Chapter V: The various explanations hitherto given (3)

“The enormous length of the animal, three times that of a boa, militates against this hypothesis”, viz. of being a boa. This is no argument. In the time that only calamaries were known of 6 or 7 feet length, with arms of 10 or 11 feet, nobody had ever dreamt that there existed really individuals of 30 feet in length with long arms of 50 feet!

It is evident that Mr. NEWMAN was wrongly informed about the _Saccopharynx flagellum_, for this animal is a kind of _fish_, belonging to the eel-tribe, however not in the least resembling an eel in its external characters, and not a black _snake_!

The “separate essay, now preparing for the press” as far as I know has never been published.

The quotation of the _Ichthyosaurus_ shows us that Mr. NEWMAN was unwilling to give up his first suggestion. The evidence, referred to by him, where the sea-serpent had apparently two flappers near the head, is the same as that referred to by Dr. COGSWELL, (see pp. 409, 411, and n^o. 115.).

After observing that other sea-serpents, e. g. that of Captain M’QUHAE don’t come up to his Ichthyosaurian suggestion, Mr. NEWMAN concludes that “the enormous creatures in all probability will eventually be found to constitute several genera and species!!!

The favourite Plesiosaurian hypothesis is also spoken of by the writer of the “_Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the bones of the Stronsa Animal_” (which I have inserted in my Chapter on Would-be sea-serpents). He says:

“But we must now conclude with the single remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark, it was certainly not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance.” JAS. C. HOWDEN.

As to the animal of Mr. MACLEAN, see our n^o. 31.

Mr. NEWMAN in the Preface to the _Zoologist_ for 1849, wrote the following about the Reptiles mentioned in this volume. The words are worth quoting.

“In British _Reptiles_ nothing remarkable has occurred; but I have been favoured with a communication, published in the February number (Zool. 2356), announcing the present existence of huge marine animals closely related to the Enaliosauri of by-gone ages, that appears to me in all respects the most interesting Natural History-fact of the present century, completely overturning as it does some of the most favourite and fashionable hypotheses of geological science. The published opinion of Mr. Agassiz (Zool. 2395) certainly favours the idea that Enaliosaurians may still exist: he says: it would be in precise conformity with analogy that an animal should exist in the American seas which has long been extinct and fossilized in the Eastern hemisphere: he instances the gar-pike of the western rivers, and says that, in a recent visit to Lake Superior, he has detected several fishes belonging to genera now extinct in Europe.”

The communication mentioned here is that of Captain HOPE, who saw the sea-serpent in the Gulf of California (n^o. 119). In fact, since this opinion was expressed by AGASSIZ, (where?) numerous animals, even of tolerably large size, have been discovered in Australia as well as in the great depth of the ocean, the allies of which are only found in a fossilized state.

The favourite _Plesiosaurus_ hypothesis is also treated of and finally adopted by Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_. After rejecting the hypotheses of the sea-serpent being only a deceitful huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a large ribbon-fish, some large kind of the eel tribe, a large specimen of true sea-snakes, a strayed large land-snake as the boas, he goes on in the following manner:

“It yet remains to consider the hypothesis advanced by Mr. E. Newman, Mr. Morries Stirling, and “F. G. S.”, that the so called sea-serpent will find its closest affinities with those extraordinary animals, the _Enaliosauria_, or Marine Lizards, whose fossil skeletons are found so abundantly scattered through the oolite and the lias. The figure of _Plesiosaurus_, as restored in Professor Ansted’s _Ancient World_, has a cranium not less capacious or vaulted than that given in Captain M’Quhae’s figures; to which, indeed, but that the muzzle in the latter is more abbreviate, it bears a close resemblance. The head was fixed at the extremity of a neck composed of thirty to forty vertebrae, which, from its extraordinary length, slenderness, and flexibility, must have been the very counterpart of the body of a serpent. This snake-like neck merged insensibly into a compact and moderately slender body, which carried two pairs of paddles, very much like those of a sea-turtle, and terminated behind in a gradually attenuated tail”.

“Thus, if the _Plesiosaur_ could have been seen alive, you would have discerned nearly its total length at the surface of the water, propelled at a rapid rate, without any undulation, by an apparatus altogether invisible,--the powerful paddles beneath; while the entire serpentine neck would probably be projected obliquely, carrying the reptilian head, with an eye of moderate aperture, and a mouth whose gape did not extend beyond the eye. Add to this a covering of the body not formed of scales, bony plates, or other form of solidified integument, but a yielding, leathery skin, probably black and smooth, like that of a whale; give the creature a length of some sixty feet or more, and you would have before you almost the very counterpart of the apparition that wrought such amazement on board the _Daedalus_. The position of the nostrils at the summit of the head indicates that on first coming on the surface from the depths of the sea, the animal would spout in the manner of the whales,--a circumstance reported by some observers of the sea-serpent.”

