Since the book was written, I have corresponded with Prof. Dr. M.
FORSTER HEDDLE, of St. Andrews, Mr. J. A. HARVIE BROWN, of Dunipace
(Larbert), Misses KATE and FORBES J. MACRAE, both of Heathmount
(Inverness), Mr. GILBERT BOGLE, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Prof. R. COLLETT,
of Christiania, and Mr. R. P. GREG, of Coles (Buntingford). The five
first-named corresponded with me as eye-witnesses, and kindly sent me
their statements, written immediately after the appearances they had
witnessed; Prof. COLLETT courteously presented me with a copy of his
dissertation _Lidt om Soe-Ormen eller Soe-Slangen_; Mr. GREG who since
many years has been collecting with great zeal accounts and reports
concerning the matter, had the rare liberality to send me his whole
collection to make use of. To all these ladies and gentlemen I feel
here called upon to tender my warmest thanks.
Space does not allow me to give a verbal reprint of the various hoaxes,
would-be sea-serpents, reports, and principal contents of papers,
nor to treat of them separately. This I leave for an eventual second
edition. But all the appearances which I have placed under the _Reports
and Papers_ are explicable by reference to the _Megophias_. With the
initials “R. P. G.” I have marked those statements, accounts, etc.,
which I got from Mr. R. P. GREG.
Literature.
Besides the newspapers, dissertations, and books, mentioned in the
subsequent parts, the following are additions to my first chapter:
*1707.--F. LEGUAT. Voyage et aventures en deux isles désertes des
Indes Orientales.
*18.....--_Het Nederlandsch Magazijn._
*1874, February.--The _Cape Monthly Magazine_.
*1875.--_The Shipping Gazette_, London.
*1875.--_The Daily Telegraph._
1879, September 25?--_The Royston Crow._--(R. P. G.).
*189...--BASSETT, Sea-phantoms; or legends and superstitions of
the sea and sailors in all lands and all times. Chicago.
Hoaxes.
The account of captain L. BIJL, of 1858, July 9, (see p. 96) must be
a hoax, for 1. 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ E. long. is a point in the
middle of North-Africa, and 2. even if E. long, were a misprint instead
of W. long., it is impossible that a barque should travel over such a
distance as from 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ W. long, to 37° 55′ S.
lat. and 42° 9′ E. long. _in nine days_!
A tale in the _Standard_ of 1879, March 27, of a dead sea-serpent found
floating near Monegan (Manhegin?) Island near Portland, Me.--(R. P. G.).
Collision of the Norwegian barque _Columbia_, from London to Quebec,
with a huge floating creature on the 4th. September, 1879; the ship
sunk.--_Manchester Guardian_ of 1879, Sept. 25.--(R. P. G.).
A sea-serpent of 55 feet in length, light pink coloured. “Several times
it opened its mouth, disclosing fangs about 4in. in length”.--It was on
5th. August 1885, in lat. 29° 35′ N. and long 34° 50′ W.--(R. P. G.).
A sea-serpent caught off Newfoundland, October 11, 1886, and
stuffed.--_Manchester Evening Mail_, 1887, September; _Evening Mercury_
of St. Johns, N. F., 1887, September 12; _The Marine Industrial
News_.--The monster was from head to tail “a fraud”, or “a Yankee
humbug”.--Letter from Mr. G. FITZ GERALD, of St. Johns, and from Prof.
G. V. MORSE, of Portland, Me., to Mr. R. P. GREG.--(R. P. G.).
_The London Globe_ of Aug. 15, 1887, mentions a fight between a
sea-serpent and a whale, witnessed near Fort Papham in moonlight, some
three weeks back, etc.--(R. P. G.).
A stranded sea-serpent.--_Boston Courier_, 1887, November.--Cape May,
N. Jers.--Hoax? or would-be sea-serpent? (_Regalecus?_)--(R. P. G.)
_The_ sea-serpent is distinctly seen in Georgetown Harbour, on the
20th. of August, 1888, sleeping on the surface, &c.--_Chambers’
Journal_, 1888, Nov. 24.--(R. P. G.)
