account, namely, of which Mr. COGSWELL speaks in the beginning of his
“Plea”, which arrested his attention, because of the particulars having
been long since familiar to him by oral communication, is that of the
party of British officers (n^o. 97).--That “other statement” is that
made by Capt. D’ABNOUR (n^o. 106a).--I beg the reader to look over the
above-mentioned passages.--Mr. COGSWELL had better done to omit his
observation, that the account of the French sea-captain “was qualified
with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail of
certain forms and measurements”. The reader himself will in most of
the accounts of the sea-serpent, which fill this volume, have observed
the same “precision in details” indifferently whether the account was
recorded by a Norwegian, a German, an English, a French or an American
witness.--His observation that the sea-serpent only occurs “in the
North Atlantic no farther south than a line swerving from Norway in
a southerly direction to Massachusetts” is incorrect, as the reader
may already have observed himself. If he had read all the accounts of
the sea-serpent up to his days, he would, of course, not have written
this. The “deposition of Archdeacon DEINBOLT, zool. 1606” is of the
28th. of July, 1845 (n^o. 115). Mr. COGSWELL cites here the passage in
which he will find “an appearance of paddles”. The reader will probably
remember that there was no question of paddles, but of a boiling of
the water, which the witnesses _thought_ to have been caused by a
pair of fins nearest the head, and which I have explained in another
way.--Mr. COGSWELL calls Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, that the sea-serpents
may belong to the _Enaliosaurian_ type, “ingenious”. I think that the
reader, after having read only the accounts of the sea-serpent up
to the days of Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, i. e. up to 1847, will not
be inclined to call this suggestion “ingenious”, with regard to the
sea-serpent being so often reported as having a mane and whiskers, and
swimming with vertical undulations. Moreover it is the question whether
this suggestion was Mr. NEWMAN’S or Mr. RATHKE’S.
Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING too, seemed to believe that the sea-serpents
are allied to the extinct _Plesiosauri_, for he writes in a letter to
Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty (See _Illustrated
London News_ of 28th. October, 1848):
“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile known as the
sea-serpent but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence
of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the
fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and
other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect,
as well as having short paws or flappers, the description of the
Northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the
antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence
of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same
animal as the kraken, or rather from the names having been used
indiscriminately.”
Another gentleman, who signed his article in the _Times_ of November
2nd., 1848, with the initials F. G. S., came to the same suggestion.
His letter will be found in its right place, after the statements of
Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118).
Dr. COGSWELL who perhaps feared that in spite of his “Plea” the story
of the sea-serpent was on a fair way to be forgotten, once more took
the subject in hand, and sent a second paper to the _Zoologist_ of
December 1848. This dissertation is at least better than the first,
being partly critical, partly historical. Again, for history’s sake, I
am obliged to repeat nearly his whole paper.
“It grows more and more necessary every day to acknowledge the
_existence_ of a vast form of marine animal bearing some resemblance
to a serpent. The recent letter of Captain M’Quhae to the Admiralty
allows of no other alternative than either to admit the evidence, or
invent some still more extraordinary hypothesis to explain it away.
The forms of bearings of the strangers have been duly reported at head
quarters, and no more deserve to be called in question, as regards
the fidelity of the narrator, than the existence of any commissioned
“Snake” or “Anaconda”, whose station and appointments we find recorded
in the daily press. No preternatural messenger in “the shape that
tempted Eve”,--he passes by on the other side without manifesting the
slightest degree of interest in human affairs; no phantom progeny of
light and air, although affecting literally the same haunts as the
“Flying Dutchman”,--he steers himself by compass, and is the herald
of no signal disaster; no herd of porpoises disporting all in a row,
and joined together by some _Daedalian_ process of imagination into
the semblance of unity--his head is “decidedly that of a snake”,--he
carries it for twenty minutes at a time out of the water; and his body
is seen for a continuous length of sixty feet on a level with the
surface. From the standard jest of the witty, and the discarded problem
of the wise, he has shown himself likely to be “no joke” for his
physical powers, and well deserving the gravest scientific inquiry.”
“To show what a formidable and unyielding front has been heretofore
opposed to him, I shall quote a passage from the article under the head
of “Serpents” in the last edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica”
(1842): “No proper proof has yet been adduced of any of these species
(sea-serpents) inhabiting the “American Ferry”, as we see that world
of waters now named since the steaming days of the British Queen and
the Great Western. Mr. Schlegel characterizes the statement as an
assertion _que je puis contredire avec certitude_: and the author
adds: “we shall content ourselves by stating that sea-serpents have
not yet been observed in the Atlantic Ocean”. The following notice
occurs in a popular compilation of the animal kingdom just issued
from the press (1848): “Sea-serpent (or the Kraken). The appearance
of this _fabulous_ monster is thus accounted for by Mr. A. Adams. In
the Sooloo seas I have often watched the phenomenon which first gave
rise to the marvellous stories of the great sea-serpent, viz., lines
of rolling porpoises resembling a long string of buoys oftentimes
extending seventy, eighty, or one hundred yards. These constitute the
so-named protuberances of the monster’s back, keep in close single
file progressing rapidly along the calm surface of the water,” &c. Had
the _fabulous_ serpent in Aesop, who complained of being “a multis
hominibus pessumdatus”, been aware of what laid up in the fates for his
aquatic relative, no doubt he would have ceased to repine at his own
hard lot.”
“The official corroboration of the fundamental truth of these
“marvellous stories” is important, not only because the author under
the circumstances must at least receive credit for the most entire
sincerity, but from the encouragement thus given to other credible
witnesses to bring forward their evidence. There is no reason to
suppose that even this would have been readily laid before the public,
but for the desire expressed by the Board of Admiralty to learn the
truth of an accidental rumour. As regards any additional light thrown
on the natural history of the animal, it is not more satisfactory than
many of the accounts we already possess. Indeed the paragraphs which
precede the captain’s letter in the “Zoologist” viz., the extract from
the journal of Lieut. Drummond, and the first public rumour as it
appeared in the “Times”, tend rather to confuse the official statement,
and will no doubt be used to create suspicions of its accuracy. The
communication which follows it, purporting to give a report of another
specimen seen by an American captain, is supposed to be “a hoax”, and
as such is worthy of preservation from the ingenuity it displays.”
“When a doctrine is assumed to be fanciful, people seldom take the
trouble to inquire into its history and merits. This may account
for the sea-serpent being commonly confounded with a very different
prodigy, too exacting in its claims for the most extravagant credulity
of modern days to regard with favour. As seen above, its name and
that of Kraken are popularly used as synonymous. And nevertheless,
Pontoppidan, Bishop of Bergen, whose “Natural History of Norway”
(translated into English in 1755) is the usual standard of authority
on both subjects, treats of them separately in appropriate sections
of his work. Of the Kraken he says, “I come now to the third, and
incontestably the largest sea-monster in the world: it is called
Kraken, krasen, or, as some name it, krabben, that word being applied
by way of eminence to this creature”. Its back or upper part he
described as truly gigantic, being a mile and a half or more in
circumference, and it is provided with limbs so strong as to be able to
pull boats and the smaller sailing crafts under water. Some deem the
original of this story to have been a Sepia or Medusa of enormous size;
others set it down for an optical illusion; Pontoppidan himself thinks
that “in all probability it may be reckoned of the polypi or of the
starfish kind”. One cannot help being reminded, on reading the above,
of the passage in Milton where he compares Satan, “prone on the flood”,
to “That sea-beast””....... &c.--
“Commentators have been divided in opinion whether Milton supposed
the leviathan to be a crocodile or a whale. The former idea derives
little support from the text; the whale, which has only lately been
divested of its “scaly rind”, puts forward more plausible pretentions:
nevertheless, the vast bulk of the creature alluded to, and its
position, “slumbring in the Norway foam”, suggest the inquiry whether
the poet may not have had in his mind a tradition of the kraken. I may
mention here that the Norwegian Bishop believed that the Leviathan of
Job and Isaiah had been detected in the _sea-serpent_. Of the latter
animal Pontoppidan says: “The soe-ormen””....... &c.
