The reader will remember (see n^o. 118) that it was _not_ the _long
neck_ of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, made by
the officers of the _Daedalus_, but the roundness of its neck, the
apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of the animal’s
head with that of a snake.
In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of
the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the
animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD says: “a neck,
estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the reason of
such a deduction!
As I have not read the “description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_” I am not
able to discover the reason _why_ it struck Mr. Wood that the animal
seen from the _Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to
which _Zeuglodon_ belonged.
We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent
which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance being
confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and
motions of the object” (See n^o. 144). I will not contest his opinion!
I do not know what to think of Mr. WOOD, when he speaks of the _Kiushiu
Maru_ in connection with a relative of his. I may suppose that his
relative had told him she repatriated by the _City of Baltimore_
through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous voyage” of that
vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding this he cites
the account of the _Kiushiu Maru_ reporting the appearance of a
sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) in the Van Diemen’s
Straits. Most probably the _City of Baltimore_ never was there!
In short, the error took place, and Mr. WOOD sees clearly in the
figures of the _Graphic_ his _Zeuglodon_ pointing out that this figure
shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently the animal
must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. WOOD was convinced that the
_Zeuglodon_ (read _Basilosaurus_) had the following outlines!
[Illustration: Fig. 67.--_Basilosaurus_, as imagined by Mr. SEARLES V.
WOOD JUN.]
It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had the
opportunity to read “a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”. Yet he
holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between the
extremely _short_ neck of _Basilosaurus_ and the extraordinarily _long_
neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events _must_ have struck him.
At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations of
PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_. It is clear that he has not
read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that the Bishop
concocted his two figures from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen”,
whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first figure is a copy of a
sketch of Mr. BENSTRUP, and the second a copy of the drawing of Mr.
BING. Of the latter figure Mr. WOOD says “it is that of a serpent-like
animal almost resting on the surface of the sea”. I shall be greatly
obliged to any person who can show me a passage either in PONTOPPIDAN’S
or in EGEDE’S work, stating that the animal presented itself in this
way “resting on the surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself
(n^o. 5), where it is clear that the animal must have been seen in this
position for only the fraction of a second!
Mr. WOOD, describing the drawing of Mr. BING underlines the words: _in
a single column_, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water or steam
from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their attention to the
fact that the figure represents the animal’s head seen from aside),
whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose or mouth, when seen
from aside could ever have been decided to be single or double! If we
look at the breath of a horse, standing just on one side of him, it
will be observed to be single. This optical illusion will be dispelled
as soon as we stand in front of the horse. Bing’s figure would have
been incorrect, if he had drawn two columns, though in reality--if
the animal exhaled through its nostrils,--the column must have been
double.--It is remarkable that Mr. WOOD does not say anything of
the great difference between the figure of the _Kiushiu Maru_ (with
a cetacean tail) and that of Mr. BING, (with a long and pointed
one).--Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent only
preposterous conceptions of his own description!
Finally he compares the animal seen from the _Osborne_ with a manatee!
Surely we must be a Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD JUN. to find this conception
_not_ preposterous!
In a second paper in _Nature_ of February 10, 1881, Mr. WOOD quotes
the report of the _City of Baltimore_, and correcting his second
error, writes in parentheses “not _City of Washington_, as I had
misunderstood.”--In treating of this report and of the accompanying
figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving
at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes
were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers,
whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is
caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in the
act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently
this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According to his
idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very long
neck (called by him _Zeuglodon_), he ascribes the splash, caused by the
hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal. Remarkable is his
third error; for after having first confounded the foremost splash,
drawn in the figure, with that described in the report as caused by
the dropping of the neck, he now writes: “the foam around the neck may
be due to the splash of the humeroid” (i. e. fore) “paddles which a
cetacean should possess.”
Mr. WOOD further sees in the figure of the head of the _Daedalus_
animal (fig. 30) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead and
eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison is far
fetched.
Of the report of Captain Cox (n^o. 152) Mr. WOOD says:
“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major Senior in
the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the water prior to
its darting forward under it; while the boiling of the water around,
which is so inconsistent with the motion of a snake in water (which I
have more than once seen) evidently resulted from the strokes of the
cetacean tail, and possibly also from those of the paddles, as in the
case witnessed by Major Senior. The black colour also is described in
both cases.”
In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion that
the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four flappers
together. It is very natural that Mr. WOOD who represents the
sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and with a
long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally he says:
“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous letter”
(figg. 48, 49, 46, and reduced sketches of figg. 28 and 30), “it
appears to me that the external form of the animal must resemble the
well-known _Plesiosaurus_, if we imagine the hinder (femuroid) paddles
of that _Enaliosaurian_ to be absent, and a cetacean tail (which is
their homologue), to be present in their stead. Since in the direction
of the _Porpesse_ the cetacean in external form so closely simulates
the fish, so it may in another direction simulate this Mesozoic marine
saurian, or the gigantic _Elasmosaurus_ of the American cretaceous
formation, of which a nearly perfect skeleton is described by Prof.
Cope as forty-five feet in length, the neck constituting twenty-two of
this length.”
And he expresses his firm opinion:
“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists any doubt
that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans, with necks of
extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”
In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number of the
_Album der Natuur_ for 1882, and in this issue the author of the
present Volume treated of the probability of the existence of the great
sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was only a student of
Natural History at the Utrecht University, really believed the animal
of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and was misled by the hoax
of Captain SEABURY of which he only knew the last part, found by
him in the Illustrated London News. In his firm belief, however, he
examined such characters, taken from these tales and from nearly 60
reports then known to him, as were possible from a zoological point
of view, and came to the conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a
mammal, with _four_ flappers, a _long_ neck and a _long_ and _pointed_
tail, and that the position of this marine mammal is between dolphins
and pinnipeds. Was there such an animal known? Yes, the _Zeuglodon
cetoides_ of Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Well, as the sea-serpent has the
outlines of a _Plesiosaurus_, with an enormous tail, he called it
_Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_. At that time he was the dupe of the
Stronsa animal and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so
many other writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the
difficult question without reading, if not all that had been written
about the animal, at least much more than some few reports!
* * * * *
The =fourteenth= explanation is that of an anonymous writer in
one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848.
Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. M’QUHAE and
Lieutenant DRUMMOND, he asks whether or not the animal could be a full
grown specimen of =Saccopharynx flagelium= of Dr. MITCHILL or the
=Ophiognathus ampullaceus= of HARWOOD. I have only to tell my readers
that these two names are given to two different species of the same
genus, that the former attains a length of about five, the latter of
about six feet, and to give the next figure, in order to enable them
to judge themselves, whether such an animal could ever have shown
itself in the form of a sea-serpent! They belong to the family of the
_Muraenidae_.
[Illustration: Fig. 68.--_Eurypharynx pelecanoides_, Vaillant.]
