=117=.--1846, August 8.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1608).
“Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”
“On Saturday, the 8th. inst., in the course between the islands of
Sartor Leer and Tös, a sea-monster, supposed to be a sea-serpent, was
seen by several persons. Early on this day as the steamer Biörgvin
passed through Rognefjord towing a vessel to Bergen, Daniel Salomonson,
a cotter, saw a sea-monster, whose like he declares he never met with
although accustomed to the sea and its inhabitants from his earliest
years. The animal came swimming from Rognefjord in a westerly direction
towards his dwelling at Grönnevigskioeset, in the northern part of the
parish of Sund. The head appeared like a Foering boat (about twenty
feet long) keel uppermost, and from behind it raised itself forward in
three, and sometimes four and five undulations, each apparently about
twelve feet long: its rate appeared to be that of a light boat rowed
by four active men. When it reached Grönnevigskioeset at a distance
of two rifle-shots it turned with considerable noise and continued
its course towards Lundenoes. Later about eleven o’clock on the same
day his wife Ingeborg, in Daniel’s absence, heard a loud noise in the
sea, and she and two little children saw a great sea monster, such as
described above, take a northerly course, close by their place at such
a rate that the waves were dashed on the shore in the same way as when
a steamer is passing by. Neither of them say that they saw anything
like eyes or fins, or indeed anything projecting from its round form,
but they declare that the colour of the animal was dark brown, and
that it often rose up with gentle undulations, sometimes, however,
sinking below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid
course of the gigantic body.--On the same morning a lad, by name
Abraham Abrahamsen Hagenoes, was out fishing in the Rognefjord, not far
from Lundenoes, and just ready to throw out his line, when he, as he
asserts, became aware that on about one hundred fathoms a monster with
a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) and a long
body lay upon the sea like large kegs and was nearing his boat: seized
with a panic he exerted all his strength to reach the shore, and as the
animal, apparently following him, was only about forty fathoms off, he
leaped ashore, drew up the boat and ran up the bank, whence he viewed
the monster which had by this time approached the shore within twenty
fathoms. He says that that part of the body which was visible was about
sixty feet in length, and that its undulating course was similar to the
eel: that the colour of the back was blackish, shining strongly, and as
far as he could distinguish there was a whitish stripe under the belly.”
“Report also says that the sea-serpent was seen by several persons in
Biornfjord causing a great deal of dread, but of this our informants
want authentic accounts. Our informant further says that he has no
reason whatever to doubt the truth of the story of the man and his
wife, or the truthworthiness of the lad Abraham, except as far as
that his fears may have caused him to see several things through a
magnifying glass.”
I am convinced that by a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty
feet long) must be meant the head and a great part of the neck.
The other characters are mere repetitions of what we have so often
observed. Very interesting again is the statement of the lad that the
animal had a white stripe “under the belly”. As the lad cannot have
seen the proper belly of the animal, it must have been the throat;
the boy thought that he saw a snake, and I think that he, being
questioned, would tell me that a snake has a head, a trunk and a tail,
and hardly any neck and throat. I am also convinced, that the boy has
not seen with a magnifying glass: the measurements, he gives, are not
exaggerated.
* * * * *
In 1847, Mr. EDWARD NEWMANN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_ had the
courage to open the columns of his Journal to all kinds of reports and
discussions about the great sea-serpent. He says (p. 1604):
“It has been the fashion for so many years to deride all records of
this very celebrated monster, that it is not without hesitation I
venture to quote the following paragraphs in his defence. A month
only has elapsed since I had occasion to quote with approbation, a
very marked passage from the pen of Sir J. W. Hershell (Zool. 1586):
I may apply it with equal propriety to the enquiry of the era of the
Irish deer, or of the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent. Naturalists,
or rather those who choose thus to designate themselves, set up an
authority above that of fact and observation, the gist of their
enquiries is whether such things _ought to be_, and whether such
things _ought not to be_; now fact-naturalists take a different road
to knowledge, they enquire whether such things _are_ and whether such
things _are not_. The _Zoologist_, if not in itself the fountain-head
of this _fact_ movement, may at least claim to be the only public
advocate of that movement; and it is therefore most desirable, that it
should call the attention of its readers to the following remarkable
paragraphs. They are quoted from one of our daily papers, which gives
them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they
originally appeared; the localities mentioned are intimately known
to all travellers in Norway; and the witnesses are generally highly
respectable and of unimpeachable veracity. The very discrepancies in
the accounts prove the entire absence of any preconcerted scheme of
deception. The only question therefore for the fact-naturalists to
decide, is simply, whether all of the records now collected, can refer
to whales, fishes, or any other marine animals with which we are at
present acquainted.”
I have no reason to doubt Mr. NEWMAN’s veracity, and so I am willing
to believe that the five reports which follow this introduction “are
quoted from one of” the British “daily papers, which gives them as
literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they originally
appeared”. I only ask why Mr. NEWMANN did not mention the daily
paper? For the assertion of this daily paper that they are “literal
translations from _Norse_ papers in which they originally appeared” is
at all events a fabrication, as the reports which Mr. NEWMAN published
here are the evidences which Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE took, when on a
journey in Norway, near Christiansund, apparently in the year 1840,
and which he published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, six
years later! I have inserted them above (n°. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102).
As to the “discrepancies in the accounts” I have already showed that
there are, in fact, hardly any discrepancies, but that the accounts
complete one another. I must also observe here that the accounts are
not translated _literally_. Many, and among them very interesting
passages, are omitted. The reader, who will convince himself of the
truth of my assertion, has only to compare the accounts, as they
are inserted in the _Zoologist_ with my translations of the German
originals, or with the originals themselves.
Mr. GOSSE, too, in his _Romance of Natural History_, 1860, writes: “The
public papers of Norway, during the summer of 1846, were occupied with
statements of the following effect”, and he too publishes extracts from
the evidences printed in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841!
Also Mr. LEE, in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, says: “In 1847
there appeared in a London daily paper a long account translated from
the Norse journals of fresh appearances of the sea-serpent.”
And Mr. JOHN ASHTON in his _Curious Creatures in Zoology_, 1889,
asserts: “In 1847 a sea-serpent was seen frequently in the
neighbourhood of Christiansund and Molde, by many persons, and by one
Lars Johnöen, fisherman at Smölen, especially.”
All these writers have copied Mr. NEWMAN, and have therefore quite
overlooked the fact that the originals were in the _Archiv für
Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, and that the appearances took place long
before the year 1847!
* * * * *
The last number of the _Zoologist_ for 1847 appeared in October of that
year. The reader must know that the matter of this journal is arranged
according to the class of the animals, treated of in each article. This
I must mention for the better understanding of the following passage
which Mr. NEWMAN wrote in his preface to the above mentioned volume of
the _Zoologist_.
“In Reptiles, the communications and quotations about “the Sea-Serpent”
are well worthy of attentive perusal: it is impossible to suppose all
the records bearing this title to be fabricated for the purpose of
deception. A natural phenomenon of some kind has been witnessed: let
us seek a satisfactory solution rather than terminate enquiry by the
shafts of ridicule. The grave and learned have often avowed a belief
that toads can exist some thousands of years without food, light or
air, and immured in solid stone: surely it is not requiring too much to
solicit a suspension of judgment on the question whether a monster may
exist in the sea which does not adorn our collections.”
Mr. NEWMAN, viz. believed that the sea-serpent belonged to the class
of Reptiles. The “communications and quotations” spoken of here, have
already been inserted above (n°. 25, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 102, 106
A, 115, 116, 117.).
* * * * *
=118=.--1848, August 6.--No report of the sea-serpent has ever more
shaken the incredulity of hundreds and thousands than that generally
known as the account of the _Daedalus_, after the frigate from which
the sea-serpent was seen.
The _Times_ newspaper of October, 9, 1848, published the following
paragraph:
“Intelligence from Plymouth, dated 7 Oct.”
“When the _Daedalus_ frigate, Captain M’Quhae, which arrived at
Plymouth on the 4th. instant, was on her passage home from the East
Indies, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, her captain, and
most of her officers and crew, at four o’clock one afternoon, saw a
sea-serpent. The creature was twenty minutes in sight of the frigate,
and passed under her quarter. Its head appeared to be about four feet
out of the water, and there was about sixty feet of its body in a
straight line on the surface. It is calculated that there must have
been under water a length of thirty-three or forty feet more, by which
it propelled itself at the rate of fifteen miles an hour. The diameter
of the exposed part of the body was about sixteen inches; and when it
extended its jaws, which were full of large jagged teeth, they seemed
sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between
them”.
