The great sea-serpent : an historical and critical treatise

By A. C. Oudemans

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The great sea-serpent

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The great sea-serpent
an historical and critical treatise

Author: Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans

Release date: April 1, 2026 [eBook #78334]

Language: English

Original publication: Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1892

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78334

Credits: Tim Lindell, Harry Lamé and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT ***

Transcriber’s Notes

Texts printed in italics and bold face or spaced in the source
document have been transcribed between _underscores_, =equal signs=
and ~tildes~ respectively. Superscript x is represented by ^x and
^{xx}. Small capitals have been transcribed as ALL CAPITALS.

More Transcriber’s Notes and a list of changes made may be found at
the end of this text.

THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT.

AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL TREATISE.

WITH THE REPORTS OF 187 APPEARANCES (INCLUDING
THOSE OF THE APPENDIX), THE SUPPOSITIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND
NON-SCIENTIFIC PERSONS, AND THE AUTHOR’S CONCLUSIONS.

WITH 82 ILLUSTRATIONS.

BY
A. C. OUDEMANS, JZN.,
DOCTOR OF ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MEMBER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF THE
NETHERLANDS, DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL
SOCIETY (ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS) AT THE HAGUE.

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, OCTOBER 1892.

LEIDEN,
E. J. BRILL,
Oude Rijn 33^a.

LONDON,
LUZAC & Co.,
Great Russell Street 46.

PRINTED AT E. J. BRILL’S, AT LEIDEN.

~THIS VOLUME~
IS
DEDICATED
TO
~OWNERS OF SHIPS AND YACHTS,~
SEA CAPTAINS
AND
~ZOOLOGISTS.~

Voyagers and sportsmen conversant with photography are requested to
take the instantaneous photograph of the animal: this alone will
convince zoologists, while all their reports and pencil-drawings will
be received with a shrug of the shoulders.

As these animals are very shy, it is not advisable to approach them
with a steamboat.

The _only_ manner to kill one _instantly_ will be by means of
_explosive_ balls, or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine; but as
it most probably will sink, when dead, like most of the Pinnipeds, the
harpooning of it will probably be more successful.

If an individual is killed, take the following measurements:--1.
Length of the head from nose-tip to occiput.--2. Length of the neck
from occiput to shoulders.--3. Length of the trunk from shoulders to
tail-root.--4. Length of the tail from tail-root to end.--5. Distance
from shoulders to fore-flappers.--6. Distance from shoulders to
thickest part of the body.--7. Length of a fore-flapper.--8. Length of
a hind-flapper.--9. Circumference of the head.--10. Circumference of
the neck.--11. Circumference of the thickest part of the body.--12.
Circumference of the tail-root.

Give a description of the animal, especially an accurate one of the
head, the fore-flappers and the hind-flappers, and, if possible, make a
sketch.

If but barely possible, preserve the whole skeleton, and the whole
skin, but if this is utterly impracticable, keep the cleaned skull,
the bones of one of the fore-flappers and those of one of the
hind-flappers, four or five vertebrae of different parts of the
backbone, neck, and tail; and preserve the skin of the head, and a
ribbon of about a foot breadth along the whole back of the neck, the
trunk, and the tail.

PREFACE.

In all ages meteoric stones have fallen on the earth. Many of them were
found by persons who were in search of them; they preserved them, and
thus collections were made in private rarity cabinets and in natural
history cabinets. Many learned persons believed in meteoric stones,
but many others were sceptical, and their attacks were so violent,
and their mockery about stones that fell from the atmosphere, or were
thrown by the men in the Moon to the inhabitants of the Earth, so sharp
as to shake the belief of many a collector, and the happy possessor,
fearing the mockery of the so-called learned men, concealed his
treasures, or threw them away on the dust-hill, or in a ditch.

But at last there appeared a firm believer in aerolites, named CHLADNI,
who took the trouble to collect all accounts concerning observations of
meteoric stones from the ancient times up to the nineteenth century.
He showed 1. The immense number of facts. 2. The strikingly concurrent
testimony in all the accounts independent of one another.

In the year 1829 he published his work “Ueber Feuermeteore” (i. e.
on Meteoric Stones) in Vienna, and from that moment the eyes of
unbelievers were opened. Meteoric stones were again found, and were
proved to be quite different from terrestrial stones. From that moment
the belief in the existence of meteoric stones was fixed for ever.

The author of the present Volume has been at the pains to collect all
accounts concerning observations of Sea-Serpents. His work has the same
purpose as CHLADNI’S had in 1829. It is his sincere hope that it may
meet with the same success.

THE HAGUE,

A. C. O. JZN.

February 1^{st}, 1891.

CONTENTS.

Page

Preface IX

List of illustrations XIII

I. Literature on the subject 1

II. Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent, cheats and hoaxes 12

III. Would-be Sea-Serpents 60

IV. The various accounts and reports concerning observations of
Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly
discussed; and criticisms on the papers written about the
subject 102

V. The various explanations hitherto given 380

VI. Conclusions 485
List of observations 485
A. Fables, fictions, exaggerations and errors 495
B. Facts 498
1. External characters 498
_a._ Dimensions 498
_b._ Form 505
_c._ Skin 511
2. Internal or anatomical characters 512
3. Colours, individual variations 513
4. Sexual differences, mane 515
5. Physiological characters 517
_a._ Nutritory functions 517
1. Eating, food 517
2. Breathing 518
3. Excretion 518
_b._ Functions of the senses 519
1. Feeling 519
2. Taste 519
3. Smell 519
4. Hearing 520
5. Sight 520
_c._ Functions of the muscular system 520
1. Relative mobility of organs 520
2. Motions 522
3. Voice 530
_d._ Generation, growth 530
6. Psychical characters 531
_a._ Not taking notice of objects 531
_b._ Taking notice of objects 531
_c._ Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion 531
_d._ Suspicion 531
_e._ Harmlessness 532
_f._ Timidity 532
_g._ Fearlessness 532
_h._ Fear 532
_i._ Fright 533
_j._ Fury 533
_k._ Toughness 533
_l._ Playsomeness 533
_m._ Sensibility of fine weather 534
7. Enemies 535
8. Repose, sleep, death 535
9. Geographical distribution 537
10. Nomenclature 545
C. Conclusions 546
1. Comparison with allied animals 546
2. Its rank in the System of Nature 560

Appendix 572

Last word 592

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page.
Fig. 1.--_Thynnus thynnus_ (Linn.) 19
Fig. 2.--_Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ Koch 31
Fig. 3 and 4.--Would-be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston 55
Fig. 5.--The Sea-Monster, as Mr. C. RENARD supposed to have seen
it 58
Fig. 6.--The largest calamary, ever found, with a scale of 80
feet 61
Fig. 7.--The Animal of Stronsa 63
Fig. 8.--_Squalus maximus_, Linn. 72
Fig. 9.--_Chimaera monstrosa_, Linn. 76
Fig. 10.--_Lamna cornubica_ (Linn.) 78
Fig. 11.--A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the sea 88
Fig. 12.--_Lineus longissimus_, Sow 91
Fig. 13.--_Gymnetrus gladius_, Cuv. Val. 93
Fig. 14.--The Sea-Serpent, as represented by OLAUS MAGNUS 106
Fig. 15.--The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the text of GESNER 107
Fig. 16.--The second Sea-Serpent, illustrating the same work 108
Fig. 17.--The Sea-Serpent, as represented in the Basle edition of
OLAUS MAGNUS’ work 109
Fig. 18.--The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the Map of Scandinavia in
the Basle edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work 109
Fig. 19.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by HANS EGEDE, drawn by Mr.
BING 114
Fig. 20.--The same individual, plunging back into the water 115
Fig. 21.--The drawing of Mr. BING, as reprinted and altered in
the _Illustrated London News_ of 1848 116
Fig. 22.--Mr. BING’S drawing, as copied by PONTOPPIDAN 119
Fig. 23.--Mr. BING’S drawing, as altered in Dr. HAMILTON’S work 120
Fig. 24.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Governor BENSTRUP 126
Fig. 25.--Mr. BENSTRUP’S drawing, as altered in Dr. HAMILTON’S
work 127
Fig. 26.--The Sea-Serpent, as delineated by Mr. PRINCE 207
Fig. 27.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Mr. WARBURTON 234
Fig. 28.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Officers of the
_Daedalus_ 273
Fig. 29.--Another sketch of the same individual 274
Fig. 30.--A sketch of the head of the same individual 276
Fig. 31.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by an officer of H. M. S.
_Plumper_ 296
Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Capt. GUY, of
the _Imogen_ 304
Fig. 36.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Captains TREMEARNE and
MORGAN 306
Fig. 37 and 38.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by Dr.
BICCARD 308
Fig. 39 and 40.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the
Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. DAVID TWOPENY 323
Fig. 41.--The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a
sperm-whale” 330
Fig. 42.--Another representation of the so-called “Fight between
a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale” 334
Fig. 43.--The sperm-whale going down head foremost to the bottom 335
Fig. 44.--The ridge of fins, mentioned in the report of the
_Osborne_ 348
Fig. 45.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Commander PEARSON and
Lieutenant HAYNES of the _Osborne_ 349
Fig. 46.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Major SENIOR of the _City
of Baltimore_ 357
Fig. 47.--Outline of the back of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the
Rev. H. W. BROWN 361
Fig. 48 and 49.--Two positions of the sea-serpent, as seen by
Captain DAVISON of the _Kiushiu Maru_ 363
Fig. 50.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer
_Kätie_ near the Hebrides. Drawn under the supervision
of the Captain, Mr. WEISZ, by the American
animal-painter Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ 367
Fig. 51.--Outline of the Sea-Serpent seen near Little Orme’s
Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. MOTT, after three different
sketches 369
Fig. 52.--_Phocaena phocoena_ (Linn.). 381
Fig. 53.--A row of porpoises 385
Fig. 54.--_Scoliophis atlanticus_, one sixth of full size 386
Fig. 55.--Its head, full size 386
Fig. 56.--_Hydrophis pelamidoides_ 390
Fig. 57.--_Balaenoptera physalus_ (Linn.). 398
Fig. 58.--_Ichthyosaurus communis_, skeleton 400
Fig. 59.--_Ichthyosaurus communis_, restored 400
Fig. 60.--_Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus_, skeleton 401
Fig. 61.--_Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus_, restored 402
Fig. 62.--_Chlamydosaurus_ 432
Fig. 63.--_Iguana tuberculata_ 433
Fig. 64.--_Catodon macrocephalus_ 435
Fig. 65.--_Basilosaurus_, skeleton 436
Fig. 66.--_Basilosaurus_, restored 436
Fig. 67.--_Basilosaurus_ as imagined by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. 442
Fig. 68.--_Eurypharynx pelecanoides_, Vaillant 445
Fig. 69.--_Macrorhinus leoninus_ (Linn.) 449
Fig. 70.--Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. HENRY LEE
explains Mr. BING’S drawing 475
Fig. 71.--_Thrichechus manatus_ Linné 482
Fig. 72.--Sea-Serpent, side view, outlines, drawn from the
descriptions 516
Fig. 73.--Sea-Serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the
descriptions 516
Fig. 74.--_Zalophus californianus_ (Lesson) Allen?--Drawn by
W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton
Aquarium.--From the _Illustrated London News_ of Jan.
6, 1877 547
Fig. 75.--_Zalophus californianus_ (Lesson) Allen?--Drawn by
W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton
Aquarium.--From the _Illustrated London News_, of Jan.
6, 1877 548
Fig. 76.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Drawn by the
animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877 549
Fig. 77.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the
animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877 550
Fig. 78.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched from a
living specimen by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL in the
Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877 550
Fig. 79.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the
animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877 551
Fig. 80.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the
animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877 551
Fig. 81.--_Otaria jubata_ (Forster) Desmarest.--From the List of
the Vertebrated Animals now or lately Living in the
Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877 552
Fig. 82.--_Callorhinus ursinus_ (Linné). Gray.--From BREHM’S,
“Thierleben” 553

Literature on the Subject.

An asterisk (*), placed before the works, mentioned in the list,
signifies that the author has had no opportunity to consult them.

1555.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus,
earumque diversis statibus, conditionibus, etc., etc. Romae, 1555, p.
771.

*1556.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, etc.,
etc., (Editio nec Romae nec Basileae).

1560.--=Gesner.= Nomenclator aquatilium animantium (= Historia
animalium liber IV), Tiguri, 1560, p. 93, 94.

1567.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentium septentrionalium variis
conditionibus statibusve, etc., etc., Basileae, 1567, p. 799.

*1608.--=Edward Topsell.= The history of serpents, or the second
booke of living creatures. With wood cuts in-fol. London, 1608, (315
pag.).

1640.--=Aldrovandus.= Serpentum et draconum historiae libri duo.
Bononiae, 1640, p. 58, 59, 296.

1653.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V,
et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II. Francofurti, 1653.

1657.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V,
et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1657.

1660.--=Jonston.= Naeukeurige beschrijving van de natuur der vissen
en der slangen en draken. Amsterdam, 1660. Deel II en IV.

*1665.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V,
et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1665.

1667.--=Milton.= Paradise Lost. I, 192-208.

1668.--=Charleton.= Onomasticon zoicon. Londini, 1668. p. 34.

*1670.--=Berndsen.= Danmarks og Norges fruchtbare Herlighed, 1670?

1674.--=Adam Olearius.= Gottorfische Kunstkammer. Schleswig, 1674.

*1690.--=Ramus.= Norges Beskrivelse, 1690?

1718.--=Jonston.= Theatrum universale omnium animalium, Amstelaedami.
Edidit =Ruysch=. 1718.

*1722.--=Jean Baptiste Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de
l’Amérique, contenant l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols.
Paris, Giffard, 1722. 12^o.

1724.--=Jean Baptiste Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique,
contenant l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. La Haye,
1724.

1725.--=Père Labat.= Nieuwe reizen naar de franse eilanden van
Amerika: In ’t Nederlandsch in ’t ligt gebracht door =W. C. Dijks=.
Amsterdam, 1725, Vol. IV. P. I. p. 43.--Vol. IV. P. II. p. 105.

*1730.--=P. Dass.= Beskrivelse over Nordland. 1730?

*1740.--=Hans Egede.= (A Full and Particular Relation of his Voyage
to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734, printed in Danish
at) Kjoebenhavn, 1740.

*1740.--=Hans Egede.= Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom
Anfange und Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission, etc. Hamburg,
1740. 4^o.

1741.--=Paul Egede.= Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den
Groenlanske Mission, Tilstand og Beskaffenhed, Kjoebenhavn, 1741.

*1741.--=Paul Egede.= Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische
Mission betreffend; Kopenhagen, 1741.

1741.--=Hans Egede.= Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration.
Kjoebenhavn, 1741.

1742.--=Hans Egede.= Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration.
Copenhagen, 1742.

*1742.--=Paul Egede.= Journal of the mission to Greenland, 2^d. Vol.
London, 1742. (The first Vol. by =Hans Egede=, and the third Vol. by
=Niels Egede= do not contain anything about the subject.)

*1742.--=Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles françaises de l’Amérique,
VII, p. 341. Paris, 1742.

1742.--=Charles Owen.= An Essay towards a Natural History of
Serpents. London, John Gray, 1742.

*1743?--=Paul Egede.= Efterretninger om Grönland. Kjöbenhavn, 1743?
p. 45-46.

*1745.--=Hans Egede.= A description of Greenland. London. 1745.

1746--=Hans Egede.= Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746.

*1753--=Eric Pontoppidan.= Det förste Forsög paa Norges natuurlige
Historie. Kjoebenhavn, 2^d. Vol. 1753.

1754.--=Erich Pontoppidan.= Versuch einer natuerlichen Historie von
Norwegen, 2^d. Vol. Cap. VIII. § 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Kopenhagen, 1754.

1755.--=Eric Pontoppidan.= The Natural History of Norway. London,
1755.

*1760.--=Hans Egede.= New Natural History of Greenland. 1760.?

1763.--=Hans Egede.= Description et Histoire Naturelle de Groenland.
Copenhague et Genève, 1763.

1763.--=Hans Egede.= Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland.
Berlin, 1763.

*1764.--=Jonston.= Theatrum universale omnium animalium. Heilbron,
1764.

*1765.--=Knud Leems.= Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, 1765.

*1767.--=Canutus Leemius.= De Lapponibus Finmarchiae eorumque lingua,
vita et religione historia, c. notis =J. E. Gruneri=. (Text in Latin
and Danish.) 2 Vols. 4^o. with 100 figgs.

*1768.--=Jonston.= Historia naturalis de piscibus et cetis, et de
serpentibus et draconibus. Rouan, 1768.

*1771.--=Knud Leems.= Nachrichten von den Lappen in Finmarken, ihrer
Sprache, Sitten, u. s. w. Aus dem Dän. übers. v. =J. J. Volckmann=.
Leipzig, 1771. 8^o.

*1789.--=Paul Egede.= (Intelligences from Greenland, in the original
Danish language). Kjoebenhavn, 1789.

*1790.--=Paul Egede.= Nachrichten von Groenland aus einem Tagebuch
geführt von 1721-1788. Kopenhagen, 1790.

*1805.--=Peter Ascanius.= Icones rerum naturalium, ou figures
enluminées d’histoire naturelle du Nord. Cah. V. Copenhague 1805.
(In the first four Cahiers the author does not touch the subject).

1808, Nov.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 32, p. 190.

1809, Jan.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 33, p. 90.

1809, March.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 33, p. 251.

1809, May.--_The Philosophical Magazine._ Vol. 33, p. 411.

1809, July.--=E. Home.= An anatomical account of the _Squalus
Maximus_, which, etc.--_Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society at London_, 1809. Vol. 98, p. 206-220.

1811, March.--=Dr. Barclay.= Remarks on some parts of the animal that
was cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, September 1808.--_Memoirs
of the Wernerian Natural History Society_, Vol. I.

1817, Aug. 20.--Extract from a letter from =S. G. Perkins=, Esq.
dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to =E. Everett=, in Paris.--(This
extract, a manuscript, preserved in the Library of the Royal
University of Göttingen, has never before been printed.)

*1817, Oct. 15.--_The Columbian_ (newspaper).

*1817, Oct. 22 or 23.--(A New York newspaper).

1817, Nov. 13.--Letter from =Edward Everett= in Paris to the
“Obermedicinalrath und Ritter” =Blumenbach= in Göttingen.--(This
letter preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen,
has never before appeared in print).

1817, Dec.--Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of
New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a
sea-serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817. 8^o.
Boston, 1817, with two plates, 52 pg.

*1817.--_Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England._
Boston, 1817.

1818, April.--=H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville.= Sur un nouveau genre
de Serpent, _Scoliophis_, et le Serpent de mer vu en Amérique en
1817.--_Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle._ Vol.
86. Paris, 1818.

1818, June.--Sur le serpent nommé _Scoliophis_.--Extrait d’une lettre
de =M. A. Lesueur= au Rédacteur (=Mr. H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville=).
_Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle._ Vol. 86.
Paris 1818.

1818.--=Hoffmann= and =Oken=. Thier von Stronsa. =Oken’s= Isis, II,
1818, p. 2096.

1818.--=W. D. Peck.= Some Observations on the Sea-Serpent.--_Memoirs
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences._ Vol. IV. Part 1.
Cambridge 1818.

1818.--American Sea Serpent.--The _Journal of Science and the
Arts_.--Edited at the _Royal Institution of Great Britain_. Vol. IV.
London, 1818, p. 378.

1818.--American Sea-Serpent.--_The Quarterly Journal of Science,
Literature and the Arts. R. Inst._ Vol. VI. London, 1818, p. 163.

1818.--Wieder eine ungeheure Meerschlange an America.--=Oken’s= Isis,
1818, p. 2100.

*1818, June 9.--_Commercial Advertiser_, Boston.

1818, Aug. 21.--(Boston Newspaper). A paragraph from this newspaper
is preserved in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen.

1818, Sept. 11.--Letter from =Mr. Andrews Norton= to =Mr. George
Bancroft=, at that time a resident at Göttingen.--The letter is
preserved in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and
has never before appeared in print.

*1818.--W .... On the history of the Great
Sea-Serpent.--=Blackwood’s= _Magazine_, III. p. 33-42.

1819, Jan.--American Sea-Serpent.--_The Philosophical Magazine_, Vol.
LIII, p. 71.

1819.--=W. D. Peck.= Some observations on the Sea Serpent.--_The
Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts. R. Inst._ Vol.
VIII. London, 1819, p. 68.

1819.--_Scoliophis._ Eine neue Schlangen-Sippe.--=Oken’s= _Isis_,
1819, p. 113.

1819.--Meerschlange in Amerika. =Lesueur= aus Amerika an
=Blainville=.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819. p. 263.

1819.--Ueber die Meerschlange an Amerika. Von =T. Say= aus
Philadelphia an =Leach= in London.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819, p. 653.

1819.--Einige Bemerkungen über die Meerschlange von Amerika, von =W.
D. Peck=, Prof. d. N. G. in Amerika.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819, p. 1123.

*1819. Aug. 19.--_Boston Daily Advertiser._

*1819.--_Boston Centinel._

1819.--Amerikanische Meerschlange.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1819. p. 1754.

1819. Nov.--=C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.= Dissertation on
Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents.--_Philosophical Magazine._
Vol. LIV.

1820, May.--=Prof. Jacob Bigelow.= Documents and Remarks respecting
the Sea-Serpent.--=Silliman’s= _American Journal of Science and
Arts._ Vol. II, p. 147-154. Boston (1819) 1820.

1820.--De beruchte Zeeslang op de kusten van
Noord-Amerika.--_Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820_, Tweede
Stuk, Mengelwerk, Amsterdam, 1820.

1821.--On the American Sea-Serpent.--_The Philosophical Magazine and
Journal_, Vol. 57, 1821, p. 356-359.

1821.--=Walter Scott.= The Pirate, Vol. I, Chp. II.

1821.--=Otto von Kotzebue.= Entdeckungs-Reise in die Süd-See und nach
der Behrings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordöstlichen Durchfahrt.
Unternommen in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818. Weimar, 1821,
Zweiter Band, p. 108.

*1821.--=Otto von Kotsebue.= Voyage of discovery into the South-Sea
and Behring’s Straits, London, 1822.

1821.--Sea-Serpent.--_The Philosophical Magazine and Journal_, Vol.
58, p. 454.

1821.--Analysis of one of the Vertebrae of the Orkney Animal.--_The
Edinburgh Philosophical Journal._ Vol. V, p. 227.

1822. Jan.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, I, n^o. 19, p. 294.

1822.--=Dr. Hibbert.= Description of the Shetland-Islands. London,
1822, p. 565.

1822.--=Otto von Kotsebue.= Ontdekkingsreis in de Zuid-Zee en naar de
Behrings straat in de jaren 1815, 1816, 1817 en 1818, tweede deel p.
277. Amsterdam, 1822.

*1822. June, 15.--_New-York_ ... (newspaper).

1822. Aug.--Die sogenannte Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem
Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, III, n^o. 48, p. 53.

1823. Febr.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, IV, n^o. 68, p. 24.

1823.--=A. de Capell Brooke.= Travels through Sweden, Norway and
Finmark in the Summer of 1820. London 1823.

1823. June.--Nachrichten über die grosse Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s=
_Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, IV, n^o. 84, p.
273.

*1824.--_Newbury port_ ... (newspaper).

1824.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, VIII, n^o. 168, p. 218.

*1826. June 21.--_New York Advertiser._

1826. Oct.--Sea-Serpent.--_The American Journal of Science and Arts_,
conducted by =Benjamin Silliman=, Vol. XI.

1827.--=Dr. Hooker.= Additional testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent
of the American Seas.--_The Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI,
1827, p. 126.

1827, April.--=Dr. Hooker.= Fernere Zeugnisse über die Seeschlange in
den Amerikanischen Meere.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der
Natur- und Heilkunde_, XVIII, n^o. 256, p. 49.

1827, June.--Sea Serpent.--_The American Journal of Science and
Arts_, conducted by =Benjamin Silliman=, Vol. XII, June, 1827, New
Haven.

*1827, Aug.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.

*1827, Sept. 5.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.

*1827, Sept. 15.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.

1828, Jan.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XIX, n^o. 409, p. 193.

*1828.--=John Fleming.= A history of British Animals, etc.,
Edinburgh, 1828.

1829.--=Sam. L. Mitchill.= The history of Sea
Serpentism.--=Silliman’s= _American Journal of Science and Arts_,
1829.

1830, April, May.--_Chronicle._

1830, June.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265.

1832, Nov.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XXXV, n^o 756, p. 122.

*1834.--=Bakewell.= _Introduction to Geology._ Chap. XVI, p. 312;
with a note of Prof. =Silliman=.

1834. June.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XL, n^o 879, p. 328.

*1834.--=C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.=--Abhandlung über
Wasser-Schlangen, etc.--=Oken’s= _Isis_, 1834. Extract from _Phil.
Mag._ 1819.

1835. July.--A sea-serpent.--=Silliman’s= _American Journal of
Science and Arts_, Vol. 28, New Haven, July, 1835.

1835. Aug.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XLV, n^o 980. p. 186.

1837.--=H. Schlegel.= Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens,
Amsterdam, 1837.

*1837, Sept.--The “_Adis_” of Drontheim, (newspaper).

1837, Oct.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, IV, n^o 67, p. 7.

1839.--=Dr. R. Hamilton.= Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV
of =Jardine’s= _Naturalist’s Library_).

*1839.--_The Athenaeum_, London, 1839, p. 902.

*1839.--_Boston Mercantile._

*1839.--_Kennebek Journal._

1839, Oct.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XII, n^o 248, p. 88.

*1840.--_Boston Daily Advertiser._

*1840, Sept. 15.--_Journal du Havre._

1841.--=H. Rathke.= Ueber die Seeschlange der Norweger.--_Archiv für
Naturgeschichte_ 7^{er} Jahrgang, I, 1841, p. 278.

*1843.--_Christiansund Posten._

1843, Nov.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XXVIII, n^o 606, p. 184.

*1844.--=H. Schlegel.= Essay on the physiognomy of Serpents,
Edinburgh, 1844.

*1845.--_Cincinnati Gazette._

1845, Nov.--_Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History_,
Vol. II, p. 65.

1845, Dec.--_Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History_,
Vol. II, p. 73.

1846, Jan.--_Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History_,
Vol. II, p. 94.

1846, Febr.--=Froriep’s= _Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, XXXVII, n^o 801, p. 134.

1847.--=Dr. R. Hamilton.= Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV,
of =Jardine’s= _Naturalist’s Library_).

1847.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p.
1604-1608.

*1847.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, n^o LIV, wrapper.

1847.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p. 1714-1716.

1847.--=Charles Cogswell.= A plea for the North Atlantic
Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p. 1841-1846.

1847.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, p. 1911.

1847, July.--Ueber die Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem
Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe, III, 54, p. 148.

1847, Oct.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1847, Preface.

1848.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1848, p. 2028.

1848, June.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und
Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe, VI, 131, p. 328.

1848.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1848, p.
2192-2193.

*1848, Oct. 9.--_The Times._

*1848, Oct. 13.--_The Times._

*1848, Oct. 21.--_The Literary Gazette._

*1848, Oct. 21.--_The Globe._

*1848, Oct. 23.--_The Times._

1848, Oct. 28.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1848, Nov. 2.--_The Times._

*1848, Nov. 4.--_The Times._

1848, Nov. 4.--The fossil Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1848, Nov. 11.--=Prof. Richard Owen.=--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The
Times._

1848, Nov. 15?--Note on the subject “_Dodo_” of Mssrs. =Strickland=
and =Melville=.--_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2d.
Series, Vol. II, p. 444.

1848, Nov. 15?--=Prof. Richard Owen.= The Great Sea-Serpent.--_Annals
and Magazine of Natural History_, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 458.

*1848, Nov. 21.--_The Times._

1848, Nov. 23.--=Prof. Richard Owen.= The Great
Sea-Serpent.--=Galignani’s= _Messenger_.

*1848, Nov. 25.--_Boston Daily Advertiser._

1848, Nov. 25.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

1848, Nov. 27.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London,
1848, p. 2306-2324.

1848, Nov. 27.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1848, Preface.

1848, Dec.--=Prof. Richard Owen.= Ueber die Seeschlange. =Froriep’s=
_Notizen a. d. Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe,
VIII, n^o 169, p. 231.

*1848.--_Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England_,
Boston, 1848.

*1848, Dec. 30.--_Bombay Bi-monthly Times._

*1849.--Life and Letters of Campbell, 1849?

*1849, Jan.--_Westminster Review._

*1849, Jan.--_Bombay Bi-monthly Times._

*1849, March?--_Boston Atlas._

*1849.--_Montrose Standard._

1849.--Enormous undescribed animal.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849,
p. 2356

1849.--Inquiries respecting the Bones of a large Marine Animal, cast
ashore on the Island of Stronsa, 1808.--_The Zoologist_, London,
1849, p. 2358-2363.

1849, Apr. 14.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

1849.--The Sea-Serpent?--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p. 2395-2398.

1849.--A strange Marine Animal.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p.
2433.

1849, May, 19.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1849, July, 9.--_The Sun._

1849, July.--Ueber die Grosse Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= _Notizen aus
dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde_, Dritter Reihe, X, n^o 205, p.
97.

1849.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p.
2458-2460.

1849.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849, p. 2541.

1849.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1849.--Preface.

1850, Jan. 12.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

1850, Jan. 19.--The Great Sea-Serpent. _The Illustrated London News._

*1850.--Romance of the Sea-Serpent or Ichthyosaurus. Also a
collection of the ancient and modern authorities, with letters from
distinguished merchants and men of science. Cambridge, U. S. 1850,
12^o, 172 pages.

*1850.--_Christian Mercury_ (U. S. newspaper).

*1850.--_Charlestown Courier._

1850, April 20.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London
News._

1850.--The Great Sea-Serpent again.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1850,
p. 2803.

*1850, Sept. 2.--_Cork Constitution._

*1850, Sept. 7.--_Cork Constitution._

1850, Sept. 7.--The Sea-Serpent again!--_The Illustrated London News._

*1850, Sept. 11.--_Cork Reporter._

1850, Sept. 14.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

1850.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1850, p.
2925-2928.

1850, Dec. _Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History._
Vol. III, p. 328.

1851.--Rev. =Alfr. Chrl. Smith=. Notes on Observations in Natural
History during a Tour in Norway.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1851, p.
3228.

1851, Oct.--=Froriep’s= _Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der
Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie_, n^o 395.

*1852, Febr.--_New York Tribune._

1852, Febr.--=Galignani’s= _Messenger_.

*1852, Febr.--_Philadelphia Bulletin._

*1852, Mrch. 10.--_The Times._

1852, Mrch. 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent caught at last.--_The
Illustrated London News._

1852, Mrch.--=Froriep’s= _Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der
Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie_, p. 486.

1852, Mrch.--=Froriep’s= _Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der
Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie_, p. 491.

1852, Apr.--Reported Capture of the Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_,
London, p. 3426-3429.

*1852, Nov. 17.--_The Times._

1853, Jan.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1853, p.
3756.

1854, June?--=Dr. T. S. Traill.= On the supposed Sea-Snake, cast
on shore in the Orkneys in 1808, and the animal seen from H. M. S.
“Daedalus” in

1848.--_Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh_, III, n^o 44,
p. 208.

1855, Febr. 17.--The Sea-Serpent Once More.--_The Illustrated London
News._

*1855, Aug. 13.--_Buffalo Daily Reporter._

1855, Sept. 15.--The Great Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1855, Oct. 1.--_The Times._

1855. The Great American Snake Caught. _The Zoologist_, London, 1855,
p. 4896.

1856, May 3.--Another Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

1856, Oct. 4.--The Sea-Serpent again. _The Illustrated London News._

1856.--The Great Sea-Serpent. _The Zoologist_, London, 1856, p. 4948.

1856.--The Sea-Snake Story a fiction. _The Zoologist_, London, 1856,
p. 4998.

*1857, Febr. and March.--_Cape Argus._

*1857, March 14.--_Cape Argus._

1857, June 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1858, Febr. 5.--_The Times._

*1858, Febr. 13.--_The Times._

*1858, Febr. 16.--_The Times._

*1858, Febr. 23.--_The Times._

1858, Febr.--_Revue Britannique_, n^o 2, p. 496.

1858, March 20.--Another Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1858, July or Aug.--_Java Bode._

*1858, Oct. 6.--_Amsterdamsche Courant._

1858.--Another Peep at the Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London,
1858, p. 5989.

1858.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1858, p. 6015-6018.

1859.--Another Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1859, p. 6492.

1860.--=Dr. R. Hamilton=, Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV
of =Jardine’s= _Naturalist’s Library_.)

1860.--=P. H. Gosse.= The Romance of Natural History, Vol. I, Lond.,
Nisbet, 1860.

1860.--A Sea-Serpent in the Bermudas.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1860,
p. 6934.

1860.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1860, p.
6985-6993.

1860.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1860, p. 7051-7052.

1860.--On the Probable Origin of Some Sea-Serpents.--_The Zoologist_,
London, 1860, p. 7237.

1860.--Captain =Tailor’s= Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London,
1860, p. 7278.

1860, Sept.--_Skibbereen Eagle._

*1860, Sept.--_Cork Constitution._

1861.--A Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1861, p. 7354.

*1862.--=Grattan’s= _Civilized America_, p. 39.

1862.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1862, p. 7850-7852.

1863.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1863, p. 8727.

1863, June 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

*1870, April 9.--=F. Buckland=, The Sea-Snake Again.--_Land and
Water._

1872, June 13.--_Nature_, Vol. VI.

1872, Aug. 1.--_Nature_, Vol. VI.

1872, Aug. 17.--Sea-Serpent, lately seen near Galveston. _The
Graphic._

*1872, Sept. 7.--_Land and Water._

1872, Sept. 12.--_Nature_, Vol. VI.

1873, May.--Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is
called the Norwegian Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1873, p.
3517-3522.

*1873, Nov.--_The Scotsman._

*1873, Nov. 20.--_The Times._

1873, Dec.--The supposed Sea-Serpent.--_The Zoologist_, London, 1873,
p. 3804.

1875, Nov. 20.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--_The Illustrated London News._

1875, Dec. 4.--_Illustrirte Zeitung._

1876, June 29.--The Sea-Serpents of the seventeenth Century.--_The
Graphic._

*1876, June.--_The Scotsman._

*1876, June.--_The Courant._

*1876, Dec.?--_London and China Telegraph._

*1876, Dec.--_Good Words._

*1877.--=J. Adams.= Account of a supposed Sea-Serpent seen off Nepean
Island. _Proceedings Lit. Philosophical Society of Liverpool_, n^o
XXXI, p. LXVIII.

*1877, Jan. 6.--=J. K. Webster.=--The Sea-Monster.--_Advertiser and
Ladies’ Journal._

*1877, Jan. 10, sqq.--(Newspapers of Liverpool).

1877, Jan. 13.--_Illustrated London News_, p. 35, 3d column.

*1877, Jan. 15.--=R. A. Proctor.= Strange Sea-Monsters.--_The Echo._

1877, Jan. 27.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Graphic._

1877, Febr. 3.--Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange.--_Illustrirte
Zeitung._

*1877, Mrch.--=R. A. Proctor.= Strange Sea-Creatures.--_The
Gentlemen’s Magazine._

*1877, June 13?--_Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette._

*1877, June 14.--_The Times._

1877, June 16.--_The Graphic_, p. 563, 3^d. column.

1877, June 30.--The Sea-Serpent.--_The Graphic._

*1877, Sept. 4.--_Manchester Courier._

*1877, Sept. 8.--=F. Buckland.= Occurrence of a Sea-Serpent.--_Land
and Water._

*1877, Sept. 15.--=F. Cornish=, Reply to =Buckland=.--_Land and
Water._

*1878.--_Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk._

*1878, May 24.--=F. Buckland.= Supposed Sea-Snake caught in
Australia.--_Land and Water._

1878, Sept. 5.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--_Nature_, Vol. XVIII.

*1878, Sept. 6.--_The Scotsman._

1878, Sept. 12.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--_Nature_, Vol. XVIII.

1878, Sept. 19.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--_Nature_, Vol. XVIII.

1879.--=Andrew Wilson.= Leisure Time Studies; chiefly biological; a
Series of Essays and Lectures. With Numerous Illustrations, London,
Chatto and Windus, 1879.

1879, Jan. 30.--(Critic of =Mr. Wilson’s= Leisure Time
Studies).--_Nature_, Vol. XIX.

1879, April 19.--_The Graphic._

1879, July 19.--_The Graphic._

1879, July 24.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XX.

*1879, Sept. 24.--_The Times._

1880.--=A. Günther.= The Study of Fishes, p. 521. Edinburgh, 1880.

1880, Nov. 18.--=Searles V. Wood=, Jun. Order
Zeuglodontia.--_Nature_, Vol. XXIII.

1881, Febr. 10.--=Searles V. Wood.= Zeuglodontia.--_Nature_, Vol.
XXIII.

*1881, Sept. 8.--_Madras Mail._

1881, Oct. 8.--_Le Monde Illustré._

1881, Oct. 13.--_Nature_, Vol. XXIV.

1881, Nov. 12.--=A. C. Oudemans, Jzn.= Iets over fabelachtige
verhalen en over het vermoedelijk bestaan van de groote
Zeeslang.--_Album der Natuur_, 1882, p. 13-26. (The issue appeared
already Nov. 12, 1881).

*1881, Nov. 15?--_Cape Argus._

1881, Nov. 17.--_De Zuid-Afrikaan._

1881, Nov. 26.--_Nieuws van den Dag._

1882, Jan.--=P. Harting.= Een Zeeslang.--_Album der Natuur_, 1882, p.
66.

*1882.--=Catherine C. Hopley.= Curiosities and Wonders of
Serpent-Life. London, 1882, 8^o p. 247-267.

*1882, May, 22.--Giant cuttlefishes.--_Scotsman._

*1882, June.--The Sea-Serpent at Shetland.--_Glasgow Herald._

*1882, June.--_Newcastle Chronicle._

1882.--Die Neueste Seeschlange.--_Illustrirte Zeitung_, p. 2035.

*1882, July, 1.--A. Stradling.--_Land and Water._

1882.--=G. Verschuur.= Eene reis rondom de wereld in vierhonderd en
tachtig dagen. Haarlem, 1882.

1883.--=Henry Lee.= Sea Monsters Unmasked.--London, Clowes & Son,
1883.

1883, Jan., 25.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Febr. 1.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Febr. 8.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Febr. 15.--The Sea-Serpent.--_Nature_, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Oct. 20.--The Inevitable Sea-Serpent.--_The Graphic_ p. 387.

*1883, Nov. 4.--_Chambers’_ _Journal_, p. 748.

*1884, Sept. 14.--_Inverness Courier._

1884, Nov.--=C. Honigh.= Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen.--_De Gids_, p.
300.

*1885, July, 29-Sept. 6.--=W. Reid.= History of Sea-Serpents.--=John
O’Groat= _Journal_.

*1885, Sept. 1.--The Sea-Serpent again.--_Scotsman._

1885, Sept. 10.--_Nature_, Vol. XXXII.

*1886, Sept. 15.--The Sea-Serpent again.--_Evening Dispatch_,
Edinburgh.

1886, Sept. 25.--_The Graphic._

1886.--=W. E. Hoyle.= Sea-Serpent.--_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ Ed. 9.

1886.--=W. E. Hoyle.= Contribution to a Bibliography of the
Sea-Serpent (read 21st. April, 1886).--_Proceedings of the Royal
Physical Society of Edinburgh._ 1886.

*1889, May 21.--_De Grondwet_, n^o 38.--(Journal, edited in Holland,
Michigan, U. S. A.)

1889, June 6.--_Haagsche Courant._

1889, Dec. 7?--=John Ashton.= Curious Creatures in Zoology.--With 130
Illustrations throughout the text. London, John C. Nimmo (1890) p.
268-278.

1890, July 12.--_De Amsterdammer_, Weekblad voor Nederland.

and probably:

*17 ?--=Mongitore.= Remarkable Objects of Sicily.

*18 ?--=Leguat.= Travels to Rodrigues Island.

*1888.--=A. Nicholson.= Snakes, Marsupials and Birds.

Should any reader know of any other contribution to the literature of
the sea-serpent, he is earnestly requested by the author of this work
to inform him about it.

II.

Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes.

Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Gosse says, are
commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they palm upon
their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their own invention,
they tell the old stories they have heard when on fine evenings they
were together with the old tars talking and chatting on the fore-deck.
Of the latter many have no other origin than the imagination of a
sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes; others again are exaggerated
and garbled reports of what they have seen with their own eyes, or of
what their comrades or their captain saw! There are the tales of the
Unicorn, of the White Whale, that terrible “Moby Dick” of the Polar
Regions, there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the
exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent!

Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the terrible
tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment even to the
sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently why our sailors
do not report any more encounters with Mermaids, or with the Kraken.
They know now that they saw, or harpooned, manatees, or dugongs, and
gigantic squids, or calamaries.

But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent having
been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and by the master,
several midshipmen, and some men of the crew! The news is printed in
hundreds of newspapers, and passes from mouth to mouth, in short,
it becomes the topic of the day! A schooner, or a brig runs into a
harbour, say that of Liverpool, and the Captain, and the crew are
immediately asked if they have seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the
existence of such an animal they of course answer in the negative!
But soon convinced by the affidavits printed in the newspapers, they
swear that when on their next voyage they meet with it, they will
bring it home! But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on
the watch, the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning
home arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon
an idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent, yet
he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly that
he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on hoaxing the
gullible!

It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure in
inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some splendid
tricks on the believers!

Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin by telling
my readers some of them, which I met with in the various works I had
the opportunity to consult.

* * * * *

The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for the
first time in the _Report_ of 1817. There we find in a letter from the
Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS the following:

“He” (Mr. STAPLES of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780, as a
schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay, one of these
enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts--that the men ran
into the hold for fright, and that the weight of the serpent sunk the
vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner was of about eighteen tons.”

* * * * *

Now follows the hoax of a JOSEPH WOODWARD, who had reason to be
satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston, New
York, etc. It runs as follows:

“Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape Anne,
is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has been drawn
up and attested in proper form.”

“I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant schooner
of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N.
W., and being about 10 leagues from the coast, perceived last Sunday,
at two P. M. something on the surface of the water, which seemed to
me to be of the size of a large boat. Supposing that it might be part
of the wreck of a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few
fathoms of it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole
crew, that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it
coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with
extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a second
time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most from the bow
of the ship.”

“I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket bullets.
I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and myself distinctly
heard the _ball_ and bullets strike against his body, from which they
rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock. The serpent shook his
head and tail in an extraordinary manner, and advanced towards the ship
with open jaws. I had caused the cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it
at his throat; but he had come so near, that all the crew were seized
with terror, and we thought only of getting out of his way. He almost
touched the vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly
have come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear again,
with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on the other, as
if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However, we did not feel
any shock. He remained five hours near us, only going backward and
forward.”

“The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided, we were
able to examine him attentively. I estimate that his length is at least
twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 130 feet; his head is full
12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the neck is not less than six
feet; the size of the head is in proportion to that of his body. He is
of a blackish colour; his ear-holes (ouies), are about 12 feet from the
extremity of his head. In short, the whole has a terrible look.”

“When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner, that
it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in all
directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.”

“(Signed)”

“Joseph Woodward.”

“Hingham, May 12, 1818.”

“This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo, who made
affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.”

This hoax was reprinted in the _Quarterly Journal of Science,
Literature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London_, Vol. VI,
1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. OKEN also
inserted the tale of WOODWARD in his _Isis_, of 1818, p. 2100.--Thirty
years afterwards Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the editor of _The Zoologist_,
published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without, however,
mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did not he do so?
Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such an old story, and
because he was aware of the fact, that the whole account was wonderful,
and contained many impossibilities!

Astonishing enough, Mr. FRORIEP translated this piece from the
_Zoologist_, and inserted it in his journal (_Notizen_, Third Series,
Vol. VI, n^o 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following
remark:[1]

[1] The translations are done as literally as possible.

“This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent,
published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from the
_Zoologist_. Some German newspapers have then amused themselves with
our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We, however, shall go on
to gather whatever from time to time will still come to us to solve an
apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.”

The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. COOPER, of
Worcester (see _The Zoologist_, 1848, p. 2192). I will let him speak
himself:

“I have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent person
than myself would offer any observation upon the statement of Captain
Woodward, published in the March number of the Zoologist, relating to
the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done so, I beg to offer you the
following: In a note which you added in this statement, you say, “The
foregoing statement was formally signed and sworn to at Hingham, by
captain Woodward, on the 12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should
have told your readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally
considered as conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to
be unworthy of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with
itself. Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till I
read the “Zoologist” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the latter
ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so because in
a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all evidence that
will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Woodward tells us
nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was sailing from Penobscot
to Hingham, steering W. N. W., nor of the date when he says he saw
the serpent, except that it was on “Sunday last at 2 p. m.” This is
not sufficiently accurate. But these are trifling points. The most
extraordinary part of the statement will appear from this: Captain
Woodward says, the beast moved with _extreme_, or, as he afterwards
expressed himself, _astonishing_ rapidity; that when he fired at the
monster it was sixty feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which
appears to have been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but
after he fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused
his cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat,--of course while
it was advancing towards his vessel,--but before he could fire his crew
were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its way. So here
we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving with astonishing
rapidity _towards the ship_, which it appears was also moving _towards
the animal_, and yet allowing time to load a cannon, point it at its
throat, and afterwards to tack to get out of its way. Truly a most
accommodating serpent! But again, the animal remained five hours
near the ship, allowing itself to be minutely examined, but yet no
further attempt to kill the beast! And what is almost equally strange,
though even the position of the ear-holes is mentioned,--such minute
observation does Capt. Woodward seem to have made,--yet no description
is given of any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before
stated, that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and
bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as though
they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regretted that these
inconsistencies did not strike you before you made public the statement
in question; it is also to be regretted that no one better able than
myself to point them out has undertaken to do so. But it is highly
desirable, in the present state of our ignorance upon this subject,
that none but the most inexceptionable evidence should be received. Let
us have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need
hardly add, that in these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly
feeling towards Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of
the matter; and I should hail with delight the day when one of these
monsters of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with which
we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is brought to
our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be at once the wonder
and admiration of naturalists.--W. W. Cooper; Claines, Worcester, June
2, 1848.”

Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed!

Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack!

* * * * *

In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea-serpent
in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars was offered to
the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home dead or alive. I will
insert here the whole history of these attempts, for they finished with
a trick.

In the copy of the _Report of the Committee_ of 1817, which I have
borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there
is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818, the head or title
of which is wanting; it runs as follows:

“Boston, Aug. 21.”

“Transmitted by our N. Y. Correspondents.

“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the
Sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:

“_Squam River, Aug. 20th. 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful
attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the
Sea-Serpent. We struck him fairly but the harpoon soon drew out. He has
not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him
more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday,
we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a
proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours
since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him
as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of
warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale.
We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore
disappointment.”

“Rich’d. Rich”.

“Gloucester, Aug. 20.--As I thought it would be interesting to you to
hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give you
some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last, he sailed from this
in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother
commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam,
and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed
directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw
the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a
considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke
that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the
harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up
the chase.”

“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin
is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had
one of his hands wounded. These particulars I have in a letter from my
brother”.

“Saml. Dexter”.

After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am disposed
to believe that the animal struck by Captain RICH was really a
Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all that I have
found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time that the animal
was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been fired at it, but it
has never been killed yet. In the same copy of the _Report of the
Committee_ of 1817, there was a letter from Mr. ANDREWS NORTON to Mr.
GEORGE BANCROFT, at that time a resident at Göttingen. I give here an
extract from this letter concerning the matter in question.

“Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s, I
found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the most
interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the expedition
fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in particular
nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his capture, and
of the manner in which the information had been received, viz. from a
person whose name was given, and who had come express from Gloucester,
the evening before, to bring the news. He was said to be 120 feet
long, and the Board of Health had sent down two boats to stop him in
the Harbour. After talking about it all breakfast time, I immediately
went to Reed’s stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my
pocket, rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to
carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him into
the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well, and said at
first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm upon the subject,
and concluded at last that it would never do for him not to see it.
When I had fairly got him into the chaise, his spirits rose with the
exertion he had made, with the thoughts of the memoir and letters
which he should write, and with the triumph which he anticipated
over the Linnaean Society and their “diseased black snake”, as he
contemptuously called it (meaning the small serpent, killed near the
shore at Gloucester); for he pledged himself that we should find that
the sea-serpent had no bunches on his back. I too anticipated with
great satisfaction the honorable mention of me, which his gratitude
would induce him to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected
confidently to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this
enormous animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end
of Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out the
expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose countenance
foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that we had come in
to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not taken! (I am not in
the habit of using notes of admiration, but the present occasion seems
to require one). The sailors, however, affirmed, as he said, that they
had taken some most extraordinary fish of very large size, which he
was going to see. I had little appetite left for seeing extraordinary
fishes, but went to accompany Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the
South End, and making our way through a croud, obtained admission into
the dark lower room of a store where we found a considerable number
of other gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged
in from the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in
sail. As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was
pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be nothing but
a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size.--We had been gradually
prepared for the disappointment, so that the shock was not so great as
you might suppose. The report in the morning’s paper had arisen from
a _mystification_ performed upon the person who brought it to Boston,
by the crew of the vessel engaged in the expedition. The sailors who
dragged in the fish were part of this crew; and instead of their being
tossed over the wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their
imposition, and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would
have been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection
made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and bringing
it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded for the
honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present.--I have only
to add that if you should learn that any one of the German literati is
writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will assure him, that we
do not consider the circumstance, connected with the deception just
mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real
existence.--In the Messenger of this week which I will send by the next
opportunity you will find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and
p. 758.”

I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned passage from
this _Messenger_. I think most of my readers know a tunny (_Thynnus
thynnus_ (_Linn._)). For those, however, who don’t, I give here a
figure of it.

[Illustration: Fig. 1. ~Thynnus thynnus~ (Linn.).]

In the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January 1819, we
read:

“T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter received from him by Dr.
Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an expedition
purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been said in
the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He succeeded in
“fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by all the crew to be
the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of them had previously
seen and made oath to): but when drawn from the water, and full within
the sphere of their vision, it proved that this serpent, which fear had
loomed to the gigantic length of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless
Tunny (_Scombrus Thynnus_) nine or ten feet long!”

We see that Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK immediately recognized the whole
story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. T. SAY was the dupe of it!

From a letter from Prof. JACOB BIGELOW to Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN (_Am.
Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820) I conclude that Prof. SAY’S
letter was printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ for Jan. 1819. If anybody
can tell me the exact title of THOMSON’S _Annals_, he will oblige me,
indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult it. A part of this letter
was translated into German, and inserted in OKEN’S _Isis_ of 1819, p.
653. I will try to translate this part into English again:

“I regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good earnest
treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which is nothing
but a result of defective observation connected with an extravagant
degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. RICH has thrown light
upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted out a ship to catch
this Leviathan. He succeeded.....” (etc., the rest of the letter runs
like the part from the _Philosophical Magazine_, quoted above).

Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, however, says, (see _Phil. Mag._ Vol. LIV,
1819):

“The _Pelamis megophias_, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have left the
shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts to catch
it, probably because those attempts were conducted with very little
judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long, and a strange
shark, have been taken, of which the papers give no description: let us
hope that they will be described by the naturalists at Boston”.

And Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, of Boston (SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_,
Vol. II, Boston, 1820):

“In the following year” (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on an
expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent, and
after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish of the
species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the name of Tunny,
Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the _Scomber Thynnus_ of Linnaeus, and
which fish he asserted to be the same as that denominated Sea-Serpent.
This disappointment of public curiosity was attended at the time by a
disbelief on the part of many, of the existence of a distinct marine
animal of the serpent-kind, or of the dimensions and shape represented
by the witnesses of Gloucester and elsewhere.”

“It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise
will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which
may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most
interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

This was written in 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet!

The trick of Capt. RICH is also mentioned in the paper of Mr. MITCHILL,
spoken of further on.

Again Colonel T. H. PERKINS relates in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. RICH as follows (copied from the
_Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361).

“As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do much credit
to the actors in it, but which served to fortify the unbelief of our
southern brethern. Believing that the possession of the sea-serpent
would be a fortune to those who should have him in their power,
many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and other places in the
neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with harpoons and other implements,
and manned with persons used to the whale fishery, in hopes of getting
near enough to him to fasten their harpoons in his side. Among others a
Captain Rich (not Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party,
which was fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they
cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent. With
a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they determined to
throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though at the _expense of
truth_! They spread a report that they had caught the serpent, or what
had been taken for one, and that he was to be seen at a place mentioned
in the advertisement.”

“Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found to be
no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a great natural
curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds) very much disappointed
those, who had been induced to visit it. Those who had declared their
disbelief of the existence of the Sea-serpent amongst ourselves were
delighted to find their opinions were confirmed, and gave themselves
great credit for their judgment and discrimination. The report spread
from Boston to New Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons
to be a sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even
those who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported
that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had been
themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been seen after
the capture of the macquerel was made, during that year, Captain Rich
had the laugh with him, until circumstances, which have transpired
since, have borne rather against him. Thus much for the transactions of
the past years.”

* * * * *

_The Lake Erie Serpent._--In Mr. RAFINESQUE’S _Dissertation on
Sea-Snakes_, we read (See _Phil. Mag._ Vol. LIV, 1819):

“It appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes, as well
as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in Lake Erie, three
miles from land, by the crew of a schooner, which was 35 or 40 feet
long, and one foot in diameter; its colour was a dark mahogany, nearly
black. This account is very imperfect, and does not even notice if it
had scales; therefore it must remain doubtful whether it was a snake
or a fish. I am inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise
convinced: it might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the
above genus _Octipos_. Until seen again, and better described, it may
be recorded under the name of _Anguilla gigas_ or Gigantic Eel.”

And in the _Additions_ to this dissertation:

“The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and described to be
of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet long. It is added,
that at a short distance balls had no effect on him: but it is omitted
to mention whether it was owing to have hard scales (in which case it
might be a real snake of the genus _Enhydris_ or _Pelamis_), or to the
indexterity of the marksman.”

Every one feels that Mr. RAFINESQUE was the dupe of a hoax, and that
he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation (see
below) in which more hoaxes are to be found.

* * * * *

Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers, but
when scientific men, they even read papers before learned assemblies,
with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there has been no
greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent, than that of
Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL. I am obliged to communicate to my readers his
whole paper, even at the risk of wearying them. It was published in
SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, 1829, and runs as follows:

“The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L. Mitchill’s
Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our United States,
for a few years past; read before the New York Lyceum, at a succession
of sittings during October, 1828.--N^o. 35.--The Sea-Serpent.
(Communicated for this Journal).”

“This subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of notice,
before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not happened,
that during several years, it, or something so imagined and so called,
had frequently been presented for public consideration; and that
paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals, do yet, from
time to time, attract the attention of their readers.”

“This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of
Massachusetts, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood of
Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and evidence
was collected to a large amount. These were so considerable and
imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England published a book on
the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of
_Scoliophis_. As the fishermen and naturalists could not catch him and
bring him ashore for inspection, it was concluded to fortify the story
by oaths. Accordingly, affidavits were made to great extent, containing
the particulars of what the several deponents believed they had seen,
and, as far as swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a
strong case. Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was
nothing better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in
no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions of
the opinions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they had observed
in the water. I who was a believer in the first instance, was gradually
sworn into scepticism, which finally ended in incredulity.”

“About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did me
the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read a
manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my
distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express
purpose of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning
the sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had
reduced his researches into the form of letters addressed to Sir
Joseph Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evidently
intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to acquire the
honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence known first to
the sçavans of Europe. He did not vouchsafe, even to name me in the
communication. After a very pleasant interview, during which I found
that he positively considered himself right in the investigation,
and I determined on my part to enter into no discussion about it, he
requested me to receive the writing, and engage some bookseller to
cause it to be put to press without delay. The reason for this was,
that he was obliged to return forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract
in his behalf, and directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I
had a lucky escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.”

“Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the land,
somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alcoholic spirit.
This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of the Great Scoliophis.
The head, which contains the strong _ophiological_ characters, had been
crushed and destroyed. But, as far as I could judge, from the formation
of the belly and tail, it had been a native of the land, (apparently a
_coluber_,) and had, of course, no pretention to claim kindred with its
pretended parent of the ocean.”

“I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct opinion,
relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my museum, at the
time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating friends had brought
me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chinese Sea.”

“The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the sayings
and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the benefit of
the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be written.
In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must premise, that I
am one of the last persons in existence who would presume to put a
limit to creative power. I admit that the all-mighty being could make
a water-snake as easily as a fish; and that such an animal might
be as big as a _Kraken_, as easily as the diminutive size of the
_Stickleback_. Yet, on reviewing these legends of the times, there
is found such a propensity towards the strange and the marvellous,
that the men of the present day show a credulity very much resembling
that of the remote ages, when the terraqueous globe was peopled with
gorgons, mermaids, chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of
fabulous zoology.”

“(a). The first tale I remember to have considered seriously relative
to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put a steam boat
in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to convey passengers.
It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse the currents and pass
among the islands with an ease and a speed unknown to boats moved by
oars and sails; and of course, much of the business of transporting
passengers would be taken away from the small craft heretofore
employed. The large boat would thus destroy the small ones, or, as
was expressed by another word, devour them. Under these forebodings,
the steam-vessel made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag,
the account proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical
description of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and
Gloucester, and had probably come there to consume all the small fish
in the place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing
seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occurrence,
and credited accordingly.”

“(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On this
fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An active
young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land, bought a
little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to have seen;
and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves. He named his
vessel the _Sea-Serpent_. She was mostly employed in carrying country
produce to the New-York market and in bringing manure back, with the
advantage of passengers when any offered. This boat was on her way from
Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout toward the city, and was met by a sloop
from that place, a short distance from City-Island. The captain of the
latter, on arriving at home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc
for news; and being a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor,
the querist, he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how
(alluding to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back;
how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how the
black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were variegated;
how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion of the boom in
jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly wind); that this
sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling at least from five to
six knots an hour, which made all white before him (meaning the foam
at the bows). The good man took the joke in real earnest, went away
and told it to a sensible acquaintance. This latter wrote a formal
and solemn account of it; which, travelling an extensive round in the
sheets of intelligence, was finally embodied in the aforesaid book,
where it is registered as a part of the evidence.”

“(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I received
from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a letter,
respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to me whether
that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide? It had been found
on the shore of the region which the alarming visitor frequented; and
was supposed to have been separated from his body by one of the musket
balls which had been fired at him and washed ashore. To this serious
communication I returned for answer that it was simply a portion of
skin with closely adhering scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike
(Esox osseus), an inhabitant of the Atlantic Ocean.”

“(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about the
sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The
feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared he
had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at length
concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of catching
him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain Rich. Day after
day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent had, according to
information, been observed, without discovering anything like him. At
length, a creature was descried, which some of the men on board said
they had seen before, and that it was the sea-serpent. The captain
pursued the game a considerable time longer, with much vigilance and
patience, until it was at a distance near enough to be harpooned. He
was taken on board, and found to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I
saw the preparation of it in the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself
that it was an individual of a well known species called _Tunny_ in the
Mediterranean, and _Albicore_ in the Atlantic sea.”

“After the capture of the fish, the persons who, when they saw him in
the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent, now changed
their minds, and swore he was not.”

“At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize; and
unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure of his
employers for attempting to impose upon them a _Horse-Mackerel_ (as
they call it) for a _Sea-Serpent_! He told me the story himself.”

“(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that a
sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, somewhere
between Kingston and York, had several times during his trips observed
among the islands and rocks something that appeared to be a long animal
with vertical flexures of the back, resembling lumps or humps of
variegated black and white hues. He told some of his acquaintances what
peculiar appearances had presented themselves to his view; and that he
intended the next opportunity to take a more close and correct survey.
He did so, shortly after, when the whole phenomenon ascended into the
air! It turned out to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood
of young ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head.
And as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance
so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though a
wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceived, his
belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!”

“(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent. One
of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was steering
eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the hither side
of the islands called “The Sisters”, which, when she arrived at the
place of her destination on the southern shore, was reported by the
men at the tavern and the printing office, to be the very creature.
Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject, and inserted it in his
paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It may be relied on that
this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea, has been reduced to genus
and species, by a distinguished naturalist, and registered very orderly
in zoology. Now let us find what the production really turned out to
be. The sheriff of the county, a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and
conceiving that he knew as much about the lake as any person whatever,
went on board full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but
one of the people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning
the wonderful sight, with which he and his associates had entertained
the neighbourhood. The sailor was soon implicated in contradictions.
The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was not
ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sheriff
would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as it was.
At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and concluding
that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots on the trunk for
knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they would have a little
pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent, which they thought their
lake was as much entitled to as any other water. The whole three had
agreed to tell the same tale and support it!”

“(g). When the skin, &c. of the huge basking shark, that had straggled
from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan Bay (Squalus
Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the inhabitants were openly
and earnestly invited by notice in words at length displayed in front
of the house, to enter and behold the sea-serpent. The conceit took
very well!”

“Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions on
the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the gambols
of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the yet different
appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which have fins on their
backs, may have given rise to those parts of the narrations, not
already herein commented upon.”

Professor SILLIMAN, the editor of the journal, could not help saying in
a note:

“We give place to the _scepticism_ of the learned author, although
not ourselves _sceptical_ on this subject. We do not see how such
evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this
Journal--particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the Boston
Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr. Cabot, can be
set aside--although we have no doubt that there have been on this
subject both error and imposition; and we are far from believing that
every thing that has been called a sea-serpent has really been such.”

Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single _proof_ of the
non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. MITCHILL gathered some _hoaxes_,
which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his statements are
sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea-serpent _first_
haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in October 1828, had
taken the trouble to look up the literature on the subject, he would
have found that the sea-serpent had already appeared on the coasts of
Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in Davis’ Straits, in the Northern
Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all along the Eastern coasts of the
United States. The Linnaean Society, he further asserts “published a
book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under
the name of _Scoliophis_”. This is also untrue, for the Society only
figured an individual of a sick and ill-formed _Coluber constrictor_,
the so-called Black Snake, having only the length of about one yard!
The “mutilated specimen of a snake” which was brought to him in
alcoholic spirit, was the same figured by the Linnaean Society; and
where Mr. MITCHILL says that he is convinced that the snake was a
common native of the land, “apparently a _Coluber_”, he expresses
an opinion which the Society already printed in their little book.
Consequently he cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally,
where he says that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop,
called “the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the
Linnaean Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is
commonly called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one
“formal and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and
black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed” the
water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all white
before him”.

I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of Mr.
MITCHILL is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy of
notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours of the
Committee was unfair.

* * * * *

Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I have found,
translated into German, in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, of 1830, June, Vol.
XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265:

“Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American
newspapers. Capt. DELAND with the schooner _Eagle_ ran into Charlston
on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and with his crew
is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the following declaration:
On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M., at about a mile from
Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of about 300 yards a large
body, resembling an alligator, which sometimes moved with the vessel,
sometimes lay motionless on the surface. Capt. DELAND, who perceived
that he approached the animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered
so, that he approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it
lay quite still and apparently careless. Capt. DELAND aimed with great
sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just
visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster,
to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel, and
in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail, of which
the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by every-one
on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the animal approach,
jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on deck, and the whole crew,
the mate not excepted, only thought of their safety. They all had
opportunity to see their enemy and agree that its length was about 70
feet. The body was as thick as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of
a grey colour, eel-shaped, without visible fins and apparently covered
with scales, the back full of joints or bunches, the head and beak
resembled an alligator’s, the former 10 feet long, and as big as a
hogshead. A smaller individual was observed at a great distance (!),
which, however, disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were
seen again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they
disappeared.--Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a similar
creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four times at it;
without, however, causing such a visit as in the present case. He
believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has strength enough to
damage a vessel of the size of the _Eagle_, if not to destroy it, and
feels happy to have got rid of it in this way. He further asserts that
he has certainly not erred with regard to the shape of the sea-monster,
and that it was different from whales and other inhabitants of the
deep, which he has ever witnessed” (_Chronicle_).

Though the description of the form might lead to the belief that what
is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent, yet I consider
the whole account as a story, because it is not the habit of the
sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck by a ball, but to
plunge down and to disappear.

* * * * *

Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario. In
FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of August 1835, Vol. 45, n^o. 980, p. 186, we read:

“The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American newspapers.
Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake Ontario, 78 feet
long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a blue colour spotted
with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea-serpent at last ought
to have been explained or will be so very soon”.

It seems that Mr. FRORIEP really believes, that if this report is not
the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that the
appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong to the
impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the report can only
be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax.

* * * * *

In 1845 Dr. ALBERT C. KOCH “exhibited a large skeleton of a fossil
animal, under the name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ in Broadway, New
York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent. These remains
consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring in all 114 feet, of
a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the latter, and of parts
of supposed paddles” (see _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._ Nov. 1845,
Vol. II, p. 65). I show here to my readers the figure of this skeleton,
which I have found in the _Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk_ of
1878. The description of this skeleton in full particulars is given by
Prof. WYMAN in the above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble
my readers with it, but only mention that Prof. WYMAN in the same
paper proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same
individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate
that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”.
And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones
belonged to the genus _Basilosaurus_ of HARLAN, 1824, an animal allied
to the seals. The same genus is called _Zeuglodon_ by Prof. RICHARD
OWEN in 1839, _Dorudon_ by Prof. GIBBES in 1845, and _Saurocetus_ by
Prof. AGASSIZ.

[Illustration: Fig. 2.--~Hydrarchos Sillimanni~, Koch.]

In the same _Proceedings_, of Dec. 1845, Vol. II, p. 73, Prof. H. D.
ROGERS too states, that according to the form and structure of some
loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals of
_Basilosaurus_.

In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. II, p. 94) we read that Dr.
KOCH also told the public that the bones had been found together, in a
position which proved that they belonged to one individual, and that
the vertebrae formed an integral series, arranged in the order in which
they were lying when discovered. That this assertion too was a mere
fabrication, is not only shown by Prof. WYMAN, as we have seen above,
but also in a letter by Dr. LISTER, who stated that Dr. KOCH had dug up
the bones in _different_ places in Alabama.

A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York
correspondent in the _Cincinnati Gazette_ which, translated into
German, appeared in FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_ of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37,
n^o 801, p. 134.

In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that
Prof. SILLIMAN attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the same
individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from any
existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the popular
(and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in our modern
seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent had been
attached”.

These words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or journal,
but I can hardly believe that Prof. SILLIMAN had a share in this
imposture.

In the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor
published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and
Palaeontologist MANTELL:

“Sir,--Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared in the
last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil mentioned at
the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called Sea-Serpent,
as having been exhibited in America under the name of _Hydrarchos
Sillimannii_, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch, from bones
collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged to
several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean, termed
_Basilosaurus_ by the American naturalists, and better known in this
country by that of _Zeuglodon_, a term signifying _yoked teeth_. Mr.
Koch is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of
fossil bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an
enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly,
under the name of _Missourium_. This collection was purchased by the
trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected the bones
which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon in our
National Gallery of Organic Remains”.

“Not content with the interest which the fossils which he collected
in various parts of the United States really possess, Mr. Koch, with
the view of exciting the curiosity of the ignorant multitude, strung
together all the vertebrae he could obtain of the _Basilosaurus_, and
arranged them in a serpentine form; manufactured a skull and claws, and
exhibited the monster as a fossil Sea-Serpent, under the name above
mentioned--_Hydrarchos_. But the trick was immediately exposed by the
American naturalists, and the true nature of the fossil bones pointed
out.”

“Bones of the _Basilosaurus_ have been found in many parts of Alabama
and South Carolina, in green sand belonging to a very ancient (Eocene)
tertiary formation. Hundreds of vertebrae, bones of the extremities,
portions of the cranium, and of the jaws with teeth, have from time to
time been collected. Remains of species of the same genus have also
been found near Bordeaux and in Malta”.

“Professor Owen has shown that the original animal was a marine
cetacean, holding an intermediate place between the Cachelots and the
herbivorous species. It must have attained a length equal to that of
the largest living whales; for a series of vertebrae was observed
_in situ_, that extended in a line 65 feet. An interesting Memoir on
the _Basilosaurus_ by Dr. Gibbes, of Columbia, was published in the
Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. I,
2^d. Series, 1847; and a Memoir on the remains of the same animal, by
Prof. Owen appeared in the “Transactions of the Geological Society of
London”, Vol. VI; a brief notice of which is inserted in my “Medals of
Creation” p. 826, under the name of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”.

“Gideon Algernon Mantell”.

“19, Chestersquare, Pimlico, Oct. 31. 1848”.

In the _Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat, Hist._ (Vol. III, p. 328, Dec. 1850) we
read:

“This animal” (the _Basilosaurus_) “was supposed by Dr. KOCH to be a
reptile, a marine serpent, but Dr. Wyman has exposed the fallacy of
this opinion, and shown that it was a warm blooded mammal”.

I do not think this to be the true view of the matter. I firmly believe
that Dr. KOCH knew very well what he did, and that he was in every way
an impostor who cheated the credulous people of their money. The honour
of the discovery that the _Basilosaurus_ is a warm blooded mammal is
due to Prof. OWEN. Dr. WYMAN has only recognized that the bones were of
the _Basilosaurus_.

The further history of the large skeleton exhibited in New York is
related to us in that same Journal:

“Koch’s sea-serpent was carried to Dresden, where it was described by
Carus, who figured it and even restored the cranium, of which then only
a portion had been found. Carus restored the cranium of a reptile, but
this was a mere fiction of his imagination; for an entire cranium has
since been found, proving beyond a doubt that the Zeuglodon was not a
reptile but a cetacean; the teeth being inserted by double roots into
double alveoli is positive evidence that it was a warmblooded mammal.
Muller has also carefully studied this specimen, and pronounces it
unquestionably a cetacean.”

* * * * *

The reader will further on see mention made of a report, generally
known as that of the _Daedalus_. It appeared in the newspapers of
October, 1848. As soon as it was published, the following letter was
addressed to the Editor of the _Globe_. It first appeared in the number
of 21. Oct., 1848, of that journal, next in the _Times_ of 23d. Oct.
and in the _Illustrated London News_ of 28 Oct. It runs as follows:

“Mary Ann, of Glasgow, Glasgow, October 19”.

“I have just reached this port, on a voyage from Malta and Lisbon,
and my attention having been called to a report relative to an animal
seen by the master and crew of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus, I take the
liberty of communicating the following circumstance:--

“When clearing out of the port of Lisbon, on the 30th of September
last, we spoke the American brig Daphne, of Boston, Mark Trelawney
master. He signalled for us to heave to, which we did; and standing
close round her counter, lay-to while the mate boarded us with the
jolly boat, and handed a packet of letters to be despatched per first
steamer for Boston on our arrival in England. The mate told me that
when in lat. 4° 11′ S., long. 10° 15′ E., wind dead north, upon the
20th of September, a most extraordinary animal had been seen: from
his description it had the appearance of a huge serpent or snake,
with a dragon’s head. Immediately upon its being seen, one of the
deck guns was brought to bear upon it, which having been charged with
spike-nails, and whatever other pieces of iron could be got at the
moment, was discharged at the animal, then only distant about forty
yards from the ship; it immediately reared its head in the air, and
plunged violently with its body, showing evidently that the charge
had taken effect. The Daphne was to leeward at the time, but was put
about on the starboard tack and stood towards the brute, which was seen
foaming and lashing the water at a fearful rate: upon the brig nearing,
however, it disappeared, and, though evidently wounded, made rapidly
off at the rate of 15 or 16 knots an hour, as was judged from its
appearing several times upon the surface. The Daphne pursued for some
time, but the night coming on the master was obliged to put about and
continue his voyage”.

“From the description given by the mate, the brute must have been
nearly 100 feet long, and his account of it agrees in every respect
with that lately forwarded to the admiralty by the captain of the
Daedalus. The packet of letters to Boston, I have no doubt, contains
the full particulars, which, I suppose, will be made public”.

“There are letters from captain Trelawney to a friend in Liverpool,
which will probably contain some further particulars, and I have
written to get a copy for the purpose of getting the full account.
James Henderson, Master, Broomielaw, Berth, n^o 4”.

The same story was inserted in the _Zoologist_ of 27 Nov. 1848, and Mr.
NEWMAN the Editor who half a year before had fallen into the snare laid
by the so-called captain WOODWARD, and who was taken to task by Mr.
COOPER, grown more careful, now added:

“Doubtless the sagacious production of some selfstyled philosophical
naturalist, who is pledged to one of the hypothetical modes of
explaining away the existence of a sea-serpent, and who hopes by a hoax
of this kind to throw discredit on Captain M’Quhae’s statement”.

Now, I think, Mr. NEWMAN was on the right track!

* * * * *

In the _Illustrated London News_ for 1850, April 20, Supplement, we
read:

“The following we extract from the _Christian_ (United States)
_Mercury_.--The following letter from a gentleman of Beaufort gives
exciting news of what may, by this time, be the “seat of war”. The
old fellow has got into close quarter, and if he does not make a
sudden and fortunate dash, has nothing better than offering himself
as an oblation on the altar of science:--Beaufort, March 15, 1850.
The report of Captain Bankenship and passengers has been verified by
many other witnesses. This formidable sea-monster has been seen again
to day, we understand, in our waters. When discovered by those on
board the steamer, his “eminence” was in Port Royal Sound, a distance
of seven or eight miles from this town. Since that time he has been
lazily making his way up Broad-River, and was seen by a gentleman, we
understand, to-day in White Branch River, an arm of the Broad, he is
reported to be making his way higher up still, when, perhaps, he may
be captured. He is described as being from 120 to 150 feet in length,
and of proportionate bulk; has the head of a serpent, which he carries,
when in motion, five or six feet out of the water, about ten feet from
his head is a hump, resembling a huge hogshead, and as far as he could
be seen, out of the water a succession of humps was observed. He was
pursued for several miles along the bank of the river, at times the
party in pursuit coming very near to him. He was shot at with a rifle
and shot gun, which had the effect of making him timid, and caused
him to sink below the surface of the water when nearly approached. We
understand that a party from this place has been made up to capture
him, if possible. The plan is to man two large flats with a cannon to
each, one going below where he is represented to be, and the other
above, and then approach each other, and, when he is discovered, to
fire into him. In this way he may be taken if, peradventure, he does
not take them first. The Whale Branch is not more than 100 yards wide,
and there is every probability of an animated conflict with this king
of the waters within his own dominions; and I suppose it is admitted
that the battle must be waged upon his own terms. The “Charlestown
Courier” has a letter from Beaufort, of the same date, and of a similar
tenor to which is appended the following:--Information has just reached
us that the said sea-serpent is ashore at the mouth of Skull Creek. If
so, the prize is certain, and Beaufort immortalized.”

Mr. NEWMAN inserted this tale in his _Zoologist_ of 1850, p. 2803,
however, not without the following introduction:

“Ever since Prof. OWEN attempted to confound this leviathan with the
seals, on which he probably feeds, taking in whole shoals of them
at a mouthful, and draining of the water with his _seaserpentbone_
apparatus in the manner of a whale filling his stomach with medusae and
shrimps: ever since the promulgation of this humilating hypothesis,
the great sea-serpent has felt himself snubbed and has doggedly
kept in deep water, pertinatiously resolved, no doubt, to withhold
himself in future from the incredulous malevolence of men. But he has
relented: the recurrence of St. Valentine has warmed his heart: he has
once more risen to the surface, and has wisely concluded to shun the
disparaging Britishers, and to select, as of yore, for the scene of his
auto-exhibition, the shores of a nation, at once the smartest and most
credulous on earth. The papers of the United States are fraught with
intelligence respecting him; cannon have been discharged, and reports
say that he is actually ashore. My first extract is from a religious
newspaper, entitled the “Christian Mercury.””

The reader will afterwards get acquainted with Prof. OWEN’S
suggestions; it is not now the right moment to enter into them; I will
only observe that Mr. NEWMAN also wrote the following last word:

“The London papers have repeated all this, intermixed with a perfect
flood of wit: the shafts of which are directed against believers and
unbelievers, in a very pleasing and impartial manner. Is it still a
hoax, or a Brachioptilon Hamiltoni?--EDWARD NEWMAN, London, April 20,
1850.”

I must confess that I too am much inclined to believe, that all that
has above been mentioned is a mere hoax, though the description of the
animal agrees with that of the Sea-serpent. It is striking that the
arm of the Broad-River is first called White-River, and a few lines
afterwards Whale-River.--As to the _Brachioptilon Hamiltoni_, it is a
kind of shark.

* * * * *

Again in the _Illustrated London News_ for 1850, Sept. 7, appeared a
hoax in the following terms:

“The _Cork Constitution_ publishes the following circumstantial letter:
Courtmasherry, Aug. 29.--Sir,--The following particulars, the accuracy
of which need not to be questioned, will, I doubt not, interest many
of your readers:--The different fishing establishments on the shore of
this extensive bay, extending from the Old Head of Kinsale to the Seven
Heads, have been within the last few days abundantly supplied with fish
of every description, and the greatest activity prevails to profit by
the bounty which has been thus sent to us literally in shoals. It has
been noticed too, that some description of fish, haak for instance,
has been captured further within the limits of the inner harbour than
was ever known before. In fact, as I heard it observed, the fish was
literally leaping ashore. These novel appearances, however, it was
my lot to see fully accounted for yesterday (August 28). At about
1 o’clock A. M. when sailing in my yacht, with a slight breeze off
shore, about two miles to the south of the beacon erected to the Barrel
rocks, one of the party of four gentlemen on board (M. B. of Bandon)
drew attention towards the structure, with the interrogatory of: “Do
you see anything queer about the Barrels?” In an instant the attention
of all on board was rivetted on an object which at first struck me as
like the upheaved thick end of a large mast, but which, as it made out
plainer, proved to be the head of some huge fish or monster. On bearing
down towards the object we could distinctly see, with the naked eye,
what I can best describe as an enormous serpent without mane or fur
or any like appendage. The portion of the body above water, and which
appeared to be rubbing or scratching itself against the beacon, was
fully thirty feet long, and in diameter I should say about a fathom.
With the aid of a glass it was observed that the eyes were of immense
size, about nine inches across the ball, and the upper part of the back
appeared covered with a furrowed shell-like substance. We were now
within rifle shot of the animal, and, although some on board exhibited
pardonable nervousness at the suggestion, it was resolved to fire a
ball at the under portion of the body whenever the creature’s unwieldy
evolutions would expose its vulnerable part. The instant the piece was
discharged the monster rose as if impelled by a painful impulse to a
height which may appear incredible, say at least thirty fathoms, and
culminating with the most rapid motion dived or dashed itself under
water with a splash that almost stopped our breath with amazement. In
a few moments all disturbance of the water subsided, and the strange
visitor evidently pursued his course to seaward. On coming up to the
beacon we were gratified to find adhering to the supports numerous
connecting scaly masses, such as one would think to be rubbed from
a creature “coating” or changing its old skin for a new one. These
interesting objects can be seen at the Horse Rock Coast Guard station,
and will repay a visit. These particulars I have narrated in the
clearest manner I am able, and if others, in other boats, who had not
so good an opportunity of seeing the entire appearance of the animal as
those in my boat had, should send you a more readable account of it,
I pledge myself none will more strictly adhere to the real facts. I
am, Sir, your very obedient servant, “Roger W. Travers””, in the _Cork
Constitution_, Sept. 2.

And in the number of September 14 of the same year, we read:

“The mysterious stranger has been again seen by Mr. Travers and his
enterprising yachtsmen. They have brought four rifles to bear upon his
left eye which, it seems, he most merrily winked at his pursuers. He
would have laughed in his sleeve at the pleasant conceit, but we learn
that he had just put off his coat. He, however, wished them a polite
good morning, and descended to unknown depths”.

“On Saturday last (August 31), the weather having the appearance
of being settled fine, I put out to sea, determined, as far as the
capabilities of my little craft would permit, to go any length in
finding out the position of the stranger, hoping, by keeping a constant
look out in every direction, to discover him. Nor was I disappointed,
the animal, lured no doubt by the dense masses of fish now off the
coast, having remained within a comparatively short distance of the
land. At about 11. o’clock A. M., when off Dunwordy-head, one of my
crew on the look out sang out: “The sea-serpent on starboard bow!”
and on looking in the direction indicated, I had the pleasure of
at once recognizing the same monster that I had before seen, and
greatly do I regret, indeed, that you or some person conversant with
natural history were not on board with me. We drew as close as I
thought consistent with safety, and had ample proof of the creature
being piscivorous, he being at the time engaged in bolting a great
number of large haak or congereels. I had now for the first time a
view of his tail, which entirely differs from the usual form of that
extremity in most descriptions of fish, being furnished with no fin,
but somewhat resembling a huge elephant’s trunk or proboscis, the end
long drawn out and curling and twisting in a very remarkable manner.
I really feel afraid to hazard expressing in figures what I judge to
be the dimensions of the animal, but I do believe that if it were
stretched straight from head to tail it would be rather over than
under thirty fathoms long, and of that length I am satisfied fully
half is seven feet in diameter. The mouth is a most capacious organ,
and opens something like that of an alligator. The small size of the
gills, for I could discern nothing like the blowing holes of a whale,
rather surprised me. The nose, I think, is formed of a soft flesh-like
substance, not bony; and from the broken condition of the external
coat of scales I am satisfied, as before observed, that the beast is
now in its “coating” state. After a little time it appeared evident
that he had fallen asleep, as we could perceive him rapidly drifting
on shore at the east side of Dunworly-head; and I once more, although
I now feel with more rashness than discretion, resolved to try the
effect of firearms in capturing him. Four rifles were prepared, brought
simultaneously to bear on the animal’s head, and, giving the word
myself, and directing all to aim for the eye turned towards us, bang
went the pieces in a volley, the shots taking evident effect. His first
movement was to shake his head and wink the wounded eye in a rapid
manner, and then, as if to cool the painful wound, he suddenly dived,
since when I have not had the slightest trace of him either by my own
observation or through others”. _Cork Constitution_, Sept. 7.

“The _Cork Constitution_, referring to the foregoing says:--Since
the above letter was received, the following information on the same
subject came to hand. Monday last a party of gentlemen belonging to
this city were enjoying a sailing excursion in the Antelope yacht,
belonging to Mr. Wheeler, along the coast from Glandore to Kinsale.
Passing the Old Head of Kinsale, the day unusually fine, they observed
an extraordinary commotion in the sea, apparent to every one on board.
The bay at Kinsale was at the time filled with fish. In a few moments
they perceived a large serpent-like fish on the surface, that could not
be less than 120 feet in length. In shape it resembled a long funnel
of an immense steamer. Unfortunately they were not sufficiently near
the monster to give a description, of the head and body. After lying
on the surface for a few minutes, it suddenly dashed ahead with a
velocity, as far as could be seen for a distance of two miles, of at
least sixty miles an hour. It then disappeared. It was believed that
the sea-serpent must have been in pursuit of the shoals of fish that
thronged the bay. It is a singular circumstance that, notwithstanding
the unusual quantity of fish that was observable, the Kinsale hookers
were most unsuccessful, as it was stated they did not obtain a single
take during the evening. The gentlemen who have witnessed the visit of
the monster, and whose statement is detailed above, may be relied on as
above all suspicion”.--_Cork Constitution_ Sept. 7.--

The _Zoologist_ of course could not overlook such statements. In the
year 1850 this journal inserted the three reports (see p. 2925):

“The Great Sea-Serpent has again appeared with immense _éclât_ in the
newspapers. Most respectable witnesses are called to speak a word
in his favour, as will be seen by the following extracts from the
daily press. It should, however, be premised that a number of brief
and analogous paragraphs had previously located him “at Howth”, “off
Wexford”, and “off Cork”; so that he made the grand demonstration at
Kinsale, he appeared to be taking a coasting trip round the shores of
old Ireland.”

Here follow the above mentioned three hoaxes, of Courtmasherry, August
29, August 31, and September 2. Further we read in the _Zoologist_:

“A few friends accompanied me on a boating excursion this day (_Sept.
9_) whose names are William Silk, John Hunt, George Williams, Henry
Seymour, and Edward Barry, and, being off the Souverein-Islands,
our attention was directed by one of the party to an extraordinary
appearance ahead of the boat; immediately all eyes were turned to see
what it was, when, to our astonishment and fright, the above monster of
the deep was bearing down to us; we were at once thrown into an awful
fright, and thought it best to retreat for the shore; on our landing,
Mr. W. Silk, who was armed with a double barrelled gun, discharged
both barrels at the monster, but without effect. I need not describe
his appearance, as you are aware of it before, but from inquiries from
various boatmen I am told he has been off the harbour the last three
days.”--John Good, of Kinsale.” in _Cork Reporter_, Sept. 11.

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds:

“The next account states that a party encountered the monster in
Ballycotton Bay, fired into him, and made him disgorge a shoal of
fishes, some of which fell into the boat, and being handled, gave the
crew the most terrific electric shocks; where upon the naturalist of
the party immediately concluded, and I think, with great judgment,
that the sea-serpent is neither more nor less than the electric eel
(_Gymnotus electricus_).”

“The last account published in London, on this day (September 24),
reports his capture and death at Youghal, in the county of Cork,
together with full admeasurements, and the names of the parties
concerned in the galant achievement.”

“There was something that struck me as unsatisfactory about several
parts of this highly exciting narrative. One o’clock in the morning,
and without the assistance of a moon, was rather a strange time to
make such exact observations. Again, about the scales; why not sent
some to London or Dublin?--why keep them at the light-house? And
again, the bearing of Kinsale bay did not quite correspond with my
remembrance of the place: so I epistolized the chief actors, and
particularly entreated Mr. Travers to send me a handful of scales,
and a more detailed account: alas! there was no response. After a
while I bethought myself of a friend in London who corresponds with
the accountant of the Principal Bank at Bandon. To this gentleman my
friend, with prompt kindness, applied, and I have now the pleasure of
laying his most explicit answer before the readers of the “Zoologist”.”