The figure represents the _Eurypharynx pelecanoides_ of VAILLANT,
taken from FILHOL’S _La vie au fond des mers_. GÜNTHER, in his
_Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger_ says on p. 262 of _Saccopharynx
Bairdii_ (synonym with _Saccopharynx flagellum_): “It is uncertain
whether these specimens are specifically distinct from _Saccopharynx
pelecanoides_ VAILLANT.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before my
readers the above figure as a representation of the general outlines of
_Saccopharynx flagellum_.
* * * * *
The =fifteenth= explanation is suggested by the same anonymous writer
on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance of the
sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether “some land species,
as the =boas=, among which are individuals of forty feet in length,
may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even transport
themselves from one continent to another”.
Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor
having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round the
trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of
some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles
Lyell from the _Zoological Journal_ of December, 1827. (Principles of
Geology.)”
Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_ after having shown
that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family
_Hydrophidae_) because “none of these are known to extend a few feet
in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the
Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, that a record
exists of a serpent having been seen in the very midst of the North
Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the historical fact of the boa
constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes the report of the sea-serpent
seen from the _General Coole_, (n^o. 25) and goes on saying:
“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that no
suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to have
occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and nothing
more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, “sixteen or
eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”
“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a true
serpent--perhaps the _Boa Murina_, one of the largest known, and of
very aquatic habits--carried out to sea by one of the great South
American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to the spot where it
was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion it affords us no help in
the identification of the _great unknown_.”
“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the
head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly that of
a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed to mark the
characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal from another,
are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at all events, is rather
negative than positive. For example, if a person of liberal education
and general information, but no naturalist, were to tell me he had
seen a creature with a head “exactly like that of a snake”, I should
understand him, that the head was not that of an ordinary beast, nor
of a bird, nor that of the generality of fishes; but I should have
no confidence at all that it was not as like that of a lizard as of
a serpent, and should entertain doubt whether, if I showed him the
form of head, even of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was
something like _that_.”
“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the colossal
animal seen from the _Daedalus_, and on other occasions, is a
serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A lengthened
cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything that appears, it
may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender cetacean, as anything. All
analogies and probabilities are against its being an ophidian.”
It is remarkable that Mr. GOSSE is disposed to believe that the
sea-serpent of the _General Coole_ was a boa, because the report speaks
of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of the
_Daedalus_ was a boa, though the captain, Mr. M’QUHAE, clearly tells
that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without any doubt, was that
of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference between “a snake” and “a
serpent with a head of a snake”!? What, in short, is the difference
between a _snake_ and a _serpent_? Though he attaches a considerable
value to the assertion of the captain of the _General Coole_ who speaks
of “_a snake, and nothing more_”, Mr. GOSSE “does not attach much value
to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by
them was _undoubtedly that of a snake_”. How to make this agree?
Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ says: “a marine snake of
enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he means in
this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents the sea, as
the _Boa murina_, I have placed this supposition here, and I have not
considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.
As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate
vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the boas
are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.
* * * * *
The =sixteenth= explanation is given by Professor RICHARD OWEN, viz.:
that the sea-serpent is a swimming =large seal=. I refer my readers
to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain M’Quhae could
have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118). After having
enumerated all the characters of the animal seen by captain M’QUHAE,
taken from the figures as well as from the descriptions, Professor OWEN
comes to the conclusion: “All these are the characters of the head
of a warm-blooded mammal..... Guided by the above interpretation, of
the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a
cetacean mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size,
or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south,
and longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor OWEN further concludes: _Phoca
proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_. Very remarkable is the fact that a
few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This is
the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so
uncertain as to be inadmissable, _in an attempt to arrive at a right
conclusion as to the nature of the animal_”. (The italics are mine).
In fig. 69 I show my readers the _Macrorhinus leoninus_, LINNÉ, or
sea-elephant, of which _Phoca leonina_, LINNÉ, and _Phoca proboscidea_,
PÉRON, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated tubercular
proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which is seen in the
background of my drawing, have the common features of seals.
Mr. H. E. STRICKLAND and Mr. A. G. MELVILLE in the note added to their
dissertation on the Dodo, in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural
History_, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say of Prof.
OWEN’S letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation of the
circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and briefly,
but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the Great
Sea-Serpent generally.”
[Illustration: Fig. 69.--_Macrorhinus leoninus_ (LINNÉ).]
Captain M’QUHAE, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of a seal.
His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I therefore
refer my readers to it (n^o. 118).
Mr. FRORIEP, in his _Notizen_, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, 1849,
after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement of
Lieutenant DRUMMOND, from that of Captain M’QUHAE, from the hoax of the
_Daphne_, from the suggestion of Mr. MANTELL, from that of Prof. OWEN,
&c. &c. finally concludes:
“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is still
fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent;
yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must be a large
sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a snake; but whether
this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to the family of the
amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful after the objections of
Prof. OWEN.”
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_ treats of the
seal-hypothesis in the following manner:
“Among animals, the _Vertebrata_ are the only classes supposable.
But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but _Mammalia,
Reptilia_, _Pisces_,--there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning
it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of
lengthened form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each has
the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”
“Let us, then, look at the _Mammalia_. Here Professor Owen would place
it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost the force of
an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption if I venture
to examine the decision of one whom I greatly respect. It is true,
his reasoning applies directly only to the creature seen from the
_Daedalus_; but we are bound to consider the exigencies not only of
that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated cases.”
“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:--“Head with
a _convex, moderately capacious cranium_, short obtuse muzzle, _gape
not extending further than the eye_; eye rather small, round, _filling
closely the palpebral aperture_; colour, dark brown above, yellowish
white beneath; surface smooth, _without scales_, _scutes_, or other
conspicuous modifications of hard and naked cuticle; nostrils not
mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by _a crescentic mark at the
end of the nose or muzzle_; body long, dark brown, not undulating,
without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of
a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.”
“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a
warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or
fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on the back to a
horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing of hair; and,
guided by this interpretation, the Professor judges that the animal was
not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”
“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, more than
from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that this diagnosis
was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made _from the life_, under
the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing could be more legitimate
than such a use of them. But surely it has been overlooked that they
were made under no such circumstances. Only one of the published
representations was original; and this was taken “immediately _after_
the animal was seen”. That is, one of the officers, who could draw,
went below immediately, and attempted to reproduce what his eye was
still filled with. Now, what could one expect under such conditions?
Of course, the artist was not a zoologist, or we should have had a
zoologist’s report. Would the drawing so produced be of any value?
Surely yes; of great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful
representation of the _general appearance_ of the object seen, but
nothing more; its form, and position, and colour, and _such_ of the
details _as the observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down_,
so to speak, _in his mind_, would be given; but a great deal of the
details would be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an
object before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles,
relative distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them
down _seriatim_; ever looking at the part of the original on which he
is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was open
to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but necessarily
vague, idea of the whole before him as the original from which he
drew. Who is there that could carry all the details of an object in
the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, too, under strong
excitement? This was not the case even of a cool professional artist,
called in to view an object for the purpose of depicting it; in all
probability the officer had not thought of sketching it till all was
over, and had made no precise observations, his mind being mainly
occupied by wonder. He sits down, pencil in hand; he dashes in the
general outline at once; now he comes to details,--say the muzzle, the
facial angle;--of course, his figure must have _some_ facial angle,
_some_ outline of muzzle; but probably he had particularly noticed that
point. What shall he do? there is no original before him, a glance at
which would decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or
three forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer,
with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the head?” and
then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so of other details.”