The Admiralty instantly inquired into the truth of the statement, and
in the _Times_ of the 13th. the gallant captain’s official reply was
published in the following terms:
“Her Majesty’s Ship Daedalus,
Hamoaze, _Oct. 11_.”
“Sir,--In reply to your letter of this date, requiring information as
to the truth of a statement published in _The Times_ newspaper, of
a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions having been seen from Her
Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_, under my command, on her passage from the
East Indies, I have the honour to acquaint you, for the information of
my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that at five o’clock P. M.,
on the 6th. of August last, in latitude 24° 44′ S., and longitude 9°
22′ E., the weather dark and cloudy, wind fresh from the N. W., with a
long ocean swell from the S. W., the ship on the port tack heading N.
E. by N., something very unusual was seen by Mr. Sartoris, midshipman,
rapidly approaching the ship from before the beam. The circumstance was
immediately reported by him to the officer of the watch, Lieutenant
Edgar Drummond, with whom and Mr. William Barrett, the master, I was at
the time walking the quarterdeck. The ship’s company were at supper.”
“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to
be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet
constantly above the surface of the sea, and, as nearly as we could
approximate, by comparing it with the length of what our main-topsail
yard would show in the water, there was at the very least sixty
feet of the animal _à fleur d’eau_, no portion of which was, to our
perception, used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical
or horizontal undulation. It passed rapidly, but so close under our lee
quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should easily
have recognized his features with the naked eye; and it did not, either
in approaching the ship or after it had passed our wake, deviate in
the slightest degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at
the pace of from twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on some
determined purpose.”
“The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind
the head, which was, without any doubt, that of a snake; and it was
never, during the twenty minutes that it continued in sight of our
glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour a dark brown,
with yellowish white about the throat. It had no fins, but something
like a mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of seaweed, washed about its
back. It was seen by the quartermaster, the boatswain’s mate, and the
man at the wheel, in addition to myself and officers above-mentioned.”
“I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken
immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for
transmission to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by to-morrow’s
post.”
“Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”
“To Admiral Sir W. H. Gage, G. C.
H., Devonport.”
In the _Literary Gazette_ of Oct. 21st., 1848, the Editor published an
engraving of PONTOPPIDAN’s representation, and adds some accompanying
conclusions, appended to copious extracts from the learned Bishop’s
work:
“We have now only to point to the very remarkable resemblance between
Captain M’Quhae and Pontoppidan’s description. One might fancy the
galant Captain had read the old Dane, and was copying him, when he
tells of the dark brown colour and white about the throat, and the
neck clothed as if by a horse’s mane or a bunch of sea-weed--the exact
words of the historian. This snake, however, did not seem to care for
the fresh wind and ruffish weather, but kept, as in the calm, its head
several feet above the water, and stretched out its length so as to be
visible for some sixty or eighty feet. The motion was not perceptibly
impelled by vermicular or lent-serpent action! Had it then large fins?
There must be some power. The picture engraved in the folio represents
it like a series of six barrels, or risings, with the intermediate
parts under the sea.”
[Illustration: Fig. 28.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the officers of
the Daedalus.]
In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28st. was reprinted all that
has been mentioned above, and there appeared three representations of
the sea-serpent, as seen from the _Daedalus_, which I here show my
readers in fig. 28, 29 and 30, omitting, however, the ship’s stern,
because the drawings would be too large for our pages. The Editor of
the _Illustrated London News_ adds:
“The drawings above-named have been received by the Lord Commissioners
to the Admiralty, and by the courtesy of Capt. M’Quhae, our artist has
been permitted to copy this pictorial evidence, as well as further to
illustrate the appearance of the Serpent, under the supervision of
Captain M’Quhae, and with his approval of the Authenticity of their
details as to position and form.”
On the 28th. of October Lieutenant DRUMMOND, the officer of the
watch, mentioned in the report of Captain M’QUHAE, published his own
impressions of the animal, in the form of an extract from his own
journal. As far as I can discover it did not appear before the 1st. of
December, in the _Zoologist_ (p. 2306) and runs as follows:
“I beg to send you the following extract from my journal.”
[Illustration: Fig. 29.--Another sketch of the same individual.]
“H. M. S. _Daedalus_, August, 6, 1848, lat. 25° S., long 9° 37′ E.,
St., Helena 1015 miles. In the 4 to 6 watch, at about five o’clock, we
observed a most remarkable fish on our lee quarter, crossing the stern
in a S. W. direction; the appearance of its head, which, with the back
fin, was the only portion of the animal visible, was long, pointed,
and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw
projecting considerably; the fin was perhaps twenty feet in the rear
of the head, and visible occasionally; the captain also asserted that
he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it;
the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown
colour, and beneath the under jaw a brownish white. It pursued a steady
undeviating course, keeping its head horizontal with the surface of
the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally
beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for
purposes of respiration. It was going at the rate of perhaps from
twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest, was perhaps one
hundred yards distant. In fact it gave one quite the idea of a large
snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen anything similar, so it
is at least extraordinary. It was visible to the naked eye for five
minutes, and with a glass for perhaps fifteen more. The weather was
dark and squally at the time, with some sea running.”
The following article appeared in the _Times_ of Nov. 2d.:
“Amidst the numerous suggestions of those of your correspondents
who are disposed to admit the account given by Captain M’Quhae of
the marine monster seen by him and several of his brother officers,
on the 6th. of August last, as not altogether imaginary, it appears
surprising that it should not have occurred to any one to suggest an
explanation of some apparent anomalies in the account, which have no
doubt tended to stagger the belief even of some readers who are not
disposed to assume (any more than myself) that a number of officers in
Her Majesty’s navy would deliberately invent a falsehood, or could have
been deceived in an appearance which they describe with such precise
details”
“One of the greatest difficulties on the face of the narrative and
which must be allowed to destroy the analogy of the motions of the so
called “sea-serpent” with those of all known snakes and anguilliform
fishes, is that no less than sixty feet of the animal were seen
advancing _à fleur d’eau_ at the rate of from twelve to fifteen miles
an hour, without it being possible to perceive, upon the closest and
most attentive inspection, any undulatory motion to which its rapid
advance could be ascribed. It need scarcely be observed that neither
an eel nor a snake, if either of those animals could swim at all with
the neck elevated, could do so without the front part of its body being
thrown into undulation by the propulsive efforts of its tail.”
“But, it may be asked, if the animal seen by Captain M’Quhae was not
allied to the snakes or to the eels, to what class of animals could it
have belonged? To this I would reply, that it appears more likely that
the enormous reptile in question was allied to the gigantic Saurians,
hitherto believed only to exist in the fossil state, and, among them,
to the Plesiosaurus.”
[Illustration: Fig. 30.--A sketch of the head of the same individual.]
“From the known anatomical characters of the _Plesiosauri_, derived
from the examination of their organic remains, geologists are agreed
in the inference that those animals carried their necks (which must
have resembled the bodies of serpents) above the water, while their
progression was effected by large paddles working beneath--the short
but stout tail acting the part of a rudder. It would be superfluous to
point out how closely the surmises of philosophers resemble, in these
particulars, the description of the eye-witnesses of the living animal,
as given in the letter and drawings of Captain M’Quhae. In the latter
we have many of the external characters of the former, as predicated
from the examination of the skeleton. The short head, the serpent-like
neck, carried several feet above the water, forcibly recall the idea
conceived of the extinct animal; and even the bristly mane in certain
parts of the back, so unlike anything found in serpents, has its
analogy in the _Iguana_, to which animal the _Plesiosaurus_ has been
compared by some geologists. But I would most of all insist upon the
peculiarity of the animal’s progression, which could only have been
effected with the evenness, and at the rate described, by an apparatus
of fins or paddles, not possessed by serpents, but existing in the
highest perfection in the _Plesiosaurus_.”--F. G. S.--
In the number of the _Illustrated London News_ of November 4, 1848,
the letter of Captain M’QUHAE was published in which he expresses his
special approbation of the figures:
“I have observed with very great satisfaction the Engravings of the
“Sea-Serpent” in the Illustrated London News of the 28th. inst.; they
most faithfully represent the appearance of the animal, as seen from
Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_ on the 6th. of August last; and it is
evident that much care has been bestowed upon the subject by the
artist employed, to whom I beg to acknowledge myself greatly indebted
for the patience and attention with which he listened to the various
alterations suggested by me during the progress of the drawings.”
