Chapter II: “Gloucester, August 28, 1817.” (6)

“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea, and, as nearly as we could approximate, by comparing it with the length of what our main-topsail yard would show in the water, there was at the very least sixty feet of the animal _à fleur d’eau_, no portion of which was, to our perception, used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation. It passed rapidly, but so close under our lee quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his features with the naked eye; and it did not, either in approaching the ship or after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace of from twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on some determined purpose.”

“The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head, which was, without any doubt, that of a snake; and it was never, during the twenty minutes that it continued in sight of our glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish white about the throat. It had no fins, but something like a mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of seaweed, washed about its back. It was seen by the quartermaster, the boatswain’s mate, and the man at the wheel, in addition to myself and officers above-mentioned.”

“I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for transmission to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by to-morrow’s post.”

“Peter M’Quhae, Captain.”

“To Admiral Sir W. H. Gage, G. C.
H., Devonport.”

In the _Literary Gazette_ of Oct. 21st., 1848, the Editor published an engraving of PONTOPPIDAN’s representation, and adds some accompanying conclusions, appended to copious extracts from the learned Bishop’s work:

“We have now only to point to the very remarkable resemblance between Captain M’Quhae and Pontoppidan’s description. One might fancy the galant Captain had read the old Dane, and was copying him, when he tells of the dark brown colour and white about the throat, and the neck clothed as if by a horse’s mane or a bunch of sea-weed--the exact words of the historian. This snake, however, did not seem to care for the fresh wind and ruffish weather, but kept, as in the calm, its head several feet above the water, and stretched out its length so as to be visible for some sixty or eighty feet. The motion was not perceptibly impelled by vermicular or lent-serpent action! Had it then large fins? There must be some power. The picture engraved in the folio represents it like a series of six barrels, or risings, with the intermediate parts under the sea.”

In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28st. was reprinted all that has been mentioned above, and there appeared three representations of the sea-serpent, as seen from the _Daedalus_, which I here show my readers in fig. 28, 29 and 30, omitting, however, the ship’s stern, because the drawings would be too large for our pages. The Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ adds:

“The drawings above-named have been received by the Lord Commissioners to the Admiralty, and by the courtesy of Capt. M’Quhae, our artist has been permitted to copy this pictorial evidence, as well as further to illustrate the appearance of the Serpent, under the supervision of Captain M’Quhae, and with his approval of the Authenticity of their details as to position and form.”

On the 28th. of October Lieutenant DRUMMOND, the officer of the watch, mentioned in the report of Captain M’QUHAE, published his own impressions of the animal, in the form of an extract from his own journal. As far as I can discover it did not appear before the 1st. of December, in the _Zoologist_ (p. 2306) and runs as follows:

“I beg to send you the following extract from my journal.”

“H. M. S. _Daedalus_, August, 6, 1848, lat. 25° S., long 9° 37′ E., St., Helena 1015 miles. In the 4 to 6 watch, at about five o’clock, we observed a most remarkable fish on our lee quarter, crossing the stern in a S. W. direction; the appearance of its head, which, with the back fin, was the only portion of the animal visible, was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably; the fin was perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head, and visible occasionally; the captain also asserted that he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it; the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown colour, and beneath the under jaw a brownish white. It pursued a steady undeviating course, keeping its head 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. It was going at the rate of perhaps from twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest, was perhaps one hundred yards distant. In fact it gave one quite the idea of a large snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen anything similar, so it is at least extraordinary. It was visible to the naked eye for five minutes, and with a glass for perhaps fifteen more. The weather was dark and squally at the time, with some sea running.”

The following article appeared in the _Times_ of Nov. 2d.:

“Amidst the numerous suggestions of those of your correspondents who are disposed to admit the account given by Captain M’Quhae of the marine monster seen by him and several of his brother officers, on the 6th. of August last, as not altogether imaginary, it appears surprising that it should not have occurred to any one to suggest an explanation of some apparent anomalies in the account, which have no doubt tended to stagger the belief even of some readers who are not disposed to assume (any more than myself) that a number of officers in Her Majesty’s navy would deliberately invent a falsehood, or could have been deceived in an appearance which they describe with such precise details”

“One of the greatest difficulties on the face of the narrative and which must be allowed to destroy the analogy of the motions of the so called “sea-serpent” with those of all known snakes and anguilliform fishes, is that no less than sixty feet of the animal were seen advancing _à fleur d’eau_ at the rate of from twelve to fifteen miles an hour, without it being possible to perceive, upon the closest and most attentive inspection, any undulatory motion to which its rapid advance could be ascribed. It need scarcely be observed that neither an eel nor a snake, if either of those animals could swim at all with the neck elevated, could do so without the front part of its body being thrown into undulation by the propulsive efforts of its tail.”

