OWEN BAKER.

“Severally declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid, the tenth

day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, before T.

S. Raffles, J. P. for Liverpool.”

In _Nature_ of February 10th., 1881, we read that “Captain Drevar has

circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and of

the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck out of

the water.”

Evidently this circular was a letter addressed by Captain DREVAR, when

in Chittagong (Bengal), to the Editor of the _Calcutta Englishman_, in

January, 1876. I have had no opportunity to consult this paper, but I

have found an extract from it in the _Graphic_ of January 27, 1877, and

a partial translation of it in the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of Febr. 3,

1877. What I have found in the _Graphic_ runs as follows:

[Illustration: Fig. 42.--Another representation of the so-called “Fight

between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale”.]

“Captain GEORGE DREVAR, master of the barque _Pauline_, has furnished

us a sketch of the Sea-Serpent (from which the annexed engraving

is taken), which he encountered off the coast of South America.

The occurrence took place on the 8th. July, 1875, at eleven A. M.,

the _Pauline_ being at that time off Cape San Roque, lat. 5° 13′

N., long 35° W., the north-east coast of Brazil being twenty miles

distant. Captain Drevar says:--The weather fine and clear, wind and

sea-moderate. Observed some black spots on the water, and a whitish

pillar, about thirty feet high above them. At the first glace I took

all to be breakers as the sea was splashing up fountain-like about

them, and the pillar a pinnacle rock, bleached with the sun; but the

pillar fell with a splash, and a similar one rose. They rose and fell

alternately in quick succession, and good glasses showed me it was a

monstrous sea-serpent coiled twice round a large sperm-whale. The head

and tail parts, each about thirty feet long were acting as levers,

twisting itself and victim round with great velocity. They sank out of

sight about every two minutes, coming to the surface still revolving;

and the struggles of the whale and two other whales, that were near,

frantic with excitement, made the sea in their vicinity like a boiling

cauldron; and a loud and confused noise was distinctly heard. This

strange occurrence last some fifteen minutes, and finished with the

tail portion of the whale being elevated straight in the air, then

waving backwards and forwards, and lashing the water furiously in the

last death struggle, when the body disappeared from our view, going

down head foremost to the bottom, where no doubt it was gorged at the

serpent’s leisure; and that monster of monsters may have been many

months in a state of coma, digesting the huge mouthful. Then two of

the largest sperm-whales that I have ever seen moved slowly thence

towards the vessel, their bodies more than usually elevated out of

water, and not spouting or making the least noise, but seeming quite

paralized with fear; indeed, a cold shiver went through my own frame

on beholding the last agonizing struggle of the poor whale that had

seemed as helpless in the coils of the vicious monster as a small bird

in the talons of a hawk. Allowing for two coils round the whale, I

think the serpent was about 160 or 170 feet long, and 7 or 8 feet in

girth. It was in colour much like a conger-eel; and the head, from the

mouth being always open, appeared the largest part of its body. I wrote

thus far, little thinking I would ever see the serpent again, but at

seven A. M., July 13, in the same latitude, and some eighty miles east

of San Roque I was astonished to see the same or a similar monster. It

was throwing its head and about 40 feet of its body in a horizontal

position out of water as it passed onwards by the stern of our vessel.”

[Illustration: Fig. 43.--The sperm-whale going down head foremost to

the bottom.--]

“This narrative is extracted from a letter addressed from Chittagong

to the editor of the _Calcutta Englishman_ in January 1876. It seems

that Captain Drevar’s friends advised him to say nothing about this

strange spectacle. “My relatives wrote saying that they would have seen

a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it, and a lady also wrote

that she pitied any one that was related to any one who had seen the

sea-serpent.” On the 10th. of this month Captain Drevar and four of the

crew attended before Mr. Raffles, the magistrate at Liverpool, and made

a solemn declaration in support of the foregoing narrative.”

The two figures, 42 and 43, are facsimiles of those accompanying the

account in the _Graphic_.

I will try to translate again into English, what the _Illustrirte

Zeitung_ has published about this curious case, taken for granted that

the German translation was correct, and laying all responsibility on

the German writer.

“The Barque _Pauline_ was on July 8th, 1875, about twenty miles distant

from the north-eastern coast of Brazil, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long.

35° W., near Cape San Roque. At 11 o’clock a. m., the weather fine

and clear”....... etc., word for word as in the _Graphic_ up to the

passage....... “head foremost to the bottom, where no doubt it was

gorged at the serpent’s leisure”.

“As the serpent was twice wound round the body of the whale, Captain

Drevar estimated its length to be 160 or 170 feet; it was about seven

or eight in girth. The mouth was always open; the head was very large.”

“On the 13th. of July at 7 o’clock a. m. the barque was still in the

same latitude, but about eighty miles from San Roque; then the same or

a similar monster raised out of the water. Its head and about forty

feet of its body were thrown horizontally out of the water and passed

our stern.”

“As I was still reflecting on the cause, why this strange guest so

often paid us a visit, and concluded that it was the white stripe of

two feet breadth, which went round our ship above the copper work and

which the serpent probably thought to be one of its colleagues, the cry

of “There he is again” roused me. At a short distance from the ship I

really saw the Leviathan, balancing about sixty feet high in the air,

looking angrily at our vessel. As I was not sure, whether it was only

looking at the white stripe on the ship’s hull, probably thinking to

see one of its colleagues, or whether it was preparing to attack the

vessel, we kept ready all our axes, to give it a warm reception. But

the animal dived and disappeared.”

The German translater is convinced that the story contains truth, but

he suggests that the whale was playing with a large tree or with a

broken mast, “for it is known that whales like to gambol with violent

motions”. The author further presents to his readers a reduced copy of

the sketch of the Rev. Penny, (our fig. 41).--

Mr. LEE, who usually explains every sea-serpent after each report

quoted by him, says, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, p. 90, the

following about these reports.

“It is impossible to doubt for a moment the genuineness of the

statement made by Captain Drevar and his crew, or their honest desire

to describe faithfully that which they believed they had seen; but the

height to which the snake is said to have upreared itself is evidently

greatly exaggerated; for it is impossible that any serpent could

“elevate its body some sixty feet perpendicularly in the air”--nearly

one third of the height of the Monument of the Great Fire of London. I

have no desire to force this narrative of the master and crew of the

_Pauline_ into conformity with any preconceived idea. They may have

seen a veritable sea-serpent; or they may have witnessed the amours of

two whales, and have seen the great creatures rolling over and over

that they might breathe alternately by the blow-hole of each coming

to the surface of the water; or the supposed coils of the snake may

have been the arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge

cetacean. The other two appearances--1st., the animal “seen shooting

itself along the surface with head and neck raised”, and 2nd., the

elevation of the body to a considerable height, as in Egede’s sea

monster, would certainly accord with this last hypothesis; but taking

the statement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation”.

It is remarkable that Mr. LEE who generally explains sea-serpents

by calamaries, cannot give an explanation of _this_ sea-serpent,

with which he himself is satisfied. “They may have seen a veritable

sea-serpent”. This phrase is very surprising, for Mr. LEE has not

yet explained what _is_ a veritable sea-serpent. Or did he mean a

veritable sea-snake? This is improbable, for he knows very well that

the largest snake which frequents the sea, the _Eunectes murina_,

does not measure above 25 feet, so that it is not able to encircle a

spermwhale, whose circumference is about forty feet. “Or they may have

witnessed the amours of two whales, and have seen the great creatures

rolling over and over that they might breathe alternately by the

blow-hole of each coming to the surface of the water”. This phrase,

however, does not give any explanation of the long neck, the tail,

the mouth being constantly open, the thick coils, which were coloured

longitudinally, partly black, partly white, so that the captain spoke

of a black back and a white belly!” “Or the supposed coils of the snake

may have been the arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the

huge cetacean.” This too is impossible, for the circumference of the

serpent was estimated at seven or eight feet, and no arm of a calamary

has a greater circumference than about sixteen inches, even that of the

largest known specimens, which have a total length of eighty feet! For

a moment I will leave Mr. LEE in his supposition that the animal, seen

on the 13th. of July, was a swimming calamary or a similar individual

standing upright with its tail in the air, and pass to his last phrase:

“but, taking the statement as it stands, it must be left for further

elucidation”. This, now, I will try to do. But first I beg the reader

to direct his attention to the sperm-whales.

The sperm-whales may attain a length of 60 to 70 feet, with a

circumference of 40 feet at the thickest part. The females are

smaller, growing from 30 to 40 feet. It is reported that sometimes,

though very seldom, a male measures 90 feet. The head occupies the

third part of the body-length, in mass, however, it is larger, for it

is quadrangular in shape and in front just as thick and high as behind,

whilst the bulky body tapers to the tail. The mouth lies wholly on the

under side of the head. It is a terrible cavity when opened and may

be up to fourteen feet in depth. The upper-jaw is toothless, but the

under-jaw has from forty to fifty four formidable teeth, comparatively

as sharp as the canines of a dog.