“Dear Sir,--I reply to your note relative to the Sea-Serpent, there is
not one word of truth in the statements put forward in the newspapers:
there is no such person as Roger W. Travers, but there is a person
named James W. Travers, to whom I believe it has been done to annoy
(and indeed with great effect). Mr. Thomson’s family has been staying
in the neighbourhood, but do not hear a word of it except what is
to be seen in the papers about it. Dear Sir, yours truly, H. O.’
Callaghan.”--Bandon, Sep. 18, 1850.

“Any comment on this would be superfluous.--Edward Newman.”

The trouble Mr. NEWMAN gave himself to get possession of the scales,
and to know whether the reports were true or not, is the best proof
that he was caught in the snare!

* * * * *

_The Sea-Serpent caught at last!_ (See _The New York Tribune_ for 1852,
February, GALIGNANI’S _Messenger_ for 1852, Februari, _The Illustrated
London News_ for 1852, March, 18, _The Times_ for 1852, March 10, _The
Zoologist_ for 1852 p. 3426--3429, _Spenerische Zeitung_ for 1852,
March).

“Ship Monongahela, at Sea, Feb. 6.--A small vessel has just been
reported from my mast-head, and as she is apparently bound into some
of the northern parts, I intend to speak her, purposely to acquaint,
through your widely diffused journal, the people of the United States,
of the fact of the existence and capture of the sea-serpent--a monster
deemed fabulous by many--but the truth of whose existence is for
ever settled, and, I trust I shall be excused in saying, by Yankee
intrepidity. On the morning of January 13, when in lat. 3 deg. 10
min. south, and long. 131 deg. 50 min. west, the man on the look out,
seated on the foretopmast cross-trees, sang out: “White Water” and in
reply to my “Where away?” said “Two points on the lee bow”. Supposing
it to be made by sperm whales, and being very anxious to obtain oil,
I ordered my ship to be kept off, and immediately went aloft with my
spyglass. I will observe that for several days we had been struggling
along with very light and baffling winds, but at day-light of the
morning of the 13th. the wind had drawn to the south-south-west, become
steady, and threatened to blow a gale. I was aloft nearly half an hour
before I observed anything like “white water” and then I presumed it
to be made by a “school”, or rather schoal of porpoises; but wishing
to be certain, I ordered the mate, as it was seven bells, to turn up
all hands, square in the yards, and send out the port studding sails.
It being my breakfast hour I urged the man to keep both eyes open, and
came down; but before I reached the deck my attention was called to
the sudden and vehement cry of Onnetu Vanjau, a Marquesan Islander,
“Oh! look! look! Me see!--too much--too much!” All eyes were instantly
directed to the savage to ascertain where he was looking, and then
all eyes turned to the lee quarter. I had just time to see “black
skin” when it disappeared. The native was excited, and in reply to
my question said: “No whale--too much--too big--too long. Me no see
all same dat fellar--me fraid”. Not being able to tell which way the
animal or fish was bound, I luffed and came aback, ordering the lines
into the boat and the crews to “stand by”. The horizon was scanned in
every direction for nearly an hour, when giving up all hopes I braced
forward and went below. The native continued to look with eagerness,
pushed on by the observations of the crew, who asserted that he had
seen nothing, but he proved the truth of his sight in a few minutes
by uttering another cry, and with more vehemence than the first. I
rushed on deck, and the first look, not a mile to leeward, rested on
the strangest creature I had ever seen in the ocean. It was apparently
still, but “shobbing” up and down, as we say of sperm whales. I knew it
was not a whale. The head I could not see, but the body had a motion
like the waving of a rope when shaken and held in the hand. Every eye
in the ship regarded it attentively, and not a word was spoken or
sound uttered. In a few minutes the whole length of the body rose and
lay on the water; it was of an enormous length. Presently the extremity
or tail moved or vibrated, agitating the water, and then the head rose
entirely above the water, and moved sideways slowly, as if the monster
was in agony or suffocating. “It is a sea-serpent” I exclaimed; “stand
by the boats”. There was a hesitancy, and the mate said, “of what
use is there lowering for him? We only lose time, and gain nothing
besides”. I abruptly checked him, and ordered all hand to be called
aft. When they had mustered I told them I wished to “try” that fellow.
I urged them with all the eloquence I possessed, telling them there
were but few who believed in the existence of a sea-serpent, and that
a wish had been expressed that a whale ship might fall in with one of
them--that if we did not attack him, and should tell of seeing him when
we got home, we should be laughed at and derided--and the very first
question would be: “Why didn’t you try him?” I told them our courage
was at stake--our manhood, and even the credit of the whole American
whalefishery, and concluded by appealing to their cupidity--holding
out that we might possibly get him into some southern port. “I do not
order one of you to go in the boats”, I said “but who will volunteer?”
Let me say to their credit, every American in the ship stepped out at
once, followed by all but one native and two Englishmen. I ordered the
boat-steerers and officers to examine and see that every thing in and
about the boats was in perfect order. I had already jumped into my
boat when the serpent began to move very rapidly, and it was necessary
to stand after him. The wind was piping up strongly, but as we gained
I continued to carry all sail, hoping to be able to lower before the
gale rendered it impossible. The serpent worked to windward, which
compelled me to haul on the wind, and soon after I carried away my
fore top-gallant mast; this was most unlucky for us, and, what was
still worse, we lost sight of the monster. We repaired damages with
all possible despatch, and still kept on the wind, hoping to see his
snakeship. In less than an hour we saw him again, but some way to
windward; soon ascertaining that he partly turned, and was headed
baft for beam, I put the ship about on the other tack. The wind had
increased so much, that I was obliged to put a single reef in the fore
and mizen topsails. The serpent disappeared for a few minutes again,
but when he rose he was a mile ahead of the ship, and going slowly to
leeward, having made a complete circuit. I frankly admit my hopes were
feeble of ever really capturing him, and the gale made me hesitate
about lowering; but the time arrived, the serpent was still, and we
nearly half a mile to windward. I came to with the head yards aback
to have a better control of all the ship, and told the ship-keeper to
keep close to us, and by no means to lose sight of us for an instant.
We lowered, myself taking the lead, and in a few strokes--the wind and
sea carrying us to leeward--I told the boat-steerer, James Wittemore,
of Vermont, to “stand up”. With calm and cool intrepidity he laid hold
of his iron (harpoon), and, when I beckoned with a movement of my hand,
quick as thought both of his weapons were buried to the socket in the
repulsive body before us. I shouted ’stern, but there was no visible
motion of his snakeship. I shifted ends with the boat-steerer, and
cleared away a lance as quickly as possible, beckoning them to pull
up, that I might get a lance, when a movement of the body was visible,
and the head and tail of the monster rushed as it were to “touch
the wound”. The frightfulness of the head as it approached to boat,
filled the crew with terror, and three of them jumped over board. I
instinctively held out my lance, and its sharp point entered the eye.
I was knocked over and felt a deep churning off the water around me. I
rose to the surface and caught a glimpse of the writhing body, and was
again struck and carried down. I partly lost my consciousness under
water but recovered it; when I rose again in the bloody foam, the snake
had disappeared, and I shouted, “pick up the line”. The third mate Mr.
Benson, caught a bight at my line near the end, and bent on his, which
in an instant began to be taken out rapidly. The mate picked me up as
soon as I rose to the surface, and in a few minutes all were picked
up--one was severely bruised and another insensible, but he recovered
and both are now well. The snake had taken my line, the third mate’s,
and was taking the second mate’s, when I ordered the mate to bend on
and give his line to the ship. The snake was sounding, and I cautioned
the officers not to hold on too hard, for fear of drawing the irons. At
first the line went out rapidly, but decreased gradually, nevertheless
I was obliged to get up a spare-line out of the fore hold and bend
on. For fear that the ship would by its weight on the line draw the
irons, I put on several drags and gave the line to the mate, when it
became stationary. There were now out four boats’ lines, 225 fathoms
in a boat, and two-thirds of another line, 100 fathoms more--in all
1,000 fathoms, six feet in a fathom, 6,000 feet--better than one mile
and an eighth, an enormous depth, and the pressure at that distance
is inconceivable. It was now blowing furiously, and I scarcely dared
to carry sail enough to keep the ship up, the boat was in peril, and
I was obliged to take the line to the ship again, and run the risk of
the irons drawing. I made the end of the line fast and took in all
sail but enough to keep her steady, and waited in alarm the snake’s
rising, the parting of the line, or the irons drawing. At 4 p. m. the
wind began to shift, which favoured us a little; at 5 p. m. it, to
our great joy, began to abate. At 8 p. m. a sudden lull; line taut.
The night was beautiful, sky clear, wind scarcely a breath and sea
rapidly falling, no eye was closed in the ship--we were speculating on
our prey. It was evident he was on the bottom. He stayed down a long
time; but on reflection I considered that was his _forte_--that he was
at home there. At 4 a. m. of the 14th., 16 hours after he went down,
the line began to slack, I had it taken to the windlass, when we got
nearly two lines “hand over hand”, then there came a strain again. This
strain continuing, I told every body to bear a hand and get breakfast,
and just before we were through, the cook cried out, “Here he is”. In
no time all were on deck, and sure enough he had risen; but all that
was visible was a bunch, apparently the bight of the snake, where he
had been fastened to. I lowered three boats, and we lanced the body
repeatedly without eliciting any sign of life. While we were at work he
gradually rose to the surface, and around him floated what I took to
be pieces of his lungs which we cut with our lances. To make our work
sure we continued to lance, eagerly seeking for his life, when he drew
himself up and we pulled away, and then witnessed the terrific dying
struggles of the monster. None of the crew who witnessed that terrible
scene will ever forget it; the evolutions of the body were rapid as
lightning, seeming like the revolving of a thousand enormous black
wheels. The tail and head would occasionally appear in the surging
bloody foam, and a sound was heard, so dead, unearthy, and expressive
of acute agony, that a shrill of horror ran through our veins. The
convulsive efforts lasted 10 or 15 minutes, when they suddenly stopped,
the head was partially raised--it fell--the body partly turned, and lay
still. I took off my hat, and nine terrific cheers broke simultaneously
from our throats. Our prey was dead. Luckily he floated buoyantly, and
we took him alongside, and while doing so he turned over, lying belly
up. Every eye beamed with joy as we looked at him over the rail, and
the crew again cheered vociferously, and I joined them. We now held a
consultation as to what we should do, and I had requested all hands to
offer their opinions. After a short talk, all of us felt convinced that
it would be impossible to get him into port, and then we concluded to
try and save his skin, head, and bones, if possible. In the first place
I requested a Scotchman, who could draw tolerably, to take a sketch
of him as he lay, and the mate to measure him. It was now quite calm,
and we could work to advantage. As I am preparing a minute description
of the serpent, I will merely give you a few general points. It was a
male; the length 103 feet 7 inches; 19 feet 1 inch around the neck; 24
feet 6 inches around the shoulders; and the largest part of the body,
which appeared somewhat distended, 49 feet 4 inches. The head was long
and flat, with ridges; the bones of the lower jaw are seperate; the
tongue had its end like the head of a heart. The tail ran nearly to
a point, on the end of which was a flat firm cartilage. The back was
black, turning brown on the sides; then yellow, and on the centre of
the belly a narrow white streak two-thirds of its length; there were
also scattered over the body dark spots. On examining the skin we
found, to our surprise, that the body was covered with blubber, like
that of a whale, but it was only four inches thick. The oil was clear
as water, and burnt nearly as fast as spirits of turpentine. We cut
the snake up, but found great difficulty, and had to “flense” him, the
body would not roll, and the blubber was so very elastic, that when
stretched 20 feet by the blocks, it would, when cut off, shrink to 5 or
6 feet. We took in the head, a frightful object, and are endeavouring
to preserve it with salt. We have saved all the bones, which the men
are not done clearing yet. In cutting open the serpent we found pieces
of squid and a large blackfish, the flesh of which dropped from the
bones. One of the serpent’s lungs was three feet longer than the other.
I should have observed that there were 94 teeth in the jaws, very
sharp, all pointing backward and as large as one’s thumb at the gum,
but deeply and firmly set. We found it had two spoutholes or spiracles,
so it must breathe like a whale; it also had four swimming paws, or
imitations of paws, for they were like hard, loose flesh. The joints
of the back were loose, and it seemed as if, when it was swimming
that it moved two ribs and a joint at a time, almost like feet. The
muscular movement of the serpent after it was dead made the body look
as if it were encircled by longitudinal ridges. We were nearly three
days in getting the bones in, but they are now nearly clean, and are
very porous and dark coloured. The heart I was enabled to preserve in
liquor, and one of the eyes, but the head, notwithstanding it is cool,
begins to emit an offensive odour; but I am so near the coast now
that I shall hold on to it as it is; unless it is likely to breed a
distemper. Every man in the ship participates in my anxiety. 2 p. m. I
have just spoken the vessel; she proves to be the brig Gipsy, Captain
Sturges, eight days from Ponce, P. R., with oranges and merchandise,
bound to Bridgeport. He has kindly offered to put these sheets in the
post office when he arrives. As soon as I get in I shall be enabled to
furnish you a more detailed account.--I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Seabury, Master, Whale-ship Monongahela, of New Bedford.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds:

“Very well like a hoax, but well drawn up.”

Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP, the Editor of the _Tagsberichte über die
Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde_, (Abtheilung Zoologie und
Palaeontologie n^o. 486, 1852, March), says:

“The picturesque description of the adventure is lively and reads
pleasantly, yet it makes the impression, as if the whole is one of
the stories, so often occurring in American newspapers. Nothing can
be concluded with any certainty from the description of the animal of
104 feet length and 16 feet thickness, with two spout-holes and a skin
like that of whales. The intrepid captor of the monster says that he
has preserved the bones, the skin, the skull with its flesh adhering to
it, an eye and the heart, and as he must come back ashore, a naturalist
will at last have opportunity to examine and determine these remains,
and we shall learn then, whether the fable of the Sea-Serpent is
founded, and what the Sea-Serpent may probably be. As soon as possible
we will mention more accurate reports.”

Some time afterwards Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP wrote, (same journal n^o. 491):

“As it was supposed, we learn from a communication of the _Philadelphia
Bulletin_ that the story of the capture of the Sea-Serpent is a
fiction. The crew that was said by the _New York Tribune_ to have met
with the ship of Captain SEABURY in the open sea and to have taken
home the report, has declared, that it has nowhere met with a ship
_Monongahela_, Captain SEABURY.”

* * * * *

Another reported capture of a sea-serpent was published in the _Buffalo
Daily Republic_, of the 13th. of August, 1855, partly inserted in the
_Illustrated London News_ of the 15th. of September, of that year, and
_in toto_ in the _Zoologist_ of that year, p. 4896, and in the _Times_
of October, 1, 1855:

“The “Buffalo Daily Republic” of the 13th. of August, announces the
capture of the great American water-snake on that day in the Silver
Lake, near Perry village, New York. On Sunday, the 12th. the snake
came to the surface, displaying 30 feet length of his body. On Monday
morning all were on the alert. At nine o’clock the snake appeared
between the whaleman’s boat and the shore: he lay quiescent on the
surface, and the whaleman’s boat moved slowly towards him, Mr. Smith,
of Covington, pointing his patent harpoon. On reaching within ten feet
of the snake, the iron whistled in the air, and he darted off towards
the upper part of the lake, almost dragging the boat under water by his
movement. Line was given him, and in half an hour his strength seemed
much exhausted. The whaleman then went ashore and gradually hauled the
line in. When within fifty feet of the shore, the snake showed renewed
life, and with one dart nearly carried off the whole line; but he was
dragged slowly ashore amid excitement unexampled in the district. Four
or five ladies fainted on seeing the snake, who, although ashore,
lashed his body into tremendous folds, and then straightened himself
out in agony with a noise that made the earth tremble. The harpoon
had penetrated a thick muscular part, eight feet from his head. He is
59 feet 8 inches in length, and has a most disgusting look. A slime a
quarter of an inch thick covers his body, and if removed is instantly
replaced by exudation. The body is variable in size. The head is the
size of a full grown calf. Within eight feet from the head the neck
gradually swells to the thickness of a foot in diameter; it then
tapers down, and again gradually swells to a diameter of two feet in
the centre, giving about six feet girth; it then tapers off towards
the tail, and ends in a fin, which can expand in fan-shape three feet
across, or close in a sheath. Double rows of fins are alternately
placed along the belly. The head is most singular. The eyes are large,
staring and terrific, with a transparent membrane attached to the lids,
protecting the eye without impeding the vision. No gills appear. The
mouth is like that of the fish called a sucker; it can stretch so as
to swallow a body a foot and a half in diameter: there are no teeth; a
bony substance, extending in two parallel lines, covers the upper and
lower part of the head. The sides and back are dusky brown; the belly
is dirty white. Although sinuous like a snake, there are hard knot-like
substances along the back. The harpoon is still in him. He lies in the
water, confined with ropes, which keep his body in a curve, so that
he cannot get away. He can use his head and tail, with which he stirs
the water all around. When he rears his head (which he generally keeps
under water) he presents a fearful aspect. In expanding his mouth he
exhibits a blood-red cavity, horribly to look at, and the air rushes
forth with a heavy short puff.”

The well known Mr. SPENCER F. BAIRD, the late zealous Secretary of the
_Smithsonian Institution_, Washington, U. S. on reading this in the
_Zoologist_, sent to the Editor the following letter (_Zoologist_,
1856, p. 4998):

“In the November number of the “_Zoologist_” (Zool. 4896) I notice an
extract from an American paper, respecting the capture of the “Great
American Snake”. You have probably since learned that the account is an
unmitigated hoax, manufactured by a newspaper-editor, while on a summer
vacation, for the purpose of furnishing material for his editorial
correspondence.--SPENCER F. BAIRD, Smithsonian Institution Washington,
U. S. December 28, 1855.”

* * * * *

The following splendid trick is of Captain TAYLOR, who is even called
“a respectable and trustworthy gentleman”, nay, who, when the truth of
it was inquired into, even “confirmed the statement”!

In the _Zoologist_ of 1860, p. 6985, we read:

“The following extract from the log of the “British Banner”, which
arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last, appeared in the
Liverpool Daily Post of March 20. “On the 25th. April in lat. 12° 7′
east, and longitude 93° 52′ south, felt a strong sensation as if the
ship were trembling. Sent second mate to see what was up; the latter
called out to me to go up the fore rigging and look over the bows.
I did so, and saw an enormous serpent shaking the bowsprit with his
mouth. There was about thirty feet of the serpent out of the water,
and I could see in the water abaft of our stern; must have been at
least three hundred feet long; was about the circumference of a very
wide crinoline petticoat, with black back, shaggy mane, horn on his
forehead, and large glaring eyes, placed rather near the nose, and jaws
about eight feet long; he did not observe me, and continued to shake
the bowsprit and to throw the sea alongside into a foam, until the
former came clear away of the ship. The serpent was powerful enough,
although the ship was carrying all sail, and going at about six knots
at the time, he attacked us, to stop her way completely. When the
bowsprit with the jibboom sails and rigging went by the board, the
monster swallowed the foretopmast staysail and flying jib, with the
greatest apparent ease; he also snapped the thickest of the rigging
asunder like thread. He sheered off a little after this, and returned
apparently to scratch himself against the side of the ship, making a
most extraordinary noise, resembling that on board a steamer when the
boilers are blowing off. A whale breached within a mile of the ship
at this time, and the serpent darted off after it like a flash of
lightning, striking the vessel with his tail, and staving in all the
starboard quarter gaily. Saw no more of it, but caught a young one
in the afternoon, and brought it on to Melbourne.--_William Taylor,
Master, “British Banner”.”_

“[The British Banner arrived here on Sunday, and is now in the Albert
Dock. Captain Taylor declares that the above statement is perfectly
correct.--_Editor Daily Post._]”

Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds hereto:

“It is impossible for any story to read more like a hoax than this,
but I had ready means of procuring, through a friend at Lloyd’s, the
information that there is such a ship as the “British Banner”, that
she is commanded by Mr. William Taylor, a respectable and trustworthy
gentleman, and that she did arrive at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March,
last past, and is now in the Albert Dock. Armed with this information
I wrote to Capt. Taylor, who has replied in the most courteous manner;
he confirms the above statement, adding that he sent it to the Daily
Post himself, and adding also that the young one reported to have
been caught was presented to the Museum at Melbourne, where it was
thoroughly inspected and pronounced to be a veritable sea-serpent.”--

It is not quite clear whether Mr. NEWMAN was a second time the dupe of
a trick, or not, but I think he really was!

Mr. GEORGE GUYON, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the contrary, wrote the
following poem (see _Zoologist_, p. 7051, 1860):

“I’ve a story to tell--I don’t say that it’s true--
But just as I heard it I tell it to you.
A ship there was sailing upon the blue sea
With her canvas all set, when the captain, said he
“I feel that the vessel is all of a tremble,
A sort of sea earthquake it seems to resemble;
Send forward the mate to see what is the matter.”
When lo! what he saw would have made your teeth shatter,
An enormous big snake rising out of the sea,
Some three hundred feet long it might possibly be,
And in bulk it might equal a “wide crinoline”
(At least seven yards round that description must mean).
With jaws eight feet long, and with eyes fiercely glaring,
A horn and a mane; he looked horribly daring,
While the bowsprit he shook in his terrible mouth.
’T was in Latitude east and in Longitude south,
This is somewhat obscure, but I think on the whole
It occurred th’ other side of the Antarctic pole,
The ship making six knots--leaving foam in her wake,
Yet she stopped at the touch of this wonderful snake;
And the jibboom and bowsprit were snapped like a straw;
But his strength was outdone by his marvellous maw;
For he swallowed the stay-sail and also the jib,
Like a boy gulping oysters--they went down to glib.
With his stay to his stomac he turned him about,
And gave with his tail such a vigorous flout,
That some timbers to atoms were crushed by the blow,
And what more might have happened we none of us know,
When an object appeared for the which he set sail,
And both object and story were much like a whale.”

Afterwards, (_Zoologist_, p. 7278, of the same year) we find the
following about the young sea-serpent of Captain TAYLOR:

“Captain Taylor’s Sea-Serpent.--A friend, who has the opportunity of
communicating with Melbourne on the subject of the young sea-serpent
which Captain Taylor says (Zool. 6985) he presented to the Museum at
Melbourne, has ascertained through Mr. Coates, of that town, that
Captain Taylor is so far correct, that he did at the time specified
present a specimen of Pelamys bicolor to the Museum in question, and
Professor M’Coy exhibited the same to Mr. Coates. Of course there is no
rational ground for concluding that this small sea snake is the young
of any such gigantic creature as Captain Taylor has described.--_Edward
Newman._”

But of a _great_ Sea-Serpent of Captain TAYLOR we don’t find any more
statements!

* * * * *

We have read the various hoaxes which appeared in the _Cork
Constitution_ of 1850; the _Skibbereen Eagle_ too is not averse to
publishing a similar hoax (See _Zoologist_, 1861, p. 7354):

“As Samuel Townsend, Esq., J. P., of Whitehall, was sailing in
Whitehall Harbour, he saw, following his wake, what appeared to him
(from the many descriptions he had read of the monster) to be a
sea-serpent about twenty five or thirty feet in length; and being
in a small boat he endeavoured to keep as respectful a distance as
possible. There was, however, another boat in the harbour at the time,
in which was Mr. Samuel Kingston, his brother, Mr. John Kingston (of
Trinity College, Dublin), and a party of ladies. These parties also saw
the huge monster; and upon raising its neck about six feet above the
surface the females became greatly alarmed, when Mr. John Kingston,
who is a remarkably good shot, fired at it, upon which it immediately
disappeared. Mr. Townsend informed us the serpent presented a beautiful
appearance, having large, brilliant scales of a yellow hue, and is
of opinion it was struck by the shot fired by Mr. Kingston. It was
likewise distinctly seen from the windows of Whitehall-House. Mr.
Robert Atkins told us he saw it the day before of Barlogue.”--

* * * * *

The following hoax is not inferior to any of the foregoing (Nature, of
13th. of June 1872):

“Mr. J. COBBIN of Durban, forwards to the _Natal Colonist_ the
following account of a “sea-serpent” seen by him:--“During my last
passage from London, I saw no less than three sea-serpents, but an
account of the last will suffice. On 30th. December last, on board
the _Silvery Wave_, in lat. about 35′ 0″ S., and long. 33′ 30″ E., at
6.20 P. M. solar time, an enormous sea-serpent passing nearly across
our bows compelled the alteration of our course. He was at least
one thousand yards long, of which about one third appeared on the
surface of the water at every stroke of his enormous fan-shaped tail,
with which he propelled himself, raising it high above the waves,
and arching his back like a land-snake or a caterpillar. In shape
and proportion he much resembled the cobra, being marked by the same
knotty and swollen protuberance at the back of the head on the neck.
The latter was the thickest part of the serpent. His head was like a
bull’s in shape, his eyes large and glowing, his ears had circular tips
and were level with his eyes, and his head was surrounded by a horny
crest, which he erected and depressed at pleasure. He swam with great
rapidity and lashed the sea into a foam, like breakers dashing over
jagged rocks. The sun shone brightly upon him; and with a good glass I
saw his overlapping scales open and shut with every arch of his sinuous
back coloured like the rainbow.”

* * * * *

I don’t know whether the following, taken from the _Graphic_, is a true
hoax, or an optical illusion, but I think it is a hoax. There we read
in the number of August, 17th., 1872:

“Concerning this much discussed animal, whose existence mariners from
the earliest times have firmly asserted, and landsmen as obstinately
persisted in doubting, we have received the following from Mr. Walthew,
a well-known ship-owner and merchant in Liverpool:--“Report of Captain
A. Hassel, of barque _St. Olaf_, from Newport to Galveston, Texas.--Two
days before arrival at Galveston, and about 4.30 P. M. on May 13,
weather calm, smooth sea, lat. 26° 52′, long. 91° 20′, I saw a shoal
of sharks passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel’s stern,
but before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About
two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something on the
weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one called out
that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall man. On a
nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with its head out of
the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay still on the surface
of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body in a serpentine
manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could see, from the after
part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of the same thickness all
the way, excepting about the head and neck, which were smaller, and the
former flat, like the head of a serpent. It had four fins on its back,
and the body of a yellow greenish colour, with brown spots all over
the upper part and underneath white. The whole crew were looking at it
for fully ten minutes before it moved away. It was about six feet in
diameter. One of the mates has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent,
which will give some notion of its appearance.--A. Hassel, master of
Norwegian barque St. Olaf.--Witness to signature, J. Fredk. Walthew.”--

[Illustration: Fig. 3 and 4. Would be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston.]

The accompanying engravings are also published, and I give facsimiles
of them in Fig. 3 and 4.--I think that Captain HASSEL after having
seen the shoal of sharks, two minutes afterwards saw four of these
individuals swimming perfectly in a line, the foremost occasionally
lifting its head above the surface, and the backs with the backfin of
each animal being visible. The distance between the first and the last
being about seventy feet, the whole row looked like a huge serpent,
and gave thus rise to the story, which, as I have already said above,
may be a hoax, or a true statement of what they saw. Evidently one of
the mates first drew the sketch exactly as he saw the four sharks, but
afterwards, answering his own question: “how would the serpent look, if
floating on the surface?” sketched the second figure, where a boa or
python with four fins is represented floating on the water like a cork,
or better like the skin of such an animal puffed up!

* * * * *

A splendid hoax was again communicated by a correspondent of the _Monde
Illustré_ to the Editor, and published in the number of October, 8,
1881, of that journal.

“On board the steamer _The Don_, of the Royal Mail Steam Packet
Company.--Captain ROBERT WOOLWARD.”

“Sunday, August 14, 1881”.

“To the Editor.”

“I commence my letter by asking you a correspondent’s diploma of
the journal _Le Monde Illustré_ for my friend Mr. E. DE CONTRERAS Y
ALCANTARA, an inhabitant of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico, Spanish colony.”

“I owe to Mr. DE CONTRERAS the subjoined sketch, the exactness of which
is guaranteed by the seven signatures of the eye witnesses, who are:

“Mr. E. DE CONTRERAS Y ALCANTARA, of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico,

Mr. CARLO LOPEZ ALDANA, of Lima, Peru,

Mr. HENRIQUE ROMAN, of Cartagena, Columbia,

Mr. A. E. XIMENES DE SAN JOSÉ, of Costa Rica,

Mr. MAURICE RENARD, of Paris,

Mr. C. RENARD, of Paris, your correspondent.

[Illustration: Fig. 5.--The sea-monster, as Mr. C. Renard supposed to
have seen it.]

“The appearance lasted for ten minutes, in full moonlight. As I made
the sketch, my son noted down his observations, Mr. CONTRERAS too; we
compared and exchanged our several observations, these gentlemen at the
little window of the smoking-saloon, and I just above, resting upon the
port-hole and supported by a rope.”

“The monster seemed to measure about forty or fifty meters, from the
head to the tail, as far as the numerous coils made an approximative
estimation possible. The body from the dorsal ridge to the midst of
the belly seemed to be covered by several ranges of scales, or a rough
skin like that of sharks, but forming overlapping layers of scales. The
back is very darkish and gradually growing lighter towards the belly,
where it is a dirty grey. The entire body is marked with alternating
transversal stripes, darkish green, chesnut coloured, and grey; the
tail seems to taper in a point, like that of eels. I preserve for the
end the description of the head, which we have properly examined, and
which is very remarkable. This head is not oval, and rather pointed, as
in most of the snakes; it forms at its cranium a great mass with rough
and irregular outlines. From the occiput it is provided with a hard and
movable crest, with very sharp points; this crest may be lowered on the
neck so as to become invisible. The upper jaw projects, as is shown in
the sketch, the end is doubled up, and a dark hollow, like a nostril
is visible there; the lower jaw, more pointed, shows below hollow
and convex outlines, like sacs, doubtless for the act of swallowing.
The teeth are sharp, enormous, and white. From the throat, attached
to a kind of cushion, projects a hard tongue, pointed, provided with
suckers, and glittering like steel, and phosphorescing as the sea
occasionally does; the eye is round, very glittering, very movable, and
seems to be able to look backward, so rapid and “_bien combinées_” are
the animal’s evolutions; the orbit is bordered by a ring of lighter
colour and seems to be overarched by an eye-brow provided with hairs or
bristles.”

“The face, from the snout to the neck presents a lateral oblique line,
grey in colour, on both sides of which three other similar lines run
towards it.”

“The movement of the animal in the water, seems to produce no sound at
all, but undulating waves and a very slight ripple.”

“It caused a stench enough to make one ill; this smell, which hung
about us for more than half an hour, was like that of a fermentation
by heat on a large scale of the house of LESAGE, the great gatherers
of Asnières, mingled with that of a dozen of charcoal-black works of
Billancourt.”

“To neutralize it, all the shops of several of our best perfumers would
be wanted.”

“The monster seems to be old, judging partly from its dimensions, and
partly from its colour and the roughness of its integument.”

“This is not the first time that similar animals are observed.”

“The first time it was seen in 1847 by the Portuguese ship _Ville de
Lissabonne_, captain JUAN ALPHONSO ZARCO Y CAPEDA.”

“This date coincides with the buffooneries of the _Charivari_ on the
_Constitutionel_, and with the first disease of the potatoes.”

“In 1864, the second of _The Don_ observed a similar animal near the
coast of Japan; he tattooed it on his arm.”

“I end this series of reports by assuring you that the monster was seen
on Wednesday evening, August 10, 1881, by the undersigned, at a quarter
to ten P. M. in

latitude 29° 60′
longitude 42° 40′

reckoning the degrees, according to the log-book on board, from the
meridian of Greenwich.”

“C. RENARD.”

“(Here follow the seven signatures above-mentioned).”

The Editor of the _Monde Illustré_ adds:

“We leave to the author of this letter and of the subjoined sketch all
the responsibility of an assertion which seems to us, least to say,
strange, and the details of which we communicate to our readers with
due reserve.”

* * * * *

Let us now pass on to reports of would-be sea-serpents.

III.

Would-be Sea-Serpents.

It is by no means astonishing that in the vast waters of the ocean
several objects, totally different from the animal generally known as
the Great Sea-Serpent, gave rise to tales of that Great Unknown, such
as wrecks, gigantic sea-weeds, or even animal beings. So we meet with
an account dated:

1720.--(See PONTOPPIDAN.) “THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in
1720 a Sea-Serpent had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet,
in which it came with high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or
eight fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left
the inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the skin
had sunk into the water of the inlet, so that its length could not be
made out, as the inlet was several fathoms deep, and the skin partly
lay there. The other end of this skin was washed on the shore by the
current, where everybody could see it; apparently, however, it could
not be used, for it consisted of a soft slimy mass. THORLACKSEN was a
native of the harbour of Kobbervueg.”

It may be that a real sea-serpent remained a week in the inlet. The
Norwegian fishermen know the sea-serpent too well to make mistakes.
Another animal would not have been called a sea-serpent, and a
short description of it would have been given. But the skin wrongly
attributed to the sea-serpent, was certainly nothing else but a
putrified long arm or tentacle of a gigantic calamary. The description
“soft and slimy mass” proves this sufficiently. The great calamary died
in the fjord, or inlet, and its long dead arm was floated ashore by the
current, while the body sank. Such great calamaries, the true Krakens,
have been measured, and found to have a body of 30 feet in length with
long tentacles of 58 feet (see LEE, _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, London,
1883). I give here a figure of the largest ever found. (See our Fig. 6.)

[Illustration: Fig. 6.--The largest calamary ever found, with a scale
of 80 feet.]

* * * * *

1808.--_The Animal of Stronsa._--Perhaps no stranded animal, even the
so-called sea-monks of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century
caused such an excitement among the learned as “the animal of Stronsa”.

The oldest report of it is certainly a letter from Mr. CAMPBELL, in
which only the following lines refer to it:

“A snake (my friend TELFORD received a drawing of it) has been found
thrown on the Orkney-Isles, a sea-snake with a mane like a horse, 4
feet thick and 55 feet long, this is seriously true. MALCOLM LAING, the
historian saw it, and sent a drawing of it to my friend.”

The letter was first printed in the work entitled: “_Life and Letters
of Campbell_”, and afterwards the above quoted lines were reprinted in
the _Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2395.

In the _Proceedings of the Meeting of the Wernerian Natural History
Society_ on the 19th. of November, 1808, printed in the _Philosophical
Magazine_, Vol. 32, p. 190, we read:

“At this meeting Mr. P. NEILL read an account of a great Sea-Snake,
lately cast ashore in Orkney. This curious animal, it appears, was
stranded in Rothiesholm Bay, in the Island of Stronsa. Malcolm Laing,
Esq., M. P. being in Orkney at the time, communicated the circumstance
to his brother, Gilbert Laing Esq., advocate at Edinburgh, on whose
property the animal had been cast. Through this authentic channel Mr.
Neill received his information. The body measured fifty five feet in
length, and the circumference of the thickest part might be equal to
the girth of an Orkney pony. The head was not larger than that of a
seal, and was furnished with two blow holes. From the back a number of
filaments (resembling in tecture the fishing-tackle known by the name
of silk-worm gut) hung down like a mane. On each side of the body were
three large fins, shaped like paws, and jointed. The body was unluckily
knocked to pieces by a tempest; but the fragments have been collected
by Mr. Laing, and are to be transmitted to the Museum at Edinburgh. Mr.
Neill concluded with remarking, that no doubt could be entertained that
this was the kind of animal described by Ramus, Egede, and Pontoppidan,
but which scientific and systematic naturalists had hitherto rejected
as spurious and ideal.”

In the meeting of the same Society on the 14th. of January, 1809, (see
_Phil. Mag._ Vol. 33. p. 90.),

“Dr. John Barclay communicated some highly curious observations which
he had made on the caudal vertebrae of the Great Sea-Snake, (formerly
mentioned) which exhibit in their structure some beautiful provisions
of Nature, not hitherto observed in the vertebrae of any other animal.”

“And Mr. Patric Neill read an ample and interesting account of this
new animal, collected from different sources, especially letters of
undoubted authority, which he had received from the Orkneys. He stated,
however, that owing to the tempestuous season, the head, fin, sternum,
and dorsal vertebrae, promised some weeks ago to the University Museum
at Edinburgh, had not yet arrived; but that he had received a note
from Gilbert Meason, esq., (the gentleman on whose estate in Stronsa
the sea-snake was cast,) intimating that they might be expected by the
earliest arrivals from Orkney. In the mean time, he submitted to the
Society the first sketch of a generic character. The name proposed for
this new genus was _Halsydrus_, (from ἁλς the sea, and ὑδρος a water
snake); and as it evidently appeared to be the Soe-Ormen described
above half a century ago, by Pontoppidan, in his Natural History
of Norway, it was suggested that its specific name should be _H.
Pontoppidani_.”

Mr. MALCOLM LAING and Dr. GRANT, living on Stronsa, were requested to
take down the affidavits of the eye-witnesses, and at the meeting of
the Wernerian Society on the 11th. of February, 1809, (see _Phil. Mag._
Vol. 33. p. 251),

“the Secretary (Mr. P. Neill) laid before the Society copies of those
affidavits made before the justices of peace at Kirkwall in Orkney, by
several persons who saw and examined the carcass of the great sea snake
(_Halsydrus Pontoppidani_) cast ashore in Stronsa in October last;
with remarks illustrative of the meaning of some passages in these
affidavits.”

The above-mentioned communication of Dr. JOHN BARCLAY was printed in
1811 in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_, and
contains a detailed description of some vertebrae of the animal. The
figures of these vertebrae are splendid, also those of the dried and
shrivelled skull and a portion of one of the pectoral fins, with the
cartilages that connect it with the body. As well the descriptions as
the figures betray at a glance the shark nature of the animal. We will
not trouble our readers with them, and we will also omit the figures,
except one; it is a drawing made after the description of one of the
eye-witnesses. (See our Fig. 7).

[Illustration: Fig. 7.--The Animal of Stronsa.]

The Paper of Dr. BARCLAY was entitled: _Remarks on some parts of the
animal that was cast ashore on the island of Stronsa, Sept. 1808._ The
above-mentioned affidavits were also printed in 1811, in the first
Volume of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society_, and
run as follows:

“At Kirkwall, Nov. 10. 1808.

“In presence of Dr. Robert Groat, Physician in Kirkwall, and Malcolm
Laing, Esq; M. P. Two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace of the
County of Orkney.

“Compeared Thomas Fotheringhame, house-carpenter in Kirkwall; who
solemnly declared, That being in Stronsa during the gales of wind in
October last; he went to see the strange fish that was driven ashore in
Rothiesholm Bay: That he measured his length with a foot-rule, which
was exactly fifty-five feet, from the junction of the head and neck,
where there was the appearance of an ear, to the tail: That the length
of the neck, from the ear to the shoulder, was ten feet three inches,
as nearly as he recollects. And being shewn a drawing of the animal,
he declared, That the neck appeared to him to be too long. That the
fins or arms, or, as they were called on the island, the _wings_ of
the animal, were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than
they appear in the drawing: That the toes were less spread out, and
tapering more to a point, unless when purposely lifted up; but were not
webbed unless the space of an inch and a half in breadth, where they
joined each other; and the length seemed to be about eight inches: That
he measured one of the wings next the head, which was four feet and a
half in length, and in shape, from the first joint to the extremity, it
resembled a goose-wing without the feathers: That the hollow between
the snout and the upper part of the skull, appeared to him not to
be quite so deep as represented in the drawing: That in every other
respect the drawing appears to be so exact, that if the fish had not
been mentioned, it would have brought it to his recollection: That from
the ridge of the back to the belly, the body appeared to be four feet
in depth, and the circumference rather oval than round; but that he did
not measure either: That the mane or bristles of the back extended from
the shoulder to within two feet and a half of the tail, and were of a
shining appearance when wet; but shrunk up, and turned yellow, when
dried: That the mane was thin, about two inches and a half in breadth
towards the shoulder, and two inches in breadth at the tail: That the
skin seemed to be elastic when compressed, and of a greyish colour,
without any scales: it was rough to the feeling, on drawing the hand
over it, towards the head; but was smooth as velvet when the hand was
drawn towards the tail: That the extremity of the tail was about two
inches in thickness, and somewhat rounded; and as he saw no part of the
bones, he cannot say whether any part of the tail had been broken off
or not: That the eyes appeared to be no larger than those of a seal:
That there were two spout holes on each side of the neck, about an
inch and a fourth in diameter, and at the same distance from the head
as appears in the drawing: That he lifted up the snout, and examined
the throat, which was too narrow to admit his hand: That a part of the
bones of the lower jaw, resembling those of a dog, were remaining at
that time, with some appearance of teeth, which were soft, and could
be bent by the strength of the hand: That he observed no nipples, or
organs of generation; the belly having been burst open by the violence
of the sea: That the stomach was about the size of a ten gallon cask;
and the bowls about the bulk of those of a cow: That the bristles of
the back which had been pulled off through curiosity, were luminous
in the dark, while they continued wet. And all this he declares to be
truth, &c.

“(Signed)”

“Thomas Fotheringhame.”

“Kirkwall, Nov. 19, 1808.”

“Compeared John Peace, tenant in Dounatoun in Rothiesholm; and being
interrogated, solemnly declares, That on the 26th. day of September
last, he went a fishing off the east part of Rothiesholm-head, when he
perceived as he imagined, a dead whale, on some sunk rocks, about a
quarter of a mile from the Head: That his attention was first directed
to it by the sea-fowl screaming and flocking about it; and on approach
of it, in his boat, he found the middle part of it above the surface
of the water: That he then observed it to be different from a whale,
particularly in having fins or arms, one of which he raised with his
boat-hook above the surface of the water: That this was one of the arms
next the head, which was larger and broader than the others nearer the
tail; and at that time the fin or arm was edged all around, from the
body to the extremity of the toes, with a row of bristles about ten
inches long, some of which he pulled off, and examined in the boat:
That about ten days afterwards, a gale of south east wind came on, and
the surge drove the fish ashore on Rothiesholm-Head: That he measured
it by fathoms, and found it about fifty-four or fifty-five feet in
length: That he observed the six arms, or wings as they are called on
the island; but perceived no part of the bristles then round the edges
of the fins or arms, and supposes, that being in a putrid state, they
had been beaten off by the sea, or washed away: That a small part of
the belly was broken up when he saw it then, from which the stomach,
as he now supposes it to have been, had fallen out: That the stomach,
which he took at first for the penis, from the one end of it being
joined to the body; but on seeing it after it was opened, he concluded
it to have been the stomach, as it resembled the second stomach of
a cow: That he did not measure the circumference of the animal, but
it appeared to be of the thickness of a middle sized horse round the
girth, of twelve or thirteen hands high. And being shewn a drawing of
the animal, and desired to point out the resemblance or difference,
he declared, That the joint of the foremost leg was broader than
represented in the drawing, being more rounded from the body to the
toes, and narrower at the upper end than at its junction with the toes:
That the limb itself was larger than the hinder ones, and the uppermost
joint or shoulder was altogether attached to the body: That in all
other respects the drawing appears to him to be an exact resemblance
of the fish, as it lay on the beach: That the mane came no further
than the shoulder, and extended to the tail, part of which appeared to
have been broken off: That the length of the neck, the situation of
the spout-holes, and of the eye, the shape of the snout, the position
and distance of the limbs from each other, appear to him to be exactly
preserved in the drawing: That the lower jaw was awanting when he saw
it: That the fish was of a greyish colour: That he observed no nipples
or organs of generation, unless as above mentioned: That the part of
the belly which was burst open, and from which the stomach had fallen
out, was between the two limbs that are situated in the middle of the
animal. And all this he solemnly declares to be truth. And declares he
cannot write.”

“_Eodem die_”

“Compeared Mr. George Sherar, tacksman of Rothiesholm in the island
of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That on the
20th. of October, being in Rothiesholm-head he saw the crew of John
Peace’s boat examining something on the water, which he took to be a
dead whale: That about ten days afterwards, a gale of east wind having
taken place he went to see if the whale was driven ashore, and found
it in a creek, lying on its back, about a foot under water; and from
the view which he had of its figure, length and limbs, his curiosity
induced him to return a day or two after the gale had abated, when he
found it thrown upon the beach, a little below high water mark, and
lying on its belly, as represented in the drawing: That he returned
next morning, with a foot-rule, purposely to measure it, and found it
to be exactly fifty-five feet in length, from the hole in the top of
the skull (which he has brought to town with him), to the extremity
of the tail: That the length of the neck was exactly fifteen feet,
from the same hole to the beginning of the mane: That he measured also
the circumference of the animal as accurately as he could, which was
about ten feet, more or less; and the whole body, where the limbs were
attached to it, was about the same circumference: That the lower jaw
or mouth was awanting; but there were some substances or bones of the
jaw remaining; when he first examined it, which are now away: That it
had two holes on each side of the neck, besides the one on the back
of the skull: That the mane or bristles were about fourteen inches
in length each, of a silvery colour, and particularly luminous in
the dark, before they were dried: That the upper part of the limbs,
which answers to the shoulder-blade, was joined to the body like the
shoulder-blade of a cow, forming a part of the side: That a part of
the tail was awanting, being incidentally broken off at the extremity;
where the last joint of it was bare, was an inch and a half in breadth:
That the bones were of a gristly nature, like those of a halibut, the
back-bone excepted, which was the only solid one in the body: That the
tail was quite flexible, turning in every direction, as he lifted it;
and he supposes the neck to have been equally so, from its appearance
at the time: That he has brought in, to deliver to Mr. Laing, the
skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs, next the head, with
different parts of the backbone, besides the bones that were formerly
sent in: That there were either five or six toes upon each paw, about
nine inches long, and of a soft substance: That the toes were separate
from each other, and not webbed, as far as he could observe; and that
the paw was about half a foot each way, in length and in breadth: That
a few days thereafter, a gale of wind came on, and drove it to another
part of the shore, where it was broken to pieces by the surge, and
when Mr. Petrie came out to take a drawing of it, no part of the body
remained entire: That he endeavoured to convey an idea of the animal
to Mr. Petrie, by drawing the figure of it as accurately as he could,
with chalk, on the table, exactly as it lay on the shore, after which
Mr. Petrie made six or seven different sketches or plans of the fish,
before he could bring it to correspond, in each minute particular, with
the strong idea which he retains of its appearance: That he was the
more attentive to its shape, dimensions and figure, in order to be able
to give an accurate account of it to any travellers that might come to
Rothiesholm, and that he is ready to make oath that the drawing is an
exact resemblance of the fish, as it appeared when he measured it; and
corresponds in all particulars with the idea which he entertains of the
figure, dimensions, and proportions of the fish: That the substance of
the body appeared like coarse, ill coloured beef, interlarded with fat
or tallow, without the least resemblance or affinity to fish; but when
put into a lamp, and the lamp placed on the fire, it neither flamed nor
melted, but burned away like a gristly substance: That he perceived no
teeth in the upper jaw; the lower jaw and tongue being awanting, and
the palate also away: That the aperture of the throat appeared to be so
wide, that he might have put his foot down through it: That the joints
of the limbs were not united by a ball and socket but were lapped over
each other, and united by some means which he does not comprehend: That
there were two canals, one above and another below the backbone, large
enough to admit one’s finger, and extending from the vertebrae of the
neck, to the extremity of the tail, containing two ligaments, which he
supposed, enabled the animal to raise itself up, or to bend its body
in a spiral form: That a tract of strong easterly wind had prevailed,
before the body was discovered upon the shore, and that he saw the body
on two or three different occasions, after he had measured it, and
before it went to pieces. And all this he declares to be truth, &c.”

“(Signed)”

“Geo. Sherar.”

“Compeared Mr. William Folsatter, tacksman of Whitehall, in the
island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That
having heard that it was a dead whale that had come on shore in
Rothiesholm-head, he did not see the body till about the 28th. day of
October, when it had gone to pieces: That he saw about nine or ten feet
of the back-bone, and some bones of the paws, and what was supposed to
be the stomach which last he had the curiosity to open; that it was
about four feet long, and as thick as a firkin, but flatter: That the
membranes that formed the divisions, extended quite across the supposed
stomach, and were about three sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and at
the same distance from each other, and of the same substance, with the
stomach itself: That the section of the stomach, after it was opened,
had the appearance of a weaver’s reed: That he opened about a fourth
part of the supposed stomach which contained nothing but a reddish
substance, like blood and water, and emitted a fetid smell: That he was
very doubtful at the time whether it was really the stomach or not; but
that each end of it had the appearance of terminating in a gut. And all
this he solemnly declares to be the truth, &c.

“(Signed)”

“Wm. Folsetter.”

“The said Mr. George Sherar being again interrogated, declares, That
he examined the supposed stomach, after it had been opened by Mr.
Folsitter, and that he laid it open to the farther end: That there was
something like a gut at the end which he opened, about two inches long,
with a small aperture: That the stomach had the same appearance from
end to end, and contained nothing but a substance like blood and water:
That the large bone of which a drawing was taken, was considered as the
collar-bone; and that it was situated with the broad and thick part
downwards and the open part towards the vertebrae of the back: That he
observed no appearance of fins about the neck or breast, or other parts
of the body, except the six paws already described. And all this he
solemnly declares to be truth, &c.”

“(Signed)”

“Geo. Sherar.”

One of the ablest ichthyologists of those days, Mr. EVERARD HOME
examined the “sea-snake”, and recognized it for a Basking shark.
Immediately after his paper in the _Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London_, Vol. 98, entitled “_An anatomical account
of the Squalus maximus (of Linnaeus), which_, &c.,” especially of an
individual of thirty feet six inches, “entangled in the herring nets,
belonging to the fishermen of Hastings, 13 Nov. 1808”, Mr. HOME goes
further:

“I cannot close the present paper without mentioning, that nearly the
same period, two other Squali of large dimensions were thrown upon our
coast. The probable cause of this event, is the season being uncommonly
boisterous and tempestuous. On the 3d. of January, 1809, a fish was
thrown ashore at Penrhyn, in Cornwall. On hearing of it from a person
on the spot, I sent down a drawing of the subject of this paper to
compare with it, and the fish proves to be of the same species, and a
male, measuring thirty-one feet in length.”

“The other was thrown ashore on the 7th. of October, 1808, at
Rothiesholm, an estate of Gilbert Meason, Esq. in Stronsay, one of the
Orkney isles. It had been seen lying on some sunken rocks, eleven days
before, was in a half putrid state, and the sea fowls were in great
numbers feeding upon it. Those who saw it, reported that the skin was
rough in one direction, and smooth like satin in the other. At the time
of its being examined, the skin and a great many other parts of the
fish were wanting.”

“Mr. Meason, with a zeal for science which does him infinite
credit, upon hearing the strange accounts which were given of this
sea-monster, got his brother, Malcolm Laing, Esq. and Dr. Grant, an
eminent physician (both justices of the peace), to take depositions
on the spot, from those persons who had seen the fish, that its real
appearance might be ascertained. This examination, however, did not
take place till six weeks after the fish was thrown ashore.”

“These depositions were sent to Sir Joseph Banks, who put them into
my hands. (The depositions are very long, and exceedingly minute;
they are preserved in the Board-book of the Royal Society). I also
received, a short time after, from my friend Mr. Laing, in consequence
of a request I made for that purpose, that part of the skull, which
contained the brain, the upper jaw having been separated from it, a
considerable number of the vertebrae of the back united together by
their natural attachments, a portion of one of the pectoral fins,
with the cartilages that unite it to the spine, and a long and short
cartilage forming the support of one of the gills. On comparing these
different parts, with those of the Squalus maximus, they were found to
agree, not only in their form, but also in their dimensions. This led
to the opinion of the fish being a Squalus, a very different one from
what was formed by those who saw it in the mutilated state in which it
was thrown ashore, and who called it a _sea-snake_. In the different
depositions, several parts are accurately described, such as the
valvular intestine, which was taken for the stomach, and the bristles
of the mane, which are described as ligamentous fibres, one of them is
in my possession, and is of the same kind with the fibres forming the
margin of the fins of the squalus maximus. The drawing that was made
from memory, and which I have annexed, will enable me in a few words to
point out how much, in some things, those who saw the fish adhered to
truth, and in others allowed their imagination to supply deficiencies,
for one of them declared, with confidence, that the drawing was so
exact a representation of what he had seen, “that he fancied he saw the
beast lying before him, at a distance on the beach.”

“The drawing is correct in the representation of the head, and anterior
part of the fish, from which the skin, the upper and lower jaw, the
gills, and gullet, had been separated by putrification; and when we
consider that the liver and the other viscera were all destroyed,
except the valvular intestine, which was taken away by the observers,
the size of the body that remained would be nearly in proportion with
the drawing. The legs are tolerably exact representations of the
holders in the male Squalus maximus, described in a former part of this
paper, and therefore are not imaginary, only that four have been added
which did not exist. This is satisfactorily determined by the pectoral
fin, which is preserved, having no resemblance to them. The mane, they
said, was composed of ligamentous fibres, one of which was sent to
London; this corresponds, in its appearance, with the fibres that form
the termination of the fins and tail of the Squalus maximus, such an
appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met with in the place
of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continued along the back,
as in the drawing. The contortions towards the tail are such, as the
invertebral joints could not admit of, they are therefore imaginary.”

“It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by fathoms,
the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet long.
Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are preserved
correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long, and it is
rendered still more so, as the person who gives the length in fathoms,
says, he saw at that time the six legs, the two foremost being larger
than the hinder ones, and the lower joint more rounded from the body to
the toes. The pectoral fin, which is preserved, proves this declaration
to be incorrect: the person who measured the fish with a foot-rule,
declares the length, from the hole in the head to the beginning of the
mane, to be exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a
Squalus of about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart
of the skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other
measurement must be questionable.”

“It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure represented
in this drawing, which was not actually seen. The skeleton of the
holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin of the
dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only errors
are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the fish and
the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs. (This mistake
of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been frequently made.
There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library, sent from Ireland, in
which the fish is represented walking like a duck, with broad webbed
feet. The skin of a male Squalus maximus was exhibited in London, some
years ago, distended by means of hoops, and the holders were shown
as its legs, on which it occasionably walked). And when we recollect
that the drawing was made from memory six weeks after the fish had
been seen by those, who describe it, during which interval it had
been their principal subject of conversation, we may conclude that
so extraordinary an object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when
believed to be a perfect one, would, in their different discourses,
have every part exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the
depositions kept so close to the truth as they have done.”

“It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained, that
this fish is not a new animal unlike any of the ordinary productions of
nature, and we are indebted to the zeal and liberality of Mr. Meason
and Mr. Laing, who have collected a sufficient body of evidence to
enable me to determine that point, and prove it to be a Squalus, and
the orifices behind the eye, which communicate with the mouth met with
in the skull, renders it very probable, that it is a Squalus maximus.”

“This opinion is further confirmed by the Squalus maximus, known by
the name of the basking shark, being frequently seen upon the coast of
Scotland.”

The only remark I have to make is: Mr. HOME will never have believed
that the animal of Stronsa really measured 56 feet, and so made
himself guilty of throwing discredit on the accurate measuring of the
eye-witnesses.

I present here to my readers the figure of a _Squalus maximus_, or
Basking-shark, thus enabling them to make this animal’s acquaintance,
if they don’t know it yet.

[Illustration: Fig. 8.--Squalus maximus, Linné.]

Of course Mr. BARCLAY rejected Mr. Home’s supposition, and wrote a
paper against it, printed in the first volume of the above mentioned
_Memoirs_, running as follows:

“Since reading the first paper of Mr. Home, where he treats of the
vertebrae of the Squalus maximus, I have seen another, entitled “An
anatomical account of the Squalus maximus”. In this last paper, he
seems to be convinced, that the animal of Stronsa is a Squalus maximus.
The scale on which he draws his figure of the squalus, is a scale of
half an inch to a foot.”

“Measuring by this scale, the head of his squalus is five feet and a
half, from the joint of the upper jaw to the gills. The dried and
shrivelled head of the animal of Stronsa, measures only twelve inches
from the first vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw.”

“The diameter of the head of the squalus maximus, from right to left,
at the angle of the mouth, was, according to Mr. Home, five feet. The
broadest part of the head of the animal of Stronsa is, in its present
state, only seven inches.”

“The diameter of the larger vertebrae, near the head, in the squalus,
was, according to Mr. Home, seven inches. The first cervical vertebra
in the animal of Stronsa, is still adhering to the head, and is only
two inches in diameter.”

“Yet some of the vertebrae of this animal, which are still preserved,
are six inches and a half in diameter; and the first vertebrae which I
saw, were from four to five and a half inches across.”

“The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa,
confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a neck.
But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home’s figure be accurate, had nothing
resembling a neck. And, indeed, Artedi observes, that “omnes pisces
qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque carent: Ergo soli pisces
cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a neck, therefore, as peculiar
to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise the account of the spiracula or
ear-holes, ascribed to this animal of Stronsa.”

“The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches. The
length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was fifty five
feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part of the tail
was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the animal of Stronsa
was, by actual measurement, about ten feet, meant, I suppose, at the
thickest part. If the animal had been cylindrical at that part, the
diameter from the dorsal to the sternal aspect must have been about
three feet four inches. The diameter of the squalus at the thickest
part, measuring from the dorsal to the sternal aspect, is nearly six
feet; its circumference, had it been cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.”

“The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder to near
the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after deducting
the length of the head and neck, which, when together were sixteen
feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which I got from Mr.
Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought here, confirm the
accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys. The bristles of that
mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor, although they were, has the
squalus a fin extending from the shoulder to the tail.”

“A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and obliging
Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the original, by
Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the dried specimen now
before us. It represents the sternum and two parts corresponding two
scapulae, and those organs which are named _paws_. Mr. Home says, that
these organs resemble the pectoral fins of his squalus. But the length
of the pectoral fins, measuring along the upper margin, is four feet,
the length of the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting;
the part that remains, measures seventeen inches.”

“The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three feet and
seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in its dried state,
is only five inches and three quarters.”

“Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit articular
surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.”

“Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance to science,
that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a new animal,
unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.” Of what importance
it is to science to admit no new genera or species into our catalogues
of natural history, I cannot conceive. But it is certainly of much
importance to science, that the naturalist should be cautious not
to determine the species of an animal upon vague evidence. Now what
evidence had Mr. Home that this animal was a squalus, and even to
suppose that it was a squalus maximus?”

I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. BARCLAY does not
seem to make any difference between “a head” of a Squalus and “a
skull.” It is true that the “head” of a _Squalus maximus_ of thirty
feet and a half measures five feet and a half, but its “skull” has only
a length of ten inches. It is true that the diameter of the “head”
of such a shark measures from right to left about five feet, but its
“skull” would have only a few inches in breadth. It is true that the
diameter of the larger vertebrae near the head of such an individual
may be about seven inches, but what is indicated by Mr. BARCLAY in the
head of his “animal of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertebra”,
is (don’t laugh!) the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted
cartilaginous appendages!--No wonder that the animal of Stronsa had
“a neck”, for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins,
except the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed
away, whilst the basking shark of Mr. HOME had no neck, because it
was entire.--Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which ARTEDI is
quoted!

In the comparison of Mr. HOME’S basking shark and his own stranded
animal, Mr. BARCLAY also wholly overlooks, when he states the
dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified remains of
an animal, and not of an undamaged being.

Dr. BARCLAY seems to entirely reject Mr. HOME’S idea that the “mane”
had never extended over the whole back, but what was seen were only
fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places of the foremost and
the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of the “mane” only existed in
the imagination of the witnesses.

In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the _paws_, Mr.
BARCLAY again forgets that he has only before him a totally mutilated
specimen.

An extract from the “_Remarks_” of Dr. BARCLAY was given by Dr.
HOFFMANN in OKEN’S _Isis_, II, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst others he
says:

“The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the
differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the
slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;”
but Mr. HOFFMANN himself is not free from inaccuracies! In none of Dr.
BARCLAY’S papers mention is made of a “membranaceous comb extended
over bony rays, which was running from the shoulders to the end of the
tail, over the back.” He has evidently translated this (if we may use
this expression) from the figure (see our fig. 7). But this figure was
made for print by Mr. SYME, after a drawing made on one of the islands
from the description given there, and Mr. SYME has changed the “mane”
(long loose hairs hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he
figured exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced
of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble to
compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same Mr. SYME in
the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal of Stronsa.”

Immediately after this paper Mr. OKEN, the editor of the _Isis_,
wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect
description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship with
other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as no animal
with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been a cartilaginous
fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia (a pair of additional
paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or “holders”) were regarded
as the third pair of feet, whilst the ventral and pectoral fins were
the other pairs. “It is, however, no shark,” he goes on, and adduced
7 proofs for this theory; “it is, neither a cetacean,” and for this
opinion he gives 4 different reasons. And yet he has the boldness to
conclude: “The animal consequently is _more_ related to the sharks, and
as it is not a true shark, it must be a _Chimaera_”; but the reasons
given to prove this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I
will add here that he also says: “finally individuals of _Chimaera_ of
30 feet in length, have already been caught”, a manifest untruth, for
the largest ever measured were of three feet and a half!--For those
readers who never saw a _Chimaera_, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, I
have delineated the _Chimaera monstrosa_ in our fig. 9.

[Illustration: Fig. 9.--Chimaera monstrosa, Linn.]

In the _Edinb. Philos. Journ._ Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is published
of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis was made by
Dr. JOHN DAVY, and communicated “a considerable time ago” by Dr. LEACH
to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my readers with this analysis
would be superfluous.

Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822, really
believes that:

“The existence of the sea-snake,--a monster of fifty-five feet long,
is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown on shore in
Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the Edinburgh Museum.”

Dr. HAMILTON too, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, is of the same
opinion: “We turn first” he says “to an account of an animal which
apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-serpents),
“which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, in
the year 1808”, and he goes on giving some details of the stranded
animal, taken from the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_. Later on we
learn from him that:

“Dr. FLEMING” in his _History of British Animals_, 1828, (this work I
have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal, suggests
that these members were probably the remains of pectoral, ventral and
caudal fins.”

Mr. RATHKE in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, after having
published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about the
sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm
believer in it, goes on:

“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot
be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition, however,
is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal, which in 1816”
(read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, and of which
several pieces of the skeleton are said to be preserved in the Museum
of the University of Edinburgh, and in the Museum of the Royal College
of Surgeons. I have read a note about it in the London Journal _the
Athenaeum_, 1839, p. 902, which note is taken from the work: _The
Naturalist’s Library, Amphibious Carnivora, including the Walrus
and Seals, also of the Herbivorous Cetacea_. By B. Hamilton, M. D.
(Edinburgh, Lizars). An ample description of the saved rests of the
animal is said to have been written by Dr. BARCLAY in the first Volume
of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_. I had, however, not the
means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-mentioned
note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured 56 feet and
had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet. The head was
small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15 feet long. The organs
of motion are said to have consisted of three pairs of fins: one pair
of which is believed to have been properly a caudal fin. The foremost
pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were the longest, and their tops
looked like toes, partly, however, webbed together. From the shoulders
a kind of bristly mane extended to near the extremity of the tail. The
skin was smooth, without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as
large as a seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.”

“Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the head
was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender, and the
extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the animal stranded in
Stronsa resembled a _Plesiosaurus_; and that consequently it belonged
to the _Amphibia_, viz. to the Saurians.”

Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON, the well known Editor of the _Archiv für
Naturgeschichte_, expressed his opinion about the animal of Stronsa,
immediately after the appearance of Mr. RATHKE’S dissertation. After
having given full details of Mr. BARCLAY’S paper, and an ample
description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts belong
undoubtedly to a shark,” and:

“Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and in spite
of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be so for
ever, only it may not have been a _Selache maxima_, but a _Lamna
cornubica_, which also reaches a considerable length. So the animal of
Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians.”

I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. ERICHSON could
arrive at this conclusion, as the _Lamna cornubica_, or porbeagle
has never attained a length above 18 feet.--Our fig. 10 represents a
porbeagle.

[Illustration: Fig. 10.--Lamna cornubica (Linn.).]

It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of
the _Zoologist_, after all that had been written about the animal of
Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his journal of
1849, p. 2358, he asked the following

“_Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast ashore
on the Island of Stronsa in 1808._”

“In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society” (vol. I. p.
418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast ashore on the
island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the Doctor figures
the head with a vertebra attached, four other vertebrae and a sternum
with a paddle “and two parts corresponding two scapulae” attached. He
speaks of the originals of these figures as specimens then before the
audience he was addressing. He gives seven inches as the diameter of
the head, and two inches as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then
still attached to the head. The total length of the animal is given
as fifty-five feet, and this from actual admeasurement. It is now
positively asserted that the animal in question was a shark; but the
utter impossibility of a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head
only seven inches in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches
in diameter, is so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I
shall esteem it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the
means of doing so will reply to the following questions:--

“1. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained?

“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?

“3. Where are these bones preserved?

“4. What is their present state?

“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc.?

“6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? and
if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?

“Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the questions
at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus, order or
class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head and sternum of
the creature are still in existence.”--

The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in the
_Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2396:

“_Reply to Mr._ NEWMAN’_s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the Stronsa
Animal_.--Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an animal cast
on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the “Memoirs of the
Wernerian Society”,--after some little trouble I have been able to
answer most of these questions.”

“1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtained?--It will be
seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that George Sherar,
one of those who saw the animal, mentions that he brought away, to
deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian), the skull, two joints of
one of the largest limbs next the head, with different parts of the
back-bone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, I
suppose, forwarded them to Dr. Barclay.”

“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?--The answer
to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took them from the
same animal.”

“3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present
state?--Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal College
of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches in diameter;
and four in the University Natural History Museum, preserved in
spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas the other
three are separate.”

“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &c.?--6. Has it
ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? if so, what
opinion has he pronounced on it?--This is answered by the annoying fact
that the skull has not been preserved.”

“On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae, he
tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly those of
a Shark (_Squalus maximus_), as are the skull, sternum and scapulae,
figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs”, p. 418.”

“We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who saw this
extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on closer inspection
even these will be found to have little weight in the argument. In the
first place it is infortunate that no well-educated person saw it: they
were all ignorant, illiterate men, who most likely knew nothing further
of a shark than that it was an animal with a huge mouth, capable of
discussing so many seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly
adapted for amputating limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses
agreeing in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six
legs: on this point it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing
anything of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility of
such a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it is at
once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and scapulae
with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol. I. p. 418);
the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his “British Animals”,
supposes were claspers. In the last place we may notice one striking
contradiction in the evidences: Thomas Fotheringhame seems to have been
astonished at such a large animal having such a narrow throat,--so
narrow indeed that it would not admit his hand; while George Sherar
would have had no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there
is nothing to prove that Thomas Fotheringhame’s hand was larger than
George Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other
must have made a mistake in his calculation.”

“We might further suggest the improbability of any animal sixty feet
long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and we might even
suspect the carpenter’s footrule of showing a decided taste for the
marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single remark, that
if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was certainly not the great
sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the
Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev.
Mr. Maclean, Eigg-Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a
strong resemblance.--Jas. C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.”

As to the animal seen by Mr. MACLEAN, see our report n^o. 31, in the
following chapter.

One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa” was now
set at rest. Not at all! Dr. THOMAS STEWART TRAILL wrote a paper about
it, published in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_,
Vol. III, n^o. 44, 1854, June, comparing it with the animal seen by the
Captain, officers and crew of H. M. S. _Daedalus_ (see our report n^o.
118 in the next chapter). The part of his dissertation, respecting the
“animal of Stronsa” runs as follows:

“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal
reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain M’Quhae,
the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the Southern Atlantic,
between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, about 300 miles off the
African shore, recalled my attention to the materials I had collected
respecting the vast animal cast ashore on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys,
in 1808.”

“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made by
those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me by order of
Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on whose property it was
stranded; and I obtained other notes from several individuals resident
in Orkney.”

“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and
measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were
transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists.
Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the late Gilbert
Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the skull and several
vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which a portion of the
pectoral fin, or _wing_, as it was termed by the natives, were
afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined them.”

“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of what was
termed the _mane_ of the animal, which I now exhibit.”

“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying on a sunken
rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; but in a few
days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on shore in a creek near the
headland, where it remained for some time tolerably entire; and it was
subsequently broken up by the fury of the waves. Before it was thus
broken into several pieces it was examined, and measured by several
intelligent inhabitants of the Island; and their testimony collected as
above stated was forwarded to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations
were, however, accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal,
which was thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather
allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the storm
abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, to collect
what information he could on the subject. But by this time the body of
the animal was completely broken up. This lad, who was no draughtsman,
and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, from the descriptions
of those who had seen the animal most entire, to delineate with chalk
on a table a figure of the animal. The rude figure so produced was
transferred by pencil to paper, and copies of it were handed about as
real representations of the animal.”

“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted by those
who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards obtained, it would
appear that the _jointed legs_, which the lad had attached to it, are
creations of his own imagination.”

“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, were
never called _legs_ by those who saw the animal, but were denominated
by them _wings_ or _fins_ or swimming paws. “That nearest the head was
broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half feet in length, and was
edged all round with bristles or fibres, about ten inches long”. The
“lower jaw was wanting when it was cast ashore, but there remained
cartilaginous teeth in portions of the jaws”. Before it was discovered
putrefaction had commenced, especially in the _fins_. The animal had a
long and slender neck, on which there were two spiracles on each side.”

“The _wings_ would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by
incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains of pectoral,
abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have been placed, like
those of some of the shark family, farther from the centre of the
abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of the witnesses states
that “the wings of the animal were jointed to the body nearer the ridge
of the back than they appear in the drawing”.”

“The portion of the anterior fin or _wing_, which was attached to the
omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a structure
of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, the rays
might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural science, seem
like toes or fingers.”

“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing the fins
of fishes:”--

“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires membraneuses
representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et des pieds.”

“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal rests
on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw it most
entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew the three
principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George Sherar, and William
Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, and of remarkable
intelligence. They were not _ignorant fishermen_, as the witnesses were
represented to be; but two of them were of the better sort of farmers
in that part of Orkney; and the first and the last of them were also
very ingenious mechanics, much accustomed to the use of the _footrule_,
the instrument employed in measuring the animal.”

“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that I can
have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made of their
impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”

“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months after these
accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr. Home (afterwards
Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside the evidence of the
persons who saw and measured the animal in its most entire condition,
as to its dimensions of length and thickness; and maintains that it was
nothing but a Basking shark (Selache maximum!), which he supposes the
love of the marvellous had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those
whom he is pleased to call “_ignorant fishermen_”. Unfortunately for
Home’s hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to
those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the Orkney
Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so totally
different from the animal in question, that the two could scarcely be
confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had ever seen them.”

“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion
towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions)
measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of the
largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account scarcely
exceeds thirty six feet.”

“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. My
notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body of the
Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much towards the
head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large Basking shark,
where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, the shark-like
figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the eel-like
form of the Stronsey animal.”

“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by
different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more oval
than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, who
had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized horse in
thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to fourteen hands
in height, I found their greatest circumference to be from seventy-one
to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet eleven inches to six feet
one inch), or an average of six feet, that is less than the thickest
part of our animal, but seemingly near that of its average dimensions.)”

“The _mane_ as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a decomposed
fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a fin; and the animal
seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had a mane, floating about
like sea-weed; and a similar appendage has generally been noticed in
some less distinct accounts of a supposed sea-serpent.”

“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior
_wings_, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and
differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the _mane_
consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the
back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine animal. That
its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from the specimen now
exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches in length; and in the
dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, equal to that of
isinglass.”

“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our Museum,
have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in the Wernerian
Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their want of processes
and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance to those of
chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent to the cranium,
measured only two inches across; while that of the Basking-shark,
in the same situation, is about seven inches in diameter. Dr.
Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of the omoplates,
and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are accurately given,
from a drawing made from the recent remains, by the late Mr. John T.
Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman, and able naturalist. I know
the representation to be correct, for I saw and handled the specimen.
The substance of this part was a firm, but flexible cartilage, and
seemed to have been placed in the muscles; just as Cuvier describes
the omoplates of sharks to be: Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans
le chair, en arrière des Branchies, sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à
l’espine. The Orkney animal seems to have had _two circular_ spiracles
on each side of its neck, about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the
Basking shark has _five linear_ spiracles on each side, a foot or more
in length.”

“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far too small
for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual length of
that species. It measured in its dried state no more than twelve
inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven inches.
A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a head of at
least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium at the
angles of the mouth, would have measured probably five feet. These
proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal could not possibly
be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed to see the Basking shark,
with that fish. There was a hole on the top of the cranium, something
similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans; but its lateral spiracles
and cartilaginous bones forbid us to refer it to the order of cetacea”.

“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious
_fish_, different from any described by naturalists; but it has no
pretensions to the denomination of _Sea Serpent_ or _Sea Snake_,
although its general form, and probably its mode of progression in
the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order of _Serpentes_.
Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known shark; nor does it
belong to the family of Squalidae”.

I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. TRAILL’S paper.
First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was cast on shore
by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime tolerably entire”.
This is not true, for the dead animal was already in a very putrified
and damaged state, when it floated on the surface of the sea, for the
pectoral fin was already putrified and the fibres had become loose.

Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, but
they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by the
strength of the hand”.

Mr. TRAILL further says that “they would seem to have been the remains
of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may be remains
of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there is no fish known to
Zoologists, that has _two_ anal fins. The anal fin is therefore called
an _unpaired_ fin!

In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those of
HOME’S Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. _Barclay_, permanently
believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”! Further
he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of which
we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six feet”.
Consulting Prof. H. SCHLEGEL’S _De visschen van Nederland_, I read,
however:

“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, had a
length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are usually
observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this capture, which
are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences, transmitted
by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GUNNER, sometimes individuals of
more than 70, and even of more than 100 feet in length were captured on
the coasts of Norway”.

In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the two
dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so that their
fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called “first
cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. _Barclay_!

The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of course no
relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not “spiracles”
as Mr. TRAILL says) of the Basking-shark. These “two spiracles on each
side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”. They may have been
decomposed stems of the vascular system in the flesh near the skull of
the animal.

Dr. TRAILL, no more than Dr. BARCLAY, seemed to have known the
difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or “cranium”!

The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in the
engraving representing the skull in the _Memoirs of the Wernerian
Society_ is evidently the result of putrification and of an external
injury.

I need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of Stronsa”.
They may more than once have observed that I agree with Mr. EVERARD
HOME’S opinion in all particulars, except in the so-called exaggerated
dimensions. I firmly believe that the carcass of the animal measured
fifty-five feet from the head to the end of the tail, and as a piece
of tail seems to have been broken off, the vertebral column may even
have been one of sixty feet. The dried and shrivelled skull measured
twelve inches “from the first cervical vertebra to the farthest part
that remains of the jaw”. But as I have pointed out that this “first
cervical vertebra” was in reality the cartilaginous nose tip with
its two contorted cartilaginous appendages, and as this nose tip
must have measured (see the drawing of the skull in the _Memoirs of
the Wernerian Society_, Vol. I) two inches, the whole skull measured
fourteen inches. But the skull was dried and shrivelled, consequently
we may safely admit that it measured in its perfect state about twenty
inches. Consequently I conclude that: the largest Basking-shark that
ever stranded on the coasts of Great Britain measured upwards of sixty
feet, viz. the so-called “Animal of Stronsa”. The putrified body of it
was floated ashore, and the putrification had continued so far that the
almost black covering of the two backfins and the tail-fin were not
only washed away by the waves, but that their yellow fibres had become
loose. The eye-witnesses evidently reasoned that these fibres must
have been present all along the back between these three parts, now
far remote one from another, but were washed away, and they therefore
concluded that the animal had “a mane, extending from the shoulders”
(the part of the back at the level of the pectoral fins) “to the
tail”, i. e. to the end of the tail. Or, according to another witness
it extended “to within two feet and a half of the tail”; which may be
explained in two ways, viz., either he meant that the mane extended to
within two feet and a half beyond the level of the last pair of paws
(the claspers), consequently the level where the tail begins, and here
is the exact place of the hindmost back-fin, or he meant that the mane
did not quite extend to the point of the tail, from which we in our
turn may conclude that the last two feet and a half of the tail had
already been wholly cleared from the fibres of the putrified tail-fin.

Moreover putrification on one side, and the beating of the waves on
the other side, had already removed the animal’s enormous jaws, gills,
with adherent muscles and cartilages, and all the entrails, except the
valvular intestine. On persons who never saw such a mutilated specimen
of a shark, the animal _must_ have made the impression of being a
sea-snake!

As to the sketch, made by Mr. PETRIE after the descriptions of one of
the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat altered by Mr.
SYME, it will appear at a glance that besides the ridiculous legs, the
head (read skull) of it is drawn too large. The carrion was 56 feet
long and the drawing only 74 lines, consequently the length of one foot
is represented by a space of 1.3 line. A skull of 14 inches should
therefore be in this drawing only 1.5 line long, and not 6 lines.
Last not least, the “mane” is not delineated on only three different
places, as it really was, but from the “shoulders” to the end of the
tail, according to the wrong conclusions of those “most intelligent
eye-witnesses”! This terrible “mane” was evidently the _only_ cause of
all this trouble, and of the whole puzzle!

* * * * *

1816.--_Phil. Mag._, LIV, 1819.--The third sea-serpent described by Mr.
RAFINESQUE (for he believes there are several species), is called by
him:

“3. _The Scarlet Sea-Serpent._ This was observed in the Atlantic Ocean,
by the captain and crew of an American vessel from New-York, while
reposing and coiled up, near the surface of the water, in the summer of
1816. It is very likely that it was a fish, and perhaps might belong
to the same genus with the foregoing; I shall refer it thereto, with
doubt, and name it _Octipos? coccineus_. Entirely of a bright crimson;
head acute. Nothing further descriptive was added in the gazettes where
the account was given, except that its length was supposed to be about
40 feet.”

[Illustration: Fig. 11.--A large calamary, swimming on the surface of
the Sea.]

I am convinced that this “sea-serpent” was a great calamary. As the
greatest ever found, measured from the tip of the tail to the tips
of the extended shorter arms about 30 feet (a calamary reposing or
swimming in the sea always has its long tentacular arms coiled up), the
length of 40 feet probably is exaggerated. I give here a figure of a
large calamary, swimming on the surface of the water (taken from Mr.
HENRY LEE’S Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883, corrected, however, as to its
proportions), and now my readers most probably will agree with me that
such an animal has been seen. The hillocks of the short arms make the
appearance of a long undulating body. The body of such an animal is
quite scarlet or crimson, and the tail (the so-called head) is acute.

* * * * *

1822, June.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of 1822, III, we read:

“Some time ago the American newspapers were filled with the reports
of a sea-serpent which showed itself in the neighbourhood. Also more
than a year ago an animal was caught, supposed to be such a one,
which, however, was recognized as a large tunny. It appears by the
New-York newspaper of June 15th., that such an animal taken for a great
sea-serpent has been caught in a bay near Middleton-Point. This monster
measured thirty feet and has a circumference of 18 feet. It had already
been seen for some days, floating like a huge trunk. Some persons had
fired at it with guns, but without any result. Having got into shallow
water it could not regain the high sea, was killed with harpoons, towed
aland and flayed. The liver alone produced three barrels of train-oil.
It took six men two hours to drag the skin, which will be stuffed, to
a distance of about 200 yards off. None of the old whalemen and seamen
who saw the animal, knew it. There were no guts (?) and there was no
heart (??). In the beak six rows of small sharp teeth were counted and
the throat was wide enough for a tall man to pass. The skin was lead
coloured and could be used as a stone for sharpening knives (apparently
an unusual large shark?)”

About the tunny I allow myself to refer the reader to our fig. 1.--We
immediately agree with Mr. FRORIEP that this animal was a large shark.
Evidently it was dead, “floating some days like a huge trunk”. The
reason that no whaleman recognized the animal, that neither guts
nor heart was found, is of course to be found in the fact that the
animal was putrified, irrecognizable, and had already lost its guts
and some other entrails. Evidently it was a basking-shark, _Squalus
maximus_ (See our fig. 8). The length of 30 feet and girth of 18 feet
is normal in this species. Norwegian fishermen harpoon it to procure
the train-oil from the liver. The teeth are comparatively small
and conical, the skin is lead coloured and can really be used as a
whet-stone.--

* * * * *

1849.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2335, we read:

“_A young sea-serpent._--On Friday, while some fishermen belonging to
Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what appeared to them a
young sea-serpent, and lost no time in bringing the young monster to
the secretary of our Museum. The animal, whatever it may be called, is
still alive, and we have just been favoured with a sight of it; but
whether it really be a young sea-serpent or not, we shall leave those
who are better acquainted with Zoology than we are to determine. Be
it what it may, it is a living creature, more than 20 feet in length,
less than an inch in circumference, and of a dark brown chocolate
colour. When at rest its body is round; but when it is handled it
contracts upon itself, and assumes a flattish form. When not disturbed
its motions are slow; but when taken out of the water and extended,
it contracts like what a long cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds
itself up in spiral form, and soon begins to secrete a whitish mucous
from the skin, which cements the folds together, as for the purpose of
binding the creature into the least possible dimensions.”--“_Montrose
Standard._”--

“[This creature was probably a specimen of Gordius marinus. I am
obliged for the extract.--E. Newman.]”

Mr. NEWMAN suggesting this worm to be a _Gordius marinus_ evidently
did not mean the _Gordius marinus_ of LINNÉ, but that of MONTAGU. The
former is a little worm of about one half of an inch in length, living
parasitically in the entrails of some fishes, especially in herrings,
whilst the latter is identical to _Lineus longissimus_ of SOWERBY,
belonging to the family of _Lineidae_, to the order of _Nemertini_,
to the class of _Platyelminthes_ or Flat-Worms. Of this species
individuals of thirty to forty-five feet in length have occasionally
been dredged.

Having the means of consulting the splendid work of the British
Nemerteans of Mr. Mc. INTOSH, I am able to show my readers in fig. 12
this _Lineus longissimus_, on a reduced scale.

[Illustration: Fig. 12.--Lineus longissimus, Sow.]

* * * * *

1849, March 26.--Another would be sea-serpent; (Zoologist p. 2433 for
1849):

“_A strange marine animal_, of great size and strength, was captured
on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By the enclosed
handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears to be quite
unknown to the neighbouring _savants_. The honest fishermen who drew
the struggling monster to land are not, however, overscrupulous
about the name, provided it be attractive enough to extract from the
pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 6_d._; working people 3_d._ each”:
they therefore boldly announce him as “the great sea-serpent caught
at last”. My correspondent very judiciously observes, that whatever
the animal may be, it adds another to the many evidences constantly
occurring that there _are_ more things in heaven and earth, than are
dreamt of by the most experienced practical observers. Some thirty
five years since, the distinguished anatomist Dr. Barclay, was fain to
reproach his contemporaries with the folly of affecting to suppose that
they knew every thing. What additions have five and thirty years not
given to Science! As the animal in question must be at least a local
visitor, may we not hope, that some resident naturalist will favour us
with a notice of it?”

“The great Sea-Serpent caught at last, by fourteen fishermen, off
Cullercoats, on Monday last, March 26, 1849. This most wonderful
monster of the deep was discovered by a crew of fishermen, about
six miles from the land, who, after a severe struggle, succeeded in
capturing this, the most wonderful production of the mighty deep. This
monster has been visited by numbers of the gentry and scientific men of
Newcastle, and all declare that nothing hitherto discovered in Natural
History affords any resemblance to this. As an object of scientific
inquiry, this “great unknown” must prove a subject of peculiar
interest. Many surmises as to its habits, native shores, etc., have
already been made, but nothing is really known. The general opinion
expressed by those that are best able to judge, is, that this is the
great sea-serpent, which hitherto has only been believed to have a
fabulous existence, but which recent voyagers declare they have seen.
Now exhibiting, at the shop, 57, Grey Street, opposite the High Bridge.
Admission: ladies and gentlemen 6_d._, Working people 3_d._ each.”

In the _Illustrated London News_ of May 19, 1849, we find the following
account of this capture:

“The Sea-Serpent.--We observe in the Newcastle papers that a strange
and hitherto unknown fish, nearly 13 feet in length, and possessing
many of the characteristics which the captain of the _Daedalus_
enumerated in his description of the great Sea-Snake, has really been
caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats’ fishermen, and
has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it has created the greatest
sensation. The members of the National History Society of that town
have duly reported upon it, and expressed their opinion, that it is a
young specimen of the genus _Gymnetrus_, only four of which species,
and those very rare, are known to ichthyologists, and described by
Cuvier and others as inhabiting the Indian, Mediterranean and White
Seas. The present specimen has become the property of a Newcastle
merchant, who has presented it to the museum of that town; and we
understand that, in accordance with a very general wish of most of our
distinguished naturalists, it is now exhibiting in the metropolis.”

As we read in the _Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2460--2462, Mr. ALBANY
HANCOCK and Dr. EMBLETON now declared it to be a probably new species
of the genus of riband-fish (_Gymnetrus_).

[Illustration: Fig. 13.--Gymnetrus gladius, Cuv. Val.]

Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the _Gymnetrus
gladius_ of CUVIER and VALENCIENNES, taken from the _Règne Animal_.
This fish is of a silvery colour, except the fins and the peculiar
articulated head-ornaments, which are crimson. Its length is about ten
feet, its home the Mediterranean. The _Gymnetrus Banksii_ or _Regalecus
Banksii_ of Cuvier, closely allied to it, measures about twenty feet,
sometimes more, and is, though rarely, hitherto caught only near the
British shores. The fish in question therefore most probably belonged
to this species.

* * * * *

1852, Aug. 28.--Mr. ALFRED NEWTON, of Elveden Hall, forwarded the
following report to the Editor of the _Zoologist_ (see this journal for
1853, p. 3756).

