long intervals only. I am informed by Messrs. Lamport +and Holt, shipowners of this place, that one of their captains reported +a similar thing about two years ago, off the Island of St. +Helena, but they took no further notice of it, supposing, as your +friend seems to do, that he might have been deceived.”</p> + +<p>“Twenty people, including Mrs. Harrington and my two officers, +saw it as distinctly as I now see the gas light which I am writing +by. I am well known in London, having commanded a steam transport +during the Russian war belonging to the North of Europe +Steam Navigation Company.”</p> + +<p>“Captain Claxton, R. N., of the Priory, Battersea, is a personal +friend of mine. I am also well known to Sir Colin Campbell, who +is now in the East. My present ship is 1604 tons new measurement, +and a new ship, of which I own a good part myself. There +are, therefore, many reasons (in addition to my holding a first-class +certificate in the mercantile marine) to hinder me from propagating +a report which can do me no good, and, if untrue, do +injury to science in the room of assisting it to elicit the truth +in so important a matter as the discovery of the inhabitants of +the deep.”</p> + +<p>“I shall be in town for three or four days in the early part of +next week. A letter addressed to me at the Jerusalem Coffee-House +will meet with attention, and, if my limited time permit, I should +be glad to have an interview with yourself, or any of your friends +who might wish to have a verbal explanation in this matter.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page314">[314]</span></p> + +<p class="right">“I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr10">“G. H. Harrington.”</span><br> +<span class="padr2">“To Rear-Admiral W. A. B. Hamilton”</span></p> + +<p>This letter was again answered in a very witty way in the <i>Times</i> +of Febr. 23, 1858; this however, will be inserted in our chapter +on <a href="#Page380">Explanations</a>.</p> + +<p>In the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1858, p. 6015, Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Charles Smith</span>, +an old acquaintance of ours (<a href="#Page299">p. 299</a>) now wrote the following +remark:</p> + +<p>“To one who firmly believes in the existence of some huge +marine monster of the serpent-form, such as the Northmen love to +descant upon (and I am not ashamed to own to such credulity, +as I have already declared in my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)), +the clear and minute account of Capt. Harrington, on the sea-monster +which he and twenty people saw on the 12th of December +last, off the coast of St. Helena, was exceedingly interesting; nor +did the subsequent letter of Mr. F. Smith tend to shake my belief +in the accuracy of Capt. Harrington’s statement, the particulars of +the two alleged appearances being so very different. I am not, +however, about to argue the point, the premises before us being +far too unsatisfactory and vague to argue from. I merely write to +express my hope that as you have admitted the first correspondence +on the subject to the pages of the <i>Zoologist</i>, you will give both +parties fair play, and insert the remaining letters, which appeared +in the <i>Times</i> of February 16th and 23 respectively, copies of which +I enclose, so that naturalists may have an opportunity of studying +the case in all its bearings, before they form their conclusions.—Alfred +Charles Smith; Yatesbury Rectory, Calne, March 5, 1858.”</p> + +<p>Of course, it was but natural that also foreign newspapers should +take great delight in this polemic. So we find in the <i>Revue Britannique</i>, +of 1858, n<sup>o</sup> 2, Febr. p. 496, an article full of erroneous +statements:</p> + +<p>“Amongst the grave questions of the day, we did not think of +meeting again, in the newspapers, with the famous sea-serpent, the +problematic existence of which seemed to be banished to the world +of apocryphal, or at least antediluvian animals; but no! three new +eye-witnesses declare to have seen it, and very well too. Now a +Captain Smith, of Newcastle, writes that he is convinced that these +witnesses have been illuded, as he himself was on the 28th. of +December, 1848, when after believing to see through his telescope +an extraordinary monster, and after lowering the great net of the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page315">[315]</span>ship, he drew in only a gigantic sea-weed of twenty feet in length, +which really had the form, attributed to the fantastic reptile. This +indirect refutation, however, does not discourage the Rear-Admiral +Harrington (imagine, a Rear-Admiral!) who in a second article in +the <i>Times</i>, repeats that he is sure of the fact, that he has seen +the sea-serpent twenty fathoms from his ship, that he has recognized +it, as if he would have recognized a whale on the side of a porpoise, +that his wife, who was on board, has seen it with him, +as had his two officers, in short, that he will come to London, +as soon as he has terminated his business at Liverpool, and will +furnish all evidences demanded by science and scepticism. If he +had only brought home the animal’s tail or one of its fins!”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report132"><span class="reportnr"><b>132</b></span>.—1858, January 26.—The <i>Illustrated London News</i> +of March 20, 1858, mentions:</p> + +<p>“The following is a report made by Captain Suckling, of the +ship <i>Carnatic</i>, of London, of a Sea Serpent seen by him between +the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena:—“On the 26th of January, +in latitude 19°10′ S., long 10°6′ W., about 5 minutes after noon, +my attention was called by Captain Shuttleworth, a passenger on +board the <i>Carnatic</i> to a large spar sticking out of the water one end +some thirty feet above the level of the sea. It appeared to me to be +the lower mast of some wrecked vessel, and having the glass in my +hand, with which I had been looking at an American vessel in +sight, I examined it narrowly. It seemed to be passing very rapidly +to the eastward, having altered its bearings several points in the +course of a few minutes, when it suddenly disappeared, and came +up shortly afterwards astern of the ship. It was seen by all those +on deck at the time, and it is their opinion, as well as my own, +that it was an enormous sea-serpent. The American ship <i>A. B. +Thompson</i> from Bombay to London, was in company at the time—wind +light and variable, with clear weather”.—We have not +space for the Sketch obligingly sent with this account”.</p> + +<p>The comparison with a spar, an unwrought spar, or spruce, a +log of timber, etc., has been made more than once, as the reader +will remember, and when we compare the figures, drawn by an +officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i> (<a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>), and by Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> (<a href="#Fig46">fig. +46</a>), we can easily imagine, that in this position the animal must +have illuded the observers more than once. It is a pity that the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page316">[316]</span>sketch has not been published. How many interesting drawings +have in this way got into the paper-basket!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In 1860 Mr. P. H. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> published his <i>Romance of Natural +History</i>, First Series. The last chapter of this volume is entitled +“the Great Unknown” and is entirely devoted to the Great Sea-Serpent. +His manner of teaching Natural History to his readers +was, as the able writer says himself, a poetical one. “In my many +years’ wandering through the wide field of Natural History, I have +always felt towards it something of a poet’s heart, though destitute +of a poet’s genius”. I can recommend every zoologist and +botanist to read his work in his leasure hours; I have read it +with great interest and pleasure, increasing my knowledge, wandering +with the writer from north to south and from east to west, +from one pole to the other and from continents to the greatest +depths of the ocean!</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent’s question was such a favourite one of this romantic +naturalist, that in his preface he wrote the following about it:</p> + +<p>“If I may venture to point out one subject on which I have +bestowed more than usual pains, and which I myself regard with +more than common interest, it is that of the last chapter in this +volume. An amount of evidence is adduced for the existence of +the sub-mythic monster popularly known as “the sea-serpent”, +such as has never been brought together before, and such as +ought almost to set doubt at rest. But the cloudy uncertainty +which has invested the very being of this creature; its home on +the lone ocean; the fitful way in which it is seen and lost in its +vast solitudes; its dimensions, vaguely gigantic; its dragon-like +form; and the possibility of its association with beings considered +to be lost in an obsolete antiquity;—all these are attributes which +render it peculiarly precious to a romantic naturalist. I hope the statisticians +will forgive me if they cannot see it with my spectacles.”</p> + +<p>His chapter on the sea-serpent will also be read with great +interest. But there are several facts which he seems not to have +been able to explain. In describing the animal, seen near Cape +Ann, 1817, he writes: “<i>no appearance of mane was seen by any</i>”, +without giving any explanation; he has evidently underlined these +words to draw the readers’ attention to this evidence, which is so +quite contradictory to others, mentioned before and afterwards. On +the same page (p. 284) when repeating the expression of one of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page317">[317]</span>the eye-witnesses “the mode of progression was like that of a +caterpillar”, Mr. Gosse inserts his opinion in the following terms: +“probably a looping or geometric caterpillar”. Now my readers +will be at one with me, that the motion of the geometric caterpillar +is the last with which that of the sea-serpent can be compared! +The rapid motion of a common caterpillar of some butterfly, +when tickled on its back part, will give the best idea.</p> + +<p>The writer further tries to throw discredit on reports of Americans. +He says (p. 287):</p> + +<p>“Though the position and character of some of these witnesses +add weight to their testimony, and seem to preclude the possibility +of their being either deceived or deceivers, on a matter which +depended on the use of their eyes, yet, owing to a habit prevalent +in the United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit +in gross exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we do naturally look +with a lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe +unusual or disputed phenomena.”</p> + +<p>I, however, am of the contrary opinion, and may turn his words +in the following way: Though we generally and naturally look +with a lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe +unusual or disputed phenomena, owing to a habit prevalent +in the United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit +in gross exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we are bound to +admit all that is stated by such persons of unimpeachable character +as Col. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> and others, whose testimonies we have inserted +in our papers. They evidently communicated what they saw, without +any exaggeration and without any tendency to crack a joke or to hoax.</p> + +<p>Again p. 318 of his work, after having treated of only a few +of the different reports, that had come in up to his days (1860) +Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> goes on in the following terms:</p> + +<p>“A large mass of evidence has been accumulated; and I now +set myself to examine it. In so doing, I shall eliminate from the +inquiry all the testimony of Norwegian eye-witnesses, that obtained +in Massachusetts in 1817, and various statements made by French +and American captains since. Confining myself to English witnesses +of known character and position, most of them being officers under +the Crown, I have adduced the following testimonies.”</p> + +<p>Here again I must point out that there is not a single reason +to exclude all testimonies not coming from British navigators. +With such reasoning Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> makes himself ridiculous in the +eyes of all reasonable persons of his own and of other nations! +<span class="pagenum" id="Page318">[318]</span>That it is wrong to exclude reports, because they are of Americans +or Norwegians, the reader himself will be ready to admit, I +think, after having read the different reports mentioned in this volume.</p> + +<p>“The following testimonies” now, alluded to by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, are:</p> + +<p>“1. That of five British officers, who saw the animal at Halifax, +N. S., in 1833” (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>).</p> + +<p>“2. That of Captain M’Quhae and his officers, who saw it from +the <i>Daedalus</i> in 1848,” (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).</p> + +<p>“3. That of Captain Beechy, who saw something similar from +the <i>Blossom</i>” (<a href="#Report104">n<sup>o</sup>. 104</a>).</p> + +<p>“4. That of Mr. Morries Stirling, who saw it in a Norwegian +fjord” (<a href="#Report113">n<sup>o</sup>. 113</a>).</p> + +<p>“5. That of Mr. Davidson, who saw it from the <i>Royal Saxon</i>, +in 1829” (<a href="#Report93">n<sup>o</sup>. 93</a>).</p> + +<p>“6. That of Captain Steele and others, who saw it from the +<i>Barham</i>, in 1852.” (See our <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, +<a href="#Ref4">1852, August 28</a>).</p> + +<p>“7. That of Captain Harrington and his officers, who saw it +from the <i>Castilian</i>, 1857” (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>).</p> + +<p>To our great astonishment Mr. Gosse also alludes to <a href="#Report6">n<sup>o</sup>. 6</a>: +That of Captain <span class="smcap">Steele</span>, who saw it from the <i>Barham</i>, in 1852. +Some pages before, Mr. Gosse himself throws great doubt on this +report, believing that the animal seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Steele</span> and his +officers was a scabbard-fish, (the reader, I hope, will take the +trouble to look up the <a href="#Ref4">report</a> of 1852, August 28, in my <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> +on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, to read there again Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse’s</span> own +opinion of this report), and now he uses this report amongst others +to examine to which of the recognized classes of created beings +this rover of the ocean can be referred!</p> + +<p>Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> passes to this inquiry: first, he asks, is it an +animal at all? And he comes to the conclusions that this must +be so, for else the being could not move with that astonishing +rapidity. Further he examines the sea-weed hypothesis, the seal-hypothesis, +&c., and winds up with: “my own confident persuasion, +that there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, +which has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; +and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with +the fossil <i>Enaliosauria</i> of the lias.”</p> + +<p>All the above-mentioned views will be considered in <a href="#Page380">Chapter V</a>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page319">[319]</span></p> + +<p>To our great surprise we see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the editor of +the <i>Zoologist</i>, who ever was a warm defender of the sea-serpent, +and like Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> firmly believed that there are still living <i>Plesiosauri</i>, +is of another opinion in 1860. In this year, a very large +riband fish was captured on the Bermuda Isles. Three descriptions +of this fish appeared in the <i>Zoologist</i> (p. 6934, p. 6986, p. 6989), +the last by Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> himself, who, thinking that it was a +new species, gave it the name of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>. The second +description was by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>, the naturalist on the Bermudas, +at whose deposal the fish was placed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Trimingham</span>, the +captor. Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>, after his description, points out some striking +peculiarities, which this riband-fish and the sea-serpent seen by +captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, had in common, and concludes that a part of +the reports of the great sea-serpent must have been caused by the +appearance of riband fishes. Now, Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, after the description +of his new species <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, as I have already +said, seems to waver in his opinion, for he adds:</p> + +<p>“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span>, the +similarity of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i> to Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae’s</span> sea-serpent, I +do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite +willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its +own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on +comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published +in the “Zoologist.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report133"><span class="reportnr"><b>133</b></span>, +<a id="Report134"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>134</b></span>.—1861? August.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1862, p. 7850).—</p> + +<p>“On a Sunday afternoon, in the middle of August, above a +hundred persons, at that time in and about the hotel, were called +on to observe an extraordinary appearance in the sea, at no great +distance from the shore. Large shoals of small fish were rushing +landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding +on each other, and showing all the common symptoms of flight +from the pursuit of some wicked enemy. I had already more than +once remarked this appearance from the rocks, but in a minor +degree; and on these occasions I could always distinguish the shark, +whose ravages among the “manhaidens” was the cause of such alarm. +But the particular case in question was far different from those. +The pursuer of the fugiting shoals soon became visible; and that +it was a huge marine monster, stretching to a length quite beyond +<span class="pagenum" id="Page320">[320]</span>the dimensions of an ordinary fish, was evident to all observers. +No one, in short, had any doubt as to its being the sea-serpent, +or one of the species to which the animal or animals so frequently +before seen belonged. The distance at which this one was, for ten +minutes or a quarter of an hour, visible, made it impossible to +give a description of its apparent dimensions so accurate as to carry +conviction to the sceptical. For us who witnessed it, it was enough +to be convinced that the thing was a reality. But one of the spectators, +Dr. Amos Binney, a gentleman of scientific attainments, +drew up a minute account of it, which is deposited in the archives +of one of the Philosophical Societies of Boston. I was and am +quite satisfied that on this occasion I had a partial and indistinct +but positive view of this celebrated nondescript; but had the least +doubt rested on my mind it would have been entirely removed +by the event of the day following the one just recorded. On that +day, a little before noon, my wife was sitting, as was her wont, +reading on the upper piazza of the hotel. She was alone. The gentlemen, +including myself and my son, were, as usual, absent at +Boston, and the ladies were scattered in various directions. She +was startled by a cry from the house of “The sea-serpent! the sea-serpent!” +But this had been so frequent, by the way of joke, since +the event of the preceding day, and was so like “The wolf! the +wolf!” of the fable, that it did not attract her particular attention +for a moment or two, until she observed two women belonging to +the family of the hotel keeper running along the piazza towards +the corner nearest the sea, with wonder in their eyes, and the +cry of “The serpent! the serpent! he is turning! he is turning!” +spontaneously bursting from their lips. Then my wife did fix her +looks in the direction they ran; and sure enough she saw, apparently +quite close beyond the line formed by the rising ground +above the rocks, a huge serpent, gliding gracefully through the +waves, having evidently performed the action of turning round. In +an instant it was in a straight line, moving rapidly on; and after +coasting for a couple of minutes the north west front of the hotel, +and (as accurately as the astonished observer could calculate) looking +as it stretched at full-length about the length of the piazza,—that +is to say, about ninety feet,—it sank quietly beneath the +surface, and was seen no more. The person who was thus so lucky +as to get this unobstructed view is one so little liable to be led +astray by any imaginary impulse, that I may reckon on her statement +with entirely as much confidence as if my own eyes had +<span class="pagenum" id="Page321">[321]</span>demonstrated its truth.”—<i>Grattan’s Civilized America</i>, p. 39.—</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, ought to have mentioned +the writer of the article, the date of it and the locality where +the appearance took place. It was most probably Nahant, the well +known watering place near Lynn, Mass. I have had no opportunity +to consult <span class="smcap">Grattan</span>’s <i>Civilized America</i>, therefore I have placed the +note of interrogation after the above-mentioned year.</p> + +<p>In this report only a few words are devoted to the description +of the animal, yet the description itself is given as well as possible +by the lady who saw it from the upper piazza of the hotel.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report135"><span class="reportnr"><b>135</b></span>.—1863, May 16th.—(<i>Zoologist</i>, 1863, p. 8727).</p> + +<p>“The following is a copy of a letter from an officer of the African +mail steamer <i>Athenian</i>, addressed to a gentleman in this +town:—“African Royal Mail Screw Steamer <i>Athenian</i>, Cape +Palmas, May, 16, 1863.—My dear Sir,—All doubts may now +be set at rest about the great sea-serpent. On the 6th. of May +the African Royal Mail Steam Ship <i>Athenian</i> on her passage from +Teneriffe to Bathurst, fell in with one. At about 7 a. m. John +Chapple, quartermaster, at the wheel, saw something floating towards +the ship. He called the attention of the Rev. Mr. Smith +and another passenger, who were on deck at the time, to it. On +nearing the steamer it was discovered to be a large snake about +100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, +the body slightly under. On its head was something like a mane +or sea-weed. The body was about the size of our mainmast. You +are at liberty to publish this.”</p> + +<p>The reader will observe that this too is a very insignificant description, +but it mentions one of the very few cases that the tail +of the animal was visible above the surface of the water.</p> + +<p>The same report was published in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> +of 1863, June, 13.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report136"><span class="reportnr"><b>136</b></span>.—1871.—(G. <span class="smcap">Verschuur</span>, <i>Eene reis om de wereld in +vier honderd tachtig dagen</i>).—After an appearance of a would-be +sea-serpent on board the <i>Grenada</i>, which caused a dispute between +those who saw it and those who were not so fortunate,</p> + +<p>“the second officer, who joined in the quarrel, declared to have +<span class="pagenum" id="Page322">[322]</span>seen in 1871, near the coast of Australia a sea-serpent, which +was several meters in length.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report137"><span class="reportnr"><b>137</b></span>, +<a id="Report138"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>138</b></span>, <a id="Report139"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>139</b></span>, +<a id="Report140"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>140</b></span>.—1872, August 20th., 21st., +23d. and 24th.—In the <i>Zoologist</i> of May 1873, p. 3517, the +following statements of high respectable gentlemen are published.</p> + +<p>“Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called +the Norwegian Sea-Serpent, on the Western Coast of Scotland, in +August, 1872. By the Rev. John Macrae, Minister of Glenelg, +Invernesshire, and the Rev. David Twopeny, Vicar of Stockbury, +Kent.”</p> + +<p>“On the 20th. of August, 1872, we started from Glenelg in a +small cutter, “the Leda”, for an excursion to Lochourn. Our party +consisted, besides ourselves, of two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman +G. B., and a Highland lad. Our course lay down the Sound of +Sleat, which on that side divides the Isle of Skye from the +mainland, the average of breadth of the Channel in that part +being two miles. It was calm and sunshiny, not a breath of air, +and the sea perfectly smooth. As we were getting the cutter along +with oars we perceived a dark mass about two hundred yards +astern of us, to the north. While we were looking at it with our +glasses (we had three on board) another similar black lump rose +to the left of the first, leaving an interval between; then an other +and an other followed, all in regular order. We did not doubt its +being one living creature: it moved slowly across our wake, and +disappeared. Presently the first mass, which was evidently the +head, reappeared, and was followed by the rising of the other +black lumps, as before. Sometimes three appeared, sometimes four, +five, or six, and then sank again. When they rose, the head appeared +first, if it had been down, and the lumps rose after it in +regular order, beginning always with that, next the head, and +rising gently; but when they sank, they sank all together, rather +abruptly, sometimes leaving the head visible. It gave the impression +of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself. There was no +appearance of undulation: when the lumps sank, other lumps did +not rise in the intervals between them. The greatest number we +counted was seven, making eight with the head, as shown in the +sketch <a href="#Fig39">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>. The parts were separated from each other by intervals +of about their own length, the head being rather smaller and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page323">[323]</span>flatter than the rest, and the nose being very slightly visible above +the water; but we did not see the head raised above the surface +either this or the next day, nor could we see the eye. We had +no means of measuring the length with any accuracy, but taking +the distance from the centre of one lump to the centre of the +next to be six feet, and it could scarcely be less, the whole length +of the portion visible, including the intervals submerged, would +be forty-five feet.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig39"><a id="Fig40"></a> +<img src="images/illo323.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 39 and 40.—Two positions of the Sea-Serpent as seen by the Rev. <span class="smcap">John Macrae</span> and +the Rev. <span class="smcap">Twopeny</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>“Presently, as we were watching the creature, it began to approach +us rapidly, causing a great agitation in the sea. Nearly the +whole of the body, if not all of it, had now disappeared, and the +head advanced at a great rate in the midst of a shower of fine +spray, which was evidently raised in some way by the quick movement +of the animal—it did not appear how,—and not by +spouting. F. was alarmed and retreated to the cabin, crying out +that the creature was coming down upon us. When within about +a hundred yards of us it sank and moved away in the direction of +Skye, just under the surface of the water, for we could trace its +course by the waves it raised on the still sea to the distance of a +mile or more. After this it continued at intervals to show itself, +careering about at a distance, as long as we were in that part of +the Sound, the head and a small part only of the body being visible +on the surface; but we did not again on that day see it so near +nor so well as at first. At one time F. and K. and G. B. saw +a fin striking up at a little distance back from the head, but neither +of us were then observing.”</p> + +<p>“On our return the next day we were again becalmed on the +north side of the opening of Lochourn, where it is about three +miles wide, the day warm and sunshiny as before. As we were +<span class="pagenum" id="Page324">[324]</span>dragging slowly along in the afternoon the creature again appeared +over towards the south side, at a greater distance than we saw it +the first day. It now showed itself in three or four rather long +lines, as in the <a href="#Fig40">sketch N<sup>o</sup> 2</a>, and looked considerably longer than +it did the day before: as nearly as we could compute, it looked at +least sixty feet in length. Soon it began careering about, showing +but a small part of itself, as on the day before, and appeared to +be going up Lochourn. Later in the afternoon, when we were still +becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, and by using the oars had +nearly reached the Island of Sandaig, it came rushing past us +about a hundred and fifty yards to the south, on its return from +Lochourn. It went with great rapidity, its black head only being +visible through the clear sea, followed by a long trail of agitated +water. As it shot along, the noise of its rush through the water +could be distinctly heard on board. There were no organs of motion +to be seen, nor was there any shower of spray as on the day +before, but nearly such a commotion in the sea as its quick passage +might be expected to make. Its progress was equable and +smooth, like that of a log towed rapidly. For the rest of the day, +as we worked our way home northwards through the Sound of +Sleat, it was occasionally within sight of us until night fall, rushing +about at a distance, as before, and showing only its head and +a small part of its body on the surface. It seemed on each day +to keep about us, and as we were always then rowing, we were +inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured +sound of the oars. Its only exit in this direction to the north was +by the narrow Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland, +and only a third of a mile wide, and we left our boat, +wondering whether the strange creature had gone that way or turned +back again to the south.”—</p> + +<p>“We have only to add to this narration of what we saw ourselves +the following instances of its being seen by other people, of the +correctness of which we have no doubt:</p> + +<p>“The ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea saw it pass rapidly +through on the evening of the 21st., and heard the rush of the +water: they were surprised, and thought it might be a shoal of +porpoises, but could not comprehend their going so quickly.”</p> + +<p>“Finlay Macrae, of Bundaloch, in the parish of Kintail, was +within the mouth of Lochourn on the 21st., with other men in +his boat, and saw the creature at about the distance of one hundred +and fifty yards.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page325">[325]</span></p> + +<p>“Two days after we saw it, Alexander Macmillan, boat-builder +at Dornie, was fishing in a boat in the entrance of Lochduich, +halfway between Druidag and Castledonan, when he saw the animal +near enough to hear the noise and see the ripple it made in +rushing along in the sea. He says, that what seemed its head was +followed by four or more lumps, or “half-rounds”, as he calls them, +and that they sometimes rose and sometimes sank all together. He +estimated its length as not less than sixty and eighty feet. He saw +it also in two subsequent days in Lochduich. On all these occasions +his brother Farquhar was with him in the boat, and they were +both much alarmed and pulled to the shore in great haste.”</p> + +<p>“A lady at Duisdale, in Skye, a place overlooking the part of +the Sound which is opposite the opening of Lochourn said that +she was looking out for the glass when she saw a strange object +on the sea which appeared like eight seals in a row. This was just +about the time we saw it.”</p> + +<p>“We were also informed that about the same time it was seen +from the island of Eigg, between Eigg and the mainland about +twenty miles to the south-west of the opening of Lochourn.”</p> + +<p>“We have not permission to mention the names in these two +last instances.”</p> + +<div class="rightblock padr6"> +<p class="noindent">“John Macrae”<br> +“David Twopeny”</p> +</div> + +<p>“P. S. The writers of the above account scarcely expect the public +to believe in the existence of the creature which they saw. +Rather than that, they look for the disbelief and ridicule to which +the subject always gives rise, partly on account of the animal having +been pronounced to be a snake, without any sufficient evidence, +but principally because of the exaggerations and fables with which +the whole subject is beset. Nevertheless they consider themselves +bound to leave a record of what they saw, in order that naturalists +may receive it as a piece of evidence, or not, according to +what they think it is worth. The animal will very probably turn +up on these coasts again, and it will be always in that “dead +season”, so convenient to editors of newspapers, for it is never seen +but in the still warm days of summer or early autumn. There is +a considerable probability that it has visited the same coasts before. +In the summer of 1871 some large creature was seen for +some time rushing about in Lochduich, but it did not show itself +sufficiently for any one to ascertain what it was. Also some years +back a well-known gentleman of the west coast, now living, was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page326">[326]</span>crossing the Sound of Mull, from Mull to the mainland, “on a +very calm afternoon, when”, as he writes, “our attention was attracted +to a monster which had come to the surface not more than +fifty yards to our boat. It rose without causing the slightest disturbance +of the sea, or making the slightest noise, and floated for +some time on the surface, but without exhibiting its head or tail, +showing only the ridge of the back, which was not that of a whale, +or any other sea-animal that I had ever seen. The back appeared +sharp and ridgelike, and in colour very dark, indeed black, or +almost so. It rested quietly for a few minutes, and then dropped +quietly down into the deep, without causing the slightest agitation. +I should say that above forty feet of it, certainly not less, appeared +on the surface.” It should be noticed that the inhabitants of +that western coast are quite familiar with the appearance of whales, +seals and porpoises, and when they see them, they recognize them +at once. Whether the creature which pursued Mr. Maclean’s boat +off the Island of Coll in 1808, and of which there is an account +in the Transactions of the Wernerian Society (Vol. I, p. 442), was +one of these Norwegian animals, it is not easy to say. Survivors +who knew Mr. Maclean say that he could quite be relied upon +for truth.”</p> + +<p>“The public are not likely to believe in the creature till it is +caught, and that does not seem likely to happen just yet, for a +variety of reasons,—one reason being that it has, from all the +accounts given of it, the power of moving very rapidly. On the +20th., while we were becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, a steam +launch slowly passed us, and, as we watched it, we reckoned its +rate at five or six miles an hour. When the animal rushed past +us on the next day at about the same distance, and when we +were again becalmed nearly in the same place, we agreed that it +went quite twice as fast as the steamer, and we thought that its +rate could not be less then ten or twelve miles an hour. It might +be shot but would probably sink. There are three accounts of its +being shot at in Norway; in one instance it sank, and in the +other two it pursued the boats, which were near the shore, but +disappeared when it found itself getting into shallow water.”</p> + +<p>“It should be mentioned that when we saw this creature and +made our sketches of it, we had never seen Pontoppidan’s “Natural +History”, or his print of the Norwegian sea-serpent, which +has a most striking resemblance to the first of our own sketches. +Considering the great body of reasonable Norwegian evidence, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page327">[327]</span>extending through a number of years, which remains after setting +aside fables and exaggerations, it seems surprising that no naturalist +of that country has ever applied himself to make out something +about the animal. In the meantime, as the public will most +probably be dubious about quickly giving credit to our account, +the following explanations are open to them, all of which have +been proposed to me, <i>viz</i>:—porpoises, lumps of sea-weed, empty +herring-barrels, bladders, logs of wood, waves of the sea, and +inflated pig-skins; but as all these theories present to our minds +greater difficulties than the existence of the animal itself, we feel +obliged to decline them.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“D. Twopeny.”</span></p> + +<p>We observe at a glance that the figures show nearly exactly the +same outlines as the figure of Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> (<a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>). The reappearing +and disappearing of the animal is well pictured and evidently +recalls to my readers’ mind the “sinking down like a rock” +of American reports. The reader will observe that the appearance +took place nearly in the same locality as that of 1808, June (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. +31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>). Moreover we need not add anything to the unvarnished +reports. As to the appearances of the large creatures in 1871 and +“some years back”, communicated in the post-scriptum, their descriptions, +are too vague for me to see in them sea-serpents.—The +fin striking up at a little distance from the head, of course, +was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, who first +was a firm believer in the sea-serpent, and expressed his opinion +that it might be a still living <i>Plesiosaurus</i> or an animal closely +allied to it, and who afterwards evidently wavered in his opinion, +after his description of the <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, a ribband-fish, (see +above <a href="#Page319">p. 319</a>), now suddenly adds to the evidences of the Rev. +<span class="smcap">John Macrae</span> and the Rev. <span class="smcap">David Twopeny</span>, the following note:</p> + +<p>“I have long since expressed my firm conviction that there +exists a large marine animal unknown to us naturalists; I maintain +this belief as firmly as ever. I totally reject the evidence of +published representations; but do not allow their imaginary figures +to interfere with a firm conviction, although I admit their tendency +is always in that direction: the figures and exaggerated descriptions +of believers are far more damaging to a faith in such an +animal than the arguments, the ridicule on the explanatory guesses +<span class="pagenum" id="Page328">[328]</span>of unbelievers. The guess that a little seal was magnified by Captain +M’Quhae into a monster several hundred feet in length is +simply incredible: we smile at the conceit, and that is all.”</p> + +<p>So he is again converted into a firm believer, but he does not +now express any supposition as to the kind of animal that it may be.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report141"><span class="reportnr"><b>141</b></span>, <a id="Report142"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>142</b></span>, +<a id="Report143"></a><span class="reportnr"><b>143</b></span>.—1873, November 16?, 17?, 18?—I +have not been able to get a sight at the <i>Times</i> of Nov. 20th. of +this year, but I have found an extract from an account in it, in +the <i>Zoologist</i> of December of that year, p. 3804, running as follows:</p> + +<p>“Mr. Joass, an eye-witness, writing in the <i>Times</i> of November 20, +says, “the ears seemed to be diaphanous and nearly semicircular +flaps or valves over-arching the nostrils, which were in front. The +cavity of the eye appeared to be considerably further back, and a +peculiar glimmer in it, along with the sudden disappearance of the +creature, presented, indeed, the only signs of its vitality, as far as +I could see, while I watched it for half an hour, apparently drifting +with the rising tide, but always keeping about the same distance +off shore ..... Dr. Soutar and I are more or less familiar +with the forms of the porpoise, seal, halibut, conger, and even +shark, both in and out of the water.”</p> + +<p>In the same journal and on the same page we read the following +“Extract from a letter from Mr. Joass, of Golspie, to the Rev. +John Macrae, of Glenelg:”</p> + +<p>“On Thuesday afternoon last, lady Florence Leveson Gower and +the Hon. Mrs. Coke, driving near the sea, about eight miles east +from Dunrobin, saw what seemed to them a large and long marine +animal; on Wednesday morning Dr. Soutar, of Golspie, saw a +large creature rushing about in the sea. about fifty yards from shore: +it frequently raised what seemed a neck seven feet out of the +water, and from the length of troubled water behind it appeared +to be fifty or sixty feet long. He said to his family on meeting +them at breakfast, “If I believed in sea-serpents, I should say I +had seen one this morning”. I may mention that this gentleman +is a most trustworthy observer and cautious man. On Thursday I +saw what seemed some drift sea-weed. When your report was +published Dr. Tayler, the author of “Thanatophidia of India” was +at the castle; I asked him what he thought of the matter, and +he said he was quite prepared to believe in such a monster. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page329">[329]</span>Mr. Vernon Harcourt told me that he was in a small yacht off Glenelg +on the evening of the day mentioned in your report, and about +six miles from the locality and that he and his crew saw what +seemed a great moving mass, which, but for some engagement or +the lateness of the hour, they would have examined.”</p> + +<p>It is evident that the greater part of the account of the <i>Times</i> +is not reprinted in the <i>Zoologist</i>.</p> + +<p>The above given descriptions are poor, giving no approximative +measurements of the diameter of the neck, &c.</p> + +<p>This is the only appearance of the animal on the <i>eastern</i> coasts +of Great Britain!</p> + +<p>Again I am obliged to express my astonishment that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> +does not mention any date, neither of the appearances, nor +of Mr. <span class="smcap">Joass</span>’ letter.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report144"><span class="reportnr"><b>144</b></span>.—1875, July 8.—In the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of +November 20th., 1875, appeared the following <a href="#Fig41">engraving</a> and +account:</p> + +<p>“Our <a href="#Fig41">Engraving</a> is an exact representation of a sketch we have +received, with the following letter from the Rev. E. L. Penny, +M. A., Chaplain to H. M. S. <i>London</i>, at Zanzibar, Oct. 21:—</p> + +<p>“I send you herewith a sketch of the great sea-serpent attacking +a spermwhale, which I have made from the descriptions of the +captain and crew of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, and they have, after +careful examination, pronounced it to be correct. The whale should +have been placed deeper in the water, but I should then have +been unable to depict so clearly the manner in which the animal +was attacked.”</p> + +<p>“Captain Drevar, of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, bound with coals for +her Majesty’s naval stores at Zanzibar, when in lat. 5 deg. 13 min. +S., long. 35 deg. W., on July 8 last, observed three very large +sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round the body, +with two turns, by what appeared to be a huge serpent. Its back +was of a darkish brown and its belly white, with an immense head +and mouth, the latter always open; the head and tail had a length +beyond the coils about 30 ft.; its girth was about 8 ft. or 9 ft. +Using its extremities as levers, the serpent whirled its victim round +and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged +the whale down to the bottom, head first. The other two whales, +after attempting to release their companion, swam away upon its +descent, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page330">[330]</span></p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig41"> +<img src="images/illo330.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 41.—The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a spermwhale”.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page331">[331]</span></p> + +<p>“On July 13 this or another sea-serpent was again seen, about +200 yards off the stern of the vessel, shooting itself along the +surface, 40 ft. of its body being out of the water at a time. Again, +on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing +quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of 60 ft. This +time it seemed as if determined to attack the vessel, and the crew +and officers armed themselves with axes for self defence.”</p> + +<p>“Captain Drevar is a singularly able and observant man, and +those of the crew and officers with whom I conversed were singularly +intelligent; nor did any of their descriptions vary from one +another in the least—there were no discrepancies.”</p> + +<p>This report translated into German appeared in the <i>Illustrirte +Zeitung</i> of Dec. 4th. 1875.</p> + +<p>We observe that the so-called fight between the sea-serpent and +the spermwhale took place in 5° 13′ S. lat., 35° W. long, i. e. near +Cape San Roque (Eastern coast of Brazil), and that the barque +<i>Pauline</i> on October 21 of that year was at Zanzibar, laden with +coals. The reports were evidently copied from the Captain’s journal +or log-book, and the figure was drawn by the Rev. <span class="smcap">E. L. Penny</span>, +at Zanzibar. The barque did not return directly to England, but +steered for Akyab (British Burmah); from where she sailed home, +for we read in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of January 13, 1877 +(p. 35, third column):</p> + +<p>“The great sea-serpent will not be ignored. He has now appeared, +by affidavit, in a police court. The captain and crew of a +vessel called the <i>Pauline</i> which has arrived in the Mersey from +Akyab, report that in July, 1875, off Cape San Roque, on the +north-east coast of Brazil, they saw the great sea-serpent. On +Thuesday, the captain, whose name is Drevar, appeared before the +stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool, Mr. Raffles, and expressed a +wish, on his own behalf and that of his crew, to make a declaration +affirming the truth of their statements respecting the serpent. +Mr. Raffles desired Captain Drevar to prepare a written declaration +and bring it before him. This captain Drevar did, on Wednesday, +accompanied by a number of his crew. The declaration is +to the effect that he and others on board the Pauline, on July 8, +1875, while in latitude 5 deg. 13 min. S., longitude 35 deg. W., +observed three large spermwhales, one of which was gripped round +the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page332">[332]</span>The head and tail appeared to have a length, beyond the coils, +of about thirty feet, and the girth seemed to be eight or nine +feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about +fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the +bottom head first. Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen +about 200 yards off the <i>Pauline</i>, shooting itself along the surface, +its head and neck being several feet out of the water. Subsequently +the head of the animal was shot sixty feet into the air. The declaration +was signed by Captain Drevar, Horatio Thompson (chief +officer), John Henderson Landells (second officer), William Lewarn +(steward) and Owen Baker (seaman).</p> + +<p>1 am so fortunate as to be able to communicate the account as +it appeared in the newspapers of the 10th. and 11th. of January, +1877. I have found it in <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>’s <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>:</p> + +<p>“The story of the mate and crew of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, of +London, said to have arrived in port from a twenty months’ voyage +to Akyab,—about having seen “a sea-serpent” while on a +voyage in the Indian seas, was declared to on oath before Mr. +Raffles, the stipendiary magistrate, at the Liverpool Police-Court. +The affidavit was made in consequence of the doubtfullness with +which anything about the “sea-serpent” has hitherto been received; +and to show the genuine character of the story it has been placed +judicially on record. The following is a copy of the declaration, +which will be regarded as unprecedented in its way:—</p> + +<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">Borough of Liverpool, in the County Palatine</span><br> +<span class="smcap">of Lancaster, to wit.</span></p> + +<p>“We, the undersigned, captain, officers, and crew of the barque +<i>Pauline</i> (of London), of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, in +the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly +and sincerely declare that on July 8, 1875, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long +35° W., we observed three large sperm whales, and one of them +was gripped round the body with two turns of what appeared to +be a huge serpent. The head and tail appeared to have a length +beyond the coils of about thirty feet, and its girth eight or nine +feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about +fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the bottom, +head first”.</p> + +<div class="rightblock padr9"> +<p><span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, <i>Master</i>.<br> +<span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson.</span><br> +<span class="smcap">John Henderson Landells.</span><br> +<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span><br> +<span class="smcap">Wm. Lewarn.</span></p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page333">[333]</span></p> + +<p>Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen about two hundred +yards off, shooting itself along the surface, the head and neck +being out of the water several feet. This was seen only by the +captain and one ordinary seaman, whose signatures are affixed.”</p> + +<div class="rightblock padr12"> +<p><span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, <i>Master</i>.<br> +<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span></p> +</div> + +<p>“A few moments after it was seen elevated some sixty feet perpendicularly +in the air by the chief officer and the following able +seamen, whose signatures are also affixed.”</p> + +<div class="rightblock padr16"> +<p><span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson.</span><br> +<span class="smcap">William Lewarn.</span><br> +<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span></p> +</div> + +<p>“And we make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing +the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act +made and passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty, +entitled “An Act to repeal an Act of the present Session of Parliament, +entitled an Act for the more effectual abolition of oath +and affirmations, taken and made in various departments of the +State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof, and for the +more entire suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths and +affidavits, and to make other provisions for the abolition of unnecessary +oaths.” Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool +aforesaid the tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred +and seventy-seven.”</p> + +<div class="rightblock padr5"> +<p><span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, <i>Master</i>.<br> +<span class="smcap">William Lewarn</span>, <i>Steward</i>.<br> +<span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson</span>, <i>Chief Officer</i>.<br> +<span class="smcap">J. H. Landells</span>, <i>Second Officer</i>.<br> +<span class="smcap">Owen Baker.</span></p> +</div> + +<p>“Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid, the +tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, +before T. S. Raffles, J. P. for Liverpool.”</p> + +<p>In <i>Nature</i> of February 10th., 1881, we read that “Captain +Drevar has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he +witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing +its long neck out of the water.”</p> + +<p>Evidently this circular was a letter addressed by Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>, +when in Chittagong (Bengal), to the Editor of the <i>Calcutta Englishman</i>, +in January, 1876. I have had no opportunity to consult +this paper, but I have found an extract from it in the <i>Graphic</i> of +January 27, 1877, and a partial translation of it in the <i>Illustrirte +<span class="pagenum" id="Page334">[334]</span>Zeitung</i> of Febr. 3, 1877. What I have found in the <i>Graphic</i> +runs as follows:</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig42"> +<img src="images/illo334.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 42.—Another representation of the so-called “Fight +between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”.</p> +</div> + +<p>“Captain <span class="smcap">George Drevar</span>, master of the barque <i>Pauline</i>, has +furnished us a sketch of the Sea-Serpent (from which the annexed +<a href="#Fig42">engraving</a> is taken), which he encountered off the coast of South +America. The occurrence took place on the 8th. July, 1875, at +eleven A. M., the <i>Pauline</i> being at that time off Cape San Roque, +lat. 5° 13′ N., long 35° W., the north-east coast of Brazil being +twenty miles distant. +Captain Drevar says:—The +weather fine +and clear, wind and +sea-moderate. Observed +some black spots on the +water, and a whitish +pillar, about thirty feet +high above them. At +the first glace I took +all to be breakers as +the sea was splashing +up fountain-like about them, and the pillar a pinnacle rock, +bleached with the sun; but the pillar fell with a splash, and a +similar one rose. They rose and fell alternately in quick succession, +and good glasses showed me it was a monstrous sea-serpent coiled +twice round a large sperm-whale. The head and tail parts, each +about thirty feet long were acting as levers, twisting itself and +victim round with great velocity. They sank out of sight about +every two minutes, coming to the surface still revolving; and the +struggles of the whale and two other whales, that were near, +frantic with excitement, made the sea in their vicinity like a +boiling cauldron; and a loud and confused noise was distinctly +heard. This strange occurrence last some fifteen minutes, and +finished with the tail portion of the whale being elevated straight +in the air, then waving backwards and forwards, and lashing the +water furiously in the last death struggle, when the body disappeared +from our view, going down head foremost to the bottom, +where no doubt it was gorged at the serpent’s leisure; and that +monster of monsters may have been many months in a state of +coma, digesting the huge mouthful. Then two of the largest sperm-whales +that I have ever seen moved slowly thence towards the +vessel, their bodies more than usually elevated out of water, and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page335">[335]</span>not spouting or making +the least noise, +but seeming quite paralized +with fear; indeed, +a cold shiver +went through my own +frame on beholding the +last agonizing struggle +of the poor whale that +had seemed as helpless +in the coils of the vicious +monster as a small bird in the talons of a hawk. Allowing +for two coils round the whale, I think the serpent was about 160 +or 170 feet long, and 7 or 8 feet in girth. It was in colour much +like a conger-eel; and the head, from the mouth being always +open, appeared the largest part of its body. I wrote thus far, little +thinking I would ever see the serpent again, but at seven A. M., +July 13, in the same latitude, and some eighty miles east of San +Roque I was astonished to see the same or a similar monster. It +was throwing its head and about 40 feet of its body in a horizontal +position out of water as it passed onwards by the stern of +our vessel.”</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig43"> +<img src="images/illo335.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 43.—The sperm-whale going down head foremost +to the bottom.—</p> +</div> + +<p>“This narrative is extracted from a letter addressed from Chittagong +to the editor of the <i>Calcutta Englishman</i> in January 1876. +It seems that Captain Drevar’s friends advised him to say nothing +about this strange spectacle. “My relatives wrote saying that they +would have seen a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it, +and a lady also wrote that she pitied any one that was related +to any one who had seen the sea-serpent.” On the 10th. of this +month Captain Drevar and four of the crew attended before Mr. +Raffles, the magistrate at Liverpool, and made a solemn declaration +in support of the foregoing narrative.”</p> + +<p>The two figures, <a href="#Fig42">42</a> and <a href="#Fig43">43</a>, are facsimiles of those accompanying +the account in the <i>Graphic</i>.</p> + +<p>I will try to translate again into English, what the <i>Illustrirte +Zeitung</i> has published about this curious case, taken for granted +that the German translation was correct, and laying all responsibility +on the German writer.</p> + +<p>“The Barque <i>Pauline</i> was on July 8th, 1875, about twenty +miles distant from the north-eastern coast of Brazil, in lat. 5° 13′ +S., long. 35° W., near Cape San Roque. At 11 o’clock a. m., +<span class="pagenum" id="Page336">[336]</span>the weather fine and clear”....... etc., word for word as in the +<i>Graphic</i> up to the passage....... “head foremost to the bottom, +where no doubt it was gorged at the serpent’s leisure”.</p> + +<p>“As the serpent was twice wound round the body of the whale, +Captain Drevar estimated its length to be 160 or 170 feet; it +was about seven or eight in girth. The mouth was always open; +the head was very large.”</p> + +<p>“On the 13th. of July at 7 o’clock a. m. the barque was still +in the same latitude, but about eighty miles from San Roque; +then the same or a similar monster raised out of the water. Its +head and about forty feet of its body were thrown horizontally out +of the water and passed our stern.”</p> + +<p>“As I was still reflecting on the cause, why this strange guest +so often paid us a visit, and concluded that it was the white +stripe of two feet breadth, which went round our ship above the +copper work and which the serpent probably thought to be one +of its colleagues, the cry of “There he is again” roused me. At a +short distance from the ship I really saw the Leviathan, balancing +about sixty feet high in the air, looking angrily at our vessel. As +I was not sure, whether it was only looking at the white stripe +on the ship’s hull, probably thinking to see one of its colleagues, +or whether it was preparing to attack the vessel, we kept ready +all our axes, to give it a warm reception. But the animal dived +and disappeared.”</p> + +<p>The German translater is convinced that the story contains +truth, but he suggests that the whale was playing with a large +tree or with a broken mast, “for it is known that whales like to +gambol with violent motions”. The author further presents to his +readers a reduced copy of the sketch of the Rev. Penny, (our <a href="#Fig41">fig. +41</a>).—</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, who usually explains every sea-serpent after each +report quoted by him, says, in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, p. +90, the following about these reports.</p> + +<p>“It is impossible to doubt for a moment the genuineness of the +statement made by Captain Drevar and his crew, or their honest +desire to describe faithfully that which they believed they had seen; +but the height to which the snake is said to have upreared itself +is evidently greatly exaggerated; for it is impossible that any serpent +could “elevate its body some sixty feet perpendicularly in the +air”—nearly one third of the height of the Monument of the +Great Fire of London. I have no desire to force this narrative of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page337">[337]</span>the master and crew of the <i>Pauline</i> into conformity with any preconceived +idea. They may have seen a veritable sea-serpent; or +they may have witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen +the great creatures rolling over and over that they might breathe +alternately by the blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the +water; or the supposed coils of the snake may have been the arms +of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean. The +other two appearances—1st., the animal “seen shooting itself +along the surface with head and neck raised”, and 2nd., the elevation +of the body to a considerable height, as in Egede’s sea monster, +would certainly accord with this last hypothesis; but taking +the statement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation”.</p> + +<p>It is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> who generally explains sea-serpents +by calamaries, cannot give an explanation of <i>this</i> sea-serpent, with +which he himself is satisfied. “They may have seen a veritable sea-serpent”. +This phrase is very surprising, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has not yet +explained what <i>is</i> a veritable sea-serpent. Or did he mean a veritable +sea-snake? This is improbable, for he knows very well that +the largest snake which frequents the sea, the <i>Eunectes murina</i>, +does not measure above 25 feet, so that it is not able to encircle +a spermwhale, whose circumference is about forty feet. “Or they +may have witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen the +great creatures rolling over and over that they might breathe alternately +by the blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the water”. +This phrase, however, does not give any explanation of the long +neck, the tail, the mouth being constantly open, the thick coils, +which were coloured longitudinally, partly black, partly white, so +that the captain spoke of a black back and a white belly!” “Or +the supposed coils of the snake may have been the arms of a great +calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean.” This too is +impossible, for the circumference of the serpent was estimated at +seven or eight feet, and no arm of a calamary has a greater +circumference than about sixteen inches, even that of the largest +known specimens, which have a total length of eighty feet! For +a moment I will leave Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his supposition that the animal, +seen on the 13th. of July, was a swimming calamary or a similar +individual standing upright with its tail in the air, and pass to his +last phrase: “but, taking the statement as it stands, it must be +left for further elucidation”. This, now, I will try to do. But first +I beg the reader to direct his attention to the sperm-whales.</p> + +<p>The sperm-whales may attain a length of 60 to 70 feet, with a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page338">[338]</span>circumference of 40 feet at the thickest part. The females are smaller, +growing from 30 to 40 feet. It is reported that sometimes, though +very seldom, a male measures 90 feet. The head occupies the third +part of the body-length, in mass, however, it is larger, for it is +quadrangular in shape and in front just as thick and high as behind, +whilst the bulky body tapers to the tail. The mouth lies wholly +on the under side of the head. It is a terrible cavity when opened +and may be up to fourteen feet in depth. The upper-jaw is toothless, +but the under-jaw has from forty to fifty four formidable +teeth, comparatively as sharp as the canines of a dog.</p> + +<p>The sperm-whales live in troops, numbering from a very few to +some hundreds, and containing many females and young ones, +under the command of some old males. The young males remain +in this family till they are strong enough to command their own +family. Some old males wander about solitary, wild and angry. +To become the sole proprietor of some females, these males fight +each other vehemently, and indescribably grand is the sight of two +troops meeting! The wild and warlike nature and the untamable +muscular strength of the sperm-whale makes its presence even dangerous. +The greatest hatred exists between them and the whale-bone-whales, +or the fin-fishes, or rorquals, and when a shoal of +sperm-whales meets with a shoal of whale-bone-whales, the latter +are immediately attacked with the greatest fury and cruelty. The +fight between two such squadrons is terrible, but grand, and commonly +ends in the flight of the whale-bone-whales, pursued by the +sperm-whales, not, however, without leaving many dead and terribly +wounded companions, on which the frightful effects are visible +of the bites of the sperm-whales, animals that might be called +“mouth and teeth”.</p> + +<p>Knowing the wild and angry nature of the warlike and pitiless +sperm-whale, and the rather harmless character of the sea-serpent, +we cannot believe that a sea-serpent has ever or will ever attack +such a formidable antagonist. Every one will rather believe that a +sperm-whale, when meeting with a sea-serpent, would suddenly +attack it. Moreover, if the sea-serpent was the attacker, it would +not have had “its mouth always open”,—an unfailable sign of +great pain—but would have bitten repeatedly the whale! And so +I firmly believe that one of the three spermwhales, had seized +with its colossal mouth a sea-serpent by the trunk. The poor defenseless +sea-serpent with its enormous flexible body wound round +the upper jaw and forepart of the quadrangular head of the sperm-whale. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page339">[339]</span>We know that the sea-serpent has a rather dorso-ventral +flexibility, for it can swim in vertical undulations, but we know +too that its lateral flexibility is astonishing. I refer to the American +reports from 1817 to 1819, wherein the animal in turning bent +its body in the form of a staple, so that its head nearly touched +its tail, and to the figures of Dr. <span class="smcap">Biccard</span> (<a href="#Fig37">fig. 37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">38</a>.).</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent, seized by the sperm-whale by the trunk, did +not bend itself dorsally round the spermwhale’s head, for if this +had been the case, the captain would have seen the underpart of +the animal and described its colour as being white. It did not +bend itself ventrally, for if this had happened, the colour would +have been described as dark, or black. On the contrary the coils +are described as longitudinally divided into two sections white and +black. Consequently the sea-serpent had bent itself laterally. Captain +<span class="smcap">Drevar</span> was right in his statement that the colour of the +belly (under part) was white, and that the back (upper part) of +the animal was black.</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent in its violent pain raised its long neck high in +the air and extended its jaws; it is even probable that it uttered +a roaring sound or shriek, this is not mentioned; it may have +been drowned by the dreadful noise caused by the fight of these +two huge monsters, for we may suppose that the sea-serpent was +not destitute of muscular strength, and must have been a formidable +antagonist. Though it is not mentioned, I am convinced +that the “two turns” of the sea-serpent were not always wound +closely round the whale, but from time to time were loosened to +be tightened again a moment afterwards. Nor do I set great value +on the repeated assertion that there were <i>two</i> turns; it is impossible +that this has always been seen clearly through such a “boiling +of the water like a cauldron”. The dimensions of the head and +tail part being each about thirty feet beyond the coils are certainly +not exaggerated, as is the circumference or girth “about eight or +nine feet”. The sea-serpent in its agony evidently paddled with its +formidable flappers, which caused the water to be thrown like a +fountain into the air. They therefore cannot have been visible with +the glasses. The rolling over and over is, in my opinion, very +natural in animals of such dimension, fighting in the water, and +cannot be a result of the serpent “using its extremities as levers”. +And so they were rolling for about fifteen(?) minutes and at last +the spermwhale (and not the sea-serpent) dragged its victim down +to the depths, head foremost. It is a habit of spermwhales, which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page340">[340]</span>is to be ascribed to their attachment to members of their family +and to their warlike character and hatred of their enemies, to +help each other in danger, and so the captain’s statement is +quite correct: “the two others attempted to release their companion” +and after the disappearance of the combatants “swam away, +exhibiting signs of the greatest terror”; here we may safely read +“fury”, probably they followed on the surface their companion which +was beneath it, perceptible to them, but invisible to the spectators +of the <i>Pauline</i>.</p> + +<p>It is, however, more probable that the sea-serpent, feeling itself +free for a moment, suddenly escaped, dived and was followed by +the sperm-whale.</p> + +<p>It is now the right moment to say some words about the figures. +I will be short, only observing that they are not worth our attention. +The sketches were evidently drawn in October and December, +consequently more than three and five months after the encounter. +It is impossible that they can give an exact representation.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> is of another +opinion than I, as to the fight; for he declares: “..... to my +mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of +the <i>Pauline</i> must be founded on the idea that the animals observed +by them were gigantic snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking +the whales, evidently point to a close correspondence with those +of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons”. +The reader will understand that I do not wish to contest Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson’s</span> +opinion.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report145"><span class="reportnr"><b>145</b></span>.—1875, July 13.—Now we come to the second statement +of the same report, viz. the encounter with the animal on +the 13th. of July.</p> + +<p>On that day another or the same individual was seen again shooting +itself along the surface horizontally, forty feet of its body +being out of the water at a time. Consequently the animal swam +with its body in a straight line, and not with vertical undulations. +Again on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body +standing quite perpendicular some sixty feet in the air, and evidently +taking a survey towards the vessel. This case is nearly the +same as that which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> witnessed in 1734 near Gothaab. As it +is often reported that whales and sperm-whales, when coming from +the depths, do so with such an astonishing force and rapidity that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page341">[341]</span>they leap clear out of the water, I am convinced that the sea-serpent +sometimes elevates its fore part to a considerable height as was +seen by <span class="smcap">Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup> 5</a>), +Captain <span class="smcap">Adams</span> (<a href="#Report121">n<sup>o</sup> 121</a>) and Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>. +If the height of the sea-serpent rising in the air was really sixty +feet, Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span> must have seen the animal’s fore-flappers, +though he did not mention them. Else I think that he exaggerated, +that the height did not surpass forty feet and that the flappers +remained under water. See also <a href="#Report31">N<sup>o</sup> 31</a>.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report146"><span class="reportnr"><b>146</b></span>.—1876, September 11.—In the number of the 15th. +of January, 1877, of the <i>Echo</i> appeared an article by Mr. R. A. +<span class="smcap">Proctor</span> entitled “Strange Sea-Monsters”, wherein he quotes the +following report. I have not been able to consult the <i>Echo</i>, but I +have found it cited in Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>. Here +no date, except that of September 11th., is given, but as the report +appeared in the January number of 1877 of the <i>Echo</i>, I conclude +that the appearance took place in September of 1876.</p> + +<p>“Soon after the British steamship <i>Nestor</i> anchored at Shanghai, +last October, John K. Webster, the captain, and James Anderson, +the ship’s surgeon, appeared before Mr. Donald Spence, Acting Law +Secretary in the British Supreme Court, and made affidavit to the +following effect:</p> + +<p>“On September 11, at 10.30 a. m., fifteen miles north-west of +North Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straights, the weather +being fine and the sea smooth, the captain saw an object which +had been pointed out by the third officer as “a shoal!” Surprised +at finding a shoal in such a well-known track, I watched the +object, and found that it was in motion, keeping up the same +speed with the ship, and retaining about the same distance as +first seen. The shape of the creature I would compare to that of a +gigantic frog. The head, of a pale yellowish colour, was about +twenty feet in length, and six feet of the crown were above the +water. I tried in vain to make out the eyes and mouth; the mouth +may, however, have been below water. The head was immediately +connected with the body, without any indication of a neck. The +body was about forty-five or fifty feet long, and of an oval shape, +perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along +the spine. The back rose some five feet above the surface. An immense +tail, fully one hundred and fifty feet in length, rose a few +inches above the water. This tail I saw distinctly from its junction +<span class="pagenum" id="Page342">[342]</span>with the body to its extremity; it seemed cylindrical, with a very +slight taper, and I estimate its diameter at four feet. The body +and tail were marked with alternate bands of stripes, black and +pale yellow in colour. The stripes were distinct to the very extremity +of the tail. I cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin +or not. The creature possessed no fins or paddles so far as we could +perceive. I cannot say if it had legs. It appeared to progress by +means of an undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that +is, up and down).</p> + +<p>“Mr. Anderson, the surgeon, confirmed the captain’s account in +all essential respects. He regarded the creature as an enormous +marine salamander. “It was apparently of a gelatinous (that is, +flabby) substance. Though keeping up with us, at the rate of +nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic. I saw +no legs or fins, and am certain that the creature did not blow or +spout in the manner of a whale. I should not compare it for a +moment to a snake. The only creatures it could be compared with +are the newt or frog tribe.””</p> + +<p>As the captain asserts that the animal kept up the same speed +as the ship, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> that “though keeping up with us, +at the rate of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed +lethargic”, we must conclude that the animal moved by paddling +with its flappers, and that with this simple mechanism it is able +to propel itself at a rate of ten knots an hour, steadily and uniformly. +The tail of the animal, which trailed inactively behind the +trunk, must of course have been brought in motion by the action +of the water, so that it is easy to understand that the captain +thought that “it appeared to progress by means of an undulatory +motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down)”. It +is also very natural that the captain declared that “the creature +possessed no fins or paddles as far as we could perceive. I cannot +say if it had legs”, and that the surgeon <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> confirmed it: +“I saw no fins”; the flappers of the animal being entirely hidden +under water.—The captain says: “The shape of the creature I +would compare to that of a gigantic frog”. According to his description, +however, the shape might have been better compared +with that of a gigantic newt. This is done by Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, as we +have seen above, who says at the end of his statement, “the only +creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe”; +he “should not compare it for a moment to a snake”. This is one +of the few reports of the animal having been observed swimming +<span class="pagenum" id="Page343">[343]</span>in full length on the surface of the water. This I think very comprehensible. +Generally the animal is swimming with the head and +a part of the neck raised some feet out of the water, and in this +case the trunk and the tail must carry their weight, so that the +trunk will be visible only a few inches above the water, and the +tail hidden for a greater part under it. But as soon as the animal +drops its neck and head so that only the upper part of both +remain above the surface, their weight is carried by the water +itself, and body and tail will become more visible, lying almost +<i>à fleur d’eau</i> (to use Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae’s</span> term). I firmly believe +that this is also one of the few occasions that the animal swam +with its neck contracted. In this situation it is very difficult to +decide whether the animal has a neck or not, and so the captain’s +assertion “the head was immediately connected with the body, +without any indication of a neck” is very conceivable. From the +hind part of the head the contracted neck gradually grows thicker +towards the shoulders, where the animal seems to have its largest +diameter, and from here it tapers towards the hind flappers, so +that seen from the ship, both neck and body, being visible only +a few feet above the surface, must have given rise to the description +of the captain “the body was of an oval shape”. Again the +position was very favourable to observe the exact place where the +tail begins, and that the animal has there its pelvis and hind +flappers, so that, being there broader than at the tail-root, +the captain observed “this tail I saw distinctly from its junction +with the body to its extremity”. The colour of the head being +described as a pale yellowish one, and that of the body and the +tail alternately black and pale yellow, I conclude that the animal +having swum for some time in this manner, had been partly dried +up in the sun, while “catspaws” washing over it again coloured +it black here and there. As to its length I am inclined to +believe that Mr. Webster is mistaken. I cannot admit that “the +head was twenty feet, and six feet of the crown were above the +water”, nor can I set much value upon his assertion that the tail +was “fully one hundred and fifty feet in length”. I willingly admit +that the head measured eight or nine feet, and the tail about one +hundred feet. As the animal swam just at the surface it is clear +to me that no mouth was visible, and I think that even the nose +tip will only have been a few inches above the water. As no eyes +were seen, the distance must have been rather great; but this is +not mentioned. The body was perfectly smooth, but there may +<span class="pagenum" id="Page344">[344]</span>have been a slight ridge along the spine. Probably this was the +mane, not quite discernable on account of the distance. The tail +is described as cylindrical, tapering to its end, and estimated at +four feet in diameter (at its junction, evidently).—It is clear that +the extreme end of the tail was under water, for Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> +“cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin or not”. As to +the supposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> that the animal was “apparently +of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance”, I cannot attach much +importance to this, as it is impossible to decide this of an animal +swimming at some distance, even of a calamary. The body was +smooth, and that’s all. That the creature did not blow or spout +like a whale, is very natural, as there was evidently no reason +for doing so, the nose being constantly above the surface, and +the animal swimming without diving from time to time. A whale, +sleeping on the surface, does not spout either, as in that case +the spout-holes are above the surface, and the breathing is regular +and without puffing. So I think I have shown that all the parts +of the statement are correct, except the estimated length.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> relying upon the statement of Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, +adds in a note:</p> + +<p>“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature +mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner +of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond +with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be +the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as +it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing +“funnel”.”</p> + +<p>My objections against this supposition are first, that, as I have +already stated above, it is impossible to decide whether an animal +is gelatinous or flabby, until we have touched and handled it, and +secondly, that the manner of swimming of a calamary is not so as +Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> believes; for the enormous arms of such a creature +are not trailing behind the body, when it is swimming backwards, +but are coiled up and retracted into two peculiar arm pockets; +and thirdly, that the colour of a calamary does not correspond +with the colour stated in the report, but is a very light grey one, +mixed with red or crimson, intermixed with purple.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In the number of February 3d, 1877 of the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page345">[345]</span>an article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange” appeared, written +by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>, +which appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January +of that year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superficially +treats of several already known accounts and reports of sea-serpents +viz: our <a href="#Report144">n<sup>os</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>, and <a href="#Report5">5</a>, the tales of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, +the animal of Stronsa (<a href="#Page61">p. 61-88</a>), the appearances quoted by the +Boston Linnaean Society (1817), our <a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>, the hoax of the +<a href="#Ref5"><i>Daphne</i></a> (1848, Oct. 21), our <a href="#Report129">n<sup>os</sup>. 129</a> and +<a href="#Report130">130</a>, the <a href="#Ref6">cheat</a> of Dr. +<span class="smcap">Koch</span> (1845), and the true sea-snakes (<i>Hydrophidae</i>). In two of his +assertions this anonymous author is incorrect, viz. It was not Captain +<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> who asserted that the animal’s mouth was large +enough to admit of a tall man standing upright in it, but an +anonymous contributor to the <i>Times</i>; Mr. <span class="smcap">Henderson</span> was master +of the ship <i>Mary Ann</i>, and not of the <i>Daphne</i>; the master of +this ship was called <span class="smcap">Trelawney</span>. I consider these four names as +Active (see my <a href="#Page12">Chapter on hoaxes</a> <a href="#Page34">p. 34</a>.)</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report147"><span class="reportnr"><b>147</b></span>.—1877, May 21.—In Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure +Time Studies</i> we read in a note (p. 111):</p> + +<p>“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas +is afforded by the report of the master of the barque <i>Georgina</i> +from Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September +4, 1877) put into Falmouth for orders on the 1st. September. On +May 21, 1877, in latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53′ E., a +large serpent about forty or fifty feet long, grey and yellow in +colour, and ten or eleven inches thick, was seen by the crew. It +was visible for twenty minutes, during which time it crossed the +bow, and ultimately disappeared under the port-quarter.”</p> + +<p>The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the animal. +The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me conclude +that the animal had swum for a long time with its body in +a straight line, without diving and that the part, exposed to the +sunbeams, had dried up.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> adds: “There can be little doubt that +this sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I’ll +not contest his opinion.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report148"><span class="reportnr"><b>148</b></span>.—1877, June 2.—Not less important than others +<span class="pagenum" id="Page346">[346]</span>is the report of the <i>Osborne</i>. In Mr. <b>Lee’s</b> <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> +we read p. 93 the following about this occurrence:</p> + +<p>“In June, 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty +that on the 2nd. of that month, he and other officers of the Royal +Yacht <i>Osborne</i>, had seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine +animal, of which the following account and sketches were furnished +by Lieutenant Haynes, and were confirmed by Commander Pearson, +Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth, and Mr. Moore, engineer.”</p> + +<p>“Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, “Royal Yacht <i>Osborne</i>, +Gibraltar, June 6”: On the evening of that day, the sea being +perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge +of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet, +and varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by +means of a telescope, at about one and a-half cables’ distance, I +distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an +animal’s shoulder. The head, as nearly as I could judge, was about +six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four to five feet, the +shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers each about fifteen +feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of +a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance +being strongest about the back of the head. I could not see the +length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the +shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty +feet. The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the +ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and which +had disappeared by the time I got a telescope, were really the +continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body. The +animal’s head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards, +remaining above for a few seconds at a time, and then +disappearing; there was an entire absence of “blowing” or “spouting”. +I herewith beg to enclose a rough <a href="#Fig44">sketch</a>, showing the view +of the “ridge of fins”, and also of the animal in the act of propelling +itself by its two fins.”</p> + +<p>Evidently Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has not communicated the whole account as +it was in the original periodical, nor did he mention the name of +the periodical.</p> + +<p>The <i>Times</i> of June 14th., 1877 mentions:</p> + +<p>“The <i>Osborne</i>, 2, paddle royal yacht, Commander Hugh L. +Pearson, which arrived at Portsmouth from the Mediterranean on +Monday, and at once proceeded to her moorings in the harbour, +has forwarded an official report to the Admiralty, through the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page347">[347]</span>commander-in-chief (Admiral Sir George Elliot, K. C. B.), respecting +a sea-monster which she encountered during her homeward +voyage. At about five o’clock in the afternoon of the 2nd. instant, +the sea being exceptionally calm, while the yacht was proceeding +round the north coast of Sicily towards Cape Vito, the officer on +the watch observed a long ridge of fins, each about six feet long, +moving slowly along. He called for a telescope, and was at once +joined by other officers. The <i>Osborne</i> was steaming westward at +ten and a half knots an hour, and, having a long passage before +her, could not stay to make minute observations. The fins were +progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more +nearly approached them, they were replaced by the foremost part +of a gigantic sea-monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen, +altogether devoid of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness +that of a seal. The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination, +being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and +was about six feet in diameter. Its features were only seen by one +officer, who described them as like those of an alligator. The neck +was comparatively narrow, but so much of the body as could be +seen, developed in form like that of gigantic turtle, and from each +side extended two fins, about fifteen feet in length, by which the +monster paddled itself along after the fashion of a turtle. The appearance +of the monster is accounted for by a submarine volcano, +which occurred north of Galita, in the Gulf of Tunis, about the +middle of May, and was reported at the time by a steamer which +was struck by a detached fragment of submarine rock. The disturbance +below water, it is thought probable, may have driven up +the monster from its “native element”, as the site of the eruption +is only one hundred miles from where it was reported to have +been seen”.</p> + +<p>The <i>Graphic</i> of June 16, 1877, tells us p. 563, 3d. column:</p> + +<p>“The Sea-Serpent has once more made his appearance, and this +time the officers of the Royal Yacht <i>Osborne</i> are the witnesses to +his existence. The Commander, says the <i>Portsmouth Times and +Navel Gazette</i>, has sent an official report to the Admiralty, stating +that on the 2nd. inst. a curious creature was seen off the coast of +Sicily in a smooth sea. The serpent was “of immense length, with +a smooth scaleless skin, and a ridge of fins, 15 feet in length, +and 6 ft. apart along the back, a bullet-shaped head, and a face +like an alligator. It moved slowly, and was distinctly seen by all +the officers.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page348">[348]</span></p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig44"> +<img src="images/illo348.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 44.—The ridge of fins mentioned in the report of the <i>Osborne</i>.</p> +</div> + +<p>The same Journal of the 30th. of June publishes the following +account and sketch by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>:</p> + +<p>“We are indebted to Lieut. W. P. Haynes, of H. M. S. <i>Osborne</i>, +for the sketch of the sea-monster seen by the officers and crew of +that vessel off the north coast of Sicily on the 2nd. inst. In a +letter accompanying the sketch, he says:—“My attention was +first called by seeing a long row of fins appearing above the surface +of the water at a distance of about 200 yards and “away on our +beam”. They were of irregular heights, and extending about 30 +or 40 feet in line (the former number is the length I gave, the +latter the other officers), in a few seconds they disappeared, giving +place to the foremost part of the monster. By this time it had +passed astern, swimming in an opposite direction to that we were +steering, and as we were passing through the water at 10¹⁄₂ knots, +I could only get a view of it, “and on”, which I have shown in +the <a href="#Fig45">sketch</a>. The head was bullet-shaped, and quite six feet thick, +the neck narrow and its head was occasionally thrown back out +<span class="pagenum" id="Page349">[349]</span>of the water, remaining there for a few seconds at a time. It was +very broad across the back or shoulders, about 15 or 20 feet, and +the flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion, which +seemed to paddle the monster along. They were about 15 feet in +length. From the top of the head to the part of the back where +it became immersed, I should consider 50 feet, and that seemed +about a third of the whole length. All this part was smooth, +resembling a seal. I cannot account for the fins, unless they were +on the back below, where it was immersed.”</p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig45"> +<img src="images/illo349.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 45.—The sea-serpent as seen by Commander <span class="smcap">Pearson</span> and Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> of the <i>Osborne</i>.</p> +</div> + +<p>According to Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> a Mr. <span class="smcap">Frank Buckland</span> has suggested +(where? this is not mentioned) that “the ridge of dorsal +fins might, possibly, belong to four basking sharks, swimming in +line, in close order.” Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> himself seems to be of this opinion +too. As to me, I don’t believe it, for the simple reason that the +basking sharks only live in the Arctic Sea, and are never observed +farther south than the coasts of Great-Britain and of Massachusetts. +So Mr. <span class="smcap">Frank Buckland’s</span> whole supposition falls to the ground. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page350">[350]</span>At all events the fins have nothing to do with the sea-serpent. +This is also the opinion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, who asserts: “The combination +of them with long flippers, and the turtle-like mode of swimming, +forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”</p> + +<p>We will first speak of the account Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> wrote on +the 6th. of June, when at Gibraltar. The sea was perfectly smooth, +and he saw the ridge of fins. He took his glasses and instead of +fins he distinctly saw something quite different. In the short time +that he fixed his glasses, the ridge of fins had no doubt disappeared, +and the huge animal emerged. The owners of the fins +were evidently frightened at the approach of the sea-serpent. Lieut. +<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> “distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty +feet of an animal’s shoulder”. We may safely add: and a long +neck connecting this head with the shoulder, and we may safely +read for shoulder: a part of its back. The head was about six +feet thick, the neck narrower, about four or five feet; consequently +the animal had stretched its neck as forward as possible. The back, +on the level of the flappers, was about fifteen feet broad, “and +the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of +the flappers were those of a turtle.” I should like to say: were +those of a sea-lion, for a sea-turtle cannot possibly elevate its +flappers so high above the surface of the water, while sea-lions +are able to do so. Moreover the fashion is the same, that is to +say, the paddling happens alternately, i. e. when the right flapper +is brought as forward as possible to commence the act of paddling, +the left one is kept as backward as possible, nearly touching the +trunk, having just brought the act of paddling to an end. “The +animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest +about the back of the head.” This is in my opinion the most +remarkable statement of this report. We have more than once met +with the comparison of the head or face of the animal with that +of a seal, but Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> clearly states the <i>animal</i> (seen +from behind) resembled a seal. “I could not see the length of the +head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where +it became immersed) I should reckon about fifty feet.” Going by +known descriptions and figures, we may suppose that the length +of the head may have been between eight and nine feet. When +from the top of the head to just below the shoulder the length is +estimated at about fifty feet, I reckon that the neck of the animal +must have been one of forty feet, reckoning two feet from the +top of the head to the occiput, and eight feet from the flappers +<span class="pagenum" id="Page351">[351]</span>to where the animal became immersed, i. e. the visible part of +its back. The estimated measurements of the individual of captain +<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) were: length of the head about three feet, +breadth about two feet; diameter of neck below the head about +one foot and a third; length of the neck to the fore-flappers about +twenty feet; length of the trunk from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers +about twenty feet, length of the tail about forty feet, +length of the whole animal between eighty and ninety feet. Let us now +repeat those of the individual of the <i>Osborne</i>, which seems to be +about <i>three times</i> larger. The breadth of the head is about six +feet, consequently the length of the head about nine feet; the +diameter of the neck below the head about four or five feet, say +four feet, i. e. <i>three times</i> one foot and a third; the distance from +the occiput to the flappers—forty feet, according to my calculation +given above but,—comparing the dimensions of the individual of +Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> with the present, I don’t hesitate a moment to +put down sixty feet for the distance from the head to the fore-flappers. +The officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> were in a more favourable +situation to estimate this distance, the distance from the fore-flappers +to the hind-flappers and the whole length of the animal +they saw,—than Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>; for the former saw the +animal from aside, whilst the latter beheld it from behind, and +was consequently in a bad situation to estimate the different +lengths of the animal, but in a more favourable to estimate its +different breadths. The length of the neck must really have been +formidable, for though the animal (see drawing) showed hardly +any neck at all, (resembling an enormous ball just visible above +the surface of the water, with another smaller bullet on its top,) +Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> estimated the distance from the top of the +head to the part of its back, where it became immersed, at fifty +feet! The remaining part of the back and the animal’s tail and +hind-flappers were entirely invisible. I have already expressed my +firm conviction that the ridge of fins has nothing at all to do +with the animal. It is evident that Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> himself +had his doubts about this point, for else he would not have +written: “unless the ridge of fins....... were really the continuation +of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body”. Evidently +the animal elevated its head from time to time some feet into the +air to take a survey before it. Evidently it never dropped its head +so as to come with its nostrils below water, for “there was an +entire absence of blowing or spouting”.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page352">[352]</span></p> + +<p>In the account of the <i>Times</i> only the following sentences are +interesting. The ridge of fins moved <i>slowly</i> along. They were <i>replaced</i> +by the foremost part of a sea-serpent. In my opinion this +statement is very correct. Its skin was altogether devoid of scales, +appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. This is a +remarkable statement, for in the foregoing account the animal is +said to resemble a huge seal! Again: the head was bullet-shaped +(seen from behind) with an elongated termination (read snout) being +somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six +feet in diameter. The assertion of one of the officers who saw the +animal’s features and described them as like those of an alligator, +cannot surprise us, as this comparison has been made more than +once. As much of the body as could be seen was developed in +form like that of a gigantic turtle. Evidently this reporter did not +observe that the head and trunk were connected by a long neck, +as did Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>. I cannot approve of the supposition +that the animal would have been started by the volcanic disturbance, +which took place a hundred miles more southward and a +fortnight ago!!</p> + +<p>The rough account of the <i>Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette</i> +partly reprinted in the <i>Graphic</i>, is as the reader will already have +observed himself, for the greater part, wrong: the fins of the ridge +were estimated to be from five to six feet high, and not 15 feet +in length. They were never seen along the back. Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Haynes</span> clearly doubted of it, and I believe that nobody of my +readers will admit the possibility of such a position! It was the +ridge of fins that moved slowly, and not the animal. Though it +is not expressed <i>in words</i>, the figure shows us that the sea-serpent +moved with the greatest velocity, paddling so violently, that it +lifted up its flappers as high as possible.</p> + +<p>In the letter which Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> forwarded to the Editor +of the Graphic, we read that the animal passed the stern, swimming +in an opposite direction to that they were steering to; consequently +the animal could have been seen for a few seconds only +from aside, and then only from behind. Most probably in passing +the yacht, the animal turned its face once towards it, for we read +in the <i>Times</i> of 14th. June: “its features were seen only by one +officer.” The breadth of the back is now stated to be about 15 +or 20 feet. “The flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion,” +which is indeed a nearly exact expression for this motion. The length +of 50 feet is now considered by the gallant officer to seem to be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page353">[353]</span>about a third of the whole length. The reason of this estimation +is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the water behind +the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe that this +individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again, the +Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could +have been the ridge of fins! No wonder!</p> + +<p>Of the second sketch (<a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>) I will only say that it is partly +wrong; for only <i>one</i> flapper must have been visible <i>at one time</i>, +though it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rapidity +that it <i>seemed</i> as if the two flappers were visible together. +And when seen from aside in this position it would appear that +the animal had more than two flappers, had a row of them, as +is shown in our <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>.—It is also clear that the severe splashing +and foaming of the water, which <i>must</i> have been caused by the +movements of the flappers, is omitted in the figure.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> notes that +the details furnished in the account of the <i>Times</i> appear to be +explicable by a tape-fish (<i>Gymnetrus</i> or <i>Regalecus</i>). I need not say +that I am not at all at one with him. There is not one simple +character either in the ridge of fins, or in the animal described, +which agrees in the least with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape-fishes +are deep-sea fishes, and only rise to the surface, dying or dead!</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood</span>, <span class="smcap">Jun’s</span> comparison of the animal with +a manatee (<i>Nature</i>, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but +the length of the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimensions +of both animals differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous +to dwell any longer on it.