“It would serve little purpose to occupy these pages with mere copies
of the published narratives and depositions tending to prove the
existence of the animal under our consideration. Whatever discrepancies
may perplex us with regard to subordinate details, it is important
to remember that the one ruling form, that of a serpent, is the
foundation of all the descriptions. The form may vary--in length,
perhaps, from forty to a hundred feet and upwards; in the relative
dimensions of the head and different parts of the body; in the presence
or absence of a mane or paddles; and more particularly with respect
to an appearance of dorsal arches or elevations, rising above the
water like a row of casks or buoys. The greater part of the evidence
on the subject is contained, I believe, in Pontoppidan’s “Natural
History of Norway” (1755), the “Report of a Committee of the Linnaean
Society of New England relative to a large Marine Animal, supposed to
be a Sea-Serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817”
(Boston 1817), and the last volume of “The Zoologist” (1847). In the
Scandinavian work the principal witness is Captain L. de Ferry, of the
Navy, who thus describes an individual which he saw while in a boat,
rowed by eight men, within six miles of Molde, in a calm hot day of
August, 1747. “The head of the snake””..... &c.
“The Report of the Linnaean Society of New England contains the result
of an inquiry”....... &c.
“The tenor of the late observations in Norway recorded in the
“Zoologist” (Zool. 1604) certainly might justify the inference that
these so remarkable prominences are not persistent, but depend, as
suggested by the American functionary, on the mode of progression
practised at the moment. Anybody that had watched the lithe and varied
curves of an otter in the water can have no difficulty in recording
together the different kinds of undulations to the sea-serpent. There
is one particular of rare occurrence worthy of notice, in one of these
later accounts, calling to mind a peculiarity in the description of
the animal seen by Mr. Egede, a Greenland missionary and furnished
to us with a copy of the figure, by Pontoppidan. This creature, of
the unusual length of 600 feet, “had under its body two flappers, or
perhaps two broad fins”. One of the recent narratives also states of
the progressive movement, that it appeared to be produced “by the help
of two fins” (Zool. 1607). Thus is offered a possible solution of the
difficulty occasioned by captain M’Quhae’s specimen having advanced
at a rapid rate, with 60 feet of the body à fleur d’eau, without any
visible undulation.” (I, however, refer the reader to the report of
1845, July 28).
“Here I may refer to “The Description of an Animal stranded on the
Island of Stronsa, in the year 1808” given in the first Volume of the
“Wernerian Transactions” by the late eminent Dr. Barclay. Evidently
disposed to believe that this animal was a sea-serpent, Dr. Barclay
indignantly repudiates the opinion of Mr. Home, that it was nothing
more than a shark (_Squalus maximus_). Figures of the two are shown
in juxtaposition, for the purpose of constrasting them, and to all
appearance their respective peculiarities are quite sufficient to
distinctive appellations. The Orkney animal, in fact, bears a curious
resemblance to a _Plesiosaurus_, with _six_ legs. Nevertheless,
anatomists have decided that a shark it really was, the anomalies being
accounted for by the circumstance of the drawing having been taken from
hearsay and under the supervision of persons who only saw the original
in a very imperfect state. The “Animal of Stronsa” and the “Scoliophis
atlanticus” leave us equally in the dark with regard to the physical
economy of the sea-serpent; that is, unless the solution offered by
Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310) shall prove to be correct.” (See
our 7th. explanation.)
“From what precedes it is evident, _First_, that the notion of
the sea-serpent is not a mere growth of unlettered and credulous
superstition, since it has been repeated and confirmed by parties than
whom it would be difficult to select any more worthy of confidence,
with this sole objection--that none of them have been naturalists.
The critical eye of a Müller or an Owen would determine its true
affinities in a moment. _Secondly_, that if we do the justice of
rejecting all extraneous ideas, and confine ourself to what strictly
relates to the object in question, there is a consistent tendency
in nearly all the different narratives to invest it with the true
characters of the reptilian class. _Thirdly_, that if there be any
truth in the idea that the animal spends most of its time under water,
only rising to the surface in calm weather during the summer months,
this--however difficult to conceive of an air-breathing creature--in
a great measure accounts for the infrequency of its occurrence. But
are there no other forms, even of the highest stage of organization,
which have been able to conceal themselves from the scrutinizing of
naturalists? Not to speak of the minor accessions of unknown species,
coming in to adorn our collections and extend the limits of science,
it deserves to be borne in mind that perhaps the very chief of all
the quadrumana (_Troglodytes gorilla_ of Savage), the being that
holds the foremost rank in the scale next to man, is one of the most
recent contributions of the African Fauna. At the beginning of this
century a cetaceous animal (_Physeter bidens_ of Sowerby), sixteen
feet long, was cast ashore on the coast of Elginshire, the species has
been previously undescribed, and not another example is _commonly_
believed to have since occurred. From the difficulty of assigning it a
place, it has been the subject of no fewer than four or five generic
appellations, and it is finally referred, by my friend Dr. Melville, to
the _Delphinorhynchus micropterus_ of Dumortier, two other specimens
of which only exist, the one _stranded_ at Havre, the other at Ostend.
Were this animal known only by tradition, it is improbable that
naturalists would have refused it their sanction, under an impression
that a species of such individual magnitude could not possibly have
escaped being captured and subjected of their criticism? And yet the
recognition of the great _Physeter bidens_ is purely the result of an
accident!”
“If the reptilian nature of this mysterious creature be supposed
to have been established, it becomes an interesting speculation to
consider how far the stories of terrific dragons, transmitted to us
by the ancients, had their origin in realities with which they were
more conversant than ourselves. The sea-serpent, if a real existence,
is of no modern creation. Our forefathers must have seen it. The
utmost length at present allowed to land-snakes is twenty-five feet
(Schlegel). Nevertheless, the very important part sustained by the
serpent in the old mythologies,--its imposing magnitude and powers,
and celebrated by historians and poets,--and its consequence in the
romantic animals of the middle ages, will unstill a suspicion that,
perhaps, not the biographers of snakes were mendaceous, but their
heroes, like those of “the last minstrel”, have changed or disappeared
in the progress of civilization. It is without the slightest idea of
attaching any overstrained importance to the following passages that I
venture to quote them, as proving that the idea of serpents frequenting
and traversing the sea was at least not repugnant to ancient
prejudices. The avenging ministers of Minerva, crossing the Aegean on
their mission to destroy Laocoon, might be vindicated by an ardent
classic as the model from which the moderns have often plagiarised
their descriptions of the sea-serpent.
“Ecce autem gemini a tenedo _tranquilla_ per alta
“(Horresco referens) _immensis orbibus_ angues
“Incumbunt pelago, pariterque ad litora tendunt:
“Pectora quorum iter fluctus arrecta, jubaeque
“Sanguineae exuperant undas; pars caetera pontum
“Pone legit, sinuatque immensa volumine terga.
