The various explanations hitherto given.
I have found the =first= explanation given about the Sea-Serpent in the
_Report_ of the Committee of 1817, where we read an extract from a M.
S. journal of the Rev. WILLIAM JENKS, which he communicated in a letter
to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, and which letter is printed there. It runs as
follows:
“A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. Alden Bradford of Wiscasset, now
Secretary of the Commonwealth,) inquired of Mr. Cummings, whether the
appearance might not be produced by =a number of porpoises=, =following
each other= in a train.”
This passage from the private journal was written in Sept. 10, 1809;
but after having consulted SILLIMAN’s _American Journal of Science
and the Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1819 (1820), we are convinced that Mr.
BRADFORD’s inquiry of Mr. CUMMINGS took place before Aug. 1803.
Fig. 52 shows my readers a porpoise.
As we read in SCHLEGEL’s _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, p.
517, note, PETER ASCANIUS in his _Icones rerum naturalium_ Cahier V,
Copenhague, 1805, says:
“In summer porpoises approach the coasts and the fjords. They often
meet in the open sea in troops of several scores, and when the weather
is calm and fine, they range in a line after each other to play and to
tumble: they then have the appearance of a chain of little eminences
floating on the surface of the water; some fishermen of the North,
seeing them at a great distance, took this resemblance for an immense
animal and gave it the name of sea-serpent.”
Again in the letter from Mr. S. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT, dated August
20, 1817, we read:
“All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of
reports, people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it
was only a number of porpuses following each other in rapid succession.”
[Illustration: Fig. 52.--Phocaena phocoena (Linné).--]
For the fourth time we read in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Vol. XIX, p. 193:
“Christiania, September 5, 1827. Last week several persons saw large
shoals of porpoises, and therefore uttered the supposition that the
alleged presence of the sea-serpent was not right.”
Mr. MITCHILL’S paper, of 1828, which we have inserted _in toto_ in our
Chapter on hoaxes, also ends with the supposition that the “gambols of
porpoises” have given rise to all the tales of the sea-serpent.
SCHLEGEL in his _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837,
p. 105, in his chapter on Fables respecting snakes says:
“We are surprised to hear of a sea-serpent, monstrous in shape and
size”,
and he refers to his chapter on true sea-snakes, the _Hydrophidae_.
There p. 517 he ends his chapter with the following words:
“Before ending the history of the interesting beings of which I have
treated, I cannot help saying a few words about an animal, observed
through centuries by many people of all ranks, and known to every one
from the tales which are spread about it, but which is still ignored
by naturalists. I mean the monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which
in reality has nothing to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we
have treated in the foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous
evidences given by very respectable persons to prove the existence
of this enormous sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I
too should be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been
turned into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of
1826. Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea, I
suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the mouth of
the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which I took for
a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several others closely
following each other. For the greater part hidden by the water, the
upper part of this creature could be distinctly seen only for the
short moment, when it was carried on the top of a wave, and plunged
down into the precipice formed before it. The illusion caused by the
continuous agitation of the waves indeed contributed to make doubtful
the appearance of a great number of black objects, appearing together
out of the water, disappearing the moment afterwards, and the whole
of which deceitfully represented the simultaneous movements of the
undulations of one single body. Convinced that the animals were unable
to swim in vertical undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till
I knew this monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of
porpoises.”
In the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, Mr. RATHKE, who published
in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on his journey in
Norway, says:
“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we shall
soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory
statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend
to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for a long
animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what else could
be the cause of the illusion which has created the belief in such an
animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that what has been taken for
a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else but a row of porpoises,
swimming in line. But all those persons, by whom the above-mentioned
evidences are given were too familiar with the sea, and have too often
observed porpoises together, to be deceived by a row of such animals
swimming on the surface of the water. If this, however, had been the
case, all the observations related to me of the sea-serpent’s holding
its head above the surface, and about the size of it, must have been
mere fiction, and this I cannot admit. According to all this, it
evidently cannot be doubted, that there is a long serpentine animal in
the sea of Norway, which may grow to a considerable length.”
Again, as we learn in FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606,
p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the _Christiansand’s Posten_ after
an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in the fjord of
Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the following remarks:
“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which the
writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and
if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their
fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed their boats to near the
animal, they would undoubtedly have soon observed that the supposed
intervals between the coils were nothing else but water. This great
sea-serpent in reality consists of a row of porpoises, which in a shoal
of from eight to twelve often swim after each other in line. As each
of these brown animals, eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears
above the surface of the water at proportionably short intervals, in
such a way, as if they were about to tumble head first, so every one,
who sees such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the
coils of an immense snake.”
In a letter from Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to Captain HAMILTON, R. N.,
Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage (see _Ill. Lond. News_
of October 28, 1848, and our n^o. 113):
“I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed
that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given rise to the
fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”
In ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we read, 1879:
“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming in
line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and then, with
a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface of the water,
presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought about by a
somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”
Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, treating of the figure of
Mr. BENSTRUP (see our fig. 24), says:
“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the
appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”
I have treated of his explanation in the right place (n^o. 10). And on
the following page he also asserts:
“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as well
as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances
of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line
in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an upraised
head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it was either
unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no
serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”
I repeat here what I have said above (n^o. 10): If Mr. LEE wishes to
explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to tell me what
was the head that resembled a horse’s head.
Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the great
calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many
well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as some
of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical undulations
of the snake seen out of water have been the burly bodies of so many
porpoises swimming in line--the connecting undulations beneath the
surface have been supplied by the imagination.”
