Chapter V: The various explanations hitherto given (2)

“Nor is this delay to be wondered at, when we consider how much the reserve of unbiassed is the tribunal of public opinion, before which they appear. It will hardly be denied that there is no debateable point in the modern records of observation more complacently devoted to ridicule by all but universal consent, than that of the existence of huge serpent-like animals in the North Atlantic Ocean. The very mention of the name of sea-serpent in the singular number with the definite article prefixed, suggests to most minds an idea of some anomalous monster, without parentage or congeners, feigned to haunt the recesses of the deep, and, like the ghost of vulgar superstition, manifesting itself now and again for the sole conceivable end of adorning some wonderful legend. This impression, favoured by the circumstance of no actual specimen having ever occurred to the observation of a naturalist, much less been obtained for deliberate examination, has caused the subject of our notice to rank with the mermaid, the unicorn, the griffin, and other prodigies of the olden faith. It does not fail to be objected that Norway, a locality most fruitful in accounts of the appearance in question, has been immemorially distinguished for a vivid perception of the marvellous. Nor, after hearing the other side of the Atlantic, are we much better able to divest our minds of suspicion with regard to the trustworthy character of the witnesses; our relative in the West having acquired nearly as much celebrity for the endowment of a grand inventive genius as his Scandinavian ally in the cause of sea-serpents. They defer indeed, in so far as the latter believes and venerates his own creations, while the American indulges his fancy for the purely benevolent purpose of what is called “hoaxing” the unwary public. Not many years since, it may be recollected, one of these pleasant philosophers enlightened his fellow-mortals with a “true and peculiar” description of certain winged inhabitants assumed to have been discovered in the moon by an eminent living astronomer, giving the details with so much simplicity and effected candour with regard to some particulars, in the manner of “Gulliver’s Travels”, that many readers were not aware of its being a fabrication. Such proof of a disposition to practise on the public credulity, too often repeated, necessarily communicate a colouring of insincerity to all other reports of strange events emanating from the same source, and certainly demand the exercise of an unusual amount of circumspection, though they do not justify scepticism, in the case now before us.”

“Making due allowance for these peculiarities in the testimony, we may, nevertheless, proceed in a spirit of induction to examine into the tendency of the collateral evidence. The question after all, when reduced to its simplest form comes to be little more than one of geographical distribution. That is to say, that even if we chose to confine the animal to the true serpents, which has been the ordinary conception heretofore, there is no obvious impediment to oppose it, either on the score of want of analogy, or of structural incapacity. Amphibiousness, to commence with, in its popular acceptation, or the capability of spending a considerable time in the water, is one of the most familiar properties of serpents, as illustrated in the common snake (_Coluber natrix_) and the viper, the only two species, if we except the blindworm, ascertained to be indigenous to these islands. “Snakes”, observes Professor Bell (“History of British Reptiles”) “are extremely fond of the water, taking to it readily, and swimming with great elegance and ease, holding the head and neck above the surface. It is extremely probable that they resort to the water in search of frogs.” In the learned System of Schlegel, translated by Prof. Traill--“Physiognomy of Serpents”--members of various ophidian-groups are characterised as living near and inhabiting lakes and rivers. Some belong to the genera Tropidonotus (which here includes the first named British species), and Homalopsis, comprised under the head of _Fresh Water-Serpents_. Of the Boas, this author says: “several species frequent fresh water, and there are some of them essentially aquatic,” among them the Boa murina, the largest of known serpents, and his two species of Acrochordus.”

“Further, and what completely sets at rest the part of the case we are now considering, there are swarms of _marine_ ophidians inhabiting the warm latitudes of the pacific. These appear to have been partly known to the ancients. Aelian informs us that Hydrae with flat tails were found in the Indian Seas, and that they also existed in the marshes. He also tells us that these reptiles had very sharp teeth, and appeared to be venomous. According to Ctesias, the serpents of the river Argada in the province of Sittacene, remain concealed at the _bottom of the water_ during the day, and by night they attack persons who go to bath or wash linnen” (Griffith in Cuvier). Schlegel has no less than seven species collected under the generic name of Hydrophis, constituting his family of _Sea-Snake_--; they are especially fitted for aquatic life, having the nostrils directed vertically and furnished with valves, and the tail flattened like an oar; they reside in the sea exclusively, never going on land, and are supposed to prey on fishes. Their limits belong to the intertropical regions of the Indian Seas, or of the Great Pacific Ocean.”

“The existence of _bona fide_ sea-serpents being therefore a matter of notoriety, (and preserved specimens are to be seen at any time on the shelves of the British Museum), we have but to address ourselves to the subordinate inquiry, whether there be sufficient reason for assigning to any of the family a habitat in the North Atlantic Ocean. And here it is necessary to put away all that idea of deviation from the common order of Nature, which could connect the evidence heretofore given with some isolated excressence so to speak, of the animal kingdom. The great size attributed to them has doubtless, served very materially to produce an infavourable impression. Schlegel limits the extreme length of the greatest known serpent to twenty-five feet, although such naturalists as Cuvier and Milne-Edwards allow an extension of thirty or forty feet to some of the Boas. These estimates do not fall so far short of those contended for in the present instance as to form an insuperable ground of objection. Many witnesses whose character and station in life command respect, whatever judgment may be formed of their powers of correct observation, profess to be fully persuaded that they have seen immense creatures, resembling serpents, in the vicinity of the European or the American shores. The several depositions from Norway that appeared in the “Zoologist” of February last, comprised the testimony not only of fishermen, drawing their subsistence from the sea, and familiar with the more prevalent forms of the inhabitants, but of a class commonly presumed to be well educated, as merchants, clergymen, and a surgeon. Their observations indeed vary on the subject of length (varying between forty and one hundred feet), and likewise on some of the details of outline, so that they may either relate to different specimens, or to deceptive phenomena producing dissimilar impressions, whichever alternative decretic may be inclined to profer. The first notice transmitted by an English gentleman, holding a responsible appointment under the crown in one of our transatlantic dependencies, is calculated to supply any deficiency on the part of the new hemisphere, so far as a faithful representation of what was submitted to the eye alone may remain a desideration. But for the resolution manifested in this periodical to allow the question a fair hearing on its sterling merits, there can be little doubt that this testimony, would not have been forthcoming; like in all probability, more of the same ingenious stamp, which the unwillingness of the principals to oppose the current of public opinion, directly proportioned to the value of the character they run the risk of compromizing for no obvious use, induces them to withhold.”

“But it may be asked, how it is possible to explain the circumstance of these _monstra natantia_ being encountered no farther South than about the sixtieth or fifty-fifth parallel on the European boundary, while in the American water their domain approaches so much nearer the Equator, as Nova Scotia (or New Scotland) and New England? By a curious and happy coincidence, of like significance to many that are constantly springing up to confirm the results of independent research, such for instance as the print of the piscivorous gavials in a prior leaf of the “Stonebook” to the mammalivorous crocodiles; it happens that precisely a line swerving from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts is the boundary likewise of other marine animals of corresponding types. Among the divisions of the North Atlantic, recently marked out by Professor Edward Forbes as determined by the presence of similar forms of animal life, occurs what is called the “arctic and boreal” province, which “sweeps across the northernmost part of the North Atlantic from Europe, extending down the coast of North America as far as Massachusetts, but nothing like so far on the European side as the American.” (Lecture at the Royal Institution, May 14, 1847).”

“Thus copiously backed by the most affirmative evidence, both positive and circumstantial, all contributing to establish the lawful claim to entity, the “great unknown” of the North Atlantic has still to overcome the strong feeling of discredit so widely associated with his past history, before he can hope to be understood as seriously claiming to be a subject of the animal kingdom. If men of the highest name in science condescend to notice him at all, it is most probably with a smile at the expense of what they consider a crude invention, to which no importance should be attached. But authority, however exalted, has no patent of final adjudication in cases where its means of information are confessedly imperfect, as compared with those enjoyed by the supporters of a disputed position. The learned world was centuries in believing the story of Herodotus about little birds resorting to feed on insects within the “stretched jaws” of the crocodile. Bruce all but ruined his credit for a time by relating that he had seen the Abyssinians eat the raw flesh cut from one of the haunches of a living cow; and there are some who, with no more reason, pretend to doubt the good faith of a contemporary traveller, who declares that he once made a brief excursion on the back of an alligator. The conflicts of discovery and opinion engross indeed no small share of the history of human knowledge. There are cases, no doubt, in which the senses and the judgment of incompetent persons are liable to be imposed upon by irrelevant facts created or qualified for the occasion. But here there is no hypothesis concerned requiring nature to be tortured into its service; physiology can have no latent objections, ready to start up unawares and make a mockery of belief, because some of the serpent kind are indubitably organized for an aquatic medium; the laws of geographical distribution deduced irrespectively, yield their consent, and the integrity of not a few of the narrator is unimpeachable. Are we justified in rejecting the text, because the interpretation may not harmonize with our views; in imputing willful dishonesty to those who merely describe to the best of their hability what their eyes have disclosed to them? We do not despice the mermaid, the triton and siren, as altogether imaginary but endeavour to reconcile at least their physical attributes with those of the seal or oriental dugong. The unicorn is supposed to have original in the narwhal; and the griffin is recognized as a well-known friend in an antiquated garb, being no other than the tapir, somewhat disfigured by travellers, and further indebted to the artist for a pair of wings and an architectural style of tail. Even the ghost-seer is seldom suspected of intentional fraud, however justly we may believe to be the dupe of an imagination acted on by some positive phenomenon. The collateral truths which testify on the affirmative side have been dwelt upon to some extent, and shall again be adverted to presently. On the other hand, surely there must be something peculiar in the economy of a vast air-breathing race, frequenting well-known tracts and yet never visible but by the merest accident; nor is it any sufficient answer to refer to the construction of the breathing apparatus, distinctive of the marine ophidians, enabling them to live long under water, and respire air with an almost imperceptible exposure above the surface, because the like provision does not prevent the Pacific denizens from being abundantly subject to observation. The want of conformity in some of the reported particulars of form and dimensions is of insignificant moment, and may easily be converted into a proof of innocence of design. Above all, the objections, be it understood, are not _of the kind_ which the public at large appear to imagine them. There is nothing ridiculous or abnormal in the idea of a sea-serpent. So far from this the philosopher should rather be required to give a reason why at least the warmer situations of the Atlantic are unprovided with occupants corresponding to those which dwell in the opposite region of the globe.”

“If the diversity of detail be accounted too serious an objection to be so lightly dismissed, is there no other organization within our cognizance which more satisfactorily embodies the several conditions rather loosely intimated than prescribed throughout the problem? The portraits given in authors of the restored Plesiosaurus, albeit conceived to represent beings that “filled up the measure of their years long before Eden was planted, and the dominions of man made of the red earth, acknowledged” (Hawkins), offer several particulars answering to those ascribed in most of the notices on record to the so-named sea-serpent,--the long, over-arched neck, the huge trunk, the protracted tail, and sometimes (see the deposition of Archdeacon Deinbolt, “Zoologist” 1606) an appearance of fins or paddles. This coincidence is the more remarkable, because no one can suppose it to have been preconcerted. Hence the ingenious suggestion of the Editor of the “Zoologist”, that the animals may belong to one of the Enaliosaurian types, seems to supply the only deficient link in the chain of demonstration, before we arrive at the final proof, a spectacle open to all observers. The neck of the Plesiosaurus (presuming this to be the genus indicated) “is composed of upwards of thirty bones, a number far exceeding that of the cervical vertebrae in any other known animal. This reptile combines in its structure the head of a lizard with teeth like those of a crocodile, a neck _resembling the body of a serpent_, a trunk and tail of the proportions of those of a quadruped, with paddles like those of turtles” (Mantell’s Wonders of Geology). If this seemingly whimsical coaptation of incongruous members, which the dictum of science has consigned to the doom of pre-Adamic extinction, can be suspected without unpardonable heresy to be yet among the living, what is more allowable than to surmise that persons even of cultivated intellect, but quite inconscious that such things had ever existed, may have all honestly striven, more or less, to mould their visual perception into accordance with the familiar notion suggested by its general outline; and thus have given rise to the confusion objected to in their reports. Be this as it may, the discovery of Mr. Darwin of _marine_ saurians, though but three or four feet long, about some of the south sea islands, contradicts any assumption that animals approaching to it in character are no longer extant. To account upon this supposition likewise for the hide-and-seek sort of life which those in question seem to lead, it may be observed that “the breathing holes of the Plesiosaurus differ from those of all other existing reptiles, and resemble those of whales”. They are placed “near the highest part of the head, where they would enable the animal most readily to breathe without exposing anything more than the apertures themselves above the water, corresponding admirably with the marine habits of the animal as indicated by the structure of its extremities.” (Ansted’s Ancient World, 1847).

“Without committing myself to anything more than a belief that the subject is one fairly entitled to be considered an open question--open to the unrestrained testimony of future casual observers, equally with the criticism of the scientific--I feel assured that I cannot better express the opinion which every candid peruser of what has been stated must be prepared to arrive at, than by using the words of a naturalist who has given his attention to these remarks: “The argument appears to me perfectly satisfactory in favour of at least a suspension of judgment on the subject. The question is whether the evidence is such as would induce any man to believe, whose mind was prepossessed with no notions at all respecting it. Should we credit the testimony, if the animal to which it relates were claimed to be a mere variety? I think we should.”--

I am obliged to make a few notes or observations on this paper. The account, namely, of which Mr. COGSWELL speaks in the beginning of his “Plea”, which arrested his attention, because of the particulars having been long since familiar to him by oral communication, is that of the party of British officers (n^o. 97).--That “other statement” is that made by Capt. D’ABNOUR (n^o. 106a).--I beg the reader to look over the above-mentioned passages.--Mr. COGSWELL had better done to omit his observation, that the account of the French sea-captain “was qualified with so much of the characteristic national precision in the detail of certain forms and measurements”. The reader himself will in most of the accounts of the sea-serpent, which fill this volume, have observed the same “precision in details” indifferently whether the account was recorded by a Norwegian, a German, an English, a French or an American witness.--His observation that the sea-serpent only occurs “in the North Atlantic no farther south than a line swerving from Norway in a southerly direction to Massachusetts” is incorrect, as the reader may already have observed himself. If he had read all the accounts of the sea-serpent up to his days, he would, of course, not have written this. The “deposition of Archdeacon DEINBOLT, zool. 1606” is of the 28th. of July, 1845 (n^o. 115). Mr. COGSWELL cites here the passage in which he will find “an appearance of paddles”. The reader will probably remember that there was no question of paddles, but of a boiling of the water, which the witnesses _thought_ to have been caused by a pair of fins nearest the head, and which I have explained in another way.--Mr. COGSWELL calls Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, that the sea-serpents may belong to the _Enaliosaurian_ type, “ingenious”. I think that the reader, after having read only the accounts of the sea-serpent up to the days of Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion, i. e. up to 1847, will not be inclined to call this suggestion “ingenious”, with regard to the sea-serpent being so often reported as having a mane and whiskers, and swimming with vertical undulations. Moreover it is the question whether this suggestion was Mr. NEWMAN’S or Mr. RATHKE’S.

Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING too, seemed to believe that the sea-serpents are allied to the extinct _Plesiosauri_, for he writes in a letter to Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty (See _Illustrated London News_ of 28th. October, 1848):

“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile known as the sea-serpent but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect, as well as having short paws or flappers, the description of the Northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same animal as the kraken, or rather from the names having been used indiscriminately.”

Another gentleman, who signed his article in the _Times_ of November 2nd., 1848, with the initials F. G. S., came to the same suggestion. His letter will be found in its right place, after the statements of Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118).

Dr. COGSWELL who perhaps feared that in spite of his “Plea” the story of the sea-serpent was on a fair way to be forgotten, once more took the subject in hand, and sent a second paper to the _Zoologist_ of December 1848. This dissertation is at least better than the first, being partly critical, partly historical. Again, for history’s sake, I am obliged to repeat nearly his whole paper.

“It grows more and more necessary every day to acknowledge the _existence_ of a vast form of marine animal bearing some resemblance to a serpent. The recent letter of Captain M’Quhae to the Admiralty allows of no other alternative than either to admit the evidence, or invent some still more extraordinary hypothesis to explain it away. The forms of bearings of the strangers have been duly reported at head quarters, and no more deserve to be called in question, as regards the fidelity of the narrator, than the existence of any commissioned “Snake” or “Anaconda”, whose station and appointments we find recorded in the daily press. No preternatural messenger in “the shape that tempted Eve”,--he passes by on the other side without manifesting the slightest degree of interest in human affairs; no phantom progeny of light and air, although affecting literally the same haunts as the “Flying Dutchman”,--he steers himself by compass, and is the herald of no signal disaster; no herd of porpoises disporting all in a row, and joined together by some _Daedalian_ process of imagination into the semblance of unity--his head is “decidedly that of a snake”,--he carries it for twenty minutes at a time out of the water; and his body is seen for a continuous length of sixty feet on a level with the surface. From the standard jest of the witty, and the discarded problem of the wise, he has shown himself likely to be “no joke” for his physical powers, and well deserving the gravest scientific inquiry.”

“To show what a formidable and unyielding front has been heretofore opposed to him, I shall quote a passage from the article under the head of “Serpents” in the last edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica” (1842): “No proper proof has yet been adduced of any of these species (sea-serpents) inhabiting the “American Ferry”, as we see that world of waters now named since the steaming days of the British Queen and the Great Western. Mr. Schlegel characterizes the statement as an assertion _que je puis contredire avec certitude_: and the author adds: “we shall content ourselves by stating that sea-serpents have not yet been observed in the Atlantic Ocean”. The following notice occurs in a popular compilation of the animal kingdom just issued from the press (1848): “Sea-serpent (or the Kraken). The appearance of this _fabulous_ monster is thus accounted for by Mr. A. Adams. In the Sooloo seas I have often watched the phenomenon which first gave rise to the marvellous stories of the great sea-serpent, viz., lines of rolling porpoises resembling a long string of buoys oftentimes extending seventy, eighty, or one hundred yards. These constitute the so-named protuberances of the monster’s back, keep in close single file progressing rapidly along the calm surface of the water,” &c. Had the _fabulous_ serpent in Aesop, who complained of being “a multis hominibus pessumdatus”, been aware of what laid up in the fates for his aquatic relative, no doubt he would have ceased to repine at his own hard lot.”

“The official corroboration of the fundamental truth of these “marvellous stories” is important, not only because the author under the circumstances must at least receive credit for the most entire sincerity, but from the encouragement thus given to other credible witnesses to bring forward their evidence. There is no reason to suppose that even this would have been readily laid before the public, but for the desire expressed by the Board of Admiralty to learn the truth of an accidental rumour. As regards any additional light thrown on the natural history of the animal, it is not more satisfactory than many of the accounts we already possess. Indeed the paragraphs which precede the captain’s letter in the “Zoologist” viz., the extract from the journal of Lieut. Drummond, and the first public rumour as it appeared in the “Times”, tend rather to confuse the official statement, and will no doubt be used to create suspicions of its accuracy. The communication which follows it, purporting to give a report of another specimen seen by an American captain, is supposed to be “a hoax”, and as such is worthy of preservation from the ingenuity it displays.”

“When a doctrine is assumed to be fanciful, people seldom take the trouble to inquire into its history and merits. This may account for the sea-serpent being commonly confounded with a very different prodigy, too exacting in its claims for the most extravagant credulity of modern days to regard with favour. As seen above, its name and that of Kraken are popularly used as synonymous. And nevertheless, Pontoppidan, Bishop of Bergen, whose “Natural History of Norway” (translated into English in 1755) is the usual standard of authority on both subjects, treats of them separately in appropriate sections of his work. Of the Kraken he says, “I come now to the third, and incontestably the largest sea-monster in the world: it is called Kraken, krasen, or, as some name it, krabben, that word being applied by way of eminence to this creature”. Its back or upper part he described as truly gigantic, being a mile and a half or more in circumference, and it is provided with limbs so strong as to be able to pull boats and the smaller sailing crafts under water. Some deem the original of this story to have been a Sepia or Medusa of enormous size; others set it down for an optical illusion; Pontoppidan himself thinks that “in all probability it may be reckoned of the polypi or of the starfish kind”. One cannot help being reminded, on reading the above, of the passage in Milton where he compares Satan, “prone on the flood”, to “That sea-beast””....... &c.--

“Commentators have been divided in opinion whether Milton supposed the leviathan to be a crocodile or a whale. The former idea derives little support from the text; the whale, which has only lately been divested of its “scaly rind”, puts forward more plausible pretentions: nevertheless, the vast bulk of the creature alluded to, and its position, “slumbring in the Norway foam”, suggest the inquiry whether the poet may not have had in his mind a tradition of the kraken. I may mention here that the Norwegian Bishop believed that the Leviathan of Job and Isaiah had been detected in the _sea-serpent_. Of the latter animal Pontoppidan says: “The soe-ormen””....... &c.

“It would serve little purpose to occupy these pages with mere copies of the published narratives and depositions tending to prove the existence of the animal under our consideration. Whatever discrepancies may perplex us with regard to subordinate details, it is important to remember that the one ruling form, that of a serpent, is the foundation of all the descriptions. The form may vary--in length, perhaps, from forty to a hundred feet and upwards; in the relative dimensions of the head and different parts of the body; in the presence or absence of a mane or paddles; and more particularly with respect to an appearance of dorsal arches or elevations, rising above the water like a row of casks or buoys. The greater part of the evidence on the subject is contained, I believe, in Pontoppidan’s “Natural History of Norway” (1755), the “Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England relative to a large Marine Animal, supposed to be a Sea-Serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817” (Boston 1817), and the last volume of “The Zoologist” (1847). In the Scandinavian work the principal witness is Captain L. de Ferry, of the Navy, who thus describes an individual which he saw while in a boat, rowed by eight men, within six miles of Molde, in a calm hot day of August, 1747. “The head of the snake””..... &c.

“The Report of the Linnaean Society of New England contains the result of an inquiry”....... &c.

“The tenor of the late observations in Norway recorded in the “Zoologist” (Zool. 1604) certainly might justify the inference that these so remarkable prominences are not persistent, but depend, as suggested by the American functionary, on the mode of progression practised at the moment. Anybody that had watched the lithe and varied curves of an otter in the water can have no difficulty in recording together the different kinds of undulations to the sea-serpent. There is one particular of rare occurrence worthy of notice, in one of these later accounts, calling to mind a peculiarity in the description of the animal seen by Mr. Egede, a Greenland missionary and furnished to us with a copy of the figure, by Pontoppidan. This creature, of the unusual length of 600 feet, “had under its body two flappers, or perhaps two broad fins”. One of the recent narratives also states of the progressive movement, that it appeared to be produced “by the help of two fins” (Zool. 1607). Thus is offered a possible solution of the difficulty occasioned by captain M’Quhae’s specimen having advanced at a rapid rate, with 60 feet of the body à fleur d’eau, without any visible undulation.” (I, however, refer the reader to the report of 1845, July 28).

“Here I may refer to “The Description of an Animal stranded on the Island of Stronsa, in the year 1808” given in the first Volume of the “Wernerian Transactions” by the late eminent Dr. Barclay. Evidently disposed to believe that this animal was a sea-serpent, Dr. Barclay indignantly repudiates the opinion of Mr. Home, that it was nothing more than a shark (_Squalus maximus_). Figures of the two are shown in juxtaposition, for the purpose of constrasting them, and to all appearance their respective peculiarities are quite sufficient to distinctive appellations. The Orkney animal, in fact, bears a curious resemblance to a _Plesiosaurus_, with _six_ legs. Nevertheless, anatomists have decided that a shark it really was, the anomalies being accounted for by the circumstance of the drawing having been taken from hearsay and under the supervision of persons who only saw the original in a very imperfect state. The “Animal of Stronsa” and the “Scoliophis atlanticus” leave us equally in the dark with regard to the physical economy of the sea-serpent; that is, unless the solution offered by Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310) shall prove to be correct.” (See our 7th. explanation.)

“From what precedes it is evident, _First_, that the notion of the sea-serpent is not a mere growth of unlettered and credulous superstition, since it has been repeated and confirmed by parties than whom it would be difficult to select any more worthy of confidence, with this sole objection--that none of them have been naturalists. The critical eye of a Müller or an Owen would determine its true affinities in a moment. _Secondly_, that if we do the justice of rejecting all extraneous ideas, and confine ourself to what strictly relates to the object in question, there is a consistent tendency in nearly all the different narratives to invest it with the true characters of the reptilian class. _Thirdly_, that if there be any truth in the idea that the animal spends most of its time under water, only rising to the surface in calm weather during the summer months, this--however difficult to conceive of an air-breathing creature--in a great measure accounts for the infrequency of its occurrence. But are there no other forms, even of the highest stage of organization, which have been able to conceal themselves from the scrutinizing of naturalists? Not to speak of the minor accessions of unknown species, coming in to adorn our collections and extend the limits of science, it deserves to be borne in mind that perhaps the very chief of all the quadrumana (_Troglodytes gorilla_ of Savage), the being that holds the foremost rank in the scale next to man, is one of the most recent contributions of the African Fauna. At the beginning of this century a cetaceous animal (_Physeter bidens_ of Sowerby), sixteen feet long, was cast ashore on the coast of Elginshire, the species has been previously undescribed, and not another example is _commonly_ believed to have since occurred. From the difficulty of assigning it a place, it has been the subject of no fewer than four or five generic appellations, and it is finally referred, by my friend Dr. Melville, to the _Delphinorhynchus micropterus_ of Dumortier, two other specimens of which only exist, the one _stranded_ at Havre, the other at Ostend. Were this animal known only by tradition, it is improbable that naturalists would have refused it their sanction, under an impression that a species of such individual magnitude could not possibly have escaped being captured and subjected of their criticism? And yet the recognition of the great _Physeter bidens_ is purely the result of an accident!”

“If the reptilian nature of this mysterious creature be supposed to have been established, it becomes an interesting speculation to consider how far the stories of terrific dragons, transmitted to us by the ancients, had their origin in realities with which they were more conversant than ourselves. The sea-serpent, if a real existence, is of no modern creation. Our forefathers must have seen it. The utmost length at present allowed to land-snakes is twenty-five feet (Schlegel). Nevertheless, the very important part sustained by the serpent in the old mythologies,--its imposing magnitude and powers, and celebrated by historians and poets,--and its consequence in the romantic animals of the middle ages, will unstill a suspicion that, perhaps, not the biographers of snakes were mendaceous, but their heroes, like those of “the last minstrel”, have changed or disappeared in the progress of civilization. It is without the slightest idea of attaching any overstrained importance to the following passages that I venture to quote them, as proving that the idea of serpents frequenting and traversing the sea was at least not repugnant to ancient prejudices. The avenging ministers of Minerva, crossing the Aegean on their mission to destroy Laocoon, might be vindicated by an ardent classic as the model from which the moderns have often plagiarised their descriptions of the sea-serpent.

“Ecce autem gemini a tenedo _tranquilla_ per alta
“(Horresco referens) _immensis orbibus_ angues
“Incumbunt pelago, pariterque ad litora tendunt:
“Pectora quorum iter fluctus arrecta, jubaeque
“Sanguineae exuperant undas; pars caetera pontum
“Pone legit, sinuatque immensa volumine terga.
“Fit sonitus spumante salo”.--_Virgil._--[3].

[3] Look, from Tenedos there come down through the _quiet_ see (I
shudder in telling it) two serpents in _enormous coils_, moving
through the sea, and together they direct themselves to the strand:
their chests, held up between the waves, and their blood-red _mane_
are held above the waves; the remaining part lashes the sea, and they
bent their immense backs in coils. There arises a noise, whilst the
ocean skims.--Vergilius, Aeneis, II, 203, sqq.

“The poet, too, is sustained by the naturalist, for here we have Pliny (whose facts by the way deserve to have inspired the apophthegm that “truth is stranger than fiction”) telling how the African _dracones_ were wont to club together and brave the perils of the Red Sea, in quest of the more luxurious diet of Arabia: “Narratur in maritimis eorum quaternos quinosque inter se cratium modo implexos erectis capitibus velificantes, ad meliora pabula Arabiae vehi fluctibus.” (Plin. Hist. Nat. VIII, 13).[4]

[4] “And (the Asachaeans) tell that near their coasts every time four
or five of these (dragons) twisted together in the way of a twisted
work, and sailing with their heads erected in the air, sail on the
waves towards a better provender place of Arabia.”

“On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the rare opportunity afforded for the discussion of the subject by the conductor of this journal, for the purpose of showing, first, that sea-serpents as a family have long been perfectly recognized in science, and that therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment of ridicule; and next, of remarking that strange as are the properties attributed to the great sea-serpent, there are remains of a former world in our museums which in their perfect state united them all or nearly all. Encouraged by the Editor’s referring them to the Enaliosauri [Zool. LIV. Wrapper] I ventured to name the Plesiosaurus as the marine animal of our acquaintance to which they bear the nearest resemblance. This, although admitted at the time to be a daring breach of the _Draconic_ laws of geology,--laws, which, having once consigned an organized form to extinction, have very rarely relaxed their rigour,--seemed to be a necessary result to the argument _par voie d’exclusion_: if not a Plesiosaurus what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to be at all correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the “animal of Stronsa” after all furnish the real key to the problem? The affirmative side of the question is not without at least two very able supporters (see Zool. 2310); and yet how to reconcile the characteristics of any possible shark with the sea-serpent-like head, curved neck, mane, or certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances so often mentioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent of the “Times” (Zool. 2311) calls attention to the striking resemblance between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosaurus, and is surprised at its never having occurred to any one before. If the signature F. G. S. implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological Society, it is satisfactory to find a member of that particular body, whose favour was least to be expected, so pleased with the idea as to be willing to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been repeated and widely circulated by other periodicals. In the words of an elegant contributor in “Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal who alludes to it” one would almost suppose that among the buried learning of the earlier nations there lurked some knowledge of geology, seeing how their ideas about dragons came to such a conformity in some respects, with the realities of these preadamite reptiles.”

“The determination of a great marine species, however, and even a knowledge of its habits and influence on the other inhabitants of the deep, are not, as I conceive, the most obvious advantages to be desired from the settlement of this question. Let it be admitted that a huge unknown creature of any description, provided its general appearance is such as to redeem the various historians of the great sea-serpent from the charge of wilful deception, does “swim the ocean stream”, and the value of the result cannot be too easily over-estimated. The _cui-bono_ philosopher, the bugbear of naturalists, will no doubt have been highly amused with the recent excitement about a discovery that at first sight appears of no practical consequence to the interests of man. I know of no subject of research he would be likely to seize upon with more secure self-complacency--or of one which, though indirectly, supplies a more triumphal answer. To have our failing confidence in the value of human testimony reassured (and no evidence can be more solemn than that which relates to the sea-serpent), is surely no trifling gain of itself. But more than this: no circumstance has tended so emphatically to stamp the “Yankee” character with the stain of a bold and unscrupulous love of fiction and exaggeration as the story of the sea-serpent. Perhaps, on the principle of Mr. Warren’s “man about town”, who, being called a _splendid sinner_, made it his pride to deserve the title, the thoughtless portion of our Trans-atlantic family (the generous tribute of an Agassiz is sufficient warrant for the _savans_) may have thence been led to indulge in a dangerous style of humour, through a spirit of bravads. This source of misunderstanding once removed, the American character may afterwards be regarded with more respect, and the people themselves--no longer excited to defy the ridicule they were not able to escape--may sober down to the legitimate standard of reason.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, too, could not forego the pleasure to publish a second time his favourite explanation of the _Enaliosaurians_. In the Preface to the year 1848 of his Journal, which appeared together with Mr. COGSWELL’S above mentioned dissertation, he filled some pages about the subject:

“The communications made to the Admiralty by Captain M’Quhae has turned public attention to the possibility of the existence of a _Sea-Serpent_ (Zool. 2307). My own views on this subject have long been known: two years have elapsed since I expressed an opinion (Zool. 1604), that although the evidence then before the public was perhaps insufficient to convince those who had hypotheses on their own to support, yet that it was far too strong for the fact-naturalist, the inquirer after truth, to dismiss without investigation. To advance such an opinion as this,--to admit the possibility of the existence of a sea-serpent in so enlightened an age as the nineteenth century,--of course led to my being loaded with ridicule; loaded, but not overwhelmed, for I immediately afterwards ventured on expressing a still bolder opinion,--no less than that of suggesting its affinity to a tribe of animals supposed to be extinct. I stated on the wrapper of n^o. 54 that the Enaliosauri of authors would, if living, present the appearances described. Almost immediately after this I published the statement of Captain Sullivan and five other British officers, who deliberately assert (Zool. 1715) that they saw--while on a fishing excursion on the coast of British America--a sea-serpent, which they supposed to be eighty or a hundred feet in length; its head, six feet in length, and its neck, also six feet in length, were the only part constantly above water, and resembled those of a common snake: the creature passed them with great rapidity, “leaving a regular wake”. Nothing is said of any undulating movement, or of any appearance of portions or coils of the body. The statement of Captain M’Quhae (Zool. 2307), and that obligingly furnished expressly for the “Zoologist” by Lieut. Drummond (Zool. 2306), essentially corroborate the evidence of Captain Sullivan and his companions: the length and position of the head and neck, and their being kept constantly above water, closely correspond; the estimated total length corresponds; the non-observance of any undulation corresponds,--indeed Captain M’Quhae expressly states that no portion of the animal appeared to be used in “propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulation”. Thus we have separate statements closely corresponding with each other, and each statement is vouched for by several British officers whose veracity has never been called in question: under these circumstances we may afford to dismiss from this inquiry all those assertions of American captains, which have been treated in this country with such contempt. Resting the evidence solely on the authority of British officers, I then wish to state my unhesitating conviction that a marine animal of enormous size does exist, and that it differs essentially from any living animal described in our systematic works; and here I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that the statement of captain Sullivan should have been so entirely neglected as it has been: it appears to me in all respects equally trustworthy with the official statement of captain M’Quhae.”

“The next question which occurs is this--to what class of vertebrate animals must we refer this monster of the deep? Is it a mammal, bird, reptile, or fish? All these classes include animals whose home is the ocean. To commence with placental mammals;--we have otters, seals, walrusses and sea-cows, all of which breathe atmospheric air, and, therefore, when swimming on the surface usually keep their nostrils--often their heads--above the water: they also propel themselves by means of submerged fins or paddles, and, when inclined, can move along the surface with rapid direct and continuous motion. Professor Owen (Zool. 2312), in accordance with these views, declares the animal to be a seal; Phoca proboscidea or P. leonina, but his reasoning on the point appears to me very inconclusive: he assigns the animal a “capacious vaulted cranium”, whereas Lieutenant Drummond (Zool. 2307) declares the head was “long, pointed, and _flattened_ at the top”, adding that it was, “perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.” Captain M’Quhae, also, subsequently to Professor Owen’s paper, repeats (Zool. 2333) that “the head was _flat_, and not a _capacious vaulted cranium_”. The captain, who must be annoyed at the insinuation that in an official report he had magnified a seal into a sea-serpent, emphatically declares that “its great length and its totally differing physiognomy preclude the possibility of its being a Phoca of any species.” This idea must therefore be abandoned; the other marine mammals still remaining open for future consideration.”

“Among Birds we have no approach to the animal described.”

“The Enaliosauri next claim our attention, and, for the present purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because I feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could urge many reasons in connection with the views I have long since published in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations which may be considered speculative, I would invite the intention of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by a section of the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the sternum, and the smoothness of the skin; and when they have well-considered these important points, I would inquire whether these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian? and, again, whether they are not rather marsupial than placental? I have already pointed out the manupedine, ferine, glirine and brutine groups of marsupials; why should we not also have a cetine group? Without making any other use of this suggestion than that of temporarily separating the Enaliosaurians from the Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention to the arguments of Mr. Morries Stirling (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. S. (Zool. 2311), both of whom support the opinion which I had previously broached as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent,--a view controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen (Zool. 2316), on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct; but here I may perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact, being only assumed, does not touch the main question.”

“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion of an anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. COGSWELL (Zool. 2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal may not have been a boa; and I may observe that the evidence concerning the head, which has been repeatedly described as precisely resembling that of a snake or serpent, together with the fact of the animal holding its head clear of the water, are so many points in favour of its belonging to the Ophidia; but, on the other hand, we must place the non-observance of that undulating mode of progression which every snake must employ,--and it amounts to more than non-observance, for Captain M’Quhae, who directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length--three times that of a boa--militates against this hypothesis. Professor Owen lays great stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae; but as only two Ophidians have yet entered the arena as competitor for the title of sea-serpent,--Saccopharynx flagellum, which I have heard is a _bona fide_ black snake, and Boa constrictor, which is received on all kinds as a veritable serpent,--I think the absence of ophidian vertebrae is of no great moment. The Sauria offer similar coincidences with the Ophidia, and present a similar discrepancy: their heads and necks might readily be described by general observers as those of snakes or serpents, but the undulating motion with which they swim is almost precisely similar to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an objection to our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia and Chelonia have next to be considered, and these truly possess the submerged limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the vertebral column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles absolutely impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned, these reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living animal with the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents. Yet the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles, and especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the idea of their being described--even by the veriest tyro in observation--as snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both crocodiles and tortoises floating on the surface of water, the back, and not the head and neck, must be the part most prominently and permanently visible. It is therefore manifest that no existing groups of reptiles answers the conditions required by the recently-recorded descriptions of the sea-serpent.”

“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the sharks as offering a solution of the problem; and the record respecting the sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great weight to this view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists as Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the Stronsa animal, I entertain very great doubts of the decision in question; it certainly does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae of an ophidian, but then no naturalist desires to make it one; the boa hypothesis is applied only to the sea-serpent of the _Daedalus_. Leaving, however, this Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may observe, _first_, that all analogy contravenes the idea of a shark having a neck, and _secondly_, I would beg of those gentlemen who advocate this hypothesis, to take their pencils and depict a shark with a head and shoulders clear out of the water, and his body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think the most brilliant fancy could scarcely imagine a shark maintaining such a position for twenty minutes at the time, and, what is stranger still, while in this position, ploughing the ocean at the rate of twenty miles an hour.”

“After maturely considering these various views, it will be found that the Enaliosaurian hypothesis presents the fewest difficulties,--in fine, one only, the supposition that these wonderful creatures have become extinct. It will be the object of a separate essay, now preparing for the press, to adduce evidence from other sources of the existence--in sea-serpents seen off the Norwegian coast--of two large flappers or paddles, closely corresponding in situation with the anterior paddles of Ichthyosaurus, and also of enormous eyes, exactly as indicated by the fossil remains of that animal; but this, not being deducible from recent observations, may be reserved for a more complete and careful review of the entire history of these enormous creatures which in all probability will eventually be found to constitute several genera and species.”

“In throwing open the pages of the “Zoologist” to communication on a subject so uniformly tabooed by the scientific,--in claiming for that subject a calm and dispassionate investigation,--in expressing my unhesitating belief that the various narratives, although often conflicting, are nevertheless, according to the belief of the narrator, perfectly true,--and in attempting to assign the sea-serpent a place in the System of Nature,--I feel convinced that all true naturalists will approve the course I have taken, and will be willing to abide the result. Discussion must ever have the tendency to dissipate error and establish truth; and he who believes himself right need never shun the ordeal. In this spirit I invite discussion, and shall feel obliged for any communications tending to elicit or establish truth.”

Here again I am obliged to make some remarks.

The communications made by Captain M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND are inserted in the foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118).--The statement of Captain SULLIVAN and five other British officers is that of 1833, May 15th., inserted above. (n^o. 97.)

Ever and anon Mr. NEWMAN shows that the statements referred to by him are those of _British_ officers. Why so? Is a British officer more trustworthy than an officer of any other nation?

What zoologist or palaeontologist has ever shared Mr. NEWMAN’S doubt of the reptilian nature of the Enaliosaurians!? Who would like to bring these extinct creatures under a newly founded order of Cetacean Marsupials!! Did not Mr. NEWMAN’S suggestion originate in the two facts 1. That he himself thought the sea-serpent to be an Enaliosaurian, and 2. That Prof. OWEN asserted that the sea-serpent of Captain M’QUHAE, according to his description and figures, must be a mammal? I think Mr. NEWMAN reasoned further: “well, why should the Enaliosaurians not be mammals?”