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In January 1879, Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> published his <i>Leisure +Time Studies</i>, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth +chapter is entitled “The sea-serpents of Science”. As might be +expected the author treats of the various explanations of the sea-serpent +given by men of science as well as by others, and declares +himself to be a firm believer of the fact that large unknown animals +exist. I wish to quote here the most interesting parts, or +better said, those parts which are, at present, of great interest. +In considering the authenticity of the reports and the admission +that really “something” must have been seen, the author says:</p> + +<p>“Can we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated during +<span class="pagenum" id="Page354">[354]</span>past years, dismiss the subject <i>simpliciter</i>, as founded on no +basis of fact? The answer to such a question must be an emphatic +negative; since the evidence brought before our notice includes the +testimony of several hundreds of sane and reasonable persons, who +in frequent cases have testified on oath and by affidavit to the +truth of their descriptions of curious marine forms, seen and observed +in various seas. The second supposition, that all of these +persons have simply been deceived, is one which must also be +dismissed. For, after making all due allowance for exaggeration, +and for variations in accounts arising from different modes of expression +and even from mental peculiarities in the witnesses, there +remains a solid body of testimony, which, unless there is some +special tendency to mendacity on the part of persons who travel +by sea, we are bound, by all the rules of fair criticism and of +evidence, to receive as testimony of honest kind. As I have elsewhere +observed: There are very many calmly and circumstantially +related and duly verified accounts of serpentine, or at any rate, +of anomalous marine forms, having been closely inspected by the +crew and passengers of vessels. Either, therefore, we must argue +that in every instance the senses of intelligent men and women +must have played them false, or we must simply assume that they +are describing what they have never seen. The accounts in many +instances so minutely describe the appearance of such forms, inspected +from a near standpoint, that the possibility of their being +mistaken for inanimate objects, as they might be if viewed from +a distance, is rendered entirely improbable. We may thus, then, +affirm firstly that there are many verified pieces of evidence on +record, of strange marine forms having been met with,—which +evidences, judged according to ordinary and common sense rules, +go to prove that certain hitherto undescribed marine organisms do +certainly exist in the sea-depths.”</p> + +<p>“The first issue I must therefore submit to the reader, as representing +one of a large and impartial jury, is, that the mass of +evidence accumulated on the sea-serpent question, when weighed +and tested, even in a <i>prima facie</i> manner, plainly shuts us up to +the belief that appearances, resembling those produced by the +presence in the sea of huge serpentine forms, have been frequently +noted by competent and trustworthy observers. Unless we are to +believe that men and women have deliberately prevaricated, and +that without the slightest excuse or show of reason, we must +believe that they have witnessed marine appearances, certainly of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page355">[355]</span>unwonted and unusual kind. That “something” has assuredly been +seen, must be the verdict on this first issue. What that “something” +is or was, and whether or not the evidence will support +the opinion that the appearances described bear out the existence +of a “sea-serpent” in the flesh, form points for discussion in the +next instance.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> mentions some pages further on a curious +case of fear of popular ridicule in telling that</p> + +<p>“one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had been seen +by his crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below; +since, to use his own words, “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, +I should have been considered to be a warranted liar all +my life after!”</p> + +<p>In examining whether that “something” was a dead or living +organism, Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> concludes that:</p> + +<p>“Numerous cases exist in which the object, presumed to be a +living being, has been scrutinized so closely that, save on the supposition +that senses have played their owners false, or that minds +have given way to an unaccountable impulse for lying, we must +face and own the belief that living animals have been seen.”</p> + +<p>He now speaks of a few accounts, viz. the various reports of +the animal seen by the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>), by the +crew of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>), and by the captain and the +surgeon of the <i>Nestor</i> (<a href="#Report146">n<sup>o</sup>. 146</a>), and explains them in his own +way, believing that these sea-serpents were gigantically developed +sea-snakes, or a great calamary. Next he treats of the appearance +of the animal as reported by the officers of the <i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>), +explaining it to be a tape-fish. Finally he defends his hypothesis of +gigantically developed sea-snakes and ribbon-fishes. These parts, +however, I have inserted in my <a href="#Page380">Chapter</a> on various explanations.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In a review of Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, +which I have found in <i>Nature</i> of the 30th. of January, 1879, +Vol. XIX, the following is written about the chapter on the sea-serpent:</p> + +<p>“The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting, both +as giving a very fair summary of the most recent evidence on this +subject, and as showing that the age of incredulity is past, and +that naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct +<span class="pagenum" id="Page356">[356]</span>kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist, of which no single +specimen has yet been obtained. Recollecting, however, the number +of clever hoaxes to which this subject has given rise we think +that the newspaper account at p. 104, of the declaration before a +Liverpool J. P., made by the master and crew of a merchant-ship, +to the effect that they had seen a huge serpent twice coiled round +a sperm-whale, and a similar serpent with its head raised “sixty +feet perpendicularly in the air,” should not have been inserted as +evidence without first ascertaining that such a declaration was actually +made before the magistrate named. The troubling of writing +a single letter would probably have been sufficient, and would +have settled the preliminary question of whether, from beginning +to end, it was not a newspaper <i>canard</i>.”</p> + +<p>I am convinced that, after having attentively read what they +find in this book about the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen +by the crew of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>) my readers will be +convinced that the report of Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span> was not a <i>canard</i>. +We read moreover in <i>Nature</i> of Febr. 10, 1881, that Captain +<span class="smcap">Drevar</span> has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he +witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing +its long neck out of the water. Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>, the writer of the article +in which this is communicated, adds: “This is satisfactory as +showing that the declaration was no hoax”. I quite agree with him.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig46"> +<img src="images/illo357.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 46.—The sea-serpent as seen by Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> of the +<i>City of Baltimore</i>.</p> +</div> + +<p id="Report149"><span class="reportnr"><b>149</b></span>.—1879, January 28.—The <i>Graphic</i> of April, 19, +1879, says:</p> + +<p>“The following is an extract from the account given by our +correspondent, Major H. W. J. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps, +to whom we are indebted for the sketch from which our <a href="#Fig46">engraving</a> +is taken:—“On the 28th. of January, 1879, at about 10 +a. m., I was on the poop deck of the steamship <i>City of Baltimore</i> +in lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E. I observed a long black object +abeam of the ship’s stern on the starboard side, at a distance of +about three-quarters of a mile, darting rapidly out of the water, +and splashing in again with a sound distinctly audible, and advancing +nearer and nearer at a rapid pace. In a minute it had +advanced to within half a mile, and was distinctly recognizable as +the veritable “sea-serpent”. I shouted out “Sea-serpent! sea-serpent! +call the captain!” Dr. C. Hall, the ship’s surgeon, who was reading +<span class="pagenum" id="Page357">[357]</span>on deck, jumped +up in time to +see the monster, +as did also Miss. +Greenfield, one of +the passengers on +board. By this time +it was only about +500 yards off, and +a little in the rear, +owing to the vessel +then steaming at +the rate of about +ten knots an hour +in a westerly direction. +On approaching +the wake +of the ship the +serpent turned its +course a little away, +and was soon lost +to view in the blaze +of sunlight reflected +on the waves +of the sea. So rapid +were its movements that when it approached the ship’s wake, I +seized a telescope, but could not catch a view as it darted rapidly +out of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus +prevented from ascertaining whether it had scales or not but the +best view of the monster obtainable when it was about three +cables’ length, that is about 500 yards’ distant, seemed to show +that it was without scales. I cannot, however, speak with certainty. +The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the +water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the monster +opened its jaws wide as it rose, and closed them again as it +lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost +immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible +at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the +disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice, although +occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head. +The shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon I +<span class="pagenum" id="Page358">[358]</span>have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the forehead and +eyebrow. When the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out +of the water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of +wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion +caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of +the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings.”</p> + +<p>“Major Senior’s statement is countersigned by the two persons +whom he mentions as co-witnesses, and he expresses his willingness +to answer any questions which may be put to him by any one +interested in the subject. His address while on furlough is Rosebank +Villa, Southfield Rode, Cotham, Bristol.”</p> + +<p>The appearance took place in the Gulf of Aden, as pointed out +by the latitude and longitude. The account here is very correct as +I now will try to show. The colour of the animal is called black +and the appearance of the skin was that it was without scales. +The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the +water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the animal +opened its jaws wide as it rose, evidently swallowing some fish, +captured under water in its pursuit of a shoal of them, and closed +them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, +reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The +body was not visible at all, and must have been some depth +under water, as the disturbance on the surface was too slight to +attract notice. This is very natural, as I have already pointed out +on a former occasion: if the head and neck are above the surface, +the remaining parts of the body must carry their weight and sink +a little below the surface. Not very much, however, for the +foreflappers, as well as the hindflappers, paddling very rapidly +caused a splash distinctly visible on the base of the neck (or on +the shoulders), and “occasionally a splash was seen at some distance +behind the head”. Examining the figure, which is very exact, we +may take it that the foremost splash was caused by the foreflappers, +about twenty-five feet in the rear of the head, the very same place +where the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) “occasionally saw a +fin”, and that about twenty-five feet more backward the hindmost +splash was caused by the hindflappers, the place, where Captain +<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) “occasionally saw another fin”. The animal +seen from the <i>Daedalus</i> seems to have been a little smaller than +that seen from the <i>City of Baltimore</i>. The comparison of the head +with a dragon’s is a little far-fetched. The animal furiously pursuing +its prey, sometimes opening its jaws, knitting its heavy eye-brows, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page359">[359]</span>which as we know are a little prominent, in short, expressing in +its features hurry and a wild longing for its prey, may under +these circumstances have had a feature terrible enough to cause +Mr. <span class="smcap">Senior’s</span> expression “the shape of the head was not unlike +pictures of the dragons I have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance +of the fore-head and eye-brow”. We have learned already that +on such occasions the animal curved its neck swan-like and diving +head foremost like a duck, disappeared. Here we have another +habit of pursuing: “when the monster had drawn its head sufficiently +out of water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log +of wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion +caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of +the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings”. This last might +have been fairly omitted as every one can imagine the splash of +water, caused by a log of wood falling into it. I think this comparison +also far-fetched: such a splash cannot be compared with +an object.</p> + +<p>Our <a href="#Fig46">figure</a> is taken from Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> often quoted work. It is +the middle third of the one which illustrated the text in the +<i>Graphic</i>, but as it is drawn on the same scale, I saw no reason +to give my readers the whole illustration of the <i>Graphic</i>.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report150"><span class="reportnr"><b>150</b></span>.—1879, March 30th.—<i>Nature</i> of the 24th. of July, +1879, contains the following of Surgeon <span class="smcap">Barnett</span>, respecting the +appearance of a sea-serpent near Cape Naturaliste in Australia.</p> + +<p>“In <i>Nature</i>, Vol. XIX, p. 286, I observed some remarks respecting +sea-serpents, and especially noted one passage which stated +that “The age of incredulity is past, and naturalists are now prepared +to admit that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters +probably exist.”</p> + +<p>“I was pleased to read this statement, as I have for many years +been convinced that some of the accounts published from time to +time in the newspapers are accurate descriptions of what has actually +been witnessed, but I little expected that I should so soon +be able to forward to you a description of one of these creatures, +as given by an eye-witness, of whose accuracy there can be no +question, and whose observations were made when very close to +the animal.”</p> + +<p>“Busselton is a little seaport about 150 miles south of Fremantle, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page360">[360]</span>on the west coast of Australia, situated on the shore of Geographe +Bay, which is sheltered by Cape Naturaliste; the northern point +of that singular projection on the south-west corner of Australia.”</p> + +<p>“During the greater part of the year the water of Geographe +Bay is as smooth as a lake, though it is a portion of that vast +Indian Ocean which extends unbrokenly to the African coast. The +beach is of smooth white sand, so hard at the water’s edge that +it is frequently used as a road for riding or driving from Busselton +to Lockville; the latter place, a few miles to the north, is the +station of the Ballarat Timber Company, containing their steam +saw mills, the termination of their railway, and the jetty from +which large quantities of that imperishable and valuable timber +called jarrah is exported to be used as piles, railway sleepers, etc.”</p> + +<p>“Last month I heard a report that the sea-serpent had been seen +near Busselton, and that the resident clergyman had been one of +the spectators. Having the pleasure of personal acquaintance with +that gentleman, I wrote to him on the subject, and received from +him such an interesting account, that I applied to him for permission +to communicate the facts to your paper, and verify them +by publishing his name. It is fortunate that the principal eye-witness +was an educated gentleman, who has for twenty seven +years been a Colonial chaplain in this colony, and whose description +of what he saw is clear, simple, and free from exaggeration.”</p> + +<p>“I copy from the letters of the Rev. H. W. Brown the following +extracts:—</p> + +<p>“On Sunday, March 30, I left Lockville just as the sun was +setting, on my way home by the beach”.</p> + +<p>“The afternoon had been oppressively hot, not a breath of wind, +and the sea was as smooth as a glass. I met C. M’Guire and his +wife walking towards Lockville.”</p> + +<p>“Soon afterwards, when abreast of the track to Richardson’s, I +noticed ahead of me what looked like a black log of wood in the +water a stone’s throw from the shore, nearly end-on to me, and +apparently more buoyant at that end; getting nearer, I noticed +that it was <i>drifting</i> apparently towards Lockville, and soon discovered +that it was moving, leaving behind it a very long, narrow +ridge on the smooth water. I then turned my horse’s head, and, +at a walking pace kept just abreast of it, unnoticed apparently, +till I had gained sufficiently on M’Guire to make him hear. I +then coo-eed <i>once</i>; he turned and came back to meet me; but at +the sound of my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight +<span class="pagenum" id="Page361">[361]</span>(under water), and doubled again in shore, but so rapidly as to +leave both outward and inward “ridge” on the water distinctly +visible at once, like a wide V with quite a sharp corner. It gave +me the idea of two fishes, the one darting outward, the other +crossing its track inward at the same moment.”</p> + +<p>“Not knowing where it might show up next, but satisfied that +it had come in-shore again, I tried by pointing seaward to direct +M’Guire’s attention that way”.</p> + +<p>“Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing +gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost +at rest, and all apparently was in view, I estimated the length to +be 60 feet, straight and taper, like a long spar, with the butt +end, his head and shoulders, showing well above the surface.”</p> + +<p>“I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff, +about two feet diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very +distinctly above water, several square-topped fins.”</p> + +<p>“I here make an exact tracing from Mr. Brown’s letter of his +sketch:—</p> + +<p>“It was now getting +rather too dark to see +details distinctly. The +fish proceeded toward +Lockville, and I turned +homeward. M’Guire said he would go on to Lockville jetty +and look out for him there.”</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig47"> +<img src="images/illo361.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 47.—Outline of the back of the sea-serpent as seen +by the Rev. <span class="smcap">H. W. Brown</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>“Whether he saw him again I know not, but M’Mullan, the +fisherman, told me next morning that he had seen it about fifty +yards from that jetty, and it looked to him about twenty feet +long. So it did to me while in motion; only when at rest for a +moment did its whole length show up sufficiently. What its propelling +power was I cannot say from observation; I saw no lateral +fins and no fish-tail.”</p> + +<p>“When it started away at the sound of my voice, it was with +the rapid movement of a pike or sword-fish, and yet the thick +bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake.”</p> + +<p>“There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore the same +afternoon, yet when I saw the stranger there were certainly no +fish of which it could be in pursuit.”</p> + +<p>“Since the year 1848, when the captain and officers of a British +man-of-war gave evidence that they passed within 100 yards of a +snake, which they estimated to be 60 feet in length above water, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page362">[362]</span>with probably 40 feet beneath, I do not know of any more clear +account than the above. Many independant accounts of the existence +of marine monsters have been placed on record, and it seems mere +folly to treat these repeated reports with ridicule.”</p> + +<p>“I trust that your readers will no longer doubt that the “age +of credulity” is past.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“H. C. Barnett.”</span></p> + +<p>“Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.” +<span class="righttext"><span class="padr2">“Colonial surgeon.”</span></span></p> + +<p>I need not tell my readers that the figure is very rude, and +only gives a very indistinct representation of four “bunches”, or +visible parts of vertical undulations, called “fins” in the narrative. +The blunt head, compared with the end of a log, the imperfect +description, and the so-called square appearance of the bunches +must be ascribed to the falling darkness. The other details of the +report: the swimming of the animal in bunches, its causing the +“ridges” in the water in the shape of a wide V, its holding its +head well above the surface, its length, its resemblance with a +spar, straight and taper, are in my opinion convincing enough to +call this “fish” a sea-serpent.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report151"><span class="reportnr"><b>151</b></span>.—1879, April 5.—In the <i>Graphic</i> of July, 19th., 1879, +and in <i>Nature</i> for November 18th., 1880, we find the following +statement:</p> + +<p>“The accompanying <a href="#Fig48">engraving</a> is a <i>fac-simile</i> of a sketch sent +to us by Captain Davison, of the steamship <i>Kiushiu-maru</i>, and is +inserted as a specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently +forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this journal. Capt. +Davison’s statement, which is countersigned by his chief officer, +Mr. McKechnie, is as follows:—Saturday, April 5th., at 11.15 +a. m. Cape Satano distant about nine miles, the chief officer and +myself observed a whale jump clear out of the sea, about a quarter +of a mile away. Shortly after it leaped out again, when I saw +there was something attached to it. Got glasses, and on the next +leap distinctly saw something holding on the belly of the whale. +The latter gave one more spring clear of the water, and myself +and chief then observed what appeared to be a large creature of +the snake species rear itself about thirty feet out of the water. It +appeared to be about the thickness of a junk’s mast and after +standing about ten seconds in an erect position, it descended into +<span class="pagenum" id="Page363">[363]</span>the water, the upper end going first. With my glasses I made out +the colour of the beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.”</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig48"><a id="Fig49"></a> +<img src="images/illo363.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 48 and 49.—Two positions of the sea-serpent as seen by Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span> of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i>.</p> +</div> + +<p>It is clear that the Editor of the <i>Graphic</i> is an unbeliever, else +he would not have called these figures “specimens of the curious +drawings which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the +pages of this journal”. I think that there is nothing curious in +these figures, which are as correct as possible.</p> + +<p>Cape Satano is the most southern point of Japan, or better, of +the Isle of Kiu Siu. It is also called Satano Misaki, of which +“Saki” or “Misaki” signifies “cape”. The Russians call it Cape +Chichakoff. This is the third time that we read of the sea-serpent +being seen in the Pacific Ocean (see <a href="#Report36">n<sup>o</sup>. 36</a> and <a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p> + +<p>The most remarkable fact mentioned in this report is the gripping +the whale. The reader will remember the report of a sea-serpent +engaged with a whale, of course one of the smaller kind +(<a href="#Report54">n<sup>o</sup>. 54</a>). In 1833 some British officers saw a shoal of grampuses +near Halifax, Nova Scotia, which appeared in an unusual state of +excitement” and a little while afterwards the sea-serpent appeared, +evidently hunting after the grampuses (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>). Again in 1850 (?) +Captain <span class="smcap">Christmas</span> saw “an immense shoal of porpoises rushing +by the ship, as if pursued” and soon afterwards a sea-serpent made +its appearance, curving its neck swan-like, evidently keeping a lookout +and disappearing “head foremost like a duck diving” (<a href="#Report124">n<sup>o</sup>. 124</a>). +Also Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span> saw it “surrounded by porpoises” (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>). +And now we have for the fifth time the sea-serpent pursuing +whales, and a second time that it is engaged with one which it +had evidently gripped in its pectoral fin. I am convinced that the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page364">[364]</span>description “holding on the belly of the whale” is incorrect. The +dimensions of the neck estimated at thirty feet in length and of +about the thickness of the mast of a junk are certainly not exaggerated. +After the whale’s escape, the sea-serpent for about ten +seconds stood in an erect position, like the animal of Captain +<span class="smcap">Brown</span> (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>), taking evidently a survey all around, then bent +its neck swan-like as in shown in the figure and finally “descended +into the water, the upper end going first”, exactly the way in +which the animal behaved seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Christmas</span> (<a href="#Report124">n<sup>o</sup>. 124</a>). +The description of the colour as “resembling that of a pilot-fish”, +is very vague, for the different pilot-fishes (<i>Naucrates</i>) have different +colours, generally grey with some hue of blue, brown, or purple. +The vague definition may be the result of a damp atmosphere, or +it must be that the throat was turned towards the spectators, and +not the back-part of the neck, which is nearly black. As the sea-serpent +has a very long and pointed tail, the fan-shaped or double +finned tail in fig. 49 must be accounted for. This I think may be +done in the following four ways: 1. The tail represents the whale, +disappearing in the water, which in so doing caused a severe splash +as is shown in the figure. 2. The tail is an optical illusion and +the two fins of it were in fact the animal’s hindflappers paddling +furiously, which may be explained as an expression of the animal’s +emotion, as the whale escaped, and in doing so, the flappers +caused the violent splash. 3. Not the flappers but the tail of the +animal was lashing the water vehemently, and caused the optical +illusion and the immense splash and foam. 4. The drawer, believing +that the animal had a cetacean tail or a fish-tail, drew one, lashing +the water, and so represented more his own imagination than +the reality; but in no case a double finned tail has ever belonged +to an animal with a long swan-like curved neck, as is really believed +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood</span> in that number of <i>Nature</i>!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report152"><span class="reportnr"><b>152</b></span>.—1879, August 5.—(<i>Times</i> of September 24, 1879).</p> + +<p>“Capt. <span class="smcap">J. F. Cox</span>, master of the British ship <i>Privateer</i>, which +arrived at Delaware breakwater on the 9th. inst. from London, +says:—“On the 5th. ult., 100 miles west of Brest (France), +weather fine and clear, at 5 p. m., as I was walking the quarter +deck, looking to windward, I saw something black rise out of the +water about twenty feet, in shape like an immense snake about +<span class="pagenum" id="Page365">[365]</span>three feet in diameter. It was about 300 yards from the ship, +coming towards us. It turned its head partly from us, and went +down with a great splash, after staying up about five seconds, +but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, until it had +turned completely from us and was going from us with great speed, +and making the water all boiling round it. I could see its eyes +and shape perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black +as coal tar, and appeared to be making great exertions to get +away from the ship. I have seen many kinds of fish in five +different oceans, but was never favoured with a sight of the great +sea-snake before.”</p> + +<p>Of this unvarnished account Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> says with reason (<i>Nature</i>, +February 10, 1881), that it is “almost a duplicate of that of Major +<span class="smcap">Senior</span>” (<a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>). The colour of the animal is called black, the +head and neck, like those of a snake, were elevated about twenty +feet in the air. The animal stood so about five seconds, went +down with a great splash, but rose again three times at intervals +of ten seconds, thus behaving in the same way as the individual +seen from the <i>City of Baltimore</i> (<a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>). The thickness here is +estimated at three feet. The animal moved from the vessel with +great speed. Consequently the captain could not discern four +different splashes, two of the fore and two of the hind-flappers, +but he reports that the water was boiling all around it. I think +that the animal here again was pursuing a shoal of fish and not +trying to escape the vessel.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report152A"><span class="reportnr"><b>152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></b></span>.—1881, Nov. 12?—The Zuid-Afrikaan, of Nov. 17, +1881, mentions:</p> + +<p>“In the <i>Argus</i> we read the following:—“Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Hansen</span>, +functionary to the harbour-office, mentions, that on Saturday evening +a little after six o’clock, being occupied in his garden near +Monillepoint, he perceived near the spot where the <i>Athens</i> was +wrecked, a great sea-serpent, and that he immediately drew the +attention of his wife and children, and several of his neighbours +to this appearance. After viewing the coast at its ease for half an +hour the monster turned its head seaward and disappeared. Mr. +<span class="smcap">Hansen</span> describes this sea-monster as being about 75 feet long, of +a dark colour and with a head of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead, +resembling that of a bull-dog, and provided with a long and brown +mane, hanging down.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page366">[366]</span></p> + +<p>Undoubtedly the length of 75 feet is that of the part visible +above the surface of the water. It is not mentioned whether the +animal swam with its body in a straight line or in vertical undulations. +It is not for the first time that we hear of the sea-serpent +near Cape-Town, (for <i>Argus</i> must no doubt be read <i>Cape Argus</i>), +I pass the dimension of the head as I don’t know that of a 54 +gallon hogshead. Remarkable is the comparison of the head with +a bull-dog’s; it must have been seen in front, in order to make +this impression. Again a mane was present and its colour is now +called brown.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report153"><span class="reportnr"><b>153</b></span>.—1882, May 28th.—In the next account we read:</p> + +<p>“At our arrival in Newcastle, I learned that some days before +some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report154"><span class="reportnr"><b>154</b></span>.—1882, May 31.—(<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of 1st. of July, +1882).—</p> + +<p>“The following report, with the accompanying <a href="#Fig50">engraving</a> has +been forwarded to us by Mr. Weisz, Captain of the Stettin Lloyd +Steamer <i>Kätie</i>.”</p> + +<p>“When the Stettin Lloyd Steamer <i>Kätie</i>, on her return from +New-York to Newcastle, on the 31st. of May of this year, shortly +after sunset and in that clear light which in this season takes place +in fine weather in high northern latitudes, was about eight miles +W. N. W. of Butt of Lewis (Hebrides), we observed on starboard +before us, at a distance of about two miles a dark object lying +on the surface, which was only slightly moved by the waves; first +we took it for a wreck, as the highest end resembled the bow +and the forepart of a ship, and the remaining hilly part resembled +the broken waist-cloth of a ship filled with water. As we got +nearer we saw with a glass on the left of the visible object, the +water moving in a manner, as if the object extended there under +the water, and this motion was of the same length as the part of +the object, visible above the surface. Therefore we took care, not +to steer too near, lest the screw should be damaged by some floating +pieces of the wreck. But on getting nearer observed that the +object was not a wreck, and, if we had not known with certainty +that on these coasts there are no shallows, we should have taken +this dark connected row of hills for cliffs. When we, however, +changed our course obliquely from the object, which lay quite +still all the time, to our astonishment there rose, about eighty +feet from the visible end a fin about ten feet in height, which +moved a few times, whilst the body gradually sunk below the +surface. In consequence of this the most elevated end rose, and +could distinctly be made out as the tail of a fish kind of immense +dimensions.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page367">[367]</span></p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig50"> +<img src="images/illo367.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 50.—The sea-serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer <i>Kätie</i>, near the Hebrides, +drawn under the supervision of the captain Mr. <span class="smcap">Weisz</span>, by the +American animal-painter Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span>.—</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page368">[368]</span></p> + +<p>“The length of the visible part of this animal which had in no +case any resemblance with the back of a whale, measured, according +to our estimation, about 150 feet, the hills, which were +from three to four feet in height, and about six or seven feet +distant from each other, were smaller on the tail end, than on +the head end, which withdrew from our observation.”</p> + +<p>“At our arrival at Newcastle, I learned that some days before +some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal. +Had I directly recognized the object before us, to be one of +these creatures, which for so long time belonged to the fables, I +should certainly have neared it with the <i>Kätie</i> as much as possible.”</p> + +<p>It is obvious that captain <span class="smcap">Weisz</span> saw, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span> +sketched the animal, ignorant of its being a sea-serpent. It became +clear to them, when they arrived at Newcastle where they learned +that a “sea-serpent” was seen by some fishermen of Lewis.</p> + +<p>Here we have again the assertion that the animal showed bunches, +though it lay still or nearly still, an observation already +reported more than once, as the reader will remember. I am convinced +that the dimensions are exaggerated, and that the disturbance +of the water was caused by the length of the tail, and not +of the head of the animal, which evidently was searching for food +in a playful manner, as we may observe in seals and sea-lions in +our Zoological Gardens, and in doing so turned for a moment its +body round, and raised once or twice first one of its hindflappers +“which it moved a few times”, and then raised one of its foreflappers, +which was taken for a tail by the captain and the drawer. +The long neck here commences, but was, with the head, constantly +under water, evidently directed downwards, for there was no disturbance +of the water visible here. It is clear that the <i>Kätie</i> remained +at a good distance from the animal, so that Mr. <span class="smcap">Schultz</span>, +a well-known animal painter, could not obtain a better view of +the flappers. The outlines of the flappers, however, are as correct +as possible.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page369">[369]</span></p> + +<p id="Report155"><span class="reportnr"><b>155</b></span>.—1882, September 3.—(<i>Nature</i>, 1883, January 25).</p> + +<p>“Believing it to be desirable that every well-authenticated observation +indicating the existence of large sea-serpents should be permanently +registered, I send you the following particulars.”</p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig51"> +<img src="images/illo369.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 51.—Outline of the sea-serpent seen near Little Orme’s +Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. Mott after three different sketches.</p> +</div> + +<p>“About 3 p. m. on Sunday, September 3, 1882, a party of +gentlemen and ladies were standing at the northern extremity of +Llandudno pier, looking towards the open sea, when an unusual +object was observed in the water near to the Little Orme’s Head, +travelling rapidly westwards towards the Great Orme. It appeared +to be just outside the mouth of the bay, and would therefore be +about a mile distant from the observers. It was watched for about +two minutes, and in that interval it traversed about half the width +of the bay, and then suddenly disappeared. The bay is two miles +wide, and therefore the object, whatever it was, must have travelled +at the rate of thirty miles an hour. It is estimated to have been +fully as long as a large steamer; say 200 feet; the rapidity of its +motion was particularly remarked as being greater than that of +any ordinary vessel. The colour appeared to be black, and the +motion either corkscrew like or snake-like, with vertical undulations. +Three of the observers have since made sketches from memory, +quite independently of the impressions left on their minds, and +on comparing these sketches, which slightly varied, they have +agreed to sanction the +accompanying outline +as representing as nearly +as possible the object +which they saw. The +party consisted of W. +Barfoot, J. P. of Leicester, +F. J. Marlow, +solicitor, of Manchester, Mrs. Marlow, and several others. They +discard the theories of birds or porpoises as not accounting for +this particular phenomenon.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr12">“F. T. Mott.”</span></p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6">“Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”</span></p> + +<p>The appearance took place, as is stated, near Orme’s Head, a +headland of the Northern coast of Wales, projecting in a north-western +direction into the Irish Sea. The great rapidity of the movement +through the water, estimated at thirty miles an hour, its +great length of about 200 feet, its black colour, its vertical undulations +and the whole external appearance of the animal, outlines +<span class="pagenum" id="Page370">[370]</span>of which are represented in the figure, at once betray the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>Another correspondent of <i>Nature</i> immediately wrote to the Editor +as follows: “I have seen four or five times something like what +your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, and have +no doubt whatever that phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. +I never, however, saw the <i>head</i> your correspondent gives.” +There! It is just the head which shows that the animal seen by +the party of gentlemen and ladies above mentioned, was one single +animal and not a row of porpoises!</p> + +<p>And therefore, one of the eye-witnesses, Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Barfoot</span>, +promptly answered in <i>Nature</i> of Febr. 8, 1883:</p> + +<p>“Like your correspondent, Mr. Sidebotham (in <i>Nature</i> Vol. +XXVII, p. 315), I have frequently seen a shoal of porpoises in +Llandudno Bay, as well as in other places, and on the occasion +referred to by Mr. Mott, in <i>Nature</i>, Vol. XXVII, p. 293, the +idea of porpoises was at first started but immediately abandoned. +I will venture to suggest that no one has seen a shoal of these +creatures travel at the rate of from twenty five to thirty miles an +hour. I have seen whales in the ocean, and large flocks of sea-birds, +such as those of the eider-duck, skimming its surface; but +the strange appearance seen at Llandudno on September 3 was not +to be accounted for by porpoises, whales, birds, or breakers, an +opinion which was shared by all present.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“William Barfoot.”</span></p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In 1883 Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> published his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, +one of the Series of publications of the International Fisheries Exhibition. +This delightful book treats of the Kraken and the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>In the Preface Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> remarks:</p> + +<p>“In treating of the so-called “sea-serpent”, I have been anticipated +by many able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book +“The Romance of Natural History”, published in 1862, devoted +a chapter to it; and numerous articles concerning it appeared in +various papers and periodicals.”</p> + +<p>“But, for the information from which those authors have drawn +their inferences, and on which they have founded their opinions, +they have been greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously +to consider this subject, to the late experienced editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, +Mr. Edward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page371">[371]</span>of great judgment, a profound thinker, and an able writer. At a +time when, as he said, “the shafts of ridicule were launched against +believers and unbelievers in the sea-serpent in a very pleasing and +impartial manner”, he, in the true spirit of philosophical inquiry, +in 1847, opened the columns of his magazine to correspondence +on this topic, and all the more recent reports of marine monsters +having been seen are therein recorded. To him, therefore, the fullest +acknowledgements are due.”</p> + +<p>I too am under obligations to Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, as to one who has +collected so many reports of the sea-serpent and published them in +his journal, but I fail to see in him what Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> asserts him to be.</p> + +<p>As to the contents of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> “Great Sea-Serpent”, the second +part of his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, I may be allowed to note +the following.</p> + +<p>First he mentions the various great snakes of antiquity and believes +them to be merely boas (read pythons) and real sea-snakes. +Next he represents a figure, found on a sarcophagus or coffin in +the Catacombs of Rome, and tells us that it corresponds in many +respects with some of the descriptions of the sea-serpent given several +centuries afterwards. I, however, don’t observe any resemblance +in them. I consider this monster as a singular combination +of a horse and a fish, badly drawn, as one of the representations +of those wonderful ideas or beliefs of antiquity concerning the +existence of such monsters as sirens, tritons, the minotaurus, etc.</p> + +<p>Further he treats of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, Bishop <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <span class="smcap">Hans +Egede</span>, the Animal of Stronsa, and of various reports of the sea-serpent, +and it is obviously a favoured idea of his that the sea-serpent +is only to be accounted for by a great calamary; to prove +this, he makes himself guilty of all kinds of misrepresentations +and improbabilities; he considers every one as having been the +dupe of optical deceptions, or as having made exaggerations, and +their observations to be “full of error and mistakes”! And he who +has never seen a sea-serpent, but sits pen in hand in his chair at +his desk, knows it best of all: all sea-serpents were calamaries, +except a very few, which were a row of porpoises! But the more +Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has to deal with more recent reports, the less he is able +to explain the various sea-serpents by reference to his favoured +calamary. Of the animals seen in the Harbour of Gloucester in 1817 +he says: “Of this I can offer no zoological explanation”. He neither +gives an explanation of the sea-serpent seen in 1833 by British +officers (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>), nor of that in Lochourn (<a href="#Report137">n<sup>o</sup>. 137</a>, +<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>). +<span class="pagenum" id="Page372">[372]</span>Then he says: “Many other accounts have been published of the +appearance of serpent-like sea-monsters, but I have only space for +two or three more of the most remarkable of them”. Truly, an +easy way to get rid of them! One of these two or three more remarkable +reports is the fight between the whale and the sea-serpent +(<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>) of which he proposes several explanations (I beg to refer +the readers to that account), ending with the words: “it must be +left for further elucidation”. The sea-serpent of the <i>City of Baltimore</i> +(<a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a>) was misunderstood by him. He compares the <i>splash of +the water</i>, caused by the animal’s dropping its neck like a log of +wood into it, with the <i>caudal fins of a calamary</i> (just imagine!) +but ends: “but, as one with a bull-dog expression of eye-brow, +visible at 500 yards distance, does not come within my ken, I +will not claim it as much.” And of the animal of the <i>Osborne</i> +he says:</p> + +<p>“It seems to me that this description cannot be explained as +applicable to any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins +might, possibly, as was suggested by Mr. <span class="smcap">Frank Buckland</span>, belong +to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order; but +the combination of them with long flippers, and turtle-like mode +of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”</p> + +<p>Nevertheless, in answering the question: “To which of the recognized +class of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean +be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda” (i. e. calamaries). +Such a contradiction I do not understand.</p> + +<p>And notwithstanding his cherished great-calamary-hypothesis, and +after having said some words about Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>’s Plesiosaurus +theory and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>’s ideas of the extraordinary development +of snakes, he ends his work with the following conclusions:</p> + +<p>“I arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without +straining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not +proved to be erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed +“Great Sea-Serpent” may now be nearly all accounted for by the +forms and habits of known animals; especially if we admit, as +proposed by Dr. Andrew Wilson, that some of them, including +the marine snakes, may, like the cuttles, attain to an extraordinary +size.”</p> + +<p>“2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance +of every existing marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable. +It appears to me more than probable that many +marine animals, unknown to science, and some of them of gigantic +<span class="pagenum" id="Page373">[373]</span>size, may have their ordinary habitat in the great depths of the +sea, and only occasionally come to the surface; and I think it not +impossible that amongst them may be marine snakes of greater +dimensions than we are aware of, and even a creature having close +affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil skeletons tell of their +magnitude and abundance in past ages.”</p> + +<p>I am unable to follow out such a reasoning.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report156"><span class="reportnr"><b>156</b></span>.—1883, October 15?—The <i>Graphic</i> of 20th. October, +1883, mentions, p. 387:</p> + +<p>“The inevitable sea-serpent has turned up again. This time he +has been seen going down the Bristol Channel towards the Atlantic +at the rate of twenty-five miles per hour, and afterwards he was +noticed off the north coast of Cornwall. The monster was about +half a mile long, and left a greasy trail behind him.”</p> + +<p>I have no doubt about the appearance of a sea-serpent in Bristol +Channel, and a few hours or a day afterwards off the north coast +of Cornwall, as several individuals have already been reported on +the west coast of Great Britain. The greasy trail left behind it is +not an improbability, but the length of half a mile is most probably +an invention of the incredulous Editor of the Graphic!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Mr. C. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span> in his <i>Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen</i> in <i>de Gids</i> +for 1884, p. 300 speaking of strange and violent motions in the +water of the lake of Mjösen in Norway during perfectly calm +weather tells us as a specimen of Norwegian superstition:</p> + +<p>“People ascribe these motions to sea-serpents, in which many +persons in Norway firmly believe upon the authority of undeniable +witnesses and their observations. One of the most famous of these +monsters lived some centuries ago in the lake of Mjösen, in the +neighbourhood of Hamar, where it became entangled in the shallow. +A monk killed it with arrow-shots in its eye, and the monster +then floated to near the “Holy-Isle” to a place which is still called +“Pilestöa”. And yet there is still a sea-serpent in the lake, which +has coiled itself round the great bell of Hamar, which in the time +of the seven years’ war was lowered to the bottom.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span> adds:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page374">[374]</span></p> + +<p>“After all I heard and saw at Bergen, I don’t doubt in the +least that in the Atlantic and on the coasts of Norway really +appear from time to time immensely large mammals of the seal-kind, +known by the name of “great sea-serpent”, though I therefore +don’t admit all fabulous tales about it.”</p> + +<p>The words “mammals of the seal-kind” are explained by the +following circumstance. In November, 1881, appeared from my +pen, then a student’s pen, a little article on the sea-serpent, +in which I tried to show that a sea-serpent is a yet undescribed +long marine animal, closely allied to the pinnipeds, with a long neck +and a long tail. Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span>, in preparing his paper for the <i>Gids</i> +requested me to let him have a copy of my article, which I sent +him, and he evidently accepted my supposition.</p> + +<p>In a letter Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span> tells me:</p> + +<p>“In the literature of the Norwegians the sea-serpent or soe-orm +is repeatedly mentioned, and in such an indisputable manner, +that in my opinion there is no doubt of its existence.”</p> + +<p>“On my return I learned from a gentleman of Bergen, that +some time ago there was a part of the skeleton of a sea-serpent +in the Museum of Natural History of Bergen.”</p> + +<p>Though I begged Mr. <span class="smcap">Honigh</span>, teacher at the National Agricultural +School at Wageningen, to communicate to me further particulars +about the sea-serpent and about its literature, learned by +him on his travels through Norway, and repeated this my question +in February 1889, I am still waiting for an answer.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report157"><span class="reportnr"><b>157</b></span>.—1885, August 16.—(<i>Nature</i> of September 10, 1885).</p> + +<p>“It was hardly to be expected that the season should pass without +the appearance of the sea-serpent somewhere, and if we are to +believe the information forwarded to us from a correspondent in +Norway, it has just visited the coast of Nordland. Three sundays +ago some lads were returning to the Island of Röd from the church +at Melö, in the middle of the day, when they saw far out in the +fjord a streak in the sea which they believed to be a flock of +wild ducks swimming. On proceeding further, however, they heard +a whizzing as of a rushing fountain and in a few moments perceived +a great sea-monster with great velocity making straight for +the boat. It appeared to be serpentine in shape, with a flat scaly +head, and the lads counted seventeen coils on the surface of the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page375">[375]</span>water just as it passed the stern of the boat so closely that they +could have thrown a boathook into it. By subsequent measurements +on land the length of the animal was estimated at about 200 feet. +It pursued its course on the surface of the sea until close behind +the boat when it went down with a tremendous noise, but reappeared +a little after, shaping its course for the Melö, where it +disappeared from view. Naturally, the lads were greatly frightened. +The weather at the time was hot, calm, and sunny. Our informer +states that the lads are intelligent and truthful, and that +there is no reason to discredit their unanimous statement, made, +as it were, in a terribly frightened condition. It might be added +that the waters in which the animal was seen are some of the +deepest on the Norwegian coast, and that it is not the first time +fishermen have averred having seen the sea-serpent here. The existence +of the sea-serpent is fully believed in along the coast of Norway.”</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent in its rapid motion made, as is often stated, +the water curl before its throat, which rushing sound was distinctly +heard by the lads. Notwithstanding their great fright they yet saw +the head was flat, but they were mistaken as to its being scaly. +Moreover the account is unvarnished and the description of the animal’s +motions is correct.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Mr. W. E. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span>, busy on the article “Sea-Serpent” for the +9th. Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1886 +(June?) a number of titles of books and journals, which came in +his way while studying the subject. This bibliography contains 89 +numbers. They were printed, as the author says: “in the hope +that they might be the means of saving time and labor on the +part of others”. Alas, his hope has not been realized on my part, +for I had nearly finished my work when I happened to find Mr. +<span class="smcap">Hoyle</span>’s paper quoted in the decennial Register of the <i>Zoologischer +Anzeiger</i>. Only 25 of the numbers published by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span> were +new additions to my “Literature on the subject”, and I could +consult only three of them, amongst which Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span>’s article +“Sea-Serpent” in the <i>Encyclopedia Britannica</i> quoted above.</p> + +<p>Though Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoyle</span> states: “no satisfactory explanation has yet +been given of certain descriptions of the sea-serpent”, among others +of “the huge snake seen by certain of the crew of the Pauline” +(<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, 145) and of “Lieutenant Hayne’s account” (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>), +<span class="pagenum" id="Page376">[376]</span>and though he ends his article with the words: “It would thus +appear that, while, with very few exceptions, all the so-called +sea-serpents can be explained by reference to some well-known animal +or other natural object, there is still a residuum sufficient to +prevent modern zoologists from denying the possibility that some +such creature may after all exist”, he himself was evidently taken +in by the different persons who explained the sea-serpent by reference +to the most impossible suppositions! He enumerates eight +different explanations and seems fully to agree with them. It is +evident that his only purpose was to satisfy the request of writing +an article on the Sea-Serpent for an Encyclopedia.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report158"><span class="reportnr"><b>158</b></span>.—1886, August.—In the <i>Graphic</i> of September, 25, +we read:</p> + +<p>“The sea-serpent has now crossed the Atlantic, and has suddenly +appeared near Kingston Point, on the Hudson. It was seen by +two young men, who were rowing in a boat, and who, it seems, +the monster fruitlessly chased. They describe the animal as growing +furious, when it found them escaping. “It lashed the water with +its tail, which seemed to be about seventy-five feet distance from +its head. The head was as large and round as a flour-barrel; and +its eyes of a greenish hue, looked “devilish”. Before resuming its +journey up the Hudson, it squirted from its mouth a stream of +foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank.”</p> + +<p>I have no reason to consider this account as a hoax, though it +almost reads like one. In the Norwegian accounts it is said that the +sea-serpent very often follows boats. I have explained this by the animal’s +curiosity, mixed with some fear. The young men may have observed +the animal paddling with its hind flappers, a possible expression +of some emotion, as I have also explained when speaking of the +animal seen from the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> (<a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>), and they may have +ascribed the foam to the lashing of its tail; or it really lashed its +tail, as I also supposed on that occasion (<a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>). The length +between head and tail estimated at seventy-five feet, is certainly +not exaggerated. As the head is described round as a flour-barrel, +it was evidently seen in its face. I refer to the animal of the +<i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>) where the head seen from behind is also described +and figured round as a bullet. Of the young men’s description +that the eyes “looked devilish”, and also that of their colour being +<span class="pagenum" id="Page377">[377]</span>“of a greenish hue” I will only say that it is unique. The “stream +of foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank” was +of course nothing but a sudden exhalation, probably held for some +time from curiosity and fear, and then suddenly sent forth. The +locality where the sea-serpent appeared, may be apparently strange, +it is, however, very well explicable, owing to the animal’s habit +of frequenting shores, and to the habit of other pinnipeds of frequenting +brackish water and even mouths of large rivers.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report159"><span class="reportnr"><b>159</b></span>.—1886, August?—In the same number of the <i>Graphic</i> +it says:</p> + +<p>“The serpent was also seen by the captain of a steamer, who +“gave it the right of way”.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report160"><span class="reportnr"><b>160</b></span>.—1886, August?—(On the same page):</p> + +<p>“And yet another man (appropriately) named Jonah, who at +first took the monster to be an immense tree floating with the +tide—a notion which was quickly dispelled by the supposed tree +throwing twenty feet of its length out of water.”</p> + +<p>As the reader will remember, the comparison of the sea-serpent, +swimming or lying on the surface, with a floating tree or log of +wood, has been made more than once; evidently the animal raised +its enormous neck for a moment out of water, to take a look-out.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report161"><span class="reportnr"><b>161</b></span>.—1889, May.—In the <i>Haagsche Courant</i> of June 6, of +this year, I read:</p> + +<p>“The sea-serpent has again appeared, and been seen by a captain +sailing from Liverpool to Philadelphia, who hitherto obstinately +refused to believe in its existence.”</p> + +<p>Of course I immediately wrote to the Editor, begging him for +the name of the journal, from which this statement had been taken. +The Editor courteously answered that one of his correspondents +had forwarded him a written copy of the account taken from the +38th. number of the <i>Grondwet</i> of May 21st., of this year, published +in Holland, Michigan, but the written copy had already disappeared +<span class="pagenum" id="Page378">[378]</span>in the paper-basket, and the correspondent requested to send +the original, answered that he was unable to do so for the same +reason.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In the first days of December 1889, Mr. <span class="smcap">John Ashton</span> published +his <i>Curious Creatures in Zoology</i>. Pages 268-278 of his volume +treat of the sea-serpent. The illustrations which accompany this +part are: 1. A representation of a piece of sculpture on a wall of +the Assyrian palace at Khorsabad, which as I believe, has nothing +at all to do with the sea-serpent, but which is a bad drawing of +a <i>Hydrophis</i>. 2. The drawing of <span class="smcap">Gesner</span> (our <a href="#Fig16">fig. 16</a>) twice reduced. +3. <span class="smcap">Egede</span>’s sea-serpent, as it was published in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (our +<a href="#Fig22">fig. 22</a>). 4. An eel-kind taken from <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>’ work, and 5. A +reduced copy of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>’s sea-serpent (our <a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>).—</p> + +<p>Curious is Mr. <span class="smcap">Ashton</span>’s assertion, when speaking of the sea-serpent +of Khorsabad-palace and of <span class="smcap">Aristoteles</span>: “These ........ +were doubtless marine snakes, which are still in existence, and +are found in the Indian Ocean, but the larger ones seem to have +been seen in more northern waters”. Consequently he believes, like +Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> that the <i>Hydrophidae</i> may develop gigantically +and when in this condition make little trips from their +common tropical residences to more northern latitudes!</p> + +<p>Further he quotes <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, <span class="smcap">Gesner</span>, <span class="smcap">Topsell</span>, <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>, +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, and <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, but all by the way.</p> + +<p>More space is devoted to the accounts of <span class="smcap">Walter Scott</span>, and +to the observations of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span> (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>), of a party of British +officers (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>), of Lars <span class="smcap">Johnöen</span> (<a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a>), of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> +(<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>), and of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>). All this, however, +without giving the least explanation, and ending with these words:</p> + +<p>“I think the verdict may be given that its existence although +belonging to “Curious Zoology”, is not impossible, and can hardly +be branded as a falsehood.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Report162"><span class="reportnr"><b>162</b></span>.—1890, June.—<i>De Amsterdammer</i>, <i>Weekblad voor Nederland</i>, +of July 12th. of this year, mentions:</p> + +<p>“The sea-serpent again.—Captain David Tuits, of the British +schooner <i>Anny Harper</i>, has been favoured with a sight of it, near +Long Island, not far from the coast of Connecticut. He is a perfectly +<span class="pagenum" id="Page379">[379]</span>trustworthy gentleman, who hitherto has never believed in +sea-serpents, but who has now seen one on a clear day; the tail +which was coloured brown with black spots, was about forty feet +out of the water. The captain estimates the total length of the +monster at over one hundred feet.”</p> + +<p>I think it not too bold to consider this report almost a duplicate +of our <a href="#Report135">n<sup>o</sup>. 135</a>. There the sea-serpent is called “a large snake +about 100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out +of water, the body slightly under”. Most probably captain Tuits also +saw only the head and the tail of the animal, and not the trunk. +The tail is described here to be brown with black spots. It is +evident that only the upper part of the tail was seen.</p> + +<p>I immediately enquired of the Editor of the <i>Amsterdammer</i> about +the source of this article; he, however, promptly answered me that +his correspondent did not remember from which of the five or six +German newspapers daily read by him, he had copied it.—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>“To what class of known beings does this monster of the deep +belong?” This question has caused various suppositions, to which +we will turn our attention in the next chapter.—</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page380">[380]</span></p> +<h2><span class="chapno">V.</span><br> +<span class="chapname">The various explanations hitherto given.</span></h2> +</div> + +<p>I have found the <b>first</b> explanation given about the Sea-Serpent +in the <i>Report</i> of the Committee of 1817, where we read an extract +from a M. S. journal of the Rev. <span class="smcap">William Jenks</span>, which he communicated +in a letter to the Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, and which letter +is printed there. It runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. Alden Bradford of Wiscasset, +now Secretary of the Commonwealth,) inquired of Mr. Cummings, +whether the appearance might not be produced by <b>a number of +porpoises</b>, <b>following each other</b> in a train.”</p> + +<p>This passage from the private journal was written in Sept. 10, +1809; but after having consulted <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>’s <i>American Journal of +Science and the Arts</i>, Vol. II, Boston 1819 (1820), we are convinced +that Mr. <span class="smcap">Bradford</span>’s inquiry of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span> took place +before Aug. 1803.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig52">Fig. 52</a> shows my readers a porpoise.</p> + +<p>As we read in <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span>’s <i>Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens</i>, +p. 517, note, <span class="smcap">Peter Ascanius</span> in his <i>Icones rerum naturalium</i> +Cahier V, Copenhague, 1805, says:</p> + +<p>“In summer porpoises approach the coasts and the fjords. They +often meet in the open sea in troops of several scores, and when +the weather is calm and fine, they range in a line after each other +to play and to tumble: they then have the appearance of a chain +of little eminences floating on the surface of the water; some fishermen +of the North, seeing them at a great distance, took this +resemblance for an immense animal and gave it the name of sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>Again in the letter from Mr. S. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span> to Mr. E. <span class="smcap">Everett</span>, +dated August 20, 1817, we read:</p> + +<p>“All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page381">[381]</span>reports, people had gotten to doubt +their foundation, and supposed it +was only a number of porpuses +following each other in rapid succession.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig52"> +<img src="images/illo381.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 52.—Phocaena phocoena (Linné).—</p> +</div> + +<p>For the fourth time we read in +<span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen</i>, Vol. XIX, p. 193:</p> + +<p>“Christiania, September 5, 1827. +Last week several persons saw large +shoals of porpoises, and therefore +uttered the supposition that the +alleged presence of the sea-serpent +was not right.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill’s</span> paper, of 1828, +which we have inserted <i>in toto</i> in +our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on hoaxes, also ends +with the supposition that the “gambols +of porpoises” have given rise +to all the tales of the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Schlegel</span> in his <i>Essai sur la +physionomie des Serpens</i>, La Haye, +1837, p. 105, in his chapter on +Fables respecting snakes says:</p> + +<p>“We are surprised to hear of a +sea-serpent, monstrous in shape +and size”,</p> + +<p>and he refers to his chapter on +true sea-snakes, the <i>Hydrophidae</i>. +There p. 517 he ends his chapter +with the following words:</p> + +<p>“Before ending the history of the +interesting beings of which I have +treated, I cannot help saying a few +words about an animal, observed +through centuries by many people +of all ranks, and known to every +one from the tales which are spread +about it, but which is still ignored by naturalists. I mean the +monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which in reality has nothing +to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we have treated in the +foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous evidences given +<span class="pagenum" id="Page382">[382]</span>by very respectable persons to prove the existence of this enormous +sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I too should +be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been turned +into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of 1826. +Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea, +I suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the +mouth of the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which +I took for a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several +others closely following each other. For the greater part hidden +by the water, the upper part of this creature could be distinctly +seen only for the short moment, when it was carried on the top +of a wave, and plunged down into the precipice formed before it. +The illusion caused by the continuous agitation of the waves indeed +contributed to make doubtful the appearance of a great number of +black objects, appearing together out of the water, disappearing +the moment afterwards, and the whole of which deceitfully represented +the simultaneous movements of the undulations of one single +body. Convinced that the animals were unable to swim in vertical +undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till I knew this +monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of porpoises.”</p> + +<p>In the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, of 1841, Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, who +published in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on +his journey in Norway, says:</p> + +<p>“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we +shall soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory +statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend +to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for +a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, +what else could be the cause of the illusion which has created the +belief in such an animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that +what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else +but a row of porpoises, swimming in line. But all those persons, by +whom the above-mentioned evidences are given were too familiar with +the sea, and have too often observed porpoises together, to be deceived +by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. +If this, however, had been the case, all the observations related +to me of the sea-serpent’s holding its head above the surface, and +about the size of it, must have been mere fiction, and this I +cannot admit. According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted, +that there is a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which +may grow to a considerable length.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page383">[383]</span></p> + +<p>Again, as we learn in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, +n<sup>o</sup>. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the <i>Christiansand’s +Posten</i> after an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in +the fjord of Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the +following remarks:</p> + +<p>“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which +the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North +Sea, and if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not +withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed +their boats to near the animal, they would undoubtedly have +soon observed that the supposed intervals between the coils were +nothing else but water. This great sea-serpent in reality consists of +a row of porpoises, which in a shoal of from eight to twelve often +swim after each other in line. As each of these brown animals, +eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears above the surface +of the water at proportionably short intervals, in such a way, as +if they were about to tumble head first, so every one, who sees +such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the coils +of an immense snake.”</p> + +<p>In a letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">J. D. Morries Stirling</span> to Captain <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, +R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage +(see <i>Ill. Lond. News</i> of October 28, 1848, and our <a href="#Report113">n<sup>o</sup>. 113</a>):</p> + +<p>“I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have +believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given +rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>In <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> we read, 1879:</p> + +<p>“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming +in line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and +then, with a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface +of the water, presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought +about by a somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, 1883, treating of the +figure of Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span> (see our <a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>), says:</p> + +<p>“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the +appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”</p> + +<p>I have treated of his explanation in the right place (<a href="#Report10">n<sup>o</sup>. 10</a>). And +on the following page he also asserts:</p> + +<p>“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as +well as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances +of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming +in line in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an +<span class="pagenum" id="Page384">[384]</span>upraised head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it +was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of +a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical +undulations.”</p> + +<p>I repeat here what I have said above (<a href="#Report10">n<sup>o</sup>. 10</a>): If Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> +wishes to explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to +tell me what was the head that resembled a horse’s head.</p> + +<p>Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the +great calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many +well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as +some of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical +undulations of the snake seen out of water have been the burly +bodies of so many porpoises swimming in line—the connecting +undulations beneath the surface have been supplied by the imagination.”</p> + +<p>After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s +Head (<a href="#Report155">n<sup>o</sup>. 155</a>), Mr. <span class="smcap">Sidebotham</span>, a correspondent of <i>Nature</i> writes +in this journal (1883, Febr. 1):</p> + +<p>“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent +describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the +Little Orme’s Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever +that the phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, +however, saw the head your correspondent gives, but in other +respects what I have seen was exactly the same; the motions of +porpoises might easily be taken for those of a serpent; once I saw +them from the top of the Little Orme, they came very near the +base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across the bay.”</p> + +<p>Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the +head.” I remind here my readers of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cummings’</span> question “who +ever saw a row of porpoises with a head of a seal?”</p> + +<p>I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly. +They are in the habit of continually throwing up their +bodies half above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is +clearly visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each +coil a backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment +afterwards three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen +at once, while the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly +visible above the surface, moving with the greatest regularity. +Every one will feel that this explanation is not satisfactory; it does +not even explain a single observation. Besides, how to explain the +swan-like neck, so often seen by reference to porpoises? To avoid +<span class="pagenum" id="Page385">[385]</span>repetitions, I beg the reader to refer to the testimonies of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Cummings</span> (<a href="#Report29">n<sup>o</sup>. 29</a>) and Mr. +<span class="smcap">Prince</span> (<a href="#Report63">n<sup>o</sup>. 63</a>), in which they clearly +bring to light the difference between the appearance of the sea-serpent +and that of a row of porpoises.</p> + +<div class="container w50emmax" id="Fig53"> +<img src="images/illo385.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 53.—A row of porpoises.</p> +</div> + +<p>And where a naturalist, like Mr. <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span>, describes the effect +caused by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those +persons who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe +of an optical illusion. Mr. <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span> should have said: “On one +occasion I was nearly deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I +never saw a sea-serpent!”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>second</b> explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean +Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the +Hon. Judge <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis C. Gray</span>. +This learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting +reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. +What kind of beast could it be!? and before they began +to feel puzzled, a <i>deus ex machina</i> in the form of a sick, illformed +and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field near +Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a working man at that place, +bought by Dr. So and So, and presented to the Committee to +examine it, because people believed that this animal was a spawn +of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really examined and dissected +it and gave a full account of their experience in their <i>Report</i>. +They considered the little <b>snake</b> to be <b>new to science</b>, closely allied +to the <i>Coluber constrictor</i> or Black Snake, a common species +of North-America, and gave it the name of <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>. +This account is followed by two documents describing how the +<i>Scoliophis</i> looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under +which it was killed. I present here to my readers the <i>Scoliophis +<span class="pagenum" id="Page386">[386]</span>atlanticus</i> reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized figure +of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with +which the animal was killed.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig54"> +<img src="images/illo386a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 54.—Scoliophis atlanticus; one sixth of its full-size.</p> +</div> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig55"> +<img src="images/illo386b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 55.—Its head; full-size.</p> +</div> + +<p>Next they gave: “A few +remarks on the question” +(broached by the public) +“whether the great serpent, +seen in the Harbour of Gloucester +be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.” +These “few remarks” fill three pages and a half and end +with the words:</p> + +<p>“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous, +important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference +between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting +that of size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering +them individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same +name, until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall +have disclosed some difference of structure, important enough to +constitute a specific distinction.”</p> + +<p>It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the +conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts +which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, +was a full grown individual of the species they called <i>Scoliophis +atlanticus</i>! If they had collected all these accounts, if they had +seriously compared them, they would have come most probably to +the conclusion that they did not know precisely what it was, but +that it could never be a snake.</p> + +<p>Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the +Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as +the little <i>Scoliophis</i>. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which +was not bifid, while the tongue of <i>Scoliophis</i> is so! And the most +accurate testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had <i>no</i> +scales!</p> + +<p>The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and +no doubt drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page387">[387]</span>M. <span class="smcap">Ducrotay de Blainville</span> dared handle the subject publicly. +As soon as the <i>Report</i> of the Committee of 1817 reached him, +he made an extract from it in his <i>Journal de Physique</i>, etc., Vol. +86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made much more of the little curious +snake, apparently believing too that it was a new species, +than of the large marine animal of which he was unable to give +any explanation. Mr. <span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> does not hesitate to express +his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent to +be a real snake and an adult of their <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>, and +ended his extract:</p> + +<p>“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great +Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the +appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great +length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is +a true snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the +<i>Scoliophis</i>, is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold +that it is of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities +which become null, if one is to believe that such an immense +animal as that observed in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”</p> + +<p>For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!</p> + +<p>For Mr. <span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> who did not give himself the trouble +to collect as many accounts as possible, to read <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span>, +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <span class="smcap">Egede</span>, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive +what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the +same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the +witnesses concerning the length of the animal.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Lesueur</span>, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. +<span class="smcap">Péron</span>, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. <span class="smcap">de +Blainville</span> to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but +had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the +members of the Committee, together with several inches of another +portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little +snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that +the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly +done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted +that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake, +closely allied to the Black Snake (<i>Coluber constrictor</i>), but that it +was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent +he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself.</p> + +<p>The dissertation of Mr. <span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> and the extract from Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lesueur’s</span> letter translated into German are in <span class="smcap">Oken’s</span> <i>Isis</i>, 1819.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page388">[388]</span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span> in his <i>Notizen</i>, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself +about this explanation in the following manner:</p> + +<p>“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, +cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be +allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”</p> + +<p>Of this little <i>Coluber</i> we find also the following passage in +<span class="smcap">Schlegel’s</span> <i>Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens</i>, La Haye, 1837, +p. 80:</p> + +<p>“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the +species called <i>Coluber constrictor</i>, of which all parts were disfigured +by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind +of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known +for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published +in Boston, will be found in the <i>Journal de Physique</i> Vol. 86, +p. 297.”</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, in his <i>Amphibious Carnivora</i>, 1839, apparently +believes that the little <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i> was the spawn of the +Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:</p> + +<p class="center">“The Great Sea-Serpent.”<br> +“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.</p> + +<p>We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of +interrogation after the scientific name.</p> + +<p>Without any doubt the <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i> was a difformed +specimen of <i>Coluber constrictor</i>. It was the bunches on its back, +which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a +spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. +After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the +explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and +the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against +this supposition.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>third</b> explanation. In the <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes I have already +inserted the letter from Prof. T. <span class="smcap">Say</span>, of Philadelphia, to Prof. +<span class="smcap">Leach</span>, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of +the crew of the vessel commanded by captain <span class="smcap">Richard Rich</span>, firmly +believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but <b>a large +tunny</b>. Prof. <span class="smcap">Say’s</span> letter is also printed in <span class="smcap">Thomson’s</span> <i>Annals</i> of +January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above +mentioned Chapter, <a href="#Fig1">fig. 1</a>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page389">[389]</span></p> + +<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Bigelow’s</span> indignation rose against this explanation; in +<span class="smcap">Silliman’s</span> <i>Am. Journ. Sc. Arts.</i> Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:</p> + +<p>“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, +in which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere), +“is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a +“defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” +(See Thomson’s <i>Annals</i>, for January 1819)”.</p> + +<p>“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note +from the same author, on the identity of <i>Scoliophis</i> with <i>Coluber +constrictor</i>. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on +the subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it +might have been decorous in him to have noticed the source from +which he got his information.”</p> + +<p>“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more +important than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to +the public consideration some additional evidence in regard to the +size and shape of this marine animal which has come to light +since the publication of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This +evidence is partly the result of observations during the present +year, and partly the contents of a communication made to the +American Academy of Arts and Sciences fifteen years ago, but +which, having been mislaid, has not before been published. The +reader will judge whether it is a “defective observation” which +has produced a remarkable coincidence between witnesses in different +periods and places, unknown to each other; or whether it was +“an extravagant degree of fear” which induced the commander of +an American frigate to man his boats and go with his mariners +in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add that +the original letters constituting the communication last alluded to, +are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy, +where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination +of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving +any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may +now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the +science of Natural History.”</p> + +<p>How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, +a seal, a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its +enormous long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a +tunny, even of nine or ten feet in length!?</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page390">[390]</span></p> + +<p>The <b>fourth</b> explanation. Mr. <span class="smcap">Constant Samuel Rafinesque +Smaltz</span>, in his <i>Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and +Sea-Serpents</i> (<i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently +convinced of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, +which are merely <b>sea-snakes of a very large size</b>. (Family <i>Hydrophidae</i>), +of which I give a <a href="#Fig56">figure</a> representing the <i>Hydrophis +pelamidoides</i>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> classes two different sea-serpents +under this head, proposing for them the names of <i>Pelamis +megophias</i> (<i>Megophias monstrosus</i>) and <i>Pelamis monstrosus s. +chloronotis</i>.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, after discussing +the question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion +caused by a huge +stem of sea-weed, +or a large seal, a +cetacean, a basking +shark, a ribbon fish, +or a large kind of +eel, continues his +considerations in the +following terms:</p> + +<p>“To the Reptiles, +however, popular +opinion has pretty +uniformly assigned +this denizen of the +sea, and his accepted +title of “sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities +in the estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. +Let us, then, test his claims to be a serpent.”</p> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig56"> +<img src="images/illo390.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 56.—Hydrophis pelamidoides.—</p> +</div> + +<p>“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian and +Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes (<i>Hydrophidae</i>), +which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are +reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so +soundly there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes +fails to awaken them.”</p> + +<p>“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, +so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> on the contrary in September, 1878, declares +in <i>Nature</i> (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:</p> + +<p>“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large +<span class="pagenum" id="Page391">[391]</span>development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true +explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”</p> + +<p>But a few lines further on he also tells us:</p> + +<p>“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the +ratio of a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this +interesting problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark +of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological +observers for a “sea-serpent”.”—</p> + +<p>In his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, the same writer returns to his favourite +idea:</p> + +<p>“The only group of animals to which our attention may be +specially directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of +the problem, is that of the <i>Vertebrata</i>,—the highest group of +animals, which possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and +quadrupeds as its highest representatives. Laying aside the class of +birds, as including no form at all allied to our present inquiry, +we are left with, speaking generally, three groups of animals, from +the ranks of which various forms may be selected to aid us in +solving the sea-serpent mystery. These three groups are the fishes, +reptiles, and mammalia, and it may be shown that from each of +these classes, but more notably from among the fishes and reptiles, +various animals, corresponding more or less closely with the descriptions +given of strange marine monsters, may be obtained. An +important consideration, however, must not be overlooked at this +stage, namely, that too frequently the attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent +with some <i>known</i> animal of serpentine form and nature, +has limited the perceptions and foiled the labours of naturalists. +Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown form must be a +serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of the term +“serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than the +reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the subject, +and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at once +given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists +and other writers on this subject have never made allowance +for the <i>abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals</i>. +My own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations, +but especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation +of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation +of such discrepancies as the various narrations may be +shown to evince. If we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary +animal life, or amongst the reptiles themselves, the representatives +<span class="pagenum" id="Page392">[392]</span>of the “sea-serpents”, I think we may nevertheless build up a most +reasonable case both for their existence and for the explanation of +their true nature, by taking into account the facts, <i>that the term +“sea-serpent”, as ordinarily employed, must be extended to include +other forms of vertebrate animals which possess elongated bodies; +and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordinary +serpents and of serpent-like animals will reasonably account for the +occurrence of the animals collectively named sea-serpents</i>.”</p> + +<p>“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) +“was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over +without that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits. +Whilst to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative +of the crew of the <i>Pauline</i>” (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>) “must be founded +on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. +The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently +point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of +large size, such as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the +animal being described in the various narratives as swimming +with the head out of water, would seem to indicate that, like all +reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come more or less +frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration. The difficulties +which appear to stand in the way of reconciling the sea-serpent +with a marine snake, in this or in other cases, are two in +number. The great majority of intelligent persons are unaware of +the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively marine habits; +and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes an apparent +difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the history +of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks of +these marine snakes,—the <i>Hydrophidae</i> of the naturalist,—which +inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails +adapted for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea. +Whilst, as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the +true serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply +because it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development +of an ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with +most of the appearances described, and would in the most natural +manner explain many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake +of gigantic size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and +allow for slight variations or inaccuracies in the accounts given by +Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these ideas the nearest +possible approach to a reasonable solution of this interesting problem”.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page393">[393]</span></p> + +<p>“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of +motion of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a +dorsal or back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements +of the laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath +the surface, would serve to propel the animal forward without +causing the front portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent +motion; whilst the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained +on the presumption that sea-weed may have become attached +to the animal, or, that the upper ridge of the vertically +compressed tail extended far forward and appeared as a fin-like +structure.”</p> + +<p>“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which +I may be desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes +the strong points of this explanation, is the probability of +the development to a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine +serpents. This point is one in support of which zoology and physiology +will offer strong and favourable testimony. There is no +single fact, so far as I am aware, which militates in the slightest +degree against the supposition that giant members of the sea-serpents +may be occasionally developed. The laws which regulate human +growth and structure, and in virtue of which veritable “sons of +Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian giant, +differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are developed, +must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom. +There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition +that a giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly +observe almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a +member of the race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its +neighbours. But clearer still does our case become when we consider +that we have proof of the most absolute and direct kind of +the giant development of such forms as cuttle-fishes, which have +thus appeared as if in realisation of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”, +which plays so important a part in that strange weird tale, the +“Toilers of the Sea”. At the present time we are in full possession +of the details of several undoubted cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes +of literally gigantic proportions,—developed, in fact, to +an extent justly comparable to that of the supposed “sea-serpent”, +when the latter is compared with its ordinary representatives of +the tropical oceans.”</p> + +<p>“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a +gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable +<span class="pagenum" id="Page394">[394]</span>giant of its race—or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct +species of monster sea-serpents—than in the production of huge +cuttle-fishes, which, until within the past few years, remained +unknown to the foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic +developments of snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or +reptiles, I hold we have at least a feasible and rational explanation +of the primary fact of the actual existence of such organisms.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> (1883) also says:</p> + +<p>“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails +adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, +and are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible +that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and +colossal development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much +attention to this subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development +of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law +of the production of the giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at +any rate, towards accounting for its supposed appearance”.</p> + +<p>But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the +mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained. +Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical +undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large <i>Hydrophidae</i>, +supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain, +the United States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland +and the Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends +over the tropical seas.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>fifth</b> explanation. The same Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> believed the +sea-serpent seen by Capt. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> to be a fish (<a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>), closely +allied to the genera <i>Symbranchus</i> (Fam. <i>Symbranchidae</i>) and <i>Sphagebranchus</i> +(Fam. <i>Muraenidae</i>); consequently <b>belonging to the eel tribe</b>.