The sperm-whales live in troops, numbering from a very few to some

hundreds, and containing many females and young ones, under the command

of some old males. The young males remain in this family till they

are strong enough to command their own family. Some old males wander

about solitary, wild and angry. To become the sole proprietor of some

females, these males fight each other vehemently, and indescribably

grand is the sight of two troops meeting! The wild and warlike nature

and the untamable muscular strength of the sperm-whale makes its

presence even dangerous. The greatest hatred exists between them and

the whale-bone-whales, or the fin-fishes, or rorquals, and when a shoal

of sperm-whales meets with a shoal of whale-bone-whales, the latter

are immediately attacked with the greatest fury and cruelty. The fight

between two such squadrons is terrible, but grand, and commonly ends in

the flight of the whale-bone-whales, pursued by the sperm-whales, not,

however, without leaving many dead and terribly wounded companions,

on which the frightful effects are visible of the bites of the

sperm-whales, animals that might be called “mouth and teeth”.

Knowing the wild and angry nature of the warlike and pitiless

sperm-whale, and the rather harmless character of the sea-serpent,

we cannot believe that a sea-serpent has ever or will ever attack

such a formidable antagonist. Every one will rather believe that a

sperm-whale, when meeting with a sea-serpent, would suddenly attack

it. Moreover, if the sea-serpent was the attacker, it would not have

had “its mouth always open”,--an unfailable sign of great pain--but

would have bitten repeatedly the whale! And so I firmly believe that

one of the three spermwhales, had seized with its colossal mouth a

sea-serpent by the trunk. The poor defenseless sea-serpent with its

enormous flexible body wound round the upper jaw and forepart of the

quadrangular head of the sperm-whale. We know that the sea-serpent

has a rather dorso-ventral flexibility, for it can swim in vertical

undulations, but we know too that its lateral flexibility is

astonishing. I refer to the American reports from 1817 to 1819, wherein

the animal in turning bent its body in the form of a staple, so that

its head nearly touched its tail, and to the figures of Dr. BICCARD

(fig. 37, 38.).

The sea-serpent, seized by the sperm-whale by the trunk, did not bend

itself dorsally round the spermwhale’s head, for if this had been the

case, the captain would have seen the underpart of the animal and

described its colour as being white. It did not bend itself ventrally,

for if this had happened, the colour would have been described as dark,

or black. On the contrary the coils are described as longitudinally

divided into two sections white and black. Consequently the sea-serpent

had bent itself laterally. Captain DREVAR was right in his statement

that the colour of the belly (under part) was white, and that the back

(upper part) of the animal was black.

The sea-serpent in its violent pain raised its long neck high in

the air and extended its jaws; it is even probable that it uttered

a roaring sound or shriek, this is not mentioned; it may have been

drowned by the dreadful noise caused by the fight of these two huge

monsters, for we may suppose that the sea-serpent was not destitute

of muscular strength, and must have been a formidable antagonist.

Though it is not mentioned, I am convinced that the “two turns” of the

sea-serpent were not always wound closely round the whale, but from

time to time were loosened to be tightened again a moment afterwards.

Nor do I set great value on the repeated assertion that there were

_two_ turns; it is impossible that this has always been seen clearly

through such a “boiling of the water like a cauldron”. The dimensions

of the head and tail part being each about thirty feet beyond the coils

are certainly not exaggerated, as is the circumference or girth “about

eight or nine feet”. The sea-serpent in its agony evidently paddled

with its formidable flappers, which caused the water to be thrown like

a fountain into the air. They therefore cannot have been visible with

the glasses. The rolling over and over is, in my opinion, very natural

in animals of such dimension, fighting in the water, and cannot be a

result of the serpent “using its extremities as levers”. And so they

were rolling for about fifteen(?) minutes and at last the spermwhale

(and not the sea-serpent) dragged its victim down to the depths, head

foremost. It is a habit of spermwhales, which is to be ascribed to

their attachment to members of their family and to their warlike

character and hatred of their enemies, to help each other in danger,

and so the captain’s statement is quite correct: “the two others

attempted to release their companion” and after the disappearance of

the combatants “swam away, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror”;

here we may safely read “fury”, probably they followed on the surface

their companion which was beneath it, perceptible to them, but

invisible to the spectators of the _Pauline_.

It is, however, more probable that the sea-serpent, feeling itself

free for a moment, suddenly escaped, dived and was followed by the

sperm-whale.

It is now the right moment to say some words about the figures. I will

be short, only observing that they are not worth our attention. The

sketches were evidently drawn in October and December, consequently

more than three and five months after the encounter. It is impossible

that they can give an exact representation.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is of another opinion

than I, as to the fight; for he declares: “..... to my mind, the only

feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the _Pauline_ must

be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic

snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently

point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of

large size, such as the boas and pythons”. The reader will understand

that I do not wish to contest Mr. WILSON’S opinion.

* * * * *

=145=.--1875, July 13.--Now we come to the second statement of the same

report, viz. the encounter with the animal on the 13th. of July.

On that day another or the same individual was seen again shooting

itself along the surface horizontally, forty feet of its body being

out of the water at a time. Consequently the animal swam with its

body in a straight line, and not with vertical undulations. Again on

the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite

perpendicular some sixty feet in the air, and evidently taking a survey

towards the vessel. This case is nearly the same as that which EGEDE

witnessed in 1734 near Gothaab. As it is often reported that whales

and sperm-whales, when coming from the depths, do so with such an

astonishing force and rapidity that they leap clear out of the water,

I am convinced that the sea-serpent sometimes elevates its fore part to

a considerable height as was seen by EGEDE (n^o 5), Captain ADAMS (n^o

121) and Captain DREVAR. If the height of the sea-serpent rising in the

air was really sixty feet, Captain DREVAR must have seen the animal’s

fore-flappers, though he did not mention them. Else I think that he

exaggerated, that the height did not surpass forty feet and that the

flappers remained under water. See also N^o 31.--

* * * * *

=146=.--1876, September 11.--In the number of the 15th. of January,

1877, of the _Echo_ appeared an article by Mr. R. A. PROCTOR entitled

“Strange Sea-Monsters”, wherein he quotes the following report. I have

not been able to consult the _Echo_, but I have found it cited in Mr.

WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_. Here no date, except that of September

11th., is given, but as the report appeared in the January number

of 1877 of the _Echo_, I conclude that the appearance took place in

September of 1876.

“Soon after the British steamship _Nestor_ anchored at Shanghai, last

October, John K. Webster, the captain, and James Anderson, the ship’s

surgeon, appeared before Mr. Donald Spence, Acting Law Secretary in the

British Supreme Court, and made affidavit to the following effect:

“On September 11, at 10.30 a. m., fifteen miles north-west of North

Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straights, the weather being fine

and the sea smooth, the captain saw an object which had been pointed

out by the third officer as “a shoal!” Surprised at finding a shoal

in such a well-known track, I watched the object, and found that it

was in motion, keeping up the same speed with the ship, and retaining

about the same distance as first seen. The shape of the creature I

would compare to that of a gigantic frog. The head, of a pale yellowish

colour, was about twenty feet in length, and six feet of the crown were

above the water. I tried in vain to make out the eyes and mouth; the

mouth may, however, have been below water. The head was immediately

connected with the body, without any indication of a neck. The body was

about forty-five or fifty feet long, and of an oval shape, perfectly

smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the spine. The

back rose some five feet above the surface. An immense tail, fully

one hundred and fifty feet in length, rose a few inches above the

water. This tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to

its extremity; it seemed cylindrical, with a very slight taper, and

I estimate its diameter at four feet. The body and tail were marked

with alternate bands of stripes, black and pale yellow in colour. The

stripes were distinct to the very extremity of the tail. I cannot say

whether the tail terminated in a fin or not. The creature possessed no

fins or paddles so far as we could perceive. I cannot say if it had

legs. It appeared to progress by means of an undulatory motion of the

tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down).

“Mr. Anderson, the surgeon, confirmed the captain’s account in all

essential respects. He regarded the creature as an enormous marine

salamander. “It was apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby)

substance. Though keeping up with us, at the rate of nearly ten knots

an hour, its movements seemed lethargic. I saw no legs or fins, and

am certain that the creature did not blow or spout in the manner of

a whale. I should not compare it for a moment to a snake. The only

creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe.””

As the captain asserts that the animal kept up the same speed as the

ship, and Mr. ANDERSON that “though keeping up with us, at the rate

of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic”, we must

conclude that the animal moved by paddling with its flappers, and that

with this simple mechanism it is able to propel itself at a rate of ten

knots an hour, steadily and uniformly. The tail of the animal, which

trailed inactively behind the trunk, must of course have been brought

in motion by the action of the water, so that it is easy to understand

that the captain thought that “it appeared to progress by means of an

undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and

down)”. It is also very natural that the captain declared that “the

creature possessed no fins or paddles as far as we could perceive. I

cannot say if it had legs”, and that the surgeon ANDERSON confirmed it:

“I saw no fins”; the flappers of the animal being entirely hidden under

water.--The captain says: “The shape of the creature I would compare to

that of a gigantic frog”. According to his description, however, the

shape might have been better compared with that of a gigantic newt.