“Fit sonitus spumante salo”.--_Virgil._--[3].
[3] Look, from Tenedos there come down through the _quiet_ see (I
shudder in telling it) two serpents in _enormous coils_, moving
through the sea, and together they direct themselves to the strand:
their chests, held up between the waves, and their blood-red _mane_
are held above the waves; the remaining part lashes the sea, and they
bent their immense backs in coils. There arises a noise, whilst the
ocean skims.--Vergilius, Aeneis, II, 203, sqq.
“The poet, too, is sustained by the naturalist, for here we have Pliny
(whose facts by the way deserve to have inspired the apophthegm that
“truth is stranger than fiction”) telling how the African _dracones_
were wont to club together and brave the perils of the Red Sea, in
quest of the more luxurious diet of Arabia: “Narratur in maritimis
eorum quaternos quinosque inter se cratium modo implexos erectis
capitibus velificantes, ad meliora pabula Arabiae vehi fluctibus.”
(Plin. Hist. Nat. VIII, 13).[4]
[4] “And (the Asachaeans) tell that near their coasts every time four
or five of these (dragons) twisted together in the way of a twisted
work, and sailing with their heads erected in the air, sail on the
waves towards a better provender place of Arabia.”
“On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the rare
opportunity afforded for the discussion of the subject by the conductor
of this journal, for the purpose of showing, first, that sea-serpents
as a family have long been perfectly recognized in science, and that
therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment of ridicule;
and next, of remarking that strange as are the properties attributed
to the great sea-serpent, there are remains of a former world in our
museums which in their perfect state united them all or nearly all.
Encouraged by the Editor’s referring them to the Enaliosauri [Zool.
LIV. Wrapper] I ventured to name the Plesiosaurus as the marine animal
of our acquaintance to which they bear the nearest resemblance. This,
although admitted at the time to be a daring breach of the _Draconic_
laws of geology,--laws, which, having once consigned an organized form
to extinction, have very rarely relaxed their rigour,--seemed to be
a necessary result to the argument _par voie d’exclusion_: if not a
Plesiosaurus what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to
be at all correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the “animal of
Stronsa” after all furnish the real key to the problem? The affirmative
side of the question is not without at least two very able supporters
(see Zool. 2310); and yet how to reconcile the characteristics of any
possible shark with the sea-serpent-like head, curved neck, mane, or
certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances so often
mentioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent of the
“Times” (Zool. 2311) calls attention to the striking resemblance
between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosaurus, and is surprised at its
never having occurred to any one before. If the signature F. G. S.
implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological Society, it is
satisfactory to find a member of that particular body, whose favour
was least to be expected, so pleased with the idea as to be willing
to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been repeated and widely
circulated by other periodicals. In the words of an elegant contributor
in “Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal who alludes to it” one would almost
suppose that among the buried learning of the earlier nations there
lurked some knowledge of geology, seeing how their ideas about dragons
came to such a conformity in some respects, with the realities of these
preadamite reptiles.”
“The determination of a great marine species, however, and even a
knowledge of its habits and influence on the other inhabitants of the
deep, are not, as I conceive, the most obvious advantages to be desired
from the settlement of this question. Let it be admitted that a huge
unknown creature of any description, provided its general appearance
is such as to redeem the various historians of the great sea-serpent
from the charge of wilful deception, does “swim the ocean stream”,
and the value of the result cannot be too easily over-estimated. The
_cui-bono_ philosopher, the bugbear of naturalists, will no doubt have
been highly amused with the recent excitement about a discovery that
at first sight appears of no practical consequence to the interests of
man. I know of no subject of research he would be likely to seize upon
with more secure self-complacency--or of one which, though indirectly,
supplies a more triumphal answer. To have our failing confidence in
the value of human testimony reassured (and no evidence can be more
solemn than that which relates to the sea-serpent), is surely no
trifling gain of itself. But more than this: no circumstance has tended
so emphatically to stamp the “Yankee” character with the stain of a
bold and unscrupulous love of fiction and exaggeration as the story
of the sea-serpent. Perhaps, on the principle of Mr. Warren’s “man
about town”, who, being called a _splendid sinner_, made it his pride
to deserve the title, the thoughtless portion of our Trans-atlantic
family (the generous tribute of an Agassiz is sufficient warrant for
the _savans_) may have thence been led to indulge in a dangerous style
of humour, through a spirit of bravads. This source of misunderstanding
once removed, the American character may afterwards be regarded with
more respect, and the people themselves--no longer excited to defy the
ridicule they were not able to escape--may sober down to the legitimate
standard of reason.”
Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, too, could not forego the
pleasure to publish a second time his favourite explanation of the
_Enaliosaurians_. In the Preface to the year 1848 of his Journal, which
appeared together with Mr. COGSWELL’S above mentioned dissertation, he
filled some pages about the subject:
“The communications made to the Admiralty by Captain M’Quhae has turned
public attention to the possibility of the existence of a _Sea-Serpent_
(Zool. 2307). My own views on this subject have long been known: two
years have elapsed since I expressed an opinion (Zool. 1604), that
although the evidence then before the public was perhaps insufficient
to convince those who had hypotheses on their own to support, yet that
it was far too strong for the fact-naturalist, the inquirer after
truth, to dismiss without investigation. To advance such an opinion
as this,--to admit the possibility of the existence of a sea-serpent
in so enlightened an age as the nineteenth century,--of course led
to my being loaded with ridicule; loaded, but not overwhelmed, for
I immediately afterwards ventured on expressing a still bolder
opinion,--no less than that of suggesting its affinity to a tribe of
animals supposed to be extinct. I stated on the wrapper of n^o. 54 that
the Enaliosauri of authors would, if living, present the appearances
described. Almost immediately after this I published the statement of
Captain Sullivan and five other British officers, who deliberately
assert (Zool. 1715) that they saw--while on a fishing excursion on
the coast of British America--a sea-serpent, which they supposed to
be eighty or a hundred feet in length; its head, six feet in length,
and its neck, also six feet in length, were the only part constantly
above water, and resembled those of a common snake: the creature
passed them with great rapidity, “leaving a regular wake”. Nothing
is said of any undulating movement, or of any appearance of portions
or coils of the body. The statement of Captain M’Quhae (Zool. 2307),
and that obligingly furnished expressly for the “Zoologist” by Lieut.
Drummond (Zool. 2306), essentially corroborate the evidence of Captain
Sullivan and his companions: the length and position of the head and
neck, and their being kept constantly above water, closely correspond;
the estimated total length corresponds; the non-observance of any
undulation corresponds,--indeed Captain M’Quhae expressly states that
no portion of the animal appeared to be used in “propelling it through
the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation”. Thus we have
separate statements closely corresponding with each other, and each
statement is vouched for by several British officers whose veracity has
never been called in question: under these circumstances we may afford
to dismiss from this inquiry all those assertions of American captains,
which have been treated in this country with such contempt. Resting
the evidence solely on the authority of British officers, I then wish
to state my unhesitating conviction that a marine animal of enormous
size does exist, and that it differs essentially from any living animal
described in our systematic works; and here I cannot refrain from
expressing my regret that the statement of captain Sullivan should have
been so entirely neglected as it has been: it appears to me in all
respects equally trustworthy with the official statement of captain
M’Quhae.”