“Exciting chases after boats’ crews.”--A splendid hoax.--St. Johns’ (N.
F.) _Evening Telegram_ of Aug. 25, 1888.--(R. P. G.)
The Bishop of Adelaide or a certain Mr. BISHOP of that town has found
a sea-serpent lying dead on the shore.--_The Times_ of Nov. 11,
1891.--(R. P. G.)--Mr. G. BOGLE wrote to the Bishop, who promptly
answered it was entirely untrue.--(G. B.)
“Narrow escape of a boats’ crew.”--_The North British Daily Mail_ of
September 1892.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. HEDDLE.)
Would-be Sea-Serpents.
1880 August.--The sea-serpent of Captain HANNA, of Pemaquid,
Me.--Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, Vol. III, N^o. 26, p.
407.--Without any doubt a fish, but very problematic.--_Naturen_, 1884,
N^o. 2.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. COLLETT.)
1880 August 11.--Between Yokohama and San Francisco, lat. 48.37. long.
180.--Captain THOS. U. BROCKLEHURST, of Henbury Hall, Macclesfield,
Cheshire, saw on board the _Oceanic_ a snake-like fish, 40 feet long,
about 18 inches the whole length thick.--Letter from Mr. THOS. U.
BROCKLEHURST to Mr. R. P. GREG.--Without any doubt an eel-shaped
fish.--(R. P. G.)
1883, July or August.--A newspaper of this month mentions the capture
of a genuine sea-serpent in the Java Sea.--_Hydrophis._--(R. P. G.)
1883, October 8.--In the Red Sea, lat. 23° N., long. 37° E., on board
the ss. _Madura_.--Witness Mr. A. Eisses, of Groningen.--_Nieuwe
Groninger Courant_ of August 16, 1892.--The neck had the thickness
of the upper arm of a man.--Appearance perfectly the same as that
witnessed by Mr. G. VERSCHUUR (see p. 99).
1886 or 1887.--The sea-snake-like bird, reported by Count JOACHIM
PFEIL, the German African explorer--a little snake-like neck rising
out of the water, which when fired at, rose into the air, proving to
be a bird--is of course a kind of _Plotus_, and most probably _Plotus
levaillantii_ TEMM.--A Hertford newspaper of 1887.--(R. P. G.)
1888?--In Mrs. CADDY’S book _To Siam and Malasia in the Duke of
Sutherland’s Yacht_ is a description of a sea-serpent she witnessed
near Bangkok “which rose slowly out of the water in two large luminous
curves, like two arches of a low bridge”.--?--(R. P. G.)
1889, August.--_Standard_ of 1889, August 15.--A monstrous fish was
seen floundering in shallow water on the Bancals Rocks, not far
from the Island of St. Honorat, near Cannes, and had a beak like a
parrot.--Most probably therefore it was a calamary.--(R. P. G.)
Reports and Papers.
Without date.--A sea-monster at Maringonish in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, judged to be a hundred feet in length, seen by two
intelligent observers within 200 yards of the shore.--Description too
short.--Doubtful.--(R. P. G.)
1570, July.--A monstrous fish seen in Loch Fyne (Fine), having great
eyes, and at times standing above the water as high as the mast of a
ship.--_Diurnal and Remarkable occurrents in Scotland_, 1513-1575,
Maitland Club, Scotland, 1833.--(R. P. G.)
1639.--A vague report of a certain JOSSELIN, but most probably based on
truth.--Cape Ann.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
1779.--“In an Eastern Harbour” (which?)--Eye-witness E. PREBLE,
midshipman in the _Protector_, and several other officers and
crew.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
1817, August 14. (N^o. 41, see p. 169).--Another confirmation of this
appearance will be found in the _Gloucester Telegraph_ of that year.
