‘_THE GREAT SEA SERPENT._’
THE question of varieties and of constriction brings us to ‘The Great
Sea Serpent;’ for, putting all the evidence together, if the creature
exist at all he must be a constrictor.
I do not intend to trouble my readers with the detailed history of this
great unknown, for his literature would more than exceed the limits of
this whole volume. Those who are sufficiently interested in him will
find ample reading in most of the encyclopedias, which again refer
us to various books in which he has figured from his first supposed
appearance in modern times.
Ever and again, when a new ‘sea monster’ has been reported, the
newspapers take up the theme, and often give a _resumé_ of its history,
from Bishop Pontoppidan’s down to the most recent specimen. References
to the most important of the journalistic authorities usually accompany
the more detailed accounts; but among them an excellent abridgement of
‘sea serpent’ literature, which appeared in the _Illustrated London
News_ of October 1848, is worth studying. Another of interest was in
the _Echo_ of January 15, 1877. In _Silliman’s Journal of Science_,
1835, was also an excellent paper. One of the best digests is that
given by P. H. Gosse, in his _Romance of Natural History_, of the ed.
1860. This author, after weighing all the published evidence both from
ordinary and scientific sources, and presenting it in a well-arranged
and lucid form, sums up as follows:—
‘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.’
Having respect for the opinion of so thoughtful a writer, and further
encouraged by the fact that some of our most eminent physiologists have
not thought it beneath them to give their attention to the various
serpentine appearances which from time to time are seen at sea, and
that the majority of them believe in the possibility of an unknown
marine reptile, let us accept this idea as the basis of an endeavour to
lay before my readers another summing up of evidence gathered from the
still more recent writings on ‘The Great Sea Serpent’ of modern times.
Those who have honoured this book with attentive perusal thus far,
will have become initiated in certain ophidian manners, actions, and
appearances which would enable them at once to identify a snake were
they to have a complete view of one. But to those who are not familiar
with such peculiarities, and possess only a vague idea of the ophidian
form, many a merely elongated outline at sea may be, and has been,
set down as a ‘serpent,’ which on closer inspection, or by the light
of science, has proved something entirely different. Ribbon-fish,
strings of porpoises and other cetaceans, long lines of sea-birds on
the surface of the waves, even logs of drifting wood or bamboo, with
bunches of seaweed doing service as ‘manes’ or ‘fins,’ have in turn,
and by the aid of the imagination, been dubbed ‘the sea serpent’
again and again. These may be dismissed by the mere mention of a few
such as examples. For instance, in _Nature_, vol. xviii., 1878, Dr.
Dean describes a reported ‘sea serpent,’ which resolved itself into
a flight of birds. E. H. Pringle describes the serpentine appearance
of a bamboo swaying up and down, which at a distance had deceived the
beholders into the idea of the sea serpent; others explained that long
lines of birds or of sea-weeds had again similarly deceived sailors. In
_Land and Water_, Sept. 22, 1877, we read that the crew of the barque
_Aberfoyle_, off the coast of Scotland, thought they really had got
one this time, and approaching the ‘monster,’ lowered and manned a
boat, and seized a harpoon to ‘catch’ the singularly passive creature,
which proved to be a mass of ‘a sort of jelly-fish description,’
some of which they bottled and corked down air-tight; but, alas! it
‘deliquesced’!
Again, in _Nature_, Feb. 10, 1881, an imaginary sea serpent seen from
the _City of Baltimore_ (a ship in which the present writer crossed the
Atlantic, though unfortunately not on that voyage) was pronounced to be
a species of whale, the _Zeuglodontia_.
One more out of scores of similar reports, which go to show that if
some unknown marine animal of a longish form is caught, those who
have anything to do with it immediately label it ‘the sea serpent.’
In _Land and Water_, Aug. 24, 1878, Mr. Frank Buckland published a
communication from an Australian correspondent, regarding a ‘most
remarkable fish,’ of nearly fifteen feet long, and eight inches in
diameter at the thickest part. It has ‘no scales,’ but ‘a skin like
polished silver,’ is of a tapering form, has a very queer mouth,
a ‘mane’ on the neck, and ‘two feelers under the chin, thirty-two
inches long.’ And this unsnake-like thing was taken to the Mechanics’
Institute of that town, and unhesitatingly. labelled ‘Sea Serpent!’ Dr.