“The next question which occurs is this--to what class of vertebrate
animals must we refer this monster of the deep? Is it a mammal,
bird, reptile, or fish? All these classes include animals whose home
is the ocean. To commence with placental mammals;--we have otters,
seals, walrusses and sea-cows, all of which breathe atmospheric air,
and, therefore, when swimming on the surface usually keep their
nostrils--often their heads--above the water: they also propel
themselves by means of submerged fins or paddles, and, when inclined,
can move along the surface with rapid direct and continuous motion.
Professor Owen (Zool. 2312), in accordance with these views, declares
the animal to be a seal; Phoca proboscidea or P. leonina, but his
reasoning on the point appears to me very inconclusive: he assigns
the animal a “capacious vaulted cranium”, whereas Lieutenant Drummond
(Zool. 2307) declares the head was “long, pointed, and _flattened_ at
the top”, adding that it was, “perhaps ten feet in length, the upper
jaw projecting considerably.” Captain M’Quhae, also, subsequently to
Professor Owen’s paper, repeats (Zool. 2333) that “the head was _flat_,
and not a _capacious vaulted cranium_”. The captain, who must be
annoyed at the insinuation that in an official report he had magnified
a seal into a sea-serpent, emphatically declares that “its great length
and its totally differing physiognomy preclude the possibility of its
being a Phoca of any species.” This idea must therefore be abandoned;
the other marine mammals still remaining open for future consideration.”
“Among Birds we have no approach to the animal described.”
“The Enaliosauri next claim our attention, and, for the present
purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because I
feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could urge
many reasons in connection with the views I have long since published
in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations which may be
considered speculative, I would invite the intention of naturalists
to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the
shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character
of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by a section of
the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the sternum, and
the smoothness of the skin; and when they have well-considered these
important points, I would inquire whether these distinguishing features
are not rather mammalian than reptilian? and, again, whether they
are not rather marsupial than placental? I have already pointed out
the manupedine, ferine, glirine and brutine groups of marsupials;
why should we not also have a cetine group? Without making any other
use of this suggestion than that of temporarily separating the
Enaliosaurians from the Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention
to the arguments of Mr. Morries Stirling (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. S.
(Zool. 2311), both of whom support the opinion which I had previously
broached as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent,--a view
controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen (Zool. 2316),
on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct; but here I may
perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact, being only assumed, does
not touch the main question.”
“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion of an
anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. COGSWELL (Zool.
2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal may not have been
a boa; and I may observe that the evidence concerning the head, which
has been repeatedly described as precisely resembling that of a snake
or serpent, together with the fact of the animal holding its head clear
of the water, are so many points in favour of its belonging to the
Ophidia; but, on the other hand, we must place the non-observance of
that undulating mode of progression which every snake must employ,--and
it amounts to more than non-observance, for Captain M’Quhae, who
directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such
undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length--three times that
of a boa--militates against this hypothesis. Professor Owen lays great
stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae; but as only two
Ophidians have yet entered the arena as competitor for the title of
sea-serpent,--Saccopharynx flagellum, which I have heard is a _bona
fide_ black snake, and Boa constrictor, which is received on all kinds
as a veritable serpent,--I think the absence of ophidian vertebrae is
of no great moment. The Sauria offer similar coincidences with the
Ophidia, and present a similar discrepancy: their heads and necks
might readily be described by general observers as those of snakes or
serpents, but the undulating motion with which they swim is almost
precisely similar to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an
objection to our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia
and Chelonia have next to be considered, and these truly possess the
submerged limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the
surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the vertebral
column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles absolutely
impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned, these
reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living animal with
the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents. Yet
the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles, and
especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the idea
of their being described--even by the veriest tyro in observation--as
snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both crocodiles and
tortoises floating on the surface of water, the back, and not the head
and neck, must be the part most prominently and permanently visible.
It is therefore manifest that no existing groups of reptiles answers
the conditions required by the recently-recorded descriptions of the
sea-serpent.”
“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the sharks
as offering a solution of the problem; and the record respecting the
sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great weight to this
view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists as Drs.
Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the Stronsa animal, I
entertain very great doubts of the decision in question; it certainly
does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae of an ophidian, but then
no naturalist desires to make it one; the boa hypothesis is applied
only to the sea-serpent of the _Daedalus_. Leaving, however, this
Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may observe, _first_, that all
analogy contravenes the idea of a shark having a neck, and _secondly_,
I would beg of those gentlemen who advocate this hypothesis, to take
their pencils and depict a shark with a head and shoulders clear out of
the water, and his body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think
the most brilliant fancy could scarcely imagine a shark maintaining
such a position for twenty minutes at the time, and, what is stranger
still, while in this position, ploughing the ocean at the rate of
twenty miles an hour.”
“After maturely considering these various views, it will be found that
the Enaliosaurian hypothesis presents the fewest difficulties,--in
fine, one only, the supposition that these wonderful creatures have
become extinct. It will be the object of a separate essay, now
preparing for the press, to adduce evidence from other sources of
the existence--in sea-serpents seen off the Norwegian coast--of two
large flappers or paddles, closely corresponding in situation with the
anterior paddles of Ichthyosaurus, and also of enormous eyes, exactly
as indicated by the fossil remains of that animal; but this, not being
deducible from recent observations, may be reserved for a more complete
and careful review of the entire history of these enormous creatures
which in all probability will eventually be found to constitute several
genera and species.”
“In throwing open the pages of the “Zoologist” to communication on
a subject so uniformly tabooed by the scientific,--in claiming for
that subject a calm and dispassionate investigation,--in expressing
my unhesitating belief that the various narratives, although often
conflicting, are nevertheless, according to the belief of the narrator,
perfectly true,--and in attempting to assign the sea-serpent a place
in the System of Nature,--I feel convinced that all true naturalists
will approve the course I have taken, and will be willing to abide the
result. Discussion must ever have the tendency to dissipate error and
establish truth; and he who believes himself right need never shun the
ordeal. In this spirit I invite discussion, and shall feel obliged for
any communications tending to elicit or establish truth.”
Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.
The communications made by Captain M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND are
inserted in the foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118).--The statement of Captain
SULLIVAN and five other British officers is that of 1833, May 15th.,
inserted above. (n^o. 97.)
Ever and anon Mr. NEWMAN shows that the statements referred to by him
are those of _British_ officers. Why so? Is a British officer more
trustworthy than an officer of any other nation?
What zoologist or palaeontologist has ever shared Mr. NEWMAN’S doubt
of the reptilian nature of the Enaliosaurians!? Who would like to
bring these extinct creatures under a newly founded order of Cetacean
Marsupials!! Did not Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion originate in the two facts
1. That he himself thought the sea-serpent to be an Enaliosaurian, and
2. That Prof. OWEN asserted that the sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE,
according to his description and figures, must be a mammal? I think Mr.
NEWMAN reasoned further: “well, why should the Enaliosaurians not be
mammals?”
“The enormous length of the animal, three times that of a boa,
militates against this hypothesis”, viz. of being a boa. This is no
argument. In the time that only calamaries were known of 6 or 7 feet
length, with arms of 10 or 11 feet, nobody had ever dreamt that there
existed really individuals of 30 feet in length with long arms of 50
feet!
It is evident that Mr. NEWMAN was wrongly informed about the
_Saccopharynx flagellum_, for this animal is a kind of _fish_,
belonging to the eel-tribe, however not in the least resembling an eel
in its external characters, and not a black _snake_!
