It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and that others
have not.
The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over the whole
length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, and diminishing
gradually to the tail where it evidently passes imperceptibly into the
common hair-coating. The mane is said to have been visible on its head
(135); at the back of the head (figg. 17, 24, n^o. 102), which no doubt
means just behind the occiput. Further: on the neck (p. 105, p. 132, p.
138, p. 225, 9, 11, 12, 101, 103, fig. 31), from the back of the head a
mane commenced (91), just behind the head the mane was thickest and got
thinner further backwards (91), close behind the head a mane commences
along the neck (92), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (92), the
head was provided with a mane hanging down (152 A); evidently the mane
extends from the head over the whole length of the neck and the trunk
(18? fig. 28, fig. 29). The mane near the head is long (9, 152 A),
tolerably long (92), two feet long (p. 105), and all along the neck and
back: not very long (91), that it is of some length, we must suppose,
for it is said to wash about to and fro in the water (91, 118, 120),
and to spread to left and to right floating on the water (92), when the
animal swims. The colour of the mane seems to be white (9) when dried
up by the sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the
body (102), brown (92, 152 A). The mane resembles that of a horse (p.
138, p. 225, 91, 92, 103, 118) or rather seaweed (p. 132, 118, 135).
Probably a mane was present in n^o. 51, and 74; the back from afar,
was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and had a rugged
appearance; see also fig. 36.
Twice it is stated that there was no mane (26, 115, see also fig. 19
and 27), but we have so many reports which don’t mention the mane, and
which surely would have mentioned it, if it had been present, that we
are obliged to believe that those individuals had no mane. In other
instances the distance was too great to observe a mane, even if the
animal had been provided with one.
I am sure that here we have one of the differences between males and
females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a difference in
size between males and females, I should not be surprised that, if
these animals were better known to zoologists, the males would, in
general, prove to surpass the females twice in size and four or six
times in weight. In my opinion large individuals are, therefore, males,
and must have a mane, or at one time have had one. The probability
exists that they lose the greater part of their mane at a certain age,
or that they were moulting when they were seen; which would account for
the fact that in some large individuals no mane was observed.
[Illustration: Fig. 72. Sea-serpent, side view, drawn from the
descriptions.]
[Illustration: Fig. 73. Sea-serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from
the descriptions.]
I have ventured to draw the outlines of the animal from the
descriptions. Fig. 72 represents it as seen from aside, with the
divisions of the colours, and fig. 73 as seen on the back with the
whiskers and the extension of the mane in the males.