This is done by Mr. ANDERSON, as we have seen above, who says at the

end of his statement, “the only creatures it could be compared with

are the newt or frog tribe”; he “should not compare it for a moment

to a snake”. This is one of the few reports of the animal having been

observed swimming in full length on the surface of the water. This I

think very comprehensible. Generally the animal is swimming with the

head and a part of the neck raised some feet out of the water, and in

this case the trunk and the tail must carry their weight, so that the

trunk will be visible only a few inches above the water, and the tail

hidden for a greater part under it. But as soon as the animal drops

its neck and head so that only the upper part of both remain above

the surface, their weight is carried by the water itself, and body

and tail will become more visible, lying almost _à fleur d’eau_ (to

use Captain M’QUHAE’S term). I firmly believe that this is also one

of the few occasions that the animal swam with its neck contracted.

In this situation it is very difficult to decide whether the animal

has a neck or not, and so the captain’s assertion “the head was

immediately connected with the body, without any indication of a neck”

is very conceivable. From the hind part of the head the contracted

neck gradually grows thicker towards the shoulders, where the animal

seems to have its largest diameter, and from here it tapers towards the

hind flappers, so that seen from the ship, both neck and body, being

visible only a few feet above the surface, must have given rise to the

description of the captain “the body was of an oval shape”. Again the

position was very favourable to observe the exact place where the tail

begins, and that the animal has there its pelvis and hind flappers, so

that, being there broader than at the tail-root, the captain observed

“this tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to its

extremity”. The colour of the head being described as a pale yellowish

one, and that of the body and the tail alternately black and pale

yellow, I conclude that the animal having swum for some time in this

manner, had been partly dried up in the sun, while “catspaws” washing

over it again coloured it black here and there. As to its length I am

inclined to believe that Mr. Webster is mistaken. I cannot admit that

“the head was twenty feet, and six feet of the crown were above the

water”, nor can I set much value upon his assertion that the tail was

“fully one hundred and fifty feet in length”. I willingly admit that

the head measured eight or nine feet, and the tail about one hundred

feet. As the animal swam just at the surface it is clear to me that no

mouth was visible, and I think that even the nose tip will only have

been a few inches above the water. As no eyes were seen, the distance

must have been rather great; but this is not mentioned. The body was

perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the

spine. Probably this was the mane, not quite discernable on account

of the distance. The tail is described as cylindrical, tapering to

its end, and estimated at four feet in diameter (at its junction,

evidently).--It is clear that the extreme end of the tail was under

water, for Mr. WEBSTER “cannot say whether the tail terminated in a

fin or not”. As to the supposition of Mr. ANDERSON that the animal was

“apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance”, I cannot

attach much importance to this, as it is impossible to decide this of

an animal swimming at some distance, even of a calamary. The body was

smooth, and that’s all. That the creature did not blow or spout like a

whale, is very natural, as there was evidently no reason for doing so,

the nose being constantly above the surface, and the animal swimming

without diving from time to time. A whale, sleeping on the surface,

does not spout either, as in that case the spout-holes are above the

surface, and the breathing is regular and without puffing. So I think I

have shown that all the parts of the statement are correct, except the

estimated length.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON relying upon the statement of Mr. ANDERSON, adds in a

note:

“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature

mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of

swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the

details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous

arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards,

propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel”.”

My objections against this supposition are first, that, as I have

already stated above, it is impossible to decide whether an animal

is gelatinous or flabby, until we have touched and handled it, and

secondly, that the manner of swimming of a calamary is not so as Mr.

WILSON believes; for the enormous arms of such a creature are not

trailing behind the body, when it is swimming backwards, but are coiled

up and retracted into two peculiar arm pockets; and thirdly, that the

colour of a calamary does not correspond with the colour stated in

the report, but is a very light grey one, mixed with red or crimson,

intermixed with purple.

* * * * *

In the number of February 3d, 1877 of the _Illustrirte Zeitung_, an

article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange” appeared, written

by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain DREVAR, which

appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January of that

year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superficially treats

of several already known accounts and reports of sea-serpents viz:

our n^{os}. 144, 145, and 5, the tales of PONTOPPIDAN, the animal of

Stronsa (p. 61-88), the appearances quoted by the Boston Linnaean

Society (1817), our n^o. 118, the hoax of the _Daphne_ (1848, Oct. 21),

our n^{os}. 129 and 130, the cheat of Dr. KOCH (1845), and the true

sea-snakes (_Hydrophidae_). In two of his assertions this anonymous

author is incorrect, viz. It was not Captain M’QUHAE who asserted that

the animal’s mouth was large enough to admit of a tall man standing

upright in it, but an anonymous contributor to the _Times_; Mr.

HENDERSON was master of the ship _Mary Ann_, and not of the _Daphne_;

the master of this ship was called TRELAWNEY. I consider these four

names as Active (see my Chapter on hoaxes p. 34.)

* * * * *

=147=.--1877, May 21.--In Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we

read in a note (p. 111):

“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas is

afforded by the report of the master of the barque _Georgina_ from

Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September 4, 1877) put

into Falmouth for orders on the 1st. September. On May 21, 1877, in

latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53′ E., a large serpent about forty or

fifty feet long, grey and yellow in colour, and ten or eleven inches

thick, was seen by the crew. It was visible for twenty minutes, during

which time it crossed the bow, and ultimately disappeared under the

port-quarter.”

The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the animal.

The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me conclude that the

animal had swum for a long time with its body in a straight line,

without diving and that the part, exposed to the sunbeams, had dried up.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON adds: “There can be little doubt that this

sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I’ll not

contest his opinion.--

* * * * *

=148=.--1877, June 2.--Not less important than others is the report of

the _Osborne_. In Mr. =Lee’s= _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ we read p. 93 the

following about this occurrence:

“In June, 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty that on the

2nd. of that month, he and other officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_,

had seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine animal, of which the

following account and sketches were furnished by Lieutenant Haynes, and

were confirmed by Commander Pearson, Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth,

and Mr. Moore, engineer.”

“Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, “Royal Yacht _Osborne_,

Gibraltar, June 6”: On the evening of that day, the sea being perfectly

smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge of fins above

the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet, and varying from

five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by means of a telescope,

at about one and a-half cables’ distance, I distinctly saw a head, two

flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder. The head, as

nearly as I could judge, was about six feet thick, the neck narrower,

about four to five feet, the shoulder about fifteen feet across, and

the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the

flappers were those of a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal,

the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head. I could not

see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the

shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty feet.

The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the ridge of fins

to which my attention was first attracted, and which had disappeared

by the time I got a telescope, were really the continuation of the

shoulder to the end of the object’s body. The animal’s head was not

always above water, but was thrown upwards, remaining above for a few

seconds at a time, and then disappearing; there was an entire absence

of “blowing” or “spouting”. I herewith beg to enclose a rough sketch,

showing the view of the “ridge of fins”, and also of the animal in the

act of propelling itself by its two fins.”

Evidently Mr. LEE has not communicated the whole account as it was in

the original periodical, nor did he mention the name of the periodical.

The _Times_ of June 14th., 1877 mentions:

“The _Osborne_, 2, paddle royal yacht, Commander Hugh L. Pearson, which

arrived at Portsmouth from the Mediterranean on Monday, and at once

proceeded to her moorings in the harbour, has forwarded an official

report to the Admiralty, through the commander-in-chief (Admiral

Sir George Elliot, K. C. B.), respecting a sea-monster which she

encountered during her homeward voyage. At about five o’clock in the

afternoon of the 2nd. instant, the sea being exceptionally calm, while

the yacht was proceeding round the north coast of Sicily towards Cape

Vito, the officer on the watch observed a long ridge of fins, each

about six feet long, moving slowly along. He called for a telescope,

and was at once joined by other officers. The _Osborne_ was steaming

westward at ten and a half knots an hour, and, having a long passage

before her, could not stay to make minute observations. The fins were

progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more nearly

approached them, they were replaced by the foremost part of a gigantic

sea-monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen, altogether devoid

of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal.

The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination, being

somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in

diameter. Its features were only seen by one officer, who described

them as like those of an alligator. The neck was comparatively narrow,

but so much of the body as could be seen, developed in form like that

of gigantic turtle, and from each side extended two fins, about fifteen

feet in length, by which the monster paddled itself along after the

fashion of a turtle. The appearance of the monster is accounted for

by a submarine volcano, which occurred north of Galita, in the Gulf

of Tunis, about the middle of May, and was reported at the time by a

steamer which was struck by a detached fragment of submarine rock. The

disturbance below water, it is thought probable, may have driven up the

monster from its “native element”, as the site of the eruption is only

one hundred miles from where it was reported to have been seen”.

