a. Dimensions.
_The length of what was visible of the animal_ above the surface of the
water was estimated to be: from sixteen to eighteen feet (25), several
meters (136), about twenty feet (150), from twenty to thirty feet (35),
thirty feet (113, 123), about thirty-six feet (92), about forty feet
(26, 41, 42, 44, 80, 91, 128, 145), forty-five feet (137), between
forty and fifty feet (115, 147), fifty feet at least (43, 46, 50, 51,
60), about fifty-five feet (94), from fifty to sixty feet (63), sixty
feet (57, 83, 117, 118, 129, 138, 150), seventy-five feet (152 A),
eighty feet at least (97), a hundred and fifty feet (154), and, though
estimated by the eye-witnesses at about fifty feet, the visible part
must, according to my reckoning, have been eighty feet at least in n^o.
148. These enormous differences in the statements cannot surprise us
of an animal which may attain a length of more than two hundred feet.
As a rule the animal swims with head and neck above the water-surface,
commonly the back too is partly visible, but of the tail only a small
portion. In n^o. 154 as we see, a length of 150 feet of the animal was
visible; in this instance it lay nearly perfectly still; only the long
neck and head were under water, and the back and a great length of tail
were above the surface.
The _whole length of the animal_ is spoken of as: great (37, 152),
large (119), very large (2), considerable (107), immense (36),
astonishing (1), enormous (132), as a yacht of fifty tons (8), three or
four times larger than the ship (5), eighteen feet (14), from fifty to
fifty-five feet (19), from fifty to sixty feet (18), sixty feet (17,
28, 56), at least sixty feet (82), more than sixty feet (29), from
sixty to seventy feet (24), from sixty to eighty feet (139, 142), about
seventy feet (29), not above seventy feet (109), at least seventy feet
(41), from seventy to eighty feet (31), from seventy to one hundred
feet (74), seventy five feet (1, 158), about eighty feet (63), from
eighty to ninety feet (39, 118), about ninety feet (121, 134), one
hundred feet (17, 33, 41, 44, 45, 63, 66, 69, 135), at least a hundred
feet (34), more than one hundred feet (95), greater than the animal
of Captain M’QUHAE, consequently probably more than one hundred feet
(93), one hundred and twenty feet (34), from one hundred and twenty to
one hundred and thirty feet (105), one hundred and thirty feet (69),
about one hundred and fifty feet (65), from one hundred and fifty to
two hundred feet (114), from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and
seventy feet (34, 144), one hundred and eighty feet (126), one hundred
and ninety feet (52), about 200 feet (p. 107, p. 138, 130, 155, 157),
more than two hundred feet (p. 107, 30, 131), and though estimated by
the eye witnesses (see n^o. 148) as to be at least one hundred and
fifty feet, the individual seen by them must have been, according to
my reckoning, more than two hundred feet long.--Such a length needs no
explanation: it is _a fact_, established by the declarations of highly
respectable men, and of men who are accustomed to estimate the length
of objects floating in the water from afar and at any short distance.
Moreover it is the enormous tail which apparently enlargens these
dimensions. The elephant is of a great bulk and of an enormous weight,
but the giraffe astonishes us by its enormous legs and its enormous
neck, though its body and its head are smaller than that of a moderate
sized horse. So the colossal spermwhales, fin whales and whalebone
whales surprise us by their bulk and weight, but the sea-serpent
deprived of its neck and immense tail is only a child to them. Moreover
a zoologist has not one single reason to deny the possibility of the
existence of sea-animals with a body of no more than sixty feet, a neck
of sixty feet, and a tail of hundred and twenty feet.
The _length of the head_ is, according to the different declarations:
nearly as that of a man (19, 43), about the size of the crown of a hat
(42), larger than that of any dog (38), as large as a hat (94), about
as that of a pail (29), full as large as a four gallon keg (42), equal
to a small cask (109), nearly as large as the head of a horse (39, 60),
rather larger than that of a horse (29), two feet long (56, 81), of the
size of a ten gallon keg (48, 80, 92, 102), as large as a barrel (101),
as large as a flour barrel (158), of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead
(152 A), long (118), with regard to its thickness not very long (94),
long in proportion to the throat (95), about six feet in length (97),
about six or eight feet long (34, 120), as large as a little boat (32),
colossal (115). The head of the individual seen by the officers of
H. M. S. _Daedalus_ cannot have been longer than three feet, as the
neck is estimated sixteen inches in diameter, though it is called long
(118) or even ten feet long (118); evidently a portion of the neck was
included in the calculation. The head of the individual seen by the
officers of the royal yacht _Osborne_ must have been from eight to nine
feet long, as its breadth is estimated at six feet (148).