“I have lately received the following account from my brother, Capt.
Steele, 9th. Lancers, who on his way out to India in the Barham,
saw the sea-serpent. Thinking it might be interesting to you, as
corroborating the account of the Daedalus, I have taken the liberty of
sending you the extract from my brother’s letter:--“On the 28th. of
August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16′ S., about half-past two, we had
all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when the first mate called
us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight. About five hundred yards
from the ship there was the head and neck of an enormous snake; we saw
about sixteen or twenty feet out of the water, and he _spouted_ a long
way from his head; down his back he had a crest like a cock’s comb, and
was going very slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty
or sixty feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put
the ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached him,
he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. _He was seen by
every one on board._” My brother is no naturalist, and I think this is
the first time the monster has ever been seen to spout.”

“I am told by a gentleman whose brother was on board the ship (the
Barham) referred in the following extract from “The Times” newspaper of
November 17, 1852, that the occurrence there related took place between
35° and 40° S. lat. and 40° and 45° E. long., being about 650 miles due
south of Madagascar. I understand that the particulars of the event
as there stated closely agree with those furnished to my informant,
and further, which is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole
circumstance, that the animal was observed to “blow” or “spout” in the
same manner that a whale does.”

“_Extract from an Officer’s Letter written between the Cape and
Madras._ You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen the
great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion.
Information was given by a sailor to the captain, just as we were
going to dinner. I was in my cabin at the time, and from the noise
and excitement, I thought the ship was on fire. I rushed on deck, and
on looking over the side of the vessel I saw a most wonderful sight,
which I shall recollect as long as I live. His head appeared to be
about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept moving it up and down,
sometimes showing his enormous neck, which was surmounted with a huge
crest in the shape of a saw. It was surrounded by hundreds of birds,
and we at first thought it was a dead whale. He left a track in the
water like the wake of a boat, and from what we could see of the head
and part of his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet
in length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away to
get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards he slowly
sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at dinner he was seen
again, and a midshipman took a sketch of him, of which I will send you
a copy.”--_The Times._

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, 1^{st} Series, p. 311,
says of these rapports:

“The descriptions, however, show great discrepancy with that of the
creature, seen from the _Daedalus_” (see report n^o. 118 in the next
chapter) “and cannot be considered confirmatory of the former account,
otherwise than as proving that immense unrecognized creatures of
elongate form roam the ocean.”

“Mr. Alfred Newton, of Elveden Hall, an excellent and well-known
naturalist, adds the guarantee of his personal acquaintance with one of
the recipients of the above letters.”

“I note this, because discredit has been undeservedly cast on the
phenomena observed, by foolish fabulous stories having been published
under fictitious names, for the purpose of hoaxing.”

“If it were not for the spouting--which is not mentioned by one
observer, and may possibly have been an illusion,--I should be inclined
to think that this may have been one of the scabbard fishes, specimens
of which inhabit the ocean of immense size. They carry a high serrated
dorsal fin, and swim with the head out of the water.”

By inserting these reports in the present chapter, I already show my
readers, that I agree with Mr. GOSSE, that this animal cannot have been
a sea-serpent.

I confess that I am unable to give a decisive answer to the question as
to what kind of animal it really was. _Apparently_ the most plausible
explanation is that given by Mr. Gosse, viz., that it was a riband or
scabbard fish. The dorsal fin which in these kind of fishes begins at
the occiput, is red or crimson coloured, and serrated, so that it may
have given rise to the expressions of “a crest like a cock’s comb”, and
“a huge crest in the shape of a saw”. But riband fishes are deep-sea
fishes. When floating on the surface they are dying or already dead.
They never “swim with their head above the surface”! Moreover the green
colour does not agree with the common silvery hue of these animals. A
riband fish is delineated in fig. 13, p. 93.

But wonderful it may seem that after having uttered this opinion, a
few pages further on Mr. GOSSE uses this report amongst others to fix
the class of living creatures to which the sea-serpent belongs. And
what is the conclusion he arrives at?--that it belongs to the group of
_Plesiosauri_, or at least is related to it!

* * * * *

1858, July 9.--_Another Sea-Serpent._--(_Zoologist_, 1859, p.
6492.)--“The Amsterdamsche Courant of October 6, 1858, inserts the
following letter from Captain L. Bijl, of the Dutch bark “Hendrik
Ido Ambacht”, to the “Jorn-Bode”:--“Sailing in the South Atlantic,
in 27° 27′ N. Lat., and 14° 51,′ E. long., we perceived on July the
9th., between twelve and one o’clock in the afternoon, a dangerous sea
monster, which during nine days constantly kept alongside of us to 37°
55′ S. lat., and 42° 9′ E. long. This animal was about 90 feet long
and 25 to 30 feet broad, and, most of the time, it struck the ship
with such a force as to make it vibrate. The monster blew much water,
which spread an unpleasant stench over the deck. The captain, fearing
lest the animal might disable the rudder, did his utmost to get rid
of his fearful antagonist, but without success. After it had received
more than a hundred musket-balls, a harpoon and a long iron bar, blood
was seen to flow from various wounds, so that at last from loss of
strength, the monster could swim behind our vessel no longer, and we
were delivered of it. By its violent blows against the copper the
animal’s skin had been damaged in several places.”--J. H. van Lennep,
Zeist.”[2]

[2] _Jorn Bode_ is most probably a misprint for _Java-Bode_. _Zeist_
is the well-known charming village, east of Utrecht, the fourth town
of the Netherlands.

As to the animal, seen from the _Hendrik Ido Ambacht_, I think it must
have been a sick spermwhale, which was out of temper; why else should
it have been so angry that it followed the bark nine days, cuffing it
“most of the time”? Moreover the nature of spermwhales is well enough
known as angry and war-like.

* * * * *

1860?--In the _Zoologist_ for this year we read p. 6934:

“_A sea-serpent in the Bermudas._--I beg to send you the following
account of a strange sea-monster captured on these shores, the animal
being, in fact, no less than the great sea-serpent which was described
as having been seen by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. S. “Daedalus”, a few
years since. Two gentlemen named Trimingham were walking along the
shore of Hungary Bay, in Hamilton Island, on Sunday last, about eleven
o’clock, when they were attracted by a loud rushing noise in the water,
and, on reaching the spot, they found a huge sea-monster, which had
thrown itself on the low rocks, and was dying from exhaustion in its
efforts to regain the water. They attacked it with large forks which
were lying near at hand for gathering in sea-weed, and unfortunately
mauled it much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven
inches in length, tapering from head to tail like a snake, the body
being a flatfish oval shape, the greatest depth at about a third of its
length from the head, being eleven inches. The colour was bright and
silvery; the skin destitute of scales but rough and warty; the head in
shape not unlike that of a bull-dog, but it is destitute of teeth; the
eyes were large, flat, and extremely brilliant, it had small pectoral
fins, and minute ventral fins, and large gills. There were a series of
fins running along the back, composed of short, slender rays, united
by a transparent membrane, at the interval of something less than an
inch from each other. The creature had no bone, but a cartilage running
through the body. Across the body at certain intervals were bands,
where the skin was of a more flexible nature, evidently intended for
the creature’s locomotion, screw like, through the water. But its
most remarkable feature was a series of eight long thin spines of a
bright red colour springing from the top of the head and following each
other at an interval of about an inch; the longest was in the centre:
it is now in the possession of Colonel Munro, the acting Governor of
the Colony; and I had the opportunity of examining it very closely.
It is two feet seven inches long, about three eighth of an inch in
circumference at the base, and gradually tapering, but flattened at the
extreme end, like the blade of an oar. The shell of these spines is
hard, and, on examination by a powerful glass, appeared to be double,
some red colouring matter being between the shells; the outside, which
to the touch and natural eye was smooth, being rough and much similar
to the small claws or feelers of the lobster or crayfish. The centre
was a wide pith, like an ordinary quill. The three foremost of these
spines were connected for about half their length by a greasy filament;
the rest being unconnected; the serpent had the power of elevating or
depressing the crest at pleasure. The serpent was carefully examined by
several medical and scientific gentlemen; the head, dorsal spine, and
greater part of the crest are in the possession of J. M. Jones Esq.,
an eminent naturalist, who will, doubtless, send home a more learned
description of this “wonder of the deep”. I regret that the immediate
departure of the mail for England prevents my preparing you any more
careful drawing of this great “sea-serpent” than that I enclose.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds hereto the following
note:

“Written by Captain Hawtaigne, of Her Majesty’s 39 Foot. I place
implicit reliance on the narrative, except as to the animal being
identical with that seen by Capt. M’Quhae, of which I think there is
no evidence. Mr. J. M. Jones is an old subscriber to the _Zoologist_,
and a most intelligent; but the query occurs to me, “Is not _this_
sea-serpent a ribband fish?”--

Yes, _this_ sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent
naturalist”, Mr. J. M. JONES, soon afterwards described this species
for the _Zoologist_, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr. EDWARD
NEWMAN has “received the following particulars of this most interesting
capture from an old and valued correspondent of the _Zoologist_. It
must be read in connection with a previous note on the same animal in
the April number of the _Zoologist_. (Zool. p. 6934)”.

Now follows the description of the animal, by Mr. J. MATHEW JONES, with
which we will not trouble our readers, only referring them to our fig.
13, p. 93, of a ribband fish, closely allied to the specimen, captured
in the Bermudas.

Mr. JONES adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea-serpent
seen by Captain M’QUHAE (see report n^o. 118), and concludes that part
of the reports concerning the great sea-serpent originated from the
appearance of ribband fishes. His views of the matter, however, will be
treated of in our chapter on the various explanations.

Immediately after this article Mr. NEWMAN wrote another, in which he
shows that this fish is a _new species_, giving it the name _Regalecus
Jonesii_, NEWMAN. How far Mr. NEWMAN was right in doing so, I am unable
to decide. He gives a full description of his new species, and adds
that he is not competent to express an opinion upon the similarity of
_Regalecus Jonesii_ to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent.

* * * * *

1878.--The _Scotsman_ of September 6th. of this year has inserted in
its columns the following account.

“A Baby Sea-Serpent.--From Van Diemen’s Land comes news of the capture
of a queer fish. It is fourteen feet long, fifteen inches deep from the
neck to the belly, tapering two inches to the tail, and eight inches
in diameter in the thickest place. There are no scales, but the skin
is like polished silver, with eighteen dark lines and rows of spots
running from the head to the tail each side. There is a mane on the
neck twenty inches long, and continues from the head to the tail;
small head, no teeth, protrusive mouth, capable of being extended four
inches like a sucker; eyes flat, about the size of a half crown, and
like silver, with black pupils. There are two feelers under the chin,
thirty-two inches long. The fish was alive when captured.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON who communicated this capture in _Nature_ of the
12th. of September, 1878, Vol. XVIII, thinks that this account “seems
explicable only on the tape fish theory.” I think he might have written
“_is_ explicable only on the tape fish theory”, or in short: “this was
evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is identical to a ribband fish.
Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes, some species evidently don’t
live at great depth, and are occasionally cast ashore after a storm, as
had also happened, in 1860, on the Bermudas (see hereabove).

* * * * *

1879, December 23.--(G. VERSCHUUR, _Eene reis rondom de wereld in 480
dagen_, p. 51.)

On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. VERSCHUUR on board the _Granada_,
left Mazatlan, a harbour on the western coast of Mexico, for San
Francisco. Probably on the 23d. the _Granada_ passed Cape San Lucas at
23° N. lat. Mr. VERSCHUUR says:

“Past Cape San Lucas, one afternoon, as I am gazing at the ocean
surface, I see a long neck rising out of the water very close to the
ship. I beckon some other passengers who are on deck, and after a few
minutes the object in question appears a second time. It is the neck
of a snake, one would say, and we estimate the length of the visible
part of the animal at about a meter. The thickness is about that of the
upper-arm of a full-grown man and the head ends in a point, and is as
large as a child’s head”.

“We call the whole crew, and the captain as well as some officers run
to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless five of us
had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent altercation arose,
when one of the officers said we evidently were mistaken, because the
sea-serpent did not exist.”

“Nobody of us, it is true, could affirm that it was a sea-serpent.
We could only firmly maintain that what we had seen, agreed in all
respects with the shape of a serpent.”

“The second officer, who joined in the conversation, declared to have
observed in 1871 near the coast of Australia, a sea-serpent which
was several meters in length, and when this statement too was called
in question, the quarrel got warmer and warmer, and, as it generally
happens in such cases, every one kept his own opinion, and the world
did not get any the wiser for it.”

“Does the sea-serpent exist, or does he not? This is a problem which
has been answered more than once in the most affirmative manner, and
also in a negative sense. I have heard the question disputed on more
than one voyage.”

In order to obtain more particulars about the animal, I wrote to Mr.
VERSCHUUR Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the following questions:

“Did the features of the “snake” make on you the impression to be those
of a mammal, like those of a seal or sea-lion, though the pointed head
more resembled that of a snake?”

“Or had the head, though being much larger, more the shape of that of
an eel?”

“Were there just behind the head a pair of fins, as eels have?”

“Why did the visible part make on you the impression to be a “neck”.
You speak of a “neck” of a snake. Was the diameter near the head
smaller than that just above the water, as if the animal was still
thicker under water?”

“Or did you observe the contrary?”

“Was the “snake” perfectly round, or was it provided on its back with a
fin, as in eels?”

“What colour had your snake, and had the belly and the back the same
colour?”

“Did you observe any eyes, nostrils, ears, ear holes, gills, whiskers,
or any other appendages?”

“These are all questions which a zoologist wants to have answered in
order to determine somewhat, what animal may have been seen by you.”

Mr. VERSCHUUR had the courtesy to send me an early answer Oct. 30th.,
1889. The part of this letter referring to my questions runs as follows:

“I greatly regret to say that my answers will not help you much. The
distance at which I saw this strange animal was too great, and the
appearance too short, to observe anything of the particulars stated by
you.”

“The part which we saw rise out of the sea had, if my memory does not
deceive me, the thickness of a full-grown upper-arm, and the length of
from 1 to 1¹⁄₂ meter.”

“The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of a snake’s
head, i. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the “cobra” or of the
rattlesnake.”

“Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., I could observe nothing, during this
short appearance. The colour seemed to me to be a greyish one.”

“I regret not being able to give you more details than those written by
me in my book of travels.”

I think this animal was of the eel-tribe, the dimensions were too small
even to admit the supposition that it was a spawn of the sea-serpent.

* * * * *

We observe that many so-called great sea-serpents are to be explained
by reference to _known_ animals. There are, however, a great many
sea-serpents which don’t answer to the description of any _known_ being
at all, unless we venture upon a suggestion which is either wrong,
forced, or premature, and which can be accepted only with a smile or a
shrug of the shoulders.

Some sea-serpent explainers are in the habit of explaining _one single_
sea-serpent, say by reference to a row of porpoises, and then try to
account for others by this suggestion, the upshot of which is that the
explainer does no longer see his way clear of the difficulties which
beset him, and driven to his wits’ end, cuts the Gordian knot, leaving
a great many sea-serpents unexplained.

Others, like Mr. GOSSE, Mr. ANDREW WILSON, and Mr. HENRY LEE, were
prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea-serpent a
_Plesiosaurus_, an extraordinarily developed _Hydrophis_, or a large
Calamary (_Architeuthis_).

But none of them hit on the plan to put all the accounts, tales, and
reports of this great unknown animal side by side, to point out the
statements which are immediately recognizable as strange, or explicable
by reference to some known animal, and finally to decide which of
the known animals may have been bold enough to present itself as a
deceitful serpentine creature, or, if the result is negative and leads
to the conclusion that the sea-serpent does not belong to any known
species of animal, to decide, what kind of animal does exist, though
_unknown_ to zoologists! And to this inquiry we pass now.

IV.

The various accounts and reports concerning observations of
Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and
criticisms of the papers written about the subject.

An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in _Nature_
of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that subject. A few
months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the _Album der Natuur_, a
Dutch periodical, designed to bring the latest progress and problems
of Science in a very popular manner under the eyes of non-scientific
readers.

In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an animal
which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless existed, and
gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.

In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the same
subject by Mr. HENRY LEE. In this work “_Sea Monsters Unmasked_” the
sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as having been a row
of porpoises following one another, as some gigantic sea-weed, as
huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as any still unknown animal
belonging to a genus of reptiles, the representatives of which are only
known in the fossil state.

Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, and
seeing that Mr. LEE did not mention my supposition, I am now so bold as
to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent in another manner; I
have chosen the English language as being known to all zoologists and
to all navigators.

The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, quoted
by ARISTOTELES (_History of Animals_, Book 8, chapt. 28), PLINIUS
(_Naturalis Historiae_, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), VALERIUS
MAXIMUS (_de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus_, Lib. 1, cap. 8, 1st.
century), FLORUS (Lib. 2), SENECA (litt. 82), SILVIUS ITALICUS (Lib.
6), AULUS GELLIUS (Lib. 6, cap. 3), OROSIUS, ZONARES, DIODORUS SICULUS,
VOLETERRANUS (_Commentariorum Urbanorum_ libri 38, book 12), PETR.
MARTYR (_Decad._ 1, lib. 10), BAKIUS (_Posidonii Vita et Reliquiae_, p.
115), AELIANUS, VERGILIUS, etc., were most probably nothing but pythons.

The various kinds of _Serpens marinus_ alluded to by ARISTOTELES and
PLINIUS, and afterwards described and figured by many other authors,
evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of _Père_ JEAN BAPTISTE
LABAT in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which reach no
greater length than about twelve feet.

For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different
animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than the year 1500
A. D.

Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great
Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come to the
conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of the so-called
sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were cuttles of
extraordinary dimensions (_Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora_). In
all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes not difficult for
a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures and their habits,
to explain those observations, but the greater part of the accounts
of Great Sea-Serpents do _not_ agree with the well-known shape of
sea-weeds and cuttles, _nor_ with the habits of porpoises. Mr. LEE
tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent with these kinds
of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent moving with vertical
undulations, and figured it thus, knew the habits of those animals, and
some of them testified, that it could not have been porpoises, which
they knew well enough to be sure of it. I will add here that porpoises
move irregularly and have dorsal fins, which must of course be visible
whenever they appear on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts
mentioning the sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any
question of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.

But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within our reach,
and peruse them in order of their date.

* * * * *

=1=.--1522.--(See OLAUS MAGNUS, _Historia de gentibus_, etc.) “There
is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island called
Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change in the Kingdom
of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, as it was seen, anno
1522, raising itself high above the surface of the water and circling
like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent was estimated by conjecture
to be fifty cubits long; this event was followed by the banishment of
King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; and it
also showed the destruction of the country, as Isidorus tells us of the
birds of Diomedes.”

In the original Latin we read _atque in modum sphaerae convolvens_ (and
wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am convinced that
we have to do with a misprint, and that the author evidently wrote
_atque in modum spirae convolvens_, which I have translated above “and
circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies that the observer saw
the animal swimming with vertical undulations, parts of which were
visible above the surface of the water.

Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the animal
raised itself high above the surface of the water.

Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about
seventy-five feet.

* * * * *

OLAUS MAGNUS, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as follows:

“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of
Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, namely
that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 feet, and 20
feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the shore of Bergen; it
comes out of its caverns only on summernights and in fine weather to
devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles,
lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It has a row of hairs of two feet
in length, hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark colour, and
brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks boats, and snatches away the men, by
raising itself high out of the water, and devours them: and commonly
this does not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without
a change being at hand, either that the princes will die or will be
banished, or that a war will soon break out.”

This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores of
Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large dimensions,
and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs hanging down from
its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant and flaming. It
only appears in fine weather.

We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance
on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. The eating of
squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, or it may have
been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them with its head above
water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of snatching away a man
from the ships is evidently confounded with another tale, as it is not
mentioned anywhere else with regard to the sea-serpent. It evidently
refers to gigantic calamaries which occasionally attack boats and
snatch away one of the crew. (See LEE, _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, I,
_The Kraken_.). Its being covered with scales must be fictitious too,
for they who saw a sea-serpent at a short distance, are unanimous in
stating that it had no scales but a smooth skin.

[Illustration: Fig. 14.--The sea-serpent as represented by Olaus
Magnus.]

On the same page of the text, OLAUS MAGNUS has figured a sea-serpent
in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which has just anchored
on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. I give a facsimile of
that figure in Fig. 14.--Mr. HENRY LEE who mostly sees calamaries
and no other animals in the tales and figures representing the Great
Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the presumed body of the serpent was one
of the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging
are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its
whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of
transverse septa, one on each side of it”.--As to the snatching away a
man of the crew, I quite agree with Mr. LEE, as already said above,
but as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced
that OLAUS MAGNUS or his draughtsman had no other intention than to
delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned
in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it a
medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.

* * * * *

GESNER in his _Nomenclator aquatilium animantium_, 1560, gives two
figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in Fig. 15 and
16.--GESNER says that there is a large map of Scandinavia in OLAUS
MAGNUS’ work, and on this map our fig. 15 is drawn in the Baltic Sea,
and our fig. 16 in the Atlantic Ocean. In the original edition of 1555
there is but a small map of Scandinavia, which shows only the heads
of several animals in the sea. I therefore conclude that there still
exists another edition of MAGNUS’ work which I don’t know. Returning
to our figures we immediately observe that the drawer has delineated
large _snakes_, the one without scales, and swimming with _vertical_
undulations, the other with large scales, and that he did not intend
to represent a dorsal fin by the medial line, but only a medial row of
scales, unequal to the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of
protuberances are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long
hairs hanging down from the neck of the animal.

[Illustration: Fig. 15.--The sea-serpent illustrating the text of
Gesner.]

Of the sea-serpent GESNER tells us:

“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents
of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked, do not
harm any one. Of these sea-serpents OLAUS MAGNUS gives the following
figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.--(See our fig. 15).

[Illustration: Fig. 16.--The second sea-serpent illustrating the same
work.]

“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or two hundred
feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as states the number
added to the figure), which sometimes appears near Norway in fine
weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it snatches away men from the
ships. Mariners tell that it incloses ships, as large as our trading
vessels, made on our rivers and lakes, by laying itself round them in
a circle, and that the ship then is turned upside down. It sometimes
makes such large coils above the water, that a ship can go through one
of them. I give the figure as it is on the Map.”--(See our fig. 16.)

Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent: it is
harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns them upside
down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can go through one
of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the sea-serpent is
perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this in almost every
account. The other two are of course extraordinary exaggerations of its
dimensions.

The two figures of GESNER copied on a reduced scale, with an extract of
his text, appeared in the _Graphic_ of January 29, 1876.

* * * * *

The text in the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work printed at Basle in 1567
is the same as that of the first edition printed in 1555 at Rome, but
the figure between the text differs, and is doubtless a combination of
our figg. 14 and 16, in miniature; see our fig. 17.

[Illustration: Fig. 17.--The sea-serpent as represented in the Basle
edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.]

[Illustration: Fig. 18.--The sea-serpent, illustrating the Map of
Scandinavia in the Basle edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.]

On the map of Scandinavia subjoined to the work also occurs a figure of
the sea-serpent, which we have copied in our fig. 18.--This figure does
not claim our attention; it represents an eel or a snake, it has no
scales.--Not so fig. 17: it distinctly shows dorsal scales and ventral
plates, just as snakes have. This seems to me a confirmation of my
opinion that in all these figures the drawers had no other intention
than to delineate a large snake, without any notion of the arms of a
calamary. As to the seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary
was the robber, whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent.
Last not least, it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from
its neck, a true mane, and several credible persons declare to have
seen them.

* * * * *

ALDROVANDUS, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic or
Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean. I believe he
is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER.
His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map of Scandinavia,
which accompanies the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, unknown to me,
and mentioned above. He only omits the water, the ship and the man in
its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give copies, because they are exact
enlargements of our fig. 15 and 16.--

* * * * *

=2=.--1640?--(See ADAM OLEARIUS, _Gottorfische Kunstkammer_, Ed. I,
1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long ago been
confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who declared to have
heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy man, that, whilst
standing on a hill on the Norwegian coast, he saw in the calm water
a large serpent, which seen from afar, had the thickness of a wine
barrel, and 25 windings. These serpents are said to appear on the
surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.”

Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea, and most
probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark, a large animal was
seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the confirmation that it comes
to the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.
I beg the reader to fix his attention on those apparently insignificant
statements, as it will be seen that they are given several times
independant of one another.

* * * * *

JONSTON in his _Historia naturalis_, and his _Theatrum universale
omnium animalium_ of which several editions appeared in 1653, 1657,
1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by RUYSCH, quoted by Prof. W. D. PECK in
_Mem. Amer. Acad._ 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and 1768, repeats the tales of
OLAUS MAGNUS, and the figures of GESNER and ALDROVANDUS.--

* * * * *

MILTON in his _Paradise Lost_, printed in 1667, comparing Satan with
huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, calling
it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):

“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,
With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes
That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides
Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge
As whom the fables name of monstrous size
Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove,
Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den
By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast
Leviathan, which God of all his works
Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream:
Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam,
The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff
Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell,
With fixed anchor in his scaly rind,
Moors by his side under the lee, while night
Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”

We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large sea-monster
on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor, a story told
about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.

* * * * *

CHARLETON in 1668 quotes only ALDROVANDUS and OLAUS MAGNUS, giving
neither description nor figures.

* * * * *

=3=.--1687.--(RAMUS, _Norges Beskrivelse_, quoted by PONTOPPIDAN).

“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times by several
persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons together. The
weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and the wind began to
blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs out a coil of rope can
know the length thereof, so one could see how long it was, before it
had wound off all its coils, and stretched itself at full length.”

In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm weather
and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time the fact is
mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a straight line.
Further on we shall read this several times.

* * * * *

=4=.--1720.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög paa Norges naturlige
Historie_).

“THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent had been
shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it came by high tide
through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that
eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or
serpent was found. One end of the skin had entirely sunk into the water
of the inlet, and no one could guess how long it was, the inlet in
which the skin partly lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of
this skin was washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see
it; apparently it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy
mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.

It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily
during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the
sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had been
an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent, I am sure
that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also stated
that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards was
certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a great
calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently proves my
hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or inlet, and its long
dead arm was washed ashore by the current, while the body sunk.

* * * * *

=5=.--1734, July 6.--The earliest account of HANS EGEDE’S encounter
with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in Danish at
Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “_A Full and Particular Relation of his
voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734_”.

I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the passage
about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:

“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal,
which raised itself so high above the water, that its head reached
above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew like a whale,
had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it were, covered with a
hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and uneven on its skin; moreover on
the lower part it was formed like a snake, and when it went under water
again, it cast itself backwards and in so doing it raised its tail
above the water, a whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had
very bad weather.”

In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work, entitled
_Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der
Groenländischen Mission_, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4^o, which I have not
been able to consult either.

I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition. In the
_Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of the article
_Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent_ translated the
passage from a Danish copy of EGEDE’S _Full and Particular Relation_
in the British Museum. Evidently he was not very well up in the Danish
language, for his translation is partly incorrect. I am convinced that
in the original text EGEDE does not mention the exact locality where he
saw the animal. The translator tells us that it was off the south coast
of Greenland, which of course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south
coast. Of “sea-animal” he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top”
he has “on a level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he
has “it blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were
covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with shell-fish,
or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.

In 1738 HANS EGEDE wrote a _Journal of his mission_, in which he did
not mention the meeting, but his son PAUL EGEDE in the continuation of
this Journal, entitled _Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den
Groenlandske Mission_, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a full account of it,
which we have translated above word for word.

[Illustration: Fig. 19.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Egede, drawn
by Bing.]

I have not had the means of consulting the German translation of this
work, entitled _Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische_ _Mission
betreffend_, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything about the text
or figures, but the translation which I found in the German edition
of PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_ is correct. Not so the
English translation entitled _Journal of the Mission to Greenland_, 2d.
Vol. There we find, according to Mr. LEE who quotes the passage in his
_Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, first _sea-monster_ instead of _sea-animal_,
further, that _it spouted water like a whale_, instead of _it blew like
a whale_. There is a great difference between these two expressions.
A whale does not spout _water_ as is generally believed and figured.
Further, that the body seemed to be covered _with scales_, instead of
_with a hard skin_ or _crust_, for the Danish _skiell_ or _skiaell_ is
singular, and not plural. Finally, that the tail above the water was a
whole ship-length from the _head_ instead of from the _body_, for the
Danish _Kroppen_ signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything
of the figures in this edition.

In the original Danish work of PAUL EGEDE there is a map of a part of
the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called Baals Rivier,
on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good Hope (Gothaab). As it
was generally done in those days, Mr. BING, a brother-missionary of
EGEDE’S, drew on his map not only the animal but also the vessel in
the sea. I give here a facsimile of the figure of the animal, without
the ship. We distinctly see that the animal has rather a serpentlike
form with a large head, showing formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy
eye-brow, and a nostril; two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the
uneven skin, and a tail ending in a point.

On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s
tail, after it had plunged back into the water. The tail is again
figured terminating in a point.

[Illustration: Fig. 20.--The same individual plunging back into the
water.]

We shall do well to observe the fact that the figure is an accurate
illustration of the text with regard to the animal blowing like a
whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately after having
been under water a long time, is condensed in the cold air and forms
little curling clouds.

In the original Danish work of HANS EGEDE, entitled _A Full and
Particular Relation_, etc., of which we have spoken above, there is
also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to consult this
work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of Baals Rivier with the
two figures of the animal are quite the same, true facsimiles. The
above mentioned translator drew this figure on a reduced scale for his
article in the _Illustrated London News_, and as his text is incorrect,
his figure is so too, for he changed the rough skin into scales,
according to his own translation. (See our fig. 21.)

Afterwards Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_ made use of the
figure of the _Illustrated London News_ and so gave his readers again
an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a true facsimile of
the figure as it appeared in the _Illustrated London News_, Oct. 28,
1848, and in Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, London, 1883. A reduced
copy of it also appeared in the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of February 3,
1877.

[Illustration: Fig. 21.--The drawing of Bing, as reprinted and altered
in the Illustrated London News of 1848.]

In the Danish work of HANS EGEDE _Det gamle Groenlands nye
Perlustration_ we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the
colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four times
longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same as in PAUL
EGEDE’S _Continuation_ of the Journal.

In the German edition of this work, entitled _Des alten Groenlands neue
Perlustration_, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it was seen before the
Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had two broad flappers on the
fore-part of the body”.

In the Dutch edition, entitled: _Beschrijving van Oud Groenland_,
Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties as
the English and the German translators did, but was more correct in his
expressions.

In the French edition, entitled _Description et histoire naturelle du
Groenland_, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed himself
the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which was
covered _with scales_, plunged back into the water, it did so with _the
belly turned upwards_!”

In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated from the
French) entitled _Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland_,
Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal _lay upon the water
with its belly turned upwards_ when it plunged back into the water!

In many respects the figure of Mr. BING and EGEDE’S text complete each
other.

Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We may do
this most safely, being convinced of the truth of EGEDE’S words and
BING’S figure. EGEDE “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded man,
possessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love
of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, and free
from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable signs of
fidelity.” (LEE, _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, p. 65.)

From what has been said of the animal, seen by EGEDE, we gather that it
appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather before the Danish
Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland; (EGEDE says: “the
following evening we had very bad weather”, so we may conclude that:)
the weather was fine, when the animal was seen; it had a considerable
length, say a hundred feet, and was much thicker than a snake of those
dimensions would be, say some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck
and the fore-part of its trunk high above the surface of the water, it
had a long, sharp snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal
as large as a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in
those cold regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the
figure where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where
its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds
of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. EGEDE does not say: it
had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does not
state that the figure, made by Mr. BING aboard his ship, directly after
the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we must consider it as
being correct; so the animal had two large and broad flappers on the
fore-part of the trunk. The body _seemed_ to be covered with a hard
skin. For truth’s sake EGEDE wrote _seemed_, which is well done; for a
hard skin or crust would not have been _wrinkled_ when the animal bends
its body. Like all known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions
the animal must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick
layer of bacon, and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions
and seals wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as
the Sea-Serpent of EGEDE did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly see
that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals have.
And if the animal could have scales, they would be very large ones,
considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it must have been
easy to see the scales from a distance, though they were wet with the
water; but I can hardly believe that one can say of an animal, seen at
some distance and quite wet and shining with the water, whether it has
a crust or a soft skin. The latter has been the case, for the animal
showed wrinkles when bending its body. Its lower part was formed like
that of a snake, by which EGEDE evidently means to say that it was
perfectly round and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he _did
not see_ any appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for
the middle part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water).
The creature plunged _backwards_ into the water. It evidently has a
considerable flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently
it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility,
nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. LEE thinks, which has no flexibility at
all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the length
of its body, which was distinctly seen by EGEDE and figured by Mr.
BING. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable length, tapered
in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal nor vertical
ones. The figure shows an eye with a heavy eye-brow, a nostril, and
teeth; the flappers have external visible fingers, as sea-lions have;
those of porpoises and dolphins are without them. Afterwards we shall
more than once have occasion to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is
drawn by BING too large, and the neck too short.

[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Bing’s drawing as copied by Pontoppidan.]

Mr. LEE says in his frequently quoted work _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_,
“The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was of an entirely different kind”
(viz. from those mentioned by MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN). I am of the
opinion that if Mr. LEE had written: The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was
the same, but seen in an entirely different position, condition and
direction, he would have been nearer the truth; for careful inquiry
has shown me that the sea-serpents of MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN are the
same as those which still appear in the Norwegian seas, and those
have all the characters of EGEDE’S animal. Moreover we saw that the
animal, mentioned in our accounts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and according to the
descriptions of MAGNUS and GESNER had the following characteristics:
1. It raises itself out of the water to a considerable height. 2. It
swims with vertical undulations. 3. It has an enormous length, probably
upwards of a hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the
same length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its
neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming.
8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It
is harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11.
It can stretch itself in a straight line.--Of these facts the 1st.,
3d., 4th., and 10th. are stated by EGEDE; he could not mention the
2d., 8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or
eating. Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not
see the animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its
belly and somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without
a mane. EGEDE says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness.
Its colour was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large
sea-animals, else he would have called it brilliant white, or green,
or red. The eyes are figured by BING, though not described by EGEDE,
but in PONTOPPIDAN’S work we read in a note to Chapt. VIII, § 7, that
Mr. BING mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson SYLOW, at Hougs in the
parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed to be reddish and like a burning
fire. So its harmlessness is the only fact we cannot derive with
certainty from EGEDE’S account.

PONTOPPIDAN relating EGEDE’S observation of the monster gives a copy
of Mr. BING’S figure, but as often occurred in those days, it is
not copied with great accuracy, and BING’S drawing has been altered
by PONTOPPIDAN so as to give quite another figure. (Our fig. 22 is
a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. BING was right in
figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and PONTOPPIDAN changes it
wrongly into a waterspout of more than 100 feet long! PONTOPPIDAN is
convinced, when seeing BING’S figure, that there are several species of
sea-serpents, all belonging to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss
this point.

[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Bing’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s
work.]

Still more exaggerated is the figure of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s
Library_, or rather that which Dr. R. HAMILTON presents to his readers.
He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the power of spouting
a splendid set of water some twenty feet high, a water-mass equalling
nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!

* * * * *

In his _Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents_, 1742, Mr. OWEN
repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports of OLAUS MAGNUS
and GESNER.

* * * * *

=6=.--1743?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is said that a few
years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord,
perhaps with high water, and died there and the carrion also caused a
dreadful smell.”

* * * * *

=7=.--1744?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is also told that a
sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and that the stranding of
sea-serpents took place in more localities.”

There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily
the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great enough to
keep them far away from them, even from their carrions, and so these
accounts don’t mention anything as a result of closer investigation.

* * * * *

=8=.--1745?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).--“A fisherman
relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, he once saw a
long, large and strange animal so close to his boat, that the water,
brought in motion by the animal, dashed against it, but immediately it
disappeared again under water. The head resembled that of a seal, its
skin was also as woolly, but the body was as thick and as long as a
yacht of fifty tons, and the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five
feet long, tapered towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”

Though PONTOPPIDAN did not seem to believe that this animal was his
sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the case, because
the whole description is exactly that of the animal. It is remarkable
that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so close to their boat,
as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a smooth skin; now seals
when wet have also a smooth skin, and our fisherman was near enough to
the animal to detect the real nature of such a skin, viz. that it is
_hairy_, or as he expresses himself _woolly_. We shall afterwards more
than once meet with statements in which the head is compared with that
of a seal. The head, though resembling that of a seal, was of course
much larger. The body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty
tons, say about forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in
length, and tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of EGEDE and
those of the former writers MAGNUS, OLEARIUS and RAMUS, who compared
the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the length of
the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning of it, so that
it may be supposed that there was a difference in thickness between the
body and the tail.

* * * * *

=9=.--1746, August.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög_,
_etc._).--PONTOPPIDAN relates:

“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and Pilot-general
at Bergen, Mr. LORENZ VON FERRY, and we spoke about this subject.
He told me that for a long time he had doubted the existence of the
sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences in 1746 had convinced
him. And though I could not say anything of importance against it, he
ordered to my satisfaction and that of others, two seamen, who were
with him in his boat, and had seen the animal and its blood which
coloured the water red after a shot of VON FERRY at it, to appear
before the public court of justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed
on oath may be found in the following instrument which I received in
original, and which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in
extenso:”

“ALBERT CHRISTIAN DASS, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at Bergen,
HANS CHRISTIAN GARTNER, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor of Justice
and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town, together with
JAN CLIES, OLE SIMENSEN, OLE BRINCHMAND, JOERGEN KOENIG for CONRAD
VON LANGE, MATTHIAS GRAM for ELIAS PETRUS TUCHSEN, CLAUS NATLER for
DIDRICH HASLOP, JOCHEM FOEGH for HENRICH HIORT, and JOERGEN WIERS for
HANS CHRISTIAN BYSZING, sworn citizens and additional deniers there,
declare, that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator JOHANN REUTZ
appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented
a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day
before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general LORENZ VON FERRY.
And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to supply
him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event mentioned
in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that purpose,
pointed out two men living in this town, named NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER
and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, begging that these men might be admitted
to a declaration on oath, that all has happened in particulars so as
is mentioned in the paper, which he begged to be registered in said
instrument. The above mentioned paper was read to the witnesses and
runs as follows:

“Mr. JOHANN REUTZ.”

“Sir,”

“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a voyage,
on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot day, having a
mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when we had arrived with my
yacht within a mile of the aforesaid Molde, being at a place called
Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a book, I heard a kind of murmuring
voice from amongst the men at the oars, who were eight in number, and
observed that the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this
I inquired what was the matter, and was informed that there was a
sea-serpent before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the
land again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard so
many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension, they
were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake passed by
us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about in order to get nearer
to it. As the snake swam faster than we could row, I took my gun which
was loaded with small shot, and fired at it; on this he immediately
plunged under water. We rowed to the place where it sank down (which in
the calm might be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it
would come up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake
plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the small shot
might have wounded it, the distance being very little. The head of this
sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet above the surface of the
water, resembled that of a horse. It was of a greyish colour, and the
mouth was quite black, and very large. It had black eyes, and a long
white mane, which hung down from the neck to the surface of the water.
Besides the head and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of
this snake, which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there
was a fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a
certain company, where there was a person of distinction present, who
desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail of all that
happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were present at the
same time and place where I saw this monster, namely, NIELS PETERSEN
KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, will appear in court, to declare
on oath the truth of every particular herein set forth; and I desire
the favour of an attested copy of the said descriptions.”

“I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”

“L. VON FERRY.”

“Bergen, 21st. February 1751.

“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths, and,
with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared the
aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set forth therein
to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation was made out for
the said Procurator REUTZ, and granted by the Recorder. That this was
transacted in our court of justice we confirm with our hand and seals.”

“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”

“A. C. DASS.” “H. C. GARTNER.”
“J. CLIES.” “O. SIMENSEN.”
“O. BRINCHMAND” “J. KOENIG.”
“M. GRAM.” “C. NATLER.”
“J. FOEGH.” “J. WIERS.”

As to Mr. VON FERRY’S declaration that the head of the sea-serpent
resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than that
it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck, that the
nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane on the animal’s
neck altogether must have led him to think so. The statement that the
colour of the head was greyish, apparently contradictory to what had
as yet been said about the animal’s colour, viz., that it is a dark
brown one, may be explained, I think, as follows: the sea-serpent has
a skin as woolly as seals and sea-lions have; it had swum a long time
with its head two feet above the water, and the weather being very hot,
its skin was dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that
when being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish
black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat
dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see that
sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the stone border
of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very soon become dry in
the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow colour. But returning to Mr.
VON FERRY’S sea-serpent, the mouth, however, was black and very large.
The eyes were black, the mane long and white (being dry) hanging down
to the surface of the water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were
very thick and the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of
the coils is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.

Prof. W. D. PECK (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc._ IV, I, 1818) calls
this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which he”
(PONTOPPIDAN) “gives seems to have been made from the description of
Capt. DE FERRY, the officer above alluded to. In this figure, the head
and jugular region are raised out of the water; a little below the head
is a mane which seems to be inserted all round the back of the neck.
The appearance of this mane was most probably an optical deception, and
was nothing more than the water displayed by the neck in the progress
of the animal through it, returning to its level. It had probably no
mane. But of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by
the Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”

Prof. PECK seems not to have read PONTOPPIDAN so accurately as might
be expected from him, for the figure in PONTOPPIDAN’S work has quite
another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. PECK would not have
written his supposition of the mane, if one of the eye-witnesses of
the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had seen a mane. Moreover
PONTOPPIDAN asserts that nearly all agree in representing the animal
with a mane, and we shall read of several declarations further on.

As to the colour of the coils, Mr. LEE seems to be at one with me for
in his frequently quoted work _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ he says: “The
supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of
eight porpoises following each other in line”, and: “I believe that
in every case so far cited from PONTOPPIDAN, as well as that given by
OLAUS MAGNUS, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body
were only so many porpoises swimming in line, in accordance with their
habit before mentioned.” If Captain VON FERRY had described the coils
of his serpent as being white or red, Mr. LEE certainly would not have
supposed that they were eight porpoises.

Further Mr. LEE remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a horse,
was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it
certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body
into those vertical undulations.”

Very well, but if Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by porpoises, he
ought to account for the head which preceded them; this he silently
passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake. A fine explanation
indeed!

* * * * *

=10=.--1747?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“Governor BENSTRUP is
said to have had some years ago a similar meeting with the sea-serpent”
(to Mr. VON FERRY’S) “and he has figured it. I should like to possess
this figure to show it to my readers. I, however, show here another one
sent to me by Parson HANS STROEM, which he himself has copied from the
original.”

[Illustration: Fig. 24.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Governor Benstrup.]

The figure shows a head with a mane, and six coils of the body. The
nostril is indicated, the mouth has no teeth, the eye is large.

It is remarkable that Mr. LEE tells us: “The figure of the sea-serpent
given by PONTOPPIDAN was drawn, he tells us, under the inspection of
a clergyman, Mr. HANS STROM, from descriptions given of it by two of
his neighbours, Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN, of Herroe; and was declared
to agree in every particular with that seen by Captain DE FERRY, and
another subsequent observed by Governor BENSTRUP.”

Not only does not the first part of this statement tally with the words
of PONTOPPIDAN, but also the second part is discrepant, for the learned
Bishop goes on saying: “This figure agrees with the descriptions given
by two of his neighbours Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN.”

Mr. VON FERRY is not mentioned at all on this occasion by PONTOPPIDAN!

Mr. BENSTRUP’S figure has also been copied by Dr. R. HAMILTON in the
volume of _Phocidae_ (seals) of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_, but
it has been greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr. R. HAMILTON thought
it to be the same animal as that seen by EGEDE, for he figures both
animals with the same head and features. Of the figure of BENSTRUP too
he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming with corkscrew motions! O horror!

[Illustration: Fig. 25.--Benstrup’s drawing as altered in Dr.
Hamilton’s work.]

* * * * *

=11=.--1748?--Mr. REUTZ of Herröe declared to PONTOPPIDAN that the
drawing of Parson HANS STROEM agreed even in particulars with what he
saw of the serpent several times when he went in his boat to church.

* * * * *

=12=.--1749?--Also Mr. TUCHSEN of Herröe made the same declaration. He
too saw the animal several times when he went to church in his boat.
PONTOPPIDAN adds: “and then I do not even mention many other persons
of the same high rank and trustworthiness. The same Mr. TUCHSEN is the
only one who told me that he distinctly saw the difference in thickness
between the trunk and the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not
gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller
at once and very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two
hogsheads. The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”

This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact
that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must
infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had also
hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede saw, are
flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently the animal
has four flappers.

* * * * *

=13=.--1750?--PONTOPPIDAN, telling what he has learned from the
north-sailors says:

“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to the
serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”

Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his boat,
that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory to that
of the fisherman (n^o. 8), who declared it as woolly as a seal-skin.
The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the hairy nature of
the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.

* * * * *

=14=.--1751?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An incertain
rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have lately captured in
their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four paws under its belly;
which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled a crocodile. The peasants
in their terror fled from their nets, and by doing so they gave an
opportunity to the serpent to do the same.”

Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I am sure
it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an Orm is a serpent,
viz., a long slender animal with a rather small head and a pointed
tail; and as it was captured in nets in the sea, it is certain, that
this animal, which PONTOPPIDAN compares with a crocodile, having a
slender and round body like a snake and four paws (or flappers) is
the same as the animal afterwards seen by Captain HOPE (n^o 119) and
compared by him with an alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty
feet, the animal must have been very young.

* * * * *

Now let us see what PONTOPPIDAN himself says of the sea-serpent, after
having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:

“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called Aale
Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which ought
to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great deeds of
the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder next to the
Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before describing its habit
and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the real existence of the
serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”

The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the
mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what were
and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our own time.
All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but sea-cows or
manatees (_Thrichechus manatus L._ and _Thrichechus senegalensis_
DESM.) or dugongs (_Dagungus dugung_ GMEL.). Mr. LEE believes that the
occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the northern seas and even in the
waters round Great-Britain and Ireland “afford some slight hope that
the remarkable rytina (_Rytina borealis_ GMEL.) may not have become
extinct in 1768, as has been supposed, but that it may still exist
somewhat further south than it was met with by its original describer,
STELLER.” Some of the mermen of PONTOPPIDAN were nothing else but
Bladdernosed seals (_Cystophora cristata_ (ERXL) NILSS) as I already
proved in my little paper in the _Album der Natuur_ of 1882, and I see
that Mr. LEE comes to the same conclusion (_Sea Fables Explained_,
_London_, 1883).

We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian tales and
the gigantic Octopus of DENYS DE MONTFORT really exist, and that they
are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles (_Cephalopoda_).

But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent really
is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest scientific
persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.

“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator, that
this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea, except in
July and August, its pairing-time, during which it appears, when the
sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the wind ruffles the surface
of the water; if this arrangement, I say, were not thus made for man’s
safety, the existence of the sea-serpent would want fewer proofs, than
even in Norway, thanks to God! is the case, the shores of which are the
only ones of Europe, frequented by this monster.”

Here again it is stated that the sea-serpent is only seen in July
and August (and PONTOPPIDAN believes that these two months are the
pairing-time of the animal), that it only appears in calm weather, and
dives under water as soon as the wind rises. The writer believes that
the animal frequents only the shores of Norway. According to an account
of OLAUS MAGNUS, it seems, however, that the sea-serpent was also seen
in the Baltic Ocean, and we know now for certain that the animal which
EGEDE saw in Davis’ Straits at 64° N. lat., was also our Sea-Serpent.
Evidently our Bishop did not hit on the idea that the Sea-Serpent could
be a migratory animal.

“Like all who are enemies to credulousness I too doubted of the
existence of the sea-serpent, when at last my doubt was dispelled by
incontestable proofs. Amongst our ablest navigators and fishermen of
this country there are many hundreds who prove the existence of the
sea-serpent as eye-witnesses, and they agree pretty well in their
descriptions, though there are many others who declare that they know
the sea-serpent only from the tales of their neighbours. I, however,
in my inquiry hardly met with a person who, when born in the Northern
provinces, did not answer immediately with the greatest certainty and
assurance. Nay, some so-called north-sailors, who are here (in Bergen)
every year for commercial interests, even consider it as a shame to be
earnestly questioned on that subject. They consider this question as
superfluous as that one, whether there exists a cod-fish or an eel.”

We see hereby that in Norway the belief in the existence of the
sea-serpent was as firm as possible amongst the sea-faring people.

“Though no one has ever been able to measure this animal, many
witnesses agree in telling that the serpent must be as long as a
cable, viz., 100 fathoms or 300 ells, whilst it lay on the surface of
the water, so that only here and there behind the head, which is held
upwards, some parts of the back were visible, which were also held
upwards, whilst the serpent bent; and from afar one would have believed
that he saw some tuns or hogsheads, which floated in a line, so that
there was a space between each of them.”

Though the length of a cable or six hundred feet given to the
sea-serpent is exaggerated, it may be more than 100 feet, why not? For
there are other sea-animals, such as the whale, which measures more
than 88 feet, and the fin-fish (_Balaenoptera loops_) which sometimes
attains a length of about 105 feet.

It has been stated to PONTOPPIDAN by most of the eye-witnesses that the
animal shows by its vertical undulations several coils above the water,
and that these coils resembled from afar tuns or hogsheads floating in
a line. It is very remarkable that these facts are repeatedly stated by
witnesses who are independent of one another, even by persons who never
heard of a sea-serpent.

“The head of all these animals has rather a high and broad forehead;
some, however, have a sharp snout, others a quadrangular beak as cows
and horses have, with large nostrils, and on the sides there are a few
stiff hairs, or bristles, as other animals have with a good nose. And
that the sea-serpent has a good nose, is proved by its flying away at
the smell of castoreum, which the people who go out in summer to fish
on the great bank, will never forget to take with them.”

The various ways of describing the head may be owed to this that
different persons saw the head in different positions, that some of
them saw it for such a short moment that it was impossible to say
with certainty what form it had. It is not always explicable why
one describes the head of an animal in one way and another in quite
another. As to me I see in the head of a seal that of an otter, others
distinctly see a man’s or a cat’s head in it, and the people in the
service of the Zoological Gardens in the Hague exclaim “why, I can very
well understand why that animal is called a sea-dog; it has a dog’s
head, to be sure!” The fact is that we don’t know with any certainty
the form of the sea-serpent’s head, but _most probably_ it resembles
that of a sea-lion, which has also a head with a broad and flattened
forehead, rather pointed, seen from one side, and blunt, seen in front.
Here mention is also made of the large nostrils and the bristles on the
lips of the animal.

“The eyes are, as one says, large and blue, they are rather like a pair
of pewter plates.”

The eyes again are described differently. We have already heard
them described as being black, red as fire, and now they are blue,
viz. the ordinary blue, called tin-colour, that is a bluish-grey or
a greyish-blue; so a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit; and
grey fowls are called blue-fowls; there is rather a lilac tint to be
observed in it. I cannot explain those differences otherwise than
in the following way: when an observer sees the eyes in an oblique
direction, he will always see this grey colour; when more in the
axis of the eye, the colour is a bright dark black one, and when
occasionally seen thus that the “tapetum lucidum” of the eye reflects
the day-light, it is, as if the eyes were sparkling like fire.

“The serpent’s colour is dark brown over the whole body, but thereby
spotted, and with light streaks, or maculated with distinctly visible
light spots, like a turtle or a lackered table, except in the region
of mouth and eyes where it is rather dark, so that it resembles those
horses which we call moorish-heads or black-faces.”

We shall repeatedly have occasion to observe that these statements are
correct. All eye-witnesses agree in this point.

“That this animal spouts like a whale through its nostrils, as Mr.
EGEDE saw, has never been seen here by anybody.”

It is remarkable that though EGEDE has nowhere asserted that his animal
was a sea-serpent, our learned Bishop seems to have recognized it as
such at once, believing, however, it to be another species of the
same genus. We have already stated that EGEDE did not see the animal
spouting water, but he only saw the warm breath of the animal condensed
in the cold air, just as BING, his brother missionary, figured it, and
just as it is mentioned by accurate observers of whales. It is very
easy to understand that EGEDE saw it, for the animal had apparently
been under water for a long time; it suddenly appeared with so much
violence, that a considerable part of its body was elevated above the
surface of the sea, whilst, by a violent blow, the breath, hitherto
held in, was pushed into the air. In this way parts of mucus of the
inner surface of the nostrils and the little quantity of water adhering
to the valves of the nose, must have been driven away at the same
time, and the whole effect has been very accurately described by EGEDE
and figured by BING, but has afterwards been exaggerated and altered
by PONTOPPIDAN (see our fig. 22), and also in our century by Dr. R.
HAMILTON (see our fig. 23).

“But many agree in telling that when it swims rapidly through the
water, it propels before it the water with such a violence that it
murmurs like a small mill-brook.”

This peculiarity has been repeatedly confirmed by the most trustworthy
eye-witnesses as we will observe more than once afterwards.

“Also the common sea-serpents of our shore differ from those of the
Greenland-coasts, seen by EGEDE, in having no rough and hard skin, but
a smooth one like a mirror, except on the neck, on which it has a mane,
resembling sea-weed.”

Remarkable again is the statement of its smooth skin, remarkable too is
the declaration of the sea-serpent having a mane, and most remarkable
the resemblance of this mane to sea-weed, an observation made by
several eye-witnesses independant of each other. It is surprising
that PONTOPPIDAN silently passes over the difference between his two
kinds of sea-serpents: that the Greenland one has two flappers on the
fore-part of its trunk.

“As they cast their skin like common snakes, some people pretend, that
a few years ago, a table-cloth has been made of such a slough found in
the harbour of Kobbervueg. This made me so curious, that I wrote to one
of the inhabitants of that harbour, to inquire after it, and as the
proverb says, to get a strap of the skin. However, there was nothing of
that skin, at least at that time. And a man of that harbour, who came
to Bergen, told me he knew nothing at all about it.”

As to the renewing of the skin, we see that the Bishop was taken in!
But we must respect him that he did not rest before he knew the truth
or the untruth of the fact, and that he also mentions his inquiry.
Though the Bishop may have been deceived, his endeavours to find out
the truth enhance his trustworthiness.

“That the flesh of these animals is soft, has been stated by some
who tell of a small, and probably young sea-serpent which was taken
unexpectedly on board a ship. It instantly died, and nobody dared to
touch it, till the crew was forced at last to cast it over board, owing
to the intolerable smell arising from the soft and tough slime, in
which it was dissolved by the action of the air. But this animal cannot
have been a sea-serpent, for, as will be remembered, it is only seen in
the calmest weather and sinks into the deep at the least motion in the
air.”

We agree with the Bishop, though for other reasons than he.

After having related the two strandings of a sea-serpent (n^o. 6, 7),
PONTOPPIDAN goes on:

“I would that in such cases some one had inquired whether this serpent
had a strong backbone, which seems to be necessary to keep together
the mass of such a gigantic animal. The sharks, however, which are
also cartilaginous fishes without bones, have such a backbone, but it
is very subtile and even in the largest sharks only ten ells long.
The sea-serpent, like sharks, eels and whales also seems to be a
viviparous, not an oviparous fish, and most probably it seeks the other
sex in the above mentioned season. It is said, that when this animal is
ruttish, it looks after ships and boats, which it probably takes for
something else. If this be true, as seamen say, those are wrong who
think that the sea-serpent is not born in the sea, but on land, and
lives in forests and among mountains, till it can no longer hide its
body in it; it is said that it then seeks some river, and floats out to
the sea, as some people pretend to have seen.”

There is but one single reason why we think the sea-serpent is a
viviparous being, viz. its hairy skin. It is certain that an animal
with long hairs on its neck, has also hairs on its whole body, which
has also been stated once already (n^o. 8), and hairy animals are
viviparous (except the _Monotrymata_). Most probably PONTOPPIDAN called
the sea-serpent viviparous for the same reason, otherwise I cannot find
a single fact that would have led him to this conclusion. Its seeking
the other sex cannot be a reason, for all animals do so in the warm
season. I think that it looked after ships because it is a curious
animal, knowing no fear of strange things or persons. It is evidently
a fable that it brings forth young ones on the shore, probably
originating in the fact that the sea-serpent has sometimes been seen in
fjords, even in small ones, or probably originating in the fact that
also seals creep ashore in the critical moment, whelp there and return
with their young ones to the sea as soon as possible.

“The question which troubles us most is the following: Is this animal
dangerous to men, and how are they to defend themselves against this
monster? ARENDT BERNDSEN (_Danmarks og Norges frugtbare Herlighed_ p.
308) answers the first question in the affirmative, and tells us that
the sea-serpent, as well as the sperm-whale, even often runs down men
and ships. That such things happened in this region, I never heard of
with certainty; but the north-sailors tell that it had occasionally
happened that the sea-serpent raised itself and threw itself straight
across a boat, nay across a large yacht of several hundred tons, and
had dragged it to the depths. One of these north-sailors tells that he
was once so close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth
skin; he mentions at the same time that this serpent sometimes snatches
a man from a boat, with its head raised upward and gives the others
of the crew an opportunity to escape. Whether these reports are to be
believed or not, I don’t know, because it is uncertain whether these
serpents live on prey.”

We see the Bishop weighing and considering whatever he heard, and not
accepting everything for truth. We think that PONTOPPIDAN is right in
giving no credit to the narrative that the sea-serpents made themselves
guilty of sinking ships and eating men. It is mentioned already twice,
that the sea-serpent raised itself high above the surface of the water;
yet the flappers are not mentioned; so we may conclude that these are
situated far from the head, or, what is the same, that the animal has a
very long neck.

PONTOPPIDAN further tells us that the sea-serpent sometimes encloses
ships by laying itself round them in a circle, that the fishermen then
row over its body there where a coil is visible, for when they reach
the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible parts rise.
Further, that the serpent swims with an incredible velocity, and that
the fishermen who are much afraid of it, when seeing that it follows
them, throw any object, for instance a scoop, at it, when the animal
generally plunges into the deep. But most fishermen are in the habit of
taking castoreum with them, for the serpent cannot bear the smell of
it. And still further on he tries to explain the considerable length
of the animal some witnesses speak of; the Bishop namely believes that
two or more individuals followed each other, for they are only seen
in rutting-time. And in his tenth paragraph, trying to answer the
question, why those large serpents only frequent the northern seas, he
says:

“To this question I answer that the Creator of all beings disposes
of the dwellings of His different creatures in different places by
His wise intentions, which are not to be known to us. Why won’t the
reindeer thrive anywhere but in the high and cold mountains? Why do the
whales frequent only the north pole? Why are India and Egypt almost the
only countries, where men have to fear crocodiles? No doubt because it
pleases the wise Creator.”

Here PONTOPPIDAN takes leave of the Sea-Serpent, and begins to treat of
the large snakes mentioned by PLINIUS and other ancient authors, and we
too will take leave of our honest and trustworthy Bishop, who has so
often been laughed at for what he relates in his chapter on monsters.
And yet two of his monsters, the mermaids and the Kraken, are unmasked,
why cannot his third be accounted for?

* * * * *

Now let us again collect all the facts which are not impossible from a
zoologist’s point of view.

We have before us an animal of the following imperfect description:

The whole _length_ of this animal far surpasses one hundred feet, and
the smallest individual ever seen measured eighteen feet. The greatest
_thickness_ or diameter seems to be in the foremost third of its whole
length, and in large individuals surpasses ten or even fifteen feet.
Its _head_ is small in reference to the body, its _neck_ is long
and slender, round as the body of a snake or eel; the thick _trunk_
too is round: The _tail_ is also round, thinner than the body and
gradually grows thinner to its end, which is pointed. The animal has
four _flappers_. The foremost are probably found about one fourth of
the length, the hindmost probably in the middle of the whole length.
The _skin_ of the animal is hairy or woolly as a seal-skin; when wet
it is smooth and glittering as a mirror. A long _mane_ hangs down from
the neck, and that mane is sometimes described as resembling sea-weed;
when dry, the mane is whitish, or pale. The _head_ is described as
resembling that of a seal, or that of a horse. It tapers to the nose
of the animal, so that some witnesses declare it has a sharp snout,
others, however, that its end is like that of a cow’s, or a horse’s
head, it has a broad and high, but flattened _forehead_. The _nostrils_
are large, but as they are not always seen, it is evident that the
animal can close them like a seal; on the _lips_ some stiff hairs or
bristles are planted. The _colour of the head_, when wet, is dark
brown, when dry, however, greyish, except round the mouth and the
eyes, where it is almost black. The _mouth_ is large and provided with
_teeth_. The _eyes_ are large, sometimes described as being bluish
and dull, sometimes black, glittering and brilliant, and sometimes
reddish as a burning fire. We have already tried to explain these
different statements. Its _eye-brows_ are distinctly visible. Of the
_neck_ no particulars are observed except that it is long, round,
and bears a mane, I should say like that of the Antarctic Sea-lions
(_Otaria jubata_) but much more developed. Its _fore-flappers_ are
broad and large, and have probably an indented hind-edge, for Mr.
BING drew externally visible fingers. Of its _hind-flappers_ nothing
is mentioned. There is a visible _difference in thickness between
the trunk and the_ very long _tail_ of the animal: the body is not
gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes small at
once, and very distinctly. Here the animal’s hind-flappers must be
placed. The _colour_ of the body is said to be a dark brown, spotted
and with light streaks, or marked with distinctly visible light spots.
It has an astonishing flexibility in the neck as well as in the trunk
and in the tail. It can bend its body sideways and backwards, and
undulate it up and down like a rope. When the animal bends till it
is U- or horse-shoe shaped, the skin obtains many folds or wrinkles.
The _mode of swimming_ is mostly by vertical undulations, which are
partly visible above the surface of the water; the end of the tail is
always hidden under water when the animal swims. From afar the visible
parts of the coils are said to resemble tuns, buoys, wine-barrels or
hogsheads. The coils are either very large, and then 7 or 8 of them
are visible, and a distance of a fathom is between each two coils, or
they are very small, and then it is said that twenty-five of them are
visible. This is only to be explained by the degree of speed with which
the animal undulates its body. For the same reason it also swims more
or less swiftly; it may also swim with its body in a straight line,
using in this case of course its flappers; this, however, happens very
seldom; when swimming rapidly it propels the water before it with such
a violence, that it boils and splashes up, with foam and a distinctly
audible rushing. When swimming, the animal holds its head two feet
above the surface of the water. Sometimes it raises its neck and head
to a considerable height. Once the condensed breath of the animal was
visible, and it was said to blow like a whale. It is only seen in
summer and in fine weather. It is harmless when not provoked, it is
curious and stupid. It feeds probably on cuttles, lobsters and crabs,
(certainly however on fish.).

* * * * *

Now we will go on with the perusal of the accounts concerning the
animal and we shall observe that in general the accounts or rather
the descriptions of the eye-witnesses repeat, and sometimes even in
particulars, what we have gathered from the 14 above mentioned accounts
and from what PONTOPPIDAN has taught us. I first invite the reader
to follow me to the eastern coasts of the United States, next to the
Northern Pacific, on the western coasts of Scotland, then again to the
United States, and finally to Norway. In all these places, nay in every
part of the world we shall meet with the animal which we shall find
to be a true cosmopolitan, though the Atlantic seems to be its proper
place of residence.

* * * * *

=15=.--1751.--In a letter from Capt. GEORGE LITTLE to the Rev. ALDEN
BRADFORD, printed in the second volume of SILLIMAN’S _American Journal
of Science and Arts_, we read:

“A monster of the above description was seen in the same place, by
JOSEPH KENT, of Marshfield, 1751. KENT said he was longer and larger
than the main boom of his sloop, which was 85 tons. He had a fair
opportunity of viewing him, as he saw it within ten or twelve yards of
his sloop.”

In the “above description” the sea-serpent is described as having the
appearance of a large black snake, from 45 to 50 feet long, with a head
of nearly the size of that of a man, which he carried four or five
feet above the water, and with the greatest diameter of 15 inches. The
individual which was seen by JOSEPH KENT was evidently larger; by “the
same place” is meant Round Pond in Broad Bay and near Muscongus Island.

* * * * *

KNUD LEEMS, as we learn in A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through
Norway_, a northern divine, wrote his _Beskrivelse over Finmarkens
Lappen_, 1765, in which he mentions, p. 332, the sea-serpent in the
following terms:

“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a huge
monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size that of
large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a neck with
a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly. In the dog
days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent will come to the
surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some are partly visible
above the water, whilst others remain hidden under it. The seamen
greatly fear this monster, and they do not trust themselves on the sea,
when the animal is on the surface.”

The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head,
resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit of the
animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters known
to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is whitish, which
we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however, not the belly
that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The animal’s neck being
cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden under water, the
observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped, always call its
throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the whole throat and the
breast were seen, though not described, by HANS EGEDE, but that even he
did not see the true belly.

* * * * *

=16=.--1770?--In a letter from Mr. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD
written in Aug. 1803, and published in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of
Science and Arts_ (Vol. II) we read:

“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the deceased
Capt. PAUL REED, of Boothbay.”

* * * * *

=17=.--1777 or 1778.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, Part I).

“The next notice is from Capt. ELEAZAR CRABTREE, who saw it in the same
(Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated its length at sixty
feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that of a barrel, which is
about twenty two inches.”

A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. CRABTREE to the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or
mislaid.”--Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found back,
and, as Prof. BIGELOW (see SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. II)
says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the
Academy,” Mr. JOHN Q. ADAMS, “where it may be seen.”

Mr. A. BRADFORD anxious to have all the information he could get, did
not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. CRABTREE. Capt.
CRABTREE, however, at that time an old man did not write this testimony
himself, but had it written by another in his presence and signed it as
a correct statement. It is published in the above mentioned Journal,
Vol. II, and runs as follows:

“Capt. CRABTREE, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the Bay of
Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon information
of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water, near the shore,
just below his house, and having often been told by individuals that
they had before seen a similar sea-monster in that quarter, and
doubting of the correctness of their reports, was induced to go down
to the water to satisfy his own mind--that he saw a large animal, in
the form of a snake, lying almost motionless in the sea, about thirty
rods from the bank where he stood--that his head was about four feet
above water--that, from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet
in length--that he did not go off to the animal through fear of the
consequences, and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter;
he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those
islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him that
they had seen such an animal--and that more than one had been seen by
several persons together.”

“Signed”

“ELEAZAR CRABTREE.”

We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head four
feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated at 100
feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness
which led Capt. CRABTREE to compare the sea-serpent with a snake.
The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably it lay
stretched out.

* * * * *

=18=.--1779.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. P. 1). “It appears
by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810, that this serpent was
first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year 1779, by Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY:
he compared it to an unwrought spar (meaning probably one of spruce),
which the scaly surface and dark colour of the animal would very much
resemble; he thought it fifty or sixty feet in length.”

It is evident that Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY only compared it with an
unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part to be
fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. W. D. PECK adds: “which the scaly surface
and the dark colour of the animal would very much resemble”. I,
however, take it that the animal swam with its body in a straight line,
elevating its back but very little above the surface of the water, yet
showing a length of fifty to sixty feet, and so the back of the neck
and trunk quite covered with a mane resembling sea-weed, and the dark
colour of the animal must have led Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY to the comparison
with an unwrought spar.

* * * * *

=19=.--1780, May.--“Captain GEORGE LITTLE” who saw the animal, wrote “a
letter” containing his observation to the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid” (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts
Sc._ Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. of Sc. and
Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820), we observe that Mr. ALDEN BRADFORD collected
for truth’s sake some affidavits of eye-witnesses; he had learned that
Capt. GEORGE LITTLE was an eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit,
which he received and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the
Academy; after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It
runs as follows:

“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”

“Sir”,

“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that in May,
1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a public armed ship.
At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or monster, coming down the
Bay, on the surface of the water. The cutter was manned and armed. I
went myself in the boat, and proceeded after the serpent. When within a
hundred feet, the mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they
could make ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50
feet in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15
inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he carried
four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance of a common
black snake. When he dove he came up near Muscongus Island--we pursued
him, but never came up within a quarter of a mile of him again.”

“I have the honor to be sir,

“Your friend and humble servant

“Geo. Little.”

It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain, who thus saw
only its occiput. As the head is thought to have nearly the size of
that of a man, and the whole length to be 45 to 50 feet, it is evident
that either the head is estimated too small, or the length too great;
moreover it is clear that the captain saw nearly the whole length;
this sometimes occurs; generally, however, only the foremost part is
visible. Again it is mentioned that the sea-serpent held its head four
feet above the surface of the water, and that the colour was black.

A letter from Mr. A. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, printed in
the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:

“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American war, two
miles from the place where I lived then.”

I consider this passage as relative to Capt. GEORGE LITTLE’S
observation.

* * * * *

=20=.--1781?--In the same letter the above mentioned lines are followed
by the words:

“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.

* * * * *

=21=.--1782?--In a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to
the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 7, 1818, and published
in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“Mr. CUMMINGS observes, that the British saw him in their expedition
to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of that which they
saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. CUMMINGS imagines to be an
exaggeration.”

I think Mr. CUMMINGS is right in this supposition.

* * * * *

=22=.--1783? --In the same letter we read:

“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”

* * * * *

=23=.--1784?--In the same letter we find:

“June 28th., 1809. Mr. CUMMINGS observes that a Mr. CROCKET saw two
of them together about twenty years since”....... “One of those seen
by Mr. CROCKET was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, and their
motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular winding, and not
horizontal.”

This appearance is also mentioned in the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ (IV,
I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands:

“and one of them, a Mr. CROCKET, had seen two of them together about
the year 1787.”

And in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820) we read in a
letter from Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written
Jan., 1804:

“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say, were seen
by one Mr. CROCKET, who then lived upon Ash Point.”

The fact that there were _two_ animals together only claims our
attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been a
male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the two must
have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those was smaller
than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS”; consequently the other was as large as
or even larger than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, ergo the difference in
size of these two must have been considerable. The occurrence of two
together is reported only a very few times. Evidently these animals
lead solitary lives.

We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784,
relying upon the words of Mr. CUMMING’S letter of 1804: “about twenty
years since”.

* * * * *

=24=.--1785?--In the same letter it says:

“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting the
Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. STAPLES, of Prospect, of whom I
inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. MILLER, of one of the Islands
in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big as a sloop’s boom,
and about sixty or seventy feet long”.

* * * * *

=25=.--1786, August 1.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1911).--

“Having seen much notice taken in the _Zoologist_ of the question of
the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the log-book
of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard the ship
“_General Coole_”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.--”

“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16 or 18 feet
in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back of a light
ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”

“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You may rely
on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy himself
may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle of Wight.
September, 8, 1847.”

Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it would
be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or 4 feet in
circumference made the impression of being a serpent or snake; the
whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under water. As the colour
of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour, I suppose that the
animal having swum a long time in the sun without diving under water,
the skin had become dry and showed the ash-colour; the colour of the
belly (read throat) is stated to be yellow. This statement already
mentioned above we shall see repeated more than once.

* * * * *

=26=.--1787?--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, dated,
Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge Davis of Boston, and
printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“Aug. 23, 1809.--Mr. CHARLES SHAW (then of Bath, now an attorney in
Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. LILLIS, with whom he had sailed,
observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen off the coast a
very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like a snake than a
fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its head erect, had no
mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent. He asked Mr. SHAW if he had
ever seen, or read, or heard of such an animal.”

* * * * *

=27=.--1794?--In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. JENKS, printed in
the _Report_ of 1817, we find:

“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands
have seen such an animal”......

“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands two
persons were together at both times.”

It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for one of
the two times, for in the letter from Mr. CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN
BRADFORD, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the second volume of
SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_, (1820), we find the
following passage:

“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large
serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox Island)
“as their neighbours informed me.”

Again two individuals were seen together.

* * * * *

=28=.--1799?--And the date of the second time, that the animal was
seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter from Mr. CUMMINGS
(1804), it says:

“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw an animal
of this kind about five years since, as they then informed me. They
told me, that the serpent which they saw was about sixty feet long, and
appeared to have an ascending and descending motion.”

* * * * *

=29=.--1802 July.--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of
Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 17, 1817, and
published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS who has been much
employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and navigated his own
boat among the islands, &c. in the discharge of his duty, informs me,
in conversation, which was immediately written from his lips, that in
Penobscot bay has been occasionally seen within these thirty years, a
sea-serpent, supposed to be about sixty feet in length, and of the size
of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr. CUMMINGS saw him, in company with his wife
and daughter, and a young lady of Belfast, MARTHA SPRING; and judged
he was about three times the length of his boat, which is twenty
three feet. When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the
boat, though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but
about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. ALDEN
BRADFORD of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth) inquired of
Mr. CUMMINGS whether the appearance might not be produced by a number
of porpoises following each other in a train; but Mr. CUMMINGS asserts,
that the animal held its head out of water about five feet till he
got out to sea; for when seen he was going out of the bay, and Mr.
CUMMINGS was ascending it. The colour was a bluish green about the head
and neck, but the water rippled so much over his body, that it was
not possible to determine its tint. The shape of the head was that of
a common snake, flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen
approaching, passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. CUMMINGS was as
incredulous in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The
weather was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr.
CUMMINGS remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent makes his
appearance on the coast.”

“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that, which
in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having been
communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, but mislaid.”

In the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc._ Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818, we read
also:

“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. CUMMINGS) “was forwarded to the
Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account of the animal,
as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is lost or mislaid.”

Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the hands
of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS, and printed in
SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820). The
letter runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”

“My Dear Sir,”

“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though the urgency
of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime in July 1802
that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our passage to Belfast,
between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first appearance was near Long
Island. I then supposed it to be a large shoal of fish with a seal at
one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so
much higher than usual; but, as he drew nearer to our boat, we soon
discovered that this whole appearance was but one animal in the form
of a serpent. I immediately perceived that his mode of swimming was
exactly such as had been described to me by some of the people of FOX
Islands, who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm
the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal
but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders it
highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable
distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was rather
larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent. His
body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head and as
much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue colour except
a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first but moderate,
but when he left us and proceeded towards the ocean, he moved with
the greatest rapidity. This monster is the sixth of the kind, if our
information be correct, which has been seen in this bay within the term
of eighteen years. Mrs. CUMMINGS, my daughter and Mss. MARTHA SPRING
were with me in the boat all that time, and can attest to the above
description.”

“I continue yours in Christian affection

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“REV. ALEXANDER MC. LEAN.”

Mr. MC. LEAN forwarded this letter to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD who says
of it:

“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular as
might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received
a statement more in detail,”

which runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”

“Rev. and Dear Sir,”

“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description
of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this motion was
ascending and descending; all we can say is, _it appeared so to us_
(for he was seen not only by me, but by three other persons). His real
motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his nearest distance from us was
ten rods. The sea was then very smooth, and very little wind, but still
there was such a constant rippling of the water over his body, that
I could not distinctly observe the magnitude or colour of any part
but his head and neck. The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain.
But certain I am that he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue
as possible, and a black ring round his eye. The head was three feet
in circumference _at least_. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises
moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that
those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and
none but the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head
upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long Island
to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all the time out
of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without
immerging at all? This is the best information which you can obtain from

“Your Friend and Servant”

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD.”

“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same colour.”

The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. CUMMINGS declares
the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as blue as
possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.” But I think
that we must not rely too much upon this definition of the colour, for,
as we observe in daily life, different persons will give different
names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly black colour “blue”
while another does not see any blue in it at all; consequently we may
safely suppose that the colour was the common dark brown, nearly black
one, and that Mr. CUMMINGS called such a colour “as blue as possible”
or “a bluish green.” Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents
may sometimes vary as in our common seals.

It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression
the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish” (read
“porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but wondered
that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual”.
Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common appearance of
the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s figure (fig. 24). But
as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. CUMMINGS’ boat, the resemblance
diminished, because the serpent has not such thick upper lips as our
common seal, so that the snout is rather sharp, and the forehead being
moreover flat, the resemblance is also that of a snake’s head! The mode
of swimming was up and down, and Mr. CUMMINGS in his second letter
says “it appeared so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr.
CUMMINGS expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I
think it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the
sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly saw
the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly, and that
some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the animal with
many bunches on its back, that it moved through the water, apparently
not by undulating up and down, but they were astonished that the
sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has the property of keeping
his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently it may show itself
in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly still with the body in a
straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still, but with many folds or bunches
on its back. 3. Swimming with its body in a straight line, using its
flappers. 4. Swimming with bunches on its back, propelling itself by
its flappers, not by vertical undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical
undulations, and not with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical
undulations and with its flappers.

I repeat here the words of Mr. CUMMINGS: “Who ever saw fifty or sixty
porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a
manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or
macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head. Who ever saw a
serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now who ever saw a porpoise
swim so great a distance without immerging at all?” And we may add: Who
ever saw porpoises without backfins? (The white whale, _Beluga leucas_
has no back fin, but it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is
almost black.)

I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different
dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways: 1. The
animals may have been more or less visible above the surface of the
water, and the hind part hidden under water is not always estimated in
proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers have not always
seen the same individual, but of course young ones, middle-aged and old
individuals, males and females.

* * * * *

I will insert here a letter from the REV. ALDEN BRADFORD to the Hon.
JOHN Q. ADAMS, to show my readers how the former troubled himself about
the question.

“Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”

“_To the Honorable_ John Q. Adams, _corresponding Secretary of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences_.

“Sir,

“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries
in _Natural History_, I am induced to communicate to the society the
following account of a _Sea-Serpent_, which I have lately collected.”

“It will probably be within the recollection of some persons conversant
with Navigation, that in the course of a few years past, there have
been vague reports of an animal of this description having been seen in
or near Penobscot Bay. But little credit, however, was attached to the
story, and no particular authentic account has yet been given to the
public on the subject.”

“A few months ago I happened to hear related the story of one, which
was seen in the Bay of Penobscot in 1802. And for my own satisfaction,
I have been inquisitive to the truth of the account, and to the
general evidence of the existence of such an animal. The first
correct information I received was from the perusal of a letter to
Rev. Alexander McLean, from Rev. Mr. Cummings of Sullivan; which is
enclosed, and marked _A._ and some remarks were added by Mr. McLean
at my request. The account was liable to some objections, and not so
particular as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in
reply, received a statement more in detail, which accompanies this, and
is marked _B._”

“I was afterwards informed, that George Little Esq. late commander of
the Boston frigate, saw a sea-monster similar to the one described
by Mr. _Cummings_, in the time of the revolutionary war with
Great-Britain; and as I was anxious for all the information that was
to be had, I wrote him on the subject, and he forwarded the enclosed
(marked _C._) in answer to my letter. I have also the testimony of a
Capt. _Crabtree_ of Portland, an intelligent man, which is direct and
positive. This is also enclosed and marked _D._ It was written in his
presence and received his signature, as a correct statement.”

“All this evidence, I think, cannot fail to establish the fact _that a
large sea-serpent has been seen in and near the Bay of Penobscot_. The
existence of such a _Monster_ can no longer be reasonably disputed. But
whether he constantly resides in that vicinity, or whether he coasts
further south or north, during a part of the year, more particular
information is necessary to ascertain. Nor is it known on what species
of fish he subsists. By this communication I have it in view only
to furnish evidence of the actual existence of the animal. It will
probably operate in favour of further information, and lead to a
particular history of this hitherto undescribed Serpent.

“I am with great esteem

“Your humble servant

“A. Bradford.”

The four letters above mentioned and marked _A_, _B_, _C_, and _D_, are
already inserted in their right places. I refer my readers to n^o. 29,
where the letters marked _A_ and _B_ are copied, to n^o. 19, where that
marked C is inserted, and to n^o. 17, where the letter marked D will be
found back.

* * * * *

=30=.--1805? Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819) in his
_Additions_ to his dissertation, says:

“4. Mr. W. LEE has brought to notice another Sea-Snake, seen by him
many years ago near Cape Breton and Newfoundland, which was over 200
feet long, with the back of a dark green: it stood in the water in
flexuous hillocks, and went through it with impetuous noise. This
appears to be the largest on record and might well be called _Pelamis
monstrosus_; but if there are other species of equal size, it must be
called then _Pelamis chloronotis_, or Green-back Pelamis.”

The length of 200 feet is estimated more than once, though in many
instances probably exaggerated. The definition of the colour to be
a dark green one, we have already explained above, discussing the
report of Mr. CUMMINGS. The flexuous hillocks are of course nothing
else but the vertical undulations, the impetuous noise is caused by
the fore-flappers as will be stated afterwards. Of Mr. RAFINESQUE’S
determination I will say nothing, because it is a false one and a proof
of his credulity.

* * * * *

=31=.--1808, June.--At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural History
Society on the 13th. of May, 1809 (_Phil. Mag._, Vol. 33, p. 411) “the
Secretary read a letter from the Rev. Mr. MACLEAN of Small Isles,
mentioning the appearance of a vast Sea-Snake, between 70 and 80 feet
long, among the Hebrides, in June, 1808.”

This letter is printed in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the
Wernerian Natural History Society_ (1811) and runs as follows:

“To the Secretary of the Wernerian Natural History Society.”

“Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”

“Sir”

“Your letter of the first instant I received, and would have written
in answer thereto sooner, had I not thought it desirable to examine
others relative to the animal of which you wish me to give a particular
account.”

“According to my best recollection, I saw it in June 1808 not on
the coast of Eigg, but on that of Coll. Rowing along that coast, I
observed, at about the distance of half a mile, an object to windward,
which gradually excited astonishment. At first view it appeared like
a small rock. Knowing there was no rock in that situation, I fixed my
eyes on it close. Then I saw it elevated considerably above the level
of the sea, and after a slow movement, distinctly perceived one of its
eyes. Alarmed at the unusual appearance and magnitude of the animal, I
steered so as to be at no great distance from the shore. When nearly in
a line betwixt it and the shore, the monster directing its head (which
still continued above water) towards us, plunged violently under water.
Certain that he was in chace of us, we plied hard to get ashore. Just
as we leaped out on a rock, taking a station as high as we conveniently
could, we saw it coming rapidly under water towards the stern of our
boat. When within a few yards of the boat, finding the water shallow,
it raised its monstrous head above water, and by a winding course get,
with apparent difficulty clear of the creek, where our boat lay, and
where the monster seemed in danger of being imbayed. It continued to
move off, with its head above water, and with the wind for about half
a mile, before we lost sight of it.--Its head was rather broad, of a
form somewhat oval. Its neck somewhat smaller. Its shoulders, if I can
so term them, considerably broader, and thence it tapered towards the
tail, which last it kept pretty low in the water, so that a view of
it could not be taken so distinctly as I wished. It had no fin that I
could perceive, and seemed to me to move progressively by undulation up
and down. Its length I believed to be from 70 to 80 feet; when nearest
to me, it did not raise its head wholly above water, so that the neck
being under water, I could perceive no shining filaments thereon, if it
had any. Its progressive motion under water I took to be rapid, from
the shortness of the time it took to come up to the boat. When the
head was above water, its motion was not near so quick; and when the
head was most elevated it appeared evidently to take a view of distant
objects.

“I remain, Sir, &c.

“DONALD MACLEAN.”

To understand well what Mr. MACLEAN meant with “shining filaments”
which he did _not_ see, I must return to the “Animal of Stronsa”, the
putrified body of a large basking shark. My readers will remember that
the putrified dorsal fins of that shark resembled bristles, which
were transparent, and gave light in the dark (p. 61). Evidently the
Secretary of the Wernerian Society writing to Mr. MACLEAN, asked him to
give a full description of the animal seen by him near “the coast of
Eigg”, and whether he saw on its back “shining filaments” or not. Of
course, Mr. MACLEAN did not see them!

For the first time it is mentioned by an eye-witness that the shoulders
were visible. Mr. MACLEAN adds: “if I can so term them”. This is very
remarkable, for we may safely take it for granted, that he, like all
other persons, believed to see a sea-snake, or serpentine animal, and
yet, though he could not know, that it has flappers, and probably would
not have believed it, when it was told him, he has distinctly seen that
the animal at once became much broader behind its long neck.

The animal plunged violently under water. When Mr. MACLEAN had reached
his safe position he saw the animal swimming rapidly under water
towards his boat. We must suppose that it swam so near the surface,
though under water and invisible, that the surface rippled, and a wake
was formed by the motion of the animal. The animal coming in shallow
water, turned immediately and swam away. Once it did not raise its head
quite above water, so that the neck was under water. When the head was
most elevated, it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects.
These five habits as yet new to us, will be observed and reported
several times afterwards. The other statements of Mr. MACLEAN are all
mere repetitions of so often mentioned peculiarities.

* * * * *

=32=.--1808 June.--In the same letter we read:

“About the time I saw it, it was seen about the Isle of Canna. The crew
of thirteen fishing boats, I am told, were so much terrified at its
appearance, that they in a body fled from it to the nearest creek for
safety. On the passage from Rum to Canna the crew of one boat saw it
coming towards them, with the wind, and its head high above water. One
of the crew pronounced its head as large as a little boat, and each
of its eyes as large as a plate. The men were much terrified, but the
monster offered them no molestation.--From those who saw it, I could
get no interesting particulars additional to those above mentioned.”

The dimensions given to the head and eye may be exaggerated. It is
remarkable that the animal is so often coming in the neighbourhood of
a boat, and is yet perfectly harmless. This confirms my supposition
expressed above that the animal is sometimes very inquisitive.
PONTOPPIDAN would say “it thought to see the other sex, for it was
pairing time!”

The whole letter from Mr. MACLEAN to the Secretary of the Wernerian
Society is reprinted in Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_ (a volume
of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_), 1839, without any remark or
explanation.

