Chapter II: “Gloucester, August 28, 1817.” (9)

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is of another opinion than I, as to the fight; for he declares: “..... to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the _Pauline_ must be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons”. The reader will understand that I do not wish to contest Mr. WILSON’S opinion.

* * * * *

=145=.--1875, July 13.--Now we come to the second statement of the same report, viz. the encounter with the animal on the 13th. of July.

On that day another or the same individual was seen again shooting itself along the surface horizontally, forty feet of its body being out of the water at a time. Consequently the animal swam with its body in a straight line, and not with vertical undulations. Again on the same day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite perpendicular some sixty feet in the air, and evidently taking a survey towards the vessel. This case is nearly the same as that which EGEDE witnessed in 1734 near Gothaab. As it is often reported that whales and sperm-whales, when coming from the depths, do so with such an astonishing force and rapidity that they leap clear out of the water, I am convinced that the sea-serpent sometimes elevates its fore part to a considerable height as was seen by EGEDE (n^o 5), Captain ADAMS (n^o 121) and Captain DREVAR. If the height of the sea-serpent rising in the air was really sixty feet, Captain DREVAR must have seen the animal’s fore-flappers, though he did not mention them. Else I think that he exaggerated, that the height did not surpass forty feet and that the flappers remained under water. See also N^o 31.--

* * * * *

=146=.--1876, September 11.--In the number of the 15th. of January, 1877, of the _Echo_ appeared an article by Mr. R. A. PROCTOR entitled “Strange Sea-Monsters”, wherein he quotes the following report. I have not been able to consult the _Echo_, but I have found it cited in Mr. WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_. Here no date, except that of September 11th., is given, but as the report appeared in the January number of 1877 of the _Echo_, I conclude that the appearance took place in September of 1876.

“Soon after the British steamship _Nestor_ anchored at Shanghai, last October, John K. Webster, the captain, and James Anderson, the ship’s surgeon, appeared before Mr. Donald Spence, Acting Law Secretary in the British Supreme Court, and made affidavit to the following effect:

“On September 11, at 10.30 a. m., fifteen miles north-west of North Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straights, the weather being fine and the sea smooth, the captain saw an object which had been pointed out by the third officer as “a shoal!” Surprised at finding a shoal in such a well-known track, I watched the object, and found that it was in motion, keeping up the same speed with the ship, and retaining about the same distance as first seen. The shape of the creature I would compare to that of a gigantic frog. The head, of a pale yellowish colour, was about twenty feet in length, and six feet of the crown were above the water. I tried in vain to make out the eyes and mouth; the mouth may, however, have been below water. The head was immediately connected with the body, without any indication of a neck. The body was about forty-five or fifty feet long, and of an oval shape, perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the spine. The back rose some five feet above the surface. An immense tail, fully one hundred and fifty feet in length, rose a few inches above the water. This tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to its extremity; it seemed cylindrical, with a very slight taper, and I estimate its diameter at four feet. The body and tail were marked with alternate bands of stripes, black and pale yellow in colour. The stripes were distinct to the very extremity of the tail. I cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin or not. The creature possessed no fins or paddles so far as we could perceive. I cannot say if it had legs. It appeared to progress by means of an undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down).

“Mr. Anderson, the surgeon, confirmed the captain’s account in all essential respects. He regarded the creature as an enormous marine salamander. “It was apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance. Though keeping up with us, at the rate of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic. I saw no legs or fins, and am certain that the creature did not blow or spout in the manner of a whale. I should not compare it for a moment to a snake. The only creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe.””