In the _Times_ of Nov. 4th., we find the following remark:
“As some interest has been excited by the alleged appearance of a
sea-serpent, I venture to transmit a few remarks on the subject, which
you may or not may think worthy of insertion in your columns. There
does not appear to be a single well authenticated instance of these
monsters having been seen in any southern latitudes; but in the north
of Europe, notwithstanding the fabulous character so long ascribed to
Pontoppidan’s description, I am convinced that they both exist and are
frequently seen. During three summers spent in Norway I have repeatedly
conversed with the natives on this subject.”
Here follow the descriptions of two appearances which I have inserted
above, (n^o. 109, 110).
“They expressed great surprise at the general disbelief attaching to
the existence of these animals amongst naturalists, and assured me
that there was scarcely a sailor accustomed to those inland lakes, who
had not seen them at one time or another.”--OXONIENSIS.
An unknown writer in one of the daily papers, after suggesting, whether
the animals in question might not be full grown specimens of the
_Saccopharynx flagellum_ of Dr. MITCHILL (described in the _Annals of
the New York Lyceum of Natural History_, for March, 1824), or of the
_Ophiognathus ampullaceus_ of Dr. HARWOOD (_Phil. Trans._, 1827), gives
Captain M’QUHAE the benefit of a further conjecture, viz., whether some
land species, as the boas, among which are individuals “forty feet”
in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even
“transport themselves from one continent to another.” (See _Zoologist_,
1848; p. 2320).
Some days after the figures of Captain M’QUHAE were published, a
nobleman, whose name is not mentioned, wrote to Prof. OWEN to know
his opinion about the animal seen by the Captain. The Professor, it
would seem, did not answer the nobleman directly, but sent his answer
to the Editor of the _Times_, evidently with a view of bringing his
opinion under the eyes of thousands. This letter is too important to be
abridged; I therefore give it in extenso; it appeared in the _Times_ of
November 11, 1848.
_The Great Sea-Serpent._
“Sir,--Subjoined is the answer to a question relative to the animal
seen from the _Daedalus_, addressed to me by a nobleman distinguished
in literature, and taking much interest in science.”
“As it contains the substance of the explanation I have endeavoured to
give to numerous inquirers, in the Hunterian Museum and elsewhere, and
as I continue to receive many applications for my opinion of the “Great
Sea Serpent,” I am desirous to give it once for all through the medium
of your columns, if space of such value may be allotted to it.”
“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant
“Richard Owen.”
“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”
“The sketch (this was a reduced copy of the drawing of the head of
the animal seen by Captain M’QUHAE; attached to the submerged body
of a large seal, showing the long eddy produced by the action of the
terminal flippers) will suggest the reply to your query, “Whether
the monster seen from the _Daedalus_ be anything but a saurian?” If
it be the true answer, it destroys the romance of the incident, and
will be anything but acceptable to those who prefer the excitement of
the imagination to the satisfaction of the judgment. I am far from
insensible to the pleasures of the discovery of a new and rare animal;
but before I can enjoy them, certain conditions--e. g. reasonable proof
or evidence of its existence--must be fulfilled. I am also far from
undervaluing the information which Captain M’QUHAE has given us of
what he saw. When fairly analized, it lies in a small compass, but my
knowledge of the animal kingdom compels me to draw other conclusions
from the phenomena than those which the gallant captain seems to have
jumped at. He evidently saw a large animal moving through the water,
very different from anything he had before witnessed--neither a whale,
a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface
swimming creatures which are fallen in with in ordinary voyages.
He writes--“On our attention being called to the object, it was
discovered to be an enormous serpent” (read “animal”), “with the head
and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of
the sea. The diameter of the serpent” (animal) “was about fifteen or
sixteen inches behind the head; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish
white about the throat”. No fins were seen (the captain says there
were none; but from his own account, he did not see enough of the
animal to prove the negative). “Something like the mane of a horse,
or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” So much of the
body as was seen was “not used in propelling the animal through the
water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.” A calculation
of its length was made under a strong preconception of the nature of
the beast. The head, e. g., is stated to be, “without any doubt, that
of a snake;” and yet a snake would be the last species to which a
naturalist conversant with the forms and characters of the heads of
animals, would refer such a head as that of which Captain M’Quhae has
transmitted a drawing to the Admirality, and which he certifies to have
been accurately copied in the _Illustrated London News_ for October
28, 1848, p. 265. Your Lordship will observe that no sooner was the
captain’s attention called to the object, than “it was discovered to
be an enormous serpent”, and yet the closest inspection of as much
of the body as was visible, _à fleur d’eau_, failed to detect any
undulations of the body, although such actions constitute the very
character which would distinguish a serpent or serpentiform swimmer
from any other marine species. The foregone conclusion, therefore,
of the beast’s being a sea-serpent, notwithstanding its capacious
vaulted cranium, and stiff, inflexible trunk, must be kept in mind in
estimating the value of the approximation made to the total length of
the animal, as “(at the very least) sixty feet”. This is the only part
of the description, however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as
to be inadmissible, in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as
to the nature of the animal. The more certain characters of the animal
are these:--Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short
obtuse muzzle, gape of the mouth not extending further than to beneath
the eye, which is rather small, round, filling closely the palpebral
aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface
smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous modifications or
hard and naked cuticle. And the captain says, “Had it been a man of
my acquaintance, I should have easily recognized his features with
my naked eye.” Nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing
by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle. All these are
the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal--none of them
those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish. Body long, dark brown, not
undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something
like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about
its back.” The character of the integuments would be a most important
one for the zoologist in the determination to the class to which the
above defined creature belonged. If an opinion can be deduced as to
the integuments from the above indication, it is that the species had
hair, which, if it was too short and close to be distinguished on the
head, was visible where it usually is the longest, on the middle line
of the shoulders or advanced part of the back, where it was not stiff
and upright like the rays of a fin, but “washed about.” Guided by the
above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”,
the animal was not a cetaceous mammal, but rather a great seal. But
what seal of large size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered
in latitude 24° 44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east--viz. about three
hundred miles from the western shore of the southern end of Afrika? The
most likely species to be there met with are the largest of the seal
tribe, _e. g._ Anson’s sea lion, or that known to the southern whalers
by the name of the sea-elephant, the _Phoca proboscidea_, which attains
the length of from twenty to thirty feet. These great seals abound in
certain of the islands of the southern and antarctic seas, from which
an individual is occasionally floated off upon an iceberg. The sea
lion exhibited in London last spring, which was a young individual of
the _Phoca proboscidea_ was actually captured in that predicament;
having been carried by the currents that set northwards towards the
Cape, where its temporary resting-place was rapidly melting away. When
a large individual of the _Phoca proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_ is
thus borne off to a distance from its native shore, it is compelled
to return for rest to its floating abode, after it has made its daily
excursions in quest of the fishes or squids that constitute its food.
It is thus brought by the iceberg into the latitudes of the Cape, and
perhaps farther north, before the berg was melted away. Then the poor
seal is compelled to swim as long as strength endures, and in such a
predicament I imagine the creature was that Mr. Sartoris saw rapidly
approaching the _Daedalus_ from before the beam, scanning, probably,
its capabilities as a resting-place, as it paddled its long stiff
body past the ship. In so doing, it would raise a head of the form
and colour described and delineated by Captain M’Quhae, supported on
a neck also of the diameter given; the thick neck passing into an
inflexible trunk, the longer and coarser hair on the upper part of
which would give rise to the idea, especially if the species were the
_Phoca leonina_, explained by the similes above cited. The organs
of locomotion would be out of sight. The pectoral fins being set on
very low down, as in my sketch, the chief impelling force would be
the action of the deeper immersed terminal fins and tail, which would
create a long eddy, readily mistakable, by one looking at the strange
phenomenon with a sea-serpent in his mind’s eye, for an indefinite
prolongation of the body.”