The “separate essay, now preparing for the press” as far as I know has
never been published.
The quotation of the _Ichthyosaurus_ shows us that Mr. NEWMAN was
unwilling to give up his first suggestion. The evidence, referred to by
him, where the sea-serpent had apparently two flappers near the head,
is the same as that referred to by Dr. COGSWELL, (see pp. 409, 411, and
n^o. 115.).
After observing that other sea-serpents, e. g. that of Captain M’QUHAE
don’t come up to his Ichthyosaurian suggestion, Mr. NEWMAN concludes
that “the enormous creatures in all probability will eventually be
found to constitute several genera and species!!!
The favourite Plesiosaurian hypothesis is also spoken of by the writer
of the “_Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the bones of the
Stronsa Animal_” (which I have inserted in my Chapter on Would-be
sea-serpents). He says:
“But we must now conclude with the single remark, that if the Stronsa
Animal was not a shark, it was certainly not the great sea-serpent,
which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri
of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean,
Eigg Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong
resemblance.” JAS. C. HOWDEN.
As to the animal of Mr. MACLEAN, see our n^o. 31.
Mr. NEWMAN in the Preface to the _Zoologist_ for 1849, wrote the
following about the Reptiles mentioned in this volume. The words are
worth quoting.
“In British _Reptiles_ nothing remarkable has occurred; but I have
been favoured with a communication, published in the February number
(Zool. 2356), announcing the present existence of huge marine animals
closely related to the Enaliosauri of by-gone ages, that appears
to me in all respects the most interesting Natural History-fact of
the present century, completely overturning as it does some of the
most favourite and fashionable hypotheses of geological science. The
published opinion of Mr. Agassiz (Zool. 2395) certainly favours the
idea that Enaliosaurians may still exist: he says: it would be in
precise conformity with analogy that an animal should exist in the
American seas which has long been extinct and fossilized in the Eastern
hemisphere: he instances the gar-pike of the western rivers, and says
that, in a recent visit to Lake Superior, he has detected several
fishes belonging to genera now extinct in Europe.”
The communication mentioned here is that of Captain HOPE, who saw the
sea-serpent in the Gulf of California (n^o. 119). In fact, since this
opinion was expressed by AGASSIZ, (where?) numerous animals, even of
tolerably large size, have been discovered in Australia as well as in
the great depth of the ocean, the allies of which are only found in a
fossilized state.
The favourite _Plesiosaurus_ hypothesis is also treated of and finally
adopted by Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_. After
rejecting the hypotheses of the sea-serpent being only a deceitful huge
stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a large
ribbon-fish, some large kind of the eel tribe, a large specimen of true
sea-snakes, a strayed large land-snake as the boas, he goes on in the
following manner:
“It yet remains to consider the hypothesis advanced by Mr. E. Newman,
Mr. Morries Stirling, and “F. G. S.”, that the so called sea-serpent
will find its closest affinities with those extraordinary animals, the
_Enaliosauria_, or Marine Lizards, whose fossil skeletons are found
so abundantly scattered through the oolite and the lias. The figure
of _Plesiosaurus_, as restored in Professor Ansted’s _Ancient World_,
has a cranium not less capacious or vaulted than that given in Captain
M’Quhae’s figures; to which, indeed, but that the muzzle in the latter
is more abbreviate, it bears a close resemblance. The head was fixed
at the extremity of a neck composed of thirty to forty vertebrae,
which, from its extraordinary length, slenderness, and flexibility,
must have been the very counterpart of the body of a serpent. This
snake-like neck merged insensibly into a compact and moderately
slender body, which carried two pairs of paddles, very much like those
of a sea-turtle, and terminated behind in a gradually attenuated tail”.
“Thus, if the _Plesiosaur_ could have been seen alive, you would
have discerned nearly its total length at the surface of the water,
propelled at a rapid rate, without any undulation, by an apparatus
altogether invisible,--the powerful paddles beneath; while the entire
serpentine neck would probably be projected obliquely, carrying the
reptilian head, with an eye of moderate aperture, and a mouth whose
gape did not extend beyond the eye. Add to this a covering of the
body not formed of scales, bony plates, or other form of solidified
integument, but a yielding, leathery skin, probably black and smooth,
like that of a whale; give the creature a length of some sixty feet
or more, and you would have before you almost the very counterpart of
the apparition that wrought such amazement on board the _Daedalus_.
The position of the nostrils at the summit of the head indicates that
on first coming on the surface from the depths of the sea, the animal
would spout in the manner of the whales,--a circumstance reported by
some observers of the sea-serpent.”
“I must confess that I am myself far more disposed to acquiesce in
this hypothesis than in any other that has been mooted. Not that I
would identify the animal seen with the actual _Plesiosaurs_ of the
lias. None of them yet discovered appear to exceed thirty-five feet in
length, which is scarcely half sufficient to meet the exigencies of
the case. I should not look for any species, scarcely even any genus,
to be perpetuated from the oolitic period to the present. Admitting
the actual continuation of the order _Enaliosauria_, it would be, I
think, quite in conformity with general analogy to find important
generic modifications, probably combining some salient features of
several extinct forms. Thus the little known _Pliosaur_ had many of
the peculiarities of the _Plesiosaur_, without its extraordinarily
elongated neck, while it vastly exceeded it in dimensions. What if the
existing form should be essentially a _Plesiosaur_, with the colossal
magnitude of a _Pliosaur_?”
“There seems to be no real structural difficulty in such a supposition
except the “mane”, or waving appendage, which has so frequently been
described by those who profess to have seen the modern animal. This,
however, is a difficulty of ignorance, rather than of contradiction.
We do not _know_ that the smooth integument of the _Enaliosaurs_ was
destitute of any such appendage, and I do not think there is any
insuperable unprobability in the case. The nearest analogy that I can
suggest, however, is that of the _Chlamydosaur_, a large terrestrial
lizard of Australia, whose lengthened neck is furnished with a very
curious plaited frill of thin membrane, extending like wings or fins to
a considerable distance from the animal.”
(_Foot-note:_) [“It was not till after this paragraph was written that
I noticed the very close similarity of the fins with which Hans Egede
has adorned his figure of the sea-serpent (copied in the Illustrated
London News, Oct. 28, 1848), to the frill of the _Chlamydosaurus_.”]
“Two strong objections, however, stand in the way of our acceptance
of the present existence of _Enaliosauria_; and these are forcibly
presented by Professor Owen. They are,--1. The hypothetical
improbability of such forms having been transmitted from the era of
the secondary strata to the present time; and 2. The entire absence of
any parts of the carcases or unfossilized skeletons of such animals in
museums.”
“My ignorance of the details of palaeontology makes me feel very
diffident in attempting to touch the former point, especially when so
great an authority has pronounced an opinion; still I will modestly
express one or two thoughts on it.”
“There does not seem any _à priori_ reason why early forms should not
be perpetuated; and examples are by no means rare of animals much
anterior, geologically, to the _Enaliosaurs_, being still extant. The
very earliest forms of fishes are of the _Placoid_ type, and it is
remarkable that not only is that type still living in considerable
numbers, but the most gigantic examples of this class belong to
it,--viz. the sharks and rays; and these exhibiting peculiarities which
by no means remove them far from ancient types. The genus _Chimaera_
appears in the oolite, the wealden, and the chalk; disappears (or
rather is not found) in any of the tertiary formations, but reappears,
somewhat rarely, in the modern seas. It is represented by two species
inhabiting respectively the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans.”