As the captain asserts that the animal kept up the same speed as the ship, and Mr. ANDERSON that “though keeping up with us, at the rate of nearly ten knots an hour, its movements seemed lethargic”, we must conclude that the animal moved by paddling with its flappers, and that with this simple mechanism it is able to propel itself at a rate of ten knots an hour, steadily and uniformly. The tail of the animal, which trailed inactively behind the trunk, must of course have been brought in motion by the action of the water, so that it is easy to understand that the captain thought that “it appeared to progress by means of an undulatory motion of the tail in a vertical plane (that is, up and down)”. It is also very natural that the captain declared that “the creature possessed no fins or paddles as far as we could perceive. I cannot say if it had legs”, and that the surgeon ANDERSON confirmed it: “I saw no fins”; the flappers of the animal being entirely hidden under water.--The captain says: “The shape of the creature I would compare to that of a gigantic frog”. According to his description, however, the shape might have been better compared with that of a gigantic newt. This is done by Mr. ANDERSON, as we have seen above, who says at the end of his statement, “the only creatures it could be compared with are the newt or frog tribe”; he “should not compare it for a moment to a snake”. This is one of the few reports of the animal having been observed swimming in full length on the surface of the water. This I think very comprehensible. Generally the animal is swimming with the head and a part of the neck raised some feet out of the water, and in this case the trunk and the tail must carry their weight, so that the trunk will be visible only a few inches above the water, and the tail hidden for a greater part under it. But as soon as the animal drops its neck and head so that only the upper part of both remain above the surface, their weight is carried by the water itself, and body and tail will become more visible, lying almost _à fleur d’eau_ (to use Captain M’QUHAE’S term). I firmly believe that this is also one of the few occasions that the animal swam with its neck contracted. In this situation it is very difficult to decide whether the animal has a neck or not, and so the captain’s assertion “the head was immediately connected with the body, without any indication of a neck” is very conceivable. From the hind part of the head the contracted neck gradually grows thicker towards the shoulders, where the animal seems to have its largest diameter, and from here it tapers towards the hind flappers, so that seen from the ship, both neck and body, being visible only a few feet above the surface, must have given rise to the description of the captain “the body was of an oval shape”. Again the position was very favourable to observe the exact place where the tail begins, and that the animal has there its pelvis and hind flappers, so that, being there broader than at the tail-root, the captain observed “this tail I saw distinctly from its junction with the body to its extremity”. The colour of the head being described as a pale yellowish one, and that of the body and the tail alternately black and pale yellow, I conclude that the animal having swum for some time in this manner, had been partly dried up in the sun, while “catspaws” washing over it again coloured it black here and there. As to its length I am inclined to believe that Mr. Webster is mistaken. I cannot admit that “the head was twenty feet, and six feet of the crown were above the water”, nor can I set much value upon his assertion that the tail was “fully one hundred and fifty feet in length”. I willingly admit that the head measured eight or nine feet, and the tail about one hundred feet. As the animal swam just at the surface it is clear to me that no mouth was visible, and I think that even the nose tip will only have been a few inches above the water. As no eyes were seen, the distance must have been rather great; but this is not mentioned. The body was perfectly smooth, but there may have been a slight ridge along the spine. Probably this was the mane, not quite discernable on account of the distance. The tail is described as cylindrical, tapering to its end, and estimated at four feet in diameter (at its junction, evidently).--It is clear that the extreme end of the tail was under water, for Mr. WEBSTER “cannot say whether the tail terminated in a fin or not”. As to the supposition of Mr. ANDERSON that the animal was “apparently of a gelatinous (that is, flabby) substance”, I cannot attach much importance to this, as it is impossible to decide this of an animal swimming at some distance, even of a calamary. The body was smooth, and that’s all. That the creature did not blow or spout like a whale, is very natural, as there was evidently no reason for doing so, the nose being constantly above the surface, and the animal swimming without diving from time to time. A whale, sleeping on the surface, does not spout either, as in that case the spout-holes are above the surface, and the breathing is regular and without puffing. So I think I have shown that all the parts of the statement are correct, except the estimated length.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON relying upon the statement of Mr. ANDERSON, adds in a note:

“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel”.”

My objections against this supposition are first, that, as I have already stated above, it is impossible to decide whether an animal is gelatinous or flabby, until we have touched and handled it, and secondly, that the manner of swimming of a calamary is not so as Mr. WILSON believes; for the enormous arms of such a creature are not trailing behind the body, when it is swimming backwards, but are coiled up and retracted into two peculiar arm pockets; and thirdly, that the colour of a calamary does not correspond with the colour stated in the report, but is a very light grey one, mixed with red or crimson, intermixed with purple.

* * * * *

In the number of February 3d, 1877 of the _Illustrirte Zeitung_, an article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange” appeared, written by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain DREVAR, which appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January of that year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superficially treats of several already known accounts and reports of sea-serpents viz: our n^{os}. 144, 145, and 5, the tales of PONTOPPIDAN, the animal of Stronsa (p. 61-88), the appearances quoted by the Boston Linnaean Society (1817), our n^o. 118, the hoax of the _Daphne_ (1848, Oct. 21), our n^{os}. 129 and 130, the cheat of Dr. KOCH (1845), and the true sea-snakes (_Hydrophidae_). In two of his assertions this anonymous author is incorrect, viz. It was not Captain M’QUHAE who asserted that the animal’s mouth was large enough to admit of a tall man standing upright in it, but an anonymous contributor to the _Times_; Mr. HENDERSON was master of the ship _Mary Ann_, and not of the _Daphne_; the master of this ship was called TRELAWNEY. I consider these four names as Active (see my Chapter on hoaxes p. 34.)