“It is very probable, that not one on board the _Daedalus_ ever
before beheld a gigantic seal freely swimming in the open ocean.
Entering unexpectedly from that vast and commonly blank desert of
waters, it would be a strange and exciting spectacle, and might well
be interpreted as a marvel; but the creative powers of the human mind
appear to be really very limited, and, on all the occasions where
the true source of the “great unknown” has been detected--whether it
has proved to be a file of sportive porpoises, or a pair of gigantic
sharks--old Pontoppidan’s sea-serpent with the mane has uniformly
suggested itself as the representative of the portent, until the
mystery has been unravelled.”
“The vertebrae of the sea-serpent described and delineated in the
_Wernerian Transactions_, vol. I., and sworn to by the fishermen who
saw it off the Isle of Stronsa (one of the Orkneys), in 1808, two of
which vertebrae are in the Museum of the College of Surgeons, are
certainly those of a great shark, of the genus _Selache_, and are not
distinguishable from those of the species called “basking-shark”, of
which individuals from thirty to thirty-five feet in length have been
from time to time captured or stranded on our coasts.”
“I have no unmeet confidence in the exactitude of my interpretation of
the phenomena witnessed by the captain and others of the _Daedalus_.
I am too sensible of the inadequacy of the characters which the
opportunity of a rapidly passing animal, “in a long ocean swell”,
enabled them to note, for the determination of its species or genus.
Giving due credence to the most probably accurate elements of their
description, they do little more than guide the zoologist to the class,
which, in the present instance, is not that of the serpent or the
saurian.”
“But I am usually asked, after each endeavour to explain
Captain M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, “Why should there not be a great
sea-serpent?”--often, too, in a tone which seems to imply, “Do you
think, then, there are not more marvels in the deep, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy?” And, freely conceding that point, I have felt
bound to give a reason for scepticism as well as faith. If a gigantic
sea-serpent actually exists, the species must, of course, have been
perpetuated through successive generations, from its first creation and
introduction into the seas of this planet. Conceive, then, the number
of individuals that must have lived, and died, and have left their
remains to attest the actuality of the species during the enormous
lapse of time, from its beginning, to the 6th. of August last! Now,
a serpent, being an air breathing animal, with long vesicular and
receptacular lungs, dives with an effort and commonly floats when
dead; and so would the sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident
had opened the tough integument, and let out the imprisoned gases.
Then it would sink, and, if in deep water, be seen no more until the
sea rendered up its dead, after the lapse of the aeons requisite for
the yielding of its place to dry land,--a change which has actually
revealed to the present generation the old saurian monsters that were
entombed at the bottom of the ocean, of the secondary geological
periods of our earth’s history. During life the exigencies of the
respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel him frequently
to the surface; and when dead and swollen--
“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,”
he would
“Lie floating many a rood; in bulk as huge,
“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
“Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove.”
“Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has
not hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who have
traversed the seas in so many directions. Considering, too, the tides
and currents of the ocean, it seems still more reasonable to suppose
that the dead sea-serpent would be occasionally cast on shore. However,
I do not ask for the entire carcase. The structure of the back-bone of
the serpent tribe is so peculiar, that a single vertebra would suffice
to determine the existence of the hypothetical Ophidian; and this will
not be deemed an unreasonable request, when it is remembered that the
vertebrae are more numerous in serpents than in any other animals. Such
large blanched and scattered bones on any sea-shore, would be likely to
attract even common curiosity; yet there is no vertebra of a serpent
larger than the ordinary pythons and boas in any museum in Europe.”
“Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more acute
naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén), than those of
Norway. Krakens and sea serpents ought to have been living and dying
thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all
tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of
the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector; whilst the great denizens
of those seas have been by no means so chary. No museums, in fact,
are so rich in skeletons, skulls, bones and teeth of the numerous
kind of whales, cachelots, grampuses, walrusses, sea unicorns, seals,
etc., as those of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; but of any large marine
nondescript or indeterminable monster they cannot show a trace.”
“I have inquired repeatedly whether the natural history collections
of Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities of the United States, might
possess any unusually large ophidian vertebrae or any of such peculiar
form as to indicate some large and unknown marine animal; but they have
received no such specimens.”
“The frequency with which the sea-serpent has been supposed to have
appeared near the shores and harbours of the United States, has led to
its being specified as the “American sea-serpent;” yet, out of the two
hundred vertebrae of every individual that should have lived and died
in the Atlantic since the creation of the species, not one has yet been
picked up on the shores of America. The diminutive snake, less than
a yard in length, “killed upon the sea-shore”, apparently beaten to
death, “by some labouring people of Cape Ann,” United States (see the
8vo pamphlet, 1817, Boston, page 38), and figured in the _Illustrated
London News_, October 28, 1848, from the original American memoir, by
no means satisfies the conditions of the problem. Neither does the
_Saccopharynx_ of Mitchill, nor the _Ophiognathus_ of Harwood--the
one four and a half feet, the other six feet long: both are surpassed
by some of the congers of our own coasts, and, like other muraenoid
fishes and the known small sea snake (_Hydrophis_), swim by undulatory
movements of the body.”
“The fossil vertebrae and skull which were exhibited by Mr. Koch, in
New York and Boston, as those of the great sea-serpent, and which are
now in Berlin, belonged to different individuals of a species which I
had previously proved to be an extinct whale; a determination which
has subsequently been confirmed by Professors Müller and Agassiz. Mr.
Dixon of Worthing has discovered many fossil vertebrae, in the Eocene
tertiary clay at Bracklesham, which belong to a larger species of an
extinct genus of serpent (_Palaeophis_), founded on similar vertebrae
from the same formation in the Isle of Sheppey. The largest of these
ancient British snakes was twenty feet in length; but there is no
evidence that they were marine.”
“The sea saurians of the secondary periods of geology have been
replaced in the tertiary and actual seas by marine mammals. No remains
of _Cetacea_ have been found in lias or oolite, and no remains of
Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur, or any other secondary reptile, have been
found in Eocene or later tertiary deposits, or recent, on the actual
sea-shores; and that the old air-breathing saurians floated when they
died has been shown in the _Geological Transactions_ (vol. V., second
series, p. 512). The inference that may reasonably be drawn from no
recent carcase or fragment of such having ever been discovered, is
strengthened by the corresponding absence of any trace of their remains
in the tertiary beds.”
“Now, on weighing the question, whether creatures meriting the name
of “great sea serpent” do exist, or whether any of the gigantic
marine saurians of the secondary deposits may have continued to live
up to the present time, it seems to me less probable that no part of
the carcase of such reptiles should have ever been discovered in a
recent or unfossilized state, than that men should have been deceived
by a cursory view of a partly submerged and rapidly moving animal,
which might only be strange to themselves. In other words, I regard
the negative evidence from the utter absence of any of the recent
remains of great sea serpents, krakens, or _Enaliosauria_, as stronger
against their actual existence, than the positive statements which have
hitherto weighed with the public mind in favour of their existence. A
larger body of evidence from eye-witnesses might be got together in
proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent.”
What speaks for itself, this letter appeared in several journals and
newspapers. So I have found it in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural
History_, 2d. Ser. Vol. II, p. 458 (15? Nov. 1848), in GALIGNANI’s
_Messenger_ of Nov. 23, 1848, in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov.
25, 1848, and in the _Zoologist_, of Nov. 27, 1848. As it came from
such a quarter it is not surprising that many persons were willing to
acquiesce in the decision.
Captain M’QUHAE, however, promptly replied to Professor OWEN. His
answer was also addressed to the Editor of the _Times_ (_Times_, Nov.
21, 1848):
“Sir,--Will you do me the very great favour to give a place in your
widely-circulating columns to the following reply to the animadversions
of Professor Owen on the serpent or animal seen by me and others from
Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_ on the 6th. of August last, and which
were published in the Times of the 14th. inst.?
“I am, Sir, your obedient servant
“P. M’Quhae.
“Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.
“London, November 18.
“Professor Owen correctly states that I “evidently saw a large creature
moving rapidly through the water very different from anything I had
before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an
alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming creatures fallen
in with in ordinary voyages”. I now assert, neither was it a common
seal nor a sea elephant; its great length, and its totally differing
physiognomy, precluding the possibility of its being a _Phoca_ of any
species. The head was flat, and not a “capacious vaulted cranium;” nor
had it “a stiff inflexible trunk”--a conclusion to which Professor Owen
has jumped, most certainly not justified by the simple statement, that
“no portion of the sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it
through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.”