“I must confess that I am myself far more disposed to acquiesce in this hypothesis than in any other that has been mooted. Not that I would identify the animal seen with the actual _Plesiosaurs_ of the lias. None of them yet discovered appear to exceed thirty-five feet in length, which is scarcely half sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. I should not look for any species, scarcely even any genus, to be perpetuated from the oolitic period to the present. Admitting the actual continuation of the order _Enaliosauria_, it would be, I think, quite in conformity with general analogy to find important generic modifications, probably combining some salient features of several extinct forms. Thus the little known _Pliosaur_ had many of the peculiarities of the _Plesiosaur_, without its extraordinarily elongated neck, while it vastly exceeded it in dimensions. What if the existing form should be essentially a _Plesiosaur_, with the colossal magnitude of a _Pliosaur_?”

“There seems to be no real structural difficulty in such a supposition except the “mane”, or waving appendage, which has so frequently been described by those who profess to have seen the modern animal. This, however, is a difficulty of ignorance, rather than of contradiction. We do not _know_ that the smooth integument of the _Enaliosaurs_ was destitute of any such appendage, and I do not think there is any insuperable unprobability in the case. The nearest analogy that I can suggest, however, is that of the _Chlamydosaur_, a large terrestrial lizard of Australia, whose lengthened neck is furnished with a very curious plaited frill of thin membrane, extending like wings or fins to a considerable distance from the animal.”

(_Foot-note:_) [“It was not till after this paragraph was written that I noticed the very close similarity of the fins with which Hans Egede has adorned his figure of the sea-serpent (copied in the Illustrated London News, Oct. 28, 1848), to the frill of the _Chlamydosaurus_.”]

“Two strong objections, however, stand in the way of our acceptance of the present existence of _Enaliosauria_; and these are forcibly presented by Professor Owen. They are,--1. The hypothetical improbability of such forms having been transmitted from the era of the secondary strata to the present time; and 2. The entire absence of any parts of the carcases or unfossilized skeletons of such animals in museums.”

“My ignorance of the details of palaeontology makes me feel very diffident in attempting to touch the former point, especially when so great an authority has pronounced an opinion; still I will modestly express one or two thoughts on it.”

“There does not seem any _à priori_ reason why early forms should not be perpetuated; and examples are by no means rare of animals much anterior, geologically, to the _Enaliosaurs_, being still extant. The very earliest forms of fishes are of the _Placoid_ type, and it is remarkable that not only is that type still living in considerable numbers, but the most gigantic examples of this class belong to it,--viz. the sharks and rays; and these exhibiting peculiarities which by no means remove them far from ancient types. The genus _Chimaera_ appears in the oolite, the wealden, and the chalk; disappears (or rather is not found) in any of the tertiary formations, but reappears, somewhat rarely, in the modern seas. It is represented by two species inhabiting respectively the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans.”

“Now, this is exactly a parallel case to what is conjectured of the _Enaliosaurs_. They appear in the oolite and the chalk, are not found in the tertiary strata, but reappear, rarely, in the modern seas, represented by two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern Oceans.”

“Among Reptiles, the curious family of river tortoises named _Trionychidae_, distinguished by their long neck, and a broad cartilaginous margin to the small back-shell, appears first in the wealden. No traces occur of it in any subsequent formation, till the present period, when we find it represented by the large and savage inhabitants of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Ganges.”

“What is still more to the purpose is, that the _Iguanodon_, a vast saurian which was contemporary with the _Plesiosaur_ and _Ichthyosaur_, though transmitting no observed representative of its form through the tertiary era, is yet well represented by the existing _Iguanadae_ of the American tropics.”

“It is true the _Iguana_ is not an _Iguanodon_; but the forms are closely allied. I do not suppose that the so-called sea-serpent is an actual _Plesiosaur_, but an animal bearing a similar relation to that ancient type. The _Iguanodon_ has degenerated (I speak of the type, and not of the species) to the small size of the _Iguana_; the _Plesiosaurus_ may have become developed to the gigantic dimensions of the sea-serpent.”

“A correspondent of the _Zoologist_ (2395) adduces the great authority of Professor Agassiz to the possibility of the present existence of the _Enaliosaurian_ type. That eminent palaeontologist is represented as saying, that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were represented by living types in the New. He instances the gar pike of the Western rivers, and said he had found several instances in his visit to Lake Superior, where he had detected several fishes belonging to genera now extinct in Europe.””

“On this point, however, an actual testimony exists, to which I cannot but attach a very great value.”