“But, it may be asked, if the animal seen by Captain M’Quhae was not allied to the snakes or to the eels, to what class of animals could it have belonged? To this I would reply, that it appears more likely that the enormous reptile in question was allied to the gigantic Saurians, hitherto believed only to exist in the fossil state, and, among them, to the Plesiosaurus.”

“From the known anatomical characters of the _Plesiosauri_, derived from the examination of their organic remains, geologists are agreed in the inference that those animals carried their necks (which must have resembled the bodies of serpents) above the water, while their progression was effected by large paddles working beneath--the short but stout tail acting the part of a rudder. It would be superfluous to point out how closely the surmises of philosophers resemble, in these particulars, the description of the eye-witnesses of the living animal, as given in the letter and drawings of Captain M’Quhae. In the latter we have many of the external characters of the former, as predicated from the examination of the skeleton. The short head, the serpent-like neck, carried several feet above the water, forcibly recall the idea conceived of the extinct animal; and even the bristly mane in certain parts of the back, so unlike anything found in serpents, has its analogy in the _Iguana_, to which animal the _Plesiosaurus_ has been compared by some geologists. But I would most of all insist upon the peculiarity of the animal’s progression, which could only have been effected with the evenness, and at the rate described, by an apparatus of fins or paddles, not possessed by serpents, but existing in the highest perfection in the _Plesiosaurus_.”--F. G. S.--

In the number of the _Illustrated London News_ of November 4, 1848, the letter of Captain M’QUHAE was published in which he expresses his special approbation of the figures:

“I have observed with very great satisfaction the Engravings of the “Sea-Serpent” in the Illustrated London News of the 28th. inst.; they most faithfully represent the appearance of the animal, as seen from Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_ on the 6th. of August last; and it is evident that much care has been bestowed upon the subject by the artist employed, to whom I beg to acknowledge myself greatly indebted for the patience and attention with which he listened to the various alterations suggested by me during the progress of the drawings.”

In the _Times_ of Nov. 4th., we find the following remark:

“As some interest has been excited by the alleged appearance of a sea-serpent, I venture to transmit a few remarks on the subject, which you may or not may think worthy of insertion in your columns. There does not appear to be a single well authenticated instance of these monsters having been seen in any southern latitudes; but in the north of Europe, notwithstanding the fabulous character so long ascribed to Pontoppidan’s description, I am convinced that they both exist and are frequently seen. During three summers spent in Norway I have repeatedly conversed with the natives on this subject.”

Here follow the descriptions of two appearances which I have inserted above, (n^o. 109, 110).

“They expressed great surprise at the general disbelief attaching to the existence of these animals amongst naturalists, and assured me that there was scarcely a sailor accustomed to those inland lakes, who had not seen them at one time or another.”--OXONIENSIS.

An unknown writer in one of the daily papers, after suggesting, whether the animals in question might not be full grown specimens of the _Saccopharynx flagellum_ of Dr. MITCHILL (described in the _Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History_, for March, 1824), or of the _Ophiognathus ampullaceus_ of Dr. HARWOOD (_Phil. Trans._, 1827), gives Captain M’QUHAE the benefit of a further conjecture, viz., whether some land species, as the boas, among which are individuals “forty feet” in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even “transport themselves from one continent to another.” (See _Zoologist_, 1848; p. 2320).

Some days after the figures of Captain M’QUHAE were published, a nobleman, whose name is not mentioned, wrote to Prof. OWEN to know his opinion about the animal seen by the Captain. The Professor, it would seem, did not answer the nobleman directly, but sent his answer to the Editor of the _Times_, evidently with a view of bringing his opinion under the eyes of thousands. This letter is too important to be abridged; I therefore give it in extenso; it appeared in the _Times_ of November 11, 1848.

_The Great Sea-Serpent._

“Sir,--Subjoined is the answer to a question relative to the animal seen from the _Daedalus_, addressed to me by a nobleman distinguished in literature, and taking much interest in science.”

“As it contains the substance of the explanation I have endeavoured to give to numerous inquirers, in the Hunterian Museum and elsewhere, and as I continue to receive many applications for my opinion of the “Great Sea Serpent,” I am desirous to give it once for all through the medium of your columns, if space of such value may be allotted to it.”

“I am, Sir, your very obedient servant

“Richard Owen.”

“Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Nov. 9.”

“The sketch (this was a reduced copy of the drawing of the head of the animal seen by Captain M’QUHAE; attached to the submerged body of a large seal, showing the long eddy produced by the action of the terminal flippers) will suggest the reply to your query, “Whether the monster seen from the _Daedalus_ be anything but a saurian?” If it be the true answer, it destroys the romance of the incident, and will be anything but acceptable to those who prefer the excitement of the imagination to the satisfaction of the judgment. I am far from insensible to the pleasures of the discovery of a new and rare animal; but before I can enjoy them, certain conditions--e. g. reasonable proof or evidence of its existence--must be fulfilled. I am also far from undervaluing the information which Captain M’QUHAE has given us of what he saw. When fairly analized, it lies in a small compass, but my knowledge of the animal kingdom compels me to draw other conclusions from the phenomena than those which the gallant captain seems to have jumped at. He evidently saw a large animal moving through the water, very different from anything he had before witnessed--neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface swimming creatures which are fallen in with in ordinary voyages. He writes--“On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous serpent” (read “animal”), “with the head and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of the serpent” (animal) “was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; its colour a dark brown, with yellowish white about the throat”. No fins were seen (the captain says there were none; but from his own account, he did not see enough of the animal to prove the negative). “Something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” So much of the body as was seen was “not used in propelling the animal through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.” A calculation of its length was made under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast. The head, e. g., is stated to be, “without any doubt, that of a snake;” and yet a snake would be the last species to which a naturalist conversant with the forms and characters of the heads of animals, would refer such a head as that of which Captain M’Quhae has transmitted a drawing to the Admirality, and which he certifies to have been accurately copied in the _Illustrated London News_ for October 28, 1848, p. 265. Your Lordship will observe that no sooner was the captain’s attention called to the object, than “it was discovered to be an enormous serpent”, and yet the closest inspection of as much of the body as was visible, _à fleur d’eau_, failed to detect any undulations of the body, although such actions constitute the very character which would distinguish a serpent or serpentiform swimmer from any other marine species. The foregone conclusion, therefore, of the beast’s being a sea-serpent, notwithstanding its capacious vaulted cranium, and stiff, inflexible trunk, must be kept in mind in estimating the value of the approximation made to the total length of the animal, as “(at the very least) sixty feet”. This is the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as to be inadmissible, in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as to the nature of the animal. The more certain characters of the animal are these:--Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short obtuse muzzle, gape of the mouth not extending further than to beneath the eye, which is rather small, round, filling closely the palpebral aperture; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, without scales, scutes, or other conspicuous modifications or hard and naked cuticle. And the captain says, “Had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should have easily recognized his features with my naked eye.” Nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle. All these are the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal--none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish. 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 character of the integuments would be a most important one for the zoologist in the determination to the class to which the above defined creature belonged. If an opinion can be deduced as to the integuments from the above indication, it is that the species had hair, which, if it was too short and close to be distinguished on the head, was visible where it usually is the longest, on the middle line of the shoulders or advanced part of the back, where it was not stiff and upright like the rays of a fin, but “washed about.” Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetaceous 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--viz. about three hundred miles from the western shore of the southern end of Afrika? The most likely species to be there met with are the largest of the seal tribe, _e. g._ Anson’s sea lion, or that known to the southern whalers by the name of the sea-elephant, the _Phoca proboscidea_, which attains the length of from twenty to thirty feet. These great seals abound in certain of the islands of the southern and antarctic seas, from which an individual is occasionally floated off upon an iceberg. The sea lion exhibited in London last spring, which was a young individual of the _Phoca proboscidea_ was actually captured in that predicament; having been carried by the currents that set northwards towards the Cape, where its temporary resting-place was rapidly melting away. When a large individual of the _Phoca proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_ is thus borne off to a distance from its native shore, it is compelled to return for rest to its floating abode, after it has made its daily excursions in quest of the fishes or squids that constitute its food. It is thus brought by the iceberg into the latitudes of the Cape, and perhaps farther north, before the berg was melted away. Then the poor seal is compelled to swim as long as strength endures, and in such a predicament I imagine the creature was that Mr. Sartoris saw rapidly approaching the _Daedalus_ from before the beam, scanning, probably, its capabilities as a resting-place, as it paddled its long stiff body past the ship. In so doing, it would raise a head of the form and colour described and delineated by Captain M’Quhae, supported on a neck also of the diameter given; the thick neck passing into an inflexible trunk, the longer and coarser hair on the upper part of which would give rise to the idea, especially if the species were the _Phoca leonina_, explained by the similes above cited. The organs of locomotion would be out of sight. The pectoral fins being set on very low down, as in my sketch, the chief impelling force would be the action of the deeper immersed terminal fins and tail, which would create a long eddy, readily mistakable, by one looking at the strange phenomenon with a sea-serpent in his mind’s eye, for an indefinite prolongation of the body.”