“It is also assumed that the “calculation of its length was made under
a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;” another conclusion
quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the great length was
developed by its nearest approach to the ship, and until after that
most important point had been duly considered and debated, as well as
such could be in the brief space of time allowed for so doing, that
it was pronounced to be a serpent by all who saw it, and who are too
well accustomed to judge of lengths and breadths of objects in the
sea to mistake a real substance and an actual living body, coolly and
dispassionately contemplated, at so short a distance too, for the “eddy
caused by the action of the deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly
moving gigantic seal raising its head above the water,” as Professor
Owen imagines, “in quest of its lost iceberg.”
“The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited. On this
occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose and
desire being, throughout, to furnish eminent naturalists, such as
the learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated
representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed from
optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan’s having
clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have suggested the idea
of ornamenting the creature seen from the _Daedalus_ with a similar
appendage, for the simple reason that I had never seen his account, or
even heard of his sea-serpent, until my arrival in London. Some other
solution must therefore be found for the very remarkable coincidence
between us in that particular, in order to unravel the mystery.”
“Finally, I deny the existence of excitement, or the possibility of
optical illusion. I adhere to the statement, as to form, colour,
and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty;
and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific may
exercise the “pleasures of imagination” until some more fortunate
opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance with the “great
unknown”,--in the present instance assuredly no ghost.”
It also appeared in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 25 1848.
And a gentleman, who signed his letter with the initials J. C., wrote a
letter to the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ (see this Journal
of Nov. 25, 1848) to rectify another statement of the learned Professor:
“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain
M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite
satisfactory as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt
we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my object
in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to by Mr. Owen,
in his letter to the Editor of the _Times_, of November 9th., that it
was _not_ of the serpent species, because “they failed to detect any
undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of there being “no vertical
or horizontal undulations perceptible” stamps the character of the
animal; for it is well known by all observers of snakes in India, that
when the animal is in chase of game, small or great, or when scared
away, and moving at a _rapid_ pace, he is propelled entirely by the
tail, or the smaller half of the body, while the other portion, with a
curve of the head, is kept quite _stiff_--and this exactly corresponds
with the Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to
fifteen miles an hour, _apparently on some determined purpose_.”
In May, 1854, Dr. T. S. TRAILL read a paper before the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, comparing the animal of the _Daedalus_, with the Animal of
Stronsa. The part of his dissertation concerning the present occurrence
runs as follows:
“In their statements there are no suspicious affectations of minute
detail. Their simple narrative appears to deserve more attention than
it has yet received from naturalists; and I strongly incline to the
belief, that the animal seen by the crew of the _Daedalus_ was an
analogue of, if not the very same species, as the animal cast ashore in
Orkney in 1808.”
“Considering the derision with which, in this country, the subject of
the sea-serpent has been treated, and the ridicule attempted to be
thrown on all who were bold enough to assert that they had seen such
an animal, nothing but a consciousness of his unimpeachable veracity
could have tempted the gallant Captain M’QUHAE to encounter the sneers
of his incredulous countrymen. From all I have heard of his character
for sagacity and veracity, from those who intimately knew him, I have
not the smallest doubt that he has faithfully described what he and his
crew saw distinctly, and at a short distance from the ship.”
“It was seen rapidly approaching before the _beam_.” Captain M’Quhae
says: “On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered
to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet
constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of the serpent
was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; its colour of a
dark brown, with yellowish-white about the throat.”
“The Captain could discover no fins, but “something like the mane of
a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” He
thought that its head did certainly resemble that of a snake; but the
drawing which he transmitted to the Admiralty has not, to the eye of
a naturalist, the form of that of any snake. The figure published in
the _Illustrated London News_ for October 28, 1848, is said to be an
accurate copy of that drawing.”
“Captain M’Quhae estimates the length of its body at the surface of the
water, “_à fleur d’eau_, at the very least equal to sixty feet, no part
of which was to our perception used in propelling it through the water,
either by vertical or horizontal undulations. It passed rapidly, but
so close under our quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance,
I should easily have recognized his features with the naked eye, and
it did not, either in approaching the ship, or after it had passed
our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from its course to the S.
W., which it held on at the pace of twelve or fifteen miles an hour,
apparently on some determined purpose.”
“If we may judge from the engraving, the cranium is very convex, of
moderate size, with a short obtuse muzzle, a mouth reaching beyond the
eye; which last organ is round, and of a moderate size. The surface of
the body is represented as smooth, and destitute of scales--of which
they were enabled to judge, because it passed close under the _quarter_
of the ship. It was in sight for twenty minutes.”
“The description certainly does not belong to any Ophidian; and as
certainly militates against an opinion thrown out by Mr. Owen, that it
might be a specimen of the _leonine seal_, which has, it is alleged,
occasionally reached those latitudes. The leonine seal never exceeds
twenty-five feet in length, and such would have a circumference at its
shoulders of twenty feet, while this appears to be eel-shaped, with a
diameter of not more than fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head;
the mane too, of the male of the leonine seal extends only over the
head and neck; but in the other, it extended down the back.”
“With all deference to so eminent a naturalist as Mr. Owen, I humbly
conceive that his conjecture respecting the identity of Captain
M’QUHAE’s animal with the leonine seal, is not more probable than
Home’s identification of the Basking shark with the Orkney animal.”
“Both M’QUHAE’s and the Orkney animal would appear to be a
cartilaginous fish, totally different from any genus known to
naturalists.”
Three years afterwards Captain HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131) was
published in the Times. Some days afterwards Captain FREDERIC SMITH
published his encounter with a sea-serpent, which after being harpooned
and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, and
the sea-serpents of the _Daedalus_ and of Captain HARRINGTON were in
his opinion undoubtedly pieces of the same kind of weed.
Now “An Officer of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_ felt obliged to
state again that it was a living animal. As in this letter further
particulars of the animal are mentioned, I insert it here _in toto_,
(_The Times_ of Febr. 16th., 1858):
“Sir,--Observing in your paper of yesterday’s date a letter from a
correspondent to the marine animal commonly called the “sea-serpent”,
in the concluding paragraph of which he mentions that he has no doubt
the object seen from Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_ in the month of
August, 1848, when on the passage from the Cape of Good-Hope to St.
Helena, was a piece of the same sea-weed observed by himself, I beg
to state that the object seen from her Majesty’s ship was, beyond all
question, a living animal, moving rapidly through the water against a
cross sea, and within five points of a fresh breeze, with such velocity
that the water was surging under its chest, as it passed along at a
rate probably of ten miles per hour. Captain M’QUHAE’s first impulse
was to tack in pursuit, ourselves being on a wind on the larboard tack,
when he reflected that we could neither lay up for it nor overhaul it
in speed. There was nothing to be done, therefore, but to observe it as
accurately as we could with our glasses, as it came up under our lee
quarter and passed away to windward, at its nearest position being not
more than two hundred yards from us; the eye, the mouth, the nostril,
the colour and form, all being most distinctly visible to us. We all
felt greatly astonished at what we saw, though there were sailors among
us of thirty and forty years’ standing, who had traversed most seas and
seen many marvels in their day. The captain was the first to exclaim:
“This must be that animal called the sea-serpent”, a conclusion which,
after sundry guesses, we all at last settled down to. My impression
was that it was rather of a lizard than a serpentine character, as its
movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any
undulatory power. It was in sight, from our first observing it, about
ten minutes, as we were fast leaving one another on opposite tacks with
a freshening breeze and the sea getting up.”
“I feel, Sir, I have already occupied more of your time and space than
is justifiable, and have the honour to remain your obedient servant,
“An Officer of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.”
Now let us run over all the prominent important particulars in
the reports of the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen from the
_Daedalus_. The first report, which appeared in the _Times_ of October,
9, 1848, contains the description of the mouth: “and when it extended
its jaws, which were full of large and jagged teeth, they seemed
sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between
them.” It is not said from whom the report came, nor is it signed.