* * * * *

=147=.--1877, May 21.--In Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we read in a note (p. 111):

“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas is afforded by the report of the master of the barque _Georgina_ from Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September 4, 1877) put into Falmouth for orders on the 1st. September. On May 21, 1877, in latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53′ E., a large serpent about forty or fifty feet long, grey and yellow in colour, and ten or eleven inches thick, was seen by the crew. It was visible for twenty minutes, during which time it crossed the bow, and ultimately disappeared under the port-quarter.”

The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the animal. The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me conclude that the animal had swum for a long time with its body in a straight line, without diving and that the part, exposed to the sunbeams, had dried up.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON adds: “There can be little doubt that this sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I’ll not contest his opinion.--

* * * * *

=148=.--1877, June 2.--Not less important than others is the report of the _Osborne_. In Mr. =Lee’s= _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ we read p. 93 the following about this occurrence:

“In June, 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty that on the 2nd. of that month, he and other officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_, had seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine animal, of which the following account and sketches were furnished by Lieutenant Haynes, and were confirmed by Commander Pearson, Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth, and Mr. Moore, engineer.”

“Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, “Royal Yacht _Osborne_, Gibraltar, June 6”: On the evening of that day, the sea being perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet, and varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by means of a telescope, at about one and a-half cables’ distance, I distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder. The head, as nearly as I could judge, was about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four to five feet, the shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head. I could not see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty feet. The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and which had disappeared by the time I got a telescope, were really the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body. The animal’s head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards, remaining above for a few seconds at a time, and then disappearing; there was an entire absence of “blowing” or “spouting”. I herewith beg to enclose a rough sketch, showing the view of the “ridge of fins”, and also of the animal in the act of propelling itself by its two fins.”

Evidently Mr. LEE has not communicated the whole account as it was in the original periodical, nor did he mention the name of the periodical.

The _Times_ of June 14th., 1877 mentions:

“The _Osborne_, 2, paddle royal yacht, Commander Hugh L. Pearson, which arrived at Portsmouth from the Mediterranean on Monday, and at once proceeded to her moorings in the harbour, has forwarded an official report to the Admiralty, through the commander-in-chief (Admiral Sir George Elliot, K. C. B.), respecting a sea-monster which she encountered during her homeward voyage. At about five o’clock in the afternoon of the 2nd. instant, the sea being exceptionally calm, while the yacht was proceeding round the north coast of Sicily towards Cape Vito, the officer on the watch observed a long ridge of fins, each about six feet long, moving slowly along. He called for a telescope, and was at once joined by other officers. The _Osborne_ was steaming westward at ten and a half knots an hour, and, having a long passage before her, could not stay to make minute observations. The fins were progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more nearly approached them, they were replaced by the foremost part of a gigantic sea-monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen, altogether devoid of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination, being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter. Its features were only seen by one officer, who described them as like those of an alligator. The neck was comparatively narrow, but so much of the body as could be seen, developed in form like that of gigantic turtle, and from each side extended two fins, about fifteen feet in length, by which the monster paddled itself along after the fashion of a turtle. The appearance of the monster is accounted for by a submarine volcano, which occurred north of Galita, in the Gulf of Tunis, about the middle of May, and was reported at the time by a steamer which was struck by a detached fragment of submarine rock. The disturbance below water, it is thought probable, may have driven up the monster from its “native element”, as the site of the eruption is only one hundred miles from where it was reported to have been seen”.

The _Graphic_ of June 16, 1877, tells us p. 563, 3d. column:

“The Sea-Serpent has once more made his appearance, and this time the officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_ are the witnesses to his existence. The Commander, says the _Portsmouth Times and Navel Gazette_, has sent an official report to the Admiralty, stating that on the 2nd. inst. a curious creature was seen off the coast of Sicily in a smooth sea. The serpent was “of immense length, with a smooth scaleless skin, and a ridge of fins, 15 feet in length, and 6 ft. apart along the back, a bullet-shaped head, and a face like an alligator. It moved slowly, and was distinctly seen by all the officers.”