“Now, this is exactly a parallel case to what is conjectured of the
_Enaliosaurs_. They appear in the oolite and the chalk, are not found
in the tertiary strata, but reappear, rarely, in the modern seas,
represented by two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern
Oceans.”
“Among Reptiles, the curious family of river tortoises named
_Trionychidae_, distinguished by their long neck, and a broad
cartilaginous margin to the small back-shell, appears first in the
wealden. No traces occur of it in any subsequent formation, till the
present period, when we find it represented by the large and savage
inhabitants of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Ganges.”
“What is still more to the purpose is, that the _Iguanodon_, a vast
saurian which was contemporary with the _Plesiosaur_ and _Ichthyosaur_,
though transmitting no observed representative of its form through the
tertiary era, is yet well represented by the existing _Iguanadae_ of
the American tropics.”
“It is true the _Iguana_ is not an _Iguanodon_; but the forms are
closely allied. I do not suppose that the so-called sea-serpent is
an actual _Plesiosaur_, but an animal bearing a similar relation to
that ancient type. The _Iguanodon_ has degenerated (I speak of the
type, and not of the species) to the small size of the _Iguana_; the
_Plesiosaurus_ may have become developed to the gigantic dimensions of
the sea-serpent.”
“A correspondent of the _Zoologist_ (2395) adduces the great authority
of Professor Agassiz to the possibility of the present existence of the
_Enaliosaurian_ type. That eminent palaeontologist is represented as
saying, that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy that such
an animal should exist in the American seas, as he had found numerous
instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were represented
by living types in the New. He instances the gar pike of the Western
rivers, and said he had found several instances in his visit to Lake
Superior, where he had detected several fishes belonging to genera now
extinct in Europe.””
“On this point, however, an actual testimony exists, to which I cannot
but attach a very great value.”
Here Mr. GOSSE cites the report of Captain HOPE (n^o. 119), and goes on:
“Now, unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an animal
which could have been no other than an _Enaliosaur_,--a marine reptile
of large size, of sauroid figure, with turtle-like paddles. It is a
pity that no estimate, even approximate, of the dimensions is given;
but as the alligator affords the comparison as to form, it is most
probable that there was a general agreement with it in size. This might
make it some twelve or fifteen feet in length.”
“I cannot, then, admit that either the _general_ substitution of
_Cetacea_ for _Enaliosauria_ in our era, or the absence of remains of
the latter in the tertiary deposits, is sufficient evidence of their
non-existence in our seas; any more than the general replacement of
_Placoid_ and _Ganoid_ fishes by the Cycloids and Ctenoids, or the
absence of the former two from the tertiaries, is proof of _their_
present non-existence.”
“It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Darwin has ably insisted, that the
specimens we possess of fossil organisms are very far indeed from being
a complete series. They are rather fragments accidentally preserved, by
favouring circumstances, in an almost total wreck. The _Enaliosauria_,
particularly abundant in the secondary epoch, may have become
sufficiently scarce in the tertiary to have no representative in these
preserved fragmentary collections, and yet not have been absolutely
extinct.”
“But Professor Owen presses also the absence of any recognised recent
remains of such animals. Let us test this evidence first by hypothesis,
and then by actual fact.”
“It may be that a true serpent, with large vesicular lungs, would float
when dead, and be liable to be seen by navigators in that condition,
or to be washed ashore, where its peculiar skeleton would be sure to
attract notice. But, as I have before said, I do not by any means
believe that the unknown creature is a _serpent_ in the zoological
sense. Would a _Plesiosaurus_ float when dead? I think not. It is
supposed to have had affinities with the whales. Now, a whale sinks
like lead as soon as the blubber is removed; the surface-fat alone
causes a whale to float. But we have no warrant for assuming that the
_Plesiosaur_ was encased in a thick blanket of blubber; no geologist
has suggested any such thing, and the long neck forbids it; and if
not, doubtless it would sink, and not float, when dead. Therefore the
stranding of such a carcase, or the washing ashore of such a skeleton,
would most probably be an extremely rare occurrence, even if the
animal were as abundant as the sperm whale; but, on the supposition
that the species itself is almost extinct, we ought not to expect
such an incident, perhaps, in a thousand years. If we add to this
the recollection, how small a portion of the border of the ocean is
habitually viewed by persons able to discriminate between the vertebrae
of an _Enaliosaur_ and those of a _Cetacean_, we shall not, I think,
attach great importance to this objection.”
“The only region of the globe in which the unknown monster is reputed
to be in any sense common, is the coast of Norway. Now this, it is
true, is fortunately within the ken of civilized and scientific men;
and, confessedly, no enormous ophidian or saurian carcases have ever
been recognised on that shore. But the shore of Norway is, perhaps,
the least favourable in the world for such a _jetsam_. Such a thing
as a sand or shingle beach is scarcely known; the coast is almost
exclusively what is called iron-bound; the borders of the deeply
indented fjords rise abruptly out of the sea, so that there is
generally from fifty to three hundred fathoms’ depth of water within a
boat’s length of the shore. How could a carcase or a skeleton be cast
up here, even if it floated?”
“But, secondly, as to facts. Is it true, that of all the larger oceanic
animals we find the carcases or skeletons cast up on the shore? Is it
true even of the _Cetacea_, whose blubber-covered bodies invariably
ensure their floating, and whose bones are so saturated with oil that
they are but little heavier than water?”
“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French coast, which
was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so fortunate as to fall
under the examination of so eminent a zoologist as De Blainville; and
hence its anatomy was well investigated. It has become celebrated as
the Toothless Whale of Havre (_Aodon Dalei_). Yet _no other example
of this species is on record_; and, but for this accident, a whale
_inhabiting the British Channel_ would be quite unrecognised.”
“Of another Whale (_Diodon Sowerbyi_), _likewise British, our entire
knowledge rests on a single individual_ which was cast on shore on the
Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the naturalist Sowerby.”
“There is a species of sperm whale (_Physeter tursio_) affirmed to be
frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of sixty
feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other _Cetacea_ by
its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by other remarkable
peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet _no specimen of this huge creature
has fallen under modern scientific observation_; and zoologists are not
yet agreed among themselves whether the high-finned Cachelot is a myth
or a reality!”
“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a Cetacean
which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing _two
dorsals_. The character was so abnormal that his statement was not
received; but the eminent zoologists attached to one of the French
exploring expeditions,--MM. Quoy and Gaimard,--saw a school of cetacea
around their ship in the South Pacific, having this extraordinary
character,--the supernumerary fin being placed on the back of the head.
Here is the evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a
most remarkable whale, _no carcase_ of which--_no skeleton--has ever
been recognised_.”
“The last example I shall adduce is from my own experience. During
my voyage to Jamaica, when in lat. 19° N., and long. from 46° to
48° W., the ship was surrounded for _seventeen continuous hours_
with a troop of whales, of a species which is certainly undescribed.
I had ample opportunity for examination, and found that it was a
_Delphinorhynchus_, thirty feet in length, black above and white
beneath, with the swimming paws wide on the upper surface, and isolated
by the surrounding black of the upper parts,--a very remarkable
character. This could not have been the Toothless Whale of Havre; and
there is no other with which it can be confounded. _Here, then, is a
whale of large size, occurring in great numbers in the North Atlantic,
which on no other occasion has fallen under scientific observation._”
“Are not these facts, then, sufficiently weighty to restrain us from
rejecting so great an amount of testimony to the so-called sea-serpent,
merely on the ground that its dead remains have not come under
examination?”