Here Mr. GOSSE cites the report of Captain HOPE (n^o. 119), and goes on:

“Now, unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an animal which could have been no other than an _Enaliosaur_,--a marine reptile of large size, of sauroid figure, with turtle-like paddles. It is a pity that no estimate, even approximate, of the dimensions is given; but as the alligator affords the comparison as to form, it is most probable that there was a general agreement with it in size. This might make it some twelve or fifteen feet in length.”

“I cannot, then, admit that either the _general_ substitution of _Cetacea_ for _Enaliosauria_ in our era, or the absence of remains of the latter in the tertiary deposits, is sufficient evidence of their non-existence in our seas; any more than the general replacement of _Placoid_ and _Ganoid_ fishes by the Cycloids and Ctenoids, or the absence of the former two from the tertiaries, is proof of _their_ present non-existence.”

“It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Darwin has ably insisted, that the specimens we possess of fossil organisms are very far indeed from being a complete series. They are rather fragments accidentally preserved, by favouring circumstances, in an almost total wreck. The _Enaliosauria_, particularly abundant in the secondary epoch, may have become sufficiently scarce in the tertiary to have no representative in these preserved fragmentary collections, and yet not have been absolutely extinct.”

“But Professor Owen presses also the absence of any recognised recent remains of such animals. Let us test this evidence first by hypothesis, and then by actual fact.”

“It may be that a true serpent, with large vesicular lungs, would float when dead, and be liable to be seen by navigators in that condition, or to be washed ashore, where its peculiar skeleton would be sure to attract notice. But, as I have before said, I do not by any means believe that the unknown creature is a _serpent_ in the zoological sense. Would a _Plesiosaurus_ float when dead? I think not. It is supposed to have had affinities with the whales. Now, a whale sinks like lead as soon as the blubber is removed; the surface-fat alone causes a whale to float. But we have no warrant for assuming that the _Plesiosaur_ was encased in a thick blanket of blubber; no geologist has suggested any such thing, and the long neck forbids it; and if not, doubtless it would sink, and not float, when dead. Therefore the stranding of such a carcase, or the washing ashore of such a skeleton, would most probably be an extremely rare occurrence, even if the animal were as abundant as the sperm whale; but, on the supposition that the species itself is almost extinct, we ought not to expect such an incident, perhaps, in a thousand years. If we add to this the recollection, how small a portion of the border of the ocean is habitually viewed by persons able to discriminate between the vertebrae of an _Enaliosaur_ and those of a _Cetacean_, we shall not, I think, attach great importance to this objection.”

“The only region of the globe in which the unknown monster is reputed to be in any sense common, is the coast of Norway. Now this, it is true, is fortunately within the ken of civilized and scientific men; and, confessedly, no enormous ophidian or saurian carcases have ever been recognised on that shore. But the shore of Norway is, perhaps, the least favourable in the world for such a _jetsam_. Such a thing as a sand or shingle beach is scarcely known; the coast is almost exclusively what is called iron-bound; the borders of the deeply indented fjords rise abruptly out of the sea, so that there is generally from fifty to three hundred fathoms’ depth of water within a boat’s length of the shore. How could a carcase or a skeleton be cast up here, even if it floated?”

“But, secondly, as to facts. Is it true, that of all the larger oceanic animals we find the carcases or skeletons cast up on the shore? Is it true even of the _Cetacea_, whose blubber-covered bodies invariably ensure their floating, and whose bones are so saturated with oil that they are but little heavier than water?”

“In September 1825, a cetacean was stranded on the French coast, which was previously unknown to naturalists. It was so fortunate as to fall under the examination of so eminent a zoologist as De Blainville; and hence its anatomy was well investigated. It has become celebrated as the Toothless Whale of Havre (_Aodon Dalei_). Yet _no other example of this species is on record_; and, but for this accident, a whale _inhabiting the British Channel_ would be quite unrecognised.”

“Of another Whale (_Diodon Sowerbyi_), _likewise British, our entire knowledge rests on a single individual_ which was cast on shore on the Elgin coast, and was seen and described by the naturalist Sowerby.”

“There is a species of sperm whale (_Physeter tursio_) affirmed to be frequently seen about the Shetland Islands; a vast creature of sixty feet in length, and readily distinguishable from all other _Cetacea_ by its lofty dorsal, and, according to old Sibbald, by other remarkable peculiarities in its anatomy. Yet _no specimen of this huge creature has fallen under modern scientific observation_; and zoologists are not yet agreed among themselves whether the high-finned Cachelot is a myth or a reality!”

“Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz, a Sicilian naturalist, described a Cetacean which, he said, he had seen in the Mediterranean, possessing _two dorsals_. The character was so abnormal that his statement was not received; but the eminent zoologists attached to one of the French exploring expeditions,--MM. Quoy and Gaimard,--saw a school of cetacea around their ship in the South Pacific, having this extraordinary character,--the supernumerary fin being placed on the back of the head. Here is the evidence of competent naturalists to the existence of a most remarkable whale, _no carcase_ of which--_no skeleton--has ever been recognised_.”