* * * * *

=33=.--1810?--Sir WALTER SCOTT in the Notes to _The Pirate_ says,
according to Mr. ASHTON (_Curious Creatures in Zoology_, 1889):

“The author knew a mariner, of some reputation in his class, vouch for
having seen the celebrated Sea-Serpent. It appeared as far as could be
guessed, to be about a hundred feet long, with the wild mane and fiery
eyes which old writers ascribe to the monster.”

I am convinced that the adjectives “wild” and “fiery” and the phrase
“which old writers ascribe to the monster” are no additions made by
the mariner, who simply may have told that the sea-serpent seen by him
was about a hundred feet long, had a mane like a horse, or resembling
sea-weed, and had red eyes. Unluckily neither the date, nor the
locality is mentioned. The date cannot be far back from 1820; so I have
chosen 1810, but of the locality of course nothing can be guessed.

* * * * *

=34=, =35=.--1815, June 20 and 21.--In the _Report of a Committee_, of
1817, we read that this Committee wrote a letter to Mr. SAMUEL DAVIS,
of Plymouth, requesting him to examine upon oath some respectable men
of that place, with regard to the appearance of the animal in 1815.
This letter runs as follows:

“Boston, September 1, 1817.

“Sir”,

“At a meeting of the Linnaean Society of the 18th. ult., the
subscribers there appointed a Committee for the purpose of collecting
any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal,
denominated a _Sea Serpent_, reported to have been recently seen in and
near the Harbour of Gloucester. The Committee have procured evidence
from Gloucester, which they are preparing to report to the Society,
and this evidence is of such a character, that they have thought it
expedient to extend their inquiry to other reported appearances of a
similar nature on our coasts. An appearance of this sort is mentioned
as having been noticed by some persons at Plymouth two or three years
since. We would ask your assistence in procuring the evidence on this
subject.

“Your connection with the Society seems to authorize the request for
your assistence in having the evidence on this subject, which may exist
at Plymouth, properly taken and transmitted; but separately from any
such claim, we know your habitual readiness to aid in any investigation
in natural science. This subject is now of general interest among us,
and will probably be so abroad. Any cooperation which you may wish from
magistrates and intelligent gentlemen at Plymouth, we doubt not will be
readily afforded you. We shall suspend our final report to the Society,
until your communication shall be received.”

“Yours respectfully and
with esteem

“John Davis }
“Jacob Bigelow } Committee.
“Francis C. Gray }

The answer was as follows:

“Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”

“Gentlemen.”

“Inclosed is the deposition duly authenticated of Capt. E. Finney of
this town, descriptive of an unusual animal, which was seen by him in
the outer harbour of Plymouth, in June 1815. Capt. Finney lives a few
miles from town, and is much engaged in business, which must apologize
for the delay that has followed, since the receipt of your letter of
the first of September. His deposition is impartial and unbiassed--and
agrees uniformly with his first declarations in 1815--besides he has
not read, whatever he may have heard, of the Cape Ann descriptions; he
has been from his youth accustomed to a seafaring life--in the fishing
employ, and in foreign voyages--has frequently seen whales, and almost
every species of fish.”

“The drawing on the other page (made by me) I have shewn to Capt.
Finney, who says it illustrates his conceptions on the subject exactly.
All your questions were asked him, and when his replies are negative,
such as gills, breathing holes, &c. &c. it must not be inferred that
such things were not displayed--but only that he did not see them, &c.
Certain house carpenters, who were at work on a building near the spot,
also saw it; as well as many others--these persons dwell with emphasis
on the long and distant _wake_ made in the water by the passage of
the fish.--As to the point of time, it must have been from known data
between the 18th. and 25th. of June. And I would remark, that this is
exactly the season when the first setting in of mackerel occurs in our
bay.”

“Yours respectfully”

“S. Davis.”

And the deposition of Captain FINNEY as follows:

“I, Elkanah Finney of Plymouth, in the county of Plymouth, Mariner,
testify and say: That about the twentieth of June, A. D. 1815, being
at work near my house, which is situated near the sea-shore in
Plymouth, at a place called Warren’s cove, where the beach joins the
main land; my son, a boy, came from the shore and informed me of an
unusual appearance on the surface of the sea in the cove. I paid little
attention to his story at first; but as he persisted in saying that he
had seen something very remarkable, I looked towards the cove, where I
saw something which appeared to the naked eye to be a drift sea-weed.
I then viewed it through a perspective glass, and was in a moment
satisfied that it was some aquatic animal, with the form, motion, and
appearance of which I had hitherto been unacquainted. It was about a
quarter of a mile from the shore, and was moving with great rapidity
to the northward. It then appeared to be about thirty feet in length;
the animal went about half a mile to the northward; then turned about,
and while turning, displayed a greater length than I had before seen;
I supposed at least a hundred feet. It then came towards me, in a
southerly direction, very rapidly, until he was in a line with me,
when he stopped, and lay entirely still on the surface of the water.
I then had a good view of him through my glass, at the distance of a
quarter of a mile. His appearance in this situation was like a string
of buoys. I saw perhaps thirty or forty of these protuberances or
bunches, which were about the size of a barrel. The head appeared to be
about six or eight feet long, and where it was connected with the body
was a little larger than the body. His head tapered off to the size
of a horse’s head. I could not discern any mouth. But what I supposed
to be his under jaw had a white stripe extending the whole length of
the head, just above the water. While he lay in this situation, he
appeared to be about a hundred or a hundred and twenty feet long. The
body appeared to be of a uniform size. I saw no part of the animal
which I supposed to be a tail. I therefore thought he did not discover
to me his whole length. His colour was a deep brown or black. I could
not discover any eyes, mane, gills, or breathing holes. I did not see
any fins or legs. The animal did not utter any sound, and it did not
appear to notice any thing. It remained still and motionless for five
minutes or more. The wind was light with a clear sky, and the water
quite smooth. He then moved to the southward; but not with so rapid a
motion as I had observed before. He was soon out of my sight. The next
morning I rose very early to discover him. There was a fresh breeze
from the south, which subsided about eight o’clock. It then became
quite calm, when I again saw the animal about a mile to the northward
of my house, down the beach. He did not display so great a length as
the night before, perhaps not more than twenty or thirty feet. He often
disappeared, and was gone five or ten minutes under water. I thought
he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same
situation, and thus employed for two hours. I then saw him moving
off, in a northeast direction, towards the light house. I could not
determine whether its motion was up and down, or to the right and left.
His quickest motion was very rapid; I should suppose at the rate of
fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Mackerel, manhaden, herring, and other
bait fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen.”

“Elkanah Finney.”

“_Plymouth_ ss. October 2, 1817. The above named Elkanah Finney
appeared and made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement, by him
subscribed, before me

Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”

In vain have I tried to get a look at the above mentioned “first
declarations in 1815”.

Though the Committee now possessed the long wished-for drawing of the
Sea-Serpent, it did not publish it, nor did it state why it did not.
The “questions” of which Mr. DAVIS writes will be presented to our
readers hereafter. We see that the animal may remain quite still on
the surface of the water, keeping, however, its coils, or joints, or
bunches. It was a large individual. Its head seemed to be from 6 to 8
feet, its whole length far above one hundred and twenty feet. “Its head
was a little larger than the body”, we must of course read: “Its head
was a little broader than the neck”. It had a white stripe extending
over the whole length of the head, just above the water, in the place
where the underjaw must have been. We may look upon all the statements
of Capt. FINNEY, as to the animal’s colour, dimensions, motions, &c.
as quite correct: he was a man too well acquainted with the different
sea-animals, to be mistaken in any observation. Moreover, all his
statements will soon and successively be repeated over and over again,
till there remains not a shadow of doubt of their truth, which, in my
opinion, is now already the case.

* * * * *

=36=.--1816?--In the “_Voyages_” of the well known OTTO VON KOTZEBUE,
which appeared in Weimar in 1821, translated into English, in London,
1821, and into Dutch, in Amsterdam, 1822, we read that on the Isle
of Unalaska, one of Aleutes, he had made the acquaintance of a Mr.
KRIUKOF, living there since 1795, and being Agent of the American
Company. VON KOTZEBUE writes:

“Mr. Kriukof’s description of a sea animal which pursued him at
Behring’s Island, where he had gone for the purpose of hunting, is
very remarkable. Several Aleutians affirm they have often seen this
animal. It is of the shape of the Red serpent, and immensely long; the
head resembles that of the sea-lion, and two disproportionately large
eyes give it a frightful appearance. “It was very fortunate for us”
said Kriukof, “that we were so near land, or else the monster would
have swallowed us: it stretched its head far above the water, looked
about for prey, and vanished. The head soon appeared again, and that
considerably nearer: we rowed with all our might, and were very happy
to have reached the shore before the serpent. The sea-lions were so
terrified at the sight, that some rushed into the water, and others hid
themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of flesh which,
according to opinion, is that of this serpent, which no animal, not
even the raven, will touch. Some Aleutians, who had once tasted some of
it, suddenly died.”

This passage was told by Mr. KRIUKOF to von KOTZEBUE in Aug. 1817. So
we have taken 1816 as the year of the appearance, though it may have
happened earlier. When Mr. VON KOTZEBUE wrote his book in 1820, he had
already heard of the Sea-Serpent, which appeared in 1817 in the Harbour
of Gloucester, Mass., and so he adds:

“If a sea-serpent really has been seen on the coast of North-America,
it may have been one of this frightful species.”

What now are the most interesting parts of this notice? First of all
that the Sea-Serpent is a common visitor of the Northern South-Sea, for
the Aleutians affirmed that they often saw it. But the description of
the head claims our close attention. We already said that the animal
must have a hairy skin, for it has a mane, and those persons who saw it
very closely confirm this. The head has already been twice described
as resembling that of a seal, and afterwards we shall meet again with
such a description; generally, however, it is said to resemble that of
a snake, or a serpent, and sometimes to be sharp. What head combines
these characters? I say the head of a sea-lion. It resembles more
or less that of a seal, and seen from aside, more or less that of a
snake, is rather pointed, because a sea-lion has not such formidable
upper lips as seals have, and rather blunt. Why has nobody given
this description? I say, because nobody among the eye-witnesses ever
saw a sea-lion, neither the Norwegian, nor the many eye-witnesses of
Massachusetts, nor even afterwards the other witnesses. The only one
who could make this comparison was Mr. KRIUKOF, and the Aleutians,
who live surrounded by these animals. The sea-lion’s head is rather
blunt, rather pointed, rather long, and flattened on the forehead,
has also some whiskers, which are also attributed to sea-serpents by
eye-witnesses in Norway, according to PONTOPPIDAN, and afterwards again
by a person who saw it at a few yards’ distance from him.

Moreover KRIUKOF’S comparison with the Red Snake, a species evidently
known to him, the disproportionate large eyes, the habit of the animal
to stretch its long neck far above the surface of the water, apparently
to look about for prey, to follow a boat at some distance, it being
supposed to be inquisitive, though harmless, are all statements we have
already met with or will meet with afterwards. It seems that sea-lions
too often become the prey of the sea-serpent, otherwise these creatures
would not have been so afraid of it.

As to the pieces of flesh, I am convinced that they are not of a
sea-serpent, but either of sea-lions, of porpoises, or of another
smaller kind of whales, which are the rests of a meal of our friend.
They are washed ashore in a putrified state, and their not being to
the taste of the ravens is probably a story, which, like the report of
the death of the Aleutians who had tasted of it, must without doubt be
considered as a mere fable. This report is reprinted in the _Magazine
and Journal_, Vol. LVIII, 1821.

* * * * *

“In the month of August, 1817,” we read in the _Report of a Committee_,
&c. printed Dec. 1817, Boston, by CUMMINGS and HILLARD,

“In the month of August, 1817, it was currently reported on various
authorities, that an animal of very singular appearance had been
recently and repeatedly seen in the harbour of Gloucester, Cape Ann,
about thirty miles distant from Boston. It was said to resemble a
serpent in its general form and motions, to be of immense size, and to
move with wonderful rapidity; to appear on the surface of the water
only in calm and bright weather; and to seem jointed, or like a number
of buoys or casks following each other in a line.”

“In consequence of these reports, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society
of New England, holden at Boston on the 18th. day of August, the
Hon. John Davis, Jacob Bigelow, M. D. and Francis C. Gray, Esq. were
appointed a Committee to collect evidence with regard to the existence
and appearance of any such animal. The following report made by that
Committee is now published by order of the Society.”

“Linnaean Society of New England.”

“The Committee appointed on the 18th. of August last to collect
evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of a Sea-Serpent,
said to have been recently seen in the harbour of Gloucester, now lay
before the Society the following facts and documents.”

“On the 19th. of August your Committee wrote to the Hon. Lonson Nash
of Gloucester, requesting him to examine upon oath some of the
inhabitants of that town with regard to the appearance of this animal,
to make the examination as early as possible, to request the persons
examined not to communicate to each other the substance of their
respective statements, until they were all committed to writing; to
have these statements signed and certified in due form, and sent to
us. Our letter also contained certain rules with regard to the mode of
conducting this examination, and questions to be put to the persons
examined.”

“In answer to it we received from Mr. Nash a letter, dated 28th.
August, enclosing eight depositions, duly certified, which on the 1st.
September were read before the Society as were also three depositions
taken in Boston, on the 30th. August and 1st. September. You directed
us to return your thanks to Mr. Nash for his readiness in complying
with our request, to continue the investigation of the subject
committed to us, in such manner as we should deem expedient, and to
lay before you a formal report of the whole evidence that should be
procured. In compliance with your directions, the chairman of the
Committee wrote again to Mr. Nash on the 2d. September, and received
from him an answer, dated 9th. September. We also wrote to Mr. Samuel
Davis of Plymouth on the 1st. September, requesting him to examine upon
oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance
of an animal said to have been seen there in the year 1815, and to
resemble the one lately seen near Gloucester; this letter contained
the same rules and questions as were sent to Mr. Nash. In answer to
this application, a letter from that gentleman was received on the 4th.
October, enclosing the deposition of Capt. E. Finney. Your Committee
have also received a communication from the Rev. William Jenks of Bath
relative to the subject. All these documents are now laid before you in
the following order.”

“1. The rules and questions of your Committee.
“2. The letter from Mr. Nash of 28th August, enclosing the eight
following depositions.
“3. The deposition of Amos Story.
“4. That of Salomon Allen.
“5. That of Eppes Ellery.
“6. That of William H. Foster.
“7. That of Matthew Gaffney.
“8. That of James Mansfield.
“9. That of John Johnston.
“10. That of William B. Pearson.
“11. The deposition of Sewall Toppan }
“12. That of Robert Bragg } taken at Boston.
“13. That of William Somerby }
“14. The letter from our Chairman to Mr. Nash.
“15. The answer of Mr. Nash.
“16. Our letter to Mr. S. Davis of Plymouth.
“17. His answer, containing
“18. The deposition of Elkanah Finney.
“19. The letter from the Rev. William Jenks to your Committee.
“20. Is an account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in
the North Sea, extracted from the history of Norway, written by
the Right Rev. Erich Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in the year
1751.

“Boston, Aug. 19, 1817.

“The Committee appointed by the Linnaean Society, at their meeting on
the 18th. inst. for the purpose of collecting any evidence which may
exist respecting a remarkable animal, denominated a _Sea Serpent_,
reported to have recently been seen in and near the harbour of _Cape
Ann_, have concluded on the following method of proceeding in the
execution of their commission.”

“I. The examination to be confined to persons professing actually to
have seen the animal in question.

“II. Such persons to be examined as may be met with by either of the
Committee, or by Hon. Lonson Nash of Gloucester, who is to be requested
by a letter addressed to him from the Committee to undertake this
service.”

“III. All testimony on the subject to be taken in writing, and after
being deliberately read to the person testifying, to be signed by him,
and sworn before a magistrate. The examinations to be separate, and the
matter testified by any witness not to be communicated until the whole
evidence be taken.”

“IV. The persons testifying to be requested first to relate their
recollections on the subject, which being taken down, the following
questions to be proposed, if not rendered unnecessary by the statement
given.”

“Questions.”

“1. When did you first see this animal?”

“2. How often and how long at a time?”

“3. At what times of the day?”

“4. At what distance?”

“5. How near the shore?”

“6. What was its general appearance?”

“7. Was it in motion or at rest?”

“8. How fast did it move, and in what direction?”

“9. What parts of it were above the water and how high?”

“10. Did it appear jointed or only serpentine?”

“11. If serpentine, were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“12. How many distinct portions were out of water at one time?”

“13. What were its colour, length and thickness?”

“14. Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“15. What were the size and shape of its head, and had the head ears,
horns, or other appendages?”

“16. Describe its eyes and mouth.”

“17. Had it gills or breathing holes, and where?”

“18. Had it fins or legs, and where?”

“19. Had it a mane or hairs, and where?”

“20. How did its tail terminate?”

“21. Did it utter any sound?”

“22. Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice any thing?”

“23. Did you see more than one?”

“24. How many persons saw it?”

“25. State any other remarkable fact.”

II.

“Gloucester, August 28, 1817.”

“John Davis, }
“Jacob Bigelow, and } Esq’rs.
“Francis C. Gray }

“Gentlemen,

“I have received your favour of the 19th. inst. In that communication
you request my assistance, in collecting evidence relative to a strange
marine animal, that has appeared in the harbour in this place; and
I have most cheerfully complied with your request. The subject is
calculated to excite much interest, at home and abroad.”

“The deponents were interrogated separately, no one knowing what the
others had testified, and though they differ in some few particulars,
still, for the most part, they agree.”

“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is mistaken,
as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical. I saw him, on
the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should judge he was two
hundred and fifty yards from me, when the nearest. I saw him twice with
a glass for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye. At
that distance, I could not take in the two extremities of the animal
that were visible, _at one view_, with a glass. His manner of turning
is well described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions. The
persons who have deposed before me, are men of fair and unblemished
characters. The interrogatories that you sent to me were all put to
the witnesses; but generally, I have omitted inserting them in the
depositions, when the witnesses declared their inability to answer
them.”

“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken, as to the distinct portions of
the animal that were visible, at one time. I saw, at no time, more than
eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible; still, I
cannot believe that _fifty_ distinct portions were seen, at one time. I
believe the animal to be straight, and that, the apparent bunches were
caused by his vertical motion.”

“I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat with his brother
Matthew, when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s answers corroborate
Matthew’s testimony.”

“Respectfully, gentlemen,

“Your most ob’t

“Lonson Nash.”

We observe that the Linnaean Society has exerted all its energies in
the matter and has acted with the greatest accuracy. In our historical
treatice we, however, have not followed the above order, but arranged
the depositions chronologically.

* * * * *

=37=.--1817, August 6?--In a letter from Mr. S. G. PERKINS, dated
Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to Mr. E. EVERETT in Paris, preserved in the
Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and which we shall
hereafter present to our readers _in toto_, we read:

“About a fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance of the
Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster come into the
Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake, was of great length,
&c.”

* * * * *

=38=.--1817, August, 10.--(See the _Report_ of 1817).

“I, Amos Story of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, mariner, depose
and say, that on the tenth day of August A. D. 1817, I saw a strange
marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, at the southward and
eastward of Ten Pound Island, in the harbour in said Gloucester. It was
between the hours of twelve and one o’clock when I first saw him, and
he continued in sight for an hour and half. I was setting on the shore,
and was about twenty rods from him when he was the nearest to me. His
head appeared shaped much like the head of a sea turtle, and he carried
his head from ten to twelve inches above the surface of the water. His
head at that distance appeared larger than the head of any dog that I
ever saw. From the back part of his head to the next part of him that
was visible, I should judge to be three or four feet. He moved very
rapidly through the water, I should say a mile in two, or at most, in
three minutes. I saw no bunches on his back. On this day, I did not see
more than ten or twelve feet of his body.”

Though Mr. STORY compares the animal’s head with that of a sea-turtle,
probably because he saw it in such a direction that it seemed short and
thick; his statement that it carried its head a foot above the water,
and that it was larger than that of any dog at a distance of twenty
rods,--the head may even have been of about two feet--, that its motion
was rapid, are all mere repetitions of facts well known to us. He did
not see bunches on its back, the animal consequently swam with its body
in a straight line, a habit we have also already met with. Just behind
the head a part of the neck of about four feet was hidden under water,
and then twelve feet of the animal’s body were visible again.

* * * * *

=39=, =40=, =41=.--1817, August 12, 13, 14.--(See the _Report_, printed
in 1817).

“I, Solomon Allen 3d. of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
shipmaster, depose and say; that I have seen a strange marine animal,
that I believe to be a sea-serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester.
I should judge him to be between eighty and ninety feet in length, and
about the size of a half barrel, apparently having joints from his
head to his tail. I was about one hundred and fifty yards from him,
when I judged him to be of the size of a half barrel. His head formed
something like the head of the rattle snake, but nearly as large as
the head of a horse. When he moved on the surface of the water, his
motion was slow, at times playing about in circles, and sometimes
moving nearly straight forward. When he disappeared, he sunk apparently
directly down, and would next appear at two hundred yards from where he
disappeared, in two minutes. His colour was a dark brown, and I did not
discover any spots upon him.”

“_Question._ When did you first see this animal?”

“_Answer._ I saw him on the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth of
August, A. D. 1817.”

“_Q._ How often, and how long at a time?”

“_A._ I was in a boat on the twelfth inst. and was around him several
times, within one hundred and fifty yards of him. On the thirteenth
inst. I saw him nearly all the day, from the shore. I was on the beach,
nearly on a level with him, and most of the time he was from one
hundred and fifty to three hundred yards from me. On the fourteenth, I
saw him but once, and had not so good a view of him.”

“_Q._ What parts of it were above the surface if the water, and how
high?”

“_A._ Its joints or bunches, appeared about eight or ten inches above
the surface of the water.”

“_Q._ Did it bend its body up and down in moving, or to the right and
left?”

“_A._ He moved to the right and left.”

“_Q._ How many distinct portions of it were out of the water, at one
time?”

“_A._ I should say fifty distinct portions.”

“_Q._ Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“_A._ It appeared rough and scaly.”

“_Q._ Had it ears, horns, or any other appendages?”

“_A._ I perceived none.”

“_Q._ How did its tail terminate?”

“_A._ He seemed to taper towards (what I thought) his tail, though I
had no distinct view of his tail.”

“_Q._ Did it utter any sound?”

“_A._ Not in my hearing.”

“_Q._ Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”

“_A._ It appeared to me to avoid the boat where I was, though
afterwards, I saw him make towards a boat, in which was Mr. Gaffney and
others.”

“_Q._ Did you see more than one?”

“_A._ I did not.”

“_Q._ How many persons saw it?”

“_A._ Twenty or thirty persons were in view of me.”

“_Q._ Did he open his mouth when you saw him, and if so, how wide?”

“_A._ Yes, when I looked at him from the shore with a glass at about
two hundred yards distance, his mouth appeared to be open about ten
inches. I had no glass, when I saw him from the boat.”

“_Q._ Did he carry his head above the surface of the water?”

“_A._ Yes, at times, about two feet, then again he would carry the top
of his head just on the surface of the water.”

“_Q._ Did he turn short and quick, and what was the form of the curve
that he made?”

“_A._ He turned short and quick, and the first part of the curve that
he made in turning resembled the link of a chain; but when his head
came parallel with his tail, his head and tail appeared near together.

“Solomon Allen 3d.”

“Essex, ss. August 21, 1817. Personally appeared Solomon Allen the
third, and made oath that the foregoing facts by him subscribed, are
true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

As we have already seen, Mr. LONSON NASH wrote in his letter to the
Committee:

“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is mistaken,
as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical.” And:

“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken as to the distinct portions of
the animal, that were visible, at one time. I saw at no time more than
eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible; still I
cannot believe that _fifty_ distinct portions were seen at one time.”

As to the motion of the animal I believe that Mr. ALLEN was really
mistaken. When the animal was nearest to him, there was still a
distance of a hundred and fifty yards between Mr. ALLEN and the
animal. As to the number of the bunches which Mr. ALLEN reports, viz.
fifty, I believe that he has not _counted_ them; he says: I should say
fifty. PONTOPPIDAN tells us that the greatest number ever seen was
twenty-five, and I believe that this is indeed the case.

Moreover its length of from eighty to ninety feet, the size of the
visible part to be that of a half barrel, the resemblance of the head
to a rattle-snake’s, say a common snake’s, the size of it to be that of
a horse’s, say two feet, &c., &c., are all common statements. Of course
Mr. ALLEN is also mistaken as to its scaly surface. The roughness,
however, may have been the result of the rippling of the water. When
the animal disappeared it sunk directly down, like a rock, a statement
which we have met with and shall meet with several times. That the
teeth of the animal were not visible at a distance of two hundred yards
cannot surprise us. In the animal’s turning its flexibility again is
mentioned: head and tail approaching, nay, nearly touching each other.

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--See also no 41 on p. 164.--(_Report of a
Committee_, 1817).

“I, Epes Ellery, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, shipmaster,
depose and say; that on the 14th. day of August, 1817, I saw a
sea animal that I thought to be a serpent, in the harbour in said
Gloucester. I was on an eminence, near low water mark, and about thirty
feet above the level of the sea, when I saw him. I should judge that
he was about one hundred and fifty fathoms from me. I saw the upper
part of his head, and I should say about forty feet of the animal. He
appeared to me to have joints, about the size of a two-gallon keg. I
was looking at him with a spy-glass, when I saw him open his mouth, and
his mouth appeared like that of a serpent; the top of his head appeared
flat. His motion when he turned was quick, but I will not express an
opinion of his velocity. The first part of the curve that he made in
turning was of the form of a staple, and as he approached towards his
tail, he came near his body with his head, and then ran parallel with
his tail, and his head and tail then appeared together.”

“_Q._ At what time of the day did you see him?”

“_A._ It was a little after sun set.”

“_Q._ What parts of it were above the surface of the water, and how
high?”

“_A._ I did not count the number of bunches, but they appeared about
six inches above the surface of the water.”

“_Q._ Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“_A._ Vertical.”

“_Q._ Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”

“_A._ It did not appear to avoid any thing. He appeared to be amusing
himself, though there were several boats not far from him.”

“_Q._ Did you see more than one?”

“_A._ I did not.”

“_Q._ How many persons saw it?”

“_A._ There were fifteen or twenty persons near where I was.”

“Epes Ellery.”

Essex ss. August, 25, 1817. Personally appeared Epes Ellery, and made
oath to the truth of the foregoing facts by him subscribed.

“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

Not a single fact which has not been stated before.

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n^o. 41 on p. 164 and n^o. 41 on p.
167.)--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).

“I, William H. Foster, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, merchant,
depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, A. D. 1817,
I first saw an uncommon sea-animal, that I believe to have been a
serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. When I first discovered
him, his head was above the surface of the water, perhaps ten inches,
and he made but little progress through the water. He was apparently
shaded with light colours. He afterwards went in different directions,
leaving on the surface of the water, marks like those made by skating
on the ice. Then he would move in a straight line west, and would
almost in an instant, change his course to east, bringing his head,
as near as I could judge, to where his tail was; or in fact, to the
extreme hinder part visible, raising himself as he turned, six or eight
inches out of water, and shewing a body at least forty feet in length.”

Its being shaded with light colours is already mentioned by
PONTOPPIDAN. Its leaving a wake behind it has already been stated many
times, and will often be stated afterwards. Also its mode of turning,
giving to its body the form of a staple.”

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n°. 41 on p. 164, p. 167, p.
168.)--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817.).

“I, Matthew Gaffney, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, ship
carpenter, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, A. D.
1817, between the hours of four and five o’clock in the afternoon,
I saw a strange marine animal, resembling a serpent, in the harbour
in said Gloucester. I was in a boat, and was within thirty feet of
him. His head appeared full as large as a four-gallon keg, his body
as large as a barrel, and his length that I saw, I should judge forty
feet at least. The top of his head was of a dark colour, and the under
part of his head appeared nearly white, as did also several feet of
his belly, that I saw. I supposed and do believe that the whole of his
belly was nearly white. I fired at him, when he was the nearest to me.
I had a good gun, and took good aim. I aimed at his head, and think I
must have hit him. He turned towards us immediately after I had fired,
and I thought he was coming at us: but he sunk down and went directly
under our boat, and made his appearance at about one hundred yards
from where he sunk. He did not turn down like a fish, but appeared to
settle directly down, like a rock. My gun carries a ball of eighteen
to a pound; and I suppose there is no person in town, more accustomed
to shooting than I am. I have seen the animal at several other times,
but never had so good a view of him, as on this day. His motion was
vertical, like a caterpillar.”

“_Q._ How fast did it move?”

“_A._ I should say he moved at the rate of a mile in two, or at most
three minutes.”

“_Q._ Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“_A._ I thought it smooth, when I was endeavouring to take aim at him,
and will not say positively, that he was smooth, though that is still
my belief.”

“_Q._ Does he turn quick and short, and if so, what is the form of path
that he makes, in turning?”

“_A._ He turns quick and short, and the first part of the curve that he
makes in turning, is in the form of the staple; but his head seems to
approach rapidly towards his body, his head and tail moving in opposite
directions, and when his head and tail came parallel, they appear
almost to touch each other.”

“_Q._ Did he appear more shy, after you had fired at him?”

“_A._ He did not; but continued playing as before.”

“_Q._ Who was in the boat with you, when you fired at the serpent?”

“_A._ My brother Daniel, and Augustin M. Webber.

“Matthew Gaffney.”

“Essex, ss. August 28, 1817. Then Matthew Gaffney made oath that the
foregoing, by him subscribed, is true according to his best knowledge
and belief.

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace”

As we have already seen Mr. LONSON NASH in his letter to the Committee
wrote:

“His manner of turning is well described in Mr. Gaffney’s
description...... I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat
with his brother Matthew when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s
answer corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”

We read here that the underpart of the head appeared almost white, and
several feet of its belly too (read of the underpart of its neck, or of
its throat). Further Mr. GAFFNEY goes on: “I supposed and do believe
that the whole of his belly was nearly white”. This is very remarkable,
for Mr. GAFFNEY seems to be familiar with sea-animals, as porpoises,
&c., and a very good observer, and his conclusion is quite right from
a zoological point of view. Very remarkable is the animal’s demeanor
after the shot. Apparently furious, it directed itself suddenly to
the shooter, but when very near to him, it sank down like a rock
and appeared again far away. This manner of acting will afterwards
be described again in Norway. Again its manner of disappearing is
described as sinking like a rock. The mode of turning too is just the
same as is mentioned every where.

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n^o. 41 on p. 164, p. 167, p. 168,
p. 168.) (_Report of a Committee_, 1817.)

We read in the letter from Mr. LONSON NASH to the Committee that he
himself saw the animal:

“I saw him on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should
judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when the nearest.
I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and at other times,
with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not take in the two
extremities of the animal, that were visible, at one view with a
glass...... His motion is vertical..... His manner of turning is well
described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions..... I saw,
at no time, more than eight distinct portions; though more may have
been visible..... I believe the animal to be straight, and that the
apparent bunches were caused by his vertical motion.”

The Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. JOHN DAVIS immediately wrote to
Mr. LONSON NASH the following letter:

“Boston, September 2, 1817.”

“Sir”,

“Your letter of the 28th. ult. to the Committee of the Linnaean
Society, and the accompanying depositions, were duly received, and
were yesterday communicated to the Society. The Committee are greatly
obliged to you for your ready compliance with their request. In these
sentiments the Society unite, and I am charged with the agreeable
office of communicating to you their vote of thanks for your very
acceptable labours. What you have thus accomplished will go far in
giving some precise and accurate conceptions on a subject, peculiarly
exposed to exaggeration and mistake. This evidence, with some
additional documents, will probably be published. The Committee will
not make their final report on the subject of their Commission until
evidence shall be procured respecting some other reputed appearances of
like description, particularly one at Plymouth in 1815.”

“We have been informed that the animal at Gloucester was once seen,
and it was said by a woman, lying dormant very near the shore. The
Committee wished this intimation to be given to you, that if it should
point to any material circumstances, the evidence might be taken.”

“The last we hear of the object of our inquiry is of his appearance
off East Point on the 28th. ult. This we gather from the testimony
of captain Toppan, and his crew, of the schooner Laura, coming from
Newburyport to Boston.”

“It appears by your letter, that you had sight of the animal. A letter
from you, giving a detailed account of your observations, would be
particularly acceptable.”

“We understand that a gentleman in Gloucester, (Captain Beach) has
a drawing, supposed to be a good representation of the animal. Some
information respecting this drawing would be agreeable; how far it is
considered by those who had the best view of the animal as a correct
representation, and whether the person possessing it would be disposed
to permit an engraving from it to be annexed to the publication of the
evidence, and on what terms. Yours very respectfully,

“Jno Davis.”

“We have already read the report of the appearance of 1815 (n^o. 34 and
35); the intelligence of the encounter on the 28th. of August we will
communicate afterwards (n^o. 48). The answer of Judge NASH, omitting
the intelligence about the animal reposing on the rocks (this report
has been discussed some pages further on, n^o. 45) runs as follows (See
_Report of a Committee_, 1817):

“Gloucester, September 9, 1817.”

“Sir”,

“Your favoured of the 2d. inst. has been received. The vote of thanks
of the Linnaean Society for my services was highly gratifying to me,
not simply on account of the high consideration I entertain for the
members of that laudable institution; but likewise for the agreeable
manner, and respectable channel, through which their vote of thanks was
communicated to me.”

“You request a detailed account of my observations, relative to the
serpent. I saw him on the fourteenth ultimo, and when nearest, I judged
him to be about two hundred and fifty yards from me. At that distance
I judged him (in the largest part) about the size of a half barrel,
gradually tapering towards the two extremes. Twice I saw him with a
glass, only for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye,
for nearly half an hour. His colour appeared nearly black--his motion
was vertical. When he moved on the surface of the water, the track of
his rear was visible, for at least half a mile.”

“His velocity, when moving on the surface of the water, I judged was at
the rate of a mile in about four minutes. When immersed in the water,
his speed was greater, moving, I should say, at the rate of a mile in
two or at most three minutes. When moving under water, you could often
trace him by the motion of the water, on the surface, and from this
circumstance, I conclude he did not swim deep. He apparently went as
straight through the water, as you could draw a line. When he changed
his course, he diminished his velocity but little--the two extremes
that were visible appeared rapidly moving in opposite directions, and
when they came parallel, they appeared not more than a yard apart. With
a glass, I could not take in, at one view, the two extremes of the
animal, that were visible. I have looked at a vessel, at about the same
distance, and could distinctly see forty five feet. If he should be
taken, I have no doubt that his length will be found seventy feet, at
least, and I should not be surprised, if he should be found one hundred
feet long. When I saw him I was standing on an eminence, on the sea
shore, elevated about thirty feet above the surface of the water, and
the sea was smooth.”

“If I saw his head, I could not distinguish it from his body; though
there were seafaring men near me, who said that they could distinctly
see his head. I believe they spoke truth; but not having been much
accustomed to look through a glass, I was not so fortunate.”

“I never saw more than seven or eight distinct portions of him above
the water, at any one time, and he appeared rough; though I supposed
this appearance was produced by his motion. When he disappeared, he
apparently sunk directly down like a rock.”

“Captain Beach has been in Boston for a week past, and I am informed
that he is still there. An engraving from his drawing of the serpent
has been, or is now, making at Boston, but I have not been able to
ascertain how far his drawing is thought a correct representation.”

“Respectfully, Sir,

Your most obedient,

Lonson Nash.”

Mr. W. D. PECK says of this declaration (_Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol.
IV. Pt. 1.)

“The account of it by Lonson Nash Esq. Justice of the Peace in
Gloucester, from his own observation, is perfectly free from prejudice,
and as clear and satisfactory as can be expected of an object at a
distance of two hundred and fifty yards.”

Remarkable in this testimony is again the considerable wake the animal
leaves behind it when swimming rapidly. Easy it is to explain why
the speed is greater under water than when partly visible above the
surface of the water. Those parts viz. which are above the surface
must be borne by the body hidden under water, consequently this
carries a burden, and the speed, it is evident, cannot be so rapid
as when the animal is quite under water, in which position each part
of the animal’s body is carried by the water itself, and not by the
individual. It has no burden to carry, it is specifically lighter, and
the speed can reach its maximum.--Remarkable too is the fact that the
animal, when swimming under water, does so just below the surface, and
causes the rippling of it. This is a habit of Pinnipeds.

Where Mr. Nash thinks that the apparent roughness is produced by its
motion, I am convinced that he is right. He could not distinguish
its head from its body, which cannot surprise us; both are of the
same thickness, when seen from aside, and I believe too that the
seafaring men, more accustomed to look with a glass, distinctly saw
the difference between head and neck. Moreover the mode of turning,
its length of more than seventy feet, its sinking down like a rock,
when disappearing, need not be spoken of; they were mere repetitions of
former statements.

I am sorry I have not been able to get a look at Mr. BEACH’S figure.

* * * * *

=42=.--1817, August 15.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).

“I, James Mansfield, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, merchant,
depose and say: That I saw a strange creature, of enormous length,
resembling a serpent. I think this was on the 15th. of August, A. D.
1817. I should say he was from forty to sixty feet in length, extended
on the surface of the water, with his head above the water about a
foot. He remained in this position but a short time, and then started
off very quick, with much greater velocity than I have seen him move
with at any other time. I saw bunches on his back about a foot in
height, when he lay extended on the water. His colour appeared to me
black or very dark. It was a little before six o’clock P. M. when I saw
him. I should say, he moved a mile in five or six minutes.”

“_Q._ How near the shore was the serpent?”

“_A._ About one hundred and eighty yards from the shore where I stood.”

“_Q._ Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“_A._ Vertical.”

“_Q._ What were the size and shape of its head; and had it ears, horns,
or any other appendages?”

“_A._ His head appeared to be about the size of the crown of a hat,
at the distance from whence I saw him. The shape of his head I cannot
describe, and I saw no ears, horns, or other appendages. I had no spy
glass, and cannot describe him so minutely as I otherwise could. I have
seen him at other times, but my view of him was not so good, as on this
day.”

“James Mansfield.”

“Essex, ss. August 27, 1817. Then James Mansfield made oath to the
truth of the foregoing deposition by him subscribed.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

We have here again the statement that the animal is able to keep its
bunches, when it lies extended on the water.

* * * * *

=43=.--1817, August 17.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817.) The second
part of the affidavit of Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER runs as follows:

“On the seventeenth of August instant, I again saw him. He came into
the harbour, occasionally exhibiting parts of his body, which appeared
like rings or bunches. As he drew near, and when opposite to me, there
rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear
about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the
bottom, and running to a small point.”

“_Q._ Might not the prong or spear that you saw, have been the tongue
of the serpent?”

“_A._ I thought not; as I saw the prong before I saw his head; but it
might have been.”

“_Q._ At what distance were you, when you saw the spear of the serpent?”

“_A._ I should judge forty rods; I had a spyglass when I saw the prong
or spear.”

“_Q._ Did the animal appear round?”

“_A._ He did.”

“_Q._ Did he appear jointed, or only serpentine?”

“_A._ He appeared jointed.”

“_Q._ Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“_A._ Vertical.”

“_Q._ What was its colour?”

“_A._ It appeared brown.”

“_Q._ Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“_A._ It appeared smooth.”

“_Q._ What was the size and shape of his head?”

“_A._ At the distance where I was, his head appeared as large as a
man’s head; but I cannot describe its shape.”

“_Q._ Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?”

“_A._ I thought it appeared to notice objects.”

“_Q._ How fast did it move?”

“_A._ At the rate of a mile in a minute, at times, I have no doubt.”

“William H. Foster.”

“Essex ss. August 27, 1817. Personally appeared William H. Foster, and
made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, is true,
according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”

The first statement that strikes us is the prong or spear, seen by Mr.
FOSTER. I am convinced that this instrument, seen by him at a distance
of forty rods, and with a spy-glass, rising from the foremost part of
the head, about 12 inches, or a foot, in length, pointed at its end,
and having six inches in circumference, or two in diameter, at the
bottom, was nothing else but the animal’s tongue.

* * * * *

=43=.--1817, August 17.--See also n^o. 43 on p. 175.--(_Report of a
Committee_, 1817).--

“I, John Johnston, jun, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, of the
age of seventeen years, depose and say: That on the evening of the
seventeenth day of August, A. D. 1817, between the hours of eight and
nine o’clock, while passing from the shore in a boat, to a vessel lying
in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw a strange marine animal,
that I believe to be a serpent, lying extended on the surface of the
water. His length appeared to be fifty feet at least, and he appeared
straight, exhibiting no protuberances. Capt. John Corliss and George
Marble were in the boat with me. We were within two oars length of him.
We immediately rowed from him, and at first concluded to pass by his
tail; but fearing we might strike it with the boat, concluded to pass
around his head, which we did, by altering our course. He remained in
the same position, till we lost sight of him. We approached so near to
him that I believe I could have reached him with my oar. There was not
sufficient light to enable me to describe the animal.”

“John Johnston, jun.”

“Essex, ss. August 25, 1817. Personally appeared John Johnston, jr. and
made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, is true
according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”

This account is as interesting as all the other ones; though no further
particulars are described, it is again mentioned that more than fifty
feet of the animal’s back part were visible, lying perfectly still on
the surface of the water, showing no bunches at all.

* * * * *

=44=.--1817, August 18.--In the letter of Mr. S. G. PERKINS to Mr. E.
EVERETT, dated Boston Aug. 20, 1817, we read:

“But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at Beverly
from the bank of New-foundland. The captain and the crew report that,
off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea Monster of the Snake kind, lying
on the water, of immense length. That the crew were so much alarmed,
that they got away as soon as they could, and that they estimated it at
100 feet long.”

=44=.--1817, August 18.--See also n^o. 44 hereabove.--(_Report of a
Committee_, 1817).--

“I, William B. Pearson, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex,
merchant, depose and say: That I have, several times, seen a strange
marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, of great size. I have
had a good view of him, only once, and this was on the 18th. of August,
A. D. 1817. I was in a sailboat, and when off Webber’s cove (so called)
in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw something coming out of the
cove; we hove to, not doubting but that it was the same creature that
had been seen several times in the harbour, and had excited much
interest among the inhabitants of Gloucester. James P. Collins was the
only person with me. The serpent passed out under the stern of our
boat, towards _Ten Pound Island_; then he stood in towards us again,
and crossed our bow. We immediately exclaimed: “here is the snake!”
From what I saw of him, I should say that he was nothing short of
seventy feet in length. I distinctly saw bunches on his back, and once
he raised his head out of water. The top of his head appeared flat,
and was raised seven or eight inches above the surface of the water.
He passed by the bow of the boat, at about thirty yards distance. His
colour was a dark brown. I saw him at this time about two minutes. His
motion was vertical. His velocity at this time was not great, though
at times, I have seen him move with great velocity, I should say at
the rate of a mile in three minutes, and perhaps faster. His size I
judged to be about the size of a half barrel. I saw Mr. Gaffney fire
at him, at about the distance of thirty yards. I thought he hit him,
and afterwards he appeared more shy. He turned very short, and appeared
as limber and active as the eel, when compared to his size. The form
of the curve when he turned in the water, resembled a staple; his head
seemed to approach towards his body for some feet; then his head and
tail appeared moving rapidly, in opposite directions, and when his head
and tail were on parallel lines, they appeared not more than two or
three yards apart.”

“_Q._ At what time in the day was this?”

“_A._ Between the hours of five and six in the afternoon.”

“_Q._ How many distinct portions of it were out of water at one time?”

“_A._ Ten or twelve distinct portions.”

“_Q._ Can you describe his eyes and mouth.”

“_A._ I thought and believe, that I saw his eye at one time, and it was
dark and sharp.”

“_Q._ How did its tail terminate?”

“_A._ I had not a very distinct view of his tail; I saw no bunches
towards, what I thought the end of the tail, and I believe there were
none. From where I judged his navel might be, to the end of his tail,
there were no bunches visible.”

“William B. Pearson.

_Essex_, ss. August 27, 1817. Then William B. Pearson made oath to the
truth of the above.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”

In this account too there is not a single fact which has not been
mentioned before, except that the tail did not show bunches, while
the back did. From that point of the body where Mr. PEARSON judged
his navel might be towards the end of the tail, the animal had no
bunches. It is probable that we are meant to read: from the middle of
the visible part, where the animal seemed to be thickest. It is also
probable that the animal’s external characters, though Mr. PEARSON says
he believed it to be a serpent, made on him the impression of a mammal.

=44=.--1817, August 18.--See also n^o. 44 p. 176 and hereabove.--In the
above-mentioned letter from Mr. S. G. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT we read:

“My Brother--Colonel Perkins--went down to Cape Ann two days ago to see
it. He says that he is satisfied that such an animal is there. As he
stood on the shore, it came within the eighth of a mile of him, but as
he did not see it so distinctly, as to be able to state all its points,
he has not said any thing to the public about it.”

Fortunately Col. T. H. PERKINS wrote down his experiences in a letter,
dated Oct. 13, 1820, when on board the ship _Ann Marie_, to his friend
JNO. P. CUSHING. He published it in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
Nov. 25, 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of the
sea-serpent seen by the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118). The whole is reprinted
in the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2358, which I had the opportunity to
consult. The part of the letter, treating of his visit runs as follows:

“Boston, November, 1848.”

“In the paper called the “Illustrated London News” of 28th. October,
is an account given by Capt. M’Quhae, of H. R. M. ship Daedalus, of a
sea-serpent, seen from his ship in August last, on her passage from
the East-Indies, and between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.
The perusal of several articles on the subject leads me to send you a
letter written by me on my passage from England to the United States,
in August, 1820, to Jno. P. Cushing, my friend and then partner,
residing at Canton in China. I also send you a memorandum from
Commander Bolton, of the U. S. Navy, giving the report of the gentlemen
of the Navy who were on board a tender called the Lynx, and who had a
very favourable opportunity of satisfying themselves of the existence
of the animal which had caused so much excitement. The serpent was
seen in 1817, ’19, and ’20, from the _shore_, and the reports show
the bunches to be produced by the vertical motion of the body when in
action. From the drawings which accompany the letter of Capt. M’Quhae,
there are none of the protuberances, and which would lead to the
opinion that the animal seen on the other side of the Equator differs
in genus from that which has been seen on our coast. The drawings of
the sea-serpent seen on the coast of Norway, given in the report of the
Bishop Pontoppidan, are identical with the appearance of the animal
which has been so often spoken of as visiting our northern seas. T. H.
Perkins.”

“On board the ship Ann Marie, at sea, lat. 46, long. 44, Oct. 13, 1820.”

“My dear sir,--When on shore I have little time to spare from business
to devote to details which I am now to communicate.”

“During the past three years you will have seen accounts in the
newspapers, or reports will have met you in another form of an immense
sea-serpent having infested our shores in Boston Bay. The first
appearance he made in the summer of 1817, in the harbour of Cape Ann.
Wishing to satisfy myself on a subject on which there existed a great
difference of opinion, I myself visited Gloucester with Mr. Lee. On
our way down we met several persons returning, who had visited the
place where he was said to have exhibited himself, and who reported to
us that he had not been seen for two or three days past. We however,
continued our route to Gloucester, though with fears that we should not
be gratified with the sight of the monster which we sought. I satisfied
myself, from conversation with several persons who had seen him, that
the report in circulation was not a fable. All the town were, as you
may suppose, on the alert; and almost every individual, both great and
small, had been gratified, at a greater or less distance, with a sight
of him. The weather was fine, the sea perfectly smooth, and Mr. Lee and
myself were seated on a point of land which projects into the harbour,
and about twenty feet above the level of the water, from which we were
distant about fifty or sixty feet......

“Whilst thus seated, I observed an agitation in the water at the
entrance of the harbour, like that which follows a small vessel going
five or six miles an hour through the water. As we knew there was no
shoal where the water was thus broken, I immediately said to Mr. Lee
that I had no doubt that what I had seen was the sea serpent in pursuit
of fish. Mr. Lee was not directing his attention to the spot which I
speak of, and had not seen the foam of the water, the animal having
immediately disappeared.”

“In a few moments after my exclamation, I saw on the opposite side of
the harbour, at about two miles distance from where I had first seen,
or thought I saw, the snake, the same object, moving with a rapid
motion up the harbour, on the western shore. As he approached us, it
was easy to see that his motion was not that of the common snake,
either on the land or in the water, but evidently the vertical movement
of the caterpillar. As nearly as I could judge, there was visible at a
time about forty feet of his body. It was not, to be sure, a continuity
of body, as the form from head to tail (except as the apparent bunches
appeared as he moved through the water) was seen only at three or
four feet asunder. It was very evident, however, that his length must
be much greater than what appeared, as, in his movement, he left a
considerable wake in his rear. I had a fine glass, and was within from
one-third to half a mile of him. The head was flat in the water, and
the animal was, as far as I could distinguish, of a chocolate colour.
I was struck with an appearance in the front part of the head like a
single horn, about nine inches to a foot in length, and of the form of
a marlinespike. There were a great many people collected by this time,
many of whom had before seen the same object, and the same appearance.
From the time I first saw him until he passed by the place where I
stood, and soon after disappeared, was not more than fifteen or twenty
minutes.”

“I left the place fully satisfied that the reports in circulation,
although differing in details, were essentially correct. I returned
to Boston, and having made my report, I found Mrs. Perkins and my
daughters disposed to make a visit to Gloucester with me when the
return of the animal should be again announced. A few days after my
return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies; we had a pleasant
ride, but returned ungratified in the object which carried us there.”

The reader knows already that I don’t agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as
to the generic difference of the sea-serpent.--It is the second time
that the tongue of the animal is seen to be thrown out.

* * * * *

All these reports of course greatly alarmed the people, and divided
them into believers and unbelievers. Letters were written to Europe. As
it is of interest to know the public opinion about the subject, it is
perhaps not unnecessary to communicate here the letters which I found,
especially those hitherto unpublished. On the 20th. of August of 1817
Mr. S. G. PERKINS wrote a letter to Mr. E. EVERETT, then at Paris;
this letter is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of
Göttingen. An extract from it, respecting the sea-serpent, here printed
for the first time, runs as follows:

“You will except me to give you some account of the extraordinary
monster, which is now the subject of universal conversation here. So
far as we know anything of it, I will give it you, but we have yet
to learn its Genus, species and character. About a fortnight since,
two women, who live near the entrance of the Harbour of Cape Ann,
reported that they saw a Sea-Monster come into the Harbour, that it
had the appearance of a Snake, was of great length, &c. But little
attention, however, was paid to this report, and it gained no public
circulation. Within a week the Country has been agitated with reports
of the existence of the monster, and men of reputation and character
have made known, that they have distinctly seen the animal. Many have
gone off in search of him in Boats, and muskets have been fired at him,
without any other effect than alarming him and deterring him from
suffering the approach of the boats. He is represented to be from 50 to
100 feet long, of the size of a barrel about the body, which is formed
into parallel rings, which--when he is on the top of the water--are
so prominent, that they resembled buoys attached to each other. Its
motions, when in pursuit of its prey, are very rapid, and create a
wake like a small vessel passing thro’ the water. My Brother--Colonel
Perkins--went down to Cape Ann two days ago to see it. He says that he
is satisfied that such an animal is there. As he stood on the shore,
it came within the eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it
so distinctly as to be able to state all its points, he has not said
any thing to the public about it. Many persons--who are well known
as men of character--have assured me they have seen 30 or 40 feet of
it out of water at once. These reports have created various opinions
and sensations, many disbelieving the whole story, and others not
doubting it, in the least. My brother goes again to morrow morning to
pass a week at Cape Ann. It comes into the harbour daily, in pursuit
of the herrings, which resort here in great quantities. All these
facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of Reports, people
had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was only a
number of porpuses following each other, in rapid succession. But on
Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at Beverly from
the banks of Newfoundland. The captain and crew report that, off Cape
Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea-Monster of the Snake kind, lying on the
water, of immense length. That the crew were so much alarmed, that they
got away as soon as they could, and that they estimated it, at 100 feet
long. Other particulars were stated, which I do not recollect. This had
revived the belief, in its existence, and great efforts will be made to
take it dead or alive. I heard to day that a subscription was on foot,
and that an express has been sent to Nantucket for twenty whale men
to come up with their boats and apparatus to destroy it. The Linnean
Society have appointed a Committee to go down and investigate it, of
which Judge Davis is Chairman.”

* * * * *

=45=.--1817, August 22?--We have already seen that the Chairman of the
Committee asked Judge NASH to give, if possible, an evidence of the
fact that a woman saw the animal lying dormant very near the shore.
In speaking of Mr. NASH’S answer we skipped this evidence to insert it
here. It runs as follows:

“I have seen and conversed with the woman, who was said to have seen
the serpent dormant on the rocks, near the water, to whom you refer
in yours; but she can give no material evidence. She says that she
saw something, resembling a large log of wood, on the rocks, on the
extreme eastern point of Ten Pound Island, (a small island in our
harbour), resting partly on the rocks, and partly in the water. The
distance was about half a mile. She took a glass, looked at the object
and saw it move. Her attention was for a short time arrested, by some
domestic avocation, and when she looked for the object again, it had
disappeared.”

The letter from the Hon. JOHN DAVIS, the Chairman of the Committee, was
dated Sept. 2, 1817. The appearance, therefore, took place before this
date. Fortunately we have another testimony of this position of the
animal. In the letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS, dated Oct. 13, 1820, and
published by him in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, we
read that he visited the harbour of Gloucester. This must have been on
the 18th. of August 1817 (see n^o. 44. p. 178.); after having described
this visit the Colonel goes on:

“A few days after my return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies;
we had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in the object which
carried us there.”

“Whilst at Cape Ann I talked with many persons who had seen the
serpent, and among others with a person of the name of Mansfield, one
of the most respectable inhabitants of the town. His account to me
was, that a few days before, as he was taking a ride with his wife
in a chair, the road taking them close to a bank which overlooks the
harbour (and is nearly a perpendicular precipice), he saw an uncommon
appearance, which induced him to descend from the carriage, when he saw
the sea-serpent, in which until then he had been an unbeliever. The
animal was stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had
four or five feet of water upon it, and lay partly over the channel. He
desired his wife to get out of the chair, which she did. He said he had
made up his mind as to the length of the snake, but wished the opinion
of his wife on the same subject. He asked her what she should consider
his length; she answered that she could not undertake to say how many
feet in length he was, but that she thought him as long as the wharf
behind their house, an object with which she had always been familiar.
Mr. Mansfield said he was of the same opinion. The wharf is one hundred
feet in length. It is to be observed that the person above spoken of
had been such an unbeliever in the existence of this monster, that he
had not given himself the trouble to go from his house to the harbour
when the report was first made of such an animal being there.”

Consequently I may fix the appearance of the animal resting on a bank,
or beach, or rock, on the 22th. of August, 1817. This is the _only_
report I have found of this way of reposing of the animal, but I cannot
believe that these reports are contrary to truth.

* * * * *

=46=.--1817, August, 23.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817). Mr. AMOS
STORY after having made affidavit of his having seen the animal on the
tenth of August, goes on:

“I likewise saw, what I believe to be the same animal this day, viz.
the twenty third of August, A. D. 1817. This was in the morning, about
seven o’clock. He then lay perfectly still, extended on the water, and
I should judge that I saw fifty feet of him at least.”

“I should judge that I was forty rods from him this day. I had a good
spy glass both days when I saw him. I continued looking at him about
half an hour, and he remained still and in the same position, until I
was called away. Neither his head nor tail were visible. His colour
appeared to be a dark brown, and when the sun shone upon him, the
reflection was very bright. I thought his body was about the size of a
man’s body.”

“Amos Story.”

“Essex ss. Aug. 23, 1817. Personally appeared Amos Story, and made oath
that the foregoing deposition by him subscribed is true, according to
his best knowledge and belief.”

“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

As we read that the animal lay perfectly still, and as Mr. STORY does
not mention that bunches were visible, we may conclude that it lay with
its body in a straight line. Fifty feet of its length at least were
visible. Its head and tail were not visible, says Mr. STORY, and yet
the animal remained about half an hour in this position, which I think
may thus be accounted for: the animal’s head, neck and back were in a
straight line just above the surface of the water, so that its nose
was also above it, which enabled the animal to breathe and to remain
motionless, but at the distance of forty rods, though with a good spy
glass, these particulars cannot have been distinctly seen by one who
was not acquainted with the animal’s external features, and so he
believed its head was invisible. That its tail was under water, I will
believe with him.

* * * * *

=47=.--1817, August 24?--In the letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS to Mr.
CUSHING, dated Oct. 13, 1820, Col. P. mentions the appearance of the
sea-serpent as seen by Mr. and Mrs. MANSFIELD on the 22th. of Aug.,
1817 (n^o. 45), and he continues:

“Subsequent to the period of which I have been speaking, the snake
was seen by several of the crews of our coasting vessels, and in some
instances within a few yards.”

I have therefore chosen the above date.

* * * * *

=48=.--1817, August 28.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).

“Sewell Toppan, Master of the schooner Laura, declares: That on
thursday morning the 28th. day of August, at about 9 o’clock A. M. at
about two miles, or two and half miles east of the eastern point of
Cape Ann being becalmed, I heard one of my men call to the man at the
helm, “what is this coming towards us”; being engaged forward, I took
no further notice till they called again.--I then got on top of the
deck load, at which time I saw a singular kind of animal or fish, which
I had never before seen, passing by our quarter, at distance of about
forty feet, standing along shore. I saw a part of the animal or fish
ten or fifteen feet from the head downwards including the head; the
head appeared to be of the size of a ten-gallon keg, and six inches
above the surface of the water. It was of a dark colour. I saw no
tongue, but heard William Somerby and Robert Bragg, my two men, who
were with me, call out, “look at his tongue”. The motion of his head
was sideways and quite moderate; the motion of the body, up and down. I
have seen whales very often; his motion was much more rapid than whales
or any other fish I have ever seen; he left a very long wake behind
him; he did not appear to alter his course in consequence of being so
near the vessel. I saw him much less time than either of the others,
and not in so favourable a position to notice his head.”

“I have been to sea many years, and never saw any fish that had the
least resemblance to this animal. Judging from what I saw out of
water, I should judge the body was about the size of a half barrel in
circumference.”

“Sewell Toppan”.

“Suffolk ss. Boston, September 1, 1817. Personally appeared captain
Sewell Toppan, and made solemn oath, that the foregoing declaration by
him subscribed is true.”

“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”

“Robert Bragg, of Newburyport, mariner, of the schooner Laura, of
Newburyport, Sewell Toppan Master, testifies: That on thursday last,
about ten o’clock A. M. coming in said schooner bound from Newburyport
to Boston, off Eastern Point, (Cape Ann), about a mile and a half from
the shore, I being on deck, the vessel being becalmed, looking at the
windward, I saw something break the water, and coming very fast towards
us, I mentioned it to the man at helm, William Somerby; the animal
came about 28 or 30 feet from us, between the vessel and the shore,
and passing very swiftly by us; he left a very long wake behind him.
About six inches in height of his body and head were out of water,
and as I should judge about 14 or 15 feet in length. He had a head
like a serpent, rather larger than his body and rather blunt; did not
see his eyes; when astern of the vessel about 30 feet, he threw out
his tongue about two feet in length; the end of it appeared to me to
resemble a fisherman’s harpoon; he raised his tongue several times
perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again. He was in sight
about ten minutes. I think he moved at the rate of 12 or 14 miles an
hour; he was of a dark chocolate colour, and from what appeared out of
water I should suppose he was two and a half feet in circumference; he
made no noise; his back and body appeared smooth; a small bunch on each
side of his head, just above his eyes; he did not appear to be at all
disturbed by the vessel; his course was in the direction for the Salt
Islands; his motion was much swifter than any whale that I have ever
seen, and I have seen many--did not observe any teeth; his motion was
very steady, a little up and down.”

“To this account I am willing to make oath.”

“Robert Bragg.”

“I, William Somerby of the Schooner Laura, testify and say: That on
thursday last about 10 o’clock, A. M. as I was coming in said schooner
from Newburyport, bound to Boston, off Brace’s cove, a little eastward
of Eastern Point, (Cape Ann) about two miles from land, the sea calm,
I was at helm. Robert Bragg, one of the crew, asked me if that was
not the snake coming, pointing out a break in the water, south of us;
a strange animal of the serpent form passed very swiftly by us--the
nearest distance I should judge to be between 30 and 40 feet--the upper
part of his head and back was above water--the length that appeared was
about 12 or 15 feet, his head was like a serpent’s tapering off to a
point. He threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two
feet from his jaws--the end of it resembled a harpoon--he threw his
tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again--I
saw one of his eyes as he passed; it appeared very bright, and about
the size of the eye of an ox. The colour of all that appeared was very
dark, almost black. He did not appear to take any notice of the vessel,
and made no noise. There appeared a bunch above the eye.--Should judge
him to be about two and a half feet in circumference. Have often seen
whales at sea. The motion of this animal was much swifter than that
of any whale. The motion of the body was rising and falling as he
advanced, the head moderately vibrating from side to side. The colour
of his tongue was a light brown.”

“To this account I am willing to make oath.”

“William Somerby.”

“_Commonwealth of Massachusetts_, August 30, 1817. Then appeared Robert
Bragg and William Somerby, and made oath to the truth of the above
declarations, by them respectively subscribed.”

“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”

In these three depositions we find the same observation. As the head
was moving moderately sideways, we may conclude that the animal, though
it was also moving up and down, used its flappers too, so that with
the use of the right fore-flapper its head went a little to the left;
and otherwise went a little to the right by the motion of the left
fore-flapper.--For ROBERT BRAGG’S “larger” in “the head was rather
larger than the body”, we don’t hesitate to read “broader”.--It is
the third time that the animal’s tongue was observed. The tongue most
probably was rather pointed, which led the two mariners to compare
it with a harpoon.--Remarkable is the statement of the animal having
a small bunch on each side of the head just above its eyes. This is
the heavy eye brow figured by BING (fig. 19) and so often described
afterwards.

In a letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published
in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, we read:

“Captain Tappan, a person well known to me saw him with his head above
water two or three feet, at times moving with great rapidity, and at
others slowly. He also saw what explained the appearance which I have
described, of a horn on the front of the head. This was doubtless what
was observed by Captain Tappan to be the tongue, thrown in an upright
position from the mouth, and having the appearance which I have given
to it.”

I quite agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as to the explanation of the
horn (see n^o. 44, p. 180.)--In the _Report_ of 1817 the name is spelt
TOPPAN, whilst Col. PERKINS writes TAPPAN; but as the details of the
two accounts of the prong, or spear, or horn, or tongue are the same,
I am convinced that these two names identify the same person. So the
statement of Captain TOPPAN, WILLIAM SOMERBY and ROBERT BRAGG is
substantiated by COL. PERKIN’S letter.

* * * * *

=49=.--1817, August 30?--In the same letter from Col. PERKINS we read:

“One of the revenue cutters, whilst in the neighbourhood of Cape Ann,
had an excellent view of him at a few yards’ distance; he moved slowly;
and upon the approach of the vessel, sank and was seen no more.”

* * * * *

=50=.--1817, October 3.--In a letter from Mr. THOS. HERTTELL to Mr.
SILVANUS MILLER, printed in the _Report of a Committee_, 1817, a
passage runs as follows:

“Understanding that Mr. James Guion, a gentleman of character and
respectability, had seen what was supposed to be the same animal, I
yesterday conversed with him on the subject. He states that on Friday
the 3d. inst. while on the point of land on the east side of the mouth
of Mamaroneck harbour, he saw a little distance from the rocks, usually
called the Scotch Caps, which lie at the extremity of Rye Point, a
large marine animal, going with great rapidity up sound. He judged his
speed to be little or no less than a mile in a minute. He describes
the irregularity and unevenness of his back, about fifty feet of which
appeared above the surface of the water, much in the way in which I
have done.”

* * * * *

=51=.--1817, October 5.--The abovesaid letter runs as follows:

“Rye-Neck, Oct. 21, 1817”

“Silvanus Miller, Esq.”

“Sir, I observed in the Columbian of the 15th. inst. a paragraph
stating that an animal had been seen in Long Island sound,
corresponding with the description of the serpent lately seen in
Gloucester harbour. That communication probably resulted from some
observations which I made to you, and several other gentlemen, on the
subject alluded to. When I spoke on that occurrence, I had no idea
that it would become the subject of a newspaper remark; but since it
has been publicly noticed, perhaps a more particular detail of the
circumstances may not be deemed improper.”

“On Sunday, the 5th. inst. at 10 o’clock A. M. while standing a few
rods from my house on Rye-Neck, I observed at a small distance to the
southward and eastward of Mr. Ezekiel Halsted’s dwelling on Rye Point,
and perhaps not more than a half mile from the shore, a long, rough,
dark looking body, progressing rapidly up sound (towards New York)
against a brisk breeze, and a strong ebb tribe. Viewing it with my
glass convinced me it was a large living animal.--His back, forty to
fifty feet of which was seen above the surface of the water, appeared
to be irregular, uneven, and deeply indented. I did not at this time
remark that his head was more elevated above the water than the ridges
or humps on his back. Some trees standing near the water, Rye Point
soon intercepting my view of him, I hastened to a situation from
which I obtained another sight of him as he passed that part of the
sound opposite Hempstead bay. At this time he appeared to be nearly
in the middle of the sound--his body more depressed below and his
head more elevated above the water, going with increased velocity in
the direction of Sand’s point, creating a swell before him not unlike
that made by a boat towed rapidly at the stern of the vessel. From the
time I first saw him till I lost sight of him perhaps could not have
exceeded ten minutes, in which short time he had gone probably not less
than six or seven miles.”

“I was yesterday informed on creditable authority, that on the day on
which I saw the above mentioned animal, he was seen by some persons at
or in the vicinity of the light house on Sand’s Point.”

“That it was a sea animal of great bulk, to me is certain.--That it is
what is usually called a Sea-Serpent, and the same which appeared in
Gloucester harbour, is only probable.”

“With much respect, Sir, yours, &c.”

“Thos. Herttell.”

Though the usual statement that the animal had bunches on its back
is here expressed in other terms, viz.: that its back was irregular,
uneven, deeply indented, it may be seen at a glance that no new feature
gave rise to these terms. The animal may moreover have had a mane,
extending all over the back.

* * * * *

N^o. 20 of the _Report_ is, as we have seen above (p. 161), an account
of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in the North-Sea,
extracted from the “History of Norway” written by the Right Rev. ERICH
PONTOPPIDAN. Here is an extract from the matter given by that Bishop
about the sea-serpent, and the whole affidavit of Capt. VON FERRY.

After this the Committee goes on:

“We have seen and heard sundry other statements of various authority
relating to similar animals, said to have been seen at sea by different
persons, but do not insert them in our report, because we consider the
foregoing testimony sufficient to place the existence of the animal
beyond a doubt; and because they do not appear so minute and so well
authenticated as the preceding documents.”

Poor Committee! Could they have foreseen that _seventy_ years
afterwards the existence of the sea-serpent was _not_ beyond a doubt,
at least among learned persons, they would not only have published all
those sundry other statements, but have exerted themselves more in the
matter than they did now. They would have gone to have a look at the
animal and made an affidavit of their observations, and--even then they
would not have been believed!

I would kindly beg the Linnaean Society of Boston, or that learned
Society which has inherited its archives, either to publish _all_
reports, accounts and letters in their hands, or to send them all to
me, that I may enlarge, correct and rectify this work in case a second
edition is called for.

The Committee, after having published the various exceedingly
interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the
phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? And before the question
had become embarrassing, a _deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick,
illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field
near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a labourer at that place. And as
the people believed that this was a spawn of the great sea-serpent, it
was bought by a certain Dr. and presented to the Committee to examine
it. The Committee really examined and dissected it, and gave a full
account of their experience in their _Report_. They considered the
little snake to be new to science, closely allied to the _Coluber
constrictor_ or Black Snake, a species common in those regions, and
gave it the name of _Scoliophis atlanticus_. This account is followed
by “two documents relating to the appearance of the _Scoliophis_, while
living, and to the circumstance under which it was killed.”

Next they gave “a few remarks on the question” (raised by the public)
“whether the great Serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester, be
the _Scoliophis atlanticus_”. These “few remarks” fill three pages
and a half, and end with their conclusion that this is indeed the
case, “until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have
disclosed some differences of structure, important enough to constitute
a specific distinction.”

* * * * *

Now, my readers will probably say that I have not yet explained why
none of the eye-witnesses of the animal seen near Cape Ann saw a
mane. I hope my readers will be satisfied when I tell them that I am
convinced that the female Sea-Serpent has no mane, and that the mane is
only a character of full grown males. So most of the eye-witnesses saw
a female. It is only the individual witnessed by Messrs. JAMES GUION
and THOS. HERTTELL which was most probably a male and had a mane. Seen
from a distance its back was uneven, and deeply indented.

* * * * *

Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, “Groep III”, devoted
a few pages to the “_Report of a Committee_”, giving a very short
extract from it.

* * * * *

I will insert here an extract from a letter written by EDWARD EVERETT,
Esq., Nov. 13, 1817, then in Paris, to the “Obermedicinalrath und
Ritter” BLUMENBACH in Göttingen. This extract, here printed for the
first time, is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of
Göttingen; it runs as follows:

“With Respect to the monstrous Serpent, of which I furnished you some
account, before leaving Göttingen, I am sorry to say that the Reports,
which circulated in the newspapers of his capture, were incorrect,
and that he has escaped. Great attempts were made, and large sums of
money offered, in Vain. I begun to collect a full account of him out
of 300 American Newspapers, which I intended for You, but as I hear
that a pamphlet, on the subject, is preparing by our Linnaean Society,
which will contain depositions made on Oath, I have prefered waiting,
till this appears, and I shall have it sent to you immediately. I
have received to-day a letter of Oct. 25 from my brother, in which he
informs me, that--a few days after the Serpent disappeared--a Young
Serpent, 3 feet long, corresponding with the large one in appearance,
was taken. This was brought to Boston, has been dissected, and
pronounced a Non-descript, by the Connoisseurs there. This will also
be described in the pamphlet of the Linnaean Society. Upon the subject
of the Serpent four letters have been written by Gen. Humphreys of
Boston--a member of the Royal Society--to Sir Joseph Banks; so that
it is possible something may appear in the Philosophical Transactions
about it.”

Afterwards we shall read more of the attempts to catch the Sea-Serpent.
It is a pity that Mr. EVERETT never published his collection! Most
probably it has gradually disappeared in the paper-basket! Apparently
Mr. EVERETT and Mr. BLUMENBACH corresponded much about the serpent: I
also found a list of ancient works in which the sea-serpent and large
snakes are mentioned, forwarded by the former to the latter, and in the
above-mentioned letter EVERETT calls the Sea-Serpent “Our old friend
the Serpent.”

As soon as the _Report_ reached Europe, Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE
BLAINVILLE made an extract from it in his _Journal de Physique, de
Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle_, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Apparently
he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and therefore
paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal, which he
doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did not trouble
himself much. In one respect Mr. DE BLAINVILLE tried to throw ridicule
on two reports, viz. those of ROBERT BRAGG and WILLIAM SOMERBY: “and
the imagination of some sailors is cause that they saw a tongue or
spear coming out of his mouth, to which they gave a length of twelve
feet, a circumference of 6 inches at the bottom and a termination as a
lancet.” As we saw, the two sailors only mentioned a _tongue_ of _two_
feet; they did not use the expression of spear, they neither gave the
circumference at the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as
a _lancet_’s but as a _harpoon_’s. It was Mr. FOSTER who saw a _prong_
or _spear_, but only of twelve _inches_ and terminating in a _small
point_. At all events Mr. DE BLAINVILLE has read badly!

But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus:

“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent,
we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the appearance
of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with
rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it is a true snake, this
is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_, this
assertion is still more doubtful, and finally that it is of the same
species, here the number of probabilities still diminishes, and becomes
totally null, if one believes that such an immense animal, as that
which is observed in the sea has gone ashore to lay its eggs.”

For this is firmly believed by the Committee!

* * * * *

Prof. W. D. PECK in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (_Mem. Am.
Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says:

“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in the
portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.”

After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. PECK says:

“These are the earliest notices I can find of this animal on our
shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence lately
brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society, of men of
fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.”

After having given an extract from these evidences, Prof. PECK says:

“The accounts of all these persons are very consistent; to the
greater part it appeared to be straight, or without gibbosities or
protuberances on the back; one person thought it had protuberances, but
it seems probable that the upper flexures of its undulations occasioned
this opinion.”

“Its velocity is variously estimated; by some it was thought to move
a mile in a minute, by others in three, four, or five minutes. It has
great lateral flexibility, as is shewn by its turning short and moving
in an exactly contrary direction, advancing the head in a line parallel
with the body; hence its undulations when under water and equally
surrounded by the medium, may be either vertical or horizontal at the
will of the animal. The judgment of its velocity, however, without
knowing its precise distance and without instruments to observe it, is
extremely liable to err.”

“In the testimonies above referred to, the imagination seems to have
had no influence, and we certainly know from them, that the existence
of the animal to which they relate is indisputable; we know that it
moves by vertical undulations, at least while near the surface of the
sea; that it is laterally as flexible as other serpents; and that its
motion, at times, is very swift; but our knowledge is circumscribed by
these limits. It is to be hoped, that if it again visits our shores,
some successful means may be devised of taking it and presenting an
opportunity of completing our knowledge of so interesting a link in the
chain of animated beings.”

“It has been seen in Long Island sound, progressing southward; it seems
from this circumstance to be migratory, like the Coluber natrix in
Hungary, and may pass the winter season in Mexico or South America.”

A remarkable fact is it that Prof. PECK really believes that it was a
sea-snake of enormous dimensions!

* * * * *

The _Journal of Science and the Arts_, edited at the Royal Institution
of Great Britain, republished in its fourth Vol. (London, 1818) the
affidavits of Messrs. LONSON NASH and WILLIAM B. PEARSON, (n^o. 41, p.
170, and n^o. 44, p. 177) and the writer of the article declares: “the
existence of the animal is placed beyond doubt.” Now we are in 1892,
and yet it is doubted!

* * * * *

=52=.--1818 June.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr. Britt._
VI, 1818.)

“The _Commercial Advertiser_ of June 9th. contains a letter from a
Captain of the brig _Wilson_, of Salem, bound to Norfolk, wherein he
states, that during his passage, off Cape Henry, he fell in with, as
he at first supposed, the wreck of a vessel, when he ordered his boat
to be lowered; but to his great astonishment he found it to be the
sea-serpent; he says, he then examined it, and such an object he never
before witnessed; he believed it to be 190 feet in length, and its
mouth and head were of an enormous size. After returning to the ship
they bore off, fearing the consequences that might result from its
coming in contact with the vessel.”

The only characters mentioned here are the enormous head and the length
of about 190 feet. Both may be exaggerated though greater dimensions
are mentioned in later trustworthy reports.

* * * * *

=53=.--1818, June 19.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr.
Brit._ VI, 1818).--

“On the 19th of June he appeared in Sag-Harbour, and rewards were
offered to the whalers to secure it.”

* * * * *

=54=.--1818, June 21.--(_Ibidem_).

“S. West, of Hallowell, master of the Packet _Delia_, describes it as
seen on the 21st. of June, engaged with a whale.”

The writer does not mean to say that it was a whale-bone-whale or
a sperm-whale, but a whale of the smaller kind, viz. a dolphin, a
grampus, or a porpoise. We shall come across an account stating that
the eye-witnesses saw a panic amongst a shoal of porpoises, evidently
caused by a sea-serpent pursuing them (n^o. 97); and across another
account, stating that a sea-serpent was seen seizing a porpoise in one
of its lateral fins (n^o. 151). It is evident that when the opportunity
offers, a sea-serpent also preys on the grampuses, porpoises and
dolphins.

* * * * *

=55=.--1818 July 2.--(_Ibidem_).

“and on July 2d. two persons, J. Webber and R. Hamilton, saw it
about seven miles from Portland, between Cranch Island point and
Marsh-Island.”

* * * * *

=56=.--1818 July.--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819). The second Sea Serpent
described by Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (for he believes there are several
species) is called by him:

“_Capt._ BROWN_’s Sea-Serpent_. This fish was observed by Capt. Brown
in a voyage from America to St. Petersburg, in July 1818, near 60° N.
latitude and 8° W. longitude, or north of Ireland. In swimming the
head, neck and forepart of the body stood upright like a mast: it was
surrounded by porpoises and fishes. It was smooth, without scales, and
had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is
not a snake, but a new genus of fish! belonging to the eighth order
_Tremapnea_, 28th. family _Ophictia_, and 3d. subfamily _Catremia_,
along with the genera _Sphagebranchus_ and _Symbranchus_ of Bloch,
which differ by having only one or two round gills under the neck. I
shall call this new genus _Octipos_ (meaning eight gills beneath); head
depressed, mouth transverse, large, eight transverse gills under the
neck, and its specific name and definition will be _Octipos bicolor_.
Dark brown above, muddy white beneath: head obtuse. Capt. Brown adds,
that the head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches, and the eyes
over the jaws, similar to the horse’s; the whole length might be 58
feet.”

Immediately we recognize our well-known Sea-Serpent, an individual
of which the length is estimated at 58 feet, which held its head and
very long neck upright whilst swimming. Captain BROWN says: “and the
forepart of the body”; of course, for he thought to see a snake; if he
had really seen the forepart of the body, (trunk) he would have seen
the shoulders and the fore-flappers. It was surrounded by porpoises
and fishes. Evidently the animal swam between them with the purpose to
snatch one of them. It had a smooth skin, no scales, and eight gills
under its neck. Dark brown above (i. e. on the dorsal part of head and
neck), muddy white beneath (i. e. on its throat); head obtuse (read
rather obtuse, seen from above or from below, or in front; just from
aside it is rather pointed). The head was two feet long, the mouth
fifteen inches (of course estimated dimensions), and the eyes over
the jaws similar to those of a horse (this definition was caused
by the heavy eye-brows and by the little bunch above each eye). The
whole description is exactly that of our animal in the above-mentioned
position and seen from a certain direction. For “eight gills” we may
safely read “eight gillsplits”, or eight splits caused by and lying
between nine folds or wrinkles, which in their turn are caused by the
animal bending its head rectangularly towards the throat. Such folds or
wrinkles are also seen in sea-lions, when they make the same motion,
and stout corpulent persons will know what is meant by a double chin!

* * * * *

=57=.--1818, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through
Sweden_ in 1820, p. 187, says:--

“The fishermen at Sejerstad said a sea-serpent was seen two years ago
in the Folden Fjord, the length of which, as far as it was visible
was 60 feet. This had been told them by those who had seen it in the
Folden.”

* * * * *

=58=.--1818, August?--At p. 203 the same author mentions:

“On being asked (viz. the merchant of Fieldvigen) his opinion
respecting the serpent, he said he had never seen it himself, though
others had in that neighbourhood.”

=59=.--1818, August 19.--In 1818 in the United States many rewards were
offered to whalers to catch the animal, and many attempts were made to
do this, and to bring it home, dead or alive. Amongst others this was
the case at Boston. In the copy of the _Report of a Committee_ of 1817,
which I borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen,
there was a paragraph from a newspaper of August 21, 1818, the head or
title of which was not noted down; the cutting runs as follows:

“Boston Aug. 21.”

“Transmitted by our N. Y. correspondents.”

“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the
sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:

“_Squam River, Aug. 20th., 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful
attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the
sea-serpent. We struck him fairly, but the harpoon soon drew out. He
has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him
more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday,
we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a
proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours
since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him
as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of
warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale.
We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore
disappointment.”

“Rich’d. Rich.”

“_Gloucester, Aug. 20._--As I thought it would be interesting to you
to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give
you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last he sailed from this
in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother
commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam,
and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed
directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw
the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a
considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke
that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the
harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up
the chase.”

“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin
is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had
one of his hands wound. These particulars I have in a letter from my
brother.”

“Saml. Dexter.”

As far as I can judge after having read what I could find about the
Sea-Serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a
harpoon. Evidently the animal then swam with its body in a straight
line. Interesting to us are the words: “He has _no_ scales on him, and
no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an
eel”.

* * * * *

The attempts mentioned above were continued, and, as my readers already
read in my Chapter on hoaxes, ended with a hoax; at last a large tunny
was brought in, and many persons believed it to be the animal! Among
those who were present there was a Mr. ANDREWS NORTON; he wrote, Sept.
11, 1818, a letter about this affair to Mr. GEORGE BANCROFT, an extract
from which is also inserted in our Chapter on hoaxes. I will repeat
here his last words:

“I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the
German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will
assure him that we” (Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK) “do not consider the
circumstance connected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting
the evidence before obtained for their real existence.”--

* * * * *

_The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts R. Inst. Gr.
Brit._ repeats in its Vol. VII, London, 1819, the whole paper of Prof.
PECK, and a translation into German appeared in OKEN’s Isis of 1819.

* * * * *

The well-known RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, when in America, made the
sea-serpent a subject of study and inquiry as Prof. PECK had done. He
too wrote a paper about it, entitled: _Dissertation on Water-Snakes,
Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_. It seems that his dissertation appeared
in an American Journal or in American Transactions, and that it was
afterwards reprinted in the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819.
He is a believer in Sea-Serpents, is evidently convinced that several
species exist, belonging to the family of the _Hydrophidae_, or real
Sea-Snakes.

After having mentioned 9 species of real Sea-Snakes, of which the last
was 8 to 10 feet long, he goes on:

“This last species appears to be the largest real Sea-Snake which has
fallen under the personal observation of naturalists as yet. But larger
species still have been noticed at different periods. If I had the
time and opportunity of perusing all the accounts of travellers and
historians, I could probably bring many into notice; but this tedious
labour must be postponed, and I must warn those who may be inclined
to inquire into the subject, not to be deceived by the imperfect and
exaggerated accounts of ancient and unknown writers. Whenever they
mention neither the scales nor tail of their Sea-Serpents, or when they
assert they had no scales, or had gills or fins, you must in all those
instances be certain that they are real fishes rather than serpents.
There might, however, be found some Sea-Snakes without scales, since
there are such land snakes; and there are fishes with scales and yet
without fins: but there are no fishes without gills, and no snakes
or serpents with gills!--in that important character the classical
distinction consists.”

“Nearly all the writers whom I can remember, have been unacquainted
with that obvious distinction; and they have, in imitation of the
ancient Greek and Roman writers, given the name of Sea-Snakes to the
large eels or fishes they happened to observe. This I apprehend is the
case with Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway; with Mongitore
in his Remarkable Objects of Sicily; with Leguat, in his Travels to
Rodriguez Island, &c. Their observations, and the facts they record,
are notwithstanding equally valuable, since they relate to monstrous
unknown fishes, which seldom fall under the observation of men. The
individuals of huge species are not numerous in nature, either on land
or in water, and it is probable they often become extinct for want of
food or reproduction.”

“Among the four different animals which have lately been observed by
Americans, and named Sea-Serpents, only one (the Massachusetts Serpent)
appears to be such; another is evidently a fish, and two are doubtful.
I shall refer a few remarks on each.”

“1. _The Massachusetts Sea Serpent._ From the various and contradictory
accounts given of this monster by witnesses, the following description
may be collected.--It is about 100 feet long; the body is round and
nearly two feet in diameter, of a dark brown, and covered with large
scales in transverse rows; its head is scaly, brown mixed with white,
of the size of a horse’s and nearly the shape of a dog’s; the mouth
is large with teeth like a shark; its tail is compressed, obtuse,
and shaped like an oar. This animal came in August last into the bay
of Massachusetts in pursuit of shoals of fishes, herrings, squids,
&c. on which it feeds. Its motions are very quick: it was seen by a
great many; but all attempts to catch it have failed, although 5000
dollars have been offered for its spoils. It is evidently a real Sea
Snake, belonging probably to the genus _Pelamis_, and I propose to
call it _Pelamis megophias_, which means Great Sea Snake Pelamis. It
might however be a peculiar genus, which the long equal scales seem to
indicate and which a closer examination might have decided: in that
case the name of _Megophias monstrosus_ might have been appropriated to
it.”

We observe that Mr. RAFINESQUE gives here some characters to the
Massachusetts’s Sea-Serpent, with which we have met nowhere else,
apparently only for the purpose of rendering his supposition more
plausible: 1. “The scales”. It is true that some of the eye-witnesses
have declared the skin to be rough and scaly, but against _one_ who
says so, there are _twenty_ who deny it, describing the skin to be
smooth and having no scales. 2. “The scales are in transverse rows.”
This assertion is made nowhere else. 3. “Its head brown mixed with
white.” A new statement. The head is only described as white on its
throat and lower jaws. 4. “The head of the shape of a dog’s.” I did not
find this expression any where else; on the contrary all agree in its
resembling a serpent’s or a snake’s head. 5. “The teeth like a shark’s,
the tail compressed, obtuse, shaped like an oar.” Nobody saw either
teeth or tail! Indeed a splendid description after the reports given of
the animal’s external features!

* * * * *

=60=.--1819, June 6.--(SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the
Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1820.)

“I, Hawkins Wheeler, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and
state of Connecticut, mariner, Commander of the sloop Concord, of said
Fairfield, in her late passage from New York to Salem, in the County
of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on oath declare, that
during the said passage from New York to Salem, to wit, on Monday, the
6th. day of June instant, at about five o’clock in the morning, the
sloop being as near as I could judge, 15 miles N. W. of Race Point,
and within sight of Cape Ann, I was at the helm of the sloop, and saw
directly a-head, (the course of the vessel being N. W.) something that
resembled a snake, about 100 yards distance from the sloop, moving in
a S. W. direction. The animal moved in that direction, till he had
passed athwart the course of the sloop, and appeared directly over the
weather bow, when he altered his course to S. E. At this time he had
been visible about five minutes, when he sunk, and in about six or
eight minutes after, appeared again directly over the weather quarter,
about the same distance from the sloop--he continued in that course
about five or six minutes, when he sunk again, and I saw him no more.
His motion was at the rate of about four miles an hour, when he passed
ahead; but after he appeared again on the quarter, his motion was less
rapid. To the best of my judgment he was not more than 100 yards of
the vessel--the weather was good and clear--it was almost calm, with a
light air of wind from the S., the vessel was going about two knots--I
had a fair and distinct view of the creature, and from his appearance
am satisfied that it was of the serpent kind. The creature was entirely
black; the head, which perfectly resembled a snake’s, was elevated
from four to seven feet above the surface of the water, and his back
appeared to be composed of bunches or humps, apparently about as large
as, or a little larger than a half barrel; I think I saw as many as
ten or twelve, but did not count them; I considered them to be caused
by the undulatory motion of the animal--the tail was not visible,
but from the head to the last hump that could be seen, was, I should
judge, 50 feet. The first view I had of him appeared like a string
of empty barrels tied together, rising over what little swell of the
sea there was. What motion I could discern in the body of the animal
was undulatory, but he evidently moved his tail under water, and the
ripples produced by it indicated a sweeping motion, making a wake as
large as that made by the sloop.”