“It is very probable, that not one on board the _Daedalus_ ever before beheld a gigantic seal freely swimming in the open ocean. Entering unexpectedly from that vast and commonly blank desert of waters, it would be a strange and exciting spectacle, and might well be interpreted as a marvel; but the creative powers of the human mind appear to be really very limited, and, on all the occasions where the true source of the “great unknown” has been detected--whether it has proved to be a file of sportive porpoises, or a pair of gigantic sharks--old Pontoppidan’s sea-serpent with the mane has uniformly suggested itself as the representative of the portent, until the mystery has been unravelled.”

“The vertebrae of the sea-serpent described and delineated in the _Wernerian Transactions_, vol. I., and sworn to by the fishermen who saw it off the Isle of Stronsa (one of the Orkneys), in 1808, two of which vertebrae are in the Museum of the College of Surgeons, are certainly those of a great shark, of the genus _Selache_, and are not distinguishable from those of the species called “basking-shark”, of which individuals from thirty to thirty-five feet in length have been from time to time captured or stranded on our coasts.”

“I have no unmeet confidence in the exactitude of my interpretation of the phenomena witnessed by the captain and others of the _Daedalus_. I am too sensible of the inadequacy of the characters which the opportunity of a rapidly passing animal, “in a long ocean swell”, enabled them to note, for the determination of its species or genus. Giving due credence to the most probably accurate elements of their description, they do little more than guide the zoologist to the class, which, in the present instance, is not that of the serpent or the saurian.”

“But I am usually asked, after each endeavour to explain Captain M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, “Why should there not be a great sea-serpent?”--often, too, in a tone which seems to imply, “Do you think, then, there are not more marvels in the deep, than are dreamt of in your philosophy?” And, freely conceding that point, I have felt bound to give a reason for scepticism as well as faith. If a gigantic sea-serpent actually exists, the species must, of course, have been perpetuated through successive generations, from its first creation and introduction into the seas of this planet. Conceive, then, the number of individuals that must have lived, and died, and have left their remains to attest the actuality of the species during the enormous lapse of time, from its beginning, to the 6th. of August last! Now, a serpent, being an air breathing animal, with long vesicular and receptacular lungs, dives with an effort and commonly floats when dead; and so would the sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident had opened the tough integument, and let out the imprisoned gases. Then it would sink, and, if in deep water, be seen no more until the sea rendered up its dead, after the lapse of the aeons requisite for the yielding of its place to dry land,--a change which has actually revealed to the present generation the old saurian monsters that were entombed at the bottom of the ocean, of the secondary geological periods of our earth’s history. During life the exigencies of the respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel him frequently to the surface; and when dead and swollen--

“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,”

he would

“Lie floating many a rood; in bulk as huge,
“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
“Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove.”

“Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has not hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who have traversed the seas in so many directions. Considering, too, the tides and currents of the ocean, it seems still more reasonable to suppose that the dead sea-serpent would be occasionally cast on shore. However, I do not ask for the entire carcase. The structure of the back-bone of the serpent tribe is so peculiar, that a single vertebra would suffice to determine the existence of the hypothetical Ophidian; and this will not be deemed an unreasonable request, when it is remembered that the vertebrae are more numerous in serpents than in any other animals. Such large blanched and scattered bones on any sea-shore, would be likely to attract even common curiosity; yet there is no vertebra of a serpent larger than the ordinary pythons and boas in any museum in Europe.”

“Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén), than those of Norway. Krakens and sea serpents ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector; whilst the great denizens of those seas have been by no means so chary. No museums, in fact, are so rich in skeletons, skulls, bones and teeth of the numerous kind of whales, cachelots, grampuses, walrusses, sea unicorns, seals, etc., as those of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; but of any large marine nondescript or indeterminable monster they cannot show a trace.”

“I have inquired repeatedly whether the natural history collections of Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities of the United States, might possess any unusually large ophidian vertebrae or any of such peculiar form as to indicate some large and unknown marine animal; but they have received no such specimens.”