“The last example I shall adduce is from my own experience. During my voyage to Jamaica, when in lat. 19° N., and long. from 46° to 48° W., the ship was surrounded for _seventeen continuous hours_ with a troop of whales, of a species which is certainly undescribed. I had ample opportunity for examination, and found that it was a _Delphinorhynchus_, thirty feet in length, black above and white beneath, with the swimming paws wide on the upper surface, and isolated by the surrounding black of the upper parts,--a very remarkable character. This could not have been the Toothless Whale of Havre; and there is no other with which it can be confounded. _Here, then, is a whale of large size, occurring in great numbers in the North Atlantic, which on no other occasion has fallen under scientific observation._”

“Are not these facts, then, sufficiently weighty to restrain us from rejecting so great an amount of testimony to the so-called sea-serpent, merely on the ground that its dead remains have not come under examination?”

“In conclusion, I express my own confident persuasion, that there exists some oceanic animal of immense proportions, which has not yet been received into the category of scientific zoology; and my strong opinion, that it possesses close affinities with the fossil _Enaliosauria_ of the lias.”

We only observe that Mr. GOSSE is evidently inclined to believe that there are “two or more species inhabiting the Northern and Southern oceans.” It is not at all plain what circumstance has led him to this supposition.

Curious is the comparison of the flappers, figured by Mr. BING (fig. 19) with the frill of the _Chlamydosaurus_. I give here a figure of such an animal.

Mr. GOSSE gets clearly entangled in his own considerations of the affinity of the sea-serpent with the _Plesiosaurus_ when he comes to the fact of the existence of a mane. It is a pity that he has not mixed up with his considerations the well-known _Iguana tuberculata_, a lizard belonging to the same family as the _Chlamydosaurus_, but which has a comb extending over the whole length of the neck, the back and the tail!

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, considering the _Plesiosaurus_ hypothesis, says:

“I think this theory is not forced upon us.”

Of the probability of living _Plesiosauri_, however, he says:

“Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance of probability is contrary to the supposition that any of the gigantic marine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued to live up to the present time. And yet I am bound to say, that this does not amount to an impossibility, for the evidence against it is entirely negative. Nor is the conjecture that there may be in existence some congeners of these great reptiles inconsistent with zoological science. Dr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum, a strict zoologist, is cited by Mr. Gosse as having long ago expressed his opinion that some undescribed form exists which is intermediate between the tortoises and the serpents.”

“Prof. Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the _Zoologist_ (p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence of the Enaliosaurian type that “it would be in precise conformity with analogy that such an animal should exist in the American Seas, as he had found numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were represented by living types in the New.”

It is obvious that of all animals, now living or extinct, the outlines of the _Plesiosaurus_ fit best to the descriptions and figures of the great sea-serpent. Abandoning the possibility of still living _Plesiosauri_, I reply to the question “Why cannot the sea-serpent be a _Plesiosaurus_?”

_Plesiosauri_ with such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent has, are hitherto unknown to palaeontologists, but, as to me, this cannot be of much importance; for there is no reason why in the course of ages this appendage should not have been developed to gigantic dimensions. The difference between the place of the nostrils in the two animals cannot claim any weight either (the _Plesiosaurus_ had its nostrils both before its eyes and not at the end of its snout, as is the case in the sea-serpent) for this place may have changed in process of time. But there are two other differences which are of very great importance, and settle the question: 1. The neck of the _Plesiosaurus_ must have been fit to be bent in all directions, but I think no palaeontologist will ever admit that its trunk or backbone could be bent in such vertical undulations, as is the case with the sea-serpents. 2. The _Plesiosaurus_ may have been destitute of scales, and may have had a smooth skin, it can never have been provided with a hairy skin as seals have, and at all events it had no mane, and no whiskers.

* * * * *

An =eleventh= explanation is properly a negative one. In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, of 1835, viz: Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, the Editor, published a report of one of his acquaintances, wherein the eye-witness declared: “nothing like a fin was seen”. Now Prof. SILLIMAN in a _Remark of the Editor_ says: “The absence of paddles or arms =forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian=.”

I need not observe that this explanation was premature, and that the assertion “nothing like a fin was seen” does not exclude the presence of flappers, hidden under water. The flappers of a swimming sea-lion or seal are not generally seen either. If not a saurian, what kind of animal could it be then, a fish or a mammal?

* * * * *

The =twelfth= explanation, viz: =a row of spermwhales=, which is found in Prof. SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, 1837, p. 518, is better than that of a row of porpoises or of basking sharks, with their plainly visible backfins, for there is a species of spermwhales, viz. the _Catodon macrocephalus_ the backfin of which is so small as to be almost invisible. The other species, _Physeter tursio_ has a rather large and erected backfin.