After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s Head
(n^o. 155), Mr. SIDEBOTHAM, a correspondent of _Nature_ writes in this
journal (1883, Febr. 1):
“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent
describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the Little Orme’s
Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever that the phenomenon
was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the head your
correspondent gives, but in other respects what I have seen was exactly
the same; the motions of porpoises might easily be taken for those of
a serpent; once I saw them from the top of the Little Orme, they came
very near the base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across
the bay.”
Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the head.”
I remind here my readers of Mr. CUMMINGS’ question “who ever saw a row
of porpoises with a head of a seal?”
I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly.
They are in the habit of continually throwing up their bodies half
above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is clearly
visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each coil a
backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment afterwards
three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen at once, while
the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly visible above the
surface, moving with the greatest regularity. Every one will feel that
this explanation is not satisfactory; it does not even explain a single
observation. Besides, how to explain the swan-like neck, so often seen
by reference to porpoises? To avoid repetitions, I beg the reader to
refer to the testimonies of Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29) and Mr. PRINCE (n^o.
63), in which they clearly bring to light the difference between the
appearance of the sea-serpent and that of a row of porpoises.
[Illustration: Fig. 53.--A row of porpoises.]
And where a naturalist, like Mr. SCHLEGEL, describes the effect caused
by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those persons
who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe of an optical
illusion. Mr. SCHLEGEL should have said: “On one occasion I was nearly
deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I never saw a sea-serpent!”
* * * * *
The =second= explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean
Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the
Hon. Judge DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, and Mr. FRANCIS C. GRAY. This
learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting
reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. What
kind of beast could it be!? and before they began to feel puzzled, a
_deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick, illformed and lame little
snake presented itself suddenly in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was
killed by a working man at that place, bought by Dr. So and So, and
presented to the Committee to examine it, because people believed that
this animal was a spawn of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really
examined and dissected it and gave a full account of their experience
in their _Report_. They considered the little =snake= to be =new to
science=, closely allied to the _Coluber constrictor_ or Black Snake,
a common species of North-America, and gave it the name of _Scoliophis
atlanticus_. This account is followed by two documents describing how
the _Scoliophis_ looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under
which it was killed. I present here to my readers the _Scoliophis
atlanticus_ reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized
figure of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with
which the animal was killed.
[Illustration: Fig. 54.--Scoliophis atlanticus; one sixth of its
full-size.]
[Illustration: Fig. 55.--Its head; full-size.]
Next they gave: “A few remarks on the question” (broached by the
public) “whether the great serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester
be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.” These “few remarks” fill three pages and
a half and end with the words:
“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous,
important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference
between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting that of
size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering them
individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same name, until a
more close examination of the great Serpent shall have disclosed some
difference of structure, important enough to constitute a specific
distinction.”
It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the
conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts
which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, was a full
grown individual of the species they called _Scoliophis atlanticus_! If
they had collected all these accounts, if they had seriously compared
them, they would have come most probably to the conclusion that they
did not know precisely what it was, but that it could never be a snake.
Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the
Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as the
little _Scoliophis_. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which was not
bifid, while the tongue of _Scoliophis_ is so! And the most accurate
testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had _no_ scales!
The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and no doubt
drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE
BLAINVILLE dared handle the subject publicly. As soon as the _Report_
of the Committee of 1817 reached him, he made an extract from it in his
_Journal de Physique_, etc., Vol. 86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made
much more of the little curious snake, apparently believing too that
it was a new species, than of the large marine animal of which he was
unable to give any explanation. Mr. DE BLAINVILLE does not hesitate to
express his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent
to be a real snake and an adult of their _Scoliophis atlanticus_, and
ended his extract:
“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great
Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the
appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great
length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is a true
snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_,
is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold that it is
of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities which become
null, if one is to believe that such an immense animal as that observed
in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”
For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!
For Mr. DE BLAINVILLE who did not give himself the trouble to collect
as many accounts as possible, to read OLAUS MAGNUS, PONTOPPIDAN, EGEDE,
etc., it was of course impossible to conceive what animal had been seen
near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the same reason, able to explain the
very different declarations of the witnesses concerning the length of
the animal.
Mr. A. LESUEUR, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. PÉRON,
and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. DE BLAINVILLE to
say that he had not only seen the little snake, but had dissected
the same portion of the vertebral column as did the members of the
Committee, together with several inches of another portion of the
snake, and concluded that the figure of the little snake published by
the Committee was very well drawn, but that the figure of the portion
of the vertebral column was very badly done; of this he gave another
figure, and furthermore asserted that the little snake not only was
nothing else but a true snake, closely allied to the Black Snake
(_Coluber constrictor_), but that it was in a state of disease and
notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent he said nothing, because he
had not seen it himself.
The dissertation of Mr. DE BLAINVILLE and the extract from Mr.
LESUEUR’S letter translated into German are in OKEN’S _Isis_, 1819.
Mr. FRORIEP in his _Notizen_, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself about
this explanation in the following manner:
“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, cannot
depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be allowed to
entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”
Of this little _Coluber_ we find also the following passage in
SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837, p. 80:
“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the species
called _Coluber constrictor_, of which all parts were disfigured by
sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind of
monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known for its
enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published in Boston,
will be found in the _Journal de Physique_ Vol. 86, p. 297.”
Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, apparently believes
that the little _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was the spawn of the Great
Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:
“The Great Sea-Serpent.”
“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.
We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of
interrogation after the scientific name.
Without any doubt the _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was a difformed specimen
of _Coluber constrictor_. It was the bunches on its back, which induced
the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a spawn of the
sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. After the discovery
that the little snake was a difformed one, the explanation falls to the
ground. Moreover the smooth skin and the presence of four flappers of
the sea-serpent, are proofs against this supposition.