“The frequency with which the sea-serpent has been supposed to have appeared near the shores and harbours of the United States, has led to its being specified as the “American sea-serpent;” yet, out of the two hundred vertebrae of every individual that should have lived and died in the Atlantic since the creation of the species, not one has yet been picked up on the shores of America. The diminutive snake, less than a yard in length, “killed upon the sea-shore”, apparently beaten to death, “by some labouring people of Cape Ann,” United States (see the 8vo pamphlet, 1817, Boston, page 38), and figured in the _Illustrated London News_, October 28, 1848, from the original American memoir, by no means satisfies the conditions of the problem. Neither does the _Saccopharynx_ of Mitchill, nor the _Ophiognathus_ of Harwood--the one four and a half feet, the other six feet long: both are surpassed by some of the congers of our own coasts, and, like other muraenoid fishes and the known small sea snake (_Hydrophis_), swim by undulatory movements of the body.”

“The fossil vertebrae and skull which were exhibited by Mr. Koch, in New York and Boston, as those of the great sea-serpent, and which are now in Berlin, belonged to different individuals of a species which I had previously proved to be an extinct whale; a determination which has subsequently been confirmed by Professors Müller and Agassiz. Mr. Dixon of Worthing has discovered many fossil vertebrae, in the Eocene tertiary clay at Bracklesham, which belong to a larger species of an extinct genus of serpent (_Palaeophis_), founded on similar vertebrae from the same formation in the Isle of Sheppey. The largest of these ancient British snakes was twenty feet in length; but there is no evidence that they were marine.”

“The sea saurians of the secondary periods of geology have been replaced in the tertiary and actual seas by marine mammals. No remains of _Cetacea_ have been found in lias or oolite, and no remains of Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur, or any other secondary reptile, have been found in Eocene or later tertiary deposits, or recent, on the actual sea-shores; and that the old air-breathing saurians floated when they died has been shown in the _Geological Transactions_ (vol. V., second series, p. 512). The inference that may reasonably be drawn from no recent carcase or fragment of such having ever been discovered, is strengthened by the corresponding absence of any trace of their remains in the tertiary beds.”

“Now, on weighing the question, whether creatures meriting the name of “great sea serpent” do exist, or whether any of the gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits may have continued to live up to the present time, it seems to me less probable that no part of the carcase of such reptiles should have ever been discovered in a recent or unfossilized state, than that men should have been deceived by a cursory view of a partly submerged and rapidly moving animal, which might only be strange to themselves. In other words, I regard the negative evidence from the utter absence of any of the recent remains of great sea serpents, krakens, or _Enaliosauria_, as stronger against their actual existence, than the positive statements which have hitherto weighed with the public mind in favour of their existence. A larger body of evidence from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent.”

What speaks for itself, this letter appeared in several journals and newspapers. So I have found it in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2d. Ser. Vol. II, p. 458 (15? Nov. 1848), in GALIGNANI’s _Messenger_ of Nov. 23, 1848, in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 25, 1848, and in the _Zoologist_, of Nov. 27, 1848. As it came from such a quarter it is not surprising that many persons were willing to acquiesce in the decision.

Captain M’QUHAE, however, promptly replied to Professor OWEN. His answer was also addressed to the Editor of the _Times_ (_Times_, Nov. 21, 1848):

“Sir,--Will you do me the very great favour to give a place in your widely-circulating columns to the following reply to the animadversions of Professor Owen on the serpent or animal seen by me and others from Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_ on the 6th. of August last, and which were published in the Times of the 14th. inst.?

“I am, Sir, your obedient servant

“P. M’Quhae.

“Late Captain of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.

“London, November 18.

“Professor Owen correctly states that I “evidently saw a large creature moving rapidly through the water very different from anything I had before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming creatures fallen in with in ordinary voyages”. I now assert, neither was it a common seal nor a sea elephant; its great length, and its totally differing physiognomy, precluding the possibility of its being a _Phoca_ of any species. The head was flat, and not a “capacious vaulted cranium;” nor had it “a stiff inflexible trunk”--a conclusion to which Professor Owen has jumped, most certainly not justified by the simple statement, that “no portion of the sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation.”

“It is also assumed that the “calculation of its length was made under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;” another conclusion quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the great length was developed by its nearest approach to the ship, and until after that most important point had been duly considered and debated, as well as such could be in the brief space of time allowed for so doing, that it was pronounced to be a serpent by all who saw it, and who are too well accustomed to judge of lengths and breadths of objects in the sea to mistake a real substance and an actual living body, coolly and dispassionately contemplated, at so short a distance too, for the “eddy caused by the action of the deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly moving gigantic seal raising its head above the water,” as Professor Owen imagines, “in quest of its lost iceberg.”