Professor SCHLEGEL, after describing the appearance of a row of porpoises swimming in line, goes on saying: “This habit is also common to the larger cetaceans, which, however, only accidentally frequent our” (the Dutch) “coasts. The coasts of North-America, where the monstrous sea-serpent has so often been observed, swarm with them, and I confess that from a vessel, for instance, the unexpected appearance of a family of spermwhales swimming in line, with the eldest at the head, must offer a spectacle striking enough and fit to call forth at once superstition, imagination and fear.”

It is true that a row of sperm-whales must offer a striking spectacle, but in none of the accounts of the sea-serpent the “bunches” or visible parts of the vertical undulations surpassed the length of a fathom, whilst the visible parts of the backs of spermwhales measure several fathoms, and the distance between two of these backs in a row of spermwhales is enormous. The supposition, moreover, does not explain the head resembling that of a snake, and kept constantly above water, neither the long neck accidentally observed, the long and pointed tail, &c.

* * * * *

The =thirteenth= explanation supposes that the sea-serpent may be a still living =Basilosaurus=, an extinct marine mammal, first described by HARLAN in the year 1824; afterwards the name was changed to that of _Zeuglodon_ by Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Fig. 65 represents the skeleton of a _Basilosaurus_. This animal lived in the tertiary periods. Almost all the characters of the skeleton remind us of Pinnipeds, only a few of Cetaceans, and so it is still doubtful to which order it belongs. Professor D’ARCY W. THOMPSON rejects all association with the Cetacea (_Studies from the Museum of Zoology in University College, Dundee_, Vol. I. N^o. 9.) The length of the largest skeletons measured seventy-five feet. The teeth and molars are nearly exactly those of seals. The nostrils were situated at the tip of the nose, as in seals, most probably, however, they were directed upwards. The bones of the rather short fore-extremities resemble those of seals. Most probably these limbs were provided with nails, as in seals. But, on the other hand, of some of the known skulls the remaining part shows an affinity to cetaceans. The vertebrae again are seal-like. Till now it is unknown whether the animal had hind-extremities or not, for the bones of them are not yet discovered. The body must have been rather slender and cylindrical. I venture to represent to my readers in fig. 66, a _Basilosaurus_ restored. As the bones of the fore-extremities closely resemble those of seals, it is probable that small hind-extremities were not wanting. If the former resembled those of dolphins, the existence of hind-flappers would be problematic. Yet I have omitted them, because the bones of them are not yet discovered, as far as I know.

The reader will remember that Dr. KOCH (see our Chapter on Hoaxes and Cheats) exhibited a large skeleton in Broadway, New-York, under the name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_. This skeleton was made by him out of several bones of the extinct _Basilosaurus_. The imposture was soon discovered by Prof. WYMAN, and, of course, immediately published in all kinds of newspapers, which also reached Europe. In FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, of February, 1846, is one of these articles translated into German. Consequently we may conclude that the translator of this article knew that the _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ was, in fact, made up of bones of the _Basilosaurus_. Now we find in FRORIEP’S _Notizen, Third Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847, a suggestion of a writer who wrote under the initials M. J. S. (evidently the Editor, the well-known Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN: I have searched the _Bibliotheca Zoologica_ of CARUS and ENGELMANN, and not found another author whose name has these initials):

“Is the sea-serpent perhaps identical with the _Hydrarchus_, viz. a still living species, a still present remainder, though in a few individuals, of former periods?”

I think that this means: “Are there perhaps still living _Basilosauri_, and is the sea-serpent perhaps one of these creatures?”

Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. wrote in _Nature_ of 18th. of November, 1880, Vol. 23, a paper, entitled: “_Order Zeuglodontia_”, in which he tries to show that the sea-serpent most probably belongs to this Order. The contents of his paper are as follows:

“In August 1848 H. M. S. _Daedalus_ encountered off St. Helena a marine animal, of which a representation appeared in the _Illustrated News_ of the latter part of that year. It is thirty-two years since I saw this figure, but I recollect that it was one of a blunt-nosed animal with a neck carried about four feet above the water, which was so long as to present the appearance of a serpent; and I remember that Prof. Owen, in combating at the time the idea that this was a sea-serpent, pointed out that the position of the gape in relation to the eye, as shown in the figure in the _Illustrated News_, was that of a mammal, and not that of a reptile; in consequence of which he argued that the animal seen was probably only a leonine seal, whose track through the water gave an illusory impression of great length. This idea, however, seemed to me untenable in the face of the representation in the _Illustrated News_; but it was obvious that to afford the buoyancy necessary for the support above the water of so long a neck (estimated on that occasion as sixty feet though only the part near the head was actually out of the water), the submerged portion of the animal could not have had the shape of a serpent.”