“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making a caricature.
I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed for nearly forty years
to draw animals from the life; and the public are able to judge of my
power of representing what I see; but I am quite sure that if I were
asked to depict an object unfamiliar to me, which I had been looking at
for a quarter of an hour, without thinking that I should have to draw
it, I should do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed
the officer to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your
acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional
artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take him into
your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful thing in blossom;
keep him looking at it for some ten minutes without a hint of what you
are thinking of; then take him into your drawing-room, put paper and
colours before him, and say, “Make me a sketch of that plant you have
just seen!” When it is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give
you the characters of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare
it yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous
blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general
correctness.”
“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the sketch
made on board the _Daedalus_ must be for minute characters; and
particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked with
italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove the
mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters could not
possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ distance. I say
“_mainly_ relied on”; because there is the manelike appendage yet to
be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of a
mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it decides the question,
however, I will presently examine.”
“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in which the
creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to me at all to
resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted cranium”. The summit
of the head does not rise above the level of the summit of the neck; in
other words, the _vertical_ diameter of the head and neck are equal,
while there are indications that the occiput considerably exceeds the
neck in _transverse_ diameter. This is not the case with any seal, but
it is eminently characteristic of eels, of many serpents, and some
lizards. Let the reader compare the lower figure (_Illustrated London
News_, Oct. 28, 1848) with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s
_British Fishes_ (ed. ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the
scincoid lizards (the Jamaican _Celestus ociduus_, for instance) is not
at all unlike that represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short,
but a little more pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this
point the Captain’s assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to
Professor Owen, he distinctly asserts that “the head was _flat_, and
not a capacious vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant
Drummond, _published before any strictures were made on the point_,
says, “the head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top,
perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”
“With regard to the “mane”. The great _Phoca proboscidea_ is the only
seal which will bear comparison with the _Daedalus_ animal in question,
reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers declare that
upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at the surface; but
Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance of the water
produced by progression induced an illusive appearance of a portion of
this length. But how much? Suppose all behind thirty feet, the extreme
length of the elephant seal. Then it is impossible the animal could
have been such a seal, for the following reason. The fore paws of the
seal are placed at about one-third of the total length from the muzzle;
that is, in a seal of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle.
But _twenty_ feet of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and
yet no appearance of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head
to have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming
sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); and
besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”
“But the great _Phoca proboscidea_ has no _mane_ at all. For this, we
must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two kinds
are recognized under this name, _Otaria jubata_ and _Platyrhynchus
leoninus_; though there is some confusion in the names. Neither of
these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, about five
feet would be the utmost that could project from the water in swimming.
Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant officers to have magnified
the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; I fear even then it will not
do. For the mane in these animals is a lengthening and thickening of
the hair on the occiput and on the neck, just as in the lion. But the
“serpent’s” mane was not there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of
the head” says Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says
Captain M’Quhae.”
“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present
possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”
I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. GOSSE in discussing
the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may add: _especially
of the sea-serpent seen by Captain_ M’QUHAE, was prepossessed with his
idea of the sea-serpent being an _Enaliosaurian_.--Mr. GOSSE points
out that the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal; but he
does _not_ fix the reader’s attention to the fact that if this were
really the case, the estimation of the length of the head by Lieutenant
DRUMMOND at “ten feet” and that of the diameter of the neck by Captain
M’QUHAE at “sixteen inches” don’t agree at all!--In none of the reports
of the animal of the _Daedalus_ there is question of the “serpent”
being “twenty feet projected from the water”; it is only stated that
the head was kept four feet above the water.--Neither do the reports
mention _how much_ of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. GOSSE
says “an equal length”.--Lieutenant DRUMMOND did _not_ say that the
_mane_ was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the gallant
officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!--
Prof. OWEN relying upon the descriptions of Captain M’QUHAE and
drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their statements
to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, absolutely
rejects the estimation of the length of the animal at “sixty-feet at
least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly come to another
conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, and to the question:
“which mammal could it have been? his reply could not be otherwise
than: “a large seal”. It is evident that for this reason he recalled
to his mind all the sea-mammals known to him, but he seems to have
totally overlooked the possibility of the existence of sea-mammals
unknown to him!!! The conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads
the Professor to write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses
might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”.
The Professor would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had
examined _all_ the reports about the animal, and _all_ that had been
written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a thorough
investigation a sceptic _must_ remain a sceptic.
I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. The
latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant has
no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these characters are very
prominent in the sea-serpent.
* * * * *
The =seventeenth= explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is
nothing else but a gigantic =sea-weed=, detached from the bottom of the
sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. In the
_Zoologist_ of that year, p. 2541, we read the following statement of
Captain HERRIMAN:
“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship _Brazilian_, now lying near
the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the following curious
and interesting statement:--
“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong
south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. the ship
was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, being about
forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, R. N., is said to
have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight o’clock on that morning,
whilst the captain was surveying the calm, heavy, rippleless swell of
the sea through his telescope, the ship at the same time heading N.
N. W., he perceived something right abeam, about half a mile to the
westward, stretched along the water to the length of about twenty-five
or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady,
sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above
the waters, had something resembling a mane, running down to the
floating portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out
into a sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the
monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly the same
latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had fallen in with
the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately called his chief
officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, who, after surveying
the object for some time, came to the unanimous conclusion that it must
be the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae. As the _Brazilian_ was
making no headway, Mr. Herriman, determining to bring all doubts to an
issue, had a boat lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together
with Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, who
acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they approached
the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow of the boat armed
with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. The combat, however, was
not attended with the danger which those on board apprehended; for
on coming close to the object it was found to be nothing more than
an immense piece of sea-weed, evidently detached from a coral reef,
and drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the westward
in this latitude, and which, together with the swell left by the
subsidence of the gale, gave it the sinuous, snake-like motion.”
“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity of
examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” account
of the great sea-serpent,--Mr. Herriman himself admitting that he
should have remained under the impression that he had seen it. What
appeared to be the head, crest, and mane of the _immensum volumen_,
was but the large root which floated upwards, and to which several
pieces of the coral reef still adhered. The Captain had it hauled on
board, but as it began to decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now
regrets that he had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of
exhibition in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the
tide and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”
Again we read in the _Times_ of February 13th., 1858, republished also
in the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5990:
“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington,
of the ship _Castilian_, stating his belief that he had seen the great
sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened by the
fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship _Daedalus_
near the same position. The following circumstance which occurred on
board the ship _Pekin_, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & W. Smith, on her
passage from Moulmein, may be of some service respecting this “queer
fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E.,
nearly calm, saw, about half a mile on port beam, a very extraordinary
looking thing in the water, of considerable length. With the telescope
we could plainly discern a huge head and neck, covered with a long
shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out
of the water. This was seen by all hands, and declared to be the
great sea-serpent. I determined on knowing something about it, and
accordingly lowered a boat, in which my chief officer and four men
went, taking with them a long small line in case it should be required.