Here it is also mentioned that in the ROGERS family there is preserved
a picture by “JACK” BEACH, or better a copy of this picture by JOSEPH
H. DAVIS, representing the sea-serpent in the harbour of Gloucester on
this day.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)--This is of
course the drawing, spoken of on p. 173 of the present volume. Here I
may note that PONTOPPIDAN also speaks of a picture in the collection of
JACOB SEVERIN, representing the animal as it appeared to EGEDE.
1818, August 13 and 14.--Partly about Nahant, and partly near
Gloucester.--Multitudes of spectators.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June,
1884.--(R. P. G.)
1819, August 19.--This seems to be the exact date of the appearance
witnessed by Mr. SAMUEL CABOT. Mr. PRINCE and others saw it “a few days
previously”.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
1820, August 10.--Off Swampscott.--ANDREW REINOLDS, JONATHAN B. LEWIS,
BENJAMIN KING, Mr. JOSEPH INGALLS.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June,
1884.--(R. P. G.)
1823, July 12.--The animal was seen moving into the harbor (Lynn
Harbour?) from Nahant.--Mr. FRANCIS JOHNSON (in April 7, 1884, still
alive).--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
1826.--“In 1826 it again appeared off Nahant, as is recorded very
briefly in the _Lynn Mirror_”.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--See
also n^o. 84, p. 236; it might have been the same individual.--(R. P.
G.)
1838? (N^o. 104, see p. 253).--Captain BEECHY made his voyage to the
Pacific in the _Blossom_ in the years 1825, 26, 27 and 28. It is
therefore probable that he saw the sea-serpent in one of these years,
but also possible that he was commander of the _Blossom_ before 1825 or
later than 1828.
1841, July 14.--A monster with a straight black head, 10 feet out of
the water, spouting “a column of water in the air”, but “it was not a
whale”.--Gulf of Mexico.--STEPHEN’S _Central America_, 1842, Vol. II,
p. 464.--Description too short.--Doubtful.--(R. P. G.).
1849.--Seen (where?) by Mr. MARSTON, of Swampscott.--_Atlantic Monthly_
of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.).
1854, spring.--A gigantic serpent, first called by the look-out man as
“the biggest log ever seen”, afterwards rearing its snake like head
as high as the funnel of the steamer out of the water, and plunging
down.--Eye witnesses: Captain PEAT, of the _Wm. Scalrook_, and Captain
ROLLINS, of the _Isabel_.--Before the mouth of Savannah River, Georg.
and S. Car.--Miss MURRAY, _United States, Canada and Cuba_, 1855,
Putnam & Co., New York, p. 235.--(R. P. G.).
1872.--Prof. SCHLEGEL in his _De Dierentuin van het Koninklijk
Zoölogisch Genootschap Natura Artis Magistra te Amsterdam_, Vol. III,
p. 45, points out that as early as 1837 he _proved_ (_nota bene_) the
impossibility of the existence of such a more than gigantic animal.
1872, August 20 and 21. (N^o. 137 and 138, see p. 322).--The following
is the account which the Rev. J. MACRAE sent to the _Inverness
Courier_, August 1872, prefaced by the Editors of this paper:
“A gentleman on whose intelligent observation and accuracy we have
perfect reliance, sends the following account of a strange animal now
to be seen about the West-Coast of Invernessshire and which, if not
the veritable or traditional sea-serpent, must be the object so often
represented under that appellation”.
“On Tuesday last, 20th. August, I went on a trip to Loch Hourn in my
small sailing boat. I was accompanied by my friend, the Rev. Mr. T. of
Kent, my two daughters, my grandson, and a servant lad. While we were
proceeding along the sound of Sleat it fell calm, and we were rowing
the boat, when we observed behind us a row of dark masses, which we
took at the first glance for a shoal of porpoises; but a second look
showed that these masses formed one and the same creature, for it moved
slowly across our wake, about two hundred yards off, and disappeared.
Soon afterwards what seemed to be its head reappeared, followed by the
bumps, or undulations of its body, which rose in succession till we
counted 8 of them. It approached now within about 100 yards, or less,
and with the help of binoculars we could see it pretty distinctly. We
did not see its eyes, nor observe any scales: but two of the party
believed that they saw what they took to be a small fin moving above
the water. It then slowly sunk, and moved away just under the surface
of the water, for we could trace its course till it rose again, by the
large waves it raised above it, to the distance of a mile and upwards”.