“Two or three years after this, on reading the description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_, from the Tertiary (probably Upper Eocene) formations of Alabama, it struck me that the animal seen from the _Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to which _Zeuglodon_ belonged; and I have ever since watched with interest for reports of the “great sea-serpent”.”

“Three years ago the following appeared in the newspapers.”

Here Mr. SEARLES WOOD copies the whole affidavit of the crew of the _Pauline_ (n^o. 144), and adds:

“The locality here specified was about thirty miles off the northern coast of Brazil.”

And he goes on:

“In this account I thought that I recognized the grip of the whale by the long neck of the attacking animal, the appearance being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the objects; but in face of the general ridicule which has been attached to this subject, and being without any assurance that the declaration so purporting to be made was genuine, I did not venture to ventilate my long-cherished idea. A relative of mine, however, just returned from India, chancing to say that two of the officers to the steamer in which she went out had on the previous voyage witnessed an immense animal rear its neck thirty feet out of the water, and that a sketch of the object had been instantly made, and on reaching port sent to the _Graphic_. I obtained the number of that paper for July 19, 1879, and I inclose a tracing of the figures in it, which are accompanied by the following statement in the Graphic:--”

The statement of the _Kiushiu Maru_ is further copied, accompanied by the two figures (see n^o. 151, figg. 48 and 49), and he continues saying:

“As I have not been able to find any description of the skeleton of the _Zeuglodon_, I venture to draw attention to the subject through your columns, in the hope that among your many readers in America this letter may attract the notice of some one who will tell us whether what is known of the osseous structure of _Zeuglodon cetoides_ is or is not consistent with the representation in the _Graphic_. The remains of the cetacean, supposed to be extinct, indicate, according to Sir Charles Lyell, that it was at least seventy feet in length, (He observes in the third edition of his “Manual of Elementary Geology”, 1851, p. 208, that he visited the spot where a vertebral column of this length belonging to _Zeuglodon_ had been dug up.) while its great double-faced but knife-edged molars show that it was carnivorous; and as we are not so far removed from the period of the Alabama Tertiaries as to render it improbable that members of what must once have been a great Order of carnivorous cetacea, totally distinct from the orders of cetacea hitherto known as living, may still survive, I have braved the ridicule attaching to this subject so far as to invite attention to it.”

“The second of the two figures in the _Graphic_ shows the long necked animal to possess the cetacean tail, and its head there seems to have been turned from the observer, so that the underside of it only is presented. The first figure shows that the whale had been seized on its flank by the powerful bite of its aggressor, and that to escape from this it had thrown itself out of the water. Having succeeded in this object the second figure shows the aggressor rearing its head and neck out of the water to discover the direction which its prey had taken, in order that it might follow it up; and so far from the charge of curious drawing made by the editor of the _Graphic_ being justified, the representation of the whale can be at once recognized as fairly correct; while that of the tail of the unknown animal (which probably prompted this charge), so far from being curious, forms an important piece of evidence as showing the animal in question to be catacean.”

This paper had already been sent to the Editors of _Nature_, when Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN., observed that he was mistaken as to the report, and as soon as possible he sent a Postscript to the Editors, which appeared appended to his paper. The postscript runs as follows:

“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my relative, and find that the cut in the _Graphic_ of July 19, 1879, is not that of the instance observed from the steamer in which she came home, which was the _City of Washington_; but of a separate instance which occurred to another ship. I have not been able yet to procure the _Graphic_ containing the figure of the animal seen from the _City of Washington_, but she tells me that it was pasted up in the saloon and represented only the head and long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great height out of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for the _Graphic_ by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence. These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked are, however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”

“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_, says that “the skull is very long and narrow _and the nostril single_”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth on which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded the order _Zeuglodontia_, from the Miocene of Malta; and that the teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the Gironde and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under the name of _Squalodon_, are those of a smaller species of _Zeuglodon_. The remains of _Squalodon_, along with those of the shark with huge teeth, _Carcharodon megalodon_, and of numerous cetaceans assigned to orders all still living, and of which some, such as _Delphinus_, belong to living _genera_, occur in the “Sables inférieures” of Antwerp; which, though long called Miocene, are by Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as older Pliocene, and as the base of that series of deposits of which the middle and upper divisions are respectively represented by the Coralline and Red Crags of England; and with these “Sables inférieures” the so called Miocene of Malta, in which _Zeuglodon_ is associated with _Carcharodon_, is probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc., 2d. ser., vol. I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp species of _Carcharodon_ from both the Eocene of South Carolina and Miocene of Alabama. These various references bring the _Zeuglodonts_, with their _Carcharodon_ associates, down to a late geological period during which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey the whale in the woodcut (which looks like a _Grampus_) seems an example”.