The _Graphic_ of June 16, 1877, tells us p. 563, 3d. column:

“The Sea-Serpent has once more made his appearance, and this time

the officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_ are the witnesses to his

existence. The Commander, says the _Portsmouth Times and Navel

Gazette_, has sent an official report to the Admiralty, stating that on

the 2nd. inst. a curious creature was seen off the coast of Sicily in a

smooth sea. The serpent was “of immense length, with a smooth scaleless

skin, and a ridge of fins, 15 feet in length, and 6 ft. apart along

the back, a bullet-shaped head, and a face like an alligator. It moved

slowly, and was distinctly seen by all the officers.”

[Illustration: Fig. 44.--The ridge of fins mentioned in the report of

the _Osborne_.]

The same Journal of the 30th. of June publishes the following account

and sketch by Lieutenant HAYNES:

“We are indebted to Lieut. W. P. Haynes, of H. M. S. _Osborne_, for

the sketch of the sea-monster seen by the officers and crew of that

vessel off the north coast of Sicily on the 2nd. inst. In a letter

accompanying the sketch, he says:--“My attention was first called by

seeing a long row of fins appearing above the surface of the water

at a distance of about 200 yards and “away on our beam”. They were

of irregular heights, and extending about 30 or 40 feet in line (the

former number is the length I gave, the latter the other officers), in

a few seconds they disappeared, giving place to the foremost part of

the monster. By this time it had passed astern, swimming in an opposite

direction to that we were steering, and as we were passing through the

water at 10¹⁄₂ knots, I could only get a view of it, “and on”, which

I have shown in the sketch. The head was bullet-shaped, and quite six

feet thick, the neck narrow and its head was occasionally thrown back

out of the water, remaining there for a few seconds at a time. It

was very broad across the back or shoulders, about 15 or 20 feet, and

the flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion, which seemed

to paddle the monster along. They were about 15 feet in length. From

the top of the head to the part of the back where it became immersed,

I should consider 50 feet, and that seemed about a third of the

whole length. All this part was smooth, resembling a seal. I cannot

account for the fins, unless they were on the back below, where it was

immersed.”

[Illustration: Fig. 45.--The sea-serpent as seen by Commander PEARSON

and Lieutenant HAYNES of the _Osborne_.]

According to Mr. HENRY LEE a Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND has suggested (where?

this is not mentioned) that “the ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly,

belong to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order.”

Mr. LEE himself seems to be of this opinion too. As to me, I don’t

believe it, for the simple reason that the basking sharks only live

in the Arctic Sea, and are never observed farther south than the

coasts of Great-Britain and of Massachusetts. So Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND’S

whole supposition falls to the ground. At all events the fins have

nothing to do with the sea-serpent. This is also the opinion of Mr.

LEE, who asserts: “The combination of them with long flippers, and the

turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am

unable to solve.”

We will first speak of the account Lieutenant HAYNES wrote on the

6th. of June, when at Gibraltar. The sea was perfectly smooth, and

he saw the ridge of fins. He took his glasses and instead of fins he

distinctly saw something quite different. In the short time that he

fixed his glasses, the ridge of fins had no doubt disappeared, and the

huge animal emerged. The owners of the fins were evidently frightened

at the approach of the sea-serpent. Lieut. HAYNES “distinctly saw a

head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder”. We

may safely add: and a long neck connecting this head with the shoulder,

and we may safely read for shoulder: a part of its back. The head was

about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four or five feet;

consequently the animal had stretched its neck as forward as possible.

The back, on the level of the flappers, was about fifteen feet broad,

“and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of

the flappers were those of a turtle.” I should like to say: were those

of a sea-lion, for a sea-turtle cannot possibly elevate its flappers

so high above the surface of the water, while sea-lions are able to

do so. Moreover the fashion is the same, that is to say, the paddling

happens alternately, i. e. when the right flapper is brought as forward

as possible to commence the act of paddling, the left one is kept as

backward as possible, nearly touching the trunk, having just brought

the act of paddling to an end. “The animal resembled a huge seal, the

resemblance being strongest about the back of the head.” This is in

my opinion the most remarkable statement of this report. We have more

than once met with the comparison of the head or face of the animal

with that of a seal, but Lieutenant HAYNES clearly states the _animal_

(seen from behind) resembled a seal. “I could not see the length of

the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where

it became immersed) I should reckon about fifty feet.” Going by known

descriptions and figures, we may suppose that the length of the head

may have been between eight and nine feet. When from the top of the

head to just below the shoulder the length is estimated at about fifty

feet, I reckon that the neck of the animal must have been one of forty

feet, reckoning two feet from the top of the head to the occiput, and

eight feet from the flappers to where the animal became immersed, i.

e. the visible part of its back. The estimated measurements of the

individual of captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118) were: length of the head about

three feet, breadth about two feet; diameter of neck below the head

about one foot and a third; length of the neck to the fore-flappers

about twenty feet; length of the trunk from the fore-flappers to the

hind-flappers about twenty feet, length of the tail about forty feet,

length of the whole animal between eighty and ninety feet. Let us now

repeat those of the individual of the _Osborne_, which seems to be

about _three times_ larger. The breadth of the head is about six feet,

consequently the length of the head about nine feet; the diameter of

the neck below the head about four or five feet, say four feet, i.

e. _three times_ one foot and a third; the distance from the occiput

to the flappers--forty feet, according to my calculation given above

but,--comparing the dimensions of the individual of Captain M’QUHAE

with the present, I don’t hesitate a moment to put down sixty feet

for the distance from the head to the fore-flappers. The officers of

the _Daedalus_ were in a more favourable situation to estimate this

distance, the distance from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers

and the whole length of the animal they saw,--than Lieutenant HAYNES;

for the former saw the animal from aside, whilst the latter beheld it

from behind, and was consequently in a bad situation to estimate the

different lengths of the animal, but in a more favourable to estimate

its different breadths. The length of the neck must really have been

formidable, for though the animal (see drawing) showed hardly any neck

at all, (resembling an enormous ball just visible above the surface

of the water, with another smaller bullet on its top,) Lieutenant

HAYNES estimated the distance from the top of the head to the part

of its back, where it became immersed, at fifty feet! The remaining

part of the back and the animal’s tail and hind-flappers were entirely

invisible. I have already expressed my firm conviction that the ridge

of fins has nothing at all to do with the animal. It is evident that

Lieutenant HAYNES himself had his doubts about this point, for else he

would not have written: “unless the ridge of fins....... were really

the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body”.

Evidently the animal elevated its head from time to time some feet into

the air to take a survey before it. Evidently it never dropped its head

so as to come with its nostrils below water, for “there was an entire

absence of blowing or spouting”.

In the account of the _Times_ only the following sentences are

interesting. The ridge of fins moved _slowly_ along. They were

_replaced_ by the foremost part of a sea-serpent. In my opinion this

statement is very correct. Its skin was altogether devoid of scales,

appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. This is a

remarkable statement, for in the foregoing account the animal is said

to resemble a huge seal! Again: the head was bullet-shaped (seen from

behind) with an elongated termination (read snout) being somewhat

similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter.

The assertion of one of the officers who saw the animal’s features and

described them as like those of an alligator, cannot surprise us, as

this comparison has been made more than once. As much of the body as

could be seen was developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle.

Evidently this reporter did not observe that the head and trunk were

connected by a long neck, as did Lieutenant HAYNES. I cannot approve of

the supposition that the animal would have been started by the volcanic

disturbance, which took place a hundred miles more southward and a

fortnight ago!!

The rough account of the _Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette_ partly

reprinted in the _Graphic_, is as the reader will already have

observed himself, for the greater part, wrong: the fins of the ridge

were estimated to be from five to six feet high, and not 15 feet in

length. They were never seen along the back. Lieutenant HAYNES clearly

doubted of it, and I believe that nobody of my readers will admit the

possibility of such a position! It was the ridge of fins that moved

slowly, and not the animal. Though it is not expressed _in words_, the

figure shows us that the sea-serpent moved with the greatest velocity,

paddling so violently, that it lifted up its flappers as high as

possible.

In the letter which Lieutenant HAYNES forwarded to the Editor of the

Graphic, we read that the animal passed the stern, swimming in an

opposite direction to that they were steering to; consequently the

animal could have been seen for a few seconds only from aside, and then

only from behind. Most probably in passing the yacht, the animal turned

its face once towards it, for we read in the _Times_ of 14th. June:

“its features were seen only by one officer.” The breadth of the back

is now stated to be about 15 or 20 feet. “The flappers appeared to have

a semi-revolving motion,” which is indeed a nearly exact expression for

this motion. The length of 50 feet is now considered by the gallant

officer to seem to be about a third of the whole length. The reason of

this estimation is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the

water behind the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe

that this individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again,

the Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could have

been the ridge of fins! No wonder!