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, after having +shown that in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an +optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large +seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:</p> + +<p>“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic +species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar +conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s figures +remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be either +so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the animal +<span class="pagenum" id="Page395">[395]</span>was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”</p> + +<p>And Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> is also +inclined to this hypothesis:</p> + +<p>“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like +animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic +developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the +appearance of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the +movements of a large conger-eel, for example, in any of our great +aquaria, must have remarked not only its serpentine form, but +also the peculiar gliding motion, which seems frequently to be +produced independently of the active movements of the tail or +pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however, that a giant eel might +by most persons be readily enough referred to its proper place in +the animal sphere, although, when viewed from some distance, +and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner, the spectators—all +unprepared to think of an eel being so largely developed—might +report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea-Monsters Unmasked</i>, too, asserts:</p> + +<p>“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”</p> + +<p>As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough +known to all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The +<i>Symbranchus</i> has nearly the same external features, it has, however, +no pectoral or ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures, +or gill-splits, are united together on its throat. The <i>Sphagebranchus</i> +has also nearly the same external features; it has no ventral fins +and the very end of its tail is destitute of a fin.</p> + +<p>The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility +are strong proofs against this hypothesis.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>sixth</b> explanation is that which I have accidentally found +mentioned in Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert’s</span> <i>Description of the Shetland Islands</i>, +1822. The passage runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished +for, did not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the +sea-snake, but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the <b>fable</b>.”</p> + +<p>I am convinced that Dr. <span class="smcap">Hibbert</span> is right. All fables have their +foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible +that the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable +of Thor’s great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Percy’s</span> explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs +<span class="pagenum" id="Page396">[396]</span>from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. <span class="smcap">H. E. Strickland</span> +and <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span> in a note to their dissertation on the +Dodo, in the <i>Annals and Magazine of Natural History</i>, 2nd. +series, Vol. 2, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848:</p> + +<p>“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent, +which first spread in modern times from Norway, was +to be traced to the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology, +of that fell offspring of Loki, Jormungandr,—the great world +surrounding serpent, whom Thor fished up with the bull’s-head +bait, and whom, at the great day of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It +is curious by the way, that we are expressly told how Jormungandr +rearing his head, poured out fountains of venom upon Thor, very +much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great sea-serpent raising +up its head and spouting out water.”</p> + +<p>At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports +of the great sea-serpent are no fables.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p id="Ref7">The <b>seventh</b> explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of <b>basking +sharks</b>” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at +the end of Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill’s</span> dissertation, printed in 1828, with +which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in +our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our <a href="#Fig8">fig. +8</a>, in the <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-be Sea-Serpents.</p> + +<p>Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist +<span class="smcap">Mantell</span> in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor +of the <i>Illustrated London News</i>, and published there in the +number of November 4, 1848:</p> + +<p>“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent, +I would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable +that an ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine +habits described by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing +to forbid the supposition that there are unknown living forms of +cartilaginous fishes presenting the general configuration and proportions +of the animals figured in the last Number of the Illustrated +London News.”</p> + +<p>Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than +thirty feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (<i>Squalus +maximus</i> of <span class="smcap">Linné</span>). The figures referred to are those of the sea-serpent +seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, (<a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page397">[397]</span></p> + +<p>In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span> +was of opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in +reality, but only in fables, and that these fables originated in the +Northern mythology. Now, he seems to have changed his opinion +in a fortnight, for in a letter to Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span>, part of which is +published “with permission of both gentlemen” in the <i>Zoologist</i>, +number of November 27th., 1848, he says:</p> + +<p>“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of +some unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have +astonished the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile +of the authorities of science.”</p> + +<p>“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the +known facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship +between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri; +nor do the recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”</p> + +<p>“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous +fish (Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when +caught the sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive +it is just as probable that a shark may carry the head for short +periods out of the water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally +step aboard to look at us land monsters.”</p> + +<p>“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may +be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to +believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved. +Might we not obtain some information from the accurate Sars +regarding the Norwegian tradition? Could not the surgeon of the +Daedalus throw some light on the subject?”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, after having +treated of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion +caused by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some +cetacean, expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in +the following terms:</p> + +<p>“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville +consider that the <i>Daedalus</i> animal may have been one of the +sharks; and there is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, +which was considered by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent, +was really the <i>Selache maxima</i> or basking-shark. But the identification +of Captain M’Quhae’s figure and description with a shark +is preposterous.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, however, in <i>Nature</i> (1878, Sept. 12, +Vol. XVIII) is of the opinion that:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page398">[398]</span></p> + +<p>“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might +do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, +1883, also believes that “the +dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured +by Mr. Buckland, may have furnished +the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently +means the ridge of fins as seen in <a href="#Fig44">fig. 44</a>.</p> + +<p>None of the observers of the sea-serpent +mention fins on its back, so that this +explanation is not untenable either.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>eighth</b> explanation is given by +Mr. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> in his paper “<i>On Sea-Serpentism</i>”, +printed in 1828; (See our +<a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes), at the end of which +he supposed that also the appearances of +<b>balaenopterous whales</b> may have given +rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says: +“which have fins on their back”, and yet +he cannot show me one single account of +the sea-serpent, in which there is question +of backfins. Moreover, who has ever heard +of fin-fishes which bend their body in +such a manner as to show bunches on +their backs, or coils like a string of +buoys? <a href="#Fig57">Fig. 57</a> shows the readers a fin-fish +(<i>Balaenoptera physalus</i> (<span class="smcap">Linné</span>)). It is +the largest kind of whales, it may obtain +a length of 106 feet. An outline of the +tail, seen from above, is added above +the hindmost part of the main-figure.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig57"> +<img src="images/illo398.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 57.—Balaenoptera physalus, (Linné).—</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in his <i>Romance of Natural +History</i>, after having considered and upset +the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory +says:</p> + +<p>“It is by no means impossible that the +creature may prove to belong to the +<i>Cetacea</i> or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page399">[399]</span>lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of +Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in +this direction.”</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent seen by Colonel <span class="smcap">Steele</span>, however was not a +cetacean, although it was observed spouting, for it had a red +back-fin like a saw (see our <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-be Sea-Serpents, +1852, Aug. 28).—</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>ninth</b> explanation is Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Bakewell’s</span>. In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> Notizen, +Vol. 40, n<sup>o</sup>. 879, of June, 1834, we read:</p> + +<p>“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great +American Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of +his Introduction to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the +opinion that the great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the +United States of America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles +which may be analogous to the fossil <b>Ichthyosaurus</b>, and that the +description, given of the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles, +and formidable mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing +more with that of a saurian than with that of a snake. Some of +the people who saw the sea-serpent state that the body was very +long and as thick as a water-cask.”</p> + +<p>Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent +to be a living <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, yet we meet with the following suggestion, +in the September number of <i>Nature</i> of that same year.</p> + +<p>“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates +the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters +of which the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:—“If +the sea-serpent continues in its present sociable state of mind, we +may perhaps have an opportunity of deciding the vexed question +regarding the formation of that portion of his figure which, according +to English observers, he keeps concealed under the water. The +legend of the Lambton Worm, a popular tale in the North of +England, describes the worm as a serpent of enormous size, who +used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the River Wear, +just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient stone +effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle, represents +it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was +made, as it probably was, <i>from some recollection</i> on recent tradition +of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the +beast was one of the <i>winged land monsters</i> which existed at the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page400">[400]</span>same time as the <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>, but would naturally become an +extinct species far sooner than the <i>fish-lizard</i>, which can conceal +itself in the depth of the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”</p> + +<p>The <i>Ichthyosaurus</i> must +have been destitute of +scales, or better the scales +must have been of a +microscopic minuteness, +and so I have ventured +to sketch my <a href="#Fig59">fig. 59</a>, +showing the <i>Ichthyosaurus +communis</i>, as it most +probably looked, and of +which <a href="#Fig58">fig. 58</a> represents +the skeleton.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig58"> +<img src="images/illo400a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 58.—Skeleton of Ichthyosaurus communis.</p> +</div> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig59"> +<img src="images/illo400b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 59.—Ichthyosaurus communis, restored.</p> +</div> + +<p>Here we have an animal +of really huge dimensions. +Some may have +had a length of from forty +to fifty feet. Their skin +was smooth, the tail was +very long and four flappers +resembling the foreflappers +of whales, were +the organs of locomotion. +Most probably, however, +the tail was provided with +a vertical fin, as I have +delineated. The neck was +very short, as in whales. +Now the sea-serpent has +a pointed tail, and a very +long neck. Especially this +last character is enough +to drop the supposition +that the sea-serpents are +still living <i>Ichthyosauri</i>. +Moreover, the <i>Ichthyosaurus</i> +was unable to move in vertical undulations.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page401">[401]</span></p> + +<p>The <b>tenth</b> explanation.—In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834), +n<sup>o</sup>. 879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell’s</span> +latest (1834?) edition of his <i>Introduction to Geology</i>, above mentioned, +Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span> adds:</p> + +<p>“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may +be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a +<b>Plesiosaurus</b>, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the +latter does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p><i>Plesiosaurians</i>, as well as the <i>Ichthyosaurians</i>, are reptiles only +known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these +animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in +<i>liassic</i> and <i>oolitic</i> formations. Of these remains geologists are able +to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show +my readers a sketch in <a href="#Fig60">fig. 60</a>.—If this is done, it will not be +difficult to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more +so as it is a well-known fact that these animals must have been +destitute or nearly destitute of scales. The figures drawn by <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, +<span class="smcap">Figuier</span> and <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, don’t please me, as the necks are +delineated too slender, and the head of the animal in Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse’s</span> +drawing, in my opinion, is wrongly represented. So I venture to +present to my readers my <a href="#Fig61">fig. 61</a>, showing how I think that the +animal must have looked.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, in the <i>Archiv für Naturgeschichte</i>, of 1841, after +publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself +during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself +is a firm believer in it, goes on:</p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig60"> +<img src="images/illo401.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 60.—Skeleton of Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page402">[402]</span></p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig61"> +<img src="images/illo402.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 61.—Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, restored.</p> +</div> + +<p>“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, +cannot of course be asserted with any certainty. The supposition, +however, is very near, that it is closely related to that animal +which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the +Orkney’s,” &c.</p> + +<p>After a short description of this animal with which the reader +will remember to have been made acquainted in the <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on +Would-be Sea-Serpents, Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> concludes:</p> + +<p>“that this animal resembled a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, and that it thus +belonged to the <i>Amphibia</i>, viz. to the <i>Saurians</i>. Now if such were +the case, and if the creature found in Stronsa were closely related +to the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, and we have every reason +to believe this, it is astonishing that the latter has not been more +observed, than has been the case. For being an Amphibium, which, +according to its organization, can only breathe by lungs, the sea-serpent +necessarily must have come very often to the surface of +the water, to renew the inhaled air. It is, however, conceivable +and probable that stretching out its long neck, it generally comes +only with the nose tip and only for a very short time on the +surface of the water, remaining under it with the rest of the body, +in which circumstances it will not be easy to observe it amongst +the beating of the waves.”</p> + +<p>We observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span>, like Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span>, inclines to +believe that the sea-serpent is, or is allied to the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page403">[403]</span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, in 1847, on +the wrapper of the 54th. number of this Journal made the suggestion +that sea-serpents may belong to one of the <i>Enaliosaurians</i>.</p> + +<p>I have not seen this wrapper so that I am unable to give the +words in which this supposition was written.</p> + +<p>Most probably Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> took this suggestion from Mr. +<span class="smcap">Rathke’s</span> above mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which +he inserted (N. B.!) <i>in the same number of the Zoologist</i>; but it +is, of course, <i>possible</i> that this supposition really was the product +of his own brain. We hope that the latter was the case; but I only +ask: why did he insert the accounts of Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> in the <i>columns</i> +of the issue, and why <i>not</i> the above-mentioned suggestion; +what was the reason to communicate it on the <i>wrapper</i>? It makes +on me the impression as if Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> waited to see if some +one or other would perhaps find out that <i>both accounts and supposition</i> +were <i>already six years old</i>! But, of course, I may be +mistaken!</p> + +<p>Immediately after reading this suggestion on the above mentioned +wrapper, Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles Cogswell</span> wrote for the same Journal his +<i>Plea for the Sea-Serpent</i>. For history’s sake I repeat here his +whole paper. It runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“<i>A Plea for the North-Atlantic Sea-Serpent.</i> By <span class="smcap">Charles Cogswell</span>, +M. D.”</p> + +<p>“Every generation of man is born to stare at something, which +so long as it eludes their understanding, is a very African fetish +to the many, and a Gordian knot to the few.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Hawkin’s</span> <i>Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri</i>.</p> + +<p>“Of the numerous contributions supplied through the press to +support the cause of the subject of this article, one of the most +recent has arrested my attention, because of the particulars having +been long since familiar to me by oral communication from the +writer in person. I allude to the interesting narrative contained in +the “Zoologist” for May last, describing a meeting with such an +animal off the coast of one of the British provinces, stretching out +into the Atlantic to the north-east of New England. It is worthy +of notice that several animals of the Cetaceous kind (sometimes +conjectured to have been a source of deception) were seen and +scanned <i>in limine</i>, and an opportunity was thus afforded for immediate +descrimination. Immediately subjoined is another statement, +copied from a foreign newspaper, being the tribute of a French +sea-captain to the same object, but qualified with so much of the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page404">[404]</span>characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms and +measurements, as rather to display an elaborate view of disjoined +parts, than represent them all in harmony together as belonging +to one individual. It betrays the caution of a witness, who would +fain keep an opening in reserve for escape from a precarious position. +The former adventure took place in 1833, the latter in 1840, +and now they are related almost simultaneously within the last +few months.”</p> + +<p>“Nor is this delay to be wondered at, when we consider how +much the reserve of unbiassed is the tribunal of public opinion, +before which they appear. It will hardly be denied that there is +no debateable point in the modern records of observation more +complacently devoted to ridicule by all but universal consent, than +that of the existence of huge serpent-like animals in the North +Atlantic Ocean. The very mention of the name of sea-serpent in +the singular number with the definite article prefixed, suggests to +most minds an idea of some anomalous monster, without parentage +or congeners, feigned to haunt the recesses of the deep, and, like +the ghost of vulgar superstition, manifesting itself now and again +for the sole conceivable end of adorning some wonderful legend. +This impression, favoured by the circumstance of no actual specimen +having ever occurred to the observation of a naturalist, much +less been obtained for deliberate examination, has caused the subject +of our notice to rank with the mermaid, the unicorn, the +griffin, and other prodigies of the olden faith. It does not fail to +be objected that Norway, a locality most fruitful in accounts of +the appearance in question, has been immemorially distinguished +for a vivid perception of the marvellous. Nor, after hearing the +other side of the Atlantic, are we much better able to divest our +minds of suspicion with regard to the trustworthy character of the +witnesses; our relative in the West having acquired nearly as much +celebrity for the endowment of a grand inventive genius as his +Scandinavian ally in the cause of sea-serpents. They defer indeed, +in so far as the latter believes and venerates his own creations, +while the American indulges his fancy for the purely benevolent +purpose of what is called “hoaxing” the unwary public. Not many +years since, it may be recollected, one of these pleasant philosophers +enlightened his fellow-mortals with a “true and peculiar” +description of certain winged inhabitants assumed to have been +discovered in the moon by an eminent living astronomer, giving +the details with so much simplicity and effected candour with regard +<span class="pagenum" id="Page405">[405]</span>to some particulars, in the manner of “Gulliver’s Travels”, +that many readers were not aware of its being a fabrication. Such +proof of a disposition to practise on the public credulity, too often +repeated, necessarily communicate a colouring of insincerity to all +other reports of strange events emanating from the same source, +and certainly demand the exercise of an unusual amount of circumspection, +though they do not justify scepticism, in the case +now before us.”</p> + +<p>“Making due allowance for these peculiarities in the testimony, +we may, nevertheless, proceed in a spirit of induction to examine +into the tendency of the collateral evidence. The question after all, +when reduced to its simplest form comes to be little more than +one of geographical distribution. That is to say, that even if we +chose to confine the animal to the true serpents, which has been +the ordinary conception heretofore, there is no obvious impediment +to oppose it, either on the score of want of analogy, or of structural +incapacity. Amphibiousness, to commence with, in its popular acceptation, +or the capability of spending a considerable time in the +water, is one of the most familiar properties of serpents, as illustrated +in the common snake (<i>Coluber natrix</i>) and the viper, the +only two species, if we except the blindworm, ascertained to be +indigenous to these islands. “Snakes”, observes Professor Bell (“History +of British Reptiles”) “are extremely fond of the water, taking +to it readily, and swimming with great elegance and ease, holding +the head and neck above the surface. It is extremely probable that +they resort to the water in search of frogs.” In the learned System +of Schlegel, translated by Prof. Traill—“Physiognomy of Serpents”—members +of various ophidian-groups are characterised as living near +and inhabiting lakes and rivers. Some belong to the genera Tropidonotus +(which here includes the first named British species), and +Homalopsis, comprised under the head of <i>Fresh Water-Serpents</i>. +Of the Boas, this author says: “several species frequent fresh water, +and there are some of them essentially aquatic,” among them the +Boa murina, the largest of known serpents, and his two species +of Acrochordus.”</p> + +<p>“Further, and what completely sets at rest the part of the case +we are now considering, there are swarms of <i>marine</i> ophidians +inhabiting the warm latitudes of the pacific. These appear to have +been partly known to the ancients. Aelian informs us that Hydrae +with flat tails were found in the Indian Seas, and that they also +existed in the marshes. He also tells us that these reptiles had +<span class="pagenum" id="Page406">[406]</span>very sharp teeth, and appeared to be venomous. According to +Ctesias, the serpents of the river Argada in the province of Sittacene, +remain concealed at the <i>bottom of the water</i> during the day, +and by night they attack persons who go to bath or wash linnen” +(Griffith in Cuvier). Schlegel has no less than seven species collected +under the generic name of Hydrophis, constituting his family of +<i>Sea-Snake</i>—; they are especially fitted for aquatic life, having +the nostrils directed vertically and furnished with valves, and the +tail flattened like an oar; they reside in the sea exclusively, never +going on land, and are supposed to prey on fishes. Their limits +belong to the intertropical regions of the Indian Seas, or of the +Great Pacific Ocean.”</p> + +<p>“The existence of <i>bona fide</i> sea-serpents being therefore a matter +of notoriety, (and preserved specimens are to be seen at any time +on the shelves of the British Museum), we have but to address +ourselves to the subordinate inquiry, whether there be sufficient +reason for assigning to any of the family a habitat in the North +Atlantic Ocean. And here it is necessary to put away all that idea +of deviation from the common order of Nature, which could connect +the evidence heretofore given with some isolated excressence +so to speak, of the animal kingdom. The great size attributed to +them has doubtless, served very materially to produce an infavourable +impression. Schlegel limits the extreme length of the greatest +known serpent to twenty-five feet, although such naturalists as +Cuvier and Milne-Edwards allow an extension of thirty or forty +feet to some of the Boas. These estimates do not fall so far short +of those contended for in the present instance as to form an insuperable +ground of objection. Many witnesses whose character and +station in life command respect, whatever judgment may be formed +of their powers of correct observation, profess to be fully persuaded +that they have seen immense creatures, resembling serpents, in the +vicinity of the European or the American shores. The several depositions +from Norway that appeared in the “Zoologist” of February +last, comprised the testimony not only of fishermen, drawing their +subsistence from the sea, and familiar with the more prevalent +forms of the inhabitants, but of a class commonly presumed to +be well educated, as merchants, clergymen, and a surgeon. Their +observations indeed vary on the subject of length (varying between +forty and one hundred feet), and likewise on some of the details +of outline, so that they may either relate to different specimens, +or to deceptive phenomena producing dissimilar impressions, whichever +<span class="pagenum" id="Page407">[407]</span>alternative decretic may be inclined to profer. The first notice +transmitted by an English gentleman, holding a responsible appointment +under the crown in one of our transatlantic dependencies, +is calculated to supply any deficiency on the part of the new +hemisphere, so far as a faithful representation of what was submitted +to the eye alone may remain a desideration. But for the +resolution manifested in this periodical to allow the question a fair +hearing on its sterling merits, there can be little doubt that this +testimony, would not have been forthcoming; like in all probability, +more of the same ingenious stamp, which the unwillingness of the +principals to oppose the current of public opinion, directly proportioned +to the value of the character they run the risk of compromizing +for no obvious use, induces them to withhold.”</p> + +<p>“But it may be asked, how it is possible to explain the circumstance +of these <i>monstra natantia</i> being encountered no farther South +than about the sixtieth or fifty-fifth parallel on the European boundary, +while in the American water their domain approaches so +much nearer the Equator, as Nova Scotia (or New Scotland) and +New England? By a curious and happy coincidence, of like significance +to many that are constantly springing up to confirm the +results of independent research, such for instance as the print of +the piscivorous gavials in a prior leaf of the “Stonebook” to the +mammalivorous crocodiles; it happens that precisely a line swerving +from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts is the boundary +likewise of other marine animals of corresponding types. Among +the divisions of the North Atlantic, recently marked out by Professor +Edward Forbes as determined by the presence of similar +forms of animal life, occurs what is called the “arctic and boreal” +province, which “sweeps across the northernmost part of the North +Atlantic from Europe, extending down the coast of North America +as far as Massachusetts, but nothing like so far on the European +side as the American.” (Lecture at the Royal Institution, May +14, 1847).”</p> + +<p>“Thus copiously backed by the most affirmative evidence, both +positive and circumstantial, all contributing to establish the lawful +claim to entity, the “great unknown” of the North Atlantic has +still to overcome the strong feeling of discredit so widely associated +with his past history, before he can hope to be understood as +seriously claiming to be a subject of the animal kingdom. If men +of the highest name in science condescend to notice him at all, +it is most probably with a smile at the expense of what they consider +<span class="pagenum" id="Page408">[408]</span>a crude invention, to which no importance should be attached. +But authority, however exalted, has no patent of final adjudication +in cases where its means of information are confessedly imperfect, +as compared with those enjoyed by the supporters of a disputed +position. The learned world was centuries in believing the story +of Herodotus about little birds resorting to feed on insects within +the “stretched jaws” of the crocodile. Bruce all but ruined his +credit for a time by relating that he had seen the Abyssinians eat +the raw flesh cut from one of the haunches of a living cow; and +there are some who, with no more reason, pretend to doubt the +good faith of a contemporary traveller, who declares that he once +made a brief excursion on the back of an alligator. The conflicts +of discovery and opinion engross indeed no small share of the history +of human knowledge. There are cases, no doubt, in which +the senses and the judgment of incompetent persons are liable to +be imposed upon by irrelevant facts created or qualified for the +occasion. But here there is no hypothesis concerned requiring nature +to be tortured into its service; physiology can have no latent +objections, ready to start up unawares and make a mockery of +belief, because some of the serpent kind are indubitably organized +for an aquatic medium; the laws of geographical distribution deduced +irrespectively, yield their consent, and the integrity of not +a few of the narrator is unimpeachable. Are we justified in rejecting +the text, because the interpretation may not harmonize with +our views; in imputing willful dishonesty to those who merely +describe to the best of their hability what their eyes have disclosed +to them? We do not despice the mermaid, the triton and siren, +as altogether imaginary but endeavour to reconcile at least their +physical attributes with those of the seal or oriental dugong. The +unicorn is supposed to have original in the narwhal; and the griffin +is recognized as a well-known friend in an antiquated garb, being +no other than the tapir, somewhat disfigured by travellers, and +further indebted to the artist for a pair of wings and an architectural +style of tail. Even the ghost-seer is seldom suspected of intentional +fraud, however justly we may believe to be the dupe of an +imagination acted on by some positive phenomenon. The collateral +truths which testify on the affirmative side have been dwelt upon +to some extent, and shall again be adverted to presently. On the +other hand, surely there must be something peculiar in the economy +of a vast air-breathing race, frequenting well-known tracts and +yet never visible but by the merest accident; nor is it any sufficient +<span class="pagenum" id="Page409">[409]</span>answer to refer to the construction of the breathing apparatus, +distinctive of the marine ophidians, enabling them to live long +under water, and respire air with an almost imperceptible exposure +above the surface, because the like provision does not prevent +the Pacific denizens from being abundantly subject to observation. +The want of conformity in some of the reported particulars of form +and dimensions is of insignificant moment, and may easily be +converted into a proof of innocence of design. Above all, the objections, +be it understood, are not <i>of the kind</i> which the public +at large appear to imagine them. There is nothing ridiculous or +abnormal in the idea of a sea-serpent. So far from this the philosopher +should rather be required to give a reason why at least +the warmer situations of the Atlantic are unprovided with occupants +corresponding to those which dwell in the opposite region +of the globe.”</p> + +<p>“If the diversity of detail be accounted too serious an objection +to be so lightly dismissed, is there no other organization within +our cognizance which more satisfactorily embodies the several conditions +rather loosely intimated than prescribed throughout the +problem? The portraits given in authors of the restored Plesiosaurus, +albeit conceived to represent beings that “filled up the measure of +their years long before Eden was planted, and the dominions of +man made of the red earth, acknowledged” (Hawkins), offer several +particulars answering to those ascribed in most of the notices on +record to the so-named sea-serpent,—the long, over-arched neck, +the huge trunk, the protracted tail, and sometimes (see the deposition +of Archdeacon Deinbolt, “Zoologist” 1606) an appearance of +fins or paddles. This coincidence is the more remarkable, because +no one can suppose it to have been preconcerted. Hence the ingenious +suggestion of the Editor of the “Zoologist”, that the animals +may belong to one of the Enaliosaurian types, seems to supply +the only deficient link in the chain of demonstration, before we +arrive at the final proof, a spectacle open to all observers. The +neck of the Plesiosaurus (presuming this to be the genus indicated) +“is composed of upwards of thirty bones, a number far exceeding +that of the cervical vertebrae in any other known animal. This +reptile combines in its structure the head of a lizard with teeth +like those of a crocodile, a neck <i>resembling the body of a serpent</i>, +a trunk and tail of the proportions of those of a quadruped, with +paddles like those of turtles” (Mantell’s Wonders of Geology). If +this seemingly whimsical coaptation of incongruous members, which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page410">[410]</span>the dictum of science has consigned to the doom of pre-Adamic +extinction, can be suspected without unpardonable heresy to be +yet among the living, what is more allowable than to surmise that +persons even of cultivated intellect, but quite inconscious that such +things had ever existed, may have all honestly striven, more or +less, to mould their visual perception into accordance with the +familiar notion suggested by its general outline; and thus have +given rise to the confusion objected to in their reports. Be this as +it may, the discovery of Mr. Darwin of <i>marine</i> saurians, though +but three or four feet long, about some of the south sea islands, +contradicts any assumption that animals approaching to it in character +are no longer extant. To account upon this supposition +likewise for the hide-and-seek sort of life which those in question +seem to lead, it may be observed that “the breathing holes of the +Plesiosaurus differ from those of all other existing reptiles, and +resemble those of whales”. They are placed “near the highest part +of the head, where they would enable the animal most readily to +breathe without exposing anything more than the apertures themselves +above the water, corresponding admirably with the marine +habits of the animal as indicated by the structure of its extremities.” +(Ansted’s Ancient World, 1847).</p> + +<p>“Without committing myself to anything more than a belief +that the subject is one fairly entitled to be considered an open +question—open to the unrestrained testimony of future casual +observers, equally with the criticism of the scientific—I feel +assured that I cannot better express the opinion which every candid +peruser of what has been stated must be prepared to arrive at, +than by using the words of a naturalist who has given his attention +to these remarks: “The argument appears to me perfectly +satisfactory in favour of at least a suspension of judgment on the +subject. The question is whether the evidence is such as would +induce any man to believe, whose mind was prepossessed with no +notions at all respecting it. Should we credit the testimony, if the +animal to which it relates were claimed to be a mere variety? I +think we should.”—</p> + +<p>I am obliged to make a few notes or observations on this paper. +The account, namely, of which Mr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> speaks in the beginning +of his “Plea”, which arrested his attention, because of +the particulars having been long since familiar to him by oral +communication, is that of the party of British officers (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>).—That +“other statement” is that made by Capt. <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> (<a href="#Report106A">n<sup>o</sup>. 106a</a>).—I +<span class="pagenum" id="Page411">[411]</span>beg the reader to look over the above-mentioned passages.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> had better done to omit his observation, that the account +of the French sea-captain “was qualified with so much of +the characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms +and measurements”. The reader himself will in most of the accounts +of the sea-serpent, which fill this volume, have observed the same +“precision in details” indifferently whether the account was recorded +by a Norwegian, a German, an English, a French or an +American witness.—His observation that the sea-serpent only +occurs “in the North Atlantic no farther south than a line swerving +from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts” is +incorrect, as the reader may already have observed himself. If he +had read all the accounts of the sea-serpent up to his days, he +would, of course, not have written this. The “deposition of Archdeacon +<span class="smcap">Deinbolt</span>, zool. 1606” is of the 28th. of July, 1845 (<a href="#Report115">n<sup>o</sup>. +115</a>). Mr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> cites here the passage in which he will find “an +appearance of paddles”. The reader will probably remember that +there was no question of paddles, but of a boiling of the water, +which the witnesses <i>thought</i> to have been caused by a pair of fins +nearest the head, and which I have explained in another way.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> calls Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> suggestion, that the sea-serpents +may belong to the <i>Enaliosaurian</i> type, “ingenious”. I think that +the reader, after having read only the accounts of the sea-serpent +up to the days of Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> suggestion, i. e. up to 1847, +will not be inclined to call this suggestion “ingenious”, with regard +to the sea-serpent being so often reported as having a mane +and whiskers, and swimming with vertical undulations. Moreover +it is the question whether this suggestion was Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> or +Mr. <span class="smcap">Rathke’s</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">J. D. Morries Stirling</span> too, seemed to believe that the +sea-serpents are allied to the extinct <i>Plesiosauri</i>, for he writes in +a letter to Captain <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty +(See <i>Illustrated London News</i> of 28th. October, 1848):</p> + +<p>“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile known as +the sea-serpent but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence +of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several +of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size +and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect, +as well as having short paws or flappers, the description +of the Northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance +of some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief +<span class="pagenum" id="Page412">[412]</span>in the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed +to be the same animal as the kraken, or rather from the +names having been used indiscriminately.”</p> + +<p>Another gentleman, who signed his article in the <i>Times</i> of November +2nd., 1848, with the initials F. G. S., came to the same +suggestion. His letter will be found in its right place, after the +statements of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> who perhaps feared that in spite of his “Plea” +the story of the sea-serpent was on a fair way to be forgotten, +once more took the subject in hand, and sent a second paper to +the <i>Zoologist</i> of December 1848. This dissertation is at least better +than the first, being partly critical, partly historical. Again, for +history’s sake, I am obliged to repeat nearly his whole paper.</p> + +<p>“It grows more and more necessary every day to acknowledge +the <i>existence</i> of a vast form of marine animal bearing some resemblance +to a serpent. The recent letter of Captain M’Quhae to the +Admiralty allows of no other alternative than either to admit the +evidence, or invent some still more extraordinary hypothesis to +explain it away. The forms of bearings of the strangers have been +duly reported at head quarters, and no more deserve to be called +in question, as regards the fidelity of the narrator, than the existence +of any commissioned “Snake” or “Anaconda”, whose station +and appointments we find recorded in the daily press. No preternatural +messenger in “the shape that tempted Eve”,—he passes +by on the other side without manifesting the slightest degree of +interest in human affairs; no phantom progeny of light and air, +although affecting literally the same haunts as the “Flying Dutchman”,—he +steers himself by compass, and is the herald of no +signal disaster; no herd of porpoises disporting all in a row, and +joined together by some <i>Daedalian</i> process of imagination into the +semblance of unity—his head is “decidedly that of a snake”,—he +carries it for twenty minutes at a time out of the water; and +his body is seen for a continuous length of sixty feet on a level +with the surface. From the standard jest of the witty, and the +discarded problem of the wise, he has shown himself likely to be +“no joke” for his physical powers, and well deserving the gravest +scientific inquiry.”</p> + +<p>“To show what a formidable and unyielding front has been +heretofore opposed to him, I shall quote a passage from the article +under the head of “Serpents” in the last edition of the “Encyclopedia +Britannica” (1842): “No proper proof has yet been adduced +<span class="pagenum" id="Page413">[413]</span>of any of these species (sea-serpents) inhabiting the “American +Ferry”, as we see that world of waters now named since the +steaming days of the British Queen and the Great Western. Mr. +Schlegel characterizes the statement as an assertion <i>que je puis +contredire avec certitude</i>: and the author adds: “we shall content +ourselves by stating that sea-serpents have not yet been observed +in the Atlantic Ocean”. The following notice occurs in a popular +compilation of the animal kingdom just issued from the press +(1848): “Sea-serpent (or the Kraken). The appearance of this +<i>fabulous</i> monster is thus accounted for by Mr. A. Adams. In the +Sooloo seas I have often watched the phenomenon which first gave +rise to the marvellous stories of the great sea-serpent, viz., lines +of rolling porpoises resembling a long string of buoys oftentimes +extending seventy, eighty, or one hundred yards. These constitute +the so-named protuberances of the monster’s back, keep in close +single file progressing rapidly along the calm surface of the water,” +&c. Had the <i>fabulous</i> serpent in Aesop, who complained of being +“a multis hominibus pessumdatus”, been aware of what laid up +in the fates for his aquatic relative, no doubt he would have +ceased to repine at his own hard lot.”</p> + +<p>“The official corroboration of the fundamental truth of these +“marvellous stories” is important, not only because the author +under the circumstances must at least receive credit for the most +entire sincerity, but from the encouragement thus given to other +credible witnesses to bring forward their evidence. There is no +reason to suppose that even this would have been readily laid +before the public, but for the desire expressed by the Board of +Admiralty to learn the truth of an accidental rumour. As regards +any additional light thrown on the natural history of the animal, +it is not more satisfactory than many of the accounts we already +possess. Indeed the paragraphs which precede the captain’s letter +in the “Zoologist” viz., the extract from the journal of Lieut. +Drummond, and the first public rumour as it appeared in the +“Times”, tend rather to confuse the official statement, and will no +doubt be used to create suspicions of its accuracy. The communication +which follows it, purporting to give a report of another specimen +seen by an American captain, is supposed to be “a hoax”, +and as such is worthy of preservation from the ingenuity it displays.”</p> + +<p>“When a doctrine is assumed to be fanciful, people seldom take +the trouble to inquire into its history and merits. This may account +for the sea-serpent being commonly confounded with a very different +<span class="pagenum" id="Page414">[414]</span>prodigy, too exacting in its claims for the most extravagant credulity +of modern days to regard with favour. As seen above, its name +and that of Kraken are popularly used as synonymous. And nevertheless, +Pontoppidan, Bishop of Bergen, whose “Natural History +of Norway” (translated into English in 1755) is the usual standard +of authority on both subjects, treats of them separately in appropriate +sections of his work. Of the Kraken he says, “I come now +to the third, and incontestably the largest sea-monster in the +world: it is called Kraken, krasen, or, as some name it, krabben, +that word being applied by way of eminence to this creature”. Its +back or upper part he described as truly gigantic, being a mile +and a half or more in circumference, and it is provided with limbs +so strong as to be able to pull boats and the smaller sailing crafts +under water. Some deem the original of this story to have been a +Sepia or Medusa of enormous size; others set it down for an optical +illusion; Pontoppidan himself thinks that “in all probability it may +be reckoned of the polypi or of the starfish kind”. One cannot help +being reminded, on reading the above, of the passage in Milton +where he compares Satan, “prone on the flood”, to “That sea-beast””....... +&c.—</p> + +<p>“Commentators have been divided in opinion whether Milton +supposed the leviathan to be a crocodile or a whale. The former +idea derives little support from the text; the whale, which has +only lately been divested of its “scaly rind”, puts forward more +plausible pretentions: nevertheless, the vast bulk of the creature +alluded to, and its position, “slumbring in the Norway foam”, +suggest the inquiry whether the poet may not have had in his +mind a tradition of the kraken. I may mention here that the +Norwegian Bishop believed that the Leviathan of Job and Isaiah +had been detected in the <i>sea-serpent</i>. Of the latter animal Pontoppidan +says: “The soe-ormen””....... &c.</p> + +<p>“It would serve little purpose to occupy these pages with mere +copies of the published narratives and depositions tending to prove +the existence of the animal under our consideration. Whatever +discrepancies may perplex us with regard to subordinate details, +it is important to remember that the one ruling form, that of a +serpent, is the foundation of all the descriptions. The form may +vary—in length, perhaps, from forty to a hundred feet and +upwards; in the relative dimensions of the head and different parts +of the body; in the presence or absence of a mane or paddles; +and more particularly with respect to an appearance of dorsal +<span class="pagenum" id="Page415">[415]</span>arches or elevations, rising above the water like a row of casks or +buoys. The greater part of the evidence on the subject is contained, +I believe, in Pontoppidan’s “Natural History of Norway” (1755), +the “Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England +relative to a large Marine Animal, supposed to be a Sea-Serpent, +seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817” +(Boston 1817), and the last volume of “The Zoologist” (1847). In +the Scandinavian work the principal witness is Captain L. de Ferry, +of the Navy, who thus describes an individual which he saw while +in a boat, rowed by eight men, within six miles of Molde, in a +calm hot day of August, 1747. “The head of the snake””..... &c.</p> + +<p>“The Report of the Linnaean Society of New England contains +the result of an inquiry”....... &c.</p> + +<p>“The tenor of the late observations in Norway recorded in the +“Zoologist” (Zool. 1604) certainly might justify the inference that +these so remarkable prominences are not persistent, but depend, +as suggested by the American functionary, on the mode of progression +practised at the moment. Anybody that had watched the +lithe and varied curves of an otter in the water can have no +difficulty in recording together the different kinds of undulations +to the sea-serpent. There is one particular of rare occurrence worthy +of notice, in one of these later accounts, calling to mind a peculiarity +in the description of the animal seen by Mr. Egede, a +Greenland missionary and furnished to us with a copy of the figure, +by Pontoppidan. This creature, of the unusual length of 600 feet, +“had under its body two flappers, or perhaps two broad fins”. +One of the recent narratives also states of the progressive movement, +that it appeared to be produced “by the help of two fins” +(Zool. 1607). Thus is offered a possible solution of the difficulty +occasioned by captain M’Quhae’s specimen having advanced at a +rapid rate, with 60 feet of the body à fleur d’eau, without any +visible undulation.” (I, however, refer the reader to the <a href="#Report115">report</a> of +1845, July 28).</p> + +<p>“Here I may refer to “The Description of an Animal stranded +on the Island of Stronsa, in the year 1808” given in the first +Volume of the “Wernerian Transactions” by the late eminent Dr. +Barclay. Evidently disposed to believe that this animal was a sea-serpent, +Dr. Barclay indignantly repudiates the opinion of Mr. +Home, that it was nothing more than a shark (<i>Squalus maximus</i>). +Figures of the two are shown in juxtaposition, for the purpose of +constrasting them, and to all appearance their respective peculiarities +<span class="pagenum" id="Page416">[416]</span>are quite sufficient to distinctive appellations. The Orkney +animal, in fact, bears a curious resemblance to a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, +with <i>six</i> legs. Nevertheless, anatomists have decided that a shark +it really was, the anomalies being accounted for by the circumstance +of the drawing having been taken from hearsay and under +the supervision of persons who only saw the original in a very +imperfect state. The “Animal of Stronsa” and the “Scoliophis atlanticus” +leave us equally in the dark with regard to the physical +economy of the sea-serpent; that is, unless the solution offered by +Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310) shall prove to be correct.” +(See our <a href="#Ref7">7th. explanation</a>.)</p> + +<p>“From what precedes it is evident, <i>First</i>, that the notion of +the sea-serpent is not a mere growth of unlettered and credulous +superstition, since it has been repeated and confirmed by parties +than whom it would be difficult to select any more worthy of +confidence, with this sole objection—that none of them have +been naturalists. The critical eye of a Müller or an Owen would +determine its true affinities in a moment. <i>Secondly</i>, that if we do +the justice of rejecting all extraneous ideas, and confine ourself to +what strictly relates to the object in question, there is a consistent +tendency in nearly all the different narratives to invest it with the +true characters of the reptilian class. <i>Thirdly</i>, that if there be any +truth in the idea that the animal spends most of its time under +water, only rising to the surface in calm weather during the summer +months, this—however difficult to conceive of an air-breathing +creature—in a great measure accounts for the infrequency +of its occurrence. But are there no other forms, even of the highest +stage of organization, which have been able to conceal themselves +from the scrutinizing of naturalists? Not to speak of the minor +accessions of unknown species, coming in to adorn our collections +and extend the limits of science, it deserves to be borne in mind +that perhaps the very chief of all the quadrumana (<i>Troglodytes +gorilla</i> of Savage), the being that holds the foremost rank in the +scale next to man, is one of the most recent contributions of the +African Fauna. At the beginning of this century a cetaceous animal +(<i>Physeter bidens</i> of Sowerby), sixteen feet long, was cast ashore +on the coast of Elginshire, the species has been previously undescribed, +and not another example is <i>commonly</i> believed to have +since occurred. From the difficulty of assigning it a place, it has +been the subject of no fewer than four or five generic appellations, +and it is finally referred, by my friend Dr. Melville, to the <i>Delphinorhynchus +<span class="pagenum" id="Page417">[417]</span>micropterus</i> of Dumortier, two other specimens of +which only exist, the one <i>stranded</i> at Havre, the other at Ostend. +Were this animal known only by tradition, it is improbable that +naturalists would have refused it their sanction, under an impression +that a species of such individual magnitude could not possibly +have escaped being captured and subjected of their criticism? And +yet the recognition of the great <i>Physeter bidens</i> is purely the result +of an accident!”</p> + +<p>“If the reptilian nature of this mysterious creature be supposed +to have been established, it becomes an interesting speculation to +consider how far the stories of terrific dragons, transmitted to us +by the ancients, had their origin in realities with which they were +more conversant than ourselves. The sea-serpent, if a real existence, +is of no modern creation. Our forefathers must have seen it. The +utmost length at present allowed to land-snakes is twenty-five feet +(Schlegel). Nevertheless, the very important part sustained by the +serpent in the old mythologies,—its imposing magnitude and +powers, and celebrated by historians and poets,—and its consequence +in the romantic animals of the middle ages, will unstill +a suspicion that, perhaps, not the biographers of snakes were mendaceous, +but their heroes, like those of “the last minstrel”, have +changed or disappeared in the progress of civilization. It is without +the slightest idea of attaching any overstrained importance to the +following passages that I venture to quote them, as proving that +the idea of serpents frequenting and traversing the sea was at least +not repugnant to ancient prejudices. The avenging ministers of Minerva, +crossing the Aegean on their mission to destroy Laocoon, +might be vindicated by an ardent classic as the model from which +the moderns have often plagiarised their descriptions of the sea-serpent.</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“Ecce autem gemini a tenedo <i>tranquilla</i> per alta</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“(Horresco referens) <i>immensis orbibus</i> angues</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Incumbunt pelago, pariterque ad litora tendunt:</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Pectora quorum iter fluctus arrecta, jubaeque</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Sanguineae exuperant undas; pars caetera pontum</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Pone legit, sinuatque immensa volumine terga.</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Fit sonitus spumante salo”.—<i>Virgil.</i>—⁠<a id="FNanchor3" href="#Footnote3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>.</div> +</div> +</div> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a id="Footnote3" href="#FNanchor3" class="label">[3]</a> Look, from Tenedos there come down through the <i>quiet</i> see (I shudder in +telling it) two serpents in <i>enormous coils</i>, moving through the sea, and together +they direct themselves to the strand: their chests, held up between the waves, and +their blood-red <i>mane</i> are held above the waves; the remaining part lashes the sea, +and they bent their immense backs in coils. There arises a noise, whilst the ocean +skims.—Vergilius, Aeneis, II, 203, sqq.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page418">[418]</span></p> + +<p>“The poet, too, is sustained by the naturalist, for here we have +Pliny (whose facts by the way deserve to have inspired the apophthegm +that “truth is stranger than fiction”) telling how the African +<i>dracones</i> were wont to club together and brave the perils of +the Red Sea, in quest of the more luxurious diet of Arabia: “Narratur +in maritimis eorum quaternos quinosque inter se cratium modo +implexos erectis capitibus velificantes, ad meliora pabula Arabiae +vehi fluctibus.” (Plin. Hist. Nat. VIII, 13).⁠<a id="FNanchor4" href="#Footnote4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> + +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a id="Footnote4" href="#FNanchor4" class="label">[4]</a> “And (the Asachaeans) tell that near their coasts every time four or five of +these (dragons) twisted together in the way of a twisted work, and sailing with +their heads erected in the air, sail on the waves towards a better provender place +of Arabia.”</p> +</div> + +<p>“On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the +rare opportunity afforded for the discussion of the subject by the +conductor of this journal, for the purpose of showing, first, that +sea-serpents as a family have long been perfectly recognized in +science, and that therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment +of ridicule; and next, of remarking that strange as are the +properties attributed to the great sea-serpent, there are remains of +a former world in our museums which in their perfect state united +them all or nearly all. Encouraged by the Editor’s referring them +to the Enaliosauri [Zool. LIV. Wrapper] I ventured to name the +Plesiosaurus as the marine animal of our acquaintance to which +they bear the nearest resemblance. This, although admitted at the +time to be a daring breach of the <i>Draconic</i> laws of geology,—laws, +which, having once consigned an organized form to extinction, +have very rarely relaxed their rigour,—seemed to be a necessary +result to the argument <i>par voie d’exclusion</i>: if not a Plesiosaurus +what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to be at all +correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the “animal of Stronsa” +after all furnish the real key to the problem? The affirmative side +of the question is not without at least two very able supporters +(see Zool. 2310); and yet how to reconcile the characteristics of +any possible shark with the sea-serpent-like head, curved neck, +mane, or certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances +so often mentioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent +of the “Times” (Zool. 2311) calls attention to the striking resemblance +between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosaurus, and is surprised +<span class="pagenum" id="Page419">[419]</span>at its never having occurred to any one before. If the signature +F. G. S. implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological +Society, it is satisfactory to find a member of that particular body, +whose favour was least to be expected, so pleased with the idea +as to be willing to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been +repeated and widely circulated by other periodicals. In the words +of an elegant contributor in “Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal who +alludes to it” one would almost suppose that among the buried +learning of the earlier nations there lurked some knowledge of +geology, seeing how their ideas about dragons came to such a conformity +in some respects, with the realities of these preadamite +reptiles.”</p> + +<p>“The determination of a great marine species, however, and +even a knowledge of its habits and influence on the other inhabitants +of the deep, are not, as I conceive, the most obvious +advantages to be desired from the settlement of this question. Let +it be admitted that a huge unknown creature of any description, +provided its general appearance is such as to redeem the various +historians of the great sea-serpent from the charge of wilful deception, +does “swim the ocean stream”, and the value of the result +cannot be too easily over-estimated. The <i>cui-bono</i> philosopher, the +bugbear of naturalists, will no doubt have been highly amused +with the recent excitement about a discovery that at first sight +appears of no practical consequence to the interests of man. I +know of no subject of research he would be likely to seize upon +with more secure self-complacency—or of one which, though +indirectly, supplies a more triumphal answer. To have our failing +confidence in the value of human testimony reassured (and no +evidence can be more solemn than that which relates to the sea-serpent), +is surely no trifling gain of itself. But more than this: +no circumstance has tended so emphatically to stamp the “Yankee” +character with the stain of a bold and unscrupulous love of fiction +and exaggeration as the story of the sea-serpent. Perhaps, on the +principle of Mr. Warren’s “man about town”, who, being called +a <i>splendid sinner</i>, made it his pride to deserve the title, the +thoughtless portion of our Trans-atlantic family (the generous tribute +of an Agassiz is sufficient warrant for the <i>savans</i>) may have +thence been led to indulge in a dangerous style of humour, through +a spirit of bravads. This source of misunderstanding once removed, +the American character may afterwards be regarded with more +respect, and the people themselves—no longer excited to defy +<span class="pagenum" id="Page420">[420]</span>the ridicule they were not able to escape—may sober down to +the legitimate standard of reason.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, too, could not forego +the pleasure to publish a second time his favourite explanation of +the <i>Enaliosaurians</i>. In the Preface to the year 1848 of his Journal, +which appeared together with Mr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell’s</span> above mentioned +dissertation, he filled some pages about the subject:</p> + +<p>“The communications made to the Admiralty by Captain M’Quhae +has turned public attention to the possibility of the existence of a +<i>Sea-Serpent</i> (Zool. 2307). My own views on this subject have long +been known: two years have elapsed since I expressed an opinion +(Zool. 1604), that although the evidence then before the public +was perhaps insufficient to convince those who had hypotheses on +their own to support, yet that it was far too strong for the fact-naturalist, +the inquirer after truth, to dismiss without investigation. +To advance such an opinion as this,—to admit the possibility +of the existence of a sea-serpent in so enlightened an age +as the nineteenth century,—of course led to my being loaded +with ridicule; loaded, but not overwhelmed, for I immediately +afterwards ventured on expressing a still bolder opinion,—no +less than that of suggesting its affinity to a tribe of animals supposed +to be extinct. I stated on the wrapper of n<sup>o</sup>. 54 that the +Enaliosauri of authors would, if living, present the appearances +described. Almost immediately after this I published the statement +of Captain Sullivan and five other British officers, who deliberately +assert (Zool. 1715) that they saw—while on a fishing excursion +on the coast of British America—a sea-serpent, which they supposed +to be eighty or a hundred feet in length; its head, six feet +in length, and its neck, also six feet in length, were the only +part constantly above water, and resembled those of a common +snake: the creature passed them with great rapidity, “leaving a +regular wake”. Nothing is said of any undulating movement, or +of any appearance of portions or coils of the body. The statement +of Captain M’Quhae (Zool. 2307), and that obligingly furnished +expressly for the “Zoologist” by Lieut. Drummond (Zool. 2306), +essentially corroborate the evidence of Captain Sullivan and his +companions: the length and position of the head and neck, and +their being kept constantly above water, closely correspond; the +estimated total length corresponds; the non-observance of any undulation +corresponds,—indeed Captain M’Quhae expressly states +that no portion of the animal appeared to be used in “propelling +<span class="pagenum" id="Page421">[421]</span>it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation”. +Thus we have separate statements closely corresponding with each +other, and each statement is vouched for by several British officers +whose veracity has never been called in question: under these circumstances +we may afford to dismiss from this inquiry all those +assertions of American captains, which have been treated in this +country with such contempt. Resting the evidence solely on the +authority of British officers, I then wish to state my unhesitating +conviction that a marine animal of enormous size does exist, and +that it differs essentially from any living animal described in our +systematic works; and here I cannot refrain from expressing my +regret that the statement of captain Sullivan should have been so +entirely neglected as it has been: it appears to me in all respects +equally trustworthy with the official statement of captain M’Quhae.”</p> + +<p>“The next question which occurs is this—to what class of +vertebrate animals must we refer this monster of the deep? Is it +a mammal, bird, reptile, or fish? All these classes include animals +whose home is the ocean. To commence with placental mammals;—we +have otters, seals, walrusses and sea-cows, all of which +breathe atmospheric air, and, therefore, when swimming on the +surface usually keep their nostrils—often their heads—above the +water: they also propel themselves by means of submerged fins or +paddles, and, when inclined, can move along the surface with +rapid direct and continuous motion. Professor Owen (Zool. 2312), +in accordance with these views, declares the animal to be a seal; +Phoca proboscidea or P. leonina, but his reasoning on the point +appears to me very inconclusive: he assigns the animal a “capacious +vaulted cranium”, whereas Lieutenant Drummond (Zool. 2307) +declares the head was “long, pointed, and <i>flattened</i> at the top”, +adding that it was, “perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw +projecting considerably.” Captain M’Quhae, also, subsequently to +Professor Owen’s paper, repeats (Zool. 2333) that “the head was +<i>flat</i>, and not a <i>capacious vaulted cranium</i>”. The captain, who must +be annoyed at the insinuation that in an official report he had +magnified a seal into a sea-serpent, emphatically declares that “its +great length and its totally differing physiognomy preclude the +possibility of its being a Phoca of any species.” This idea must +therefore be abandoned; the other marine mammals still remaining +open for future consideration.”</p> + +<p>“Among Birds we have no approach to the animal described.”</p> + +<p>“The Enaliosauri next claim our attention, and, for the present +<span class="pagenum" id="Page422">[422]</span>purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because +I feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could +urge many reasons in connection with the views I have long since +published in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations +which may be considered speculative, I would invite the intention +of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, +to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, +the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited +by a section of the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the +sternum, and the smoothness of the skin; and when they have +well-considered these important points, I would inquire whether +these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian? +and, again, whether they are not rather marsupial than placental? +I have already pointed out the manupedine, ferine, glirine +and brutine groups of marsupials; why should we not also have +a cetine group? Without making any other use of this suggestion +than that of temporarily separating the Enaliosaurians from the +Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention to the arguments of +Mr. Morries Stirling (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. S. (Zool. 2311), +both of whom support the opinion which I had previously broached +as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent,—a +view controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen +(Zool. 2316), on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct; +but here I may perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact, +being only assumed, does not touch the main question.”</p> + +<p>“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion +of an anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span> +(Zool. 2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal +may not have been a boa; and I may observe that the evidence +concerning the head, which has been repeatedly described as precisely +resembling that of a snake or serpent, together with the +fact of the animal holding its head clear of the water, are so many +points in favour of its belonging to the Ophidia; but, on the +other hand, we must place the non-observance of that undulating +mode of progression which every snake must employ,—and it +amounts to more than non-observance, for Captain M’Quhae, who +directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such +undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length—three +times that of a boa—militates against this hypothesis. Professor +Owen lays great stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae; +but as only two Ophidians have yet entered the arena as competitor +<span class="pagenum" id="Page423">[423]</span>for the title of sea-serpent,—Saccopharynx flagellum, which +I have heard is a <i>bona fide</i> black snake, and Boa constrictor, +which is received on all kinds as a veritable serpent,—I think +the absence of ophidian vertebrae is of no great moment. The +Sauria offer similar coincidences with the Ophidia, and present a +similar discrepancy: their heads and necks might readily be described +by general observers as those of snakes or serpents, but the +undulating motion with which they swim is almost precisely similar +to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an objection to +our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia and Chelonia +have next to be considered, and these truly possess the submerged +limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the +surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the vertebral +column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles absolutely +impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned, +these reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living animal +with the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents. +Yet the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles, +and especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the +idea of their being described—even by the veriest tyro in observation—as +snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both +crocodiles and tortoises floating on the surface of water, the back, +and not the head and neck, must be the part most prominently +and permanently visible. It is therefore manifest that no existing +groups of reptiles answers the conditions required by the recently-recorded +descriptions of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the +sharks as offering a solution of the problem; and the record respecting +the sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great +weight to this view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists +as Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the +Stronsa animal, I entertain very great doubts of the decision in +question; it certainly does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae +of an ophidian, but then no naturalist desires to make it one; +the boa hypothesis is applied only to the sea-serpent of the <i>Daedalus</i>. +Leaving, however, this Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may +observe, <i>first</i>, that all analogy contravenes the idea of a shark +having a neck, and <i>secondly</i>, I would beg of those gentlemen +who advocate this hypothesis, to take their pencils and depict a +shark with a head and shoulders clear out of the water, and his +body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think the most +<span class="pagenum" id="Page424">[424]</span>brilliant fancy could scarcely imagine a shark maintaining such a +position for twenty minutes at the time, and, what is stranger +still, while in this position, ploughing the ocean at the rate of +twenty miles an hour.”</p> + +<p>“After maturely considering these various views, it will be found +that the Enaliosaurian hypothesis presents the fewest difficulties,—in +fine, one only, the supposition that these wonderful creatures +have become extinct. It will be the object of a separate essay, now +preparing for the press, to adduce evidence from other sources of +the existence—in sea-serpents seen off the Norwegian coast—of +two large flappers or paddles, closely corresponding in situation +with the anterior paddles of Ichthyosaurus, and also of enormous +eyes, exactly as indicated by the fossil remains of that animal; but +this, not being deducible from recent observations, may be reserved +for a more complete and careful review of the entire history of +these enormous creatures which in all probability will eventually +be found to constitute several genera and species.”</p> + +<p>“In throwing open the pages of the “Zoologist” to communication +on a subject so uniformly tabooed by the scientific,—in +claiming for that subject a calm and dispassionate investigation,—in +expressing my unhesitating belief that the various narratives, +although often conflicting, are nevertheless, according to the belief +of the narrator, perfectly true,—and in attempting to assign the +sea-serpent a place in the System of Nature,—I feel convinced +that all true naturalists will approve the course I have taken, +and will be willing to abide the result. Discussion must ever have +the tendency to dissipate error and establish truth; and he who +believes himself right need never shun the ordeal. In this spirit I +invite discussion, and shall feel obliged for any communications +tending to elicit or establish truth.”</p> + +<p>Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.</p> + +<p>The communications made by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> and Lieutenant +<span class="smcap">Drummond</span> are inserted in the foregoing Chapter (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).—The +statement of Captain <span class="smcap">Sullivan</span> and five other British officers +is that of 1833, May 15th., inserted above. (<a href="#Report97">n<sup>o</sup>. 97</a>.)</p> + +<p>Ever and anon Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> shows that the statements referred +to by him are those of <i>British</i> officers. Why so? Is a British +officer more trustworthy than an officer of any other nation?</p> + +<p>What zoologist or palaeontologist has ever shared Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> +doubt of the reptilian nature of the Enaliosaurians!? Who would +like to bring these extinct creatures under a newly founded order +<span class="pagenum" id="Page425">[425]</span>of Cetacean Marsupials!! Did not Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman’s</span> suggestion originate +in the two facts 1. That he himself thought the sea-serpent +to be an Enaliosaurian, and 2. That Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> asserted that the +sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, according to his description and +figures, must be a mammal? I think Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> reasoned +further: “well, why should the Enaliosaurians not be mammals?”</p> + +<p>“The enormous length of the animal, three times that of a boa, +militates against this hypothesis”, viz. of being a boa. This is no +argument. In the time that only calamaries were known of 6 or 7 +feet length, with arms of 10 or 11 feet, nobody had ever dreamt +that there existed really individuals of 30 feet in length with long +arms of 50 feet!</p> + +<p>It is evident that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> was wrongly informed about the +<i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i>, for this animal is a kind of <i>fish</i>, belonging +to the eel-tribe, however not in the least resembling an eel in +its external characters, and not a black <i>snake</i>!</p> + +<p>The “separate essay, now preparing for the press” as far as I +know has never been published.</p> + +<p>The quotation of the <i>Ichthyosaurus</i> shows us that Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> +was unwilling to give up his first suggestion. The evidence, referred +to by him, where the sea-serpent had apparently two flappers +near the head, is the same as that referred to by Dr. <span class="smcap">Cogswell</span>, +(see <a href="#Page409">pp. 409</a>, <a href="#Page411">411</a>, and <a href="#Report115">n<sup>o</sup>. 115</a>.).</p> + +<p>After observing that other sea-serpents, e. g. that of Captain +<span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> don’t come up to his Ichthyosaurian suggestion, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Newman</span> concludes that “the enormous creatures in all probability +will eventually be found to constitute several genera and species!!!</p> + +<p>The favourite Plesiosaurian hypothesis is also spoken of by the +writer of the “<i>Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the +bones of the Stronsa Animal</i>” (which I have <a href="#Ref8">inserted</a> in my <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> +on Would-be sea-serpents). He says:</p> + +<p>“But we must now conclude with the single remark, that if +the Stronsa Animal was not a shark, it was certainly not the great +sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to +the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by +the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems +to have borne a strong resemblance.” <span class="smcap">Jas. C. Howden.</span></p> + +<p>As to the animal of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean</span>, see our <a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span> in the Preface to the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1849, wrote +the following about the Reptiles mentioned in this volume. The +words are worth quoting.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page426">[426]</span></p> + +<p>“In British <i>Reptiles</i> nothing remarkable has occurred; but I +have been favoured with a communication, published in the February +number (Zool. 2356), announcing the present existence of +huge marine animals closely related to the Enaliosauri of by-gone +ages, that appears to me in all respects the most interesting Natural +History-fact of the present century, completely overturning +as it does some of the most favourite and fashionable hypotheses +of geological science. The published opinion of Mr. Agassiz (Zool. +2395) certainly favours the idea that Enaliosaurians may still exist: +he says: it would be in precise conformity with analogy that an +animal should exist in the American seas which has long been +extinct and fossilized in the Eastern hemisphere: he instances the +gar-pike of the western rivers, and says that, in a recent visit to +Lake Superior, he has detected several fishes belonging to genera +now extinct in Europe.”</p> + +<p>The communication mentioned here is that of Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span>, +who saw the sea-serpent in the Gulf of California (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup>. 119</a>). In +fact, since this opinion was expressed by <span class="smcap">Agassiz</span>, (where?) numerous +animals, even of tolerably large size, have been discovered +in Australia as well as in the great depth of the ocean, the allies +of which are only found in a fossilized state.</p> + +<p>The favourite <i>Plesiosaurus</i> hypothesis is also treated of and finally +adopted by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>. +After rejecting the hypotheses of the sea-serpent being only a +deceitful huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a +basking shark, a large ribbon-fish, some large kind of the eel +tribe, a large specimen of true sea-snakes, a strayed large land-snake +as the boas, he goes on in the following manner:</p> + +<p>“It yet remains to consider the hypothesis advanced by Mr. E. +Newman, Mr. Morries Stirling, and “F. G. S.”, that the so called +sea-serpent will find its closest affinities with those extraordinary +animals, the <i>Enaliosauria</i>, or Marine Lizards, whose fossil skeletons +are found so abundantly scattered through the oolite and the lias. +The figure of <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, as restored in Professor Ansted’s <i>Ancient +World</i>, has a cranium not less capacious or vaulted than that +given in Captain M’Quhae’s figures; to which, indeed, but that +the muzzle in the latter is more abbreviate, it bears a close resemblance. +The head was fixed at the extremity of a neck composed +of thirty to forty vertebrae, which, from its extraordinary +length, slenderness, and flexibility, must have been the very counterpart +of the body of a serpent. This snake-like neck merged +<span class="pagenum" id="Page427">[427]</span>insensibly into a compact and moderately slender body, which +carried two pairs of paddles, very much like those of a sea-turtle, +and terminated behind in a gradually attenuated tail”.</p> + +<p>“Thus, if the <i>Plesiosaur</i> could have been seen alive, you would +have discerned nearly its total length at the surface of the water, +propelled at a rapid rate, without any undulation, by an apparatus +altogether invisible,—the powerful paddles beneath; while the +entire serpentine neck would probably be projected obliquely, carrying +the reptilian head, with an eye of moderate aperture, and +a mouth whose gape did not extend beyond the eye. Add to this +a covering of the body not formed of scales, bony plates, or other +form of solidified integument, but a yielding, leathery skin, probably +black and smooth, like that of a whale; give the creature +a length of some sixty feet or more, and you would have before +you almost the very counterpart of the apparition that wrought +such amazement on board the <i>Daedalus</i>. The position of the nostrils +at the summit of the head indicates that on first coming on +the surface from the depths of the sea, the animal would spout +in the manner of the whales,—a circumstance reported by some +observers of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>“I must confess that I am myself far more disposed to acquiesce +in this hypothesis than in any other that has been mooted. Not +that I would identify the animal seen with the actual <i>Plesiosaurs</i> +of the lias. None of them yet discovered appear to exceed thirty-five +feet in length, which is scarcely half sufficient to meet the +exigencies of the case. I should not look for any species, scarcely +even any genus, to be perpetuated from the oolitic period to the +present. Admitting the actual continuation of the order <i>Enaliosauria</i>, +it would be, I think, quite in conformity with general analogy +to find important generic modifications, probably combining some +salient features of several extinct forms. Thus the little known <i>Pliosaur</i> +had many of the peculiarities of the <i>Plesiosaur</i>, without its +extraordinarily elongated neck, while it vastly exceeded it in dimensions. +What if the existing form should be essentially a <i>Plesiosaur</i>, +with the colossal magnitude of a <i>Pliosaur</i>?”</p> + +<p>“There seems to be no real structural difficulty in such a supposition +except the “mane”, or waving appendage, which has so +frequently been described by those who profess to have seen the +modern animal. This, however, is a difficulty of ignorance, rather +than of contradiction. We do not <i>know</i> that the smooth integument +of the <i>Enaliosaurs</i> was destitute of any such appendage, and I do +<span class="pagenum" id="Page428">[428]</span>not think there is any insuperable unprobability in the case. The +nearest analogy that I can suggest, however, is that of the <i>Chlamydosaur</i>, +a large terrestrial lizard of Australia, whose lengthened +neck is furnished with a very curious plaited frill of thin membrane, +extending like wings or fins to a considerable distance from +the animal.”</p> + +<p>(<i>Foot-note:</i>) [“It was not till after this paragraph was written that +I noticed the very close similarity of the fins with which Hans +Egede has adorned his figure of the sea-serpent (copied in the Illustrated +London News, Oct. 28, 1848), to the frill of the <i>Chlamydosaurus</i>.”]</p> + +<p>“Two strong objections, however, stand in the way of our acceptance +of the present existence of <i>Enaliosauria</i>; and these are +forcibly presented by Professor Owen. They are,—1. The hypothetical +improbability of such forms having been transmitted from +the era of the secondary strata to the present time; and 2. The +entire absence of any parts of the carcases or unfossilized skeletons +of such animals in museums.”</p> + +<p>“My ignorance of the details of palaeontology makes me feel +very diffident in attempting to touch the former point, especially +when so great an authority has pronounced an opinion; still I will +modestly express one or two thoughts on it.”</p> + +<p>“There does not seem any <i>à priori</i> reason why early forms +should not be perpetuated; and examples are by no means rare of +animals much anterior, geologically, to the <i>Enaliosaurs</i>, being still +extant. The very earliest forms of fishes are of the <i>Placoid</i> type, +and it is remarkable that not only is that type still living in considerable +numbers, but the most gigantic examples of this class +belong to it,—viz. the sharks and rays; and these exhibiting +peculiarities which by no means remove them far from ancient +types. The genus <i>Chimaera</i> appears in the oolite, the wealden, +and the chalk; disappears (or rather is not found) in any of the +tertiary formations, but reappears, somewhat rarely, in the modern +seas. It is represented by two species inhabiting respectively the +Arctic and Antarctic Oceans.”</p> + +<p>“Now, this is exactly a parallel case to what is conjectured of +the <i>Enaliosaurs</i>. They appear in the oolite and the chalk, are not +found in the tertiary strata, but reappear, rarely, in the modern +seas, represented by two or more species inhabiting the Northern +and Southern Oceans.”</p> + +<p>“Among Reptiles, the curious family of river tortoises named +<span class="pagenum" id="Page429">[429]</span><i>Trionychidae</i>, distinguished by their long neck, and a broad cartilaginous +margin to the small back-shell, appears first in the +wealden. No traces occur of it in any subsequent formation, till +the present period, when we find it represented by the large and +savage inhabitants of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Ganges.”</p> + +<p>“What is still more to the purpose is, that the <i>Iguanodon</i>, a +vast saurian which was contemporary with the <i>Plesiosaur</i> and +<i>Ichthyosaur</i>, though transmitting no observed representative of its +form through the tertiary era, is yet well represented by the +existing <i>Iguanadae</i> of the American tropics.”</p> + +<p>“It is true the <i>Iguana</i> is not an <i>Iguanodon</i>; but the forms are +closely allied. I do not suppose that the so-called sea-serpent is an +actual <i>Plesiosaur</i>, but an animal bearing a similar relation to that +ancient type. The <i>Iguanodon</i> has degenerated (I speak of the type, +and not of the species) to the small size of the <i>Iguana</i>; the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> +may have become developed to the gigantic dimensions +of the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>“A correspondent of the <i>Zoologist</i> (2395) adduces the great authority +of Professor Agassiz to the possibility of the present existence +of the <i>Enaliosaurian</i> type. That eminent palaeontologist is +represented as saying, that “it would be in precise conformity +with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American +seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms +of the Old World were represented by living types in the New. +He instances the gar pike of the Western rivers, and said he had +found several instances in his visit to Lake Superior, where he +had detected several fishes belonging to genera now extinct in +Europe.””</p> + +<p>“On this point, however, an actual testimony exists, to which +I cannot but attach a very great value.”</p> + +<p>Here Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> cites the report of Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> (<a href="#Report119">n<sup>o</sup>. 119</a>), +and goes on:</p> + +<p>“Now, unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an +animal which could have been no other than an <i>Enaliosaur</i>,—a +marine reptile of large size, of sauroid figure, with turtle-like +paddles. It is a pity that no estimate, even approximate, of the +dimensions is given; but as the alligator affords the comparison as +to form, it is most probable that there was a general agreement +with it in size. This might make it some twelve or fifteen feet +in length.”</p> + +<p>“I cannot, then, admit that either the <i>general</i> substitution of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page430">[430]</span><i>Cetacea</i> for <i>Enaliosauria</i> in our era, or the absence of remains of +the latter in the tertiary deposits, is sufficient evidence of their +non-existence in our seas; any more than the general replacement +of <i>Placoid</i> and <i>Ganoid</i> fishes by the Cycloids and Ctenoids, or the +absence of the former two from the tertiaries, is proof of <i>their</i> +present non-existence.”</p> + +<p>“It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Darwin has ably insisted, +that the specimens we possess of fossil organisms are very far indeed +from being a complete series. They are rather fragments accidentally +preserved, by favouring circumstances, in an almost total +wreck. The <i>Enaliosauria</i>, particularly abundant in the secondary +epoch, may have become sufficiently scarce in the tertiary to have +no representative in these preserved fragmentary collections, and +yet not have been absolutely extinct.”</p> + +<p>“But Professor Owen presses also the absence of any recognised +recent remains of such animals. Let us test this evidence first by +hypothesis, and then by actual fact.”</p> + +<p>“It may be that a true serpent, with large vesicular lungs, +would float when dead, and be liable to be seen by navigators in +that condition, or to be washed ashore, where its peculiar skeleton +would be sure to attract notice. But, as I have before said, I do +not by any means believe that the unknown creature is a <i>serpent</i> +in the zoological sense. Would a <i>Plesiosaurus</i> float when dead? I +think not. It is supposed to have had affinities with the whales. +Now, a whale sinks like lead as soon as the blubber is removed; +the surface-fat alone causes a whale to float. But we have no warrant +for assuming that the <i>Plesiosaur</i> was encased in a thick blanket +of blubber; no geologist has suggested any such thing, and +the long neck forbids it; and if not, doubtless it would sink, and +not float, when dead. Therefore the stranding of such a carcase, +or the washing ashore of such a skeleton, would most probably be +an extremely rare occurrence, even if the animal were as abundant +as the sperm whale; but, on the supposition that the species itself +is almost extinct, we ought not to expect such an incident, +perhaps, in a thousand years. If we add to this the recollection, +how small a portion of the border of the ocean is habitually viewed +by persons able to discriminate between the vertebrae of an <i>Enaliosaur</i> +and those of a <i>Cetacean</i>, we shall not, I think, attach +great importance to this objection.”</p> + +<p>“The only region of the globe in which the unknown monster +is reputed to be in any sense common, is the coast of Norway. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page431">[431]</span>Now this, it is true, is fortunately within the ken of civilized and +scientific men; and, confessedly, no enormous ophidian or saurian +carcases have ever been recognised on that shore. But the shore +of Norway is, perhaps, the least favourable in the world for such +a <i>jetsam</i>. Such a thing as a sand or shingle beach is scarcely +known; the coast is almost exclusively what is called iron-bound; +the borders of the deeply indented fjords rise abruptly out of the +sea, so that there is generally from fifty to three hundred fathoms’ +depth of water within a boat’s length of the shore. How could a +carcase or a skeleton be cast up here, even if it floated?”</p> + +<p>“But, secondly, as to facts. Is it true, that of all the larger +oceanic animals we find the carcases or skeletons cast up on the +shore? Is it true even of the <i>Cetacea</i>, whose blubber-covered bodies +invariably ensure their floating, and whose bones are so saturated +with oil that they are but little heavier than water?”</p> + +<p>“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French +coast, which was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so +fortunate as to fall under the examination of so eminent a zoologist +as De Blainville; and hence its anatomy was well investigated. It +has become celebrated as the Toothless Whale of Havre (<i>Aodon +Dalei</i>). Yet <i>no other example of this species is on record</i>; and, +but for this accident, a whale <i>inhabiting the British Channel</i> +would be quite unrecognised.”</p> + +<p>“Of another Whale (<i>Diodon Sowerbyi</i>), <i>likewise British, our +entire knowledge rests on a single individual</i> which was cast on +shore on the Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the +naturalist Sowerby.”</p> + +<p>“There is a species of sperm whale (<i>Physeter tursio</i>) affirmed to +be frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of +sixty feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other +<i>Cetacea</i> by its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by +other remarkable peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet <i>no specimen of +this huge creature has fallen under modern scientific observation</i>; +and zoologists are not yet agreed among themselves whether the +high-finned Cachelot is a myth or a reality!”</p> + +<p>“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a +Cetacean which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing +<i>two dorsals</i>. The character was so abnormal that his statement +was not received; but the eminent zoologists attached to +one of the French exploring expeditions,—MM. Quoy and +Gaimard,—saw a school of cetacea around their ship in the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page432">[432]</span>South Pacific, having this extraordinary character,—the supernumerary +fin being placed on the back of the head. Here is the +evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a most +remarkable whale, <i>no carcase</i> of which—<i>no skeleton—has ever +been recognised</i>.”</p> + +<p>“The last example I shall adduce is from my own experience. +During my voyage to Jamaica, when in lat. 19° N., and long. +from 46° to 48° W., the ship was surrounded for <i>seventeen continuous +hours</i> with a troop of whales, of a species which is certainly +undescribed. I had ample opportunity for examination, and found +that it was a <i>Delphinorhynchus</i>, thirty feet in length, black above +and white beneath, with the swimming paws wide on the upper +surface, and isolated by the surrounding black of the upper parts,—a +very remarkable character. This could not have been the +Toothless Whale of Havre; and there is no other with which it +can be confounded. <i>Here, then, is a whale of large size, occurring +in great numbers in the North Atlantic, which on no other +occasion has fallen under scientific observation.</i>”</p> + +<p>“Are not these facts, then, sufficiently weighty to restrain us +from rejecting so great an amount of testimony to the so-called +sea-serpent, merely on the ground that its dead remains have not +come under examination?”</p> + +<p>“In conclusion, I express my own confident persuasion, that +there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which +has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; +and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the +fossil <i>Enaliosauria</i> of the lias.”</p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig62"> +<img src="images/illo432.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 62.—Chlamydosaurus.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page433">[433]</span></p> + +<p>We only observe that Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> is evidently inclined to believe +that there are “two or more species inhabiting the Northern and +Southern oceans.” It is not at all plain what circumstance has led +him to this supposition.</p> + +<p>Curious is the comparison of the flappers, figured by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>) +with the frill of the <i>Chlamydosaurus</i>. I give here a <a href="#Fig62">figure</a> of such an animal.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> gets clearly entangled in his own considerations of +the affinity of the sea-serpent with the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> when he comes +to the fact of the existence of a mane. It is a pity that he has +not mixed up with his considerations the well-known <i>Iguana tuberculata</i>, +a lizard belonging to the same family as the <i>Chlamydosaurus</i>, +but which has a comb extending over the whole length +of the neck, the back and the tail!</p> + +<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig63"> +<img src="images/illo433.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 63.—Iguana tuberculata.</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, considering the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> +hypothesis, says:</p> + +<p>“I think this theory is not forced upon us.”</p> + +<p>Of the probability of living <i>Plesiosauri</i>, however, he says:</p> + +<p>“Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance +of probability is contrary to the supposition that any of the +gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued +to live up to the present time. And yet I am bound to +say, that this does not amount to an impossibility, for the evidence +against it is entirely negative. Nor is the conjecture that there may +be in existence some congeners of these great reptiles inconsistent +with zoological science. Dr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page434">[434]</span>a strict zoologist, is cited by Mr. Gosse as having long ago +expressed his opinion that some undescribed form exists which is +intermediate between the tortoises and the serpents.”</p> + +<p>“Prof. Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the <i>Zoologist</i> +(p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence +of the Enaliosaurian type that “it would be in precise conformity +with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American +Seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms +of the Old World were represented by living types in the New.”</p> + +<p>It is obvious that of all animals, now living or extinct, the +outlines of the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> fit best to the descriptions and figures +of the great sea-serpent. Abandoning the possibility of still living +<i>Plesiosauri</i>, I reply to the question “Why cannot the sea-serpent +be a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>?”