“We had no means of measuring its size with any accuracy, but taking
the distance from the centre of one bump or undulation of its body
to that of another at 6ft. (it could not be less) the length of the
portion visible above the water, would be about 50 feet, and there may
have been 20 or 30ft. more of its length which we did not see”.
“Its head seemed blunt, and looked about 18in. in diameter, and the
bumps were rather larger than the head. When in rapid motion the bumps
disappeared, and only the head and neck could be seen, partly above the
surface of the water. It continued to rush about in the same manner as
long as we remained within sight of the place, but did not again come
so near us that day”.
“On the afternoon of the next day, August 21, as we were returning
home we encountered our strange acquaintance again within the entrance
of Loch Hourn, and saw him careering swiftly along the surface of
the water, which was now slightly rippled with a light air of wind.
It passed once abeam of us, at a distance of about 150 yards, with
its head half out of the water, and we distinctly heard the whizzing
noise it made as it rushed through the water. There were no organs
of locomotion to be seen, and its progress was equable and smooth,
like that of a log towed rapidly. Neither its appearance nor mode of
progression had any resemblance to those of any known cetacean, shark,
or fish of any kind. In case any of your readers should imagine that
I, as well as the subject of my report am a mere myth, you will please
to give my name to this communication, and I believe that among a
pretty wide circle of persons who know me there is none who consider me
capable of stating as true what I do not believe to be so; or so little
acquainted with the sea, as not to know a whale, a porpoise, a shark,
or a herring barrel, when I see them. I am Sir, your obedient servant”
“Glenelg Mame”.
“J. MACRAE”.
Miss KATE MACRAE’S narrative, written on the spot, runs as follows:
“_In the yacht “Leda”, 20th. and 21th. August 1872._--We were becalmed
in the sound of Sleat about 3 miles from Glenelg, the day was intensely
hot, the lads were rowing slowly. I was facing the stern, when I saw
about a half mile behind, a dark object suddenly emerge, about the size
of a small cask. I exclaimed, and called the attention of the others
to it; immediately a second, third, fourth, fifth, thing appeared like
this”. (Here Miss MACRAE has drawn six bunches exactly resembling those
drawn by her father, see fig. 39 p. 323). “We thought at first it was
the back of a cormorant, but were undeceived by seeing the animal swim
swiftly just under the surface of the water towards a rowing boat of
country people which was nearer it than we were, the people evidently
astonished ceased rowing, and the creature disappeared quietly without
the least agitation of the water. Our boys then resumed their oars,
which they had dropped to gaze, and next we saw the animal coming
swiftly towards us, from the direction of the boat; it raised the water
before it, and left a wake on the calm sea behind it, like what a small
steam launch would. As our rowers paused again, it turned to the outer
side of our yacht, and disappeared, but I noticed that something like
a rounded paddle, the breadth of two hands worked to and fro raising
the water in a clear dome as it went down; the colour of it a dark
brown, and shape like this”. (Here Miss MACRAE has drawn a thick curved
line in the form of a horse-shoe, the opening turned downwards). “In a
few minutes afterwards, the row of lumps appeared again about a mile
behind, and this time a triangular fin stuck up from about the 4th.
lump, and apparently 10ft. the size of our jib, and the animal moved
slowly along on the surface”.
“Next evening as we were slipping gently along near the mouth of Loch
Hourn on the N. side, my nephew called out, that he saw the sea-serpent
again. Swimming across from Skye, by the time I caught sight of it,
it was far away, but showed more lumps, I counted 12, there were two
sloops trying to get up into the Loch, and the crews were in their
boats towing them, the animal looked 4 times as long as one of these
vessels, it was swimming leisurely, and plainly pursued those vessels;
then making a sweep across the mouth of the Loch came towards us, and
passed not far outside the boat. I distinctly heard its rush through
the water, just under the surface; the first waves it made, were
unbroken, but some way from the head the water was broken, and foaming”.