The same Journal of the 30th. of June publishes the following account and sketch by Lieutenant HAYNES:

“We are indebted to Lieut. W. P. Haynes, of H. M. S. _Osborne_, for the sketch of the sea-monster seen by the officers and crew of that vessel off the north coast of Sicily on the 2nd. inst. In a letter accompanying the sketch, he says:--“My attention was first called by seeing a long row of fins appearing above the surface of the water at a distance of about 200 yards and “away on our beam”. They were of irregular heights, and extending about 30 or 40 feet in line (the former number is the length I gave, the latter the other officers), in a few seconds they disappeared, giving place to the foremost part of the monster. By this time it had passed astern, swimming in an opposite direction to that we were steering, and as we were passing through the water at 10¹⁄₂ knots, I could only get a view of it, “and on”, which I have shown in the sketch. The head was bullet-shaped, and quite six feet thick, the neck narrow and its head was occasionally thrown back out of the water, remaining there for a few seconds at a time. It was very broad across the back or shoulders, about 15 or 20 feet, and the flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion, which seemed to paddle the monster along. They were about 15 feet in length. From the top of the head to the part of the back where it became immersed, I should consider 50 feet, and that seemed about a third of the whole length. All this part was smooth, resembling a seal. I cannot account for the fins, unless they were on the back below, where it was immersed.”

According to Mr. HENRY LEE a Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND has suggested (where? this is not mentioned) that “the ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly, belong to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order.” Mr. LEE himself seems to be of this opinion too. As to me, I don’t believe it, for the simple reason that the basking sharks only live in the Arctic Sea, and are never observed farther south than the coasts of Great-Britain and of Massachusetts. So Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND’S whole supposition falls to the ground. At all events the fins have nothing to do with the sea-serpent. This is also the opinion of Mr. LEE, who asserts: “The combination of them with long flippers, and the turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”

We will first speak of the account Lieutenant HAYNES wrote on the 6th. of June, when at Gibraltar. The sea was perfectly smooth, and he saw the ridge of fins. He took his glasses and instead of fins he distinctly saw something quite different. In the short time that he fixed his glasses, the ridge of fins had no doubt disappeared, and the huge animal emerged. The owners of the fins were evidently frightened at the approach of the sea-serpent. Lieut. HAYNES “distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder”. We may safely add: and a long neck connecting this head with the shoulder, and we may safely read for shoulder: a part of its back. The head was about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four or five feet; consequently the animal had stretched its neck as forward as possible. The back, on the level of the flappers, was about fifteen feet broad, “and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of a turtle.” I should like to say: were those of a sea-lion, for a sea-turtle cannot possibly elevate its flappers so high above the surface of the water, while sea-lions are able to do so. Moreover the fashion is the same, that is to say, the paddling happens alternately, i. e. when the right flapper is brought as forward as possible to commence the act of paddling, the left one is kept as backward as possible, nearly touching the trunk, having just brought the act of paddling to an end. “The animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head.” This is in my opinion the most remarkable statement of this report. We have more than once met with the comparison of the head or face of the animal with that of a seal, but Lieutenant HAYNES clearly states the _animal_ (seen from behind) resembled a seal. “I could not see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where it became immersed) I should reckon about fifty feet.” Going by known descriptions and figures, we may suppose that the length of the head may have been between eight and nine feet. When from the top of the head to just below the shoulder the length is estimated at about fifty feet, I reckon that the neck of the animal must have been one of forty feet, reckoning two feet from the top of the head to the occiput, and eight feet from the flappers to where the animal became immersed, i. e. the visible part of its back. The estimated measurements of the individual of captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118) were: length of the head about three feet, breadth about two feet; diameter of neck below the head about one foot and a third; length of the neck to the fore-flappers about twenty feet; length of the trunk from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers about twenty feet, length of the tail about forty feet, length of the whole animal between eighty and ninety feet. Let us now repeat those of the individual of the _Osborne_, which seems to be about _three times_ larger. The breadth of the head is about six feet, consequently the length of the head about nine feet; the diameter of the neck below the head about four or five feet, say four feet, i. e. _three times_ one foot and a third; the distance from the occiput to the flappers--forty feet, according to my calculation given above but,--comparing the dimensions of the individual of Captain M’QUHAE with the present, I don’t hesitate a moment to put down sixty feet for the distance from the head to the fore-flappers. The officers of the _Daedalus_ were in a more favourable situation to estimate this distance, the distance from the fore-flappers to the hind-flappers and the whole length of the animal they saw,--than Lieutenant HAYNES; for the former saw the animal from aside, whilst the latter beheld it from behind, and was consequently in a bad situation to estimate the different lengths of the animal, but in a more favourable to estimate its different breadths. The length of the neck must really have been formidable, for though the animal (see drawing) showed hardly any neck at all, (resembling an enormous ball just visible above the surface of the water, with another smaller bullet on its top,) Lieutenant HAYNES estimated the distance from the top of the head to the part of its back, where it became immersed, at fifty feet! The remaining part of the back and the animal’s tail and hind-flappers were entirely invisible. I have already expressed my firm conviction that the ridge of fins has nothing at all to do with the animal. It is evident that Lieutenant HAYNES himself had his doubts about this point, for else he would not have written: “unless the ridge of fins....... were really the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object’s body”. Evidently the animal elevated its head from time to time some feet into the air to take a survey before it. Evidently it never dropped its head so as to come with its nostrils below water, for “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting”.