The _length of the neck_ is said to be: long (31, 56, 119, 124),
enormous (p. 225), a length of ten feet was visible (48), about
eighteen feet (124), about twenty feet (118), at least twenty feet
(160), the neck together with the body fifty or forty-five feet, i.
e. the neck alone must have been about twenty-five feet (146), about
twenty five feet (149), at least twenty five feet (152), about thirty
feet (151), about sixty feet (145); “from its crown or top to just
below the shoulder where it became immersed, I should reckon about
fifty feet”, but as the eye-witness saw the animal from behind, the
length of the neck could not be estimated with accuracy; as to me, I
am convinced that the neck of the individual measured about sixty feet
(148). The long neck is delineated in fig. 46, 48 and 49.
_The length of the trunk_ has never been actually estimated, as nearly
all the observers believed that the animal was serpent-shaped, and
therefore estimated only its total length or the part exposed to their
eyes. Yet we may put down the length of the trunk of the individual
seen by the officers of H. M. S. _Daedalus_ to be about twenty feet,
as one of the hindflappers was occasionally seen at about twenty
feet distant from the point where one of the foreflappers was also
occasionally seen. And as this fore-flapper was visible at about twenty
feet in the rear of the head, we may conclude that the length of the
trunk equals that of the neck (118). Consequently we may decide that
the individual observed by the Captain and the surgeon of the _Nestor_,
who saw the animal swimming evidently with its neck contracted, had a
neck and a trunk each of about forty feet (146). In the same way we
may conclude that the individual observed by the captain and crew of
the _Pauline_ (145) and that seen by the officers of the royal yacht
_Obsorne_ (148) had both a neck and a trunk of each about sixty feet.
The _tail_ delineated in fig. 19, has only three times been actually
estimated. Once it is called thirty five feet long (8), then forty feet
long (162), and once a hundred and fifty feet (146). In my opinion
the animal’s tail in this last instance cannot have been longer than
about eighty feet, i. e. as long as the animal’s head, neck and trunk
together. The length of the individual observed by the officers of the
_Daedalus_ was estimated by them to be at least eighty feet. As he
have reckoned above about forty three feet for head, neck and trunk
together, its tail consequently must have been about forty feet long.
So the animal’s hind flappers are situated almost in the middle of
the whole length. And therefore EGEDE and BING did not observe them,
because the middle part of the whole length remained hidden from them
(fig. 19). Captain HOPE states (119) that the animal seen from above on
its back resembles an alligator with an enormous neck. If the animal
had not an immense tail, he would never have made this comparison.
When Captain TREMEARNE says “also a great length of tail” he seems to
me to have included in his estimation a portion of the animal’s trunk
(129). The individuals seen by the officers of the _Osborne_ (148), of
the _Pauline_ (145), and of the _Kätie_ (154), undoubtedly had a tail
of about one hundred or even of one hundred and twenty feet in length.
Captain D’ABNOUR called the tail enormous (106 A).
Twice (14, 119) it has been stated that the _four flappers_ were seen
together; the two _fore flappers_ were seen four times (5, 121, 129,
148, see also p. 250); and delineated in fig. 19, 36, and 45; it is
possible that the two _hind flappers_ were twice seen (151, 158),
and delineated in fig. 49. Four times one of the fore-flappers was
visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154) and twice one of the
hindflappers (118, 154). The foreflappers are called broad and large
(5), frightful, several feet in length (121), larger than the posterior
(119), about fifteen feet in length (148), and of immense dimensions
(154); judging from the drawing illustrating this last instance (fig.
50), I should estimate its length also at fifteen feet. Captain
D’ABNOUR saw one of the foreflappers rising to the height of about six
feet from the water and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon
the body (106 A). The hindflappers are said to be smaller than the
anterior (119), and about ten feet long (154).
As to the _breadth of the head_, some observers mention its diameter,
and some its circumference, or they compare its thickness either with
that of the neck, with that of the trunk, or with some well-known
object; this is the reason that we meet with the following statements:
it is rather broad (31), where the head was connected with the body
(read neck) it was a little larger than the body (read neck) (34), the
head was rather larger than the body (read neck) (48), much smaller
than the body (69), narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently
the animal had contracted its neck, so that this latter grew much
thicker (69), about two feet in diameter (150), about three feet in
circumference (69), at least three feet in circumference (29), about as
thick as a ten gallon keg (92), about six feet thick (148).