Buckland suggested that it was a ribbon fish.
Thus, we may repeat that it is almost impossible for an unscientific
person even to _see_, far less to describe, unfamiliar living forms in
a manner that would prove sound data for zoologists to decide upon.
In a rather detailed communication to _Land and Water_ on this subject,
by Dr. Andrew Wilson, September 15, 1877, he also reminds us how easily
and frequently we may trace supposed resemblances to animals or faces,
where none can possibly exist; as, for instance, ‘in the gnarled trunks
and branches of trees.’ Much more true resemblances to serpentine
forms are really seen at sea; as, for example, those ‘floating trunks
and roots of trees serving as a nucleus, around which sea-weed has
collected.’ In one instance, as Dr. Wilson relates, some such object,
seen from the deck of a yacht, was so deceptive even to intelligent men
who scrutinized it through the telescope, that the course of the ship
was changed on purpose to inspect it closely. Dr. Wilson regrets the
unfortunate discredit which has been cast upon all sea-serpent stories
through such erroneous observations, causing even the more trustworthy
accounts to be received with almost universal ridicule, and as already
observed in the opening of chap. xiii., almost to the ignoring of the
true sea snakes, which are too often included among the mythical.
Briefly to enumerate some of those which appear to have recently had
the chiefest claims to attention as really living creatures, otherwise
than flights of birds or shoals of fish, but making due allowance for
unscientific observations, and vague or exaggerated representations, we
find that gigantic marine animals were observed as follows:—
1734. Off Greenland.
1740. Off Norway; described by Bishop Pontoppidan as 600 feet in
length.
1809. Off the Hebrides.
1815. Near Boston, U.S.
1817. Ditto.
1819. Ditto. From 80 to 250 yards in length!
1819. One seen for a month off Norway.
1822. Ditto; and again 600 feet long.
1827. Ditto.
1829. Mr. Davidson, surgeon, R.N., described one seen in the Indian
seas as precisely similar to that seen afterwards from the _Dædalus_
in 1848. He wrote of it during the controversy that passed regarding
the latter. Mr. Gosse regarded his testimony as of much value.
1833. One seen by five British officers off Halifax, and described by
P. H. Gosse.
1837. Again off Norway.
1846. Off Norway, and in the same locality as one seen about one
hundred years previously; also during the hottest part of the summer.
This individual had two ‘fins,’ and ‘the movements were like those of
a snake forty to fifty feet long.’
1848. The one seen from the _Dædalus_.
1850. Off Norway.
1851. Ditto.
1852. One described by Captain Steele, mentioned by Gosse.
1857. One described by Captain Harrison, and considered trustworthy
evidence.
1875. One seen from the _Pauline_, July 8, in lat. 5° 30´ S., long.
35° W. Also on July 13, ‘a similar serpent’ seen from the same barque
_Pauline_.
1875. September 11. ‘An enormous marine salamander’ in the Straits of
Malacca, seen from the _Nestor_.
1877. Large marine animal seen from the royal yacht _Osborne_ off
Sicily.
1879. Colonel Leathes, of Herring Fleet Hall, Yarmouth, informs Mr.
F. Buckland of sea serpents seen from the _White Adder_ off Aden, and
again off New Guinea and the Cape. (See _Land and Water_, Sept. 6,
1879.)
In the above list we are struck by the fact that the coast of Norway
and the northern seas _during the hottest weather_ are the favourite
playgrounds of these gigantic marine animals, though as for the
‘600’ feet, we must first be assured of Norwegian measurement before
forming any estimate beyond that the creatures were doubtless of great
length. ‘Witnesses of unimpeachable character’ have produced so much
trustworthy evidence as far as Norway is concerned, that no doubt any
longer exists there as to ‘the’ or _a_ ‘marine animal’ of enormous
length. ‘There is scarcely a sailor who has not seen one,’ it has been
broadly stated; and Norwegians wonder that English naturalists are so
sceptical on the subject.
Of still more marvellous proportions was the one seen off the American
coast in 1819, and which is vaguely described as from 80 to 250 yards!