In the account of the _Times_ only the following sentences are interesting. The ridge of fins moved _slowly_ along. They were _replaced_ by the foremost part of a sea-serpent. In my opinion this statement is very correct. Its skin was altogether devoid of scales, appearing rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. This is a remarkable statement, for in the foregoing account the animal is said to resemble a huge seal! Again: the head was bullet-shaped (seen from behind) with an elongated termination (read snout) being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter. The assertion of one of the officers who saw the animal’s features and described them as like those of an alligator, cannot surprise us, as this comparison has been made more than once. As much of the body as could be seen was developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle. Evidently this reporter did not observe that the head and trunk were connected by a long neck, as did Lieutenant HAYNES. I cannot approve of the supposition that the animal would have been started by the volcanic disturbance, which took place a hundred miles more southward and a fortnight ago!!

The rough account of the _Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette_ partly reprinted in the _Graphic_, is as the reader will already have observed himself, for the greater part, wrong: the fins of the ridge were estimated to be from five to six feet high, and not 15 feet in length. They were never seen along the back. Lieutenant HAYNES clearly doubted of it, and I believe that nobody of my readers will admit the possibility of such a position! It was the ridge of fins that moved slowly, and not the animal. Though it is not expressed _in words_, the figure shows us that the sea-serpent moved with the greatest velocity, paddling so violently, that it lifted up its flappers as high as possible.

In the letter which Lieutenant HAYNES forwarded to the Editor of the Graphic, we read that the animal passed the stern, swimming in an opposite direction to that they were steering to; consequently the animal could have been seen for a few seconds only from aside, and then only from behind. Most probably in passing the yacht, the animal turned its face once towards it, for we read in the _Times_ of 14th. June: “its features were seen only by one officer.” The breadth of the back is now stated to be about 15 or 20 feet. “The flappers appeared to have a semi-revolving motion,” which is indeed a nearly exact expression for this motion. The length of 50 feet is now considered by the gallant officer to seem to be about a third of the whole length. The reason of this estimation is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the water behind the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe that this individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again, the Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could have been the ridge of fins! No wonder!

Of the second sketch (fig. 45) I will only say that it is partly wrong; for only _one_ flapper must have been visible _at one time_, though it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rapidity that it _seemed_ as if the two flappers were visible together. And when seen from aside in this position it would appear that the animal had more than two flappers, had a row of them, as is shown in our fig. 36.--It is also clear that the severe splashing and foaming of the water, which _must_ have been caused by the movements of the flappers, is omitted in the figure.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ notes that the details furnished in the account of the _Times_ appear to be explicable by a tape-fish (_Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus_). I need not say that I am not at all at one with him. There is not one simple character either in the ridge of fins, or in the animal described, which agrees in the least with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape-fishes are deep-sea fishes, and only rise to the surface, dying or dead!

Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN’S comparison of the animal with a manatee (_Nature_, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but the length of the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimensions of both animals differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous to dwell any longer on it.

* * * * *

In January 1879, Mr. ANDREW WILSON published his _Leisure Time Studies_, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth chapter is entitled “The sea-serpents of Science”. As might be expected the author treats of the various explanations of the sea-serpent given by men of science as well as by others, and declares himself to be a firm believer of the fact that large unknown animals exist. I wish to quote here the most interesting parts, or better said, those parts which are, at present, of great interest. In considering the authenticity of the reports and the admission that really “something” must have been seen, the author says:

