Chapter V: The various explanations hitherto given (4)

The =sixteenth= explanation is given by Professor RICHARD OWEN, viz.: that the sea-serpent is a swimming =large seal=. I refer my readers to his answer to a nobleman’s question, what Captain M’Quhae could have seen, inserted in our foregoing Chapter (n^o. 118). After having enumerated all the characters of the animal seen by captain M’QUHAE, taken from the figures as well as from the descriptions, Professor OWEN comes to the conclusion: “All these are the characters of the head of a warm-blooded mammal..... Guided by the above interpretation, of the “mane of a horse, or a bunch of sea-weed”, the animal was not a cetacean mammal, but rather a great seal. But what seal of large size, or indeed of any size, would be encountered in latitude 24° 44′ south, and longitude 9° 22′ east?” Professor OWEN further concludes: _Phoca proboscidea_ or _Phoca leonina_. Very remarkable is the fact that a few lines before, the Professor said of the animal’s length: “This is the only part of the description, however, which seems to me to be so uncertain as to be inadmissable, _in an attempt to arrive at a right conclusion as to the nature of the animal_”. (The italics are mine).

In fig. 69 I show my readers the _Macrorhinus leoninus_, LINNÉ, or sea-elephant, of which _Phoca leonina_, LINNÉ, and _Phoca proboscidea_, PÉRON, are synonyms. The adult males have an elongated tubercular proboscis, the young ones and the females, one of which is seen in the background of my drawing, have the common features of seals.

Mr. H. E. STRICKLAND and Mr. A. G. MELVILLE in the note added to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2d. series, Vol. II, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848, say of Prof. OWEN’S letter that it “gives a simple and clear explanation of the circumstances that have recently attracted attention, and briefly, but conclusively, discusses the question of existence of the Great Sea-Serpent generally.”

Captain M’QUHAE, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of a seal. His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I therefore refer my readers to it (n^o. 118).

Mr. FRORIEP, in his _Notizen_, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, 1849, after having inserted in his columns extracts from the statement of Lieutenant DRUMMOND, from that of Captain M’QUHAE, from the hoax of the _Daphne_, from the suggestion of Mr. MANTELL, from that of Prof. OWEN, &c. &c. finally concludes:

“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is still fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea-serpent; yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must be a large sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a snake; but whether this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to the family of the amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful after the objections of Prof. OWEN.”

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_ treats of the seal-hypothesis in the following manner:

“Among animals, the _Vertebrata_ are the only classes supposable. But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but _Mammalia, Reptilia_, _Pisces_,--there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of lengthened form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each has the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.”

“Let us, then, look at the _Mammalia_. Here Professor Owen would place it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost the force of an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presumption if I venture to examine the decision of one whom I greatly respect. It is true, his reasoning applies directly only to the creature seen from the _Daedalus_; but we are bound to consider the exigencies not only of that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authenticated cases.”

“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal:--“Head with a _convex, moderately capacious cranium_, short obtuse muzzle, _gape not extending further than the eye_; eye rather small, round, _filling closely the palpebral aperture_; colour, dark brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, _without scales_, _scutes_, or other conspicuous modifications of hard and naked cuticle; nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by _a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle_; body long, dark brown, not undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins; “but something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of sea-weed, washed about its back.”

“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on the back to a horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing of hair; and, guided by this interpretation, the Professor judges that the animal was not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”

“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, more than from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that this diagnosis was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made _from the life_, under the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing could be more legitimate than such a use of them. But surely it has been overlooked that they were made under no such circumstances. Only one of the published representations was original; and this was taken “immediately _after_ the animal was seen”. That is, one of the officers, who could draw, went below immediately, and attempted to reproduce what his eye was still filled with. Now, what could one expect under such conditions? Of course, the artist was not a zoologist, or we should have had a zoologist’s report. Would the drawing so produced be of any value? Surely yes; of great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful representation of the _general appearance_ of the object seen, but nothing more; its form, and position, and colour, and _such_ of the details _as the observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down_, so to speak, _in his mind_, would be given; but a great deal of the details would be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an object before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles, relative distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them down _seriatim_; ever looking at the part of the original on which he is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was open to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but necessarily vague, idea of the whole before him as the original from which he drew. Who is there that could carry all the details of an object in the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, too, under strong excitement? This was not the case even of a cool professional artist, called in to view an object for the purpose of depicting it; in all probability the officer had not thought of sketching it till all was over, and had made no precise observations, his mind being mainly occupied by wonder. He sits down, pencil in hand; he dashes in the general outline at once; now he comes to details,--say the muzzle, the facial angle;--of course, his figure must have _some_ facial angle, _some_ outline of muzzle; but probably he had particularly noticed that point. What shall he do? there is no original before him, a glance at which would decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or three forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer, with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the head?” and then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so of other details.”

