Chapter V: The various explanations hitherto given (1)

I have found the =first= explanation given about the Sea-Serpent in the _Report_ of the Committee of 1817, where we read an extract from a M. S. journal of the Rev. WILLIAM JENKS, which he communicated in a letter to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, and which letter is printed there. It runs as follows:

“A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. Alden Bradford of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth,) inquired of Mr. Cummings, whether the appearance might not be produced by =a number of porpoises=, =following each other= in a train.”

This passage from the private journal was written in Sept. 10, 1809; but after having consulted SILLIMAN’s _American Journal of Science and the Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1819 (1820), we are convinced that Mr. BRADFORD’s inquiry of Mr. CUMMINGS took place before Aug. 1803.

Fig. 52 shows my readers a porpoise.

As we read in SCHLEGEL’s _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, p. 517, note, PETER ASCANIUS in his _Icones rerum naturalium_ Cahier V, Copenhague, 1805, says:

“In summer porpoises approach the coasts and the fjords. They often meet in the open sea in troops of several scores, and when the weather is calm and fine, they range in a line after each other to play and to tumble: they then have the appearance of a chain of little eminences floating on the surface of the water; some fishermen of the North, seeing them at a great distance, took this resemblance for an immense animal and gave it the name of sea-serpent.”

Again in the letter from Mr. S. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT, dated August 20, 1817, we read:

“All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of reports, people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was only a number of porpuses following each other in rapid succession.”

For the fourth time we read in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Vol. XIX, p. 193:

“Christiania, September 5, 1827. Last week several persons saw large shoals of porpoises, and therefore uttered the supposition that the alleged presence of the sea-serpent was not right.”

Mr. MITCHILL’S paper, of 1828, which we have inserted _in toto_ in our Chapter on hoaxes, also ends with the supposition that the “gambols of porpoises” have given rise to all the tales of the sea-serpent.

SCHLEGEL in his _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837, p. 105, in his chapter on Fables respecting snakes says:

“We are surprised to hear of a sea-serpent, monstrous in shape and size”,

and he refers to his chapter on true sea-snakes, the _Hydrophidae_. There p. 517 he ends his chapter with the following words:

“Before ending the history of the interesting beings of which I have treated, I cannot help saying a few words about an animal, observed through centuries by many people of all ranks, and known to every one from the tales which are spread about it, but which is still ignored by naturalists. I mean the monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which in reality has nothing to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we have treated in the foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous evidences given by very respectable persons to prove the existence of this enormous sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I too should be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been turned into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of 1826. Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea, I suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the mouth of the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which I took for a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several others closely following each other. For the greater part hidden by the water, the upper part of this creature could be distinctly seen only for the short moment, when it was carried on the top of a wave, and plunged down into the precipice formed before it. The illusion caused by the continuous agitation of the waves indeed contributed to make doubtful the appearance of a great number of black objects, appearing together out of the water, disappearing the moment afterwards, and the whole of which deceitfully represented the simultaneous movements of the undulations of one single body. Convinced that the animals were unable to swim in vertical undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till I knew this monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of porpoises.”

In the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, Mr. RATHKE, who published in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on his journey in Norway, says:

“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we shall soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what else could be the cause of the illusion which has created the belief in such an animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else but a row of porpoises, swimming in line. But all those persons, by whom the above-mentioned evidences are given were too familiar with the sea, and have too often observed porpoises together, to be deceived by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If this, however, had been the case, all the observations related to me of the sea-serpent’s holding its head above the surface, and about the size of it, must have been mere fiction, and this I cannot admit. According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted, that there is a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow to a considerable length.”

Again, as we learn in FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the _Christiansand’s Posten_ after an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in the fjord of Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the following remarks:

“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed their boats to near the animal, they would undoubtedly have soon observed that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but water. This great sea-serpent in reality consists of a row of porpoises, which in a shoal of from eight to twelve often swim after each other in line. As each of these brown animals, eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears above the surface of the water at proportionably short intervals, in such a way, as if they were about to tumble head first, so every one, who sees such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the coils of an immense snake.”

In a letter from Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage (see _Ill. Lond. News_ of October 28, 1848, and our n^o. 113):

“I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”

In ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we read, 1879:

“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming in line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and then, with a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface of the water, presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought about by a somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, treating of the figure of Mr. BENSTRUP (see our fig. 24), says:

“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”

I have treated of his explanation in the right place (n^o. 10). And on the following page he also asserts:

“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as well as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an upraised head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”

I repeat here what I have said above (n^o. 10): If Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to tell me what was the head that resembled a horse’s head.

Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the great calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as some of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical undulations of the snake seen out of water have been the burly bodies of so many porpoises swimming in line--the connecting undulations beneath the surface have been supplied by the imagination.”

After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s Head (n^o. 155), Mr. SIDEBOTHAM, a correspondent of _Nature_ writes in this journal (1883, Febr. 1):

“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the Little Orme’s Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever that the phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the head your correspondent gives, but in other respects what I have seen was exactly the same; the motions of porpoises might easily be taken for those of a serpent; once I saw them from the top of the Little Orme, they came very near the base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across the bay.”

Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the head.” I remind here my readers of Mr. CUMMINGS’ question “who ever saw a row of porpoises with a head of a seal?”

I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly. They are in the habit of continually throwing up their bodies half above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is clearly visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each coil a backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment afterwards three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen at once, while the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly visible above the surface, moving with the greatest regularity. Every one will feel that this explanation is not satisfactory; it does not even explain a single observation. Besides, how to explain the swan-like neck, so often seen by reference to porpoises? To avoid repetitions, I beg the reader to refer to the testimonies of Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29) and Mr. PRINCE (n^o. 63), in which they clearly bring to light the difference between the appearance of the sea-serpent and that of a row of porpoises.

And where a naturalist, like Mr. SCHLEGEL, describes the effect caused by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those persons who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe of an optical illusion. Mr. SCHLEGEL should have said: “On one occasion I was nearly deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I never saw a sea-serpent!”

* * * * *

The =second= explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the Hon. Judge DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, and Mr. FRANCIS C. GRAY. This learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? and before they began to feel puzzled, a _deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick, illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a working man at that place, bought by Dr. So and So, and presented to the Committee to examine it, because people believed that this animal was a spawn of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really examined and dissected it and gave a full account of their experience in their _Report_. They considered the little =snake= to be =new to science=, closely allied to the _Coluber constrictor_ or Black Snake, a common species of North-America, and gave it the name of _Scoliophis atlanticus_. This account is followed by two documents describing how the _Scoliophis_ looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under which it was killed. I present here to my readers the _Scoliophis atlanticus_ reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized figure of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with which the animal was killed.

Next they gave: “A few remarks on the question” (broached by the public) “whether the great serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.” These “few remarks” fill three pages and a half and end with the words:

“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous, important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting that of size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering them individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same name, until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have disclosed some difference of structure, important enough to constitute a specific distinction.”

It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, was a full grown individual of the species they called _Scoliophis atlanticus_! If they had collected all these accounts, if they had seriously compared them, they would have come most probably to the conclusion that they did not know precisely what it was, but that it could never be a snake.

Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as the little _Scoliophis_. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which was not bifid, while the tongue of _Scoliophis_ is so! And the most accurate testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had _no_ scales!

The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and no doubt drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE BLAINVILLE dared handle the subject publicly. As soon as the _Report_ of the Committee of 1817 reached him, he made an extract from it in his _Journal de Physique_, etc., Vol. 86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made much more of the little curious snake, apparently believing too that it was a new species, than of the large marine animal of which he was unable to give any explanation. Mr. DE BLAINVILLE does not hesitate to express his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent to be a real snake and an adult of their _Scoliophis atlanticus_, and ended his extract:

“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is a true snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_, is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold that it is of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities which become null, if one is to believe that such an immense animal as that observed in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”

For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!

For Mr. DE BLAINVILLE who did not give himself the trouble to collect as many accounts as possible, to read OLAUS MAGNUS, PONTOPPIDAN, EGEDE, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the witnesses concerning the length of the animal.

Mr. A. LESUEUR, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. PÉRON, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. DE BLAINVILLE to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the members of the Committee, together with several inches of another portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake, closely allied to the Black Snake (_Coluber constrictor_), but that it was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself.

The dissertation of Mr. DE BLAINVILLE and the extract from Mr. LESUEUR’S letter translated into German are in OKEN’S _Isis_, 1819.

Mr. FRORIEP in his _Notizen_, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself about this explanation in the following manner:

“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”

Of this little _Coluber_ we find also the following passage in SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837, p. 80:

“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the species called _Coluber constrictor_, of which all parts were disfigured by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published in Boston, will be found in the _Journal de Physique_ Vol. 86, p. 297.”

Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, apparently believes that the little _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was the spawn of the Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:

“The Great Sea-Serpent.”

“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.

We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of interrogation after the scientific name.

Without any doubt the _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was a difformed specimen of _Coluber constrictor_. It was the bunches on its back, which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against this supposition.

* * * * *

The =third= explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already inserted the letter from Prof. T. SAY, of Philadelphia, to Prof. LEACH, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of the crew of the vessel commanded by captain RICHARD RICH, firmly believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but =a large tunny=. Prof. SAY’S letter is also printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ of January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above mentioned Chapter, fig. 1.

Prof. BIGELOW’S indignation rose against this explanation; in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts._ Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:

“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, in which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere), “is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a “defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” (See Thomson’s _Annals_, for January 1819)”.

“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note from the same author, on the identity of _Scoliophis_ with _Coluber constrictor_. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on the subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it might have been decorous in him to have noticed the source from which he got his information.”

“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more important than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to the public consideration some additional evidence in regard to the size and shape of this marine animal which has come to light since the publication of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This evidence is partly the result of observations during the present year, and partly the contents of a communication made to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences fifteen years ago, but which, having been mislaid, has not before been published. The reader will judge whether it is a “defective observation” which has produced a remarkable coincidence between witnesses in different periods and places, unknown to each other; or whether it was “an extravagant degree of fear” which induced the commander of an American frigate to man his boats and go with his mariners in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add that the original letters constituting the communication last alluded to, are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy, where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, a seal, a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its enormous long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a tunny, even of nine or ten feet in length!?

* * * * *

The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_ (_Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family _Hydrophidae_), of which I give a figure representing the _Hydrophis pelamidoides_, and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this head, proposing for them the names of _Pelamis megophias_ (_Megophias monstrosus_) and _Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis_.

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after discussing the question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a ribbon fish, or a large kind of eel, continues his considerations in the following terms:

“To the Reptiles, however, popular opinion has pretty uniformly assigned this denizen of the sea, and his accepted title of “sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities in the estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. Let us, then, test his claims to be a serpent.”

“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes (_Hydrophidae_), which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so soundly there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes fails to awaken them.”

“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON on the contrary in September, 1878, declares in _Nature_ (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:

“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”

But a few lines further on he also tells us:

“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”--

In his _Leisure Time Studies_, the same writer returns to his favourite idea:

“The only group of animals to which our attention may be specially directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of the problem, is that of the _Vertebrata_,--the highest group of animals, which possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and quadrupeds as its highest representatives. Laying aside the class of birds, as including no form at all allied to our present inquiry, we are left with, speaking generally, three groups of animals, from the ranks of which various forms may be selected to aid us in solving the sea-serpent mystery. These three groups are the fishes, reptiles, and mammalia, and it may be shown that from each of these classes, but more notably from among the fishes and reptiles, various animals, corresponding more or less closely with the descriptions given of strange marine monsters, may be obtained. An important consideration, however, must not be overlooked at this stage, namely, that too frequently the attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent with some _known_ animal of serpentine form and nature, has limited the perceptions and foiled the labours of naturalists. Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown form must be a serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of the term “serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than the reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the subject, and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at once given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists and other writers on this subject have never made allowance for the _abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals_. My own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations, but especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation of such discrepancies as the various narrations may be shown to evince. If we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary animal life, or amongst the reptiles themselves, the representatives of the “sea-serpents”, I think we may nevertheless build up a most reasonable case both for their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking into account the facts, _that the term “sea-serpent”, as ordinarily employed, must be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals which possess elongated bodies; and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordinary serpents and of serpent-like animals will reasonably account for the occurrence of the animals collectively named sea-serpents_.”

“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (n^o. 118) “was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits. Whilst to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the _Pauline_” (n^o. 144, 145) “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; whilst the fact of the animal being described in the various narratives as swimming with the head out of water, would seem to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration. The difficulties which appear to stand in the way of reconciling the sea-serpent with a marine snake, in this or in other cases, are two in number. The great majority of intelligent persons are unaware of the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively marine habits; and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes an apparent difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the history of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks of these marine snakes,--the _Hydrophidae_ of the naturalist,--which inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails adapted for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea. Whilst, as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the true serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply because it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development of an ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with most of the appearances described, and would in the most natural manner explain many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations or 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”.