“In conclusion, I express my own confident persuasion, that there
exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which has not
yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; and my
strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the fossil
_Enaliosauria_ of the lias.”
[Illustration: Fig. 62.--Chlamydosaurus.]
We only observe that Mr. GOSSE is evidently inclined to believe that
there are “two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern
oceans.” It is not at all plain what circumstance has led him to this
supposition.
Curious is the comparison of the flappers, figured by Mr. BING (fig.
19) with the frill of the _Chlamydosaurus_. I give here a figure of
such an animal.
Mr. GOSSE gets clearly entangled in his own considerations of the
affinity of the sea-serpent with the _Plesiosaurus_ when he comes to
the fact of the existence of a mane. It is a pity that he has not mixed
up with his considerations the well-known _Iguana tuberculata_, a
lizard belonging to the same family as the _Chlamydosaurus_, but which
has a comb extending over the whole length of the neck, the back and
the tail!
[Illustration: Fig. 63.--Iguana tuberculata.]
Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, considering the _Plesiosaurus_
hypothesis, says:
“I think this theory is not forced upon us.”
Of the probability of living _Plesiosauri_, however, he says:
“Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance of
probability is contrary to the supposition that any of the gigantic
marine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued to live
up to the present time. And yet I am bound to say, that this does not
amount to an impossibility, for the evidence against it is entirely
negative. Nor is the conjecture that there may be in existence some
congeners of these great reptiles inconsistent with zoological science.
Dr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum, a strict zoologist, is
cited by Mr. Gosse as having long ago expressed his opinion that some
undescribed form exists which is intermediate between the tortoises and
the serpents.”
“Prof. Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the _Zoologist_
(p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence of the
Enaliosaurian type that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy
that such an animal should exist in the American Seas, as he had found
numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were
represented by living types in the New.”
It is obvious that of all animals, now living or extinct, the outlines
of the _Plesiosaurus_ fit best to the descriptions and figures of
the great sea-serpent. Abandoning the possibility of still living
_Plesiosauri_, I reply to the question “Why cannot the sea-serpent be a
_Plesiosaurus_?”
_Plesiosauri_ with such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent has, are
hitherto unknown to palaeontologists, but, as to me, this cannot be
of much importance; for there is no reason why in the course of ages
this appendage should not have been developed to gigantic dimensions.
The difference between the place of the nostrils in the two animals
cannot claim any weight either (the _Plesiosaurus_ had its nostrils
both before its eyes and not at the end of its snout, as is the case in
the sea-serpent) for this place may have changed in process of time.
But there are two other differences which are of very great importance,
and settle the question: 1. The neck of the _Plesiosaurus_ must have
been fit to be bent in all directions, but I think no palaeontologist
will ever admit that its trunk or backbone could be bent in such
vertical undulations, as is the case with the sea-serpents. 2. The
_Plesiosaurus_ may have been destitute of scales, and may have had a
smooth skin, it can never have been provided with a hairy skin as seals
have, and at all events it had no mane, and no whiskers.
* * * * *
An =eleventh= explanation is properly a negative one. In the _American
Journal of Science and Arts_, of 1835, viz: Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN,
the Editor, published a report of one of his acquaintances, wherein the
eye-witness declared: “nothing like a fin was seen”. Now Prof. SILLIMAN
in a _Remark of the Editor_ says: “The absence of paddles or arms
=forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian=.”
I need not observe that this explanation was premature, and that the
assertion “nothing like a fin was seen” does not exclude the presence
of flappers, hidden under water. The flappers of a swimming sea-lion
or seal are not generally seen either. If not a saurian, what kind of
animal could it be then, a fish or a mammal?
* * * * *
The =twelfth= explanation, viz: =a row of spermwhales=, which is
found in Prof. SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_,
1837, p. 518, is better than that of a row of porpoises or of basking
sharks, with their plainly visible backfins, for there is a species
of spermwhales, viz. the _Catodon macrocephalus_ the backfin of which
is so small as to be almost invisible. The other species, _Physeter
tursio_ has a rather large and erected backfin.
Professor SCHLEGEL, after describing the appearance of a row of
porpoises swimming in line, goes on saying: “This habit is also common
to the larger cetaceans, which, however, only accidentally frequent
our” (the Dutch) “coasts. The coasts of North-America, where the
monstrous sea-serpent has so often been observed, swarm with them, and
I confess that from a vessel, for instance, the unexpected appearance
of a family of spermwhales swimming in line, with the eldest at the
head, must offer a spectacle striking enough and fit to call forth at
once superstition, imagination and fear.”
[Illustration: Fig. 64.--Catodon macrocephalus.]
It is true that a row of sperm-whales must offer a striking spectacle,
but in none of the accounts of the sea-serpent the “bunches” or visible
parts of the vertical undulations surpassed the length of a fathom,
whilst the visible parts of the backs of spermwhales measure several
fathoms, and the distance between two of these backs in a row of
spermwhales is enormous. The supposition, moreover, does not explain
the head resembling that of a snake, and kept constantly above water,
neither the long neck accidentally observed, the long and pointed tail,
&c.
* * * * *
[Illustration: Fig. 65.--Skeleton of Basilosaurus.]
[Illustration: Fig. 66.--Basilosaurus restored.]
The =thirteenth= explanation supposes that the sea-serpent may be a
still living =Basilosaurus=, an extinct marine mammal, first described
by HARLAN in the year 1824; afterwards the name was changed to that of
_Zeuglodon_ by Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Fig. 65 represents the skeleton of
a _Basilosaurus_. This animal lived in the tertiary periods. Almost
all the characters of the skeleton remind us of Pinnipeds, only a
few of Cetaceans, and so it is still doubtful to which order it
belongs. Professor D’ARCY W. THOMPSON rejects all association with the
Cetacea (_Studies from the Museum of Zoology in University College,
Dundee_, Vol. I. N^o. 9.) The length of the largest skeletons measured
seventy-five feet. The teeth and molars are nearly exactly those of
seals. The nostrils were situated at the tip of the nose, as in seals,
most probably, however, they were directed upwards. The bones of the
rather short fore-extremities resemble those of seals. Most probably
these limbs were provided with nails, as in seals. But, on the other
hand, of some of the known skulls the remaining part shows an affinity
to cetaceans. The vertebrae again are seal-like. Till now it is unknown
whether the animal had hind-extremities or not, for the bones of
them are not yet discovered. The body must have been rather slender
and cylindrical. I venture to represent to my readers in fig. 66, a
_Basilosaurus_ restored. As the bones of the fore-extremities closely
resemble those of seals, it is probable that small hind-extremities
were not wanting. If the former resembled those of dolphins, the
existence of hind-flappers would be problematic. Yet I have omitted
them, because the bones of them are not yet discovered, as far as I
know.