The _neck_ is somewhat smaller than the head (31), as is also stated
in other accounts: smaller than the head (109), much thinner than the
head (91), comparatively narrow (148), and may be two and a half feet
in circumference (48), just behind the head sixteen inches thick (118),
about the thickness of a man’s waist (124), about two feet in diameter
(149), or about four feet thick (148).
The _thickness of the animal_ has commonly been compared with that
of different objects, a circumstance which makes it difficult to fix
the true diameter. Moreover it is in many instances difficult to make
out whether the animal’s neck, just behind the head, is meant by the
observer, or the animal’s chest or breast, which is the thickest
part of the trunk. For the animal generally swims in such a way that
a little part of its back rises above the surface of the water,
completely hiding its thickest part and its flappers, so that it makes
the impression to be a serpentine animal without any appendages, and of
a uniform size. So the animal is said to be ten or twelve inches thick
(147), about twelve inches (113), about fourteen inches (102), fifteen
inches (19), as thick as a half-barrel (39, 41, 44, 48, 63), as thick
as a common firkin (63), about twenty two inches (17), as thick as a
barrel (34, 41, 80), as thick as a man’s body (46), as thick as a wine
barrel (2, 85), as thick as a stout man (94), as thick as a barrel of
two hogsheads (12), three feet (17), as thick as a sloop’s boom (24),
three to four feet in circumference (25), as thick as a full-grown ox
(79), about two feet in diameter (92), inconsiderable (95), as thick
as a large horse (109), he is the thickest just behind the head (103),
several ells (115), as thick as our main mast (135), thirty feet from
its head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat
(126), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the
back (121), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (148), the
shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (122).
The _tail-root_ had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet (146),
but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a few
instances that it was actually observed.
The _tail ends_ in a point (fig. 19, fig. 20), and consequently is
mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also said to
be as pointed as a boat-hook (8), or very pointed (12).
_Comparison of the dimensions._ Supposing that the dimensions of
the several portions of the animal are relatively nearly the same
in individuals of different ages, we are able to draw up a table of
comparative and relative dimensions. We learn from the officers of the
_Daedalus_ that the vertical diameter of the neck was about 1¹⁄₃ feet.
From the officers of the _Osborne_ we have the following estimations of
dimensions: horizontal diameter of the head about 6 feet, horizontal
diameter of the neck about 4 feet. We know from several eye-witnesses
that the neck is round, so that we may suppose that its vertical
diameter is the same as its horizontal or transversal one. Consequently
the transversal diameter of the neck of the _Daedalus_ animal was
1¹⁄₃ or ⁴⁄₃ feet; and that of its head ⁶⁄₃ = 2 feet. For a moment I
will suppose that in these animals a head of about 2 feet broad has a
length of about 3 feet, and this I may do, as the heads of the animals
which I consider as allied to sea-serpents, have nearly these relative
dimensions. In the same way I may put the length of the head of the
_Osborne_ individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to
the foreflapper in the _Daedalus_ animal was about twenty feet. We may
consequently suppose that the same portion measured sixty feet in the
individual seen by the officers of the _Osborne_. As to the question
whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done hitherto?
I answer without hesitation _no_, this length also includes a portion
of the animal’s trunk, viz. the part from its shoulder to the point
where the fore limb is free. In the animals which, in my opinion, are
allied to the sea-serpent, the upper arm is, so to say, “imbedded” in
the trunk’s integument, is not free, as in man, and nearly immovable,
and this portion is about one third of the whole length of the limb.
Consequently we may conclude that, if the free part of the foreflapper
is about fifteen feet, the portion of the trunk from the place where
the fore limb in seated on the body to the shoulder is about seven
feet and a half. Consequently the individual of the _Osborne_ had a
neck of about 53 feet. As the size of the individual of the _Daedalus_
was about one third of that of the _Osborne_, its neck was about 17¹⁄₂
feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the _Daedalus_
individual were five feet in length. The distance from the foreflapper
to the hind flapper in the _Daedalus_ animal measured about 20 feet,
consequently the _trunk_ measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that the distance
from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the _Osborne_ animal must
have been about 60 feet, and the length of its _trunk_ about 67 feet.
Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck, and the trunk, we have
for the _Daedalus_ animal 43 feet. This individual swam with its body
in a straight line; “sixty feet at least were visible _à fleur d’eau_”
are the words of Captain M’QUHAE, substantiated by the reports of
two of his officers. Yet it was obvious that this was not the whole
length of the animal, and that a great length of tail was hidden under
water. The animal was estimated to be from eighty to ninety feet
in length. I have not a single reason to doubt this statement, and
therefore conclude that the tail of the animal was about as long as
the distance from the animal’s nose to its hindflappers. But I will
not be too bold and only give it a length of about forty feet. If this
is within the bounds of truth, of which I don’t doubt in the least,
the length of the tail of the individual, seen by the officers of the
_Osborne_ measured about 120 feet. Captain HOPE who had the opportunity
to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position,
states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (119). I
venture to estimate the length of the last at about ²⁄₃ of that of the
foreflappers. So we may estimate the length of the hindflappers of the
two individuals at 3¹⁄₃ and 10 feet respectively. As to the breadth of
the animal’s trunk the officers of the _Osborne_ state that it was from
fifteen to twenty feet in their individual. We may safely suppose that
the animal did not expose its greatest breadth, which must have been a
little below the surface of the water, so that I don’t hesitate to fix
the greatest diameter at 20 or 21 feet. The body gradually diminishes
towards the tail, and this in its turn towards its end, which, as we
have observed, is pointed.
The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions
only from the reports of the officers of the _Daedalus_ and of the
_Osborne_, is that they had a very favourable opportunity to estimate
them. The former saw the animal swimming with its body in a straight
line, and with its neck quite stretched, not contracted, showing the
greater part of its length, and swimming in such a way that it was seen
just from aside, so that the different _lengths_ of the portions of the
body could easily be estimated. And the latter saw the animal just from
behind, so that the different _breadths_ of the animal could be seen;
moreover the dimensions of the foreflappers were visible.
I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s
proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of head. | ³⁄₄ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of neck. | 4 | 6 |11²⁄₃|17¹⁄₂| 23¹⁄₂|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of trunk. | 4⁷⁄₁₂| 7¹⁄₂|15 |22¹⁄₂| 29²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of tail. | 8²⁄₃ |13¹⁄₃|26²⁄₃|40 | 53¹⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Total length. |18 |27²⁄₃|55¹⁄₃|83 |110²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|From occiput to foreflappers.| 4¹⁄₃ | 6²⁄₃|13¹⁄₃|20 | 26²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Breadth of head. | ⁵⁄₁₂| ²⁄₃| 1¹⁄₃| 2 | 2²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Breadth of neck. | ³⁄₁₂| ⁴⁄₉| ⁸⁄₉| 1¹⁄₂| 1²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Breadth of trunk. | 1¹⁄₂ | 2¹⁄₃| 4²⁄₃| 7 | 9¹⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of foreflapper. | 1 | 1²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₃| 5 | 6²⁄₃|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Length of hindflapper. | ⁷⁄₉ | 1¹⁄₆| 2¹⁄₃| 3¹⁄₂| 4¹⁄₂|
+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of head. | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of neck. | 29¹⁄₂| 35¹⁄₃| 41¹⁄₆| 47 | 53|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of trunk. | 37¹⁄₆| 44²⁄₃| 52¹⁄₉| 59¹⁄₂| 67|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of tail. | 66²⁄₃| 80 | 93¹⁄₃|106²⁄₃|120|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Total length. |138¹⁄₃|166 |193²⁄₃|221¹⁄₃|249|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|From occiput to foreflappers.| 33¹⁄₃| 40 | 46²⁄₃| 53¹⁄₃| 60|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Breadth of head. | 3¹⁄₃| 4 | 4²⁄₃| 5¹⁄₃| 6|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Breadth of neck. | 2¹⁄₆| 2²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₉| 3¹⁄₂| 4|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Breadth of trunk. | 11²⁄₃| 14 | 16¹⁄₃| 18²⁄₃| 21|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of foreflapper. | 8¹⁄₃| 10 | 11²⁄₃| 13¹⁄₃| 15|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
|Length of hindflapper. | 5¹⁄₂| 6²⁄₃| 7⁵⁄₆| 9 | 10|
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+
I am far from asserting that these dimensions will prove to be correct,
if ever an individual falls into the hands of men, but I am sure that
they are approximately correct.
Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence of
an animal of 250 feet! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself the
utmost possible length of our Sea-Serpent!
b. Form.
The name we give to an unknown object will naturally depend on the
impression it makes on us at first sight. To some the animal was like
a log of wood or a floating tree; comparisons which will be spoken
of below. It is called an animal of the fish kind (60), or a most
remarkable fish (118), or a very large fish (29), and to be eel-shaped
(33), or to resemble a large eel (118, 152). Some persons say it
appeared to be of a uniform size (34), and others that it gradually
tapers towards the two extremes (41), and appeared round (43). One of
the eye-witnesses says: I do not undertake to say he was of the snake
or eel kind, though this was the general impression on my family, the
spectators and myself (63). Generally it is compared with a snake (5,
17, 18, 25, 26, 37, 41, 44, 60, 80, 118, 135, 152) or serpent (26,
36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 60, 80, 103, 118, 121, 147, 157). Curious
is the statement of one that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without,
however, having ever heard of such an animal (132)! Remarkable is the
opinion of an officer of the _Daedalus_: it was, he says, rather of
a lizard than of a serpentine character, as its movement was steady
and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power
(118). Remarkable too is PONTOPPIDAN’S comparison of an animal which
he himself, believing that sea-serpents have no fins, or paws, or
flappers, did not mention in his paragraph about the subject, viz.
with a crocodile (14). Captain HOPE who had an opportunity to observe
the animal from above, described it as a large marine animal with the
head and general figure of the alligator, except that the neck was
much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had four flappers
somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the
posterior (119). In my opinion the comparison of Lieutenant HAYNES,
of the _Osborne_, who saw the fore part of the animal from behind,
deserves all our attention; he says: the animal resembled a huge seal,
the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head (148, fig.
45).
The _shape of the head_ has also been described in different ways.
There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (31); here
it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that it
was as round as a flour-barrel (158, evidently seen in front), and
bullet-shaped (148, seen from behind, fig. 45). The head is also said
to appear like a triangular rock (74), or like a nun buoy (131), or
like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at our
fig. 31, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another instance
the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon cask
(102), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat oval”. Major
SENIOR asserts that the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of
the dragon he has often seen (149); the explanation of this curious
comparison I have given in treating of his report. The head, says
somebody, resembled the end of a log (150), and: the thick bluff head
had but little resemblance to a snake’s (150); but he saw the animal in
late evening twilight. But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble
that of a snake (p. 137, 29, 60, 97, 101, 118, 121), or serpent
(29, 48, 61, 63, 74), or something that of a rattle snake (39); and
evidently seen in a somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped
much like that of a sea-turtle (38). I can only explain these different
comparisons by supposing that to some extent the head really resembles
these various head shapes, being flattened above and somewhat blunt at
its end. Though the officers of the _Daedalus_, too, compared it with
that of a snake, their drawing (fig. 30) shows the head of a mammal.
The proportions of the length and height, the outlines of the jaws,
the extension of the mouth-split, the situation of the nostril and the
eye, the flattened appearance of the forehead and nose, the bluntness
of the snout and the presence of the two cushions on the crown of the
head (the external visible masticatory muscles) are true mammalian
characters. It therefore is not wonderful also to find such a head
compared with that of a bull-dog (152 A), that of a walrus (129), that
of a seal (8, 29, 148), and that of a sea-lion (36). When the animal
held its head at nearly right angles with its neck, which has often
been the case, and opened its nostrils as wide as possible (and the
nostrils are exceedingly large), such a head, with its flattened nose
and forehead, and with its somewhat protruding eyes, resembled that of
a horse (9, 63, 124). We observe that the head is compared with _seven_
different head-shapes, _five_ of which are mammalian. It is obvious
that the observers compared it with the heads of those animals which
involuntarily and at once occurred to them. To which of these types are
we to direct our attention? Which of these types will the sea-serpent’s
head resemble most? I say, that of the sea-lion. And why? Because the
animal, with the head of which that of the sea-serpent was compared,
was not present at the time, except in Mr. KRIUKOF’S case. He was daily
surrounded by sea-lions; the image of the sea-lion’s head was as firmly
impressed on his memory as that of a dog on his master’s; and I greatly
doubt whether the other observers were acquainted with sea-lions. These
animals, especially the species of the Northern Pacific, are only of
late years to be seen in the zoological gardens, and it remains to be
found out whether the most recent eye-witnesses of the sea-serpent ever
saw a sea-lion, and if so, whether the features of the animal had been
impressed on their memory so as to recognize the same shape in the head
of another animal. Moreover the head of a sea-lion, especially that of
_Zalophus californianus_ has some resemblance to a snake’s.