</p> + +<p><i>Plesiosauri</i> with such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent has, +are hitherto unknown to palaeontologists, but, as to me, this cannot +be of much importance; for there is no reason why in the +course of ages this appendage should not have been developed to +gigantic dimensions. The difference between the place of the nostrils +in the two animals cannot claim any weight either (the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> +had its nostrils both before its eyes and not at the end +of its snout, as is the case in the sea-serpent) for this place may +have changed in process of time. But there are two other differences +which are of very great importance, and settle the question: +1. The neck of the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> must have been fit to be bent in +all directions, but I think no palaeontologist will ever admit that +its trunk or backbone could be bent in such vertical undulations, +as is the case with the sea-serpents. 2. The <i>Plesiosaurus</i> may have +been destitute of scales, and may have had a smooth skin, it can +never have been provided with a hairy skin as seals have, and at +all events it had no mane, and no whiskers.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>An <b>eleventh</b> explanation is properly a negative one. In the +<i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, of 1835, viz: Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin +Silliman</span>, the Editor, published a report of one of his acquaintances, +wherein the eye-witness declared: “nothing like a fin was +seen”. Now Prof. <span class="smcap">Silliman</span> in a <i>Remark of the Editor</i> says: +“The absence of paddles or arms <b>forbids us from supposing that +this was a swimming saurian</b>.”</p> + +<p>I need not observe that this explanation was premature, and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page435">[435]</span>that the assertion “nothing like a fin was seen” does not exclude +the presence of flappers, hidden under water. The flappers of a +swimming sea-lion or seal are not +generally seen either. If not a saurian, +what kind of animal could +it be then, a fish or a mammal?</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>twelfth</b> explanation, viz: +<b>a row of spermwhales</b>, which is +found in Prof. <span class="smcap">Schlegel’s</span> <i>Essai +sur la physionomie des Serpens</i>, +1837, p. 518, is better than that +of a row of porpoises or of basking +sharks, with their plainly visible +backfins, for there is a species of +spermwhales, viz. the <i>Catodon macrocephalus</i> +the backfin of which is +so small as to be almost invisible. +The other species, <i>Physeter tursio</i> +has a rather large and erected +backfin.</p> + +<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span>, after describing +the appearance of a row of +porpoises swimming in line, goes +on saying: “This habit is also common +to the larger cetaceans, which, +however, only accidentally frequent +our” (the Dutch) “coasts. The +coasts of North-America, where the +monstrous sea-serpent has so often +been observed, swarm with them, +and I confess that from a vessel, +for instance, the unexpected appearance +of a family of spermwhales +swimming in line, with the eldest +at the head, must offer a spectacle +striking enough and fit to call forth +at once superstition, imagination +and fear.”</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig64"> +<img src="images/illo435.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 64.—Catodon macrocephalus.</p> +</div> + +<p>It is true that a row of sperm-whales +<span class="pagenum" id="Page436">[436]</span>must offer a striking spectacle, but in none of the accounts +of the sea-serpent the “bunches” or visible parts of the vertical +undulations surpassed the length of a fathom, whilst the visible +parts of the backs of spermwhales measure several fathoms, and +the distance between two of these +backs in a row of spermwhales is +enormous. The supposition, moreover, +does not explain the head +resembling that of a snake, and +kept constantly above water, neither +the long neck accidentally observed, +the long and pointed tail, &c.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig65"> +<img src="images/illo436a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 65.—Skeleton of Basilosaurus.</p> +</div> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig66"> +<img src="images/illo436b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 66.—Basilosaurus restored.</p> +</div> + +<p>The <b>thirteenth</b> explanation supposes +that the sea-serpent may be +a still living <b>Basilosaurus</b>, an extinct +marine mammal, first described +by <span class="smcap">Harlan</span> in the year 1824; afterwards +the name was changed to +that of <i>Zeuglodon</i> by Prof. <span class="smcap">Richard +Owen</span>. <a href="#Fig65">Fig. 65</a> represents the skeleton +of a <i>Basilosaurus</i>. This animal +lived in the tertiary periods. Almost +all the characters of the skeleton +remind us of Pinnipeds, only a +few of Cetaceans, and so it is still +doubtful to which order it belongs. +Professor <span class="smcap">D’Arcy W. Thompson</span> +rejects all association with the Cetacea +(<i>Studies from the Museum of Zoology +in University College, Dundee</i>, Vol. +I. n<sup>o</sup>. 9.) The length of the largest +skeletons measured seventy-five feet. +The teeth and molars are nearly +exactly those of seals. The nostrils +were situated at the tip of the +nose, as in seals, most probably, +however, they were directed upwards. +The bones of the rather short fore-extremities +<span class="pagenum" id="Page437">[437]</span>resemble those of seals. Most probably these limbs +were provided with nails, as in seals. But, on the other hand, of +some of the known skulls the remaining part shows an affinity to +cetaceans. The vertebrae again are seal-like. Till now it is unknown +whether the animal had hind-extremities or not, for the bones of +them are not yet discovered. The body must have been rather +slender and cylindrical. I venture to represent to my readers in +<a href="#Fig66">fig. 66</a>, a <i>Basilosaurus</i> restored. As the bones of the fore-extremities +closely resemble those of seals, it is probable that small hind-extremities +were not wanting. If the former resembled those of dolphins, +the existence of hind-flappers would be problematic. Yet I have +omitted them, because the bones of them are not yet discovered, +as far as I know.</p> + +<p>The reader will remember that Dr. <span class="smcap">Koch</span> (see our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on +Hoaxes and Cheats) exhibited a large skeleton in Broadway, New-York, +under the name of <i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i>. This skeleton +was made by him out of several bones of the extinct <i>Basilosaurus</i>. +The imposture was soon discovered by Prof. <span class="smcap">Wyman</span>, and, of +course, immediately published in all kinds of newspapers, which +also reached Europe. In <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Neue Notizen</i>, of February, +1846, is one of these articles translated into German. Consequently +we may conclude that the translator of this article knew that +the <i>Hydrarchos Sillimanni</i> was, in fact, made up of bones +of the <i>Basilosaurus</i>. Now we find in <span class="smcap">Froriep’s</span> <i>Notizen, Third +Series</i>, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 54, p. 148, 1847, a suggestion of a writer +who wrote under the initials M. J. S. (evidently the Editor, the +well-known Professor <span class="smcap">Matthias Jacob Schleiden</span>: I have searched +the <i>Bibliotheca Zoologica</i> of <span class="smcap">Carus</span> and <span class="smcap">Engelmann</span>, and not found +another author whose name has these initials):</p> + +<p>“Is the sea-serpent perhaps identical with the <i>Hydrarchus</i>, viz. +a still living species, a still present remainder, though in a few +individuals, of former periods?”</p> + +<p>I think that this means: “Are there perhaps still living <i>Basilosauri</i>, +and is the sea-serpent perhaps one of these creatures?”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood, Jun.</span> wrote in <i>Nature</i> of 18th. of November, +1880, Vol. 23, a paper, entitled: “<i>Order Zeuglodontia</i>”, in +which he tries to show that the sea-serpent most probably belongs +to this Order. The contents of his paper are as follows:</p> + +<p>“In August 1848 H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> encountered off St. Helena +a marine animal, of which a representation appeared in the +<i>Illustrated News</i> of the latter part of that year. It is thirty-two +<span class="pagenum" id="Page438">[438]</span>years since I saw this figure, but I recollect that it was one of a +blunt-nosed animal with a neck carried about four feet above the +water, which was so long as to present the appearance of a serpent; +and I remember that Prof. Owen, in combating at the time the +idea that this was a sea-serpent, pointed out that the position of +the gape in relation to the eye, as shown in the figure in the +<i>Illustrated News</i>, was that of a mammal, and not that of a reptile; +in consequence of which he argued that the animal seen was probably +only a leonine seal, whose track through the water gave an illusory +impression of great length. This idea, however, seemed to me untenable +in the face of the representation in the <i>Illustrated News</i>; +but it was obvious that to afford the buoyancy necessary for the +support above the water of so long a neck (estimated on that +occasion as sixty feet though only the part near the head was +actually out of the water), the submerged portion of the animal +could not have had the shape of a serpent.”</p> + +<p>“Two or three years after this, on reading the description of +<i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>, from the Tertiary (probably Upper Eocene) formations +of Alabama, it struck me that the animal seen from the +<i>Daedalus</i> may have been a descendant of the order to which +<i>Zeuglodon</i> belonged; and I have ever since watched with interest +for reports of the “great sea-serpent”.”</p> + +<p>“Three years ago the following appeared in the newspapers.”</p> + +<p>Here Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles Wood</span> copies the whole affidavit of the crew +of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>), and adds:</p> + +<p>“The locality here specified was about thirty miles off the northern +coast of Brazil.”</p> + +<p>And he goes on:</p> + +<p>“In this account I thought that I recognized the grip of the +whale by the long neck of the attacking animal, the appearance +being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance +and motions of the objects; but in face of the general ridicule +which has been attached to this subject, and being without any +assurance that the declaration so purporting to be made was genuine, +I did not venture to ventilate my long-cherished idea. A +relative of mine, however, just returned from India, chancing to +say that two of the officers to the steamer in which she went out +had on the previous voyage witnessed an immense animal rear its +neck thirty feet out of the water, and that a sketch of the object +had been instantly made, and on reaching port sent to the <i>Graphic</i>. +I obtained the number of that paper for July 19, 1879, and I +<span class="pagenum" id="Page439">[439]</span>inclose a tracing of the figures in it, which are accompanied by +the following statement in the Graphic:—”</p> + +<p>The statement of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> is further copied, accompanied by +the two figures (see <a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>, <a href="#Fig48">figg. 48</a> and <a href="#Fig49">49</a>), and he continues saying:</p> + +<p>“As I have not been able to find any description of the skeleton +of the <i>Zeuglodon</i>, I venture to draw attention to the subject through +your columns, in the hope that among your many readers in America +this letter may attract the notice of some one who will tell +us whether what is known of the osseous structure of <i>Zeuglodon +cetoides</i> is or is not consistent with the representation in the <i>Graphic</i>. +The remains of the cetacean, supposed to be extinct, indicate, according +to Sir Charles Lyell, that it was at least seventy feet in +length, (He observes in the third edition of his “Manual of Elementary +Geology”, 1851, p. 208, that he visited the spot where +a vertebral column of this length belonging to <i>Zeuglodon</i> had been +dug up.) while its great double-faced but knife-edged molars show +that it was carnivorous; and as we are not so far removed from +the period of the Alabama Tertiaries as to render it improbable +that members of what must once have been a great Order of carnivorous +cetacea, totally distinct from the orders of cetacea hitherto +known as living, may still survive, I have braved the ridicule attaching +to this subject so far as to invite attention to it.”</p> + +<p>“The second of the two figures in the <i>Graphic</i> shows the long +necked animal to possess the cetacean tail, and its head there seems +to have been turned from the observer, so that the underside of +it only is presented. The first figure shows that the whale had +been seized on its flank by the powerful bite of its aggressor, and +that to escape from this it had thrown itself out of the water. +Having succeeded in this object the second figure shows the aggressor +rearing its head and neck out of the water to discover the +direction which its prey had taken, in order that it might follow +it up; and so far from the charge of curious drawing made by +the editor of the <i>Graphic</i> being justified, the representation of the +whale can be at once recognized as fairly correct; while that of +the tail of the unknown animal (which probably prompted this +charge), so far from being curious, forms an important piece of +evidence as showing the animal in question to be catacean.”</p> + +<p>This paper had already been sent to the Editors of <i>Nature</i>, when +Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood, Jun.</span>, observed that he was mistaken as to the +report, and as soon as possible he sent a Postscript to the Editors, +which appeared appended to his paper. The postscript runs as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page440">[440]</span></p> + +<p>“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my +relative, and find that the cut in the <i>Graphic</i> of July 19, 1879, +is not that of the instance observed from the steamer in which +she came home, which was the <i>City of Washington</i>; but of a separate +instance which occurred to another ship. I have not been +able yet to procure the <i>Graphic</i> containing the figure of the animal +seen from the <i>City of Washington</i>, but she tells me that it +was pasted up in the saloon and represented only the head and +long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great height out +of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for the +<i>Graphic</i> by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence. +These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked +are, however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”</p> + +<p>“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the +<i>Encyclopedia Britannica</i> (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description +of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>, says that “the skull is very long and +narrow <i>and the nostril single</i>”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth +on which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded +the order <i>Zeuglodontia</i>, from the Miocene of Malta; and that +the teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the +Gironde and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under +the name of <i>Squalodon</i>, are those of a smaller species of <i>Zeuglodon</i>. +The remains of <i>Squalodon</i>, along with those of the shark +with huge teeth, <i>Carcharodon megalodon</i>, and of numerous cetaceans +assigned to orders all still living, and of which some, such +as <i>Delphinus</i>, belong to living <i>genera</i>, occur in the “Sables inférieures” +of Antwerp; which, though long called Miocene, are by +Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as older Pliocene, and as the base +of that series of deposits of which the middle and upper divisions +are respectively represented by the Coralline and Red Crags of +England; and with these “Sables inférieures” the so called Miocene +of Malta, in which <i>Zeuglodon</i> is associated with <i>Carcharodon</i>, is +probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc., 2d. ser., vol. +I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp species of +<i>Carcharodon</i> from both the Eocene of South Carolina and Miocene +of Alabama. These various references bring the <i>Zeuglodonts</i>, with +their <i>Carcharodon</i> associates, down to a late geological period during +which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey +the whale in the woodcut (which looks like a <i>Grampus</i>) seems an +example”.</p> + +<p>“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English +<span class="pagenum" id="Page441">[441]</span>(1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures +(one of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves, +and the other that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers +or fins, resting almost on the surface of the sea, with head and +tail erect out of the water like the letter U, and spouting water +or steam from its mouth <i>in a single column</i>), from accounts given +him by Norwegian seamen, some of whom had seen the animal +in the position in which it was observed from the <i>Daedalus</i>, and +others in that in which it is represented in the cut as seen from +the <i>Kiushiu-maru</i>; for in the long narrative which he gives of the +descriptions received from observers at numerous times, some of +these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both +of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of +his own.”</p> + +<p>“[The animal seen from the <i>Osborne</i>, and figured in the <i>Graphic</i> +of June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing +from the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”</p> + +<p>I shall take the liberty to make some remarks on his paper.</p> + +<p>The reader will remember (see <a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>) that it was <i>not</i> the +<i>long neck</i> of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, +made by the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i>, but the roundness of its +neck, the apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of +the animal’s head with that of a snake.</p> + +<p>In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of +the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the +animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood</span> says: +“a neck, estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the +reason of such a deduction!</p> + +<p>As I have not read the “description of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>” I +am not able to discover the reason <i>why</i> it struck Mr. Wood that +the animal seen from the <i>Daedalus</i> may have been a descendant +of the order to which <i>Zeuglodon</i> belonged.</p> + +<p>We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent +which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance +being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the +distance and motions of the object” (See <a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>). I will not contest +his opinion!</p> + +<p>I do not know what to think of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>, when he speaks +of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> in connection with a relative of his. I may +suppose that his relative had told him she repatriated by the +<i>City of Baltimore</i> through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous +<span class="pagenum" id="Page442">[442]</span>voyage” of that vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding +this he cites the account of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> reporting +the appearance of a sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) +in the Van Diemen’s Straits. Most probably the <i>City of Baltimore</i> +never was there!</p> + +<p>In short, the error took place, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> sees clearly in +the figures of the <i>Graphic</i> his <i>Zeuglodon</i> pointing out that this +figure shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently +the animal must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> +was convinced that the <i>Zeuglodon</i> (read <i>Basilosaurus</i>) had the following +outlines!</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig67"> +<img src="images/illo442.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 67.—<i>Basilosaurus</i>, as imagined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood Jun.</span></p> +</div> + +<p>It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had +the opportunity to read “a description of <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i>”. Yet +he holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between +the extremely <i>short</i> neck of <i>Basilosaurus</i> and the extraordinarily +<i>long</i> neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events <i>must</i> have +struck him.</p> + +<p>At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations +of <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> <i>Natural History of Norway</i>. It is clear that he +has not read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that +the Bishop concocted his two figures from accounts given him by +Norwegian seamen”, whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first +figure is a copy of a sketch of Mr. <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>, and the second a +copy of the drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>. Of the latter figure Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> +says “it is that of a serpent-like animal almost resting on the surface +of the sea”. I shall be greatly obliged to any person who can +show me a passage either in <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> or in <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> work, +stating that the animal presented itself in this way “resting on the +surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself (<a href="#Report5">n<sup>o</sup>. 5</a>), where it +is clear that the animal must have been seen in this position for +only the fraction of a second!</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span>, describing the drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span> underlines the +words: <i>in a single column</i>, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water +<span class="pagenum" id="Page443">[443]</span>or steam from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their +attention to the fact that the figure represents the animal’s head +seen from aside), whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose +or mouth, when seen from aside could ever have been decided to +be single or double! If we look at the breath of a horse, standing +just on one side of him, it will be observed to be single. This +optical illusion will be dispelled as soon as we stand in front of +the horse. Bing’s figure would have been incorrect, if he had +drawn two columns, though in reality—if the animal exhaled +through its nostrils,—the column must have been double.—It +is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> does not say anything of the +great difference between the figure of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i> (with a +cetacean tail) and that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, (with a long and pointed +one).—Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent +only preposterous conceptions of his own description!</p> + +<p>Finally he compares the animal seen from the <i>Osborne</i> with a +manatee! Surely we must be a Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. Wood Jun.</span> to +find this conception <i>not</i> preposterous!</p> + +<p>In a second paper in <i>Nature</i> of February 10, 1881, Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> +quotes the report of the <i>City of Baltimore</i>, and correcting his second +error, writes in parentheses “not <i>City of Washington</i>, as I had misunderstood.”—In +treating of this report and of the accompanying +figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving +at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes +were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers, +whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is +caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in +the act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently +this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According +to his idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very +long neck (called by him <i>Zeuglodon</i>), he ascribes the splash, caused +by the hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal. +Remarkable is his third error; for after having first confounded +the foremost splash, drawn in the figure, with that described in +the report as caused by the dropping of the neck, he now writes: +“the foam around the neck may be due to the splash of the humeroid” +(i. e. fore) “paddles which a cetacean should possess.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> further sees in the figure of the head of the <i>Daedalus</i> +animal (<a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead +and eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison +is far fetched.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page444">[444]</span></p> + +<p>Of the report of Captain Cox (<a href="#Report152">n<sup>o</sup>. 152</a>) Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> says:</p> + +<p>“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major +Senior in the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the +water prior to its darting forward under it; while the boiling of +the water around, which is so inconsistent with the motion of a +snake in water (which I have more than once seen) evidently +resulted from the strokes of the cetacean tail, and possibly also +from those of the paddles, as in the case witnessed by Major Senior. +The black colour also is described in both cases.”</p> + +<p>In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion +that the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four +flappers together. It is very natural that Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> who represents +the sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and +with a long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally +he says:</p> + +<p>“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous +letter” (<a href="#Fig48">figg. 48</a>, <a href="#Fig49">49</a>, <a href="#Fig46">46</a>, and reduced sketches of <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a> +and <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), “it appears to me that the external form of the animal +must resemble the well-known <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, if we imagine the +hinder (femuroid) paddles of that <i>Enaliosaurian</i> to be absent, and +a cetacean tail (which is their homologue), to be present in their +stead. Since in the direction of the <i>Porpesse</i> the cetacean in external +form so closely simulates the fish, so it may in another direction +simulate this Mesozoic marine saurian, or the gigantic <i>Elasmosaurus</i> +of the American cretaceous formation, of which a nearly perfect +skeleton is described by Prof. Cope as forty-five feet in length, the +neck constituting twenty-two of this length.”</p> + +<p>And he expresses his firm opinion:</p> + +<p>“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists +any doubt that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans, +with necks of extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”</p> + +<p>In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number +of the <i>Album der Natuur</i> for 1882, and in this issue the author +of the present Volume treated of the probability of the existence +of the great sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was +only a student of Natural History at the Utrecht University, really +believed the animal of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and +was misled by the hoax of Captain <span class="smcap">Seabury</span> of which he only +knew the last part, found by him in the Illustrated London News. +In his firm belief, however, he examined such characters, taken +from these tales and from nearly 60 reports then known to him, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page445">[445]</span>as were possible from a zoological point of view, and came to the +conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a mammal, with <i>four</i> +flappers, a <i>long</i> neck and a <i>long</i> and <i>pointed</i> tail, and that the +position of this marine mammal is between dolphins and pinnipeds. +Was there such an animal known? Yes, the <i>Zeuglodon cetoides</i> of +Prof. <span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span>. Well, as the sea-serpent has the outlines of +a <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, with an enormous tail, he called it <i>Zeuglodon +plesiosauroides</i>. At that time he was the dupe of the Stronsa animal +and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so many other +writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the difficult +question without reading, if not all that had been written about +the animal, at least much more than some few reports!</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>fourteenth</b> explanation is that of an anonymous writer in +one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848. +Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> +and Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, he asks whether or not the animal +could be a full grown specimen of <b>Saccopharynx flagelium</b> of Dr. +<span class="smcap">Mitchill</span> or the <b>Ophiognathus ampullaceus</b> of <span class="smcap">Harwood</span>. I have +only to tell my readers that these two names are given to two +different species of the same genus, that the former attains a length +of about five, the latter of about six feet, and to give the next +figure, in order to enable them to judge themselves, whether such +an animal could ever have shown itself in the form of a sea-serpent! +They belong to the family of the <i>Muraenidae</i>.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig68"> +<img src="images/illo445.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 68.—<i>Eurypharynx pelecanoides</i>, Vaillant.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page446">[446]</span></p> + +<p>The figure represents the <i>Eurypharynx pelecanoides</i> of <span class="smcap">Vaillant</span>, +taken from <span class="smcap">Filhol’s</span> <i>La vie au fond des mers</i>. <span class="smcap">Günther</span>, in his +<i>Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger</i> says on p. 262 of <i>Saccopharynx +Bairdii</i> (synonym with <i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i>): “It is uncertain +whether these specimens are specifically distinct from <i>Saccopharynx +pelecanoides</i> <span class="smcap">Vaillant</span>.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before +my readers the above figure as a representation of the general +outlines of <i>Saccopharynx flagellum</i>.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>fifteenth</b> explanation is suggested by the same anonymous +writer on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance +of the sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether +“some land species, as the <b>boas</b>, among which are individuals of +forty feet in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the +sea, or even transport themselves from one continent to another”.</p> + +<p>Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor +having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round +the trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the +banks of some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by +Sir Charles Lyell from the <i>Zoological Journal</i> of December, 1827. +(Principles of Geology.)”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> after having shown +that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family +<i>Hydrophidae</i>) because “none of these are known to extend a few +feet in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been +found in the Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, +that a record exists of a serpent having been seen in the +very midst of the North Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the +historical fact of the boa constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes +the report of the sea-serpent seen from the <i>General Coole</i>, (<a href="#Report25">n<sup>o</sup>. 25</a>) +and goes on saying:</p> + +<p>“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that +no suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to +have occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and +nothing more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, +“sixteen or eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”</p> + +<p>“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a +true serpent—perhaps the <i>Boa Murina</i>, one of the largest known, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page447">[447]</span>and of very aquatic habits—carried out to sea by one of the +great South American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to +the spot where it was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion +it affords us no help in the identification of the <i>great unknown</i>.”</p> + +<p>“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that +the head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly +that of a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed +to mark the characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal +from another, are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at +all events, is rather negative than positive. For example, if a person +of liberal education and general information, but no naturalist, +were to tell me he had seen a creature with a head “exactly +like that of a snake”, I should understand him, that the head +was not that of an ordinary beast, nor of a bird, nor that of the +generality of fishes; but I should have no confidence at all that it +was not as like that of a lizard as of a serpent, and should entertain +doubt whether, if I showed him the form of head, even +of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was something +like <i>that</i>.”</p> + +<p>“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the +colossal animal seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>, and on other occasions, +is a serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A +lengthened cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything +that appears, it may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender +cetacean, as anything. All analogies and probabilities are against +its being an ophidian.”</p> + +<p>It is remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> is disposed to believe that the sea-serpent +of the <i>General Coole</i> was a boa, because the report speaks +of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of +the <i>Daedalus</i> was a boa, though the captain, Mr. <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, +clearly tells that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without +any doubt, was that of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference +between “a snake” and “a serpent with a head of a snake”!? +What, in short, is the difference between a <i>snake</i> and a <i>serpent</i>? +Though he attaches a considerable value to the assertion of the +captain of the <i>General Coole</i> who speaks of “<i>a snake, and nothing +more</i>”, Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> “does not attach much value to the assertions +of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them was <i>undoubtedly +that of a snake</i>”. How to make this agree?</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> says: “a marine snake +of enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he +<span class="pagenum" id="Page448">[448]</span>means in this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents +the sea, as the <i>Boa murina</i>, I have placed this supposition here, and +I have not considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.</p> + +<p>As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate +vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the +boas are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>sixteenth</b> explanation is given by Professor <span class="smcap">Richard Owen</span>, +viz.: that the sea-serpent is a swimming <b>large seal</b>. I refer my +readers to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain +M’Quhae could have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. +118</a>). After having enumerated all the characters of the animal +seen by captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, taken from the figures as well as from +the descriptions, Professor <span class="smcap">Owen</span> comes to the conclusion: “All +these are the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal..... +Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or +a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetacean mammal, +but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size, or indeed of +any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south, and +longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor <span class="smcap">Owen</span> further concludes: <i>Phoca +proboscidea</i> or <i>Phoca leonina</i>. Very remarkable is the fact that a +few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This +is the only part of the description, however, which seems to me +to be so uncertain as to be inadmissable, <i>in an attempt to arrive +at a right conclusion as to the nature of the animal</i>”. (The italics +are mine).</p> + +<p>In <a href="#Fig69">fig. 69</a> I show my readers the <i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i>, <span class="smcap">Linné</span>, +or sea-elephant, of which <i>Phoca leonina</i>, <span class="smcap">Linné</span>, and <i>Phoca proboscidea</i>, +<span class="smcap">Péron</span>, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated +tubercular proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which +is seen in the background of my drawing, have the common +features of seals.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">H. E. Strickland</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. Melville</span> in the note added +to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the <i>Annals and Magazine of +Natural History</i>, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say +of Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span> letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation +of the circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and +briefly, but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the +Great Sea-Serpent generally.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page449">[449]</span></p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig69"> +<img src="images/illo449.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 69.—<i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i> (<span class="smcap">Linné</span>).</p> +</div> + +<p>Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of +a seal. His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I +therefore refer my readers to it (<a href="#Report118">n<sup>o</sup>. 118</a>).</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Froriep</span>, in his <i>Notizen</i>, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, +1849, after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement +of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span>, from that of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, +from the hoax of the <i>Daphne</i>, from the suggestion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Mantell</span>, +from that of Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>, &c. &c. finally concludes:</p> + +<p>“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is +still fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent; +yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must +be a large sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a +snake; but whether this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to +the family of the amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful +after the objections of Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span>.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> treats of the +seal-hypothesis in the following manner:</p> + +<p>“Among animals, the <i>Vertebrata</i> are the only classes supposable. +But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but <i>Mammalia, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page450">[450]</span>Reptilia</i>, <i>Pisces</i>,—there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning +it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of lengthened +form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each +has the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”</p> + +<p>“Let us, then, look at the <i>Mammalia</i>. Here Professor Owen +would place it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost +the force of an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption +if I venture to examine the decision of one whom I greatly +respect. It is true, his reasoning applies directly only to the creature +seen from the <i>Daedalus</i>; but we are bound to consider the exigencies +not only of that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated +cases.”</p> + +<p>“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:—“Head +with a <i>convex, moderately capacious cranium</i>, short obtuse +muzzle, <i>gape not extending further than the eye</i>; eye rather +small, round, <i>filling closely the palpebral aperture</i>; colour, dark +brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, <i>without +scales</i>, <i>scutes</i>, or other conspicuous modifications of hard and naked +cuticle; nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by +<i>a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle</i>; body long, +dark brown, not undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins; +“but something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of +sea-weed, washed about its back.”</p> + +<p>“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a +warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded +reptile or fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on +the back to a horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing +of hair; and, guided by this interpretation, the Professor +judges that the animal was not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”</p> + +<p>“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, +more than from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that +this diagnosis was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made +<i>from the life</i>, under the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing +could be more legitimate than such a use of them. But surely it +has been overlooked that they were made under no such circumstances. +Only one of the published representations was original; +and this was taken “immediately <i>after</i> the animal was seen”. That +is, one of the officers, who could draw, went below immediately, +and attempted to reproduce what his eye was still filled with. Now, +what could one expect under such conditions? Of course, the artist +was not a zoologist, or we should have had a zoologist’s report. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page451">[451]</span>Would the drawing so produced be of any value? Surely yes; of +great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful representation +of the <i>general appearance</i> of the object seen, but nothing more; +its form, and position, and colour, and <i>such</i> of the details <i>as the +observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down</i>, so to speak, <i>in +his mind</i>, would be given; but a great deal of the details would +be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an object +before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles, relative +distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them +down <i>seriatim</i>; ever looking at the part of the original on which +he is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was +open to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but +necessarily vague, idea of the whole before him as the original +from which he drew. Who is there that could carry all the details +of an object in the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, +too, under strong excitement? This was not the case even of a +cool professional artist, called in to view an object for the purpose +of depicting it; in all probability the officer had not thought +of sketching it till all was over, and had made no precise observations, +his mind being mainly occupied by wonder. He sits down, +pencil in hand; he dashes in the general outline at once; now he +comes to details,—say the muzzle, the facial angle;—of course, +his figure must have <i>some</i> facial angle, <i>some</i> outline of muzzle; +but probably he had particularly noticed that point. What shall +he do? there is no original before him, a glance at which would +decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or three +forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer, +with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the +head?” and then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so +of other details.”</p> + +<p>“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making +a caricature. I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed +for nearly forty years to draw animals from the life; and the public +are able to judge of my power of representing what I see; +but I am quite sure that if I were asked to depict an object unfamiliar +to me, which I had been looking at for a quarter of an +hour, without thinking that I should have to draw it, I should +do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed the officer +to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your +acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional +artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take +<span class="pagenum" id="Page452">[452]</span>him into your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful +thing in blossom; keep him looking at it for some ten minutes +without a hint of what you are thinking of; then take him into +your drawing-room, put paper and colours before him, and say, +“Make me a sketch of that plant you have just seen!” When it +is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give you the characters +of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare it +yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous +blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general +correctness.”</p> + +<p>“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the +sketch made on board the <i>Daedalus</i> must be for minute characters; +and particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked +with italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove +the mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters +could not possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ +distance. I say “<i>mainly</i> relied on”; because there is the manelike +appendage yet to be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly +in favour of a mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it +decides the question, however, I will presently examine.”</p> + +<p>“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in +which the creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to +me at all to resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted +cranium”. The summit of the head does not rise above the level +of the summit of the neck; in other words, the <i>vertical</i> diameter +of the head and neck are equal, while there are indications that +the occiput considerably exceeds the neck in <i>transverse</i> diameter. +This is not the case with any seal, but it is eminently characteristic +of eels, of many serpents, and some lizards. Let the reader +compare the lower figure (<i>Illustrated London News</i>, Oct. 28, 1848) +with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s <i>British Fishes</i> (ed. +ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the scincoid lizards (the +Jamaican <i>Celestus ociduus</i>, for instance) is not at all unlike that +represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short, but a little more +pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this point the Captain’s +assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to Professor Owen, +he distinctly asserts that “the head was <i>flat</i>, and not a capacious +vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant Drummond, +<i>published before any strictures were made on the point</i>, says, “the +head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps +ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page453">[453]</span></p> + +<p>“With regard to the “mane”. The great <i>Phoca proboscidea</i> is +the only seal which will bear comparison with the <i>Daedalus</i> animal +in question, reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers +declare that upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at +the surface; but Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance +of the water produced by progression induced an illusive +appearance of a portion of this length. But how much? Suppose +all behind thirty feet, the extreme length of the elephant seal. +Then it is impossible the animal could have been such a seal, for +the following reason. The fore paws of the seal are placed at about +one-third of the total length from the muzzle; that is, in a seal +of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle. But <i>twenty</i> feet +of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and yet no appearance +of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head to +have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming +sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); +and besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”</p> + +<p>“But the great <i>Phoca proboscidea</i> has no <i>mane</i> at all. For this, +we must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two +kinds are recognized under this name, <i>Otaria jubata</i> and <i>Platyrhynchus +leoninus</i>; though there is some confusion in the names. +Neither of these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, +about five feet would be the utmost that could project from the +water in swimming. Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant +officers to have magnified the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; +I fear even then it will not do. For the mane in these animals +is a lengthening and thickening of the hair on the occiput and on +the neck, just as in the lion. But the “serpent’s” mane was not +there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head” says +Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says Captain +M’Quhae.”</p> + +<p>“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present +possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”</p> + +<p>I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in discussing +the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may +add: <i>especially of the sea-serpent seen by Captain</i> <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, was +prepossessed with his idea of the sea-serpent being an <i>Enaliosaurian</i>.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">Gosse</span> points out that the vertical diameter of the head and +neck are equal; but he does <i>not</i> fix the reader’s attention to the +fact that if this were really the case, the estimation of the length +of the head by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span> at “ten feet” and that of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page454">[454]</span>the diameter of the neck by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> at “sixteen inches” +don’t agree at all!—In none of the reports of the animal of the +<i>Daedalus</i> there is question of the “serpent” being “twenty feet +projected from the water”; it is only stated that the head was +kept four feet above the water.—Neither do the reports mention +<i>how much</i> of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> +says “an equal length”.—Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Drummond</span> did <i>not</i> say that +the <i>mane</i> was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the +gallant officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!—</p> + +<p>Prof. <span class="smcap">Owen</span> relying upon the descriptions of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> +and drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their +statements to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, +absolutely rejects the estimation of the length of the animal +at “sixty-feet at least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly +come to another conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, +and to the question: “which mammal could it have been? his +reply could not be otherwise than: “a large seal”. It is evident +that for this reason he recalled to his mind all the sea-mammals +known to him, but he seems to have totally overlooked the possibility +of the existence of sea-mammals unknown to him!!! The +conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads the Professor to +write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses might be +got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”. The Professor +would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had +examined <i>all</i> the reports about the animal, and <i>all</i> that had been +written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a +thorough investigation a sceptic <i>must</i> remain a sceptic.</p> + +<p>I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. +The latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant +has no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these +characters are very prominent in the sea-serpent.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>seventeenth</b> explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is +nothing else but a gigantic <b>sea-weed</b>, detached from the bottom +of the sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. +In the <i>Zoologist</i> of that year, p. 2541, we read the following +statement of Captain <span class="smcap">Herriman</span>:</p> + +<p>“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship <i>Brazilian</i>, now +lying near the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the +following curious and interesting statement:—</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page455">[455]</span></p> + +<p>“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong +south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. +the ship was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, +being about forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, +R. N., is said to have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight +o’clock on that morning, whilst the captain was surveying the +calm, heavy, rippleless swell of the sea through his telescope, the +ship at the same time heading N. N. W., he perceived something +right abeam, about half a mile to the westward, stretched along +the water to the length of about twenty-five or thirty feet, and +perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady, sinuous motion. +The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above the waters, +had something resembling a mane, running down to the floating +portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out into a +sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the +monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly +the same latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had +fallen in with the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately +called his chief officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, +who, after surveying the object for some time, came to the unanimous +conclusion that it must be the sea-serpent seen by Captain +M’Quhae. As the <i>Brazilian</i> was making no headway, Mr. Herriman, +determining to bring all doubts to an issue, had a boat +lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together with +Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, +who acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they +approached the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow +of the boat armed with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. +The combat, however, was not attended with the danger which +those on board apprehended; for on coming close to the object it +was found to be nothing more than an immense piece of sea-weed, +evidently detached from a coral reef, and drifting with the current, +which sets constantly to the westward in this latitude, and which, +together with the swell left by the subsidence of the gale, gave it +the sinuous, snake-like motion.”</p> + +<p>“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity +of examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” +account of the great sea-serpent,—Mr. Herriman himself +admitting that he should have remained under the impression +that he had seen it. What appeared to be the head, crest, and +mane of the <i>immensum volumen</i>, was but the large root which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page456">[456]</span>floated upwards, and to which several pieces of the coral reef still +adhered. The Captain had it hauled on board, but as it began to +decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now regrets that he +had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of exhibition +in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the tide +and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”</p> + +<p>Again we read in the <i>Times</i> of February 13th., 1858, republished +also in the <i>Zoologist</i> for 1858, p. 5990:</p> + +<p>“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington, +of the ship <i>Castilian</i>, stating his belief that he had seen +the great sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened +by the fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship +<i>Daedalus</i> near the same position. The following circumstance which +occurred on board the ship <i>Pekin</i>, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & +W. Smith, on her passage from Moulmein, may be of some service +respecting this “queer fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then +in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E., nearly calm, saw, about half a mile +on port beam, a very extraordinary looking thing in the water, +of considerable length. With the telescope we could plainly discern +a huge head and neck, covered with a long shaggy-looking kind +of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out of the water. This +was seen by all hands, and declared to be the great sea-serpent. +I determined on knowing something about it, and accordingly lowered +a boat, in which my chief officer and four men went, taking +with them a long small line in case it should be required. +I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to +regard their approach. At length they got close to the head. They +seemed to hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the +monster all the time ducking its head, and showing its great length. +Presently the boat began pulling towards the ship, the monster +following slowly. In about half an hour they got alongside; a +tackle was got on the mainyard and it was hoisted on board. It +appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but so completely covered +with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen inches long, +that we had it some time on board before it was discovered to +be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches +diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head +of an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem +alive. In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had +rather an offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been +a short time in England when the <i>Daedalus</i> arrived and reported +<span class="pagenum" id="Page457">[457]</span>having seen the great sea-serpent,—to the best of my recollection +near the same locality, and which I have no doubt was a piece +of the same weed. So like a huge living monster did this appear, +that, had circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I +should certainly have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” +Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10, 1858.”—</p> + +<p>The Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i> adds the following quotation from +<span class="smcap">Harvey’s</span> <i>British Algae</i>, p. 27, however, not as an explanation +of the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer +in its existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain +<span class="smcap">Smith</span> and to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence +of these large weeds. We do the same.</p> + +<p>“The plants of this family (<i>Laminariaceae</i>) are almost all of +large size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk +any other marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our +own coasts have frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds +expanding from their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong +(<i>Chorda</i>) often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions +are small, compared with their kindred on the shores of +the Pacific ocean. The <i>Nereocystis</i>, a plant of this family inhabiting +the north-western shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than +whipcord, but upwards of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex +a huge vesicle, six or seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and +crowned with a tuft of upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from +30 to 40 feet in length. The vesicle being filled with air, buoys +up this immense frond, which lies stretched along the surface of +the sea: here the sea-otter has his favoured lair, resting himself +upon the vesicle, or hiding among the leaves while he pursues +his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors this floating tree +must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly, we find it +used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”</p> + +<p>As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. +S. <i>Daedalus</i>” and Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span> repeated their assurances +that the creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral +<span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> took up the cudgels for Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington</span>, +upon which Captain <span class="smcap">Frederic Smith</span> wrote the following paper +(<i>The Times</i> of 23 February 1858):</p> + +<p>“Sir,—I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, +that in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking +appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three +feet. Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson +<span class="pagenum" id="Page458">[458]</span>crabs, varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, +were collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life +could be furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking +creatures which constituted the moving monstrous-looking external +will assist those who read my account in believing what I before +stated that even when the object was laid on deck we had difficulty +in making out what it was. Now, sea-weeds of gigantic +growth abound near the islands of the group of Tristan d’Acunha. +From decay or other causes, these will from time to time be detached +at the roots, and with their living attachment will then, +floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents, into +the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting himself. +It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by +the boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous +specimens may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your +insertion of this correspondence will cause more attention to be +given to their capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship +<i>Daedalus</i>, to the forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers +to “settle down” to the conclusion: “This must be the animal +called the sea-serpent.” Had the monster I described not been +taken, I should have believed, as firmly as Captain Harrington +does, that I could confirm the statement of the commander of the +<i>Daedalus</i> and that “the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.””</p> + +<p>“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary +and unexpected appearances of things as compared with +the things themselves when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the +<i>Daedalus</i> sea-serpent was seen in the recollection of one spectator, +the mouth in that of another, and so on. I take leave to question +the possibility of these being “most distinctly visible”, when the +object at its “nearest position” was 200 yards distant, the sea +getting up, and the observers travelling in an opposite direction, +the passing of the two being apparently at the rate of 20 miles +an hour. Naturalists will say whether an animal to answer to the +habits and attributes of that in question would have a nostril.”</p> + +<p>“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the <i>Castilian</i>, saw an +extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression, +and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the mercantile +marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also for +“Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington +is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has +published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page459">[459]</span>these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington +saw the sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very +nearly and completely took me in until I took him in.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr6">“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant</span><br> +<span class="padr12">“Fred. Smith.”</span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span>, in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i>, p. 320, inquiring +whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the +sea-weed hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.</p> + +<p>“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this +huge rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal +at all? That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting +some of the characters described, has been already shown; and +on two occasions an object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved +on examination to be but a sea-weed floating; the separated and +inverted roots of which, projecting in the role of the swell, seemed +a head, and the fronds (in the one case), and (in the other) a +number of attached barnacles, resembled a shaggy mane washed +about in the water.”</p> + +<p>“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view +of the floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken +this for a living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest +degree to presume that of such a nature could be the creatures, +going rapidly through the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, +with the head and neck elevated, so distinctly seen by Captain +M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at two hundred, the latter +at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly dismiss the sea-weed +hypothesis.”</p> + +<p>Again in <i>Nature</i> of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the +following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers +the sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.</p> + +<p>“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of +the reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into +masses of floating sea-weed.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> speaking of +this hypothesis says:</p> + +<p>“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for +some fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed +by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner +strongly suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming, +is a statement to the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony, +and to the truth of which even observant sea-side visitors +<span class="pagenum" id="Page460">[460]</span>may testify. The movements of an unusually long frond or group +of fronds of tangle, attached to a rock, and set in motion at low +water, by a light swell, has before now, and when seen indistinctly, +suggested the idea of the existence at the spot of some large denizen +of the sea, browsing on the sea-weeds, with the fore part of +its body, represented by the tangle fronds, occasionally appearing +at the surface of the water.”</p> + +<p>Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared +in the <i>Madras Mail</i>, but which I take from <i>Nature</i> of +13th. October, 1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be +explained in this way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his +purpose. I also think that this was the intention of the contributor +who inserted it in the columns of <i>Nature</i>, of the man who sent +a Dutch translation of it to the <i>Nieuws van den Dag</i>, of 26th. +Nov., 1881, and of Professor <span class="smcap">P. Harting</span> who republished this +translation in the <i>Album der Natuur</i>, of 1882, p. 66.</p> + +<p>“In a letter to the <i>Madras Mail</i> of September 8, on the use of +gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H. +Taylor, the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following +interesting “sea-serpent”-story:—“A notable incident connected +with this sea-weed, is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s +letter. About fifteen years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor +in Table Bay, an enormous monster, as it appeared, was seen +drifting, or advancing itself round Green Point, into the harbour. +It was more than one hundred feet in length, and moved with an +undulating snake-like motion. Its head was crowned with what +appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted among the affrighted +observers declared they could see its eyes and distinguish its features. +The military were called out, and a brisk fire poured into +it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was hit several +times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were its evident +injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite still, and +boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction. It was +found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its +stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having +left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”</p> + +<p>It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not +deserving of any notice on our part.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page461">[461]</span></p> + +<p>The <b>eighteenth</b> explanation is attempted by Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. More</span> +(see <i>Zoologist</i> for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:</p> + +<p>“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep, +in the pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to +sollicit insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality, +in some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance. +Any one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great +<b>ribband or scabbard fishes</b>, or who has ever read the striking accounts +of the huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their +extreme rarety, may, like myself, have been thus reminded of +those mysterious sea-monsters which are occasionally observed by +the unlearned to be no less a puzzle to learned opinion. When, +too, we know that these fishes are supposed often to swim at the +surface, and thus to be driven ashore more readily, when the only +example of whose healthy life we have a credible account, is described +as advancing head above water, and by the undulating +movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we not +reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms +of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might +easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so +called “mane” of the great sea-snake.”</p> + +<p>The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Gosse</span> in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> in the following terms:</p> + +<p>“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as +the hair-tail, the <i>Vaegmaer</i>, and the <i>Gymnetrus</i>, are of large size, +and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the +North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder +and curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in +other respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the +animal in question. One of their most striking characteristics, +moreover, is, that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”</p> + +<p>In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas +Isles. Mr. <span class="smcap">Trimingham</span>, the captor, placed it at the disposal +of Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Matthew Jones</span>, a naturalist living there. This gentleman +described the animal for the <i>Zoologist</i>, in which his paper +appeared in the volume of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> +ended his article as follows:</p> + +<p>“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture +of the present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction +it will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have +in the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save +<span class="pagenum" id="Page462">[462]</span>size, with which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster +“The Great Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested. +The lengthened filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by +the connecting membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would, +viewed from a vessel’s deck, present to the spectator the mane so +accurately described as a singular feature in the gigantic specimen +seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R. N., and officers of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>. +Then again, the rapidity with which that individual specimen +moved through the water, would coincide with the capabilities of +a member of this genus, for the motive power produced by such +an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely compressed form of +body from the head throughout, must be immense.”</p> + +<p>“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements +which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the +united presses of England and America, emanating from the pens +of travelers, and usually headed—“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”—criticised, +however, in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed +to an unmerited ridicule at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless, +firmly believed in by the few, who have patiently waited to +see the day when the mystic cloud which has hitherto veiled the +existence of the maned denizen of the deep should vanish with +the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit more clearly the truth of +the assertions of those ill-used men, who, endeavouring like useful +members of society to extend the cause of natural knowledge by +publishing candid accounts of what their eyes have seen, have +always met with an amount of contempt and reproach, sufficient +to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”</p> + +<p>“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London +News at hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared, +as it would have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other +features in connection with his specimen and the present one. The +facts, however, regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity +of motion to which I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Newman</span>, the Editor of the <i>Zoologist</i>, thinking this ribbon-fish +a new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured +it with the name of <i>Regalecus Jonesii</i>, but to our great astonishment, +he, who firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an <i>Enaliosaurus</i> +(as we have observed above) now seems to be in doubt +about the matter, for he ends his article with the following words:</p> + +<p>“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. Jones, the +similarity of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, I +<span class="pagenum" id="Page463">[463]</span>do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am +quite willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on +its own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on +comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published +in the “<i>Zoologist</i>”.”</p> + +<p>The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the +unbelievers, no doubt, as it <i>seems</i> more plausible than the <i>Plesiosaurus</i>-one. +An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note +which I have found in <i>Nature</i> of the 1st. August, 1872:</p> + +<p>“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a +specimen of the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without +the tail. It appears that this fish is known to distant inland +fishermen as being forty feet long, and from its slender shape and +snake-like movement is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so +minutely described by navigators. From its head there is erected +a plume of flexible, rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail +along its back there is a conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general +colour is like burnished silver. The eye is large and silvery, and +the profile of the head comports well with that of the horse. The +specimen could not be preserved, but there are two smaller specimens +in the Museum.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> in his turn believes (see <i>Nature</i> of Sept. +12, 1878) that:</p> + +<p>“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might +do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>In his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i> he returns to his idea:</p> + +<p>“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on +which occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved +ribbon or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea +that such an animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from +a distance by persons unskilled in natural history,—and who +would, therefore, hardly dream of associating the elongated being +before them with their ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,—might +account for certain of the tales of sea-serpents which have +been brought under our notice. I had been specially struck with +the mention, in several accounts of sea-serpents, of a very long +back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and of a banded body covered +with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several instances the +description given of the heads of the sea-monsters closely correspond +with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes. These fishes +have further been described by naturalists as occasionally having +<span class="pagenum" id="Page464">[464]</span>been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion close +to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated +above the surface,—this latter feature, as we have observed, +forming a remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I +found, on making inquiry into the history of these fishes, that +their serpentine form had struck previous observers, but, as far as +I could ascertain, their merits as representatives of sea-serpents had +never before been so persistently advocated.”</p> + +<p>“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle, +I communicated to the <i>Scotsman</i> and <i>Courant</i> newspapers in June, +1876. The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given +as 12 feet 3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches, +and the greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions +in thickness, and the relatively long length and depth, +giving to these fishes the popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes. +The species was the well-known <i>Gymnetrus</i> or <i>Regalecus Banksii</i> +of naturalists; and by the Museum attendant at Newcastle, I was +informed that a still larger specimen of the same species was recently +obtained of the Northumberland coast, the length of this +latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the thickness 5 +inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The breast +fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated +and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very +long, whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back, +and obtains an average breadth of about three inches.”</p> + +<p>“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the +ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of +fish merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the +idea that gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally +developed. The gentleman in question wrote to inform me that +about thirty years ago he engaged the smack <i>Sovereign</i>, of Hull, +Baillie commander, to trawl in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury, +then residing at Elie Lodge, Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in +their trawling operations, the crew of the <i>Sovereign</i> captured a +giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at length on the deck, +extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem and stern. The +smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length may +therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,—this measurement +being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured +from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six +to seven inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined +<span class="pagenum" id="Page465">[465]</span>to view the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered +the fish to be cut in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also +worthy of remark that the trawlers seemed to express no great +surprise at the size of Lord Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted +that they had met with one much larger, this latter being coloured +of a dirty-brown hue.”</p> + +<p>He also explains the animal of the <i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>) by reference +to a ribbon-fish in the following terms:</p> + +<p>“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable +explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views +to the <i>Times</i> in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal +for June 15, 1877:—“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns +of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently +seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not +meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,—such +as giant sea-snakes themselves,—may occasionally personate +the “sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very +many of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on +the supposition that giant tape-fishes—of the existence of which +no reasonable doubt can be entertained—have been seen. The +report of Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht <i>Osborne</i>, appears, +as far as zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained +on the “ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less +skin, the rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral) +fins, each measuring many feet in length, all form so many details +corresponding exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer +these observations with the view of showing that, given a recital +founded, as I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we +possess in the lists of living and of well-known animals adequate +representatives of the great unknown.”</p> + +<p>“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression +contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic +turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in +the absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate +the views expressed above as to the personality of this +strange tenant of the Mediterranean Sea.”</p> + +<p>“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared +in the <i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i> for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor, +speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I +offer “as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being +hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in <i>Good Words</i>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page466">[466]</span>from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the +probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and +appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” +in Mr. Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes +simply as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and +not as a sole and universal representative of the modern leviathan.”</p> + +<p>“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear +proof before us that these and other animals may be developed to +a size which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can +only term enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the +sea-serpent question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To +objectors of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that +we have not yet procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, +I would point out that I by no means maintain the frequent development +of such beings. The most I argue for and require is +their occasional production; and I would also remind such objectors +of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes which, until within the +past few years, remained in the same mysterious seclusion affected +at present by the great serpentine unknown. I need only add that +I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a giant serpent of +the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its representative, +or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we discover the +true and natural law of its production.”</p> + +<p>“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully +submit, as does a pleading counsel to his jury,—”</p> + +<p>“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified, +when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion +being especially supported by the want of any <i>prima facie</i> reason +for prevarication;”</p> + +<p>“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved +to be deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual +attitudes on the part of familiar animals, there remains a +body of evidence only to be explained on the hypothesis that certain +gigantic marine animals, at present unfamiliar or unknown +to science, do certainly exist; and”</p> + +<p>“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly +consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily +explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development +of gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar +to the naturalist.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>, too, supposes that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page467">[467]</span>“the dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew +Wilson, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.</p> + +<p>I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a +ribbon-fish has only <i>one</i> connected dorsal <i>fin</i>, and not a <i>ridge of +fins</i>, (compare <a href="#Fig13">fig. 13</a> with <a href="#Fig44">fig. 44</a>). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish +is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly +black; the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark +brown above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long +time in the sun on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow; +the under parts are of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers, +which are the organs of locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth +of a ribbon-fish is only a few inches, while that of the sea-serpent, +as is clearly pointed out in the animal of the <i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>), +may grow to more than fifteen feet. But I need not sum up the +differences between ribbon-fishes and sea-serpents. We have only to +ask the opinion of one of the most able ichthyologists of our days, +and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to stand upon:</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Günther</span> says in his <i>Introduction to the study of Fishes</i>, +1880, p. 520:</p> + +<p>“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all +parts of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the +surface, or thrown ashore by the waves.....”</p> + +<p>“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion +of the gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their +muscular and bony system, that they can be lifted out of the +water with difficulty only, and nearly always portions of the body +and fins are broken and lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes +live is not known; probably the depths vary for different species; +but although none have been yet obtained by means of the deep-sea +dredge, they must be abundant at the bottom of all oceans, +as dead fishes or fragments of them are frequently obtained. Some +writers have supposed from the great length and narrow shape of +these fishes that they have been mistaken for “Sea-Serpents”; but +as these monsters of the sea are always represented by those who +have had the good fortune of meeting with them as remarkably +active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes, which are +either dying or dead, have been the objects described as “Sea-Serpents”.”</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page468">[468]</span></p> + +<p>The <b>nineteenth</b> explanation is that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Arthur Adams</span> (see +<i>Zoologist</i>, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that <b>a floating dead tree</b> +“might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another +sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:</p> + +<p>“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon, +which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical +delusion that might have become a source of error, and given +rise to yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands +of the Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There +was little wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the +sea. I was sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room +on the main deck, admiring the setting sun, and watching the +rounded outlines of the blue mountains and distant islands against +the sky, and the numbers of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to +their nests”, when my eye rested on a long dark object apparently +making its way steadily through the water. After observing it some time +in silence I was sorely puzzled and could make nothing of it. It +was neither a seal nor a diver nor a fishing cormorant, for with +their forms I was familiar; so I went on deck and consulted other +eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought to bear on the suspicious +object, and the general scrutiny seemed to decide that it +was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer according +to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by lateral +undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that the +course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering. +With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom +or so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range +up alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast +by a clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this +time, however, a closer and more critical inspection had taken +place, and the supposed sea-monster turned himself into a long +dark root, gnarled and twisted, of a tree, secured to the moorings +of a fishing net, with the strong tide passing it rapidly, and thus +giving it an apparent life-like movement and serpentine aspect.”</p> + +<p>After Mr. <span class="smcap">Drew</span> had published in <i>Nature</i> a case, in which he +and many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags, +another contributor Mr. <span class="smcap">E. H. Pringle</span> wrote the following (<i>Nature</i>, +September 12, 1878):</p> + +<p>“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of +Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits” +concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page469">[469]</span></p> + +<p>“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small +group of passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss. +<i>Rangoon</i>, then steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore. +We were just within sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra. +One of the party suddenly pointed out an object on the port bow, +perhaps half a mile off, and drew from us the simultaneous exclamation +of “The sea-serpent!” And there it was, to the naked +eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the sea, with its head +raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried in the water, +and anon reared just above its surface. There was the mane, and +there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards behind.”</p> + +<p>“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the +<i>Rangoon</i> would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a +great sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the +lenses and the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards, +anchored in some manner to the bottom—a “snag” in fact. +Swayed up and down by the rapid current, a series of waves undulated +beyond it, bearing in their crests dark coloured weeds or +grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”</p> + +<p>“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land, +and of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first +hasty conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone +the human mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we +should be in forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, speaking of +this hypothesis says:</p> + +<p>“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus around +which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and sea-acorns—producing +a variegated effect by reason of their light colour—have +attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented +appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming +slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of +this latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual +spectator, the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating +in the closest and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,—by +the same rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks +and branches of trees one may frequently discern likenesses to the +human face and to the forms of other living things. In this latter +instance, the floating object was perceived at some miles’ distance +from the deck of a yacht; and even when seen through a telescope, +and carefully scrutinized by men accustomed to make out the contour +<span class="pagenum" id="Page470">[470]</span>and nature of objects at sea, the resemblance to the head of +some animal was so close that the course of the vessel was changed +and the object in due time overhauled. This latter, therefore, presents +an example of a case, the details of which, when related, +tempt people to maintain without further parley, that sea-serpents +always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one kind or +another.”</p> + +<p>The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes +at once the idea of a dead organism.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>twentieth</b> explanation is: <b>a mass of flying birds</b>, of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Joseph Drew</span>, who wrote in <i>Nature</i> of the 5th. of September, 1878:</p> + +<p>“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the +Folkestone boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations +of that neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from +the French coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look +at that extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer +about a mile or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning +in this direction there was seen an immense serpent apparently +about a furlong in length, rushing furiously along at the rate of +fifteen or twenty miles an hour; it was blackish in front and paler +behind; its elongated body was fairly on the surface of the water +and it progressed with an undulating or quivering motion, mirum +erat spectaculum sane.”</p> + +<p>“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account +for this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed +and settled into the fixed idea that the object before them +could be nothing less than the great sea-serpent himself; for—</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> +<div class="stanza"> +<div class="verse indent0">“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Leviathan, which God of all his works</div> +<div class="verse indent0">“Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”</div> +</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses, +and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument, +the wonder was satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster +was dark and glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually, +fading towards the tail. The glass did not determine the +matter until the extreme end was reached, and then it was seen +<span class="pagenum" id="Page471">[471]</span>to consist of a mass of birds in rapid motion; those that were +strong on the wing were able to keep well up with the leaders, +and to make the head appear thicker and darker by their numbers, +whilst those that had not such power of flight were compelled +to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless +these birds were shags (<i>Pelecanus cristatus</i>) returning to their homes +for the night from the distant waters in which they had been +fishing, during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively +as to the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer +has often seen shags on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning +in single or double file to their roosting places, and since +it is stated in works of natural history that they have been noticed +occasionally flying in this peculiar manner to the number of a +thousand or more, it does not appear an unwarranted liberty in +supposing that they really were <i>Pelecani cristati</i>.”</p> + +<p>“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt +the interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a +large and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds +(scores of them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the +writer has thought it his duty to report the circumstance to you +that your readers who voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses +in their pockets and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity +this interpretation of the great sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>This story induced Mr. <span class="smcap">Bird</span> (<i>Nature</i>, of 12th. September, 1878) +to make a similar avowal:</p> + +<p>“Dr. Drew’s letter in <i>Nature</i>, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to +my mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend +on August 8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was +towards evening, when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without +masts or funnel, moving through the water at enormous speed. +After a minute or two it undulated and rose from the surface, +and we saw that it was a flight of birds.”</p> + +<p>“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at +least many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated, +though I doubt whether <i>all</i> can be explained in this manner.”</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, on the contrary wrote the following +against this supposition (<i>Nature</i>, in the same number):</p> + +<p>“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday +regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the +English Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding +the habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page472">[472]</span>however, to point out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded +as explanatory of the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the +incident only explains one of a number of <i>serpentine appearances</i> +of which porpoises and sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood +with trains of sea-weed, &c., are also good examples. There have +been placed on record numerous incidents of serpentine forms +having been closely expected (as in the well-known case of the +<i>Daedalus</i>, or later still of H. M. S. <i>Osborne</i>) where the hypothesis +of the serpentine appearances assumed by flocks of birds or fishes +could not be held as explanatory in any sense. It is with the +view of showing that the exact personality of the “sea-serpent” +cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew relates, +that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer from +the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine +ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent” +mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully +between cases in which serpentine appearances have been +assumed by ordinary animals, and those in which <i>one</i> animal +form has presented itself in the guise of the “great unknown”. +I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio +of a giant “cuttle-fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting +problem. A long tape-fish, or even a basking shark of huge +dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers +for “a sea-serpent.”........ “At the same time zoologists cannot +but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like that gentleman, +note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and +communicate such incidents to your columns.”</p> + +<p>A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing +descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal +from the pen of Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Ingleby</span>:</p> + +<p>“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed +at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a +cottage on an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view. +One morning my attention was called to a large, dark, undulating +body, which moved rapidly through the sea. As it was some way +out from shore, I naturally concluded it to be of enormous length. +I lost no time in making inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon, +and was so fortunate as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed +it. He told me it was a flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly +have believed that I had seen the Great Unknown. I have often +seen a similar phenomenon, but nothing nearly so striking as this.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page473">[473]</span></p> + +<p>In <i>Nature</i> of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent +is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent +says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in +the same locality; “I never, however, saw the <i>head</i>”. Now another +correspondent thinking that <i>he</i> had solved the problem, wrote the +following article in the next issue of the same journal:</p> + +<p>“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes, +on the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions, +several members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance +of three or four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a +huge serpent. Its length was many times that of the largest steamer +that ever passed, and its velocity equally exceeded that of the +swiftest. What seemed its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes +appeared to show signs of an open mouth. The general appearance +of the monster was almost exactly similar to that of the +figure in your correspondent’s letter published on the 25th. ult. +Not the slightest appearance of this continuity in its structure could +be perceived by the eye, although it seemed incredible that any +muscular mechanism could really drive such an enormous mass +through the water with such a prodigious velocity. I carefully +watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day, just as +one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it instantaneously +turned through a right angle, but instead of going +forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same +velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved +itself into a flock of birds.”</p> + +<p>“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being +effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still +perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new +illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what has +been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly +this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s difficulty.”—<span class="smcap">W. +Steadman Aldis.</span>—</p> + +<p>As to the figure, it is our <a href="#Fig51">fig. 51</a>.—In the next issue of <i>Nature</i> +again another correspondent asserts:</p> + +<p>“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in <i>Nature</i> yesterday, +I was reminded by a person present that some years ago, +when in Orkney, I pointed out an appearance that most people +unaccustomed to witness it might have taken for a great sea-monster. +This was nothing more or less than some hundred of cormorants +or “skarps” flying in a continuous line close to the water, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page474">[474]</span>the deception being increased by the resemblance of a head caused +by several “skarps” in a cluster <i>heading</i> the column, and by the +“<i>lumpy</i>” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and hiding +for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer to—not +unnaturally—imagine that the portions so hidden had gone +under water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be +fairly estimated at thirty miles an hour or more.”—<span class="smcap">J. Rae.</span></p> + +<p>It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass +of flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the +most striking proofs against this hypothesis.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>twenty-first</b> explanation was proposed by Dr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> +in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, 1879. He presents a frontispiece +to his work “embodying the chief representations of the various +theories of the sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground +is delineated <b>a large turtle</b>. Of this supposition Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> +says in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>:</p> + +<p>“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers +and broad back.”</p> + +<p>The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet, +including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. +The breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three +and a half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would +have been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal +well enough. Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized +by its broad shell. No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian +shore.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>twenty-second</b> explanation. I don’t know whether the note +p. 106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson’s</span> <i>Leisure +Time Studies</i>, also appeared in the first edition, January, +1879, and so I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, +(1883), has a superior claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent +might be in some or in most instances <b>a giant cuttle-fish +or calamary</b>.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, quoting the report of Messrs. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> +and <span class="smcap">Anderson</span> (<a href="#Report146">n<sup>o</sup>. 146</a>), in which the latter says: “the creature +was apparently of a gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes +in a note:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page475">[475]</span></p> + +<p>“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature +mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner +of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond +with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be +the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as +it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing +“funnel.””</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> in his <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i> tries to explain all accounts +of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one +of the figures of <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus’</span> work (our <a href="#Fig14">fig. 14</a>) he says: “the +presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid” +(which snatched the man from the vessel) “and the two rows of +suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the +medial line traversing its whole length (intended to represent a +dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each +side of it.” I have discussed this explanation in its right place +(see <a href="#Page106">p. 106</a>).</p> + +<div class="container w35emmax" id="Fig70"> +<img src="images/illo475.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 70.—Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> +explains Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing.</p> +</div> + +<p>The “monster of <span class="smcap">Egede</span>” he also explained by reference to a +great calamary. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> does not doubt of the accuracy of <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> +description, but as to Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> figure he says: “The high character +of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that +he had seen something previously unknown to him (he does not +say it was a sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand +<span class="pagenum" id="Page476">[476]</span>what it was that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, one of his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to +do this”. And Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has the boldness to figure a large calamary, +with the words: “the animal which <span class="smcap">Egede</span> probably saw”, +of which figure I give a facsimile in <a href="#Fig70">fig. 70</a>.—</p> + +<p>Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious +acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a +doubting zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the +whole fabric falls to pieces as soon as we compare <span class="smcap">Egede’s</span> description +and <span class="smcap">Bing’s</span> drawing with the greater part of descriptions +and figures given as well before as after <span class="smcap">Egede</span>. His idea is far +fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When a calamary propels itself +with great velocity to the surface and raises its tail high out of +the water, all its arms are turned and stretched downwards; not +one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is in this +position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will fall +to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure to +left, and not to right, as Mr. <span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw very distinctly; he says: +“backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the +position above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube, +spouts in a direction contrary to that which Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> has figured. +The locomotor tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it +is stretched by its own muscular wall towards the head, and not +towards the tail, nor in a direction perpendicularly to the body, when +the act of spouting takes place. Moreover <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> saw the sea-serpent +spouting (exhaling) through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on +or below the surface of the water, as the calamary of Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>!</p> + +<p>Of Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean’s</span> report (<a href="#Report31">n<sup>o</sup>. 31</a>) he says: “His description of +it is exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”. +If I may beg my readers to read Mr. <span class="smcap">Maclean’s</span> report +again, they will observe that <i>nothing</i> in it indicates a calamary!</p> + +<p>About the report of Mr. <span class="smcap">J. C. Lund</span> (<a href="#Report115">n<sup>o</sup>. 115</a>) he writes:</p> + +<p>“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements +of all the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There +is no room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously +that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, +is most accurately and intelligently described—so clearly, +indeed, that it furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the +strange visitant.”</p> + +<p>“Here let me say—and I wish it to be distinctly understood—that +I do not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page477">[477]</span>or other great creatures at present unknown to science, +and that I have no inclination to explain away that which others +have seen, because I myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”, +it is said, and it is not agreeable to have to tell a person +that, in common parlance, he “must not trust his own eyes”. It +seems presumptuous even to hint that one may know better what +was seen than the person who saw it. And yet I am obliged to +say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly and assuredly, +that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not correctly interpret +that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is not the eye which +deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the imagination +which is led astray by the association of the thing seen with an +erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent assumption +of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key +to the mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours +had not access to, and which has only within the last few years +been placed in our hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster +are those of an animal with which we are now well acquainted, +but of the existence of which the narrators of these +occasional visitations were unaware; namely, the great calamary, +the same which gave rise to the stories of the Kraken, and which +has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian seas and fjords +from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have elsewhere +said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure +of the <i>Alecton</i> in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or +sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the +great sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express +belief in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned, +specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted +were met with on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of +them were deposited in museums, to silence the incredulous and +interest zoologists. When Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846 +the declaration of Mr. Lund and his companions of the fishing +excursion he and they knew nothing of there being such an animal. +They had formed no conception of it, nor had they the instructive +privilege, possessed of late years by the public in England, of +being able to watch attentively, and at leisure, the habits and +movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in great +tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted +with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed +snake the elongated body of a giant squid.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page478">[478]</span></p> + +<p>“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by +the outrush of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction +contrary to that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part, +therefore, goes in advance, and the body tapers towards this, +almost to a blunt point. At a short distance from the actual extremity +two flat fins project from the body, one on each side, so +that this end of the squid’s body somewhat resembles in shape +the government “broad arrow”. It is a habit of these squids, the +small species of which are met with in some localities in teeming +abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the water in hot +and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised out of +water, to a height which in a large individual might be three +feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at +the rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person +who has never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed, +like the creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in +accordance with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad +expanse. The elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the +neck to which the “head” is attached; the eight arms trailing +behind (the tentacles are always coiled away and concealed) supply +the supposed mane floating on each side; the undulating motion +in swimming, as the water is alternately drawn in and expelled, +accords with the description, and the excurrent stream pouring +aft from the locomotor tube, causes a long swirl and swell to be +left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have often seen, may +easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of its body. The +eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone of colour +varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey, as +the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter +circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”</p> + +<p>“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the +forepart of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”, +the “moving in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark +colour”, the “waving motion in the water behind the animal”, +from which the witnesses concluded that “part of the body was +concealed under water”, the “head raised, but the lower part not +visible”, the “sharp snout”, the “smooth skin”, and the appearance +described by Mr. William Knudtzon, and Candidatus Theologiae +Bochlum, of “the head being long and small in proportion to the +throat, the latter appearing much greater than the former”, which +caused them to think “it was <i>probably</i> furnished with a mane”. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page479">[479]</span>Not that they <i>saw</i> any mane, but as they had been told of it, +they thought they <i>ought to have seen it</i>. Less careful and conscientious +persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on +oath, that they <i>did see it</i>.”</p> + +<p>“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the proverbially +smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition +of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance +that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched +out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on +both sides of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of +that would cause this by the effluent current from its “syphon +tube.” I have seen a deeply laden ship push in front of her a +vast hillock of water, which fell off on each side in foam as it +was parted by her bow; but that was of man’s construction. Nature +builds on better lines. No swimming creature has such unnecessary +friction to overcome. Even the seemingly unwieldy body +of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without a splash, +and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering +action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”</p> + +<p>Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account, +that they may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a +sea-serpent or a great calamary. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> last views of the motion +of sea-animals is also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all +his assertions; for instance, he says: “Nature builds on better +lines”. I say: If nature built on better lines, men would long ago +have imitated them. All creatures, when swimming rapidly on the +surface, cause a splash. Swans, when moving as rapidly as possible, +cause heavy undulations before the chest, and I have observed +myself the common porpoises in the Zuider Zee, which when +coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a rushing +of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent of Mr. <span class="smcap">Morries Stirling</span> (<a href="#Report113">n<sup>o</sup>. 113</a>) appeared, +according to Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span> also “to have been, like the others +from the same locality, a large calamary.”</p> + +<p>Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span> and his officers +he says:</p> + +<p>“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted +the veracity or <i>bona fides</i> of the captain and officers of one of Her +Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because +it was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. +Their practised eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true +<span class="pagenum" id="Page480">[480]</span>character of anything met with afloat even if only partially seen, +as intuitively as the Red Indian reads the signs of the forest or +the trail; and therefore they were not likely to be deceived by +any of the objects with which sailors are familiar. They would +not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks of trees, or Brobdingnagian +stems of Algae; but there was one animal with which they +were not familiar, of the existence of which they were unaware, +and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed +to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself—namely, the great calamary, +the elongated form of which has certainly in some other +instances been mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen +swimming in the manner I have described, and endeavoured to +portray, would fulfil the description given by Lieutenant Drummond, +and would in a great measure account for the appearances +reported by Captain M’Quhae. “<i>The head long, pointed and flat +on the top</i>”, accords with the pointed extremity and caudal fin of +the squid. “<i>Head kept horizontal with the surface of the water, +and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally beneath +a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for purposes +of respiration.</i>” A perfect description of the position and action of +a squid swimming. “<i>No portion of it perceptibly used in propelling +it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations.</i>” +The mode of propulsion of a squid—the outpouring stream +of water from its locomotor tube—would be unseen and unsuspected, +because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would +suggest a prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms +trailing astern at the surface of the water would give the appearance +of a mane. I think it not impossible that if the officers of +the <i>Daedalus</i> had been acquainted with this great sea-creature the +impression on their mind’s eye would not have taken the form of +a serpent. I offer this, with much diffidence, as a suggestion arising +from recent discoveries; and by no means insist on its acceptance; +for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very close view of the +animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without any doubt, +that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently declared +that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form +were all most distinctly visible.”</p> + +<p>And of the sea-serpent of Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Davidson</span> (<a href="#Report93">n<sup>o</sup>. 93</a>) he asserts: +“The features of this incident are consistent with his having seen +one of the, then unknown, great calamaries.”</p> + +<p>The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Sanford</span> (<a href="#Report74">n<sup>o</sup>. 74</a>) is also +<span class="pagenum" id="Page481">[481]</span>explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under circumstances +similar to those described by <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>”.</p> + +<p>Captain <span class="smcap">Harrington’s</span> sea-serpent (<a href="#Report131">n<sup>o</sup>. 131</a>), according to Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lee</span>, “was evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal +extremity and fin above the surface, and discolouring the water +by discharging its ink.”</p> + +<p>Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span> concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have +been searching amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, +the great unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their +elongated cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have +played the part of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated +incident.”</p> + +<p>In answering, again, Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse’s</span> question: “To which of the +recognized classes of created beings can this huge rover of the +ocean be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There +is not one of the above judiciously summarized characteristics that +is not supplied by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits +and peculiar mode of locomotion.”</p> + +<p>With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those +which Mr. <span class="smcap">Gosse</span> enumerates in his <i>Romance of Natural History</i> +(see <a href="#Page318">p. 318</a> of the present volume), but which, as we know, are +taken by him from only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from +a report of a would-be sea-serpent!</p> + +<p>The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a +would-be sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the +head was described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true +sea-serpents are brownish black, and only in case the animal had +swum for a long time in the sun and partly above the surface of +the water, the colour is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that +this colour partly agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at +rest or when dead; but generally, when the animal is in motion, +and especially in emotion, the colour becomes a reddish-purple or +crimson-red. Moreover the long neck, the mane, the extraordinary +long tail, the four flappers, are not explained by reference to a +calamary.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>The <b>twenty-third</b> explanation is proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles V. +Wood, Jun.</span> in <i>Nature</i> of November 18th., 1880. His article on +the “Order Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page482">[482]</span></p> + +<p>“[The animal seen from the <i>Osborne</i>, and figured in the <i>Graphic</i> +of June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing +from the one in question, and may have been <b>a manatee</b>.]”</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig71"> +<img src="images/illo482.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 71.—<i>Thrichechus manatus</i> <span class="smcap">Linné</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>This figure is our <a href="#Fig45">figure 45</a>. Evidently Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> did not read +the account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based +on a figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen +from the <i>Osborne</i>, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the +shoulders, where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and +the length of the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal +had an enormous neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total +length of ten feet, the length from the crown or top to just below +the shoulders is not more than four feet and there is no question +of a neck, as our <a href="#Fig71">figure</a> will show. Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> committed the +mistake, like so many others, that he explained <i>one</i> sea-serpent, +instead of first comparing <i>all</i> the reports of it before giving an +opinion.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According +to different authorities, the sea-serpent may be:</p> + +<p>1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. <span class="smcap">Alden Bradford</span>, 1803).</p> + +<p>2. <i>Scoliophis atlanticus</i>, a new species of snake with bunches on +its back. (Hon. <span class="smcap">John Davis</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Jacob Bigelow</span>, Mr. C. F. +<span class="smcap">Gray</span>, 1817).</p> + +<p>3. A large tunny. (Prof. <span class="smcap">Thomas Say</span>, 1818).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page483">[483]</span></p> + +<p>4. A true sea-snake (<i>Hydrophis</i>) of very large size. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Constant +Samuel Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, 1819).</p> + +<p>5. A gigantic individual of the eel-tribe. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Constant Samuel +Rafinesque Schmaltz</span>, 1819).</p> + +<p>6. A fable, arisen from Northern Mythology. (Dr. <span class="smcap">Percy</span>, 1820?).</p> + +<p>7. A basking shark, or a row of sharks. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel L. Mitchill</span>, +1828).</p> + +<p>8. A balaenopterous whale, or a row of them. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel L. +Mitchill</span>, 1828).</p> + +<p>9. An <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>, or a saurian allied to it. (Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Bakewell</span>, +1830?).</p> + +<p>10. A <i>Plesiosaurus</i>, or a saurian allied to it. (Professor <span class="smcap">Benjamin +Silliman</span>, 1830?).</p> + +<p>11. Not a saurian. (Prof. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Silliman</span>, 1835).</p> + +<p>12. A row of spermwhales. (Professor <span class="smcap">Hermann Schlegel</span>, 1837).</p> + +<p>13. A <i>Basilosaurus</i>. (Professor <span class="smcap">Matthias Jacob Schleiden</span>, 1847).</p> + +<p>14. A <i>Saccopharynx</i> or an <i>Ophiognathus</i>. (Anonymous writer in +one of the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).</p> + +<p>15. A large boa. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, +1848, Nov. 6?).</p> + +<p>16. A <i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i>, or sea-elephant. (Professor <span class="smcap">Richard +Owen</span>, 1848, Nov. 9).</p> + +<p>17. A large sea-weed. (Commander <span class="smcap">J. A. Herriman</span>, of the <i>Brazilian</i>, +1849).</p> + +<p>18. A large ribbon-fish, <i>Gymnetrus</i> or <i>Regalecus</i>. (Mr. <span class="smcap">A. G. +More</span>, 1856).</p> + +<p>19. A floating dead tree, or bamboo, or a weed-laden log of +wood. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Arthur Adams</span>, 1860).</p> + +<p>20. A mass of flying birds. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Drew</span>, 1878).</p> + +<p>21. A large sea-turtle. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, 1879).</p> + +<p>22. A gigantic calamary. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span>, 1879? or Mr. +<span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>, 1883).</p> + +<p>23. A manatee. (Mr. <span class="smcap">Searles Valentine Wood Jun.</span>, 1880).</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I +could discover, were the first to express the supposition to which +their name is added. The dates are those at which they published +their supposition.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page484">[484]</span></p> + +<p>Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the +result of reading <i>one single</i> report (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>, +<a href="#Report4">4</a>, <a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report14">14</a>, +<a href="#Report15">15</a>, <a href="#Report16">16</a>), +which are not mere suppositions without any foundation (<a href="#Report6">6</a>, <a href="#Report7">7</a>, <a href="#Report8">8</a>, +<a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report13">13</a>, <a href="#Report21">21</a>, <a href="#Report23">23</a>), which are not offered by persons who a moment +ago saw a deceitful object or animal (<a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, +<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report20">20</a>, <a href="#Report22">22</a>), but +which are the result of a <i>study</i> of several accounts and reports. +They are those marked <a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a> and <a href="#Report10">10</a>. And of these <a href="#Report10">n<sup>o</sup>. 10</a> is the +most admissible, because the <i>Plesiosaurus</i> in its outlines most resembles +the sea-serpent. Why, however, is the sea-serpent not a +<i>Plesiosaurus</i>? I have already summed up some reasons, when treating +of this explanation, but the principal reasons are the mammalian +characters, habits and behaviour of the sea-serpent; I will +try to prove this in the next chapter.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page485">[485]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak"><span class="chapno">VI.</span><br> +<span class="chapname">Conclusions.</span></h2> +</div> + +<p>The Libraries from which I borrowed the greater part of the +works treating of the subject were:</p> + +<p>The Royal Library at the Hague,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Leiden University,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Utrecht University,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Groningen University,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Amsterdam University,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Royal University at Göttingen,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Royal Zoological Society “Natura Artis Magistra” +at Amsterdam,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Museum of Natural History at Leiden,</p> + +<p>The Library of the Dutch Zoological Society at den Helder, and</p> + +<p>The Library of the Dutch Entomological Society at Leiden.</p> + +<p>In the <a href="#Page1">part</a> headed <i>Literature on the Subject</i> I have given an +idea of the mass of works and articles written about it. I here +present to my readers a list of the different appearances found by +me in the works which I have consulted. Of each appearance I +have noted down as far as possible, the date, the locality and the +names of the observers. The numbers correspond with those in the +<a href="#Page102">4th. Chapter</a>.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>1.—1522.—Near the Isle of Moos, Norway.</p> + +<p>2.—1640.—Most probably in the Sound between Sweden and +Denmark.—Burgomaster of Malmö.</p> + +<p>3.—1687.—Damsfjord in Norway.—Several persons, and at +one time eleven persons together.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page486">[486]</span></p> + +<p>4.—1720.—A little inlet near Kobbervueg, in Norway.—<span class="smcap">Thorlack +Thorlacksen</span>.</p> + +<p>5.—1734, July 6.—Before the harbour of Gothaab in Davis’ +Straits, west of Greenland, at 64° N.—Rev. <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>.</p> + +<p>6.—1743?—Cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, in Norway.</p> + +<p>7.—1744?—Isle of Karmen, in Norway.</p> + +<p>8.—1745?—Near Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, in Norway.—A +fisherman.</p> + +<p>9.—1746, August.—Jule-Naess, six miles from Molde, in +Norway.—The Hon. <span class="smcap">Lorenz von Ferry</span>, <span class="smcap">Niels Petersen Kopper</span>, +and <span class="smcap">Niels Nielsen Anglewigen</span>.</p> + +<p>10.—1747?—Coast of Norway.—Commander <span class="smcap">Benstrup</span>.</p> + +<p>11.—1748?—Coast of Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Reutz</span>.</p> + +<p>12.—1749?—Coast of Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuchsen</span>.</p> + +<p>13.—1750?—Coast of Norway.—A north-sailor.</p> + +<p>14.—1751?—Near Sundsmöer.—Some fishermen.</p> + +<p>15.—1751.—Near Muscongus-Island and Round Pond in Broad +Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Kent</span>.</p> + +<p>16.—1770?—East coast of U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Paul Reed</span>.</p> + +<p>17.—1777 or 1778.—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Captain +<span class="smcap">Eleazar Crabtree</span>.</p> + +<p>18.—1779?—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Stephan +Tuckey</span>.</p> + +<p>19.—1780, May.—Near Muscongus Island and Round Pond, in +Broad Bay, U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">George Little</span>, of the <i>Boston</i> frigate.</p> + +<p>20.—1781?—Off Meduncook, east coast of U. S. A.</p> + +<p>21.—1782?—East coast of U. S. A.?—The British on their +expedition to Bagadusa.</p> + +<p>22.—1783?—Near the Isle of Mount Desert, east of Penobscot +Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Inhabitants of this isle.</p> + +<p>23.—1784?—Near Ash Point on Fox and Long Island, Maine, +U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Crocket</span>.</p> + +<p>24.—1785?—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Miller</span>.</p> + +<p>25.—1786, August 1.—Lat. 42° 44′ N., long. 23° 10′ W., +north-east of the Azores.—On board the <i>General Coole</i>.</p> + +<p>26.—1787?—East coast of U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Lillis</span>.</p> + +<p>27.—1794?—Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.—Two +inhabitants of these islands.</p> + +<p>28.—1799?—Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.—Two +inhabitants of these islands.</p> + +<p>29.—1802, July.—Between Cape Rosoi and Long Island, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page487">[487]</span>Maine, U. S. A.—The Rev. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, +Miss <span class="smcap">Cummings</span>, Miss <span class="smcap">Martha Spring</span>.</p> + +<p>30.—1805?—Near Cape Breton and Newfoundland.—Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Lee</span>.</p> + +<p>31.—1808, June.—Coast of Coll, west of Scotland.—Rev. +<span class="smcap">Donald Maclean</span>.</p> + +<p>32.—1808, June.—Coast of Canna and Rum, west of Scotland.—The +crew of thirteen fishing boats.</p> + +<p>33.—1810?—?—A mariner.</p> + +<p>34.—1815, June 20.—Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape +Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Elkanah Finney</span>, his son, +and some house carpenters.</p> + +<p>35.—1815, June 21.—Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape +Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Elkanah Finney</span>.</p> + +<p>36.—1816?—Near Behring’s Island.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span>.</p> + +<p>37.—1817, August 6.—Harbour of Cape Ann.—Two women.</p> + +<p>38.—1817, August 10.—Near Ten Pound Island in the Harbour +of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Amos Story</span>.</p> + +<p>39.—1817, August 12.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Salomon Allen</span>, 3d.</p> + +<p>40.—1817, August 13.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Salomon Allen</span>, 3d.</p> + +<p>41.—1817, August 14.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">Salomon Allen</span> 3d., Mr. <span class="smcap">Epes Ellery</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">William H. Foster</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Daniel Gaffney</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Augustin +M. Webber</span>, and the Hon. <span class="smcap">Lonson Nash</span>.</p> + +<p>42.—1817, August 15.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James Mansfield</span>.</p> + +<p>43.—1817, August 17.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">William H. Foster</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">John Johnston</span>, jun., Captain +<span class="smcap">John Corliss</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">George Marble</span>.</p> + +<p>44.—1817, August 18.—Off Cape Ann Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.—The +Captain and crew of a vessel.—Webber’s Cove in the Harbour +of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">William B. Pearson</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">James P. Collins</span>, Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>.</p> + +<p>45.—1817, August 22?—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—A woman, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span> and Mrs. <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span>.</p> + +<p>46.—1817, August 23.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Amos Story</span>.</p> + +<p>47.—1817, August 24?—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. +A.—Several of the crews of coasting vessels.</p> + +<p>48.—1817, August 28.—Two miles east of the eastern point +<span class="pagenum" id="Page488">[488]</span>of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Sewell Toppan</span>, +of the schooner <i>Laura</i>, <span class="smcap">William Somerby</span>, +<span class="smcap">Robert Bragg</span>, mariners on board the same schooner.</p> + +<p>49.—1817, August 30?—In the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.—One of the revenue cutters.</p> + +<p>50.—1817, October 3.—In the sound between Long Island and the State New York, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James Guion</span>.</p> + +<p>51.—1817, October 5.—Long Island Sound, N. York, U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Hertell</span>.</p> + +<p>52.—1818, June.—Off Cape Henry, Virg., U. S. A.—The Captain and crew of the brig <i>Wilson</i>.</p> + +<p>53.—1818, June 19.—In Sag Harbour, Long Island, N. Y., U. S. A.</p> + +<p>54.—1818, June 21.—East coast of U. S. A.—S. <span class="smcap">West</span>, master of the Packet <i>Delia</i>.</p> + +<p>55.—1818, July 2.—Between Cranch Island Point and Marsh Island, about seven miles from Portland, Maine, U. S. A.—Mssrs. J. <span class="smcap">Webber</span> +and R. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>.</p> + +<p>56.—1818, July.—60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, between Far Öer and Hebrides.—Captain <span class="smcap">Brown</span>.</p> + +<p>57.—1818 July.—Folden fjord, Norway.—Some fishermen of Folden fjord.</p> + +<p>58.—1818 August?—Near Fieldvigen, Norway.—Fishermen of Fieldvigen.</p> + +<p>59.—1818, August 19.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Richard Rich</span>.</p> + +<p>60.—1819, June 6.—About 15 miles north-west of Race Point, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Hawkins Wheeler</span>, of the sloop <i>Concord</i>, +and <span class="smcap">Gersham Bennett</span>.</p> + +<p>61.—1819, July.—Sound between the Island of Ottersum and the continent, Norway.—Captain <span class="smcap">Schilderup</span> and about thirty other persons.</p> + +<p>62.—1819, August 12?—At Nahant Beach, Mass., U. S. A.</p> + +<p>63.—1819, August 13?—Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James Prince</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Prince</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">James Magee</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Cabot</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cabot</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">James Boott</span>, +Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>, and family.</p> + +<p>64.—1819, August.—Vieg or Veg fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">John Gregar</span>.</p> + +<p>65.—1819, August?—At the North Cape.—Some fishermen.</p> + +<p>66.—1819, August?—Bay of Shuresund or Sorsund in the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page489">[489]</span>Drontheim fjord, Norway.—The Right Rev. Bishop of the Nordlands and Finmark.</p> + +<p>67.—1819? August?—In the Mageröe-Sund near North Cape, Norway.—The sexton of Maasöe.</p> + +<p>68.—1819, August.—Near Vadsöe, Norway.—Several persons.</p> + +<p>69.—1819, August 26.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—The Rev. <span class="smcap">Cheever Felch</span>, Captain <span class="smcap">William T. Malbone</span>, of the schooner <i>Science</i>, +Midshipman <span class="smcap">Blake</span>, four boatsmen.</p> + +<p>70.—1819, September?—Near Boston, Mass., U. S. A.—An Officer of the American Navy.</p> + +<p>71.—1819, September 13?—Bay of Massachusetts, U. S. A.</p> + +<p>72.—1820, July?—Near Hundsholm, Norway.—A young man, master of a small fishing yacht.</p> + +<p>73.—1820, August.—Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>.</p> + +<p>74.—1820?—About latitude 46°, longitude 3°, Bay of Biscay.—Lieutenant <span class="smcap">George Sandford</span>, Captain of the <i>Lady of Combermere</i>.</p> + +<p>75.—1821, Summer.—Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. <span class="smcap">Perkins</span>.</p> + +<p>76.—1821.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Bennett</span>.</p> + +<p>77.—1821, September 25?—Near Nantucket Isle.—Many persons, Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Joy Jun.</span></p> + +<p>78.—1821.—Off the Isles of Stenness, Vaily and Dunrossness (Shetland Islands).</p> + +<p>79.—1822, Summer.—Off Soröe, Norway.—Many inhabitants of Soröe.</p> + +<p>80.—1824, January.—Lat. 34° 31′ South, long. 48° West, about sixty miles east of Uruguay.</p> + +<p>81.—1824, Summer.—Off Plum Island and in Shad Cove (Rhode Island?), U. S. A.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruggles</span>.</p> + +<p>82.—1825?—West coast of Scotland?—Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Strang</span>.</p> + +<p>83.—1826, June 16.—George’s Bank, South of Newfoundland.—Captain <span class="smcap">Holdrege</span> of the ship <i>Silas Richards</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton</span>, +Miss. <span class="smcap">Magee</span>.</p> + +<p>84.—1826, June 18.—Off Cape Cod, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain and crew of a vessel.</p> + +<p>85.—1827, August 24.—Christiania fjord, Norway.—Five persons.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page490">[490]</span></p> + +<p>86.—1827, August 26.—Christiania fjord, Norway.—Several +persons.</p> + +<p>87.—1827, September 3.—Off Nusodden, Norway (Christiania +fjord?).</p> + +<p>88.—1827, September 5.—Off Lepager (Christiania fjord?), +Norway.</p> + +<p>89.—1827, September 9.—Off Dröbak, Christiania fjord, +Norway.—Several persons.</p> + +<p>90.—1828?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">Nils Roe.</span></p> + +<p>91.—1828?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">Nils Roe.</span></p> + +<p>92.—1829? July.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">Lars +Johnöen.</span></p> + +<p>93.—1829, the end of July.—A considerable distance south-west +of the Cape of Good Hope.—Captain <span class="smcap">Petrie</span>, of the <i>Royal +Saxon</i>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">R. Davidson</span>.</p> + +<p>94.—1830?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—<span class="smcap">John Johnson.</span></p> + +<p>95.—1831?—In a narrow fjord near Christiansund, Norway.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">William Knudtzon</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Booklune</span>.</p> + +<p>96.—1832, Summer.—Rödö and Södelöw fjords, Norway.—Many +persons.</p> + +<p>97.—1833, May, 15.—Some miles from Margaret’s Bay, Nova +Scotia.—Captain <span class="smcap">W. Sullivan</span>, Lieutenants <span class="smcap">A. Maclachlan</span>, <span class="smcap">G. +P. Malcolm</span>, <span class="smcap">B. O’Neal Lyster</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Ince</span>.</p> + +<p>98.—1833, July, on a Saturday.—Off Nahant, Mass., U. S. +A.—Several persons.</p> + +<p>99.—1833, July, the next Sunday.—Lynn Harbour, Mass., +U. S. A.—Forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen.</p> + +<p>100.—1834, Summer.—Bay of Gloucester Mass., U. S. A.—One +of the crew of the Brig <i>Mangehan</i>.</p> + +<p>101.—1835, March or April.—A few miles from Race Point +Light, near Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain <span class="smcap">Shibbles</span>, and +the crew, of the brig <i>Mangehan</i>.</p> + +<p>102.—1836?—In Christiansund fjord, at Torvig, Norway.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">Gaeschke</span>.</p> + +<p>103.—1837, end of July.—Near Storfosen and the Krovaag +Isles (Drontheim) Norway.—A trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, +with his two sons, and numerous people.</p> + +<p>104.—1838?—The South Atlantic.—Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span>, of the +<i>Blossom</i>.</p> + +<p>105.—1839, August?—Near Boston.—Captain <span class="smcap">Bubier</span>.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page491">[491]</span></p> + +<p>106.—1839, September?—Coast of Maine, U. S. A.—Captain +<span class="smcap">Smith</span>.</p> + +<p>106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1840, April 21.—24° 13′ N. latitude, 89° 52′ W. +longitude, in the Gulf of Mexico.—Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span>.</p> + +<p>106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span>.—1840, June?—Near Boston?</p> + +<p>107.—1840, July?—Molde fjord, Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Hammer</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Kraft</span>, and some other persons.</p> + +<p>107 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1840, August?—“Along the whole line of the American +coast”, i. e. of the east coast of the U. S.</p> + +<p>108.—1841.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—Several persons.</p> + +<p>109.—1842?—Romsdal fjord, Norway.—A parish priest.</p> + +<p>110.—1842?—Romsdal fjord, Norway.—A gentleman.</p> + +<p>111.—1843, Summer.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.</p> + +<p>111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1843, October?—Near Ibbestad, not far from Christiansand, +Norway.—Some fishermen.</p> + +<p>112.—1845?—Near Bergen? Norway.—Some fishermen.</p> + +<p>113.—1845.—Between Bergen and Sogn, Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">J. +D. Morries Stirling</span>, and two other gentlemen.</p> + +<p>114.—1845 or 1846, Summer.—Camp’s Bay, near Cape +Town.—Mr. <span class="smcap">G. D. Brunette</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles A. Fairbridge</span>.</p> + +<p>115.—1845, July 28.—Romsdale fjord, Norway.—Mr. <span class="smcap">J. +C. Lund</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">G. S. Kroch</span>, <span class="smcap">Christian Flang</span> and <span class="smcap">John Elgenses</span>.</p> + +<p>117.—1846, August 8.—Between the islands of Sartor Leer +and Tös, and in Bjornfjord, near Bergen, Norway.—Several persons, +<span class="smcap">Daniel Salomonson</span>, his wife <span class="smcap">Ingeborg</span>, <span class="smcap">Abraham Abrahamsen +Hagenoes</span>.</p> + +<p>118.—1848, August 6.—Lat. 24° 44′ S., long 9° 22′ E., between +the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Sartoris</span>, +midshipman, Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Edgar Drummond</span>, Captain <span class="smcap">Peter M’Quhae</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">William Barrett</span>, master, and most of the officers and crew +of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i>.</p> + +<p>119.—1848?—The Gulf of California.—Captain the Hon. +<span class="smcap">George Hope</span>.</p> + +<p>120.—1848, December 31.—Lat. 41° 13′ N., long. 12° 31′ W., +west of Oporto.—An officer of H. M. S. <i>Plumper</i>.</p> + +<p>121.—1849, February 18.—Off the south point of Cumberland +Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s bar, Florida.—Captain +<span class="smcap">Adams</span>, of the schooner <i>Lucy and Nancy</i>, and the crew +and passengers of it.</p> + +<p>122.—1849, May 30.—South of Australia, between 40° and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page492">[492]</span>45° S. lat., and 110° and 145° W. long.—Captain <span class="smcap">Edwards</span>, of +the <i>Alpha</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomson</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">George Park</span>.</p> + +<p>123.—1849, September 15.—Indian Ocean, between lat. +10° and 20° S., and long. 50° and 70° E.—An officer of H. M. +S. <i>Cleopatra</i>.</p> + +<p>124.—1850?—Between Iceland and the Far Öer.—Captain +<span class="smcap">Cristmas</span>.</p> + +<p>125.—1853?—Fjords of Norway.</p> + +<p>126.—1854, September 4.—Lat. 38° S., long. 13° E.—The +Brig <i>Albeona</i>.</p> + +<p>127.—1855, August?—Off St. Helena.—A Captain.</p> + +<p>128.—1856, March 30.—Lat 29° 11′ N., long. 34° 26′ W.—Mr. +<span class="smcap">J. H. Statham</span>, Captain <span class="smcap">James Guy</span>, of the <i>Imogen</i>, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Julian B. Harries</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">D. J. Williamson</span>.</p> + +<p>129.—1856, July 8.—Lat. 34° 56′ S., long. 18° 41′ E.—Captain +A. K. W. Tremearne of the ship <i>Princess</i>, Captain <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>, +of the ship <i>Senator</i>.</p> + +<p>130.—1857, February 16.—In Table Bay, Cape Town.—Dr. +<span class="smcap">Biccard</span>, his wife, daughter and two sons, Mr. <span class="smcap">Murray</span> and +Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span>.</p> + +<p>131.—1857, December 12.—North east end of St. Helena +distant 10 miles.—Captain <span class="smcap">George Henry Harrington</span>, of the +ship <i>Castilian</i>, <span class="smcap">William Davies</span>, chief officer, <span class="smcap">Edward Wheeler</span>, +second officer.</p> + +<p>132.—1858, January 26.—Lat. 19° 10′ S., long. 10° 6′ W., +between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.—Captain <span class="smcap">Suckling</span> +of the <i>Carnatic</i>, Captain <span class="smcap">Shuttleworth</span>.</p> + +<p>133.—1861? August, on a Sunday.—Nahant?—Dr. <span class="smcap">Amos +Binney</span>, and above a hundred persons.</p> + +<p>134.—1861? August, the following Monday.—Nahant? from +the piazza of the hôtel.</p> + +<p>135.—1863, May 16.—Between the Isles of Canary and the +Cape Verde Isles.—Mr. <span class="smcap">John Chapple</span>, Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, on board +the Screw Steamer <i>Athenian</i>.</p> + +<p>136.—1871.—Near the coast of Australia.—A second officer.</p> + +<p>137.—1872, August 20.—The Sound of Sleat between the Isle +of Skye and the west coast of Scotland, and between Eigg and +the mainland.—Rev. <span class="smcap">John Macray</span>, Minister of Glenelg, Rev. +<span class="smcap">David Twopeny</span>, Vicar of Stockbury, two ladies, F. and K., a +gentleman, G. B., and a Highland lad, on board the cutter <i>Leda</i>; +also a Lady at Duisdale, in Skye.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page493">[493]</span></p> + +<p>138.—1872, August 21.—On the north side of the opening +of Loch Hourn, west coast of Scotland, and in the same Strait +of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland.—The same witnesses +as of <a href="#Report137">n<sup>o</sup>. 137</a>; the ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea, <span class="smcap">Finlay +Macrae</span>, and other people.</p> + +<p>139.—1872, August 23.—In the entrance of Lochduich.—<span class="smcap">Alexander +Macmillan</span> and his brother <span class="smcap">Farquhar</span>.</p> + +<p>140.—1872, August 24.—In the same locality.—The same +witnesses.</p> + +<p>141.—1873, Nov. 16?—Near Dunrobin castle, east coast of +Sutherland, Scotland.—Lady <span class="smcap">Florence Leveson Gower</span> and the +Hon. Mrs. <span class="smcap">Coke</span>.</p> + +<p>142.—1873, Nov. 17?—Near Golspie, east coast of Sutherland, +Scotland.—Dr. <span class="smcap">Soutar</span>.</p> + +<p>143.—1873, Nov. 18?—The same locality.—Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>.</p> + +<p>144.—1875, July 8.—Lat. 5° 13′ S., long. 35° W., twenty +miles from Cape San Roque.—Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span>, of the barque +<i>Pauline</i>, <span class="smcap">Horatio Thompson</span>, <span class="smcap">John Henderson Landells</span>, <span class="smcap">William +Lewarn</span>, <span class="smcap">Owen Baker</span>.</p> + +<p>145.—1875, July 13.—Lat. 5° S., long 34° 10′ W., eighty +miles from Cape San Roque.—The same witnesses.</p> + +<p>146.—1876, September 11.—Fifteen miles north west of North +Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straits.—<span class="smcap">John K. Webster</span>, +Captain of the British s. s. <i>Nestor</i>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">James Anderson</span>.</p> + +<p>147.—1877, May 21.—Lat. 2° N., long. 90° 53′ E., Indian +Ocean.—The master of the barque <span class="smcap">Georgina</span>.</p> + +<p>148.—1877, June 2.—Off Cape Vito, Sicily.—Commander +<span class="smcap">Pearson</span> of H. M. Yacht <i>Osborne</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Douglas Haynes</span>, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Forsyth</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>.</p> + +<p>149.—1879, January 28.—Lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E., +Gulf of Aden.—Major <span class="smcap">H. W. J. Senior</span>, Dr. <span class="smcap">C. Hall</span>, Miss. +<span class="smcap">Greenfield</span>, on board the s. s. <i>City of Baltimore</i>.</p> + +<p>150.—1879, March 30.—In Geographe Bay, Australia, near +Lockville and Busselton.—Rev. <span class="smcap">H. W. Brown</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M’Guire</span> +and his wife, Mr. <span class="smcap">M’Mullan</span>.</p> + +<p>151.—1879, April 5.—Cape Satano, the most southern point +of Japan, distant about nine miles.—Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. +Kechnie</span>, of the <i>Kiushiu Maru</i>.</p> + +<p>152.—1879, August 5.—100 miles west of Brest, France.—Captain +<span class="smcap">J. F. Cox</span>, of the <i>Privateer</i>.</p> + +<p>152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span>.—1881, Nov. 12?—Near Monillepoint, not far from +<span class="pagenum" id="Page494">[494]</span>Cape Town.—Mr. <span class="smcap">C. M. Hansen</span>, his wife and children, and +several of his neighbours.</p> + +<p>153.—1882, May 28.—About six miles W.N.W. of Butt of +Lewis (the northern point of the Hebrides or Western Islands).—Some +fishermen.</p> + +<p>154.—1882, May 31.—The same locality.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Weisz</span> of +the Lloydsteamer <i>Kätie</i>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Schultz</span>.</p> + +<p>155.—1882, September 3.—Near Orme’s Heads, northern +coast of Wales, Irish Sea.—Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Barfoot</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">F. J. Marlow</span>, +Mrs. <span class="smcap">Marlow</span>, and several other ladies and gentlemen.</p> + +<p>156.—1883, October 15.—Bristol Channel.</p> + +<p>157.—1885, August 16.—Between Rödö and Melö Isles, +Nordland, Norway, at lat. 66° 35′ N., long. 13° 21′ E.—Some +lads.</p> + +<p>158.—1886, August.—Near Kingston Point on the Hudson, +New Jersey, U. S. A.—Two young men.</p> + +<p>159.—1886, August.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.</p> + +<p>160.—1886, August.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.—<span class="smcap">Jonah.</span></p> + +<p>161.—1889, May.—In the common track from Liverpool to +Philadelphia.—A captain.</p> + +<p>162.—1890, June.—Near Long Island, not far from the coast +of Connecticut.—Captain <span class="smcap">David Tuits</span> of the schooner <i>Anny +Harper</i>.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In these reports nearly all is very probable from a zoological +point of view, and there is but little that must be looked upon +as fabulous.</p> + +<p>Some statements, which at first seem to us to be exaggerations, +we unhesitatingly accept as truths, when we have taken a review +of all the reports together; either because they are constantly repeated, +or because they are confirmed by highly respectable testimonies +of recent date.</p> + +<p>What now follows is an abstract of the 166 reports, enumerated +above. The numbers in brackets correspond with those placed in +the list given above, consequently also with those in my 4th. +Chapter. Let us first speak of the improbable things.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page495">[495]</span></p> + +<h3><b>A. Fables, Fictions, Exaggerations and Errors.</b></h3> + +<p>At present nobody believes that the appearance of a strange animal +on the coast is a bad sign! In the sixteenth and the seventeenth +century, however, this was not uncommon. So we read +that an appearance of a sea-serpent portended a change in Norway +(1), and that the appearance of one in 1522 was followed by the +banishment of King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the +Bishops; it also foretold the destruction of the country (<a href="#Report1">1</a>). The +snatching away of a man from a ship did not happen without a +terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being at hand, +either that the princes would die or be banished, or that a war +would soon break out (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>). The Norwegian fishermen looked +upon its coming as a bad sign, for the fish would leave the coast +(<a href="#Report61">61</a>). Curious are also the characters described to the animal. It +lives in rocks and holes, and it comes out of its caverns only in +summernights and fine weather, to devour calves, lambs and hogs +(<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>). The eating of cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs +(<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>) may also be a story, though this is not quite improbable. +The fables, often told of Kraken and Spermwhales, that when +sleeping on the surface of the water they are taken for an islet, +are also related of sea-serpents: “and when it is slumbering on +the Norway foam, the seamen deeming it some island, fixed their +anchor in its scaly rind” (<a href="#Page111">p. 111</a>).</p> + +<p>It is also said to enclose ships by laying itself round them in +a circle; and to upset the ship (<a href="#Page109">p. 109</a>) if the seamen do not try +to escape, which they can manage to do when they row over its +body there where a coil is visible, for that when they reach the +coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible part rises (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>, +<a href="#Page227">p. 227</a>). <span class="smcap">Arend Berndsen</span> tells us that sea-serpents, as well as +spermwhales, often run down whole ships with all aboard (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>), +and some north sailors know that it had occasionally thrown itself +across a yacht of several hundred tons and dragged it to the bottom +(<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>). Mr. Lee has sufficiently shown in his <i>Sea Monsters +Unmasked</i>, that large calamaries really sometimes snatch a man +from a rowing boat; for a long time this was considered to be a +fable; now, however, zoologists unconditionally accept it as truth. +Such incidents, if happened, are generally, but falsely, attributed +by the Northern fishermen to sea-serpents (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>, <a href="#Page108">p. 108</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>).</p> + +<p>It is not astonishing that by such people the sea-serpent is called +dangerous to seamen (<a href="#Page108">p. 108</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>) and that they are very much +<span class="pagenum" id="Page496">[496]</span>afraid of it (<a href="#Report7">7</a>, <a href="#Report14">14</a>, +<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report65">65</a>, +<a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>, +<a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), and will never forget to take with them asa foetida or +castoreum, the smell of which the animal cannot bear (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. +134</a>, <a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>) Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a +sea-serpent approaches, and to avoid rowing, because the least noise +attracts the animal (<a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>). Some believe that it casts its skin, +as common snakes do (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>), and that it is born on land, and +lives in forests and mountains till it can no longer hide its enormous +body in it; then it seeks some river and floats down to the +sea (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>). When swimming, sea-serpents don’t show their tail +above the surface. Fishermen, in their fear, would say: if one was +near the head, the other end of the animal could not be seen +(<a href="#Report103">103</a>). I am convinced that this is one of the reasons that the animal +is sometimes said to be at least a cable in length. The animal +leaves behind itself a considerable wake, which may be another +reason that the witnesses exaggerated its length. So we find: it +is three hundred feet long (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>, <a href="#Report21">21</a>), about 320 feet +(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), +six hundred and seventy feet (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>), about a fourth of an +English mile (<a href="#Report79">79</a>), about 750 feet (<a href="#Report85">85</a>), from six hundred to 800 +ells, i. e. from 1340 to 1780 feet (<a href="#Report103">103</a>), more than 500 feet (<a href="#Report130">130</a>) +or half a mile long (<a href="#Report156">156</a>).</p> + +<p>The thickness too is sometimes exaggerated (twenty feet, <a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>); +the head is described in some instances to be as large as a foering +boat, i. e. about twenty feet long (<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), or twelve feet long +(<a href="#Report126">126</a>), or perhaps ten feet long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), and the tail fully a hundred +and fifty feet in length (<a href="#Report146">146</a>). The jaws are said to be of such an +enormous size that, if extended, they seemed sufficiently capacious +to admit of a tall man standing upright in them (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). It may +be that the alleged serpentine shape of the animal caused some +writers to give scales to the sea-serpent (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), or that the distance +was too large for a closer examination, so that the observers +thought it might have a hard skin (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), or a rough coating (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, +<a href="#Report51">51</a>), or even a scaly one (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), or it was the fear which made them +see scales (<a href="#Report157">157</a>) which in reality did not exist. Scales are also occasionally +delineated (<a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>) though the eye-witness does not mention +them, and even believed it belonged to the eel-tribe (<a href="#Report63">63</a>). No +wonder that such a terrible animal is often called Leviathan (<a href="#Page111">p. +111</a>), an animal which raises its coils so high above the water, +that a ship can go through one of them (<a href="#Page109">p. 109</a>). Norwegian fishermen +really believe that the animal sometimes comes on land as <span class="smcap">Olaus +Magnus</span> (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>) and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>) tell us, and as is stated +<span class="pagenum" id="Page497">[497]</span>afterwards, when even distinct traces of it were said to have been +found in the fields (<a href="#Report96">96</a>).</p> + +<p>In my opinion it is an error to believe that there are <i>two</i> species +of sea-serpents (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>) or that there are several species of them +all belonging to the same genus (<a href="#Report112">112</a>). And also that the animal +ever takes a boat for one of the other sex, which induces it to +follow the boat (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>). This is a habit of the animal; but as +it is a quite harmless one, it is an error to believe that it grows +furious when the pursued are so fortunate as to escape (<a href="#Report158">158</a>), or +that it may ever destroy them, even after being struck with a +boat-hook (<a href="#Report112">112</a>). That the shores of Norway are the only in Europe, +which are frequented by this monster (<a href="#Page135">p. 135</a>) is a positive error, +since the animal is known to appear also on the coasts of Great +Britain, France, and even in the Mediterranean.</p> + +<p>From what we now know of the division of the colours of the +animal’s body, I don’t hesitate to say that they are wrongly represented +in one of the drawings (<a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>). The cetacean tail delineated +in <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a> is explained in <a href="#Report151">n<sup>o</sup>. 151</a>, the fish tail of <a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a> +in <a href="#Report63">n<sup>o</sup>. 63</a>. The definition that the eyes were of a greenish hue and +looked devilish (158) is certainly the result of an observation made +in great fright. I am sure that in cases wherein the colour of the +head and neck are described as a bluish green (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), or of a blue +colour (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), or as blue as possible (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), and that of the back of +a dark green (<a href="#Report30">30</a>), these definitions are the result of optical illusion, +or the observers may have been colour-blind.</p> + +<p>The twelve fins (<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>) of which six are drawn on the +left side and six on the right side of the body emerging from the +water, are undoubtedly the result of an optical deception, as I +have explained in <a href="#Report129">n<sup>o</sup>. 129</a>.—In the same way I have explained +why the animal has a head connected with the body without any +indication of a neck, so that it resembled a gigantic salamander +(<a href="#Report146">146</a>), and that it seemed to be of a gelatinous, that is flabby, +substance (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), and that the motion of it was apparently cork-screw-like +(<a href="#Report155">155</a>).</p> + +<p>In no case the antenna, ending in a crescent (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>) or the +ridge of fins (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), or the discolouring of the water (<a href="#Report131">131</a>) observed, +have anything to do with the animal or with its appearance.</p> + +<p>But let us now pass to the <i>facts</i> which may be inferred from +what is reported of the animal.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page498">[498]</span></p> + +<h3><b>B. Facts.</b></h3> + +<p>These are so numerous that I am obliged to bring them together +under several heads.</p> + +<h4>1. EXTERNAL CHARACTERS.</h4> + +<h5>a. Dimensions.</h5> + +<p><i>The length of what was visible of the animal</i> above the surface +of the water was estimated to be: from sixteen to eighteen feet +(<a href="#Report25">25</a>), several meters (<a href="#Report136">136</a>), about twenty feet (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), from twenty +to thirty feet (<a href="#Report35">35</a>), thirty feet (<a href="#Report113">113</a>, +<a href="#Report123">123</a>), about thirty-six feet (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), +about forty feet (<a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, +<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, +<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>), forty-five feet +(<a href="#Report137">137</a>), between forty and fifty feet (<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report147">147</a>), fifty feet at least +(<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), +about fifty-five feet (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), from fifty to sixty +feet (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), sixty feet (<a href="#Report57">57</a>, +<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, +<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>), seventy-five +feet (<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), eighty feet at least (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), a hundred and fifty feet +(<a href="#Report154">154</a>), and, though estimated by the eye-witnesses at about fifty +feet, the visible part must, according to my reckoning, have been +eighty feet at least in <a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>. These enormous differences in the +statements cannot surprise us of an animal which may attain a +length of more than two hundred feet. As a rule the animal swims +with head and neck above the water-surface, commonly the back +too is partly visible, but of the tail only a small portion. In +<a href="#Report154">n<sup>o</sup>. 154</a> as we see, a length of 150 feet of the animal was visible; +in this instance it lay nearly perfectly still; only the long neck +and head were under water, and the back and a great length of +tail were above the surface.</p> + +<p>The <i>whole length of the animal</i> is spoken of as: great (<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>), +large (<a href="#Report119">119</a>), very large (<a href="#Report2">2</a>), considerable (<a href="#Report107">107</a>), immense (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), astonishing +(<a href="#Report1">1</a>), enormous (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), as a yacht of fifty tons (<a href="#Report8">8</a>), three +or four times larger than the ship (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), eighteen feet (<a href="#Report14">14</a>), from +fifty to fifty-five feet (<a href="#Report19">19</a>), from fifty to sixty feet (<a href="#Report18">18</a>), sixty feet +(<a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report28">28</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>), at least sixty feet +(<a href="#Report82">82</a>), more than sixty feet (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), +from sixty to seventy feet (<a href="#Report24">24</a>), from sixty to eighty feet (<a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>), +about seventy feet (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), not above seventy feet (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), at least +seventy feet (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), from seventy to eighty feet (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), from seventy +to one hundred feet (<a href="#Report74">74</a>), seventy five feet (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>), about eighty +feet (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), from eighty to ninety feet (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>), about ninety feet +(<a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>), one hundred feet (<a href="#Report17">17</a>, +<a href="#Report33">33</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, +<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report135">135</a>), +<span class="pagenum" id="Page499">[499]</span>at least a +hundred feet (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), more than one hundred feet (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), +greater than the animal of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, consequently probably +more than one hundred feet (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), one hundred and twenty +feet (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and thirty +feet (<a href="#Report105">105</a>), one hundred and thirty feet (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), about one hundred +and fifty feet (<a href="#Report65">65</a>), from one hundred and fifty to two hundred +feet (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy +feet (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report144">144</a>), one hundred and eighty feet (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), one hundred +and ninety feet (<a href="#Report52">52</a>), about 200 feet (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, +<a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>, +<a href="#Report157">157</a>), more than two hundred feet (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>, <a href="#Report30">30</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>), and though +estimated by the eye witnesses (see <a href="#Report148">n<sup>o</sup>. 148</a>) as to be at least one +hundred and fifty feet, the individual seen by them must have +been, according to my reckoning, more than two hundred feet +long.—Such a length needs no explanation: it is <i>a fact</i>, established +by the declarations of highly respectable men, and of men who +are accustomed to estimate the length of objects floating in the +water from afar and at any short distance. Moreover it is the +enormous tail which apparently enlargens these dimensions. The +elephant is of a great bulk and of an enormous weight, but the +giraffe astonishes us by its enormous legs and its enormous neck, +though its body and its head are smaller than that of a moderate +sized horse. So the colossal spermwhales, fin whales and whalebone +whales surprise us by their bulk and weight, but the sea-serpent +deprived of its neck and immense tail is only a child to +them. Moreover a zoologist has not one single reason to deny the +possibility of the existence of sea-animals with a body of no more +than sixty feet, a neck of sixty feet, and a tail of hundred and +twenty feet.</p> + +<p>The <i>length of the head</i> is, according to the different declarations: +nearly as that of a man (<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>), about the size of the crown of +a hat (<a href="#Report42">42</a>), larger than that of any dog (<a href="#Report38">38</a>), as large as a hat +(<a href="#Report94">94</a>), about as that of a pail (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), full as large as a four gallon +keg (<a href="#Report42">42</a>), equal to a small cask (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), nearly as large as the head +of a horse (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), rather larger than that of a horse (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), two feet +long (<a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>), of the size of a ten gallon keg (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, +<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>), +as large as a barrel (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), as large as a flour barrel (<a href="#Report158">158</a>), of the +size of a 54 gallon hogshead (<a href="#Report152A">152 A</a>), long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), with regard to +its thickness not very long (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), long in proportion to the throat +(<a href="#Report95">95</a>), about six feet in length (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), about six or eight feet long +(<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), as large as a little boat (<a href="#Report32">32</a>), colossal (<a href="#Report115">115</a>). The head +of the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> cannot +<span class="pagenum" id="Page500">[500]</span>have been longer than three feet, as the neck is estimated sixteen +inches in diameter, though it is called long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>) or even ten feet +long (<a href="#Report118">118</a>); evidently a portion of the neck was included in the +calculation. The head of the individual seen by the officers of the +royal yacht <i>Osborne</i> must have been from eight to nine feet long, +as its breadth is estimated at six feet (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>length of the neck</i> is said to be: long (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>, <a href="#Report124">124</a>), +enormous (<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>), a length of ten feet was visible (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), about +eighteen feet (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), about twenty feet (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), at least twenty feet +(<a href="#Report160">160</a>), the neck together with the body fifty or forty-five feet, i. e. +the neck alone must have been about twenty-five feet (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), about +twenty five feet (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), at least twenty five feet (<a href="#Report152">152</a>), about thirty +feet (<a href="#Report151">151</a>), about sixty feet (<a href="#Report145">145</a>); “from its crown or top to just +below the shoulder where it became immersed, I should reckon +about fifty feet”, but as the eye-witness saw the animal from behind, +the length of the neck could not be estimated with accuracy; +as to me, I am convinced that the neck of the individual measured +about sixty feet (<a href="#Report148">148</a>). The long neck is delineated in <a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">48</a> +and <a href="#Fig49">49</a>.</p> + +<p><i>The length of the trunk</i> has never been actually estimated, as +nearly all the observers believed that the animal was serpent-shaped, +and therefore estimated only its total length or the part exposed +to their eyes. Yet we may put down the length of the trunk of +the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. <i>Daedalus</i> to be +about twenty feet, as one of the hindflappers was occasionally seen +at about twenty feet distant from the point where one of the foreflappers +was also occasionally seen. And as this fore-flapper was +visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, we may conclude +that the length of the trunk equals that of the neck (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). +Consequently we may decide that the individual observed by the +Captain and the surgeon of the <i>Nestor</i>, who saw the animal swimming +evidently with its neck contracted, had a neck and a +trunk each of about forty feet (<a href="#Report146">146</a>). In the same way we may +conclude that the individual observed by the captain and crew of +the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report145">145</a>) and that seen by the officers of the royal yacht +<i>Obsorne</i> (<a href="#Report148">148</a>) had both a neck and a trunk of each about sixty feet.</p> + +<p>The <i>tail</i> delineated in <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, has only three times been actually +estimated. Once it is called thirty five feet long (<a href="#Report8">8</a>), then forty +feet long (<a href="#Report162">162</a>), and once a hundred and fifty feet (<a href="#Report146">146</a>). In my +opinion the animal’s tail in this last instance cannot have been +longer than about eighty feet, i. e. as long as the animal’s head, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page501">[501]</span>neck and trunk together. The length of the individual observed by +the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> was estimated by them to be at least +eighty feet. As he have reckoned above about forty three feet for +head, neck and trunk together, its tail consequently must have +been about forty feet long. So the animal’s hind flappers are situated +almost in the middle of the whole length. And therefore +<span class="smcap">Egede</span> and <span class="smcap">Bing</span> did not observe them, because the middle part +of the whole length remained hidden from them (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>). Captain +<span class="smcap">Hope</span> states (<a href="#Report119">119</a>) that the animal seen from above on its back +resembles an alligator with an enormous neck. If the animal had +not an immense tail, he would never have made this comparison. +When Captain <span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> says “also a great length of tail” he +seems to me to have included in his estimation a portion of the +animal’s trunk (<a href="#Report129">129</a>). The individuals seen by the officers of the +<i>Osborne</i> (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), of the <i>Pauline</i> (<a href="#Report145">145</a>), and of the <i>Kätie</i> (<a href="#Report154">154</a>), undoubtedly +had a tail of about one hundred or even of one hundred +and twenty feet in length. Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> called the tail enormous +(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p> + +<p>Twice (<a href="#Report14">14</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>) it has been stated that the <i>four flappers</i> were +seen together; the two <i>fore flappers</i> were seen four times (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, +<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>, see also <a href="#Page250">p. 250</a>); +and delineated in <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig36">36</a>, and <a href="#Fig45">45</a>; +it is possible that the two <i>hind flappers</i> were twice seen (<a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>), +and delineated in <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>. Four times one of the fore-flappers was +visible above the surface (<a href="#Report106A">106 A</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>) and twice one of +the hindflappers (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>). The foreflappers are called broad and +large (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), frightful, several feet in length (<a href="#Report121">121</a>), larger than the +posterior (<a href="#Report119">119</a>), about fifteen feet in length (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and of immense +dimensions (<a href="#Report154">154</a>); judging from the drawing illustrating this last +instance (<a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>), I should estimate its length also at fifteen feet. +Captain <span class="smcap">d’Abnour</span> saw one of the foreflappers rising to the height +of about six feet from the water and inclining itself at a considerable +angle upon the body (<a href="#Report106A">106 A</a>). The hindflappers are said to +be smaller than the anterior (<a href="#Report119">119</a>), and about ten feet long (<a href="#Report154">154</a>).</p> + +<p>As to the <i>breadth of the head</i>, some observers mention its diameter, +and some its circumference, or they compare its thickness +either with that of the neck, with that of the trunk, or with +some well-known object; this is the reason that we meet with the +following statements: it is rather broad (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), where the head was +connected with the body (read neck) it was a little larger than +the body (read neck) (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), the head was rather larger than +the body (read neck) (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), much smaller than the body (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), +<span class="pagenum" id="Page502">[502]</span>narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently the animal had contracted +its neck, so that this latter grew much thicker (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), about two +feet in diameter (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), about three feet in circumference (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), at +least three feet in circumference (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), about as thick as a ten +gallon keg (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), about six feet thick (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>neck</i> is somewhat smaller than the head (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), as is also +stated in other accounts: smaller than the head (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), much thinner +than the head (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), comparatively narrow (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and may be two +and a half feet in circumference (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), just behind the head sixteen +inches thick (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), about the thickness of a man’s waist (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), +about two feet in diameter (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), or about four feet thick (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>thickness of the animal</i> has commonly been compared with +that of different objects, a circumstance which makes it difficult +to fix the true diameter. Moreover it is in many instances difficult +to make out whether the animal’s neck, just behind the head, is +meant by the observer, or the animal’s chest or breast, which is +the thickest part of the trunk. For the animal generally swims in +such a way that a little part of its back rises above the surface +of the water, completely hiding its thickest part and its flappers, +so that it makes the impression to be a serpentine animal without +any appendages, and of a uniform size. So the animal is said to +be ten or twelve inches thick (<a href="#Report147">147</a>), about twelve inches (<a href="#Report113">113</a>), +about fourteen inches (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), fifteen inches (<a href="#Report19">19</a>), as thick as a half-barrel +(<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, +<a href="#Report63">63</a>), as thick as a common firkin (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), +about twenty two inches (<a href="#Report17">17</a>), as thick as a barrel (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>), +as thick as a man’s body (<a href="#Report46">46</a>), as thick as a wine barrel (<a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>), +as thick as a stout man (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads +(<a href="#Report12">12</a>), three feet (<a href="#Report17">17</a>), as thick as a sloop’s boom (<a href="#Report24">24</a>), three to four +feet in circumference (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), as thick as a full-grown ox (<a href="#Report79">79</a>), about +two feet in diameter (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), inconsiderable (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), as thick as a large +horse (<a href="#Report109">109</a>), he is the thickest just behind the head (<a href="#Report103">103</a>), several +ells (<a href="#Report115">115</a>), as thick as our main mast (<a href="#Report135">135</a>), thirty feet from its +head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat +(<a href="#Report126">126</a>), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the +back (<a href="#Report121">121</a>), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), the +shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (<a href="#Report122">122</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>tail-root</i> had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet +(<a href="#Report146">146</a>), but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a +few instances that it was actually observed.</p> + +<p>The <i>tail ends</i> in a point (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig20">fig. 20</a>), and consequently is +mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also +<span class="pagenum" id="Page503">[503]</span>said to be as pointed as a boat-hook (<a href="#Report8">8</a>), +or very pointed (<a href="#Report12">12</a>).</p> + +<p><i>Comparison of the dimensions.</i> Supposing that the dimensions of +the several portions of the animal are relatively nearly the same +in individuals of different ages, we are able to draw up a table +of comparative and relative dimensions. We learn from the officers +of the <i>Daedalus</i> that the vertical diameter of the neck was about +1¹⁄₃ feet. From the officers of the <i>Osborne</i> we have the following +estimations of dimensions: horizontal diameter of the head about +6 feet, horizontal diameter of the neck about 4 feet. We know +from several eye-witnesses that the neck is round, so that we may +suppose that its vertical diameter is the same as its horizontal or +transversal one. Consequently the transversal diameter of the neck +of the <i>Daedalus</i> animal was 1¹⁄₃ or ⁴⁄₃ feet; and that of its head +⁶⁄₃ = 2 feet. For a moment I will suppose that in these animals +a head of about 2 feet broad has a length of about 3 feet, and +this I may do, as the heads of the animals which I consider as +allied to sea-serpents, have nearly these relative dimensions. In +the same way I may put the length of the head of the <i>Osborne</i> +individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to the +foreflapper in the <i>Daedalus</i> animal was about twenty feet. We may +consequently suppose that the same portion measured sixty feet in +the individual seen by the officers of the <i>Osborne</i>. As to the question +whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done +hitherto? I answer without hesitation <i>no</i>, this length also includes +a portion of the animal’s trunk, viz. the part from its shoulder +to the point where the fore limb is free. In the animals which, in +my opinion, are allied to the sea-serpent, the upper arm is, so to +say, “imbedded” in the trunk’s integument, is not free, as in +man, and nearly immovable, and this portion is about one third +of the whole length of the limb. Consequently we may conclude +that, if the free part of the foreflapper is about fifteen feet, the +portion of the trunk from the place where the fore limb in seated +on the body to the shoulder is about seven feet and a half. Consequently +the individual of the <i>Osborne</i> had a neck of about +53 feet. As the size of the individual of the <i>Daedalus</i> was +about one third of that of the <i>Osborne</i>, its neck was about +17¹⁄₂ feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the <i>Daedalus</i> +individual were five feet in length. The distance from the +foreflapper to the hind flapper in the <i>Daedalus</i> animal measured +about 20 feet, consequently the <i>trunk</i> measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that +the distance from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the <i>Osborne</i> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page504">[504]</span>animal must have been about 60 feet, and the length of its <i>trunk</i> +about 67 feet. Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck, +and the trunk, we have for the <i>Daedalus</i> animal 43 feet. This +individual swam with its body in a straight line; “sixty feet at +least were visible <i>à fleur d’eau</i>” are the words of Captain <span class="smcap">M’Quhae</span>, +substantiated by the reports of two of his officers. Yet it was +obvious that this was not the whole length of the animal, and +that a great length of tail was hidden under water. The animal +was estimated to be from eighty to ninety feet in length. I have +not a single reason to doubt this statement, and therefore conclude +that the tail of the animal was about as long as the distance from +the animal’s nose to its hindflappers. But I will not be too bold +and only give it a length of about forty feet. If this is within the +bounds of truth, of which I don’t doubt in the least, the length +of the tail of the individual, seen by the officers of the <i>Osborne</i> +measured about 120 feet. Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> who had the opportunity +to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position, +states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (<a href="#Report119">119</a>). I +venture to estimate the length of the last at about ²⁄₃ of that of +the foreflappers. So we may estimate the length of the hindflappers +of the two individuals at 3¹⁄₃ and 10 feet respectively. As to the +breadth of the animal’s trunk the officers of the <i>Osborne</i> state that +it was from fifteen to twenty feet in their individual. We may +safely suppose that the animal did not expose its greatest breadth, +which must have been a little below the surface of the water, so +that I don’t hesitate to fix the greatest diameter at 20 or 21 feet. +The body gradually diminishes towards the tail, and this in its +turn towards its end, which, as we have observed, is pointed.</p> + +<p>The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions +only from the reports of the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i> and of the +<i>Osborne</i>, is that they had a very favourable opportunity to estimate +them. The former saw the animal swimming with its body in a +straight line, and with its neck quite stretched, not contracted, +showing the greater part of its length, and swimming in such a +way that it was seen just from aside, so that the different <i>lengths</i> +of the portions of the body could easily be estimated. And the +latter saw the animal just from behind, so that the different +<i>breadths</i> of the animal could be seen; moreover the dimensions of +the foreflappers were visible.</p> + +<p>I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s +proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page505">[505]</span></p> + +<table class="dimensions"> + +<colgroup> +<col class="wauto"> +<col span="10" class="w03em"> +</colgroup> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Length of head.</td> +<td class="dim">³⁄₄</td> +<td class="dim">1</td> +<td class="dim">2</td> +<td class="dim">3</td> +<td class="dim">4</td> +<td class="dim">5</td> +<td class="dim">6</td> +<td class="dim">7</td> +<td class="dim">8</td> +<td class="dim">9</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Length of neck.</td> +<td class="dim">4</td> +<td class="dim">6</td> +<td class="dim">11²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">17¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">23¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">29¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">35¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">41¹⁄₆</td> +<td class="dim">47</td> +<td class="dim">53</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Length of trunk.</td> +<td class="dim">4⁷⁄₁₂</td> +<td class="dim">7¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">15</td> +<td class="dim">22¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">29²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">37¹⁄₆</td> +<td class="dim">44²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">52¹⁄₉</td> +<td class="dim">59¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">67</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Length of tail.</td> +<td class="dim">8²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">13¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">26²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">40</td> +<td class="dim">53¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">66²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">80</td> +<td class="dim">93¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">106²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">120</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Total length.</td> +<td class="dim">18</td> +<td class="dim">27²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">55¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">83</td> +<td class="dim">110²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">138¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">166</td> +<td class="dim">193²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">221¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">249</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">From occiput to foreflappers.</td> +<td class="dim">4¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">6²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">13¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">20</td> +<td class="dim">26²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">33¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">40</td> +<td class="dim">46²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">53¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">60</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Breadth of head.</td> +<td class="dim">⁵⁄₁₂</td> +<td class="dim">²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">1¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">2</td> +<td class="dim">2²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">3¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">4</td> +<td class="dim">4²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">5¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">6</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Breadth of neck.</td> +<td class="dim">³⁄₁₂</td> +<td class="dim">⁴⁄₉</td> +<td class="dim">⁸⁄₉</td> +<td class="dim">1¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">1²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">2¹⁄₆</td> +<td class="dim">2²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">3¹⁄₉</td> +<td class="dim">3¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">4</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Breadth of trunk.</td> +<td class="dim">1¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">2¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">4²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">7</td> +<td class="dim">9¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">11²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">14</td> +<td class="dim">16¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">18²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">21</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Length of foreflapper.</td> +<td class="dim">1</td> +<td class="dim">1²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">3¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">5</td> +<td class="dim">6²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">8¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">10</td> +<td class="dim">11²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">13¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">15</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="descr">Length of hindflapper.</td> +<td class="dim">⁷⁄₉</td> +<td class="dim">1¹⁄₆</td> +<td class="dim">2¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">3¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">4¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">5¹⁄₂</td> +<td class="dim">6²⁄₃</td> +<td class="dim">7⁵⁄₆</td> +<td class="dim">9</td> +<td class="dim">10</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p>I am far from asserting that these dimensions will prove to be +correct, if ever an individual falls into the hands of men, but I +am sure that they are approximately correct.</p> + +<p>Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence +of an animal of 250 feet! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself +the utmost possible length of our Sea-Serpent!</p> + + +<h5>b. Form.</h5> + +<p>The name we give to an unknown object will naturally depend +on the impression it makes on us at first sight. To some the animal +was like a log of wood or a floating tree; comparisons which will +be spoken of below. It is called an animal of the fish kind (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), +or a most remarkable fish (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), or a very large fish (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), and to +be eel-shaped (<a href="#Report33">33</a>), or to resemble a large eel (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>). Some +persons say it appeared to be of a uniform size (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), and others +that it gradually tapers towards the two extremes (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), and appeared +<span class="pagenum" id="Page506">[506]</span>round +(<a href="#Report43">43</a>). One of the eye-witnesses says: I do not undertake to +say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this was the general +impression on my family, the spectators and myself (<a href="#Report63">63</a>). Generally +it is compared with a snake (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, +<a href="#Report25">25</a>, <a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report37">37</a>, +<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, +<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report135">135</a>, +<a href="#Report152">152</a>) or serpent (<a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, +<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, +<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, +<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, +<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report147">147</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>). Curious is the statement of one +that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without, however, having +ever heard of such an animal (<a href="#Report132">132</a>)! Remarkable is the opinion of +an officer of the <i>Daedalus</i>: it was, he says, rather of a lizard than +of a serpentine character, as its movement was steady and uniform, +as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). Remarkable +too is <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan’s</span> comparison of an animal which he +himself, believing that sea-serpents have no fins, or paws, or flappers, +did not mention in his paragraph about the subject, viz. +with a crocodile (<a href="#Report14">14</a>). Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> who had an opportunity to +observe the animal from above, described it as a large marine +animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, except +that the neck was much longer, and that instead of legs the creature +had four flappers somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair +being larger than the posterior (<a href="#Report119">119</a>). In my opinion the comparison +of Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Haynes</span>, of the <i>Osborne</i>, who saw the fore part of +the animal from behind, deserves all our attention; he says: the +animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest +about the back of the head (<a href="#Report148">148</a>, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>shape of the head</i> has also been described in different ways. +There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (<a href="#Report31">31</a>); +here it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that +it was as round as a flour-barrel (<a href="#Report158">158</a>, evidently seen in front), and +bullet-shaped (<a href="#Report148">148</a>, seen from behind, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>). The head is also +said to appear like a triangular rock (<a href="#Report74">74</a>), or like a nun buoy (<a href="#Report131">131</a>), +or like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at +our <a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another +instance the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon +cask (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat +oval”. Major <span class="smcap">Senior</span> asserts that the shape of the head was +not unlike pictures of the dragon he has often seen (<a href="#Report149">149</a>); the +explanation of this curious comparison I have given in treating of +his report. The head, says somebody, resembled the end of a log +(<a href="#Report150">150</a>), and: the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a +snake’s (<a href="#Report150">150</a>); but he saw the animal in late evening twilight. +But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble that of a snake (<a href="#Page137">p.137</a>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page507">[507]</span> <a href="#Report29">29</a>, +<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, +<a href="#Report121">121</a>), or serpent (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, +<a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>), +or something that of a rattle snake (<a href="#Report39">39</a>); and evidently seen in a +somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped much like +that of a sea-turtle (<a href="#Report38">38</a>). I can only explain these different comparisons +by supposing that to some extent the head really resembles +these various head shapes, being flattened above and somewhat +blunt at its end. Though the officers of the <i>Daedalus</i>, too, compared +it with that of a snake, their drawing (<a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>) shows the +head of a mammal. The proportions of the length and height, the +outlines of the jaws, the extension of the mouth-split, the situation +of the nostril and the eye, the flattened appearance of the forehead +and nose, the bluntness of the snout and the presence of the two +cushions on the crown of the head (the external visible masticatory +muscles) are true mammalian characters. It therefore is not wonderful +also to find such a head compared with that of a bull-dog +(<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), that of a walrus (<a href="#Report129">129</a>), +that of a seal (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>), and +that of a sea-lion (<a href="#Report36">36</a>). When the animal held its head at nearly +right angles with its neck, which has often been the case, and +opened its nostrils as wide as possible (and the nostrils are exceedingly +large), such a head, with its flattened nose and forehead, +and with its somewhat protruding eyes, resembled that of a horse +(<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report124">124</a>). We observe that the head is compared with <i>seven</i> different +head-shapes, <i>five</i> of which are mammalian. It is obvious that the +observers compared it with the heads of those animals which involuntarily +and at once occurred to them. To which of these types +are we to direct our attention? Which of these types will the sea-serpent’s +head resemble most? I say, that of the sea-lion. And why? +Because the animal, with the head of which that of the sea-serpent +was compared, was not present at the time, except in Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof’s</span> +case. He was daily surrounded by sea-lions; the image of the sea-lion’s +head was as firmly impressed on his memory as that of a +dog on his master’s; and I greatly doubt whether the other observers +were acquainted with sea-lions. These animals, especially the +species of the Northern Pacific, are only of late years to be seen +in the zoological gardens, and it remains to be found out whether +the most recent eye-witnesses of the sea-serpent ever saw a sea-lion, +and if so, whether the features of the animal had been impressed +on their memory so as to recognize the same shape in the head +of another animal. Moreover the head of a sea-lion, especially that +of <i>Zalophus californianus</i> has some resemblance to a snake’s.</p> + +<p>The <i>neck</i> being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s +<span class="pagenum" id="Page508">[508]</span>(74), or of a common snake’s (<a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>), and tapering small +from the head to the body (<a href="#Report121">121</a>). It is obvious that this observer +used the expression “tapering” in a sense contrary to the usual +one, for he had a fair opportunity to see the animal’s head, long +neck and upper part of the trunk with the two foreflappers, and +he goes on with the words: and it appeared to measure about +seven feet across the broadest part of the back.</p> + +<p>The <i>trunk</i> must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may +be inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably +broader than the head (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), from the shoulders it tapered +towards the tail (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>), the breadth diminished remarkably +towards the tail (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), from the shoulder (estimated to +be about twenty feet) diminishing towards the tail to about twenty +four inches (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), evidently the end of the latter was hidden under +water. Moreover, the body is said to be round (<a href="#Report102">102</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, +<a href="#Report117">117</a>), even as a snake’s (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), and on one occasion, when seen from +behind, is said to be developed in form like that of a gigantic +turtle (<a href="#Report148">148</a>, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>), which we need not say, was the result of +the upper part of the back being only visible. Remarkable is the +use of the term “shoulders”, for even if the flappers of the animal were +never actually observed, we are now obliged to conclude that the animal +was possessed of fore-limbs. Equally remarkable is the statement: +“there is a distinct difference in thickness between the body +and the tail; the trunk is not gradually growing smaller, where +the tail begins, but at once and very distinctly” (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>); +for such an animal has rumps, and consequently also thighs and +hind-limbs.</p> + +<p>The <i>tail</i> itself is cylindrical (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), like that of a snake (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), and +tapering to its end (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>, +<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>). Twice the animal’s +head and tail were plainly visible above the surface (<a href="#Report135">135</a>, +<a href="#Report162">162</a>), the trunk being wholly hidden under the surface of the +water; it was called a snake; the shape of the tail was not mentioned; +evidently the tail was pointed, else it would have been +described as resembling that of a fish or of a whale; evidently it +was also tapering to its end, else it would have been described as +a cord or whiplike. The same was the case in <a href="#Report152A">n<sup>o</sup>. 152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>; the +observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.</p> + +<p><i>Position and shape of flappers.</i> <span class="smcap">Hans Egede</span> said that the animal +had two flappers on the fore-part of the body (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), but the +drawing of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, his brother missionary (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>), is not accurate, +as the animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too +<span class="pagenum" id="Page509">[509]</span>large, and the flappers themselves are badly represented. It seems, +however, that the indented edge of the foreflappers did not escape +the eyes of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bing</span>. Mr. <span class="smcap">Bakewell</span> asserts that the flappers are +described to resemble those of turtles (<a href="#Page250">p. 250</a>); most probably the +foreflappers are meant here, as these are occasionally seen above +the surface, which is hardly ever the case with the hindflappers. +In an animal which was estimated at from 80 to 90 feet in length, +one of the fore-flappers was occasionally visible at about twenty +feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about one fourth of +the whole length (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> states that the flappers were +somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than +the posterior (<a href="#Report110">110</a>). According to the <a href="#Fig36">figures 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a> and <a href="#Fig50">50</a> on the +right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion. In the <a href="#Fig36">figures +36</a> and <a href="#Fig45">45</a> the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the animal +of the <i>Daedalus</i>, which was from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of +the hindflappers was occasionally visible at about forty feet in the +rear of the head, consequently at about the centre of the whole +length (<a href="#Report118">118</a>). Of course they were invisible to <span class="smcap">Egede</span> and <span class="smcap">Bing</span>, +as the middle part of the animal’s body was hidden under water +(<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>fore-head</i> is described as high and broad (<a href="#Page144">p. 144</a>) and flat +(<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, +<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, +<a href="#Report157">157</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>), or depressed (<a href="#Report56">56</a>) and +once Mr. <span class="smcap">Senior</span> thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow, +a bull dog appearance (<a href="#Report149">149</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>snout or muzzle</i> is called long and sharp (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>), sharp +(<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), +tapering to a point (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), rather pointed (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), +pointed (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), though the accompanying figure (<a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>) contradicts +this, pointed like that of a porpoise (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), an elongated termination +(<a href="#Report148">148</a>), not pointed but bluntly round (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), not pointed but +seemed rather blunt (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows +and horses have (<a href="#Page144">p. 144</a>), evidently with the nostrils opened as +wide as possible, rather blunt (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), apparently blunt (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), bluff +(<a href="#Report150">150</a>), obtuse (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), the head, estimated at eight or six feet long, +consequently at five or four feet broad, tapered to the size of a +horse’s (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), the snout being somewhat similar in form to that of +a seal (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>upperjaw</i> projects considerably (<a href="#Report118">118</a>); we may safely read +projects.</p> + +<p><i>Under the jaw</i> there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch +(<a href="#Report126">126</a>). This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible +as it even occurs in allied animals.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page510">[510]</span></p> + +<p>The <i>nostrils</i> are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal +is able to close them; they are, however, delineated (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig24">fig. +24</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>), or indicated with a crescentic mark (<a href="#Fig80">fig. 80</a>), and +mentioned to have been distinctly visible (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), and described as +large (<a href="#Page180">p. 180</a>). It is also evident that when the animal opens them +as wide as possible, the beak appears quadrangular, as is the mouth +of cows and horses (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>). This comparison agrees with the description +of the nose sides or flaps which are here said to be “nearly +semicircular flaps or valves overarching the nostrils, which were +in front” (<a href="#Report143">143</a>).</p> + +<p>Of the <i>whiskers</i> <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> already tells us that on the sides +of the nostrils there are a few stiff hairs or bristles, as other animals +have, with a good nose (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>). These whiskers are mentioned +afterwards only once: “on the nose there are thick hairs, as +on a seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long” (<a href="#Report103">103</a>). Were +these whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that +of a seal (<a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>), with that of a walrus (<a href="#Report129">129</a>), or with that of a +sea-lion (<a href="#Report36">36</a>)? I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency, +they are not mentioned in the reports.</p> + +<p>The <i>mouth</i> is transverse (<a href="#Report56">56</a>) and large (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>); it is rarely mentioned, +but once stated to have been distinctly visible (<a href="#Report118">118</a>); once +it was estimated at fifteen inches (<a href="#Report56">56</a>) (I may ask: large, long, +or when opened?), and once we find the firm assertion that when +open it looked like that of a serpent! (<a href="#Report41">41</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>eyes</i> were not always seen; it may be that the distance was +too large, or that the animal kept them closed (<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>, +<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>). They are mentioned as to have been only visible in +<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, +<a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>; but sometimes we get a short +description. They are round (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>), about the size of an ox’s +(<a href="#Report48">48</a>), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in diameter (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), about <a href="#Report5">5</a> inches in diameter +(<a href="#Report92">92</a>), large (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, +<a href="#Report122">122</a>), large as a plate (<a href="#Report32">32</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>), +disproportionately large (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), broad (<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>), very large (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), relatively +large (<a href="#Report112">112</a>). We observe that the size of the eyes, when +opened as wide as possible, has struck the observers; they must +be disproportionately large. But if we wish to know the relative +largeness, we have only to consult <a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a> and <a href="#Report102">102</a>, where the +eyes are estimated at 3¹⁄₂ and 5 inches. On both occasions the +observers estimated the head to be as long as a ten gallon cask, +and about of the same thickness. As to the lustre of the eyes we +read that: they are not glossy (<a href="#Report103">103</a>), generally, however, glossy +(<a href="#Report122">122</a>), brilliant (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), flaming +(<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), sharp (<a href="#Report44">44</a>), very bright +<span class="pagenum" id="Page511">[511]</span>(<a href="#Report48">48</a>), and glittering (<a href="#Report63">63</a>, +<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>). It seems that the eyes, seen +in their axis are dark (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>), or black (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>), and that, +when seen in an oblique direction they seem to be blue or better +tin-coloured, for they are said to resemble rather a pair of pewter +plates (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>). We also conclude that when seen in the axis and +reflecting the daylight by their <i>tapetum lucidum</i> they glisten like +those of a cat (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), or have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity +(<a href="#Report143">143</a>), and this glimmer or glistening was said to be red (<a href="#Report33">33</a>), or +reddish like a burning fire (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), or crimson (<a href="#Report92">92</a>). The eye is delineated +in <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig24">24</a>, <a href="#Fig27">27</a>, +<a href="#Fig28">28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>, <a href="#Fig31">31</a>, <a href="#Fig36">36</a>.—One of the eye-witnesses +of no 48 states that there is a small bunch on each side +of his head, just above his eye; another too said: there appeared +a bunch above the eyes (<a href="#Report48">48</a>). It is also said that the eyes are prominent, +and stand out considerably from the surface, resembling +in that respect the eyes of a toad (<a href="#Report60">60</a>). It is easy to understand +that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), and that +another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (<a href="#Report149">149</a>). +This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, <a href="#Fig26">26</a>). The situation +of the eyes is over the jaws (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), and nearer to the mouth of the +animal than to the back of the head (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>).</p> + +<p>Neither <i>ear-holes</i> nor <i>external ears</i> are mentioned. If external +ears are present, they must be exceedingly minute; the absence, +however, is very probable; at all events earholes must be present, +but they are evidently very small, and capable of being closed, as +in seals. Curious is the assertion “the ears seemed to be diaphanous” +(<a href="#Report143">143</a>).</p> + +<p>There is a slight hollow at the <i>top of the head</i> (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>features</i> resemble those of an alligator (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), but made on +others the impression as being those of a seal (<a href="#Report29">29</a>).</p> + +<h5>c. Skin.</h5> + +<p>Except in two cases (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>) when the animal was very near, +scales are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, +<a href="#Report10">10</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report13">13</a>, &c., &c., &c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales +(<a href="#Report149">149</a>), altogether devoid of scales (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), smooth (<a href="#Report13">13</a>, +<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, +<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, +<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, +<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Fig27">fig. 27</a>, <a href="#Fig28">28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, +<a href="#Fig30">30</a>, <a href="#Fig31">31</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>), like a mirror (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>), +shining (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), shining strongly +(<a href="#Report117">117</a>), with a very bright reflexion (<a href="#Report46">46</a>), looking similar to an eel’s +(<a href="#Report59">59</a>). But an animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, <i>must +have a hairy skin</i>. Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin +<span class="pagenum" id="Page512">[512]</span>appeared rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and +still more: that it is as woolly as a seal’s (<a href="#Report8">8</a>). Such a hairy skin +becomes smooth as a mirror and shines strongly, when it is wet, +as may be seen in seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears.</p> + +<h4>2. INTERNAL OR ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.</h4> + +<p>It is not astonishing that we don’t know much of its anatomical +characters, as it never had the honour to be dissected by the able +hand and keen scalpel of an anatomist. Yet it is clear that if the +animal opens its mouth, there is an opportunity to learn something +about its teeth, tongue, etc. Generally it keeps its mouth shut, +once only this is stated (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), as if the observer watched an opportunity +to see it opening its mouth. Though we have several +accounts mentioning the animal opening its mouth (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, +<a href="#Report65">65</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, +<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>), <i>teeth</i> are not always seen, either +because the distance was too great, or because the position was +not favourable. Teeth are delineated (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>); they are mentioned in <a href="#Report65">65</a>, +<a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, described as +formidable in <a href="#Report109">109</a>, and as jagged in <a href="#Report118">118</a>.</p> + +<p>Of the animal’s <i>tongue</i> we have the following observations: +“There rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a +prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six inches in +circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point. I +thought it not the tongue, as I saw the prong before I saw the +head, but it might have been” (<a href="#Report43">43</a>, distance forty rods, with a +spyglass); “I was struck with an appearance in the front part of +the head like a single horn, about nine inches to a foot in length, +and of the form of a marlinespike. There were a great many people +collected by this time, many of whom had before seen the same +object and the same appearance” (<a href="#Report44">44</a>); “he threw out his tongue +about two feet in length, the end of it appeared to me to resemble +a fisherman’s harpoon” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “he raised his tongue several times +perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “he threw +out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from +his jaws, the end of it resembled a harpoon” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “he threw his +tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall +again” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>); “the colour of his tongue was a light brown” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>).</p> + +<p>To the descriptions of the teeth and tongue no great value can +be attached, as such organs need close examination. The length of +the tongue is, anatomically spoken, not an impossibility, as it is +known that animals with a long neck generally have a long tongue.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page513">[513]</span></p> + +<h4>3. COLOURS, INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS.</h4> + +<p>Just as in some species of the order of Pinnipeds, there seem +to exist indeed some individual variations with regard to the +colour of the sea-serpent.</p> + +<p>Just as in the dark specimens of the Pinnipeds, the colour of +the sea-serpent becomes lighter in drying; i. e. the real colour of +the animal comes to light. Properly we should say: their colour is +light, but, when wet, it becomes a dark one. It is evident that +the real colour of the sea-serpent, being dried by the sunshine, +is grey (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>), a light +ash-colour (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), grey and yellow (<a href="#Report147">147</a>), +pale yellowish (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), or yellow (<a href="#Report71">71</a>).</p> + +<p>Just as in Pinnipeds, the colour of a wet individual appears +much lighter when it is very close to us, than when we see +it at some distance. Three times the colour is called grey (<a href="#Report65">65</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>, +<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>), though not a single fact is mentioned, from which it may +be made out, whether the animal was very near or far off. The +colour of an individual which was so close that it could be struck +with a handspike was greyish (<a href="#Report72">72</a>), that of one a few yards distant, +light fawn coloured (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), at about thirty feet distance the colour +seemed to be a very dark grey (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), still farther a greyish brown (<a href="#Report79">79</a>).</p> + +<p>Though some persons call the colour only dark, or brown, or +black, it is noteworthy that those who describe it more minutely, +agree that the backpart of the head, the neck, the trunk and the +tail are dark, and that the under part of the head and the neck +is light coloured. With regard to the colour, the animal is evidently +longitudinally divided into a dark one above and a light one beneath.</p> + +<p>The dark colour of the upper part seems to vary a little, +as may be seen from the following appellations: dark (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, +<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, +<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, +<a href="#Report154">154</a>), very dark (<a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>), +somewhat dark (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), dark dull (<a href="#Report130">130</a>), evidently a chocolate brown, +or mahogany brown, or chestnut brown, for it was compared with +a red snake (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), chocolate colour (<a href="#Report44">44</a>), dark chocolate colour (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), +colour of a pilot fish (<a href="#Report151">151</a>), old mahogany brown (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), dirty brown +(<a href="#Report121">121</a>), brown (<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, +<a href="#Report144">144</a>), deep brown (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), dark brown +(<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, +<a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, +<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report135">135</a>), blackish +brown (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), approaching to black (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), nearly black (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, +<a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>) +almost black (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), blackish (<a href="#Report65">65</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, +<a href="#Report117">117</a>), black (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, +<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, +<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), as black as coal-tar +(<a href="#Report152">152</a>). The tints of the figures also evidently represent a dark +colour (<a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>, <a href="#Fig41">41</a>, +<a href="#Fig45">45</a>, <a href="#Fig46">46</a>). By some witnesses the colour +<span class="pagenum" id="Page514">[514]</span>of the head is observed to be darker than that of the body; we +may safely read for “body” the “neck”. Once the colour of the +shoulders is reported to be much darker than the rest of the body +(<a href="#Report122">122</a>).</p> + +<p>On this dark upperpart spots, stripes, streaks etc. of a lighter +hue are observed more than once: the colour was that of a conger +eel, consequently brown with lighter streaks (<a href="#Report144">144</a>), spotted, and +with light flames, or maculated, with distinctly visible light spots +like a turtle or a lackered table (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>), apparently shaded with +light colours (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), streaked with white in irregular streaks (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), +on an under ground of fawn colour there were large brown spots +behind the shoulders (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), maculated with large white spots (<a href="#Report130">130</a>), +covered with several white spots (<a href="#Report131">131</a>), brown with black spots +(<a href="#Report162">162</a>). See also <a href="#Fig37">figg. 37</a> and <a href="#Fig38">38</a>.</p> + +<p>In some individuals there is a black ring round the eye (<a href="#Page131">p. 131</a>, +<a href="#Report29">29</a>), and the region of the mouth is also black, so that they resemble +those horses which we call moorish heads or blackfaces (<a href="#Page131">p. +131</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>).</p> + +<p>The sides of the underjaw seem to be very light coloured: +white (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, +<a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), as is also the throat: whitish +(<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, +<a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig30">30</a>), yellow (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), muddy white (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), +yellowish white (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), brownish white (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), light coloured (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), +white (<a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report144">144</a>), “the underpart of its head appeared nearly white” +(<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “several feet of its belly” (read throat) “which were visible +appeared nearly white” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); very remarkable is the supposition of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span>: “I suppose and do believe that the whole +of his belly was nearly white” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), this really seems to be the +case, for we read in <a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a> that the tail is longitudinally divided +into two sections, white and black, and in <a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a> that the whole +animal was longitudinally divided into two sections, white and +black. Of course in both cases the black side was the back-side, +as was very well supposed by Captain Drevar in <a href="#Report144">n<sup>o</sup>. 144</a>.</p> + +<p>I am of course unable to decide in how far the problematic +dark stripe, curved downwards, on each side behind the underjaw, +and as long as the head, delineated in <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a> and <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, will ever +be found to come up to reality.</p> + +<p>The representation of the colours in <a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a> is very bad, as the +animal’s back is drawn lighter than the underpart, and I believe +that such alternating broad bands of a light and dark colour don’t +exist in reality, but are here the result of drawing with a pencil.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page515">[515]</span></p> + +<h4>4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE.</h4> + +<p>It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and +that others have not.</p> + +<p>The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over +the whole length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, +and diminishing gradually to the tail where it evidently passes imperceptibly +into the common hair-coating. The mane is said to have +been visible on its head (<a href="#Report135">135</a>); at the back of the head (<a href="#Fig17">figg. 17</a>, +<a href="#Fig24">24</a>, <a href="#Report102">n<sup>o</sup>. 102</a>), which no doubt means just behind the occiput. Further: +on the neck (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>, <a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, +<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, +<a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Fig31">fig. 31</a>), from the back of the head a mane commenced (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), +just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further +backwards (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), close behind the head a mane commences along +the neck (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), the +head was provided with a mane hanging down (<a href="#Report152">152</a> <span class="allsmcap">A</span>); evidently +the mane extends from the head over the whole length of the neck +and the trunk (<a href="#Report18">18</a>? <a href="#Fig28">fig. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">fig. 29</a>). The mane near the head is +long (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), tolerably long +(<a href="#Report92">92</a>), two feet long (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), and +all along the neck and back: not very long (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), that it is of +some length, we must suppose, for it is said to wash about to +and fro in the water (<a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), and to spread to left and to +right floating on the water (<a href="#Report92">92</a>), when the animal swims. The +colour of the mane seems to be white (<a href="#Report9">9</a>) when dried up by the +sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the body +(<a href="#Report102">102</a>), brown (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>). The mane resembles that of a horse +(<a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, <a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, +<a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>) or rather seaweed (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, +<a href="#Report135">135</a>).</p> + +<p>Probably a mane was present in <a href="#Report51">n<sup>o</sup>. 51</a>, and <a href="#Report74">74</a>; the back from +afar, was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and +had a rugged appearance; see also <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>.</p> + +<p>Twice it is stated that there was no mane (<a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, see also +<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a> and <a href="#Fig27">27</a>), but we have so many reports which don’t mention +the mane, and which surely would have mentioned it, if it +had been present, that we are obliged to believe that those individuals +had no mane. In other instances the distance was too great +to observe a mane, even if the animal had been provided with one.</p> + +<p>I am sure that here we have one of the differences between +males and females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a +difference in size between males and females, I should not be surprised +that, if these animals were better known to zoologists, the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page516">[516]</span>males would, in general, +prove to surpass +the females twice in +size and four or six +times in weight. In +my opinion large individuals +are, therefore, +males, and must have +a mane, or at one +time have had one. +The probability exists +that they lose the greater +part of their mane +at a certain age, or +that they were moulting +when they were +seen; which would account +for the fact that +in some large individuals +no mane was +observed.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig72"> +<img src="images/illo516a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 72. Sea-serpent, side view, drawn from the descriptions.</p> +</div> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig73"> +<img src="images/illo516b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 73. Sea-serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions.</p> +</div> + +<p>I have ventured to +draw the outlines of +the animal from the +descriptions. <a href="#Fig72">Fig. 72</a> +represents it as seen +from aside, with the +divisions of the colours, +and <a href="#Fig73">fig. 73</a> as seen +on the back with the +whiskers and the extension +of the mane +in the males.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page517">[517]</span></p> + +<h4>5. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.</h4> + +<h5>a. <span class="gesp2">Nutritory functions</span>.</h5> + +<p>1. <i>Eating, Food.</i>—Its eating cuttles, lobsters and all kind of +sea-crabs (<a href="#Page105">p. 105</a>), may be true. With the greatest certainty it may +be said to feed on fish. We have found the following notices which +decide this: “He often disappeared and was gone five or ten minutes +under water; evidently he was diving or fishing for his food. +He remained in nearly the same situation and thus employed for +two hours. All kind of fish abound in the cove where the animal +was seen” (<a href="#Report35">35</a>). “It sometimes darted under water with the greatest +velocity, as if seizing prey” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), which in this instance surely +was fish. “Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in +great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, +and showing all the symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some +wicked enemy” (<a href="#Report133">133</a>), and suddenly a sea-serpent appeared. “There +was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore” (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), a sea-serpent +soon made its appearance.</p> + +<p>Not only does the animal prey on fish, but, by way of change, +also on sea-mammals. When on Behring’s Isle Mr. <span class="smcap">Kriukof</span> tells +us that “the sea-lions were so terrified at the sight of the monster, +that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves on the +shore. The sea often throws up pieces of the flesh, which, according +to the Aleutians is that of this serpent” (<a href="#Report36">36</a>). Evidently such +pieces of flesh are washed aland only when a sea-serpent had made +its appearance, otherwise there would be no reason to ascribe such +pieces of flesh to sea-serpents. Sea-reptiles don’t exist in those +regions; it is highly improbable that the pieces of flesh were of +sea-birds; they are not of fishes, as in that case they would not +have been called <i>flesh</i>, consequently they are of sea-mammals. Of +what kind of sea-mammals these pieces of flesh were, is not the +question now, but I am sure that the sea-lions would not be so +terrified, if they did not know the sea-serpent to be a terrible +enemy.</p> + +<p>There is moreover no doubt, that sea-serpents sometimes prey +on the smaller kind of whales, as dolphins, porpoises, grampuses, +&c. It sometimes appears suddenly amidst a shoal of these animals: +“It was surrounded by porpoises and grampuses” (<a href="#Report56">56</a>); “There +was an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual +state of excitement”, no doubt because they were pursued by a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page518">[518]</span>sea-serpent +(<a href="#Report97">97</a>); “an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the +ship as if pursued” (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), and gracefully a long neck, moving like that +of a swan rose from the depths. Our suppositions in this respect +are confirmed by the reports of Captain <span class="smcap">S. West</span>, who saw the +sea-serpent “engaged with a whale” (<a href="#Report54">54</a>), and of Captain <span class="smcap">Davison</span>, +stating that a sea-serpent seized a whale on the belly (read pectoral +fin) (<a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>).</p> + +<p>The manner of darting on its prey is well described in <a href="#Report149">n<sup>o</sup>. 149</a> +and <a href="#Report152">152</a>. I am convinced that the individuals in <a href="#Report154">n<sup>o</sup>. 154</a> and <a href="#Report106">106</a> a +were diving for food in a playful manner, with their body and +part of their tail floating on the surface.</p> + +<p>2. <i>Breathing.</i> Nobody will doubt that sea-serpents respire by +gills as fish do; they move or swim, as is stated in numerous +reports, with the head constantly above water, or when holding +it nearly on the surface, it is evident that their nostrils are always +just above the surface. When diving or fishing for food the average +time that they remain under water is about eight minutes (<a href="#Report63">63</a>). +It is probable that they may remain under it for half an hour or +still longer. When having remained so long under water, and appearing +on the surface, the animal suddenly exhales with such a +force that “we at first imagined it to be a whale spouting” (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), +and “every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise +similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steamboat” +(<a href="#Report101">101</a>). The same noise is usually heard when a whale “spouts” +(See <span class="smcap">H. Lee</span>, <i>Sea Fables Explained</i>, 1883, London), see also <a href="#Fig36">fig. +36</a>. But also when the animal is swimming or lying still on the +surface with its head on the level of the water, occasionally exhaling +when its nostrils are not quite above water, it “spouts water +from it not unlike the blowing of a whale” (<a href="#Report74">74</a>); “near one extremity +we saw what looked like foam or froth as though it was +spouting water” (<a href="#Report114">114</a>). The breath of the animal is occasionally +also seen condensed by the cold, forming little curling clouds, “it +blew like a whale”, said <span class="smcap">Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>), “it squirted from its +mouth a stream of foamy stuff, resembling long shavings from a +pine plank” (<a href="#Report158">158</a>). In general, however, the animal swims with +its head some feet above the surface of the water, so that it is +very natural that “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting” +(<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p>3. <i>Excretion.</i> In one report we read that the animal left a greasy +trail behind him (<a href="#Report156">156</a>). It is very probable that such a large sea-animal, +provided as it is with rather a thick layer of bacon under +<span class="pagenum" id="Page519">[519]</span>its skin, secretes a quantity of liquid fat, large enough to leave +a greasy trail”; this will certainly happen when it is severely +wounded.</p> + +<p>Without any doubt it is true that it may “emit a very strong +odour” (<a href="#Report61">61</a>).</p> + +<h5>b. <span class="gesp2">Functions of the senses</span>.</h5> + +<p>1. <i>Feeling.</i>—Of course but little can be noticed about the +animal’s feeling. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> tells us that it has whiskers “like +other animals which have a good nose.” How far the Bishop believed +that those whiskers had anything to do with the animal’s +sense of smell, I cannot tell. But certainly they have not. Well +developed whiskers are rarely found but in animals which catch +their prey in a stealthy way, such as cats, dogs, viverrides, mustelides, +and numerous allied animals, and in animals which live +in holes, as mice, rats, &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.</p> + +<p>Further it must not astonish us that sea-serpents are usually +observed in fine weather when there is no wind. They seem to +dislike wind, and therefore, if having no special purpose in view, +they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Page129">p. 129</a>, <a href="#Page133">p. +133</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>); they even seem to be very sensible of the least wind.</p> + +<p>Warmth on the contrary seems to be very welcome to them, +as they are often seen on hot days, and even basking in the sun +(<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>).</p> + +<p>2. <i>Taste.</i> The taste of the animal is, of course, only to be known +by the food it takes.</p> + +<p>3. <i>Smell.</i> There is no doubt that, guided by their smell they +prey on fish, but it is clear that we shall never know any more +particulars about it. Only it is stated, and it seems to be true, +that they cannot bear the smell of castoreum and asa foetida, and +that Norwegian seamen and fishermen up to the days of <span class="smcap">Rathke</span> +(1840) would never forget to bring one of these drugs with them, +to drive them away. (<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span>, <a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>, <a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>).</p> + +<p>As far as I know, zoologists accept three reasons why some +<span class="pagenum" id="Page520">[520]</span>animals emit some strong odour; viz. to drive away their enemies, +or to recognize one another, either in the neighbourhood or from +afar, or to flatter and to attract the other sex. With which purpose +sea-serpents emit a strong odour, this surely will be very +difficult to decide, but in all probability they smell it themselves.</p> + +<p><a href="#Report4">4</a>. <i>Hearing.</i> The observations about the animal’s hearing are, +as may be expected, but very few. That an animal hears, can +only be asserted when it gives unmistakable signs that it has heard, +for instance a sudden turning of its head towards the origin of +sound, or the running away from it. So we have the statements +that the sea-serpent “was not pleased with the noise of our oars” +(<a href="#Report69">69</a>); “the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent +approaches and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts +it still more” (<a href="#Page259">p. 259</a>); “on both days it seemed to keep about +us, and as we were always rowing then, we were inclined to +think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured sound of +the oars” (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>); “on my coo-ee the fish started off seawards +out of sight and under water” (<a href="#Report150">150</a>).</p> + +<p>5. <i>Sight.</i>—The numerous statements that a sea-serpent swims +with its head some feet above the surface of the water prove that +it looks straight before it. Further we have found it several times +mentioned that it followed a boat, and finally the assertion that +it raised its head and neck several feet above the water, evidently +to take a survey towards the ship passing, or to take a view of +objects, or to look about for prey (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, +<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, +<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, +<a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p> + +<h5>c. <span class="gesp2">Functions of the muscular system</span>.</h5> + +<p>1. <i>Relative mobility of organs.</i> We have already mentioned that +the eyes, like the nostrils and the mouth, may be shut or opened +wide. Yet they do not seem to be very movable (<a href="#Report103">103</a>).</p> + +<p>The head may be held at right angles with the neck (<a href="#Report70">70</a>, <a href="#Fig24">fig. +24</a>). The animal can bend its neck in several directions, moving +it like that of a swan (<a href="#Report124">124</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>), consequently bent dorso-ventrally +in the form of a stretched S. When only the forepart +of the neck, curved in such a way, is visible above water, the +observers naturally say that it is curved (<a href="#Report97">97</a>), or bent in a semi-circle +(<a href="#Report115">115</a>). It can also turn its head a little sideways (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, +<a href="#Report93">93</a>). The swimming in vertical undulations is surely a proof of +dorso-ventral flexibility. It has the power to hold its body in a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page521">[521]</span>straight line, quite stiff, even in swimming. Also it has the power +to bend its neck, trunk and tail dorso-ventrally into numerous +“bunches”, unless it is not the whole mass of its body, but only +the layer of muscles, bacon and its skin, which it is able to bend +in such a manner, for it is observed lying perfectly still, showing, +however, numerous bunches (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, +<a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, +<a href="#Report154">154</a>). In this condition it may even swim (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>). These bunches +according to its body-length, may be of the size of a barrel (<a href="#Report34">34</a>), +or from six to seven feet from each other, and from three to four +feet high (<a href="#Report154">154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). On some occasions it gave the impression +of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), for there +was no appearance of undulation; when the lumps sunk, other +lumps did not rise in the intervals between them (<a href="#Report137">137</a>). Twice it +is observed only with its head and its tail above water, the body +slightly under (<a href="#Report135">135</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), and once casting itself backwards, and +in doing so, its tail rose high above the water (<a href="#Report5">5</a>) so that the +animal was bent dorsally in the form of an U or horse-shoe (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>).</p> + +<p>Its lateral flexibility is also astonishing. In turning it bends its +body quite in the form of a horse-shoe, the head nearly touching +its tail end (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>); in turning twice immediately after each +other or in playing, its body is bent in the form of the letter S +(<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Fig37">fig. 37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">fig. 38</a>). Also it may play in circles (<a href="#Report39">39</a>). Once, +seized by a spermwhale, evidently in its trunk, it wound itself +laterally round the head and upperjaw of its attacker (<a href="#Report144">144</a>). Its +tail is said to lash the water (<a href="#Report151">151</a>? <a href="#Report158">158</a>), and to wind itself up, +and to rest for a moment on a part of the trunk (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>). In short +it is as limber and active as an eel (<a href="#Report44">44</a>).</p> + +<p>Provided, as sea-lions are, with rather a thick layer of bacon under +its skin, the animal, when it bends its body in the form of a +horse-shoe, either laterally or dorsally, naturally shows in the concave +side of the curve, wrinkles or folds (<a href="#Report5">5</a>) in its skin. When its +head is held nearly at right angles with the neck, the skin under +the chin is contracted into folds, which led to the description that +the animal had some “gills” (read “gill-splits”, <a href="#Report56">56</a>). When its neck +is a little contracted, it may happen that three folds of the skin +encircle the neck, which when held so for some time, and exposed +to the sun, dry on their highest part, and when stretched again, +will show “three yellow collars” (<a href="#Report71">71</a>). It may also be that “at +about six feet from the jaws there is a protuberance on its back +like a small watercask” (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), or that “a kind of scroll, or tuft +of loose skin, encircles the neck about two feet from the head” (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page522">[522]</span></p> + +<p>The flappers may be lifted up so high that they are occasionally +visible above the surface (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, +<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>); when +the animal is swimming with extreme rapidity, they may be raised +still higher, so that they are almost entirely above the surface +(<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">fig. 45</a>), but then they are not directed hindwards, +but forwards, “they were turned to the contrary way” +(<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Fig36">fig. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig50">fig. 50</a>). The flappers move alternately: “the movements +of the flappers were those of a turtle”, “the monster paddled +itself along after the fashion of a turtle” (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), and have “a semi-revolving +motion” (<a href="#Report148">148</a>). When the animal swims with vertical +undulations, it may press the flappers close against the body, so +that seen from above, it is as if the flappers were wanting (<a href="#Report82">82</a>).</p> + +<p>2. <i>Motions.</i> Hitherto we have considered the animal by itself, +let us now see how it moves in the water.</p> + +<p>The first sign of the presence of a sea-serpent may, of course, +be very different. Generally, when the animal was met with it was +already swimming on the surface; sometimes it lay still, and it +appeared to be a wreck or a small rock, but on approaching +gradually changed into a living animal; and sometimes, though +rarely, it appeared on the surface not far from the vessels. It is a +proof that it may remain a tolerably long time under water before +it comes to the surface to breathe. This may happen in two ways; +viz. 1. After it has swum a long time just below the surface, it +will gradually raise its head above it, and 2. When it has swum +for some time very deep below the surface, it will rise perpendicularly +upwards. Instances of the <i>first</i> manner of coming to the +surface will be found in the following passages: “the first sign of +the sea-serpent coming up was a rushing in the water ahead of +the ship; at first we imagined it to be a whale spouting” (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), +“attention was first directed to it by the broken action of the +water” (<a href="#Report126">126</a>). Apparently this happened also in the animal of Captain +<span class="smcap">Tremearne</span> (<a href="#Report129">129</a>). In the <i>other</i> manner of coming to the surface, +going upwards with great speed, a large portion of the animal +is shown to the spectators: “it raised its head high above the +surface (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>), even so high that the foreflappers became +visible” (<a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>); “arising out of the depths of Ocean, stretches to +the skies its enormous neck, masthead high” (<a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>); “it raised +itself slowly and gracefully from the deep” (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), “it suddenly +stood quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of sixty +feet” (<a href="#Report145">145</a>); “a head and neck rose out of the water to a height +of about twenty or thirty feet (<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>, see also <a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page523">[523]</span><a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">fig. 48</a>, +<a href="#Fig49">fig. 49</a>). Once it struck a vessel in coming to the +surface (<a href="#Report122">122</a>) so that it may be supposed that the animal had its +eyes shut.</p> + +<p>Generally it swims with vertical undulations (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>, +<a href="#Report10">10</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, +<a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, <a href="#Report23">23</a>, +<a href="#Report28">28</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report30">30</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, +<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, +<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report65">65</a>, +<a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, <a href="#Report70">70</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report82">82</a>, +<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>, +<a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report113">113</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, +<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, +<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, +<a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>, see also the following figures +<a href="#Fig24">24</a>, <a href="#Fig26">26</a>, <a href="#Fig27">27</a>, <a href="#Fig32">32</a>, +<a href="#Fig33">33</a>, <a href="#Fig34">34</a>, <a href="#Fig35">35</a>, <a href="#Fig39">39</a>, +<a href="#Fig47">47</a>, <a href="#Fig51">51</a>). The undulations may be large or small, +so that their number differs, but also the animal’s higher or lower +position in the water is cause, that their number may greatly vary. +Of course it is not always easy to account for a small number of +coils. This number is mentioned to be two or three (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), three +(<a href="#Report113">113</a>), three to four (<a href="#Report138">138</a>), three to five (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), four or more (<a href="#Report139">139</a>), +seven (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), not more than seven (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), seven or eight (<a href="#Report9">9</a>), +not more than eight (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), at least ten (<a href="#Report85">85</a>), ten or twelve (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), +thirteen to fifteen (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), fifteen to twenty three (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), fourteen (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), +several (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), twenty five (<a href="#Report2">2</a>). In our illustrations we find four (<a href="#Fig40">fig. +40</a>, <a href="#Fig47">fig. 47</a>, <a href="#Fig51">fig. 51</a>), six (<a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>), seven +(<a href="#Fig24">fig. 24</a>, <a href="#Fig39">fig. 39</a>), eight (<a href="#Fig35">fig. +35</a>), eleven (<a href="#Fig27">fig. 27</a>, <a href="#Fig34">fig. 34</a>) and twenty (<a href="#Fig33">fig. 33</a>).</p> + +<p>The motion of the animal is said to be <i>wrongly</i> serpentine (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, +<a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), like that of a snake (<a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), like +that of an eel (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), and <i>rightly</i> vermicular (<a href="#Report82">82</a>), like that of a +caterpillar (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), like that of a leech (<a href="#Report94">94</a>).</p> + +<p>The coils are said to resemble or to be as large as ten-gallon +kegs (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), half-barrels (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), flour barrels (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), large kegs (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), +those of a dromedary (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), about three feet long (<a href="#Report117">117</a>).</p> + +<p>The space between the coils, for there is always a space visible +between them (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>), is sometimes large, at other times small; +it was a space of one fathom (<a href="#Report9">9</a>), of seven feet (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), or of three feet (<a href="#Report60">60</a>).</p> + +<p>The whole animal swimming with vertical undulations, and seen +from afar, resembles a string of tuns or hogsheads (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>), a large +shoal of fish (read porpoises) with a seal at one end of it (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), a +string of empty barrels tied together (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), a string of casks tied +together (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), a string of large casks, gently bubbing up and down +(<a href="#Report114">114</a>), a long chain of rocks (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), a long chain of enormous +rings (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), a number of barrels linked +together (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), eight +seals in a row (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), a flock of wild ducks swimming (<a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p> + +<p>The height of the coils above water was, according to the animal’s +lower or higher position in the water, or according to its +bulk, about six inches (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), eight or ten inches (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), at least three +<span class="pagenum" id="Page524">[524]</span>feet (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), only a few feet +(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>); we also find the notices: “apparently +about one third of the upperpart of its body was above +water” (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), “it partly raised itself above the surface of the water” (<a href="#Report94">94</a>).</p> + +<p>As is to be expected, the bunches decrease in size towards the +tail (<a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>); of coarse this will always be the case.</p> + +<p>It seems that sometimes the undulations are limited only to the +trunk of the animal: “I saw no bunches towards I thought the +end of the tail, and I believe there were none; from where I +judged his navel might be, to the end of his tail there were no +bunches visible” (<a href="#Report44">44</a>); “the first bunch appeared ten or twelve +feet from his head” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>); “about thirty feet behind the head appeared +the first coil” (<a href="#Report81">81</a>).</p> + +<p>The reader will remember (see <i>Relative mobility of organs</i>) that +the animal may crook up its back, or the layer of bacon of its +back, when lying perfectly still. It seems evident that it also is +able to swim with its flappers, whilst its back is in such a condition: +“the bunches appeared to be fixed” (<a href="#Report60">60</a>); “his bunches +appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he moved +along some appeared to be depressed and others brought above +the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them” +(<a href="#Report63">63</a>); “the protuberances were not from his motion, as they were +the same whether in slow or in rapid movement” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>). See also +<a href="#Report137">n<sup>o</sup>. 137</a>.</p> + +<p>I am convinced that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations, +usually presses its flappers to its body. Once it was seen +from above (<a href="#Report82">82</a>) and it seemed to be eel-shaped, and the flappers +must have been invisible, at least they are not mentioned; it +swam with vertical undulations.</p> + +<p>But there are reasons to believe that the animal, swimming +with vertical undulations, at a moderate rate, also uses its flappers. +Once it was seen from above, moving with vertical undulations, +and its flappers are tolerably well described (<a href="#Report119">119</a>). And when we +read: “the motion of his body was rising and falling, the head +moderately vibrating from side to side” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), “the motion of his +head was sideways and quite moderate, and the motion of his body +was up and down” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), “his motion was partly vertical, partly +horizontal” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), “serpentine movements, some up and down, some +to the side” (<a href="#Report91">91</a>), we must conclude that the animal swimming +with vertical undulations may indeed also use its flappers. If only +the foreflapper and the hind one of the right side were used, the +animal would turn to the left, if, on the contrary, it used its +<span class="pagenum" id="Page525">[525]</span>two left flappers, it would turn to the right; consequently when +the right foreflapper (leaving for a moment the hindflappers out +of consideration) is moved backwards with a strong action, the +head must move a little to the left, and it will move to the right, +when the left foreflapper is propelled backwards.</p> + +<p>The instances in which the animal swims with its body in a +straight line, propelling itself only with its flappers, are few in +comparison with its swimming with vertical undulations (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, +<a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, +<a href="#Report104">104</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>, +<a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>, +<a href="#Report145">145</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report147">147</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>, +<a href="#Report160">160</a>, see also <a href="#Fig28">figg. 28</a>, <a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig31">31</a>, <a href="#Fig36">36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>). The +animal in this position resembled some drift of sea-weed (<a href="#Report143">143</a>), a +mast of a vessel floating (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), an enormous log of timber floating +(<a href="#Report83">83</a>), a trunk of a large tree floating (<a href="#Report104">104</a>), an unwrought spar +(<a href="#Report18">18</a>), a long spar (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), a log of wood (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), an immense tree +floating (<a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p> + +<p>A change in its mode of swimming is sometimes also witnessed, +it may be that it first swam with vertical undulations, and then +with its body in a straight line, or vice versa (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>).</p> + +<p>In swimming the end of the tail only (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), or nearly +the whole tail (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, +<a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, +<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>, +<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>, +<a href="#Report150">150</a>) is concealed under water and invisible. +The flappers are always below the surface of the water and invisible +(<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, +<a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report150">150</a>), save the above-mentioned +four times (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>). The head may be held just at +the surface of the water (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>, +<a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>, +<a href="#Fig32">figg. 32</a>, <a href="#Fig33">33</a>, <a href="#Fig37">37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">38</a>), so that it sometimes is recorded as not +having been visible (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report113">113</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>), or may be, and this is generally +the case, held above water (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, +<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, +<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Fig24">figg. 24</a>, <a href="#Fig26">26</a>, <a href="#Fig27">27</a>, <a href="#Fig28">28</a>, +<a href="#Fig29">29</a>, <a href="#Fig51">51</a>). The height above water is said +to be but little (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), some feet (<a href="#Report70">70</a>), well above water (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), +several feet (<a href="#Report155">155</a>), high (<a href="#Report32">32</a>), considerable (<a href="#Report102">102</a>), quite erect in the +air (<a href="#Report95">95</a>), six inches (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>), eight inches +(<a href="#Report44">44</a>), one foot (<a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, +<a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>), two feet +(<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, +<a href="#Report138">138</a>), three feet (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), +four feet (<a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, +<a href="#Report118">118</a>), five feet (<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), six feet +(<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>), seven feet +(<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>), eight feet (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), ten or +twelve feet (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p> + +<p>The head may, of course, sometimes be gradually laid down +(<a href="#Report63">63</a>), or gradually raised higher (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), is generally held in an acute +angle (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), which is of course the case when it is only a few feet +above the surface, and the angle becomes the less acute the more +the head is elevated; but sometimes the neck is curved (<a href="#Report97">97</a>) in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page526">[526]</span>the form of a semicircle +(<a href="#Report115">115</a>). The head may be held constantly +above water as long as the animal was visible (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, +<a href="#Report118">118</a>), or raised and lowered at intervals (<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p>Sometimes, evidently when darting on some prey, the animal +raises its whole neck quite stiff in the air: “head and neck stood +upright like a mast” (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), “the whole neck raised above water +like a snake preparing to dart on his prey” (<a href="#Report115">115</a>), “the animal +protruded its head above water to the length of about thirty feet +at an angle of sixty degree to the horizon” (<a href="#Report126">126</a>), “a large spar +sticking out of the water one end, and some thirty feet above +the level of the sea” (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), “it resembled the lower mast of some +wrecked vessel, passing rapidly” (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), “darting rapidly out of the +water and splashing in again, head and neck to a height of about +twenty or thirty feet out of the water” (<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>), “head and +neck reared about thirty feet out of water” (<a href="#Report151">151</a>), “a neck rose +out of the water, about twenty feet, moving with great speed” +(<a href="#Report152">152</a>), “at first it was taken to be an immense tree floating, but +this illusion was soon dispelled as the neck was thrown twenty +feet in the air” (<a href="#Report160">160</a>).</p> + +<p>When swimming the whole animal is not always above water, +but may occasionally dip under without any noise, or disappear +with a distinctly audible splash (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, +<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report74">74</a>, +<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>, +<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>, +<a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p> + +<p>The speed is said to be: faster than we could row (<a href="#Report9">9</a>), rapid +(<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, +<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), an incredible velocity, like an +arrow (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>), moderate (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), the greatest rapidity (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), a great +rapidity (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>), slow (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, +<a href="#Report120">120</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), much more +rapid than whales or any other fish (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), very rapid (<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>), +nearly still (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), very slow (<a href="#Report83">83</a>), very swiftly (<a href="#Report94">94</a>), a great swiftness +(<a href="#Report101">101</a>), that of a light boat rowed by four active men (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), very +quick (<a href="#Report123">123</a>), at a great rate (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), at a rapid pace (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), a great +speed (<a href="#Report152">152</a>), a great velocity (<a href="#Report157">157</a>)—or it was estimated at—two +miles an hour (<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), three miles an hour (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), four miles +(<a href="#Report60">60</a>), ten miles (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), ten to twelve miles (<a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>), twelve to +fourteen miles (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), fifteen miles (<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>), fifteen or twenty +miles (<a href="#Report35">35</a>), twenty miles (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report156">156</a>), twenty four miles (<a href="#Report38">38</a>), twenty +to thirty miles (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), thirty miles (<a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), thirty-six to forty-two +miles (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), sixty miles (<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a>).</p> + +<p>The animal may swim for a considerable time with the same +speed, steadily and uniformly (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>, +<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), or decreasing, +or increasing it (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page527">[527]</span></p> + +<p>Of course the animal swimming rapidly propels the water before +it, so that the water curls up before its throat (<a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>), or +even foams (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>, +<a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Fig26">fig. 26</a>), and when it swiftly +darts forwards for prey and elevates its flappers above water, the +motion of its flappers causes distinctly visible splashes (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>, +<a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Fig46">fig. 46</a>, of course in <a href="#Report129">n<sup>o</sup>. 129</a> and <a href="#Report148">148</a> the movements of the +flappers must also have caused a severe splashing, though this is +neither mentioned nor delineated, <a href="#Fig36">figg. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>). Also when it drops +its neck like a log of wood into the water, an enormous splash or +spray on both sides was visible (<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report152">152</a>).</p> + +<p>In the open sea the animal generally swims “as straight forward +as you could draw a line” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>), “not deviating in +the slightest degree from its course, which it held on apparently +on some determined purpose” (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), seldom it is recorded as +“taking a turn” (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>), but when in a harbour it may +move “in several directions” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), as if “playing” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, +<a href="#Report130">130</a>), “in circles” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), or “bringing the body into a letter S” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>). +The mode of turning is so characteristic and unique that I feel obliged +to repeat all that I have found about it:—“he turned short and +quick and the first part of the curve that he made in turning +resembled the link of a chain, but when his head came parallel +with his tail, his head and tail appeared near together” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>),—“his +motion when he turned was quick; the first part of the curve +that he made in turning was of the form of a staple, and as he +approached towards his tail he came near his body with his head, +and then ran parallel with his tail, and his head and tail then +appeared near together” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“in changing his course he brought +his head to where his tail was, or in fact to the extreme hinder-part +visible; raising himself as he turned six or eight inches out +of water” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“he turned quick and short and the first part +of the curve that he makes in turning is in the form of a staple, +but his head seems to approach rapidly towards his body, his +head and tail moving in opposite directions, and when his head +and tail came parallel they appear almost to touch each other” +(<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“when he changed his course he diminished his velocity +but little; the two extremes that were visible appeared rapidly +moving in opposite directions, and when they came parallel, they +appeared not more than a yard apart” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>),—“he turned very +short; the form of the curve when he turned resembled a staple; +his head seemed to approach towards his body for some feet, then +his head and tail appeared moving rapidly, in opposite directions, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page528">[528]</span>and when his head and tail were on parallel lines they appeared +not more than two or three yards apart” (<a href="#Report44">44</a>),—“he turned +slowly, and took up considerable room in doing it” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>),—“it +turned with considerable noise” (<a href="#Report117">117</a>).</p> + +<p>When the animal swims, either with vertical undulations, or +with its body in a straight line, holding, however, its head just +at water-level, so that the nostrils are only above the surface to +breathe, it generally shows nearly its whole length, only the very +end of its tail being under water. In such a condition it must +swim very easily, for the water carries its total weight, so that it +is actually null, and the animal in swimming has only to surmount +the friction and the resistance of the water made against an object +in motion. But as soon as the head is lifted above the surface, +the weight of it must immediately be carried by the body. It is +therefore not astonishing if an observer states: “its progressive +motion under water was rapid; when the head was above water, +its motion was not near so quick” (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), “when immersed in the +water his speed was greater” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>). It is very natural too, that +when the head is held above water, and when consequently the +body must carry the weight of the head, the body sinks a little +deeper into the water: “his head was now more elevated above +the water, and his body more depressed below” (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), and that +when the animal has raised its whole neck quite erect in the air, +the body has sunk so deep that it is: “not visible at all” (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), +and that “the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract +notice” (<a href="#Report149">149</a>). Therefore <a href="#Fig33">figg. 33</a>, <a href="#Fig34">34</a>, <a href="#Fig35">35</a>, +<a href="#Fig37">37</a>, <a href="#Fig38">38</a>, <a href="#Fig46">46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">48</a> and <a href="#Fig49">49</a>, +are tolerably well delineated. <a href="#Fig33">Fig. 33</a> shows us the animal swimming +with vertical undulations, holding its head on the level of +the water, and having nearly its whole length visible on the surface. +In <a href="#Fig34">fig. 34</a> the head is held a little above the surface, and the +end of the tail is already below it. <a href="#Fig35">Fig. 35</a> shows the head still +more elevated while of the tail nothing more is visible. <a href="#Fig37">Figg. 37</a> +and <a href="#Fig38">38</a> represent the animal floating on the surface, showing the +ridge of its whole back. In <a href="#Fig46">figg. 46</a>, <a href="#Fig48">48</a> and <a href="#Fig49">49</a> the animal’s neck +is elevated as high as possible, but its body is of course too deep +to be seen.</p> + +<p>A few lines above we have spoken of the increased speed of the +animal swimming under water. The question arises how was this +to be seen; and the answer is given by the eye-witnesses themselves: +“I saw it coming rapidly under water” (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), “when moving +under water you could often trace him by the motion of the water +<span class="pagenum" id="Page529">[529]</span>on the surface, and from this circumstance I conclude he did not +swim deep” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “we could trace his course under water” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), +“swimming below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the +rapid course” (<a href="#Report117">117</a>), “in swimming under the surface the animal +swims not deeply, for on the surface one can trace its course” +(<a href="#Report126">126</a>), “and moved away just under the surface of the water, for +we could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea” +(<a href="#Report137">137</a>).</p> + +<p>This, however, is not always the case. The animal can swim so +deep that its course is not betrayed on the surface. Once “it swum +directly under a boat” in which two men were (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), and once +“it passed below the boat at the depth of eight or ten feet, +swimming slowly with a vermicular motion” (<a href="#Report82">82</a>), which shows us at +the same time that it swims under water with vertical undulations. +There is, of course, reason to believe that it may also occasionally +swim with its body in a straight line; and Captain <span class="smcap">Hope</span> saw it +at still greater depths swimming evidently with its flappers and +with vertical undulations (<a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p> + +<p>So we have gradually approached to the way in which the animal +disappears from the surface of the vaste ocean. In some instances +it is only said that “it disappeared” (<a href="#Report36">36</a>), “it all at once vanished” +(<a href="#Report74">74</a>), “it all at once disappeared” (<a href="#Report74">74</a>), “it suddenly disappeared” +(<a href="#Report132">132</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>), evidently withdrawing itself beneath the surface +of the water deep enough to avoid a rippling of it. In other instances +the <i>way how</i> it disappeared is more circumstantially described: +“it sank” (<a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, +<a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), “it sunk gradually into the +water” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), “it sank quietly beneath the surface” (<a href="#Report134">134</a>), “it sank +rather abruptly” (<a href="#Report137">137</a>), “it sunk apparently down” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), “he did +not turn down like a fish, but appeared to settle down like a +rock” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “he apparently sunk directly down like a rock” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); +this “sinking like a rock” is of course effectuated by a sudden +upward movement of all the flappers together. But the animal +may also plunge violently under water (<a href="#Report31">31</a>), or go down with a +tremendous splash (<a href="#Report157">157</a>), or when it is swimming with its neck +high elevated above the surface, it dives like a duck head foremost +(<a href="#Report124">124</a>, <a href="#Report151">151</a>), and finally, when it has apparently remained a long +time under water in great depths, and suddenly comes to the +surface with so much force that its head, long neck, and a part +of its trunk with its formidable foreflappers become visible, it +throws itself backwards, and in doing so, raises its enormous tail +high above the surface of the water (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), and disappearing under +<span class="pagenum" id="Page530">[530]</span>the waves, the last part which is visible of it, is the end of the +tail (<a href="#Fig20">fig. 20</a>). Generally, however, it happens that the swimming +animal grows gradually smaller and smaller to the eyes of the +observers, and at last disappears in the distance to be seen no more.</p> + +<p>3. <i>Voice.</i>—In none of the reports gathered in this volume there +is a single notice about the animal’s voice. It is probable that the +individual gripped by the spermwhale (<a href="#Report144">144</a>) uttered a sound which, +however, was not heard amidst the tremendous noise, made by +the two animals fighting.</p> + +<h5>d. <span class="gesp2">Generation, Growth</span>.</h5> + +<p>I am sure that nobody will believe any longer, as was the case +in 1817, that sea-serpents are oviparous. Animals with a hairy skin, +save the <i>Monotrymata</i>, are viviparous, consequently sea-serpents are +viviparous.</p> + +<p>Though <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> believes that sea-serpents “seek the other +sex most probably in July and August” (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>), and that “July +and August are its pairing time” (<a href="#Page129">p. 129</a>), I am satisfied that +March and April must be taken as their months of amours, and +that July and August are the months of whelping.</p> + +<p>A new born pup most probably has a length of about twenty +feet (<a href="#Report14">14</a>).</p> + +<p>It seems that the months during which two sea-serpents were +seen together are July and August, probably also September (<a href="#Report23">23</a>, +<a href="#Report27">27</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report72">72</a>). It would seem, therefore, that a male remains in the +neighbourhood of his companion during her pregnancy and probably +also during the first month or during the first two months of the +new-born young.</p> + +<p>It seems also that the females are much smaller than the males, +as the pups are comparatively very small, and as twice one of the +two which were seen together is described smaller than the other +(<a href="#Report23">23</a>, <a href="#Report66">66</a>).</p> + +<p>We have already met with two instances in which the head of +the individual is delineated or described as having a hollow at its +top (<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Fig30">fig. 30</a>). I am satisfied that these were two males not +yet full-grown, showing the two cushions of their enormously +developed masticatory muscles, which were not yet closed in the +centre of the top of the head, and whose skulls therefore, could +not show the occipital and medial crests.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page531">[531]</span></p> + +<h4>6. PSYCHICAL CHARACTERS.</h4> + +<h5>a. <span class="gesp2">Not taking notice of objects</span>.</h5> + +<p>There are instances that the animal is reported as taking no +notice at all of men, vessels or other objects (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, +<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report82">82</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>).</p> + +<h5>b. <span class="gesp2">Taking notice of objects</span>.</h5> + +<p>At other instances, however, the animal was thought to notice +objects (<a href="#Report43">43</a>), or is said to have turned its head two or three times +slowly round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of +some object on board (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), or that it slowly turned its head towards +the observers (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), and numerous are the reports that it +lifted itself high above the surface apparently to take a survey +towards the vessel, or to take a view of objects (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, +<a href="#Report74">74</a>, <a href="#Page225">p. 225</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, +<a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>, +<a href="#Report149">149</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p> + +<h5>c. <span class="gesp2">Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion</span>.</h5> + +<p>The many instances that sea-serpents are said to have followed a +boat (<a href="#Page133">p. 133</a>, <a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report36">36</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, +<a href="#Report110">110</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>) or to have taken a +survey towards vessels, sufficiently prove that they are curious +beings, and that their curiosity as in so many animals, is generally +mixed with some suspicion, which of course is again a proof +that the animal is constantly prepared for selfpreservation. One of +the most striking proofs of this is to be read in <a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a>: the individual +swam towards a boat, passed within a few feet or some +fathoms, and swam away, to repeat the same movement two times.</p> + +<h5>d. <span class="gesp2">Suspicion</span>.</h5> + +<p>That some of the eye-witnesses got the impression that it is +sometimes really suspicious may be seen from the following lines: +“he appeared to avoid the boat wherein I was” (<a href="#Report39">39</a>), “he seemed +suspicious of the boat” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>), “they chased the animal fruitless for +seven hours” (<a href="#Report59">59</a>), “Captain George Little made many attempts of +pursuing and killing it, but without any result, as the serpent +ever kept a distance of a quarter of a mile” (<a href="#Report19">19</a>), “on both days +it seemed to keep about us, and as we were always rowing then, +we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the +measured sound of the oars.” (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page532">[532]</span></p> + +<h5>e. <span class="gesp2">Harmlessness</span>.</h5> + +<p>The animal is evidently a quite harmless creature (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>). +Though very close to several boats, it offered them no molestation (<a href="#Report32">32</a>). +“After the shot” of <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> “it turned towards him +immediately, sank down, went directly under his boat, and made +its appearance one hundred yards from where it sank and continued +playing as before” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “he appeared to us to be a harmless +animal” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), “it was harmless” (<a href="#Report69">69</a>). A proof of perfect harmlessness +may be found in <a href="#Report92">n<sup>o</sup>. 92</a>: it approached a fisherman in his +boat to within six feet and offered him no molestation. See also +<a href="#Report94">n<sup>o</sup>. 94</a> and <a href="#Report112">112</a>.</p> + +<h5>f. <span class="gesp2">Timidity</span>.</h5> + +<p><span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> already concluded that these animals are really +timid ones, “for when it follows a boat, the fishermen throw any +object, for instance a scoop, at it, and then the animal generally +plunges into the deep” (<a href="#Page134">p. 134</a>), and Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> also says: “he +appeared to us to be a timid animal” (<a href="#Report63">63</a>).</p> + +<h5>g. <span class="gesp2">Fearlessness</span>.</h5> + +<p>It were perhaps better if I used here the expression: “Involuntary +consciousness of the harmlessness of vessels, boats, and men”, +in which, however, it was often mistaken! “It did not appear to +avoid anything” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>), “it appeared to be amusing itself, though +there were several boats not far from it” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); after the shot of +<span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> “it did not appear more shy” (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); once it lay +extended on the surface, the night was falling, and a boat rowed +by four men, passed just before its snout at an oar’s length, and +yet it remained lying quite still (<a href="#Report43">43</a>), “it did not appear to be at +all disturbed by the vessel” (<a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report93">93</a>, +<a href="#Report112">112</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>); it may swim +or come to the surface very close to boats, and swim parallel with +them (<a href="#Report72">72</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report112">112</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>).</p> + +<h5>h. <span class="gesp2">Fear</span>.</h5> + +<p>A stronger expression of suspicion is evidently to be seen in the +animal’s sinking and being seen no more at the approach of a +vessel (<a href="#Report49">49</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page533">[533]</span></p> + +<h5>i. <span class="gesp2">Fright</span>.</h5> + +<p>I think that in the following we see true expressions of fright. +When <span class="smcap">Lorenz von Ferry</span> fired at it, the animal plunged down +under water and was seen no more (<a href="#Report9">9</a>); some strangers fired at it +and it suddenly disappeared (<a href="#Report90">90</a>); it gracefully rose once from the +deep, but seeing a ship, it immediately disappeared (<a href="#Report124">124</a>); it once +raised its head out of the water within twenty yards of a ship, +when it suddenly disappeared, but here its curiosity got hold of +its fright, and after half a minute it made its appearance again +in the same manner (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p> + +<h5>j. <span class="gesp2">Fury</span>.</h5> + +<p>The animal does not always plunge down after a shot, and is +then seen no more: <span class="smcap">Matthew Gaffney</span> fired at it, when it was +thirty feet from him. The animal turned towards him immediately +after the shot, sank down, went directly under his boat and made +its appearance at about one hundred yards from where it sunk. It +continued playing as before, and did not appear more shy (<a href="#Report41">41</a>); +once when it was fired at, it turned and pursued the boat to the +shore and then disappeared (<a href="#Report110">110</a>); a boatmen struck it with a +boathook, upon which it immediately gave him chase (<a href="#Report112">112</a>); when +<span class="smcap">Lund</span> fired at it, it stretched its long neck quite erect in the air, +like a snake preparing to dart on its prey, and darted towards +<span class="smcap">Lund</span>, who reached the shore in time (<a href="#Report115">115</a>). I am convinced that +the animal, when fired at and hit, in most instances grows suddenly +furious and darts on the enemy, but it seems that its fury +is soon dispelled by the emotion of fear, suspicion, timidity, etc. +Hitherto I have not found one single proof that it ever attacked +a man, with the result of having hurt him, though it had more +than once a favourable opportunity of doing so.</p> + +<h5>k. <span class="gesp2">Toughness</span>.</h5> + +<p>It is evident that the animal is a tough one; it is not easy to +kill it. A single rifle-ball seems to be insufficient, and I think the +only manner to kill it is by explosive balls or by harpoons loaden +with nitro-glycerine, which will at once destroy a considerable part +of its brain and skull, or body.</p> + +<h5>l. <span class="gesp2">Playsomeness</span>.</h5> + +<p>Like the seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, sea-serpents +<span class="pagenum" id="Page534">[534]</span>have often been seen amusing themselves for hours when in +a harbour, gracefully gliding in circles, as has been stated above. +Twice an individual just as in seals, showed its head and tail quite +above the surface, the body slightly under (<a href="#Report135">135</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), stretching +itself comfortably; at other times crooking up its back to sun +itself (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>).</p> + +<h5>m. <span class="gesp2">Sensibility of fine weather</span>.</h5> + +<p>Evidently the animals feel comfortable <i>in fine weather</i> and when +there is <i>no wind</i>. Repeatedly we have found the statement that +they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow. But as they +are air-breathing animals, they are obliged to come every now and +again to the surface, and it is, therefore, not wonderful that there +are reports which, though in a slight degree, contradict the other +statements. But upon the whole it is clear that in such circumstances +the animal will only raise their nostrils for a moment above +the surface of the water in order to breathe, and this is clearly +the reason why in many instances they are never high enough and +long enough above the surface to be observed by men.</p> + +<p>When the animal appeared, the <i>weather</i> is reported to have been +calm (<a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report5">5</a>, <a href="#Report25">25</a>, +<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report79">79</a>, +<a href="#Report103">103</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, +<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), +quite calm (<a href="#Report35">35</a>), good (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), clear (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, +<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>, +<a href="#Report152">152</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), very clear (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), +fine (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report79">79</a>, <a href="#Report128">128</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, +<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>, +<a href="#Report152">152</a>), brisk (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), sunshiny (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report149">149</a>, +<a href="#Report157">157</a>), warm and sunshiny +(<a href="#Report138">138</a>), hot (<a href="#Report150">150</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), very hot (<a href="#Report64">64</a>), +excessively sultry (<a href="#Report61">61</a>), cloudy +(<a href="#Report131">131</a>), dark and cloudy (<a href="#Report118">118</a>).</p> + +<p>The <i>surface of the sea</i> is described as smooth (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, <a href="#Report146">146</a>), +quite smooth (<a href="#Report80">80</a>), very smooth (<a href="#Report29">29</a>), perfectly smooth (<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, +<a href="#Report148">148</a>), extremely smooth (<a href="#Report63">63</a>), smooth as a mirror (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>), as +smooth as a glass (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), as smooth as the surface of a pond (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), +calm (<a href="#Report2">2</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>), quite calm (p. <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>), +almost calm (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), perfectly +calm (<a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report119">119</a>), exceptionally calm (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), moderate (<a href="#Report144">144</a>). +But there may be also some sea on (<a href="#Report120">120</a>), or a sharp sea on (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), +or the surface may be only little moved by waves (<a href="#Report154">154</a>), or occasionally +disturbed by slight flaws of wind, “catpaws” (<a href="#Report128">128</a>), or +there may be a long ocean swell (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), or a strong ebb tribe (<a href="#Report51">51</a>).</p> + +<p>In the reports we read that there was no <i>wind</i> (<a href="#Report48">48</a>), not a breath +of wind (<a href="#Report150">150</a>), not a breath of air (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>), a very little wind +(<a href="#Report29">29</a>), a light wind (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report126">126</a>, +<a href="#Report132">132</a>), a light air of wind (<a href="#Report60">60</a>), a fresh +wind (<a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>), a variable wind (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), a moderate wind (<a href="#Report144">144</a>), +<span class="pagenum" id="Page535">[535]</span>a gale of wind (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), a light breeze +(<a href="#Report80">80</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>), a brisk breeze (<a href="#Report51">51</a>), +a fresh breeze (<a href="#Report104">104</a>, <a href="#Report120">120</a>), or there were strong breezes +(<a href="#Report122">122</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p> + +<h4>7. ENEMIES.</h4> + +<p>Undoubtedly sea-serpents have some enemies of which we are +and probably will remain ignorant. But spermwhales and men are +certainly their most terrible foes, the former on account of their +enormous beak with formidable teeth (<a href="#Report144">144</a>), the latter on account +of their nets (<a href="#Report14">14</a>), boathooks (<a href="#Report112">112</a>), harpoons (<a href="#Report59">59</a>, <a href="#Report121">121</a>), and rifles +(<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report90">90</a>, +<a href="#Report110">110</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, <a href="#Report130">130</a>).</p> + +<h4>8. REPOSE, SLEEP, DEATH.</h4> + +<p>I believe that repose and sleep are the same for the animal, +and that like a seal, it is always on the look out, shutting the +eyes for only a few seconds. I say, I believe so, for I cannot +deduce it from one of the reports. Once it is said that it lay +motionless, without bunches, holding its head above water, and +that the eyes were visible (<a href="#Report80">80</a>); another time it lay perfectly still, +spouting like a whale; consequently the nostrils were just below +the surface, or just at water level, so that the water was sprayed +by every exhalation; it had a rugged appearance, consequently it +was most probably a male with a mane (<a href="#Report74">74</a>). The other instances +in which the animal was evidently resting are the following: it +lay almost motionless in the sea; probably in a straight line, for +undulations or bunches are not mentioned (<a href="#Report17">17</a>). It was in the +evening between eight and nine o’clock; it lay extended on the +surface of the water, it appeared straight, exhibiting no protuberances, +“we were within two oars’ length of him, when we first +discovered him and were rowing directly for him. We immediately +rowed from him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail, but +fearing we might strike him with the boat, concluded to pass +around his head, which we did, by altering our course. He remained +in the same position, till we lost sight of him. We approached +so near to him, that I believe I could have reached him +with my oar” (<a href="#Report43">43</a>). It lay perfectly still extended on the water, +probably with its body in a straight line, for no protuberances +are mentioned; neither its head nor its tail were visible; yet I +believe that its nostrils were above water level, and so it remained +for half an hour (<a href="#Report46">46</a>). Very seldom it seems to avail itself of an +<span class="pagenum" id="Page536">[536]</span>opportunity to support itself on a sand bank. I have found but +one case in which it is, however, stated that the bank had about four +feet water upon it. “It lay dormant on the rocks, partly on the +rocks, partly in the water,” resembling from afar a large log of +wood. “It lay stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, +which had four or five feet water upon it, and lay partly over +the channel” (<a href="#Report45">45</a>).</p> + +<p>Till now it seems that no individual has ever been killed by +the rifle balls of men. It is probable that the individual attacked +by the sperm-whale (<a href="#Report144">144</a>) was finally killed by it, but it is also +probable that it escaped. Yet I believe that sperm-whales may occasionally +wound sea-serpents to death.</p> + +<p>Generally, however, I believe that these animals die a natural +death.