“Later, at 9 P. M. just as we neared Glenelg sailing and rowing, and
with a good deal of ripple on the sea, we saw it coming straight
astern, then it turned away northward and passed out of sight through
Kyle Rhea”.
“KATE MACRAE”.
Miss FORBES J. MACRAE wrote to me under date of July 22, 1892:
“I fancy I have had a closer view of the sea-serpent than most people.
About an hour before we were becalmed and saw it rise in its length
astern of us, we had been slipping down in our boat along the coast,
by the help of a strong tide and a very light wind. Looking at what
I could see of the water under the edge of the mainsail of our small
cutter yacht, I noticed at about an oar’s length from the boat a dark
brown shining creature lying on the water, or rather a part of a
creature for there was neither head nor tail nor fin visible, it seemed
about six feet in length and the highest part of it was about a foot
out of the water. None of the others were looking that way, so I was
the only one who saw it. I asked my father if porpoises were in the
habit of basking on the top of the water. He said he was not aware of
their being in the habit of doing so, and we thought no more of it;
till the next appearance of the animal made us think that it must have
been one of its ridges I had seen as we sailed just close to it”.
The following is the statement of Mr. GILBERT BOGLE in the _Newcastle
Weekly Chronicle_ of 1877, December 31:
“As considerable attention has lately been drawn in your columns to the
sea-serpent, both mythological and otherwise, perhaps the following
description of the strange creature seen by me and others in 1872 will
be of some interest. An account of this creature, attested by credible
witnesses, appeared in the May number of the _Zoologist_ in 1873:--
“On the 20th. of August, 1872, the Rev. J. Macrae of Glenelg, Rev.
David Twopenny, Miss Forbes, and Miss Kate Macrae, a servant lad, and I
left Glenelg Bay in Mr. Macrae’s yacht Leda for a sail up Loch Hourn.
The day was hot and calm, and, the yacht being a small one (seven
tons), we had recourse to rowing in order to reach Sandaig, six miles
distant, where we intended to dine. While still about a mile distant
from Sandaig, one of the ladies called out that there was a shoal
of porpoises playing astern, and on looking in that direction there
appeared to me a number of dark objects, which at first sight seemed
not unlike porpoises, making a considerable commotion on the surface of
the sea, the only peculiarity being that they all followed each other
in a line. As they rapidly approached, I then perceived that the black
lumps which I at first thought porpoises could not be so, but were
evidently parts of one and the same creature. This impression seemed to
come over the minds of all at the same time, and every appearance of
the creature afterwards clearly verified it”.
“I was looking at it through a binocular (we had three on board), and
when it came to within one hundred yards of the stern it dived below,
the surface of the sea remained agitated at the spot where it had
disappeared for some time afterwards. Just before it went down, as it
came head on towards our stern, it raised a succession of waves. The
first was unbroken, and through it I distinctly saw the colour of the
creature, and what appeared to be a small fin on the back or neck,
moving rapidly sideways, and two or three yards behind the head. Its
colour was a dark slaty brown, somewhat similar to that of a porpoise.”
“While we were all speculating about this strange creature, it suddenly
appeared about a quarter of a mile off between us and Skye, going at a
rapid rate along the calm surface of the sea, and leaving a large wake
behind. It was only now that I had any idea of the creature’s length.
It kept cruising about on the surface after this for more than an hour,
sometimes only four or five bumps or dark raised portions of its body
appearing above the surface, about the size of herring barrels, at
other times up to eight. I noticed that the less the speed the more
bumps appeared, always commencing from the first in rotation, and that
when going very fast only one or two appeared.”
“After landing on Sandaig, where we had dinner, we started for Loch
Hourn, the weather still being very calm and sultry, with hardly a
cat’s-paw on the water. We had barely entered the mouth of the loch
when this creature again made its appearance, proceeding in the same
manner as before along the surface of the sea, sometimes coming quite
close. There was a large schooner yacht not far off, in tow of a noisy
steam launch, which about this time probably frightened the animal, as
it was not seen again that night.”