“Hawkins Wheeler.”

“Essex, ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Hawkins Wheeler personally appeared,
and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me

“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”

“I, Gersham Bennet, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and
State of Connecticut, mariner, on oath declare, that I was mate of the
sloop Concord, Hawkins Wheeler, master, in her late passage from New
York to Salem, Mass., that on Monday, the 6th. day of June inst., at
seven o’clock in the morning, I was on the deck of the sloop, sitting
on the hatches--the vessel was steering N. W. and was then about
eighteen miles from Race Point--the man at the helm made an outcry,
and said there was something alongside that he wanted me to look at.
I looked, and saw something on the larboard side of the vessel, about
twelve rods, certainly not exceeding fourteen, from the vessel, that
resembled a serpent or snake. I immediately arose and went to the side
of the vessel, and took a position on the rough tree, holding on by
the shrouds; I there saw a serpent of an enormous size and uncommon
appearance, upon the water; his head was about the length of the anchor
stock above the surface of the water, viz. about seven feet. I looked
at the anchor stock at the time, and formed my opinion by comparing
the two objects. The weather was very clear and good and the water
almost calm; and I had, I think, as good a view of the animal as if I
had been within two rods of him. The colour of the animal throughout,
as far as could be seen, was black, and the surface appeared to be
smooth, without scales--his head was about as long as a horse’s and was
a proper snake’s head--there was a degree of flatness, with a slight
hollow on the top of his head--his eyes were prominent, and stood out
considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of
a toad, and were nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of
the head. I had a full view of him for seven or eight minutes. He was
moving in the same direction with the sloop, and about as fast. The
back was composed of bunches about the size of a flour barrel, which
were apparently about three feet apart--they appeared to be fixed,
but might be occasioned by the motion of the animal, and looked like
a string of casks or barrels tied together--the tail was not visible,
but the wake of his tail which he evidently moved under water, showed a
horizontal or sweeping motion, producing a wake as large as the vessel
made. He turned his head two or three times slowly round towards and
from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object on board. I went
up on the rigging, for the purpose of taking a view of him from above;
but before I had reached my station, he sunk below the surface of the
water, and did not appear again. Gersham Bennett.”

“Essex ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Gersham Bennett personally appeared
and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me,

“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”

It is probable that Mr. BENNETT is right in considering the “wake as
large as the vessel made” was produced by a horizontal or sweeping
motion of the tail, but it is far more probable that it was caused by
the motion of the hind-flappers, supposed the animal nearly touched the
surface of the water with the hinder part of the body.

New characters to us are these: that there is a slight hollow on
the top of its head, that its eyes are prominent, and stand out
considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of
a toad, and that they are nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the
back of the head.

* * * * *

=61=.--1819, July.--A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden,
in the Summer of 1820_, says at p. 187:

“As I had determined, on arriving at the coast, to make every inquiry
respecting the truth of the accounts, which had reached England the
preceeding year, of the sea-serpent having recently seen off this part
of Norway, I shall simply give the different reports, I received of
it during my voyage to the North Cape, leaving others to their own
conclusions, and without expressing, at least for the present, any
opinion respecting them.”

and at p. 198:

“From him (the postmaster Mr. SCHILDERUP) I learned some curious
particulars respecting the sea-serpent, which had caused so much
alarm and wonder in Norway, and the report of which, as I have said,
had even reached England. From having formerly been in the Norwegian
sea service, he was called Captain Schilderup; and seemed a quick
intelligent man. It appeared, that the serpent had actually been off
the island for a considerable length of time during the preceding
summer, in the narrow part of the Sound, between this island (Ottersum)
and the continent; and the description he gave of it was as follows.”

“It made its appearance for the first time in the month of July, 1819,
off Ottersum, in the sound above mentioned. Previous to this he had
often heard of the existence of these creatures, but never before
believed it. During the whole of that month the weather was excessively
sultry and calm; and the serpent was seen every day, nearly in the same
part of the Sound. It continued there while the warm weather lasted,
lying motionless, and as if dozing in the sun-beams.--This part of his
account reminded me of the monster of the deep, so finely described by
Milton.”

“The number of persons living on the island, he said, was about thirty;
the whole of whom, from motives of curiosity, went to look at it while
it remained. This was confirmed to me by subsequent inquiries among the
inhabitants, who gave a similar account of it. The first time that he
saw it, he was in a boat, at a distance of about 200 yards. The length
of it he supposes to have been about 300 ells, or 600 feet. Of this he
could not speak accurately; but it was of very considerable length;
and longer than it appeared, as it lay in large coils above the water
to the height of many feet. Its colour was greyish. At the distance
at which he was, he could not ascertain whether it were covered with
scales; but when it moved, it made a loud crackling noise, which he
distinctly heard. Its head was shaped like that of a serpent, but he
could not tell whether it had teeth or not. He said it emitted a very
strong odour, and that the boatmen were afraid to approach near it,
and looked on its coming as a bad sign, as the fish left the coast
in consequence. Such were the particulars he related to me. Thanking
him for his information, I took my leave of him, and proceeded on my
voyage.”

And at p. 200:

“Near Ottersum is the small Island of Krogoën”, (upon which a
merchant lived, who hearing that Mr. BROOKE was an Englishman, who
travelled to North-Cape, put to him numberless questions.) “Having
answered all these questions as well as I could, and a momentary pause
ensuing I seized the opportunity now to have my turn; and wishing
to hear something still farther respecting the sea-monster, I began
to overwhelm him with interrogations, as to its length, colour,
appearance, time it staid, by whom seen, and many others that occurred
to me. However ludicrous the earnest loquacity on both sides might
have been, I had the satisfaction of hearing him confirm, in every
particular, the account of Capt. Schilderup at Ottersum; and that many
of the people at Krogoën had also witnessed it. It did not appear,
however, that any one had ventured very near it, from the dread that
was entertained of it.”

Of course the length of the animal, estimated from a distance of 200
yards, is exaggerated. The greyish colour is that which the animal
obtains when drying in the sunshine, as I have already explained
before. For the first time we meet with the statement that the animal
emits a very strong odour, which is twice stated here. As we shall
once more come across this statement, we must needs believe it. In my
last chapter I will return to this fact, proving that it is not an
impossible character of sea-serpents.

* * * * *

=62=.--1819, August 12?--Mr. SMITH informed us the sea-serpent had been
seen the evening before at Nahant-beach. (Part of the following report.)

* * * * *

=63=.--1819, August 13?--There appeared an interesting account of an
eye-witness about a sea-serpent in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
19th. August, 1819. I have not been able to consult this journal. The
report was translated in OKEN’s _Isis_ of 1819, p. 1754, accompanied
by the figure, made by the eye-witness. Happily I found the same in
SILLIMAN’s _American Journal Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820, but
without the figure. It runs as follows:

“The recent appearance of this animal at Nahant, in the view of several
hundred persons, has furnished, perhaps, more conclusive proof of
his existence, than any that has before been made public. For the
satisfaction of our readers, we have procured a copy of the following
letter, which gives a very clear and intelligible description of his
appearance and movements. We have heard verbal statements from a great
number of gentlemen, all of whom agree in substance with what is here
related.”

“_Copy of a letter from_ James Prince, _Marshal of the District, to the
Hon. Judge_ Davis, _dated_”:

“Nahant, Aug. 16th., 1819.”

“Dear Sir,”

“I presume I may have seen what is generally thought to be the
sea-serpent--I have also seen my name inserted in the evening newspaper
printed at Boston on Saturday, in a communication on this subject. For
your gratification, and from a desire that my name may not sanction
any thing beyond what was presented and passed in a review before me,
I will now state that which, in the presence of more than two hundred
other witnesses, took place near the long beach of Nahant, on Saturday
morning last.”

[Illustration: Fig. 26.--The sea-serpent as delineated by Mr. Prince.]

“Intending to pass two or three days at Nahant, with my family, we
left Boston early on Saturday morning. On passing the halfway house,
on the Salem turn pike, Mr. Smith informed us the sea-serpent had
been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach, and that a vast number
of people from Lynn, had gone to the beach that morning, in hopes of
being gratified with a sight of him: This was confirmed at the hotel.
I was glad to find I had brought my famous mast-head spy-glass with
me, as it would enable me, from its form and size, to view him to
advantage, if I might be so fortunate as to see him. On our arrival
on the beach, we associated with a considerable number of persons, on
foot and in chaises, and very soon an animal of the fish-kind made
his appearance. His head appeared about three feet out of water; I
counted thirteen bunches on his back: my family thought there were
fifteen--he passed three times at a moderate rate across the bay, but
so fleet as to occasion a foam in the water--and my family and myself,
who were in carriage, judged he was fifty feet in length, and, at the
extend, not more than sixty; whether, however, the wake might not add
to the appearance of his length; or whether the undulation of the
water, or his peculiar manner of propelling himself, might not cause
the appearance of protuberances, I leave for your better judgment. The
first view of the animal occasioned some agitation, and the novelty
perhaps prevented that precise discrimination which afterwards took
place--as he swam up the bay, we and the other spectators moved on, and
kept abreast of him; he occasionally withdrew himself under water, and
the idea occurred to me that this occasionally raising his head above
the level of the water, was to take breath, as the time he kept under
water was of an average about eight minutes; after being accustomed to
view him, we became more composed; and made the annexed figure of his
outlines. Mrs. Prince and the coachman having better eyes than myself,
were of great assistance to me in marking the progress of the animal;
they would say he is now turning, and by the aid of my glass I saw him
distinctly in this movement; he did not turn without occupying some
space, and taking into view the time and space which he found necessary
for his ease and accommodation, I adopted it as a criterium to form
some judgment of his length--I had seven distinct views of him from
the long beach so called, and at some of them the animal was not more
than a hundred yards distance. After being on the long beach about an
hour, the animal disappeared, and I proceeded on towards Nahant; but
on passing the second beach, I met Mr. James Magee, of Boston, with
several ladies in a carriage, prompted by curiosity to endeavor to see
the animal, and we were again gratified beyond even what we saw in the
other bay; which I concluded he had left in consequence of the number
of boats in the offing in pursuit of him--the noise of whose oars must
have disturbed him, as he appeared to us to be a harmless timid animal.
We had more than a dozen different views of him, and each similar to
the other; one however so near, that the coachman exclaimed: “Oh, see
his glistening eye”. Thinking I might form some calculation of his
length by the time and distance of each turn; and taking an angle with
my two hands of the length he exhibited, that is to say, from his head
to his last protuberance, and applying the same angle to other objects,
I feel satisfied of the correctness of my decision that he is sixty
feet long, unless the ripple of his wake deceived me--nor my dear sir,
do I undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this
was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself.
Certainly it is a very strange animal. I have been accustomed to see
whales, grampuses, porpoises, and other large fishes, but he partook
of the appearance of none of these. The whale and the grampus would
have spouted--the shark never raises his head out of water, and the
porpoise skips and plays; neither of these has such appearances on the
back or such a head as this animal. The shark it is true, has a fin on
his back, and often the fluke of his tail is out of water; but these
appendages would not display the form, and certainly not the number of
protuberances, which this animal exhibited; nor is it the habit of the
shark to avoid a boat. The water was extremely smooth, and the weather
clear: we had been so habituated to see him, that we were cool and
composed--the time occupied was from a quarter past eight to half past
eleven--a cloud of witnesses exceeding two hundred, brought together
for a single purpose, were all alike satisfied and united as to
appearances, and as to the length and size of the animal; but you must
deduct the influence which his passage through the water and the manner
he propelled himself might have as to the apparent protuberances on
his back, and the ripple occasioned by his motion on his real length,
of all which you can judge equally well and better than myself. I must
conclude there is a strange animal on our coast--and I have thought an
unvarnished statement might be gratifying to a mind attached to the
pursuit of natural science, and aid in the inquiries on a controverted
question, which I knew to have interested you. I have ventured on
the description, being also induced to hope, that if anything on the
marvellous is stated as coming from me, you will correct it.

“Accept the respects and attention of

“Dear Sir, yours sincerely

“James Prince.”

We see that Mr. PRINCE uses many words to give a very short description
of the animal. Yet we are able to gather the following details. Its
head appeared about three feet out of the water, there were 13 or 15
bunches on its back, sometimes the rapidity was moderate, occasioning,
however, a foam in the water; length 50 to 60 feet; the animal left
behind it a wake; sometimes it withdrew itself under water; it appeared
to be a harmless timid animal; its eyes were glistening. All these
characters, external features and habits are long known to us. Mr.
PRINCE first said the animal belonged to the fish-kind; afterwards,
however, he dared not say whether it was of the snake or eel-kind;
yet his figure shows large scales and a fish-tail. It is astonishing
that the person who is so careful in his expressions, is so inaccurate
when handling the pencil. The head of the animal in his figure is
more that of a young duck than of a serpent or snake, which the head
of the sea-serpent is said to resemble closely. The coils are badly
drawn, and though 13 to 15 bunches were seen, only six are delineated.
The rippling of the water on the animal’s left side and before it is
well represented, on its right side, however, it is quite wrong. The
two racked-formed wings are certainly the representation of the foam,
caused in the water by the animal’s rapid motion. And finally the
scales and the fish-tail are drawn by Mr. PRINCE though he has not seen
them! I am obliged to state again that this figure is a facsimile of
that which I found in OKEN’s _Isis_; the very one of the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_ I have had no opportunity to see.

The letter from Mr. PRINCE is translated into Dutch in the
_Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk_.

On the same day it was seen by Mr. CABOT, who wrote the following
letter (SILLIMAN’s _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, II, 1820) to our well known

“Col. T. H. Perkins”

“Brookline, August 19, 1819.

“Dear Sir”

“I very willingly comply with your request to state what I saw of the
_Sea-Serpent_ at _Nahant_, on Saturday last, particularly as I happened
to see it under favourable circumstances to form a judgment, and to
considerable advantage in point of position and distance.”

“I got into my chaise about seven o’clock in the morning to come to
Boston, and on reaching the long Beach observed a number of people
collected there and several boats pushing off and in the offing. I was
speculating on what should have occasioned so great an assemblage there
without any apparent object, and finally had concluded that they were
embarking in those boats on a party of pleasure to Egg Rock, or some
other point.”

“I had not heard of the _Sea-Serpent_ being in that neighbourhood, and
I had not lately paid much attention to the evidences which had been
given of its existence, the idea of this animal did not enter my mind
at the moment.”

“As my curiosity was directed towards the boats to ascertain the course
they were taking, my attention was suddenly arrested by an object
emerging from the water at the distance of about one hundred or one
hundred and fifty yards, which gave to my mind at the first glance the
idea of a horse’s head. As my eye ranged along I perceived at a short
distance eight or ten regular bunches or protuberances, and at a short
interval three or four more. I was now satisfied that the _Sea-Serpent_
was before me, and after the first moment of excitement produced by the
unexpected sight of so strange a monster taxed myself to investigate
his appearance as accurately as I could.”

“My first object was the Head, which I satisfied myself was serpent
shaped, it was elevated about two feet from the water, and he depressed
it gradually, to within six or eight inches as he moved along. I could
always see under his chin, which appeared to hollow underneath or to
curve downward. His motion was at that time very slow along the Beach,
inclining towards the shore; he at first moved his head from side to
side as if to look about him. I did not see his eyes, though I have
no doubt I could have seen them if I had thought to attend to this.
His bunches appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he
moved along some appeared to be depressed, and others brought above
the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them. My next
object was to ascertain his length. For this purpose I directed my eye
to several whale boats at about the same distance, one of which was
beyond him, and by comparing the relative length, I calculated that
the distance from the animal’s head to the last protuberance I had
noticed, would be equal to about five of those boats. I felt persuaded
by this examination that he could not be less than eighty feet long; as
he approached the shore and came between me and a point of land which
projects from the eastern end of the Beach, I had another means of
satisfying myself on this point.”

“After I had viewed him thus attentively for about four or five
minutes, he sunk gradually into the water and disappeared; he
afterwards again made his appearance for a moment at a short distance.”

“My first reflection after the animal was gone, was, that the idea I
had received from the description you gave of the animal you saw at
_Gloucester_, in 1817, was perfectly realized in this instance; and
that I had discovered nothing you had not before described. The most
authentic testimony given of his first appearance there seemed to me
remarkably correct; and I felt as if the appearance of this monster had
been already familiar to me.”

“After remaining some two or three hours on the Beach, without again
seeing him, I returned towards Nahant; and in crossing the small beach,
had another good view of him, for a longer time, but at a greater
distance. At this time he moved more rapidly, causing a white foam
under the chin, and a long wake, and his protuberances had a more
uniform appearance. At this time he must have been seen by two or three
hundred persons on the beach and on the heights each side, some of whom
were very favourable situated to observe him.”

“I am very respectfully”

“your obedient servant”

“Samuel Cabot.”

The Editor of the American Journal, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, adds:

“It is almost superfluous to add, that Mr. Cabot and his friend Col.
Perkins, are gentlemen of the first standing and consideration.”

On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. PERKINS, when on board the _Ann Marie_,
wrote a letter to his friend Mr. JNO. P. CUSHING; he published it in
the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of 1848, Nov. 25; a passage of it runs as
follows:

“Besides the instances I have mentioned, there were many others
reported of his having been seen the same year. In that year, 1817,
although there were several reports of his having been seen, yet they
were not well authenticated, nor do I place any confidence in them.”

“In the month of August, in the last year, he again made his appearance
in our vicinity, and under very satisfactory circumstances. The weather
being hot, many of our citizens resorted to Nahant to pass a few
weeks. On the number were Mr. and Mrs. Cabot and their children. Mr.
Cabot had a view of him for more than half an hour at one time. He was
in a chair, and had reached what is termed the long beach, when he
saw several persons collected half a mile from him, which called his
attention to the object which occupied them. Mr. C. had heard me often
describe the view I had had of the serpent in 1817, and recognized in
what was visible just without the breakers, and within a quarter of
a mile, the monster which was supposed by many to exist nowhere but
in the imaginations of those who had reported to have seen him. Mr.
Cabot immediately rode back to Nahant; took Mrs. Cabot into his chair
and returned to the beach; but the animal was no longer visible. By
this time the inhabitants of Lynn had assembled to the number of some
hundreds, on and near the beach, and all the visitors of Nahant were
upon the alert. Having given over the hope of seeing him, Mr. Cabot
was returning to leave his wife at her lodgings, when, to their mutual
delight, he came in view just without the surf of the little beach, and
within a quarter of a mile or less of where they stood.”

“Marshal Prince, James Magee, and many persons of my acquaintance
had a fine sight of him, and all agreed in their account of him in
the principal particulars. They all agreed as to the rapidity of his
movements, being very much beyond anything living they had ever seen.
The apparent bunches on his back they consider as arising from the
construction of his body, and that the movement was vertical and not
horizontal. At one time his head was about two or three feet above
water, but soon depressed to the level of the sea. When not swimming to
be in pursuit of his prey, his motion was not rapid. They saw him turn
and bring his body into a letter S, the head being at right angles with
the tail. From fifteen to twenty three bunches, or apparent bunches,
were counted by the different persons who saw him, and his size round
they thought to be that of a common firkin or half barrel”.

“No one thought they saw the whole of the body at a time, the tail
seeming always to be considerably under water. The greatest length
given to him was one hundred feet and no one who had a good sight of
him thought him less than eighty feet in length. If the number of
protuberances is twenty-three (and it seems there are at least this
number), and calculating them to be distant from centre to centre four
feet (and I think, considering their thickness, they cannot be less
than this), he would be ninety two feet long. They all agreed, too, as
to the colour being quite dark, approaching to black.”

In a letter from Dr. BOOTT to Dr. HOOKER, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826,
part of which was published in the _Edinb. Journ. of Sc._, we read that
he visited Boston to gather testimony from eye-witnesses. He then says:

“During this visit I distinctly remember the news coming from Nahant
one morning, of the Serpent being in the bay of that place, distant
about sixteen miles from Boston. Many hurried down to see it, and
among them my brother Mr. James Boott. I was prevented from some cause
leaving Boston. My brother reported that he distinctly saw a large
serpent, about a mile from the shore; and that thousands were watching
its motion on the beach and rocks. The first idea that occurred to my
brother was that it was a horse swimming, its head at the time bearing
a resemblance to that of the latter creature. He afterwards saw the
undulating line of its back, and remained several hours watching the
animal. Colonel Perkins of Boston, his wife, and family, were present
at this time, as far as I recollect.”

So we have of this appearance three different statements of respectable
persons, who distinctly saw the animal on the same spot.

This appearance of the sea-serpent near Nahant is also mentioned in Dr.
HAMILTON’s _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839.

* * * * *

=64=.--1819, August.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE says in his _Travels
through Sweden, &c._, at p. 207:

“I there” (Stenesöen) “obtained from his” (PEDER GREGER’S) “son John
Greger, a young man, who employed himself in the fishery, still
further information respecting the sea-serpent; it was in August of
the preceding year, while fishing with others in the Vieg or Vegfjord,
that he saw it; at that time they were on shore, hauling in their nets,
and it appeared about sixty yards distant from them, at which they
were not a little alarmed, and immediately retreated. What was seen
of it above water, he said, appeared six times the length of their
boat, of a grey colour, and lying in coils a great height above the
surface. Their fright prevented them from attending more accurately to
other particulars. In fact they all fairly took to their heels, when
they found the monster so near them. The weather at the time was very
hot and calm. Farther to the south (at Stenesöen) he said it was seen
several times, and it remained there for a considerable period.”

* * * * *

=65=.--1819, August.--The same author at p. 216 of his volume relates:

“My honest boatmen who had brought me all the way from Leköe, a
distance of near sixty miles, now left me. Previous to their departure
they gave me the following account of the sea-serpent, which is here
inserted as they related it, without the least variation. They were
fishermen and had been up at the North Cape. During the time they
remained there they saw the serpent twice, once at no very great
distance from them. It was of a grey colour; the head blackish, with
teeth. What they discerned of it they judged to be at least five times
the length of their boat, which is about thirty feet. It moved in large
folds on the water; and when they saw it, they rowed away from it as
fast as they could. The weather was very calm at the time.”

This is the most northern appearance of the sea-serpent. The teeth are
mentioned here, though not described.

* * * * *

=66=.--1819? August?--The same author at p. 222 of his _Travels_ tells
us:

“To the testimony of others respecting the existence of the
sea-serpent, I shall now add that of the bishop” (of the Nordlands and
Finmark) “himself, who was eye-witness to the appearance of two in the
bay of the Shuresund, or Sorsund, in the Drontheim _fjord_, about eight
Norway miles from Drontheim. He was but a short distance from them, and
saw them plainly. They were swimming in large folds, part of which was
seen above the water, and the length of what appeared the largest he
judged to be about 100 feet. They were of a darkish grey colour; the
heads hardly discernable, from their being almost under water; and they
were visible for only a short time. Before that period he had treated
the account of them as fabulous; but it was now impossible, he said,
to doubt their existence, as such numbers of respectable people, since
that time had likewise seen them on different occasions.”

Not a single fact that need astonish us. That _two_ were seen together
is not reported for the first time, as the reader will remember. The
swimming “in large folds, part of which was seen above water”, is a
very accurate description of the effect made by the swimming animals.
The colour is described as a darkish grey, which is exactly the colour
of the animal, when seen at a short distance. Their holding their heads
very low, only just above the surface of the water, is a common habit
of them too.

* * * * *

=67=.--1819? August?--The same author relates (p. 403):

“The last account respecting the existence of the sea-serpent I
received from him” (the sexton of Maasöe) “during our journey. He
was fishing, as he said, with others in the Mageröe-Sund, when they
discerned the monster of the deep, stretching out his bulk in many
a spiral fold, and basking on the surface of the water. Its colour
was dark and as to its length, he assured me, with looks of wonder
and almost of alarm, that it nearly reached from the Mageröe side
to the mainland opposite. In this measurement fear, doubtless, was
the principal agent; for as to any accurate observations made by
himself, they were out of the question. My friend the sexton was much
too prudent a man, to hazard any at such a juncture. A glance was
sufficient for him to commence his flight forthwith, as fast as his
arms would enable him.”

Of course I agree with Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE as to the exaggerated
dimensions attributed to the animal by the sexton of Maasöe. The words
“spiral folds”, of course, are wrong, the author meant the sinuosities
in which the animal moves. Its colour is here described dark, which
corresponds with so many other testimonies.

* * * * *

=68=.--1819? August?--At page 406 of the volume of this author we read
in a note:

“The account of the serpent, received by him” (Prösten DEINBOLT of
Vadsöe) “from several persons on that part of the coast, agreed with
those which have been already given.”

This, of course, is only a report of the appearance of the sea-serpent
near Vadsöe.

* * * * *

=69=.--1819, Aug. 26.--“_Extract of a letter from_ Mr. Cheever Felch,
Chaplan to the United States’ ship Independance of 74 guns, to the
Editor of the Boston Centinel.” (SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol.
II).

“Gloucester, August 26, 1819.

“Dear Sir.

“Others having taken in hand to give some account of the Sea-Serpent, I
know not why I should not have the same liberty. Being on this station,
in the United States’ schooner Science, for the purpose of surveying
this harbor, we were proceeding this morning down the harbor, in the
schooner’s boat; when abreast of Dallivan’s Neck, William T. Malbone,
Esq. Commander of the Schooner, seeing some appearance on the water,
said--“_there is your sea-serpent_”, meaning it as a laugh on me, for
believing in its existence; but it prooved to be no joke. The animal
was then between thirty and forty yards distance from us. Mr. Malbone,
Midshipman Blake, myself, and our four boatmen, had a distinct view
of him. He soon sunk; but not so deep but we could trace his course.
He rose again within twenty yards distance of us, and lay sometime on
the water. He then turned, and steered for Ten Pound Island; we pulled
after him; but finding that he was not pleased with the noise of our
oars, they were laid in, and the boat skulled. We again approached very
near him. He continued some length of time, playing between Ten Pound
Island and Stage Point. As he often came near the Point, we thought
we could get a better view of him there, than from the boat, of which
he seemed conspicuous. Mr. Malbone and myself landed; and the boat
was sent to order the schooner down, for the purpose of trying what
effect a twelve pound carronade would have upon him. He did not remain
long after we landed, so that I was unable to effect my intention, of
ascertaining, accurately, his length, with my instruments. From my
knowledge of aquatic animals, and habits, and intimacy with marine
appearances, I could not be deceived. We had a good view of him, except
the very short period while he was under water, for half an hour.--His
colour is a dark brown, with white under the throat. His size, we
could not accurately ascertain, but his head is about three feet in
circumference, flat and much smaller than his body. We did not see his
tail; but from the end of the head to the fartherest protuberance, was
not far from one hundred feet. I speak with a degree of certainty,
from being much accustomed to measure and estimate distances and
length. I counted fourteen bunches on his back, the first one, say ten
or twelve feet from his head, and the others about seven feet apart.
They decreased in size towards the tail. These bunches were sometimes
counted with, and sometimes without a glass. Mr. Malbone counted
thirteen, Mr. Blake thirteen and fourteen, and the boatman about the
same number. His motion was sometimes very rapid, and at other times he
lay nearly still. He turned slowly, and took up considerable room in
doing it. He sometimes darted under water, with the greatest velocity,
as if seizing prey. The protuberances were not from his motion, as they
were the same whether in slow or rapid movement. His motion was partly
vertical and partly horizontal, like that of fresh water snakes. I have
been much acquainted with the snakes in our interior waters. His motion
was the same. I have given you in round numbers, one hundred feet,
for his length, that is, what we saw; but I should say he must be one
hundred and thirty feet in length, allowing for his tail. There were
a considerable number of birds about the sea-serpent as I have seen
them about a snake on shore. That there is an aquatic animal in the
form of a snake, is not to be doubted. Mr. Malbone, till this day, was
incredulous. No man would now convince him, there was not such a being.
The sketch or picture of Marshal Prince, is perfectly correct. I could
not, with my own pencil, give a more correct likeness.”

“With respect”

“Your obedient servant”

“Cheever Felch”

“Major B. Russell.”

I will not contest Mr. FELCH’S opinion about Mr. PRINCE’S figure! As
to the letter itself there is not a single statement which can detract
from or add to our present notions of the sea-serpent.

In 1846 Col. T. H. PERKINS, of whom we have spoken more than once,
requested Mr. BOLTON, who was first Lieutenant of the _Independence_ in
1819, to send him some particulars about this appearance. Mr. BOLTON
promptly replied under date of July 14, 1846. This letter, published by
Col. PERKINS in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, runs as
follows:

“In the year 1817 I was the first lieutenant of the Independence, of 74
guns, then lying in the harbour of Boston.”

“In the course of the spring or summer a party of officers were
detailed, by order of Commodore Bainbridge, to survey the coast of the
bay, to a limited extent northeastward and outside of the light-house.”

“The officers selected for this duty were the sailingmaster of the
ship, Wm. T. Malbone, and the Rev. Cheever Fetch, the instructor of the
midshipmen.”

“To assist in the service several of the most competent and elder
midshipmen were designated. As they alternated periodically with other
gentlemen of the same grade, I cannot with any degree of precision
venture to name them. I hope that some of them are yet living, and,
further, that they have advanced in professional distinction. There
were also added a sufficient number of seamen and boys.”

“Commodore Bainbridge, Mr. Malbone and Mr. Felch died some years ago.”

“I recollect that on the first occasion, when the Lynx returned to
the Independence, of which ship she was the tender, that Mr. Malbone
reported as having seen a monstrous sea-animal, not before known to
him, of the snake species; the length doubtful, but estimated at some
eighty or more feet; and added as an accident, that the officers and
men employed in a small boat to carry out the soundings had returned in
haste, and indeed alarm, to the Lynx, which was at anchor.”

“These statements were corroborated by Mr. Felch, the officers and
crew.”

“Subsequently it was seen several times, by some of the party, who,
being soon satisfied that it was harmless approached comparatively
near, and no doubt gave me a minute description of its appearance as
it presented itself to them; but if so, the particular details have
escaped my memory.”

“These facts are all that I can with distinctness and certainty
mention. Wm. Compton Bolton, Captain in the Navy of the United States,
Saratonga Springs, July 14, 1846; to Hon. T. H. Perkins, Boston.”--

It cannot surprise us that in some particulars, as “in the year 1817”,
and in some others this letter does not agree with the foregoing letter
from the Rev. CHEEVER FELCH himself, as twenty-seven years had since
elapsed.

* * * * *

=70=.--1819, September?--Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT in a letter to Dr. HOOKER,
dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, and published in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._,
VI, 1827, says:

“I remember also that a letter appeared in the _Boston Centinel_, soon
after, published by an officer in the American Navy, who reported
that, on his return from a survey of some part of the coast, he saw,
when out of sight of land, a large serpent. He was so near that he
drew an outline of it, and that outline accompanied the paragraph.
When you showed me Mr. Warburton’s figure on the card, I at first
thought it was a copy of that of the _Centinel_. I can only add, for
your own satisfaction, that _I_ have no doubt of the existence of this
remarkable animal.”

As Dr. BOOTT is speaking of a visit at Boston in August 1819, the
words “soon after” of course signify in the latter part of August or
in the beginning of September. As the officer was “on his return”
and published his encounter in the _Boston Centinel_, the appearance
most probably occurred not far from Boston. The reader will find Mr.
WARBURTON’S drawing further on (n°. 83).

* * * * *

=71=.--1819, September 13?--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819).

“The great Sea-Snake has been seen again towards the middle of
September, in the bay of Massachusetts, and three yellow collars
observed on his neck, which has led some to believe it might be
another individual and species; but this circumstance might have
been overlooked before. It is not stated whether it had streaks of a
lighter hue on the body, as the first was represented to have by some
witnesses. It is therefore likely that the two characters of “streaks
of a lighter hue on the body and three yellow collars on the neck”, may
be added to its description. The collars are described as about two
inches broad, and one foot apart.”

The three yellow collars observed on its neck may be explained as
follows: The animal has a hairy skin, as we have already seen, like a
seal-skin. Now, when the neck is wet and contracted by the animal, its
skin gets wrinkles, of course running round the neck, as is also the
case in sea-lions. Those parts of these wrinkles, which are deepest,
remain wet for a very long time, because they are not exposed to the
air; those, however, which are highest, if we may use this expression,
are not only most exposed to the air, but the hairs on those parts
diverge and dry as soon as possible; and--when dry, they have a yellow
greyish colour. If the animal now stretches its neck, it may show
one, two, &c., even eight or more yellow-coloured collars round its
dark brown neck, which may have a breadth of about two inches and
a distance of one foot between them. This phenomenon or appearance,
as already stated, is often to be seen in our zoological gardens on
sea-lions and seals.

* * * * *

In the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819, Dr. RAFINESQUE says:

“Dr. Mitchill informs me that General Hawkins has written a memoir
on the sea-serpent of Massachusetts, which he has sent, with a
drawing, to Sir Joseph Banks; it is a paper of some length, and much
interest, as it relates facts, and all the circumstances attending the
appearance and natural history of those huge animals, taken upon oath
of eye-witnesses. He attempts to prove, with much probability, that
several individuals have been seen, and two at least, if not three
species; one with three collars, another without any, and a smaller
one.”

In SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, 1820, I have found the
following extract from a letter to the Editor, dated Boston, April 8,
1820:

“I have lately received a letter from Sir Joseph Banks, written by his
own hand, in which he expresses his full faith in the existence of
our Serpent in the Sea, and not only as it regards himself, but his
friends, and he is grateful for every new communication I have given
him on that subject, and writes with the same enthusiasm that he did
several years ago. Although he is now very infirm.”

Evidently this was a letter from General HAWKINS.

Professor BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, the Editor of this journal adds:

“Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society of London, the
Companion of Capt. Cook, is now at a very advanced age but still
vigourous in his intellectual powers, and ardent in the promotion of
every species of useful knowledge.”

In Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through Sweden_, we find at p.
411:

“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated
relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally considered
as the fabric of American invention; and there are many, I believe,
in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not consider it in any other
light than that of a hoax. Judging, however, from the detailed
accounts of the circumstance which are preserved among the papers of
sir Joseph Banks, the principal facts appear to be these.”

And at p. 413:

“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted the
attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members was
deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of them. This
was accordingly done; and the above is the general substance of the
various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys. This gentleman,
who was a corresponding member of the Society, despatched to Sir
Joseph Banks copies of the whole of these, which are still preserved
in his library. Sir Joseph entered with warmth into this curious
investigation; and the minuteness, with which every particular was
supplied, showed how greatly he felt interested in the question.”

In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT wrote a letter to Dr. HOOKER, a part
of which was published in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI,
1827. Dr. BOOTT, after some general remarks, goes on to express himself
in the following terms:

“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph
Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal, and the
respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight of him.
The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet published
by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question as to the real
appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts, was put
to rest by that publication. There could be no doubt of the fact, and
the testimony of thousands who saw the animal _for one or two years
afterwards_, must have been sufficient to satisfy the most incredulous.”

“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph Banks,
that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast; at all
events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to him on the
subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate of a similar animal
in Pontoppidan’s _History of Norway_. I myself had no doubt of the
truth of the assertions of the early observers of it, for many of them
were known to me, and I was anxious to convince Sir Joseph of the
discovery of a new and remarkable animal. I therefore was in the habit
of sending him every information I could collect respecting it. In one
of my last visits to Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and
from the public papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe,
that Sir Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though
he continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake
(figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”

In October, 1828, Mr. MITCHILL read a paper before the New York Lyceum,
which paper will be found in our Chapter on Hoaxes. As we have already
observed, this paper also contains a particular account concerning the
letters addressed by General HUMPHREYS to Sir JOSEPH BANKS.

Again Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, asserts:

“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted a
copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance, to the late Sir
Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are still preserved.”

Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir JOSEPH BANKS
himself, neither in the _Transactions of the Royal Society of London_,
nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this Very Learned Body
to give me the loan of all the papers about the subject, or to publish
them in their next volume.

* * * * *

=72=.--1820, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through
Sweden, during the Summer of 1820_, relates at p. 263:

“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance
occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house, and thinking
little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had heard nothing for
some time, a young man, the master of a small fishing yacht, which
had just come in from Drontheim, joint our party; in the course of
conversation, he mentioned that a few hours before, whilst close to
Hundholm, and previous to his entering the harbour, two sea-snakes
passed immediately under his yacht. When he saw them he was on the
deck, and, seizing a handspike, he struck at them as they came up
close to the vessel on the other side, upon which they disappeared.
Their length was very great, and their colour greyish; but from the
very short time they were visible, he could not notice any other
particulars. He had no doubt of their being snakes as he called them,
and the circumstance was related entirely of his own accord.”

* * * * *

=73=.--1820, August.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361, we read:

“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from the
piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”

* * * * *

=74=.--1820?--The following report was published in the _Zoologist_ of
1849, p. 2460.

“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to me a
subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view of
gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would
hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this sort
has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without being
at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the same fate;
yet if it can afford any amusement or information for intelligent and
scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely give it to the
press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the truth of what I am
about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P. M., being then in latitude
46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning, observed an immense body on the
surface of the water, apparently without motion, but water spouting
from it, not unlike the blowing of a whale. I immediately got my glass;
and, from its rugged appearance and showing nothing where the water
issued from, I began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been
the vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and,
so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be taken
in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s company
were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought not unlikely,
and went into the main cat harpens to look more distinctly at it: the
appearance then was still steady, but irregular. I saw neither head nor
tail above the water, but a hump from one extreme resembling the rise
or point of rather a triangular rock: this tapered to a distance,--I
certainly believe 70 or 100 feet, and the water broke over it, a
little beyond it: it discharged the spout; but nothing showing itself,
undetermined in mind what it could be, or whether I should tack the
ship, it all at once disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head
and neck--resembling something of a serpent’s--made its appearance,
erected about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a
survey towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of
conjecture and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the
above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan Townsend,
was in the main top, and saw the creature I have described, and would
feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.--George Sanford, Lieutenant
R. N.”

[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated by
Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above statement, but it
is presumed to have been written about the year 1820. Lieut. Sanford
then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady Combermere.--E. N.”]

No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that the
appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.--The act of breathing
of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under the
surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance generally
called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head just at
water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water issued from”.
The rugged appearance may have been caused by the animal lying with
several bunches on its back, as afterwards was also reported by the
Lloydsteamer _Kätie_ (n°. 154) or by its having a mane, extending all
along the neck and back. The “hump from one extreme resembling the
rise or point of rather a triangular rock” must have been the animal’s
head which it lifted up just above the surface. Nearly the same
appearance will be observed in the figure of one of the officers of
H. M. S. _Plumper_ (fig. 31). Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat
exaggerated, the “head and neck resembling something of a serpent’s
erected about six feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking
a survey towards the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all
comment superfluous; all these characters have more than once been
reported of this creature.

* * * * *

In the _Philosophical Magazine and Journal_, Vol. LVII, 1821, we find
an extract from the numerous reports communicated by Prof BIGELOW in
SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the Arts_, Boston, Vol. II,
1820, May.

* * * * *

We have already quoted MILTON, who in his _Paradise Lost_, printed
in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst others the
sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than once cited
by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but express my
surprise at this custom, for there is not one single word or expression
in MILTON’S verses, which is taken from accounts, reports, or tales of
the sea-serpent itself. WALTER SCOTT, however, in his _Pirate_: which
was published in 1821, vol. I, chapt. II, says a few words about the
animal, which are so correct, that they must have been taken from some
or other report:

“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”

“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths of
Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with a mane
like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering eyes, raised
mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder or for victims.”

The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a mane are
known characters, and the rising from the depths high into the air,
standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment all around, evidently
taking a survey, is a habit observed more than once.

* * * * *

=75=.--1821, Summer.--Col. T. H. PERKINS on the 13th. of Oct. 1820,
when on board the _Ann Marie_, wrote a letter to his friend JNO P.
CUSHING, which he published in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of an
individual on the 6th. of August, 1848. The different parts of this
letter are inserted partly in our Chapter on Hoaxes (p. 20, 21) and
partly in n^o. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 63. The Editor of the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_ now goes on:

“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent
gives letters from several members of his family, who _the next summer_
had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the appearance of the
animal is minutely described. This correspondence is very interesting;
the description of the animal agrees entirely with that given above,
and we regret that want of space must prevent the insertion of it.”

It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published.
Perhaps they are now lost for ever!

* * * * *

=76=.--1821.--In a letter from WILLIAM WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY,
Esq. printed in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI, 1827, p.
130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:

“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak Coffin, who
discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have
been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about five years back.”

Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.

* * * * *

=77=.--1821, September 25? In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Jan. 1822, I, we
read:

“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years, has been
clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses, and it
is described by all of them and the descriptions agree pretty well with
each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished merchant of Nantucket, Mr.
Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration of it on oath before the justice
of the peace.”

* * * * *

=78=.--1821?--Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_
says at p. 565:

“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the Isle of
Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”

This report is also quoted by Dr. R. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious
Carnivora_, 1839.

* * * * *

=79=.--1822.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden,
&c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:

“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark, founded
on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have appeared
off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen by many of
the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal is described
as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of a full grown
ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather when it made its
appearance, calm and fine.”

Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour, the
calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.

* * * * *

Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden &c._, 1823, at
p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement of the
fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820) with those,
related by PONTOPPIDAN. The passage runs as follows:

“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of Maasöe)
“gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share of attention.
It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at any time they
found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds of the serpent, and
obliged to pass over a part of it, never to attempt making their way
between the openings, caused by part of the body of the animal being
concealed under water, for fear of its raising and upsetting the boat.
On the contrary, they rowed with all their strength against one of
the visible folds, as the serpent, as soon as he feels the touch of
the boat, naturally sinks down and enables it thus to pass over in
safety. It will appear perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking
afterward into Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very
substance of what is related in his work, which may be said to be
unknown in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”

Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the
scrupulousness with which fables are told unchanged! The passages from
PONTOPPIDAN referred to by our traveller have been discussed by me--p.
134.

For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all that has
been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to insert all
that Mr. BROOKE further says about it. After having repeated nearly all
what PONTOPPIDAN mentioned about it, he goes on:

“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts related in
the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable person
can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary dimensions,
and in all probability of the serpent tribe, having been repeatedly
seen by various persons along the Norway and Finmark coasts. These
accounts, for the most part, have been given verbally from the mouths
of the fishermen; an honest and artless class of men who, having no
motive for misrepresentation, cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive.
Could this idea, however, be entertained, the circumstance alone, of
their assertions having been so fully confirmed by others in more
distant parts, would be sufficient to free them from any imputation of
this kind. The simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full
700 miles of coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have
been received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an
animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce some
degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several relations
as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions, the state
of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars are so
fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable intervening
distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied of the truth of the
main fact. Many of the informants, besides, were of superior rank and
education; and the opinions of such men as the _Amtmann_ (Governor) of
Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe, _Prösten_ (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and
the Bishop of Nordland and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought
not to be disregarded. There does not appear the least probability,
or even possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on
the northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent.
The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well known
to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity in shape,
appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be sufficiently
obvious.”

Remarkable is the fact that Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE considers the animal
to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with which he of
course means _snakes_.

“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account
received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected, the
serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short
distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part
of that month, and having been seen during that time by the whole
of the population of the island. The information collected, indeed,
is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining so
considerable a time; but the talent of observation in fishermen is far
from considerable, and their curiosity is easily gratified. To these
circumstances, and the general dread entertained of this animal, may
be attributed the want of any attempt to take it. At the neighbouring
island of Krogöen also, it will be remembered, that its having appeared
was confirmed; and this would be sufficient at least to cause a
wavering in the minds of those naturalists, who have treated former
accounts as the mere offspring of imagination.”

We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but
their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from
investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or more
curious person would do!

Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the
Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently MILTON’S
_Paradise Lost_ led him. I am far from admitting any relation between
the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He further quotes KNUD
LEEMS (p. 138), OLAUS MAGNUS (n°. 1, p. 105, 109), HANS EGEDE (n°. 5),
ERIC PONTOPPIDAN, and speaks of the letters written to and preserved in
the library of Sir JOSEPH BANKS, then president of the Royal Society,
by General HAWKINS and General HUMPHREYS.

I am also obliged to repeat here _in extenso_ his plea for the
sea-serpent (p. 415-419):

“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally
guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and there
are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who, if told
of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen feet,
such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced one like
the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only stare with
astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of these assertions, as
if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but natural; their knowledge of
the world and its productions, deprived as they are of other means of
attaining it, must be confined to the narrow sphere they live in; and
the ideas they possess of life must necessarily be contracted.”

“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded by no
country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees with
admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature gradually
unfolding itself to the researches of science, and finds his imperfect
catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the existence of some new
and extraordinary animal, which before was unknown to the world, or
considered as living in the imagination alone. By the exertions of the
present age, he has become acquainted with many creatures, in their
forms and habits the most singular and strange; and thus he is taught
never to deny the existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is,
by whatever he beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator;
and conscious, that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a
knowledge of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers
the various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects
produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of chemistry
and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea of that great
superior force, which not only sets in motion this master machine,
and indues it with powers of sense and reflection, but causes it to
act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation and reproduction
of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his researches regard
the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally prepared for the
wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid of the mikroscoop makes
known to him the existence of myriads of living creatures, some of
such incredible smallness, that the utmost powers of the magnifier can
with difficulty render them visible; and of which thousands if put
together, would not equal a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that
the human body itself is filled with them; and that the structure of
their own internal parts is equally complex and curious. When, however,
he reflects, that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may
perhaps contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter
tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look
forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted
to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of the
universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the deep gnoom
of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild inhabitants, he
sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of the Creator; whether
he meets with the elephant supporting its enormous bulk with peaceful
and dignified steps, or views the huge trunk of the stupendous boa
serpent, extended to the length of fifty feet, and viing in size with
the stately trees, between which it glides, the terror of all, and
the sovereign of the forest. The secrets of the great deep alone are
veiled from his inquiring eyes; and he regrets, that his structure
prevents him from cleaving, like the finny tribe, the watery fluid,
and gazing on the wonders below. Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay
even a new world, would there be opened to his inspection, did not
the grosser materials of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From
the marine animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his
observation, he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that
they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them; and
he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown regions of
the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit may be deemed but as
a spot, and the depth of which is not merely that of some miles, but
extends, for any thing that is known to the contrary, even from pole to
pole; there may be a variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even
those which, on this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that
their bulk may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they
inhabit; and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever
rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may
be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown to us,
subservient to the use and benefit of man.”

“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more interesting
and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel insensible, that I
have wandered very far, and that the thoughts, to which the sea-serpent
gave rise, have already comprised the whole globe.”

The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE are
translated in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.

* * * * *

=80=.--1824 January.--In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_
conducted by Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, Vol. 28, July, 1835, we read:

“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of great
intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who has
travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates,
the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he is permitted
to publish without the name of the author; with him he is, however,
well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his integrity and in his
freedom from any influence of imagination.”

“Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”

“To Prof. Silliman,--Dear Sir,--On my passage from the River La Plata
to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂° South, and 48°
West longitude, I saw what was first supposed to be a fish called an
Albicore; but, on further examination it was discovered to be a serpent
of which I cannot give a clearer description than to say that a common
dark coloured land snake is, in miniature, a perfect representation.
A light breeze prevailed at the time and the sea was quite smooth. It
first appeared within ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps,
two feet above the water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg;
the eye was distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about
half the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference
of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin was
seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail. The
serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head above water
and eyes directed towards the vessel.”

Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds to it a

“_Remark of the Editor._--The distance of the place of observation
being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this serpent must
have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land snake of South
America could not navigate so far out to sea if indeed they ever take
to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly quiet, and appeared quite
comfortable and at home on the waves. We must therefore consider this
case as settling the question of the real existence of a Sea-Serpent.
The absence of paddles or arms forbids us from supposing that this was
a swimming saurian.”

We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent of Prof.
SILLIMAN’S acquaintance agree with those which are already known to us,
and that the supposition or negative explanation of Prof. SILLIMAN,
that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian is at least premature,
for the assertion of the eye-witness that “nothing like a fin was
seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles or arms”, which of course
remained hidden under water!

* * * * *

=81=.--1824, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Oct. 1824, Vol. VIII,
n°. 168, p. 218, we read:

“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this summer. A
Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned by the Newburyport
Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad Cove at a distance of
about 100 feet. The head was two feet long and of a brown colour. Mr.
R. could distinctly observe the teeth in the mouth when opened. He
could not discern the tail, but several times, about thirty feet behind
the head, he observed parts of the animal in an undulating motion”.

Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned to have
been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.

* * * * *

=82=.--1825?--In a paper by Dr. T. S. TRAILL, printed in n^o. 44, May,
1854, of the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_, we read:

“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed by persons
worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance related to me
many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late Mr. Andrew Strang,
a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once, when on a deep-sea fishing,
he saw pass below his boat, at the depth of eight or ten feet, an
enormously long fish, of an eel-shape. It was swimming slowly with a
vermicular motion, and appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.”
It appeared to take no notice of them; but they hastily removed from
what they considered a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was
shy in mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should
class him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable
reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once on
the western coasts of Scotland.

Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put the
date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825, and
to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because of
all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented
by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast of
Scotland, of which I have three observations (n^o. 141, 142, 143). I am
convinced that the animal seen by Mr. ANDREW STRANG was a sea-serpent.
Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its _vermicular_ motion,
its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the animal moved only by
vertical undulations, holding its four flappers pressed against its
body, otherwise Mr. STRANG would have compared it with “an alligator
with flappers like those of a sea-turtle and with a long neck,” as did
Captain HOPE (n^o. 119.)

* * * * *

=83=.--1826, June 16.--(_New York Advertiser_ of June 21, 1826, and
_American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XI, 1826.)

“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived yesterday
from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank, five days since,
he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about ten rods from the
ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part which appeared out of water
about sixty feet in length. The head and protuberances were similar
to the representations which have frequently been given to him by
persons who had seen him near Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow
rate, and appeared unmindful of the ship. He was visible about seven
minutes to the passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A
certificate has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with
a drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description
of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the
witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal as a
sea-serpent.”

Of this occurrence we learn more in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._, Vol. VI,
1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. HOOKER:

“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present this
imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had the
pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury Hall,
Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the house of
Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman, proceeding in
his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards, New York packet,
Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding this sea-monster
on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s Banks. But his own plain
statement must be presumed far more satisfactory to every candid mind
than any account extracted from his letter.”

“Pentonville, 20th September 1826”

“Dear Sir,”

“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds, that you
were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as seen by me
in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of the same; in
compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a rough pencil drawing of
the monster as it appeared during the time when its head was elevated
above the water, and I shall state the particulars attending this novel
exhibition.”

[Illustration: Fig. 27.--The sea-serpent as seen by Mr. WARBURTON.]

“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of the
vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly smooth
was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock P.
M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in the water
a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a whale spouting,
and turning to the quarter whence the sound proceeded, we observed
the serpent in the position as it appears in the sketch, slowly
approaching at not more than the rate of two miles an hour, in a
straight direction. I suppose we were hardly going through the water
so fast, for there was scarcely a breath of wind. I must premise that
I had never heard of the existence of such an animal. I instantly
exclaimed, why, there is a _sea-snake_! “That is the sea-serpent”,
exclaimed the captain, “and I would give my ship and cargo to catch the
monster”. I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down
below, but only five or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the
daughter of a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up,
saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I was too
eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to the captain. In
the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel at about the distance
of 50 yards from us, neither turning his head to the right or left.
As soon as his head had reached the stern of the vessel, he gradually
laid it down in a horizontal position with his body, and floated along
like the mast of a vessel. That there was upwards of 60 feet visible,
is clearly shown by the circumstance, that the length of the ship was
upwards of 120 feet, and at the time his head was off the stern, the
other end (as much as was above the surface) had not passed the main
mast. The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two minutes
and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him for about twenty
minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous log of timber. His
motion in the water was meandering like that of an eel, and the rake he
left behind was like that occasioned by the passing of a small craft
through the water. We had but one harpoon on board, and the ship’s
long-boat was, for the time being converted into a _cow-house_. We
had two guns on board, but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel
of New York with Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of
such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet
of Boston about five years back; but as I assured him I had never
heard previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an
_Englishman_, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also
corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time. The
humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the dromedary. I
remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,

“William Warburton.”

I give in fig. 27 a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the paper of
Mr. HOOKER (_Edinb. Journ. Sc._ Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).

The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed up in
the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing of the
water was heard. The part which appeared out of water was about sixty
feet in length. It held its head some feet above the surface of the
water, swimming at a rate of two miles an hour, and showing bunches
on its back. After some moments it gradually laid down its head in a
horizontal position with its body, and floated along like the mast of
a vessel, evidently swimming with its body in a straight line, using
its flappers. The wake which it left behind was equal to that of a
small vessel. Nothing is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth,
otherwise the scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal
appeared not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any scales.
The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a right angle
with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled that of a horse,
if we take moreover in consideration that some individuals have a mane.
The individual seen by Captain HOLDREGE and Mr. WARBURTON evidently had
no mane.

* * * * *

=84=.--1826, June 18.--In the same letter from Mr. WARBURTON to ROBERT
BARCLAY there is a passage which we have omitted above and which runs
as follows:

“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off Cape
Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance to us. This
intelligence reached New York about four days after we arrived there,
and the description given exactly corresponds with the foregoing.”

Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.

* * * * *

In 1827 Dr. HOOKER wrote the following paper for the _Edinburgh Journal
of Science_, Vol. VI:

“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural
History, which at various periods have been detected, it is not
surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary,
qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think that
the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning
the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony which has
been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true that vague
reports had been spread abroad with regard to this enormous animal
long ere any just foundation was afforded for them, and indeed before
we had heard of any who professed to have seen it. This may have
very far conduced to produce that scepticism which now is perfectly
unwarrantable. We are so accustomed, whenever the subject is introduced
in conversation, to couple it with the preposterous fables of the
_Kraken_, that it would be extremely difficult to break down the
barriers against belief which prejudice has so long assisted to
support. The accounts of the most credible witnesses have thus been
rejected, although, “_to make assurance doubly sure_”, the generality
of them have been taken upon oath.”

“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences, have
been made within the last century, that it is astonishing how the
existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so marvellous
or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity of Bruce,
and we must leave it to time to do the same office with regard to
the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is this monster more
disproportionate to the extent of the sea than the elephant to that of
the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a solid bulk, (even according
to late most extravagant accounts), nearly approaching in magnitude
to that of the whale? Geology has been infinitely more fortunate than
zoology in many respects; theories only partially sustained have been
received; and while the recent discoveries of the _Plesiosaurus_ and
_Megalosaurus_ have made demands upon our powers of credence far
greater than the _serpent_, the descriptions of the latter animal have
received very little trust, and even much ridicule and contempt. In
general, however, it must be confessed, that people do not object to
the extraordinary proportions of such a creature, so much as to what
they consider the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We
trust to advance, in the sequel, such additional evidence to that
already presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely
the truth of the existence of such an animal,--an animal concerning
which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its more
immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery in which
it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting to the most casual
admirer of nature:--which must be interesting even from the element
in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored in its inmost recesses. We
can have so little information with regard to an animal which has so
mighty an habitation, that it acquires a grandeur in our estimation
far surpassing those which inhabit the earth. The monsters of the deep
appear so independent of our influence, and so far removed from any
connection with us, that any increase of our knowledge in reference to
them must be highly gratifying.”

“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported,
that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in America, an
animal, in general construction nearly resembling a serpent, had been
frequently seen. These rumours created a good deal of excitement,
insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of New England, it
was determined more fully to investigate the matter. The Honourable
Lonson Nash of Gloucester was appointed by a Committee to gather
together all the information which might be obtained.”

“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence which
his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From different
quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated
all the information which it was in their power to proffer, and all
declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon the accuracy of
their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting from those who
professed to have been personal witnesses of the monster: no weight was
given to their accounts deduced from the reports which were everywhere
circulated:--the unadorned and unexaggerated style in which their
statements were worded is of itself perfectly sufficient to win over
to all unqualified trust. The witnesses for the most part, unite in
ascribing a vertical motion to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was
no uncommon distance between it and the spectators, and it was never
seen except in weather the most calm and bright. But these facts,
along with the various depositions, have been long laid before the
public in the “Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New
England”, and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative
circumstances which have lately occurred, and which _we_ think puts
the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;--facts which
have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen, who
before were entirely sceptical.”

He next gives the letter from Mr. WARBURTON, of which we have
spoken above, and the letter from Mr. BOOTT, parts of which we have
inserted in n^o. 63 and 70. After the different passages from various
transactions and journals referring to the papers in Sir JOSEPH BANKS’
library (p. 220), Dr. HOOKER goes on:

“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all upon this
much agitated question; at least we think they must remove the ideal
connection between _our_ serpent, and

“That sea-snake, enormous curled,
“Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”

“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras
and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it
inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober fact
in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits of the
_God Thor_, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian mythology.
We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can now continue
to doubt with regard to facts attested by such highly respectable
witnesses.”

It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent
scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have
been in vain!

German translations of the whole of Dr. HOOKER’S paper as well as
of the letters from Dr. BOOTT and Mr. WARBURTON are in FRORIEP’S
_Notizen_, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n^o. 356, p. 49.

In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XII, June 1827, the
editor, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, says:

“To us it seems a matter of surprise, that any person who has
examined the testimony, can doubt the existence of the Sea-Serpent;
the documents communicated by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and published
in the second volume of this Journal, in 1820, were in our judgment
alone sufficient, to settle the question: the following letter is an
important additional document.”

This is the letter from Mr. WARBURTON to Mr. BARCLAY, reprinted
evidently from the _Edinb. Journal_ (n^o. 83, 84).

* * * * *

=85=.--1827, August 24.--According to FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ Vol. XIX,
n^o. 409, p. 193,

“the _Norwegische Handelszeitung_” (apparently of the 3d. or 4th. of
September, 1827), “contains fresh intelligence of the Sea-Serpent,
which confirms what has been published by Captain de Capell Brooke.”

“In the last days of the last month an animal was seen by several
trustworthy men in Christianiafjord, which, according to the
description, appears to be a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions.
On the 1st of this month five eyewitnesses were heard before the
justice of peace, and according to their agreeing declarations, the
animal held its head, which was dark and black, above the surface of
the water, and showed at least ten coils; there was a distance of
about twenty ells” (60 feet) “between each two coils, and the coils
themselves were about six ells” (18 feet) “so that the total length
of the animal may be estimated at 250 ells” (750 feet). “It moved
with about the swiftness of a common boat, rowed by a man in still
water, and caused a heavy rushing, like a strong motion in the water.
The thickness was about that of a large wine-barrel or pipe. No tail,
nor fins were observed. The rushing, it is believed, was caused by
the head. The coils were movable, i. e. what was above the water one
moment, was under it the next. Two eye-witnesses also declared, that
what they saw, was one coherent whole and were not several animals. On
Friday, the 24th. of August, at 10 o’clock A. M. the animal was seen
moving from the Vakkerö-Bay into the Bonnefjord. The animal was seen
from a distance of 200 fathoms.”

Although the dimensions are exaggerated, the other features of the
animal, viz. the head which is dark and black, and held above the
water, the undulating motion of the animal, its visible coils, the
rushing sound made by it, the apparent want of fins and the tail, which
were hidden under water, are correct and known to us.

* * * * *

=86=.--1827, August 26.--(The same journal, the same issue).

“And on Sunday, the 26th. of August at 7 o’clock in the evening it
came again from the fjord and swam towards the ship-wharf, passing
Liob-, and Principal-Islands.--It was then seen from a distance of 120
fathoms. The eye-witnesses declared, that, if asked, they were ready to
make oath to those declarations.”

* * * * *

=87=.--1827, September 3.--(The same journal, the same issue).--

“Christiania, Sept. 5.--The sea-serpent, mentioned in the
Monday-number, has been seen again the day before yesterday off
Nusodden.”

* * * * *

=88=.--1827, September 5.--(The same journal, the same issue).

“and to-day, off Lepager, by persons just as trustworthy as those who
were heard before the justice. Their affidavit in principal points
agrees with that of the former. A reward is offered to whoever will
kill it and bring it home.”

* * * * *

=89=.--1827, September 9.--(The same journal, the same issue).--

“Christiania, September 15.--Sunday last the sea-serpent appeared also
off Dröbak. Last week several persons saw large shoals of porpoises,
and therefore supposed that the alleged presence of the former could
not be true. But as among those who saw the sea-serpent, are many
fishermen and seamen, who know very well how to distinguish the several
sea-animals, and as it is not at all uncommon, that porpoises and
whales of the smaller kind appear here in the fjord, so there is no
reason to condemn the judicial concurrent testimonies.”

* * * * *

=90=, =91=.--1828? The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, when on a
journey in Norway, noted down the following evidence, which he
published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“HENRY INCE, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, says:

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

In Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, we read:

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in FRORIEP’S
_Notizen_, _Third Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847.

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

=114=.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--(Copied in the _Illustrated London News_
of June, 13, 1857, from the _Cape Argus_ of March, 14, 1857).

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

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

“Yours, &c.,” “Chas. A. Fairbridge.”

“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”

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

* * * * *

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

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

“P. W. Deinbolt.”

“Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”

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

* * * * *

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

“Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

“Intelligence from Plymouth, dated 7 Oct.”

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

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

“Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus,

Hamoaze, _Oct. 11_.”

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

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

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

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

“Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 28.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the officers of
the Daedalus.]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 29.--Another sketch of the same individual.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 30.--A sketch of the head of the same individual.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_The Great Sea-Serpent._

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

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

“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant

“Richard Owen.”

“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

he would

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I am, Sir, your obedient servant

“P. M’Quhae.

“Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.

“London, November 18.

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

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

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

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

It also appeared in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 25 1848.

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

“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain
M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite
satisfactory as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt
we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my object
in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to by Mr. Owen,
in his letter to the Editor of the _Times_, of November 9th., that it
was _not_ of the serpent species, because “they failed to detect any
undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of there being “no vertical
or horizontal undulations perceptible” stamps the character of the
animal; for it is well known by all observers of snakes in India, that
when the animal is in chase of game, small or great, or when scared
away, and moving at a _rapid_ pace, he is propelled entirely by the
tail, or the smaller half of the body, while the other portion, with a
curve of the head, is kept quite _stiff_--and this exactly corresponds
with the Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to
fifteen miles an hour, _apparently on some determined purpose_.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on the following page:

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

=120=.--1848, December 31.--(_Illustrated London News_ of 1849, April
14.)

“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”

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

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

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

A Naval Officer.”

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

[Illustration: Fig. 31.--The sea-serpent as seen by an officer of H. M.
S. _Plumper_.]

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

=122=.--1849, May 30.--(_Illustrated London News_, 1850, January, 19.--)

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

=126=.--1854, September 4.--(_Illustrated London News_, for 1855,
February 17.--)

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”

“_Imogen_, Channel, 15th. April, 1856.”

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

[Illustration: Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.--The sea-serpent as seen by
Capt. GUY of the _Imogen_.

Fig. 32 = Fig. 33, seen with a telescope.]

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

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

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

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

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

“Sir, your obedient servants,

“James Guy, Commander,

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

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

* * * * *

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

“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Edmund J. Wheeler and Co.”

[Illustration: Fig. 36.--The sea-serpent as seen by Captains TREMEARNE
and MORGAN.]

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

* * * * *

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

[Illustration: Fig. 37 and 38.--Two Positions of the sea-serpent as
seen by Dr. BICCARD.]

“Cape Town, 11th. March, 1857.

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

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

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

“Yours, &c.,

“Biccard.”

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

“George Henry Harrington, Commander.”

“William Davies, Chief Officer.”

“Edward Wheeler, Second Officer.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For _Circassian_ of course read _Castilian_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“G. H. Harrington.”

“To Rear-Admiral W. A. B. Hamilton”

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

=132=.--1858, January 26.--The _Illustrated London News_ of March 20,
1858, mentions:

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

His chapter on the sea-serpent will also be read with great interest.
But there are several facts which he seems not to have been able
to explain. In describing the animal, seen near Cape Ann, 1817, he
writes: “_no appearance of mane was seen by any_”, without giving
any explanation; he has evidently underlined these words to draw the
readers’ attention to this evidence, which is so quite contradictory
to others, mentioned before and afterwards. On the same page (p. 284)
when repeating the expression of one of the eye-witnesses “the mode
of progression was like that of a caterpillar”, Mr. Gosse inserts
his opinion in the following terms: “probably a looping or geometric
caterpillar”. Now my readers will be at one with me, that the motion
of the geometric caterpillar is the last with which that of the
sea-serpent can be compared! The rapid motion of a common caterpillar
of some butterfly, when tickled on its back part, will give the best
idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

The same report was published in the _Illustrated London News_ of 1863,
June, 13.--

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 39 and 40.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent as
seen by the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. TWOPENY.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“John Macrae”

“David Twopeny”

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

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

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

“D. Twopeny.”

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

It is evident that the greater part of the account of the _Times_ is
not reprinted in the _Zoologist_.

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 41.--The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and
a spermwhale”.]

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

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

This report translated into German appeared in the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Dec. 4th. 1875.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.

HORATIO THOMPSON.

JOHN HENDERSON LANDELLS.

OWEN BAKER.

WM. LEWARN.

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

GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.

OWEN BAKER.

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

HORATIO THOMPSON.

WILLIAM LEWARN.

OWEN BAKER.

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

GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.

WILLIAM LEWARN, _Steward_.

HORATIO THOMPSON, _Chief Officer_.

J. H. LANDELLS, _Second Officer_.

OWEN BAKER.

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 42.--Another representation of the so-called “Fight
between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”.]

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

[Illustration: Fig. 43.--The sperm-whale going down head foremost to
the bottom.--]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

The _Times_ of June 14th., 1877 mentions:

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 44.--The ridge of fins mentioned in the report of
the _Osborne_.]

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 45.--The sea-serpent as seen by Commander PEARSON
and Lieutenant HAYNES of the _Osborne_.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

[Illustration: Fig. 46.--The sea-serpent as seen by Major SENIOR of the
_City of Baltimore_.]

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 47.--Outline of the back of the sea-serpent as seen
by the Rev. H. W. BROWN.]

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

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

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

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

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

“H. C. Barnett.”

“Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.”

“Colonial surgeon.”

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

* * * * *

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 48 and 49.--Two positions of the sea-serpent as
seen by Captain DAVISON of the _Kiushiu Maru_.]

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

=154=.--1882, May 31.--(_Illustrirte Zeitung_ of 1st. of July, 1882).--

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 50.--The sea-serpent, as seen from the Stettin
Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_, near the Hebrides, drawn under the supervision
of the captain Mr. WEISZ, by the American animal-painter Mr. ANDREW
SCHULTZ.--]

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 51.--Outline of the sea-serpent seen near Little
Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. Mott after three different sketches.]

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

“F. T. Mott.”

“Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”

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

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

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

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

“William Barfoot.”

* * * * *

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

In the Preface Mr. LEE remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am unable to follow out such a reasoning.

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

Mr. HONIGH adds:

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

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

In a letter Mr. HONIGH tells me:

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

=162=.--1890, June.--_De Amsterdammer_, _Weekblad voor Nederland_, of
July 12th. of this year, mentions:

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

The various explanations hitherto given.

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

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

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

Fig. 52 shows my readers a porpoise.

As we read in SCHLEGEL’s _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, p.
517, note, PETER ASCANIUS in his _Icones rerum naturalium_ Cahier V,
Copenhague, 1805, says:

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 52.--Phocaena phocoena (Linné).--]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we read, 1879:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 53.--A row of porpoises.]

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

* * * * *

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

[Illustration: Fig. 54.--Scoliophis atlanticus; one sixth of its
full-size.]

[Illustration: Fig. 55.--Its head; full-size.]

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

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

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

Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the
Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as the
little _Scoliophis_. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which was not
bifid, while the tongue of _Scoliophis_ is so! And the most accurate
testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had _no_ scales!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, apparently believes
that the little _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was the spawn of the Great
Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:

“The Great Sea-Serpent.”

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in
his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_
(_Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced
of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are
merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family _Hydrophidae_),
of which I give a figure representing the _Hydrophis pelamidoides_,
and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this
head, proposing for them the names of _Pelamis megophias_ (_Megophias
monstrosus_) and _Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis_.

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 56.--Hydrophis pelamidoides.--]

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

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

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

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

But a few lines further on he also tells us:

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

In his _Leisure Time Studies_, the same writer returns to his favourite
idea:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ (1883) also says:

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

And Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is also inclined to
this hypothesis:

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

Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, too, asserts:

“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

[Illustration: Fig. 57.--Balaenoptera physalus, (Linné).--]

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 58.--Skeleton of Ichthyosaurus communis.]

[Illustration: Fig. 59.--Ichthyosaurus communis, restored.]

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 60.--Skeleton of Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus.]

[Illustration: Fig. 61.--Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, restored.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most probably Mr. NEWMAN took this suggestion from Mr. RATHKE’S above
mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which he inserted (N. B.!)
_in the same number of the Zoologist_; but it is, of course, _possible_
that this supposition really was the product of his own brain. We hope
that the latter was the case; but I only ask: why did he insert the
accounts of Mr. RATHKE in the _columns_ of the issue, and why _not_ the
above-mentioned suggestion; what was the reason to communicate it on
the _wrapper_? It makes on me the impression as if Mr. NEWMAN waited
to see if some one or other would perhaps find out that _both accounts
and supposition_ were _already six years old_! But, of course, I may be
mistaken!

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

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

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

HAWKIN’S _Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French coast, which
was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so fortunate as to fall
under the examination of so eminent a zoologist as De Blainville; and
hence its anatomy was well investigated. It has become celebrated as
the Toothless Whale of Havre (_Aodon Dalei_). Yet _no other example
of this species is on record_; and, but for this accident, a whale
_inhabiting the British Channel_ would be quite unrecognised.”

“Of another Whale (_Diodon Sowerbyi_), _likewise British, our entire
knowledge rests on a single individual_ which was cast on shore on the
Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the naturalist Sowerby.”

“There is a species of sperm whale (_Physeter tursio_) affirmed to be
frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of sixty
feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other _Cetacea_ by
its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by other remarkable
peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet _no specimen of this huge creature
has fallen under modern scientific observation_; and zoologists are not
yet agreed among themselves whether the high-finned Cachelot is a myth
or a reality!”

“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a Cetacean
which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing _two
dorsals_. The character was so abnormal that his statement was not
received; but the eminent zoologists attached to one of the French
exploring expeditions,--MM. Quoy and Gaimard,--saw a school of cetacea
around their ship in the South Pacific, having this extraordinary
character,--the supernumerary fin being placed on the back of the head.
Here is the evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a
most remarkable whale, _no carcase_ of which--_no skeleton--has ever
been recognised_.”

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 62.--Chlamydosaurus.]

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 63.--Iguana tuberculata.]

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, considering the _Plesiosaurus_
hypothesis, says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 64.--Catodon macrocephalus.]

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

* * * * *

[Illustration: Fig. 65.--Skeleton of Basilosaurus.]

[Illustration: Fig. 66.--Basilosaurus restored.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reader will remember (see n^o. 118) that it was _not_ the _long
neck_ of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, made by
the officers of the _Daedalus_, but the roundness of its neck, the
apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of the animal’s
head with that of a snake.

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

As I have not read the “description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_” I am not
able to discover the reason _why_ it struck Mr. Wood that the animal
seen from the _Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to
which _Zeuglodon_ belonged.

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

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

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

[Illustration: Fig. 67.--_Basilosaurus_, as imagined by Mr. SEARLES V.
WOOD JUN.]

It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had the
opportunity to read “a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”. Yet he
holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between the
extremely _short_ neck of _Basilosaurus_ and the extraordinarily _long_
neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events _must_ have struck him.

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

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

Finally he compares the animal seen from the _Osborne_ with a manatee!
Surely we must be a Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD JUN. to find this conception
_not_ preposterous!

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he expresses his firm opinion:

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

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

* * * * *

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

[Illustration: Fig. 68.--_Eurypharynx pelecanoides_, Vaillant.]

The figure represents the _Eurypharynx pelecanoides_ of VAILLANT,
taken from FILHOL’S _La vie au fond des mers_. GÜNTHER, in his
_Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger_ says on p. 262 of _Saccopharynx
Bairdii_ (synonym with _Saccopharynx flagellum_): “It is uncertain
whether these specimens are specifically distinct from _Saccopharynx
pelecanoides_ VAILLANT.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before my
readers the above figure as a representation of the general outlines of
_Saccopharynx flagellum_.

* * * * *

The =fifteenth= explanation is suggested by the same anonymous writer
on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance of the
sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether “some land species,
as the =boas=, among which are individuals of forty feet in length,
may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even transport
themselves from one continent to another”.

Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor
having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round the
trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of
some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles
Lyell from the _Zoological Journal_ of December, 1827. (Principles of
Geology.)”

Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_ after having shown
that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family
_Hydrophidae_) because “none of these are known to extend a few feet
in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the
Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, that a record
exists of a serpent having been seen in the very midst of the North
Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the historical fact of the boa
constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes the report of the sea-serpent
seen from the _General Coole_, (n^o. 25) and goes on saying:

“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that no
suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to have
occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and nothing
more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, “sixteen or
eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”

“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a true
serpent--perhaps the _Boa Murina_, one of the largest known, and of
very aquatic habits--carried out to sea by one of the great South
American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to the spot where it
was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion it affords us no help in
the identification of the _great unknown_.”

“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the
head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly that of
a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed to mark the
characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal from another,
are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at all events, is rather
negative than positive. For example, if a person of liberal education
and general information, but no naturalist, were to tell me he had
seen a creature with a head “exactly like that of a snake”, I should
understand him, that the head was not that of an ordinary beast, nor
of a bird, nor that of the generality of fishes; but I should have
no confidence at all that it was not as like that of a lizard as of
a serpent, and should entertain doubt whether, if I showed him the
form of head, even of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was
something like _that_.”

“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the colossal
animal seen from the _Daedalus_, and on other occasions, is a
serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A lengthened
cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything that appears, it
may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender cetacean, as anything. All
analogies and probabilities are against its being an ophidian.”

It is remarkable that Mr. GOSSE is disposed to believe that the
sea-serpent of the _General Coole_ was a boa, because the report speaks
of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of the
_Daedalus_ was a boa, though the captain, Mr. M’QUHAE, clearly tells
that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without any doubt, was that
of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference between “a snake” and “a
serpent with a head of a snake”!? What, in short, is the difference
between a _snake_ and a _serpent_? Though he attaches a considerable
value to the assertion of the captain of the _General Coole_ who speaks
of “_a snake, and nothing more_”, Mr. GOSSE “does not attach much value
to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by
them was _undoubtedly that of a snake_”. How to make this agree?

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ says: “a marine snake of
enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he means in
this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents the sea, as
the _Boa murina_, I have placed this supposition here, and I have not
considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.

As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate
vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the boas
are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.

* * * * *

The =sixteenth= explanation is given by Professor RICHARD OWEN, viz.:
that the sea-serpent is a swimming =large seal=. I refer my readers
to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain M’Quhae could
have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118). After having
enumerated all the characters of the animal seen by captain M’QUHAE,
taken from the figures as well as from the descriptions, Professor OWEN
comes to the conclusion: “All these are the characters of the head
of a warm-blooded mammal..... Guided by the above interpretation, of
the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a
cetacean mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size,
or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south,
and longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor OWEN further concludes: _Phoca
proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_. Very remarkable is the fact that a
few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This is
the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so
uncertain as to be inadmissable, _in an attempt to arrive at a right
conclusion as to the nature of the animal_”. (The italics are mine).

In fig. 69 I show my readers the _Macrorhinus leoninus_, LINNÉ, or
sea-elephant, of which _Phoca leonina_, LINNÉ, and _Phoca proboscidea_,
PÉRON, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated tubercular
proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which is seen in the
background of my drawing, have the common features of seals.

Mr. H. E. STRICKLAND and Mr. A. G. MELVILLE in the note added to their
dissertation on the Dodo, in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural
History_, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say of Prof.
OWEN’S letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation of the
circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and briefly,
but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the Great
Sea-Serpent generally.”

[Illustration: Fig. 69.--_Macrorhinus leoninus_ (LINNÉ).]

Captain M’QUHAE, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of a seal.
His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I therefore
refer my readers to it (n^o. 118).

Mr. FRORIEP, in his _Notizen_, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, 1849,
after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement of
Lieutenant DRUMMOND, from that of Captain M’QUHAE, from the hoax of the
_Daphne_, from the suggestion of Mr. MANTELL, from that of Prof. OWEN,
&c. &c. finally concludes:

“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is still
fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent;
yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must be a large
sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a snake; but whether
this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to the family of the
amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful after the objections of
Prof. OWEN.”

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_ treats of the
seal-hypothesis in the following manner:

“Among animals, the _Vertebrata_ are the only classes supposable.
But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but _Mammalia,
Reptilia_, _Pisces_,--there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning
it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of
lengthened form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each has
the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”

“Let us, then, look at the _Mammalia_. Here Professor Owen would place
it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost the force of
an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption if I venture
to examine the decision of one whom I greatly respect. It is true,
his reasoning applies directly only to the creature seen from the
_Daedalus_; but we are bound to consider the exigencies not only of
that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated cases.”

“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:--“Head with
a _convex, moderately capacious cranium_, short obtuse muzzle, _gape
not extending further than the eye_; eye rather small, round, _filling
closely the palpebral aperture_; colour, dark brown above, yellowish
white beneath; surface smooth, _without scales_, _scutes_, or other
conspicuous modifications of hard and naked cuticle; nostrils not
mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by _a crescentic mark at the
end of the nose or muzzle_; body long, dark brown, not undulating,
without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of
a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.”

“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a
warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or
fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on the back to a
horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing of hair; and,
guided by this interpretation, the Professor judges that the animal was
not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”

“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, more than
from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that this diagnosis
was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made _from the life_, under
the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing could be more legitimate
than such a use of them. But surely it has been overlooked that they
were made under no such circumstances. Only one of the published
representations was original; and this was taken “immediately _after_
the animal was seen”. That is, one of the officers, who could draw,
went below immediately, and attempted to reproduce what his eye was
still filled with. Now, what could one expect under such conditions?
Of course, the artist was not a zoologist, or we should have had a
zoologist’s report. Would the drawing so produced be of any value?
Surely yes; of great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful
representation of the _general appearance_ of the object seen, but
nothing more; its form, and position, and colour, and _such_ of the
details _as the observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down_,
so to speak, _in his mind_, would be given; but a great deal of the
details would be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an
object before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles,
relative distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them
down _seriatim_; ever looking at the part of the original on which he
is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was open
to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but necessarily
vague, idea of the whole before him as the original from which he
drew. Who is there that could carry all the details of an object in
the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, too, under strong
excitement? This was not the case even of a cool professional artist,
called in to view an object for the purpose of depicting it; in all
probability the officer had not thought of sketching it till all was
over, and had made no precise observations, his mind being mainly
occupied by wonder. He sits down, pencil in hand; he dashes in the
general outline at once; now he comes to details,--say the muzzle, the
facial angle;--of course, his figure must have _some_ facial angle,
_some_ outline of muzzle; but probably he had particularly noticed that
point. What shall he do? there is no original before him, a glance at
which would decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or
three forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer,
with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the head?” and
then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so of other details.”

“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making a caricature.
I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed for nearly forty years
to draw animals from the life; and the public are able to judge of my
power of representing what I see; but I am quite sure that if I were
asked to depict an object unfamiliar to me, which I had been looking at
for a quarter of an hour, without thinking that I should have to draw
it, I should do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed
the officer to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your
acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional
artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take him into
your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful thing in blossom;
keep him looking at it for some ten minutes without a hint of what you
are thinking of; then take him into your drawing-room, put paper and
colours before him, and say, “Make me a sketch of that plant you have
just seen!” When it is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give
you the characters of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare
it yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous
blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general
correctness.”

“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the sketch
made on board the _Daedalus_ must be for minute characters; and
particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked with
italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove the
mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters could not
possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ distance. I say
“_mainly_ relied on”; because there is the manelike appendage yet to
be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of a
mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it decides the question,
however, I will presently examine.”

“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in which the
creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to me at all to
resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted cranium”. The summit
of the head does not rise above the level of the summit of the neck; in
other words, the _vertical_ diameter of the head and neck are equal,
while there are indications that the occiput considerably exceeds the
neck in _transverse_ diameter. This is not the case with any seal, but
it is eminently characteristic of eels, of many serpents, and some
lizards. Let the reader compare the lower figure (_Illustrated London
News_, Oct. 28, 1848) with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s
_British Fishes_ (ed. ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the
scincoid lizards (the Jamaican _Celestus ociduus_, for instance) is not
at all unlike that represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short,
but a little more pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this
point the Captain’s assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to
Professor Owen, he distinctly asserts that “the head was _flat_, and
not a capacious vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant
Drummond, _published before any strictures were made on the point_,
says, “the head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top,
perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”

“With regard to the “mane”. The great _Phoca proboscidea_ is the only
seal which will bear comparison with the _Daedalus_ animal in question,
reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers declare that
upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at the surface; but
Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance of the water
produced by progression induced an illusive appearance of a portion of
this length. But how much? Suppose all behind thirty feet, the extreme
length of the elephant seal. Then it is impossible the animal could
have been such a seal, for the following reason. The fore paws of the
seal are placed at about one-third of the total length from the muzzle;
that is, in a seal of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle.
But _twenty_ feet of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and
yet no appearance of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head
to have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming
sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); and
besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”

“But the great _Phoca proboscidea_ has no _mane_ at all. For this, we
must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two kinds
are recognized under this name, _Otaria jubata_ and _Platyrhynchus
leoninus_; though there is some confusion in the names. Neither of
these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, about five
feet would be the utmost that could project from the water in swimming.
Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant officers to have magnified
the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; I fear even then it will not
do. For the mane in these animals is a lengthening and thickening of
the hair on the occiput and on the neck, just as in the lion. But the
“serpent’s” mane was not there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of
the head” says Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says
Captain M’Quhae.”

“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present
possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”

I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. GOSSE in discussing
the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may add: _especially
of the sea-serpent seen by Captain_ M’QUHAE, was prepossessed with his
idea of the sea-serpent being an _Enaliosaurian_.--Mr. GOSSE points
out that the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal; but he
does _not_ fix the reader’s attention to the fact that if this were
really the case, the estimation of the length of the head by Lieutenant
DRUMMOND at “ten feet” and that of the diameter of the neck by Captain
M’QUHAE at “sixteen inches” don’t agree at all!--In none of the reports
of the animal of the _Daedalus_ there is question of the “serpent”
being “twenty feet projected from the water”; it is only stated that
the head was kept four feet above the water.--Neither do the reports
mention _how much_ of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. GOSSE
says “an equal length”.--Lieutenant DRUMMOND did _not_ say that the
_mane_ was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the gallant
officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!--

Prof. OWEN relying upon the descriptions of Captain M’QUHAE and
drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their statements
to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, absolutely
rejects the estimation of the length of the animal at “sixty-feet at
least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly come to another
conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, and to the question:
“which mammal could it have been? his reply could not be otherwise
than: “a large seal”. It is evident that for this reason he recalled
to his mind all the sea-mammals known to him, but he seems to have
totally overlooked the possibility of the existence of sea-mammals
unknown to him!!! The conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads
the Professor to write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses
might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”.
The Professor would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had
examined _all_ the reports about the animal, and _all_ that had been
written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a thorough
investigation a sceptic _must_ remain a sceptic.

I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. The
latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant has
no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these characters are very
prominent in the sea-serpent.

* * * * *

The =seventeenth= explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is
nothing else but a gigantic =sea-weed=, detached from the bottom of the
sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. In the
_Zoologist_ of that year, p. 2541, we read the following statement of
Captain HERRIMAN:

“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship _Brazilian_, now lying near
the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the following curious
and interesting statement:--

“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong
south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. the ship
was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, being about
forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, R. N., is said to
have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight o’clock on that morning,
whilst the captain was surveying the calm, heavy, rippleless swell of
the sea through his telescope, the ship at the same time heading N.
N. W., he perceived something right abeam, about half a mile to the
westward, stretched along the water to the length of about twenty-five
or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady,
sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above
the waters, had something resembling a mane, running down to the
floating portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out
into a sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the
monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly the same
latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had fallen in with
the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately called his chief
officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, who, after surveying
the object for some time, came to the unanimous conclusion that it must
be the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae. As the _Brazilian_ was
making no headway, Mr. Herriman, determining to bring all doubts to an
issue, had a boat lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together
with Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, who
acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they approached
the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow of the boat armed
with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. The combat, however, was
not attended with the danger which those on board apprehended; for
on coming close to the object it was found to be nothing more than
an immense piece of sea-weed, evidently detached from a coral reef,
and drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the westward
in this latitude, and which, together with the swell left by the
subsidence of the gale, gave it the sinuous, snake-like motion.”