* * * * *
The =third= explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already
inserted the letter from Prof. T. SAY, of Philadelphia, to Prof. LEACH,
of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of the crew of
the vessel commanded by captain RICHARD RICH, firmly believed and
declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but =a large tunny=. Prof. SAY’S
letter is also printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ of January, 1819. We have
inserted a figure of a tunny in the above mentioned Chapter, fig. 1.
Prof. BIGELOW’S indignation rose against this explanation; in
SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts._ Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:
“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, in
which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere),
“is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a “defective
observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” (See
Thomson’s _Annals_, for January 1819)”.
“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note from
the same author, on the identity of _Scoliophis_ with _Coluber
constrictor_. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on the
subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it might have
been decorous in him to have noticed the source from which he got his
information.”
“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more important
than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to the public
consideration some additional evidence in regard to the size and shape
of this marine animal which has come to light since the publication
of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This evidence is partly
the result of observations during the present year, and partly the
contents of a communication made to the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences fifteen years ago, but which, having been mislaid, has
not before been published. The reader will judge whether it is a
“defective observation” which has produced a remarkable coincidence
between witnesses in different periods and places, unknown to each
other; or whether it was “an extravagant degree of fear” which induced
the commander of an American frigate to man his boats and go with his
mariners in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add
that the original letters constituting the communication last alluded
to, are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy,
where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination
of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future
opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be
considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural
History.”
How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, a seal,
a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its enormous
long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a tunny, even of
nine or ten feet in length!?
* * * * *
The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in
his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_
(_Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced
of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are
merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family _Hydrophidae_),
of which I give a figure representing the _Hydrophis pelamidoides_,
and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this
head, proposing for them the names of _Pelamis megophias_ (_Megophias
monstrosus_) and _Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis_.
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after discussing the
question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion caused by
a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark,
a ribbon fish, or a large kind of eel, continues his considerations in
the following terms:
“To the Reptiles, however, popular opinion has pretty uniformly
assigned this denizen of the sea, and his accepted title of
“sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities in the
estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. Let us, then,
test his claims to be a serpent.”
[Illustration: Fig. 56.--Hydrophis pelamidoides.--]
“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian
and Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes
(_Hydrophidae_), which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are
reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so soundly
there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes fails to
awaken them.”
“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, so far as
we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON on the contrary in September, 1878, declares in
_Nature_ (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:
“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large
development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true
explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”
But a few lines further on he also tells us:
“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of
a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting
problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions,
might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for a
“sea-serpent”.”--
In his _Leisure Time Studies_, the same writer returns to his favourite
idea:
“The only group of animals to which our attention may be specially
directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of the problem,
is that of the _Vertebrata_,--the highest group of animals, which
possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and quadrupeds as its
highest representatives. Laying aside the class of birds, as including
no form at all allied to our present inquiry, we are left with,
speaking generally, three groups of animals, from the ranks of which
various forms may be selected to aid us in solving the sea-serpent
mystery. These three groups are the fishes, reptiles, and mammalia,
and it may be shown that from each of these classes, but more notably
from among the fishes and reptiles, various animals, corresponding
more or less closely with the descriptions given of strange marine
monsters, may be obtained. An important consideration, however, must
not be overlooked at this stage, namely, that too frequently the
attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent with some _known_ animal of
serpentine form and nature, has limited the perceptions and foiled the
labours of naturalists. Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown
form must be a serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of
the term “serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than
the reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the
subject, and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at
once given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
zoologists and other writers on this subject have never made allowance
for the _abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals_. My
own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations, but
especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation
of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation of
such discrepancies as the various narrations may be shown to evince. If
we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary animal life, or amongst
the reptiles themselves, the representatives of the “sea-serpents”,
I think we may nevertheless build up a most reasonable case both for
their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking
into account the facts, _that the term “sea-serpent”, as ordinarily
employed, must be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals
which possess elongated bodies; and that cases of the abnormally large
development of ordinary serpents and of serpent-like animals will
reasonably account for the occurrence of the animals collectively named
sea-serpents_.”
“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (n^o. 118)
“was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without
that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits. Whilst
to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the
crew of the _Pauline_” (n^o. 144, 145) “must be founded on the idea
that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. The habits
of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently point to a close
correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such
as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the animal being described
in the various narratives as swimming with the head out of water, would
seem to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and
required to come more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose
of respiration. The difficulties which appear to stand in the way of
reconciling the sea-serpent with a marine snake, in this or in other
cases, are two in number. The great majority of intelligent persons
are unaware of the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively
marine habits; and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes
an apparent difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the
history of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks
of these marine snakes,--the _Hydrophidae_ of the naturalist,--which
inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails adapted
for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea. Whilst,
as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the true
serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply because
it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development of an
ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with most of the
appearances described, and would in the most natural manner explain
many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic
size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and allow for slight
variations or inaccuracies in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae,
and I think we have in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a
reasonable solution of this interesting problem”.
“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of motion
of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a dorsal or
back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements of the
laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath the surface,
would serve to propel the animal forward without causing the front
portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent motion; whilst
the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained on the presumption
that sea-weed may have become attached to the animal, or, that the
upper ridge of the vertically compressed tail extended far forward and
appeared as a fin-like structure.”
“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which I may be
desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes the strong
points of this explanation, is the probability of the development to
a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine serpents. This point is
one in support of which zoology and physiology will offer strong and
favourable testimony. There is no single fact, so far as I am aware,
which militates in the slightest degree against the supposition that
giant members of the sea-serpents may be occasionally developed. The
laws which regulate human growth and structure, and in virtue of which
veritable “sons of Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian
giant, differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are
developed, must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom.