“The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited. On this occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose and desire being, throughout, to furnish eminent naturalists, such as the learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed from optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan’s having clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have suggested the idea of ornamenting the creature seen from the _Daedalus_ with a similar appendage, for the simple reason that I had never seen his account, or even heard of his sea-serpent, until my arrival in London. Some other solution must therefore be found for the very remarkable coincidence between us in that particular, in order to unravel the mystery.”

“Finally, I deny the existence of excitement, or the possibility of optical illusion. I adhere to the statement, as to form, colour, and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty; and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific may exercise the “pleasures of imagination” until some more fortunate opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance with the “great unknown”,--in the present instance assuredly no ghost.”

It also appeared in the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 25 1848.

And a gentleman, who signed his letter with the initials J. C., wrote a letter to the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ (see this Journal of Nov. 25, 1848) to rectify another statement of the learned Professor:

“The very interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae, and the drawing in your paper, are to my mind quite satisfactory as to the existence of the animal, and I have no doubt we shall hear of his being again seen sooner or later. But my object in writing to you is to remark on the conclusions come to by Mr. Owen, in his letter to the Editor of the _Times_, of November 9th., that it was _not_ of the serpent species, because “they failed to detect any undulations of the body”, whereas the fact of there being “no vertical or horizontal undulations perceptible” stamps the character of the animal; for it is well known by all observers of snakes in India, that when the animal is in chase of game, small or great, or when scared away, and moving at a _rapid_ pace, he is propelled entirely by the tail, or the smaller half of the body, while the other portion, with a curve of the head, is kept quite _stiff_--and this exactly corresponds with the Captain’s account, that it held on at the pace of twelve to fifteen miles an hour, _apparently on some determined purpose_.”

In May, 1854, Dr. T. S. TRAILL read a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, comparing the animal of the _Daedalus_, with the Animal of Stronsa. The part of his dissertation concerning the present occurrence runs as follows:

“In their statements there are no suspicious affectations of minute detail. Their simple narrative appears to deserve more attention than it has yet received from naturalists; and I strongly incline to the belief, that the animal seen by the crew of the _Daedalus_ was an analogue of, if not the very same species, as the animal cast ashore in Orkney in 1808.”

“Considering the derision with which, in this country, the subject of the sea-serpent has been treated, and the ridicule attempted to be thrown on all who were bold enough to assert that they had seen such an animal, nothing but a consciousness of his unimpeachable veracity could have tempted the gallant Captain M’QUHAE to encounter the sneers of his incredulous countrymen. From all I have heard of his character for sagacity and veracity, from those who intimately knew him, I have not the smallest doubt that he has faithfully described what he and his crew saw distinctly, and at a short distance from the ship.”

“It was seen rapidly approaching before the _beam_.” Captain M’Quhae says: “On our attention being called to the object, it was discovered to be an enormous serpent, with head and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of the sea. The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; its colour of a dark brown, with yellowish-white about the throat.”

“The Captain could discover no fins, but “something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.” He thought that its head did certainly resemble that of a snake; but the drawing which he transmitted to the Admiralty has not, to the eye of a naturalist, the form of that of any snake. The figure published in the _Illustrated London News_ for October 28, 1848, is said to be an accurate copy of that drawing.”

“Captain M’Quhae estimates the length of its body at the surface of the water, “_à fleur d’eau_, at the very least equal to sixty feet, no part of which was to our perception used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations. It passed rapidly, but so close under our quarter, that had it been a man of my acquaintance, I should easily have recognized his features with the naked eye, and it did not, either in approaching the ship, or after it had passed our wake, deviate in the slightest degree from its course to the S. W., which it held on at the pace of twelve or fifteen miles an hour, apparently on some determined purpose.”

“If we may judge from the engraving, the cranium is very convex, of moderate size, with a short obtuse muzzle, a mouth reaching beyond the eye; which last organ is round, and of a moderate size. The surface of the body is represented as smooth, and destitute of scales--of which they were enabled to judge, because it passed close under the _quarter_ of the ship. It was in sight for twenty minutes.”

“The description certainly does not belong to any Ophidian; and as certainly militates against an opinion thrown out by Mr. Owen, that it might be a specimen of the _leonine seal_, which has, it is alleged, occasionally reached those latitudes. The leonine seal never exceeds twenty-five feet in length, and such would have a circumference at its shoulders of twenty feet, while this appears to be eel-shaped, with a diameter of not more than fifteen or sixteen inches behind the head; the mane too, of the male of the leonine seal extends only over the head and neck; but in the other, it extended down the back.”