“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of motion of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a dorsal or back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements of the laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath the surface, would serve to propel the animal forward without causing the front portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent motion; whilst the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained on the presumption that sea-weed may have become attached to the animal, or, that the upper ridge of the vertically compressed tail extended far forward and appeared as a fin-like structure.”

“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which I may be desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes the strong points of this explanation, is the probability of the development to a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine serpents. This point is one in support of which zoology and physiology will offer strong and favourable testimony. There is no single fact, so far as I am aware, which militates in the slightest degree against the supposition that giant members of the sea-serpents may be occasionally developed. The laws which regulate human growth and structure, and in virtue of which veritable “sons of Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian giant, differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are developed, must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom. There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition that a giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly observe almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a member of the race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its neighbours. But clearer still does our case become when we consider that we have proof of the most absolute and direct kind of the giant development of such forms as cuttle-fishes, which have thus appeared as if in realisation of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”, which plays so important a part in that strange weird tale, the “Toilers of the Sea”. At the present time we are in full possession of the details of several undoubted cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes of literally gigantic proportions,--developed, in fact, to an extent justly comparable to that of the supposed “sea-serpent”, when the latter is compared with its ordinary representatives of the tropical oceans.”

“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable giant of its race--or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct species of monster sea-serpents--than in the production of huge cuttle-fishes, which, until within the past few years, remained unknown to the foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic developments of snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or reptiles, I hold we have at least a feasible and rational explanation of the primary fact of the actual existence of such organisms.”

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ (1883) also says:

“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, and are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and colossal development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much attention to this subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law of the production of the giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at any rate, towards accounting for its supposed appearance”.

But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained. Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large _Hydrophidae_, supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain, the United States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland and the Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends over the tropical seas.

* * * * *

The =fifth= explanation. The same Mr. RAFINESQUE believed the sea-serpent seen by Capt. BROWN to be a fish (n^o. 56), closely allied to the genera _Symbranchus_ (Fam. _Symbranchidae_) and _Sphagebranchus_ (Fam. _Muraenidae_); consequently =belonging to the eel tribe=.

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having shown that in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:

“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s figures remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be either so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the animal was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”

And Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is also inclined to this hypothesis:

“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the appearance of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the movements of a large conger-eel, for example, in any of our great aquaria, must have remarked not only its serpentine form, but also the peculiar gliding motion, which seems frequently to be produced independently of the active movements of the tail or pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however, that a giant eel might by most persons be readily enough referred to its proper place in the animal sphere, although, when viewed from some distance, and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner, the spectators--all unprepared to think of an eel being so largely developed--might report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”

Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, too, asserts:

“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”

As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough known to all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The _Symbranchus_ has nearly the same external features, it has, however, no pectoral or ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures, or gill-splits, are united together on its throat. The _Sphagebranchus_ has also nearly the same external features; it has no ventral fins and the very end of its tail is destitute of a fin.

The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility are strong proofs against this hypothesis.

* * * * *

The =sixth= explanation is that which I have accidentally found mentioned in Dr. HIBBERT’S _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822. The passage runs as follows:

“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished for, did not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the sea-snake, but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the =fable=.”

I am convinced that Dr. HIBBERT is right. All fables have their foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible that the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable of Thor’s great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.

Dr. PERCY’S explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE in a note to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2nd. series, Vol. 2, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848:

“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent, which first spread in modern times from Norway, was to be traced to the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology, of that fell offspring of Loki, Jormungandr,--the great world surrounding serpent, whom Thor fished up with the bull’s-head bait, and whom, at the great day of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It is curious by the way, that we are expressly told how Jormungandr rearing his head, poured out fountains of venom upon Thor, very much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great sea-serpent raising up its head and spouting out water.”

At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports of the great sea-serpent are no fables.

* * * * *

The =seventh= explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of =basking sharks=” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at the end of Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation, printed in 1828, with which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in our Chapter on Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our fig. 8, in the Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents.

Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist MANTELL in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_, and published there in the number of November 4, 1848:

“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent, I would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable that an ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine habits described by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing to forbid the supposition that there are unknown living forms of cartilaginous fishes presenting the general configuration and proportions of the animals figured in the last Number of the Illustrated London News.”

Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than thirty feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (_Squalus maximus_ of LINNÉ). The figures referred to are those of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE, (fig. 28, 29, 30).

In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. A. G. MELVILLE was of opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in reality, but only in fables, and that these fables originated in the Northern mythology. Now, he seems to have changed his opinion in a fortnight, for in a letter to Dr. COGSWELL, part of which is published “with permission of both gentlemen” in the _Zoologist_, number of November 27th., 1848, he says:

“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of some unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have astonished the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile of the authorities of science.”

“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the known facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri; nor do the recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”

“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous fish (Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when caught the sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive it is just as probable that a shark may carry the head for short periods out of the water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally step aboard to look at us land monsters.”

“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved. Might we not obtain some information from the accurate Sars regarding the Norwegian tradition? Could not the surgeon of the Daedalus throw some light on the subject?”

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having treated of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion caused by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some cetacean, expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in the following terms:

“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville consider that the _Daedalus_ animal may have been one of the sharks; and there is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, which was considered by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent, was really the _Selache maxima_ or basking-shark. But the identification of Captain M’Quhae’s figure and description with a shark is preposterous.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, however, in _Nature_ (1878, Sept. 12, Vol. XVIII) is of the opinion that:

“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”

Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, also believes that “the dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured by Mr. Buckland, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently means the ridge of fins as seen in fig. 44.

None of the observers of the sea-serpent mention fins on its back, so that this explanation is not untenable either.

* * * * *

The =eighth= explanation is given by Mr. MITCHILL in his paper “_On Sea-Serpentism_”, printed in 1828; (See our Chapter on Hoaxes), at the end of which he supposed that also the appearances of =balaenopterous whales= may have given rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says: “which have fins on their back”, and yet he cannot show me one single account of the sea-serpent, in which there is question of backfins. Moreover, who has ever heard of fin-fishes which bend their body in such a manner as to show bunches on their backs, or coils like a string of buoys? Fig. 57 shows the readers a fin-fish (_Balaenoptera physalus_ (LINNÉ)). It is the largest kind of whales, it may obtain a length of 106 feet. An outline of the tail, seen from above, is added above the hindmost part of the main-figure.

Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having considered and upset the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory says:

“It is by no means impossible that the creature may prove to belong to the _Cetacea_ or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender and lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in this direction.”

The sea-serpent seen by Colonel STEELE, however was not a cetacean, although it was observed spouting, for it had a red back-fin like a saw (see our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, 1852, Aug. 28).--

* * * * *

The =ninth= explanation is Mr. R. BAKEWELL’S. In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, n^o. 879, of June, 1834, we read:

“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great American Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the opinion that the great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the United States of America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles which may be analogous to the fossil =Ichthyosaurus=, and that the description, given of the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles, and formidable mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing more with that of a saurian than with that of a snake. Some of the people who saw the sea-serpent state that the body was very long and as thick as a water-cask.”

Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent to be a living _Plesiosaurus_, yet we meet with the following suggestion, in the September number of _Nature_ of that same year.

“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters of which the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:--“If the sea-serpent continues in its present sociable state of mind, we may perhaps have an opportunity of deciding the vexed question regarding the formation of that portion of his figure which, according to English observers, he keeps concealed under the water. The legend of the Lambton Worm, a popular tale in the North of England, describes the worm as a serpent of enormous size, who used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the River Wear, just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient stone effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle, represents it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was made, as it probably was, _from some recollection_ on recent tradition of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the beast was one of the _winged land monsters_ which existed at the same time as the _Ichthyosaurus_, but would naturally become an extinct species far sooner than the _fish-lizard_, which can conceal itself in the depth of the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”

The _Ichthyosaurus_ must have been destitute of scales, or better the scales must have been of a microscopic minuteness, and so I have ventured to sketch my fig. 59, showing the _Ichthyosaurus communis_, as it most probably looked, and of which fig. 58 represents the skeleton.

Here we have an animal of really huge dimensions. Some may have had a length of from forty to fifty feet. Their skin was smooth, the tail was very long and four flappers resembling the foreflappers of whales, were the organs of locomotion. Most probably, however, the tail was provided with a vertical fin, as I have delineated. The neck was very short, as in whales. Now the sea-serpent has a pointed tail, and a very long neck. Especially this last character is enough to drop the supposition that the sea-serpents are still living _Ichthyosauri_. Moreover, the _Ichthyosaurus_ was unable to move in vertical undulations.