All the details, except this last, were afterwards substantiated by
Captain M’QUHAE himself and by Lieutenant DRUMMOND. To me it seems
quite impossible that the head was longer than three feet; as the neck
is estimated at 16 inches in diameter, or one foot and a third, the
breadth of the head, according to what we already know of the relative
dimensions, cannot have been more than about two feet, and the length
not more than about three feet. So the jaws, when extended, may open
the mouth to about one and a half or two feet, a space which never can
admit “of a tall man standing upright between them!”
The animal seen by the captain and some of the officers and crew of
the _Daedalus_, was as follows: It swam with its body in a straight
line. About sixty feet of its body were visible. Its head appeared
to be about four feet out of the water. The part of the body hidden
under water was estimated at thirty feet at least. The diameter of
the neck behind the head was estimated at one foot and a third. When
the animal opened its mouth, large jagged teeth were seen. “It moved
with such velocity that the water was surging under its chest” (read
throat, for the very chest, situated between the foreflappers, was
invisible and much farther back). The head and a portion of the neck
(Captain M’QUHAE says, though without any reason, shoulders) were kept
above the surface of the sea. The animal was, during the time it was
in sight, never once below the surface. Lieutenant DRUMMOND, however,
says: the head disappeared occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief
interval. The colour of the animal was a dark brown, with yellowish
white under the throat. Something like the mane of a horse, or rather
like a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back. Though the Captain
says: it had no fins. Lieutenant DRUMMOND stated, that there was “a
backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head, “and
visible occasionally”. If this were a true back-fin, it ought to have
been constantly visible. As, however, it was only occasionally seen, we
conclude that it was nothing else but one of the animal’s foreflappers,
occasionally coming above the surface of the water. “The captain also
asserted that he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance
behind it.” This of course must have been one of the animal’s hind
flappers. Lieutenant DRUMMOND must have been mistaken as to the length
of the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calculation
evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover was rather
pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper-jaw projecting
considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in saying: “the upper
part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown colour, and
beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.”
The three figures are tolerably well drawn; in fact they are the best
of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if they were
delineated after the description above, but they were in reality “made
from a sketch taken immediately after the animal was seen.” Here, as in
foregoing reports, the figures and the text complete one another. The
head is not that of a serpent, but that of a mammal. The proportions
of length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the length of the
mouth-split, the exact place of the eye, even the flattened appearance
of forehead and nose are true mammalian characters. No whiskers or
bristles on the upper-lips, and no ears or earholes are drawn, or
mentioned. The distance, when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It
is clear that they were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are
indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or
muzzle, and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible.
In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our
present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as the
sea-serpent. I only wish to point out here that in none of the three
figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a head would
never have been described as resembling that of a snake. It is clear
that it is drawn too high, too short and not flat enough.
I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. OWEN’s
reply. It is the following: Prof. OWEN rejects the existence of the
sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more
sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours
of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea-serpents
ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from long before
Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have
never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian
collector.” It may be true that Mssrs. SARS and LOVÉN often navigated
along the coasts of Norway and yet never saw a sea-serpent. Prof.
OWEN forgets that his own countryman, Mr. MORRIES STIRLING, saw one
with his own eyes! Is this proof not decisive enough? The absence of
remains is not a proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as
there are whales with two backfins, which are _seen_ by three different
_naturalists_, yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice
of zoologists. Prof. OWEN also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers
know well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic
calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there
was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however, they
may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that it was not
before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or gigantic calamary,
was brought to Paris by the commander of the _Alecton_, _nota bene_
notwithstanding Prof. OWEN’s assertion that they did not exist, as else
the naturalists of Norway, and amongst them especially SARS and LOVÉN,
would have found them!!
Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. M’QUHAE agreed
in details with that of Lieutenant DRUMMOND, because the latter was
immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th., whilst the
letter of Captain M’QUHAE was addressed to the Admiralty on the 11th.
of October, two months afterwards and apparently written from memory.
Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ says of the “fin”
mentioned by Lieutenant DRUMMOND:
“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the
captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse”, and which the
introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in parentheses
after the word “rather” in his description) serves to correlate with
the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back”.”
I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant DRUMMOND
was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and the other fin,
“twenty feet more backward”, was one of the animal’s hind-flappers,
and I believe that I may express my conviction that Mr. ANDREW WILSON
was just as wrong in supposing this, as in his conviction that the
sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE was merely an extraordinarily developed
sea-snake! A few pages further on, viz., the writer of _Leisure Time
Studies_, quoting the report of Captain M’QUHAE says:
“The idea that the animal observed in this instance was a huge serpent,
seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention,
which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.” (!)
And on the following page:
“Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of ordinary
latitude, and allow for slight variations and inaccuracies in the
accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these
ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution of this
interesting problem.” (!!)
* * * * *
Though they don’t touch our subject directly, the following words of
Mssrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE, treating of the Dodo,
are well worth our notice; they say (_Annals and Magazine of Natural
History_ 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15?, 1848):
“In proof of the existence of the Dodo we have--unlike the assumed
evidence of the existence of some other anomalous monsters of which
we have lately heard much--every canon of cautious truthseeking
fully satisfied. With no traditional superstition or belief to give
an origin to such a story (a point of no little importance in such
an investigation), we have here fifteen or sixteen separate and
independant authorities all alluding incidentally to the Dodo, each
different in language and description, yet each of which has points of
resemblance that cannot be mistaken as referring to similar objects.
We have moreover drawings of the creature itself, made by different
hands, and at different times, and with different objects; some of
them rude and coarse to grotesqueness, other finished works of art.
Yet throughout all these there run characters which it is impossible
to mistake, and which satisfy us that the draughtsmen drew, not from
imagination, but from something real, and from individuals of one and
the same species.”
I am obliged to remark here that the proof of the existence of the
_Dodo_, quoted by them, is _not_ unlike the proof of the existence of
great sea-serpents. If they, however, had known and mentioned that a
head and a foot of the Dodo are preserved in Kopenhague, they would
have been right. This is _not_ the case with the sea-serpent. As far
as I know, there is not one _material_ proof of the existence of
sea-serpents. But it is with the sea-serpent just as with the different
accounts and pictures of the Dodo, “throughout all which run characters
which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us, that the
draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, and
from individuals of one and the same species”.
I hope that every-one who has read all the accounts I have collected
and published in this volume, and thoroughly studied the figures, will
grant that there is no question of “assumed evidences of the existence
of some anomalous monsters”.
* * * * *
=119=.--1848?--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2356, we read:
“Enormous undescribed animal apparently allied to the Enaliosauri,
seen in the Gulf of California.--Captain the Hon. George Hope states
that when in H. M. S. “Fly”, in the Gulf of California, the sea being
perfectly calm and transparent, he saw at the bottom a large marine
animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, except that
the neck was much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had
four large flappers, somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair
being larger than the posterior; the creature was distinctly visible,
and all its movements could be observed with ease; it appeared to be
pursuing its prey at the bottom of the sea; its movements were somewhat
serpentine, and an appearance of annulations, or ring-like divisions of
the body, was distinctly perceptible. Captain Hope made this relation
in company, and as a matter of conversation. When I heard it from the
gentleman to whom it was narrated, I enquired whether Captain Hope was
acquainted with those remarkable fossil animals _Ichthyosauri_ and
_Plesiosauri_, the supposed forms of which so nearly correspond with
what he describes as having seen alive, and I cannot find that he had
heard of them; the alligator being the only animal he mentioned as
bearing a partial similarity to the creature in question.”
Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of this Journal, considers this testimony “in
all respects, the most interesting natural-history-fact of the present
century” (_Zoologist_, 1849, Preface, Nov. 11).
Though I think that all reports of sea-serpents are very interesting
natural-history facts, it is indisputable that this testimony is a
very important one. If the reader for a moment brings before his mind
the animal of the _Daedalus_, about eighty feet long, with a head of
about three feet, a neck like the body of a serpent, the thickness
behind the head being somewhat smaller than that of the head itself;
at twenty feet in the rear of the head the body becoming at once
much broader and provided there with two flappers; twenty feet more
backwards again two flappers, and then a tail of about forty feet,
ending in a point. If the reader now imagines this animal to be on
the bottom of the sea, whilst he himself is placed on the deck of a
vessel, the sea perfectly calm, is it not true that such an animal
must make the impression of an alligator with a long neck, and having
instead of paws flappers like those of a sea-turtle? If moreover the
animal moved in vertical undulations, is it not very well conceivable
and clear that, by the light and shadow falling on the animal from
above, the curves of the animal’s back (called _bunches_ when it swims
on the surface) must be taken as distinctly perceptible annulations or
ring-like divisions of the body? I think that there can be no question
but this animal was a sea-serpent. The reader will remember that
PONTOPPIDAN relates an account of a very young sea-serpent, eighteen
feet in length, entangled in a fisherman’s net, “a worm with four paws
on the belly”, and that the learned Bishop himself made the comparison:
“thus it resembled a crocodile”!