“With all deference to so eminent a naturalist as Mr. Owen, I humbly conceive that his conjecture respecting the identity of Captain M’QUHAE’s animal with the leonine seal, is not more probable than Home’s identification of the Basking shark with the Orkney animal.”

“Both M’QUHAE’s and the Orkney animal would appear to be a cartilaginous fish, totally different from any genus known to naturalists.”

Three years afterwards Captain HARRINGTON’s report (n^o. 131) was published in the Times. Some days afterwards Captain FREDERIC SMITH published his encounter with a sea-serpent, which after being harpooned and hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, and the sea-serpents of the _Daedalus_ and of Captain HARRINGTON were in his opinion undoubtedly pieces of the same kind of weed.

Now “An Officer of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_ felt obliged to state again that it was a living animal. As in this letter further particulars of the animal are mentioned, I insert it here _in toto_, (_The Times_ of Febr. 16th., 1858):

“Sir,--Observing in your paper of yesterday’s date a letter from a correspondent to the marine animal commonly called the “sea-serpent”, in the concluding paragraph of which he mentions that he has no doubt the object seen from Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_ in the month of August, 1848, when on the passage from the Cape of Good-Hope to St. Helena, was a piece of the same sea-weed observed by himself, I beg to state that the object seen from her Majesty’s ship was, beyond all question, a living animal, moving rapidly through the water against a cross sea, and within five points of a fresh breeze, with such velocity that the water was surging under its chest, as it passed along at a rate probably of ten miles per hour. Captain M’QUHAE’s first impulse was to tack in pursuit, ourselves being on a wind on the larboard tack, when he reflected that we could neither lay up for it nor overhaul it in speed. There was nothing to be done, therefore, but to observe it as accurately as we could with our glasses, as it came up under our lee quarter and passed away to windward, at its nearest position being not more than two hundred yards from us; the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour and form, all being most distinctly visible to us. We all felt greatly astonished at what we saw, though there were sailors among us of thirty and forty years’ standing, who had traversed most seas and seen many marvels in their day. The captain was the first to exclaim: “This must be that animal called the sea-serpent”, a conclusion which, after sundry guesses, we all at last settled down to. My impression was that it was rather of a lizard than a serpentine character, as its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power. It was in sight, from our first observing it, about ten minutes, as we were fast leaving one another on opposite tacks with a freshening breeze and the sea getting up.”

“I feel, Sir, I have already occupied more of your time and space than is justifiable, and have the honour to remain your obedient servant,

“An Officer of Her Majesty’s ship _Daedalus_.”

Now let us run over all the prominent important particulars in the reports of the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen from the _Daedalus_. The first report, which appeared in the _Times_ of October, 9, 1848, contains the description of the mouth: “and when it extended its jaws, which were full of large and jagged teeth, they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright between them.” It is not said from whom the report came, nor is it signed. All the details, except this last, were afterwards substantiated by Captain M’QUHAE himself and by Lieutenant DRUMMOND. To me it seems quite impossible that the head was longer than three feet; as the neck is estimated at 16 inches in diameter, or one foot and a third, the breadth of the head, according to what we already know of the relative dimensions, cannot have been more than about two feet, and the length not more than about three feet. So the jaws, when extended, may open the mouth to about one and a half or two feet, a space which never can admit “of a tall man standing upright between them!”

The animal seen by the captain and some of the officers and crew of the _Daedalus_, was as follows: It swam with its body in a straight line. About sixty feet of its body were visible. Its head appeared to be about four feet out of the water. The part of the body hidden under water was estimated at thirty feet at least. The diameter of the neck behind the head was estimated at one foot and a third. When the animal opened its mouth, large jagged teeth were seen. “It moved with such velocity that the water was surging under its chest” (read throat, for the very chest, situated between the foreflappers, was invisible and much farther back). The head and a portion of the neck (Captain M’QUHAE says, though without any reason, shoulders) were kept above the surface of the sea. The animal was, during the time it was in sight, never once below the surface. Lieutenant DRUMMOND, however, says: the head disappeared occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval. The colour of the animal was a dark brown, with yellowish white under the throat. Something like the mane of a horse, or rather like a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back. Though the Captain says: it had no fins. Lieutenant DRUMMOND stated, that there was “a backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head, “and visible occasionally”. If this were a true back-fin, it ought to have been constantly visible. As, however, it was only occasionally seen, we conclude that it was nothing else but one of the animal’s foreflappers, occasionally coming above the surface of the water. “The captain also asserted that he saw the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it.” This of course must have been one of the animal’s hind flappers. Lieutenant DRUMMOND must have been mistaken as to the length of the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calculation evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover was rather pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper-jaw projecting considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in saying: “the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown colour, and beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.”