I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to regard
their approach. At length they got close to the head. They seemed to
hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the monster all the
time ducking its head, and showing its great length. Presently the boat
began pulling towards the ship, the monster following slowly. In about
half an hour they got alongside; a tackle was got on the mainyard and
it was hoisted on board. It appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but
so completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen
inches long, that we had it some time on board before it was discovered
to be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches
diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head of
an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem alive.
In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had rather an
offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been a short time in
England when the _Daedalus_ arrived and reported having seen the great
sea-serpent,--to the best of my recollection near the same locality,
and which I have no doubt was a piece of the same weed. So like a huge
living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my
sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the
great sea-snake.” Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10,
1858.”--
The Editor of the _Zoologist_ adds the following quotation from
HARVEY’S _British Algae_, p. 27, however, not as an explanation of
the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer in its
existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain SMITH and
to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence of these
large weeds. We do the same.
“The plants of this family (_Laminariaceae_) are almost all of large
size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk any other
marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our own coasts have
frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds expanding from
their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong (_Chorda_)
often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions are small,
compared with their kindred on the shores of the Pacific ocean. The
_Nereocystis_, a plant of this family inhabiting the north-western
shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than whipcord, but upwards
of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex a huge vesicle, six or
seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and crowned with a tuft of
upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from 30 to 40 feet in length. The
vesicle being filled with air, buoys up this immense frond, which lies
stretched along the surface of the sea: here the sea-otter has his
favoured lair, resting himself upon the vesicle, or hiding among the
leaves while he pursues his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors
this floating tree must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly,
we find it used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”
As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. S.
_Daedalus_” and Captain HARRINGTON repeated their assurances that the
creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral HAMILTON
took up the cudgels for Captain HARRINGTON, upon which Captain FREDERIC
SMITH wrote the following paper (_The Times_ of 23 February 1858):
“Sir,--I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral HAMILTON, that
in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking
appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three feet.
Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson crabs,
varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, were
collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life could be
furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking creatures which
constituted the moving monstrous-looking external will assist those who
read my account in believing what I before stated that even when the
object was laid on deck we had difficulty in making out what it was.
Now, sea-weeds of gigantic growth abound near the islands of the group
of Tristan d’Acunha. From decay or other causes, these will from time
to time be detached at the roots, and with their living attachment will
then, floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents,
into the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting
himself. It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by the
boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous specimens
may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your insertion of
this correspondence will cause more attention to be given to their
capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_, to the
forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers to “settle down”
to the conclusion: “This must be the animal called the sea-serpent.”
Had the monster I described not been taken, I should have believed, as
firmly as Captain Harrington does, that I could confirm the statement
of the commander of the _Daedalus_ and that “the animal belonged to the
serpent tribe.””
“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary and
unexpected appearances of things as compared with the things themselves
when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the _Daedalus_ sea-serpent
was seen in the recollection of one spectator, the mouth in that of
another, and so on. I take leave to question the possibility of these
being “most distinctly visible”, when the object at its “nearest
position” was 200 yards distant, the sea getting up, and the observers
travelling in an opposite direction, the passing of the two being
apparently at the rate of 20 miles an hour. Naturalists will say
whether an animal to answer to the habits and attributes of that in
question would have a nostril.”
“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the _Castilian_, saw an
extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression,
and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the
mercantile marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also
for “Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington
is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has
published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless,
these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington saw the
sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very nearly and completely
took me in until I took him in.”
“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant
“Fred. Smith.”
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, p. 320, inquiring
whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the sea-weed
hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.
“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this huge
rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal at all?
That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting some of the
characters described, has been already shown; and on two occasions an
object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved on examination to be
but a sea-weed floating; the separated and inverted roots of which,
projecting in the role of the swell, seemed a head, and the fronds
(in the one case), and (in the other) a number of attached barnacles,
resembled a shaggy mane washed about in the water.”
“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view of the
floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken this for a
living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest degree to presume
that of such a nature could be the creatures, going rapidly through the
water at ten or twelve miles an hour, with the head and neck elevated,
so distinctly seen by Captain M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at
two hundred, the latter at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly
dismiss the sea-weed hypothesis.”
Again in _Nature_ of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the
following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers the
sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.
“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of the
reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into masses
of floating sea-weed.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ speaking of this
hypothesis says:
“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for some
fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed
by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner strongly
suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming, is a statement to
the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony, and to the
truth of which even observant sea-side visitors may testify. The
movements of an unusually long frond or group of fronds of tangle,
attached to a rock, and set in motion at low water, by a light swell,
has before now, and when seen indistinctly, suggested the idea of the
existence at the spot of some large denizen of the sea, browsing on the
sea-weeds, with the fore part of its body, represented by the tangle
fronds, occasionally appearing at the surface of the water.”
Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared in
the _Madras Mail_, but which I take from _Nature_ of 13th. October,
1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be explained in this
way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his purpose. I also think
that this was the intention of the contributor who inserted it in the
columns of _Nature_, of the man who sent a Dutch translation of it to
the _Nieuws van den Dag_, of 26th. Nov., 1881, and of Professor P.
HARTING who republished this translation in the _Album der Natuur_, of
1882, p. 66.
“In a letter to the _Madras Mail_ of September 8, on the use of
gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H. Taylor,
the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following interesting
“sea-serpent”-story:--“A notable incident connected with this sea-weed,
is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s letter. About fifteen
years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor in Table Bay, an enormous
monster, as it appeared, was seen drifting, or advancing itself round
Green Point, into the harbour. It was more than one hundred feet in
length, and moved with an undulating snake-like motion. Its head was
crowned with what appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted
among the affrighted observers declared they could see its eyes and
distinguish its features. The military were called out, and a brisk
fire poured into it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was
hit several times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were
its evident injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite
still, and boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction.
It was found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its
stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having
left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”
It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not
deserving of any notice on our part.
* * * * *
The =eighteenth= explanation is attempted by Mr. A. G. MORE (see
_Zoologist_ for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:
“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep, in the
pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to sollicit
insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality, in
some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance. Any
one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great =ribband or
scabbard fishes=, or who has ever read the striking accounts of the
huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their extreme rarety, may,
like myself, have been thus reminded of those mysterious sea-monsters
which are occasionally observed by the unlearned to be no less a
puzzle to learned opinion. When, too, we know that these fishes are
supposed often to swim at the surface, and thus to be driven ashore
more readily, when the only example of whose healthy life we have a
credible account, is described as advancing head above water, and by
the undulating movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we
not reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms
of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might
easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so called
“mane” of the great sea-snake.”