Of the second sketch (fig. 45) I will only say that it is partly wrong;

for only _one_ flapper must have been visible _at one time_, though

it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rapidity that it

_seemed_ as if the two flappers were visible together. And when seen

from aside in this position it would appear that the animal had more

than two flappers, had a row of them, as is shown in our fig. 36.--It

is also clear that the severe splashing and foaming of the water, which

_must_ have been caused by the movements of the flappers, is omitted in

the figure.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ notes that the details

furnished in the account of the _Times_ appear to be explicable by a

tape-fish (_Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus_). I need not say that I am not at

all at one with him. There is not one simple character either in the

ridge of fins, or in the animal described, which agrees in the least

with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape-fishes are deep-sea fishes, and

only rise to the surface, dying or dead!

Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN’S comparison of the animal with a manatee

(_Nature_, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but the length of

the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimensions of both animals

differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous to dwell any longer on

it.

* * * * *

In January 1879, Mr. ANDREW WILSON published his _Leisure Time

Studies_, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth chapter

is entitled “The sea-serpents of Science”. As might be expected the

author treats of the various explanations of the sea-serpent given by

men of science as well as by others, and declares himself to be a firm

believer of the fact that large unknown animals exist. I wish to quote

here the most interesting parts, or better said, those parts which are,

at present, of great interest. In considering the authenticity of the

reports and the admission that really “something” must have been seen,

the author says:

“Can we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated during past

years, dismiss the subject _simpliciter_, as founded on no basis of

fact? The answer to such a question must be an emphatic negative;

since the evidence brought before our notice includes the testimony

of several hundreds of sane and reasonable persons, who in frequent

cases have testified on oath and by affidavit to the truth of their

descriptions of curious marine forms, seen and observed in various

seas. The second supposition, that all of these persons have simply

been deceived, is one which must also be dismissed. For, after

making all due allowance for exaggeration, and for variations in

accounts arising from different modes of expression and even from

mental peculiarities in the witnesses, there remains a solid body of

testimony, which, unless there is some special tendency to mendacity on

the part of persons who travel by sea, we are bound, by all the rules

of fair criticism and of evidence, to receive as testimony of honest

kind. As I have elsewhere observed: There are very many calmly and

circumstantially related and duly verified accounts of serpentine, or

at any rate, of anomalous marine forms, having been closely inspected

by the crew and passengers of vessels. Either, therefore, we must

argue that in every instance the senses of intelligent men and women

must have played them false, or we must simply assume that they are

describing what they have never seen. The accounts in many instances so

minutely describe the appearance of such forms, inspected from a near

standpoint, that the possibility of their being mistaken for inanimate

objects, as they might be if viewed from a distance, is rendered

entirely improbable. We may thus, then, affirm firstly that there are

many verified pieces of evidence on record, of strange marine forms

having been met with,--which evidences, judged according to ordinary

and common sense rules, go to prove that certain hitherto undescribed

marine organisms do certainly exist in the sea-depths.”

“The first issue I must therefore submit to the reader, as representing

one of a large and impartial jury, is, that the mass of evidence

accumulated on the sea-serpent question, when weighed and tested, even

in a _prima facie_ manner, plainly shuts us up to the belief that

appearances, resembling those produced by the presence in the sea of

huge serpentine forms, have been frequently noted by competent and

trustworthy observers. Unless we are to believe that men and women

have deliberately prevaricated, and that without the slightest excuse

or show of reason, we must believe that they have witnessed marine

appearances, certainly of unwonted and unusual kind. That “something”

has assuredly been seen, must be the verdict on this first issue.

What that “something” is or was, and whether or not the evidence

will support the opinion that the appearances described bear out the

existence of a “sea-serpent” in the flesh, form points for discussion

in the next instance.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON mentions some pages further on a curious case of fear

of popular ridicule in telling that

“one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had been seen by his

crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below; since, to use his

own words, “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, I should have been

considered to be a warranted liar all my life after!”

In examining whether that “something” was a dead or living organism,

Mr. WILSON concludes that:

“Numerous cases exist in which the object, presumed to be a living

being, has been scrutinized so closely that, save on the supposition

that senses have played their owners false, or that minds have given

way to an unaccountable impulse for lying, we must face and own the

belief that living animals have been seen.”

He now speaks of a few accounts, viz. the various reports of the animal

seen by the officers of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118), by the crew of the

_Pauline_ (n^o. 144, 145), and by the captain and the surgeon of the

_Nestor_ (n^o. 146), and explains them in his own way, believing that

these sea-serpents were gigantically developed sea-snakes, or a great

calamary. Next he treats of the appearance of the animal as reported

by the officers of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), explaining it to be a

tape-fish. Finally he defends his hypothesis of gigantically developed

sea-snakes and ribbon-fishes. These parts, however, I have inserted in

my Chapter on various explanations.

* * * * *

In a review of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_, which I

have found in _Nature_ of the 30th. of January, 1879, Vol. XIX, the

following is written about the chapter on the sea-serpent:

“The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting, both

as giving a very fair summary of the most recent evidence on this

subject, and as showing that the age of incredulity is past, and that

naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct kinds of

oceanic monsters probably exist, of which no single specimen has yet

been obtained. Recollecting, however, the number of clever hoaxes to

which this subject has given rise we think that the newspaper account

at p. 104, of the declaration before a Liverpool J. P., made by the

master and crew of a merchant-ship, to the effect that they had seen a

huge serpent twice coiled round a sperm-whale, and a similar serpent

with its head raised “sixty feet perpendicularly in the air,” should

not have been inserted as evidence without first ascertaining that

such a declaration was actually made before the magistrate named.

The troubling of writing a single letter would probably have been

sufficient, and would have settled the preliminary question of whether,

from beginning to end, it was not a newspaper _canard_.”

I am convinced that, after having attentively read what they find

in this book about the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by the

crew of the _Pauline_ (n^o. 144, 145) my readers will be convinced

that the report of Captain DREVAR was not a _canard_. We read

moreover in _Nature_ of Febr. 10, 1881, that Captain DREVAR has

circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and

of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck

out of the water. Mr. WOOD, the writer of the article in which this

is communicated, adds: “This is satisfactory as showing that the

declaration was no hoax”. I quite agree with him.

* * * * *

[Illustration: Fig. 46.--The sea-serpent as seen by Major SENIOR of the

_City of Baltimore_.]

=149=.--1879, January 28.--The _Graphic_ of April, 19, 1879, says:

“The following is an extract from the account given by our

correspondent, Major H. W. J. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps,

to whom we are indebted for the sketch from which our engraving is

taken:--“On the 28th. of January, 1879, at about 10 a. m., I was on

the poop deck of the steamship _City of Baltimore_ in lat. 12° 28′ N.,

long 43° 52′ E. I observed a long black object abeam of the ship’s

stern on the starboard side, at a distance of about three-quarters

of a mile, darting rapidly out of the water, and splashing in again

with a sound distinctly audible, and advancing nearer and nearer at

a rapid pace. In a minute it had advanced to within half a mile, and

was distinctly recognizable as the veritable “sea-serpent”. I shouted

out “Sea-serpent! sea-serpent! call the captain!” Dr. C. Hall, the

ship’s surgeon, who was reading on deck, jumped up in time to see

the monster, as did also Miss. Greenfield, one of the passengers on

board. By this time it was only about 500 yards off, and a little in

the rear, owing to the vessel then steaming at the rate of about ten

knots an hour in a westerly direction. On approaching the wake of the

ship the serpent turned its course a little away, and was soon lost to

view in the blaze of sunlight reflected on the waves of the sea. So

rapid were its movements that when it approached the ship’s wake, I

seized a telescope, but could not catch a view as it darted rapidly out

of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus prevented

from ascertaining whether it had scales or not but the best view of

the monster obtainable when it was about three cables’ length, that is

about 500 yards’ distant, seemed to show that it was without scales.

I cannot, however, speak with certainty. The head and neck, about two

feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty

or thirty feet, and the monster opened its jaws wide as it rose, and

closed them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive,

reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was

not visible at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the

disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice, although

occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head. The

shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon I have often

seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the forehead and eyebrow. When the

monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of the water it let itself

drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood, prior to darting forward

under the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in

height on either side of the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings.”

“Major Senior’s statement is countersigned by the two persons whom he

mentions as co-witnesses, and he expresses his willingness to answer

any questions which may be put to him by any one interested in the

subject. His address while on furlough is Rosebank Villa, Southfield

Rode, Cotham, Bristol.”