“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making a caricature. I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed for nearly forty years to draw animals from the life; and the public are able to judge of my power of representing what I see; but I am quite sure that if I were asked to depict an object unfamiliar to me, which I had been looking at for a quarter of an hour, without thinking that I should have to draw it, I should do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed the officer to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take him into your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful thing in blossom; keep him looking at it for some ten minutes without a hint of what you are thinking of; then take him into your drawing-room, put paper and colours before him, and say, “Make me a sketch of that plant you have just seen!” When it is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give you the characters of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare it yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general correctness.”

“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the sketch made on board the _Daedalus_ must be for minute characters; and particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked with italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove the mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters could not possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ distance. I say “_mainly_ relied on”; because there is the manelike appendage yet to be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of a mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it decides the question, however, I will presently examine.”

“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in which the creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to me at all to resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted cranium”. The summit of the head does not rise above the level of the summit of the neck; in other words, the _vertical_ diameter of the head and neck are equal, while there are indications that the occiput considerably exceeds the neck in _transverse_ diameter. This is not the case with any seal, but it is eminently characteristic of eels, of many serpents, and some lizards. Let the reader compare the lower figure (_Illustrated London News_, Oct. 28, 1848) with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s _British Fishes_ (ed. ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the scincoid lizards (the Jamaican _Celestus ociduus_, for instance) is not at all unlike that represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short, but a little more pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this point the Captain’s assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to Professor Owen, he distinctly asserts that “the head was _flat_, and not a capacious vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant Drummond, _published before any strictures were made on the point_, says, “the head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”

“With regard to the “mane”. The great _Phoca proboscidea_ is the only seal which will bear comparison with the _Daedalus_ animal in question, reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers declare that upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at the surface; but Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance of the water produced by progression induced an illusive appearance of a portion of this length. But how much? Suppose all behind thirty feet, the extreme length of the elephant seal. Then it is impossible the animal could have been such a seal, for the following reason. The fore paws of the seal are placed at about one-third of the total length from the muzzle; that is, in a seal of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle. But _twenty_ feet of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and yet no appearance of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head to have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); and besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”

“But the great _Phoca proboscidea_ has no _mane_ at all. For this, we must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two kinds are recognized under this name, _Otaria jubata_ and _Platyrhynchus leoninus_; though there is some confusion in the names. Neither of these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, about five feet would be the utmost that could project from the water in swimming. Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant officers to have magnified the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; I fear even then it will not do. For the mane in these animals is a lengthening and thickening of the hair on the occiput and on the neck, just as in the lion. But the “serpent’s” mane was not there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head” says Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says Captain M’Quhae.”

“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”

I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. GOSSE in discussing the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may add: _especially of the sea-serpent seen by Captain_ M’QUHAE, was prepossessed with his idea of the sea-serpent being an _Enaliosaurian_.--Mr. GOSSE points out that the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal; but he does _not_ fix the reader’s attention to the fact that if this were really the case, the estimation of the length of the head by Lieutenant DRUMMOND at “ten feet” and that of the diameter of the neck by Captain M’QUHAE at “sixteen inches” don’t agree at all!--In none of the reports of the animal of the _Daedalus_ there is question of the “serpent” being “twenty feet projected from the water”; it is only stated that the head was kept four feet above the water.--Neither do the reports mention _how much_ of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. GOSSE says “an equal length”.--Lieutenant DRUMMOND did _not_ say that the _mane_ was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the gallant officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!--

Prof. OWEN relying upon the descriptions of Captain M’QUHAE and drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their statements to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, absolutely rejects the estimation of the length of the animal at “sixty-feet at least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly come to another conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, and to the question: “which mammal could it have been? his reply could not be otherwise than: “a large seal”. It is evident that for this reason he recalled to his mind all the sea-mammals known to him, but he seems to have totally overlooked the possibility of the existence of sea-mammals unknown to him!!! The conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads the Professor to write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”. The Professor would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had examined _all_ the reports about the animal, and _all_ that had been written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a thorough investigation a sceptic _must_ remain a sceptic.