The reader will remember that Dr. KOCH (see our Chapter on Hoaxes and
Cheats) exhibited a large skeleton in Broadway, New-York, under the
name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_. This skeleton was made by him out
of several bones of the extinct _Basilosaurus_. The imposture was
soon discovered by Prof. WYMAN, and, of course, immediately published
in all kinds of newspapers, which also reached Europe. In FRORIEP’S
_Neue Notizen_, of February, 1846, is one of these articles translated
into German. Consequently we may conclude that the translator of this
article knew that the _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ was, in fact, made up of
bones of the _Basilosaurus_. Now we find in FRORIEP’S _Notizen, Third
Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847, a suggestion of a writer who
wrote under the initials M. J. S. (evidently the Editor, the well-known
Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN: I have searched the _Bibliotheca
Zoologica_ of CARUS and ENGELMANN, and not found another author whose
name has these initials):
“Is the sea-serpent perhaps identical with the _Hydrarchus_, viz.
a still living species, a still present remainder, though in a few
individuals, of former periods?”
I think that this means: “Are there perhaps still living _Basilosauri_,
and is the sea-serpent perhaps one of these creatures?”
Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. wrote in _Nature_ of 18th. of November, 1880,
Vol. 23, a paper, entitled: “_Order Zeuglodontia_”, in which he tries
to show that the sea-serpent most probably belongs to this Order. The
contents of his paper are as follows:
“In August 1848 H. M. S. _Daedalus_ encountered off St. Helena a marine
animal, of which a representation appeared in the _Illustrated News_ of
the latter part of that year. It is thirty-two years since I saw this
figure, but I recollect that it was one of a blunt-nosed animal with a
neck carried about four feet above the water, which was so long as to
present the appearance of a serpent; and I remember that Prof. Owen,
in combating at the time the idea that this was a sea-serpent, pointed
out that the position of the gape in relation to the eye, as shown in
the figure in the _Illustrated News_, was that of a mammal, and not
that of a reptile; in consequence of which he argued that the animal
seen was probably only a leonine seal, whose track through the water
gave an illusory impression of great length. This idea, however, seemed
to me untenable in the face of the representation in the _Illustrated
News_; but it was obvious that to afford the buoyancy necessary for the
support above the water of so long a neck (estimated on that occasion
as sixty feet though only the part near the head was actually out of
the water), the submerged portion of the animal could not have had the
shape of a serpent.”
“Two or three years after this, on reading the description of
_Zeuglodon cetoides_, from the Tertiary (probably Upper Eocene)
formations of Alabama, it struck me that the animal seen from the
_Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to which _Zeuglodon_
belonged; and I have ever since watched with interest for reports of
the “great sea-serpent”.”
“Three years ago the following appeared in the newspapers.”
Here Mr. SEARLES WOOD copies the whole affidavit of the crew of the
_Pauline_ (n^o. 144), and adds:
“The locality here specified was about thirty miles off the northern
coast of Brazil.”
And he goes on:
“In this account I thought that I recognized the grip of the whale by
the long neck of the attacking animal, the appearance being confounded
into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the
objects; but in face of the general ridicule which has been attached
to this subject, and being without any assurance that the declaration
so purporting to be made was genuine, I did not venture to ventilate
my long-cherished idea. A relative of mine, however, just returned
from India, chancing to say that two of the officers to the steamer
in which she went out had on the previous voyage witnessed an immense
animal rear its neck thirty feet out of the water, and that a sketch of
the object had been instantly made, and on reaching port sent to the
_Graphic_. I obtained the number of that paper for July 19, 1879, and I
inclose a tracing of the figures in it, which are accompanied by the
following statement in the Graphic:--”
The statement of the _Kiushiu Maru_ is further copied, accompanied
by the two figures (see n^o. 151, figg. 48 and 49), and he continues
saying:
“As I have not been able to find any description of the skeleton of
the _Zeuglodon_, I venture to draw attention to the subject through
your columns, in the hope that among your many readers in America this
letter may attract the notice of some one who will tell us whether what
is known of the osseous structure of _Zeuglodon cetoides_ is or is not
consistent with the representation in the _Graphic_. The remains of the
cetacean, supposed to be extinct, indicate, according to Sir Charles
Lyell, that it was at least seventy feet in length, (He observes in
the third edition of his “Manual of Elementary Geology”, 1851, p.
208, that he visited the spot where a vertebral column of this length
belonging to _Zeuglodon_ had been dug up.) while its great double-faced
but knife-edged molars show that it was carnivorous; and as we are not
so far removed from the period of the Alabama Tertiaries as to render
it improbable that members of what must once have been a great Order
of carnivorous cetacea, totally distinct from the orders of cetacea
hitherto known as living, may still survive, I have braved the ridicule
attaching to this subject so far as to invite attention to it.”
“The second of the two figures in the _Graphic_ shows the long necked
animal to possess the cetacean tail, and its head there seems to have
been turned from the observer, so that the underside of it only is
presented. The first figure shows that the whale had been seized on its
flank by the powerful bite of its aggressor, and that to escape from
this it had thrown itself out of the water. Having succeeded in this
object the second figure shows the aggressor rearing its head and neck
out of the water to discover the direction which its prey had taken,
in order that it might follow it up; and so far from the charge of
curious drawing made by the editor of the _Graphic_ being justified,
the representation of the whale can be at once recognized as fairly
correct; while that of the tail of the unknown animal (which probably
prompted this charge), so far from being curious, forms an important
piece of evidence as showing the animal in question to be catacean.”
This paper had already been sent to the Editors of _Nature_, when Mr.
SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN., observed that he was mistaken as to the report,
and as soon as possible he sent a Postscript to the Editors, which
appeared appended to his paper. The postscript runs as follows:
“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my relative,
and find that the cut in the _Graphic_ of July 19, 1879, is not that of
the instance observed from the steamer in which she came home, which
was the _City of Washington_; but of a separate instance which occurred
to another ship. I have not been able yet to procure the _Graphic_
containing the figure of the animal seen from the _City of Washington_,
but she tells me that it was pasted up in the saloon and represented
only the head and long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great
height out of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for
the _Graphic_ by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence.
These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked are,
however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”
“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the
_Encyclopedia Britannica_ (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description
of _Zeuglodon cetoides_, says that “the skull is very long and narrow
_and the nostril single_”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth on
which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded
the order _Zeuglodontia_, from the Miocene of Malta; and that the
teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the Gironde
and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under the name
of _Squalodon_, are those of a smaller species of _Zeuglodon_. The
remains of _Squalodon_, along with those of the shark with huge teeth,
_Carcharodon megalodon_, and of numerous cetaceans assigned to orders
all still living, and of which some, such as _Delphinus_, belong to
living _genera_, occur in the “Sables inférieures” of Antwerp; which,
though long called Miocene, are by Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as
older Pliocene, and as the base of that series of deposits of which
the middle and upper divisions are respectively represented by the
Coralline and Red Crags of England; and with these “Sables inférieures”
the so called Miocene of Malta, in which _Zeuglodon_ is associated with
_Carcharodon_, is probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc.,
2d. ser., vol. I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp
species of _Carcharodon_ from both the Eocene of South Carolina and
Miocene of Alabama. These various references bring the _Zeuglodonts_,
with their _Carcharodon_ associates, down to a late geological period
during which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey the
whale in the woodcut (which looks like a _Grampus_) seems an example”.
“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English
(1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures (one
of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves, and the other
that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers or fins, resting
almost on the surface of the sea, with head and tail erect out of the
water like the letter U, and spouting water or steam from its mouth _in
a single column_), from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen, some of
whom had seen the animal in the position in which it was observed from
the _Daedalus_, and others in that in which it is represented in the
cut as seen from the _Kiushiu-maru_; for in the long narrative which he
gives of the descriptions received from observers at numerous times,
some of these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both
of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his
own.”
“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of
June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing from
the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”