* * * * *
I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I could
discover, were the first to express the supposition to which their name
is added. The dates are those at which they published their supposition.
Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the result
of reading _one single_ report (1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16), which are
not mere suppositions without any foundation (6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21,
23), which are not offered by persons who a moment ago saw a deceitful
object or animal (17, 18, 19, 20, 22), but which are the result of
a _study_ of several accounts and reports. They are those marked 2,
9 and 10. And of these n^o. 10 is the most admissible, because the
_Plesiosaurus_ in its outlines most resembles the sea-serpent. Why,
however, is the sea-serpent not a _Plesiosaurus_? I have already summed
up some reasons, when treating of this explanation, but the principal
reasons are the mammalian characters, habits and behaviour of the
sea-serpent; I will try to prove this in the next chapter.