“As evening fell, a breeze sprang up, and we reached Loch Hourn Head
early next morning. After paying a visit to the Barrasdale oyster
beds, we set sail for home in the afternoon, with a nice breeze on
the quarter, but on reaching the mouth of the loch the wind died away
again and we had to take to the sweeps. Just about the place where the
animal was last seen, my attention was called by someone to a peculiar
swirling of the water not far off, and I immediately noticed what was
evidently the same creature swimming up to the yacht at a very rapid
rate. When a short distance off it dived beneath the surface, quickly
re-appearing off the starboard beam nearer than at any previous time,
and going at such a great speed that I could distinctly hear the
rushing sound of the breaking water. At this time there were no bumps
to be seen, and I can only liken the appearance of our visitor to a log
almost entirely submerged and dragged very rapidly through the sea, the
water falling over each side of the head in a kind of cascade, while a
series of broken waves formed immediately behind, gradually subsiding
in the wake.”
“It afterwards kept swimming about for a considerable time, and I had
an opportunity of judging of its length so far as visible, compared
with the hulls of two trading schooners of about 100 tons each some
little distance from us. When apparently the same distance away as the
traders, and going slowly, it appeared fully as long from the head to
the eighth bump as the length of one of the schooners on waterline,
which would be at least sixty feet; but how much of the animal remained
under water I had no means of estimating. The head seemed to be square
or blunt, but I did not see under it, and did not notice its eye or
mouth. The bumps, or dark raised portions, appeared to me to be about
eighteen inches above the water, and three or four feet long, with a
distance of four or six feet between each bump. I could not say whether
the bumps were the convolutions of a snake-like body or the raised
portions of a large body underneath the water. I am inclined to think
the latter, as the bumps always kept the same distance apart, and
appeared to be protuberances on the back of, possibly, a lizard shaped
reptile. That it caused a large displacement was evident from the waves
and commotion raised when swimming at or near the surface, as I could
distinctly trace its progress with the naked eye at a distance of from
two to three miles.”
“We lost sight of the creature after leaving the mouth of Loch Hourn,
but just as night fell I noticed it going past at a rapid rate in the
direction of Kyle Rhea, a narrow strait which separates Skye from the
mainland. I afterwards heard that it was seen that same evening by
fishermen and others passing through these narrows, and it struck them
all at the time as being quite different from anything they had been
accustomed to.”
“The above is a bare statement of fact, and was written down by
me immediately after getting ashore, while my recollection of the
creature’s appearance was perfectly fresh and vivid. Having cruised for
many summers amongst the West Highland lochs, I am perfectly familiar
with the appearance and habits of whales, seals, porpoises, &c., which
can often be seen in great numbers. To these, the creature I have
described bore no resemblance whatever.”
“GILBERT BOGLE, Newcastle.”
From this gentleman I received three splendid pen-drawings,
representing the animal witnessed by him on that occasion, but alas too
late to be reproduced for this edition.
1872, August 22 and 23. (N^o. 139 and 140, see p. 322).--On one of
these days it seems also to have been seen by Lord MACDONALD’S steam
yacht in Loch Hourn.--Eye-witnesses: Lord MACDONALD, of Armadale, Skye,
Rev. Mr. MC. NEILL, minister of Skye, Mrs. G. C. LYSONS, of Painswick,
Strand, and others.--(R. P. G.)
1873, March.--Mr. BASIL CLOCHRANE, Capt. R. N., of Windlesham House,
Bagshot, Surrey, on board the _Orontes_, from the West Indies to
England saw a sea-serpent.--Letter from eye-witness to Capt. GEO.
DREVAR (see p. 329).--(R. P. G.)
1875, July 8 and 13. (N^o. 144 and 145, see p. 329).--The letter from
Capt. GEO. DREVAR to the Editor of _The Calcutta Gentleman_, 1876,
February (?), contains no news about the two appearances.--(R. P. G.)