The _neck_ being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s
(74), or of a common snake’s (97, 101), and tapering small from the
head to the body (121). It is obvious that this observer used the
expression “tapering” in a sense contrary to the usual one, for he had
a fair opportunity to see the animal’s head, long neck and upper part
of the trunk with the two foreflappers, and he goes on with the words:
and it appeared to measure about seven feet across the broadest part of
the back.
The _trunk_ must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may be
inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably
broader than the head (31), from the shoulders it tapered towards the
tail (31, 39, 91, 150), the breadth diminished remarkably towards
the tail (92), from the shoulder (estimated to be about twenty feet)
diminishing towards the tail to about twenty four inches (122),
evidently the end of the latter was hidden under water. Moreover,
the body is said to be round (102, 115, 117), even as a snake’s
(92), and on one occasion, when seen from behind, is said to be
developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle (148, fig. 45),
which we need not say, was the result of the upper part of the back
being only visible. Remarkable is the use of the term “shoulders”,
for even if the flappers of the animal were never actually observed,
we are now obliged to conclude that the animal was possessed of
fore-limbs. Equally remarkable is the statement: “there is a distinct
difference in thickness between the body and the tail; the trunk is
not gradually growing smaller, where the tail begins, but at once
and very distinctly” (8, 12, 146); for such an animal has rumps, and
consequently also thighs and hind-limbs.
The _tail_ itself is cylindrical (146), like that of a snake (101), and
tapering to its end (8, 12, 146, 150, fig. 19). Twice the animal’s head
and tail were plainly visible above the surface (135, 162), the trunk
being wholly hidden under the surface of the water; it was called a
snake; the shape of the tail was not mentioned; evidently the tail was
pointed, else it would have been described as resembling that of a fish
or of a whale; evidently it was also tapering to its end, else it would
have been described as a cord or whiplike. The same was the case in
n^o. 152 A; the observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.
_Position and shape of flappers._ HANS EGEDE said that the animal had
two flappers on the fore-part of the body (5), but the drawing of
Mr. BING, his brother missionary (fig. 19), is not accurate, as the
animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too large, and the flappers
themselves are badly represented. It seems, however, that the indented
edge of the foreflappers did not escape the eyes of Mr. BING. Mr.
BAKEWELL asserts that the flappers are described to resemble those of
turtles (p. 250); most probably the foreflappers are meant here, as
these are occasionally seen above the surface, which is hardly ever
the case with the hindflappers. In an animal which was estimated at
from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the fore-flappers was occasionally
visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at
about one fourth of the whole length (118). Captain HOPE states that
the flappers were somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair
being larger than the posterior (110). According to the figures 36, 45
and 50 on the right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion.
In the figures 36 and 45 the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the
animal of the _Daedalus_, which was from 80 to 90 feet in length, one
of the hindflappers was occasionally visible at about forty feet in the
rear of the head, consequently at about the centre of the whole length
(118). Of course they were invisible to EGEDE and BING, as the middle
part of the animal’s body was hidden under water (fig. 19).
The _fore-head_ is described as high and broad (p. 144) and flat (29,
41, 44, 60, 69, 118, 157, fig. 30), or depressed (56) and once Mr.
SENIOR thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow, a bull dog
appearance (149).
The _snout or muzzle_ is called long and sharp (5, fig. 19), sharp (p.
130, 115, 120), tapering to a point (48), rather pointed (91), pointed
(118), though the accompanying figure (fig. 30) contradicts this,
pointed like that of a porpoise (122), an elongated termination (148),
not pointed but bluntly round (92), not pointed but seemed rather blunt
(94), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows and horses have (p. 144),
evidently with the nostrils opened as wide as possible, rather blunt
(48), apparently blunt (102), bluff (150), obtuse (56), the head,
estimated at eight or six feet long, consequently at five or four feet
broad, tapered to the size of a horse’s (34), the snout being somewhat
similar in form to that of a seal (148).
The _upperjaw_ projects considerably (118); we may safely read projects.
_Under the jaw_ there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch (126).
This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible as it
even occurs in allied animals.