</p> + +<p>Dead sea-serpents are more likely to sink than to float, as the +enormous neck and tail are most probably not provided with a +comparatively thick layer of bacon, and are, therefore, too heavy +for the comparatively small quantity of air in the animal’s lungs, +and for the layer of bacon of the animal’s trunk. Yet it may occasionally +occur that sea-serpents dying near some shore, may be +stranded by the waves. <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> reports that a dead sea-serpent +stranded on the cliffs near Amond in Nordfjord and that its carrion +caused a dreadful smell (<a href="#Report6">6</a>), and that another stranded near the +isle of Karmen (<a href="#Report7">7</a>), and that the stranding of dead sea-serpents +took place in more localities (<a href="#Report7">7</a>). Such carrions must be a dainty +to all kinds of mews, which sometimes even follow living individuals +(<a href="#Report69">69</a>). The fear of the Norwegians of sea-serpents, even of +such carrions, is great enough to keep them at a considerable +distance. It may be true “that some time ago a part of a skeleton +of a sea-serpent was present in the Museum of Natural History at +Bergen” (<a href="#Page374">p. 374</a>). It is possible that the fate of this part of a +skeleton was the same as that of so many meteoric stones (see my +Preface), or as that of the two eggs of <i>Platypus</i> or <i>Ornithorhynchus</i>, +which reached the Manchester Museum in the year 1829, and +remained there for some years, till they were condemned to the +rubbish hill (<i>Nature</i>, 11 Dec. 1884, p. 133), and it was not before +September 1884 that zoologists knew that <i>Ornithorhynchus</i> and +<i>Echidna</i> are really oviparous, and that the Manchester Museum +was once in the possession of two eggs!!</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page537">[537]</span></p> + +<h4>9. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.</h4> + +<p>The Rev. <span class="smcap">Abraham Cummings</span>, after having mentioned that the +animal swims with vertical undulations, wrote in August 1803: +“this renders it highly probable that he never moves on land to +any considerable distance, and that the water is his proper element” +(<a href="#Report29">29</a>).</p> + +<p>I wish to express here my firm conviction that these animals +never come ashore, nor even on the ice, but always remain in +the water. It is true that we have one observation that an individual +rested upon a sandy beach, which, however, at that time had +about four feet water upon it. But we have other observations that +individuals which, following a boat, come into shallow water, immediately +and apparently with some difficulty took a turn and +went away (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>).</p> + +<p>It seems that in Norway it has happened a few times that these +animals, which are in the habit of frequenting the fjords, swam +even up the mouths or the lower parts of rivers, consequently +swam in fresh water, which probably gave rise to the fable of +these animals being born on land, remain there till they are too +large to hide themselves, and then swim down to the sea, where +they can move much more easily. Their swimming in fresh water +is once recorded, viz. in the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey, U. S. A. +(<a href="#Report158">158</a>).</p> + +<p>Moreover they are sea-animals, and according to their air-breathing +condition, live on the surface, though they may sometimes +seek great depths (<a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p> + +<p>I have already shown that these animals like <i>sunshiny</i> and <i>hot</i> +weather. They don’t like wind, and consequently we may conclude +that they are averse of cold weather and of cold water. Therefore they +are seen near Norway especially in July and August, which led +<span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> to suggest that they “perpetually live in the depths of the +sea, except in July and August” (<a href="#Page129">p. 129</a>). The Bishop seems not to have +hit upon the idea that the sea-serpents could be migratory animals.</p> + +<p>The sea-serpents, it is true, may remain for a long time in a +place where they enjoy all that they can possibly wish to have, +i. e. room enough, bright weather and plenty of food. They may +stay a few days in the same fjord (<a href="#Report3">3</a>, <a href="#Report4">4</a>, <a href="#Report96">96</a>) or in the same place +or harbour (<a href="#Report31">31</a> and <a href="#Report32">32</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a> and <a href="#Report35">35</a>, +<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>, +<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, +<a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>, +<a href="#Report48">48</a> and <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a> and <a href="#Report51">51</a>, &c., &c.). But then, it +may be that the fish is flown for the enemy, or that the season +<span class="pagenum" id="Page538">[538]</span>proceeds, the sea-serpents look for an other provender place, or +swim to a warmer part of the ocean, i. e. <i>they migrate</i>.</p> + +<p>And so we come to their <i>horizontal geographical distribution</i>. +We may at once assert that they are cosmopolites though we have +not a single report of an appearance at a higher degree than 46° +S. latitude, i. e. they have not been met with in the Antarctic +Ocean.</p> + +<p>Up to this time the animals have appeared 1. In the <i>Arctic +Ocean</i>, and 2. In the <i>Atlantic Ocean</i>.</p> + +<p><i>a.</i> All along the coasts of Norway from North Cape up to the +boundary of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord (<a href="#Report1">1</a>, <a href="#Report3">3</a>, +<a href="#Report4">4</a>, <a href="#Report6">6</a>, <a href="#Report7">7</a>, <a href="#Report8">8</a>, <a href="#Report9">9</a>, +<a href="#Report10">10</a>, <a href="#Report11">11</a>, <a href="#Report12">12</a>, <a href="#Report13">13</a>, <a href="#Report14">14</a>, +<a href="#Report57">57</a>, <a href="#Report58">58</a>, <a href="#Report61">61</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, <a href="#Report65">65</a>, +<a href="#Report66">66</a>, <a href="#Report67">67</a>, +<a href="#Report68">68</a>, <a href="#Report72">72</a>, <a href="#Report79">79</a>, <a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>, +<a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>, <a href="#Report89">89</a>, <a href="#Report90">90</a>, <a href="#Report91">91</a>, +<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report94">94</a>, <a href="#Report95">95</a>, <a href="#Report96">96</a>, <a href="#Report102">102</a>, <a href="#Report103">103</a>, +<a href="#Report107">107</a>, <a href="#Report108">108</a>, <a href="#Report109">109</a>, <a href="#Report110">110</a>, +<a href="#Report111">111</a>, <a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, <a href="#Report112">112</a>, +<a href="#Report113">113</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report125">125</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>). +Of the whole coast of Norway that of the northern provinces +(washed by the Arctic Ocean) seems to be frequented more than +that of the southern (<a href="#Page130">p. 130</a>). It seems that they appear along +these coasts almost every year.</p> + +<p><i>b.</i> Along the coasts of Sweden, from the boundary of Norway +and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord, to the southmost point of +Sweden, Falsterbo. I have but one report (<a href="#Report2">2</a>), and the locality of +the appearance of the animal I have <i>supposed</i> to have been in the +Sund near Malmö.</p> + +<p><i>c.</i> In the Baltic or Swedish Sea. According to <span class="smcap">Olaus Magnus</span> +it is also recorded from this sea, but I think that this happens +no more.</p> + +<p><i>d.</i> North of Scotland: between Iceland and the Faroe Isles (<a href="#Report124">124</a>), +between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides (<a href="#Report56">56</a>, <a href="#Report153">153</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>), and near +Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles (<a href="#Report78">78</a>).</p> + +<p><i>e.</i> On the eastern coast of Scotland (<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>).</p> + +<p><i>f.</i> Along the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England +(<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>, <a href="#Report82">82</a>, <a href="#Report137">137</a>, +<a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>, <a href="#Report155">155</a>, <a href="#Report156">156</a>).</p> + +<p><i>g.</i> A hundred miles west of Brest, France, (<a href="#Report152">152</a>).</p> + +<p><i>h.</i> In the Gulf of Biscay (<a href="#Report74">74</a>).</p> + +<p><i>i.</i> West of Portugal (<a href="#Report120">120</a>).</p> + +<p><i>j.</i> In the Mediterranean (<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</p> + +<p><i>k.</i> North-east of the Azores (<a href="#Report25">25</a>).</p> + +<p><i>l.</i> South of the Azores and west of the Canaries, 29° N., 34° +W., (<a href="#Report128">128</a>).</p> + +<p><i>m.</i> From the Canaries to Cape Verde (<a href="#Report135">135</a>).</p> + +<p><i>n.</i> In a line from Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page539">[539]</span>a little further south +(<a href="#Report93">93</a>, <a href="#Report114">114</a>, <a href="#Report118">118</a>, <a href="#Report129">129</a>, +<a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report131">131</a>, <a href="#Report132">132</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), +not along the coast, except three appearances in Table Bay (<a href="#Report114">114</a>, +<a href="#Report130">130</a>, <a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</p> + +<p><i>o.</i> In Davis Straits, 64° N., (<a href="#Report5">5</a>).</p> + +<p><i>p.</i> Along the east coast of North America from Newfoundland +to Florida (<a href="#Report15">15</a>, <a href="#Report16">16</a>, <a href="#Report17">17</a>, <a href="#Report18">18</a>, +<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report20">20</a>, <a href="#Report21">21</a>, <a href="#Report22">22</a>, +<a href="#Report23">23</a>, <a href="#Report24">24</a>, <a href="#Report26">26</a>, <a href="#Report27">27</a>, <a href="#Report28">28</a>, +<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report30">30</a>, <a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report35">35</a>, +<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>, +<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, +<a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, +<a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>, <a href="#Report52">52</a>, +<a href="#Report53">53</a>, <a href="#Report54">54</a>, <a href="#Report55">55</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, +<a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report62">62</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, +<a href="#Report70">70</a>, <a href="#Report71">71</a>, <a href="#Report73">73</a>, <a href="#Report75">75</a>, +<a href="#Report76">76</a>, <a href="#Report77">77</a>, <a href="#Report81">81</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, +<a href="#Report84">84</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, <a href="#Report98">98</a>, <a href="#Report99">99</a>, +<a href="#Report100">100</a>, <a href="#Report101">101</a>, <a href="#Report105">105</a>, <a href="#Report106">106</a>, +<a href="#Report106B">106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></a>, <a href="#Report107A">107 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>, +<a href="#Report121">121</a>, <a href="#Report133">133</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>, <a href="#Report158">158</a>, +<a href="#Report159">159</a>, <a href="#Report160">160</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>). So these coasts seem to be +frequented almost every year. In Mr. <span class="smcap">Traill</span>’s paper on the subject +(<i>Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb.</i> 1854, Vol. 3,) we read: “I shall not here +discuss the notices we have, from time to time, received of late +years of a great sea-serpent seen by mariners in crossing the Atlantic +to America”. I am convinced that these meetings took always place +not far from the American coast. Our <a href="#Report161">n<sup>o</sup>. 161</a> is also one of these +“notices received of a sea-serpent seen by a mariner in crossing +the Atlantic <i>from</i> America”.</p> + +<p><i>q.</i> In the Gulf of Mexico (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>.)</p> + +<p><i>r.</i> East of Cape San Roque (<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>).</p> + +<p><i>s.</i> East of La Plata river mouth (<a href="#Report80">80</a>).</p> + +<p><i>t.</i> In the South Atlantic (<a href="#Report104">104</a>).</p> + +<p>3. In the <i>Indian Ocean</i>.</p> + +<p><i>a.</i> In the Gulf of Aden (<a href="#Report149">149</a>).</p> + +<p><i>b.</i> Probably between 40° lat. and 20° lat. S., and between 50° +and 70° long. E. (<a href="#Report123">123</a>).</p> + +<p><i>c.</i> In lat. 2° N., long. 90° E. (<a href="#Report147">147</a>).</p> + +<p><i>d.</i> In the Malacca Straits (<a href="#Report146">146</a>).</p> + +<p><i>e.</i> Near the coast of Australia (<a href="#Report136">136</a>).</p> + +<p><i>f.</i> In Geographe Bay (<a href="#Report150">150</a>).</p> + +<p>4. In the <i>Pacific Ocean</i>.</p> + +<p><i>a.</i> South of Australia (<a href="#Report122">122</a>).</p> + +<p><i>b.</i> Near Cape Satano, the southmost point of the Isle of Kiu +Siu (Japan) (<a href="#Report151">151</a>).</p> + +<p><i>c.</i> Near Behring Isle (<a href="#Report36">36</a>). The Aleutians declare that they have +often seen this animal (<a href="#Report36">36</a>).</p> + +<p><i>d.</i> In the Gulf of California (<a href="#Report119">119</a>).</p> + +<p>That so many appearances took place in the Atlantic and so +few in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific only results from the +Atlantic being the great highway of nations.</p> + +<p>Along the coasts of Norway they appear only “at certain times” +<span class="pagenum" id="Page540">[540]</span>(2) i. e. evidently “in the dog days” (<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Page138">p. 138</a>), viz. from the +23th. of July to the 23th. of August, and when we consult those +reports which mention the dates of the appearances we observe +that they really appear along the Norwegian coasts in July (<a href="#Report61">61</a>, +<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>) and August (<a href="#Report9">9</a>, <a href="#Report64">64</a>, +<a href="#Report68">68</a>, <a href="#Report117">117</a>, <a href="#Report157">157</a>), but that after the +dog days they swim further south: from the 24th. of August to +the 9th. of September one or more individuals appeared in Christiania +fjord (<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>, <a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>, +<a href="#Report89">89</a>), and in the month of October (?) +an individual was observed near Ibbestad, in the neighbourhood +of Christiansand (<a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>). The occurrences between the Faroe Isles +and the Hebrides took place in the last days of May (<a href="#Report153">153</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>) +and in July (<a href="#Report56">56</a>), those on the east coast of Scotland in the middle +of November (<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>), those on the western coasts of Scotland, +Wales and England: in June in the neighbourhood of Coll +and Eigg (<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>), in the last days of August in the neighbourhood +of Loch-Hourn (<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>), in the beginning of +September near Orme’s Heads, Wales, (<a href="#Report155">155</a>), and in the middle +of October in Bristol Channel (<a href="#Report156">156</a>). The occurrence a hundred +miles west of Brest, France, took place on the 5th. of August +(<a href="#Report152">152</a>), that west of Portugal on the 31st. of December (<a href="#Report120">120</a>), that +in the Mediterranean on the 2d. of June (<a href="#Report148">148</a>), that north-east of +the Azores on the 1st. of August (<a href="#Report25">25</a>), that south of the Azores +and west of the Canaries on the 30th. of March (<a href="#Report128">128</a>), that between +the Canaries and Cape Verde on the 16th. of May (<a href="#Report135">135</a>), and those +between Cape Verde and Cape of Good Hope and southwest of +the latter: on January 26 (<a href="#Report132">132</a>), February 16 (<a href="#Report130">130</a>), July 8 (<a href="#Report129">129</a>), +in the end of July (<a href="#Report93">93</a>), in the summer (<a href="#Report114">114</a>), on August 6 (<a href="#Report118">118</a>), +on November 12 (<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), and on December 12 (<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Egede</span> saw an individual in Davis’ Straits in July (<a href="#Report5">5</a>); the sea-serpents +frequent the coast of North America from Newfoundland +to Florida in February (<a href="#Report121">121</a>), March or April (<a href="#Report101">101</a>), May (<a href="#Report19">19</a>, <a href="#Report97">97</a>, +<a href="#Report161">161</a>), June (<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report35">35</a>, <a href="#Report53">53</a>, +<a href="#Report54">54</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report83">83</a>, <a href="#Report84">84</a>, +<a href="#Report106B">106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></a>?, <a href="#Report162">162</a>), July (<a href="#Report29">29</a>, +<a href="#Report55">55</a>, <a href="#Report75">75</a>?, <a href="#Report81">81</a>?, <a href="#Report98">98</a>, +<a href="#Report99">99</a>, <a href="#Report100">100</a>?), August (<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, +<a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>, <a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, +<a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, <a href="#Report46">46</a>, +<a href="#Report47">47</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, +<a href="#Report62">62</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report73">73</a>, +<a href="#Report105">105</a>?, <a href="#Report133">133</a>, <a href="#Report134">134</a>, +<a href="#Report158">158</a>, <a href="#Report159">159</a>, <a href="#Report160">160</a>), September (<a href="#Report70">70</a>, +<a href="#Report71">71</a>, <a href="#Report77">77</a>, <a href="#Report106">106</a>?), and October (<a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>). +It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>), was east of +Cape San Roque in July (<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>), and visited the South Atlantic +east of Uruguay in January (<a href="#Report80">80</a>).</p> + +<p>January was the month in which it appeared in the Gulf of +Aden (<a href="#Report149">149</a>), September in about lat. 15° S. and 60° E. (<a href="#Report123">123</a>), +May in about lat. 2° N. and long. 91° E. (<a href="#Report147">147</a>), September in the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page541">[541]</span>Malacca Straits (<a href="#Report146">146</a>), and March in Geographe Bay (<a href="#Report150">150</a>).</p> + +<p>In May it was observed south of Australia (<a href="#Report122">122</a>), and in April +south of Kiu Siu, Japan (<a href="#Report151">151</a>).</p> + +<p>A few lines above I have already expressed my firm conviction +that they are migratory and don’t like cold water. If this be true, +they will be <i>generally</i> observed (and I purposely draw the reader’s +attention to the expression “generally”, for animals are not bound +by <i>laws</i> of nature), in the northern hemisphere when summer is +there, and they will <i>generally</i> appear in the southern hemisphere +when summer visits those parts of our globe. To follow this <i>rule</i> +they must be able to migrate from north to south, and vice versa. +Consequently the Atlantic and the Pacific are the only two oceans +in which we shall observe that <i>generally</i> this rule is followed, for +in the Indian Ocean the animals are checked in their course towards +the north by the continent of Asia.</p> + +<p>We are therefore obliged to take no account of the appearances +which occurred in the Indian Ocean. And as we have <i>only two</i> +appearances observed in the Pacific, of which the dates are mentioned, +we are also obliged to pass over those in the Pacific too.</p> + +<p>Let us now see where the animals were met with in the different +months.</p> + +<table class="months"> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">January.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">South of St. Helena.</td> +<td class="latitude">19° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report132">132</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East of Uruguay.</td> +<td class="latitude">34¹⁄₂° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report80">80</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">February.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">31° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report121">121</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Table Bay.</td> +<td class="latitude">34° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report130">130</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">March.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report101">101</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">South of the Azores.</td> +<td class="latitude">29° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report128">128</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">April.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report101">101</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Gulf of Mexico.</td> +<td class="latitude">24° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">May.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Near Butt of Lewis.</td> +<td class="latitude">58¹⁄₂° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report153">153</a>, <a href="#Report154">154</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">44° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report19">19</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">43° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report97">97</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">40° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report161">161</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Between Canaries and Cape Verde.</td> +<td class="latitude">22° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report135">135</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">June.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">64° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report103">103</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">West coast of Scotland.<span class="pagenum" id="Page542">[542]</span></td> +<td class="latitude">57° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report31">31</a>, <a href="#Report32">32</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">45° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report83">83</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report34">34</a>, <a href="#Report35">35</a>, <a href="#Report60">60</a>, <a href="#Report84">84</a>, +<a href="#Report106B">106 <span class="allsmcap">B</span></a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">41° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report53">53</a>, <a href="#Report54">54</a>, <a href="#Report162">162</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Mediterranean.</td> +<td class="latitude">38° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report148">148</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">37° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report52">52</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">July.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">65° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report61">61</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">64° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report103">103</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Davis’ Straits.</td> +<td class="latitude">64° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report5">5</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">63° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report92">92</a>, <a href="#Report115">115</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Between the Far-Öer and the Hebrides.</td> +<td class="latitude">60° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report56">56</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">44° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report29">29</a>, <a href="#Report55">55</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report98">98</a>, <a href="#Report99">99</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East of Cape San Roque.</td> +<td class="latitude">5° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report144">144</a>, <a href="#Report145">145</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">West of Cape of Good Hope.</td> +<td class="latitude">35° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report129">129</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">South West of Cape of Good Hope.</td> +<td class="latitude">38° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report93">93</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">August.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">70° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report68">68</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">66¹⁄₂° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report157">157</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">66° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report64">64</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">63° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report9">9</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">60° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report117">117</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">59° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">West coast of Scotland.</td> +<td class="latitude">57° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report137">137</a>, <a href="#Report138">138</a>, <a href="#Report139">139</a>, <a href="#Report140">140</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">100 miles west of Brest.</td> +<td class="latitude">48° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report152">152</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">North east of the Azores.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report25">25</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report37">37</a>, <a href="#Report38">38</a>, <a href="#Report39">39</a>, <a href="#Report40">40</a>, +<a href="#Report41">41</a>, <a href="#Report42">42</a>, <a href="#Report43">43</a>, <a href="#Report44">44</a>, <a href="#Report45">45</a>, +<a href="#Report46">46</a>, <a href="#Report47">47</a>, <a href="#Report48">48</a>, <a href="#Report49">49</a>, <a href="#Report59">59</a>, +<a href="#Report62">62</a>, <a href="#Report63">63</a>, <a href="#Report69">69</a>, <a href="#Report73">73</a>, <a href="#Report133">133</a>, +<a href="#Report134">134</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">41° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report158">158</a>, <a href="#Report159">159</a>, <a href="#Report160">160</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Between St. Helena and Cape of G. H.</td> +<td class="latitude">24° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report118">118</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">September.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Coast of Norway.</td> +<td class="latitude">59° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>, <a href="#Report89">89</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">North of Wales.</td> +<td class="latitude">53¹⁄₂° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report155">155</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">42° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report71">71</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">41° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report77">77</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">South west of Cape of Good Hope.<span class="pagenum" id="Page543">[543]</span></td> +<td class="latitude">38° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report126">126</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">October.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Near Ibbestad, Christiansand.</td> +<td class="latitude">58° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Bristol Channel.</td> +<td class="latitude">51° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report156">156</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East coast of North America.</td> +<td class="latitude">41° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report50">50</a>, <a href="#Report51">51</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">November.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">East of Scotland.</td> +<td class="latitude">58° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Near Monillepoint.</td> +<td class="latitude">34° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report152A">152 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">December.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">West of Portugal.</td> +<td class="latitude">41° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report120">120</a>).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">North-east of St. Helena.</td> +<td class="latitude">15° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report131">131</a>).</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p>What conclusions may now be drawn from these facts?</p> + +<p>1<sup>o</sup>. That these animals seldom appear in the North Sea, between +Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark +(<a href="#Report141">141</a>, <a href="#Report142">142</a>, <a href="#Report143">143</a>); that they don’t frequent the Baltic Ocean since +two centuries; that they seldom appear in the so-called Skagerrak +(<a href="#Report85">85</a>, <a href="#Report86">86</a>, <a href="#Report87">87</a>, <a href="#Report88">88</a>, +<a href="#Report89">89</a>, <a href="#Report111A">111 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>); rarely show themselves in the Gulf +of Mexico (<a href="#Report106A">106 <span class="allsmcap">A</span></a>) or in the Mediterranean (<a href="#Report148">148</a>); but that they +moreover inhabit the whole of the Atlantic Ocean.</p> + +<p>2<sup>o</sup>. That, when they remove their quarters, they seem to swim +<i>as much as possible</i> in the so-called warm ocean-currents. The +number of appearances, it is true, is very small, but surveying +the foregoing list of appearances in the different months I am inclined +to think that these animals in their migration from north to south +really swim <i>against</i> the current, while, on the contrary, in their +migration from south to north they move with the current. Only +a very few times they were met with in the so-called cold ocean-currents.</p> + +<p>3<sup>o</sup>. We observe that in the month of August some individuals +reached the highest northern latitude, i. e. 70 degrees, and that a +series of appearances took place from 70° N. to 41° N. latitude,—that +in the month of September they seem not to appear beyond +59° N. latitude; and so on;—so that we may conclude that +in the beginning or in the middle of August they have reached +their most northern point and begin to migrate towards the south, +as in December we read of no appearances beyond 41° N. latitude, +and in January of no one beyond 19° S. latitude. And further we +conclude that they seem to leave the southern hemisphere to migrate +again towards the north already in January, for in February +they generally have already reached the northern latitudes, in March +still higher, and so on.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page544">[544]</span></p> + +<p>4<sup>o</sup>. We observe that in one month not all the appearances took +place in the same latitude, consequently in one and the same month +they are scattered over a vast portion of the ocean.</p> + +<p>5<sup>o</sup>. When the migration from north to south begins, which of +course must be influenced by the early or late setting in of autumn, +it seems that not only the individuals which have proceeded to the +most northern coasts of Norway, but also some other individuals +begin their migration towards the south. I think that we must find +in this fact the explanation that even in July appearances took place +at from 5° to 38° southern latitude, and that on August 6 an +individual was seen at lat. 24° S. swimming <i>towards the S. W.</i> +Though I have no appearances in the South Atlantic in the +month of October, I am convinced that the greater part of the individuals +are there during this month, as well as in November, +December and January.—The reason that there are so few reports +from these regions is of course that in comparison with the North +Atlantic, a far smaller number of vessels visits the South Atlantic.</p> + +<p>The two appearances which happened in the Pacific, and of which +the dates are mentioned, are:</p> + +<table class="months"> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">April.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">South of Japan</td> +<td class="latitude">31° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report151">151</a>)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">May.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">South of Australia</td> +<td class="latitude">43° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report122">122</a>)</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p>And those of the Indian Ocean:</p> + +<table class="months"> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">January.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Gulf of Aden</td> +<td class="latitude">12° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report149">149</a>)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">March.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Geographe Bay</td> +<td class="latitude">33° S.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report150">150</a>)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">May.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Indian Ocean</td> +<td class="latitude"> 2° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report147">147</a>)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="month">September.</td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Straits of Malacca</td> +<td class="latitude"> 3° N.</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report146">146</a>)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="location">Indian Ocean</td> +<td class="latitude">15° S.?</td> +<td class="repno">(<a href="#Report123">123</a>)</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p>Suppose that some individuals in the Atlantic migrate towards +the south beyond the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope and get +much farther than 20° eastern latitude, they will come into the Indian +Ocean. I think that when these individuals returning to the north, +find themselves checked by the continent of Asia, they will swim +in any direction, and that perhaps most of them will find back +the outlet round the Cape of Good Hope or south of Australia, so +that in such cases individuals will be met with in the South Atlantic, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page545">[545]</span>or in the South Pacific, at times that one would not expect +to find any.</p> + + +<h4>10. NOMENCLATURE.</h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Gesner</span> (<a href="#Page107">p. 107</a>) and <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> (<a href="#Page132">p. 132</a>) believed that there +were at least two species of the same genus. <span class="smcap">Aldrovandus</span>, however, +doubted of this, and thought that there was only one species +(<a href="#Page110">p. 110</a>). Dr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> was evidently of the same opinion (<a href="#Page126">p. 126</a>). +<span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> at last believed that there were several species +(<a href="#Page199">p. 199</a>).</p> + +<p>In his <i>Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents</i>, +(Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names. +Of the Massachusetts Sea-Serpent (his n<sup>o</sup>. 1) he says:</p> + +<p>“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus +<i>Pelamis</i>, and I propose to call it <i>Pelamis megophias</i>. It might, +however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of <i>Megophias +monstrosus</i> might have been appropriated to it” (see <a href="#Page200">p. 200</a>).</p> + +<p>Of Captain <span class="smcap">Brown’s</span> sea-serpent (his n<sup>o</sup>. 2) he writes: “It had +eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not +a snake, but a new genus of fish! I shall call this new genus +<i>Octipos</i> (meaning eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will +be <i>Octipos bicolor</i>” (see <a href="#Report56">n<sup>o</sup>. 56</a>).</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">W. Lee’s</span> sea-serpent according to <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> +(n<sup>o</sup>. 4 of his “Additions”) “appears to be the largest on record, +and might well be called <i>Pelamis monstrosus</i>; but if there are other +species of equal size, it must be called <i>Pelamis chloronotis</i> (see <a href="#Report30">n<sup>o</sup>. 30</a>).</p> + +<p>The author of the present volume proposed in Nov. 1881 to give +it the name of <i>Zeuglodon plesiosauroides</i> (see <a href="#Page445">p. 445</a>).</p> + +<p>It is one of the laws of Nomenclature that the oldest name of +a species or genus has the priority, no matter whether the author +wrote it right or wrong, and whether the author placed his species, +or genus, in a genus, or family, or group, other than zoologists +would do at present.</p> + +<p>Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is <i>megophias</i>, +and this specific name must be kept. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> placed +his species in the genus <i>Pelamis</i>. This genus, however, was established +by <span class="smcap">Daudin</span>, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with +some other genera it forms the family of <i>Hydrophidae</i> Sws. It +must, therefore, be rejected.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Rafinesque</span> himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea-Serpent +<span class="pagenum" id="Page546">[546]</span>with the common small sea-snakes, proposes in that case +the name of <i>Megophias monstrosus</i>. Here we have the oldest <i>generic</i> +name for these animals, viz. <i>Megophias</i>. In my opinion, the only +name to be given to the sea-serpent is that of</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6"><i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span></span></p> + +<p>I know that such a double name will offend the eyes and ears +of some zoologists. But it will not do to give a wrong name simply +to please some zoologists; and it is here the question: by what +name <i>must</i> these animals be called according to the <i>law</i> of nomenclature, +and then I say:</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6"><i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span></span></p> + +<p class="noindent">and its synonyms are:</p> + +<p class="noindent"><span class="padl6"><i>Pelamis megophias</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (<a href="#Report1">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>),</span><br> +<span class="padl6"><i>Megophias monstrosus</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (<a href="#Report1">n<sup>o</sup>. 1</a>),</span><br> +<span class="padl6"><i>Octipos bicolor</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (<a href="#Report2">n<sup>o</sup>. 2</a>),</span><br> +<span class="padl6"><i>Pelamis monstrosus</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (Add. <a href="#Report4">n<sup>o</sup>. 4</a>),</span><br> +<span class="padl6"><i>Pelamis chloronotis</i>, <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, Nov., 1819, (Add. <a href="#Report4">n<sup>o</sup>. 4</a>),</span><br> +<span class="padl6"><i>Zeuglodon plesiosauroides</i>, <span class="smcap">Oud.</span>, Nov., 1881.</span></p> + +<p>The name of <i>Halsydrus Pontoppidani</i>, proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Patric +Neill</span>, for the “great sea-snake cast ashore on the isle of Stronsa” +(Phil. Mag. Vol. 33, p. 90, Jan., 1809) can of course not be accepted +as the scientific name of the sea-serpent, although it is older +than <i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span> (See our <a href="#Page60">Chapter</a> on Would-be +Sea-Serpents.)</p> + +<p>Nor can there be any question to consider the name of <i>Hydrarchos +Sillimanni</i>, proposed by Dr <span class="smcap">Koch</span> for his so-called fossil sea-serpent, +as a synonym of <i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span> (See +our <a href="#Page12">Chapter</a> on Hoaxes).</p> + +<h3><b>C. Conclusions.</b></h3> + +<h4>1. COMPARISON WITH ALLIED ANIMALS.</h4> + +<p>It will be quite superfluous to tell my readers to which order +of animals I think that this <i>Megophias megophias</i> belongs. It runs +like a red thread through my whole volume, that I firmly believe +that it belongs to the Order of <i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p> + +<p>More than once I have already shown the relation to this Order, +but probably not often enough to convince some headstrong scepticals, +or even those who believe in the existence of sea-serpents, +but think that they belong to other orders of the Animal Kingdom.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page547">[547]</span></p> + +<p>I will first show my readers some drawings and sketches of sea-lions +and of a sea-bear.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig74"> +<img src="images/illo547.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 74.—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (<span class="smcap">Less.</span>) <span class="smcap">Allen</span>?—Drawn by W. P. from a living +specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Jan. 6, 1877.</p> +</div> + +<p><a href="#Fig74">Fig. 74</a> represents a sea-lion of the Brighton Aquarium. I think +it is a <i>Zalophus californianus</i> (<span class="smcap">Less.</span>) <span class="smcap">Allen</span>. We observe that it +has a rather pointed, rather blunt snout, with whiskers; that the +eyes protrude like those of a toad, that there is a little bunch a +little above and behind the eye, that its neck is long in comparison +with that of common seals, that in this position the neck is +narrower than the head, and the shoulders are visible, that the +flappers resemble somewhat those of turtles, that the body is round +and slender, and the skin smooth and glittering in the sun, though, +in fact, it is hairy and not shining when it is dry.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig75">Fig. 75</a> shows the same species in another position. The neck +is not extended as much as possible, and so the head seems to be +as large as the neck; the forehead and nose form nearly a straight +line; in the bunch above the eye protruding from the surface we +clearly see the heavy eye-brow; the head is held at nearly right +angles with the neck, so that the latter gets wrinkles on the throat, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page548">[548]</span>which resemble four gills (read gillsplits), or pouches of loose skin. +Compare for a moment the left foreflapper with the flappers of a +sea-serpent, drawn in <a href="#Fig36">figg. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a>, and <a href="#Fig50">50</a>. The skin is smooth +and shining, though when dry it is hairy and dull.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig75"> +<img src="images/illo548.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 75.—<i>Zalophus californianus</i> (<span class="smcap">Less.</span>) <span class="smcap">Allen</span>.—?—Drawn by W. P. from a living +specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.—From the <i>Illustrated London News</i> of Jan. 6., 1877.</p> +</div> + +<p><a href="#Fig76">Fig. 76</a> is a drawing of <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>, +also a sea-lion. This genus is characterized by its considerably +vaulted fore head (<i>eu</i> = well developed, <i>metopion</i> = forehead). The +skin shows numerous folds or wrinkles, on the throat a fold again +forms a distinctly visible “gill”.—The form of the foreflappers +resemble those of a turtle. The neck is in comparison with that +of seals much longer and as it is not extended as much as possible, +it is thicker than the head. The skin is smooth, being wet.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig77">Fig. 77</a> represents the same species. Here the animal swims +with vertical undulations.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig78">Fig. 78</a> represents the same species with its neck totally contracted +so that several wrinkles encircle it, resembling “kinds of +scrolls, or tufts of loose skin”, and it seems as if the animal has +no neck at all.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig79">Fig. 79</a> shows us the same species standing nearly upright in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page549">[549]</span>the water, with its neck contracted, so that it looks as having no +neck, or a neck much larger than the head; the head seen in +front is as round as a barrel; the skin is wrinkled. The individual +looks at us, as if it would take a view of us.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig76"> +<img src="images/illo549.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 76.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Drawn +by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> +from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the +<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877.—</p> +</div> + +<p><a href="#Fig80">Fig. 80</a> is the same individual in the same position but seen +from aside. The head is now much longer, the snout neither too +pointed, nor too blunt; the head is held at nearly right angles +with the neck, forming a “gill” (read gillsplit) by wrinkling the +skin on the throat.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig81">Fig. 81</a> is a drawing of <i>Otaria jubata</i>, quite dry. The head +is held at nearly right angles with the neck forming two “gills”. +The snout is rather blunt, apparently quadrangular in front. The +nostrils are at the end of the snout and wide open, “nearly semicircular +valves overarching” them. The eyes are wide open and +disproportionately large. The neck in comparison with that of seals +is long. The skin is hairy, the hairs of the neck are much longer. +This mane begins at the occiput. The form of the flappers is like +that of a turtle’s. Compare the form of the foreflappers with that +of <a href="#Fig36">figg. 36</a>, <a href="#Fig45">45</a> and <a href="#Fig50">50</a>. The body is round and slender.</p> + +<p><a href="#Fig82">Fig. 82</a> represents a sea-bear, <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>, quite dry. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page550">[550]</span>The little hairy bunch which is visible in the forepart of the back, +is the shoulder of the other side. The hairs of the back-line are +longer than the others, forming a mane extending all over the +neck and back. The reader will see that I have represented this +animal with only four toes on both the foreflappers and hindflappers; +this is because I give a facsimile of the figure occurring in +<span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span> “Thierleben”.</p> + +<div class="container w60emmax" id="Fig77"> +<img src="images/illo550a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 77.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched by the animal-painter +<span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span>, from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From the +<i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877.</p> +</div> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig78"> +<img src="images/illo550b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 78.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched from a living specimen +by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From the <i>Illustrirte +Zeitung</i> of Jan. 27, 1877.</p> +</div> + +<p>It is not the place here to give a monograph of Pinnipeds, but +to compare the different known characters of the sea-serpents with +those of the other of Pinnipeds, and therefore I am obliged to take +the same order I have followed above.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page551">[551]</span></p> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig79"> +<img src="images/illo551a.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 79.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched +by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> from a living +specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From +the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan., 27, 1877.</p> +</div> + +<p><i>Dimensions.</i> At first sight it will be doubted if such an enormous +animal can be a pinniped? It is so immensely large in comparison +with the known species of +this order! Suppose for a +moment that whale-bone +whales, spermwhales and finwhales +were not yet known, +and that one of these animals +was caught; what would +be our astonishment! Suppose +that pythons and boas +were not yet discovered, +and somebody showed us +a skin of a python of 26 +feet long, I think that the +first thought would be “you +are a handy fellow, but you will not cheat me with your story!” +I will add here some other striking comparisons.</p> + +<div class="container w30emmax" id="Fig80"> +<img src="images/illo551b.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 80.—<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> (<span class="smcap">Lesson</span>) <span class="smcap">Peters</span>.—Sketched +by the animal-painter <span class="smcap">G. Mützel</span> from a living +specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.—From +the <i>Illustrirte Zeitung</i> of Jan., 27, 1877.</p> +</div> + +<p>The largest known now +living cartilaginous fishes +are of 36 (<i>Selache maxima</i>) +and of 42 feet (<i>Carcharodon +Rondeletii</i>); but +a fossil species of the +latter genus reached a +length of 81 feet (<i>Carcharodon +megalodon</i>), and +earlier Northern truthful +and accurate writers even +mention 100 feet as +occasional dimension of +the <i>Selache maxima</i>, an +animal eagerly pursued by the Norwegians for the oil of its liver.</p> + +<p>We, who in our latitudes look already with amazement on a +salmon of 5 feet length, must be perplexed when seeing for the +first time an osseous fish of 10 (<i>Thynnus thynnus</i>), of 15 (<i>Arapaima +gigas</i>), or of 20 feet (<i>Regalecus Banksii</i>).</p> + +<p>The largest known living Amphibium is 4 feet long (<i>Cryptobranchus</i>), +and caused great astonishment, when it was discovered, +but fossil <i>Amphibia</i> have been found larger than 15 feet (<i>Mastodonsaurus</i>).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page552">[552]</span></p> + +<p>The largest actually measured living Reptile has a length of 30 +feet (<i>Crocodilus</i>), but some fossilized reptiles show a length of 38 +feet (<i>Hadrosaurus</i>, <i>Ichthyosaurus</i>), 45 feet (<i>Elasmosaurus</i>), 58 feet +(<i>Rhamphosuchus</i>), 70 feet (<i>Brontosaurus</i>) nay even of 100 (<i>Liodon</i>) +and of 115 feet (<i>Atlantosaurus</i>), and probably many kinds of Reptiles +are still longer, the skeletons of which have been dug up +only partially!</p> + +<div class="container w40emmax" id="Fig81"> +<img src="images/illo552.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 81.—<i>Otaria jubata</i> (<span class="smcap">Forster</span>) <span class="smcap">Desm.</span>—From the “List of the Vertebrated Animals +now or lately living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877.”</p> +</div> + +<p>Whale-bone-whales of 88 feet, sperm whales of 90 feet, and finwhales +of 120 feet are occasionally mentioned to have been measured +in the foregoing century, but at present such dimensions are +not more recorded, because these animals have been so incessantly +persecuted for ages!</p> + +<p>Well, let us stop here, and say that there are many wonders +still hidden in the sea, and that there will be always a chance +that of every species of animals individuals will be discovered, still +larger than the largest specimen ever measured. If of all Pinnipeds +the sea-elephants were hitherto the largest known, this is +no more the case: they are surpassed by sea-serpents. If of all +known living and fossil animals the <i>Atlantosaurus</i> and the <i>Balaenoptera</i> +were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the case: +they are surpassed by the <i>Megophias</i>.</p> + +<p>Of all Pinnipeds the family of the <i>Auriculata</i> (Eared Seals) has +<span class="pagenum" id="Page553">[553]</span>the longest necks. In this particular they are surpassed by sea-serpents.</p> + +<div class="container w45emmax" id="Fig82"> +<img src="images/illo553.jpg" alt=""> +<p class="caption">Fig. 82.—<i>Callorhinus ursinus</i> (<span class="smcap">Linné</span>) <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.—From <span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span> “Thierleben”.</p> +</div> + +<p>None of the hitherto known living Pinnipeds has such an enormous +tail as the sea-serpent, but the fossil <i>Basilosaurus</i>, an animal +more or less allied to the earless seals, has an enormous tail. Of +the singular appearance of a family of which some members have +immensely long tails, and others are almost wholly without, we +have more instances in the animal kingdom. Of the Monkeys the +family of the <i>Simiidae</i> have no tails, whilst the other families have +generally long tails. Amongst the tailed monkeys we find in one +<i>genus</i> species with very long tails, as the <i>Macacus cynamolgos</i> (the +Macaque Monkey), and others with very short tails, as the <i>Macacus +maurus</i> (Moor Macaque). This difference in the length of the +tail is present <i>in all orders</i> of the <i>Quadrupedia</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Form.</i>—The shape of <i>Megophias megophias</i> is exactly that of +<i>Zalophus californianus</i>, with a longer neck, and with a tail as long +as trunk, neck, and head together. The shape of the head too, +in my opinion, more resembles that of <i>Zalophus californianus</i> than +that of any other Pinniped. The shape of the neck, the trunk, +and the flappers is exactly that of the same portions of the <i>Auriculata</i>, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page554">[554]</span>especially in <i>Zalophus californianus</i>, viz: all are slender: +“The body is rather slender, and the head is narrow, long, and +pointed, and with this slenderness of form is coordinated a corresponding +litheness of movement”. (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>History of North +American Pinnipeds</i>, p. 276). It may be that the hindflappers +have a form hitherto unknown in Pinnipeds, as we have of the +hindflappers neither a description nor any tolerable illustration. The +forehead being flat, very much resembles that of <i>Zalophus californianus.</i> +The snout or muzzle too, is of all Pinnipeds most resembling +that of <i>Zalophus californianus</i>.</p> + +<p>All Pinnipeds have whiskers. In some species they are large, +as in <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>, the sea-bear, in other comparatively +small, as in <i>Monachus tropicalis</i> <span class="smcap">Gray</span>, and in the males of the +genus <i>Macrorhinus</i>, and even very small in the <i>Trichecidae</i>.</p> + +<p>The eyes of <i>Megophias megophias</i> seem to be comparatively larger +than those in other species of Pinnipeds, though <i>Otaria jubata</i> +and <i>Phoca foetida</i> are known to have comparatively large eyes. I +have nowhere found any remark about the colour of the eye, with +regard to its <i>tapetum lucidum</i>, and till now I have had no opportunity +to convince myself of the <i>tapetum</i> of <i>Zalophus</i> or <i>Eumetopias</i> +being red. But is it not remarkable that Mr. <span class="smcap">H. W. Elliot</span> too +asserts of <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i>: “it has a really leonine appearance +and bearing, greatly enhanced by the rich, golden-rufous of its +coat, ferocity of expression, and <i>bull-dog-like muzzle and cast of eye</i>”? +(<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> p. 258).</p> + +<p><i>Skin.</i>—As in all Pinnipeds the skin is hairy, most probably +the hairs are quite stiff and not woolly like fur.</p> + +<p><i>Colours, Individual Variations.</i>—We have only to read different +descriptions of seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears, to observe that +every species varies much as to its colour, but that in some there +is a wide range of individual variations. Only in a few species the +under part is darker than the upper part, but generally the upper +part is much darker than the under part, and with regard to their +colours the animals are so to say longitudinally divided into two +sections, dark above, lighter beneath. Their being variegated with +spots or streaks occurs in many species, less in sea-lions and sea-bears, +more in seals, but is the most striking in the Hooded Seal +(<i>Cystophora cristata</i>, (<span class="smcap">Erxl</span>) <span class="smcap">Nilss.</span>). If we closely examine this +species, the question arises: is not the lighter colour the ground-colour, +and are not the dark spots and streaks and circles secondary +appearances? And I think that this question must be answered +<span class="pagenum" id="Page555">[555]</span>in the affirmative. Remarkable is also the black colour of +the region of the mouth and round the eye in some individuals of +sea-serpents. This singularity occurs also in some specimens of other +Pinnipeds. Of <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> “the end of the nose.... is +naked and.... dull blue black” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> +p. 234, 235); of <i>Zalophus californianus</i> we read: “A third is.... blackish +around the eyes and nostrils” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> +p. 277). In a foetal specimen: “nose and face, to and around the +eyes” are “black” (Ibid., p. 278); and <span class="smcap">Nilsson’s</span> black variety of +the Ringed Seal (<i>Phoca foetida</i> <span class="smcap">Fabr.</span>) has “nose and eye-rings +uniform black” (Ibid. p. 602).</p> + +<p><i>Sexual differences, Mane.</i>—The males of some species of Pinnipeds +have a mane, i. e. the hairs of the neck are longer than +on the rest of the body. Of <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> “the hair is longest +on the anterior upper portion of the body, where on the neck and +shoulders it attains a length of 40 mm.; it decreases in length +posteriorly, and toward the tail has a length of only 15 mm.” +(<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> p. 234). Of the hairs of <i>Callorhinus +ursinus</i> we read: “It is longest on the top of the head, especially +in the males, which have a well marked crest. The hair is much +longer on the anterior half of the body than on the posterior half, +it being longest on the hinder part of the neck, where in the +males it is very coarse. On the crown the hair has a length of +42 mm.; on the hinder part of the neck it reaches a length of 50 +to 60 mm. From this point posteriorly it gradually shortens, and +near the tail has a length of only 20 mm. The males have much +longer hair than the females, in which it is much longer than in +<i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i>.” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> p. 315).</p> + +<p>The difference in size of males and females is also a peculiar +character of some species of Pinnipeds, as may be seen from the +following tables:</p> + +<table class="sizes"> + +<tr class="bb"> +<th class="br">NAME</th> +<th colspan="3" class="br">VERY OLD<br>MALE.</th> +<th colspan="3" class="br">VERY OLD<br>FEMALE.</th> +<th>RATIO.</th> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Zalophus californianus</i></td> +<td class="intpart">8</td> +<td class="fracpart">¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="unit">ft.</td> +<td class="intpart">6</td> +<td class="fracpart">³⁄₄</td> +<td class="unit">ft.</td> +<td class="ratio">100:81 </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i></td> +<td class="intpart">13</td> +<td rowspan="4"> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">9</td> +<td rowspan="4"> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="ratio">100:69 </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Macrorhinus leoninus</i></td> +<td class="intpart">25</td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">15</td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="ratio">100:60 </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Macrorhinus angustirostris</i></td> +<td class="intpart">22</td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">13</td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="ratio">100:59 </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Callorhinus ursinus</i></td> +<td class="intpart">8</td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">4</td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="ratio">100:50.</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page556">[556]</span></p> + +<p>In <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i> the female, as we observe, attains only +half the length of a male. The weight of a fullgrown female being +less than one sixth that of a full-grown male.</p> + +<p>The losing of hair when the animals grow very old, is very +striking in both <i>Odobaenus rosmarus</i> and in <i>Odobaenus obesus</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Food.</i> The food of all Pinnipeds consists of mussels, and other +mollusks, especially, however, of all kinds of fish, but that they +are not averse to cetacean flesh, may be proved by the following +fact: Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> says of <i>Odobaenus rosmarus</i>: “I have only to add +that whenever it was killed near where a whale’s carcass had been +let adrift, its stomach was unvariably found <i>crammed</i> full of the +<i>krang</i> or flesh of that <i>Cetacean</i>” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. Am. Pinn.</i> +p. 135). <i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i> occasionally eats birds (Ibid. p. 274).</p> + +<p><i>Breathing.</i>—Even in seals and sea-lions it may be occasionally +observed that they “blow like a whale”; I myself saw it more than +once, when the animals lay with their nose at water level, or when +they appeared on the surface after having remained under water +for a long time. It is sufficiently known that the average time +these animals remain under water is eight or ten minutes, but they +have also been observed lying quite still on the bottom for more +than three hours. I read in Mr. <span class="smcap">Allen’s</span> work (p. 180) that also +walruses “blow not unlike a whale”.</p> + +<p><i>Excretion.</i>—The emitting a very strong odour is also known +in Pinnipeds. <span class="smcap">Krascheninikow</span> says of <i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>: “Such +as are old, or have no mistresses, live apart; and the first that +our people found upon <i>Behring</i>’s Island were such old ones, and +all males, extremely fat and stinking” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, p. 342). Of <i>Eumetopias +Stelleri</i> <span class="smcap">Choris</span> reports: “L’odeur qu’ils répandent est insupportable. +Ces animaux étaient alors dans le temps du rut” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, +p. 254), and of <i>Phoca foetida</i> <span class="smcap">Kumlien</span> asserts:</p> + +<p>“It is only the adult males (called <i>Tigak</i>, = Stinker, by the Eskimo) +that emit the horribly disagreeable, all-permeating, ever-penetrating +odor that has suggested its specific name. It is so strong that one can +smell an Eskimo some distance when he has been partaking of the +flesh; they say it is more nourishing than the flesh of the females, +and that a person can endure great fatigue after eating it. If one +of these Tigak comes in contact with any other Seal meat it will +become so tainted as to be repulsive to an educated palate; even the +atluk of the Tigak can be detected by its odor.” (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, p. 624).</p> + +<p>Respecting the foetid odour emitted by this species, Dr. <span class="smcap">Rink</span> +observes as follows:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page557">[557]</span></p> + +<p>“It derives its scientific name from the nauseous smell peculiar +to certain older individuals, especially those captured in the interior +ice-fjords, which are also on an average perhaps twice as large +as those generally occurring off the outer shores. When brought +into a hut, and cut up on its floor, such a seal emits a smell +resembling something between that of assafoetida and onions, almost +insupportable to strangers. This peculiarity is not noticeable +in the younger specimens or those of a smaller size, such as are +generally caught, and at all events the smell does not detract from +the utility of the flesh over the whole of Greenland”.—<i>Danish +Greenland, its People and its Products</i> p. 123 (<span class="smcap">Allen</span>, <i>Hist. N. +Am. Pinn.</i> p. 624).</p> + +<p><i>Feeling.</i> Also in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens +we may often observe that they dislike wind, and hold only the +top of their nose above water, that they shut their eyes, and like +to bask in the sun.</p> + +<p><i>Smell, Hearing, Sight.</i> It is also known of Pinnipeds that their +smell is very good and their hearing very sharp, but that their +sight is quite limited. This must not surprise us. Their eyes are +adapted to see under water, but such eyes don’t see so well in +the air. Yet I have observed that seals distinguish their keeper +from other persons at a distance of twenty or thirty yards.</p> + +<p><i>Relative mobility of organs.</i> Every one who has ever witnessed +the graceful movements of seals and sea-lions, especially those of +<i>Zalophus californianus</i> will admit that these animals, like sea-serpents, +are “as limber and active as an eel”. There is not one +movement made by the sea-serpent, which cannot be made in perfectly +the same way by sea-lions, especially by <i>Zalophus californianus</i>, +save the movement of the tail.</p> + +<p><i>Motion.</i> The same may be observed in comparing the motions +of sea-serpents with those of <i>Zalophus californianus</i>. They too may +appear on the surface, exposing head, neck, and so much of the +forepart of the trunk, as to show their flappers; nay, they may +like all kinds of whales, jump clear out of the water. When swimming +slowly, they may occasionally swim with vertical undulations, +they usually, however, propel themselves by means of their flappers, +holding their body in a straight line; and sometimes horizontal +undulations are distinctly visible; in darting on some prey +they swim not only with their flappers, but undulate their body +both horizontally and vertically at intervals. Of course generally +only one or two, seldom three undulations are to be counted.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page558">[558]</span></p> + +<p>I don’t know if sea-lions have ever been seen swimming with +<i>fixed bunches</i>, or folds. When at rest their skin may enormously +wrinkle, like that of walruses, and as is shown in our <a href="#Fig78">fig. 78</a>.</p> + +<p>In swimming the sea-lion usually holds its head above water, +and may occasionally raise its long neck as high as possible to take +a view of a boat or another object.</p> + +<p>Owing to the form and size of its flappers the speed of the sea-lion +is really astonishing; it is much less in seals.</p> + +<p>Though in a less degree, than in sea-serpents, the water curls +up before its chest, or better throat, in swimming; foam is occasionally +observed, and waves are seen in the form of a V, a wake +is of course formed, and a rushing may be heard at times.</p> + +<p>That seals swim so low under the surface of the water, that the +course of the animal can be traced only by the rippling surface, I +have myself witnessed, but I do not know if sea-lions, especially, +if <i>Zalophus californianus</i>, are in the habit of swimming in this way.</p> + +<p>The manner of disappearing of the sea-serpent is exactly the +same as that of other Pinnipeds. They may turn down with a +severe splash, or sink gradually below the surface, or even, by a +sudden upward motion of their flappers, “sink down like a rock”.</p> + +<p>As to the <i>voice</i> of other Pinnipeds it is different in the different +species, but as we have not a single statement of the voice of sea-serpents, +comparison is out of the question here.</p> + +<p><i>Generation.</i>—The rutting time and the time of whelping differ +in different species, but on an average the month of March and +April may be fixed upon as the pairing time, and July and August +as those in which the females bring forth the young ones.</p> + +<p>In some species the males are much larger than the females, and +the new born young ones, like the young sea-serpents are in exact +proportion to the old males, as may be seen from the following table.</p> + +<table class="sizes"> + +<tr class="bb"> +<th class="br">NAME.</th> +<th colspan="3" class="br">VERY OLD<br>MALE.</th> +<th colspan="3" class="br">NEW BORN<br>YOUNG<br>ONE.</th> +<th>RATIO.</th> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Zalophus californianus</i></td> +<td class="intpart">8</td> +<td class="fracpart">¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="unit">ft.</td> +<td class="intpart">2</td> +<td class="fracpart">¹⁄₃</td> +<td class="unit">ft.</td> +<td class="ratio">¹⁄₃-¹⁄₄</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Macrorhinus angustirostris</i></td> +<td class="intpart">22</td> +<td> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">4</td> +<td> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="ratio">¹⁄₅-¹⁄₆</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Eumetopias Stelleri</i></td> +<td class="intpart">13</td> +<td> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">2</td> +<td> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="ratio">¹⁄₆-¹⁄₇</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="species"><i>Callorhinus ursinus</i></td> +<td class="intpart">8</td> +<td> </td> +<td class="unit">„</td> +<td class="intpart">10</td> +<td> </td> +<td class="unit">in.</td> +<td class="ratio">¹⁄₈-¹⁄₉</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p><i>Taking notice of objects.</i> It is well enough known that seals +<span class="pagenum" id="Page559">[559]</span>will sometimes keep near a vessel, turning their head towards it; +or will play round the vessel, disappearing on one side, reappearing +on the other, as if playing hide and seek; from this it may be +concluded they are in no dread of the vessel, but are curious, and +suspicious of the living objects on it. I don’t know whether sea-lions +and sea-bears behave in the same way, but I know that walruses +do.</p> + +<p><i>Curiosity and Suspicion</i> are known characters in all kinds of +Pinnipeds, and it is noteworthy that they are most striking in +walruses and seals.</p> + +<p><i>Harmlessness and Timidity.</i> There is hardly any Pinniped which +is not harmless and timid.</p> + +<p><i>Fearlessness</i> is a common trait in walruses and sea-elephants. +One may come very near them. On the other hand scores of them, +especially of the former, will sometimes follow a boat, roaring and +crying and uttering the most horrible sounds, which may be expressions +of their curiosity, suspicion, and fury, but it may also +be a way they have of driving away their enemy.</p> + +<p><i>Fear</i> on the contrary, though less noticeable in walruses, is a +prominent trait in seals, sea-lions and sea-bears. When men approach +them they fly away as fast as possible, and in their hurry to +reach the water crawl over each other, and roar, and cry, and +lament in a most horrible way.</p> + +<p><i>Fright.</i> It is superfluous to touch upon this subject in Pinnipeds; +every one knows the effects and consequences of a shot at these +timid animals.</p> + +<p><i>Fury.</i> As in sea-serpents, most Pinnipeds, but especially sea-lions, +sea-bears and walruses only get furious when wounded, or when +neared while they are protecting their offspring.</p> + +<p><i>Toughness.</i> I know of no observations about this character in +seals, sea-lions, sea-bears, and sea-elephants, but I believe that +they are not tough; one heavy blow with a thick cudgel on the +nose killing them instantly, but the toughness of walruses is known +well enough; these animals are not an easy prey; they may be +struck with axes on their cranium and hit by several rifle balls in +their brain, and yet not die; they die a hard death.</p> + +<p><i>Playsomeness</i> is a well known character of all Pinnipeds; it may +of course be less observable in the bulky and unwieldy walruses.</p> + +<p><i>Remark.</i> It is time that the volume comes to an end, and therefore +I have made my comparison as short as possible. I have only +to advise those who wish to know more about the agreement of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page560">[560]</span>sea-serpents with Pinnipeds, to read <span class="smcap">Allen’s</span> often quoted work +“<i>History of North-American Pinnipeds</i>”, and his “<i>On Eared Seals</i>”, +(<i>Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard College.</i> Cambr. Mass. Vol. II, +n<sup>o</sup>. 1.), and <span class="smcap">Brehm’s</span> <i>Thierleben</i>.</p> + +<p>There is one great difference between all the known Pinnipeds +on one side, and sea-serpents on the other. The former are gregarious +or social animals, only living in colonies or great herds, whilst +<i>Megophias megophias</i> is a solitary being. This remarkable difference +can be only accounted for by the two facts 1. That this species is +a cosmopolitan, and 2. That these animals become extinct and that +there exist at present only a very few individuals.</p> + +<p>I don’t know if I have convinced my readers of the existence +of sea-serpents, and if so, if they are convinced that these animals +are closely related to Pinnipeds. But I am obliged to proceed on +my way, and consider the rank which sea-serpents occupy in the +system of Nature.</p> + +<h4>2. ITS RANK IN THE SYSTEM OF NATURE.</h4> + +<p>Zoologists admit as a fact that Pinnipeds originate in true land-animals. +We are convinced that these land-animals were long-tailed +Viverrine animals. The tail must have been longer than one half +of the total length. This is no impossibility, as we have still living +forms, the tail of which is as long as half of the total length +of the animal, e. g. <i>Herpestes Widdringtonii</i>. The dentition must +have been the typical carnivorous one: +i <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>, +c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>, +m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">7</span><span class="lower">7</span></span>; or there +were more molars, perhaps +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">8</span><span class="lower">8</span></span>, as a genus of wild dogs, <i>Otocyon</i>, +has 8 molars on each side of each jaw; its dentition is +i <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>, +c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>, +m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">8</span><span class="lower">8</span></span>. +(The <i>Cynoidea</i>, or dog-like animals are also considered as +having their origin in Viverrine animals.)</p> + +<p>Some of the descendants of these long-tailed Viverrine animals +had gradually got such characters, that zoologists would term them +long-tailed Musteline animals. They may be called <i>long-tailed +ancestors of weasels and stoats</i>, for our common weasel (<i>Putorius +vulgaris</i> L.) and our common stoat (<i>Putorius ermineus</i> L.) are still +living descendants of them, though the tail has become very short, +most probably because they have accustomed themselves to live +in holes. The long tail has shown itself to be an inconvenient +organ for this new manner of living, and therefore has gradually +become shorter.</p> + +<p>Some of these <i>long-tailed ancestors of weasels and stoats</i> took +<span class="pagenum" id="Page561">[561]</span>to another manner of living, compelled thereto by certain circumstances. +They viz. took to eating fresh water fish. Gradually this +grew to be a habit; they learned to swim, which happened by +vertical undulations, they paddled with the feet, and used the +tail as a rudder. This group may be called <i>long-tailed ancestors of +polecats and minks</i>, for our common polecat (<i>Putorius putorius</i> L.) +and the Russian minks (<i>Putorius lutreolus</i> L.) are still living descendants +of them, though the tail has become short, because they +have accustomed themselves to live in holes. The long tail has +shown itself to be an inconvenient organ for such a manner of +living, and therefore has gradually become shorter, not so short, +however, as in weasels and stoats. Zoologists place the polecats and +minks in the same genus as the weasels and stoats. The minks +live especially in the neighbourhood of rivers and brooks, often go +into the water and swim exceedingly well. Besides on poultry and +rats, they feed on frogs, crabs, cray-fish, and all kinds of fish.</p> + +<p>Some of these <i>long-tailed ancestors of polecats and minks</i> got so +used to the water, that it finally became their proper element, +and they came ashore only to rest from swimming, to bask themselves +in the sun, or to find another brook or river. They began +to feed on fish, crayfish, and frogs, and only when driven by +hunger they fed on rats and poultry. It is evident that those +individuals which by nature were best adapted to their new element, +must gradually have survived their less privileged brethren, +and so we may admit that a form gradually arose, which swam very +easily with vertical undulations, using the tail as a rudder and as +propelling organ. Also of great advantage must have been more +sharply pointed teeth, and more jagged molars, smaller ears, a +more woolly skin, and toes on the hind limbs, which were capable +of expansion and more or less provided with a web. This group +may be called <i>long-tailed ancestors of otters</i>, for all the known +species of otters (<i>Lutra</i>) are still living descendants of them, though +the tail has become shorter, shorter than one third of the total +length of the animal, because they too like to live in holes. The +face greatly resembles that of the polecat and mink, but the upper +lips are thicker and the whiskers are longer and stronger. The +change was not only great enough for zoologists to create for this +group a new genus: <i>Lutra</i> <span class="smcap">Storr</span>, but even to establish for it a +new subfamily <i>Lutrina</i> <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.</p> + +<p>These <i>long-tailed ancestors of otters</i> were again survived by their +congeners which were still better adapted to the new medium, so +<span class="pagenum" id="Page562">[562]</span>that from them another group gradually arose, which had broader +webs on the hind feet. This group may be called <i>long-tailed ancestors +of fin-tailed otters</i>, for the fin-tailed otter (<i>Lutra Sanbachii</i> +<span class="smcap">Gray</span>) is a still living descendant of them. The tail of this animal +is shorter than that of its ancestors, longer, however, than that of +the otters (<i>Lutra</i>), surpassing one third of the animal’s total length. +Moreover it is somewhat flattened and shows on its hindmost half +lateral fin-like dilatations. The change was great enough for zoologists +to place the animal into a new genus: <i>Pteronura</i> <span class="smcap">Gray</span>. Its +ancestors, however, were not provided with these lateral fin-like +dilatations on the tail.</p> + +<p>Some of these <i>long-tailed ancestors of the fin-tailed otter</i> which +in their migration had reached the sea-shore, probably by following +the course of rivers, began to accustom themselves to eat sea-fish, +and ended by feeding on them exclusively. The sea-water became +their home, and their resting places and nests were found on the +strand, and among sea-weed; they seldom came ashore to sleep or +to sun themselves. Besides on sea-fish, they fed on crabs, lobsters, +mussels, and some sea-weed. They left off eating poultry, frogs, +and rats. The long tail was of great profit, as they used it as a +rudder and as propelling organ in swimming with vertical undulations. +Of course those individuals which were the best adapted +to this new manner of living, survived the less privileged by nature, +and so a group gradually arose which had a sharper dentition, +and smaller ears; the skin was also changed to the most valuable +fur, the toes of the hind-legs had become more webbed, and +with such legs the animals could swim more easily; those of the +fore-limbs had sharper nails, and with such nails the animals could +more easily crawl upon the rocks; the eyes were larger, and with +such eyes the owners could see better in great and dark depths, +and in the sea-water near the shore, which is commonly troubled; +the whiskers were longer and stronger, consequently the upper-lips, +in which these whiskers were planted and which contained numerous +and thick sensorial nerves, were very thick, and with such +whiskers the animals could exceedingly well touch and feel when +searching for their food between stones and sea-weed, and in the +sandy bottom. The face resembled but little more that of the otters +and fin-tailed otters, and the large eyes and shorter ears gave it a +slight resemblance to seals. This group may be called <i>long-tailed +ancestors of sea-otters</i>, for our sea-otters (<i>Lutra lutris</i> L.) are still +living descendants of them. But as these animals have accustomed +<span class="pagenum" id="Page563">[563]</span>themselves to live more among sea-weed, ice, and rocks than their +direct ancestors, the long tail must have been inconvenient, so +that individuals with a shorter tail must have survived the others, +and finally a species arose with a tolerably short tail: our sea-otter. +To make up for this loss of tail, the hind-feet had become more +webbed, and were gradually stretched more backwards, and, modified +in this way, they were valuable swimming organs. The change +was great enough for zoologists to create a new genus for this +animal, which is called <i>Enhydra</i> <span class="smcap">Cuv</span>.</p> + +<p>Some of the <i>long-tailed ancestors of sea-otters</i> took to a still +more aquatic, or better pelagic life, migrated more towards the +north, accustomed themselves to the icy regions, to swim greater +distances and to remain longer under water. The consequences of +this change in the manner of living were that all little adapted to +this new life became extinct, and that all which were better privileged +survived them, so that at last a group of animals arose of which +we may safely admit that they had the following characters: The head +and fore-feet resembled still more those of seals, the hind-legs were still +more able swimming organs, and less fit for terrestrial locomotion, they +were smaller than the fore-legs, because they were not always used +in swimming, as the best manner of swimming must have been by +means of vertical undulations; the long tail surpassed half of the total +length, and served as a rudder and as propelling organ; the ears were +still smaller, the dentition was still a normal carnivorous one +(i <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>, +c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>, +m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">7</span><span class="lower">7</span></span>), especially the molars were sharp and pointed, and on the +skull were found peculiar modifications which are so distinctly visible +on that of Pinnipeds. The animals must have resembled our common +seals, having, however, small external ears, and a tail, surpassing +one half of the total length. It is difficult to believe that these animals, +which I will call <i>Propinnipedia</i>, moved on land; probably +they came from time to time aland or on the ice to rest with the +fore-part of the body on it, leaving, however, most certainly the long +tail in the water. These <i>Propinnipedia</i> gave origin to two groups of +animals, which are marked below with A and B.</p> + +<p>A.—This group, by their having lived almost constantly far +from land, and having come only very seldom near the shore to +rest, supporting themselves on the chest or breast, clinging with +the nails of the fore-legs to the beach, rock, or ice, changed in +such a way, that zoologists can hardly reckon them any longer +among Pinnipeds, but generally consider them as a link between +Pinnipeds and Whales. Professor <span class="smcap">D’Arcy W. Thompson</span> (<i>Studies +<span class="pagenum" id="Page564">[564]</span>from the Museum of Zoology in University College</i>, Dundee, +Vol. I, N<sup>o</sup>. 9, 1890) rejects any affinity of this group to Whales. +I should like to go still farther and pretend that it has just as +much claim to the title of Pinnipeds, as seals, sea-elephants, sea-bears, +sea-lions, and sea-serpents. The skull was somewhat lengthened +in front; the brain-case diminished in size; the deciduous +dentition probably cut the gum; the permanent dentition was the +typical heterodont carnivorous one +(i <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">3</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>, +c <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">1</span><span class="lower">1</span></span>, +m <span class="dentition"><span class="upper">7</span><span class="lower">7</span></span>); the nostrils +were placed on the tip of the nose, as in seals, but directed upwards; +the fore-limbs were perfectly those of seals, and provided +with nails; but the rest of the body must have <i>resembled</i> that of +a slender and elongated dolphin, or whale, with an enormous +<i>pointed</i> tail. The most successful manner of swimming for these +animals was by means of vertical undulations, which, as the forepart +of the body (head and trunk) was somewhat bulky, and +therefore somewhat inflexible, were strongest in the tail-part of +the animal; consequently the hind-legs, used less and less, disappeared, +if not quite, at least for the greater part. The animals +were still hairy, though the hairs were most probably thinly scattered; +the whiskers remained on the lips. The head was relatively +large, not with regard to the animal’s total length, but to the +trunk, and therefore the neck was very short. Externally the neck +must not have been plainly visible. The animals could not move +the head as easily as seals and sea-lions do, and therefore it was +of great advantage that the nostrils were directed upwards. The +vertebrae have the type of those of the Pinnipeds.—Such animals +are now extinct, but their fossil remains are found and called +<i>Basilosaurus</i> by <span class="smcap">Harlan</span> in 1824 (afterwards <span class="smcap">Owen</span> gave them the +name of <i>Zeuglodon</i>, 1839).</p> + +<p>B.—This second group is called <i>Pinnipedia</i> by <span class="smcap">Illiger</span> in 1811, +and <span class="smcap">Allen</span> gives of it the following characters:</p> + +<p>“Limbs pinniform, or modified into swimming organs, and enclosed +to or beyond the elbows and knees within the common +integument. Digits of the manus decreasing in length and size +from the first to the fifth; of those of the pes, the first and fifth +largest and longest, the three middle ones shorter and subequal. +Pelvis with the iliac portion very short, and the anterior border +much everted; ischia barely meeting by a short symphysis (never +anchylosed) and in the female usually widely separated. Skull generally +greatly compressed interorbitally; facial portion usually short, +rather broad, and the brain-case abruptly expanded. Lachrymal +<span class="pagenum" id="Page565">[565]</span>bone imperforate and joined to the maxillary, enclosed wholly +within the orbit. Palatines usually separated by a vacuity, often +of considerable size, from the frontals. Tympanic bones separated +also by a vacuity from the exoccipitals. Dentition simple, generally +unspecialized, the molars all similar in structure. Deciduous dentition +rudimentary, never truly functional, and generally not persistent +beyond the foetal stage of the animal. Permanent incisors usually +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span> or +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, sometimes +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">2</span></span> (<i>Cystophora</i> and <i>Macrorhinus</i>) or even +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">2</span><span class="lower">2</span></span> +(<i>Odobaenus</i>); canines +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">2</span><span class="lower">2</span></span>; molars +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">5</span><span class="lower">5</span></span>, +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">5</span></span>, or +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">5</span><span class="lower">3</span></span>.”</p> + +<p>And we may add: Tail either very long: about as long as one +half of the animal’s total length, or very short: almost disappearing +between the hind-legs.</p> + +<p>Already very early the Pinnipeds divided themselves into two +different branches, marked below with I and II.</p> + +<p>I.—The members of this branch changed their manner of living. +They very often crawled on land, ice, and rocks; the long tail +was a very unconvenient organ in their new manner of living, +consequently all the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than +their congeners’ were better adapted to the new manner of living +and survived them, so that at last a group of animals arose of +which the tail has become very short, almost disappearing between +the hind-legs, and to make up for this loss the hind-legs grew +much larger than the fore-legs, were turned hindwards, gradually +grew incapable of being turned forwards, and of no use in terrestrial +locomotion. This branch is called <i>Inauriculata</i> by <span class="smcap">Péron</span> in +1816 (afterwards called <i>Phocidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1825, and <i>Reptigrada</i> +by <span class="smcap">Elliot Coues</span>, invited thereto by <span class="smcap">Allen</span> in 1880). The characters +are described by <span class="smcap">Allen</span> as follows:</p> + +<p>“Hind-legs not capable of being turned forward, and not serviceable +for terrestrial locomotion. Neck short. Skull with the mastoid +processes swollen, but not salient, and without distinct alisphenoid +canals. Anterior limbs smaller than the posterior, the first digit +little, if any, longer than the next succeeding ones, all armed with +strong claws, which are terminal. Hind feet capable of moderate +expansion, short; digits (usually) all armed with strong claws, and +without terminal cartilaginous flaps. Femur with no trace of the +trochanter minor. Without external ears. Postorbital processes wanting, +or very small. Incisors variable +(<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, or +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">4</span><span class="lower">2</span></span>). Deciduous dentition +not persistent beyond foetal life.”</p> + +<p>The group includes all true seals and sea-elephants.</p> + +<p>II.—This branch is called <i>Gressigrada</i> by <span class="smcap">Elliot Coues</span> in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page566">[566]</span>1880, who was thereto invited by <span class="smcap">Allen</span>, though this skilled +zoologist was then unaware of the existence of the sea-serpent, or +at least must have doubted its belonging to this branch. I have +not a single reason to give another name to it; I purposely keep +the name of <i>Gressigrada</i>, to avoid the increase of synonyms. The +early forms of the <i>Gressigrada</i> must have had hind-legs which +were smaller than the fore-legs, and a tail, which was as long as +the head, neck and trunk together. They had also small external +ears, and a somewhat lengthened neck. Further characters are: +“Hind-legs capable of being turned forward and used in terrestrial +locomotion. Neck lengthened (especially in section b). Skull with +the mastoid processes large and salient (especially in the males), +and with distinct alisphenoid canals. Anterior feet either nearly +as large as the posterior, or much larger, their digits rapidly decreasing +in length from the first to the fifth, with distinct claws, +and with a broad cartilaginous border extending beyond the digits.” +(They are called flappers.) “Hind-feet susceptible of great expansion, +the three middle digits only with claws, and all the digits terminating +in long, narrow, cartilaginous flaps, united basally.” (The +hind-feet may also safely be called flappers.) “Femur with the +trochanter minor well developed”.—Already at a very early date +the branch of the <i>Gressigrada</i> divided itself into two sections, +which are marked below with a and b.—</p> + +<p>a.—The members of this section changed their manner of living. +They very often crawled on ice, land, and rocks; the long tail +was a very inconvenient organ in their new manner of living, +consequently all the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than +their congeners’ were better equipped, and survived the others, so +that at last a group of animals arose of which the tail has become +very short, scarcely, if at all, visible, being enclosed within the +tegument of the body, and to make up for this loss, the hind-flappers +grew much larger than the fore-flappers. The further characters +for this group are: “Without external ears. Form thick and +heavy. Anterior portion of the skull greatly swollen, giving support +to the enormously developed canines, which form long, protruding +tusks. Incisors of deciduous (foetal) dentition +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">6</span></span>; of permanent +dentition +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">2</span><span class="lower">6</span></span>. No postorbital processes, and the surface of the mastoid +processes continuous with the auditory bullae.”—This section is +called <i>Trichecidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1821 (afterwards it was named +<i>Trichechidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1825, <i>Broca</i> by <span class="smcap">Latreille</span> in 1825, +<i>Campodontia</i> by <span class="smcap">Brookes</span> in 1828, <i>Trichecina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1837, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page567">[567]</span><i>Trichechoidea</i> by <span class="smcap">Giebel</span> in 1847, <i>Trichechina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1850, +<i>Rosmaridae</i> by <span class="smcap">Gill</span> in 1866, <i>Rosmaroidea</i> by <span class="smcap">Gill</span> in 1872, and +<i>Odobaenidae</i> by <span class="smcap">Allen</span> in 1880!!!). The section contains only the +walruses.</p> + +<p>b.—The early forms of this section must have had hind-flappers +which were smaller than the fore-flappers, and a tail which was +as long as the head, neck and trunk together. The animals were +very slender and elongated in form, the neck being <i>somewhat more +elongated</i>; external ears, though small, were still present. Further +characters are: “Anterior portion of the skull not unusually swollen, +and the canines not highly specialized.” They came very seldom +aland, and when doing so, they must have only supported themselves +on their breast and on their fore-flappers, leaving the long +tail always in the water. They swam with vertical undulations, +using also sometimes the flappers.—For this section I choose the +name of <i>Tenuia</i>, or Animals which are slender.—Very early the +section of the <i>Tenuia</i> divided itself into two smaller divisions which +are marked below with 1 and 2.—</p> + +<p>1.—The members of this division changed their manner of +living. They very often crawled on ice, land and rocks; the tail +was a very inconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently +all the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than +their congeners’, were better equipped and survived the others, so +that at last a group of animals arose of which the tail has become +very short, almost disappearing between the hind-legs which on the +contrary to make up for this loss of tail, gradually became larger, +so as to become even larger than the anterior feet. The further +characters of this group are: “With small external ears. Incisors +of deciduous dentition +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, only the outer on either side cutting the +gum; of permanent dentition +<span class="dentition"><span class="upper">6</span><span class="lower">4</span></span>, the two central pairs of the upper +with a transverse groove. Postorbital processes strongly developed. +Surface of the mastoid processes not continuous with the auditory +bullae.”—This division was called <i>Auriculata</i> by <span class="smcap">Péron</span> in 1816, +(afterwards also called <i>Otariina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1825, <i>Otariadae</i> by +<span class="smcap">Brookes</span> in 1828, <i>Arctocephalina</i> by <span class="smcap">Gray</span> in 1837, and <i>Otariidae</i> +by <span class="smcap">Gill</span> in 1866) containing the sea-bears and sea-lions.</p> + +<p>2.—The members of this division did not accustom themselves +to live in the midst of ice and rocks, consequently they retained +the long tail, and small hind-legs. As the animals retained also +their slenderness and extraordinary litheness, a long neck with a +relatively small head must have been of great use to them, and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page568">[568]</span>consequently those individuals which had a longer neck than the +others survived their less privileged congeners, so that at last a +group arose with a very long neck and a comparatively small head. +It seems that the external ears disappeared. They never came aland +or on ice-floes. They even abandoned the cold regions and currents +of the ocean, better liking the warmer parts. Their ordinary mode +of swimming is with vertical undulations. Seldom do they swim +with the body in a straight line, by means of their flappers. This +little division for which I propose the name of <i>Longicaudata</i>, or +Long-tailed Animals, consists only of one genus: <i>Megophias</i> <span class="smcap">Raf.</span>, +including only one species <i>Megophias megophias</i> (<span class="smcap">Raf.</span>) <span class="smcap">Oud.</span>, the +sea-serpent.</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">I purposely have not mentioned the genera <i>Squalodon</i> and <i>Stenodon</i>, +and the group of <i>Plagiuri</i> (<span class="smcap">Art.</span>, 1735; <i>Physeteres</i>, <span class="smcap">Klein</span>, 1741; +<i>Cetacea</i>, <span class="smcap">Briss</span>, 1756; <i>Cete</i>, <span class="smcap">Linn</span>, 1758), as the recent cetologists +still differ in opinions as to their relation to <i>Basilosaurus</i> and the +<i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">I think the following phylogenetic table will in a more practical +manner show the rank which in my opinion sea-serpents occupy +in the System of Nature.</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">To many of my readers the above sketch of the rank of the +sea-serpent in the System of Nature will no doubt seem to be too +bold. They will say that the affinity of the sea-serpent to sea-lions +and sea-bears (to the <i>Auriculata</i>) is expressed here too decisively, +that, scientifically spoken, the sea-serpent is not yet known, that +at best its existence is only beyond a doubt, and that when a +specimen fell into the hands of men, it might be shown that the +close affinity to the <i>Auriculata</i> was only apparent, and that in +reality the relation is more remote. I confess that there is much +to say in favour of this reasoning, but <i>at all events the sea-serpent +is a true Pinniped</i>. It has four flappers, a hairy skin, and strong +whiskers. Its head <i>resembles</i> that of a sea-lion, its long neck <i>resembles</i> +that of a sea-lion, its trunk and its foreflappers <i>resemble</i> +those of a sea-lion. But these <i>resemblances</i> may be explained as +resulting from convergency. When viewed in this way it seems to +be more careful to consider the origin of the sea-serpent in the +following manner.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page569">[569]</span></p> + +<div class="largetable" id="Ref9"> + +<table class="origin"> + +<tr> +<td colspan="23" class="text">Putorius vulgaris.<br>Putorius ermineus.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="9" colspan="3" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="9"> </td> +<td colspan="19">Putorius putorius.<br>Putorius lutreolus.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="8" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="8"> </td> +<td colspan="17">Lutra.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="7" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="7"> </td> +<td colspan="15">Pteronura Sanbachii.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="6" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="6"> </td> +<td colspan="13">Enhydra lutris.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="5" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="5" colspan="4"> </td> +<td colspan="8">Inauriculata.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="4" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="4"> </td> +<td colspan="6">Trichecidae.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="3" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="3"> </td> +<td colspan="4">Auriculata.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="2"> </td> +<td colspan="2">Longicaudata.</td> +</tr> + +<tr class="bbdots"> +<td class="lined"> </td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="17" colspan="3" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="15" colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="13" colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="11" colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="9" colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="7"> </td> +<td colspan="4" class="lined">Basilosaurus.</td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="3" colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="4">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of Tenuia.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="3"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td class="lined"> </td> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="6">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of Gressigrada.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="5"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td class="lined"> </td> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="8">Long-tailed early<br>forms of Pinnipedia.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="7"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2"> </td> +<td colspan="10">Propinnipedia,<br>long-tailed ancestors<br>of Pinnipedia and Basilosaurus.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="3" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="9"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="13">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of sea-otters.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="12"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="15">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of fin-tailed otters.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="14"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="17">Long-tailed ancestors of otters.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="16"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="19">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of polecats and minks.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="18"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="22">Long-tailed ancestors<br>of weasels and stoats.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="4" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="19"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2"> </td> +<td colspan="3" class="cntr">Long-tailed<br>Viverrine<br>ancestors.</td> +<td colspan="18"> </td> +</tr> + +</table> + +</div><!