1875, July 17.--Off Plymouth, Cape Cod Bay.--Captain GARTON of the
ss. _Norman_, and several people on board the ss. _Roman_.--_Atlantic
Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P. G).
1875, July 30.--On board the yacht _Princess_, between Nahant and
Egg-Rock.--Mr. FRANCIS W. LAWRENCE, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Rev. ARTHUR
LAWRENCE, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Stockbridge, Mass., Miss MARY
FOSDICK, ALBION W. REED, ROBERT O. REED, Mr. J. KELSOE and Mr. J. P.
THOMAS, both of Swampscott.--_Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1884.--(R. P.
G.)
1876, September 11. (N^o. 146, see p. 341).--An account in the _Times_
of 1876, December 28, furnishes no news.--A rough drawing made by Mr.
ANDERSON, and now in the possession of ROBERT HOLT, of Liverpool, owner
of the steamer, hardly agrees with the depositions, and cannot give the
idea of a salamander, a newt, or a frog.--(R. P. G.)
1876.--Some Pitcairn islanders saw a sea-serpent near Norfolk
Island.--Letter from one of the Pitcairn islanders to Mr. PALMER of
Liverpool.--_Liverpool Mercury_, 24 February, 1877.--“Mr. JOHN ADAMS
and his boat’s crew saw it near Norfolk-Islands”.--Letter from Mr.
MARCUS LOWTHER, Capt. R. N. of Penge, London, S. E., to Capt. GEO.
DREVAR (see p. 329).--(R. P. G.)
1877, March.--Mr. R. A. PROCTOR, in his “_Strange Sea-Monsters_”
(_Gentleman’s Magazine_) says amongst other assertions: “naturalists
have been far less disposed to be incredulous than the general public”.
If it were only true! Hitherto at least _zoologists_ have not admitted
even the possibility of the existence of a still unknown species,
called “sea-serpent”.--(R. P. G.)
1877, July 15.--About two miles off the mouth of Gloucester Harbour,
Mass.--Mr. GEORGE S. WASSON and Mr. B. L. FERNALD.--_Atlantic Monthly_
of June, 1884.--(R. P. G.)
1878, summer.--Fjord near Aalesund.--_Naturen_, 1884, n^o.
2.--(Forwarded to me by Prof. R. COLLETT).
1882, October 11.--Near Bude, Cornwall.--Eye-witnesses: Rev. E.
HIGHTON, Vicar of Bude, with several friends.--The _Times_ of October
12, 1882.--(R. P. G.)
1883, August 1.--The _Evening News_ of this date communicates and gives
partly a review of Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_.--(R. P. G.).
1884, February.--Prof. R. COLLETT, of Christiania, wrote a paper
in the Norwegian language headed _Something on the sea-serpent_
(_Naturen_, 1884, n^o 2).--The writer does not seem to be a believer
in the existence of a sea-serpent. The arguments against its existence
are 1. A sea-serpent of considerable dimensions would in the course
of centuries not have failed to have been observed and caught. 2.
In the depth of the Ocean there are undoubtedly creatures, which as
yet are unknown, but all specimens caught, be they as abnormal as
possible, are referred to existing well-known forms. 3. No known
vertebrated animal, can, on account of its structure, move in vertical
undulations.--Against these arguments I may say: 1. Before, 1861, and
1873 the krakens were _fables_, and yet they existed! Mr. RAFINESQUE
SCHMALTZ &c., see p. 431, line 6 from below to p. 432, line 5 from
above. 2. Do “naturalists” not constantly refer the sea-serpents to
existing well-known forms? 3. Among Reptiles the _Plesiosaurians_ had
a long neck and this neck could certainly be bent vertically; among
Birds the _swans_ are able to bend the long neck vertically, and _all
Mammals_ can move in vertical undulations, especially the _Mustelina_,
_Lutrina_, and _Pinnipedia_; and the horizontal position of the tail
of the _Sirenia_ and _Plagiuri_ is a strong proof that their ancestors
moved in vertical undulations.--Prof. COLLETT’S private opinion is
that the sea-serpents observed in the fjords of Norway, were mostly
specimens of the basking shark. I, however, firmly believe that the
Norwegian fishermen know the basking shark so well, that such an animal
would never have been taken by them for a sea-serpent! They know
these sharks and their habits far better, I should think, than Prof.