The _nostrils_ are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal is
able to close them; they are, however, delineated (fig. 19, fig. 24,
fig. 36), or indicated with a crescentic mark (fig. 80), and mentioned
to have been distinctly visible (118), and described as large (p. 180).
It is also evident that when the animal opens them as wide as possible,
the beak appears quadrangular, as is the mouth of cows and horses (p.
130). This comparison agrees with the description of the nose sides or
flaps which are here said to be “nearly semicircular flaps or valves
overarching the nostrils, which were in front” (143).
Of the _whiskers_ PONTOPPIDAN already tells us that on the sides
of the nostrils there are a few stiff hairs or bristles, as other
animals have, with a good nose (p. 130). These whiskers are mentioned
afterwards only once: “on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a
seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long” (103). Were these
whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that of a seal (8,
29), with that of a walrus (129), or with that of a sea-lion (36)?
I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency, they are not
mentioned in the reports.
The _mouth_ is transverse (56) and large (9, 56); it is rarely
mentioned, but once stated to have been distinctly visible (118); once
it was estimated at fifteen inches (56) (I may ask: large, long, or
when opened?), and once we find the firm assertion that when open it
looked like that of a serpent! (41).
The _eyes_ were not always seen; it may be that the distance was too
large, or that the animal kept them closed (115, 128, 130, 137, 146).
They are mentioned as to have been only visible in 31, 80, 101, 118,
126, 152, 158; but sometimes we get a short description. They are round
(92, fig. 30), about the size of an ox’s (48), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in
diameter (102), about 5 inches in diameter (92), large (p. 131, 91,
122), large as a plate (32, 103), disproportionately large (36), broad
(p. 225), very large (92), relatively large (112). We observe that
the size of the eyes, when opened as wide as possible, has struck the
observers; they must be disproportionately large. But if we wish to
know the relative largeness, we have only to consult n^o. 92 and 102,
where the eyes are estimated at 3¹⁄₂ and 5 inches. On both occasions
the observers estimated the head to be as long as a ten gallon cask,
and about of the same thickness. As to the lustre of the eyes we read
that: they are not glossy (103), generally, however, glossy (122),
brilliant (p. 105), flaming (p. 105), sharp (44), very bright (48),
and glittering (63, p. 225, 92). It seems that the eyes, seen in their
axis are dark (44, 103), or black (9, 103), and that, when seen in an
oblique direction they seem to be blue or better tin-coloured, for
they are said to resemble rather a pair of pewter plates (p. 131). We
also conclude that when seen in the axis and reflecting the daylight
by their _tapetum lucidum_ they glisten like those of a cat (91), or
have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity (143), and this glimmer or
glistening was said to be red (33), or reddish like a burning fire (5),
or crimson (92). The eye is delineated in fig. 19, 24, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 36.--One of the eye-witnesses of no 48 states that there is a
small bunch on each side of his head, just above his eye; another too
said: there appeared a bunch above the eyes (48). It is also said that
the eyes are prominent, and stand out considerably from the surface,
resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad (60). It is easy to
understand that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (56), and
that another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (149).
This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (fig. 19, 26). The situation of
the eyes is over the jaws (56), and nearer to the mouth of the animal
than to the back of the head (60, fig. 30).
Neither _ear-holes_ nor _external ears_ are mentioned. If external ears
are present, they must be exceedingly minute; the absence, however, is
very probable; at all events earholes must be present, but they are
evidently very small, and capable of being closed, as in seals. Curious
is the assertion “the ears seemed to be diaphanous” (143).
There is a slight hollow at the _top of the head_ (60, fig. 30).
The _features_ resemble those of an alligator (148), but made on others
the impression as being those of a seal (29).
c. Skin.
Except in two cases (39, 157) when the animal was very near, scales
are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (9, 10, 11, 12,
13, &c., &c., &c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales (149),
altogether devoid of scales (148), smooth (13, p. 132, 41, 43, 48, 56,
59, 60, 92, 103, 114, 115, 118, 146, fig. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 45),
like a mirror (p. 132), shining (114), shining strongly (117), with a
very bright reflexion (46), looking similar to an eel’s (59). But an
animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, _must have a hairy skin_.
Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin appeared rather to
resemble in sleekness that of a seal (148), and still more: that it
is as woolly as a seal’s (8). Such a hairy skin becomes smooth as a
mirror and shines strongly, when it is wet, as may be seen in seals,
sea-lions, and sea-bears.