--largetable--> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page570">[570]</span></p> + +<p>The ancestors of <i>Pinnipedia</i> and <i>Basilosaurus</i>, which I have +called <i>Propinnipedia</i>, had most probably hind-legs which were +smaller than the fore-legs, and most certainly a tail which was +nearly as long as the head, neck and trunk together. They had +small external ears. Their most successful manner of swimming +must have been by means of vertical undulations. It is difficult to +believe that the <i>Propinnipedia</i> moved on land; probably they came +only from time to time aland, or on the ice, to rest, leaving, +however, most probably the long tail in the water. These <i>Propinnipedia</i> +divided themselves into two branches.</p> + +<p>All the members of the <i>first</i> branch got a tendency to bulkiness. +The head grew longer and larger, consequently the neck grew +shorter; the jaws grew longer, consequently the teeth began to +stand widely apart; in consequence of the little mobility of the +head the nostrils, placed at the top of the nose, became turned +upwards, or probably got their seat a little more towards the top of +the head; and in proportion as the animal got a thick layer of bacon, +the hairs became thinly scattered. Probably it is here better to say: +in proportion as the animal lost its hairs, it got a thick layer of +bacon. The warm-blooded mammals are possessed of the hair, because +hair was to them what feathers are to a bird. The air enclosed +between the hairs and the feathers is a worse conductor of +temperature than the hairs or feathers themselves. As soon as the +manner of living has changed so much that air could no longer +come between the hairs, the hairs themselves lost their reason of +existence, hence a thick layer of bacon gradually replaced them. +Probably this is a better way to explain the presence of bacon and +the absence of hair, than to say that the hair disappeared because +the animals obtained a layer of bacon, and could therefore dispense +with them, or that the layer of bacon checked the development +of hairs.—In short we may admit that the animals, of which we +treat at present, were thinly scattered with hairs. The whiskers +in all probability were still present, and even well developed. +This branch has wholly become extinct. The fossil remains were +called <i>Basilosaurus</i>.</p> + +<p>All the members of the <i>second</i> branch did not show a tendency +to bulkiness, they retained the relatively small head and well developed +neck, the head consequently could very well move on the +trunk. These are the <i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p> + +<p>Already very early they divided themselves into two sections.</p> + +<p>All the members of the <i>first</i> section accustomed themselves to +crawl more on land, ice, and rocks, and as the long tail must +<span class="pagenum" id="Page571">[571]</span>have been an inconvenient organ in this new manner of living, all +the individuals which had a smaller number of caudal vertebrae +survived their congeners; consequently a form at last originated +with a very short tail our well known order of Pinnipeds for which +I now propose the name of <i>Brevicaudata</i>.</p> + +<p>All the members however, of the second section accustomed +themselves more to the sea, and therefore all the members which +were best adopted for this manner of living successively survived +their less privileged congeners, and finally the sea-serpents remained; +animals which are so excellently adapted to an aquatic life +and rapid movement, that their tendency to become extinct can +only be explained by the singular phenomenon that colossal animals +bring forth very few young ones, only two, or only one, at +a time, and only after very long intervals. For these animals I +already proposed above the name of <i>Longicaudata</i>. They form with +the <i>Brevicaudata</i> the order of <i>Pinnipedia</i>.</p> + +<p>If this view is better, (and who will tell us this with any certainty?) +the phylogenetic table should be altered as follows:</p> + +<table class="phylgen"> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="6" class="mid bbdots"><span class="padr2">Living.</span></td> +<td colspan="4" class="rght">Auriculata.</td> +<td colspan="2"> </td> +<td colspan="4" class="lft">Trichecidae.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="4" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="4"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="3"> </td> +<td colspan="4">Gressigrada.</td> +<td> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lft">Inauriculata.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="6" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="4" class="rght">Longicaudata.</td> +<td colspan="2"> </td> +<td colspan="4" class="lft">Brevicaudata.</td> +</tr> + +<tr class="bbdots"> +<td> </td> +<td> </td> +<td> </td> +<td class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td> </td> +<td> </td> +<td> </td> +<td> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="5" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="4"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="4" class="mid"><span class="padr2">Extinct.</span></td> +<td rowspan="2" colspan="7">Long-tailed early forms<br>of Pinnipedia.</td> +<td> </td> +<td rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="lft">Basilosaurus.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="lined"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="5" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="3" class="lined"> </td> +<td colspan="2"> </td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="5"> </td> +<td colspan="5">Propinnipedia, long-tailed<br>ancestors of Pinnipedia<br>and Basilosaurus.</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<p>In the <a href="#Ref9">first table</a> I have tried to show two things.</p> + +<p>Firstly:—With a horizontal dotted line I have separated the +still living animals or groups from those who have become extinct; +the former are placed above, the latter beneath the dotted line.</p> + +<p>And Secondly:—With the different lengths of the vertical +dotted lines I have tried to show the different relative lengths of +time-periods wanted by the different species or groups to be formed, +so to speak, from that species or group which in this table is placed +exactly beneath it, and with which it is united by a dotted line.</p> + +<p>It is clear that the evolution must have happened, geologically +spoken, with extreme rapidity there, where the animals were entirely +changing their manner of living, be it from a terrestrial one +<span class="pagenum" id="Page572">[572]</span>into an aquatic one, or otherwise; and that the evolution happened +less rapid, or even, geologically spoken, very slowly, where the +animals remained terrestrial or aquatic beings, and only changed +their manner of living in so far, that they became troglodytes or +semi-troglodytes, or became from carnivorous only piscivorous or +semi-carni-semi-piscivorous. I believe that by this hypothesis the +problem is solved why remains of <i>Basilosaurus</i> are already found +in Eocene layers together with remains of Viverrine ancestors of +<i>Carnivora</i>, <i>Pinnipedia</i> and <i>Basilosaurus</i>, whilst those of true <i>Pinnipedia</i>, +<i>Lutrina</i> and <i>Mustelina</i> appear for the first time during +the Miocene period, and whilst remains of true <i>Viverra</i>’s (the +genus) do not seem to have made their appearance before the +Pliocene period.</p> + +<h2 class="appendix nobreak">APPENDIX.</h2> + +<p>Since the book was written, I have corresponded with Prof. Dr. +<span class="smcap">M. Forster Heddle</span>, of St. Andrews, Mr. <span class="smcap">J. A. Harvie Brown</span>, +of Dunipace (Larbert), Misses <span class="smcap">Kate</span> and <span class="smcap">Forbes J. Macrae</span>, both +of Heathmount (Inverness), Mr. <span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span>, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, +Prof. <span class="smcap">R. Collett</span>, of Christiania, and Mr. <span class="smcap">R. P. Greg</span>, of +Coles (Buntingford). The five first-named corresponded with me as +eye-witnesses, and kindly sent me their statements, written immediately +after the appearances they had witnessed; Prof. <span class="smcap">Collett</span> +courteously presented me with a copy of his dissertation <i>Lidt om +Soe-Ormen eller Soe-Slangen</i>; Mr. <span class="smcap">Greg</span> who since many years has +been collecting with great zeal accounts and reports concerning the +matter, had the rare liberality to send me his whole collection to +make use of. To all these ladies and gentlemen I feel here called +upon to tender my warmest thanks.</p> + +<p>Space does not allow me to give a verbal reprint of the various +hoaxes, would-be sea-serpents, reports, and principal contents of +papers, nor to treat of them separately. This I leave for an eventual +second edition. But all the appearances which I have placed +under the <i>Reports and Papers</i> are explicable by reference to the +<i>Megophias</i>. With the initials “R. P. G.” I have marked those +statements, accounts, etc., which I got from Mr. R. P. <span class="smcap">Greg</span>.</p> + + +<h3 class="appendix">Literature.</h3> + +<p>Besides the newspapers, dissertations, and books, mentioned in +the subsequent parts, the following are additions to my first chapter:</p> + +<p class="hind08">*1707.—<span class="smcap">F. Leguat.</span> Voyage et aventures en deux isles désertes +des Indes Orientales.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page573">[573]</span></p> + +<p class="hind08">*18.....—<i>Het Nederlandsch Magazijn.</i></p> + +<p class="hind08">*1874, February.—The <i>Cape Monthly Magazine</i>.</p> + +<p class="hind08">*1875.—<i>The Shipping Gazette</i>, London.</p> + +<p class="hind08">*1875.—<i>The Daily Telegraph.</i></p> + +<p class="hind08"><span class="padl1">1879, September 25?—<i>The Royston Crow.</i>—(R. P. G.).</span></p> + +<p class="hind08">*189...—<span class="smcap">Bassett</span>, Sea-phantoms; or legends and superstitions of + the sea and sailors in all lands and all times. Chicago.</p> + +<h3 class="appendix">Hoaxes.</h3> + +<p>The account of captain <span class="smcap">L. Bijl</span>, of 1858, July 9, (see <a href="#Page96">p. 96</a>) +must be a hoax, for 1. 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ E. long. is a +point in the middle of North-Africa, and 2. even if E. long, were +a misprint instead of W. long., it is impossible that a barque +should travel over such a distance as from 27° 27′ N. lat. and +14° 51′ W. long, to 37° 55′ S. lat. and 42° 9′ E. long. <i>in nine days</i>!</p> + +<p>A tale in the <i>Standard</i> of 1879, March 27, of a dead sea-serpent +found floating near Monegan (Manhegin?) Island near Portland, +Me.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>Collision of the Norwegian barque <i>Columbia</i>, from London to +Quebec, with a huge floating creature on the 4th. September, +1879; the ship sunk.—<i>Manchester Guardian</i> of 1879, Sept. 25.—(R. +P. G.).</p> + +<p>A sea-serpent of 55 feet in length, light pink coloured. “Several +times it opened its mouth, disclosing fangs about 4in. in length”.—It +was on 5th. August 1885, in lat. 29° 35′ N. and long 34° 50′ W.—(R. +P. G.).</p> + +<p>A sea-serpent caught off Newfoundland, October 11, 1886, +and stuffed.—<i>Manchester Evening Mail</i>, 1887, September; <i>Evening +Mercury</i> of St. Johns, N. F., 1887, September 12; <i>The Marine +Industrial News</i>.—The monster was from head to tail “a fraud”, +or “a Yankee humbug”.—Letter from Mr. <span class="smcap">G. Fitz Gerald</span>, of +St. Johns, and from Prof. <span class="smcap">G. V. Morse</span>, of Portland, Me., to +Mr. <span class="smcap">R. P. Greg</span>.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p><i>The London Globe</i> of Aug. 15, 1887, mentions a fight between +a sea-serpent and a whale, witnessed near Fort Papham in moonlight, +some three weeks back, etc.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>A stranded sea-serpent.—<i>Boston Courier</i>, 1887, November.—Cape +May, N. Jers.—Hoax? or would-be sea-serpent? (<i>Regalecus?</i>)—(R. +P. G.)</p> + +<p><i>The</i> sea-serpent is distinctly seen in Georgetown Harbour, on +the 20th. of August, 1888, sleeping on the surface, &c.—<i>Chambers’ +Journal</i>, 1888, Nov. 24.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page574">[574]</span></p> + +<p>“Exciting chases after boats’ crews.”—A splendid hoax.—St. +Johns’ (N. F.) <i>Evening Telegram</i> of Aug. 25, 1888.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>The Bishop of Adelaide or a certain Mr. <span class="smcap">Bishop</span> of that town +has found a sea-serpent lying dead on the shore.—<i>The Times</i> of +Nov. 11, 1891.—(R. P. G.)—Mr. <span class="smcap">G. Bogle</span> wrote to the Bishop, +who promptly answered it was entirely untrue.—(G. B.)</p> + +<p>“Narrow escape of a boats’ crew.”—<i>The North British Daily +Mail</i> of September 1892.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span>.)</p> + +<h3 class="appendix">Would-be Sea-Serpents.</h3> + +<p>1880 August.—The sea-serpent of Captain <span class="smcap">Hanna</span>, of Pemaquid, +Me.—Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, Vol. III, n<sup>o</sup>. 26, +p. 407.—Without any doubt a fish, but very problematic.—<i>Naturen</i>, +1884, N<sup>o</sup>. 2.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. <span class="smcap">Collett</span>.)</p> + +<p>1880 August 11.—Between Yokohama and San Francisco, lat. +48.37. long. 180.—Captain <span class="smcap">Thos. U. Brocklehurst</span>, of Henbury +Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire, saw on board the <i>Oceanic</i> a snake-like +fish, 40 feet long, about 18 inches the whole length thick.—Letter +from Mr. <span class="smcap">Thos. U. Brocklehurst</span> to Mr. <span class="smcap">R. P. Greg</span>.—Without +any doubt an eel-shaped fish.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1883, July or August.—A newspaper of this month mentions the +capture of a genuine sea-serpent in the Java Sea.—<i>Hydrophis.</i>—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1883, October 8.—In the Red Sea, lat. 23° N., long. 37° E., +on board the ss. <i>Madura</i>.—Witness Mr. A. Eisses, of Groningen.—<i>Nieuwe +Groninger Courant</i> of August 16, 1892.—The neck +had the thickness of the upper arm of a man.—Appearance perfectly +the same as that witnessed by Mr. <span class="smcap">G. Verschuur</span> (see <a href="#Page99">p. 99</a>).</p> + +<p>1886 or 1887.—The sea-snake-like bird, reported by Count <span class="smcap">Joachim +Pfeil</span>, the German African explorer—a little snake-like neck rising +out of the water, which when fired at, rose into the air, proving to be +a bird—is of course a kind of <i>Plotus</i>, and most probably <i>Plotus +levaillantii</i> <span class="smcap">Temm.</span>—A Hertford newspaper of 1887.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1888?—In Mrs. <span class="smcap">Caddy’s</span> book <i>To Siam and Malasia in the +Duke of Sutherland’s Yacht</i> is a description of a sea-serpent she +witnessed near Bangkok “which rose slowly out of the water in +two large luminous curves, like two arches of a low bridge”.—?—(R. +P. G.)</p> + +<p>1889, August.—<i>Standard</i> of 1889, August 15.—A monstrous +fish was seen floundering in shallow water on the Bancals Rocks, +not far from the Island of St. Honorat, near Cannes, and had a +beak like a parrot.—Most probably therefore it was a calamary.—(R. +P. G.)</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page575">[575]</span></p> + +<h3 class="appendix">Reports and Papers.</h3> + +<p>Without date.—A sea-monster at Maringonish in the Gulf of +St. Lawrence, judged to be a hundred feet in length, seen by two +intelligent observers within 200 yards of the shore.—Description +too short.—Doubtful.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1570, July.—A monstrous fish seen in Loch Fyne (Fine), +having great eyes, and at times standing above the water as high +as the mast of a ship.—<i>Diurnal and Remarkable occurrents in +Scotland</i>, 1513-1575, Maitland Club, Scotland, 1833.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1639.—A vague report of a certain <span class="smcap">Josselin</span>, but most probably +based on truth.—Cape Ann.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, +1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1779.—“In an Eastern Harbour” (which?)—Eye-witness <span class="smcap">E. +Preble</span>, midshipman in the <i>Protector</i>, and several other officers +and crew.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1817, August 14. (<a href="#Page168">N<sup>o</sup>. 41</a>, see <a href="#Page169">p. 169</a>).—Another confirmation +of this appearance will be found in the <i>Gloucester Telegraph</i> of +that year. Here it is also mentioned that in the <span class="smcap">Rogers</span> family +there is preserved a picture by <span class="smcap">“Jack” Beach</span>, or better a copy +of this picture by <span class="smcap">Joseph H. Davis</span>, representing the sea-serpent +in the harbour of Gloucester on this day.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of +June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)—This is of course the drawing, spoken +of on <a href="#Page173">p. 173</a> of the present volume. Here I may note that <span class="smcap">Pontoppidan</span> +also speaks of a picture in the collection of <span class="smcap">Jacob Severin</span>, +representing the animal as it appeared to <span class="smcap">Egede</span>.</p> + +<p>1818, August 13 and 14.—Partly about Nahant, and partly +near Gloucester.—Multitudes of spectators.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of +June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1819, August 19.—This seems to be the exact date of the appearance +witnessed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Cabot</span>. Mr. <span class="smcap">Prince</span> and others saw it “a few +days previously”.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1820, August 10.—Off Swampscott.—<span class="smcap">Andrew Reinolds</span>, <span class="smcap">Jonathan +B. Lewis</span>, <span class="smcap">Benjamin King</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Joseph Ingalls</span>.—<i>Atlantic +Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1823, July 12.—The animal was seen moving into the harbor +(Lynn Harbour?) from Nahant.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Johnson</span> (in April +7, 1884, still alive).—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1826.—“In 1826 it again appeared off Nahant, as is recorded +very briefly in the <i>Lynn Mirror</i>”.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, +1884.—See also <a href="#Report84">n<sup>o</sup>. 84</a>, p. 236; it might have been the same +individual.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page576">[576]</span></p> + +<p>1838? (<a href="#Report104">N<sup>o</sup>. 104</a>, see p. 253).—Captain <span class="smcap">Beechy</span> made his +voyage to the Pacific in the <i>Blossom</i> in the years 1825, 26, 27 +and 28. It is therefore probable that he saw the sea-serpent in one +of these years, but also possible that he was commander of the +<i>Blossom</i> before 1825 or later than 1828.</p> + +<p>1841, July 14.—A monster with a straight black head, 10 +feet out of the water, spouting “a column of water in the air”, +but “it was not a whale”.—Gulf of Mexico.—<span class="smcap">Stephen’s</span> <i>Central +America</i>, 1842, Vol. II, p. 464.—Description too short.—Doubtful.—(R. +P. G.).</p> + +<p>1849.—Seen (where?) by Mr. <span class="smcap">Marston</span>, of Swampscott.—<i>Atlantic +Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>1854, spring.—A gigantic serpent, first called by the look-out +man as “the biggest log ever seen”, afterwards rearing its snake +like head as high as the funnel of the steamer out of the water, +and plunging down.—Eye witnesses: Captain <span class="smcap">Peat</span>, of the <i>Wm. +Scalrook</i>, and Captain <span class="smcap">Rollins</span>, of the <i>Isabel</i>.—Before the mouth +of Savannah River, Georg. and S. Car.—Miss <span class="smcap">Murray</span>, <i>United +States, Canada and Cuba</i>, 1855, Putnam & Co., New York, +p. 235.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>1872.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Schlegel</span> in his <i>De Dierentuin van het Koninklijk +Zoölogisch Genootschap Natura Artis Magistra te Amsterdam</i>, Vol. III, +p. 45, points out that as early as 1837 he <i>proved</i> (<i>nota bene</i>) the impossibility +of the existence of such a more than gigantic animal.</p> + +<p>1872, August 20 and 21. (<a href="#Report137">N<sup>o</sup>. 137</a> and <a href="#Report138">138</a>, see p. 322).—The +following is the account which the Rev. <span class="smcap">J. Macrae</span> sent to +the <i>Inverness Courier</i>, August 1872, prefaced by the Editors of +this paper:</p> + +<p>“A gentleman on whose intelligent observation and accuracy we +have perfect reliance, sends the following account of a strange +animal now to be seen about the West-Coast of Invernessshire and +which, if not the veritable or traditional sea-serpent, must be the +object so often represented under that appellation”.</p> + +<p>“On Tuesday last, 20th. August, I went on a trip to Loch +Hourn in my small sailing boat. I was accompanied by my friend, +the Rev. Mr. T. of Kent, my two daughters, my grandson, and a +servant lad. While we were proceeding along the sound of Sleat +it fell calm, and we were rowing the boat, when we observed behind +us a row of dark masses, which we took at the first glance +for a shoal of porpoises; but a second look showed that these masses +formed one and the same creature, for it moved slowly across +<span class="pagenum" id="Page577">[577]</span>our wake, about two hundred yards off, and disappeared. Soon +afterwards what seemed to be its head reappeared, followed by +the bumps, or undulations of its body, which rose in succession +till we counted 8 of them. It approached now within about 100 +yards, or less, and with the help of binoculars we could see it +pretty distinctly. We did not see its eyes, nor observe any scales: +but two of the party believed that they saw what they took to be +a small fin moving above the water. It then slowly sunk, and +moved away just under the surface of the water, for we could trace +its course till it rose again, by the large waves it raised above it, +to the distance of a mile and upwards”.</p> + +<p>“We had no means of measuring its size with any accuracy, +but taking the distance from the centre of one bump or undulation +of its body to that of another at 6ft. (it could not be less) +the length of the portion visible above the water, would be about +50 feet, and there may have been 20 or 30ft. more of its length +which we did not see”.</p> + +<p>“Its head seemed blunt, and looked about 18in. in diameter, +and the bumps were rather larger than the head. When in rapid +motion the bumps disappeared, and only the head and neck +could be seen, partly above the surface of the water. It continued +to rush about in the same manner as long as we remained +within sight of the place, but did not again come so near us +that day”.</p> + +<p>“On the afternoon of the next day, August 21, as we were +returning home we encountered our strange acquaintance again +within the entrance of Loch Hourn, and saw him careering swiftly +along the surface of the water, which was now slightly rippled +with a light air of wind. It passed once abeam of us, at a distance +of about 150 yards, with its head half out of the water, and we +distinctly heard the whizzing noise it made as it rushed through +the water. There were no organs of locomotion to be seen, and +its progress was equable and smooth, like that of a log towed +rapidly. Neither its appearance nor mode of progression had any +resemblance to those of any known cetacean, shark, or fish of any +kind. In case any of your readers should imagine that I, as well +as the subject of my report am a mere myth, you will please to +give my name to this communication, and I believe that among +a pretty wide circle of persons who know me there is none who +consider me capable of stating as true what I do not believe to be +so; or so little acquainted with the sea, as not to know a whale, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page578">[578]</span>a porpoise, a shark, or a herring barrel, when I see them. I am +Sir, your obedient servant”</p> + +<p>“Glenelg Mame”. +<span class="righttext"><span class="padr4">“<span class="smcap">J. Macrae</span>”.</span></span></p> + +<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Kate Macrae’s</span> narrative, written on the spot, runs as +follows:</p> + +<p>“<i>In the yacht “Leda”, 20th. and 21th. August 1872.</i>—We +were becalmed in the sound of Sleat about 3 miles from Glenelg, +the day was intensely hot, the lads were rowing slowly. I was +facing the stern, when I saw about a half mile behind, a dark +object suddenly emerge, about the size of a small cask. I exclaimed, +and called the attention of the others to it; immediately a +second, third, fourth, fifth, thing appeared like this”. (Here Miss +<span class="smcap">Macrae</span> has drawn six bunches exactly resembling those drawn +by her father, see <a href="#Fig39">fig. 39</a> p. 323). “We thought at first it was +the back of a cormorant, but were undeceived by seeing the animal +swim swiftly just under the surface of the water towards a +rowing boat of country people which was nearer it than we were, +the people evidently astonished ceased rowing, and the creature +disappeared quietly without the least agitation of the water. Our +boys then resumed their oars, which they had dropped to gaze, +and next we saw the animal coming swiftly towards us, from the +direction of the boat; it raised the water before it, and left a wake +on the calm sea behind it, like what a small steam launch would. +As our rowers paused again, it turned to the outer side of our +yacht, and disappeared, but I noticed that something like a rounded +paddle, the breadth of two hands worked to and fro raising the +water in a clear dome as it went down; the colour of it a dark +brown, and shape like this”. (Here Miss <span class="smcap">Macrae</span> has drawn a thick +curved line in the form of a horse-shoe, the opening turned downwards). +“In a few minutes afterwards, the row of lumps appeared +again about a mile behind, and this time a triangular fin stuck +up from about the 4th. lump, and apparently 10ft. the size of our +jib, and the animal moved slowly along on the surface”.</p> + +<p>“Next evening as we were slipping gently along near the mouth +of Loch Hourn on the N. side, my nephew called out, that he +saw the sea-serpent again. Swimming across from Skye, by the +time I caught sight of it, it was far away, but showed more +lumps, I counted 12, there were two sloops trying to get up into +the Loch, and the crews were in their boats towing them, the +animal looked 4 times as long as one of these vessels, it was swimming +leisurely, and plainly pursued those vessels; then making a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page579">[579]</span>sweep across the mouth of the Loch came towards us, and passed +not far outside the boat. I distinctly heard its rush through the +water, just under the surface; the first waves it made, were unbroken, +but some way from the head the water was broken, and +foaming”.</p> + +<p>“Later, at 9 P. M. just as we neared Glenelg sailing and rowing, +and with a good deal of ripple on the sea, we saw it coming +straight astern, then it turned away northward and passed out of +sight through Kyle Rhea”.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr4">“<span class="smcap">Kate Macrae</span>”.</span></p> + +<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Forbes J. Macrae</span> wrote to me under date of July 22, 1892:</p> + +<p>“I fancy I have had a closer view of the sea-serpent than most +people. About an hour before we were becalmed and saw it rise +in its length astern of us, we had been slipping down in our boat +along the coast, by the help of a strong tide and a very light +wind. Looking at what I could see of the water under the edge +of the mainsail of our small cutter yacht, I noticed at about an +oar’s length from the boat a dark brown shining creature lying on +the water, or rather a part of a creature for there was neither +head nor tail nor fin visible, it seemed about six feet in length +and the highest part of it was about a foot out of the water. None +of the others were looking that way, so I was the only one who +saw it. I asked my father if porpoises were in the habit of basking +on the top of the water. He said he was not aware of their being +in the habit of doing so, and we thought no more of it; till the +next appearance of the animal made us think that it must have +been one of its ridges I had seen as we sailed just close to it”.</p> + +<p>The following is the statement of Mr. <span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span> in the +<i>Newcastle Weekly Chronicle</i> of 1877, December 31:</p> + +<p>“As considerable attention has lately been drawn in your columns +to the sea-serpent, both mythological and otherwise, perhaps the +following description of the strange creature seen by me and others +in 1872 will be of some interest. An account of this creature, +attested by credible witnesses, appeared in the May number of the +<i>Zoologist</i> in 1873:—</p> + +<p>“On the 20th. of August, 1872, the Rev. J. Macrae of Glenelg, +Rev. David Twopenny, Miss Forbes, and Miss Kate Macrae, a +servant lad, and I left Glenelg Bay in Mr. Macrae’s yacht Leda +for a sail up Loch Hourn. The day was hot and calm, and, the +yacht being a small one (seven tons), we had recourse to rowing +in order to reach Sandaig, six miles distant, where we intended +<span class="pagenum" id="Page580">[580]</span>to dine. While still about a mile distant from Sandaig, one of +the ladies called out that there was a shoal of porpoises playing +astern, and on looking in that direction there appeared to me a +number of dark objects, which at first sight seemed not unlike +porpoises, making a considerable commotion on the surface of the +sea, the only peculiarity being that they all followed each other +in a line. As they rapidly approached, I then perceived that the +black lumps which I at first thought porpoises could not be so, +but were evidently parts of one and the same creature. This impression +seemed to come over the minds of all at the same time, +and every appearance of the creature afterwards clearly verified it”.</p> + +<p>“I was looking at it through a binocular (we had three on +board), and when it came to within one hundred yards of the +stern it dived below, the surface of the sea remained agitated at +the spot where it had disappeared for some time afterwards. Just +before it went down, as it came head on towards our stern, it +raised a succession of waves. The first was unbroken, and through +it I distinctly saw the colour of the creature, and what appeared +to be a small fin on the back or neck, moving rapidly sideways, +and two or three yards behind the head. Its colour was a dark +slaty brown, somewhat similar to that of a porpoise.”</p> + +<p>“While we were all speculating about this strange creature, it +suddenly appeared about a quarter of a mile off between us and Skye, +going at a rapid rate along the calm surface of the sea, and leaving +a large wake behind. It was only now that I had any idea of +the creature’s length. It kept cruising about on the surface after +this for more than an hour, sometimes only four or five bumps or +dark raised portions of its body appearing above the surface, about +the size of herring barrels, at other times up to eight. I noticed +that the less the speed the more bumps appeared, always commencing +from the first in rotation, and that when going very fast +only one or two appeared.”</p> + +<p>“After landing on Sandaig, where we had dinner, we started for +Loch Hourn, the weather still being very calm and sultry, with +hardly a cat’s-paw on the water. We had barely entered the mouth +of the loch when this creature again made its appearance, proceeding +in the same manner as before along the surface of the sea, +sometimes coming quite close. There was a large schooner yacht +not far off, in tow of a noisy steam launch, which about this time +probably frightened the animal, as it was not seen again that night.”</p> + +<p>“As evening fell, a breeze sprang up, and we reached Loch +<span class="pagenum" id="Page581">[581]</span>Hourn Head early next morning. After paying a visit to the Barrasdale +oyster beds, we set sail for home in the afternoon, with +a nice breeze on the quarter, but on reaching the mouth of the +loch the wind died away again and we had to take to the sweeps. +Just about the place where the animal was last seen, my attention +was called by someone to a peculiar swirling of the water not far +off, and I immediately noticed what was evidently the same creature +swimming up to the yacht at a very rapid rate. When a short +distance off it dived beneath the surface, quickly re-appearing off +the starboard beam nearer than at any previous time, and going +at such a great speed that I could distinctly hear the rushing +sound of the breaking water. At this time there were no bumps +to be seen, and I can only liken the appearance of our visitor to +a log almost entirely submerged and dragged very rapidly through +the sea, the water falling over each side of the head in a kind of +cascade, while a series of broken waves formed immediately behind, +gradually subsiding in the wake.”</p> + +<p>“It afterwards kept swimming about for a considerable time, +and I had an opportunity of judging of its length so far as visible, +compared with the hulls of two trading schooners of about 100 tons +each some little distance from us. When apparently the same distance +away as the traders, and going slowly, it appeared fully as +long from the head to the eighth bump as the length of one of +the schooners on waterline, which would be at least sixty feet; +but how much of the animal remained under water I had no +means of estimating. The head seemed to be square or blunt, but +I did not see under it, and did not notice its eye or mouth. The +bumps, or dark raised portions, appeared to me to be about +eighteen inches above the water, and three or four feet long, +with a distance of four or six feet between each bump. I could +not say whether the bumps were the convolutions of a snake-like +body or the raised portions of a large body underneath the water. +I am inclined to think the latter, as the bumps always kept the +same distance apart, and appeared to be protuberances on the +back of, possibly, a lizard shaped reptile. That it caused a large +displacement was evident from the waves and commotion raised +when swimming at or near the surface, as I could distinctly trace +its progress with the naked eye at a distance of from two to three +miles.”</p> + +<p>“We lost sight of the creature after leaving the mouth of Loch +Hourn, but just as night fell I noticed it going past at a rapid +<span class="pagenum" id="Page582">[582]</span>rate in the direction of Kyle Rhea, a narrow strait which separates +Skye from the mainland. I afterwards heard that it was seen that +same evening by fishermen and others passing through these +narrows, and it struck them all at the time as being quite different +from anything they had been accustomed to.”</p> + +<p>“The above is a bare statement of fact, and was written down +by me immediately after getting ashore, while my recollection of +the creature’s appearance was perfectly fresh and vivid. Having +cruised for many summers amongst the West Highland lochs, I +am perfectly familiar with the appearance and habits of whales, +seals, porpoises, &c., which can often be seen in great numbers. +To these, the creature I have described bore no resemblance +whatever.”</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="padr2">“<span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span>, Newcastle.”</span></p> + +<p>From this gentleman I received three splendid pen-drawings, +representing the animal witnessed by him on that occasion, but +alas too late to be reproduced for this edition.</p> + +<p>1872, August 22 and 23. (<a href="#Report139">N<sup>o</sup>. 139</a> and <a href="#Report140">140</a>, see p. 322).—On +one of these days it seems also to have been seen by Lord +<span class="smcap">Macdonald’s</span> steam yacht in Loch Hourn.—Eye-witnesses: Lord +<span class="smcap">Macdonald</span>, of Armadale, Skye, Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Mc. Neill</span>, minister +of Skye, Mrs. <span class="smcap">G. C. Lysons</span>, of Painswick, Strand, and others.—(R. +P. G.)</p> + +<p>1873, March.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Basil Clochrane</span>, Capt. R. N., of Windlesham +House, Bagshot, Surrey, on board the <i>Orontes</i>, from the +West Indies to England saw a sea-serpent.—Letter from eye-witness +to Capt. <span class="smcap">Geo. Drevar</span> (see <a href="#Page329">p. 329</a>).—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1875, July 8 and 13. (<a href="#Report144">N<sup>o</sup>. 144</a> and <a href="#Report145">145</a>, see p. 329).—The +letter from Capt. <span class="smcap">Geo. Drevar</span> to the Editor of <i>The Calcutta +Gentleman</i>, 1876, February (?), contains no news about the two +appearances.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1875, July 17.—Off Plymouth, Cape Cod Bay.—Captain +<span class="smcap">Garton</span> of the ss. <i>Norman</i>, and several people on board the ss. +<i>Roman</i>.—<i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G).</p> + +<p>1875, July 30.—On board the yacht <i>Princess</i>, between Nahant +and Egg-Rock.—Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis W. Lawrence</span>, Mrs. <span class="smcap">Lawrence</span>, +Rev. <span class="smcap">Arthur Lawrence</span>, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Stockbridge, +Mass., Miss <span class="smcap">Mary Fosdick</span>, <span class="smcap">Albion W. Reed</span>, <span class="smcap">Robert O. Reed</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">J. Kelsoe</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">J. P. Thomas</span>, both of Swampscott.—<i>Atlantic +Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1876, September 11. (<a href="#Report146">N<sup>o</sup>. 146</a>, see p. 341).—An account in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page583">[583]</span>the <i>Times</i> of 1876, December 28, furnishes no news.—A rough +drawing made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, and now in the possession of +<span class="smcap">Robert Holt</span>, of Liverpool, owner of the steamer, hardly agrees +with the depositions, and cannot give the idea of a salamander, a +newt, or a frog.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1876.—Some Pitcairn islanders saw a sea-serpent near Norfolk +Island.—Letter from one of the Pitcairn islanders to Mr. <span class="smcap">Palmer</span> +of Liverpool.—<i>Liverpool Mercury</i>, 24 February, 1877.—“Mr. <span class="smcap">John +Adams</span> and his boat’s crew saw it near Norfolk-Islands”.—Letter +from Mr. <span class="smcap">Marcus Lowther</span>, Capt. R. N. of Penge, London, S. E., +to Capt. <span class="smcap">Geo. Drevar</span> (see <a href="#Page329">p. 329</a>).—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1877, March.—Mr. <span class="smcap">R. A. Proctor</span>, in his “<i>Strange Sea-Monsters</i>” +(<i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i>) says amongst other assertions: “naturalists +have been far less disposed to be incredulous than the general +public”. If it were only true! Hitherto at least <i>zoologists</i> have not +admitted even the possibility of the existence of a still unknown +species, called “sea-serpent”.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1877, July 15.—About two miles off the mouth of Gloucester +Harbour, Mass.—Mr. <span class="smcap">George S. Wasson</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">B. L. Fernald</span>.—<i>Atlantic +Monthly</i> of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1878, summer.—Fjord near Aalesund.—<i>Naturen</i>, 1884, <a href="#Report2">n<sup>o</sup>. 2</a>.—(Forwarded +to me by Prof. <span class="smcap">R. Collett</span>).</p> + +<p>1882, October 11.—Near Bude, Cornwall.—Eye-witnesses: +Rev. <span class="smcap">E. Highton</span>, Vicar of Bude, with several friends.—The +<i>Times</i> of October 12, 1882.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1883, August 1.—The <i>Evening News</i> of this date communicates +and gives partly a review of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee’s</span> <i>Sea Monsters Unmasked</i>.—(R. +P. G.).</p> + +<p>1884, February.—Prof. <span class="smcap">R. Collett</span>, of Christiania, wrote a +paper in the Norwegian language headed <i>Something on the sea-serpent</i> +(<i>Naturen</i>, 1884, n<sup>o</sup> 2).—The writer does not seem to +be a believer in the existence of a sea-serpent. The arguments +against its existence are 1. A sea-serpent of considerable dimensions +would in the course of centuries not have failed to have been +observed and caught. 2. In the depth of the Ocean there are undoubtedly +creatures, which as yet are unknown, but all specimens +caught, be they as abnormal as possible, are referred to existing +well-known forms. 3. No known vertebrated animal, can, on account +of its structure, move in vertical undulations.—Against +these arguments I may say: 1. Before, 1861, and 1873 the krakens +were <i>fables</i>, and yet they existed! Mr. <span class="smcap">Rafinesque Schmaltz</span> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page584">[584]</span>&c., see <a href="#Page431">p. 431</a>, line 6 from below to <a href="#Page432">p. 432</a>, line 5 from above. +2. Do “naturalists” not constantly refer the sea-serpents to existing +well-known forms? 3. Among Reptiles the <i>Plesiosaurians</i> had a +long neck and this neck could certainly be bent vertically; among +Birds the <i>swans</i> are able to bend the long neck vertically, and <i>all +Mammals</i> can move in vertical undulations, especially the <i>Mustelina</i>, +<i>Lutrina</i>, and <i>Pinnipedia</i>; and the horizontal position of the tail +of the <i>Sirenia</i> and <i>Plagiuri</i> is a strong proof that their ancestors +moved in vertical undulations.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Collett’s</span> private opinion +is that the sea-serpents observed in the fjords of Norway, were +mostly specimens of the basking shark. I, however, firmly believe +that the Norwegian fishermen know the basking shark so well, +that such an animal would never have been taken by them for a +sea-serpent! They know these sharks and their habits far better, +I should think, than Prof. <span class="smcap">Mitchill</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Mantell</span>, Prof. <span class="smcap">Melville</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Buckland</span> and Prof. <span class="smcap">Lütken</span> all together. Moreover in +none of their descriptions there is question of a backfin, or of backfins, +which are the first visible parts of a basking shark!</p> + +<p>1884, June.—<i>The Trail of the Sea-Serpent</i>, by Mr. <span class="smcap">J. G. Wood</span>, +in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>.—A very interesting paper, with historical +notes and many new appearances, however, not without some +zoological inaccuracies. He believes the sea-serpent to be an elongated +whale, a <i>Basilosaurus</i> or an animal allied to it, and that +the short neck of the <i>Basilosaurus</i> may be an error of the restorer +(<i>nota bene!</i>).—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>1884, June 2.—<i>The Manchester Guardian</i> gives a review of +Mr. <span class="smcap">J. G. Wood’s</span> paper, and as Mr. <span class="smcap">Wood</span> comes to the conclusion +that the animal must be an elongated whale, the <i>Manchester +Guardian</i> ends (how insipid!): “Very like a whale”.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>1885, October 4.—Near Umhlali (Umlazi?) in Morewood’s +Bay, South Africa.—(R. P. G.).</p> + +<p>1886(?), summer.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span> informs me that a few summers +ago, (and from one sentence of his letter I deduce that it +was before 1887) a sea-serpent was seen in Loch Duich. “The +description was very much what we are familiar with”.</p> + +<p>1886, August. (<a href="#Report158">N<sup>o</sup> 158</a>, see p. 376).—The description of the +eyes as having a greenish hue struck me so, that I at first did +not attach belief to the assertion (see <a href="#Page377">p. 377</a> and <a href="#Page497">497</a>), but now +I know that this is not an impossibility, as I since observed that +the <i>tapetum lucidum</i> of the eye of a dog may reflect the daylight +as well in a reddish as in a greenish hue.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page585">[585]</span></p> + +<p>1887, July 30.—Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span> wrote to me on May 6th., 1892:</p> + +<p>“I would just say that having taken bearings on the land, in +order to estimate—(of course roughly)—the <i>length</i>, and the +<i>speed</i>, I set down the length at from 60 to 65 feet. There was a +very low flat head like a large skate, say 4¹⁄₂ feet—a gap not +so great,—ten “hummocks” increasing in bulk and altitude towards +the central one, but not much—gaps not so great as the +size of the hummocks, next a space, about equal to two hummocks, +then three hummocks, the central one largest, the last small”.</p> + +<p>“The thing I saw appear three times—first time end on was +a worthless observation, except that on this occasion the whole was +<i>rushing</i> through the water. On the other two occasions there was +hardly any forward motion at all. The whole disappeared at the +same moment, and reappeared also at the same moment, about +two seconds thereafter more than its own length in advance; so +that there must have been either an exceedingly rapid rush under +water—<i>or</i> a second animal. The disappearance and reappearance +were both without the <i>least</i> splash; but at the moment of disappearance +the second time <i>the foremost two of the last three hummocks +coalesced into one</i>”.</p> + +<p>“During one of the appearances I got the focus of the binoculars +so sharp that I distinctly saw water falling over towards me, +between some of the hummocks and myself. There was no consecutive +filling up of the interspaces whatever, or appearance of vacuities +where the hummocks had but now been”.</p> + +<p>“There was certainly no <i>vertical</i> serpentine motion—and I could +see no <i>lateral</i> one”.</p> + +<p>“My impression was that, setting aside the quiescent low head, +I <i>did not see a solid substance at all</i>,—except when the tail +hummocks momentarily appeared—and that what I did see was +water being thrown over laterally by the undulous lashings of a +long back fin of a dark colour, which gave opacity”.</p> + +<p>“I cannot set the “hummocks” down to <i>surge waves</i> of a rushing +short fish; because I cannot so explain such surges being always +the same both in <i>number</i> and in <i>place</i>: nor can I so explain the +appearance of an apparently solid head—and an apparently continuous +tail”.</p> + +<p>“The above is all from memory”.</p> + +<p>The following is the</p> + +<p>“Relation regarding a <i>Phenomenon</i> seen by the crew and Owner +and guests of the yacht Shiantelle on the W. coast of Scotland on +<span class="pagenum" id="Page586">[586]</span>30th. July 1887 as told by <span class="smcap">J. A. Harvie Brown</span>, and seen by +him, and written in his Journals of that date”.</p> + +<p>“At 10″ to 15″ to 10 am. I was called quickly on deck by +Cowell, and I went up from breakfast. “What is that”? said +Cowell. After some time I saw between me and the shore to the +E., which shore was about one mile distant, undulations upon almost +calm water (The ship was moving at the rate of about half +a knot an hour) being similar in appearance, and having the motions +of the (described and supposed) Sea-Serpent. I counted with +the binoculars twelve or perhaps thirteen humps at almost perfectly +regular distances the one from the others. The first of these humps +appeared to be moving rapidly through the water across the line +of vision, and to be breaking and spraying water, and the other +eleven or twelve (I had only time to count them once) maintained +all their relative positions with one another and collectively with +the first, <i>yet</i> did not appear in themselves to me to move, though +slight ripples of water were visible, nearly throughout the whole +length. The whole disappeared and reappeared at least four times +to me, apparently simultaneously or almost so throughout its length. +When last it was seen, it was moving on a course almost parallel +with the shore, which shore runs N. E. or thereby. The distance +from the ship at which time I first saw it, and from that time +to its final disappearance was estimated by me at about half a +mile by eye (but this may have been an over-estimate of distance)”.</p> + +<p>“John Campbell, seaman, and mate on board the yacht, standing +at the helm, deposes in a seperate document—drawn up and +written by R. L. Cowell, Steward, from his oral statement—which +seperate statement, was at once closed, without being read +by either Dr. Heddle or myself, and still remains so”.</p> + +<p>“R. L. Cowell, Steward, who was on deck at the same time as +John Campbell (having laid and served our breakfast) deposes in +similar manner in a seperate statement, also closed and not read +by Dr. Heddle and myself”.</p> + +<p>“But John Campbell on being examined by us deposes on cross-examination +that:—While we were at breakfast in the Saloon, +he saw approaching from the direction of Corrie Chreachan a series +of large undulations which passed “within 40 yards” then “within +30 yards” and again “within the length of the ship” (which is 56 +feet) from the stern of the vessel, and travelling at a great pace; +that he saw nothing above the surface of the water except broken +water in front of the first or foremost undulation. That except +<span class="pagenum" id="Page587">[587]</span>this, he saw nothing but the perpendicular swellings (vertical +swellings), as it were “skins of water” pushed up from beneath, +and a long track or wake of slightly disturbed water, left for a +long distance behind. It was seen approaching from the direction +of the Sound between Scarba and Jura, or Corrie Chreacan, and +passed the stern of the vessel. It was therefore heading at the +time nearly E. The Ship’s head was lying about E. half N.”</p> + +<p>“R. L. Cowell saw it almost or quite simultaneously with John +Campbell on its first appearance.”</p> + +<p>“N. B. The time between his calling me on deck and the time +I first observed the appearance, I have described, I put down at +<i>about half</i> a minute (as, before seeing it, after getting on deck, +I asked one or two questions as to bearings, before I could get +sight of it with my glasses). After my first look I called up Dr. +Heddle. It was after calling up Dr. Heddle, that I made out the +counting of the humps, and the other appearances described. I +may have been 5 to 10 seconds between my being called up, and +my reaching the deck, aft of the companion, and I then got the +glasses and unscrewed them to focus, while I was asking the +questions as to bearings. Roughly speaking, I calculate, that from +the first appearance to Campbell and Cowell, till its final disappearance, +it must have been, inclusive of disappearances and reappearances, +about 15 minutes in sight or observation. When <i>they</i> +saw it, it must have been travelling very rapidly; and not nearly +<i>so</i> rapidly when we observed it at the greater distance. My estimate +of distance when I saw it, <i>may</i> be an over-estimate put at half a +mile.”</p> + +<p>“Before J. Campbell saw it he heard a heavy splash, and saw +the marks of the same, near the vessel—about half an hour +before he saw what he describes—but no importance is attached +to this, as a heavy fish some time after the disappearance, was +seen shortly after to splash near the vessel; and Pellocks were also +seen in the vicinity. The Pellocks however did not splash but rolled +in their usual way. Not for one moment can their motion be compared +by any of us, with the other appearances observed.” (Here +Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> has drawn a bunch, then a gap, larger than the bunch, +and then eleven smaller bunches, separated one from the other by +a gap as large as the half of one of these smaller bunches, the +whole drawing representing exactly the animal swimming with +vertical undulations and seen at a considerable distance.)</p> + +<p>“Without actually fixing the position of the ship we consulted +<span class="pagenum" id="Page588">[588]</span>the chart and as nearly as we could arrived at it by bearings. It +will be seen that the deepest water runs from the E. extremity of +Corrie Chreacan very much along the line which the object or objects +seen, was seen to follow; and that where its appearance was +last noted the soundings show a very rapid shoaling from 30 fathoms +to 17 about the position of our ship, being in from 15 to 17 +fathoms.—”</p> + +<p>“I think it right to add to the above account as written down +on the spot, that after the statements which were kept sealed for +a long time after, were consulted and every consideration given to +the whole tale and phenomenon personally I came to the conclusion, +and feel very certain still, that it was simply a <i>Tide-rip</i> or +<i>Tidal wave</i> coming from the direction of Corrievreachan between +Scarba and Jura running Easterly and then N. Easterly along the +smooth water where soundings showed the meeting of the shallow +of the deep. I have questioned Light-house-keepers since who have +the most continuous chances of observation, within often, calm +seas, and they have assured me such a phenomenon is not at all +rare or unusual “under certain conditions of tides in certain localities”. +Sailors have less chance to witness these phenomena perhaps +than light-house-keepers, as they are seldom and long stationary at +all states of tides.”</p> + +<p>Notwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span>, I feel persuaded that +he, Prof. <span class="smcap">Heddle</span> and others really saw the same appearance as did the +Rev. <span class="smcap">J. Macrae</span> and others (see n<sup>o</sup> 137 and 138). The long back fin of +a dark colour, which gave opacity and threw water over laterally +by its lashings, of course was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.</p> + +<p>1889, August 15.—A good little paper on the subject, and +partly a plea for the existence of the creature is in the <i>Standard</i> +of that date.—(R. P. G.)</p> + +<p>1891, July 24.—East coast of North Island, New-Zealand.—<i>The +Standard</i>, 1891, September 22.—(R. P. G.):—</p> + +<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Ford Mathews</span>, a surveyor, living at Gisborne, +on the east coast of the North Island, wrote to the papers to the +effect that while on board the <i>Manopouri</i>, another of the Union +Company’s steamers, on the voyage from Auckland to Gisborne, +on Friday, July 24th., he and several others distinctly saw a sea-serpent +resembling the one seen from the <i>Rotomahana</i> off Portland +Island. This time it appeared north of the East Cape, which is +some distance to the north of where it was seen by the <i>Rotomahana</i> +a week later. The time, Mr. <span class="smcap">Mathews</span> states, was between +<span class="pagenum" id="Page589">[589]</span>eight and nine in the morning. The “monster” was also seen by +the ship’s officer in charge. It would from time to time lift its +head and part of its body to a great height perpendicularly, and +when in that position would turn its body round in a most peculiar +manner, displaying a black back, white belly, and two armlet appendages +of great length, which appeared to dangle about like a +broken limb on a human being. It would then suddenly drop back +into the water, scattering it in all directions. It had a flat head, +and was about half a mile distant from the ship. The reason, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Mathews</span> added, that he had not mentioned the matter before +was that people were likely to treat it with derision.”</p> + +<p>1891, August 1.—Off the East-coast of North Island, New +Zealand, on board the <i>Rotomahana</i>, a steamer of the Union Steam-Shipping +Company.—<i>Standard</i> of 22th. September, 1891; <i>Newcastle +Evening Chronicle</i> of September 23, 1891.—(R. P. G. and +<span class="smcap">Gilbert Bogle</span>.)</p> + +<p>“The Chief Officer, Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander Lindsay Kerr</span>, on being +interviewed by a newspaper reporter said:—</p> + +<p>“On Saturday morning last, August 1st., about 6.30 o’clock, +we were off Portland Light, between Gisborne and Napier. I was +on deck looking over the weather side, to see if I could see the +land, when I saw the object, whatever it was, rise out of the +water to the height of about 30ft. Its shape was for all the world +like a huge conger eel, with the exception that it had two large +fins that appeared to be about 10 feet long. The creature was not +more than 100 yards away at the outside, and I should estimate +its girth at between ten and twelve feet. I could not see its back +as it was coming straight towards the steamer, but its belly and +fins were pure white. The creature’s head did not appear to be +particularly definite, the neck running right up to the head the +same as that of a large eel. It was broad daylight at the time, +and the sun was shining clearly. When it went beneath the water +it did not fall forward like a fish that is jumping, but drew itself +back as if with a contortion. I only saw it the once which was +the last time it rose. I looked out for it, thinking it might pass +under the ship and reappear on the other side, but I did not see +it again. Had the weather not been so rough the steamer might +have gone alongside and ascertained its dimensions. One of the +Quartermasters Peter Nelson, was watching the thing, and it so +startled him that he took upon himself to rush on to the bridge +and ask me if I had seen it, a thing a sea-man never does unless +<span class="pagenum" id="Page590">[590]</span>something very exceptional occurs. A landsman might do so, but +a sea-man never, unless under exceptional circumstances, such as +these. I have been to sea for twenty seven years, and have been +engaged in nearly every known trade from whaling in Greenland +to the slave trade, and have been in almost every part of the +world, but I never saw any object at sea like the one that rivetted +my attention on Saturday morning last. I have always been sceptical +with regard to the sea-serpent stories, I have heard and read, and +a smile has always come across my face at them, but I have been +too long at sea, and have seen too many remarkable things, to +deny positively that there was such a thing, had a landsman or a +lady told me about the creature on Saturday, while I should have +given them credit for being quite sincere, I should have taken no +notice of it, as they are so apt to make mistakes at sea. I am too +much accustomed at sea, however, to have made any mistake. +When we got to Napier, I mentioned the circumstance there, +when they pointed out that there had been a shock of earthquake +shortly before the time we saw the creature, which may have been +the cause of sending it to the surface. As to its length I could +give no opinion, but as the creature rose some 30ft. out of the +water I should imagine there were still two-thirds of it in the +water, but that is only my supposition.”</p> + +<p>“<span class="smcap">Peter Nelson</span>, the Quartermaster, referred to gave his story +as follows:—</p> + +<p>“It was about 6.30 on Saturday morning last, August 1st. It +was a bright clear morning with the sun shining brightly. The +weather, however, was rough, with a heavy sea. I had just come +from the wheel at six o’clock, and was standing on the lee-side +looking out, and all at once I saw this thing appear rising out +of the water about 30ft. It went down again. It did not go forward +like a fish jumping, but seemed to draw itself right back +under water as if it contracted itself. It came up and went down +again in the same way about four times. The first time I saw it +was about a mile off the ship to leeward; the last time I saw it +was about 100 yards from the ship. The time occupied in traveling +the distance seemed to be about two minutes. It looked like a +huge conger-eel or snake, except that it had two large fins. The +fins seemed to be about 10ft. long, and were situated about 20ft. +from the head. The tips of the fins were about touching the water. +Where the fins joined the body the latter seemed to bulge out. I +did not see the fins the first time it rose, but I saw them each +<span class="pagenum" id="Page591">[591]</span>time afterwards. The belly and the fins were pure white. I saw +the back part. It was the colour of an eel. The head and neck +were like those of an eel. It was nothing like a whale. Had it +been at all like a whale I should have taken no notice of it, as +it is such a common thing to see whales at sea. It was not more +than one hundred yards away the last time I saw it. The thing +was glistening in the sun. I could not see its eyes. Had the sun +not been shining, or had it been night, I might have been able +to see its eyes. Every time it went down there was a distinct +splash that could be heard quite plainly. The time being so early +in the morning and the sea being so rough, there were no people +about except the watch on deck, who were aft scraping the decks. +The Chief Officer was on the bridge. I spoke to him about it. +He said he had seen it. I have often heard of a sea-serpent before, +but never saw one, nor have I ever seen any one who had seen +one, but have spoken to men who have seen other men who professed +to have seen the creatures. I have always laughed at the +sea-serpent story but never denied it. Call it what you like, but +after my experience of Saturday morning I am decidedly of opinion +that what I saw is a fish or creature that is never hardly seen. I +never saw any thing like it before, although I have been at sea +twenty five years and have seen a great many queer things.” In +reply to a question, Nelson said, “I am not a very frightened +sort exactly, but I suppose I should have been frightened if it +had come much closer.”</p> + +<p>I have reprinted here these three reports of two different appearances, +because they so completely corroborate the hitherto so wonderful-seeming +report of <span class="smcap">Egede</span> (<a href="#Report5">5</a>), and figure of <span class="smcap">Bing</span> (<a href="#Fig19">fig. 19</a>). +As to the remark of Prof. <span class="smcap">Hutton</span>, of Canterbury College (N. +Zeal.) “that if the animal had great fins or flappers, as reported, +they would no doubt be used for swimming, and it is improbable +that the creature would wave them about in the air like wings”, +I only remark in my turn, that Prof. <span class="smcap">Hutton</span> seems never to have +observed the movements of seals, and sea-lions, for these animals +really “wave the flappers about in the air like wings”.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page592">[592]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak appendix">LAST WORD.</h2> +</div> + +<p>In Mr. <span class="smcap">Warburton’s</span> account (<a href="#Report83">83</a>) we read:—</p> + +<p>“I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down +below, but only five or six came up..... The remainder refused +to come up, saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind +already.”</p> + +<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Andrew Wilson</span> mentions in his <i>Leisure Time Studies</i>, p. +101:—</p> + +<p>“And so great in some minds is the fear of popular ridicule +regarding this subject, that one ship-captain related that when a +sea-serpent had been seen by his crew from the deck of the vessel, +he remained below; since, to use his own words: “had I said I +had seen the sea-serpent, I should have been considered to be a +warranted liar all my life after”!”</p> + +<p>And Captain <span class="smcap">Drevar</span> wrote to the Editor of the Graphic (<a href="#Report144">144</a>):—</p> + +<p>“My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen a hundred +sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote that she +pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the sea-serpent.”</p> + +<p>I hope that within a few years this fear of meeting with a sea-serpent +will no more be heard of.</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">Should any one be induced by this publication to make an +extract of it, to criticize it, to write a paper against it, or to +publish new evidences, etc., etc., I kindly request him to send +me a copy of his work, for it is impossible for me to get hold of +all what hereafter may be written about the subject, or to consult +each notice.</p> + +<hr class="full"> + +<div class="tnbot" id="TN"> + +<h2>Transcriber’s Notes</h2> + +<p>Erroneous, unusual, archaic and inconsistent spelling, hyphenation, formatting, paragraph numbering, capitalisation, choice of words, +typography, the use of quote marks, etc. have been retained, except as listed under Changes below. Proper names and names of ships, species, +publications, etc. may be printed inconsistently.</p> + +<p>Internal hyperlinks (if possible to individual reports rather than to pages) are provided only when the target is clear and unambiguous.</p> + +<p>Depending on the hard- and software used to read this book, and their settings, not all elements may display as intended.</p> + +<p>Page 110, Burgomaster of Malmoi: possibly an error for Burgomaster of Malmö.</p> + +<p>Page 246, ... about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515 yards): at least one of the lengths is erroneous.</p> + +<p>Page 267 and 271: there is no report number 216.</p> + +<p>Page 363, ... which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”: the opening quote mark is lacking.</p> + +<p>Page 388, ... all parts were disfigured by sickness much so: there are possibly some words missing.</p> + +<p>Page 395: ... and the right and left gill-aperturus, or gill-splits,: possibly errors for gill-apertures and or gill-slits.</p> + +<p>Page 405-406, paragraph starting “Further, and what completely sets at rest ...: there are quote marks missing or in excess.</p> + +<p>Page 451, ... probably he had particularly noticed that point: the author may have intended ... probably he had not particularly noticed that point ....</p> + +<p class="blankbefore75">Changes made:</p> + +<p>Footnotes have been moved to under the paragraphs to which they refer, illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.</p> + +<p>Obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected silently.</p> + +<p>Double quote marks and ditto marks have been standardised to “, ” and „ respectively. Scotch names (like M’ Guire and M’Guire) +have been standardised to M’Guire (unspaced).</p> + +<table class="tn"> + +<colgroup> +<col class="wauto"> +<col span="2" class="w40pc"> +</colgroup> + +<tr> +<th><span class="bb">Place</span></th> +<th><span class="bb">Source document</span></th> +<th><span class="bb">This text</span></th> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 3</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing bracket deleted from after ... the library of the Royal University of Göttingen. (entry 1818, Aug. 21)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 6</td> +<td>Essay on the physionomy</td> +<td>Essay on the physiognomy</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 8</td> +<td colspan="2">Indentation removed from before 1848.—Proceedings of the Royal Society</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 11</td> +<td>that terrible “Maby Dick”</td> +<td>that terrible “Moby Dick”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 14</td> +<td>incerted it in his journal</td> +<td>inserted it in his journal</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 22</td> +<td>haunted the coast of Massachusets</td> +<td>haunted the coast of Massachusetts</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 33</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... of the fossil bones pointed out.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 37</td> +<td>has felt himself snubbled</td> +<td>has felt himself snubbed</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 38</td> +<td>It has been voticed too</td> +<td>It has been noticed too</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 41</td> +<td>in the galant archievement</td> +<td>in the galant achievement</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 44</td> +<td>I abrubtly checked him</td> +<td>I abruptly checked him</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 51</td> +<td>at Melbourne, were it was</td> +<td>at Melbourne, where it was</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 58</td> +<td>was like that of a fermention</td> +<td>was like that of a fermentation</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 74</td> +<td>to be the first cervical vertrebra</td> +<td>to be the first cervical vertebra</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 81</td> +<td>individuals resident in Okney.</td> +<td>individuals resident in Orkney.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 83</td> +<td>seen like toes or fingers.</td> +<td>seem like toes or fingers.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 85</td> +<td>Leur omoplates sont suspendues ... sans articuler</td> +<td>Leurs omoplates sont suspendues ... sans s’articuler</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 88</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing bracket deleted from after 1816.—Phil. Mag., LIV, 1819.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 93</td> +<td>property of a Newcaste merchant</td> +<td>property of a Newcastle merchant</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 111</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing bracket inserted after ... quoted by Pontoppidan (Report 3)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 117</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... with the belly turned upwards!</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 118</td> +<td>that the sea-serpents’s head is drawn</td> +<td>that the sea-serpent’s head is drawn</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 131</td> +<td>a grey rabit is also called a blue rabit</td> +<td>a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 152</td> +<td>take a view of distant objets</td> +<td>take a view of distant objects</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 154</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... procuring the evidence on this subject.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before Your connection with the Society</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 158</td> +<td>the Red Snake a species evidently known to him</td> +<td>the Red Snake, a species evidently known to him</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 159</td> +<td>in the Philosophical Magasine and Journal</td> +<td>in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 160</td> +<td>You directed as to return</td> +<td>You directed us to return</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 165</td> +<td>I was on the beech</td> +<td>I was on the beach</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Dit it appear to pursue</td> +<td>Did it appear to pursue</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 170</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before I supposed and do believe</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 175</td> +<td>Closing quote mark inserted after Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?</td> +<td>Closing quote marks inserted after How fast did it move?</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 187</td> +<td>used it flappers too</td> +<td>used its flappers too</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 195</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening bracket inserted before Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts (Report 52).</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 205</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark deleted from the evening before at Nahant-beach”.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 207</td> +<td>by the aide of my glass</td> +<td>by the aid of my glass</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 210</td> +<td>and to considerable adventage in point of position</td> +<td>and to considerable advantage in point of position</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... did not enter my mind at the moment.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 211</td> +<td>In Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. Perkins,</td> +<td>On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. Perkins,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 212</td> +<td>just without the brakers</td> +<td>just without the breakers</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 215</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before The last account respecting</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 216</td> +<td>meaning it is a laugh on me</td> +<td>meaning it as a laugh on me</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 224</td> +<td>whose name in Jonathan Townsend,</td> +<td>whose name is Jonathan Townsend,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 228</td> +<td>the Amtmand (Governor) of Finmark</td> +<td>the Amtmann (Governor) of Finmark</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 231</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before The following statement having been made</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 233</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening bracket inserted before New York Advertiser of June 21, 1826</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark deleted from ... more than once on the western coasts of Scotland.”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 234</td> +<td>of Bury Hall, Surry</td> +<td>of Bury Hall, Surrey</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 237</td> +<td>make assurance doubtly sure</td> +<td>make assurance doubly sure</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 239</td> +<td>Whose monstruous circle girds the world.</td> +<td>Whose monstrous circle girds the world.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 240</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before It moved with about the swiftness</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before Christiania, Sept. 5.—The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 241</td> +<td>persons just a trustworthy as those who</td> +<td>persons just as trustworthy as those who</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 243</td> +<td>of the Daedalus, in Aug. 6, 1848</td> +<td>of the Daedalus, on Aug. 6, 1848</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 246</td> +<td>like those of a smimming leech</td> +<td>like those of a swimming leech</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 249</td> +<td>In Froriep’s Nitizen of June 1834</td> +<td>In Froriep’s Notizen of June 1834</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 256</td> +<td>a degree of cantious reserve</td> +<td>a degree of cautious reserve</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 262</td> +<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after ... intervals between the coils were nothing else but water.”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 263</td> +<td>some of the antidiluvian species</td> +<td>some of the antediluvian species</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 272</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before I am having a drawing of the serpent made</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 274</td> +<td>“The drawing above-named have been received</td> +<td>“The drawings above-named have been received</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 278</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... from one continent to another.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 280</td> +<td>the only part of the decription, however</td> +<td>the only part of the description, however</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 286</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening and second closing quote marks inserted around ... in quest of its lost iceberg.”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 287</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote marks inserted before On our attention being called to the object</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 288</td> +<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after ... apparently on some determined purpose.”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 290</td> +<td>more of your time and space than is justiable</td> +<td>more of your time and space than is justifiable</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 298</td> +<td>to have been seen so far south).”</td> +<td>to have been seen so far south.”)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 301</td> +<td>that it appears only in five weather?</td> +<td>that it appears only in fine weather?</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 303</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening bracket inserted before Illustrated London News of the 3d. of May, 1856)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 304</td> +<td>to helmsman drew our attention</td> +<td>the helmsman drew our attention</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 305</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote marks inserted after ... in London Docks 15th. inst., from China, viz:—</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 306</td> +<td colspan="2">One closing quote mark deleted from At eight, fresh wind and fine””.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 309</td> +<td>and from thense I saw on the water</td> +<td>and from thence I saw on the water</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Unlickly, the discharge broke the nipple</td> +<td>Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 314</td> +<td colspan="2">Second closing bracket inserted after ... my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 315</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before On the 26th of January,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">the Sketch obligingly send with this account</td> +<td>the Sketch obligingly sent with this account</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 316</td> +<td>“In my many year’s wandering</td> +<td>“In my many years’ wandering</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 317</td> +<td>turn his words in the following may:</td> +<td>turn his words in the following way:</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 327</td> +<td>empty harring-barrels, bladders,</td> +<td>empty herring-barrels, bladders,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 333</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before Captain Drevar has circulated</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 335</td> +<td>I wrote thusfar, little thinking</td> +<td>I wrote thus far, little thinking</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 342</td> +<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after the first occurrence of ... creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe.”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 352</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote marks deleted from They were never seen along the back”.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 353</td> +<td>I nead not say that I am not at all</td> +<td>I need not say that I am not at all</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 355</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 360</td> +<td>the Ballarat Timbre Company</td> +<td>the Ballarat Timber Company</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 363</td> +<td>The Russian call it Cape Chichakoff.</td> +<td>The Russians call it Cape Chichakoff.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 369</td> +<td>the theories of birds or purpoises</td> +<td>the theories of birds or porpoises</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 376</td> +<td>round as a floar-barrel</td> +<td>round as a flour-barrel</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 393</td> +<td>the front portion of the body to exihit</td> +<td>the front portion of the body to exhibit</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">the appearence of a fin</td> +<td>the appearance of a fin</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 395</td> +<td>the right and left gill-aperturus</td> +<td>the right and left gill-apertures</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 398</td> +<td colspan="2">Second closing bracket inserted after ... shows the readers a fin-fish (<i>Balaenoptera physalus</i> +(<span class="smcap">Linné</span>)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 402</td> +<td colspan="2">Opening quote mark inserted before ... stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkney's,”</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 407</td> +<td>parallel on the European boundery,</td> +<td>parallel on the European boundary,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">is the boundery likewise</td> +<td>is the boundary likewise</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 408</td> +<td>the integrety of not a few</td> +<td>the integrity of not a few</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 409</td> +<td>the notices on record to the sonamed sea-serpent</td> +<td>the notices on record to the so-named sea-serpent</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="3" class="where">Page 413</td> +<td>the most entire sincerety</td> +<td>the most entire sincerity</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">used to create suspicious of</td> +<td>used to create suspicions of</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">commucation which follows it</td> +<td>communication which follows it</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 418</td> +<td>Is it an anomolous shark?</td> +<td>Is it an anomalous shark?</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">pàr voie d’exclusion</td> +<td>par voie d’exclusion</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 422</td> +<td>that of temporarely separating</td> +<td>that of temporarily separating</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 423</td> +<td>both crocodiles and turtoises</td> +<td>both crocodiles and tortoises</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 428</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... the Northern and Southern Oceans</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Arctic and Antartic Oceans</td> +<td>Arctic and Antarctic Oceans</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 429</td> +<td>inhabitants of the Mississipi</td> +<td>inhabitants of the Mississippi</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 438</td> +<td>To or three years after this,</td> +<td>Two or three years after this,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="5" class="where">Page 439</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... by the following statement in the Graphic:—</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Manuel of Elementary Geology</td> +<td>Manual of Elementary Geology</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">great double-fanced but knife-edged molars</td> +<td>great double-faced but knife-edged molars</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">bite of its agressor</td> +<td>bite of its aggressor</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">the second figure shows the agressor</td> +<td>the second figure shows the aggressor</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 458</td> +<td colspan="2">Second closing quote mark inserted after ... the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 460</td> +<td>the quite waters of the Bay</td> +<td>the quiet waters of the Bay</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 461</td> +<td>most interesting race at yet uncaptured</td> +<td>most interesting race as yet uncaptured</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">many of the peculiarities, safe size,</td> +<td>many of the peculiarities, save size,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 462</td> +<td>an opportunity of particulirising</td> +<td>an opportunity of particularising</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 463</td> +<td>at it seems more plausible</td> +<td>as it seems more plausible</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 464</td> +<td>the Museum attendent at Newcastle</td> +<td>the Museum attendant at Newcastle</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 471</td> +<td>against this suppositions</td> +<td>against this supposition</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="3" class="where">Page 474</td> +<td>He presents a frontispice</td> +<td>He presents a frontispiece</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">They know these animal well enough</td> +<td>They know this animal well enough</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where"> (that it flabby)</td> +<td> (that is flabby)</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 475</td> +<td>propelled by yets of water</td> +<td>propelled by jets of water</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 477</td> +<td>had not excess to</td> +<td>had not access to</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 480</td> +<td>in same other instances been mistaken for</td> +<td>in some other instances been mistaken for</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">perceptably used in propelling</td> +<td>perceptibly used in propelling</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 489<br>(item 85)</td> +<td>Christiana</td> +<td>Christiania</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 494<br>(item 158)</td> +<td>New Yersey</td> +<td>New Jersey</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 504</td> +<td>differring in age or sex</td> +<td>differing in age or sex</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 506</td> +<td>as round as a floar-barrel</td> +<td>as round as a flour-barrel</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 507</td> +<td>those animals which involontarily</td> +<td>those animals which involuntarily</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 522</td> +<td colspan="2">Closing quote mark inserted after ... the foreflappers became visible.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 527</td> +<td>an enormous splash or sprey</td> +<td>an enormous splash or spray</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 528</td> +<td>the friction and the resistence of the water</td> +<td>the friction and the resistance of the water</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td rowspan="2" class="where">Page 530</td> +<td>Animals with a hairy skin, safe the <i>Monotrymata</i>,</td> +<td>Animals with a hairy skin, save the <i>Monotrymata</i>,</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">July and August are its paring time</td> +<td>July and August are its pairing time</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 533</td> +<td>Hithertho I have not found</td> +<td>Hitherto I have not found</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 534</td> +<td>The surface of the sea is described as mooth</td> +<td>The surface of the sea is described as smooth</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 537</td> +<td>the Hudson-mouth, New Yersey</td> +<td>the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 538</td> +<td>near Dunvossness, one of the Shetland Isles</td> +<td>near Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 543</td> +<td>Paragraph numbers 1, 2 and 3</td> +<td>1<sup>o</sup>, 2<sup>o</sup> and 3<sup>o</sup></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 544</td> +<td colspan="2">table layout changed to agree with that used on page 543.</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 558</td> +<td>may be fixed upon as the paring time</td> +<td>may be fixed upon as the pairing time</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 562</td> +<td>changed to the must valuable fur</td> +<td>changed to the most valuable fur</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 568</td> +<td>expressed here too dicisively</td> +<td>expressed here too decisively</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 570</td> +<td>Al the members of the first section</td> +<td>All the members of the first section</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 576</td> +<td>Mr. Marston, of Swampsott</td> +<td>Mr. Marston, of Swampscott</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td class="where">Page 590</td> +<td>the one that revetted my attention</td> +<td>the one that rivetted my attention</td> +</tr> + +</table> + +</div><!--TN--> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78334 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/78334-h/images/cover.jpg b/78334-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c526df0 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo019.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo019.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cfe25db --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo019.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo031.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo031.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d04765f --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo031.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo055.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo055.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c70a911 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo055.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo057.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo057.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5c73986 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo057.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo061.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo061.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c14bf7d --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo061.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo063.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo063.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a02171a --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo063.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo072.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo072.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd2e874 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo072.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo076.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo076.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7b47b61 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo076.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo078.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo078.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3d88c6e --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo078.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo088.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo088.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d45374c --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo088.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo091.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo091.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e17fa0a --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo091.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo093.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo093.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3fcdbb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo093.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo106.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo106.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..905daf5 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo106.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo107.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo107.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1a13e6d --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo107.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo108.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo108.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f87c36 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo108.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0925bbd --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo109a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d64defe --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo109b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo114.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo114.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..52b4d50 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo114.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo115.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo115.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..40e6673 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo115.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo116.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo116.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d41f5d --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo116.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo119.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo119.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..72ce38a --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo119.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo120.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo120.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..68687a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo120.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo126.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo126.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..434824b --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo126.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo127.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo127.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..80e75ba --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo127.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo207.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo207.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..214b034 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo207.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo234.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo234.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..bfc4b6c --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo234.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo273.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo273.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7027969 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo273.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo274.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo274.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..be12ef8 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo274.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo276.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo276.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f9f4b21 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo276.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo296.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo296.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..344e1c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo296.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b31a431 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo304a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5005081 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo304b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..184f3d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo304c.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..13e9e2f --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo304d.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo306.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo306.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5db3606 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo306.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo308.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo308.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..33375c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo308.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo323.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo323.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..83ed717 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo323.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo330.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo330.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6a9724f --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo330.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo334.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo334.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c1fca75 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo334.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo335.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo335.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c4ff338 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo335.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo348.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo348.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3afdd00 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo348.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo349.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo349.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e6137f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo349.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo357.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo357.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..604b504 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo357.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo361.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo361.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb8a6b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo361.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo363.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo363.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..697ec4f --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo363.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo367.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo367.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..591aab9 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo367.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo369.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo369.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f81f46c --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo369.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo381.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo381.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6bcfca --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo381.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo385.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo385.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4fb75a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo385.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d3c08fb --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo386a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5c0de83 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo386b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo390.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo390.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0259dd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo390.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo398.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo398.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6a000e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo398.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..32f6bce --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo400a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1f37580 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo400b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo401.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo401.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e4dc380 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo401.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo402.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo402.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..809d0d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo402.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo432.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo432.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..704188d --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo432.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo433.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo433.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2f7be2c --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo433.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo435.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo435.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d5a5b3a --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo435.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7217286 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo436a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f76931 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo436b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo442.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo442.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea307d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo442.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo445.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo445.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a5978c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo445.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo449.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo449.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c962242 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo449.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo475.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo475.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f8875a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo475.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo482.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo482.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5b1448c --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo482.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ccf0c1c --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo516a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..32e39c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo516b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo547.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo547.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..392c0ab --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo547.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo548.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo548.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..da9c7c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo548.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo549.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo549.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..407227e --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo549.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2f426d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo550a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a0b8b83 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo550b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b5e4d15 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo551a.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b2ed940 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo551b.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo552.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo552.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4feb6f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo552.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/illo553.jpg b/78334-h/images/illo553.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..fb7c43a --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/illo553.jpg diff --git a/78334-h/images/waveline.jpg b/78334-h/images/waveline.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7f2453b --- /dev/null +++ b/78334-h/images/waveline.jpg |