“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity of
examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” account
of the great sea-serpent,--Mr. Herriman himself admitting that he
should have remained under the impression that he had seen it. What
appeared to be the head, crest, and mane of the _immensum volumen_,
was but the large root which floated upwards, and to which several
pieces of the coral reef still adhered. The Captain had it hauled on
board, but as it began to decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now
regrets that he had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of
exhibition in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the
tide and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”

Again we read in the _Times_ of February 13th., 1858, republished also
in the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5990:

“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington,
of the ship _Castilian_, stating his belief that he had seen the great
sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened by the
fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship _Daedalus_
near the same position. The following circumstance which occurred on
board the ship _Pekin_, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & W. Smith, on her
passage from Moulmein, may be of some service respecting this “queer
fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E.,
nearly calm, saw, about half a mile on port beam, a very extraordinary
looking thing in the water, of considerable length. With the telescope
we could plainly discern a huge head and neck, covered with a long
shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out
of the water. This was seen by all hands, and declared to be the
great sea-serpent. I determined on knowing something about it, and
accordingly lowered a boat, in which my chief officer and four men
went, taking with them a long small line in case it should be required.
I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to regard
their approach. At length they got close to the head. They seemed to
hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the monster all the
time ducking its head, and showing its great length. Presently the boat
began pulling towards the ship, the monster following slowly. In about
half an hour they got alongside; a tackle was got on the mainyard and
it was hoisted on board. It appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but
so completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen
inches long, that we had it some time on board before it was discovered
to be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches
diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head of
an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem alive.
In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had rather an
offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been a short time in
England when the _Daedalus_ arrived and reported having seen the great
sea-serpent,--to the best of my recollection near the same locality,
and which I have no doubt was a piece of the same weed. So like a huge
living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my
sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the
great sea-snake.” Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10,
1858.”--

The Editor of the _Zoologist_ adds the following quotation from
HARVEY’S _British Algae_, p. 27, however, not as an explanation of
the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer in its
existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain SMITH and
to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence of these
large weeds. We do the same.

“The plants of this family (_Laminariaceae_) are almost all of large
size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk any other
marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our own coasts have
frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds expanding from
their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong (_Chorda_)
often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions are small,
compared with their kindred on the shores of the Pacific ocean. The
_Nereocystis_, a plant of this family inhabiting the north-western
shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than whipcord, but upwards
of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex a huge vesicle, six or
seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and crowned with a tuft of
upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from 30 to 40 feet in length. The
vesicle being filled with air, buoys up this immense frond, which lies
stretched along the surface of the sea: here the sea-otter has his
favoured lair, resting himself upon the vesicle, or hiding among the
leaves while he pursues his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors
this floating tree must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly,
we find it used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”

As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. S.
_Daedalus_” and Captain HARRINGTON repeated their assurances that the
creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral HAMILTON
took up the cudgels for Captain HARRINGTON, upon which Captain FREDERIC
SMITH wrote the following paper (_The Times_ of 23 February 1858):

“Sir,--I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral HAMILTON, that
in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking
appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three feet.
Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson crabs,
varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, were
collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life could be
furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking creatures which
constituted the moving monstrous-looking external will assist those who
read my account in believing what I before stated that even when the
object was laid on deck we had difficulty in making out what it was.
Now, sea-weeds of gigantic growth abound near the islands of the group
of Tristan d’Acunha. From decay or other causes, these will from time
to time be detached at the roots, and with their living attachment will
then, floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents,
into the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting
himself. It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by the
boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous specimens
may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your insertion of
this correspondence will cause more attention to be given to their
capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_, to the
forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers to “settle down”
to the conclusion: “This must be the animal called the sea-serpent.”
Had the monster I described not been taken, I should have believed, as
firmly as Captain Harrington does, that I could confirm the statement
of the commander of the _Daedalus_ and that “the animal belonged to the
serpent tribe.””

“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary and
unexpected appearances of things as compared with the things themselves
when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the _Daedalus_ sea-serpent
was seen in the recollection of one spectator, the mouth in that of
another, and so on. I take leave to question the possibility of these
being “most distinctly visible”, when the object at its “nearest
position” was 200 yards distant, the sea getting up, and the observers
travelling in an opposite direction, the passing of the two being
apparently at the rate of 20 miles an hour. Naturalists will say
whether an animal to answer to the habits and attributes of that in
question would have a nostril.”

“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the _Castilian_, saw an
extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression,
and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the
mercantile marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also
for “Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington
is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has
published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless,
these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington saw the
sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very nearly and completely
took me in until I took him in.”

“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant

“Fred. Smith.”

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, p. 320, inquiring
whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the sea-weed
hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.

“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this huge
rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal at all?
That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting some of the
characters described, has been already shown; and on two occasions an
object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved on examination to be
but a sea-weed floating; the separated and inverted roots of which,
projecting in the role of the swell, seemed a head, and the fronds
(in the one case), and (in the other) a number of attached barnacles,
resembled a shaggy mane washed about in the water.”

“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view of the
floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken this for a
living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest degree to presume
that of such a nature could be the creatures, going rapidly through the
water at ten or twelve miles an hour, with the head and neck elevated,
so distinctly seen by Captain M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at
two hundred, the latter at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly
dismiss the sea-weed hypothesis.”

Again in _Nature_ of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the
following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers the
sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.

“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of the
reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into masses
of floating sea-weed.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ speaking of this
hypothesis says:

“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for some
fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed
by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner strongly
suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming, is a statement to
the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony, and to the
truth of which even observant sea-side visitors may testify. The
movements of an unusually long frond or group of fronds of tangle,
attached to a rock, and set in motion at low water, by a light swell,
has before now, and when seen indistinctly, suggested the idea of the
existence at the spot of some large denizen of the sea, browsing on the
sea-weeds, with the fore part of its body, represented by the tangle
fronds, occasionally appearing at the surface of the water.”

Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared in
the _Madras Mail_, but which I take from _Nature_ of 13th. October,
1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be explained in this
way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his purpose. I also think
that this was the intention of the contributor who inserted it in the
columns of _Nature_, of the man who sent a Dutch translation of it to
the _Nieuws van den Dag_, of 26th. Nov., 1881, and of Professor P.
HARTING who republished this translation in the _Album der Natuur_, of
1882, p. 66.

“In a letter to the _Madras Mail_ of September 8, on the use of
gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H. Taylor,
the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following interesting
“sea-serpent”-story:--“A notable incident connected with this sea-weed,
is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s letter. About fifteen
years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor in Table Bay, an enormous
monster, as it appeared, was seen drifting, or advancing itself round
Green Point, into the harbour. It was more than one hundred feet in
length, and moved with an undulating snake-like motion. Its head was
crowned with what appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted
among the affrighted observers declared they could see its eyes and
distinguish its features. The military were called out, and a brisk
fire poured into it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was
hit several times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were
its evident injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite
still, and boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction.
It was found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its
stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having
left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”

It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not
deserving of any notice on our part.

* * * * *

The =eighteenth= explanation is attempted by Mr. A. G. MORE (see
_Zoologist_ for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:

“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep, in the
pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to sollicit
insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality, in
some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance. Any
one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great =ribband or
scabbard fishes=, or who has ever read the striking accounts of the
huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their extreme rarety, may,
like myself, have been thus reminded of those mysterious sea-monsters
which are occasionally observed by the unlearned to be no less a
puzzle to learned opinion. When, too, we know that these fishes are
supposed often to swim at the surface, and thus to be driven ashore
more readily, when the only example of whose healthy life we have a
credible account, is described as advancing head above water, and by
the undulating movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we
not reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms
of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might
easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so called
“mane” of the great sea-snake.”

The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr. GOSSE
in his _Romance of Natural History_ in the following terms:

“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as the
hair-tail, the _Vaegmaer_, and the _Gymnetrus_, are of large size,
and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the
North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder and
curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in other
respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the animal in
question. One of their most striking characteristics, moreover, is,
that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”

In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas
Isles. Mr. TRIMINGHAM, the captor, placed it at the disposal of Mr. J.
MATTHEW JONES, a naturalist living there. This gentleman described the
animal for the _Zoologist_, in which his paper appeared in the volume
of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. JONES ended his article as follows:

“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture of the
present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction it
will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have in
the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save size, with
which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster “The Great
Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested. The lengthened
filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by the connecting
membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would, viewed from a vessel’s
deck, present to the spectator the mane so accurately described as a
singular feature in the gigantic specimen seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R.
N., and officers of H. M. S. _Daedalus_. Then again, the rapidity with
which that individual specimen moved through the water, would coincide
with the capabilities of a member of this genus, for the motive
power produced by such an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely
compressed form of body from the head throughout, must be immense.”

“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements
which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the united presses
of England and America, emanating from the pens of travelers, and
usually headed--“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”--criticised, however,
in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed to an unmerited ridicule
at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless, firmly believed in by the
few, who have patiently waited to see the day when the mystic cloud
which has hitherto veiled the existence of the maned denizen of the
deep should vanish with the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit
more clearly the truth of the assertions of those ill-used men, who,
endeavouring like useful members of society to extend the cause of
natural knowledge by publishing candid accounts of what their eyes
have seen, have always met with an amount of contempt and reproach,
sufficient to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”

“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London News at
hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared, as it would
have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other features in
connection with his specimen and the present one. The facts, however,
regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity of motion to which
I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, thinking this ribbon-fish a
new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured it with
the name of _Regalecus Jonesii_, but to our great astonishment, he, who
firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an _Enaliosaurus_ (as we have
observed above) now seems to be in doubt about the matter, for he ends
his article with the following words:

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

The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the
unbelievers, no doubt, as it _seems_ more plausible than the
_Plesiosaurus_-one. An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note
which I have found in _Nature_ of the 1st. August, 1872:

“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a specimen of
the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without the tail. It
appears that this fish is known to distant inland fishermen as being
forty feet long, and from its slender shape and snake-like movement
is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so minutely described
by navigators. From its head there is erected a plume of flexible,
rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail along its back there is a
conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general colour is like burnished silver.
The eye is large and silvery, and the profile of the head comports well
with that of the horse. The specimen could not be preserved, but there
are two smaller specimens in the Museum.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his turn believes (see _Nature_ of Sept. 12, 1878)
that:

“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might do duty
in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”

In his _Leisure Time Studies_ he returns to his idea:

“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on which
occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved ribbon
or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea that such an
animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from a distance by
persons unskilled in natural history,--and who would, therefore,
hardly dream of associating the elongated being before them with their
ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,--might account for certain
of the tales of sea-serpents which have been brought under our notice.
I had been specially struck with the mention, in several accounts of
sea-serpents, of a very long back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and
of a banded body covered with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several
instances the description given of the heads of the sea-monsters
closely correspond with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes.
These fishes have further been described by naturalists as occasionally
having been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion
close to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated
above the surface,--this latter feature, as we have observed, forming a
remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I found, on making
inquiry into the history of these fishes, that their serpentine form
had struck previous observers, but, as far as I could ascertain, their
merits as representatives of sea-serpents had never before been so
persistently advocated.”

“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle, I
communicated to the _Scotsman_ and _Courant_ newspapers in June, 1876.
The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given as 12 feet
3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches, and the
greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions in thickness,
and the relatively long length and depth, giving to these fishes the
popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes. The species was the well-known
_Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus Banksii_ of naturalists; and by the Museum
attendant at Newcastle, I was informed that a still larger specimen of
the same species was recently obtained of the Northumberland coast, the
length of this latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the
thickness 5 inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The
breast fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated
and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very long,
whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back, and obtains
an average breadth of about three inches.”

“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the
ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of fish
merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the idea that
gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally developed. The
gentleman in question wrote to inform me that about thirty years ago
he engaged the smack _Sovereign_, of Hull, Baillie commander, to trawl
in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury, then residing at Elie Lodge,
Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in their trawling operations, the crew of
the _Sovereign_ captured a giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at
length on the deck, extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem
and stern. The smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length
may therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,--this measurement
being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured
from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six to seven
inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined to view
the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered the fish to be cut
in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also worthy of remark that
the trawlers seemed to express no great surprise at the size of Lord
Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted that they had met with one much
larger, this latter being coloured of a dirty-brown hue.”

He also explains the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148) by reference to
a ribbon-fish in the following terms:

“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable
explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views to the
_Times_ in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal
for June 15, 1877:--“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns
of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently
seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not
meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,--such
as giant sea-snakes themselves,--may occasionally personate the
“sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very many
of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on the
supposition that giant tape-fishes--of the existence of which no
reasonable doubt can be entertained--have been seen. The report of
Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht _Osborne_, appears, as far as
zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained on the
“ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less skin, the
rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral) fins, each
measuring many feet in length, all form so many details corresponding
exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer these
observations with the view of showing that, given a recital founded, as
I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we possess in the lists
of living and of well-known animals adequate representatives of the
great unknown.”

“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression
contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic
turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in the
absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate
the views expressed above as to the personality of this strange tenant
of the Mediterranean Sea.”

“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared
in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor,
speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I offer
“as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being
hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in _Good Words_,
from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the
probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and
appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” in Mr.
Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes simply
as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and not as a sole and
universal representative of the modern leviathan.”

“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear proof
before us that these and other animals may be developed to a size
which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can only term
enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the sea-serpent
question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To objectors
of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that we have not yet
procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, I would point out that
I by no means maintain the frequent development of such beings. The
most I argue for and require is their occasional production; and I
would also remind such objectors of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes
which, until within the past few years, remained in the same mysterious
seclusion affected at present by the great serpentine unknown. I
need only add that I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a
giant serpent of the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its
representative, or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we
discover the true and natural law of its production.”

“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully submit, as
does a pleading counsel to his jury,--”

“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified,
when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion being
especially supported by the want of any _prima facie_ reason for
prevarication;”

“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved to be
deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual attitudes
on the part of familiar animals, there remains a body of evidence only
to be explained on the hypothesis that certain gigantic marine animals,
at present unfamiliar or unknown to science, do certainly exist; and”

“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly
consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily
explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development of
gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar to the
naturalist.”

Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, too, supposes that “the
dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew Wilson,
may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.

I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a
ribbon-fish has only _one_ connected dorsal _fin_, and not a _ridge of
fins_, (compare fig. 13 with fig. 44). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish
is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly black;
the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark brown
above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long time in the sun
on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow; the under parts are
of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers, which are the organs of
locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth of a ribbon-fish is only a
few inches, while that of the sea-serpent, as is clearly pointed out in
the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), may grow to more than fifteen
feet. But I need not sum up the differences between ribbon-fishes and
sea-serpents. We have only to ask the opinion of one of the most able
ichthyologists of our days, and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to
stand upon:

Mr. GÜNTHER says in his _Introduction to the study of Fishes_, 1880, p.
520:

“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all parts
of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the surface, or
thrown ashore by the waves.....”

“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion of the
gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their muscular and
bony system, that they can be lifted out of the water with difficulty
only, and nearly always portions of the body and fins are broken and
lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes live is not known; probably
the depths vary for different species; but although none have been
yet obtained by means of the deep-sea dredge, they must be abundant
at the bottom of all oceans, as dead fishes or fragments of them
are frequently obtained. Some writers have supposed from the great
length and narrow shape of these fishes that they have been mistaken
for “Sea-Serpents”; but as these monsters of the sea are always
represented by those who have had the good fortune of meeting with them
as remarkably active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes,
which are either dying or dead, have been the objects described as
“Sea-Serpents”.”

* * * * *

The =nineteenth= explanation is that of Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS (see
_Zoologist_, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that =a floating dead tree=
“might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another
sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:

“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon,
which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical
delusion that might have become a source of error, and given rise to
yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands of the
Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There was little
wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the sea. I was
sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room on the main deck,
admiring the setting sun, and watching the rounded outlines of the
blue mountains and distant islands against the sky, and the numbers
of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to their nests”, when my eye rested
on a long dark object apparently making its way steadily through the
water. After observing it some time in silence I was sorely puzzled
and could make nothing of it. It was neither a seal nor a diver nor a
fishing cormorant, for with their forms I was familiar; so I went on
deck and consulted other eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought
to bear on the suspicious object, and the general scrutiny seemed to
decide that it was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer
according to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by
lateral undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that
the course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering.
With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom or
so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range up
alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast by a
clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this time, however, a
closer and more critical inspection had taken place, and the supposed
sea-monster turned himself into a long dark root, gnarled and twisted,
of a tree, secured to the moorings of a fishing net, with the strong
tide passing it rapidly, and thus giving it an apparent life-like
movement and serpentine aspect.”

After Mr. DREW had published in _Nature_ a case, in which he and
many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags, another
contributor Mr. E. H. PRINGLE wrote the following (_Nature_, September
12, 1878):

“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of
Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits”
concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”

“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small group of
passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss. _Rangoon_, then
steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore. We were just within
sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra. One of the party suddenly
pointed out an object on the port bow, perhaps half a mile off, and
drew from us the simultaneous exclamation of “The sea-serpent!” And
there it was, to the naked eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the
sea, with its head raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried
in the water, and anon reared just above its surface. There was the
mane, and there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards
behind.”

“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the _Rangoon_
would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a great
sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the lenses and
the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards, anchored in some
manner to the bottom--a “snag” in fact. Swayed up and down by the rapid
current, a series of waves undulated beyond it, bearing in their crests
dark coloured weeds or grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”

“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land, and
of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first hasty
conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone the human
mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we should be in
forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, in his _Leisure Time Studies_, speaking of this
hypothesis says:

“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus
around which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and
sea-acorns--producing a variegated effect by reason of their light
colour--have attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented
appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming
slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of this
latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual spectator,
the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating in the closest
and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,--by the same
rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks and branches of trees one
may frequently discern likenesses to the human face and to the forms
of other living things. In this latter instance, the floating object
was perceived at some miles’ distance from the deck of a yacht; and
even when seen through a telescope, and carefully scrutinized by men
accustomed to make out the contour and nature of objects at sea, the
resemblance to the head of some animal was so close that the course
of the vessel was changed and the object in due time overhauled. This
latter, therefore, presents an example of a case, the details of which,
when related, tempt people to maintain without further parley, that
sea-serpents always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one
kind or another.”

The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes at
once the idea of a dead organism.

* * * * *

The =twentieth= explanation is: =a mass of flying birds=, of Mr. JOSEPH
DREW, who wrote in _Nature_ of the 5th. of September, 1878:

“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the Folkestone
boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations of that
neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from the French
coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look at that
extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer about a mile
or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning in this direction
there was seen an immense serpent apparently about a furlong in length,
rushing furiously along at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour;
it was blackish in front and paler behind; its elongated body was
fairly on the surface of the water and it progressed with an undulating
or quivering motion, mirum erat spectaculum sane.”

“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account for
this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed and settled
into the fixed idea that the object before them could be nothing less
than the great sea-serpent himself; for--

“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
“Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge
“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
“Leviathan, which God of all his works
“Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”

“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses,
and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument, the wonder was
satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster was dark and
glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually, fading towards
the tail. The glass did not determine the matter until the extreme end
was reached, and then it was seen to consist of a mass of birds in
rapid motion; those that were strong on the wing were able to keep well
up with the leaders, and to make the head appear thicker and darker
by their numbers, whilst those that had not such power of flight were
compelled to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless
these birds were shags (_Pelecanus cristatus_) returning to their homes
for the night from the distant waters in which they had been fishing,
during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively as to
the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer has often seen shags
on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning in single or double
file to their roosting places, and since it is stated in works of
natural history that they have been noticed occasionally flying in this
peculiar manner to the number of a thousand or more, it does not appear
an unwarranted liberty in supposing that they really were _Pelecani
cristati_.”

“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt the
interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a large
and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds (scores of
them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the writer has thought
it his duty to report the circumstance to you that your readers who
voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses in their pockets
and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity this interpretation
of the great sea-serpent.”

This story induced Mr. BIRD (_Nature_, of 12th. September, 1878) to
make a similar avowal:

“Dr. Drew’s letter in _Nature_, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to my
mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend on August
8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was towards evening,
when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without masts or funnel,
moving through the water at enormous speed. After a minute or two it
undulated and rose from the surface, and we saw that it was a flight of
birds.”

“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at least
many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated, though I
doubt whether _all_ can be explained in this manner.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, on the contrary wrote the following against this
supposition (_Nature_, in the same number):

“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday
regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the English
Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding the
habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me, however, to point
out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded as explanatory of
the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the incident only explains
one of a number of _serpentine appearances_ of which porpoises and
sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood with trains of sea-weed,
&c., are also good examples. There have been placed on record numerous
incidents of serpentine forms having been closely expected (as in
the well-known case of the _Daedalus_, or later still of H. M. S.
_Osborne_) where the hypothesis of the serpentine appearances assumed
by flocks of birds or fishes could not be held as explanatory in any
sense. It is with the view of showing that the exact personality of the
“sea-serpent” cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew
relates, that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer
from the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine
ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent”
mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully between
cases in which serpentine appearances have been assumed by ordinary
animals, and those in which _one_ animal form has presented itself
in the guise of the “great unknown”. I am far from contending that a
sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle-fish”, presents
the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape-fish, or
even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of
non-zoological observers for “a sea-serpent.”........ “At the same time
zoologists cannot but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like
that gentleman, note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and
communicate such incidents to your columns.”

A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing
descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal from the
pen of Mr. C. M. INGLEBY:

“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed
at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a cottage on
an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view. One morning my
attention was called to a large, dark, undulating body, which moved
rapidly through the sea. As it was some way out from shore, I naturally
concluded it to be of enormous length. I lost no time in making
inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon, and was so fortunate
as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed it. He told me it was a
flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly have believed that I
had seen the Great Unknown. I have often seen a similar phenomenon, but
nothing nearly so striking as this.”

In _Nature_ of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent
is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent
says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in the same
locality; “I never, however, saw the _head_”. Now another correspondent
thinking that _he_ had solved the problem, wrote the following article
in the next issue of the same journal:

“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes, on
the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions, several
members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance of three or
four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a huge serpent. Its
length was many times that of the largest steamer that ever passed,
and its velocity equally exceeded that of the swiftest. What seemed
its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes appeared to show signs
of an open mouth. The general appearance of the monster was almost
exactly similar to that of the figure in your correspondent’s letter
published on the 25th. ult. Not the slightest appearance of this
continuity in its structure could be perceived by the eye, although it
seemed incredible that any muscular mechanism could really drive such
an enormous mass through the water with such a prodigious velocity.
I carefully watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day,
just as one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it
instantaneously turned through a right angle, but instead of going
forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same
velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved itself
into a flock of birds.”

“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being
effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still
perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new
illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what
has been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly
this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s
difficulty.”--W. STEADMAN ALDIS.--

As to the figure, it is our fig. 51.--In the next issue of _Nature_
again another correspondent asserts:

“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in _Nature_ yesterday, I
was reminded by a person present that some years ago, when in Orkney, I
pointed out an appearance that most people unaccustomed to witness it
might have taken for a great sea-monster. This was nothing more or less
than some hundred of cormorants or “skarps” flying in a continuous line
close to the water, the deception being increased by the resemblance
of a head caused by several “skarps” in a cluster _heading_ the column,
and by the “_lumpy_” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and
hiding for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer
to--not unnaturally--imagine that the portions so hidden had gone under
water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be fairly estimated
at thirty miles an hour or more.”--J. RAE.

It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass of
flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the most
striking proofs against this hypothesis.

* * * * *

The =twenty-first= explanation was proposed by Dr. ANDREW WILSON in his
_Leisure Time Studies_, 1879. He presents a frontispiece to his work
“embodying the chief representations of the various theories of the
sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground is delineated
=a large turtle=. Of this supposition Mr. LEE says in his _Sea Monsters
Unmasked_:

“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers and
broad back.”

The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet,
including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. The
breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three and a
half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would have
been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal well enough.
Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized by its broad shell.
No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian shore.

* * * * *

The =twenty-second= explanation. I don’t know whether the note p.
106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time
Studies_, also appeared in the first edition, January, 1879, and so
I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. LEE, (1883), has a superior
claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent might be in some or
in most instances =a giant cuttle-fish or calamary=.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, quoting the report of Messrs. WEBSTER and ANDERSON
(n^o. 146), in which the latter says: “the creature was apparently of a
gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes in a note:

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ tries to explain all accounts
of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one of the
figures of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work (our fig. 14) he says: “the presumed body
of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid” (which snatched the
man from the vessel) “and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging
are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its
whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row
of transverse septa, one on each side of it.” I have discussed this
explanation in its right place (see p. 106).

[Illustration: Fig. 70.--Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr.
HENRY LEE explains Mr. BING’S drawing.]

The “monster of EGEDE” he also explained by reference to a great
calamary. Mr. LEE does not doubt of the accuracy of EGEDE’S
description, but as to Mr. BING’S figure he says: “The high character
of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that he had
seen something previously unknown to him (he does not say it was a
sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand what it was
that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made by Mr. BING, one of
his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to do this”. And Mr. LEE has
the boldness to figure a large calamary, with the words: “the animal
which EGEDE probably saw”, of which figure I give a facsimile in fig.
70.--

Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious
acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a doubting
zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the whole fabric falls
to pieces as soon as we compare EGEDE’S description and BING’S drawing
with the greater part of descriptions and figures given as well before
as after EGEDE. His idea is far fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When
a calamary propels itself with great velocity to the surface and raises
its tail high out of the water, all its arms are turned and stretched
downwards; not one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is
in this position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will
fall to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure
to left, and not to right, as Mr. EGEDE saw very distinctly; he says:
“backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the position
above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube, spouts in a
direction contrary to that which Mr. LEE has figured. The locomotor
tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it is stretched by its
own muscular wall towards the head, and not towards the tail, nor in a
direction perpendicularly to the body, when the act of spouting takes
place. Moreover HANS EGEDE saw the sea-serpent spouting (exhaling)
through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on or below the surface of
the water, as the calamary of Mr. HENRY LEE!

Of Mr. MACLEAN’S report (n^o. 31) he says: “His description of it is
exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”.
If I may beg my readers to read Mr. MACLEAN’S report again, they will
observe that _nothing_ in it indicates a calamary!

About the report of Mr. J. C. LUND (n^o. 115) he writes:

“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements of all
the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There is no
room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously
that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, is most
accurately and intelligently described--so clearly, indeed, that it
furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the strange visitant.”

“Here let me say--and I wish it to be distinctly understood--that I do
not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent, or
other great creatures at present unknown to science, and that I have
no inclination to explain away that which others have seen, because I
myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”, it is said, and
it is not agreeable to have to tell a person that, in common parlance,
he “must not trust his own eyes”. It seems presumptuous even to hint
that one may know better what was seen than the person who saw it. And
yet I am obliged to say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly
and assuredly, that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not
correctly interpret that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is
not the eye which deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the
imagination which is led astray by the association of the thing seen
with an erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent
assumption of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key to the
mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours had not access
to, and which has only within the last few years been placed in our
hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster are those of an
animal with which we are now well acquainted, but of the existence
of which the narrators of these occasional visitations were unaware;
namely, the great calamary, the same which gave rise to the stories of
the Kraken, and which has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian
seas and fjords from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have
elsewhere said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure
of the _Alecton_ in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or
sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the great
sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express belief
in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned,
specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted were met with
on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of them were deposited
in museums, to silence the incredulous and interest zoologists. When
Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846 the declaration of Mr. Lund and
his companions of the fishing excursion he and they knew nothing of
there being such an animal. They had formed no conception of it, nor
had they the instructive privilege, possessed of late years by the
public in England, of being able to watch attentively, and at leisure,
the habits and movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in
great tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted
with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed snake
the elongated body of a giant squid.”

“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by the outrush
of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction contrary to
that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part, therefore, goes
in advance, and the body tapers towards this, almost to a blunt point.
At a short distance from the actual extremity two flat fins project
from the body, one on each side, so that this end of the squid’s body
somewhat resembles in shape the government “broad arrow”. It is a
habit of these squids, the small species of which are met with in some
localities in teeming abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the
water in hot and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised
out of water, to a height which in a large individual might be three
feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at the
rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person who has
never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed, like the
creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in accordance
with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad expanse. The
elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the neck to which the
“head” is attached; the eight arms trailing behind (the tentacles are
always coiled away and concealed) supply the supposed mane floating
on each side; the undulating motion in swimming, as the water is
alternately drawn in and expelled, accords with the description, and
the excurrent stream pouring aft from the locomotor tube, causes a
long swirl and swell to be left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have
often seen, may easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of
its body. The eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone
of colour varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey,
as the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter
circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”

“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the forepart
of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”, the “moving
in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark colour”, the “waving
motion in the water behind the animal”, from which the witnesses
concluded that “part of the body was concealed under water”, the
“head raised, but the lower part not visible”, the “sharp snout”, the
“smooth skin”, and the appearance described by Mr. William Knudtzon,
and Candidatus Theologiae Bochlum, of “the head being long and small
in proportion to the throat, the latter appearing much greater than
the former”, which caused them to think “it was _probably_ furnished
with a mane”. Not that they _saw_ any mane, but as they had been told
of it, they thought they _ought to have seen it_. Less careful and
conscientious persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on
oath, that they _did see it_.”

“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the
proverbially smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition
of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance
that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched
out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on both sides
of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of that would cause
this by the effluent current from its “syphon tube.” I have seen a
deeply laden ship push in front of her a vast hillock of water, which
fell off on each side in foam as it was parted by her bow; but that
was of man’s construction. Nature builds on better lines. No swimming
creature has such unnecessary friction to overcome. Even the seemingly
unwieldy body of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without
a splash, and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering
action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”

Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account, that they
may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a sea-serpent or a
great calamary. Mr. LEE’S last views of the motion of sea-animals is
also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all his assertions; for
instance, he says: “Nature builds on better lines”. I say: If nature
built on better lines, men would long ago have imitated them. All
creatures, when swimming rapidly on the surface, cause a splash. Swans,
when moving as rapidly as possible, cause heavy undulations before the
chest, and I have observed myself the common porpoises in the Zuider
Zee, which when coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a
rushing of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.

The sea-serpent of Mr. MORRIES STIRLING (n^o. 113) appeared, according
to Mr. HENRY LEE also “to have been, like the others from the same
locality, a large calamary.”

Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE and his officers he says:

“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted the
veracity or _bona fides_ of the captain and officers of one of Her
Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because it
was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. Their practised
eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true character of anything
met with afloat even if only partially seen, as intuitively as the Red
Indian reads the signs of the forest or the trail; and therefore they
were not likely to be deceived by any of the objects with which sailors
are familiar. They would not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks
of trees, or Brobdingnagian stems of Algae; but there was one animal
with which they were not familiar, of the existence of which they were
unaware, and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed
to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself--namely, the great calamary,
the elongated form of which has certainly in some other instances been
mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen swimming in the
manner I have described, and endeavoured to portray, would fulfil the
description given by Lieutenant Drummond, and would in a great measure
account for the appearances reported by Captain M’Quhae. “_The head
long, pointed and flat on the top_”, accords with the pointed extremity
and caudal fin of the squid. “_Head kept horizontal with the surface of
the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally
beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for
purposes of respiration._” A perfect description of the position and
action of a squid swimming. “_No portion of it perceptibly used in
propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal
undulations._” The mode of propulsion of a squid--the outpouring stream
of water from its locomotor tube--would be unseen and unsuspected,
because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would suggest a
prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms trailing astern
at the surface of the water would give the appearance of a mane. I
think it not impossible that if the officers of the _Daedalus_ had been
acquainted with this great sea-creature the impression on their mind’s
eye would not have taken the form of a serpent. I offer this, with much
diffidence, as a suggestion arising from recent discoveries; and by no
means insist on its acceptance; for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very
close view of the animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without
any doubt, that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently
declared that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form
were all most distinctly visible.”

And of the sea-serpent of Mr. R. DAVIDSON (n^o. 93) he asserts: “The
features of this incident are consistent with his having seen one of
the, then unknown, great calamaries.”

The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant SANFORD (n^o. 74) is also
explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under
circumstances similar to those described by HANS EGEDE”.

Captain HARRINGTON’S sea-serpent (n^o. 131), according to Mr. LEE, “was
evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal extremity and fin
above the surface, and discolouring the water by discharging its ink.”

Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given, Mr. LEE
concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have been searching
amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, the great
unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their elongated
cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have played the part
of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated incident.”

In answering, again, Mr. GOSSE’S question: “To which of the recognized
classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be
referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There is not one of
the above judiciously summarized characteristics that is not supplied
by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits and peculiar mode of
locomotion.”

With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those which
Mr. GOSSE enumerates in his _Romance of Natural History_ (see p. 318
of the present volume), but which, as we know, are taken by him from
only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from a report of a would-be
sea-serpent!

The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a would-be
sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the head was
described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true sea-serpents
are brownish black, and only in case the animal had swum for a long
time in the sun and partly above the surface of the water, the colour
is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that this colour partly
agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at rest or when dead; but
generally, when the animal is in motion, and especially in emotion,
the colour becomes a reddish-purple or crimson-red. Moreover the long
neck, the mane, the extraordinary long tail, the four flappers, are not
explained by reference to a calamary.

* * * * *

The =twenty-third= explanation is proposed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD,
JUN. in _Nature_ of November 18th., 1880. His article on the “Order
Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:

“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of
June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing from
the one in question, and may have been =a manatee=.]”

[Illustration: Fig. 71.--_Thrichechus manatus_ LINNÉ.]

This figure is our figure 45. Evidently Mr. WOOD did not read the
account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based on a
figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen from the
_Osborne_, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the shoulders,
where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and the length of
the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal had an enormous
neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total length of ten feet, the
length from the crown or top to just below the shoulders is not more
than four feet and there is no question of a neck, as our figure will
show. Mr. WOOD committed the mistake, like so many others, that he
explained _one_ sea-serpent, instead of first comparing _all_ the
reports of it before giving an opinion.

* * * * *

Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According to
different authorities, the sea-serpent may be:

1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, 1803).

2. _Scoliophis atlanticus_, a new species of snake with bunches on its
back. (Hon. JOHN DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, Mr. C. F. GRAY, 1817).

3. A large tunny. (Prof. THOMAS SAY, 1818).

4. A true sea-snake (_Hydrophis_) of very large size. (Mr. CONSTANT
SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).

5. A gigantic individual of the eel-tribe. (Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL
RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).

6. A fable, arisen from Northern Mythology. (Dr. PERCY, 1820?).

7. A basking shark, or a row of sharks. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL, 1828).

8. A balaenopterous whale, or a row of them. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL,
1828).

9. An _Ichthyosaurus_, or a saurian allied to it. (Mr. R. BAKEWELL,
1830?).

10. A _Plesiosaurus_, or a saurian allied to it. (Professor BENJAMIN
SILLIMAN, 1830?).

11. Not a saurian. (Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, 1835).

12. A row of spermwhales. (Professor HERMANN SCHLEGEL, 1837).

13. A _Basilosaurus_. (Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN, 1847).

14. A _Saccopharynx_ or an _Ophiognathus_. (Anonymous writer in one of
the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).

15. A large boa. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, 1848,
Nov. 6?).

16. A _Macrorhinus leoninus_, or sea-elephant. (Professor RICHARD OWEN,
1848, Nov. 9).

17. A large sea-weed. (Commander J. A. HERRIMAN, of the _Brazilian_,
1849).

18. A large ribbon-fish, _Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus_. (Mr. A. G. MORE,
1856).

19. A floating dead tree, or bamboo, or a weed-laden log of wood. (Mr.
ARTHUR ADAMS, 1860).

20. A mass of flying birds. (Mr. JOSEPH DREW, 1878).

21. A large sea-turtle. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879).

22. A gigantic calamary. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879? or Mr. HENRY LEE,
1883).

23. A manatee. (Mr. SEARLES VALENTINE WOOD JUN., 1880).

* * * * *

I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I could
discover, were the first to express the supposition to which their name
is added. The dates are those at which they published their supposition.

Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the result
of reading _one single_ report (1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16), which are
not mere suppositions without any foundation (6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21,
23), which are not offered by persons who a moment ago saw a deceitful
object or animal (17, 18, 19, 20, 22), but which are the result of
a _study_ of several accounts and reports. They are those marked 2,
9 and 10. And of these n^o. 10 is the most admissible, because the
_Plesiosaurus_ in its outlines most resembles the sea-serpent. Why,
however, is the sea-serpent not a _Plesiosaurus_? I have already summed
up some reasons, when treating of this explanation, but the principal
reasons are the mammalian characters, habits and behaviour of the
sea-serpent; I will try to prove this in the next chapter.

VI.

Conclusions.

The Libraries from which I borrowed the greater part of the works
treating of the subject were:

The Royal Library at the Hague,

The Library of the Leiden University,

The Library of the Utrecht University,

The Library of the Groningen University,

The Library of the Amsterdam University,

The Library of the Royal University at Göttingen,

The Library of the Royal Zoological Society “Natura Artis Magistra” at
Amsterdam,

The Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam,

The Library of the Museum of Natural History at Leiden,

The Library of the Dutch Zoological Society at den Helder, and

The Library of the Dutch Entomological Society at Leiden.

In the part headed _Literature on the Subject_ I have given an idea of
the mass of works and articles written about it. I here present to my
readers a list of the different appearances found by me in the works
which I have consulted. Of each appearance I have noted down as far as
possible, the date, the locality and the names of the observers. The
numbers correspond with those in the 4th. Chapter.

* * * * *

1.--1522.--Near the Isle of Moos, Norway.

2.--1640.--Most probably in the Sound between Sweden and
Denmark.--Burgomaster of Malmö.

3.--1687.--Damsfjord in Norway.--Several persons, and at one time
eleven persons together.

4.--1720.--A little inlet near Kobbervueg, in Norway.--THORLACK
THORLACKSEN.

5.--1734, July 6.--Before the harbour of Gothaab in Davis’ Straits,
west of Greenland, at 64° N.--Rev. HANS EGEDE, Rev. BING.

6.--1743?--Cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, in Norway.

7.--1744?--Isle of Karmen, in Norway.

8.--1745?--Near Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, in Norway.--A
fisherman.

9.--1746, August.--Jule-Naess, six miles from Molde, in Norway.--The
Hon. LORENZ VON FERRY, NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN
ANGLEWIGEN.

10.--1747?--Coast of Norway.--Commander BENSTRUP.

11.--1748?--Coast of Norway.--Mr. REUTZ.

12.--1749?--Coast of Norway.--Mr. TUCHSEN.

13.--1750?--Coast of Norway.--A north-sailor.

14.--1751?--Near Sundsmöer.--Some fishermen.

15.--1751.--Near Muscongus-Island and Round Pond in Broad Bay, Maine,
U. S. A.--Mr. JOSEPH KENT.

16.--1770?--East coast of U. S. A.--Captain PAUL REED.

17.--1777 or 1778.--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Captain ELEAZAR
CRABTREE.

18.--1779?--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY.

19.--1780, May.--Near Muscongus Island and Round Pond, in Broad Bay, U.
S. A.--Captain GEORGE LITTLE, of the _Boston_ frigate.

20.--1781?--Off Meduncook, east coast of U. S. A.

21.--1782?--East coast of U. S. A.?--The British on their expedition to
Bagadusa.

22.--1783?--Near the Isle of Mount Desert, east of Penobscot Bay,
Maine, U. S. A.--Inhabitants of this isle.

23.--1784?--Near Ash Point on Fox and Long Island, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr.
CROCKET.

24.--1785?--Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.--Mr. MILLER.

25.--1786, August 1.--Lat. 42° 44′ N., long. 23° 10′ W., north-east of
the Azores.--On board the _General Coole_.

26.--1787?--East coast of U. S. A.--Captain LILLIS.

27.--1794?--Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.--Two inhabitants
of these islands.

28.--1799?--Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.--Two inhabitants
of these islands.

29.--1802, July.--Between Cape Rosoi and Long Island, Maine, U. S.
A.--The Rev. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, Mrs. CUMMINGS, Miss CUMMINGS, Miss
MARTHA SPRING.

30.--1805?--Near Cape Breton and Newfoundland.--Mr. W. LEE.

31.--1808, June.--Coast of Coll, west of Scotland.--Rev. DONALD MACLEAN.

32.--1808, June.--Coast of Canna and Rum, west of Scotland.--The crew
of thirteen fishing boats.

33.--1810?--?--A mariner.

34.--1815, June 20.--Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay,
Mass., U. S. A.--Captain ELKANAH FINNEY, his son, and some house
carpenters.

35.--1815, June 21.--Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay,
Mass., U. S. A.--Captain ELKANAH FINNEY.

36.--1816?--Near Behring’s Island.--Mr. KRIUKOF.

37.--1817, August 6.--Harbour of Cape Ann.--Two women.

38.--1817, August 10.--Near Ten Pound Island in the Harbour of
Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. AMOS STORY.

39.--1817, August 12.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
SALOMON ALLEN, 3d.

40.--1817, August 13.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
SALOMON ALLEN, 3d.

41.--1817, August 14.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
SALOMON ALLEN 3d., Mr. EPES ELLERY, Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER, Mr. MATTHEW
GAFFNEY, Mr. DANIEL GAFFNEY, Mr. AUGUSTIN M. WEBBER, and the Hon.
LONSON NASH.

42.--1817, August 15.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
JAMES MANSFIELD.

43.--1817, August 17.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr.
WILLIAM H. FOSTER, Mr. JOHN JOHNSTON, jun., Captain JOHN CORLISS, Mr.
GEORGE MARBLE.

44.--1817, August 18.--Off Cape Ann Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.--The
Captain and crew of a vessel.--Webber’s Cove in the Harbour of
Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. WILLIAM B. PEARSON, Mr. JAMES P.
COLLINS, Colonel T. H. PERKINS, Mr. LEE.

45.--1817, August 22?--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--A woman,
Mr. MANSFIELD and Mrs. MANSFIELD.

46.--1817, August 23.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. AMOS
STORY.

47.--1817, August 24?--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Several
of the crews of coasting vessels.

48.--1817, August 28.--Two miles east of the eastern point of Cape
Ann, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain SEWELL TOPPAN, of the schooner _Laura_,
WILLIAM SOMERBY, ROBERT BRAGG, mariners on board the same schooner.

49.--1817, August 30?--In the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S.
A.--One of the revenue cutters.

50.--1817, October 3.--In the sound between Long Island and the State
New York, U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES GUION.

51.--1817, October 5.--Long Island Sound, N. York, U. S. A.--Mr. THOMAS
HERTELL.

52.--1818, June.--Off Cape Henry, Virg., U. S. A.--The Captain and crew
of the brig _Wilson_.

53.--1818, June 19.--In Sag Harbour, Long Island, N. Y., U. S. A.

54.--1818, June 21.--East coast of U. S. A.--S. WEST, master of the
Packet _Delia_.

55.--1818, July 2.--Between Cranch Island Point and Marsh Island, about
seven miles from Portland, Maine, U. S. A.--Mssrs. J. WEBBER and R.
HAMILTON.

56.--1818, July.--60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, between Far Öer
and Hebrides.--Captain BROWN.

57.--1818 July.--Folden fjord, Norway.--Some fishermen of Folden fjord.

58.--1818 August?--Near Fieldvigen, Norway.--Fishermen of Fieldvigen.

59.--1818, August 19.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--Captain
RICHARD RICH.

60.--1819, June 6.--About 15 miles north-west of Race Point, Mass., U.
S. A.--Captain HAWKINS WHEELER, of the sloop _Concord_, and GERSHAM
BENNETT.

61.--1819, July.--Sound between the Island of Ottersum and the
continent, Norway.--Captain SCHILDERUP and about thirty other persons.

62.--1819, August 12?--At Nahant Beach, Mass., U. S. A.

63.--1819, August 13?--Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.--Mr. JAMES PRINCE,
Mr. SMITH, Mrs. PRINCE, Mr. JAMES MAGEE, Mr. SAMUEL CABOT, Mrs. CABOT,
Mr. JAMES BOOTT, Colonel T. H. PERKINS, Mrs. PERKINS, and family.

64.--1819, August.--Vieg or Veg fjord, Norway.--JOHN GREGAR.

65.--1819, August?--At the North Cape.--Some fishermen.

66.--1819, August?--Bay of Shuresund or Sorsund in the Drontheim
fjord, Norway.--The Right Rev. Bishop of the Nordlands and Finmark.

67.--1819? August?--In the Mageröe-Sund near North Cape, Norway.--The
sexton of Maasöe.

68.--1819, August.--Near Vadsöe, Norway.--Several persons.

69.--1819, August 26.--Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.--The Rev.
CHEEVER FELCH, Captain WILLIAM T. MALBONE, of the schooner _Science_,
Midshipman BLAKE, four boatsmen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

105.--1839, August?--Near Boston.--Captain BUBIER.

106.--1839, September?--Coast of Maine, U. S. A.--Captain SMITH.

106 A.--1840, April 21.--24° 13′ N. latitude, 89° 52′ W. longitude, in
the Gulf of Mexico.--Captain D’ABNOUR.

106 B.--1840, June?--Near Boston?

107.--1840, July?--Molde fjord, Norway.--Mr. HAMMER, Mr. KRAFT, and
some other persons.

107 A.--1840, August?--“Along the whole line of the American coast”, i.
e. of the east coast of the U. S.

108.--1841.--Christiansund fjord, Norway.--Several persons.

109.--1842?--Romsdal fjord, Norway.--A parish priest.

110.--1842?--Romsdal fjord, Norway.--A gentleman.

111.--1843, Summer.--Christiansund fjord, Norway.

111 A.--1843, October?--Near Ibbestad, not far from Christiansand,
Norway.--Some fishermen.

112.--1845?--Near Bergen? Norway.--Some fishermen.

113.--1845.--Between Bergen and Sogn, Norway.--Mr. J. D. MORRIES
STIRLING, and two other gentlemen.

114.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--Camp’s Bay, near Cape Town.--Mr. G. D.
BRUNETTE, Mr. CHARLES A. FAIRBRIDGE.

115.--1845, July 28.--Romsdale fjord, Norway.--Mr. J. C. LUND, Mr. G.
S. KROCH, CHRISTIAN FLANG and JOHN ELGENSES.

117.--1846, August 8.--Between the islands of Sartor Leer and Tös,
and in Bjornfjord, near Bergen, Norway.--Several persons, DANIEL
SALOMONSON, his wife INGEBORG, ABRAHAM ABRAHAMSEN HAGENOES.

118.--1848, August 6.--Lat. 24° 44′ S., long 9° 22′ E., between the
Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.--Mr. SARTORIS, midshipman, Lieutenant
EDGAR DRUMMOND, Captain PETER M’QUHAE, Mr. WILLIAM BARRETT, master, and
most of the officers and crew of H. M. S. _Daedalus_.

119.--1848?--The Gulf of California.--Captain the Hon. GEORGE HOPE.

120.--1848, December 31.--Lat. 41° 13′ N., long. 12° 31′ W., west of
Oporto.--An officer of H. M. S. _Plumper_.

121.--1849, February 18.--Off the south point of Cumberland Island,
about twelve miles from the St. John’s bar, Florida.--Captain ADAMS, of
the schooner _Lucy and Nancy_, and the crew and passengers of it.

122.--1849, May 30.--South of Australia, between 40° and 45° S. lat.,
and 110° and 145° W. long.--Captain EDWARDS, of the _Alpha_, Mr.
THOMSON, Mr. GEORGE PARK.

123.--1849, September 15.--Indian Ocean, between lat. 10° and 20° S.,
and long. 50° and 70° E.--An officer of H. M. S. _Cleopatra_.

124.--1850?--Between Iceland and the Far Öer.--Captain CRISTMAS.

125.--1853?--Fjords of Norway.

126.--1854, September 4.--Lat. 38° S., long. 13° E.--The Brig _Albeona_.

127.--1855, August?--Off St. Helena.--A Captain.

128.--1856, March 30.--Lat 29° 11′ N., long. 34° 26′ W.--Mr. J. H.
STATHAM, Captain JAMES GUY, of the _Imogen_, Mr. JULIAN B. HARRIES, Mr.
D. J. WILLIAMSON.

129.--1856, July 8.--Lat. 34° 56′ S., long. 18° 41′ E.--Captain A.
K. W. Tremearne of the ship _Princess_, Captain MORGAN, of the ship
_Senator_.

130.--1857, February 16.--In Table Bay, Cape Town.--Dr. BICCARD, his
wife, daughter and two sons, Mr. MURRAY and Mr. HALL.

131.--1857, December 12.--North east end of St. Helena distant 10
miles.--Captain GEORGE HENRY HARRINGTON, of the ship _Castilian_,
WILLIAM DAVIES, chief officer, EDWARD WHEELER, second officer.

132.--1858, January 26.--Lat. 19° 10′ S., long. 10° 6′ W., between the
Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.--Captain SUCKLING of the _Carnatic_,
Captain SHUTTLEWORTH.

133.--1861? August, on a Sunday.--Nahant?--Dr. AMOS BINNEY, and above a
hundred persons.

134.--1861? August, the following Monday.--Nahant? from the piazza of
the hôtel.

135.--1863, May 16.--Between the Isles of Canary and the Cape Verde
Isles.--Mr. JOHN CHAPPLE, Rev. Mr. SMITH, on board the Screw Steamer
_Athenian_.

136.--1871.--Near the coast of Australia.--A second officer.

137.--1872, August 20.--The Sound of Sleat between the Isle of Skye and
the west coast of Scotland, and between Eigg and the mainland.--Rev.
JOHN MACRAY, Minister of Glenelg, Rev. DAVID TWOPENY, Vicar of
Stockbury, two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman, G. B., and a Highland
lad, on board the cutter _Leda_; also a Lady at Duisdale, in Skye.

138.--1872, August 21.--On the north side of the opening of Loch Hourn,
west coast of Scotland, and in the same Strait of Kylerhea, dividing
Skye from the mainland.--The same witnesses as of n^o. 137; the
ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea, FINLAY MACRAE, and other people.

139.--1872, August 23.--In the entrance of Lochduich.--ALEXANDER
MACMILLAN and his brother FARQUHAR.

140.--1872, August 24.--In the same locality.--The same witnesses.

141.--1873, Nov. 16?--Near Dunrobin castle, east coast of Sutherland,
Scotland.--Lady FLORENCE LEVESON GOWER and the Hon. Mrs. COKE.

142.--1873, Nov. 17?--Near Golspie, east coast of Sutherland,
Scotland.--Dr. SOUTAR.

143.--1873, Nov. 18?--The same locality.--Mr. JAMES.

144.--1875, July 8.--Lat. 5° 13′ S., long. 35° W., twenty miles from
Cape San Roque.--Captain DREVAR, of the barque _Pauline_, HORATIO
THOMPSON, JOHN HENDERSON LANDELLS, WILLIAM LEWARN, OWEN BAKER.

145.--1875, July 13.--Lat. 5° S., long 34° 10′ W., eighty miles from
Cape San Roque.--The same witnesses.

146.--1876, September 11.--Fifteen miles north west of North Sand
Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straits.--JOHN K. WEBSTER, Captain of the
British s. s. _Nestor_, and Mr. JAMES ANDERSON.

147.--1877, May 21.--Lat. 2° N., long. 90° 53′ E., Indian Ocean.--The
master of the barque GEORGINA.

148.--1877, June 2.--Off Cape Vito, Sicily.--Commander PEARSON of H. M.
Yacht _Osborne_, Mr. DOUGLAS HAYNES, Mr. FORSYTH, and Mr. MOORE.

149.--1879, January 28.--Lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E., Gulf of
Aden.--Major H. W. J. SENIOR, Dr. C. HALL, Miss. GREENFIELD, on board
the s. s. _City of Baltimore_.

150.--1879, March 30.--In Geographe Bay, Australia, near Lockville and
Busselton.--Rev. H. W. BROWN, Mr. C. M’GUIRE and his wife, Mr. M’MULLAN.

151.--1879, April 5.--Cape Satano, the most southern point of Japan,
distant about nine miles.--Captain DAVISON, Mr. MC. KECHNIE, of the
_Kiushiu Maru_.

152.--1879, August 5.--100 miles west of Brest, France.--Captain J. F.
COX, of the _Privateer_.

152 A.--1881, Nov. 12?--Near Monillepoint, not far from Cape
Town.--Mr. C. M. HANSEN, his wife and children, and several of his
neighbours.

153.--1882, May 28.--About six miles W.N.W. of Butt of Lewis (the
northern point of the Hebrides or Western Islands).--Some fishermen.

154.--1882, May 31.--The same locality.--Mr. WEISZ of the Lloydsteamer
_Kätie_, Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ.

155.--1882, September 3.--Near Orme’s Heads, northern coast of Wales,
Irish Sea.--Mr. W. BARFOOT, Mr. F. J. MARLOW, Mrs. MARLOW, and several
other ladies and gentlemen.

156.--1883, October 15.--Bristol Channel.

157.--1885, August 16.--Between Rödö and Melö Isles, Nordland, Norway,
at lat. 66° 35′ N., long. 13° 21′ E.--Some lads.

158.--1886, August.--Near Kingston Point on the Hudson, New Jersey, U.
S. A.--Two young men.

159.--1886, August.--Near the east coast of U. S. A.

160.--1886, August.--Near the east coast of U. S. A.--JONAH.

161.--1889, May.--In the common track from Liverpool to
Philadelphia.--A captain.

162.--1890, June.--Near Long Island, not far from the coast of
Connecticut.--Captain DAVID TUITS of the schooner _Anny Harper_.

* * * * *

In these reports nearly all is very probable from a zoological point of
view, and there is but little that must be looked upon as fabulous.

Some statements, which at first seem to us to be exaggerations, we
unhesitatingly accept as truths, when we have taken a review of all
the reports together; either because they are constantly repeated, or
because they are confirmed by highly respectable testimonies of recent
date.

What now follows is an abstract of the 166 reports, enumerated above.
The numbers in brackets correspond with those placed in the list given
above, consequently also with those in my 4th. Chapter. Let us first
speak of the improbable things.

A. Fables, Fictions, Exaggerations and Errors.

At present nobody believes that the appearance of a strange animal on
the coast is a bad sign! In the sixteenth and the seventeenth century,
however, this was not uncommon. So we read that an appearance of a
sea-serpent portended a change in Norway (1), and that the appearance
of one in 1522 was followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and
by a great persecution of the Bishops; it also foretold the destruction
of the country (1). The snatching away of a man from a ship did not
happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being
at hand, either that the princes would die or be banished, or that a
war would soon break out (p. 105). The Norwegian fishermen looked upon
its coming as a bad sign, for the fish would leave the coast (61).
Curious are also the characters described to the animal. It lives in
rocks and holes, and it comes out of its caverns only in summernights
and fine weather, to devour calves, lambs and hogs (p. 105). The eating
of cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs (p. 105) may also be a
story, though this is not quite improbable. The fables, often told of
Kraken and Spermwhales, that when sleeping on the surface of the water
they are taken for an islet, are also related of sea-serpents: “and
when it is slumbering on the Norway foam, the seamen deeming it some
island, fixed their anchor in its scaly rind” (p. 111).

It is also said to enclose ships by laying itself round them in a
circle; and to upset the ship (p. 109) if the seamen do not try to
escape, which they can manage to do when they row over its body there
where a coil is visible, for that when they reach the coil, it sinks,
while on the contrary the invisible part rises (p. 134, p. 227).
AREND BERNDSEN tells us that sea-serpents, as well as spermwhales,
often run down whole ships with all aboard (p. 134), and some north
sailors know that it had occasionally thrown itself across a yacht
of several hundred tons and dragged it to the bottom (p. 134). Mr.
Lee has sufficiently shown in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, that large
calamaries really sometimes snatch a man from a rowing boat; for a
long time this was considered to be a fable; now, however, zoologists
unconditionally accept it as truth. Such incidents, if happened,
are generally, but falsely, attributed by the Northern fishermen to
sea-serpents (p. 105, p. 108, p. 134).

It is not astonishing that by such people the sea-serpent is called
dangerous to seamen (p. 108, p. 134) and that they are very much
afraid of it (7, 14, p. 134, 61, 64, 65, 67, 92, 103, p. 259, 139,
157), and will never forget to take with them asa foetida or castoreum,
the smell of which the animal cannot bear (p. 130, p. 134, p. 259)
Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent
approaches, and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts the
animal (p. 259). Some believe that it casts its skin, as common snakes
do (p. 132), and that it is born on land, and lives in forests and
mountains till it can no longer hide its enormous body in it; then it
seeks some river and floats down to the sea (p. 133). When swimming,
sea-serpents don’t show their tail above the surface. Fishermen, in
their fear, would say: if one was near the head, the other end of the
animal could not be seen (103). I am convinced that this is one of
the reasons that the animal is sometimes said to be at least a cable
in length. The animal leaves behind itself a considerable wake, which
may be another reason that the witnesses exaggerated its length. So we
find: it is three hundred feet long (p. 107, 21), about 320 feet (106
A), six hundred and seventy feet (p. 130, 61), about a fourth of an
English mile (79), about 750 feet (85), from six hundred to 800 ells,
i. e. from 1340 to 1780 feet (103), more than 500 feet (130) or half a
mile long (156).

The thickness too is sometimes exaggerated (twenty feet, p. 105); the
head is described in some instances to be as large as a foering boat,
i. e. about twenty feet long (117, 146), or twelve feet long (126), or
perhaps ten feet long (118), and the tail fully a hundred and fifty
feet in length (146). The jaws are said to be of such an enormous size
that, if extended, they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a
tall man standing upright in them (118). It may be that the alleged
serpentine shape of the animal caused some writers to give scales to
the sea-serpent (p. 105), or that the distance was too large for a
closer examination, so that the observers thought it might have a hard
skin (5), or a rough coating (41, 51), or even a scaly one (39), or it
was the fear which made them see scales (157) which in reality did not
exist. Scales are also occasionally delineated (fig. 26) though the
eye-witness does not mention them, and even believed it belonged to the
eel-tribe (63). No wonder that such a terrible animal is often called
Leviathan (p. 111), an animal which raises its coils so high above
the water, that a ship can go through one of them (p. 109). Norwegian
fishermen really believe that the animal sometimes comes on land as
OLAUS MAGNUS (p. 105) and PONTOPPIDAN (p. 133) tell us, and as is
stated afterwards, when even distinct traces of it were said to have
been found in the fields (96).

In my opinion it is an error to believe that there are _two_ species
of sea-serpents (p. 107) or that there are several species of them all
belonging to the same genus (112). And also that the animal ever takes
a boat for one of the other sex, which induces it to follow the boat
(p. 133). This is a habit of the animal; but as it is a quite harmless
one, it is an error to believe that it grows furious when the pursued
are so fortunate as to escape (158), or that it may ever destroy them,
even after being struck with a boat-hook (112). That the shores of
Norway are the only in Europe, which are frequented by this monster (p.
135) is a positive error, since the animal is known to appear also on
the coasts of Great Britain, France, and even in the Mediterranean.

From what we now know of the division of the colours of the animal’s
body, I don’t hesitate to say that they are wrongly represented in
one of the drawings (fig. 31). The cetacean tail delineated in fig.
49 is explained in n^o. 151, the fish tail of fig. 26 in n^o. 63. The
definition that the eyes were of a greenish hue and looked devilish
(158) is certainly the result of an observation made in great fright.
I am sure that in cases wherein the colour of the head and neck are
described as a bluish green (29), or of a blue colour (29), or as blue
as possible (29), and that of the back of a dark green (30), these
definitions are the result of optical illusion, or the observers may
have been colour-blind.

The twelve fins (129, fig. 36) of which six are drawn on the left side
and six on the right side of the body emerging from the water, are
undoubtedly the result of an optical deception, as I have explained in
n^o. 129.--In the same way I have explained why the animal has a head
connected with the body without any indication of a neck, so that it
resembled a gigantic salamander (146), and that it seemed to be of a
gelatinous, that is flabby, substance (146), and that the motion of it
was apparently cork-screw-like (155).

In no case the antenna, ending in a crescent (106 A) or the ridge of
fins (148), or the discolouring of the water (131) observed, have
anything to do with the animal or with its appearance.

But let us now pass to the _facts_ which may be inferred from what is
reported of the animal.

B. Facts.

These are so numerous that I am obliged to bring them together under
several heads.

1. EXTERNAL CHARACTERS.

a. Dimensions.

_The length of what was visible of the animal_ above the surface of the
water was estimated to be: from sixteen to eighteen feet (25), several
meters (136), about twenty feet (150), from twenty to thirty feet (35),
thirty feet (113, 123), about thirty-six feet (92), about forty feet
(26, 41, 42, 44, 80, 91, 128, 145), forty-five feet (137), between
forty and fifty feet (115, 147), fifty feet at least (43, 46, 50, 51,
60), about fifty-five feet (94), from fifty to sixty feet (63), sixty
feet (57, 83, 117, 118, 129, 138, 150), seventy-five feet (152 A),
eighty feet at least (97), a hundred and fifty feet (154), and, though
estimated by the eye-witnesses at about fifty feet, the visible part
must, according to my reckoning, have been eighty feet at least in n^o.
148. These enormous differences in the statements cannot surprise us
of an animal which may attain a length of more than two hundred feet.
As a rule the animal swims with head and neck above the water-surface,
commonly the back too is partly visible, but of the tail only a small
portion. In n^o. 154 as we see, a length of 150 feet of the animal was
visible; in this instance it lay nearly perfectly still; only the long
neck and head were under water, and the back and a great length of tail
were above the surface.

The _whole length of the animal_ is spoken of as: great (37, 152),
large (119), very large (2), considerable (107), immense (36),
astonishing (1), enormous (132), as a yacht of fifty tons (8), three or
four times larger than the ship (5), eighteen feet (14), from fifty to
fifty-five feet (19), from fifty to sixty feet (18), sixty feet (17,
28, 56), at least sixty feet (82), more than sixty feet (29), from
sixty to seventy feet (24), from sixty to eighty feet (139, 142), about
seventy feet (29), not above seventy feet (109), at least seventy feet
(41), from seventy to eighty feet (31), from seventy to one hundred
feet (74), seventy five feet (1, 158), about eighty feet (63), from
eighty to ninety feet (39, 118), about ninety feet (121, 134), one
hundred feet (17, 33, 41, 44, 45, 63, 66, 69, 135), at least a hundred
feet (34), more than one hundred feet (95), greater than the animal
of Captain M’QUHAE, consequently probably more than one hundred feet
(93), one hundred and twenty feet (34), from one hundred and twenty to
one hundred and thirty feet (105), one hundred and thirty feet (69),
about one hundred and fifty feet (65), from one hundred and fifty to
two hundred feet (114), from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and
seventy feet (34, 144), one hundred and eighty feet (126), one hundred
and ninety feet (52), about 200 feet (p. 107, p. 138, 130, 155, 157),
more than two hundred feet (p. 107, 30, 131), and though estimated by
the eye witnesses (see n^o. 148) as to be at least one hundred and
fifty feet, the individual seen by them must have been, according to
my reckoning, more than two hundred feet long.--Such a length needs no
explanation: it is _a fact_, established by the declarations of highly
respectable men, and of men who are accustomed to estimate the length
of objects floating in the water from afar and at any short distance.
Moreover it is the enormous tail which apparently enlargens these
dimensions. The elephant is of a great bulk and of an enormous weight,
but the giraffe astonishes us by its enormous legs and its enormous
neck, though its body and its head are smaller than that of a moderate
sized horse. So the colossal spermwhales, fin whales and whalebone
whales surprise us by their bulk and weight, but the sea-serpent
deprived of its neck and immense tail is only a child to them. Moreover
a zoologist has not one single reason to deny the possibility of the
existence of sea-animals with a body of no more than sixty feet, a neck
of sixty feet, and a tail of hundred and twenty feet.

The _length of the head_ is, according to the different declarations:
nearly as that of a man (19, 43), about the size of the crown of a hat
(42), larger than that of any dog (38), as large as a hat (94), about
as that of a pail (29), full as large as a four gallon keg (42), equal
to a small cask (109), nearly as large as the head of a horse (39, 60),
rather larger than that of a horse (29), two feet long (56, 81), of the
size of a ten gallon keg (48, 80, 92, 102), as large as a barrel (101),
as large as a flour barrel (158), of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead
(152 A), long (118), with regard to its thickness not very long (94),
long in proportion to the throat (95), about six feet in length (97),
about six or eight feet long (34, 120), as large as a little boat (32),
colossal (115). The head of the individual seen by the officers of
H. M. S. _Daedalus_ cannot have been longer than three feet, as the
neck is estimated sixteen inches in diameter, though it is called long
(118) or even ten feet long (118); evidently a portion of the neck was
included in the calculation. The head of the individual seen by the
officers of the royal yacht _Osborne_ must have been from eight to nine
feet long, as its breadth is estimated at six feet (148).

The _length of the neck_ is said to be: long (31, 56, 119, 124),
enormous (p. 225), a length of ten feet was visible (48), about
eighteen feet (124), about twenty feet (118), at least twenty feet
(160), the neck together with the body fifty or forty-five feet, i.
e. the neck alone must have been about twenty-five feet (146), about
twenty five feet (149), at least twenty five feet (152), about thirty
feet (151), about sixty feet (145); “from its crown or top to just
below the shoulder where it became immersed, I should reckon about
fifty feet”, but as the eye-witness saw the animal from behind, the
length of the neck could not be estimated with accuracy; as to me, I
am convinced that the neck of the individual measured about sixty feet
(148). The long neck is delineated in fig. 46, 48 and 49.

_The length of the trunk_ has never been actually estimated, as nearly
all the observers believed that the animal was serpent-shaped, and
therefore estimated only its total length or the part exposed to their
eyes. Yet we may put down the length of the trunk of the individual
seen by the officers of H. M. S. _Daedalus_ to be about twenty feet,
as one of the hindflappers was occasionally seen at about twenty
feet distant from the point where one of the foreflappers was also
occasionally seen. And as this fore-flapper was visible at about twenty
feet in the rear of the head, we may conclude that the length of the
trunk equals that of the neck (118). Consequently we may decide that
the individual observed by the Captain and the surgeon of the _Nestor_,
who saw the animal swimming evidently with its neck contracted, had a
neck and a trunk each of about forty feet (146). In the same way we
may conclude that the individual observed by the captain and crew of
the _Pauline_ (145) and that seen by the officers of the royal yacht
_Obsorne_ (148) had both a neck and a trunk of each about sixty feet.

The _tail_ delineated in fig. 19, has only three times been actually
estimated. Once it is called thirty five feet long (8), then forty feet
long (162), and once a hundred and fifty feet (146). In my opinion
the animal’s tail in this last instance cannot have been longer than
about eighty feet, i. e. as long as the animal’s head, neck and trunk
together. The length of the individual observed by the officers of the
_Daedalus_ was estimated by them to be at least eighty feet. As he
have reckoned above about forty three feet for head, neck and trunk
together, its tail consequently must have been about forty feet long.
So the animal’s hind flappers are situated almost in the middle of
the whole length. And therefore EGEDE and BING did not observe them,
because the middle part of the whole length remained hidden from them
(fig. 19). Captain HOPE states (119) that the animal seen from above on
its back resembles an alligator with an enormous neck. If the animal
had not an immense tail, he would never have made this comparison.
When Captain TREMEARNE says “also a great length of tail” he seems to
me to have included in his estimation a portion of the animal’s trunk
(129). The individuals seen by the officers of the _Osborne_ (148), of
the _Pauline_ (145), and of the _Kätie_ (154), undoubtedly had a tail
of about one hundred or even of one hundred and twenty feet in length.
Captain D’ABNOUR called the tail enormous (106 A).

Twice (14, 119) it has been stated that the _four flappers_ were seen
together; the two _fore flappers_ were seen four times (5, 121, 129,
148, see also p. 250); and delineated in fig. 19, 36, and 45; it is
possible that the two _hind flappers_ were twice seen (151, 158),
and delineated in fig. 49. Four times one of the fore-flappers was
visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154) and twice one of the
hindflappers (118, 154). The foreflappers are called broad and large
(5), frightful, several feet in length (121), larger than the posterior
(119), about fifteen feet in length (148), and of immense dimensions
(154); judging from the drawing illustrating this last instance (fig.
50), I should estimate its length also at fifteen feet. Captain
D’ABNOUR saw one of the foreflappers rising to the height of about six
feet from the water and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon
the body (106 A). The hindflappers are said to be smaller than the
anterior (119), and about ten feet long (154).

As to the _breadth of the head_, some observers mention its diameter,
and some its circumference, or they compare its thickness either with
that of the neck, with that of the trunk, or with some well-known
object; this is the reason that we meet with the following statements:
it is rather broad (31), where the head was connected with the body
(read neck) it was a little larger than the body (read neck) (34), the
head was rather larger than the body (read neck) (48), much smaller
than the body (69), narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently
the animal had contracted its neck, so that this latter grew much
thicker (69), about two feet in diameter (150), about three feet in
circumference (69), at least three feet in circumference (29), about as
thick as a ten gallon keg (92), about six feet thick (148).

The _neck_ is somewhat smaller than the head (31), as is also stated
in other accounts: smaller than the head (109), much thinner than the
head (91), comparatively narrow (148), and may be two and a half feet
in circumference (48), just behind the head sixteen inches thick (118),
about the thickness of a man’s waist (124), about two feet in diameter
(149), or about four feet thick (148).

The _thickness of the animal_ has commonly been compared with that
of different objects, a circumstance which makes it difficult to fix
the true diameter. Moreover it is in many instances difficult to make
out whether the animal’s neck, just behind the head, is meant by the
observer, or the animal’s chest or breast, which is the thickest
part of the trunk. For the animal generally swims in such a way that
a little part of its back rises above the surface of the water,
completely hiding its thickest part and its flappers, so that it makes
the impression to be a serpentine animal without any appendages, and of
a uniform size. So the animal is said to be ten or twelve inches thick
(147), about twelve inches (113), about fourteen inches (102), fifteen
inches (19), as thick as a half-barrel (39, 41, 44, 48, 63), as thick
as a common firkin (63), about twenty two inches (17), as thick as a
barrel (34, 41, 80), as thick as a man’s body (46), as thick as a wine
barrel (2, 85), as thick as a stout man (94), as thick as a barrel of
two hogsheads (12), three feet (17), as thick as a sloop’s boom (24),
three to four feet in circumference (25), as thick as a full-grown ox
(79), about two feet in diameter (92), inconsiderable (95), as thick
as a large horse (109), he is the thickest just behind the head (103),
several ells (115), as thick as our main mast (135), thirty feet from
its head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat
(126), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the
back (121), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (148), the
shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (122).

The _tail-root_ had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet (146),
but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a few
instances that it was actually observed.

The _tail ends_ in a point (fig. 19, fig. 20), and consequently is
mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also said to
be as pointed as a boat-hook (8), or very pointed (12).

_Comparison of the dimensions._ Supposing that the dimensions of
the several portions of the animal are relatively nearly the same
in individuals of different ages, we are able to draw up a table of
comparative and relative dimensions. We learn from the officers of the
_Daedalus_ that the vertical diameter of the neck was about 1¹⁄₃ feet.
From the officers of the _Osborne_ we have the following estimations of
dimensions: horizontal diameter of the head about 6 feet, horizontal
diameter of the neck about 4 feet. We know from several eye-witnesses
that the neck is round, so that we may suppose that its vertical
diameter is the same as its horizontal or transversal one. Consequently
the transversal diameter of the neck of the _Daedalus_ animal was
1¹⁄₃ or ⁴⁄₃ feet; and that of its head ⁶⁄₃ = 2 feet. For a moment I
will suppose that in these animals a head of about 2 feet broad has a
length of about 3 feet, and this I may do, as the heads of the animals
which I consider as allied to sea-serpents, have nearly these relative
dimensions. In the same way I may put the length of the head of the
_Osborne_ individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to
the foreflapper in the _Daedalus_ animal was about twenty feet. We may
consequently suppose that the same portion measured sixty feet in the
individual seen by the officers of the _Osborne_. As to the question
whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done hitherto?
I answer without hesitation _no_, this length also includes a portion
of the animal’s trunk, viz. the part from its shoulder to the point
where the fore limb is free. In the animals which, in my opinion, are
allied to the sea-serpent, the upper arm is, so to say, “imbedded” in
the trunk’s integument, is not free, as in man, and nearly immovable,
and this portion is about one third of the whole length of the limb.
Consequently we may conclude that, if the free part of the foreflapper
is about fifteen feet, the portion of the trunk from the place where
the fore limb in seated on the body to the shoulder is about seven
feet and a half. Consequently the individual of the _Osborne_ had a
neck of about 53 feet. As the size of the individual of the _Daedalus_
was about one third of that of the _Osborne_, its neck was about 17¹⁄₂
feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the _Daedalus_
individual were five feet in length. The distance from the foreflapper
to the hind flapper in the _Daedalus_ animal measured about 20 feet,
consequently the _trunk_ measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that the distance
from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the _Osborne_ animal must
have been about 60 feet, and the length of its _trunk_ about 67 feet.
Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck, and the trunk, we have
for the _Daedalus_ animal 43 feet. This individual swam with its body
in a straight line; “sixty feet at least were visible _à fleur d’eau_”
are the words of Captain M’QUHAE, substantiated by the reports of
two of his officers. Yet it was obvious that this was not the whole
length of the animal, and that a great length of tail was hidden under
water. The animal was estimated to be from eighty to ninety feet
in length. I have not a single reason to doubt this statement, and
therefore conclude that the tail of the animal was about as long as
the distance from the animal’s nose to its hindflappers. But I will
not be too bold and only give it a length of about forty feet. If this
is within the bounds of truth, of which I don’t doubt in the least,
the length of the tail of the individual, seen by the officers of the
_Osborne_ measured about 120 feet. Captain HOPE who had the opportunity
to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position,
states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (119). I
venture to estimate the length of the last at about ²⁄₃ of that of the
foreflappers. So we may estimate the length of the hindflappers of the
two individuals at 3¹⁄₃ and 10 feet respectively. As to the breadth of
the animal’s trunk the officers of the _Osborne_ state that it was from
fifteen to twenty feet in their individual. We may safely suppose that
the animal did not expose its greatest breadth, which must have been a
little below the surface of the water, so that I don’t hesitate to fix
the greatest diameter at 20 or 21 feet. The body gradually diminishes
towards the tail, and this in its turn towards its end, which, as we
have observed, is pointed.

The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions
only from the reports of the officers of the _Daedalus_ and of the
_Osborne_, is that they had a very favourable opportunity to estimate
them. The former saw the animal swimming with its body in a straight
line, and with its neck quite stretched, not contracted, showing the
greater part of its length, and swimming in such a way that it was seen
just from aside, so that the different _lengths_ of the portions of the
body could easily be estimated. And the latter saw the animal just from
behind, so that the different _breadths_ of the animal could be seen;
moreover the dimensions of the foreflappers were visible.

I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s
proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.

+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of head. | ³⁄₄ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of neck. | 4 | 6 |11²⁄₃|17¹⁄₂| 23¹⁄₂|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of trunk. | 4⁷⁄₁₂| 7¹⁄₂|15 |22¹⁄₂| 29²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of tail. | 8²⁄₃ |13¹⁄₃|26²⁄₃|40 | 53¹⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Total length. |18 |27²⁄₃|55¹⁄₃|83 |110²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|From occiput to foreflappers.| 4¹⁄₃ | 6²⁄₃|13¹⁄₃|20 | 26²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Breadth of head. | ⁵⁄₁₂| ²⁄₃| 1¹⁄₃| 2 | 2²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Breadth of neck. | ³⁄₁₂| ⁴⁄₉| ⁸⁄₉| 1¹⁄₂| 1²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Breadth of trunk. | 1¹⁄₂ | 2¹⁄₃| 4²⁄₃| 7 | 9¹⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of foreflapper. | 1 | 1²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₃| 5 | 6²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of hindflapper. | ⁷⁄₉ | 1¹⁄₆| 2¹⁄₃| 3¹⁄₂| 4¹⁄₂|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+

+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of head. | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of neck. | 29¹⁄₂| 35¹⁄₃| 41¹⁄₆| 47 | 53|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of trunk. | 37¹⁄₆| 44²⁄₃| 52¹⁄₉| 59¹⁄₂| 67|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of tail. | 66²⁄₃| 80 | 93¹⁄₃|106²⁄₃|120|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Total length. |138¹⁄₃|166 |193²⁄₃|221¹⁄₃|249|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|From occiput to foreflappers.| 33¹⁄₃| 40 | 46²⁄₃| 53¹⁄₃| 60|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Breadth of head. | 3¹⁄₃| 4 | 4²⁄₃| 5¹⁄₃| 6|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Breadth of neck. | 2¹⁄₆| 2²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₉| 3¹⁄₂| 4|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Breadth of trunk. | 11²⁄₃| 14 | 16¹⁄₃| 18²⁄₃| 21|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of foreflapper. | 8¹⁄₃| 10 | 11²⁄₃| 13¹⁄₃| 15|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of hindflapper. | 5¹⁄₂| 6²⁄₃| 7⁵⁄₆| 9 | 10|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+

I am far from asserting that these dimensions will prove to be correct,
if ever an individual falls into the hands of men, but I am sure that
they are approximately correct.

Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence of
an animal of 250 feet! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself the
utmost possible length of our Sea-Serpent!

b. Form.

The name we give to an unknown object will naturally depend on the
impression it makes on us at first sight. To some the animal was like
a log of wood or a floating tree; comparisons which will be spoken
of below. It is called an animal of the fish kind (60), or a most
remarkable fish (118), or a very large fish (29), and to be eel-shaped
(33), or to resemble a large eel (118, 152). Some persons say it
appeared to be of a uniform size (34), and others that it gradually
tapers towards the two extremes (41), and appeared round (43). One of
the eye-witnesses says: I do not undertake to say he was of the snake
or eel kind, though this was the general impression on my family, the
spectators and myself (63). Generally it is compared with a snake (5,
17, 18, 25, 26, 37, 41, 44, 60, 80, 118, 135, 152) or serpent (26,
36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 60, 80, 103, 118, 121, 147, 157). Curious
is the statement of one that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without,
however, having ever heard of such an animal (132)! Remarkable is the
opinion of an officer of the _Daedalus_: it was, he says, rather of
a lizard than of a serpentine character, as its movement was steady
and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power
(118). Remarkable too is PONTOPPIDAN’S comparison of an animal which
he himself, believing that sea-serpents have no fins, or paws, or
flappers, did not mention in his paragraph about the subject, viz.
with a crocodile (14). Captain HOPE who had an opportunity to observe
the animal from above, described it as a large marine animal with the
head and general figure of the alligator, except that the neck was
much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had four flappers
somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the
posterior (119). In my opinion the comparison of Lieutenant HAYNES,
of the _Osborne_, who saw the fore part of the animal from behind,
deserves all our attention; he says: the animal resembled a huge seal,
the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head (148, fig.
45).

The _shape of the head_ has also been described in different ways.
There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (31); here
it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that it
was as round as a flour-barrel (158, evidently seen in front), and
bullet-shaped (148, seen from behind, fig. 45). The head is also said
to appear like a triangular rock (74), or like a nun buoy (131), or
like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at our
fig. 31, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another instance
the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon cask
(102), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat oval”. Major
SENIOR asserts that the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of
the dragon he has often seen (149); the explanation of this curious
comparison I have given in treating of his report. The head, says
somebody, resembled the end of a log (150), and: the thick bluff head
had but little resemblance to a snake’s (150); but he saw the animal in
late evening twilight. But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble
that of a snake (p. 137, 29, 60, 97, 101, 118, 121), or serpent
(29, 48, 61, 63, 74), or something that of a rattle snake (39); and
evidently seen in a somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped
much like that of a sea-turtle (38). I can only explain these different
comparisons by supposing that to some extent the head really resembles
these various head shapes, being flattened above and somewhat blunt at
its end. Though the officers of the _Daedalus_, too, compared it with
that of a snake, their drawing (fig. 30) shows the head of a mammal.
The proportions of the length and height, the outlines of the jaws,
the extension of the mouth-split, the situation of the nostril and the
eye, the flattened appearance of the forehead and nose, the bluntness
of the snout and the presence of the two cushions on the crown of the
head (the external visible masticatory muscles) are true mammalian
characters. It therefore is not wonderful also to find such a head
compared with that of a bull-dog (152 A), that of a walrus (129), that
of a seal (8, 29, 148), and that of a sea-lion (36). When the animal
held its head at nearly right angles with its neck, which has often
been the case, and opened its nostrils as wide as possible (and the
nostrils are exceedingly large), such a head, with its flattened nose
and forehead, and with its somewhat protruding eyes, resembled that of
a horse (9, 63, 124). We observe that the head is compared with _seven_
different head-shapes, _five_ of which are mammalian. It is obvious
that the observers compared it with the heads of those animals which
involuntarily and at once occurred to them. To which of these types are
we to direct our attention? Which of these types will the sea-serpent’s
head resemble most? I say, that of the sea-lion. And why? Because the
animal, with the head of which that of the sea-serpent was compared,
was not present at the time, except in Mr. KRIUKOF’S case. He was daily
surrounded by sea-lions; the image of the sea-lion’s head was as firmly
impressed on his memory as that of a dog on his master’s; and I greatly
doubt whether the other observers were acquainted with sea-lions. These
animals, especially the species of the Northern Pacific, are only of
late years to be seen in the zoological gardens, and it remains to be
found out whether the most recent eye-witnesses of the sea-serpent ever
saw a sea-lion, and if so, whether the features of the animal had been
impressed on their memory so as to recognize the same shape in the head
of another animal. Moreover the head of a sea-lion, especially that of
_Zalophus californianus_ has some resemblance to a snake’s.

The _neck_ being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s
(74), or of a common snake’s (97, 101), and tapering small from the
head to the body (121). It is obvious that this observer used the
expression “tapering” in a sense contrary to the usual one, for he had
a fair opportunity to see the animal’s head, long neck and upper part
of the trunk with the two foreflappers, and he goes on with the words:
and it appeared to measure about seven feet across the broadest part of
the back.

The _trunk_ must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may be
inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably
broader than the head (31), from the shoulders it tapered towards the
tail (31, 39, 91, 150), the breadth diminished remarkably towards
the tail (92), from the shoulder (estimated to be about twenty feet)
diminishing towards the tail to about twenty four inches (122),
evidently the end of the latter was hidden under water. Moreover,
the body is said to be round (102, 115, 117), even as a snake’s
(92), and on one occasion, when seen from behind, is said to be
developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle (148, fig. 45),
which we need not say, was the result of the upper part of the back
being only visible. Remarkable is the use of the term “shoulders”,
for even if the flappers of the animal were never actually observed,
we are now obliged to conclude that the animal was possessed of
fore-limbs. Equally remarkable is the statement: “there is a distinct
difference in thickness between the body and the tail; the trunk is
not gradually growing smaller, where the tail begins, but at once
and very distinctly” (8, 12, 146); for such an animal has rumps, and
consequently also thighs and hind-limbs.

The _tail_ itself is cylindrical (146), like that of a snake (101), and
tapering to its end (8, 12, 146, 150, fig. 19). Twice the animal’s head
and tail were plainly visible above the surface (135, 162), the trunk
being wholly hidden under the surface of the water; it was called a
snake; the shape of the tail was not mentioned; evidently the tail was
pointed, else it would have been described as resembling that of a fish
or of a whale; evidently it was also tapering to its end, else it would
have been described as a cord or whiplike. The same was the case in
n^o. 152 A; the observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.

_Position and shape of flappers._ HANS EGEDE said that the animal had
two flappers on the fore-part of the body (5), but the drawing of
Mr. BING, his brother missionary (fig. 19), is not accurate, as the
animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too large, and the flappers
themselves are badly represented. It seems, however, that the indented
edge of the foreflappers did not escape the eyes of Mr. BING. Mr.
BAKEWELL asserts that the flappers are described to resemble those of
turtles (p. 250); most probably the foreflappers are meant here, as
these are occasionally seen above the surface, which is hardly ever
the case with the hindflappers. In an animal which was estimated at
from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the fore-flappers was occasionally
visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at
about one fourth of the whole length (118). Captain HOPE states that
the flappers were somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair
being larger than the posterior (110). According to the figures 36, 45
and 50 on the right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion.
In the figures 36 and 45 the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the
animal of the _Daedalus_, which was from 80 to 90 feet in length, one
of the hindflappers was occasionally visible at about forty feet in the
rear of the head, consequently at about the centre of the whole length
(118). Of course they were invisible to EGEDE and BING, as the middle
part of the animal’s body was hidden under water (fig. 19).

The _fore-head_ is described as high and broad (p. 144) and flat (29,
41, 44, 60, 69, 118, 157, fig. 30), or depressed (56) and once Mr.
SENIOR thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow, a bull dog
appearance (149).

The _snout or muzzle_ is called long and sharp (5, fig. 19), sharp (p.
130, 115, 120), tapering to a point (48), rather pointed (91), pointed
(118), though the accompanying figure (fig. 30) contradicts this,
pointed like that of a porpoise (122), an elongated termination (148),
not pointed but bluntly round (92), not pointed but seemed rather blunt
(94), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows and horses have (p. 144),
evidently with the nostrils opened as wide as possible, rather blunt
(48), apparently blunt (102), bluff (150), obtuse (56), the head,
estimated at eight or six feet long, consequently at five or four feet
broad, tapered to the size of a horse’s (34), the snout being somewhat
similar in form to that of a seal (148).

The _upperjaw_ projects considerably (118); we may safely read projects.