There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition that a
giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly observe
almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a member of the
race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its neighbours. But
clearer still does our case become when we consider that we have proof
of the most absolute and direct kind of the giant development of such
forms as cuttle-fishes, which have thus appeared as if in realisation
of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”, which plays so important a part in
that strange weird tale, the “Toilers of the Sea”. At the present
time we are in full possession of the details of several undoubted
cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes of literally gigantic
proportions,--developed, in fact, to an extent justly comparable to
that of the supposed “sea-serpent”, when the latter is compared with
its ordinary representatives of the tropical oceans.”
“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a gigantic
development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable giant of its
race--or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct species of
monster sea-serpents--than in the production of huge cuttle-fishes,
which, until within the past few years, remained unknown to the
foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic developments of
snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or reptiles, I hold we
have at least a feasible and rational explanation of the primary fact
of the actual existence of such organisms.”
Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ (1883) also says:
“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails
adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, and
are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible
that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and colossal
development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much attention to this
subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development of ordinary
forms we discover the true and natural law of the production of the
giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at any rate, towards accounting
for its supposed appearance”.
But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the
mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained.
Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical
undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large _Hydrophidae_,
supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain, the United
States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland and the
Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends over the
tropical seas.
* * * * *
The =fifth= explanation. The same Mr. RAFINESQUE believed the
sea-serpent seen by Capt. BROWN to be a fish (n^o. 56), closely allied
to the genera _Symbranchus_ (Fam. _Symbranchidae_) and _Sphagebranchus_
(Fam. _Muraenidae_); consequently =belonging to the eel tribe=.
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having shown that
in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an optical illusion
caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a
basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:
“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic
species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar
conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s
figures remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be
either so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the
animal was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”
And Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is also inclined to
this hypothesis:
“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like
animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic
developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the appearance
of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the movements of a large
conger-eel, for example, in any of our great aquaria, must have
remarked not only its serpentine form, but also the peculiar gliding
motion, which seems frequently to be produced independently of the
active movements of the tail or pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however,
that a giant eel might by most persons be readily enough referred
to its proper place in the animal sphere, although, when viewed
from some distance, and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner,
the spectators--all unprepared to think of an eel being so largely
developed--might report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”
Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, too, asserts:
“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”
As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough known to
all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The _Symbranchus_ has
nearly the same external features, it has, however, no pectoral or
ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures, or gill-splits,
are united together on its throat. The _Sphagebranchus_ has also nearly
the same external features; it has no ventral fins and the very end of
its tail is destitute of a fin.
The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility are
strong proofs against this hypothesis.
* * * * *
The =sixth= explanation is that which I have accidentally found
mentioned in Dr. HIBBERT’S _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822.
The passage runs as follows:
“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished for, did
not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the sea-snake,
but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the =fable=.”
I am convinced that Dr. HIBBERT is right. All fables have their
foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible that
the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable of Thor’s
great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.
Dr. PERCY’S explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs
from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. H. E. STRICKLAND
and A. G. MELVILLE in a note to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the
_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2nd. series, Vol. 2, p. 444,
Nov. 15? 1848:
“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent,
which first spread in modern times from Norway, was to be traced to
the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology, of that fell offspring
of Loki, Jormungandr,--the great world surrounding serpent, whom
Thor fished up with the bull’s-head bait, and whom, at the great day
of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It is curious by the way, that we are
expressly told how Jormungandr rearing his head, poured out fountains
of venom upon Thor, very much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great
sea-serpent raising up its head and spouting out water.”
At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports of the
great sea-serpent are no fables.
* * * * *
The =seventh= explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of =basking
sharks=” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at the
end of Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation, printed in 1828, with which the
reader will remember to have been made acquainted in our Chapter on
Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our fig. 8, in the Chapter on
Would-be Sea-Serpents.
Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist
MANTELL in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor of
the _Illustrated London News_, and published there in the number of
November 4, 1848:
“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent, I
would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable that an
ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine habits described
by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing to forbid the
supposition that there are unknown living forms of cartilaginous fishes
presenting the general configuration and proportions of the animals
figured in the last Number of the Illustrated London News.”
Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than thirty
feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (_Squalus
maximus_ of LINNÉ). The figures referred to are those of the
sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE, (fig. 28, 29, 30).
In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. A. G. MELVILLE was of
opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in reality, but only
in fables, and that these fables originated in the Northern mythology.
Now, he seems to have changed his opinion in a fortnight, for in a
letter to Dr. COGSWELL, part of which is published “with permission of
both gentlemen” in the _Zoologist_, number of November 27th., 1848, he
says:
“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of some
unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have astonished
the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile of the
authorities of science.”
“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the known
facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship
between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri; nor do the
recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”
“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous fish
(Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when caught the
sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive it is just as
probable that a shark may carry the head for short periods out of the
water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally step aboard to
look at us land monsters.”
“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may be
wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to believe
that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved. Might we not
obtain some information from the accurate Sars regarding the Norwegian
tradition? Could not the surgeon of the Daedalus throw some light on
the subject?”
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having treated
of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion caused
by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some cetacean,
expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in the following
terms:
“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville consider
that the _Daedalus_ animal may have been one of the sharks; and there
is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, which was considered
by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent, was really the _Selache
maxima_ or basking-shark. But the identification of Captain M’Quhae’s
figure and description with a shark is preposterous.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON, however, in _Nature_ (1878, Sept. 12, Vol. XVIII) is
of the opinion that:
“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do
duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”
Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, also believes that “the
dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured by Mr. Buckland, may have
furnished the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently means the ridge of
fins as seen in fig. 44.