* * * * *

The =tenth= explanation.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834), n^o. 879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S latest (1834?) edition of his _Introduction to Geology_, above mentioned, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds:

“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a =Plesiosaurus=, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the latter does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”

_Plesiosaurians_, as well as the _Ichthyosaurians_, are reptiles only known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in _liassic_ and _oolitic_ formations. Of these remains geologists are able to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show my readers a sketch in fig. 60.--If this is done, it will not be difficult to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more so as it is a well-known fact that these animals must have been destitute or nearly destitute of scales. The figures drawn by GOSSE, FIGUIER and ANDREW WILSON, don’t please me, as the necks are delineated too slender, and the head of the animal in Mr. GOSSE’S drawing, in my opinion, is wrongly represented. So I venture to present to my readers my fig. 61, showing how I think that the animal must have looked.

Mr. RATHKE, in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, after publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself is a firm believer in it, goes on:

“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot of course be asserted with any certainty. The supposition, however, is very near, that it is closely related to that animal which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkney’s,” &c.

After a short description of this animal with which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in the Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, Mr. RATHKE concludes:

“that this animal resembled a _Plesiosaurus_, and that it thus belonged to the _Amphibia_, viz. to the _Saurians_. Now if such were the case, and if the creature found in Stronsa were closely related to the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, and we have every reason to believe this, it is astonishing that the latter has not been more observed, than has been the case. For being an Amphibium, which, according to its organization, can only breathe by lungs, the sea-serpent necessarily must have come very often to the surface of the water, to renew the inhaled air. It is, however, conceivable and probable that stretching out its long neck, it generally comes only with the nose tip and only for a very short time on the surface of the water, remaining under it with the rest of the body, in which circumstances it will not be easy to observe it amongst the beating of the waves.”

We observe that Mr. RATHKE, like Prof. SILLIMAN, inclines to believe that the sea-serpent is, or is allied to the _Plesiosaurus_.

Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, in 1847, on the wrapper of the 54th. number of this Journal made the suggestion that sea-serpents may belong to one of the _Enaliosaurians_.

I have not seen this wrapper so that I am unable to give the words in which this supposition was written.

Most probably Mr. NEWMAN took this suggestion from Mr. RATHKE’S above mentioned dissertation, all the accounts of which he inserted (N. B.!) _in the same number of the Zoologist_; but it is, of course, _possible_ that this supposition really was the product of his own brain. We hope that the latter was the case; but I only ask: why did he insert the accounts of Mr. RATHKE in the _columns_ of the issue, and why _not_ the above-mentioned suggestion; what was the reason to communicate it on the _wrapper_? It makes on me the impression as if Mr. NEWMAN waited to see if some one or other would perhaps find out that _both accounts and supposition_ were _already six years old_! But, of course, I may be mistaken!

Immediately after reading this suggestion on the above mentioned wrapper, Mr. CHARLES COGSWELL wrote for the same Journal his _Plea for the Sea-Serpent_. For history’s sake I repeat here his whole paper. It runs as follows:

“_A Plea for the North-Atlantic Sea-Serpent._ By CHARLES COGSWELL, M. D.”

“Every generation of man is born to stare at something, which so long as it eludes their understanding, is a very African fetish to the many, and a Gordian knot to the few.”

HAWKIN’S _Memoirs of Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri_.

“Of the numerous contributions supplied through the press to support the cause of the subject of this article, one of the most recent has arrested my attention, because of the particulars having been long since familiar to me by oral communication from the writer in person. I allude to the interesting narrative contained in the “Zoologist” for May last, describing a meeting with such an animal off the coast of one of the British provinces, stretching out into the Atlantic to the north-east of New England. It is worthy of notice that several animals of the Cetaceous kind (sometimes conjectured to have been a source of deception) were seen and scanned _in limine_, and an opportunity was thus afforded for immediate descrimination. Immediately subjoined is another statement, copied from a foreign newspaper, being the tribute of a French sea-captain to the same object, but qualified with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms and measurements, as rather to display an elaborate view of disjoined parts, than represent them all in harmony together as belonging to one individual. It betrays the caution of a witness, who would fain keep an opening in reserve for escape from a precarious position. The former adventure took place in 1833, the latter in 1840, and now they are related almost simultaneously within the last few months.”