“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English (1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures (one of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves, and the other that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers or fins, resting almost on the surface of the sea, with head and tail erect out of the water like the letter U, and spouting water or steam from its mouth _in a single column_), from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen, some of whom had seen the animal in the position in which it was observed from the _Daedalus_, and others in that in which it is represented in the cut as seen from the _Kiushiu-maru_; for in the long narrative which he gives of the descriptions received from observers at numerous times, some of these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his own.”

“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing from the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”

I shall take the liberty to make some remarks on his paper.

The reader will remember (see n^o. 118) that it was _not_ the _long neck_ of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, made by the officers of the _Daedalus_, but the roundness of its neck, the apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of the animal’s head with that of a snake.

In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD says: “a neck, estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the reason of such a deduction!

As I have not read the “description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_” I am not able to discover the reason _why_ it struck Mr. Wood that the animal seen from the _Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to which _Zeuglodon_ belonged.

We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the object” (See n^o. 144). I will not contest his opinion!

I do not know what to think of Mr. WOOD, when he speaks of the _Kiushiu Maru_ in connection with a relative of his. I may suppose that his relative had told him she repatriated by the _City of Baltimore_ through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous voyage” of that vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding this he cites the account of the _Kiushiu Maru_ reporting the appearance of a sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) in the Van Diemen’s Straits. Most probably the _City of Baltimore_ never was there!

In short, the error took place, and Mr. WOOD sees clearly in the figures of the _Graphic_ his _Zeuglodon_ pointing out that this figure shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently the animal must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. WOOD was convinced that the _Zeuglodon_ (read _Basilosaurus_) had the following outlines!

It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had the opportunity to read “a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”. Yet he holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between the extremely _short_ neck of _Basilosaurus_ and the extraordinarily _long_ neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events _must_ have struck him.

At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations of PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_. It is clear that he has not read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that the Bishop concocted his two figures from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen”, whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first figure is a copy of a sketch of Mr. BENSTRUP, and the second a copy of the drawing of Mr. BING. Of the latter figure Mr. WOOD says “it is that of a serpent-like animal almost resting on the surface of the sea”. I shall be greatly obliged to any person who can show me a passage either in PONTOPPIDAN’S or in EGEDE’S work, stating that the animal presented itself in this way “resting on the surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself (n^o. 5), where it is clear that the animal must have been seen in this position for only the fraction of a second!

Mr. WOOD, describing the drawing of Mr. BING underlines the words: _in a single column_, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water or steam from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their attention to the fact that the figure represents the animal’s head seen from aside), whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose or mouth, when seen from aside could ever have been decided to be single or double! If we look at the breath of a horse, standing just on one side of him, it will be observed to be single. This optical illusion will be dispelled as soon as we stand in front of the horse. Bing’s figure would have been incorrect, if he had drawn two columns, though in reality--if the animal exhaled through its nostrils,--the column must have been double.--It is remarkable that Mr. WOOD does not say anything of the great difference between the figure of the _Kiushiu Maru_ (with a cetacean tail) and that of Mr. BING, (with a long and pointed one).--Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his own description!

Finally he compares the animal seen from the _Osborne_ with a manatee! Surely we must be a Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD JUN. to find this conception _not_ preposterous!

In a second paper in _Nature_ of February 10, 1881, Mr. WOOD quotes the report of the _City of Baltimore_, and correcting his second error, writes in parentheses “not _City of Washington_, as I had misunderstood.”--In treating of this report and of the accompanying figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers, whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in the act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According to his idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very long neck (called by him _Zeuglodon_), he ascribes the splash, caused by the hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal. Remarkable is his third error; for after having first confounded the foremost splash, drawn in the figure, with that described in the report as caused by the dropping of the neck, he now writes: “the foam around the neck may be due to the splash of the humeroid” (i. e. fore) “paddles which a cetacean should possess.”

Mr. WOOD further sees in the figure of the head of the _Daedalus_ animal (fig. 30) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead and eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison is far fetched.

Of the report of Captain Cox (n^o. 152) Mr. WOOD says:

“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major Senior in the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the water prior to its darting forward under it; while the boiling of the water around, which is so inconsistent with the motion of a snake in water (which I have more than once seen) evidently resulted from the strokes of the cetacean tail, and possibly also from those of the paddles, as in the case witnessed by Major Senior. The black colour also is described in both cases.”

In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion that the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four flappers together. It is very natural that Mr. WOOD who represents the sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and with a long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally he says:

“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous letter” (figg. 48, 49, 46, and reduced sketches of figg. 28 and 30), “it appears to me that the external form of the animal must resemble the well-known _Plesiosaurus_, if we imagine the hinder (femuroid) paddles of that _Enaliosaurian_ to be absent, and a cetacean tail (which is their homologue), to be present in their stead. Since in the direction of the _Porpesse_ the cetacean in external form so closely simulates the fish, so it may in another direction simulate this Mesozoic marine saurian, or the gigantic _Elasmosaurus_ of the American cretaceous formation, of which a nearly perfect skeleton is described by Prof. Cope as forty-five feet in length, the neck constituting twenty-two of this length.”

And he expresses his firm opinion:

“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists any doubt that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans, with necks of extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”

In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number of the _Album der Natuur_ for 1882, and in this issue the author of the present Volume treated of the probability of the existence of the great sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was only a student of Natural History at the Utrecht University, really believed the animal of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and was misled by the hoax of Captain SEABURY of which he only knew the last part, found by him in the Illustrated London News. In his firm belief, however, he examined such characters, taken from these tales and from nearly 60 reports then known to him, as were possible from a zoological point of view, and came to the conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a mammal, with _four_ flappers, a _long_ neck and a _long_ and _pointed_ tail, and that the position of this marine mammal is between dolphins and pinnipeds. Was there such an animal known? Yes, the _Zeuglodon cetoides_ of Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Well, as the sea-serpent has the outlines of a _Plesiosaurus_, with an enormous tail, he called it _Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_. At that time he was the dupe of the Stronsa animal and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so many other writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the difficult question without reading, if not all that had been written about the animal, at least much more than some few reports!

* * * * *

The =fourteenth= explanation is that of an anonymous writer in one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848. Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND, he asks whether or not the animal could be a full grown specimen of =Saccopharynx flagelium= of Dr. MITCHILL or the =Ophiognathus ampullaceus= of HARWOOD. I have only to tell my readers that these two names are given to two different species of the same genus, that the former attains a length of about five, the latter of about six feet, and to give the next figure, in order to enable them to judge themselves, whether such an animal could ever have shown itself in the form of a sea-serpent! They belong to the family of the _Muraenidae_.

The figure represents the _Eurypharynx pelecanoides_ of VAILLANT, taken from FILHOL’S _La vie au fond des mers_. GÜNTHER, in his _Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger_ says on p. 262 of _Saccopharynx Bairdii_ (synonym with _Saccopharynx flagellum_): “It is uncertain whether these specimens are specifically distinct from _Saccopharynx pelecanoides_ VAILLANT.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before my readers the above figure as a representation of the general outlines of _Saccopharynx flagellum_.

* * * * *

The =fifteenth= explanation is suggested by the same anonymous writer on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance of the sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether “some land species, as the =boas=, among which are individuals of forty feet in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even transport themselves from one continent to another”.

Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round the trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles Lyell from the _Zoological Journal_ of December, 1827. (Principles of Geology.)”

Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_ after having shown that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family _Hydrophidae_) because “none of these are known to extend a few feet in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, that a record exists of a serpent having been seen in the very midst of the North Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the historical fact of the boa constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes the report of the sea-serpent seen from the _General Coole_, (n^o. 25) and goes on saying:

“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that no suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to have occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and nothing more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, “sixteen or eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”

“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a true serpent--perhaps the _Boa Murina_, one of the largest known, and of very aquatic habits--carried out to sea by one of the great South American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to the spot where it was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion it affords us no help in the identification of the _great unknown_.”

“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly that of a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed to mark the characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal from another, are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at all events, is rather negative than positive. For example, if a person of liberal education and general information, but no naturalist, were to tell me he had seen a creature with a head “exactly like that of a snake”, I should understand him, that the head was not that of an ordinary beast, nor of a bird, nor that of the generality of fishes; but I should have no confidence at all that it was not as like that of a lizard as of a serpent, and should entertain doubt whether, if I showed him the form of head, even of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was something like _that_.”

“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the colossal animal seen from the _Daedalus_, and on other occasions, is a serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A lengthened cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything that appears, it may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender cetacean, as anything. All analogies and probabilities are against its being an ophidian.”

It is remarkable that Mr. GOSSE is disposed to believe that the sea-serpent of the _General Coole_ was a boa, because the report speaks of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of the _Daedalus_ was a boa, though the captain, Mr. M’QUHAE, clearly tells that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without any doubt, was that of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference between “a snake” and “a serpent with a head of a snake”!? What, in short, is the difference between a _snake_ and a _serpent_? Though he attaches a considerable value to the assertion of the captain of the _General Coole_ who speaks of “_a snake, and nothing more_”, Mr. GOSSE “does not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them was _undoubtedly that of a snake_”. How to make this agree?

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ says: “a marine snake of enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he means in this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents the sea, as the _Boa murina_, I have placed this supposition here, and I have not considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.

As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the boas are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.

* * * * *