None of the observers of the sea-serpent mention fins on its back, so
that this explanation is not untenable either.
* * * * *
The =eighth= explanation is given by Mr. MITCHILL in his paper “_On
Sea-Serpentism_”, printed in 1828; (See our Chapter on Hoaxes), at the
end of which he supposed that also the appearances of =balaenopterous
whales= may have given rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says:
“which have fins on their back”, and yet he cannot show me one single
account of the sea-serpent, in which there is question of backfins.
Moreover, who has ever heard of fin-fishes which bend their body in
such a manner as to show bunches on their backs, or coils like a string
of buoys? Fig. 57 shows the readers a fin-fish (_Balaenoptera physalus_
(LINNÉ)). It is the largest kind of whales, it may obtain a length of
106 feet. An outline of the tail, seen from above, is added above the
hindmost part of the main-figure.
[Illustration: Fig. 57.--Balaenoptera physalus, (Linné).--]
Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having considered
and upset the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory says:
“It is by no means impossible that the creature may prove to belong
to the _Cetacea_ or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender
and lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of
Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in this
direction.”
The sea-serpent seen by Colonel STEELE, however was not a cetacean,
although it was observed spouting, for it had a red back-fin like a saw
(see our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, 1852, Aug. 28).--
* * * * *
The =ninth= explanation is Mr. R. BAKEWELL’S. In FRORIEP’S Notizen,
Vol. 40, n^o. 879, of June, 1834, we read:
“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great American
Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of his Introduction
to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the opinion that the
great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the United States of
America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles which may be analogous
to the fossil =Ichthyosaurus=, and that the description, given of
the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles, and formidable
mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing more with that of a saurian
than with that of a snake. Some of the people who saw the sea-serpent
state that the body was very long and as thick as a water-cask.”
Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent to be
a living _Plesiosaurus_, yet we meet with the following suggestion, in
the September number of _Nature_ of that same year.
“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates
the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters of which
the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:--“If the sea-serpent
continues in its present sociable state of mind, we may perhaps have
an opportunity of deciding the vexed question regarding the formation
of that portion of his figure which, according to English observers,
he keeps concealed under the water. The legend of the Lambton Worm, a
popular tale in the North of England, describes the worm as a serpent
of enormous size, who used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the
River Wear, just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient
stone effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle,
represents it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was
made, as it probably was, _from some recollection_ on recent tradition
of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the beast was
one of the _winged land monsters_ which existed at the same time as
the _Ichthyosaurus_, but would naturally become an extinct species far
sooner than the _fish-lizard_, which can conceal itself in the depth of
the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”
The _Ichthyosaurus_ must have been destitute of scales, or better
the scales must have been of a microscopic minuteness, and so I have
ventured to sketch my fig. 59, showing the _Ichthyosaurus communis_, as
it most probably looked, and of which fig. 58 represents the skeleton.
[Illustration: Fig. 58.--Skeleton of Ichthyosaurus communis.]
[Illustration: Fig. 59.--Ichthyosaurus communis, restored.]
Here we have an animal of really huge dimensions. Some may have had a
length of from forty to fifty feet. Their skin was smooth, the tail was
very long and four flappers resembling the foreflappers of whales, were
the organs of locomotion. Most probably, however, the tail was provided
with a vertical fin, as I have delineated. The neck was very short,
as in whales. Now the sea-serpent has a pointed tail, and a very long
neck. Especially this last character is enough to drop the supposition
that the sea-serpents are still living _Ichthyosauri_. Moreover, the
_Ichthyosaurus_ was unable to move in vertical undulations.
* * * * *
The =tenth= explanation.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834), n^o.
879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S latest (1834?)
edition of his _Introduction to Geology_, above mentioned, Prof.
BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds:
“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may
be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a
=Plesiosaurus=, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the latter
does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”
_Plesiosaurians_, as well as the _Ichthyosaurians_, are reptiles only
known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these
animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in
_liassic_ and _oolitic_ formations. Of these remains geologists are
able to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show my
readers a sketch in fig. 60.--If this is done, it will not be difficult
to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more so as it is a
well-known fact that these animals must have been destitute or nearly
destitute of scales. The figures drawn by GOSSE, FIGUIER and ANDREW
WILSON, don’t please me, as the necks are delineated too slender,
and the head of the animal in Mr. GOSSE’S drawing, in my opinion, is
wrongly represented. So I venture to present to my readers my fig. 61,
showing how I think that the animal must have looked.
Mr. RATHKE, in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, after
publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself
during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself is a
firm believer in it, goes on:
[Illustration: Fig. 60.--Skeleton of Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus.]
[Illustration: Fig. 61.--Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, restored.]
“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot
of course be asserted with any certainty. The supposition, however, is
very near, that it is closely related to that animal which in 1816”
(read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkney’s,” &c.
After a short description of this animal with which the reader will
remember to have been made acquainted in the Chapter on Would-be
Sea-Serpents, Mr. RATHKE concludes:
“that this animal resembled a _Plesiosaurus_, and that it thus belonged
to the _Amphibia_, viz. to the _Saurians_. Now if such were the case,
and if the creature found in Stronsa were closely related to the
sea-serpent of the Norwegians, and we have every reason to believe
this, it is astonishing that the latter has not been more observed,
than has been the case. For being an Amphibium, which, according to its
organization, can only breathe by lungs, the sea-serpent necessarily
must have come very often to the surface of the water, to renew the
inhaled air. It is, however, conceivable and probable that stretching
out its long neck, it generally comes only with the nose tip and only
for a very short time on the surface of the water, remaining under it
with the rest of the body, in which circumstances it will not be easy
to observe it amongst the beating of the waves.”