“Can we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated during past years, dismiss the subject _simpliciter_, as founded on no basis of fact? The answer to such a question must be an emphatic negative; since the evidence brought before our notice includes the testimony of several hundreds of sane and reasonable persons, who in frequent cases have testified on oath and by affidavit to the truth of their descriptions of curious marine forms, seen and observed in various seas. The second supposition, that all of these persons have simply been deceived, is one which must also be dismissed. For, after making all due allowance for exaggeration, and for variations in accounts arising from different modes of expression and even from mental peculiarities in the witnesses, there remains a solid body of testimony, which, unless there is some special tendency to mendacity on the part of persons who travel by sea, we are bound, by all the rules of fair criticism and of evidence, to receive as testimony of honest kind. As I have elsewhere observed: There are very many calmly and circumstantially related and duly verified accounts of serpentine, or at any rate, of anomalous marine forms, having been closely inspected by the crew and passengers of vessels. Either, therefore, we must argue that in every instance the senses of intelligent men and women must have played them false, or we must simply assume that they are describing what they have never seen. The accounts in many instances so minutely describe the appearance of such forms, inspected from a near standpoint, that the possibility of their being mistaken for inanimate objects, as they might be if viewed from a distance, is rendered entirely improbable. We may thus, then, affirm firstly that there are many verified pieces of evidence on record, of strange marine forms having been met with,--which evidences, judged according to ordinary and common sense rules, go to prove that certain hitherto undescribed marine organisms do certainly exist in the sea-depths.”

“The first issue I must therefore submit to the reader, as representing one of a large and impartial jury, is, that the mass of evidence accumulated on the sea-serpent question, when weighed and tested, even in a _prima facie_ manner, plainly shuts us up to the belief that appearances, resembling those produced by the presence in the sea of huge serpentine forms, have been frequently noted by competent and trustworthy observers. Unless we are to believe that men and women have deliberately prevaricated, and that without the slightest excuse or show of reason, we must believe that they have witnessed marine appearances, certainly of unwonted and unusual kind. That “something” has assuredly been seen, must be the verdict on this first issue. What that “something” is or was, and whether or not the evidence will support the opinion that the appearances described bear out the existence of a “sea-serpent” in the flesh, form points for discussion in the next instance.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON mentions some pages further on a curious case of fear of popular ridicule in telling that

“one ship-captain related that when a sea-serpent had been seen by his crew from the deck of the vessel, he remained below; since, to use his own words, “had I said I had seen the sea-serpent, I should have been considered to be a warranted liar all my life after!”

In examining whether that “something” was a dead or living organism, Mr. WILSON concludes that:

“Numerous cases exist in which the object, presumed to be a living being, has been scrutinized so closely that, save on the supposition that senses have played their owners false, or that minds have given way to an unaccountable impulse for lying, we must face and own the belief that living animals have been seen.”

He now speaks of a few accounts, viz. the various reports of the animal seen by the officers of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118), by the crew of the _Pauline_ (n^o. 144, 145), and by the captain and the surgeon of the _Nestor_ (n^o. 146), and explains them in his own way, believing that these sea-serpents were gigantically developed sea-snakes, or a great calamary. Next he treats of the appearance of the animal as reported by the officers of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), explaining it to be a tape-fish. Finally he defends his hypothesis of gigantically developed sea-snakes and ribbon-fishes. These parts, however, I have inserted in my Chapter on various explanations.

* * * * *

In a review of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_, which I have found in _Nature_ of the 30th. of January, 1879, Vol. XIX, the following is written about the chapter on the sea-serpent:

“The lecture on “The Sea-Serpents of Science” is interesting, both as giving a very fair summary of the most recent evidence on this subject, and as showing that the age of incredulity is past, and that naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist, of which no single specimen has yet been obtained. Recollecting, however, the number of clever hoaxes to which this subject has given rise we think that the newspaper account at p. 104, of the declaration before a Liverpool J. P., made by the master and crew of a merchant-ship, to the effect that they had seen a huge serpent twice coiled round a sperm-whale, and a similar serpent with its head raised “sixty feet perpendicularly in the air,” should not have been inserted as evidence without first ascertaining that such a declaration was actually made before the magistrate named. The troubling of writing a single letter would probably have been sufficient, and would have settled the preliminary question of whether, from beginning to end, it was not a newspaper _canard_.”

I am convinced that, after having attentively read what they find in this book about the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by the crew of the _Pauline_ (n^o. 144, 145) my readers will be convinced that the report of Captain DREVAR was not a _canard_. We read moreover in _Nature_ of Febr. 10, 1881, that Captain DREVAR has circulated a printed account of the conflict which he witnessed, and of the subsequent appearance of the animal rearing its long neck out of the water. Mr. WOOD, the writer of the article in which this is communicated, adds: “This is satisfactory as showing that the declaration was no hoax”. I quite agree with him.