That outdoes Norway altogether; but then, of course, an American sea
serpent _would_ exceed all others.
Next to the Norwegian, the American coast was at one time so favoured
by strange marine ‘monsters,’ that they were commonly reported as ‘the
American sea serpent.’ Excepting these northern Atlantic visitants,
others have been observed mostly in the eastern seas, rarely in the
south.
This has given rise to the question, ‘How is it that they are seen
almost exclusively in the north?’ One reason may be that there are
more persons to see them, and because marine traffic is far greater
in the north than in similar southern latitudes; and another reason
may be, that the rocky coasts of both continents in those latitudes
may afford congenial retreats for mammoth marine reptiles. We have
seen that reptiles exist for a very long period without breathing,
and even without air; as, for instance, those encased in baked mud in
the tropics, and those frozen up or bottled up tight and hermetically
sealed, as the examples given in preceding chapters.
From long observation of ophidian habits, I venture to offer certain
suggestions in addition to published opinions; and I may remind my
readers that as all reptiles undergo a species of hibernation, we may
reasonably conclude that these huge marine ones form no exception to
the rule. They may lie for months dormant in the deep recesses of the
ocean, and reappear during the long days and hot weather like their
land relatives. It seems strange that so far from this having been
taken into consideration, it has become the fashion to ridicule the
‘reappearance of the great sea serpent’ at the very time when all other
reptiles reappear as a matter of course. Long days are more favourable
for observations, and probably log-books record many other creatures,
whether mammal, bird, or fish, seen during the summer and not in other
seasons, as well as ‘sea serpents.’ Not because this is the slack time
of journalists, therefore, who are supposed to be at their wits’ end
for subjects, but simply because ships coming home at this time bring
reports of their summer observations.
It is much to be regretted that these reports have come to be
associated with ‘the gigantic gooseberry,’ and such seasonable wonders,
because the door to investigation is thus closed. It is also, to be
regretted that many hoaxes have undeniably been committed to print,
really to fill up newspaper columns, and feed a love of the marvellous.
Professor Owen’s words may well be repeated here, ‘It is far harder to
establish a truth than to kill an untruth.’
One more little matter is also to be seriously deplored; and this
is the unscientific habit of calling all these unfamiliar animals
‘monsters,’ a word signifying truly a _monstrosity_, a creature with
two heads, a beast with five or six legs instead of four, or other such
malformations. These are truly monsters, and to use the term otherwise
only creates mistaken impressions. Inadvertently even scientific men
fall into this habit; naturalists and well-known authorities are seen
in print to talk of these sea ‘monsters,’ but who in the same page
denounce exaggerated expressions.
In _Land and Water_ of September 8, 1877, several of our distinguished
naturalists contributed papers on the evidence of the officers of
the royal yacht _Osborne_, relative to a large marine animal seen
off Sicily on June 3 of that year. Professor Owen also acceded to
an earnest request to add a few words on the subject, and it was
noticeable that more than once in his few pithy lines this eminent
authority delicately hinted at the mistake of calling animals
‘_monsters_’ without just reason for so doing: ‘The phenomena were
not necessarily caused by a _monster_,’ he writes; ‘and the words
... denote rather a cetacean than a _monster_.’ Again, ‘There are no
grounds for calling it a _monster_.’
On the occasion referred to, the official reports of the animal seen
were sent to the Admiralty; and the Right Hon. R. A. Cross, then
Secretary of State for the Home Department, requested the opinion of
Mr. Frank Buckland on the matter, the result being a full account given
to the readers of _Land and Water_, to which Mr. F. Buckland was so
popular a contributor. In addition to Owen’s valued opinion, the public
were favoured with able papers by Mr. A. D. Bartlett, of the Zoological
Gardens, Captain David Gray, of the whaling ship _Eclipse_, Mr. Henry
Lee, and Frank Buckland himself.
From the discrepancies in the records of the four officers, and the
sketches of nothing in nature which accompanied those records, not one
of those able writers ventured an assertion as to what the strange
animal could possibly be. The captain—Commander Pearson—‘saw the
fish through a telescope;’ a ‘seal-shaped head of immense size, large
flappers, and part of a huge body.’