We observe that Mr. RATHKE, like Prof. SILLIMAN, inclines to believe
that the sea-serpent is, or is allied to the _Plesiosaurus_.
Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, in 1847, on the
wrapper of the 54th. number of this Journal made the suggestion that
sea-serpents may belong to one of the _Enaliosaurians_.
I have not seen this wrapper so that I am unable to give the words in
which this supposition was written.
Most probably Mr. NEWMAN took this suggestion from Mr. RATHKE’S above
mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which he inserted (N. B.!)
_in the same number of the Zoologist_; but it is, of course, _possible_
that this supposition really was the product of his own brain. We hope
that the latter was the case; but I only ask: why did he insert the
accounts of Mr. RATHKE in the _columns_ of the issue, and why _not_ the
above-mentioned suggestion; what was the reason to communicate it on
the _wrapper_? It makes on me the impression as if Mr. NEWMAN waited
to see if some one or other would perhaps find out that _both accounts
and supposition_ were _already six years old_! But, of course, I may be
mistaken!
Immediately after reading this suggestion on the above mentioned
wrapper, Mr. CHARLES COGSWELL wrote for the same Journal his _Plea for
the Sea-Serpent_. For history’s sake I repeat here his whole paper. It
runs as follows:
“_A Plea for the North-Atlantic Sea-Serpent._ By CHARLES COGSWELL, M.
D.”
“Every generation of man is born to stare at something, which so long
as it eludes their understanding, is a very African fetish to the many,
and a Gordian knot to the few.”
HAWKIN’S _Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri_.
“Of the numerous contributions supplied through the press to support
the cause of the subject of this article, one of the most recent has
arrested my attention, because of the particulars having been long
since familiar to me by oral communication from the writer in person.
I allude to the interesting narrative contained in the “Zoologist” for
May last, describing a meeting with such an animal off the coast of
one of the British provinces, stretching out into the Atlantic to the
north-east of New England. It is worthy of notice that several animals
of the Cetaceous kind (sometimes conjectured to have been a source
of deception) were seen and scanned _in limine_, and an opportunity
was thus afforded for immediate descrimination. Immediately subjoined
is another statement, copied from a foreign newspaper, being the
tribute of a French sea-captain to the same object, but qualified
with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail
of certain forms and measurements, as rather to display an elaborate
view of disjoined parts, than represent them all in harmony together
as belonging to one individual. It betrays the caution of a witness,
who would fain keep an opening in reserve for escape from a precarious
position. The former adventure took place in 1833, the latter in 1840,
and now they are related almost simultaneously within the last few
months.”
“Nor is this delay to be wondered at, when we consider how much the
reserve of unbiassed is the tribunal of public opinion, before which
they appear. It will hardly be denied that there is no debateable point
in the modern records of observation more complacently devoted to
ridicule by all but universal consent, than that of the existence of
huge serpent-like animals in the North Atlantic Ocean. The very mention
of the name of sea-serpent in the singular number with the definite
article prefixed, suggests to most minds an idea of some anomalous
monster, without parentage or congeners, feigned to haunt the recesses
of the deep, and, like the ghost of vulgar superstition, manifesting
itself now and again for the sole conceivable end of adorning some
wonderful legend. This impression, favoured by the circumstance of
no actual specimen having ever occurred to the observation of a
naturalist, much less been obtained for deliberate examination, has
caused the subject of our notice to rank with the mermaid, the unicorn,
the griffin, and other prodigies of the olden faith. It does not fail
to be objected that Norway, a locality most fruitful in accounts of
the appearance in question, has been immemorially distinguished for
a vivid perception of the marvellous. Nor, after hearing the other
side of the Atlantic, are we much better able to divest our minds of
suspicion with regard to the trustworthy character of the witnesses;
our relative in the West having acquired nearly as much celebrity for
the endowment of a grand inventive genius as his Scandinavian ally in
the cause of sea-serpents. They defer indeed, in so far as the latter
believes and venerates his own creations, while the American indulges
his fancy for the purely benevolent purpose of what is called “hoaxing”
the unwary public. Not many years since, it may be recollected, one of
these pleasant philosophers enlightened his fellow-mortals with a “true
and peculiar” description of certain winged inhabitants assumed to have
been discovered in the moon by an eminent living astronomer, giving
the details with so much simplicity and effected candour with regard
to some particulars, in the manner of “Gulliver’s Travels”, that many
readers were not aware of its being a fabrication. Such proof of a
disposition to practise on the public credulity, too often repeated,
necessarily communicate a colouring of insincerity to all other reports
of strange events emanating from the same source, and certainly demand
the exercise of an unusual amount of circumspection, though they do not
justify scepticism, in the case now before us.”
“Making due allowance for these peculiarities in the testimony, we
may, nevertheless, proceed in a spirit of induction to examine into
the tendency of the collateral evidence. The question after all, when
reduced to its simplest form comes to be little more than one of
geographical distribution. That is to say, that even if we chose to
confine the animal to the true serpents, which has been the ordinary
conception heretofore, there is no obvious impediment to oppose it,
either on the score of want of analogy, or of structural incapacity.
Amphibiousness, to commence with, in its popular acceptation, or the
capability of spending a considerable time in the water, is one of the
most familiar properties of serpents, as illustrated in the common
snake (_Coluber natrix_) and the viper, the only two species, if we
except the blindworm, ascertained to be indigenous to these islands.