* * * * *

=149=.--1879, January 28.--The _Graphic_ of April, 19, 1879, says:

“The following is an extract from the account given by our correspondent, Major H. W. J. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps, to whom we are indebted for the sketch from which our engraving is taken:--“On the 28th. of January, 1879, at about 10 a. m., I was on the poop deck of the steamship _City of Baltimore_ in lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E. I observed a long black object abeam of the ship’s stern on the starboard side, at a distance of about three-quarters of a mile, darting rapidly out of the water, and splashing in again with a sound distinctly audible, and advancing nearer and nearer at a rapid pace. In a minute it had advanced to within half a mile, and was distinctly recognizable as the veritable “sea-serpent”. I shouted out “Sea-serpent! sea-serpent! call the captain!” Dr. C. Hall, the ship’s surgeon, who was reading on deck, jumped up in time to see the monster, as did also Miss. Greenfield, one of the passengers on board. By this time it was only about 500 yards off, and a little in the rear, owing to the vessel then steaming at the rate of about ten knots an hour in a westerly direction. On approaching the wake of the ship the serpent turned its course a little away, and was soon lost to view in the blaze of sunlight reflected on the waves of the sea. So rapid were its movements that when it approached the ship’s wake, I seized a telescope, but could not catch a view as it darted rapidly out of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus prevented from ascertaining whether it had scales or not but the best view of the monster obtainable when it was about three cables’ length, that is about 500 yards’ distant, seemed to show that it was without scales. I cannot, however, speak with certainty. The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the monster opened its jaws wide as it rose, and closed them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice, although occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head. The shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon I have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the forehead and eyebrow. When the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of the water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings.”

“Major Senior’s statement is countersigned by the two persons whom he mentions as co-witnesses, and he expresses his willingness to answer any questions which may be put to him by any one interested in the subject. His address while on furlough is Rosebank Villa, Southfield Rode, Cotham, Bristol.”

The appearance took place in the Gulf of Aden, as pointed out by the latitude and longitude. The account here is very correct as I now will try to show. The colour of the animal is called black and the appearance of the skin was that it was without scales. The head and neck, about two feet in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet, and the animal opened its jaws wide as it rose, evidently swallowing some fish, captured under water in its pursuit of a shoal of them, and closed them again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at all, and must have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the surface was too slight to attract notice. This is very natural, as I have already pointed out on a former occasion: if the head and neck are above the surface, the remaining parts of the body must carry their weight and sink a little below the surface. Not very much, however, for the foreflappers, as well as the hindflappers, paddling very rapidly caused a splash distinctly visible on the base of the neck (or on the shoulders), and “occasionally a splash was seen at some distance behind the head”. Examining the figure, which is very exact, we may take it that the foremost splash was caused by the foreflappers, about twenty-five feet in the rear of the head, the very same place where the officers of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118) “occasionally saw a fin”, and that about twenty-five feet more backward the hindmost splash was caused by the hindflappers, the place, where Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118) “occasionally saw another fin”. The animal seen from the _Daedalus_ seems to have been a little smaller than that seen from the _City of Baltimore_. The comparison of the head with a dragon’s is a little far-fetched. The animal furiously pursuing its prey, sometimes opening its jaws, knitting its heavy eye-brows, which as we know are a little prominent, in short, expressing in its features hurry and a wild longing for its prey, may under these circumstances have had a feature terrible enough to cause Mr. SENIOR’S expression “the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragons I have often seen, with a bull-dog appearance of the fore-head and eye-brow”. We have learned already that on such occasions the animal curved its neck swan-like and diving head foremost like a duck, disappeared. Here we have another habit of pursuing: “when the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of water it let itself drop, as it were, like a huge log of wood, prior to darting forward under the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in height on either side of the neck, much in shape of a pair of wings”. This last might have been fairly omitted as every one can imagine the splash of water, caused by a log of wood falling into it. I think this comparison also far-fetched: such a splash cannot be compared with an object.

Our figure is taken from Mr. LEE’S often quoted work. It is the middle third of the one which illustrated the text in the _Graphic_, but as it is drawn on the same scale, I saw no reason to give my readers the whole illustration of the _Graphic_.

* * * * *

=150=.--1879, March 30th.--_Nature_ of the 24th. of July, 1879, contains the following of Surgeon BARNETT, respecting the appearance of a sea-serpent near Cape Naturaliste in Australia.

“In _Nature_, Vol. XIX, p. 286, I observed some remarks respecting sea-serpents, and especially noted one passage which stated that “The age of incredulity is past, and naturalists are now prepared to admit that several distinct kinds of oceanic monsters probably exist.”

“I was pleased to read this statement, as I have for many years been convinced that some of the accounts published from time to time in the newspapers are accurate descriptions of what has actually been witnessed, but I little expected that I should so soon be able to forward to you a description of one of these creatures, as given by an eye-witness, of whose accuracy there can be no question, and whose observations were made when very close to the animal.”