Lieutenant Haynes saw ‘a ridge of fins above the surface of the water,
extending about thirty feet, and varying from five to six feet in
height.’ Through the telescope he saw ‘a head, two flappers, and about
_thirty_ feet of an animal’s shoulder; the shoulder was about _fifteen_
feet across.’ The animal propelled itself by its two ‘fins.’
Mr. Douglas M. Forsyth saw ‘a huge monster, having a head about fifteen
to twenty feet in length.’ The part of the body not in the water ‘was
certainly not under forty-five or fifty feet in length.’
Mr. Moore, the engineer, observed ‘an uneven ridge of what appeared
to be the fins of a fish above the surface of the water, varying in
height, and as near as he could judge, from seven to eight feet above
the water, and extending about forty feet along the surface.’
Though we are not able to say what this strange animal really was, we
can positively affirm what it was _not_. A snake has neither fins,
flippers, flappers, nor ‘shoulders fifteen feet broad;’ therefore
this assuredly was no ‘sea serpent.’ Nor would it be introduced here,
excepting as inviting further comment on its mysterious existence.
And curious enough it is to remark the persistence with which all these
anomalies are announced as ‘_the_ sea serpent,’ as if the sea produced
but one solitary specimen, which is now the shape of a ‘turtle;’ next
of a ‘frog,’ with ‘one hundred and fifty feet of tail;’ then a creature
with ‘fins’ and a ‘mane,’ ‘flippers’ and ‘flappers’ and ‘ridges of
fins.’ All these appendages are one after the other described, and yet
as belonging to a ‘serpent,’ which has no such appendages.
A few of the recorders do really describe something more of the true
ophidian, and those who do this, not being familiar with ophidian
manners, are more useful as witnesses than those who at once report a
‘serpent,’ and afterwards proceed unknowingly to disprove their own
words.
Among the more noteworthy, the following account, copied from the
Liverpool papers at the time, is worth considering:—
‘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 yesterday declared to on oath before Mr. Raffles, the
stipendiary magistrate at the police court. The affidavit was made in
consequence of the doubtfulness 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.
‘“WILLIAM LEWARN.
* * * * *
‘“Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen about two hundred
yards off, shooting itself along the surface, 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_.
* * * * *
‘“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.
* * * * *
‘“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, intituled
an Act to repeal an Act of the present session of Parliament,
intituled an Act for the more effectual abolition of oaths 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.
‘“GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.
‘“WILLIAM LEWARN, _Steward_.
‘“HORATIO THOMPSON, _Chief Officer_.
‘“JOHN HENDERSON 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 the above descriptions there is no mention of fins, flippers, or
mane, but simply the manners of a huge constrictor, with the head
and the tail free, and the middle portion of its body engaged in
crushing the prey, a process which may at any time be seen in a captive
constrictor seizing its food. The ‘whirling its victim’ was, no doubt,
in the struggle between the two, the whale using its powerful efforts
to escape, but being overcome at last. Nor in comparison with the size
of the described serpent would a whale be impracticably large.
Again, in the next one seen, the true serpent motion is unintentionally
exhibited in the ‘shooting itself along the surface, the head and neck
being several feet out of water.’ Snakes continually advance with their
heads elevated; and their rapid, darting movements are well expressed
by ‘shooting.’
‘A few minutes after, it was seen elevated some sixty feet
perpendicularly in the air.’ _Sixty feet_ at a guess. Unless some mast,
the precise height of which was known, or some other perpendicular
object were in close proximity, it would be exceedingly difficult to
estimate the height. To an unaccustomed eye even twenty or thirty
feet of snake suddenly darting upright from the waves would be a
startling and bewildering spectacle; yet we know that land snakes raise
themselves in this manner one-third, one-half, or for a moment even
more than that; ‘stand erect,’ some physiologists have stated (see
p. 181); so again, unintentionally, and by those not likely to be
familiar with ophidian capabilities, is a natural action described.
In several other instances, the animal seen has raised its head many
feet, and ‘let it down suddenly;’ exactly what land snakes do.
The one seen from on board H.M.S. _Dædalus_ in 1848 is considered one
of the most circumstantially recorded evidences of some really existing
serpentine animal within the memory of many still living. It was much
commented upon in the journals of that year, and claims a passing
mention here.
Captain M’Quhæ, who commanded the _Dædalus_, in an official report to
the Admiralty, gave the date of the ‘monster’s’ appearance as August
6, 1848, and its exact locality in the afternoon of that day as lat.
24° 44’ S., and long. 9° 22’ E., which would be somewhere between the
Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena. In his own mind the captain had
no doubt whatever as to the nature of the animal, which he simply
reported as 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 undulations. There seemed to be as much as
thirty to forty feet of tail as well.’ The animal passed the ship
‘rapidly, but so close under our lee-quarter, that, had it been a man
of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognised his features with
the naked eye.’ The size of the creature is given as about fifteen
or sixteen inches diameter in the neck ‘behind the head, which was,
without doubt, that of a snake.’ No fins were seen, but ‘something like
the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of seaweed washing about its
back.’ Its progress was about fifteen miles an hour, and it remained
twenty minutes in sight.
Lieutenant Drummond, also of the _Dædalus_, reported what he saw, and
from his log-book, while the captain’s was from memory. The lieutenant
thought he saw ‘a back fin ten feet long, and also a tail fin.’ The
head was ‘rather raised, and occasionally dipping, and gave him the
idea of that of a large eel.’
Without being an ophiologist, Captain M’Quhæ also unintentionally
describes a creature of ophidian habits and proportions. He
inadvertently says ‘shoulders,’ when, as my readers know, a snake has
anatomically no shoulders, any more than ‘neck.’ But for all that, the
raised head, and the absence of any striking movements in the part
visible, are the manners of a serpent in the water, when propelled
by its tail, which would be out of sight; and the captain simply
describing what he saw, but giving no name, those acquainted with
herpetology would at once decide that he described a long-necked and
slender reptile of some sort, perhaps some enormous saurian, whose feet
were under water, if not a serpent.
There were many learned discussions concerning this creature, and for
these I refer my reader to the journals and scientific publications of
the time. No one doubted the fact that some strange animal was seen,
but the wisest refrained from giving it a name. Very similar was the
verdict on the more recent object seen from the _Osborne_ in 1877;
but in those thirty intervening years a vast stride had been made in
zoological knowledge; and in the very able papers written on this later
phenomenon, we now find a general disposition to accept the fact that
there _are_ gigantic forms of marine animals existing, that have not as
yet been scientifically described and received into systematic zoology.
Mr. A. D. Bartlett, in the discussion already alluded to, after
dispassionately reviewing and criticizing the evidence of H.M.’s
officers, thus concludes:—
‘When we consider the vast extent of the ocean, its great depth,
the rocky, cavernous nature of the bottom,—of many parts of which
we know really nothing,—who can say what may be hidden for ages,
and may still remain a mystery for generations yet to come; for we
have evidence on land that there exists some of the largest mammals,
probably by thousands, of which only one solitary individual has been
caught or brought to notice. I allude to the Hairy-eared Two-horned
Rhinoceros (_R. lasiotis_), captured in 1868 at Chittagong (where it
was found stranded in the mud), and now known as an inhabitant of the
Zoological Gardens.
‘This animal remains unique, and no part or portion was previously
known to exist in any museum at home or abroad.
‘(We have here an instance of the existence of a species found on the
continent of India, where for many years collectors and naturalists
have worked and published lists of all the animals met with, and have
hitherto failed to meet with or obtain any knowledge of this great
beast.)
‘May I not therefore presume that in the vast and mighty ocean,
animals, perhaps of nocturnal habits (and therefore never, except by
some extraordinary accident, forced into sight), may exist, whose form
may resemble the extinct reptiles whose fossil remains we find in such
abundance.
‘As far as I am able to judge from the evidence before me, I have
reason to believe that aquatic reptiles of vast size have been seen
and described by those persons who have endeavoured to explain what
they have witnessed.
‘One thing is certain, that many well-known reptiles have the power
of remaining for long periods (months, in fact) at the bottom, under
water or imbedded in soft mud, being so provided with organs of
circulation and respiration that they need not come to the surface
to breathe. The large crocodiles, alligators, and turtles have this
power, and I see no valid reason to doubt but that there may and do
exist in the unknown regions of the ocean, creatures so constructed.