_Under the jaw_ there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch (126).
This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible as it
even occurs in allied animals.

The _nostrils_ are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal is
able to close them; they are, however, delineated (fig. 19, fig. 24,
fig. 36), or indicated with a crescentic mark (fig. 80), and mentioned
to have been distinctly visible (118), and described as large (p. 180).
It is also evident that when the animal opens them as wide as possible,
the beak appears quadrangular, as is the mouth of cows and horses (p.
130). This comparison agrees with the description of the nose sides or
flaps which are here said to be “nearly semicircular flaps or valves
overarching the nostrils, which were in front” (143).

Of the _whiskers_ PONTOPPIDAN already tells us that on the sides
of the nostrils there are a few stiff hairs or bristles, as other
animals have, with a good nose (p. 130). These whiskers are mentioned
afterwards only once: “on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a
seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long” (103). Were these
whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that of a seal (8,
29), with that of a walrus (129), or with that of a sea-lion (36)?
I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency, they are not
mentioned in the reports.

The _mouth_ is transverse (56) and large (9, 56); it is rarely
mentioned, but once stated to have been distinctly visible (118); once
it was estimated at fifteen inches (56) (I may ask: large, long, or
when opened?), and once we find the firm assertion that when open it
looked like that of a serpent! (41).

The _eyes_ were not always seen; it may be that the distance was too
large, or that the animal kept them closed (115, 128, 130, 137, 146).
They are mentioned as to have been only visible in 31, 80, 101, 118,
126, 152, 158; but sometimes we get a short description. They are round
(92, fig. 30), about the size of an ox’s (48), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in
diameter (102), about 5 inches in diameter (92), large (p. 131, 91,
122), large as a plate (32, 103), disproportionately large (36), broad
(p. 225), very large (92), relatively large (112). We observe that
the size of the eyes, when opened as wide as possible, has struck the
observers; they must be disproportionately large. But if we wish to
know the relative largeness, we have only to consult n^o. 92 and 102,
where the eyes are estimated at 3¹⁄₂ and 5 inches. On both occasions
the observers estimated the head to be as long as a ten gallon cask,
and about of the same thickness. As to the lustre of the eyes we read
that: they are not glossy (103), generally, however, glossy (122),
brilliant (p. 105), flaming (p. 105), sharp (44), very bright (48),
and glittering (63, p. 225, 92). It seems that the eyes, seen in their
axis are dark (44, 103), or black (9, 103), and that, when seen in an
oblique direction they seem to be blue or better tin-coloured, for
they are said to resemble rather a pair of pewter plates (p. 131). We
also conclude that when seen in the axis and reflecting the daylight
by their _tapetum lucidum_ they glisten like those of a cat (91), or
have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity (143), and this glimmer or
glistening was said to be red (33), or reddish like a burning fire (5),
or crimson (92). The eye is delineated in fig. 19, 24, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 36.--One of the eye-witnesses of no 48 states that there is a
small bunch on each side of his head, just above his eye; another too
said: there appeared a bunch above the eyes (48). It is also said that
the eyes are prominent, and stand out considerably from the surface,
resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad (60). It is easy to
understand that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (56), and
that another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (149).
This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (fig. 19, 26). The situation of
the eyes is over the jaws (56), and nearer to the mouth of the animal
than to the back of the head (60, fig. 30).

Neither _ear-holes_ nor _external ears_ are mentioned. If external ears
are present, they must be exceedingly minute; the absence, however, is
very probable; at all events earholes must be present, but they are
evidently very small, and capable of being closed, as in seals. Curious
is the assertion “the ears seemed to be diaphanous” (143).

There is a slight hollow at the _top of the head_ (60, fig. 30).

The _features_ resemble those of an alligator (148), but made on others
the impression as being those of a seal (29).

c. Skin.

Except in two cases (39, 157) when the animal was very near, scales
are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (9, 10, 11, 12,
13, &c., &c., &c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales (149),
altogether devoid of scales (148), smooth (13, p. 132, 41, 43, 48, 56,
59, 60, 92, 103, 114, 115, 118, 146, fig. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 45),
like a mirror (p. 132), shining (114), shining strongly (117), with a
very bright reflexion (46), looking similar to an eel’s (59). But an
animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, _must have a hairy skin_.
Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin appeared rather to
resemble in sleekness that of a seal (148), and still more: that it
is as woolly as a seal’s (8). Such a hairy skin becomes smooth as a
mirror and shines strongly, when it is wet, as may be seen in seals,
sea-lions, and sea-bears.

2. INTERNAL OR ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.

It is not astonishing that we don’t know much of its anatomical
characters, as it never had the honour to be dissected by the able hand
and keen scalpel of an anatomist. Yet it is clear that if the animal
opens its mouth, there is an opportunity to learn something about its
teeth, tongue, etc. Generally it keeps its mouth shut, once only this
is stated (126), as if the observer watched an opportunity to see it
opening its mouth. Though we have several accounts mentioning the
animal opening its mouth (39, 41, 48, 65, 81, 109, 118, 144, 149),
_teeth_ are not always seen, either because the distance was too great,
or because the position was not favourable. Teeth are delineated (fig.
19); they are mentioned in 65, 81, 109, 118, described as formidable in
109, and as jagged in 118.

Of the animal’s _tongue_ we have the following observations: “There
rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear
about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the
bottom, and running to a small point. I thought it not the tongue, as
I saw the prong before I saw the head, but it might have been” (43,
distance forty rods, with a spyglass); “I was struck with an appearance
in the front part of the head like a single horn, about nine inches
to a foot in length, and of the form of a marlinespike. There were
a great many people collected by this time, many of whom had before
seen the same object and the same appearance” (44); “he threw out
his tongue about two feet in length, the end of it appeared to me to
resemble a fisherman’s harpoon” (48); “he raised his tongue several
times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again” (48); “he
threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from
his jaws, the end of it resembled a harpoon” (48); “he threw his tongue
backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again” (48);
“the colour of his tongue was a light brown” (48).

To the descriptions of the teeth and tongue no great value can be
attached, as such organs need close examination. The length of the
tongue is, anatomically spoken, not an impossibility, as it is known
that animals with a long neck generally have a long tongue.

3. COLOURS, INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS.

Just as in some species of the order of Pinnipeds, there seem to exist
indeed some individual variations with regard to the colour of the
sea-serpent.

Just as in the dark specimens of the Pinnipeds, the colour of the
sea-serpent becomes lighter in drying; i. e. the real colour of the
animal comes to light. Properly we should say: their colour is light,
but, when wet, it becomes a dark one. It is evident that the real
colour of the sea-serpent, being dried by the sunshine, is grey (9, 61,
64), a light ash-colour (25), grey and yellow (147), pale yellowish
(146), or yellow (71).

Just as in Pinnipeds, the colour of a wet individual appears much
lighter when it is very close to us, than when we see it at some
distance. Three times the colour is called grey (65, 66, p. 138),
though not a single fact is mentioned, from which it may be made
out, whether the animal was very near or far off. The colour of an
individual which was so close that it could be struck with a handspike
was greyish (72), that of one a few yards distant, light fawn coloured
(122), at about thirty feet distance the colour seemed to be a very
dark grey (102), still farther a greyish brown (79).

Though some persons call the colour only dark, or brown, or black, it
is noteworthy that those who describe it more minutely, agree that the
backpart of the head, the neck, the trunk and the tail are dark, and
that the under part of the head and the neck is light coloured. With
regard to the colour, the animal is evidently longitudinally divided
into a dark one above and a light one beneath.

The dark colour of the upper part seems to vary a little, as may be
seen from the following appellations: dark (41, 48, 51, 63, 67, 80, 85,
103, 115, 131, 152 A, 154), very dark (42, 48), somewhat dark (95),
dark dull (130), evidently a chocolate brown, or mahogany brown, or
chestnut brown, for it was compared with a red snake (36), chocolate
colour (44), dark chocolate colour (48), colour of a pilot fish (151),
old mahogany brown (92), dirty brown (121), brown (43, 81, 92, 144),
deep brown (34), dark brown (p. 131, 39, 44, 46, 56, 69, 97, 115, 117,
118, 135), blackish brown (91), approaching to black (63), nearly black
(41, 95, 97) almost black (48), blackish (65, 94, 117), black (34, 42,
60, 85, 114, 120, 126, 138, 149, 150, 152, 155), as black as coal-tar
(152). The tints of the figures also evidently represent a dark colour
(figg. 28, 29, 30, 41, 45, 46). By some witnesses the colour of the
head is observed to be darker than that of the body; we may safely read
for “body” the “neck”. Once the colour of the shoulders is reported to
be much darker than the rest of the body (122).

On this dark upperpart spots, stripes, streaks etc. of a lighter hue
are observed more than once: the colour was that of a conger eel,
consequently brown with lighter streaks (144), spotted, and with light
flames, or maculated, with distinctly visible light spots like a turtle
or a lackered table (p. 131), apparently shaded with light colours
(41), streaked with white in irregular streaks (97), on an under ground
of fawn colour there were large brown spots behind the shoulders (122),
maculated with large white spots (130), covered with several white
spots (131), brown with black spots (162). See also figg. 37 and 38.

In some individuals there is a black ring round the eye (p. 131, 29),
and the region of the mouth is also black, so that they resemble those
horses which we call moorish heads or blackfaces (p. 131, 9).

The sides of the underjaw seem to be very light coloured: white (34,
41, 126, figg. 28, 29, 30), as is also the throat: whitish (p. 138,
117, figg. 28, 29, 30), yellow (25), muddy white (56), yellowish white
(118), brownish white (118), light coloured (126), white (69, 144),
“the underpart of its head appeared nearly white” (41), “several feet
of its belly” (read throat) “which were visible appeared nearly white”
(41); very remarkable is the supposition of Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY: “I
suppose and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white”
(41), this really seems to be the case, for we read in 106 A that the
tail is longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black, and
in n^o. 144 that the whole animal was longitudinally divided into two
sections, white and black. Of course in both cases the black side was
the back-side, as was very well supposed by Captain Drevar in n^o. 144.

I am of course unable to decide in how far the problematic dark stripe,
curved downwards, on each side behind the underjaw, and as long as the
head, delineated in figg. 28 and 29, will ever be found to come up to
reality.

The representation of the colours in fig. 31 is very bad, as the
animal’s back is drawn lighter than the underpart, and I believe that
such alternating broad bands of a light and dark colour don’t exist in
reality, but are here the result of drawing with a pencil.

4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE.

It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and that others
have not.

The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over the whole
length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, and diminishing
gradually to the tail where it evidently passes imperceptibly into the
common hair-coating. The mane is said to have been visible on its head
(135); at the back of the head (figg. 17, 24, n^o. 102), which no doubt
means just behind the occiput. Further: on the neck (p. 105, p. 132, p.
138, p. 225, 9, 11, 12, 101, 103, fig. 31), from the back of the head a
mane commenced (91), just behind the head the mane was thickest and got
thinner further backwards (91), close behind the head a mane commences
along the neck (92), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (92), the
head was provided with a mane hanging down (152 A); evidently the mane
extends from the head over the whole length of the neck and the trunk
(18? fig. 28, fig. 29). The mane near the head is long (9, 152 A),
tolerably long (92), two feet long (p. 105), and all along the neck and
back: not very long (91), that it is of some length, we must suppose,
for it is said to wash about to and fro in the water (91, 118, 120),
and to spread to left and to right floating on the water (92), when the
animal swims. The colour of the mane seems to be white (9) when dried
up by the sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the
body (102), brown (92, 152 A). The mane resembles that of a horse (p.
138, p. 225, 91, 92, 103, 118) or rather seaweed (p. 132, 118, 135).

Probably a mane was present in n^o. 51, and 74; the back from afar,
was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and had a rugged
appearance; see also fig. 36.

Twice it is stated that there was no mane (26, 115, see also fig. 19
and 27), but we have so many reports which don’t mention the mane, and
which surely would have mentioned it, if it had been present, that we
are obliged to believe that those individuals had no mane. In other
instances the distance was too great to observe a mane, even if the
animal had been provided with one.

I am sure that here we have one of the differences between males and
females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a difference in
size between males and females, I should not be surprised that, if
these animals were better known to zoologists, the males would, in
general, prove to surpass the females twice in size and four or six
times in weight. In my opinion large individuals are, therefore, males,
and must have a mane, or at one time have had one. The probability
exists that they lose the greater part of their mane at a certain age,
or that they were moulting when they were seen; which would account for
the fact that in some large individuals no mane was observed.

[Illustration: Fig. 72. Sea-serpent, side view, drawn from the
descriptions.]

[Illustration: Fig. 73. Sea-serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from
the descriptions.]

I have ventured to draw the outlines of the animal from the
descriptions. Fig. 72 represents it as seen from aside, with the
divisions of the colours, and fig. 73 as seen on the back with the
whiskers and the extension of the mane in the males.

5. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

a. Nutritory functions.

1. _Eating, Food._--Its eating cuttles, lobsters and all kind of
sea-crabs (p. 105), may be true. With the greatest certainty it may be
said to feed on fish. We have found the following notices which decide
this: “He often disappeared and was gone five or ten minutes under
water; evidently he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in
nearly the same situation and thus employed for two hours. All kind of
fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen” (35). “It sometimes
darted under water with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey”
(69), which in this instance surely was fish. “Large shoals of small
fish were rushing landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water,
crowding on each other, and showing all the symptoms of flight from
the pursuit of some wicked enemy” (133), and suddenly a sea-serpent
appeared. “There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore”
(150), a sea-serpent soon made its appearance.

Not only does the animal prey on fish, but, by way of change, also
on sea-mammals. When on Behring’s Isle Mr. KRIUKOF tells us that
“the sea-lions were so terrified at the sight of the monster, that
some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves on the shore.
The sea often throws up pieces of the flesh, which, according to the
Aleutians is that of this serpent” (36). Evidently such pieces of flesh
are washed aland only when a sea-serpent had made its appearance,
otherwise there would be no reason to ascribe such pieces of flesh to
sea-serpents. Sea-reptiles don’t exist in those regions; it is highly
improbable that the pieces of flesh were of sea-birds; they are not
of fishes, as in that case they would not have been called _flesh_,
consequently they are of sea-mammals. Of what kind of sea-mammals
these pieces of flesh were, is not the question now, but I am sure
that the sea-lions would not be so terrified, if they did not know the
sea-serpent to be a terrible enemy.

There is moreover no doubt, that sea-serpents sometimes prey on the
smaller kind of whales, as dolphins, porpoises, grampuses, &c. It
sometimes appears suddenly amidst a shoal of these animals: “It was
surrounded by porpoises and grampuses” (56); “There was an immense
shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”,
no doubt because they were pursued by a sea-serpent (97); “an
immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship as if pursued” (124),
and gracefully a long neck, moving like that of a swan rose from the
depths. Our suppositions in this respect are confirmed by the reports
of Captain S. WEST, who saw the sea-serpent “engaged with a whale”
(54), and of Captain DAVISON, stating that a sea-serpent seized a whale
on the belly (read pectoral fin) (151, fig. 49).

The manner of darting on its prey is well described in n^o. 149 and
152. I am convinced that the individuals in n^o. 154 and 106 a were
diving for food in a playful manner, with their body and part of their
tail floating on the surface.

2. _Breathing._ Nobody will doubt that sea-serpents respire by gills as
fish do; they move or swim, as is stated in numerous reports, with the
head constantly above water, or when holding it nearly on the surface,
it is evident that their nostrils are always just above the surface.
When diving or fishing for food the average time that they remain under
water is about eight minutes (63). It is probable that they may remain
under it for half an hour or still longer. When having remained so
long under water, and appearing on the surface, the animal suddenly
exhales with such a force that “we at first imagined it to be a whale
spouting” (83), and “every time he put his head out of water, he made a
noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steamboat”
(101). The same noise is usually heard when a whale “spouts” (See H.
LEE, _Sea Fables Explained_, 1883, London), see also fig. 36. But also
when the animal is swimming or lying still on the surface with its head
on the level of the water, occasionally exhaling when its nostrils are
not quite above water, it “spouts water from it not unlike the blowing
of a whale” (74); “near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or
froth as though it was spouting water” (114). The breath of the animal
is occasionally also seen condensed by the cold, forming little curling
clouds, “it blew like a whale”, said EGEDE (5, fig. 19), “it squirted
from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff, resembling long shavings from a
pine plank” (158). In general, however, the animal swims with its head
some feet above the surface of the water, so that it is very natural
that “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting” (148).

3. _Excretion._ In one report we read that the animal left a greasy
trail behind him (156). It is very probable that such a large
sea-animal, provided as it is with rather a thick layer of bacon under
its skin, secretes a quantity of liquid fat, large enough to leave a
greasy trail”; this will certainly happen when it is severely wounded.

Without any doubt it is true that it may “emit a very strong odour”
(61).

b. Functions of the senses.

1. _Feeling._--Of course but little can be noticed about the animal’s
feeling. PONTOPPIDAN tells us that it has whiskers “like other animals
which have a good nose.” How far the Bishop believed that those
whiskers had anything to do with the animal’s sense of smell, I cannot
tell. But certainly they have not. Well developed whiskers are rarely
found but in animals which catch their prey in a stealthy way, such as
cats, dogs, viverrides, mustelides, and numerous allied animals, and in
animals which live in holes, as mice, rats, &c. It is known that all
these animals can go through holes, crevices, fissures, slits or clefts
which are large enough to admit their whiskers. Whiskers are organs
of feeling. Consequently seals, sea-lions, sea-bears, &c., and also
sea-serpents will on numerous occasions find their whiskers of great
use for the purpose of feeling with them.

Further it must not astonish us that sea-serpents are usually observed
in fine weather when there is no wind. They seem to dislike wind, and
therefore, if having no special purpose in view, they disappear as soon
as the wind begins to blow (3, p. 129, p. 133, 92, 94); they even seem
to be very sensible of the least wind.

Warmth on the contrary seems to be very welcome to them, as they are
often seen on hot days, and even basking in the sun (114, 137).

2. _Taste._ The taste of the animal is, of course, only to be known by
the food it takes.

3. _Smell._ There is no doubt that, guided by their smell they prey on
fish, but it is clear that we shall never know any more particulars
about it. Only it is stated, and it seems to be true, that they cannot
bear the smell of castoreum and asa foetida, and that Norwegian seamen
and fishermen up to the days of RATHKE (1840) would never forget to
bring one of these drugs with them, to drive them away. (PONTOPPIDAN,
p. 130, p. 134, p. 259).

As far as I know, zoologists accept three reasons why some animals
emit some strong odour; viz. to drive away their enemies, or to
recognize one another, either in the neighbourhood or from afar, or to
flatter and to attract the other sex. With which purpose sea-serpents
emit a strong odour, this surely will be very difficult to decide, but
in all probability they smell it themselves.

4. _Hearing._ The observations about the animal’s hearing are, as may
be expected, but very few. That an animal hears, can only be asserted
when it gives unmistakable signs that it has heard, for instance a
sudden turning of its head towards the origin of sound, or the running
away from it. So we have the statements that the sea-serpent “was not
pleased with the noise of our oars” (69); “the fishermen advise to be
very quiet when a sea-serpent approaches and to avoid rowing, because
the least noise attracts it still more” (p. 259); “on both days it
seemed to keep about us, and as we were always rowing then, we were
inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured sound
of the oars” (137, 138); “on my coo-ee the fish started off seawards
out of sight and under water” (150).

5. _Sight._--The numerous statements that a sea-serpent swims with
its head some feet above the surface of the water prove that it looks
straight before it. Further we have found it several times mentioned
that it followed a boat, and finally the assertion that it raised its
head and neck several feet above the water, evidently to take a survey
towards the ship passing, or to take a view of objects, or to look
about for prey (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131, 145,
149, 152 A).

c. Functions of the muscular system.

1. _Relative mobility of organs._ We have already mentioned that the
eyes, like the nostrils and the mouth, may be shut or opened wide. Yet
they do not seem to be very movable (103).

The head may be held at right angles with the neck (70, fig. 24). The
animal can bend its neck in several directions, moving it like that
of a swan (124, 151, fig. 49), consequently bent dorso-ventrally in
the form of a stretched S. When only the forepart of the neck, curved
in such a way, is visible above water, the observers naturally say
that it is curved (97), or bent in a semi-circle (115). It can also
turn its head a little sideways (60, 63, 93). The swimming in vertical
undulations is surely a proof of dorso-ventral flexibility. It has
the power to hold its body in a straight line, quite stiff, even
in swimming. Also it has the power to bend its neck, trunk and tail
dorso-ventrally into numerous “bunches”, unless it is not the whole
mass of its body, but only the layer of muscles, bacon and its skin,
which it is able to bend in such a manner, for it is observed lying
perfectly still, showing, however, numerous bunches (34, 42, 61, 64,
67, 69, 106 A, 154). In this condition it may even swim (60, 63). These
bunches according to its body-length, may be of the size of a barrel
(34), or from six to seven feet from each other, and from three to four
feet high (154, fig. 50). On some occasions it gave the impression of
a creature crooking up its back to sun itself (137), for there was no
appearance of undulation; when the lumps sunk, other lumps did not rise
in the intervals between them (137). Twice it is observed only with
its head and its tail above water, the body slightly under (135, 162),
and once casting itself backwards, and in doing so, its tail rose high
above the water (5) so that the animal was bent dorsally in the form of
an U or horse-shoe (fig. 19).

Its lateral flexibility is also astonishing. In turning it bends its
body quite in the form of a horse-shoe, the head nearly touching its
tail end (39, 41, 44); in turning twice immediately after each other
or in playing, its body is bent in the form of the letter S (63, fig.
37, fig. 38). Also it may play in circles (39). Once, seized by a
spermwhale, evidently in its trunk, it wound itself laterally round the
head and upperjaw of its attacker (144). Its tail is said to lash the
water (151? 158), and to wind itself up, and to rest for a moment on a
part of the trunk (106 A). In short it is as limber and active as an
eel (44).

Provided, as sea-lions are, with rather a thick layer of bacon
under its skin, the animal, when it bends its body in the form of
a horse-shoe, either laterally or dorsally, naturally shows in the
concave side of the curve, wrinkles or folds (5) in its skin. When its
head is held nearly at right angles with the neck, the skin under the
chin is contracted into folds, which led to the description that the
animal had some “gills” (read “gill-splits”, 56). When its neck is a
little contracted, it may happen that three folds of the skin encircle
the neck, which when held so for some time, and exposed to the sun,
dry on their highest part, and when stretched again, will show “three
yellow collars” (71). It may also be that “at about six feet from the
jaws there is a protuberance on its back like a small watercask” (126),
or that “a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircles the neck
about two feet from the head” (131).

The flappers may be lifted up so high that they are occasionally
visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154, fig. 50); when the
animal is swimming with extreme rapidity, they may be raised still
higher, so that they are almost entirely above the surface (129, 148,
fig. 36, fig. 45), but then they are not directed hindwards, but
forwards, “they were turned to the contrary way” (129, fig. 36, fig.
50). The flappers move alternately: “the movements of the flappers were
those of a turtle”, “the monster paddled itself along after the fashion
of a turtle” (148), and have “a semi-revolving motion” (148). When the
animal swims with vertical undulations, it may press the flappers close
against the body, so that seen from above, it is as if the flappers
were wanting (82).

2. _Motions._ Hitherto we have considered the animal by itself, let us
now see how it moves in the water.

The first sign of the presence of a sea-serpent may, of course, be
very different. Generally, when the animal was met with it was already
swimming on the surface; sometimes it lay still, and it appeared to be
a wreck or a small rock, but on approaching gradually changed into a
living animal; and sometimes, though rarely, it appeared on the surface
not far from the vessels. It is a proof that it may remain a tolerably
long time under water before it comes to the surface to breathe. This
may happen in two ways; viz. 1. After it has swum a long time just
below the surface, it will gradually raise its head above it, and 2.
When it has swum for some time very deep below the surface, it will
rise perpendicularly upwards. Instances of the _first_ manner of coming
to the surface will be found in the following passages: “the first sign
of the sea-serpent coming up was a rushing in the water ahead of the
ship; at first we imagined it to be a whale spouting” (83), “attention
was first directed to it by the broken action of the water” (126).
Apparently this happened also in the animal of Captain TREMEARNE (129).
In the _other_ manner of coming to the surface, going upwards with
great speed, a large portion of the animal is shown to the spectators:
“it raised its head high above the surface (1, 31, 36), even so high
that the foreflappers became visible” (5, 121); “arising out of the
depths of Ocean, stretches to the skies its enormous neck, masthead
high” (p. 225); “it raised itself slowly and gracefully from the deep”
(124), “it suddenly stood quite perpendicular out of the water to the
height of sixty feet” (145); “a head and neck rose out of the water to
a height of about twenty or thirty feet (149, 151, 152, see also fig.
19, fig. 46, fig. 48, fig. 49). Once it struck a vessel in coming to
the surface (122) so that it may be supposed that the animal had its
eyes shut.

Generally it swims with vertical undulations (1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, p.
130, p. 138, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 60,
63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 81, 82, 83, 85, 91, 92, 94, 95, 101, 102, 103,
113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 137, 138, 139, 150, 155, 157, see
also the following figures 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 47, 51).
The undulations may be large or small, so that their number differs,
but also the animal’s higher or lower position in the water is cause,
that their number may greatly vary. Of course it is not always easy
to account for a small number of coils. This number is mentioned to
be two or three (102), three (113), three to four (138), three to
five (117), four or more (139), seven (137, 157), not more than seven
(137), seven or eight (9), not more than eight (41), at least ten
(85), ten or twelve (44, 60), thirteen to fifteen (63), fifteen to
twenty three (63), fourteen (69), several (83), twenty five (2). In our
illustrations we find four (fig. 40, fig. 47, fig. 51), six (fig. 26),
seven (fig. 24, fig. 39), eight (fig. 35), eleven (fig. 27, fig. 34)
and twenty (fig. 33).

The motion of the animal is said to be _wrongly_ serpentine (29, 91,
103, 119, 157), like that of a snake (101, 115, 155), like that of an
eel (117), and _rightly_ vermicular (82), like that of a caterpillar
(41), like that of a leech (94).

The coils are said to resemble or to be as large as ten-gallon kegs
(41), half-barrels (60), flour barrels (60), large kegs (117), those of
a dromedary (83), about three feet long (117).

The space between the coils, for there is always a space visible
between them (p. 130), is sometimes large, at other times small; it was
a space of one fathom (9), of seven feet (69), or of three feet (60).

The whole animal swimming with vertical undulations, and seen from
afar, resembles a string of tuns or hogsheads (p. 130), a large shoal
of fish (read porpoises) with a seal at one end of it (29), a string of
empty barrels tied together (60), a string of casks tied together (60),
a string of large casks, gently bubbing up and down (114), a long chain
of rocks (106 A), a long chain of enormous rings (106 A), a number of
barrels linked together (106 A), eight seals in a row (137), a flock of
wild ducks swimming (157).

The height of the coils above water was, according to the animal’s
lower or higher position in the water, or according to its bulk, about
six inches (41), eight or ten inches (39), at least three feet (114),
only a few feet (106 A); we also find the notices: “apparently about
one third of the upperpart of its body was above water” (93), “it
partly raised itself above the surface of the water” (94).

As is to be expected, the bunches decrease in size towards the tail
(69, 102); of coarse this will always be the case.

It seems that sometimes the undulations are limited only to the trunk
of the animal: “I saw no bunches towards I thought the end of the tail,
and I believe there were none; from where I judged his navel might be,
to the end of his tail there were no bunches visible” (44); “the first
bunch appeared ten or twelve feet from his head” (69); “about thirty
feet behind the head appeared the first coil” (81).

The reader will remember (see _Relative mobility of organs_) that the
animal may crook up its back, or the layer of bacon of its back, when
lying perfectly still. It seems evident that it also is able to swim
with its flappers, whilst its back is in such a condition: “the bunches
appeared to be fixed” (60); “his bunches appeared to be not altogether
uniform in size, and as he moved along some appeared to be depressed
and others brought above the surface, though I could not perceive any
motion in them” (63); “the protuberances were not from his motion, as
they were the same whether in slow or in rapid movement” (69). See also
n^o. 137.

I am convinced that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations,
usually presses its flappers to its body. Once it was seen from above
(82) and it seemed to be eel-shaped, and the flappers must have been
invisible, at least they are not mentioned; it swam with vertical
undulations.

But there are reasons to believe that the animal, swimming with
vertical undulations, at a moderate rate, also uses its flappers.
Once it was seen from above, moving with vertical undulations, and
its flappers are tolerably well described (119). And when we read:
“the motion of his body was rising and falling, the head moderately
vibrating from side to side” (48), “the motion of his head was sideways
and quite moderate, and the motion of his body was up and down” (48),
“his motion was partly vertical, partly horizontal” (69), “serpentine
movements, some up and down, some to the side” (91), we must conclude
that the animal swimming with vertical undulations may indeed also
use its flappers. If only the foreflapper and the hind one of the
right side were used, the animal would turn to the left, if, on the
contrary, it used its two left flappers, it would turn to the right;
consequently when the right foreflapper (leaving for a moment the
hindflappers out of consideration) is moved backwards with a strong
action, the head must move a little to the left, and it will move to
the right, when the left foreflapper is propelled backwards.

The instances in which the animal swims with its body in a straight
line, propelling itself only with its flappers, are few in comparison
with its swimming with vertical undulations (3, 18, 34, 38, 56, 59, 83,
93, 104, 115, 118, 120, 129, 130, 132, 138, 143, 145, 146, 147, 150,
160, see also figg. 28, 29, 31, 36, 45). The animal in this position
resembled some drift of sea-weed (143), a mast of a vessel floating
(83), an enormous log of timber floating (83), a trunk of a large tree
floating (104), an unwrought spar (18), a long spar (150), a log of
wood (150), an immense tree floating (157).

A change in its mode of swimming is sometimes also witnessed, it may be
that it first swam with vertical undulations, and then with its body in
a straight line, or vice versa (3, 83, 115).

In swimming the end of the tail only (118, 122, 146), or nearly the
whole tail (31, 34, 38, 60, 63, 69, 74, 80, 81, 85, 93, 102, 114, 115,
121, 148, 150) is concealed under water and invisible. The flappers are
always below the surface of the water and invisible (31, 34, 80, 85,
122, 138, 146, 150), save the above-mentioned four times (118, 129,
137, 148). The head may be held just at the surface of the water (31,
39, 44, 66, 74, 91, 137, 146, 148, figg. 32, 33, 37, 38), so that it
sometimes is recorded as not having been visible (41, 113, 114), or may
be, and this is generally the case, held above water (31, 44, 51, 63,
83, 91, 97, 128, figg. 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 51). The height above water
is said to be but little (94), some feet (70), well above water (150),
several feet (155), high (32), considerable (102), quite erect in the
air (95), six inches (48, 63), eight inches (44), one foot (38, 41, 42,
92, 137, 138), two feet (9, 39, 63, 80, 138), three feet (63), four
feet (17, 19, 29, 60, 118), five feet (19, 29, 60), six feet (60, 74,
97), seven feet (60, 101, 142), eight feet (101), ten or twelve feet
(131).

The head may, of course, sometimes be gradually laid down (63), or
gradually raised higher (51), is generally held in an acute angle
(94), which is of course the case when it is only a few feet above
the surface, and the angle becomes the less acute the more the head
is elevated; but sometimes the neck is curved (97) in the form of a
semicircle (115). The head may be held constantly above water as long
as the animal was visible (29, 31, 92, 94, 118), or raised and lowered
at intervals (128, 129, 148).

Sometimes, evidently when darting on some prey, the animal raises its
whole neck quite stiff in the air: “head and neck stood upright like a
mast” (56), “the whole neck raised above water like a snake preparing
to dart on his prey” (115), “the animal protruded its head above water
to the length of about thirty feet at an angle of sixty degree to the
horizon” (126), “a large spar sticking out of the water one end, and
some thirty feet above the level of the sea” (132), “it resembled the
lower mast of some wrecked vessel, passing rapidly” (132), “darting
rapidly out of the water and splashing in again, head and neck to a
height of about twenty or thirty feet out of the water” (149, fig. 46),
“head and neck reared about thirty feet out of water” (151), “a neck
rose out of the water, about twenty feet, moving with great speed”
(152), “at first it was taken to be an immense tree floating, but this
illusion was soon dispelled as the neck was thrown twenty feet in the
air” (160).

When swimming the whole animal is not always above water, but may
occasionally dip under without any noise, or disappear with a
distinctly audible splash (31, 39, 41, 44, 60, 63, 69, 74, 114, 117,
126, 132, 137, 139, 149, 151, 152, 157).

The speed is said to be: faster than we could row (9), rapid (p. 132,
31, 97, 114, 117, 134, 137), an incredible velocity, like an arrow (p.
134), moderate (29), the greatest rapidity (29), a great rapidity (34,
138), slow (39, 115, 120, 131, 137), much more rapid than whales or
any other fish (48), very rapid (63, 69, 132), nearly still (69), very
slow (83), very swiftly (94), a great swiftness (101), that of a light
boat rowed by four active men (117), very quick (123), at a great rate
(137), at a rapid pace (149), a great speed (152), a great velocity
(157)--or it was estimated at--two miles an hour (83, 120), three miles
an hour (39), four miles (60), ten miles (146), ten to twelve miles
(42, 138), twelve to fourteen miles (48), fifteen miles (41, 118, 149),
fifteen or twenty miles (35), twenty miles (44, 156), twenty four miles
(38), twenty to thirty miles (41), thirty miles (122, 155), thirty-six
to forty-two miles (51), sixty miles (43, 50).

The animal may swim for a considerable time with the same speed,
steadily and uniformly (48, 118, 134, 138, 146), or decreasing, or
increasing it (29, 51, 60, 69).

Of course the animal swimming rapidly propels the water before it, so
that the water curls up before its throat (51, 93, 118), or even foams
(44, 63, 85, 95, 115, fig. 26), and when it swiftly darts forwards for
prey and elevates its flappers above water, the motion of its flappers
causes distinctly visible splashes (137, 149, 152, fig. 46, of course
in n^o. 129 and 148 the movements of the flappers must also have caused
a severe splashing, though this is neither mentioned nor delineated,
figg. 36, 45). Also when it drops its neck like a log of wood into the
water, an enormous splash or spray on both sides was visible (149, 152).

In the open sea the animal generally swims “as straight forward as you
could draw a line” (39, 41, 114, 134), “not deviating in the slightest
degree from its course, which it held on apparently on some determined
purpose” (118), seldom it is recorded as “taking a turn” (114, 122,
128), but when in a harbour it may move “in several directions” (41),
as if “playing” (39, 63, 69, 130), “in circles” (39), or “bringing
the body into a letter S” (63, 130). The mode of turning is so
characteristic and unique that I feel obliged to repeat all that I
have found about it:--“he turned short and quick and the first part of
the curve that he made in turning resembled the link of a chain, but
when his head came parallel with his tail, his head and tail appeared
near together” (39),--“his motion when he turned was quick; the first
part of the curve that he made in turning was of the form of a staple,
and as he approached towards his tail he came near his body with his
head, and then ran parallel with his tail, and his head and tail then
appeared near together” (41),--“in changing his course he brought his
head to where his tail was, or in fact to the extreme hinder-part
visible; raising himself as he turned six or eight inches out of water”
(41),--“he turned quick and short and the first part of the curve that
he makes in turning is in the form of a staple, but his head seems to
approach rapidly towards his body, his head and tail moving in opposite
directions, and when his head and tail came parallel they appear almost
to touch each other” (41),--“when he changed his course he diminished
his velocity but little; the two extremes that were visible appeared
rapidly moving in opposite directions, and when they came parallel,
they appeared not more than a yard apart” (41),--“he turned very short;
the form of the curve when he turned resembled a staple; his head
seemed to approach towards his body for some feet, then his head and
tail appeared moving rapidly, in opposite directions, and when his
head and tail were on parallel lines they appeared not more than two or
three yards apart” (44),--“he turned slowly, and took up considerable
room in doing it” (69),--“it turned with considerable noise” (117).

When the animal swims, either with vertical undulations, or with
its body in a straight line, holding, however, its head just at
water-level, so that the nostrils are only above the surface to
breathe, it generally shows nearly its whole length, only the very end
of its tail being under water. In such a condition it must swim very
easily, for the water carries its total weight, so that it is actually
null, and the animal in swimming has only to surmount the friction and
the resistance of the water made against an object in motion. But as
soon as the head is lifted above the surface, the weight of it must
immediately be carried by the body. It is therefore not astonishing if
an observer states: “its progressive motion under water was rapid; when
the head was above water, its motion was not near so quick” (31), “when
immersed in the water his speed was greater” (41). It is very natural
too, that when the head is held above water, and when consequently
the body must carry the weight of the head, the body sinks a little
deeper into the water: “his head was now more elevated above the water,
and his body more depressed below” (51), and that when the animal has
raised its whole neck quite erect in the air, the body has sunk so deep
that it is: “not visible at all” (149), and that “the disturbance on
the surface was too slight to attract notice” (149). Therefore figg.
33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 48 and 49, are tolerably well delineated. Fig.
33 shows us the animal swimming with vertical undulations, holding its
head on the level of the water, and having nearly its whole length
visible on the surface. In fig. 34 the head is held a little above the
surface, and the end of the tail is already below it. Fig. 35 shows the
head still more elevated while of the tail nothing more is visible.
Figg. 37 and 38 represent the animal floating on the surface, showing
the ridge of its whole back. In figg. 46, 48 and 49 the animal’s neck
is elevated as high as possible, but its body is of course too deep to
be seen.

A few lines above we have spoken of the increased speed of the animal
swimming under water. The question arises how was this to be seen; and
the answer is given by the eye-witnesses themselves: “I saw it coming
rapidly under water” (31), “when moving under water you could often
trace him by the motion of the water on the surface, and from this
circumstance I conclude he did not swim deep” (41), “we could trace his
course under water” (69), “swimming below the surface so that merely
a stripe indicated the rapid course” (117), “in swimming under the
surface the animal swims not deeply, for on the surface one can trace
its course” (126), “and moved away just under the surface of the water,
for we could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea”
(137).

This, however, is not always the case. The animal can swim so deep that
its course is not betrayed on the surface. Once “it swum directly under
a boat” in which two men were (41), and once “it passed below the boat
at the depth of eight or ten feet, swimming slowly with a vermicular
motion” (82), which shows us at the same time that it swims under water
with vertical undulations. There is, of course, reason to believe that
it may also occasionally swim with its body in a straight line; and
Captain HOPE saw it at still greater depths swimming evidently with its
flappers and with vertical undulations (119).

So we have gradually approached to the way in which the animal
disappears from the surface of the vaste ocean. In some instances it is
only said that “it disappeared” (36), “it all at once vanished” (74),
“it all at once disappeared” (74), “it suddenly disappeared” (132, 143,
155), evidently withdrawing itself beneath the surface of the water
deep enough to avoid a rippling of it. In other instances the _way
how_ it disappeared is more circumstantially described: “it sank” (49,
60, 69, 117, 137), “it sunk gradually into the water” (63), “it sank
quietly beneath the surface” (134), “it sank rather abruptly” (137),
“it sunk apparently down” (39), “he did not turn down like a fish, but
appeared to settle down like a rock” (41), “he apparently sunk directly
down like a rock” (41); this “sinking like a rock” is of course
effectuated by a sudden upward movement of all the flappers together.
But the animal may also plunge violently under water (31), or go down
with a tremendous splash (157), or when it is swimming with its neck
high elevated above the surface, it dives like a duck head foremost
(124, 151), and finally, when it has apparently remained a long time
under water in great depths, and suddenly comes to the surface with so
much force that its head, long neck, and a part of its trunk with its
formidable foreflappers become visible, it throws itself backwards, and
in doing so, raises its enormous tail high above the surface of the
water (5), and disappearing under the waves, the last part which is
visible of it, is the end of the tail (fig. 20). Generally, however, it
happens that the swimming animal grows gradually smaller and smaller to
the eyes of the observers, and at last disappears in the distance to be
seen no more.

3. _Voice._--In none of the reports gathered in this volume there is
a single notice about the animal’s voice. It is probable that the
individual gripped by the spermwhale (144) uttered a sound which,
however, was not heard amidst the tremendous noise, made by the two
animals fighting.

d. Generation, Growth.

I am sure that nobody will believe any longer, as was the case in 1817,
that sea-serpents are oviparous. Animals with a hairy skin, save the
_Monotrymata_, are viviparous, consequently sea-serpents are viviparous.

Though PONTOPPIDAN believes that sea-serpents “seek the other sex most
probably in July and August” (p. 133), and that “July and August are
its pairing time” (p. 129), I am satisfied that March and April must
be taken as their months of amours, and that July and August are the
months of whelping.

A new born pup most probably has a length of about twenty feet (14).

It seems that the months during which two sea-serpents were seen
together are July and August, probably also September (23, 27, 66, 72).
It would seem, therefore, that a male remains in the neighbourhood of
his companion during her pregnancy and probably also during the first
month or during the first two months of the new-born young.

It seems also that the females are much smaller than the males, as the
pups are comparatively very small, and as twice one of the two which
were seen together is described smaller than the other (23, 66).

We have already met with two instances in which the head of the
individual is delineated or described as having a hollow at its top
(60, fig. 30). I am satisfied that these were two males not yet
full-grown, showing the two cushions of their enormously developed
masticatory muscles, which were not yet closed in the centre of the top
of the head, and whose skulls therefore, could not show the occipital
and medial crests.

6. PSYCHICAL CHARACTERS.

a. Not taking notice of objects.

There are instances that the animal is reported as taking no notice at
all of men, vessels or other objects (29, 34, 48, 82, 83).

b. Taking notice of objects.

At other instances, however, the animal was thought to notice objects
(43), or is said to have turned its head two or three times slowly
round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object
on board (60), or that it slowly turned its head towards the observers
(93), and numerous are the reports that it lifted itself high above
the surface apparently to take a survey towards the vessel, or to take
a view of objects (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131,
145, 149, 152 A).

c. Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion.

The many instances that sea-serpents are said to have followed a
boat (p. 133, 31, 36, 103, 110, 117, 158) or to have taken a survey
towards vessels, sufficiently prove that they are curious beings, and
that their curiosity as in so many animals, is generally mixed with
some suspicion, which of course is again a proof that the animal is
constantly prepared for selfpreservation. One of the most striking
proofs of this is to be read in n^o. 92: the individual swam towards
a boat, passed within a few feet or some fathoms, and swam away, to
repeat the same movement two times.

d. Suspicion.

That some of the eye-witnesses got the impression that it is sometimes
really suspicious may be seen from the following lines: “he appeared to
avoid the boat wherein I was” (39), “he seemed suspicious of the boat”
(69), “they chased the animal fruitless for seven hours” (59), “Captain
George Little made many attempts of pursuing and killing it, but
without any result, as the serpent ever kept a distance of a quarter
of a mile” (19), “on both days it seemed to keep about us, and as we
were always rowing then, we were inclined to think it might perhaps be
attracted by the measured sound of the oars.” (137, 138).

e. Harmlessness.

The animal is evidently a quite harmless creature (p. 107). Though very
close to several boats, it offered them no molestation (32). “After the
shot” of MATTHEW GAFFNEY “it turned towards him immediately, sank down,
went directly under his boat, and made its appearance one hundred yards
from where it sank and continued playing as before” (41), “he appeared
to us to be a harmless animal” (63), “it was harmless” (69). A proof of
perfect harmlessness may be found in n^o. 92: it approached a fisherman
in his boat to within six feet and offered him no molestation. See also
n^o. 94 and 112.

f. Timidity.

PONTOPPIDAN already concluded that these animals are really timid
ones, “for when it follows a boat, the fishermen throw any object, for
instance a scoop, at it, and then the animal generally plunges into the
deep” (p. 134), and Mr. PRINCE also says: “he appeared to us to be a
timid animal” (63).

g. Fearlessness.

It were perhaps better if I used here the expression: “Involuntary
consciousness of the harmlessness of vessels, boats, and men”, in
which, however, it was often mistaken! “It did not appear to avoid
anything” (41), “it appeared to be amusing itself, though there were
several boats not far from it” (41); after the shot of MATTHEW GAFFNEY
“it did not appear more shy” (41); once it lay extended on the surface,
the night was falling, and a boat rowed by four men, passed just before
its snout at an oar’s length, and yet it remained lying quite still
(43), “it did not appear to be at all disturbed by the vessel” (48, 80,
93, 112, 118); it may swim or come to the surface very close to boats,
and swim parallel with them (72, 109, 112, 121, 157).

h. Fear.

A stronger expression of suspicion is evidently to be seen in the
animal’s sinking and being seen no more at the approach of a vessel
(49).

i. Fright.

I think that in the following we see true expressions of fright. When
LORENZ VON FERRY fired at it, the animal plunged down under water
and was seen no more (9); some strangers fired at it and it suddenly
disappeared (90); it gracefully rose once from the deep, but seeing a
ship, it immediately disappeared (124); it once raised its head out of
the water within twenty yards of a ship, when it suddenly disappeared,
but here its curiosity got hold of its fright, and after half a minute
it made its appearance again in the same manner (131).

j. Fury.

The animal does not always plunge down after a shot, and is then seen
no more: MATTHEW GAFFNEY fired at it, when it was thirty feet from
him. The animal turned towards him immediately after the shot, sank
down, went directly under his boat and made its appearance at about one
hundred yards from where it sunk. It continued playing as before, and
did not appear more shy (41); once when it was fired at, it turned and
pursued the boat to the shore and then disappeared (110); a boatmen
struck it with a boathook, upon which it immediately gave him chase
(112); when LUND fired at it, it stretched its long neck quite erect in
the air, like a snake preparing to dart on its prey, and darted towards
LUND, who reached the shore in time (115). I am convinced that the
animal, when fired at and hit, in most instances grows suddenly furious
and darts on the enemy, but it seems that its fury is soon dispelled
by the emotion of fear, suspicion, timidity, etc. Hitherto I have not
found one single proof that it ever attacked a man, with the result of
having hurt him, though it had more than once a favourable opportunity
of doing so.

k. Toughness.

It is evident that the animal is a tough one; it is not easy to kill
it. A single rifle-ball seems to be insufficient, and I think the only
manner to kill it is by explosive balls or by harpoons loaden with
nitro-glycerine, which will at once destroy a considerable part of its
brain and skull, or body.

l. Playsomeness.

Like the seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, sea-serpents
have often been seen amusing themselves for hours when in a harbour,
gracefully gliding in circles, as has been stated above. Twice an
individual just as in seals, showed its head and tail quite above
the surface, the body slightly under (135, 162), stretching itself
comfortably; at other times crooking up its back to sun itself (114,
137).

m. Sensibility of fine weather.

Evidently the animals feel comfortable _in fine weather_ and when
there is _no wind_. Repeatedly we have found the statement that
they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow. But as they are
air-breathing animals, they are obliged to come every now and again to
the surface, and it is, therefore, not wonderful that there are reports
which, though in a slight degree, contradict the other statements.
But upon the whole it is clear that in such circumstances the animal
will only raise their nostrils for a moment above the surface of the
water in order to breathe, and this is clearly the reason why in many
instances they are never high enough and long enough above the surface
to be observed by men.

When the animal appeared, the _weather_ is reported to have been calm
(2, 3, 5, 25, 29, 61, 64, 79, 103, 128, 130, 137, 144, 157), quite calm
(35), good (60), clear (34, 60, 63, 83, 114, 128, 132, 152, 154, 162),
very clear (60), fine (44, 79, 128, 129, 144, 146, 152), brisk (114),
sunshiny (137, 149, 157), warm and sunshiny (138), hot (150, 157), very
hot (64), excessively sultry (61), cloudy (131), dark and cloudy (118).

The _surface of the sea_ is described as smooth (34, 41, 126, 146),
quite smooth (80), very smooth (29), perfectly smooth (44, 137, 148),
extremely smooth (63), smooth as a mirror (92, 95), as smooth as a
glass (150), as smooth as the surface of a pond (114), calm (2, 60),
quite calm (p. 129, 115), almost calm (60), perfectly calm (83, 119),
exceptionally calm (148), moderate (144). But there may be also some
sea on (120), or a sharp sea on (122), or the surface may be only
little moved by waves (154), or occasionally disturbed by slight flaws
of wind, “catpaws” (128), or there may be a long ocean swell (118), or
a strong ebb tribe (51).

In the reports we read that there was no _wind_ (48), not a breath of
wind (150), not a breath of air (114, 137), a very little wind (29), a
light wind (34, 126, 132), a light air of wind (60), a fresh wind (118,
129), a variable wind (132), a moderate wind (144), a gale of wind
(124), a light breeze (80, 130), a brisk breeze (51), a fresh breeze
(104, 120), or there were strong breezes (122, 131).

7. ENEMIES.

Undoubtedly sea-serpents have some enemies of which we are and probably
will remain ignorant. But spermwhales and men are certainly their
most terrible foes, the former on account of their enormous beak with
formidable teeth (144), the latter on account of their nets (14),
boathooks (112), harpoons (59, 121), and rifles (9, 19, 41, 69, 90,
110, 115, 129, 130).

8. REPOSE, SLEEP, DEATH.

I believe that repose and sleep are the same for the animal, and that
like a seal, it is always on the look out, shutting the eyes for
only a few seconds. I say, I believe so, for I cannot deduce it from
one of the reports. Once it is said that it lay motionless, without
bunches, holding its head above water, and that the eyes were visible
(80); another time it lay perfectly still, spouting like a whale;
consequently the nostrils were just below the surface, or just at water
level, so that the water was sprayed by every exhalation; it had a
rugged appearance, consequently it was most probably a male with a mane
(74). The other instances in which the animal was evidently resting
are the following: it lay almost motionless in the sea; probably in
a straight line, for undulations or bunches are not mentioned (17).
It was in the evening between eight and nine o’clock; it lay extended
on the surface of the water, it appeared straight, exhibiting no
protuberances, “we were within two oars’ length of him, when we first
discovered him and were rowing directly for him. We immediately rowed
from him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail, but fearing we
might strike him with the boat, concluded to pass around his head,
which we did, by altering our course. He remained in the same position,
till we lost sight of him. We approached so near to him, that I believe
I could have reached him with my oar” (43). It lay perfectly still
extended on the water, probably with its body in a straight line, for
no protuberances are mentioned; neither its head nor its tail were
visible; yet I believe that its nostrils were above water level, and so
it remained for half an hour (46). Very seldom it seems to avail itself
of an opportunity to support itself on a sand bank. I have found but
one case in which it is, however, stated that the bank had about four
feet water upon it. “It lay dormant on the rocks, partly on the rocks,
partly in the water,” resembling from afar a large log of wood. “It lay
stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had four or
five feet water upon it, and lay partly over the channel” (45).

Till now it seems that no individual has ever been killed by the rifle
balls of men. It is probable that the individual attacked by the
sperm-whale (144) was finally killed by it, but it is also probable
that it escaped. Yet I believe that sperm-whales may occasionally wound
sea-serpents to death.

Generally, however, I believe that these animals die a natural death.

Dead sea-serpents are more likely to sink than to float, as the
enormous neck and tail are most probably not provided with a
comparatively thick layer of bacon, and are, therefore, too heavy for
the comparatively small quantity of air in the animal’s lungs, and
for the layer of bacon of the animal’s trunk. Yet it may occasionally
occur that sea-serpents dying near some shore, may be stranded by
the waves. PONTOPPIDAN reports that a dead sea-serpent stranded on
the cliffs near Amond in Nordfjord and that its carrion caused a
dreadful smell (6), and that another stranded near the isle of Karmen
(7), and that the stranding of dead sea-serpents took place in more
localities (7). Such carrions must be a dainty to all kinds of mews,
which sometimes even follow living individuals (69). The fear of the
Norwegians of sea-serpents, even of such carrions, is great enough to
keep them at a considerable distance. It may be true “that some time
ago a part of a skeleton of a sea-serpent was present in the Museum
of Natural History at Bergen” (p. 374). It is possible that the fate
of this part of a skeleton was the same as that of so many meteoric
stones (see my Preface), or as that of the two eggs of _Platypus_ or
_Ornithorhynchus_, which reached the Manchester Museum in the year
1829, and remained there for some years, till they were condemned to
the rubbish hill (_Nature_, 11 Dec. 1884, p. 133), and it was not
before September 1884 that zoologists knew that _Ornithorhynchus_ and
_Echidna_ are really oviparous, and that the Manchester Museum was once
in the possession of two eggs!!

9. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

The Rev. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, after having mentioned that the animal
swims with vertical undulations, wrote in August 1803: “this renders
it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable
distance, and that the water is his proper element” (29).

I wish to express here my firm conviction that these animals never come
ashore, nor even on the ice, but always remain in the water. It is true
that we have one observation that an individual rested upon a sandy
beach, which, however, at that time had about four feet water upon
it. But we have other observations that individuals which, following
a boat, come into shallow water, immediately and apparently with some
difficulty took a turn and went away (31, 115).

It seems that in Norway it has happened a few times that these animals,
which are in the habit of frequenting the fjords, swam even up the
mouths or the lower parts of rivers, consequently swam in fresh water,
which probably gave rise to the fable of these animals being born on
land, remain there till they are too large to hide themselves, and
then swim down to the sea, where they can move much more easily. Their
swimming in fresh water is once recorded, viz. in the Hudson-mouth, New
Jersey, U. S. A. (158).

Moreover they are sea-animals, and according to their air-breathing
condition, live on the surface, though they may sometimes seek great
depths (119).

I have already shown that these animals like _sunshiny_ and _hot_
weather. They don’t like wind, and consequently we may conclude that
they are averse of cold weather and of cold water. Therefore they are
seen near Norway especially in July and August, which led PONTOPPIDAN
to suggest that they “perpetually live in the depths of the sea, except
in July and August” (p. 129). The Bishop seems not to have hit upon the
idea that the sea-serpents could be migratory animals.

The sea-serpents, it is true, may remain for a long time in a place
where they enjoy all that they can possibly wish to have, i. e. room
enough, bright weather and plenty of food. They may stay a few days in
the same fjord (3, 4, 96) or in the same place or harbour (31 and 32,
34 and 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, 50
and 51, &c., &c.). But then, it may be that the fish is flown for the
enemy, or that the season proceeds, the sea-serpents look for an other
provender place, or swim to a warmer part of the ocean, i. e. _they
migrate_.

And so we come to their _horizontal geographical distribution_. We may
at once assert that they are cosmopolites though we have not a single
report of an appearance at a higher degree than 46° S. latitude, i. e.
they have not been met with in the Antarctic Ocean.

Up to this time the animals have appeared 1. In the _Arctic Ocean_, and
2. In the _Atlantic Ocean_.

_a._ All along the coasts of Norway from North Cape up to the boundary
of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 79, 85, 86, 87,
88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 111
A, 112, 113, 115, 117, 125, 157). Of the whole coast of Norway that
of the northern provinces (washed by the Arctic Ocean) seems to be
frequented more than that of the southern (p. 130). It seems that they
appear along these coasts almost every year.

_b._ Along the coasts of Sweden, from the boundary of Norway and
Sweden, east of Christiania fjord, to the southmost point of Sweden,
Falsterbo. I have but one report (2), and the locality of the
appearance of the animal I have _supposed_ to have been in the Sund
near Malmö.

_c._ In the Baltic or Swedish Sea. According to OLAUS MAGNUS it is also
recorded from this sea, but I think that this happens no more.

_d._ North of Scotland: between Iceland and the Faroe Isles (124),
between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides (56, 153, 154), and near
Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles (78).

_e._ On the eastern coast of Scotland (141, 142, 143).

_f._ Along the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England (31, 32,
82, 137, 138, 140, 155, 156).

_g._ A hundred miles west of Brest, France, (152).

_h._ In the Gulf of Biscay (74).

_i._ West of Portugal (120).

_j._ In the Mediterranean (148).

_k._ North-east of the Azores (25).

_l._ South of the Azores and west of the Canaries, 29° N., 34° W.,
(128).

_m._ From the Canaries to Cape Verde (135).

_n._ In a line from Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope and a little
further south (93, 114, 118, 129, 130, 131, 132, 152 A), not along the
coast, except three appearances in Table Bay (114, 130, 152 A).

_o._ In Davis Straits, 64° N., (5).

_p._ Along the east coast of North America from Newfoundland to Florida
(15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 83, 84, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 106 B, 107 A, 121, 133, 134, 158, 159, 160,
162). So these coasts seem to be frequented almost every year. In Mr.
TRAILL’s paper on the subject (_Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb._ 1854, Vol. 3,)
we read: “I shall not here discuss the notices we have, from time to
time, received of late years of a great sea-serpent seen by mariners in
crossing the Atlantic to America”. I am convinced that these meetings
took always place not far from the American coast. Our n^o. 161 is also
one of these “notices received of a sea-serpent seen by a mariner in
crossing the Atlantic _from_ America”.

_q._ In the Gulf of Mexico (106 A.)

_r._ East of Cape San Roque (144, 145).

_s._ East of La Plata river mouth (80).

_t._ In the South Atlantic (104).

3. In the _Indian Ocean_.

_a._ In the Gulf of Aden (149).

_b._ Probably between 40° lat. and 20° lat. S., and between 50° and 70°
long. E. (123).

_c._ In lat. 2° N., long. 90° E. (147).

_d._ In the Malacca Straits (146).

_e._ Near the coast of Australia (136).

_f._ In Geographe Bay (150).

4. In the _Pacific Ocean_.

_a._ South of Australia (122).

_b._ Near Cape Satano, the southmost point of the Isle of Kiu Siu
(Japan) (151).

_c._ Near Behring Isle (36). The Aleutians declare that they have often
seen this animal (36).

_d._ In the Gulf of California (119).

That so many appearances took place in the Atlantic and so few in the
Indian Ocean and in the Pacific only results from the Atlantic being
the great highway of nations.

Along the coasts of Norway they appear only “at certain times” (2)
i. e. evidently “in the dog days” (92, p. 138), viz. from the 23th.
of July to the 23th. of August, and when we consult those reports
which mention the dates of the appearances we observe that they really
appear along the Norwegian coasts in July (61, 92, 115) and August
(9, 64, 68, 117, 157), but that after the dog days they swim further
south: from the 24th. of August to the 9th. of September one or more
individuals appeared in Christiania fjord (85, 86, 87, 88, 89), and in
the month of October (?) an individual was observed near Ibbestad, in
the neighbourhood of Christiansand (111 A). The occurrences between
the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides took place in the last days of May
(153, 154) and in July (56), those on the east coast of Scotland in
the middle of November (141, 142, 143), those on the western coasts
of Scotland, Wales and England: in June in the neighbourhood of Coll
and Eigg (31, 32), in the last days of August in the neighbourhood of
Loch-Hourn (137, 138, 139, 140), in the beginning of September near
Orme’s Heads, Wales, (155), and in the middle of October in Bristol
Channel (156). The occurrence a hundred miles west of Brest, France,
took place on the 5th. of August (152), that west of Portugal on the
31st. of December (120), that in the Mediterranean on the 2d. of June
(148), that north-east of the Azores on the 1st. of August (25), that
south of the Azores and west of the Canaries on the 30th. of March
(128), that between the Canaries and Cape Verde on the 16th. of May
(135), and those between Cape Verde and Cape of Good Hope and southwest
of the latter: on January 26 (132), February 16 (130), July 8 (129),
in the end of July (93), in the summer (114), on August 6 (118), on
November 12 (152 A), and on December 12 (131).

EGEDE saw an individual in Davis’ Straits in July (5); the sea-serpents
frequent the coast of North America from Newfoundland to Florida in
February (121), March or April (101), May (19, 97, 161), June (34,
35, 53, 54, 60, 83, 84, 106 B?, 162), July (29, 55, 75?, 81?, 98, 99,
100?), August (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59,
62, 63, 69, 73, 105?, 133, 134, 158, 159, 160), September (70, 71, 77,
106?), and October (50, 51). It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April
(106 A), was east of Cape San Roque in July (144, 145), and visited the
South Atlantic east of Uruguay in January (80).

January was the month in which it appeared in the Gulf of Aden (149),
September in about lat. 15° S. and 60° E. (123), May in about lat. 2°
N. and long. 91° E. (147), September in the Malacca Straits (146), and
March in Geographe Bay (150).

In May it was observed south of Australia (122), and in April south of
Kiu Siu, Japan (151).

A few lines above I have already expressed my firm conviction that they
are migratory and don’t like cold water. If this be true, they will
be _generally_ observed (and I purposely draw the reader’s attention
to the expression “generally”, for animals are not bound by _laws_ of
nature), in the northern hemisphere when summer is there, and they
will _generally_ appear in the southern hemisphere when summer visits
those parts of our globe. To follow this _rule_ they must be able to
migrate from north to south, and vice versa. Consequently the Atlantic
and the Pacific are the only two oceans in which we shall observe that
_generally_ this rule is followed, for in the Indian Ocean the animals
are checked in their course towards the north by the continent of Asia.

We are therefore obliged to take no account of the appearances which
occurred in the Indian Ocean. And as we have _only two_ appearances
observed in the Pacific, of which the dates are mentioned, we are also
obliged to pass over those in the Pacific too.

Let us now see where the animals were met with in the different months.

January.

South of St. Helena. 19° S. (132).
East of Uruguay. 34¹⁄₂° S. (80).

February.

East coast of North America. 31° N. (121).
Table Bay. 34° S. (130).

March.

East coast of North America. 42° N. (101).
South of the Azores. 29° N. (128).

April.

East coast of North America. 42° N. (101).
Gulf of Mexico. 24° N. (106 A).

May.

Near Butt of Lewis. 58¹⁄₂° N. (153, 154).
East coast of North America. 44° N. (19).
East coast of North America. 43° N. (97).
East coast of North America. 40° N. (161).
Between Canaries and Cape Verde. 22° N. (135).

June.

Coast of Norway. 64° N. (103).
West coast of Scotland. 57° N. (31, 32).
East coast of North America. 45° N. (83).
East coast of North America. 42° N. (34, 35, 60, 84,
106 B).
East coast of North America. 41° N. (53, 54, 162).
Mediterranean. 38° N. (148).
East coast of North America. 37° N. (52).

July.

Coast of Norway. 65° N. (61).
Coast of Norway. 64° N. (103).
Davis’ Straits. 64° N. (5).
Coast of Norway. 63° N. (92, 115).
Between the Far-Öer and the Hebrides. 60° N. (56).
East coast of North America. 44° N. (29, 55).
East coast of North America. 42° N. (98, 99).
East of Cape San Roque. 5° S. (144, 145).
West of Cape of Good Hope. 35° S. (129).
South West of Cape of Good Hope. 38° S. (93).

August.

Coast of Norway. 70° N. (68).
Coast of Norway. 66¹⁄₂° N. (157).
Coast of Norway. 66° N. (64).
Coast of Norway. 63° N. (9).
Coast of Norway. 60° N. (117).
Coast of Norway. 59° N. (85, 86).
West coast of Scotland. 57° N. (137, 138, 139,
140).
100 miles west of Brest. 48° N. (152).
North east of the Azores. 42° N. (25).
East coast of North America. 42° N. (37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48, 49, 59, 62,
63, 69, 73, 133,
134).
East coast of North America. 41° N. (158, 159, 160).
Between St. Helena and Cape of G. H. 24° S. (118).

September.

Coast of Norway. 59° N. (87, 88, 89).
North of Wales. 53¹⁄₂° N. (155).
East coast of North America. 42° N. (71).
East coast of North America. 41° N. (77).
South west of Cape of Good Hope. 38° S. (126).

October.

Near Ibbestad, Christiansand. 58° N. (111 A).
Bristol Channel. 51° N. (156).
East coast of North America. 41° N. (50, 51).

November.

East of Scotland. 58° N. (141, 142, 143).
Near Monillepoint. 34° S. (152 A).

December.

West of Portugal. 41° N. (120).
North-east of St. Helena. 15° S. (131).

What conclusions may now be drawn from these facts?

1^o. That these animals seldom appear in the North Sea, between Great
Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark (141, 142, 143);
that they don’t frequent the Baltic Ocean since two centuries; that
they seldom appear in the so-called Skagerrak (85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 111
A); rarely show themselves in the Gulf of Mexico (106 A) or in the
Mediterranean (148); but that they moreover inhabit the whole of the
Atlantic Ocean.

2^o. That, when they remove their quarters, they seem to swim _as
much as possible_ in the so-called warm ocean-currents. The number of
appearances, it is true, is very small, but surveying the foregoing
list of appearances in the different months I am inclined to think
that these animals in their migration from north to south really swim
_against_ the current, while, on the contrary, in their migration from
south to north they move with the current. Only a very few times they
were met with in the so-called cold ocean-currents.

3^o. We observe that in the month of August some individuals reached
the highest northern latitude, i. e. 70 degrees, and that a series of
appearances took place from 70° N. to 41° N. latitude,--that in the
month of September they seem not to appear beyond 59° N. latitude; and
so on;--so that we may conclude that in the beginning or in the middle
of August they have reached their most northern point and begin to
migrate towards the south, as in December we read of no appearances
beyond 41° N. latitude, and in January of no one beyond 19° S.
latitude. And further we conclude that they seem to leave the southern
hemisphere to migrate again towards the north already in January, for
in February they generally have already reached the northern latitudes,
in March still higher, and so on.

4^o. We observe that in one month not all the appearances took place
in the same latitude, consequently in one and the same month they are
scattered over a vast portion of the ocean.

5^o. When the migration from north to south begins, which of course
must be influenced by the early or late setting in of autumn, it
seems that not only the individuals which have proceeded to the most
northern coasts of Norway, but also some other individuals begin their
migration towards the south. I think that we must find in this fact
the explanation that even in July appearances took place at from 5° to
38° southern latitude, and that on August 6 an individual was seen at
lat. 24° S. swimming _towards the S. W._ Though I have no appearances
in the South Atlantic in the month of October, I am convinced that the
greater part of the individuals are there during this month, as well
as in November, December and January.--The reason that there are so
few reports from these regions is of course that in comparison with
the North Atlantic, a far smaller number of vessels visits the South
Atlantic.

The two appearances which happened in the Pacific, and of which the
dates are mentioned, are:

April.

South of Japan 31° N. (151)

May.

South of Australia 43° S. (122)

And those of the Indian Ocean:

January.

Gulf of Aden 12° N. (149)

March.

Geographe Bay 33° S. (150)

May.

Indian Ocean 2° N. (147)

September.

Straits of Malacca 3° N. (146)
Indian Ocean 15° S.? (123)

Suppose that some individuals in the Atlantic migrate towards the south
beyond the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope and get much farther than
20° eastern latitude, they will come into the Indian Ocean. I think
that when these individuals returning to the north, find themselves
checked by the continent of Asia, they will swim in any direction, and
that perhaps most of them will find back the outlet round the Cape of
Good Hope or south of Australia, so that in such cases individuals will
be met with in the South Atlantic, or in the South Pacific, at times
that one would not expect to find any.

10. NOMENCLATURE.

GESNER (p. 107) and PONTOPPIDAN (p. 132) believed that there were at
least two species of the same genus. ALDROVANDUS, however, doubted
of this, and thought that there was only one species (p. 110). Dr.
HAMILTON was evidently of the same opinion (p. 126). RAFINESQUE
SCHMALTZ at last believed that there were several species (p. 199).

In his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents_,
(Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names. Of the
Massachusetts Sea-Serpent (his n^o. 1) he says:

“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus
_Pelamis_, and I propose to call it _Pelamis megophias_. It might,
however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of _Megophias
monstrosus_ might have been appropriated to it” (see p. 200).

Of Captain BROWN’S sea-serpent (his n^o. 2) he writes: “It had eight
gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not a snake,
but a new genus of fish! I shall call this new genus _Octipos_ (meaning
eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will be _Octipos
bicolor_” (see n^o. 56).

Mr. W. LEE’S sea-serpent according to RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (n^o. 4 of
his “Additions”) “appears to be the largest on record, and might well
be called _Pelamis monstrosus_; but if there are other species of equal
size, it must be called _Pelamis chloronotis_ (see n^o. 30).

The author of the present volume proposed in Nov. 1881 to give it the
name of _Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_ (see p. 445).

It is one of the laws of Nomenclature that the oldest name of a species
or genus has the priority, no matter whether the author wrote it right
or wrong, and whether the author placed his species, or genus, in a
genus, or family, or group, other than zoologists would do at present.

Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is
_megophias_, and this specific name must be kept. RAFINESQUE placed his
species in the genus _Pelamis_. This genus, however, was established
by DAUDIN, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with some other
genera it forms the family of _Hydrophidae_ Sws. It must, therefore, be
rejected.

RAFINESQUE himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea-Serpent
with the common small sea-snakes, proposes in that case the name of
_Megophias monstrosus_. Here we have the oldest _generic_ name for
these animals, viz. _Megophias_. In my opinion, the only name to be
given to the sea-serpent is that of

_Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD.

I know that such a double name will offend the eyes and ears of some
zoologists. But it will not do to give a wrong name simply to please
some zoologists; and it is here the question: by what name _must_ these
animals be called according to the _law_ of nomenclature, and then I
say:

_Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD.

and its synonyms are:

_Pelamis megophias_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1),
_Megophias monstrosus_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1),
_Octipos bicolor_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 2),
_Pelamis monstrosus_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4),
_Pelamis chloronotis_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4),
_Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_, OUD., Nov., 1881.

The name of _Halsydrus Pontoppidani_, proposed by Mr. PATRIC NEILL,
for the “great sea-snake cast ashore on the isle of Stronsa” (Phil.
Mag. Vol. 33, p. 90, Jan., 1809) can of course not be accepted as
the scientific name of the sea-serpent, although it is older than
_Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on Would-be
Sea-Serpents.)

Nor can there be any question to consider the name of _Hydrarchos
Sillimanni_, proposed by Dr KOCH for his so-called fossil sea-serpent,
as a synonym of _Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on
Hoaxes).

C. Conclusions.

1. COMPARISON WITH ALLIED ANIMALS.

It will be quite superfluous to tell my readers to which order of
animals I think that this _Megophias megophias_ belongs. It runs like
a red thread through my whole volume, that I firmly believe that it
belongs to the Order of _Pinnipedia_.

More than once I have already shown the relation to this Order, but
probably not often enough to convince some headstrong scepticals, or
even those who believe in the existence of sea-serpents, but think that
they belong to other orders of the Animal Kingdom.

I will first show my readers some drawings and sketches of sea-lions
and of a sea-bear.

[Illustration: Fig. 74.--_Zalophus californianus_ (LESS.) ALLEN?--Drawn
by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.--From the
_Illustrated London News_ of Jan. 6, 1877.]

Fig. 74 represents a sea-lion of the Brighton Aquarium. I think it is a
_Zalophus californianus_ (LESS.) ALLEN. We observe that it has a rather
pointed, rather blunt snout, with whiskers; that the eyes protrude
like those of a toad, that there is a little bunch a little above and
behind the eye, that its neck is long in comparison with that of common
seals, that in this position the neck is narrower than the head, and
the shoulders are visible, that the flappers resemble somewhat those of
turtles, that the body is round and slender, and the skin smooth and
glittering in the sun, though, in fact, it is hairy and not shining
when it is dry.

Fig. 75 shows the same species in another position. The neck is not
extended as much as possible, and so the head seems to be as large as
the neck; the forehead and nose form nearly a straight line; in the
bunch above the eye protruding from the surface we clearly see the
heavy eye-brow; the head is held at nearly right angles with the neck,
so that the latter gets wrinkles on the throat, which resemble four
gills (read gillsplits), or pouches of loose skin. Compare for a moment
the left foreflapper with the flappers of a sea-serpent, drawn in figg.
36, 45, and 50. The skin is smooth and shining, though when dry it is
hairy and dull.

[Illustration: Fig. 75.--_Zalophus californianus_ (LESS.)
ALLEN.--?--Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton
Aquarium.--From the _Illustrated London News_ of Jan. 6., 1877.]

Fig. 76 is a drawing of _Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON) PETERS, also
a sea-lion. This genus is characterized by its considerably vaulted
fore head (_eu_ = well developed, _metopion_ = forehead). The skin
shows numerous folds or wrinkles, on the throat a fold again forms a
distinctly visible “gill”.--The form of the foreflappers resemble those
of a turtle. The neck is in comparison with that of seals much longer
and as it is not extended as much as possible, it is thicker than the
head. The skin is smooth, being wet.

Fig. 77 represents the same species. Here the animal swims with
vertical undulations.

Fig. 78 represents the same species with its neck totally contracted
so that several wrinkles encircle it, resembling “kinds of scrolls, or
tufts of loose skin”, and it seems as if the animal has no neck at all.

Fig. 79 shows us the same species standing nearly upright in the
water, with its neck contracted, so that it looks as having no neck, or
a neck much larger than the head; the head seen in front is as round as
a barrel; the skin is wrinkled. The individual looks at us, as if it
would take a view of us.

[Illustration: Fig. 76.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON) PETERS.--Drawn
by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the
Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of Jan.
27, 1877.--]

Fig. 80 is the same individual in the same position but seen from
aside. The head is now much longer, the snout neither too pointed,
nor too blunt; the head is held at nearly right angles with the neck,
forming a “gill” (read gillsplit) by wrinkling the skin on the throat.

Fig. 81 is a drawing of _Otaria jubata_, quite dry. The head is held
at nearly right angles with the neck forming two “gills”. The snout
is rather blunt, apparently quadrangular in front. The nostrils are
at the end of the snout and wide open, “nearly semicircular valves
overarching” them. The eyes are wide open and disproportionately large.
The neck in comparison with that of seals is long. The skin is hairy,
the hairs of the neck are much longer. This mane begins at the occiput.
The form of the flappers is like that of a turtle’s. Compare the form
of the foreflappers with that of figg. 36, 45 and 50. The body is round
and slender.

Fig. 82 represents a sea-bear, _Callorhinus ursinus_, quite dry. The
little hairy bunch which is visible in the forepart of the back, is
the shoulder of the other side. The hairs of the back-line are longer
than the others, forming a mane extending all over the neck and back.
The reader will see that I have represented this animal with only four
toes on both the foreflappers and hindflappers; this is because I give
a facsimile of the figure occurring in BREHM’S “Thierleben”.

[Illustration: Fig. 77.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
PETERS.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL, from a living
specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877.]

[Illustration: Fig. 78.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
PETERS.--Sketched from a living specimen by the animal-painter G.
MÜTZEL in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan. 27, 1877.]

It is not the place here to give a monograph of Pinnipeds, but to
compare the different known characters of the sea-serpents with those
of the other of Pinnipeds, and therefore I am obliged to take the same
order I have followed above.

[Illustration: Fig. 79.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
PETERS.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living
specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan., 27, 1877.]

_Dimensions._ At first sight it will be doubted if such an enormous
animal can be a pinniped? It is so immensely large in comparison with
the known species of this order! Suppose for a moment that whale-bone
whales, spermwhales and finwhales were not yet known, and that one of
these animals was caught; what would be our astonishment! Suppose that
pythons and boas were not yet discovered, and somebody showed us a skin
of a python of 26 feet long, I think that the first thought would be
“you are a handy fellow, but you will not cheat me with your story!” I
will add here some other striking comparisons.

[Illustration: Fig. 80.--_Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON)
PETERS.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living
specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Jan., 27, 1877.]

The largest known now living cartilaginous fishes are of 36 (_Selache
maxima_) and of 42 feet (_Carcharodon Rondeletii_); but a fossil
species of the latter genus reached a length of 81 feet (_Carcharodon
megalodon_), and earlier Northern truthful and accurate writers even
mention 100 feet as occasional dimension of the _Selache maxima_, an
animal eagerly pursued by the Norwegians for the oil of its liver.

We, who in our latitudes look already with amazement on a salmon of
5 feet length, must be perplexed when seeing for the first time an
osseous fish of 10 (_Thynnus thynnus_), of 15 (_Arapaima gigas_), or of
20 feet (_Regalecus Banksii_).

The largest known living Amphibium is 4 feet long (_Cryptobranchus_),
and caused great astonishment, when it was discovered, but fossil
_Amphibia_ have been found larger than 15 feet (_Mastodonsaurus_).

The largest actually measured living Reptile has a length of 30 feet
(_Crocodilus_), but some fossilized reptiles show a length of 38 feet
(_Hadrosaurus_, _Ichthyosaurus_), 45 feet (_Elasmosaurus_), 58 feet
(_Rhamphosuchus_), 70 feet (_Brontosaurus_) nay even of 100 (_Liodon_)
and of 115 feet (_Atlantosaurus_), and probably many kinds of Reptiles
are still longer, the skeletons of which have been dug up only
partially!

[Illustration: Fig. 81.--_Otaria jubata_ (FORSTER) DESM.--From the
“List of the Vertebrated Animals now or lately living in the Gardens of
the Zoological Society of London, 1877.”]

Whale-bone-whales of 88 feet, sperm whales of 90 feet, and finwhales
of 120 feet are occasionally mentioned to have been measured in
the foregoing century, but at present such dimensions are not more
recorded, because these animals have been so incessantly persecuted for
ages!

Well, let us stop here, and say that there are many wonders still
hidden in the sea, and that there will be always a chance that of
every species of animals individuals will be discovered, still larger
than the largest specimen ever measured. If of all Pinnipeds the
sea-elephants were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the
case: they are surpassed by sea-serpents. If of all known living and
fossil animals the _Atlantosaurus_ and the _Balaenoptera_ were hitherto
the largest known, this is no more the case: they are surpassed by the
_Megophias_.

Of all Pinnipeds the family of the _Auriculata_ (Eared Seals) has the
longest necks. In this particular they are surpassed by sea-serpents.

[Illustration: Fig. 82.--_Callorhinus ursinus_ (LINNÉ) GRAY.--From
BREHM’S “Thierleben”.]

None of the hitherto known living Pinnipeds has such an enormous tail
as the sea-serpent, but the fossil _Basilosaurus_, an animal more or
less allied to the earless seals, has an enormous tail. Of the singular
appearance of a family of which some members have immensely long tails,
and others are almost wholly without, we have more instances in the
animal kingdom. Of the Monkeys the family of the _Simiidae_ have no
tails, whilst the other families have generally long tails. Amongst the
tailed monkeys we find in one _genus_ species with very long tails, as
the _Macacus cynamolgos_ (the Macaque Monkey), and others with very
short tails, as the _Macacus maurus_ (Moor Macaque). This difference in
the length of the tail is present _in all orders_ of the _Quadrupedia_.

_Form._--The shape of _Megophias megophias_ is exactly that of
_Zalophus californianus_, with a longer neck, and with a tail as long
as trunk, neck, and head together. The shape of the head too, in my
opinion, more resembles that of _Zalophus californianus_ than that of
any other Pinniped. The shape of the neck, the trunk, and the flappers
is exactly that of the same portions of the _Auriculata_, especially
in _Zalophus californianus_, viz: all are slender: “The body is
rather slender, and the head is narrow, long, and pointed, and with
this slenderness of form is coordinated a corresponding litheness of
movement”. (ALLEN, _History of North American Pinnipeds_, p. 276). It
may be that the hindflappers have a form hitherto unknown in Pinnipeds,
as we have of the hindflappers neither a description nor any tolerable
illustration. The forehead being flat, very much resembles that of
_Zalophus californianus._ The snout or muzzle too, is of all Pinnipeds
most resembling that of _Zalophus californianus_.

All Pinnipeds have whiskers. In some species they are large, as in
_Callorhinus ursinus_, the sea-bear, in other comparatively small,
as in _Monachus tropicalis_ GRAY, and in the males of the genus
_Macrorhinus_, and even very small in the _Trichecidae_.

The eyes of _Megophias megophias_ seem to be comparatively larger
than those in other species of Pinnipeds, though _Otaria jubata_ and
_Phoca foetida_ are known to have comparatively large eyes. I have
nowhere found any remark about the colour of the eye, with regard
to its _tapetum lucidum_, and till now I have had no opportunity to
convince myself of the _tapetum_ of _Zalophus_ or _Eumetopias_ being
red. But is it not remarkable that Mr. H. W. ELLIOT too asserts of
_Eumetopias Stelleri_: “it has a really leonine appearance and bearing,
greatly enhanced by the rich, golden-rufous of its coat, ferocity of
expression, and _bull-dog-like muzzle and cast of eye_”? (ALLEN, _Hist.
N. Am. Pinn._ p. 258).

_Skin._--As in all Pinnipeds the skin is hairy, most probably the hairs
are quite stiff and not woolly like fur.

_Colours, Individual Variations._--We have only to read different
descriptions of seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears, to observe that every
species varies much as to its colour, but that in some there is a
wide range of individual variations. Only in a few species the under
part is darker than the upper part, but generally the upper part is
much darker than the under part, and with regard to their colours the
animals are so to say longitudinally divided into two sections, dark
above, lighter beneath. Their being variegated with spots or streaks
occurs in many species, less in sea-lions and sea-bears, more in seals,
but is the most striking in the Hooded Seal (_Cystophora cristata_,
(ERXL) NILSS.). If we closely examine this species, the question
arises: is not the lighter colour the ground-colour, and are not the
dark spots and streaks and circles secondary appearances? And I think
that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Remarkable is
also the black colour of the region of the mouth and round the eye in
some individuals of sea-serpents. This singularity occurs also in some
specimens of other Pinnipeds. Of _Eumetopias Stelleri_ “the end of the
nose.... is naked and.... dull blue black” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._
p. 234, 235); of _Zalophus californianus_ we read: “A third is....
blackish around the eyes and nostrils” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p.
277). In a foetal specimen: “nose and face, to and around the eyes” are
“black” (Ibid., p. 278); and NILSSON’S black variety of the Ringed Seal
(_Phoca foetida_ FABR.) has “nose and eye-rings uniform black” (Ibid.
p. 602).

_Sexual differences, Mane._--The males of some species of Pinnipeds
have a mane, i. e. the hairs of the neck are longer than on the rest of
the body. Of _Eumetopias Stelleri_ “the hair is longest on the anterior
upper portion of the body, where on the neck and shoulders it attains
a length of 40 mm.; it decreases in length posteriorly, and toward
the tail has a length of only 15 mm.” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p.
234). Of the hairs of _Callorhinus ursinus_ we read: “It is longest
on the top of the head, especially in the males, which have a well
marked crest. The hair is much longer on the anterior half of the body
than on the posterior half, it being longest on the hinder part of the
neck, where in the males it is very coarse. On the crown the hair has
a length of 42 mm.; on the hinder part of the neck it reaches a length
of 50 to 60 mm. From this point posteriorly it gradually shortens, and
near the tail has a length of only 20 mm. The males have much longer
hair than the females, in which it is much longer than in _Eumetopias
Stelleri_.” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p. 315).

The difference in size of males and females is also a peculiar
character of some species of Pinnipeds, as may be seen from the
following tables:

+----------------------------+---------+---------+-------+
| | VERY OLD| VERY OLD| |
| NAME | MALE. | FEMALE.| RATIO.|
+----------------------------+---------+---------+-------+
|_Zalophus californianus_ | 8¹⁄₃ ft.| 6³⁄₄ ft.|100:81 |
|_Eumetopias Stelleri_ |13 „ | 9 „ |100:69 |
|_Macrorhinus leoninus_ |25 „ |15 „ |100:60 |
|_Macrorhinus angustirostris_|22 „ |13 „ |100:59 |
|_Callorhinus ursinus_ | 8 „ | 4 „ |100:50.|
+----------------------------+---------+---------+-------+

In _Callorhinus ursinus_ the female, as we observe, attains only half
the length of a male. The weight of a fullgrown female being less than
one sixth that of a full-grown male.

The losing of hair when the animals grow very old, is very striking in
both _Odobaenus rosmarus_ and in _Odobaenus obesus_.

_Food._ The food of all Pinnipeds consists of mussels, and other
mollusks, especially, however, of all kinds of fish, but that they are
not averse to cetacean flesh, may be proved by the following fact: Mr.
BROWN says of _Odobaenus rosmarus_: “I have only to add that whenever
it was killed near where a whale’s carcass had been let adrift, its
stomach was unvariably found _crammed_ full of the _krang_ or flesh
of that _Cetacean_” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p. 135). _Eumetopias
Stelleri_ occasionally eats birds (Ibid. p. 274).

_Breathing._--Even in seals and sea-lions it may be occasionally
observed that they “blow like a whale”; I myself saw it more than once,
when the animals lay with their nose at water level, or when they
appeared on the surface after having remained under water for a long
time. It is sufficiently known that the average time these animals
remain under water is eight or ten minutes, but they have also been
observed lying quite still on the bottom for more than three hours. I
read in Mr. ALLEN’S work (p. 180) that also walruses “blow not unlike a
whale”.

_Excretion._--The emitting a very strong odour is also known in
Pinnipeds. KRASCHENINIKOW says of _Callorhinus ursinus_: “Such as are
old, or have no mistresses, live apart; and the first that our people
found upon _Behring_’s Island were such old ones, and all males,
extremely fat and stinking” (ALLEN, p. 342). Of _Eumetopias Stelleri_
CHORIS reports: “L’odeur qu’ils répandent est insupportable. Ces
animaux étaient alors dans le temps du rut” (ALLEN, p. 254), and of
_Phoca foetida_ KUMLIEN asserts:

“It is only the adult males (called _Tigak_, = Stinker, by the Eskimo)
that emit the horribly disagreeable, all-permeating, ever-penetrating
odor that has suggested its specific name. It is so strong that one
can smell an Eskimo some distance when he has been partaking of the
flesh; they say it is more nourishing than the flesh of the females,
and that a person can endure great fatigue after eating it. If one of
these Tigak comes in contact with any other Seal meat it will become so
tainted as to be repulsive to an educated palate; even the atluk of the
Tigak can be detected by its odor.” (ALLEN, p. 624).