“Busselton is a little seaport about 150 miles south of Fremantle, on the west coast of Australia, situated on the shore of Geographe Bay, which is sheltered by Cape Naturaliste; the northern point of that singular projection on the south-west corner of Australia.”

“During the greater part of the year the water of Geographe Bay is as smooth as a lake, though it is a portion of that vast Indian Ocean which extends unbrokenly to the African coast. The beach is of smooth white sand, so hard at the water’s edge that it is frequently used as a road for riding or driving from Busselton to Lockville; the latter place, a few miles to the north, is the station of the Ballarat Timber Company, containing their steam saw mills, the termination of their railway, and the jetty from which large quantities of that imperishable and valuable timber called jarrah is exported to be used as piles, railway sleepers, etc.”

“Last month I heard a report that the sea-serpent had been seen near Busselton, and that the resident clergyman had been one of the spectators. Having the pleasure of personal acquaintance with that gentleman, I wrote to him on the subject, and received from him such an interesting account, that I applied to him for permission to communicate the facts to your paper, and verify them by publishing his name. It is fortunate that the principal eye-witness was an educated gentleman, who has for twenty seven years been a Colonial chaplain in this colony, and whose description of what he saw is clear, simple, and free from exaggeration.”

“I copy from the letters of the Rev. H. W. Brown the following extracts:--

“On Sunday, March 30, I left Lockville just as the sun was setting, on my way home by the beach”.

“The afternoon had been oppressively hot, not a breath of wind, and the sea was as smooth as a glass. I met C. M’Guire and his wife walking towards Lockville.”

“Soon afterwards, when abreast of the track to Richardson’s, I noticed ahead of me what looked like a black log of wood in the water a stone’s throw from the shore, nearly end-on to me, and apparently more buoyant at that end; getting nearer, I noticed that it was _drifting_ apparently towards Lockville, and soon discovered that it was moving, leaving behind it a very long, narrow ridge on the smooth water. I then turned my horse’s head, and, at a walking pace kept just abreast of it, unnoticed apparently, till I had gained sufficiently on M’Guire to make him hear. I then coo-eed _once_; he turned and came back to meet me; but at the sound of my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight (under water), and doubled again in shore, but so rapidly as to leave both outward and inward “ridge” on the water distinctly visible at once, like a wide V with quite a sharp corner. It gave me the idea of two fishes, the one darting outward, the other crossing its track inward at the same moment.”

“Not knowing where it might show up next, but satisfied that it had come in-shore again, I tried by pointing seaward to direct M’Guire’s attention that way”.

“Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost at rest, and all apparently was in view, I estimated the length to be 60 feet, straight and taper, like a long spar, with the butt end, his head and shoulders, showing well above the surface.”

“I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff, about two feet diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very distinctly above water, several square-topped fins.”

“I here make an exact tracing from Mr. Brown’s letter of his sketch:--

“It was now getting rather too dark to see details distinctly. The fish proceeded toward Lockville, and I turned homeward. M’Guire said he would go on to Lockville jetty and look out for him there.”

“Whether he saw him again I know not, but M’Mullan, the fisherman, told me next morning that he had seen it about fifty yards from that jetty, and it looked to him about twenty feet long. So it did to me while in motion; only when at rest for a moment did its whole length show up sufficiently. What its propelling power was I cannot say from observation; I saw no lateral fins and no fish-tail.”

“When it started away at the sound of my voice, it was with the rapid movement of a pike or sword-fish, and yet the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake.”

“There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore the same afternoon, yet when I saw the stranger there were certainly no fish of which it could be in pursuit.”

“Since the year 1848, when the captain and officers of a British man-of-war gave evidence that they passed within 100 yards of a snake, which they estimated to be 60 feet in length above water, with probably 40 feet beneath, I do not know of any more clear account than the above. Many independant accounts of the existence of marine monsters have been placed on record, and it seems mere folly to treat these repeated reports with ridicule.”

“I trust that your readers will no longer doubt that the “age of credulity” is past.”

“H. C. Barnett.”

“Fremantle, W. Australia, May 19.”

“Colonial surgeon.”

I need not tell my readers that the figure is very rude, and only gives a very indistinct representation of four “bunches”, or visible parts of vertical undulations, called “fins” in the narrative. The blunt head, compared with the end of a log, the imperfect description, and the so-called square appearance of the bunches must be ascribed to the falling darkness. The other details of the report: the swimming of the animal in bunches, its causing the “ridges” in the water in the shape of a wide V, its holding its head well above the surface, its length, its resemblance with a spar, straight and taper, are in my opinion convincing enough to call this “fish” a sea-serpent.

* * * * *