The appearance took place in the Gulf of Aden, as pointed out by the

latitude and longitude. The account here is very correct as I now

will try to show. The colour of the animal is called black and the

appearance of the skin was that it was without scales. The head and

neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height

of about twenty or thirty feet, and the animal opened its jaws wide

as it rose, evidently swallowing some fish, captured under water in

its pursuit of a shoal of them, and closed them again as it lowered

its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost immediately

some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at all, and must

have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the surface

was too slight to attract notice. This is very natural, as I have

already pointed out on a former occasion: if the head and neck are

above the surface, the remaining parts of the body must carry their

weight and sink a little below the surface. Not very much, however, for

the foreflappers, as well as the hindflappers, paddling very rapidly

caused a splash distinctly visible on the base of the neck (or on

the shoulders), and “occasionally a splash was seen at some distance

behind the head”. Examining the figure, which is very exact, we may

take it that the foremost splash was caused by the foreflappers, about

twenty-five feet in the rear of the head, the very same place where

the officers of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118) “occasionally saw a fin”,

and that about twenty-five feet more backward the hindmost splash

was caused by the hindflappers, the place, where Captain M’QUHAE

(n^o. 118) “occasionally saw another fin”. The animal seen from the

_Daedalus_ seems to have been a little smaller than that seen from the

_City of Baltimore_. The comparison of the head with a dragon’s is a

little far-fetched. The animal furiously pursuing its prey, sometimes

opening its jaws, knitting its heavy eye-brows, which as we know are

a little prominent, in short, expressing in its features hurry and a

wild longing for its prey, may under these circumstances have had a

feature terrible enough to cause Mr. SENIOR’S expression “the shape of

the head was not unlike pictures of the dragons I have often seen, with

a bull-dog appearance of the fore-head and eye-brow”. We have learned

already that on such occasions the animal curved its neck swan-like and

diving head foremost like a duck, disappeared. Here we have another

habit of pursuing: “when the monster had drawn its head sufficiently

out of water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood,

prior to darting forward under the water. This motion caused a splash

of about fifteen feet in height on either side of the neck, much in

shape of a pair of wings”. This last might have been fairly omitted

as every one can imagine the splash of water, caused by a log of wood

falling into it. I think this comparison also far-fetched: such a

splash cannot be compared with an object.

Our figure is taken from Mr. LEE’S often quoted work. It is the middle

third of the one which illustrated the text in the _Graphic_, but as

it is drawn on the same scale, I saw no reason to give my readers the

whole illustration of the _Graphic_.

* * * * *

=150=.--1879, March 30th.--_Nature_ of the 24th. of July, 1879,

contains the following of Surgeon BARNETT, respecting the appearance of

a sea-serpent near Cape Naturaliste in Australia.

“In _Nature_, Vol. XIX, p. 286, I observed some remarks respecting

sea-serpents, and especially noted one passage which stated that “The

age of incredulity is past, and naturalists are now prepared to admit

that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist.”

“I was pleased to read this statement, as I have for many years been

convinced that some of the accounts published from time to time in

the newspapers are accurate descriptions of what has actually been

witnessed, but I little expected that I should so soon be able to

forward to you a description of one of these creatures, as given by

an eye-witness, of whose accuracy there can be no question, and whose

observations were made when very close to the animal.”

“Busselton is a little seaport about 150 miles south of Fremantle, on

the west coast of Australia, situated on the shore of Geographe Bay,

which is sheltered by Cape Naturaliste; the northern point of that

singular projection on the south-west corner of Australia.”

“During the greater part of the year the water of Geographe Bay is as

smooth as a lake, though it is a portion of that vast Indian Ocean

which extends unbrokenly to the African coast. The beach is of smooth

white sand, so hard at the water’s edge that it is frequently used as

a road for riding or driving from Busselton to Lockville; the latter

place, a few miles to the north, is the station of the Ballarat Timber

Company, containing their steam saw mills, the termination of their

railway, and the jetty from which large quantities of that imperishable

and valuable timber called jarrah is exported to be used as piles,

railway sleepers, etc.”

“Last month I heard a report that the sea-serpent had been seen

near Busselton, and that the resident clergyman had been one of the

spectators. Having the pleasure of personal acquaintance with that

gentleman, I wrote to him on the subject, and received from him such

an interesting account, that I applied to him for permission to

communicate the facts to your paper, and verify them by publishing his

name. It is fortunate that the principal eye-witness was an educated

gentleman, who has for twenty seven years been a Colonial chaplain in

this colony, and whose description of what he saw is clear, simple, and

free from exaggeration.”

“I copy from the letters of the Rev. H. W. Brown the following

extracts:--

“On Sunday, March 30, I left Lockville just as the sun was setting, on

my way home by the beach”.

“The afternoon had been oppressively hot, not a breath of wind, and the

sea was as smooth as a glass. I met C. M’Guire and his wife walking

towards Lockville.”

“Soon afterwards, when abreast of the track to Richardson’s, I noticed

ahead of me what looked like a black log of wood in the water a

stone’s throw from the shore, nearly end-on to me, and apparently more

buoyant at that end; getting nearer, I noticed that it was _drifting_

apparently towards Lockville, and soon discovered that it was moving,

leaving behind it a very long, narrow ridge on the smooth water. I then

turned my horse’s head, and, at a walking pace kept just abreast of

it, unnoticed apparently, till I had gained sufficiently on M’Guire to

make him hear. I then coo-eed _once_; he turned and came back to meet

me; but at the sound of my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of

sight (under water), and doubled again in shore, but so rapidly as to

leave both outward and inward “ridge” on the water distinctly visible

at once, like a wide V with quite a sharp corner. It gave me the idea

of two fishes, the one darting outward, the other crossing its track

inward at the same moment.”

“Not knowing where it might show up next, but satisfied that it had

come in-shore again, I tried by pointing seaward to direct M’Guire’s

attention that way”.

“Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing

gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost at

rest, and all apparently was in view, I estimated the length to be 60

feet, straight and taper, like a long spar, with the butt end, his head

and shoulders, showing well above the surface.”

“I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff, about

two feet diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very distinctly

above water, several square-topped fins.”

“I here make an exact tracing from Mr. Brown’s letter of his sketch:--

“It was now getting rather too dark to see details distinctly. The fish

proceeded toward Lockville, and I turned homeward. M’Guire said he

would go on to Lockville jetty and look out for him there.”

[Illustration: Fig. 47.--Outline of the back of the sea-serpent as seen

by the Rev. H. W. BROWN.]

“Whether he saw him again I know not, but M’Mullan, the fisherman,

told me next morning that he had seen it about fifty yards from that

jetty, and it looked to him about twenty feet long. So it did to me

while in motion; only when at rest for a moment did its whole length

show up sufficiently. What its propelling power was I cannot say from

observation; I saw no lateral fins and no fish-tail.”

“When it started away at the sound of my voice, it was with the rapid

movement of a pike or sword-fish, and yet the thick bluff head had but

little resemblance to a snake.”

“There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore the same

afternoon, yet when I saw the stranger there were certainly no fish of

which it could be in pursuit.”

“Since the year 1848, when the captain and officers of a British

man-of-war gave evidence that they passed within 100 yards of a snake,

which they estimated to be 60 feet in length above water, with

probably 40 feet beneath, I do not know of any more clear account

than the above. Many independant accounts of the existence of marine

monsters have been placed on record, and it seems mere folly to treat

these repeated reports with ridicule.”

“I trust that your readers will no longer doubt that the “age of

credulity” is past.”

“H. C. Barnett.”

“Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.”

“Colonial surgeon.”

I need not tell my readers that the figure is very rude, and only gives

a very indistinct representation of four “bunches”, or visible parts

of vertical undulations, called “fins” in the narrative. The blunt

head, compared with the end of a log, the imperfect description, and

the so-called square appearance of the bunches must be ascribed to the

falling darkness. The other details of the report: the swimming of the

animal in bunches, its causing the “ridges” in the water in the shape

of a wide V, its holding its head well above the surface, its length,

its resemblance with a spar, straight and taper, are in my opinion

convincing enough to call this “fish” a sea-serpent.

* * * * *

=151=.--1879, April 5.--In the _Graphic_ of July, 19th., 1879, and in

_Nature_ for November 18th., 1880, we find the following statement:

“The accompanying engraving is a _fac-simile_ of a sketch sent to us by

Captain Davison, of the steamship _Kiushiu-maru_, and is inserted as a

specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us

for insertion in the pages of this journal. Capt. Davison’s statement,

which is countersigned by his chief officer, Mr. McKechnie, is as

follows:--Saturday, April 5th., at 11.15 a. m. Cape Satano distant

about nine miles, the chief officer and myself observed a whale jump

clear out of the sea, about a quarter of a mile away. Shortly after it

leaped out again, when I saw there was something attached to it. Got

glasses, and on the next leap distinctly saw something holding on the

belly of the whale. The latter gave one more spring clear of the water,

and myself and chief then observed what appeared to be a large creature

of the snake species rear itself about thirty feet out of the water. It

appeared to be about the thickness of a junk’s mast and after standing

about ten seconds in an erect position, it descended into the water,

the upper end going first. With my glasses I made out the colour of the

beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.”

[Illustration: Fig. 48 and 49.--Two positions of the sea-serpent as

seen by Captain DAVISON of the _Kiushiu Maru_.]