The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr. GOSSE
in his _Romance of Natural History_ in the following terms:
“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as the
hair-tail, the _Vaegmaer_, and the _Gymnetrus_, are of large size,
and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the
North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder and
curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in other
respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the animal in
question. One of their most striking characteristics, moreover, is,
that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”
In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas
Isles. Mr. TRIMINGHAM, the captor, placed it at the disposal of Mr. J.
MATTHEW JONES, a naturalist living there. This gentleman described the
animal for the _Zoologist_, in which his paper appeared in the volume
of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. JONES ended his article as follows:
“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture of the
present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction it
will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have in
the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save size, with
which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster “The Great
Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested. The lengthened
filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by the connecting
membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would, viewed from a vessel’s
deck, present to the spectator the mane so accurately described as a
singular feature in the gigantic specimen seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R.
N., and officers of H. M. S. _Daedalus_. Then again, the rapidity with
which that individual specimen moved through the water, would coincide
with the capabilities of a member of this genus, for the motive
power produced by such an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely
compressed form of body from the head throughout, must be immense.”
“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements
which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the united presses
of England and America, emanating from the pens of travelers, and
usually headed--“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”--criticised, however,
in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed to an unmerited ridicule
at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless, firmly believed in by the
few, who have patiently waited to see the day when the mystic cloud
which has hitherto veiled the existence of the maned denizen of the
deep should vanish with the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit
more clearly the truth of the assertions of those ill-used men, who,
endeavouring like useful members of society to extend the cause of
natural knowledge by publishing candid accounts of what their eyes
have seen, have always met with an amount of contempt and reproach,
sufficient to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”
“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London News at
hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared, as it would
have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other features in
connection with his specimen and the present one. The facts, however,
regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity of motion to which
I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”
Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, thinking this ribbon-fish a
new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured it with
the name of _Regalecus Jonesii_, but to our great astonishment, he, who
firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an _Enaliosaurus_ (as we have
observed above) now seems to be in doubt about the matter, for he ends
his article with the following words:
“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. Jones, the similarity
of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, I do not consider
myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing for the
present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course; hereafter
a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and arranging the
conflicting evidence already published in the “_Zoologist_”.”
The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the
unbelievers, no doubt, as it _seems_ more plausible than the
_Plesiosaurus_-one. An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note
which I have found in _Nature_ of the 1st. August, 1872:
“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a specimen of
the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without the tail. It
appears that this fish is known to distant inland fishermen as being
forty feet long, and from its slender shape and snake-like movement
is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so minutely described
by navigators. From its head there is erected a plume of flexible,
rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail along its back there is a
conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general colour is like burnished silver.
The eye is large and silvery, and the profile of the head comports well
with that of the horse. The specimen could not be preserved, but there
are two smaller specimens in the Museum.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his turn believes (see _Nature_ of Sept. 12, 1878)
that:
“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might do duty
in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”
In his _Leisure Time Studies_ he returns to his idea:
“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on which
occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved ribbon
or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea that such an
animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from a distance by
persons unskilled in natural history,--and who would, therefore,
hardly dream of associating the elongated being before them with their
ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,--might account for certain
of the tales of sea-serpents which have been brought under our notice.
I had been specially struck with the mention, in several accounts of
sea-serpents, of a very long back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and
of a banded body covered with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several
instances the description given of the heads of the sea-monsters
closely correspond with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes.
These fishes have further been described by naturalists as occasionally
having been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion
close to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated
above the surface,--this latter feature, as we have observed, forming a
remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I found, on making
inquiry into the history of these fishes, that their serpentine form
had struck previous observers, but, as far as I could ascertain, their
merits as representatives of sea-serpents had never before been so
persistently advocated.”
“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle, I
communicated to the _Scotsman_ and _Courant_ newspapers in June, 1876.
The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given as 12 feet
3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches, and the
greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions in thickness,
and the relatively long length and depth, giving to these fishes the
popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes. The species was the well-known
_Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus Banksii_ of naturalists; and by the Museum
attendant at Newcastle, I was informed that a still larger specimen of
the same species was recently obtained of the Northumberland coast, the
length of this latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the
thickness 5 inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The
breast fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated
and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very long,
whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back, and obtains
an average breadth of about three inches.”
“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the
ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of fish
merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the idea that
gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally developed. The
gentleman in question wrote to inform me that about thirty years ago
he engaged the smack _Sovereign_, of Hull, Baillie commander, to trawl
in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury, then residing at Elie Lodge,
Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in their trawling operations, the crew of
the _Sovereign_ captured a giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at
length on the deck, extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem
and stern. The smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length
may therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,--this measurement
being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured
from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six to seven
inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined to view
the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered the fish to be cut
in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also worthy of remark that
the trawlers seemed to express no great surprise at the size of Lord
Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted that they had met with one much
larger, this latter being coloured of a dirty-brown hue.”
He also explains the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148) by reference to
a ribbon-fish in the following terms:
“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable
explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views to the
_Times_ in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal
for June 15, 1877:--“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns
of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently
seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not
meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,--such
as giant sea-snakes themselves,--may occasionally personate the
“sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very many
of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on the
supposition that giant tape-fishes--of the existence of which no
reasonable doubt can be entertained--have been seen. The report of
Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht _Osborne_, appears, as far as
zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained on the
“ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less skin, the
rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral) fins, each
measuring many feet in length, all form so many details corresponding
exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer these
observations with the view of showing that, given a recital founded, as
I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we possess in the lists
of living and of well-known animals adequate representatives of the
great unknown.”
“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression
contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic
turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in the
absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate
the views expressed above as to the personality of this strange tenant
of the Mediterranean Sea.”
“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared
in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor,
speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I offer
“as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being
hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in _Good Words_,
from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the
probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and
appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” in Mr.
Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes simply
as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and not as a sole and
universal representative of the modern leviathan.”
“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear proof
before us that these and other animals may be developed to a size
which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can only term
enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the sea-serpent
question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To objectors
of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that we have not yet
procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, I would point out that
I by no means maintain the frequent development of such beings. The
most I argue for and require is their occasional production; and I
would also remind such objectors of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes
which, until within the past few years, remained in the same mysterious
seclusion affected at present by the great serpentine unknown. I
need only add that I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a
giant serpent of the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its
representative, or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we
discover the true and natural law of its production.”
“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully submit, as
does a pleading counsel to his jury,--”
“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified,
when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion being
especially supported by the want of any _prima facie_ reason for
prevarication;”
“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved to be
deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual attitudes
on the part of familiar animals, there remains a body of evidence only
to be explained on the hypothesis that certain gigantic marine animals,
at present unfamiliar or unknown to science, do certainly exist; and”
“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly
consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily
explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development of
gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar to the
naturalist.”
Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, too, supposes that “the
dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew Wilson,
may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.
I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a
ribbon-fish has only _one_ connected dorsal _fin_, and not a _ridge of
fins_, (compare fig. 13 with fig. 44). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish
is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly black;
the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark brown
above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long time in the sun
on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow; the under parts are
of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers, which are the organs of
locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth of a ribbon-fish is only a
few inches, while that of the sea-serpent, as is clearly pointed out in
the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), may grow to more than fifteen
feet. But I need not sum up the differences between ribbon-fishes and
sea-serpents. We have only to ask the opinion of one of the most able
ichthyologists of our days, and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to
stand upon:
Mr. GÜNTHER says in his _Introduction to the study of Fishes_, 1880, p.
520:
“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all parts
of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the surface, or
thrown ashore by the waves.....”
“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion of the
gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their muscular and
bony system, that they can be lifted out of the water with difficulty
only, and nearly always portions of the body and fins are broken and
lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes live is not known; probably
the depths vary for different species; but although none have been
yet obtained by means of the deep-sea dredge, they must be abundant
at the bottom of all oceans, as dead fishes or fragments of them
are frequently obtained. Some writers have supposed from the great
length and narrow shape of these fishes that they have been mistaken
for “Sea-Serpents”; but as these monsters of the sea are always
represented by those who have had the good fortune of meeting with them
as remarkably active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes,
which are either dying or dead, have been the objects described as
“Sea-Serpents”.”
* * * * *
The =nineteenth= explanation is that of Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS (see
_Zoologist_, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that =a floating dead tree=
“might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another
sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:
“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon,
which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical
delusion that might have become a source of error, and given rise to
yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands of the
Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There was little
wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the sea. I was
sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room on the main deck,
admiring the setting sun, and watching the rounded outlines of the
blue mountains and distant islands against the sky, and the numbers
of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to their nests”, when my eye rested
on a long dark object apparently making its way steadily through the
water. After observing it some time in silence I was sorely puzzled
and could make nothing of it. It was neither a seal nor a diver nor a
fishing cormorant, for with their forms I was familiar; so I went on
deck and consulted other eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought
to bear on the suspicious object, and the general scrutiny seemed to
decide that it was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer
according to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by
lateral undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that
the course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering.
With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom or
so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range up
alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast by a
clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this time, however, a
closer and more critical inspection had taken place, and the supposed
sea-monster turned himself into a long dark root, gnarled and twisted,
of a tree, secured to the moorings of a fishing net, with the strong
tide passing it rapidly, and thus giving it an apparent life-like
movement and serpentine aspect.”
After Mr. DREW had published in _Nature_ a case, in which he and
many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags, another
contributor Mr. E. H. PRINGLE wrote the following (_Nature_, September
12, 1878):
“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of
Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits”
concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”
“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small group of
passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss. _Rangoon_, then
steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore. We were just within
sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra. One of the party suddenly
pointed out an object on the port bow, perhaps half a mile off, and
drew from us the simultaneous exclamation of “The sea-serpent!” And
there it was, to the naked eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the
sea, with its head raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried
in the water, and anon reared just above its surface. There was the
mane, and there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards
behind.”
“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the _Rangoon_
would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a great
sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the lenses and
the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards, anchored in some
manner to the bottom--a “snag” in fact. Swayed up and down by the rapid
current, a series of waves undulated beyond it, bearing in their crests
dark coloured weeds or grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”
“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land, and
of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first hasty
conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone the human
mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we should be in
forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON, in his _Leisure Time Studies_, speaking of this
hypothesis says:
“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus
around which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and
sea-acorns--producing a variegated effect by reason of their light
colour--have attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented
appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming
slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of this
latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual spectator,
the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating in the closest
and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,--by the same
rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks and branches of trees one
may frequently discern likenesses to the human face and to the forms
of other living things. In this latter instance, the floating object
was perceived at some miles’ distance from the deck of a yacht; and
even when seen through a telescope, and carefully scrutinized by men
accustomed to make out the contour and nature of objects at sea, the
resemblance to the head of some animal was so close that the course
of the vessel was changed and the object in due time overhauled. This
latter, therefore, presents an example of a case, the details of which,
when related, tempt people to maintain without further parley, that
sea-serpents always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one
kind or another.”
The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes at
once the idea of a dead organism.
* * * * *
The =twentieth= explanation is: =a mass of flying birds=, of Mr. JOSEPH
DREW, who wrote in _Nature_ of the 5th. of September, 1878:
“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the Folkestone
boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations of that
neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from the French
coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look at that
extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer about a mile
or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning in this direction
there was seen an immense serpent apparently about a furlong in length,
rushing furiously along at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour;
it was blackish in front and paler behind; its elongated body was
fairly on the surface of the water and it progressed with an undulating
or quivering motion, mirum erat spectaculum sane.”
“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account for
this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed and settled
into the fixed idea that the object before them could be nothing less
than the great sea-serpent himself; for--
“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
“Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge
“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
“Leviathan, which God of all his works
“Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”
“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses,
and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument, the wonder was
satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster was dark and
glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually, fading towards
the tail. The glass did not determine the matter until the extreme end
was reached, and then it was seen to consist of a mass of birds in
rapid motion; those that were strong on the wing were able to keep well
up with the leaders, and to make the head appear thicker and darker
by their numbers, whilst those that had not such power of flight were
compelled to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless
these birds were shags (_Pelecanus cristatus_) returning to their homes
for the night from the distant waters in which they had been fishing,
during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively as to
the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer has often seen shags
on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning in single or double
file to their roosting places, and since it is stated in works of
natural history that they have been noticed occasionally flying in this
peculiar manner to the number of a thousand or more, it does not appear
an unwarranted liberty in supposing that they really were _Pelecani
cristati_.”
“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt the
interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a large
and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds (scores of
them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the writer has thought
it his duty to report the circumstance to you that your readers who
voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses in their pockets
and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity this interpretation
of the great sea-serpent.”
This story induced Mr. BIRD (_Nature_, of 12th. September, 1878) to
make a similar avowal:
“Dr. Drew’s letter in _Nature_, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to my
mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend on August
8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was towards evening,
when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without masts or funnel,
moving through the water at enormous speed. After a minute or two it
undulated and rose from the surface, and we saw that it was a flight of
birds.”
“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at least
many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated, though I
doubt whether _all_ can be explained in this manner.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON, on the contrary wrote the following against this
supposition (_Nature_, in the same number):
“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday
regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the English
Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding the
habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me, however, to point
out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded as explanatory of
the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the incident only explains
one of a number of _serpentine appearances_ of which porpoises and
sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood with trains of sea-weed,
&c., are also good examples. There have been placed on record numerous
incidents of serpentine forms having been closely expected (as in
the well-known case of the _Daedalus_, or later still of H. M. S.