‘It may be argued that if such animals still live, they must from
time to time die, and their bodies would float, and their carcases
would be found, or parts of them would wash on shore. To this I say:
however reasonable such arguments may appear, most animals that die
or are killed in the water, sink at first to the bottom, where they
are likely to have the flesh and soft parts devoured by other animals,
such as crustacea, fishes, etc. etc., and sinking in the deep, the
bones, being heavier than the other parts, may soon become imbedded,
and thus concealed from sight.’
It was gratifying to me to find my own ideas of hibernation thus
supported, the above allusion to the probability of temporary repose in
marine reptiles being the first I had met with.
Mr. Henry Lee, in the same issue, reminds us that the existence of
gigantic cuttle-fish was popularly disbelieved until within the past
five or six years, during which period several specimens—some of them
fifty feet in total length—have been taken, and all doubts upon the
subject have been removed. He argues, also, that during the deep-sea
dredgings of H.M. ships _Lightning_, _Porcupine_, and _Challenger_,
many new species of mollusca, supposed to have been extinct ever since
the Chalk epoch, were brought to light, and that there were brought up
by the deep-sea trawlings from great depths _fishes of unknown species,
which could not exist near the surface owing to the distension and
rupture of their air-bladder when removed from the pressure of deep
water_.
Forcibly suggestive are such facts of still further undiscovered
denizens of the deep! And as to _what_ they are, fish, mammal, or
reptile, or a compound of either two or all three of these, why doubt
_any_ possibility when we know that on land are similarly complicated
organisms which so lately have perplexed our most able physiologists?
Take, for example, that curious anomaly, the mud-fish of the Gambia,
_Lepidosiren_, referred to in the last chapter, and which, to look at,
is as much like a lizard as a fish, with its four singular appendages
where either legs or fins might be. Again, we have that paradox in
nature—bird, reptile, and quadruped combined—in the Australian
_Platypus_, a semi-aquatic animal. ‘These two fresh-water animals
are,’ says Darwin, ‘among the most anomalous forms now found in the
world; and like fossils, they connect, to a certain extent, orders
at present widely sundered in the natural scale.’[76] Other equally
remarkable links between the various groups might be cited to prepare
us for any marine anomalies which may hereafter surprise us. Taking
into consideration, also, that many of our smaller aquatic animals
have their representatives on a huge scale in the ocean, why should
there not be gigantic ophidian forms to correspond with the terrestrial
pythons and anacondas? As in point of size salt-water fishes exceed
those of our rivers, and as the enormous marine mammalia exceed those
on land, we might the rather wonder if there were not _one_ ‘great
sea serpent,’ but many unsuspected species of reptiles, compound
ophiosaurians, or saurophidians, or who shall say what, in those
inaccessible depths.
‘How is it none have ever been captured?’ it is asked. In reply, Has
any one ever captured a swiftly-retreating land snake escaping pursuit?
Who can overtake or circumvent it when in its tropical vigour? And
how vastly must the powers and swiftness of those immense pelagians
exceed the kinds with which we are familiar! ‘Then, Why have no bones
been found?’ Mr. Bartlett’s reason is one of those assigned, and in
addition I may suggest that the love of locality, so strong in land
reptiles, may also exist in marine ones, which probably retire to the
recesses of their submarine habitats to die.
‘How is it none have ever been killed?’ Well! A cannon ball on the
instant, and not much less, would be required to ‘kill it on the spot,’
as some have sagely recommended.
Mr. Henry Lee, among others, does not regard capture as impossible
and in support of my own speculations—more correctly speaking
_imagination_, perhaps—I give the concluding words of his paper:—
‘I therefore think it by no means impossible—first, that there may
be gigantic marine animals unknown to science having their ordinary
_habitat_ in the great depths of the sea, only occasionally coming
to the surface, and perhaps avoiding habitually the light of day;
and, second, that there may still exist, though supposed to have been
long extinct, some of the old sea reptiles whose fossil remains tell
of their magnitude and habits, or others of species unknown even to
palæontologists.