Respecting the foetid odour emitted by this species, Dr. RINK observes
as follows:

“It derives its scientific name from the nauseous smell peculiar to
certain older individuals, especially those captured in the interior
ice-fjords, which are also on an average perhaps twice as large as
those generally occurring off the outer shores. When brought into a
hut, and cut up on its floor, such a seal emits a smell resembling
something between that of assafoetida and onions, almost insupportable
to strangers. This peculiarity is not noticeable in the younger
specimens or those of a smaller size, such as are generally caught, and
at all events the smell does not detract from the utility of the flesh
over the whole of Greenland”.--_Danish Greenland, its People and its
Products_ p. 123 (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p. 624).

_Feeling._ Also in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens we may
often observe that they dislike wind, and hold only the top of their
nose above water, that they shut their eyes, and like to bask in the
sun.

_Smell, Hearing, Sight._ It is also known of Pinnipeds that their smell
is very good and their hearing very sharp, but that their sight is
quite limited. This must not surprise us. Their eyes are adapted to see
under water, but such eyes don’t see so well in the air. Yet I have
observed that seals distinguish their keeper from other persons at a
distance of twenty or thirty yards.

_Relative mobility of organs._ Every one who has ever witnessed
the graceful movements of seals and sea-lions, especially those
of _Zalophus californianus_ will admit that these animals, like
sea-serpents, are “as limber and active as an eel”. There is not one
movement made by the sea-serpent, which cannot be made in perfectly the
same way by sea-lions, especially by _Zalophus californianus_, save the
movement of the tail.

_Motion._ The same may be observed in comparing the motions of
sea-serpents with those of _Zalophus californianus_. They too may
appear on the surface, exposing head, neck, and so much of the forepart
of the trunk, as to show their flappers; nay, they may like all kinds
of whales, jump clear out of the water. When swimming slowly, they may
occasionally swim with vertical undulations, they usually, however,
propel themselves by means of their flappers, holding their body in
a straight line; and sometimes horizontal undulations are distinctly
visible; in darting on some prey they swim not only with their
flappers, but undulate their body both horizontally and vertically
at intervals. Of course generally only one or two, seldom three
undulations are to be counted.

I don’t know if sea-lions have ever been seen swimming with _fixed
bunches_, or folds. When at rest their skin may enormously wrinkle,
like that of walruses, and as is shown in our fig. 78.

In swimming the sea-lion usually holds its head above water, and may
occasionally raise its long neck as high as possible to take a view of
a boat or another object.

Owing to the form and size of its flappers the speed of the sea-lion is
really astonishing; it is much less in seals.

Though in a less degree, than in sea-serpents, the water curls up
before its chest, or better throat, in swimming; foam is occasionally
observed, and waves are seen in the form of a V, a wake is of course
formed, and a rushing may be heard at times.

That seals swim so low under the surface of the water, that the course
of the animal can be traced only by the rippling surface, I have myself
witnessed, but I do not know if sea-lions, especially, if _Zalophus
californianus_, are in the habit of swimming in this way.

The manner of disappearing of the sea-serpent is exactly the same as
that of other Pinnipeds. They may turn down with a severe splash, or
sink gradually below the surface, or even, by a sudden upward motion of
their flappers, “sink down like a rock”.

As to the _voice_ of other Pinnipeds it is different in the different
species, but as we have not a single statement of the voice of
sea-serpents, comparison is out of the question here.

_Generation._--The rutting time and the time of whelping differ in
different species, but on an average the month of March and April may
be fixed upon as the pairing time, and July and August as those in
which the females bring forth the young ones.

In some species the males are much larger than the females, and the new
born young ones, like the young sea-serpents are in exact proportion to
the old males, as may be seen from the following table.

+----------------------------+----------+----------+---------+
| NAME. | VERY OLD | NEW BORN | RATIO. |
| | MALE. |YOUNG ONE.| |
+----------------------------+----------+----------+---------+
|_Zalophus californianus_ | 8¹⁄₃ ft.| 2¹⁄₃ ft.| ¹⁄₃-¹⁄₄ |
|_Macrorhinus angustirostris_| 22 „| 4 „ | ¹⁄₅-¹⁄₆ |
|_Eumetopias Stelleri_ | 13 „| 2 „ | ¹⁄₆-¹⁄₇ |
|_Callorhinus ursinus_ | 8 „| 10 in. | ¹⁄₈-¹⁄₉ |
+----------------------------+----------+----------+---------+

_Taking notice of objects._ It is well enough known that seals will
sometimes keep near a vessel, turning their head towards it; or will
play round the vessel, disappearing on one side, reappearing on the
other, as if playing hide and seek; from this it may be concluded they
are in no dread of the vessel, but are curious, and suspicious of the
living objects on it. I don’t know whether sea-lions and sea-bears
behave in the same way, but I know that walruses do.

_Curiosity and Suspicion_ are known characters in all kinds of
Pinnipeds, and it is noteworthy that they are most striking in walruses
and seals.

_Harmlessness and Timidity._ There is hardly any Pinniped which is not
harmless and timid.

_Fearlessness_ is a common trait in walruses and sea-elephants. One
may come very near them. On the other hand scores of them, especially
of the former, will sometimes follow a boat, roaring and crying and
uttering the most horrible sounds, which may be expressions of their
curiosity, suspicion, and fury, but it may also be a way they have of
driving away their enemy.

_Fear_ on the contrary, though less noticeable in walruses, is a
prominent trait in seals, sea-lions and sea-bears. When men approach
them they fly away as fast as possible, and in their hurry to reach the
water crawl over each other, and roar, and cry, and lament in a most
horrible way.

_Fright._ It is superfluous to touch upon this subject in Pinnipeds;
every one knows the effects and consequences of a shot at these timid
animals.

_Fury._ As in sea-serpents, most Pinnipeds, but especially sea-lions,
sea-bears and walruses only get furious when wounded, or when neared
while they are protecting their offspring.

_Toughness._ I know of no observations about this character in seals,
sea-lions, sea-bears, and sea-elephants, but I believe that they are
not tough; one heavy blow with a thick cudgel on the nose killing them
instantly, but the toughness of walruses is known well enough; these
animals are not an easy prey; they may be struck with axes on their
cranium and hit by several rifle balls in their brain, and yet not die;
they die a hard death.

_Playsomeness_ is a well known character of all Pinnipeds; it may of
course be less observable in the bulky and unwieldy walruses.

_Remark._ It is time that the volume comes to an end, and therefore I
have made my comparison as short as possible. I have only to advise
those who wish to know more about the agreement of sea-serpents
with Pinnipeds, to read ALLEN’S often quoted work “_History of
North-American Pinnipeds_”, and his “_On Eared Seals_”, (_Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool. Harvard College._ Cambr. Mass. Vol. II, n^o. 1.), and
BREHM’S _Thierleben_.

There is one great difference between all the known Pinnipeds on
one side, and sea-serpents on the other. The former are gregarious
or social animals, only living in colonies or great herds, whilst
_Megophias megophias_ is a solitary being. This remarkable difference
can be only accounted for by the two facts 1. That this species is a
cosmopolitan, and 2. That these animals become extinct and that there
exist at present only a very few individuals.

I don’t know if I have convinced my readers of the existence of
sea-serpents, and if so, if they are convinced that these animals are
closely related to Pinnipeds. But I am obliged to proceed on my way,
and consider the rank which sea-serpents occupy in the system of Nature.

2. ITS RANK IN THE SYSTEM OF NATURE.

Zoologists admit as a fact that Pinnipeds originate in true
land-animals. We are convinced that these land-animals were long-tailed
Viverrine animals. The tail must have been longer than one half of
the total length. This is no impossibility, as we have still living
forms, the tail of which is as long as half of the total length of the
animal, e. g. _Herpestes Widdringtonii_. The dentition must have been
the typical carnivorous one: i 3/3, c 1/1, m 7/7; or there were more
molars, perhaps 8/8, as a genus of wild dogs, _Otocyon_, has 8 molars
on each side of each jaw; its dentition is i 3/3, c 1/1, m 8/8. (The
_Cynoidea_, or dog-like animals are also considered as having their
origin in Viverrine animals.)

Some of the descendants of these long-tailed Viverrine animals had
gradually got such characters, that zoologists would term them
long-tailed Musteline animals. They may be called _long-tailed
ancestors of weasels and stoats_, for our common weasel (_Putorius
vulgaris_ L.) and our common stoat (_Putorius ermineus_ L.) are still
living descendants of them, though the tail has become very short, most
probably because they have accustomed themselves to live in holes. The
long tail has shown itself to be an inconvenient organ for this new
manner of living, and therefore has gradually become shorter.

Some of these _long-tailed ancestors of weasels and stoats_ took to
another manner of living, compelled thereto by certain circumstances.
They viz. took to eating fresh water fish. Gradually this grew to be a
habit; they learned to swim, which happened by vertical undulations,
they paddled with the feet, and used the tail as a rudder. This group
may be called _long-tailed ancestors of polecats and minks_, for
our common polecat (_Putorius putorius_ L.) and the Russian minks
(_Putorius lutreolus_ L.) are still living descendants of them, though
the tail has become short, because they have accustomed themselves to
live in holes. The long tail has shown itself to be an inconvenient
organ for such a manner of living, and therefore has gradually become
shorter, not so short, however, as in weasels and stoats. Zoologists
place the polecats and minks in the same genus as the weasels and
stoats. The minks live especially in the neighbourhood of rivers and
brooks, often go into the water and swim exceedingly well. Besides on
poultry and rats, they feed on frogs, crabs, cray-fish, and all kinds
of fish.

Some of these _long-tailed ancestors of polecats and minks_ got so
used to the water, that it finally became their proper element, and
they came ashore only to rest from swimming, to bask themselves in the
sun, or to find another brook or river. They began to feed on fish,
crayfish, and frogs, and only when driven by hunger they fed on rats
and poultry. It is evident that those individuals which by nature were
best adapted to their new element, must gradually have survived their
less privileged brethren, and so we may admit that a form gradually
arose, which swam very easily with vertical undulations, using the tail
as a rudder and as propelling organ. Also of great advantage must have
been more sharply pointed teeth, and more jagged molars, smaller ears,
a more woolly skin, and toes on the hind limbs, which were capable
of expansion and more or less provided with a web. This group may be
called _long-tailed ancestors of otters_, for all the known species
of otters (_Lutra_) are still living descendants of them, though the
tail has become shorter, shorter than one third of the total length of
the animal, because they too like to live in holes. The face greatly
resembles that of the polecat and mink, but the upper lips are thicker
and the whiskers are longer and stronger. The change was not only great
enough for zoologists to create for this group a new genus: _Lutra_
STORR, but even to establish for it a new subfamily _Lutrina_ GRAY.

These _long-tailed ancestors of otters_ were again survived by their
congeners which were still better adapted to the new medium, so that
from them another group gradually arose, which had broader webs on
the hind feet. This group may be called _long-tailed ancestors of
fin-tailed otters_, for the fin-tailed otter (_Lutra Sanbachii_
GRAY) is a still living descendant of them. The tail of this animal
is shorter than that of its ancestors, longer, however, than that
of the otters (_Lutra_), surpassing one third of the animal’s total
length. Moreover it is somewhat flattened and shows on its hindmost
half lateral fin-like dilatations. The change was great enough for
zoologists to place the animal into a new genus: _Pteronura_ GRAY.
Its ancestors, however, were not provided with these lateral fin-like
dilatations on the tail.

Some of these _long-tailed ancestors of the fin-tailed otter_ which
in their migration had reached the sea-shore, probably by following
the course of rivers, began to accustom themselves to eat sea-fish,
and ended by feeding on them exclusively. The sea-water became
their home, and their resting places and nests were found on the
strand, and among sea-weed; they seldom came ashore to sleep or to
sun themselves. Besides on sea-fish, they fed on crabs, lobsters,
mussels, and some sea-weed. They left off eating poultry, frogs, and
rats. The long tail was of great profit, as they used it as a rudder
and as propelling organ in swimming with vertical undulations. Of
course those individuals which were the best adapted to this new
manner of living, survived the less privileged by nature, and so a
group gradually arose which had a sharper dentition, and smaller
ears; the skin was also changed to the most valuable fur, the toes of
the hind-legs had become more webbed, and with such legs the animals
could swim more easily; those of the fore-limbs had sharper nails,
and with such nails the animals could more easily crawl upon the
rocks; the eyes were larger, and with such eyes the owners could see
better in great and dark depths, and in the sea-water near the shore,
which is commonly troubled; the whiskers were longer and stronger,
consequently the upper-lips, in which these whiskers were planted and
which contained numerous and thick sensorial nerves, were very thick,
and with such whiskers the animals could exceedingly well touch and
feel when searching for their food between stones and sea-weed, and
in the sandy bottom. The face resembled but little more that of the
otters and fin-tailed otters, and the large eyes and shorter ears gave
it a slight resemblance to seals. This group may be called _long-tailed
ancestors of sea-otters_, for our sea-otters (_Lutra lutris_ L.) are
still living descendants of them. But as these animals have accustomed
themselves to live more among sea-weed, ice, and rocks than their
direct ancestors, the long tail must have been inconvenient, so that
individuals with a shorter tail must have survived the others, and
finally a species arose with a tolerably short tail: our sea-otter. To
make up for this loss of tail, the hind-feet had become more webbed,
and were gradually stretched more backwards, and, modified in this
way, they were valuable swimming organs. The change was great enough
for zoologists to create a new genus for this animal, which is called
_Enhydra_ CUV.

Some of the _long-tailed ancestors of sea-otters_ took to a still more
aquatic, or better pelagic life, migrated more towards the north,
accustomed themselves to the icy regions, to swim greater distances
and to remain longer under water. The consequences of this change in
the manner of living were that all little adapted to this new life
became extinct, and that all which were better privileged survived
them, so that at last a group of animals arose of which we may safely
admit that they had the following characters: The head and fore-feet
resembled still more those of seals, the hind-legs were still more
able swimming organs, and less fit for terrestrial locomotion, they
were smaller than the fore-legs, because they were not always used in
swimming, as the best manner of swimming must have been by means of
vertical undulations; the long tail surpassed half of the total length,
and served as a rudder and as propelling organ; the ears were still
smaller, the dentition was still a normal carnivorous one (i 3/3, c
1/1, m 7/7), especially the molars were sharp and pointed, and on the
skull were found peculiar modifications which are so distinctly visible
on that of Pinnipeds. The animals must have resembled our common seals,
having, however, small external ears, and a tail, surpassing one half
of the total length. It is difficult to believe that these animals,
which I will call _Propinnipedia_, moved on land; probably they came
from time to time aland or on the ice to rest with the fore-part of
the body on it, leaving, however, most certainly the long tail in the
water. These _Propinnipedia_ gave origin to two groups of animals,
which are marked below with A and B.

A.--This group, by their having lived almost constantly far from land,
and having come only very seldom near the shore to rest, supporting
themselves on the chest or breast, clinging with the nails of the
fore-legs to the beach, rock, or ice, changed in such a way, that
zoologists can hardly reckon them any longer among Pinnipeds, but
generally consider them as a link between Pinnipeds and Whales.
Professor D’ARCY W. THOMPSON (_Studies from the Museum of Zoology in
University College_, Dundee, Vol. I, N^o. 9, 1890) rejects any affinity
of this group to Whales. I should like to go still farther and pretend
that it has just as much claim to the title of Pinnipeds, as seals,
sea-elephants, sea-bears, sea-lions, and sea-serpents. The skull was
somewhat lengthened in front; the brain-case diminished in size; the
deciduous dentition probably cut the gum; the permanent dentition was
the typical heterodont carnivorous one (i 3/3, c 1/1, m 7/7); the
nostrils were placed on the tip of the nose, as in seals, but directed
upwards; the fore-limbs were perfectly those of seals, and provided
with nails; but the rest of the body must have _resembled_ that of a
slender and elongated dolphin, or whale, with an enormous _pointed_
tail. The most successful manner of swimming for these animals was by
means of vertical undulations, which, as the forepart of the body (head
and trunk) was somewhat bulky, and therefore somewhat inflexible, were
strongest in the tail-part of the animal; consequently the hind-legs,
used less and less, disappeared, if not quite, at least for the greater
part. The animals were still hairy, though the hairs were most probably
thinly scattered; the whiskers remained on the lips. The head was
relatively large, not with regard to the animal’s total length, but to
the trunk, and therefore the neck was very short. Externally the neck
must not have been plainly visible. The animals could not move the head
as easily as seals and sea-lions do, and therefore it was of great
advantage that the nostrils were directed upwards. The vertebrae have
the type of those of the Pinnipeds.--Such animals are now extinct, but
their fossil remains are found and called _Basilosaurus_ by HARLAN in
1824 (afterwards OWEN gave them the name of _Zeuglodon_, 1839).

B.--This second group is called _Pinnipedia_ by ILLIGER in 1811, and
ALLEN gives of it the following characters:

“Limbs pinniform, or modified into swimming organs, and enclosed to or
beyond the elbows and knees within the common integument. Digits of the
manus decreasing in length and size from the first to the fifth; of
those of the pes, the first and fifth largest and longest, the three
middle ones shorter and subequal. Pelvis with the iliac portion very
short, and the anterior border much everted; ischia barely meeting by
a short symphysis (never anchylosed) and in the female usually widely
separated. Skull generally greatly compressed interorbitally; facial
portion usually short, rather broad, and the brain-case abruptly
expanded. Lachrymal bone imperforate and joined to the maxillary,
enclosed wholly within the orbit. Palatines usually separated by a
vacuity, often of considerable size, from the frontals. Tympanic bones
separated also by a vacuity from the exoccipitals. Dentition simple,
generally unspecialized, the molars all similar in structure. Deciduous
dentition rudimentary, never truly functional, and generally not
persistent beyond the foetal stage of the animal. Permanent incisors
usually 6/4 or 4/4, sometimes 4/2 (_Cystophora_ and _Macrorhinus_) or
even 2/2 (_Odobaenus_); canines 2/2; molars 5/5, 6/5, or 5/3.”

And we may add: Tail either very long: about as long as one half of the
animal’s total length, or very short: almost disappearing between the
hind-legs.

Already very early the Pinnipeds divided themselves into two different
branches, marked below with I and II.

I.--The members of this branch changed their manner of living. They
very often crawled on land, ice, and rocks; the long tail was a very
unconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently all
the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than their congeners’
were better adapted to the new manner of living and survived them, so
that at last a group of animals arose of which the tail has become
very short, almost disappearing between the hind-legs, and to make up
for this loss the hind-legs grew much larger than the fore-legs, were
turned hindwards, gradually grew incapable of being turned forwards,
and of no use in terrestrial locomotion. This branch is called
_Inauriculata_ by PÉRON in 1816 (afterwards called _Phocidae_ by GRAY
in 1825, and _Reptigrada_ by ELLIOT COUES, invited thereto by ALLEN in
1880). The characters are described by ALLEN as follows:

“Hind-legs not capable of being turned forward, and not serviceable for
terrestrial locomotion. Neck short. Skull with the mastoid processes
swollen, but not salient, and without distinct alisphenoid canals.
Anterior limbs smaller than the posterior, the first digit little,
if any, longer than the next succeeding ones, all armed with strong
claws, which are terminal. Hind feet capable of moderate expansion,
short; digits (usually) all armed with strong claws, and without
terminal cartilaginous flaps. Femur with no trace of the trochanter
minor. Without external ears. Postorbital processes wanting, or very
small. Incisors variable (6/4, 4/4, or 4/2). Deciduous dentition not
persistent beyond foetal life.”

The group includes all true seals and sea-elephants.

II.--This branch is called _Gressigrada_ by ELLIOT COUES in 1880, who
was thereto invited by ALLEN, though this skilled zoologist was then
unaware of the existence of the sea-serpent, or at least must have
doubted its belonging to this branch. I have not a single reason to
give another name to it; I purposely keep the name of _Gressigrada_, to
avoid the increase of synonyms. The early forms of the _Gressigrada_
must have had hind-legs which were smaller than the fore-legs, and a
tail, which was as long as the head, neck and trunk together. They
had also small external ears, and a somewhat lengthened neck. Further
characters are: “Hind-legs capable of being turned forward and used
in terrestrial locomotion. Neck lengthened (especially in section b).
Skull with the mastoid processes large and salient (especially in the
males), and with distinct alisphenoid canals. Anterior feet either
nearly as large as the posterior, or much larger, their digits rapidly
decreasing in length from the first to the fifth, with distinct claws,
and with a broad cartilaginous border extending beyond the digits.”
(They are called flappers.) “Hind-feet susceptible of great expansion,
the three middle digits only with claws, and all the digits terminating
in long, narrow, cartilaginous flaps, united basally.” (The hind-feet
may also safely be called flappers.) “Femur with the trochanter minor
well developed”.--Already at a very early date the branch of the
_Gressigrada_ divided itself into two sections, which are marked below
with a and b.--

a.--The members of this section changed their manner of living. They
very often crawled on ice, land, and rocks; the long tail was a very
inconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently all the
individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than their congeners’ were
better equipped, and survived the others, so that at last a group of
animals arose of which the tail has become very short, scarcely, if
at all, visible, being enclosed within the tegument of the body, and
to make up for this loss, the hind-flappers grew much larger than the
fore-flappers. The further characters for this group are: “Without
external ears. Form thick and heavy. Anterior portion of the skull
greatly swollen, giving support to the enormously developed canines,
which form long, protruding tusks. Incisors of deciduous (foetal)
dentition 6/6; of permanent dentition 2/6. No postorbital processes,
and the surface of the mastoid processes continuous with the auditory
bullae.”--This section is called _Trichecidae_ by GRAY in 1821
(afterwards it was named _Trichechidae_ by GRAY in 1825, _Broca_ by
LATREILLE in 1825, _Campodontia_ by BROOKES in 1828, _Trichecina_ by
GRAY in 1837, _Trichechoidea_ by GIEBEL in 1847, _Trichechina_ by GRAY
in 1850, _Rosmaridae_ by GILL in 1866, _Rosmaroidea_ by GILL in 1872,
and _Odobaenidae_ by ALLEN in 1880!!!). The section contains only the
walruses.

b.--The early forms of this section must have had hind-flappers which
were smaller than the fore-flappers, and a tail which was as long as
the head, neck and trunk together. The animals were very slender and
elongated in form, the neck being _somewhat more elongated_; external
ears, though small, were still present. Further characters are:
“Anterior portion of the skull not unusually swollen, and the canines
not highly specialized.” They came very seldom aland, and when doing
so, they must have only supported themselves on their breast and on
their fore-flappers, leaving the long tail always in the water. They
swam with vertical undulations, using also sometimes the flappers.--For
this section I choose the name of _Tenuia_, or Animals which are
slender.--Very early the section of the _Tenuia_ divided itself into
two smaller divisions which are marked below with 1 and 2.--

1.--The members of this division changed their manner of living.
They very often crawled on ice, land and rocks; the tail was a very
inconvenient organ in their new manner of living, consequently all
the individuals with a somewhat shorter tail than their congeners’,
were better equipped and survived the others, so that at last a group
of animals arose of which the tail has become very short, almost
disappearing between the hind-legs which on the contrary to make up for
this loss of tail, gradually became larger, so as to become even larger
than the anterior feet. The further characters of this group are: “With
small external ears. Incisors of deciduous dentition 6/4, only the
outer on either side cutting the gum; of permanent dentition 6/4, the
two central pairs of the upper with a transverse groove. Postorbital
processes strongly developed. Surface of the mastoid processes not
continuous with the auditory bullae.”--This division was called
_Auriculata_ by PÉRON in 1816, (afterwards also called _Otariina_ by
GRAY in 1825, _Otariadae_ by BROOKES in 1828, _Arctocephalina_ by GRAY
in 1837, and _Otariidae_ by GILL in 1866) containing the sea-bears and
sea-lions.

2.--The members of this division did not accustom themselves to live in
the midst of ice and rocks, consequently they retained the long tail,
and small hind-legs. As the animals retained also their slenderness and
extraordinary litheness, a long neck with a relatively small head must
have been of great use to them, and consequently those individuals
which had a longer neck than the others survived their less privileged
congeners, so that at last a group arose with a very long neck and a
comparatively small head. It seems that the external ears disappeared.
They never came aland or on ice-floes. They even abandoned the cold
regions and currents of the ocean, better liking the warmer parts.
Their ordinary mode of swimming is with vertical undulations. Seldom do
they swim with the body in a straight line, by means of their flappers.
This little division for which I propose the name of _Longicaudata_,
or Long-tailed Animals, consists only of one genus: _Megophias_ RAF.,
including only one species _Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD., the
sea-serpent.

I purposely have not mentioned the genera _Squalodon_ and _Stenodon_,
and the group of _Plagiuri_ (ART., 1735; _Physeteres_, KLEIN,
1741; _Cetacea_, BRISS, 1756; _Cete_, LINN, 1758), as the recent
cetologists still differ in opinions as to their relation to
_Basilosaurus_ and the _Pinnipedia_.

I think the following phylogenetic table will in a more practical
manner show the rank which in my opinion sea-serpents occupy in the
System of Nature.

To many of my readers the above sketch of the rank of the sea-serpent
in the System of Nature will no doubt seem to be too bold. They will
say that the affinity of the sea-serpent to sea-lions and sea-bears
(to the _Auriculata_) is expressed here too decisively, that,
scientifically spoken, the sea-serpent is not yet known, that at best
its existence is only beyond a doubt, and that when a specimen fell
into the hands of men, it might be shown that the close affinity to
the _Auriculata_ was only apparent, and that in reality the relation
is more remote. I confess that there is much to say in favour of this
reasoning, but _at all events the sea-serpent is a true Pinniped_.
It has four flappers, a hairy skin, and strong whiskers. Its head
_resembles_ that of a sea-lion, its long neck _resembles_ that of
a sea-lion, its trunk and its foreflappers _resemble_ those of a
sea-lion. But these _resemblances_ may be explained as resulting from
convergency. When viewed in this way it seems to be more careful to
consider the origin of the sea-serpent in the following manner.

The ancestors of _Pinnipedia_ and _Basilosaurus_, which I have called
_Propinnipedia_, had most probably hind-legs which were smaller than
the fore-legs, and most certainly a tail which was nearly as long as
the head, neck and trunk together. They had small external ears. Their
most successful manner of swimming must have been by means of vertical
undulations. It is difficult to believe that the _Propinnipedia_ moved
on land; probably they came only from time to time aland, or on the
ice, to rest, leaving, however, most probably the long tail in the
water. These _Propinnipedia_ divided themselves into two branches.

All the members of the _first_ branch got a tendency to bulkiness.
The head grew longer and larger, consequently the neck grew shorter;
the jaws grew longer, consequently the teeth began to stand widely
apart; in consequence of the little mobility of the head the nostrils,
placed at the top of the nose, became turned upwards, or probably
got their seat a little more towards the top of the head; and in
proportion as the animal got a thick layer of bacon, the hairs became
thinly scattered. Probably it is here better to say: in proportion
as the animal lost its hairs, it got a thick layer of bacon. The
warm-blooded mammals are possessed of the hair, because hair was to
them what feathers are to a bird. The air enclosed between the hairs
and the feathers is a worse conductor of temperature than the hairs
or feathers themselves. As soon as the manner of living has changed
so much that air could no longer come between the hairs, the hairs
themselves lost their reason of existence, hence a thick layer of bacon
gradually replaced them. Probably this is a better way to explain the
presence of bacon and the absence of hair, than to say that the hair
disappeared because the animals obtained a layer of bacon, and could
therefore dispense with them, or that the layer of bacon checked the
development of hairs.--In short we may admit that the animals, of which
we treat at present, were thinly scattered with hairs. The whiskers
in all probability were still present, and even well developed. This
branch has wholly become extinct. The fossil remains were called
_Basilosaurus_.

All the members of the _second_ branch did not show a tendency to
bulkiness, they retained the relatively small head and well developed
neck, the head consequently could very well move on the trunk. These
are the _Pinnipedia_.

Already very early they divided themselves into two sections.

All the members of the _first_ section accustomed themselves to crawl
more on land, ice, and rocks, and as the long tail must have been an
inconvenient organ in this new manner of living, all the individuals
which had a smaller number of caudal vertebrae survived their
congeners; consequently a form at last originated with a very short
tail our well known order of Pinnipeds for which I now propose the name
of _Brevicaudata_.

All the members however, of the second section accustomed themselves
more to the sea, and therefore all the members which were best adopted
for this manner of living successively survived their less privileged
congeners, and finally the sea-serpents remained; animals which are
so excellently adapted to an aquatic life and rapid movement, that
their tendency to become extinct can only be explained by the singular
phenomenon that colossal animals bring forth very few young ones, only
two, or only one, at a time, and only after very long intervals. For
these animals I already proposed above the name of _Longicaudata_. They
form with the _Brevicaudata_ the order of _Pinnipedia_.

If this view is better, (and who will tell us this with any certainty?)
the phylogenetic table should be altered as follows:

In the first table I have tried to show two things.

Firstly:--With a horizontal dotted line I have separated the still
living animals or groups from those who have become extinct; the former
are placed above, the latter beneath the dotted line.

And Secondly:--With the different lengths of the vertical dotted lines
I have tried to show the different relative lengths of time-periods
wanted by the different species or groups to be formed, so to speak,
from that species or group which in this table is placed exactly
beneath it, and with which it is united by a dotted line.

It is clear that the evolution must have happened, geologically spoken,
with extreme rapidity there, where the animals were entirely changing
their manner of living, be it from a terrestrial one into an aquatic
one, or otherwise; and that the evolution happened less rapid, or
even, geologically spoken, very slowly, where the animals remained
terrestrial or aquatic beings, and only changed their manner of living
in so far, that they became troglodytes or semi-troglodytes, or became
from carnivorous only piscivorous or semi-carni-semi-piscivorous. I
believe that by this hypothesis the problem is solved why remains of
_Basilosaurus_ are already found in Eocene layers together with remains
of Viverrine ancestors of _Carnivora_, _Pinnipedia_ and _Basilosaurus_,
whilst those of true _Pinnipedia_, _Lutrina_ and _Mustelina_ appear
for the first time during the Miocene period, and whilst remains of
true _Viverra_’s (the genus) do not seem to have made their appearance
before the Pliocene period.

APPENDIX.

Since the book was written, I have corresponded with Prof. Dr. M.
FORSTER HEDDLE, of St. Andrews, Mr. J. A. HARVIE BROWN, of Dunipace
(Larbert), Misses KATE and FORBES J. MACRAE, both of Heathmount
(Inverness), Mr. GILBERT BOGLE, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Prof. R. COLLETT,
of Christiania, and Mr. R. P. GREG, of Coles (Buntingford). The five
first-named corresponded with me as eye-witnesses, and kindly sent me
their statements, written immediately after the appearances they had
witnessed; Prof. COLLETT courteously presented me with a copy of his
dissertation _Lidt om Soe-Ormen eller Soe-Slangen_; Mr. GREG who since
many years has been collecting with great zeal accounts and reports
concerning the matter, had the rare liberality to send me his whole
collection to make use of. To all these ladies and gentlemen I feel
here called upon to tender my warmest thanks.

Space does not allow me to give a verbal reprint of the various hoaxes,
would-be sea-serpents, reports, and principal contents of papers,
nor to treat of them separately. This I leave for an eventual second
edition. But all the appearances which I have placed under the _Reports
and Papers_ are explicable by reference to the _Megophias_. With the
initials “R. P. G.” I have marked those statements, accounts, etc.,
which I got from Mr. R. P. GREG.

Literature.

Besides the newspapers, dissertations, and books, mentioned in the
subsequent parts, the following are additions to my first chapter:

*1707.--F. LEGUAT. Voyage et aventures en deux isles désertes des
Indes Orientales.
*18.....--_Het Nederlandsch Magazijn._
*1874, February.--The _Cape Monthly Magazine_.
*1875.--_The Shipping Gazette_, London.
*1875.--_The Daily Telegraph._
1879, September 25?--_The Royston Crow._--(R. P. G.).
*189...--BASSETT, Sea-phantoms; or legends and superstitions of
the sea and sailors in all lands and all times. Chicago.

Hoaxes.

The account of captain L. BIJL, of 1858, July 9, (see p. 96) must be
a hoax, for 1. 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ E. long. is a point in the
middle of North-Africa, and 2. even if E. long, were a misprint instead
of W. long., it is impossible that a barque should travel over such a
distance as from 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ W. long, to 37° 55′ S.
lat. and 42° 9′ E. long. _in nine days_!

A tale in the _Standard_ of 1879, March 27, of a dead sea-serpent found
floating near Monegan (Manhegin?) Island near Portland, Me.--(R. P. G.).

Collision of the Norwegian barque _Columbia_, from London to Quebec,
with a huge floating creature on the 4th. September, 1879; the ship
sunk.--_Manchester Guardian_ of 1879, Sept. 25.--(R. P. G.).

A sea-serpent of 55 feet in length, light pink coloured. “Several times
it opened its mouth, disclosing fangs about 4in. in length”.--It was on
5th. August 1885, in lat. 29° 35′ N. and long 34° 50′ W.--(R. P. G.).

A sea-serpent caught off Newfoundland, October 11, 1886, and
stuffed.--_Manchester Evening Mail_, 1887, September; _Evening Mercury_
of St. Johns, N. F., 1887, September 12; _The Marine Industrial
News_.--The monster was from head to tail “a fraud”, or “a Yankee
humbug”.--Letter from Mr. G. FITZ GERALD, of St. Johns, and from Prof.
G. V. MORSE, of Portland, Me., to Mr. R. P. GREG.--(R. P. G.).

_The London Globe_ of Aug. 15, 1887, mentions a fight between a
sea-serpent and a whale, witnessed near Fort Papham in moonlight, some
three weeks back, etc.--(R. P. G.).

A stranded sea-serpent.--_Boston Courier_, 1887, November.--Cape May,
N. Jers.--Hoax? or would-be sea-serpent? (_Regalecus?_)--(R. P. G.)

_The_ sea-serpent is distinctly seen in Georgetown Harbour, on the
20th. of August, 1888, sleeping on the surface, &c.--_Chambers’
Journal_, 1888, Nov. 24.--(R. P. G.)

“Exciting chases after boats’ crews.”--A splendid hoax.--St. Johns’ (N.
F.) _Evening Telegram_ of Aug. 25, 1888.--(R. P. G.)

The Bishop of Adelaide or a certain Mr. BISHOP of that town has found
a sea-serpent lying dead on the shore.--_The Times_ of Nov. 11,
1891.--(R. P. G.)--Mr. G. BOGLE wrote to the Bishop, who promptly
answered it was entirely untrue.--(G. B.)

“Narrow escape of a boats’ crew.”--_The North British Daily Mail_ of
September 1892.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. HEDDLE.)

Would-be Sea-Serpents.

1880 August.--The sea-serpent of Captain HANNA, of Pemaquid,
Me.--Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, Vol. III, N^o. 26, p.
407.--Without any doubt a fish, but very problematic.--_Naturen_, 1884,
N^o. 2.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. COLLETT.)

1880 August 11.--Between Yokohama and San Francisco, lat. 48.37. long.
180.--Captain THOS. U. BROCKLEHURST, of Henbury Hall, Macclesfield,
Cheshire, saw on board the _Oceanic_ a snake-like fish, 40 feet long,
about 18 inches the whole length thick.--Letter from Mr. THOS. U.
BROCKLEHURST to Mr. R. P. GREG.--Without any doubt an eel-shaped
fish.--(R. P. G.)

1883, July or August.--A newspaper of this month mentions the capture
of a genuine sea-serpent in the Java Sea.--_Hydrophis._--(R. P. G.)

1883, October 8.--In the Red Sea, lat. 23° N., long. 37° E., on board
the ss. _Madura_.--Witness Mr. A. Eisses, of Groningen.--_Nieuwe
Groninger Courant_ of August 16, 1892.--The neck had the thickness
of the upper arm of a man.--Appearance perfectly the same as that
witnessed by Mr. G. VERSCHUUR (see p. 99).

1886 or 1887.--The sea-snake-like bird, reported by Count JOACHIM
PFEIL, the German African explorer--a little snake-like neck rising
out of the water, which when fired at, rose into the air, proving to
be a bird--is of course a kind of _Plotus_, and most probably _Plotus
levaillantii_ TEMM.--A Hertford newspaper of 1887.--(R. P. G.)

1888?--In Mrs. CADDY’S book _To Siam and Malasia in the Duke of
Sutherland’s Yacht_ is a description of a sea-serpent she witnessed
near Bangkok “which rose slowly out of the water in two large luminous
curves, like two arches of a low bridge”.--?--(R. P. G.)

1889, August.--_Standard_ of 1889, August 15.--A monstrous fish was
seen floundering in shallow water on the Bancals Rocks, not far
from the Island of St. Honorat, near Cannes, and had a beak like a
parrot.--Most probably therefore it was a calamary.--(R. P. G.)

Reports and Papers.

Without date.--A sea-monster at Maringonish in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, judged to be a hundred feet in length, seen by two
intelligent observers within 200 yards of the shore.--Description too
short.--Doubtful.--(R. P. G.)

1570, July.--A monstrous fish seen in Loch Fyne (Fine), having great
eyes, and at times standing above the water as high as the mast of a
ship.--_Diurnal and Remarkable occurrents in Scotland_, 1513-1575,
Maitland Club, Scotland, 1833.--(R. P. G.)

1639.--A vague report of a certain JOSSELIN, but most probably based on
truth.--Cape Ann.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)

1779.--“In an Eastern Harbour” (which?)--Eye-witness E. PREBLE,
midshipman in the _Protector_, and several other officers and
crew.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)

1817, August 14. (N^o. 41, see p. 169).--Another confirmation of this
appearance will be found in the _Gloucester Telegraph_ of that year.
Here it is also mentioned that in the ROGERS family there is preserved
a picture by “JACK” BEACH, or better a copy of this picture by JOSEPH
H. DAVIS, representing the sea-serpent in the harbour of Gloucester on
this day.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)--This is of
course the drawing, spoken of on p. 173 of the present volume. Here I
may note that PONTOPPIDAN also speaks of a picture in the collection of
JACOB SEVERIN, representing the animal as it appeared to EGEDE.

1818, August 13 and 14.--Partly about Nahant, and partly near
Gloucester.--Multitudes of spectators.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June,
1884.--(R. P. G.)

1819, August 19.--This seems to be the exact date of the appearance
witnessed by Mr. SAMUEL CABOT. Mr. PRINCE and others saw it “a few days
previously”.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)

1820, August 10.--Off Swampscott.--ANDREW REINOLDS, JONATHAN B. LEWIS,
BENJAMIN KING, Mr. JOSEPH INGALLS.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June,
1884.--(R. P. G.)

1823, July 12.--The animal was seen moving into the harbor (Lynn
Harbour?) from Nahant.--Mr. FRANCIS JOHNSON (in April 7, 1884, still
alive).--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)

1826.--“In 1826 it again appeared off Nahant, as is recorded very
briefly in the _Lynn Mirror_”.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--See
also n^o. 84, p. 236; it might have been the same individual.--(R. P.
G.)

1838? (N^o. 104, see p. 253).--Captain BEECHY made his voyage to the
Pacific in the _Blossom_ in the years 1825, 26, 27 and 28. It is
therefore probable that he saw the sea-serpent in one of these years,
but also possible that he was commander of the _Blossom_ before 1825 or
later than 1828.

1841, July 14.--A monster with a straight black head, 10 feet out of
the water, spouting “a column of water in the air”, but “it was not a
whale”.--Gulf of Mexico.--STEPHEN’S _Central America_, 1842, Vol. II,
p. 464.--Description too short.--Doubtful.--(R. P. G.).

1849.--Seen (where?) by Mr. MARSTON, of Swampscott.--_Atlantic Monthly_
of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.).

1854, spring.--A gigantic serpent, first called by the look-out man as
“the biggest log ever seen”, afterwards rearing its snake like head
as high as the funnel of the steamer out of the water, and plunging
down.--Eye witnesses: Captain PEAT, of the _Wm. Scalrook_, and Captain
ROLLINS, of the _Isabel_.--Before the mouth of Savannah River, Georg.
and S. Car.--Miss MURRAY, _United States, Canada and Cuba_, 1855,
Putnam & Co., New York, p. 235.--(R. P. G.).

1872.--Prof. SCHLEGEL in his _De Dierentuin van het Koninklijk
Zoölogisch Genootschap Natura Artis Magistra te Amsterdam_, Vol. III,
p. 45, points out that as early as 1837 he _proved_ (_nota bene_) the
impossibility of the existence of such a more than gigantic animal.

1872, August 20 and 21. (N^o. 137 and 138, see p. 322).--The following
is the account which the Rev. J. MACRAE sent to the _Inverness
Courier_, August 1872, prefaced by the Editors of this paper:

“A gentleman on whose intelligent observation and accuracy we have
perfect reliance, sends the following account of a strange animal now
to be seen about the West-Coast of Invernessshire and which, if not
the veritable or traditional sea-serpent, must be the object so often
represented under that appellation”.

“On Tuesday last, 20th. August, I went on a trip to Loch Hourn in my
small sailing boat. I was accompanied by my friend, the Rev. Mr. T. of
Kent, my two daughters, my grandson, and a servant lad. While we were
proceeding along the sound of Sleat it fell calm, and we were rowing
the boat, when we observed behind us a row of dark masses, which we
took at the first glance for a shoal of porpoises; but a second look
showed that these masses formed one and the same creature, for it moved
slowly across our wake, about two hundred yards off, and disappeared.
Soon afterwards what seemed to be its head reappeared, followed by the
bumps, or undulations of its body, which rose in succession till we
counted 8 of them. It approached now within about 100 yards, or less,
and with the help of binoculars we could see it pretty distinctly. We
did not see its eyes, nor observe any scales: but two of the party
believed that they saw what they took to be a small fin moving above
the water. It then slowly sunk, and moved away just under the surface
of the water, for we could trace its course till it rose again, by the
large waves it raised above it, to the distance of a mile and upwards”.

“We had no means of measuring its size with any accuracy, but taking
the distance from the centre of one bump or undulation of its body
to that of another at 6ft. (it could not be less) the length of the
portion visible above the water, would be about 50 feet, and there may
have been 20 or 30ft. more of its length which we did not see”.

“Its head seemed blunt, and looked about 18in. in diameter, and the
bumps were rather larger than the head. When in rapid motion the bumps
disappeared, and only the head and neck could be seen, partly above the
surface of the water. It continued to rush about in the same manner as
long as we remained within sight of the place, but did not again come
so near us that day”.

“On the afternoon of the next day, August 21, as we were returning
home we encountered our strange acquaintance again within the entrance
of Loch Hourn, and saw him careering swiftly along the surface of
the water, which was now slightly rippled with a light air of wind.
It passed once abeam of us, at a distance of about 150 yards, with
its head half out of the water, and we distinctly heard the whizzing
noise it made as it rushed through the water. There were no organs
of locomotion to be seen, and its progress was equable and smooth,
like that of a log towed rapidly. Neither its appearance nor mode of
progression had any resemblance to those of any known cetacean, shark,
or fish of any kind. In case any of your readers should imagine that
I, as well as the subject of my report am a mere myth, you will please
to give my name to this communication, and I believe that among a
pretty wide circle of persons who know me there is none who consider me
capable of stating as true what I do not believe to be so; or so little
acquainted with the sea, as not to know a whale, a porpoise, a shark,
or a herring barrel, when I see them. I am Sir, your obedient servant”

“Glenelg Mame”.

“J. MACRAE”.

Miss KATE MACRAE’S narrative, written on the spot, runs as follows:

“_In the yacht “Leda”, 20th. and 21th. August 1872._--We were becalmed
in the sound of Sleat about 3 miles from Glenelg, the day was intensely
hot, the lads were rowing slowly. I was facing the stern, when I saw
about a half mile behind, a dark object suddenly emerge, about the size
of a small cask. I exclaimed, and called the attention of the others
to it; immediately a second, third, fourth, fifth, thing appeared like
this”. (Here Miss MACRAE has drawn six bunches exactly resembling those
drawn by her father, see fig. 39 p. 323). “We thought at first it was
the back of a cormorant, but were undeceived by seeing the animal swim
swiftly just under the surface of the water towards a rowing boat of
country people which was nearer it than we were, the people evidently
astonished ceased rowing, and the creature disappeared quietly without
the least agitation of the water. Our boys then resumed their oars,
which they had dropped to gaze, and next we saw the animal coming
swiftly towards us, from the direction of the boat; it raised the water
before it, and left a wake on the calm sea behind it, like what a small
steam launch would. As our rowers paused again, it turned to the outer
side of our yacht, and disappeared, but I noticed that something like
a rounded paddle, the breadth of two hands worked to and fro raising
the water in a clear dome as it went down; the colour of it a dark
brown, and shape like this”. (Here Miss MACRAE has drawn a thick curved
line in the form of a horse-shoe, the opening turned downwards). “In a
few minutes afterwards, the row of lumps appeared again about a mile
behind, and this time a triangular fin stuck up from about the 4th.
lump, and apparently 10ft. the size of our jib, and the animal moved
slowly along on the surface”.

“Next evening as we were slipping gently along near the mouth of Loch
Hourn on the N. side, my nephew called out, that he saw the sea-serpent
again. Swimming across from Skye, by the time I caught sight of it,
it was far away, but showed more lumps, I counted 12, there were two
sloops trying to get up into the Loch, and the crews were in their
boats towing them, the animal looked 4 times as long as one of these
vessels, it was swimming leisurely, and plainly pursued those vessels;
then making a sweep across the mouth of the Loch came towards us, and
passed not far outside the boat. I distinctly heard its rush through
the water, just under the surface; the first waves it made, were
unbroken, but some way from the head the water was broken, and foaming”.

“Later, at 9 P. M. just as we neared Glenelg sailing and rowing, and
with a good deal of ripple on the sea, we saw it coming straight
astern, then it turned away northward and passed out of sight through
Kyle Rhea”.

“KATE MACRAE”.

Miss FORBES J. MACRAE wrote to me under date of July 22, 1892:

“I fancy I have had a closer view of the sea-serpent than most people.
About an hour before we were becalmed and saw it rise in its length
astern of us, we had been slipping down in our boat along the coast,
by the help of a strong tide and a very light wind. Looking at what
I could see of the water under the edge of the mainsail of our small
cutter yacht, I noticed at about an oar’s length from the boat a dark
brown shining creature lying on the water, or rather a part of a
creature for there was neither head nor tail nor fin visible, it seemed
about six feet in length and the highest part of it was about a foot
out of the water. None of the others were looking that way, so I was
the only one who saw it. I asked my father if porpoises were in the
habit of basking on the top of the water. He said he was not aware of
their being in the habit of doing so, and we thought no more of it;
till the next appearance of the animal made us think that it must have
been one of its ridges I had seen as we sailed just close to it”.

The following is the statement of Mr. GILBERT BOGLE in the _Newcastle
Weekly Chronicle_ of 1877, December 31:

“As considerable attention has lately been drawn in your columns to the
sea-serpent, both mythological and otherwise, perhaps the following
description of the strange creature seen by me and others in 1872 will
be of some interest. An account of this creature, attested by credible
witnesses, appeared in the May number of the _Zoologist_ in 1873:--

“On the 20th. of August, 1872, the Rev. J. Macrae of Glenelg, Rev.
David Twopenny, Miss Forbes, and Miss Kate Macrae, a servant lad, and I
left Glenelg Bay in Mr. Macrae’s yacht Leda for a sail up Loch Hourn.
The day was hot and calm, and, the yacht being a small one (seven
tons), we had recourse to rowing in order to reach Sandaig, six miles
distant, where we intended to dine. While still about a mile distant
from Sandaig, one of the ladies called out that there was a shoal
of porpoises playing astern, and on looking in that direction there
appeared to me a number of dark objects, which at first sight seemed
not unlike porpoises, making a considerable commotion on the surface of
the sea, the only peculiarity being that they all followed each other
in a line. As they rapidly approached, I then perceived that the black
lumps which I at first thought porpoises could not be so, but were
evidently parts of one and the same creature. This impression seemed to
come over the minds of all at the same time, and every appearance of
the creature afterwards clearly verified it”.

“I was looking at it through a binocular (we had three on board), and
when it came to within one hundred yards of the stern it dived below,
the surface of the sea remained agitated at the spot where it had
disappeared for some time afterwards. Just before it went down, as it
came head on towards our stern, it raised a succession of waves. The
first was unbroken, and through it I distinctly saw the colour of the
creature, and what appeared to be a small fin on the back or neck,
moving rapidly sideways, and two or three yards behind the head. Its
colour was a dark slaty brown, somewhat similar to that of a porpoise.”

“While we were all speculating about this strange creature, it suddenly
appeared about a quarter of a mile off between us and Skye, going at a
rapid rate along the calm surface of the sea, and leaving a large wake
behind. It was only now that I had any idea of the creature’s length.
It kept cruising about on the surface after this for more than an hour,
sometimes only four or five bumps or dark raised portions of its body
appearing above the surface, about the size of herring barrels, at
other times up to eight. I noticed that the less the speed the more
bumps appeared, always commencing from the first in rotation, and that
when going very fast only one or two appeared.”

“After landing on Sandaig, where we had dinner, we started for Loch
Hourn, the weather still being very calm and sultry, with hardly a
cat’s-paw on the water. We had barely entered the mouth of the loch
when this creature again made its appearance, proceeding in the same
manner as before along the surface of the sea, sometimes coming quite
close. There was a large schooner yacht not far off, in tow of a noisy
steam launch, which about this time probably frightened the animal, as
it was not seen again that night.”

“As evening fell, a breeze sprang up, and we reached Loch Hourn Head
early next morning. After paying a visit to the Barrasdale oyster
beds, we set sail for home in the afternoon, with a nice breeze on
the quarter, but on reaching the mouth of the loch the wind died away
again and we had to take to the sweeps. Just about the place where the
animal was last seen, my attention was called by someone to a peculiar
swirling of the water not far off, and I immediately noticed what was
evidently the same creature swimming up to the yacht at a very rapid
rate. When a short distance off it dived beneath the surface, quickly
re-appearing off the starboard beam nearer than at any previous time,
and going at such a great speed that I could distinctly hear the
rushing sound of the breaking water. At this time there were no bumps
to be seen, and I can only liken the appearance of our visitor to a log
almost entirely submerged and dragged very rapidly through the sea, the
water falling over each side of the head in a kind of cascade, while a
series of broken waves formed immediately behind, gradually subsiding
in the wake.”

“It afterwards kept swimming about for a considerable time, and I had
an opportunity of judging of its length so far as visible, compared
with the hulls of two trading schooners of about 100 tons each some
little distance from us. When apparently the same distance away as the
traders, and going slowly, it appeared fully as long from the head to
the eighth bump as the length of one of the schooners on waterline,
which would be at least sixty feet; but how much of the animal remained
under water I had no means of estimating. The head seemed to be square
or blunt, but I did not see under it, and did not notice its eye or
mouth. The bumps, or dark raised portions, appeared to me to be about
eighteen inches above the water, and three or four feet long, with a
distance of four or six feet between each bump. I could not say whether
the bumps were the convolutions of a snake-like body or the raised
portions of a large body underneath the water. I am inclined to think
the latter, as the bumps always kept the same distance apart, and
appeared to be protuberances on the back of, possibly, a lizard shaped
reptile. That it caused a large displacement was evident from the waves
and commotion raised when swimming at or near the surface, as I could
distinctly trace its progress with the naked eye at a distance of from
two to three miles.”

“We lost sight of the creature after leaving the mouth of Loch Hourn,
but just as night fell I noticed it going past at a rapid rate in the
direction of Kyle Rhea, a narrow strait which separates Skye from the
mainland. I afterwards heard that it was seen that same evening by
fishermen and others passing through these narrows, and it struck them
all at the time as being quite different from anything they had been
accustomed to.”

“The above is a bare statement of fact, and was written down by
me immediately after getting ashore, while my recollection of the
creature’s appearance was perfectly fresh and vivid. Having cruised for
many summers amongst the West Highland lochs, I am perfectly familiar
with the appearance and habits of whales, seals, porpoises, &c., which
can often be seen in great numbers. To these, the creature I have
described bore no resemblance whatever.”

“GILBERT BOGLE, Newcastle.”

From this gentleman I received three splendid pen-drawings,
representing the animal witnessed by him on that occasion, but alas too
late to be reproduced for this edition.

1872, August 22 and 23. (N^o. 139 and 140, see p. 322).--On one of
these days it seems also to have been seen by Lord MACDONALD’S steam
yacht in Loch Hourn.--Eye-witnesses: Lord MACDONALD, of Armadale, Skye,
Rev. Mr. MC. NEILL, minister of Skye, Mrs. G. C. LYSONS, of Painswick,
Strand, and others.--(R. P. G.)

1873, March.--Mr. BASIL CLOCHRANE, Capt. R. N., of Windlesham House,
Bagshot, Surrey, on board the _Orontes_, from the West Indies to
England saw a sea-serpent.--Letter from eye-witness to Capt. GEO.
DREVAR (see p. 329).--(R. P. G.)

1875, July 8 and 13. (N^o. 144 and 145, see p. 329).--The letter from
Capt. GEO. DREVAR to the Editor of _The Calcutta Gentleman_, 1876,
February (?), contains no news about the two appearances.--(R. P. G.)

1875, July 17.--Off Plymouth, Cape Cod Bay.--Captain GARTON of the
ss. _Norman_, and several people on board the ss. _Roman_.--_Atlantic
Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G).

1875, July 30.--On board the yacht _Princess_, between Nahant and
Egg-Rock.--Mr. FRANCIS W. LAWRENCE, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Rev. ARTHUR
LAWRENCE, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Stockbridge, Mass., Miss MARY
FOSDICK, ALBION W. REED, ROBERT O. REED, Mr. J. KELSOE and Mr. J. P.
THOMAS, both of Swampscott.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P.
G.)

1876, September 11. (N^o. 146, see p. 341).--An account in the _Times_
of 1876, December 28, furnishes no news.--A rough drawing made by Mr.
ANDERSON, and now in the possession of ROBERT HOLT, of Liverpool, owner
of the steamer, hardly agrees with the depositions, and cannot give the
idea of a salamander, a newt, or a frog.--(R. P. G.)

1876.--Some Pitcairn islanders saw a sea-serpent near Norfolk
Island.--Letter from one of the Pitcairn islanders to Mr. PALMER of
Liverpool.--_Liverpool Mercury_, 24 February, 1877.--“Mr. JOHN ADAMS
and his boat’s crew saw it near Norfolk-Islands”.--Letter from Mr.
MARCUS LOWTHER, Capt. R. N. of Penge, London, S. E., to Capt. GEO.
DREVAR (see p. 329).--(R. P. G.)

1877, March.--Mr. R. A. PROCTOR, in his “_Strange Sea-Monsters_”
(_Gentleman’s Magazine_) says amongst other assertions: “naturalists
have been far less disposed to be incredulous than the general public”.
If it were only true! Hitherto at least _zoologists_ have not admitted
even the possibility of the existence of a still unknown species,
called “sea-serpent”.--(R. P. G.)

1877, July 15.--About two miles off the mouth of Gloucester Harbour,
Mass.--Mr. GEORGE S. WASSON and Mr. B. L. FERNALD.--_Atlantic Monthly_
of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)

1878, summer.--Fjord near Aalesund.--_Naturen_, 1884, n^o.
2.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. R. COLLETT).

1882, October 11.--Near Bude, Cornwall.--Eye-witnesses: Rev. E.
HIGHTON, Vicar of Bude, with several friends.--The _Times_ of October
12, 1882.--(R. P. G.)

1883, August 1.--The _Evening News_ of this date communicates and gives
partly a review of Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_.--(R. P. G.).

1884, February.--Prof. R. COLLETT, of Christiania, wrote a paper
in the Norwegian language headed _Something on the sea-serpent_
(_Naturen_, 1884, n^o 2).--The writer does not seem to be a believer
in the existence of a sea-serpent. The arguments against its existence
are 1. A sea-serpent of considerable dimensions would in the course
of centuries not have failed to have been observed and caught. 2.
In the depth of the Ocean there are undoubtedly creatures, which as
yet are unknown, but all specimens caught, be they as abnormal as
possible, are referred to existing well-known forms. 3. No known
vertebrated animal, can, on account of its structure, move in vertical
undulations.--Against these arguments I may say: 1. Before, 1861, and
1873 the krakens were _fables_, and yet they existed! Mr. RAFINESQUE
SCHMALTZ &c., see p. 431, line 6 from below to p. 432, line 5 from
above. 2. Do “naturalists” not constantly refer the sea-serpents to
existing well-known forms? 3. Among Reptiles the _Plesiosaurians_ had
a long neck and this neck could certainly be bent vertically; among
Birds the _swans_ are able to bend the long neck vertically, and _all
Mammals_ can move in vertical undulations, especially the _Mustelina_,
_Lutrina_, and _Pinnipedia_; and the horizontal position of the tail
of the _Sirenia_ and _Plagiuri_ is a strong proof that their ancestors
moved in vertical undulations.--Prof. COLLETT’S private opinion is
that the sea-serpents observed in the fjords of Norway, were mostly
specimens of the basking shark. I, however, firmly believe that the
Norwegian fishermen know the basking shark so well, that such an animal
would never have been taken by them for a sea-serpent! They know
these sharks and their habits far better, I should think, than Prof.
MITCHILL, Prof. MANTELL, Prof. MELVILLE, Mr. BUCKLAND and Prof. LÜTKEN
all together. Moreover in none of their descriptions there is question
of a backfin, or of backfins, which are the first visible parts of a
basking shark!

1884, June.--_The Trail of the Sea-Serpent_, by Mr. J. G. WOOD, in
the _Atlantic Monthly_.--A very interesting paper, with historical
notes and many new appearances, however, not without some zoological
inaccuracies. He believes the sea-serpent to be an elongated whale, a
_Basilosaurus_ or an animal allied to it, and that the short neck of
the _Basilosaurus_ may be an error of the restorer (_nota bene!_).--(R.
P. G.).

1884, June 2.--_The Manchester Guardian_ gives a review of Mr. J.
G. WOOD’S paper, and as Mr. WOOD comes to the conclusion that the
animal must be an elongated whale, the _Manchester Guardian_ ends (how
insipid!): “Very like a whale”.--(R. P. G.).

1885, October 4.--Near Umhlali (Umlazi?) in Morewood’s Bay, South
Africa.--(R. P. G.).

1886(?), summer.--Prof. HEDDLE informs me that a few summers ago, (and
from one sentence of his letter I deduce that it was before 1887) a
sea-serpent was seen in Loch Duich. “The description was very much what
we are familiar with”.

1886, August. (N^o 158, see p. 376).--The description of the eyes as
having a greenish hue struck me so, that I at first did not attach
belief to the assertion (see p. 377 and 497), but now I know that this
is not an impossibility, as I since observed that the _tapetum lucidum_
of the eye of a dog may reflect the daylight as well in a reddish as in
a greenish hue.

1887, July 30.--Prof. HEDDLE wrote to me on May 6th., 1892:

“I would just say that having taken bearings on the land, in order to
estimate--(of course roughly)--the _length_, and the _speed_, I set
down the length at from 60 to 65 feet. There was a very low flat head
like a large skate, say 4¹⁄₂ feet--a gap not so great,--ten “hummocks”
increasing in bulk and altitude towards the central one, but not
much--gaps not so great as the size of the hummocks, next a space,
about equal to two hummocks, then three hummocks, the central one
largest, the last small”.

“The thing I saw appear three times--first time end on was a worthless
observation, except that on this occasion the whole was _rushing_
through the water. On the other two occasions there was hardly any
forward motion at all. The whole disappeared at the same moment, and
reappeared also at the same moment, about two seconds thereafter more
than its own length in advance; so that there must have been either
an exceedingly rapid rush under water--_or_ a second animal. The
disappearance and reappearance were both without the _least_ splash;
but at the moment of disappearance the second time _the foremost two of
the last three hummocks coalesced into one_”.

“During one of the appearances I got the focus of the binoculars so
sharp that I distinctly saw water falling over towards me, between some
of the hummocks and myself. There was no consecutive filling up of the
interspaces whatever, or appearance of vacuities where the hummocks had
but now been”.

“There was certainly no _vertical_ serpentine motion--and I could see
no _lateral_ one”.

“My impression was that, setting aside the quiescent low head, I _did
not see a solid substance at all_,--except when the tail hummocks
momentarily appeared--and that what I did see was water being thrown
over laterally by the undulous lashings of a long back fin of a dark
colour, which gave opacity”.

“I cannot set the “hummocks” down to _surge waves_ of a rushing short
fish; because I cannot so explain such surges being always the same
both in _number_ and in _place_: nor can I so explain the appearance of
an apparently solid head--and an apparently continuous tail”.

“The above is all from memory”.

The following is the

“Relation regarding a _Phenomenon_ seen by the crew and Owner and
guests of the yacht Shiantelle on the W. coast of Scotland on 30th.
July 1887 as told by J. A. HARVIE BROWN, and seen by him, and written
in his Journals of that date”.

“At 10″ to 15″ to 10 am. I was called quickly on deck by Cowell, and I
went up from breakfast. “What is that”? said Cowell. After some time
I saw between me and the shore to the E., which shore was about one
mile distant, undulations upon almost calm water (The ship was moving
at the rate of about half a knot an hour) being similar in appearance,
and having the motions of the (described and supposed) Sea-Serpent. I
counted with the binoculars twelve or perhaps thirteen humps at almost
perfectly regular distances the one from the others. The first of
these humps appeared to be moving rapidly through the water across the
line of vision, and to be breaking and spraying water, and the other
eleven or twelve (I had only time to count them once) maintained all
their relative positions with one another and collectively with the
first, _yet_ did not appear in themselves to me to move, though slight
ripples of water were visible, nearly throughout the whole length. The
whole disappeared and reappeared at least four times to me, apparently
simultaneously or almost so throughout its length. When last it was
seen, it was moving on a course almost parallel with the shore, which
shore runs N. E. or thereby. The distance from the ship at which time
I first saw it, and from that time to its final disappearance was
estimated by me at about half a mile by eye (but this may have been an
over-estimate of distance)”.

“John Campbell, seaman, and mate on board the yacht, standing at the
helm, deposes in a seperate document--drawn up and written by R. L.
Cowell, Steward, from his oral statement--which seperate statement, was
at once closed, without being read by either Dr. Heddle or myself, and
still remains so”.

“R. L. Cowell, Steward, who was on deck at the same time as John
Campbell (having laid and served our breakfast) deposes in similar
manner in a seperate statement, also closed and not read by Dr. Heddle
and myself”.

“But John Campbell on being examined by us deposes on cross-examination
that:--While we were at breakfast in the Saloon, he saw approaching
from the direction of Corrie Chreachan a series of large undulations
which passed “within 40 yards” then “within 30 yards” and again
“within the length of the ship” (which is 56 feet) from the stern
of the vessel, and travelling at a great pace; that he saw nothing
above the surface of the water except broken water in front of the
first or foremost undulation. That except this, he saw nothing
but the perpendicular swellings (vertical swellings), as it were
“skins of water” pushed up from beneath, and a long track or wake of
slightly disturbed water, left for a long distance behind. It was seen
approaching from the direction of the Sound between Scarba and Jura, or
Corrie Chreacan, and passed the stern of the vessel. It was therefore
heading at the time nearly E. The Ship’s head was lying about E. half
N.”

“R. L. Cowell saw it almost or quite simultaneously with John Campbell
on its first appearance.”

“N. B. The time between his calling me on deck and the time I first
observed the appearance, I have described, I put down at _about half_
a minute (as, before seeing it, after getting on deck, I asked one or
two questions as to bearings, before I could get sight of it with my
glasses). After my first look I called up Dr. Heddle. It was after
calling up Dr. Heddle, that I made out the counting of the humps,
and the other appearances described. I may have been 5 to 10 seconds
between my being called up, and my reaching the deck, aft of the
companion, and I then got the glasses and unscrewed them to focus,
while I was asking the questions as to bearings. Roughly speaking, I
calculate, that from the first appearance to Campbell and Cowell, till
its final disappearance, it must have been, inclusive of disappearances
and reappearances, about 15 minutes in sight or observation. When
_they_ saw it, it must have been travelling very rapidly; and not
nearly _so_ rapidly when we observed it at the greater distance. My
estimate of distance when I saw it, _may_ be an over-estimate put at
half a mile.”

“Before J. Campbell saw it he heard a heavy splash, and saw the marks
of the same, near the vessel--about half an hour before he saw what
he describes--but no importance is attached to this, as a heavy fish
some time after the disappearance, was seen shortly after to splash
near the vessel; and Pellocks were also seen in the vicinity. The
Pellocks however did not splash but rolled in their usual way. Not for
one moment can their motion be compared by any of us, with the other
appearances observed.” (Here Mr. BROWN has drawn a bunch, then a gap,
larger than the bunch, and then eleven smaller bunches, separated one
from the other by a gap as large as the half of one of these smaller
bunches, the whole drawing representing exactly the animal swimming
with vertical undulations and seen at a considerable distance.)

“Without actually fixing the position of the ship we consulted the
chart and as nearly as we could arrived at it by bearings. It will
be seen that the deepest water runs from the E. extremity of Corrie
Chreacan very much along the line which the object or objects seen,
was seen to follow; and that where its appearance was last noted the
soundings show a very rapid shoaling from 30 fathoms to 17 about the
position of our ship, being in from 15 to 17 fathoms.--”

“I think it right to add to the above account as written down on the
spot, that after the statements which were kept sealed for a long time
after, were consulted and every consideration given to the whole tale
and phenomenon personally I came to the conclusion, and feel very
certain still, that it was simply a _Tide-rip_ or _Tidal wave_ coming
from the direction of Corrievreachan between Scarba and Jura running
Easterly and then N. Easterly along the smooth water where soundings
showed the meeting of the shallow of the deep. I have questioned
Light-house-keepers since who have the most continuous chances of
observation, within often, calm seas, and they have assured me such a
phenomenon is not at all rare or unusual “under certain conditions of
tides in certain localities”. Sailors have less chance to witness these
phenomena perhaps than light-house-keepers, as they are seldom and long
stationary at all states of tides.”

Notwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. BROWN, I feel persuaded that
he, Prof. HEDDLE and others really saw the same appearance as did the
Rev. J. MACRAE and others (see n^o 137 and 138). The long back fin of a
dark colour, which gave opacity and threw water over laterally by its
lashings, of course was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.

1889, August 15.--A good little paper on the subject, and partly a
plea for the existence of the creature is in the _Standard_ of that
date.--(R. P. G.)

1891, July 24.--East coast of North Island, New-Zealand.--_The
Standard_, 1891, September 22.--(R. P. G.):--

“Mr. ALFRED FORD MATHEWS, a surveyor, living at Gisborne, on the east
coast of the North Island, wrote to the papers to the effect that while
on board the _Manopouri_, another of the Union Company’s steamers, on
the voyage from Auckland to Gisborne, on Friday, July 24th., he and
several others distinctly saw a sea-serpent resembling the one seen
from the _Rotomahana_ off Portland Island. This time it appeared north
of the East Cape, which is some distance to the north of where it was
seen by the _Rotomahana_ a week later. The time, Mr. MATHEWS states,
was between eight and nine in the morning. The “monster” was also
seen by the ship’s officer in charge. It would from time to time lift
its head and part of its body to a great height perpendicularly, and
when in that position would turn its body round in a most peculiar
manner, displaying a black back, white belly, and two armlet appendages
of great length, which appeared to dangle about like a broken limb
on a human being. It would then suddenly drop back into the water,
scattering it in all directions. It had a flat head, and was about
half a mile distant from the ship. The reason, Mr. MATHEWS added, that
he had not mentioned the matter before was that people were likely to
treat it with derision.”

1891, August 1.--Off the East-coast of North Island, New Zealand,
on board the _Rotomahana_, a steamer of the Union Steam-Shipping
Company.--_Standard_ of 22th. September, 1891; _Newcastle Evening
Chronicle_ of September 23, 1891.--(R. P. G. and GILBERT BOGLE.)

“The Chief Officer, Mr. ALEXANDER LINDSAY KERR, on being interviewed by
a newspaper reporter said:--

“On Saturday morning last, August 1st., about 6.30 o’clock, we were
off Portland Light, between Gisborne and Napier. I was on deck looking
over the weather side, to see if I could see the land, when I saw the
object, whatever it was, rise out of the water to the height of about
30ft. Its shape was for all the world like a huge conger eel, with the
exception that it had two large fins that appeared to be about 10 feet
long. The creature was not more than 100 yards away at the outside, and
I should estimate its girth at between ten and twelve feet. I could
not see its back as it was coming straight towards the steamer, but
its belly and fins were pure white. The creature’s head did not appear
to be particularly definite, the neck running right up to the head the
same as that of a large eel. It was broad daylight at the time, and
the sun was shining clearly. When it went beneath the water it did not
fall forward like a fish that is jumping, but drew itself back as if
with a contortion. I only saw it the once which was the last time it
rose. I looked out for it, thinking it might pass under the ship and
reappear on the other side, but I did not see it again. Had the weather
not been so rough the steamer might have gone alongside and ascertained
its dimensions. One of the Quartermasters Peter Nelson, was watching
the thing, and it so startled him that he took upon himself to rush
on to the bridge and ask me if I had seen it, a thing a sea-man never
does unless something very exceptional occurs. A landsman might do
so, but a sea-man never, unless under exceptional circumstances, such
as these. I have been to sea for twenty seven years, and have been
engaged in nearly every known trade from whaling in Greenland to the
slave trade, and have been in almost every part of the world, but I
never saw any object at sea like the one that rivetted my attention on
Saturday morning last. I have always been sceptical with regard to the
sea-serpent stories, I have heard and read, and a smile has always come
across my face at them, but I have been too long at sea, and have seen
too many remarkable things, to deny positively that there was such a
thing, had a landsman or a lady told me about the creature on Saturday,
while I should have given them credit for being quite sincere, I should
have taken no notice of it, as they are so apt to make mistakes at sea.
I am too much accustomed at sea, however, to have made any mistake.
When we got to Napier, I mentioned the circumstance there, when they
pointed out that there had been a shock of earthquake shortly before
the time we saw the creature, which may have been the cause of sending
it to the surface. As to its length I could give no opinion, but as the
creature rose some 30ft. out of the water I should imagine there were
still two-thirds of it in the water, but that is only my supposition.”

“PETER NELSON, the Quartermaster, referred to gave his story as
follows:--

“It was about 6.30 on Saturday morning last, August 1st. It was a
bright clear morning with the sun shining brightly. The weather,
however, was rough, with a heavy sea. I had just come from the wheel
at six o’clock, and was standing on the lee-side looking out, and all
at once I saw this thing appear rising out of the water about 30ft. It
went down again. It did not go forward like a fish jumping, but seemed
to draw itself right back under water as if it contracted itself. It
came up and went down again in the same way about four times. The
first time I saw it was about a mile off the ship to leeward; the last
time I saw it was about 100 yards from the ship. The time occupied in
traveling the distance seemed to be about two minutes. It looked like a
huge conger-eel or snake, except that it had two large fins. The fins
seemed to be about 10ft. long, and were situated about 20ft. from the
head. The tips of the fins were about touching the water. Where the
fins joined the body the latter seemed to bulge out. I did not see the
fins the first time it rose, but I saw them each time afterwards. The
belly and the fins were pure white. I saw the back part. It was the
colour of an eel. The head and neck were like those of an eel. It was
nothing like a whale. Had it been at all like a whale I should have
taken no notice of it, as it is such a common thing to see whales at
sea. It was not more than one hundred yards away the last time I saw
it. The thing was glistening in the sun. I could not see its eyes. Had
the sun not been shining, or had it been night, I might have been able
to see its eyes. Every time it went down there was a distinct splash
that could be heard quite plainly. The time being so early in the
morning and the sea being so rough, there were no people about except
the watch on deck, who were aft scraping the decks. The Chief Officer
was on the bridge. I spoke to him about it. He said he had seen it. I
have often heard of a sea-serpent before, but never saw one, nor have
I ever seen any one who had seen one, but have spoken to men who have
seen other men who professed to have seen the creatures. I have always
laughed at the sea-serpent story but never denied it. Call it what
you like, but after my experience of Saturday morning I am decidedly
of opinion that what I saw is a fish or creature that is never hardly
seen. I never saw any thing like it before, although I have been at sea
twenty five years and have seen a great many queer things.” In reply to
a question, Nelson said, “I am not a very frightened sort exactly, but
I suppose I should have been frightened if it had come much closer.”

I have reprinted here these three reports of two different
appearances, because they so completely corroborate the hitherto so
wonderful-seeming report of EGEDE (5), and figure of BING (fig. 19). As
to the remark of Prof. HUTTON, of Canterbury College (N. Zeal.) “that
if the animal had great fins or flappers, as reported, they would no
doubt be used for swimming, and it is improbable that the creature
would wave them about in the air like wings”, I only remark in my turn,
that Prof. HUTTON seems never to have observed the movements of seals,
and sea-lions, for these animals really “wave the flappers about in the
air like wings”.

LAST WORD.

In Mr. WARBURTON’S account (83) we read:--

“I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down below, but
only five or six came up..... The remainder refused to come up, saying
there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already.”

Dr. ANDREW WILSON mentions in his _Leisure Time Studies_, p. 101:--

“And so great in some minds is the fear of popular ridicule regarding
this subject, that one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had
been seen by his crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below;
since, to use his own words: “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, I
should have been considered to be a warranted liar all my life after”!”

And Captain DREVAR wrote to the Editor of the Graphic (144):--

“My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen a hundred
sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote that
she pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the
sea-serpent.”

I hope that within a few years this fear of meeting with a sea-serpent
will no more be heard of.

* * * * *

Should any one be induced by this publication to make an extract of
it, to criticize it, to write a paper against it, or to publish new
evidences, etc., etc., I kindly request him to send me a copy of his
work, for it is impossible for me to get hold of all what hereafter may
be written about the subject, or to consult each notice.

Transcriber’s Notes

Erroneous, unusual, archaic and inconsistent spelling, hyphenation,
formatting, paragraph numbering, capitalisation, choice of words,
typography, the use of quote marks, etc. have been retained, except
as listed under Changes below. Proper names and names of ships,
species, publications, etc. may be printed inconsistently.

Depending on the hard- and software used to read this book, and their
settings, not all elements may display as intended.

Page 110, Burgomaster of Malmoi: possibly an error for Burgomaster of
Malmö.

Page 246, ... about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515 yards) ...:
at least one of the lengths is erroneous.

Page 267 and 271: there is no report number 216.

Page 363, ... which appeared in an unusual state of excitement” ...:
the opening quote mark is lacking.

Page 388, ... all parts were disfigured by sickness much so ...:
there are possibly some words missing.

Page 395: ... and the right and left gill-aperturus, or gill-splits,
...: possibly errors for gill-apertures and or gill-slits.

Page 405-406, paragraph starting “Further, and what completely sets
at rest ...: there are quote marks missing or in excess.

Page 451, ... probably he had particularly noticed that point ...:
the author may have intended ... probably he had not particularly
noticed that point ....

Changes made:

Footnotes have been moved to under the paragraphs to which they
refer, illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.

Obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected silently.

Double quote marks and ditto marks have been standardised to “, ” and
„ respectively. Scotch names (like M’ Guire and M’Guire) have been
standardised to M’Guire (unspaced).

Place Source document This text
-------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------
Page 3 Closing bracket deleted from after ... the library of the
Royal University of Göttingen. (entry 1818, Aug. 21)

Page 6 Essay on the physionomy Essay on the physiognomy

Page 8 Indentation removed from before 1848.--Proceedings of the
Royal Society

Page 11 that terrible “Maby Dick” that terrible “Moby Dick”

Page 14 incerted it in his journal inserted it in his journal

Page 22 haunted the coast of haunted the coast of
Massachusets Massachusetts

Page 33 Closing quote mark inserted after ... of the fossil bones
pointed out.

Page 37 has felt himself snubbled has felt himself snubbed

Page 38 It has been voticed too It has been noticed too

Page 41 in the galant archievement in the galant achievement

Page 44 I abrubtly checked him I abruptly checked him

Page 51 at Melbourne, were it was at Melbourne, where it was

Page 58 was like that of a fermention was like that of a
fermentation

Page 74 to be the first cervical to be the first cervical
vertrebra vertebra

Page 81 individuals resident in individuals resident in
Okney. Orkney.

Page 83 seen like toes or fingers. seem like toes or fingers.

Page 85 Leur omoplates sont Leurs omoplates sont
suspendues ... sans articuler suspendues ... sans
s’articuler

Page 88 Closing bracket deleted from after 1816.--Phil. Mag., LIV,
1819.

Page 93 property of a Newcaste property of a Newcastle
merchant merchant

Page 111 Closing bracket inserted after ... quoted by Pontoppidan
(Report 3)

Page 117 Closing quote mark inserted after ... with the belly turned
upwards!

Page 118 that the sea-serpents’s head that the sea-serpent’s head is
is drawn drawn

Page 131 a grey rabit is also called a a grey rabbit is also called a
blue rabit blue rabbit

Page 152 take a view of distant objets take a view of distant objects

Page 154 Closing quote mark inserted after ... procuring the evidence
on this subject.

Opening quote mark inserted before Your connection with the
Society

Page 158 the Red Snake a species the Red Snake, a species
evidently known to him evidently known to him

Page 159 in the Philosophical Magasine in the Philosophical Magazine
and Journal and Journal

Page 160 You directed as to return You directed us to return

Page 165 I was on the beech I was on the beach

Dit it appear to pursue Did it appear to pursue

Page 170 Opening quote mark inserted before I supposed and do believe

Page 175 Closing quote mark inserted after Did it appear to pursue,
avoid or notice objects?

Closing quote marks inserted after How fast did it move?

Page 187 used it flappers too used its flappers too

Page 195 Opening bracket inserted before Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts
(Report 52).

Page 205 Closing quote mark deleted from ... the evening before at
Nahant-beach”.

Page 207 by the aide of my glass by the aid of my glass

Page 210 and to considerable adventage and to considerable advantage
in point of position in point of position

Closing quote mark inserted after ... did not enter my mind
at the moment.

Page 211 In Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H.
Perkins, Perkins,

Page 212 just without the brakers just without the breakers

Page 215 Opening quote mark inserted before The last account
respecting

Page 216 meaning it is a laugh on me meaning it as a laugh on me

Page 224 whose name in Jonathan whose name is Jonathan
Townsend, Townsend,

Page 228 the Amtmand (Governor) of the Amtmann (Governor) of
Finmark Finmark

Page 231 Opening quote mark inserted before The following statement
having been made

Page 233 Opening bracket inserted before New York Advertiser of June
21, 1826

Closing quote mark deleted from ... more than once on the
western coasts of Scotland.”

Page 234 of Bury Hall, Surry of Bury Hall, Surrey

Page 237 make assurance doubtly sure make assurance doubly sure

Page 239 Whose monstruous circle girds Whose monstrous circle girds
the world. the world.

Page 240 Opening quote mark inserted before It moved with about the
swiftness

Opening quote mark inserted before Christiania, Sept.
5.--The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number

Page 241 persons just a trustworthy as persons just as trustworthy as
those who those who

Page 243 of the Daedalus, in Aug. 6, of the Daedalus, on Aug. 6,
1848 1848

Page 246 like those of a smimming like those of a swimming leech
leech

Page 249 In Froriep’s Nitizen of June In Froriep’s Notizen of June
1834 1834

Page 256 a degree of cantious reserve a degree of cautious reserve

Page 262 Second closing quote mark inserted after ... intervals
between the coils were nothing else but water.”

Page 263 some of the antidiluvian some of the antediluvian
species species

Page 272 Opening quote mark inserted before I am having a drawing of
the serpent made

Page 274 “The drawing above-named have “The drawings above-named have
been received been received

Page 278 Closing quote mark inserted after ... from one continent to
another.

Page 280 the only part of the the only part of the
decription, however description, however

Page 286 Opening and second closing quote marks inserted around ...
in quest of its lost iceberg.”

Page 287 Opening quote marks inserted before On our attention being
called to the object

Page 288 Second closing quote mark inserted after ... apparently on
some determined purpose.”

Page 290 more of your time and space more of your time and space
than is justiable than is justifiable

Page 298 to have been seen so far to have been seen so far
south).” south.”)

Page 301 that it appears only in five that it appears only in fine
weather? weather?

Page 303 Opening bracket inserted before Illustrated London News of
the 3d. of May, 1856)

Page 304 to helmsman drew our the helmsman drew our
attention attention

Page 305 Closing quote marks inserted after ... in London Docks 15th.
inst., from China, viz:--

Page 306 One closing quote mark deleted from At eight, fresh wind and
fine””.

Page 309 and from thense I saw on the and from thence I saw on the
water water

Unlickly, the discharge broke Unluckily, the discharge broke
the nipple the nipple

Page 314 Second closing bracket inserted after ... my Notes on Norway
(Zool. 3229)

Page 315 Opening quote mark inserted before On the 26th of January,

the Sketch obligingly send the Sketch obligingly sent
with this account with this account

Page 316 “In my many year’s wandering “In my many years’ wandering

Page 317 turn his words in the turn his words in the
following may: following way:

Page 327 empty harring-barrels, empty herring-barrels,
bladders, bladders,

Page 333 Opening quote mark inserted before Captain Drevar has
circulated

Page 335 I wrote thusfar, little I wrote thus far, little
thinking thinking

Page 342 Second closing quote mark inserted after the first
occurrence of ... creatures it could be compared with are
the newt or frog tribe.”

Page 352 Closing quote marks deleted from They were never seen along
the back”.

Page 353 I nead not say that I am not I need not say that I am not
at all at all

Page 355 Opening quote mark inserted before The lecture on “The
Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting

Page 360 the Ballarat Timbre Company the Ballarat Timber Company

Page 363 The Russian call it Cape The Russians call it Cape
Chichakoff Chichakoff

Page 369 the theories of birds or the theories of birds or
purpoises porpoises

Page 376 round as a floar-barrel round as a flour-barrel

Page 393 the front portion of the body the front portion of the body
to exihit to exhibit

the appearence of a fin the appearance of a fin

Page 395 the right and left the right and left
gill-aperturus gill-apertures

Page 398 Second closing bracket inserted after ... shows the readers
a fin-fish (Balaenoptera physalus (LINNÉ)

Page 402 Opening quote mark inserted before ... stranded in Stronsa,
one of the Orkney’s,”

Page 407 parallel on the European parallel on the European
boundery, boundary,

is the boundery likewise is the boundary likewise

Page 408 the integrety of not a few the integrity of not a few

Page 409 the notices on record to the the notices on record to the
sonamed sea-serpent so-named sea-serpent

Page 413 the most entire sincerety the most entire sincerity

used to create suspicious of used to create suspicions of

commucation which follows it communication which follows it

Page 418 Is it an anomolous shark? Is it an anomalous shark?

pàr voie d’exclusion par voie d’exclusion

Page 422 that of temporarely that of temporarily separating
separating

Page 423 both crocodiles and turtoises both crocodiles and tortoises

Page 428 Closing quote mark inserted after ... the Northern and
Southern Oceans

Arctic and Antartic Oceans Arctic and Antarctic Oceans

Page 429 inhabitants of the Mississipi inhabitants of the Mississippi

Page 438 To or three years after this, Two or three years after this,

Page 439 Closing quote mark inserted after ... by the following
statement in the Graphic:--

Manuel of Elementary Geology Manual of Elementary Geology

great double-fanced but great double-faced but
knife-edged molars knife-edged molars

bite of its agressor bite of its aggressor

the second figure shows the the second figure shows the
agressor aggressor

Page 458 Second closing quote mark inserted after ... the animal
belonged to the serpent tribe.

Page 460 the quite waters of the Bay the quiet waters of the Bay

Page 461 most interesting race at yet most interesting race as yet
uncaptured uncaptured

many of the peculiarities, many of the peculiarities,
safe size, save size,

Page 462 an opportunity of an opportunity of
particulirising particularising

Page 463 at it seems more plausible as it seems more plausible

Page 464 the Museum attendent at the Museum attendant at
Newcastle Newcastle

Page 471 against this suppositions against this supposition

Page 474 He presents a frontispice He presents a frontispiece

They know these animal well They know this animal well
enough enough

(that it flabby) (that is flabby)

Page 475 propelled by yets of water propelled by jets of water

Page 477 had not excess to had not access to

Page 480 in same other instances been in some other instances been
mistaken for mistaken for

perceptably used in perceptibly used in propelling
propelling

Page 489 (item 85)
Christiana Christiania

Page 494 (item 158)
New Yersey New Jersey

Page 504 differring in age or sex. differing in age or sex

Page 506 as round as a floar-barrel as round as a flour-barrel

Page 507 those animals which those animals which
involontarily involuntarily

Page 522 Closing quote mark inserted after ... the foreflappers
became visible.

Page 527 an enormous splash or sprey an enormous splash or spray

Page 528 the friction and the the friction and the
resistence of the water resistance of the water

Page 530 Animals with a hairy skin, Animals with a hairy skin,
safe the Monotrymata, save the Monotrymata,

July and August are its July and August are its
paring time pairing time

Page 533 Hithertho I have not found Hitherto I have not found

Page 534 The surface of the sea is The surface of the sea is
described as mooth described as smooth

Page 537 the Hudson-mouth, New Yersey the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey

Page 538 near Dunvossness, one of the near Dunrossness, one of the
Shetland Isles Shetland Isles

Page 543 Paragraph numbers 1, 2 and 3 1^o, 2^o and 3^o

Page 544 table layout changed to agree with that used on page 543.

Page 558 may be fixed upon as the may be fixed upon as the
paring time pairing time

Page 560 The dental formulae (dentition) have been given in a
ff. fraction-like notation in full-size numbers (e.g., 3/3)
rather than as one number above the other.

Page 562 changed to the must valuable changed to the most valuable
fur fur

Page 568 expressed here too dicisively expressed here too decisively

Page 570 Al the members of the first All the members of the first
section section

Page 576 Mr. Marston, of Swampsott Mr. Marston, of Swampscott

Page 590 the one that revetted my the one that rivetted my
attention attention

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.