“Snakes”, observes Professor Bell (“History of British Reptiles”) “are
extremely fond of the water, taking to it readily, and swimming with
great elegance and ease, holding the head and neck above the surface.
It is extremely probable that they resort to the water in search
of frogs.” In the learned System of Schlegel, translated by Prof.
Traill--“Physiognomy of Serpents”--members of various ophidian-groups
are characterised as living near and inhabiting lakes and rivers.
Some belong to the genera Tropidonotus (which here includes the first
named British species), and Homalopsis, comprised under the head of
_Fresh Water-Serpents_. Of the Boas, this author says: “several species
frequent fresh water, and there are some of them essentially aquatic,”
among them the Boa murina, the largest of known serpents, and his two
species of Acrochordus.”
“Further, and what completely sets at rest the part of the case we are
now considering, there are swarms of _marine_ ophidians inhabiting the
warm latitudes of the pacific. These appear to have been partly known
to the ancients. Aelian informs us that Hydrae with flat tails were
found in the Indian Seas, and that they also existed in the marshes. He
also tells us that these reptiles had very sharp teeth, and appeared
to be venomous. According to Ctesias, the serpents of the river Argada
in the province of Sittacene, remain concealed at the _bottom of the
water_ during the day, and by night they attack persons who go to bath
or wash linnen” (Griffith in Cuvier). Schlegel has no less than seven
species collected under the generic name of Hydrophis, constituting his
family of _Sea-Snake_--; they are especially fitted for aquatic life,
having the nostrils directed vertically and furnished with valves, and
the tail flattened like an oar; they reside in the sea exclusively,
never going on land, and are supposed to prey on fishes. Their limits
belong to the intertropical regions of the Indian Seas, or of the Great
Pacific Ocean.”
“The existence of _bona fide_ sea-serpents being therefore a matter of
notoriety, (and preserved specimens are to be seen at any time on the
shelves of the British Museum), we have but to address ourselves to the
subordinate inquiry, whether there be sufficient reason for assigning
to any of the family a habitat in the North Atlantic Ocean. And here
it is necessary to put away all that idea of deviation from the common
order of Nature, which could connect the evidence heretofore given
with some isolated excressence so to speak, of the animal kingdom. The
great size attributed to them has doubtless, served very materially
to produce an infavourable impression. Schlegel limits the extreme
length of the greatest known serpent to twenty-five feet, although
such naturalists as Cuvier and Milne-Edwards allow an extension of
thirty or forty feet to some of the Boas. These estimates do not
fall so far short of those contended for in the present instance as
to form an insuperable ground of objection. Many witnesses whose
character and station in life command respect, whatever judgment may
be formed of their powers of correct observation, profess to be fully
persuaded that they have seen immense creatures, resembling serpents,
in the vicinity of the European or the American shores. The several
depositions from Norway that appeared in the “Zoologist” of February
last, comprised the testimony not only of fishermen, drawing their
subsistence from the sea, and familiar with the more prevalent forms of
the inhabitants, but of a class commonly presumed to be well educated,
as merchants, clergymen, and a surgeon. Their observations indeed
vary on the subject of length (varying between forty and one hundred
feet), and likewise on some of the details of outline, so that they
may either relate to different specimens, or to deceptive phenomena
producing dissimilar impressions, whichever alternative decretic may
be inclined to profer. The first notice transmitted by an English
gentleman, holding a responsible appointment under the crown in one of
our transatlantic dependencies, is calculated to supply any deficiency
on the part of the new hemisphere, so far as a faithful representation
of what was submitted to the eye alone may remain a desideration.
But for the resolution manifested in this periodical to allow the
question a fair hearing on its sterling merits, there can be little
doubt that this testimony, would not have been forthcoming; like in all
probability, more of the same ingenious stamp, which the unwillingness
of the principals to oppose the current of public opinion, directly
proportioned to the value of the character they run the risk of
compromizing for no obvious use, induces them to withhold.”
“But it may be asked, how it is possible to explain the circumstance
of these _monstra natantia_ being encountered no farther South than
about the sixtieth or fifty-fifth parallel on the European boundary,
while in the American water their domain approaches so much nearer the
Equator, as Nova Scotia (or New Scotland) and New England? By a curious
and happy coincidence, of like significance to many that are constantly
springing up to confirm the results of independent research, such for
instance as the print of the piscivorous gavials in a prior leaf of the
“Stonebook” to the mammalivorous crocodiles; it happens that precisely
a line swerving from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts
is the boundary likewise of other marine animals of corresponding
types. Among the divisions of the North Atlantic, recently marked out
by Professor Edward Forbes as determined by the presence of similar
forms of animal life, occurs what is called the “arctic and boreal”
province, which “sweeps across the northernmost part of the North
Atlantic from Europe, extending down the coast of North America as far
as Massachusetts, but nothing like so far on the European side as the
American.” (Lecture at the Royal Institution, May 14, 1847).”