_Osborne_) where the hypothesis of the serpentine appearances assumed
by flocks of birds or fishes could not be held as explanatory in any
sense. It is with the view of showing that the exact personality of the
“sea-serpent” cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew
relates, that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer
from the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine
ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent”
mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully between
cases in which serpentine appearances have been assumed by ordinary
animals, and those in which _one_ animal form has presented itself
in the guise of the “great unknown”. 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.”........ “At the same time
zoologists cannot but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like
that gentleman, note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and
communicate such incidents to your columns.”
A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing
descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal from the
pen of Mr. C. M. INGLEBY:
“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed
at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a cottage on
an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view. One morning my
attention was called to a large, dark, undulating body, which moved
rapidly through the sea. As it was some way out from shore, I naturally
concluded it to be of enormous length. I lost no time in making
inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon, and was so fortunate
as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed it. He told me it was a
flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly have believed that I
had seen the Great Unknown. I have often seen a similar phenomenon, but
nothing nearly so striking as this.”
In _Nature_ of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent
is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent
says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in the same
locality; “I never, however, saw the _head_”. Now another correspondent
thinking that _he_ had solved the problem, wrote the following article
in the next issue of the same journal:
“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes, on
the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions, several
members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance of three or
four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a huge serpent. Its
length was many times that of the largest steamer that ever passed,
and its velocity equally exceeded that of the swiftest. What seemed
its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes appeared to show signs
of an open mouth. The general appearance of the monster was almost
exactly similar to that of the figure in your correspondent’s letter
published on the 25th. ult. Not the slightest appearance of this
continuity in its structure could be perceived by the eye, although it
seemed incredible that any muscular mechanism could really drive such
an enormous mass through the water with such a prodigious velocity.
I carefully watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day,
just as one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it
instantaneously turned through a right angle, but instead of going
forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same
velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved itself
into a flock of birds.”
“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being
effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still
perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new
illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what
has been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly
this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s
difficulty.”--W. STEADMAN ALDIS.--
As to the figure, it is our fig. 51.--In the next issue of _Nature_
again another correspondent asserts:
“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in _Nature_ yesterday, I
was reminded by a person present that some years ago, when in Orkney, I
pointed out an appearance that most people unaccustomed to witness it
might have taken for a great sea-monster. This was nothing more or less
than some hundred of cormorants or “skarps” flying in a continuous line
close to the water, the deception being increased by the resemblance
of a head caused by several “skarps” in a cluster _heading_ the column,
and by the “_lumpy_” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and
hiding for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer
to--not unnaturally--imagine that the portions so hidden had gone under
water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be fairly estimated
at thirty miles an hour or more.”--J. RAE.
It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass of
flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the most
striking proofs against this hypothesis.
* * * * *
The =twenty-first= explanation was proposed by Dr. ANDREW WILSON in his
_Leisure Time Studies_, 1879. He presents a frontispiece to his work
“embodying the chief representations of the various theories of the
sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground is delineated
=a large turtle=. Of this supposition Mr. LEE says in his _Sea Monsters
Unmasked_:
“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers and
broad back.”
The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet,
including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. The
breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three and a
half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would have
been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal well enough.
Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized by its broad shell.
No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian shore.
* * * * *
The =twenty-second= explanation. I don’t know whether the note p.
106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time
Studies_, also appeared in the first edition, January, 1879, and so
I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. LEE, (1883), has a superior
claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent might be in some or
in most instances =a giant cuttle-fish or calamary=.
Mr. ANDREW WILSON, quoting the report of Messrs. WEBSTER and ANDERSON
(n^o. 146), in which the latter says: “the creature was apparently of a
gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes in a note:
“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature
mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of
swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the
details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous
arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards,
propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel.””
Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ tries to explain all accounts
of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one of the
figures of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work (our fig. 14) he says: “the presumed body
of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid” (which snatched the
man from the vessel) “and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging
are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its
whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row
of transverse septa, one on each side of it.” I have discussed this
explanation in its right place (see p. 106).
[Illustration: Fig. 70.--Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr.
HENRY LEE explains Mr. BING’S drawing.]
The “monster of EGEDE” he also explained by reference to a great
calamary. Mr. LEE does not doubt of the accuracy of EGEDE’S
description, but as to Mr. BING’S figure he says: “The high character
of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that he had
seen something previously unknown to him (he does not say it was a
sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand what it was
that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made by Mr. BING, one of
his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to do this”. And Mr. LEE has
the boldness to figure a large calamary, with the words: “the animal
which EGEDE probably saw”, of which figure I give a facsimile in fig.
70.--
Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious
acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a doubting
zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the whole fabric falls
to pieces as soon as we compare EGEDE’S description and BING’S drawing
with the greater part of descriptions and figures given as well before
as after EGEDE. His idea is far fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When
a calamary propels itself with great velocity to the surface and raises
its tail high out of the water, all its arms are turned and stretched
downwards; not one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is
in this position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will
fall to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure
to left, and not to right, as Mr. EGEDE saw very distinctly; he says:
“backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the position
above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube, spouts in a
direction contrary to that which Mr. LEE has figured. The locomotor
tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it is stretched by its
own muscular wall towards the head, and not towards the tail, nor in a
direction perpendicularly to the body, when the act of spouting takes
place. Moreover HANS EGEDE saw the sea-serpent spouting (exhaling)
through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on or below the surface of
the water, as the calamary of Mr. HENRY LEE!
Of Mr. MACLEAN’S report (n^o. 31) he says: “His description of it is
exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”.
If I may beg my readers to read Mr. MACLEAN’S report again, they will
observe that _nothing_ in it indicates a calamary!
About the report of Mr. J. C. LUND (n^o. 115) he writes:
“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements of all
the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There is no
room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously
that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, is most
accurately and intelligently described--so clearly, indeed, that it
furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the strange visitant.”
“Here let me say--and I wish it to be distinctly understood--that I do
not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent, or
other great creatures at present unknown to science, and that I have
no inclination to explain away that which others have seen, because I
myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”, it is said, and
it is not agreeable to have to tell a person that, in common parlance,
he “must not trust his own eyes”. It seems presumptuous even to hint
that one may know better what was seen than the person who saw it. And
yet I am obliged to say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly
and assuredly, that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not
correctly interpret that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is
not the eye which deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the
imagination which is led astray by the association of the thing seen
with an erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent
assumption of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key to the
mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours had not access
to, and which has only within the last few years been placed in our
hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster are those of an
animal with which we are now well acquainted, but of the existence
of which the narrators of these occasional visitations were unaware;
namely, the great calamary, the same which gave rise to the stories of
the Kraken, and which has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian
seas and fjords from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have
elsewhere said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure
of the _Alecton_ in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or
sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the great
sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express belief
in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned,
specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted were met with
on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of them were deposited
in museums, to silence the incredulous and interest zoologists. When
Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846 the declaration of Mr. Lund and
his companions of the fishing excursion he and they knew nothing of
there being such an animal. They had formed no conception of it, nor
had they the instructive privilege, possessed of late years by the
public in England, of being able to watch attentively, and at leisure,
the habits and movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in
great tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted
with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed snake
the elongated body of a giant squid.”
“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by the outrush
of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction contrary to
that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part, therefore, goes
in advance, and the body tapers towards this, almost to a blunt point.
At a short distance from the actual extremity two flat fins project
from the body, one on each side, so that this end of the squid’s body
somewhat resembles in shape the government “broad arrow”. It is a
habit of these squids, the small species of which are met with in some
localities in teeming abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the
water in hot and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised
out of water, to a height which in a large individual might be three
feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at the
rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person who has
never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed, like the
creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in accordance
with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad expanse. The
elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the neck to which the
“head” is attached; the eight arms trailing behind (the tentacles are
always coiled away and concealed) supply the supposed mane floating
on each side; the undulating motion in swimming, as the water is
alternately drawn in and expelled, accords with the description, and
the excurrent stream pouring aft from the locomotor tube, causes a
long swirl and swell to be left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have
often seen, may easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of
its body. The eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone
of colour varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey,
as the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter
circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”
“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the forepart
of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”, the “moving
in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark colour”, the “waving
motion in the water behind the animal”, from which the witnesses
concluded that “part of the body was concealed under water”, the
“head raised, but the lower part not visible”, the “sharp snout”, the
“smooth skin”, and the appearance described by Mr. William Knudtzon,
and Candidatus Theologiae Bochlum, of “the head being long and small
in proportion to the throat, the latter appearing much greater than
the former”, which caused them to think “it was _probably_ furnished
with a mane”. Not that they _saw_ any mane, but as they had been told
of it, they thought they _ought to have seen it_. Less careful and
conscientious persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on
oath, that they _did see it_.”
“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the
proverbially smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition
of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance
that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched
out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on both sides
of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of that would cause
this by the effluent current from its “syphon tube.” I have seen a
deeply laden ship push in front of her a vast hillock of water, which
fell off on each side in foam as it was parted by her bow; but that
was of man’s construction. Nature builds on better lines. No swimming
creature has such unnecessary friction to overcome. Even the seemingly
unwieldy body of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without
a splash, and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering
action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”
Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account, that they
may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a sea-serpent or a
great calamary. Mr. LEE’S last views of the motion of sea-animals is
also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all his assertions; for
instance, he says: “Nature builds on better lines”. I say: If nature
built on better lines, men would long ago have imitated them. All
creatures, when swimming rapidly on the surface, cause a splash. Swans,
when moving as rapidly as possible, cause heavy undulations before the
chest, and I have observed myself the common porpoises in the Zuider
Zee, which when coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a
rushing of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.
The sea-serpent of Mr. MORRIES STIRLING (n^o. 113) appeared, according
to Mr. HENRY LEE also “to have been, like the others from the same
locality, a large calamary.”
Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE and his officers he says:
“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted the
veracity or _bona fides_ of the captain and officers of one of Her
Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because it
was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. Their practised
eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true character of anything
met with afloat even if only partially seen, as intuitively as the Red
Indian reads the signs of the forest or the trail; and therefore they
were not likely to be deceived by any of the objects with which sailors
are familiar. They would not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks
of trees, or Brobdingnagian stems of Algae; but there was one animal
with which they were not familiar, of the existence of which they were
unaware, and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed
to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself--namely, the great calamary,
the elongated form of which has certainly in some other instances been
mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen swimming in the
manner I have described, and endeavoured to portray, would fulfil the
description given by Lieutenant Drummond, and would in a great measure
account for the appearances reported by Captain M’Quhae. “_The head
long, pointed and flat on the top_”, accords with the pointed extremity
and caudal fin of the squid. “_Head kept horizontal with the surface of
the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally
beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for
purposes of respiration._” A perfect description of the position and
action of a squid swimming. “_No portion of it perceptibly used in
propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal
undulations._” The mode of propulsion of a squid--the outpouring stream
of water from its locomotor tube--would be unseen and unsuspected,
because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would suggest a
prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms trailing astern
at the surface of the water would give the appearance of a mane. I
think it not impossible that if the officers of the _Daedalus_ had been
acquainted with this great sea-creature the impression on their mind’s
eye would not have taken the form of a serpent. I offer this, with much
diffidence, as a suggestion arising from recent discoveries; and by no
means insist on its acceptance; for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very
close view of the animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without
any doubt, that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently
declared that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form
were all most distinctly visible.”
And of the sea-serpent of Mr. R. DAVIDSON (n^o. 93) he asserts: “The
features of this incident are consistent with his having seen one of
the, then unknown, great calamaries.”
The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant SANFORD (n^o. 74) is also
explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under
circumstances similar to those described by HANS EGEDE”.
Captain HARRINGTON’S sea-serpent (n^o. 131), according to Mr. LEE, “was
evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal extremity and fin
above the surface, and discolouring the water by discharging its ink.”
Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given, Mr. LEE
concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have been searching
amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, the great
unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their elongated
cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have played the part
of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated incident.”
In answering, again, Mr. GOSSE’S question: “To which of the recognized
classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be
referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There is not one of
the above judiciously summarized characteristics that is not supplied
by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits and peculiar mode of
locomotion.”
With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those which
Mr. GOSSE enumerates in his _Romance of Natural History_ (see p. 318
of the present volume), but which, as we know, are taken by him from
only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from a report of a would-be
sea-serpent!
The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a would-be
sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the head was
described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true sea-serpents
are brownish black, and only in case the animal had swum for a long
time in the sun and partly above the surface of the water, the colour
is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that this colour partly
agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at rest or when dead; but
generally, when the animal is in motion, and especially in emotion,
the colour becomes a reddish-purple or crimson-red. Moreover the long
neck, the mane, the extraordinary long tail, the four flappers, are not
explained by reference to a calamary.
* * * * *
The =twenty-third= explanation is proposed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD,
JUN. in _Nature_ of November 18th., 1880. His article on the “Order
Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:
“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of
June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing from
the one in question, and may have been =a manatee=.]”
[Illustration: Fig. 71.--_Thrichechus manatus_ LINNÉ.]
This figure is our figure 45. Evidently Mr. WOOD did not read the
account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based on a
figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen from the
_Osborne_, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the shoulders,
where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and the length of
the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal had an enormous
neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total length of ten feet, the
length from the crown or top to just below the shoulders is not more
than four feet and there is no question of a neck, as our figure will
show. Mr. WOOD committed the mistake, like so many others, that he
explained _one_ sea-serpent, instead of first comparing _all_ the
reports of it before giving an opinion.
* * * * *
Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According to
different authorities, the sea-serpent may be: