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.