I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. The latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant has no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these characters are very prominent in the sea-serpent.

* * * * *

The =seventeenth= explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is nothing else but a gigantic =sea-weed=, detached from the bottom of the sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. In the _Zoologist_ of that year, p. 2541, we read the following statement of Captain HERRIMAN:

“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship _Brazilian_, now lying near the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the following curious and interesting statement:--

“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. the ship was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, being about forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, R. N., is said to have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight o’clock on that morning, whilst the captain was surveying the calm, heavy, rippleless swell of the sea through his telescope, the ship at the same time heading N. N. W., he perceived something right abeam, about half a mile to the westward, stretched along the water to the length of about twenty-five or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady, sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above the waters, had something resembling a mane, running down to the floating portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out into a sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly the same latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had fallen in with the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately called his chief officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, who, after surveying the object for some time, came to the unanimous conclusion that it must be the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae. As the _Brazilian_ was making no headway, Mr. Herriman, determining to bring all doubts to an issue, had a boat lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together with Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, who acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they approached the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow of the boat armed with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. The combat, however, was not attended with the danger which those on board apprehended; for on coming close to the object it was found to be nothing more than an immense piece of sea-weed, evidently detached from a coral reef, and drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the westward in this latitude, and which, together with the swell left by the subsidence of the gale, gave it the sinuous, snake-like motion.”

“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity of examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” account of the great sea-serpent,--Mr. Herriman himself admitting that he should have remained under the impression that he had seen it. What appeared to be the head, crest, and mane of the _immensum volumen_, was but the large root which floated upwards, and to which several pieces of the coral reef still adhered. The Captain had it hauled on board, but as it began to decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now regrets that he had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of exhibition in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the tide and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”

Again we read in the _Times_ of February 13th., 1858, republished also in the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5990:

“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington, of the ship _Castilian_, stating his belief that he had seen the great sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened by the fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship _Daedalus_ near the same position. The following circumstance which occurred on board the ship _Pekin_, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & W. Smith, on her passage from Moulmein, may be of some service respecting this “queer fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E., nearly calm, saw, about half a mile on port beam, a very extraordinary looking thing in the water, of considerable length. With the telescope we could plainly discern a huge head and neck, covered with a long shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out of the water. This was seen by all hands, and declared to be the great sea-serpent. I determined on knowing something about it, and accordingly lowered a boat, in which my chief officer and four men went, taking with them a long small line in case it should be required. I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to regard their approach. At length they got close to the head. They seemed to hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the monster all the time ducking its head, and showing its great length. Presently the boat began pulling towards the ship, the monster following slowly. In about half an hour they got alongside; a tackle was got on the mainyard and it was hoisted on board. It appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but so completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen inches long, that we had it some time on board before it was discovered to be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head of an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem alive. In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had rather an offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been a short time in England when the _Daedalus_ arrived and reported having seen the great sea-serpent,--to the best of my recollection near the same locality, and which I have no doubt was a piece of the same weed. So like a huge living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10, 1858.”--

The Editor of the _Zoologist_ adds the following quotation from HARVEY’S _British Algae_, p. 27, however, not as an explanation of the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer in its existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain SMITH and to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence of these large weeds. We do the same.