“Thus copiously backed by the most affirmative evidence, both positive
and circumstantial, all contributing to establish the lawful claim to
entity, the “great unknown” of the North Atlantic has still to overcome
the strong feeling of discredit so widely associated with his past
history, before he can hope to be understood as seriously claiming
to be a subject of the animal kingdom. If men of the highest name in
science condescend to notice him at all, it is most probably with a
smile at the expense of what they consider a crude invention, to which
no importance should be attached. But authority, however exalted, has
no patent of final adjudication in cases where its means of information
are confessedly imperfect, as compared with those enjoyed by the
supporters of a disputed position. The learned world was centuries
in believing the story of Herodotus about little birds resorting to
feed on insects within the “stretched jaws” of the crocodile. Bruce
all but ruined his credit for a time by relating that he had seen the
Abyssinians eat the raw flesh cut from one of the haunches of a living
cow; and there are some who, with no more reason, pretend to doubt
the good faith of a contemporary traveller, who declares that he once
made a brief excursion on the back of an alligator. The conflicts of
discovery and opinion engross indeed no small share of the history of
human knowledge. There are cases, no doubt, in which the senses and
the judgment of incompetent persons are liable to be imposed upon by
irrelevant facts created or qualified for the occasion. But here there
is no hypothesis concerned requiring nature to be tortured into its
service; physiology can have no latent objections, ready to start up
unawares and make a mockery of belief, because some of the serpent
kind are indubitably organized for an aquatic medium; the laws of
geographical distribution deduced irrespectively, yield their consent,
and the integrity of not a few of the narrator is unimpeachable. Are
we justified in rejecting the text, because the interpretation may not
harmonize with our views; in imputing willful dishonesty to those who
merely describe to the best of their hability what their eyes have
disclosed to them? We do not despice the mermaid, the triton and siren,
as altogether imaginary but endeavour to reconcile at least their
physical attributes with those of the seal or oriental dugong. The
unicorn is supposed to have original in the narwhal; and the griffin
is recognized as a well-known friend in an antiquated garb, being no
other than the tapir, somewhat disfigured by travellers, and further
indebted to the artist for a pair of wings and an architectural style
of tail. Even the ghost-seer is seldom suspected of intentional fraud,
however justly we may believe to be the dupe of an imagination acted
on by some positive phenomenon. The collateral truths which testify
on the affirmative side have been dwelt upon to some extent, and
shall again be adverted to presently. On the other hand, surely there
must be something peculiar in the economy of a vast air-breathing
race, frequenting well-known tracts and yet never visible but by the
merest accident; nor is it any sufficient answer to refer to the
construction of the breathing apparatus, distinctive of the marine
ophidians, enabling them to live long under water, and respire air with
an almost imperceptible exposure above the surface, because the like
provision does not prevent the Pacific denizens from being abundantly
subject to observation. The want of conformity in some of the reported
particulars of form and dimensions is of insignificant moment, and may
easily be converted into a proof of innocence of design. Above all, the
objections, be it understood, are not _of the kind_ which the public at
large appear to imagine them. There is nothing ridiculous or abnormal
in the idea of a sea-serpent. So far from this the philosopher should
rather be required to give a reason why at least the warmer situations
of the Atlantic are unprovided with occupants corresponding to those
which dwell in the opposite region of the globe.”
“If the diversity of detail be accounted too serious an objection to
be so lightly dismissed, is there no other organization within our
cognizance which more satisfactorily embodies the several conditions
rather loosely intimated than prescribed throughout the problem?
The portraits given in authors of the restored Plesiosaurus, albeit
conceived to represent beings that “filled up the measure of their
years long before Eden was planted, and the dominions of man made of
the red earth, acknowledged” (Hawkins), offer several particulars
answering to those ascribed in most of the notices on record to the
so-named sea-serpent,--the long, over-arched neck, the huge trunk,
the protracted tail, and sometimes (see the deposition of Archdeacon
Deinbolt, “Zoologist” 1606) an appearance of fins or paddles. This
coincidence is the more remarkable, because no one can suppose it
to have been preconcerted. Hence the ingenious suggestion of the
Editor of the “Zoologist”, that the animals may belong to one of
the Enaliosaurian types, seems to supply the only deficient link in
the chain of demonstration, before we arrive at the final proof,
a spectacle open to all observers. The neck of the Plesiosaurus
(presuming this to be the genus indicated) “is composed of upwards of
thirty bones, a number far exceeding that of the cervical vertebrae in
any other known animal. This reptile combines in its structure the head
of a lizard with teeth like those of a crocodile, a neck _resembling
the body of a serpent_, a trunk and tail of the proportions of those
of a quadruped, with paddles like those of turtles” (Mantell’s Wonders
of Geology). If this seemingly whimsical coaptation of incongruous
members, which the dictum of science has consigned to the doom of
pre-Adamic extinction, can be suspected without unpardonable heresy to
be yet among the living, what is more allowable than to surmise that
persons even of cultivated intellect, but quite inconscious that such
things had ever existed, may have all honestly striven, more or less,
to mould their visual perception into accordance with the familiar
notion suggested by its general outline; and thus have given rise to
the confusion objected to in their reports. Be this as it may, the
discovery of Mr. Darwin of _marine_ saurians, though but three or
four feet long, about some of the south sea islands, contradicts any
assumption that animals approaching to it in character are no longer
extant. To account upon this supposition likewise for the hide-and-seek
sort of life which those in question seem to lead, it may be observed
that “the breathing holes of the Plesiosaurus differ from those of
all other existing reptiles, and resemble those of whales”. They are
placed “near the highest part of the head, where they would enable the
animal most readily to breathe without exposing anything more than the
apertures themselves above the water, corresponding admirably with
the marine habits of the animal as indicated by the structure of its
extremities.” (Ansted’s Ancient World, 1847).
“Without committing myself to anything more than a belief that the
subject is one fairly entitled to be considered an open question--open
to the unrestrained testimony of future casual observers, equally with
the criticism of the scientific--I feel assured that I cannot better
express the opinion which every candid peruser of what has been stated
must be prepared to arrive at, than by using the words of a naturalist
who has given his attention to these remarks: “The argument appears
to me perfectly satisfactory in favour of at least a suspension of
judgment on the subject. The question is whether the evidence is such
as would induce any man to believe, whose mind was prepossessed with no
notions at all respecting it. Should we credit the testimony, if the
animal to which it relates were claimed to be a mere variety? I think
we should.”--