MITCHILL, Prof. MANTELL, Prof. MELVILLE, Mr. BUCKLAND and Prof. LÜTKEN
all together. Moreover in none of their descriptions there is question
of a backfin, or of backfins, which are the first visible parts of a
basking shark!
1884, June.--_The Trail of the Sea-Serpent_, by Mr. J. G. WOOD, in
the _Atlantic Monthly_.--A very interesting paper, with historical
notes and many new appearances, however, not without some zoological
inaccuracies. He believes the sea-serpent to be an elongated whale, a
_Basilosaurus_ or an animal allied to it, and that the short neck of
the _Basilosaurus_ may be an error of the restorer (_nota bene!_).--(R.
P. G.).
1884, June 2.--_The Manchester Guardian_ gives a review of Mr. J.
G. WOOD’S paper, and as Mr. WOOD comes to the conclusion that the
animal must be an elongated whale, the _Manchester Guardian_ ends (how
insipid!): “Very like a whale”.--(R. P. G.).
1885, October 4.--Near Umhlali (Umlazi?) in Morewood’s Bay, South
Africa.--(R. P. G.).
1886(?), summer.--Prof. HEDDLE informs me that a few summers ago, (and
from one sentence of his letter I deduce that it was before 1887) a
sea-serpent was seen in Loch Duich. “The description was very much what
we are familiar with”.
1886, August. (N^o 158, see p. 376).--The description of the eyes as
having a greenish hue struck me so, that I at first did not attach
belief to the assertion (see p. 377 and 497), but now I know that this
is not an impossibility, as I since observed that the _tapetum lucidum_
of the eye of a dog may reflect the daylight as well in a reddish as in
a greenish hue.
1887, July 30.--Prof. HEDDLE wrote to me on May 6th., 1892:
“I would just say that having taken bearings on the land, in order to
estimate--(of course roughly)--the _length_, and the _speed_, I set
down the length at from 60 to 65 feet. There was a very low flat head
like a large skate, say 4¹⁄₂ feet--a gap not so great,--ten “hummocks”
increasing in bulk and altitude towards the central one, but not
much--gaps not so great as the size of the hummocks, next a space,
about equal to two hummocks, then three hummocks, the central one
largest, the last small”.
“The thing I saw appear three times--first time end on was a worthless
observation, except that on this occasion the whole was _rushing_
through the water. On the other two occasions there was hardly any
forward motion at all. The whole disappeared at the same moment, and
reappeared also at the same moment, about two seconds thereafter more
than its own length in advance; so that there must have been either
an exceedingly rapid rush under water--_or_ a second animal. The
disappearance and reappearance were both without the _least_ splash;
but at the moment of disappearance the second time _the foremost two of
the last three hummocks coalesced into one_”.
“During one of the appearances I got the focus of the binoculars so
sharp that I distinctly saw water falling over towards me, between some
of the hummocks and myself. There was no consecutive filling up of the
interspaces whatever, or appearance of vacuities where the hummocks had
but now been”.
“There was certainly no _vertical_ serpentine motion--and I could see
no _lateral_ one”.
“My impression was that, setting aside the quiescent low head, I _did
not see a solid substance at all_,--except when the tail hummocks
momentarily appeared--and that what I did see was water being thrown
over laterally by the undulous lashings of a long back fin of a dark
colour, which gave opacity”.
“I cannot set the “hummocks” down to _surge waves_ of a rushing short
fish; because I cannot so explain such surges being always the same
both in _number_ and in _place_: nor can I so explain the appearance of
an apparently solid head--and an apparently continuous tail”.
“The above is all from memory”.