“The plants of this family (_Laminariaceae_) are almost all of large size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk any other marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our own coasts have frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds expanding from their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong (_Chorda_) often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions are small, compared with their kindred on the shores of the Pacific ocean. The _Nereocystis_, a plant of this family inhabiting the north-western shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than whipcord, but upwards of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex a huge vesicle, six or seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and crowned with a tuft of upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from 30 to 40 feet in length. The vesicle being filled with air, buoys up this immense frond, which lies stretched along the surface of the sea: here the sea-otter has his favoured lair, resting himself upon the vesicle, or hiding among the leaves while he pursues his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors this floating tree must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly, we find it used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”

As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. S. _Daedalus_” and Captain HARRINGTON repeated their assurances that the creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral HAMILTON took up the cudgels for Captain HARRINGTON, upon which Captain FREDERIC SMITH wrote the following paper (_The Times_ of 23 February 1858):

“Sir,--I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral HAMILTON, that in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three feet. Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson crabs, varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, were collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life could be furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking creatures which constituted the moving monstrous-looking external will assist those who read my account in believing what I before stated that even when the object was laid on deck we had difficulty in making out what it was. Now, sea-weeds of gigantic growth abound near the islands of the group of Tristan d’Acunha. From decay or other causes, these will from time to time be detached at the roots, and with their living attachment will then, floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents, into the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting himself. It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by the boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous specimens may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your insertion of this correspondence will cause more attention to be given to their capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_, to the forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers to “settle down” to the conclusion: “This must be the animal called the sea-serpent.” Had the monster I described not been taken, I should have believed, as firmly as Captain Harrington does, that I could confirm the statement of the commander of the _Daedalus_ and that “the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.””

“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary and unexpected appearances of things as compared with the things themselves when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the _Daedalus_ sea-serpent was seen in the recollection of one spectator, the mouth in that of another, and so on. I take leave to question the possibility of these being “most distinctly visible”, when the object at its “nearest position” was 200 yards distant, the sea getting up, and the observers travelling in an opposite direction, the passing of the two being apparently at the rate of 20 miles an hour. Naturalists will say whether an animal to answer to the habits and attributes of that in question would have a nostril.”

“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the _Castilian_, saw an extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression, and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the mercantile marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also for “Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless, these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington saw the sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very nearly and completely took me in until I took him in.”

“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant

“Fred. Smith.”

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, p. 320, inquiring whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the sea-weed hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.

“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal at all? That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting some of the characters described, has been already shown; and on two occasions an object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved on examination to be but a sea-weed floating; the separated and inverted roots of which, projecting in the role of the swell, seemed a head, and the fronds (in the one case), and (in the other) a number of attached barnacles, resembled a shaggy mane washed about in the water.”

“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view of the floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken this for a living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest degree to presume that of such a nature could be the creatures, going rapidly through the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, with the head and neck elevated, so distinctly seen by Captain M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at two hundred, the latter at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly dismiss the sea-weed hypothesis.”

Again in _Nature_ of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers the sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.

“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of the reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into masses of floating sea-weed.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ speaking of this hypothesis says:

“That a long and connected string of sea-weed, extending for some fifty or sixty feet along the surface of a sea, slightly disturbed by a rippling breeze, may be moved by the waves in a manner strongly suggestive of the movements of a snake in swimming, is a statement to the correctness of which I can bear personal testimony, and to the truth of which even observant sea-side visitors may testify. The movements of an unusually long frond or group of fronds of tangle, attached to a rock, and set in motion at low water, by a light swell, has before now, and when seen indistinctly, suggested the idea of the existence at the spot of some large denizen of the sea, browsing on the sea-weeds, with the fore part of its body, represented by the tangle fronds, occasionally appearing at the surface of the water.”

Though the writer of the following story which originally appeared in the _Madras Mail_, but which I take from _Nature_ of 13th. October, 1881, does not assert that the sea-serpent may be explained in this way, I firmly believe that such was, indeed, his purpose. I also think that this was the intention of the contributor who inserted it in the columns of _Nature_, of the man who sent a Dutch translation of it to the _Nieuws van den Dag_, of 26th. Nov., 1881, and of Professor P. HARTING who republished this translation in the _Album der Natuur_, of 1882, p. 66.

“In a letter to the _Madras Mail_ of September 8, on the use of gigantic sea-weed as a protective agent for shores, Capt. J. H. Taylor, the Master-superintendent of Madras, gives the following interesting “sea-serpent”-story:--“A notable incident connected with this sea-weed, is recalled to my recollection, by Dr. Furnell’s letter. About fifteen years ago, while I was in my ship at anchor in Table Bay, an enormous monster, as it appeared, was seen drifting, or advancing itself round Green Point, into the harbour. It was more than one hundred feet in length, and moved with an undulating snake-like motion. Its head was crowned with what appeared to be long hair, and the keen-sighted among the affrighted observers declared they could see its eyes and distinguish its features. The military were called out, and a brisk fire poured into it at a distance of about five hundred yards. It was hit several times, and portions of it knocked off. So serious were its evident injuries, that on its rounding the point it became quite still, and boats went off to examine it and complete its destruction. It was found to be a specimen of the sea-weed above mentioned, and its stillness after the grievous injuries inflicted was due to its having left the ground swell and entered the quiet waters of the Bay.”

It will not be necessary to point out that this hypothesis is not deserving of any notice on our part.

* * * * *

The =eighteenth= explanation is attempted by Mr. A. G. MORE (see _Zoologist_ for 1856, p. 4948). He writes as follows:

“The sea-serpent having again risen phoenix-like from the deep, in the pages of the “Zoologist”, it may perhaps be pardonable to sollicit insertion for the following attempt at explaining his reality, in some at least of the many instances of his reported appearance. Any one who has looked at the preserved remains of the great =ribband or scabbard fishes=, or who has ever read the striking accounts of the huge size they sometimes attain, as well as their extreme rarety, may, like myself, have been thus reminded of those mysterious sea-monsters which are occasionally observed by the unlearned to be no less a puzzle to learned opinion. When, too, we know that these fishes are supposed often to swim at the surface, and thus to be driven ashore more readily, when the only example of whose healthy life we have a credible account, is described as advancing head above water, and by the undulating movement of his body (Yarrell, Vol. 1. p. 177), may we not reasonably suppose that there exists other and more gigantic forms of this most interesting race as yet uncaptured, and such as might easily simulate, in the waving of their long dorsal fin, the so called “mane” of the great sea-snake.”

The ribband or scabbard fish theory is briefly treated of by Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_ in the following terms:

“There are, however, the ribbon-fishes; and some of these, as the hair-tail, the _Vaegmaer_, and the _Gymnetrus_, are of large size, and slender sword-like form. Several kinds have been found in the North Atlantic, and, wherever seen, they invariably excite wonder and curiosity. All of these are furnished with a back-fin; but in other respects they little correspond with the descriptions of the animal in question. One of their most striking characteristics, moreover, is, that their surface resembles polished steel or silver.”

In 1860 a ribbon-fish of large dimensions was captured on Bermudas Isles. Mr. TRIMINGHAM, the captor, placed it at the disposal of Mr. J. MATTHEW JONES, a naturalist living there. This gentleman described the animal for the _Zoologist_, in which his paper appeared in the volume of that year (p. 6986). Now Mr. JONES ended his article as follows:

“The most notable fact however, in connection with the capture of the present specimen, will doubtless be the interest and attraction it will produce on the scientific world, for most assuredly we have in the specimen now before us many of the peculiarities, save size, with which the appearance of that hitherto apocryphal monster “The Great Sea-Serpent”, as detailed by navigators, is invested. The lengthened filaments crowning the caput, joined anteriorly by the connecting membrane, and extending to the shoulders, would, viewed from a vessel’s deck, present to the spectator the mane so accurately described as a singular feature in the gigantic specimen seen by Capt. M’Quhae, R. N., and officers of H. M. S. _Daedalus_. Then again, the rapidity with which that individual specimen moved through the water, would coincide with the capabilities of a member of this genus, for the motive power produced by such an extent of tail, coupled with the extremely compressed form of body from the head throughout, must be immense.”

“Here then we have a partial elucidation of the various statements which have at intervals appeared in the columns of the united presses of England and America, emanating from the pens of travelers, and usually headed--“Occurrence of the Sea-Serpent”--criticised, however, in an ungenerous manner, and always exposed to an unmerited ridicule at the hands of the many, but, nevertheless, firmly believed in by the few, who have patiently waited to see the day when the mystic cloud which has hitherto veiled the existence of the maned denizen of the deep should vanish with the suspicion of the sceptic, and exhibit more clearly the truth of the assertions of those ill-used men, who, endeavouring like useful members of society to extend the cause of natural knowledge by publishing candid accounts of what their eyes have seen, have always met with an amount of contempt and reproach, sufficient to silence for ever the pen of many a truthful writer.”

“I am sorry I have not the numero of the Illustrated London News at hand in which Capt. M’Quhae’s graphic statement appeared, as it would have afforded me an opportunity of particularising other features in connection with his specimen and the present one. The facts, however, regarding the mane-like appendage, and the rapidity of motion to which I have alluded, are still fresh in my memory.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, thinking this ribbon-fish a new species, gave a detailed description of it, and honoured it with the name of _Regalecus Jonesii_, but to our great astonishment, he, who firmly believed the sea-serpent to be an _Enaliosaurus_ (as we have observed above) now seems to be in doubt about the matter, for he ends his article with the following words:

“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. Jones, the similarity of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’Quhae’s sea-serpent, I do not consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course; hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and arranging the conflicting evidence already published in the “_Zoologist_”.”

The ribbon-fish hypothesis gradually takes a firmer hold on the unbelievers, no doubt, as it _seems_ more plausible than the _Plesiosaurus_-one. An inhabitant of Cape Town wrote the following note which I have found in _Nature_ of the 1st. August, 1872:

“The South-African Museum, Cape Town, recently received a specimen of the Ribbon Fish (Gymnoterus) fifteen feet long without the tail. It appears that this fish is known to distant inland fishermen as being forty feet long, and from its slender shape and snake-like movement is probably the “sea-serpent” of late years so minutely described by navigators. From its head there is erected a plume of flexible, rose-coloured spines, and from head to tail along its back there is a conspicuous mane-like fin. Its general colour is like burnished silver. The eye is large and silvery, and the profile of the head comports well with that of the horse. The specimen could not be preserved, but there are two smaller specimens in the Museum.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his turn believes (see _Nature_ of Sept. 12, 1878) that:

“A long tape-fish” (which is the same as a ribbon-fish) “might do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a sea-serpent.”

In his _Leisure Time Studies_ he returns to his idea:

“A visit paid to the Newcastle Museum of Natural History, on which occasion I had the pleasure of inspecting a dried and preserved ribbon or tape-fish of large size, forcibly confirmed an idea that such an animal, developed to a gigantic size, and beheld from a distance by persons unskilled in natural history,--and who would, therefore, hardly dream of associating the elongated being before them with their ordinary ideas of fish-form and appearance,--might account for certain of the tales of sea-serpents which have been brought under our notice. I had been specially struck with the mention, in several accounts of sea-serpents, of a very long back fin, sometimes termed a “mane”, and of a banded body covered with tolerably smooth skin; whilst in several instances the description given of the heads of the sea-monsters closely correspond with the appearance of the head of the tape-fishes. These fishes have further been described by naturalists as occasionally having been seen swimming with an undulating or serpentine motion close to the surface of the water, the head being somewhat elevated above the surface,--this latter feature, as we have observed, forming a remark of frequent occurrence in sea-serpent tales. I found, on making inquiry into the history of these fishes, that their serpentine form had struck previous observers, but, as far as I could ascertain, their merits as representatives of sea-serpents had never before been so persistently advocated.”

“These views and the dimensions of the specimen at Newcastle, I communicated to the _Scotsman_ and _Courant_ newspapers in June, 1876. The measurements of the ribbon-fish at Newcastle are given as 12 feet 3 inches in length, the greatest depth being 11¹⁄₄ inches, and the greatest thickness only 2³⁄₄ inches; the small dimensions in thickness, and the relatively long length and depth, giving to these fishes the popular names of ribbon and tape-fishes. The species was the well-known _Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus Banksii_ of naturalists; and by the Museum attendant at Newcastle, I was informed that a still larger specimen of the same species was recently obtained of the Northumberland coast, the length of this latter being 13¹⁄₂ feet, the depth 15 inches, and the thickness 5 inches. These fishes possess a greatly compressed body. The breast fins are very small, and the ventral or belly fins are elongated and spine-like. The first rays of the dorsal or back fin are very long, whilst the fin itself extends the whole length of the back, and obtains an average breadth of about three inches.”

“Curiously enough, the publication of these views regarding the ribbon-fishes drew forth from the head of a well-known firm of fish merchants in Edinburgh, a remarkable confirmation of the idea that gigantic specimens of these fishes might be occasionally developed. The gentleman in question wrote to inform me that about thirty years ago he engaged the smack _Sovereign_, of Hull, Baillie commander, to trawl in the Frith of Forth for Lord Norbury, then residing at Elie Lodge, Fifeshire. Whilst engaged in their trawling operations, the crew of the _Sovereign_ captured a giant tape-fish, which, when spread out at length on the deck, extended beyond the limits of the vessel at stem and stern. The smack was a vessel of forty tons burthen; and the length may therefore be safely estimated at sixty feet,--this measurement being exceeded by the ribbon-fish. The breadth of the fish measured from five to nine inches, and the dorsal fin was from six to seven inches in depth. Unfortunately, Lord Norbury seemed inclined to view the giant he had captured with distrust and ordered the fish to be cut in pieces and thrown overboard; but it is also worthy of remark that the trawlers seemed to express no great surprise at the size of Lord Norbury’s specimen, since they asserted that they had met with one much larger, this latter being coloured of a dirty-brown hue.”

He also explains the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148) by reference to a ribbon-fish in the following terms:

“I thought the opportunity a favourable one for offering a reasonable explanation of the circumstance, and I communicated my views to the _Times_ in the following terms, the letter appearing in that journal for June 15, 1877:--“About a year ago I ventilated in the columns of several journals the idea that the “sea-serpents” so frequently seen, were in reality giant tape-fishes or ribbon-fishes. While not meaning by this statement to exclude the idea that other animals,--such as giant sea-snakes themselves,--may occasionally personate the “sea-serpent”, I am, as a zoologist, fully convinced that very many of the reported appearances of sea-serpents are explicable on the supposition that giant tape-fishes--of the existence of which no reasonable doubt can be entertained--have been seen. The report of Captain Pearson, of the royal yacht _Osborne_, appears, as far as zoological characters are concerned, to be fully explained on the “ribbon-fish” theory. The long back fins, the scale-less skin, the rounded head, and lastly, the two great side (or pectoral) fins, each measuring many feet in length, all form so many details corresponding exactly to the appearance of a great tape-fish. I offer these observations with the view of showing that, given a recital founded, as I believe the present narrative to be, on fact, we possess in the lists of living and of well-known animals adequate representatives of the great unknown.”

“The imperfect view obtained of the body renders the expression contained in the report, that the body was “like that of a gigantic turtle”, somewhat problematical as to its correctness; and in the absence of more defined information, does not necessarily invalidate the views expressed above as to the personality of this strange tenant of the Mediterranean Sea.”

“In an article entitled “Strange Sea Creatures,” which appeared in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for March, 1877, Mr. R. A. Proctor, speaking of my views regarding the sea-serpent, remarks that I offer “as an alternative only the ribbon-fish. This observation being hardly correct, I may point out that in the article in _Good Words_, from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” in Mr. Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the ribbon-fishes simply as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and not as a sole and universal representative of the modern leviathan.”

“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear proof before us that these and other animals may be developed to a size which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can only term enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the sea-serpent question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To objectors of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that we have not yet procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, I would point out that I by no means maintain the frequent development of such beings. The most I argue for and require is their occasional production; and I would also remind such objectors of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes which, until within the past few years, remained in the same mysterious seclusion affected at present by the great serpentine unknown. I need only add that I have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a giant serpent of the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its representative, or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law of its production.”

“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully submit, as does a pleading counsel to his jury,--”

“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified, when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion being especially supported by the want of any _prima facie_ reason for prevarication;”

“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved to be deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unusual attitudes on the part of familiar animals, there remains a body of evidence only to be explained on the hypothesis that certain gigantic marine animals, at present unfamiliar or unknown to science, do certainly exist; and”

“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most readily explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development of gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar to the naturalist.”

Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, too, supposes that “the dorsal fins.... of ribbon-fishes, as suggested by Dr. Andrew Wilson, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”.

I have only to direct my readers’ attention to the fact that a ribbon-fish has only _one_ connected dorsal _fin_, and not a _ridge of fins_, (compare fig. 13 with fig. 44). The dorsal fin of a ribbon-fish is quite red, the mane of the sea-serpent is dark brown, nearly black; the colour of the fish is silvery, that of the sea-serpent dark brown above, nearly black, and when having swum for a long time in the sun on the surface of the water, a greyish yellow; the under parts are of a dirty white. The fish has no flappers, which are the organs of locomotion of the sea-serpent. The breadth of a ribbon-fish is only a few inches, while that of the sea-serpent, as is clearly pointed out in the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148), may grow to more than fifteen feet. But I need not sum up the differences between ribbon-fishes and sea-serpents. We have only to ask the opinion of one of the most able ichthyologists of our days, and the whole hypothesis has not a leg to stand upon:

Mr. GÜNTHER says in his _Introduction to the study of Fishes_, 1880, p. 520:

“The “Ribbon-fishes” are true deep-sea fishes, met with in all parts of the oceans, generally found when floating dead on the surface, or thrown ashore by the waves.....”

“When these fishes reach the surface of the water, the expansion of the gases within their body has so loosened all parts of their muscular and bony system, that they can be lifted out of the water with difficulty only, and nearly always portions of the body and fins are broken and lost..... At what depths ribbon-fishes live is not known; probably the depths vary for different species; but although none have been yet obtained by means of the deep-sea dredge, they must be abundant at the bottom of all oceans, as dead fishes or fragments of them are frequently obtained. Some writers have supposed from the great length and narrow shape of these fishes that they have been mistaken for “Sea-Serpents”; but as these monsters of the sea are always represented by those who have had the good fortune of meeting with them as remarkably active, it is not likely that harmless Ribbon fishes, which are either dying or dead, have been the objects described as “Sea-Serpents”.”

* * * * *

The =nineteenth= explanation is that of Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS (see _Zoologist_, 1860, p. 7237) who believes that =a floating dead tree= “might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another sea-serpent”. His article runs as follows:

“An incident occurred on board the vessel of which I am surgeon, which, I think, deserves to be recorded as an illustration of optical delusion that might have become a source of error, and given rise to yet another sea-serpent. We were sailing among the Islands of the Miatan group, at the entrance of the Gulf of Pe-Chili. There was little wind, and the gentle ripples covered the surface of the sea. I was sipping my Congo at the open port of the ward room on the main deck, admiring the setting sun, and watching the rounded outlines of the blue mountains and distant islands against the sky, and the numbers of sea-birds “wheeling rockwards to their nests”, when my eye rested on a long dark object apparently making its way steadily through the water. After observing it some time in silence I was sorely puzzled and could make nothing of it. It was neither a seal nor a diver nor a fishing cormorant, for with their forms I was familiar; so I went on deck and consulted other eyes than mine. Sundry glasses were brought to bear on the suspicious object, and the general scrutiny seemed to decide that it was a large snake, about ten feet long (or much longer according to some), working its way vigorously against the tide by lateral undulations of the body. So strong was this conviction that the course of the ship was altered, and a boat got ready for lowering. With a couple of loaded revolvers, some boathooks and a fathom or so lead-line, I made ready for the encounter, intending to range up alongside, shoot the reptile through the head, make him fast by a clove-hitch, and tow him on board in triumph! By this time, however, a closer and more critical inspection had taken place, and the supposed sea-monster turned himself into a long dark root, gnarled and twisted, of a tree, secured to the moorings of a fishing net, with the strong tide passing it rapidly, and thus giving it an apparent life-like movement and serpentine aspect.”

After Mr. DREW had published in _Nature_ a case, in which he and many others were deceived by a large mass of flying shags, another contributor Mr. E. H. PRINGLE wrote the following (_Nature_, September 12, 1878):

“If you have space for the following, it is so confirmatory of Dr. Drew’s experience of an opera-glass dispelling “fond deceits” concerning a sea-serpent, that it may be worth recording.”

“One morning in October, 1869, I was standing amid a small group of passengers on the deck of the ill-fated P. and O. ss. _Rangoon_, then steaming up the straits of Malacca to Singapore. We were just within sight, so far as I remember, of Sumatra. One of the party suddenly pointed out an object on the port bow, perhaps half a mile off, and drew from us the simultaneous exclamation of “The sea-serpent!” And there it was, to the naked eye, a genuine serpent, speeding through the sea, with its head raised on a slender curved neck, now almost buried in the water, and anon reared just above its surface. There was the mane, and there were the well-known undulating coils stretching yards behind.”