It is clear that the Editor of the _Graphic_ is an unbeliever, else he

would not have called these figures “specimens of the curious drawings

which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this

journal”. I think that there is nothing curious in these figures, which

are as correct as possible.

Cape Satano is the most southern point of Japan, or better, of the

Isle of Kiu Siu. It is also called Satano Misaki, of which “Saki” or

“Misaki” signifies “cape”. The Russians call it Cape Chichakoff. This

is the third time that we read of the sea-serpent being seen in the

Pacific Ocean (see n^o. 36 and 119).

The most remarkable fact mentioned in this report is the gripping the

whale. The reader will remember the report of a sea-serpent engaged

with a whale, of course one of the smaller kind (n^o. 54). In 1833

some British officers saw a shoal of grampuses near Halifax, Nova

Scotia, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement” and a little

while afterwards the sea-serpent appeared, evidently hunting after

the grampuses (n^o. 97). Again in 1850 (?) Captain CHRISTMAS saw

“an immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the ship, as if pursued”

and soon afterwards a sea-serpent made its appearance, curving its

neck swan-like, evidently keeping a lookout and disappearing “head

foremost like a duck diving” (n^o. 124). Also Captain BROWN saw it

“surrounded by porpoises” (n^o. 56). And now we have for the fifth

time the sea-serpent pursuing whales, and a second time that it is

engaged with one which it had evidently gripped in its pectoral fin. I

am convinced that the description “holding on the belly of the whale”

is incorrect. The dimensions of the neck estimated at thirty feet in

length and of about the thickness of the mast of a junk are certainly

not exaggerated. After the whale’s escape, the sea-serpent for about

ten seconds stood in an erect position, like the animal of Captain

BROWN (n^o. 56), taking evidently a survey all around, then bent its

neck swan-like as in shown in the figure and finally “descended into

the water, the upper end going first”, exactly the way in which the

animal behaved seen by Capt. CHRISTMAS (n^o. 124). The description

of the colour as “resembling that of a pilot-fish”, is very vague,

for the different pilot-fishes (_Naucrates_) have different colours,

generally grey with some hue of blue, brown, or purple. The vague

definition may be the result of a damp atmosphere, or it must be that

the throat was turned towards the spectators, and not the back-part of

the neck, which is nearly black. As the sea-serpent has a very long

and pointed tail, the fan-shaped or double finned tail in fig. 49 must

be accounted for. This I think may be done in the following four ways:

1. The tail represents the whale, disappearing in the water, which

in so doing caused a severe splash as is shown in the figure. 2. The

tail is an optical illusion and the two fins of it were in fact the

animal’s hindflappers paddling furiously, which may be explained as an

expression of the animal’s emotion, as the whale escaped, and in doing

so, the flappers caused the violent splash. 3. Not the flappers but

the tail of the animal was lashing the water vehemently, and caused

the optical illusion and the immense splash and foam. 4. The drawer,

believing that the animal had a cetacean tail or a fish-tail, drew one,

lashing the water, and so represented more his own imagination than the

reality; but in no case a double finned tail has ever belonged to an

animal with a long swan-like curved neck, as is really believed by Mr.

SEARLES V. WOOD in that number of _Nature_!

* * * * *

=152=.--1879, August 5.--(_Times_ of September 24, 1879).

“Capt. J. F. COX, master of the British ship _Privateer_, which arrived

at Delaware breakwater on the 9th. inst. from London, says:--“On the

5th. ult., 100 miles west of Brest (France), weather fine and clear, at

5 p. m., as I was walking the quarter deck, looking to windward, I saw

something black rise out of the water about twenty feet, in shape like

an immense snake about three feet in diameter. It was about 300 yards

from the ship, coming towards us. It turned its head partly from us,

and went down with a great splash, after staying up about five seconds,

but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, until it had

turned completely from us and was going from us with great speed, and

making the water all boiling round it. I could see its eyes and shape

perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black as coal tar,

and appeared to be making great exertions to get away from the ship. I

have seen many kinds of fish in five different oceans, but was never

favoured with a sight of the great sea-snake before.”

Of this unvarnished account Mr. WOOD says with reason (_Nature_,

February 10, 1881), that it is “almost a duplicate of that of Major

SENIOR” (n^o. 149). The colour of the animal is called black, the

head and neck, like those of a snake, were elevated about twenty feet

in the air. The animal stood so about five seconds, went down with a

great splash, but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds,

thus behaving in the same way as the individual seen from the _City of

Baltimore_ (n^o. 149). The thickness here is estimated at three feet.

The animal moved from the vessel with great speed. Consequently the

captain could not discern four different splashes, two of the fore and

two of the hind-flappers, but he reports that the water was boiling all

around it. I think that the animal here again was pursuing a shoal of

fish and not trying to escape the vessel.--

* * * * *

=152 A=.--1881, Nov. 12?--The Zuid-Afrikaan, of Nov. 17, 1881, mentions:

“In the _Argus_ we read the following:--“Mr. C. M. HANSEN, functionary

to the harbour-office, mentions, that on Saturday evening a little

after six o’clock, being occupied in his garden near Monillepoint,

he perceived near the spot where the _Athens_ was wrecked, a great

sea-serpent, and that he immediately drew the attention of his wife

and children, and several of his neighbours to this appearance. After

viewing the coast at its ease for half an hour the monster turned its

head seaward and disappeared. Mr. HANSEN describes this sea-monster as

being about 75 feet long, of a dark colour and with a head of the size

of a 54 gallon hogshead, resembling that of a bull-dog, and provided

with a long and brown mane, hanging down.”

Undoubtedly the length of 75 feet is that of the part visible above the

surface of the water. It is not mentioned whether the animal swam with

its body in a straight line or in vertical undulations. It is not for

the first time that we hear of the sea-serpent near Cape-Town, (for

_Argus_ must no doubt be read _Cape Argus_), I pass the dimension of

the head as I don’t know that of a 54 gallon hogshead. Remarkable is

the comparison of the head with a bull-dog’s; it must have been seen in

front, in order to make this impression. Again a mane was present and

its colour is now called brown.

* * * * *

=153=.--1882, May 28th.--In the next account we read:

“At our arrival in Newcastle, I learned that some days before some

fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.”

* * * * *

=154=.--1882, May 31.--(_Illustrirte Zeitung_ of 1st. of July, 1882).--

“The following report, with the accompanying engraving has been

forwarded to us by Mr. Weisz, Captain of the Stettin Lloyd Steamer

_Kätie_.”

“When the Stettin Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_, on her return from New-York

to Newcastle, on the 31st. of May of this year, shortly after sunset

and in that clear light which in this season takes place in fine

weather in high northern latitudes, was about eight miles W. N. W. of

Butt of Lewis (Hebrides), we observed on starboard before us, at a

distance of about two miles a dark object lying on the surface, which

was only slightly moved by the waves; first we took it for a wreck,

as the highest end resembled the bow and the forepart of a ship, and

the remaining hilly part resembled the broken waist-cloth of a ship

filled with water. As we got nearer we saw with a glass on the left

of the visible object, the water moving in a manner, as if the object

extended there under the water, and this motion was of the same length

as the part of the object, visible above the surface. Therefore we

took care, not to steer too near, lest the screw should be damaged by

some floating pieces of the wreck. But on getting nearer observed that

the object was not a wreck, and, if we had not known with certainty

that on these coasts there are no shallows, we should have taken this

dark connected row of hills for cliffs. When we, however, changed our

course obliquely from the object, which lay quite still all the time,

to our astonishment there rose, about eighty feet from the visible end

a fin about ten feet in height, which moved a few times, whilst the

body gradually sunk below the surface. In consequence of this the most

elevated end rose, and could distinctly be made out as the tail of a

fish kind of immense dimensions.”

[Illustration: Fig. 50.--The sea-serpent, as seen from the Stettin

Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_, near the Hebrides, drawn under the supervision

of the captain Mr. WEISZ, by the American animal-painter Mr. ANDREW

SCHULTZ.--]

“The length of the visible part of this animal which had in no case

any resemblance with the back of a whale, measured, according to our

estimation, about 150 feet, the hills, which were from three to four

feet in height, and about six or seven feet distant from each other,

were smaller on the tail end, than on the head end, which withdrew from

our observation.”

“At our arrival at Newcastle, I learned that some days before some

fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal. Had I

directly recognized the object before us, to be one of these creatures,

which for so long time belonged to the fables, I should certainly have

neared it with the _Kätie_ as much as possible.”

It is obvious that captain WEISZ saw, and Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ sketched

the animal, ignorant of its being a sea-serpent. It became clear

to them, when they arrived at Newcastle where they learned that a

“sea-serpent” was seen by some fishermen of Lewis.