‘The evidence is, to my mind, conclusive that enormous animals, with
which zoologists are at present unacquainted, exist in the “great and
wide sea,” and I look forward hopefully to the capture of one or more
of them, and the settlement of this vexed question.’
I cannot conclude this chapter without further reference to one
other of our very popular physiologists, Dr. Andrew Wilson. The week
following that in which Owen, Captain Gray, and Messrs. Lee, Buckland,
and Bartlett contributed their opinions to _Land and Water_, September
8, 1877, Dr. Wilson also favoured its readers with two closely written
pages on ‘The Sea Serpent of Science.’ Some of his introductory words
have been already quoted. He then presents the claims to attention
which these various ‘sea monsters’ offer, as reported by thoroughly
trustworthy witnesses, suggesting that the idea of a ‘serpent’ is too
restricted.
Notwithstanding much already said, the opinion of Dr. Wilson will be
valued by many of my readers, and I therefore give portions in his own
words:—
‘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 the most reasonable and likely explanation of the
personality of the sea serpent, and also the reconciliation of such
discrepancies as the various narratives may be shown to evince.... I
think we may build up a most reasonable case both for their existence
and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking into account
the fact 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 popularly named “sea
serpents.”_ ...
‘Whilst 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; whilst the fact of the animals being described in the
various narratives as swimming with the head out of the 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.’
Apology is due to so eminent a physiologist for having first given
expression to my own opinion on the _Pauline_ serpent, though in
tardily quoting a high authority I may risk suspicion of plagiarism.
I must be permitted to explain, therefore, that on seeing the subject
ventilated in _Land and Water_ (to which I had for some years been a
contributor on ophidian matters), I also, though uninvited, prepared a
paper on ‘the sea serpent.’ In a letter to the Editors, I even presumed
to criticise part of what had lately appeared, enclosing MS. with yet
more.
In reply, I was informed that the subject would not be continued or
‘re-opened,’ and my returned MS. is still before me, much of it now
for the first time being presented to the public. To proceed with Dr.
Wilson:—
‘The most important feature in my theory, ... and that which really
constitutes the strong point of this explanation, is the probability
of the development of a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine
serpents....
‘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 the 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.’
In a most interesting lecture on ‘Zoological Myths,’ delivered at St.
George’s Hall, January 2, 1881, Dr. Andrew Wilson again laid much
stress on the ‘gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into’
one of those amazing individuals which, say, at the very least, are
over a hundred feet in length!
How long would the poison fang of such a reptile be? How many ounces of
venom would its glands contain? Or does the Dr. wish us to understand
that as the vertebræ of a _Hydrophis_ has gradually developed into
the complicated structure of a constrictor, so has the poison-fang
become gradually obsolete? Appalling, indeed, would it be were those
enormous developments armed with poison-fangs! Monarchs of the deep
they truly would be. Happily, venomous serpents are restricted in
their size; but an interesting speculation has been opened in the
above theory of abnormal development, and I trust it may be followed
up by abler reasoners than the present humble writer. In the previous
chapter the distinguishing characteristics of the true marine snakes
were described, and I feel more disposed to agree with Dr. Andrew
Wilson when he says, ‘_or for the matter of that, in the existence of
distinct species of monster sea serpents_,’ than in the development of
a small venomous one into an amazing constrictor. Except the ‘monster.’
Why should not the gigantic forms be perfect in themselves, with an
inherited anatomical structure? In volume xviii. of _Nature_, 1878, Dr.
Andrew Wilson again discusses the sea serpent, and thus concludes:’ ...
and as a firm believer from the standpoint of zoology that the large
development of the marine ophidians of warmer seas offers the true
explanation of the sea-serpent mystery.’
Their physical constitution, then, as well as structure, must have very
much changed to enable them to exist so far from the tropics.
And still there are the creatures with flippers, and flappers, and fins
to decide upon. And then the gigantic salamander with a hundred and
fifty feet of tail! But these not being ophidians, and certainly not
‘sea serpents,’ must not intrude themselves here.
In their enormous development alone the supporters of Darwin may justly
exult, for surely in them we shall see ‘the survival of the fittest.’
[Illustration]
[Illustration]