* * * * *
=120=.--1848, December 31.--(_Illustrated London News_ of 1849, April
14.)
“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”
“H. M. S. _Plumper_, Plymouth Harbour, April 10, 1849.”
“Not having seen a sketch of the extraordinary creature, we passed
between England and Lisbon, and being requested by several gentlemen to
send you the rough one I made at the time, I shall feel much obliged by
your giving it publicity in your instructive and amusing columns.”
“On the morning of the 31th. December, 1848, in lat. 41° 13′ N., and
long 12° 31′ W., being nearly due West of Oporto, I saw a long black
creature with a sharp head, moving slowly, I should think about two
knots, through the water, in a north westerly direction, there being
a fresh breeze at the time, and some sea on. I could not ascertain
its exact length, but its back was about twenty feet if not more above
water; and its head, as near as I could judge, from six to eight. I had
not time to make a closer observation, as the ship was going six knots
through the water, her head E. half S., and wind S. S. E. The creature
moved across our wake towards a merchant barque on our lee-quarter,
and on the port tack. I was in hopes she would have seen it also. The
officers and men who saw it, and who have served in parts of the world
adjacent to whale and seal fisheries, and have seen them in the water,
declare they have neither seen nor heard of any creature bearing the
slightest resemblance to the one we saw. There was something on its
back that appeared like a mane, and, as it moved through the water,
kept washing about, but before I could examine it more closely, it was
too far astern.--I remain, yours very truly
A Naval Officer.”
Evidently the Naval Officer did not send the description of the
appearance and the figure, before he was repeatedly requested by
several gentlemen to do so. These gentlemen would not have been so
pressing, if an appearance like that of the _Daedalus_ had not happened
very recently. How many written testimonies of the existence of
sea-serpents will not be found in log books and private journals of
navigators!
[Illustration: Fig. 31.--The sea-serpent as seen by an officer of H. M.
S. _Plumper_.]
* * * * *
=121=.--1849, February 18.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849 we read, p. 2459:
“Captain Adams, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, which arrived at
Jacksonville, Florida, on the 1^{st} of April, from New York, had sight
of a monster in many respects resembling the sea-monsters described
by many others. Captain Adams states that on the morning of Sunday,
the 18th. of February, about nine o’clock, when off the south point of
Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s (Florida)
bar, the attention of himself, crew and passengers, was suddenly
rivetted upon an immense sea monster, which he took to be a serpent.
It lifted its head, which was that of a snake, several times out of
the water, seemingly to take a survey to the vessel, and at such times
displayed the largest portion of its body, and a pair of frightful fins
or claws, several feet in length. His tail was not seen at any time;
but, judging from the dimensions of the body, the captain supposes the
leviathan to be about 90 feet in length. Its neck tapered small from
the head to the body and it appeared to measure about seven feet across
the broadest part of the back. The colour was that of a dirty brown.
When first seen it was moving towards the mouth of the St. John’s. The
monster moved from the side of the vessel, and placed itself athwart
its track, in front of her bows; but Captain Adams, not feeling partial
to an encounter with his snakeship, ordered the vessel to be kept off.
A boy on the deck, not knowing his antagonist, had seized a harpoon,
and was in the act of striking, when he was prevented by the vessel’s
moving off”--“_Boston Atlas_”.
At a glance we recognize the sea-serpent, as it appeared to HANS EGEDE.
“The largest portion of its body” was seen, “and a pair of frightful
fins or claws, several feet in length”. The reader may compare the fig.
19 in our report n^o. 5.--
* * * * *
=122=.--1849, May 30.--(_Illustrated London News_, 1850, January, 19.--)
“The following is an extract from the private log of Captain Edwards
of the _Alpha_.--“Wednesday, May 30, P. M., strong breezes at N. N.
W., and a sharp sea on; about 1.15 I felt a strange shaking of the
ship. Mr. Thomson, my chief officer; Mr. George Park, civil engineer,
cabin passenger on board, ran on deck as well as myself, when we beheld
immediately under our lee quarter a monster of huge dimensions. It had
no fins or broad tail, as whales have. It was of a light fawn colour,
with large brown spots behind the shoulders; the head pointed like
that of a porpoise. It had large glossy eyes; the shoulder was much
darker than the rest of the body, which was the thickest part of it,
(say twenty feet in diameter), from thence diminishing to the tail, to
about the size of our mainyard in the slings (say twenty-four inches
diameter). He took a turn round, and we afterwards saw him astern,
and he went away in a S. E. by S. direction, at about thirty miles an
hour.”--_Melbourne Daily News_, July, 1.--(“A correspondent, who sends
us the above, adds that he believes this to be the first time the
sea-serpent is stated to have been seen so far south.”)
Evidently the animal remained under water for a long time, and struck
the vessel in coming to the surface. Seen from very near the colour
evidently did not seem dark brown, but of a lighter hue. The absence
of visible fins, the pointed tail, the brown spotted skin (no scales
are mentioned, so it must have been smooth), the pointed head, the
appearance of shoulders, the large eyes, its astonishing rapidity in
swimming, all these statements characterize the sea-serpent. Alarmed at
its having struck the vessel, off it went! Evidently Captain EDWARDS
did not see the tip of the tail, which is rather pointed; he described,
it is clear, what he took for the end of it, the extreme end being
under water. No latitude is given in this report, but we may conclude
that the appearance took place more towards the south than Melbourne is
situated. This town is situated at about 38° S. lat., so the appearance
may have taken place between 40° and 45° S. lat., and of course between
110° and 145° W. longitude, in the common track of vessels.
* * * * *
=123=.--1849, September 15.--(_Illustrated London News_ for 1850,
January 12).--Extract from a letter, dated “H. M. S. _Cleopatra_,
Singapore, Oct. 26, 1849”, from an officer of that ship:--“Sept. 15.
This evening they reported the _Sea-Serpent_: several of the men, as
well as the officer of the forecastle, saw the monster; and they all
ran aft to see it from the stern: they say it was about _thirty feet
long_. After the report, all hands came to deck; but the evening was
fast drawing to a close, and the ship going at eight knots, soon left
the monster astern, going through the water very quickly to the N.
W.”--(_From a Correspondent._)
Most probably this appearance took place in the Indian Ocean between
latitude 10 and 20 S. and longitude 50 and 70 E.
If one of the gentlemen of the _Cleopatra_ is still in the land of
the living, he will greatly oblige me by sending me some more details
of the external appearance of the animal, and of the place where the
animal was seen.
* * * * *
“The Rev. Alfred Charles Smith, M. A., an excellent naturalist, who
passed the three summer months of 1850 in Norway, and who published”
his _Notes on Observations in Natural History during a Tour in Norway_
“in the _Zoologist_ for that and the following year, thus alludes to
his own inquiries, which, if they add nothing to the amount of fact
accumulated, add weight to the testimonies already adduced”. (GOSSE,
_Romance of Natural History_, 13th. Ed., Vol. I., p. 282.)
“Being in the country of the renowned Bishop Pontoppidan, and in the
fjords which are generally claimed as the home, or, at any rate, as one
of the habitations of the sea-serpent, whose existence seems yet to be
a disputed point in England, I lost no opportunity of making inquiries
of all I could see, as to the general belief in the country regarding
the animal in question; but all, with one single exception--naval
officers, sailors, boatmen, and fishermen--concurred in affirming most
positively that such an animal did exist, and had been repeatedly seen
off their coasts and fjords, though I was never fortunate enough to
meet a man who could boast of having seen him with his own eyes. All,
however, agreed in unhesitating belief as to his existence and frequent
appearance; and all seemed to marvel very much at the scepticism of the
English, for refusing credence to what to the minds of the Norwegians
seemed so incontrovertible. The single exception to which I have
alluded, was a Norwegian officer, who ridiculed what he called the
credulity or gullibility of his countrymen; though I am bound to add
my belief, that he did this, not from any decided opinion of his own,
but to make a show of superior shrewdness in the eyes of an Englishman,
who, he at once concluded, must undoubtedly disbelieve the existence
of the marine monster. That Englishman, however, certainly partakes of
the credulity of the Northmen, and cannot withhold his belief in the
existence of some huge inhabitant of those northern seas, when, to his
mind, the fact of his existence has been so clearly proved by numerous
eye-witnesses, many of whom were too intelligent to be deceived, and
too honest to be doubted.”
* * * * *
The reader will remember the splendid hoax of the _New York Tribune_
(1852); now Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP in his _Tagsberichte über die
Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde_, no 486, already doubted this
report. After some time (n^o. 491) he communicated to his readers that
according to the _Philadelphia Bulletin_, the whole was a hoax, but to
show them how firm a believer Mr. FRORIEP, nevertheless, remained, he
adds:
“This, however, will not prevent us from bestowing further attention on
the subject of the Sea-Serpent.”
* * * * *
=124=.--1850?--The following evidence may be called one of the more
interesting which tell about the habits of the sea-serpent. In the
_Zoologist_ of 1862, p. 7850, we read:
“Off Madeira, on board R. M. S. _Thames_. Made acquaintance with a
Captain Christmas, of the Danish Navy, a proprietor in Santa Cruz, and
holding some office about the Danish Court. He told me he once saw a
sea-serpent between Iceland and the Faroe Islands. He was lying in
to a gale of wind, in a frigate of which he had the command, when an
immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship, as if pursued, and lo
and behold a creature with a neck moving like that of a swan, about the
thickness of a man’s waist, with a head like a horse, raised itself
slowly and gracefully from the deep, and seeing the ship it immediately
disappeared again, head foremost, like a duck diving. He saw it only
for a few seconds; the part above water seemed about eighteen feet in
length. He is a singularly intelligent man, and by no means one to
allow his imagination to run away with him.--_Stephen Cave, M. P. for
Shoreham; 35, Wilson Place, April 29, 1861, in a letter to Mr. Gosse._”
It is a very remarkable fact that we meet here the sea-serpent
between Iceland and the Far-Oer, a place situated between the two
most frequented parts of the North Atlantic, i. e. the coasts of
Norway and the coasts of the United States. But it is not the first
time; the readers will remember the report of HANS EGEDE (n^o. 5)
and that of Capt. BROWN (n^o. 56). Remarkable, too, is the fact that
the sea-serpent now made its appearance in a gale of wind. Is this
not a matter of surprise as everywhere else is stated that it appears
only in fine weather? Is it not reasonable therefore, to conclude
that the animal feels comfortable in fine weather, but that, being an
air-breathing animal it must come to the surface from time to time
and may consequently be seen at times when there is wind? There is
the statement of Captain M’QUHAE, who speaks of a “breeze” and here
we meet with “a gale of wind”. It is also worthy of our notice that
Capt. CRISTMAS mentions the immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the
ship, as if pursued, and a sea-serpent making its appearance. I need
not remind my readers of the same observation of some gentlemen near
Nova Scotia (n^o. 97). Later on we shall have the report in which a
sea-serpent gripped “a whale” (of the smaller kind) in its fin, and we
have already learned that a sea-serpent (n^o. 54) was engaged with “a
whale” (of the smaller kind).
Not less important is the description of the long neck, moving like
that of a swan, and disappearing head foremost like a duck diving.
Nearly exactly the same thing was observed in 1879, April 5.
The thickness of the neck was that of a man’s waist, the part above
the water measured eighteen feet in length, and yet the foreflappers
remained hidden under water. The head is described as resembling that
of a horse, which may be the result of the animal bearing a mane, and
when first rising out of the water, holding its head in a nearly right
angle with the neck. Moreover the nostrils might have been widely
opened. The animal of Capt. M’QUHAE had also a neck of one foot and a
third in diameter; head and neck had a length of about twenty feet, for
at about twenty feet in the rear of the head was seen the animal’s fore
flapper. So we may conclude that these two individuals were of the same
or nearly of the same length.
* * * * *
=125=.--1853?--Dr. TRAILL says in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society
at Edinburgh_, n^o. 44, May, 1854, that it “is said to have been seen
lately in some of their fjords.”
* * * * *
=126=.--1854, September 4.--(_Illustrated London News_, for 1855,
February 17.--)
“It is reported by the British Brig _Albeona_, arrived at Liverpool,
that on the 4th. of September last, about five in the afternoon, in
lat. 38 S., long 13 E., while the ship was under a light wind and in
smooth water, a sea-monster of great size and singular appearance was
descried. Attention was first directed to it by the broken action
of the water, which otherwise was smooth all around. The animal was
discovered protruding its head above water to the length of about 30
feet, at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizon. His head was about 12
feet long and was marked by a white stripe or streak down each side.
At about six feet from the termination of the streaks, which were
presumed to be its jaws, there was a protuberance on its back like a
small water-cask. The creature kept its mouth shut, but its eyes were
plainly visible. At the point of contact with the water the body seemed
about as much as the ship’s long-boat round. The general colour of the
body was black, but under the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like
a pouch, of a lighter colour than the rest of the animal. While under
observation he dipped under water three times, remaining submerged
about a minute each time. From the broken action of the water at
different points, it seemed as if protuberances, similar to that on the
back existed on various parts of the body. From the best conjecture
that could be made, it was computed at 180 feet in length over all.”
The length of the head may be somewhat exaggerated, the largest
dimensions admissible are 6 feet in breadth and about 8 feet in length,
as we shall afterwards observe from one of the most recent reports. It
is a remarkable fact that here mention is made of a white stripe or
streak down on each side of the head, presumed to be its jaws. In the
deposition of Captain FINNEY (n^o. 34) too, we read “It had a white
stripe extending the whole length of the head just above the water,
there where the underjaw must have been”. And in the figures of the
animal seen by the gentlemen of the _Daedalus_ (fig. 28, 29, 30) the
underjaw is drawn white, and described whitish brown or yellowish
white. The protuberance on its back (read on the back of its neck)
was a fold in the animal’s skin, as may be seen in the sea-lions in
our Zoological Gardens, when they contract their long necks, and then
the other “protuberances, similar to that on the back” were of the
same character. This character of having bunches occasionally, is
well known to us. Or all these protuberances were merely vertical
undulations.
Attention was first paid to it by the broken action of the water,
which otherwise was smooth all around. So the animal first swam for a
moment just below the surface, a habit which we have often observed in
foregoing reports. The general colour of the body was black, but under
the jaw was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch, of a lighter colour
than the rest of the animal. As to the description of the colour of
the animal’s throat, it agreed with foregoing statements. As to the
loose skin, and the pouch, this is also only explicable by the animal’s
having a skin just like sea-lions. It is so loose and folds so easily,
that if the head is bent a little downward, or if the neck is somewhat
contracted, several folds are seen, which led Captain BROWN (n^o. 56)
to mention “eight gills under the neck”. He had better have written
“gill-splits”, meaning the furrows between the folds.--The length of
180 feet may be somewhat exaggerated, though we will afterwards prove
that individuals of still greater length must exist.
* * * * *
=127=.--1855, August?--In the letter from Capt. G. H. HARRINGTON to
Rear-Admiral W. A. B. HAMILTON, dated Liverpool, February 8, 1858,
which letter will be inserted afterwards, we read:
“I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, shipowners of this place,
that one of their captains reported a similar thing about two years
ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took no further notice of
it, supposing that he might have been deceived.”
I am convinced that the captain really saw a sea-serpent. The reader
will, I hope, be convinced of it himself, after having read Captain
HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131).
* * * * *
=128=.--1856, March 30.--_(Illustrated London News_ of the 3d. of May,
1856).
“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”
“_Imogen_, Channel, 15th. April, 1856.”
“Sir.--We beg to hand you the enclosed Sketch of a Sea-Serpent we had
the good fortune to sight on the 30th. of March last.”
[Illustration: Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.--The sea-serpent as seen by
Capt. GUY of the _Imogen_.