Here we have again the assertion that the animal showed bunches,

though it lay still or nearly still, an observation already reported

more than once, as the reader will remember. I am convinced that the

dimensions are exaggerated, and that the disturbance of the water was

caused by the length of the tail, and not of the head of the animal,

which evidently was searching for food in a playful manner, as we may

observe in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, and in doing

so turned for a moment its body round, and raised once or twice first

one of its hindflappers “which it moved a few times”, and then raised

one of its foreflappers, which was taken for a tail by the captain

and the drawer. The long neck here commences, but was, with the head,

constantly under water, evidently directed downwards, for there was no

disturbance of the water visible here. It is clear that the _Kätie_

remained at a good distance from the animal, so that Mr. SCHULTZ,

a well-known animal painter, could not obtain a better view of the

flappers. The outlines of the flappers, however, are as correct as

possible.

* * * * *

=155=.--1882, September 3.--(_Nature_, 1883, January 25).

“Believing it to be desirable that every well-authenticated observation

indicating the existence of large sea-serpents should be permanently

registered, I send you the following particulars.”

[Illustration: Fig. 51.--Outline of the sea-serpent seen near Little

Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. Mott after three different sketches.]

“About 3 p. m. on Sunday, September 3, 1882, a party of gentlemen and

ladies were standing at the northern extremity of Llandudno pier,

looking towards the open sea, when an unusual object was observed in

the water near to the Little Orme’s Head, travelling rapidly westwards

towards the Great Orme. It appeared to be just outside the mouth of the

bay, and would therefore be about a mile distant from the observers. It

was watched for about two minutes, and in that interval it traversed

about half the width of the bay, and then suddenly disappeared. The bay

is two miles wide, and therefore the object, whatever it was, must have

travelled at the rate of thirty miles an hour. It is estimated to have

been fully as long as a large steamer; say 200 feet; the rapidity of

its motion was particularly remarked as being greater than that of any

ordinary vessel. The colour appeared to be black, and the motion either

corkscrew like or snake-like, with vertical undulations. Three of the

observers have since made sketches from memory, quite independently of

the impressions left on their minds, and on comparing these sketches,

which slightly varied, they have agreed to sanction the accompanying

outline as representing as nearly as possible the object which they

saw. The party consisted of W. Barfoot, J. P. of Leicester, F. J.

Marlow, solicitor, of Manchester, Mrs. Marlow, and several others. They

discard the theories of birds or porpoises as not accounting for this

particular phenomenon.”

“F. T. Mott.”

“Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”

The appearance took place, as is stated, near Orme’s Head, a headland

of the Northern coast of Wales, projecting in a north-western direction

into the Irish Sea. The great rapidity of the movement through the

water, estimated at thirty miles an hour, its great length of about 200

feet, its black colour, its vertical undulations and the whole external

appearance of the animal, outlines of which are represented in the

figure, at once betray the sea-serpent.

Another correspondent of _Nature_ immediately wrote to the Editor as

follows: “I have seen four or five times something like what your

correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, and have no doubt

whatever that phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never,

however, saw the _head_ your correspondent gives.” There! It is just

the head which shows that the animal seen by the party of gentlemen

and ladies above mentioned, was one single animal and not a row of

porpoises!

And therefore, one of the eye-witnesses, Mr. W. BARFOOT, promptly

answered in _Nature_ of Febr. 8, 1883:

“Like your correspondent, Mr. Sidebotham (in _Nature_ Vol. XXVII, p.

315), I have frequently seen a shoal of porpoises in Llandudno Bay,

as well as in other places, and on the occasion referred to by Mr.

Mott, in _Nature_, Vol. XXVII, p. 293, the idea of porpoises was at

first started but immediately abandoned. I will venture to suggest

that no one has seen a shoal of these creatures travel at the rate of

from twenty five to thirty miles an hour. I have seen whales in the

ocean, and large flocks of sea-birds, such as those of the eider-duck,

skimming its surface; but the strange appearance seen at Llandudno on

September 3 was not to be accounted for by porpoises, whales, birds, or

breakers, an opinion which was shared by all present.”

“William Barfoot.”

* * * * *

In 1883 Mr. HENRY LEE published his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, one of the

Series of publications of the International Fisheries Exhibition. This

delightful book treats of the Kraken and the sea-serpent.

In the Preface Mr. LEE remarks:

“In treating of the so-called “sea-serpent”, I have been anticipated

by many able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book “The Romance

of Natural History”, published in 1862, devoted a chapter to it;

and numerous articles concerning it appeared in various papers and

periodicals.”

“But, for the information from which those authors have drawn their

inferences, and on which they have founded their opinions, they have

been greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously to consider

this subject, to the late experienced editor of the _Zoologist_, Mr.

Edward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind, of great judgment, a

profound thinker, and an able writer. At a time when, as he said, “the

shafts of ridicule were launched against believers and unbelievers in

the sea-serpent in a very pleasing and impartial manner”, he, in the

true spirit of philosophical inquiry, in 1847, opened the columns of

his magazine to correspondence on this topic, and all the more recent

reports of marine monsters having been seen are therein recorded. To

him, therefore, the fullest acknowledgements are due.”

I too am under obligations to Mr. NEWMAN, as to one who has collected

so many reports of the sea-serpent and published them in his journal,

but I fail to see in him what Mr. LEE asserts him to be.

As to the contents of Mr. LEE’S “Great Sea-Serpent”, the second part of

his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, I may be allowed to note the following.

First he mentions the various great snakes of antiquity and believes

them to be merely boas (read pythons) and real sea-snakes. Next he

represents a figure, found on a sarcophagus or coffin in the Catacombs

of Rome, and tells us that it corresponds in many respects with some of

the descriptions of the sea-serpent given several centuries afterwards.

I, however, don’t observe any resemblance in them. I consider this

monster as a singular combination of a horse and a fish, badly drawn,

as one of the representations of those wonderful ideas or beliefs of

antiquity concerning the existence of such monsters as sirens, tritons,

the minotaurus, etc.

Further he treats of OLAUS MAGNUS, Bishop PONTOPPIDAN, HANS EGEDE, the

Animal of Stronsa, and of various reports of the sea-serpent, and it

is obviously a favoured idea of his that the sea-serpent is only to

be accounted for by a great calamary; to prove this, he makes himself

guilty of all kinds of misrepresentations and improbabilities; he

considers every one as having been the dupe of optical deceptions,

or as having made exaggerations, and their observations to be “full

of error and mistakes”! And he who has never seen a sea-serpent, but

sits pen in hand in his chair at his desk, knows it best of all: all

sea-serpents were calamaries, except a very few, which were a row of

porpoises! But the more Mr. LEE has to deal with more recent reports,

the less he is able to explain the various sea-serpents by reference to

his favoured calamary. Of the animals seen in the Harbour of Gloucester

in 1817 he says: “Of this I can offer no zoological explanation”.

He neither gives an explanation of the sea-serpent seen in 1833 by

British officers (n^o. 97), nor of that in Lochourn (n^o. 137, 138,

139, 140). Then he says: “Many other accounts have been published of

the appearance of serpent-like sea-monsters, but I have only space

for two or three more of the most remarkable of them”. Truly, an easy

way to get rid of them! One of these two or three more remarkable

reports is the fight between the whale and the sea-serpent (n^o. 144)

of which he proposes several explanations (I beg to refer the readers

to that account), ending with the words: “it must be left for further

elucidation”. The sea-serpent of the _City of Baltimore_ (n^o. 149) was

misunderstood by him. He compares the _splash of the water_, caused by

the animal’s dropping its neck like a log of wood into it, with the

_caudal fins of a calamary_ (just imagine!) but ends: “but, as one with

a bull-dog expression of eye-brow, visible at 500 yards distance, does

not come within my ken, I will not claim it as much.” And of the animal

of the _Osborne_ he says:

“It seems to me that this description cannot be explained as applicable

to any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly,

as was suggested by Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND, belong to four basking sharks,

swimming in line, in close order; but the combination of them with long

flippers, and turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma

which I am unable to solve.”

Nevertheless, in answering the question: “To which of the recognized

class of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred?”

he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda” (i. e. calamaries). Such a

contradiction I do not understand.

And notwithstanding his cherished great-calamary-hypothesis, and after

having said some words about Mr. NEWMAN’s Plesiosaurus theory and Mr.

WILSON’s ideas of the extraordinary development of snakes, he ends his

work with the following conclusions:

“I arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without

straining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not proved

to be erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed “Great

Sea-Serpent” may now be nearly all accounted for by the forms and

habits of known animals; especially if we admit, as proposed by Dr.

Andrew Wilson, that some of them, including the marine snakes, may,

like the cuttles, attain to an extraordinary size.”

“2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance of every

existing marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable. It

appears to me more than probable that many marine animals, unknown to

science, and some of them of gigantic size, may have their ordinary

habitat in the great depths of the sea, and only occasionally come to

the surface; and I think it not impossible that amongst them may be

marine snakes of greater dimensions than we are aware of, and even a

creature having close affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil

skeletons tell of their magnitude and abundance in past ages.”