The three figures are tolerably well drawn; in fact they are the best of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if they were delineated after the description above, but they were in reality “made from a sketch taken immediately after the animal was seen.” Here, as in foregoing reports, the figures and the text complete one another. The head is not that of a serpent, but that of a mammal. The proportions of length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the length of the mouth-split, the exact place of the eye, even the flattened appearance of forehead and nose are true mammalian characters. No whiskers or bristles on the upper-lips, and no ears or earholes are drawn, or mentioned. The distance, when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It is clear that they were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are indicated in the drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle, and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible.

In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as the sea-serpent. I only wish to point out here that in none of the three figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a head would never have been described as resembling that of a snake. It is clear that it is drawn too high, too short and not flat enough.

I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. OWEN’s reply. It is the following: Prof. OWEN rejects the existence of the sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the labours of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea-serpents ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton to any Scandinavian collector.” It may be true that Mssrs. SARS and LOVÉN often navigated along the coasts of Norway and yet never saw a sea-serpent. Prof. OWEN forgets that his own countryman, Mr. MORRIES STIRLING, saw one with his own eyes! Is this proof not decisive enough? The absence of remains is not a proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as there are whales with two backfins, which are _seen_ by three different _naturalists_, yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice of zoologists. Prof. OWEN also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers know well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however, they may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that it was not before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or gigantic calamary, was brought to Paris by the commander of the _Alecton_, _nota bene_ notwithstanding Prof. OWEN’s assertion that they did not exist, as else the naturalists of Norway, and amongst them especially SARS and LOVÉN, would have found them!!

Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. M’QUHAE agreed in details with that of Lieutenant DRUMMOND, because the latter was immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th., whilst the letter of Captain M’QUHAE was addressed to the Admiralty on the 11th. of October, two months afterwards and apparently written from memory.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ says of the “fin” mentioned by Lieutenant DRUMMOND:

“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse”, and which the introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in parentheses after the word “rather” in his description) serves to correlate with the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back”.”

I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant DRUMMOND was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and the other fin, “twenty feet more backward”, was one of the animal’s hind-flappers, and I believe that I may express my conviction that Mr. ANDREW WILSON was just as wrong in supposing this, as in his conviction that the sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE was merely an extraordinarily developed sea-snake! A few pages further on, viz., the writer of _Leisure Time Studies_, quoting the report of Captain M’QUHAE says:

“The idea that the animal observed in this instance was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention, which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits.” (!)

And on the following page:

“Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations and inaccuracies in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution of this interesting problem.” (!!)

* * * * *

Though they don’t touch our subject directly, the following words of Mssrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE, treating of the Dodo, are well worth our notice; they say (_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_ 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15?, 1848):

“In proof of the existence of the Dodo we have--unlike the assumed evidence of the existence of some other anomalous monsters of which we have lately heard much--every canon of cautious truthseeking fully satisfied. With no traditional superstition or belief to give an origin to such a story (a point of no little importance in such an investigation), we have here fifteen or sixteen separate and independant authorities all alluding incidentally to the Dodo, each different in language and description, yet each of which has points of resemblance that cannot be mistaken as referring to similar objects. We have moreover drawings of the creature itself, made by different hands, and at different times, and with different objects; some of them rude and coarse to grotesqueness, other finished works of art. Yet throughout all these there run characters which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us that the draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, and from individuals of one and the same species.”

I am obliged to remark here that the proof of the existence of the _Dodo_, quoted by them, is _not_ unlike the proof of the existence of great sea-serpents. If they, however, had known and mentioned that a head and a foot of the Dodo are preserved in Kopenhague, they would have been right. This is _not_ the case with the sea-serpent. As far as I know, there is not one _material_ proof of the existence of sea-serpents. But it is with the sea-serpent just as with the different accounts and pictures of the Dodo, “throughout all which run characters which it is impossible to mistake, and which satisfy us, that the draughtsmen drew, not from imagination, but from something real, and from individuals of one and the same species”.

I hope that every-one who has read all the accounts I have collected and published in this volume, and thoroughly studied the figures, will grant that there is no question of “assumed evidences of the existence of some anomalous monsters”.

* * * * *

=119=.--1848?--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2356, we read: