Chapter III: Would-be Sea-Serpents (2)

“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists. Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the late Gilbert Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the skull and several vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which a portion of the pectoral fin, or _wing_, as it was termed by the natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined them.”

“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of what was termed the _mane_ of the animal, which I now exhibit.”

“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying on a sunken rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; but in a few days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on shore in a creek near the headland, where it remained for some time tolerably entire; and it was subsequently broken up by the fury of the waves. Before it was thus broken into several pieces it was examined, and measured by several intelligent inhabitants of the Island; and their testimony collected as above stated was forwarded to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations were, however, accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal, which was thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the storm abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, to collect what information he could on the subject. But by this time the body of the animal was completely broken up. This lad, who was no draughtsman, and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, from the descriptions of those who had seen the animal most entire, to delineate with chalk on a table a figure of the animal. The rude figure so produced was transferred by pencil to paper, and copies of it were handed about as real representations of the animal.”

“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted by those who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards obtained, it would appear that the _jointed legs_, which the lad had attached to it, are creations of his own imagination.”

“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, were never called _legs_ by those who saw the animal, but were denominated by them _wings_ or _fins_ or swimming paws. “That nearest the head was broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half feet in length, and was edged all round with bristles or fibres, about ten inches long”. The “lower jaw was wanting when it was cast ashore, but there remained cartilaginous teeth in portions of the jaws”. Before it was discovered putrefaction had commenced, especially in the _fins_. The animal had a long and slender neck, on which there were two spiracles on each side.”

“The _wings_ would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains of pectoral, abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have been placed, like those of some of the shark family, farther from the centre of the abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of the witnesses states that “the wings of the animal were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the drawing”.”

“The portion of the anterior fin or _wing_, which was attached to the omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a structure of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, the rays might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural science, seem like toes or fingers.”

“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing the fins of fishes:”--

“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires membraneuses representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et des pieds.”

“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal rests on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw it most entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew the three principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George Sherar, and William Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, and of remarkable intelligence. They were not _ignorant fishermen_, as the witnesses were represented to be; but two of them were of the better sort of farmers in that part of Orkney; and the first and the last of them were also very ingenious mechanics, much accustomed to the use of the _footrule_, the instrument employed in measuring the animal.”

“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that I can have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made of their impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”

“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months after these accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr. Home (afterwards Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside the evidence of the persons who saw and measured the animal in its most entire condition, as to its dimensions of length and thickness; and maintains that it was nothing but a Basking shark (Selache maximum!), which he supposes the love of the marvellous had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those whom he is pleased to call “_ignorant fishermen_”. Unfortunately for Home’s hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the Orkney Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so totally different from the animal in question, that the two could scarcely be confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had ever seen them.”

“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions) measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account scarcely exceeds thirty six feet.”

“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. My notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body of the Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much towards the head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large Basking shark, where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, the shark-like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the eel-like form of the Stronsey animal.”

“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more oval than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, who had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized horse in thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to fourteen hands in height, I found their greatest circumference to be from seventy-one to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet eleven inches to six feet one inch), or an average of six feet, that is less than the thickest part of our animal, but seemingly near that of its average dimensions.)”

“The _mane_ as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a decomposed fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a fin; and the animal seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had a mane, floating about like sea-weed; and a similar appendage has generally been noticed in some less distinct accounts of a supposed sea-serpent.”

“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior _wings_, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the _mane_ consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine animal. That its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from the specimen now exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches in length; and in the dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, equal to that of isinglass.”

“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our Museum, have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in the Wernerian Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their want of processes and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance to those of chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent to the cranium, measured only two inches across; while that of the Basking-shark, in the same situation, is about seven inches in diameter. Dr. Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of the omoplates, and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are accurately given, from a drawing made from the recent remains, by the late Mr. John T. Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman, and able naturalist. I know the representation to be correct, for I saw and handled the specimen. The substance of this part was a firm, but flexible cartilage, and seemed to have been placed in the muscles; just as Cuvier describes the omoplates of sharks to be: Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans le chair, en arrière des Branchies, sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à l’espine. The Orkney animal seems to have had _two circular_ spiracles on each side of its neck, about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the Basking shark has _five linear_ spiracles on each side, a foot or more in length.”

“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far too small for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual length of that species. It measured in its dried state no more than twelve inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven inches. A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a head of at least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium at the angles of the mouth, would have measured probably five feet. These proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal could not possibly be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed to see the Basking shark, with that fish. There was a hole on the top of the cranium, something similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans; but its lateral spiracles and cartilaginous bones forbid us to refer it to the order of cetacea”.

“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious _fish_, different from any described by naturalists; but it has no pretensions to the denomination of _Sea Serpent_ or _Sea Snake_, although its general form, and probably its mode of progression in the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order of _Serpentes_. Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known shark; nor does it belong to the family of Squalidae”.

I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. TRAILL’S paper. First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was cast on shore by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime tolerably entire”. This is not true, for the dead animal was already in a very putrified and damaged state, when it floated on the surface of the sea, for the pectoral fin was already putrified and the fibres had become loose.

Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, but they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by the strength of the hand”.

Mr. TRAILL further says that “they would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may be remains of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there is no fish known to Zoologists, that has _two_ anal fins. The anal fin is therefore called an _unpaired_ fin!

In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those of HOME’S Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. _Barclay_, permanently believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”! Further he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six feet”. Consulting Prof. H. SCHLEGEL’S _De visschen van Nederland_, I read, however:

“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, had a length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are usually observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this capture, which are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences, transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GUNNER, sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than 100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”.

In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the two dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so that their fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called “first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. _Barclay_!

The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of course no relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not “spiracles” as Mr. TRAILL says) of the Basking-shark. These “two spiracles on each side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”. They may have been decomposed stems of the vascular system in the flesh near the skull of the animal.

Dr. TRAILL, no more than Dr. BARCLAY, seemed to have known the difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or “cranium”!

The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in the engraving representing the skull in the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_ is evidently the result of putrification and of an external injury.

I need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of Stronsa”. They may more than once have observed that I agree with Mr. EVERARD HOME’S opinion in all particulars, except in the so-called exaggerated dimensions. I firmly believe that the carcass of the animal measured fifty-five feet from the head to the end of the tail, and as a piece of tail seems to have been broken off, the vertebral column may even have been one of sixty feet. The dried and shrivelled skull measured twelve inches “from the first cervical vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw”. But as I have pointed out that this “first cervical vertebra” was in reality the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous appendages, and as this nose tip must have measured (see the drawing of the skull in the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_, Vol. I) two inches, the whole skull measured fourteen inches. But the skull was dried and shrivelled, consequently we may safely admit that it measured in its perfect state about twenty inches. Consequently I conclude that: the largest Basking-shark that ever stranded on the coasts of Great Britain measured upwards of sixty feet, viz. the so-called “Animal of Stronsa”. The putrified body of it was floated ashore, and the putrification had continued so far that the almost black covering of the two backfins and the tail-fin were not only washed away by the waves, but that their yellow fibres had become loose. The eye-witnesses evidently reasoned that these fibres must have been present all along the back between these three parts, now far remote one from another, but were washed away, and they therefore concluded that the animal had “a mane, extending from the shoulders” (the part of the back at the level of the pectoral fins) “to the tail”, i. e. to the end of the tail. Or, according to another witness it extended “to within two feet and a half of the tail”; which may be explained in two ways, viz., either he meant that the mane extended to within two feet and a half beyond the level of the last pair of paws (the claspers), consequently the level where the tail begins, and here is the exact place of the hindmost back-fin, or he meant that the mane did not quite extend to the point of the tail, from which we in our turn may conclude that the last two feet and a half of the tail had already been wholly cleared from the fibres of the putrified tail-fin.

Moreover putrification on one side, and the beating of the waves on the other side, had already removed the animal’s enormous jaws, gills, with adherent muscles and cartilages, and all the entrails, except the valvular intestine. On persons who never saw such a mutilated specimen of a shark, the animal _must_ have made the impression of being a sea-snake!

As to the sketch, made by Mr. PETRIE after the descriptions of one of the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat altered by Mr. SYME, it will appear at a glance that besides the ridiculous legs, the head (read skull) of it is drawn too large. The carrion was 56 feet long and the drawing only 74 lines, consequently the length of one foot is represented by a space of 1.3 line. A skull of 14 inches should therefore be in this drawing only 1.5 line long, and not 6 lines. Last not least, the “mane” is not delineated on only three different places, as it really was, but from the “shoulders” to the end of the tail, according to the wrong conclusions of those “most intelligent eye-witnesses”! This terrible “mane” was evidently the _only_ cause of all this trouble, and of the whole puzzle!

* * * * *

1816.--_Phil. Mag._, LIV, 1819.--The third sea-serpent described by Mr. RAFINESQUE (for he believes there are several species), is called by him:

“3. _The Scarlet Sea-Serpent._ This was observed in the Atlantic Ocean, by the captain and crew of an American vessel from New-York, while reposing and coiled up, near the surface of the water, in the summer of 1816. It is very likely that it was a fish, and perhaps might belong to the same genus with the foregoing; I shall refer it thereto, with doubt, and name it _Octipos? coccineus_. Entirely of a bright crimson; head acute. Nothing further descriptive was added in the gazettes where the account was given, except that its length was supposed to be about 40 feet.”

I am convinced that this “sea-serpent” was a great calamary. As the greatest ever found, measured from the tip of the tail to the tips of the extended shorter arms about 30 feet (a calamary reposing or swimming in the sea always has its long tentacular arms coiled up), the length of 40 feet probably is exaggerated. I give here a figure of a large calamary, swimming on the surface of the water (taken from Mr. HENRY LEE’S Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883, corrected, however, as to its proportions), and now my readers most probably will agree with me that such an animal has been seen. The hillocks of the short arms make the appearance of a long undulating body. The body of such an animal is quite scarlet or crimson, and the tail (the so-called head) is acute.

* * * * *

1822, June.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of 1822, III, we read:

“Some time ago the American newspapers were filled with the reports of a sea-serpent which showed itself in the neighbourhood. Also more than a year ago an animal was caught, supposed to be such a one, which, however, was recognized as a large tunny. It appears by the New-York newspaper of June 15th., that such an animal taken for a great sea-serpent has been caught in a bay near Middleton-Point. This monster measured thirty feet and has a circumference of 18 feet. It had already been seen for some days, floating like a huge trunk. Some persons had fired at it with guns, but without any result. Having got into shallow water it could not regain the high sea, was killed with harpoons, towed aland and flayed. The liver alone produced three barrels of train-oil. It took six men two hours to drag the skin, which will be stuffed, to a distance of about 200 yards off. None of the old whalemen and seamen who saw the animal, knew it. There were no guts (?) and there was no heart (??). In the beak six rows of small sharp teeth were counted and the throat was wide enough for a tall man to pass. The skin was lead coloured and could be used as a stone for sharpening knives (apparently an unusual large shark?)”

About the tunny I allow myself to refer the reader to our fig. 1.--We immediately agree with Mr. FRORIEP that this animal was a large shark. Evidently it was dead, “floating some days like a huge trunk”. The reason that no whaleman recognized the animal, that neither guts nor heart was found, is of course to be found in the fact that the animal was putrified, irrecognizable, and had already lost its guts and some other entrails. Evidently it was a basking-shark, _Squalus maximus_ (See our fig. 8). The length of 30 feet and girth of 18 feet is normal in this species. Norwegian fishermen harpoon it to procure the train-oil from the liver. The teeth are comparatively small and conical, the skin is lead coloured and can really be used as a whet-stone.--

* * * * *

1849.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2335, we read:

“_A young sea-serpent._--On Friday, while some fishermen belonging to Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what appeared to them a young sea-serpent, and lost no time in bringing the young monster to the secretary of our Museum. The animal, whatever it may be called, is still alive, and we have just been favoured with a sight of it; but whether it really be a young sea-serpent or not, we shall leave those who are better acquainted with Zoology than we are to determine. Be it what it may, it is a living creature, more than 20 feet in length, less than an inch in circumference, and of a dark brown chocolate colour. When at rest its body is round; but when it is handled it contracts upon itself, and assumes a flattish form. When not disturbed its motions are slow; but when taken out of the water and extended, it contracts like what a long cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds itself up in spiral form, and soon begins to secrete a whitish mucous from the skin, which cements the folds together, as for the purpose of binding the creature into the least possible dimensions.”--“_Montrose Standard._”--

“[This creature was probably a specimen of Gordius marinus. I am obliged for the extract.--E. Newman.]”

Mr. NEWMAN suggesting this worm to be a _Gordius marinus_ evidently did not mean the _Gordius marinus_ of LINNÉ, but that of MONTAGU. The former is a little worm of about one half of an inch in length, living parasitically in the entrails of some fishes, especially in herrings, whilst the latter is identical to _Lineus longissimus_ of SOWERBY, belonging to the family of _Lineidae_, to the order of _Nemertini_, to the class of _Platyelminthes_ or Flat-Worms. Of this species individuals of thirty to forty-five feet in length have occasionally been dredged.

Having the means of consulting the splendid work of the British Nemerteans of Mr. Mc. INTOSH, I am able to show my readers in fig. 12 this _Lineus longissimus_, on a reduced scale.

* * * * *

1849, March 26.--Another would be sea-serpent; (Zoologist p. 2433 for 1849):

“_A strange marine animal_, of great size and strength, was captured on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By the enclosed handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears to be quite unknown to the neighbouring _savants_. The honest fishermen who drew the struggling monster to land are not, however, overscrupulous about the name, provided it be attractive enough to extract from the pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 6_d._; working people 3_d._ each”: they therefore boldly announce him as “the great sea-serpent caught at last”. My correspondent very judiciously observes, that whatever the animal may be, it adds another to the many evidences constantly occurring that there _are_ more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of by the most experienced practical observers. Some thirty five years since, the distinguished anatomist Dr. Barclay, was fain to reproach his contemporaries with the folly of affecting to suppose that they knew every thing. What additions have five and thirty years not given to Science! As the animal in question must be at least a local visitor, may we not hope, that some resident naturalist will favour us with a notice of it?”

“The great Sea-Serpent caught at last, by fourteen fishermen, off Cullercoats, on Monday last, March 26, 1849. This most wonderful monster of the deep was discovered by a crew of fishermen, about six miles from the land, who, after a severe struggle, succeeded in capturing this, the most wonderful production of the mighty deep. This monster has been visited by numbers of the gentry and scientific men of Newcastle, and all declare that nothing hitherto discovered in Natural History affords any resemblance to this. As an object of scientific inquiry, this “great unknown” must prove a subject of peculiar interest. Many surmises as to its habits, native shores, etc., have already been made, but nothing is really known. The general opinion expressed by those that are best able to judge, is, that this is the great sea-serpent, which hitherto has only been believed to have a fabulous existence, but which recent voyagers declare they have seen. Now exhibiting, at the shop, 57, Grey Street, opposite the High Bridge. Admission: ladies and gentlemen 6_d._, Working people 3_d._ each.”

In the _Illustrated London News_ of May 19, 1849, we find the following account of this capture:

“The Sea-Serpent.--We observe in the Newcastle papers that a strange and hitherto unknown fish, nearly 13 feet in length, and possessing many of the characteristics which the captain of the _Daedalus_ enumerated in his description of the great Sea-Snake, has really been caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats’ fishermen, and has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it has created the greatest sensation. The members of the National History Society of that town have duly reported upon it, and expressed their opinion, that it is a young specimen of the genus _Gymnetrus_, only four of which species, and those very rare, are known to ichthyologists, and described by Cuvier and others as inhabiting the Indian, Mediterranean and White Seas. The present specimen has become the property of a Newcastle merchant, who has presented it to the museum of that town; and we understand that, in accordance with a very general wish of most of our distinguished naturalists, it is now exhibiting in the metropolis.”

As we read in the _Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2460--2462, Mr. ALBANY HANCOCK and Dr. EMBLETON now declared it to be a probably new species of the genus of riband-fish (_Gymnetrus_).

Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the _Gymnetrus gladius_ of CUVIER and VALENCIENNES, taken from the _Règne Animal_. This fish is of a silvery colour, except the fins and the peculiar articulated head-ornaments, which are crimson. Its length is about ten feet, its home the Mediterranean. The _Gymnetrus Banksii_ or _Regalecus Banksii_ of Cuvier, closely allied to it, measures about twenty feet, sometimes more, and is, though rarely, hitherto caught only near the British shores. The fish in question therefore most probably belonged to this species.

* * * * *

1852, Aug. 28.--Mr. ALFRED NEWTON, of Elveden Hall, forwarded the following report to the Editor of the _Zoologist_ (see this journal for 1853, p. 3756).

“I have lately received the following account from my brother, Capt. Steele, 9th. Lancers, who on his way out to India in the Barham, saw the sea-serpent. Thinking it might be interesting to you, as corroborating the account of the Daedalus, I have taken the liberty of sending you the extract from my brother’s letter:--“On the 28th. of August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16′ S., about half-past two, we had all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when the first mate called us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight. About five hundred yards from the ship there was the head and neck of an enormous snake; we saw about sixteen or twenty feet out of the water, and he _spouted_ a long way from his head; down his back he had a crest like a cock’s comb, and was going very slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty or sixty feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put the ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached him, he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. _He was seen by every one on board._” My brother is no naturalist, and I think this is the first time the monster has ever been seen to spout.”

“I am told by a gentleman whose brother was on board the ship (the Barham) referred in the following extract from “The Times” newspaper of November 17, 1852, that the occurrence there related took place between 35° and 40° S. lat. and 40° and 45° E. long., being about 650 miles due south of Madagascar. I understand that the particulars of the event as there stated closely agree with those furnished to my informant, and further, which is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole circumstance, that the animal was observed to “blow” or “spout” in the same manner that a whale does.”

“_Extract from an Officer’s Letter written between the Cape and Madras._ You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen the great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion. Information was given by a sailor to the captain, just as we were going to dinner. I was in my cabin at the time, and from the noise and excitement, I thought the ship was on fire. I rushed on deck, and on looking over the side of the vessel I saw a most wonderful sight, which I shall recollect as long as I live. His head appeared to be about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept moving it up and down, sometimes showing his enormous neck, which was surmounted with a huge crest in the shape of a saw. It was surrounded by hundreds of birds, and we at first thought it was a dead whale. He left a track in the water like the wake of a boat, and from what we could see of the head and part of his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet in length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away to get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards he slowly sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at dinner he was seen again, and a midshipman took a sketch of him, of which I will send you a copy.”--_The Times._

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, 1^{st} Series, p. 311, says of these rapports:

“The descriptions, however, show great discrepancy with that of the creature, seen from the _Daedalus_” (see report n^o. 118 in the next chapter) “and cannot be considered confirmatory of the former account, otherwise than as proving that immense unrecognized creatures of elongate form roam the ocean.”

“Mr. Alfred Newton, of Elveden Hall, an excellent and well-known naturalist, adds the guarantee of his personal acquaintance with one of the recipients of the above letters.”

“I note this, because discredit has been undeservedly cast on the phenomena observed, by foolish fabulous stories having been published under fictitious names, for the purpose of hoaxing.”

“If it were not for the spouting--which is not mentioned by one observer, and may possibly have been an illusion,--I should be inclined to think that this may have been one of the scabbard fishes, specimens of which inhabit the ocean of immense size. They carry a high serrated dorsal fin, and swim with the head out of the water.”

By inserting these reports in the present chapter, I already show my readers, that I agree with Mr. GOSSE, that this animal cannot have been a sea-serpent.

I confess that I am unable to give a decisive answer to the question as to what kind of animal it really was. _Apparently_ the most plausible explanation is that given by Mr. Gosse, viz., that it was a riband or scabbard fish. The dorsal fin which in these kind of fishes begins at the occiput, is red or crimson coloured, and serrated, so that it may have given rise to the expressions of “a crest like a cock’s comb”, and “a huge crest in the shape of a saw”. But riband fishes are deep-sea fishes. When floating on the surface they are dying or already dead. They never “swim with their head above the surface”! Moreover the green colour does not agree with the common silvery hue of these animals. A riband fish is delineated in fig. 13, p. 93.

But wonderful it may seem that after having uttered this opinion, a few pages further on Mr. GOSSE uses this report amongst others to fix the class of living creatures to which the sea-serpent belongs. And what is the conclusion he arrives at?--that it belongs to the group of _Plesiosauri_, or at least is related to it!

* * * * *

1858, July 9.--_Another Sea-Serpent._--(_Zoologist_, 1859, p. 6492.)--“The Amsterdamsche Courant of October 6, 1858, inserts the following letter from Captain L. Bijl, of the Dutch bark “Hendrik Ido Ambacht”, to the “Jorn-Bode”:--“Sailing in the South Atlantic, in 27° 27′ N. Lat., and 14° 51,′ E. long., we perceived on July the 9th., between twelve and one o’clock in the afternoon, a dangerous sea monster, which during nine days constantly kept alongside of us to 37° 55′ S. lat., and 42° 9′ E. long. This animal was about 90 feet long and 25 to 30 feet broad, and, most of the time, it struck the ship with such a force as to make it vibrate. The monster blew much water, which spread an unpleasant stench over the deck. The captain, fearing lest the animal might disable the rudder, did his utmost to get rid of his fearful antagonist, but without success. After it had received more than a hundred musket-balls, a harpoon and a long iron bar, blood was seen to flow from various wounds, so that at last from loss of strength, the monster could swim behind our vessel no longer, and we were delivered of it. By its violent blows against the copper the animal’s skin had been damaged in several places.”--J. H. van Lennep, Zeist.”[2]

[2] _Jorn Bode_ is most probably a misprint for _Java-Bode_. _Zeist_
is the well-known charming village, east of Utrecht, the fourth town
of the Netherlands.

As to the animal, seen from the _Hendrik Ido Ambacht_, I think it must have been a sick spermwhale, which was out of temper; why else should it have been so angry that it followed the bark nine days, cuffing it “most of the time”? Moreover the nature of spermwhales is well enough known as angry and war-like.

* * * * *

1860?--In the _Zoologist_ for this year we read p. 6934:

“_A sea-serpent in the Bermudas._--I beg to send you the following account of a strange sea-monster captured on these shores, the animal being, in fact, no less than the great sea-serpent which was described as having been seen by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. S. “Daedalus”, a few years since. Two gentlemen named Trimingham were walking along the shore of Hungary Bay, in Hamilton Island, on Sunday last, about eleven o’clock, when they were attracted by a loud rushing noise in the water, and, on reaching the spot, they found a huge sea-monster, which had thrown itself on the low rocks, and was dying from exhaustion in its efforts to regain the water. They attacked it with large forks which were lying near at hand for gathering in sea-weed, and unfortunately mauled it much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven inches in length, tapering from head to tail like a snake, the body being a flatfish oval shape, the greatest depth at about a third of its length from the head, being eleven inches. The colour was bright and silvery; the skin destitute of scales but rough and warty; the head in shape not unlike that of a bull-dog, but it is destitute of teeth; the eyes were large, flat, and extremely brilliant, it had small pectoral fins, and minute ventral fins, and large gills. There were a series of fins running along the back, composed of short, slender rays, united by a transparent membrane, at the interval of something less than an inch from each other. The creature had no bone, but a cartilage running through the body. Across the body at certain intervals were bands, where the skin was of a more flexible nature, evidently intended for the creature’s locomotion, screw like, through the water. But its most remarkable feature was a series of eight long thin spines of a bright red colour springing from the top of the head and following each other at an interval of about an inch; the longest was in the centre: it is now in the possession of Colonel Munro, the acting Governor of the Colony; and I had the opportunity of examining it very closely. It is two feet seven inches long, about three eighth of an inch in circumference at the base, and gradually tapering, but flattened at the extreme end, like the blade of an oar. The shell of these spines is hard, and, on examination by a powerful glass, appeared to be double, some red colouring matter being between the shells; the outside, which to the touch and natural eye was smooth, being rough and much similar to the small claws or feelers of the lobster or crayfish. The centre was a wide pith, like an ordinary quill. The three foremost of these spines were connected for about half their length by a greasy filament; the rest being unconnected; the serpent had the power of elevating or depressing the crest at pleasure. The serpent was carefully examined by several medical and scientific gentlemen; the head, dorsal spine, and greater part of the crest are in the possession of J. M. Jones Esq., an eminent naturalist, who will, doubtless, send home a more learned description of this “wonder of the deep”. I regret that the immediate departure of the mail for England prevents my preparing you any more careful drawing of this great “sea-serpent” than that I enclose.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, adds hereto the following note:

“Written by Captain Hawtaigne, of Her Majesty’s 39 Foot. I place implicit reliance on the narrative, except as to the animal being identical with that seen by Capt. M’Quhae, of which I think there is no evidence. Mr. J. M. Jones is an old subscriber to the _Zoologist_, and a most intelligent; but the query occurs to me, “Is not _this_ sea-serpent a ribband fish?”--

Yes, _this_ sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent naturalist”, Mr. J. M. JONES, soon afterwards described this species for the _Zoologist_, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN has “received the following particulars of this most interesting capture from an old and valued correspondent of the _Zoologist_. It must be read in connection with a previous note on the same animal in the April number of the _Zoologist_. (Zool. p. 6934)”.

Now follows the description of the animal, by Mr. J. MATHEW JONES, with which we will not trouble our readers, only referring them to our fig. 13, p. 93, of a ribband fish, closely allied to the specimen, captured in the Bermudas.

Mr. JONES adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE (see report n^o. 118), and concludes that part of the reports concerning the great sea-serpent originated from the appearance of ribband fishes. His views of the matter, however, will be treated of in our chapter on the various explanations.

Immediately after this article Mr. NEWMAN wrote another, in which he shows that this fish is a _new species_, giving it the name _Regalecus Jonesii_, NEWMAN. How far Mr. NEWMAN was right in doing so, I am unable to decide. He gives a full description of his new species, and adds that he is not competent to express an opinion upon the similarity of _Regalecus Jonesii_ to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent.

* * * * *

1878.--The _Scotsman_ of September 6th. of this year has inserted in its columns the following account.

“A Baby Sea-Serpent.--From Van Diemen’s Land comes news of the capture of a queer fish. It is fourteen feet long, fifteen inches deep from the neck to the belly, tapering two inches to the tail, and eight inches in diameter in the thickest place. There are no scales, but the skin is like polished silver, with eighteen dark lines and rows of spots running from the head to the tail each side. There is a mane on the neck twenty inches long, and continues from the head to the tail; small head, no teeth, protrusive mouth, capable of being extended four inches like a sucker; eyes flat, about the size of a half crown, and like silver, with black pupils. There are two feelers under the chin, thirty-two inches long. The fish was alive when captured.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON who communicated this capture in _Nature_ of the 12th. of September, 1878, Vol. XVIII, thinks that this account “seems explicable only on the tape fish theory.” I think he might have written “_is_ explicable only on the tape fish theory”, or in short: “this was evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is identical to a ribband fish. Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes, some species evidently don’t live at great depth, and are occasionally cast ashore after a storm, as had also happened, in 1860, on the Bermudas (see hereabove).

* * * * *

1879, December 23.--(G. VERSCHUUR, _Eene reis rondom de wereld in 480 dagen_, p. 51.)

On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. VERSCHUUR on board the _Granada_, left Mazatlan, a harbour on the western coast of Mexico, for San Francisco. Probably on the 23d. the _Granada_ passed Cape San Lucas at 23° N. lat. Mr. VERSCHUUR says:

“Past Cape San Lucas, one afternoon, as I am gazing at the ocean surface, I see a long neck rising out of the water very close to the ship. I beckon some other passengers who are on deck, and after a few minutes the object in question appears a second time. It is the neck of a snake, one would say, and we estimate the length of the visible part of the animal at about a meter. The thickness is about that of the upper-arm of a full-grown man and the head ends in a point, and is as large as a child’s head”.

“We call the whole crew, and the captain as well as some officers run to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless five of us had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent altercation arose, when one of the officers said we evidently were mistaken, because the sea-serpent did not exist.”

“Nobody of us, it is true, could affirm that it was a sea-serpent. We could only firmly maintain that what we had seen, agreed in all respects with the shape of a serpent.”

“The second officer, who joined in the conversation, declared to have observed in 1871 near the coast of Australia, a sea-serpent which was several meters in length, and when this statement too was called in question, the quarrel got warmer and warmer, and, as it generally happens in such cases, every one kept his own opinion, and the world did not get any the wiser for it.”

“Does the sea-serpent exist, or does he not? This is a problem which has been answered more than once in the most affirmative manner, and also in a negative sense. I have heard the question disputed on more than one voyage.”

In order to obtain more particulars about the animal, I wrote to Mr. VERSCHUUR Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the following questions:

“Did the features of the “snake” make on you the impression to be those of a mammal, like those of a seal or sea-lion, though the pointed head more resembled that of a snake?”

“Or had the head, though being much larger, more the shape of that of an eel?”

“Were there just behind the head a pair of fins, as eels have?”

“Why did the visible part make on you the impression to be a “neck”. You speak of a “neck” of a snake. Was the diameter near the head smaller than that just above the water, as if the animal was still thicker under water?”

“Or did you observe the contrary?”

“Was the “snake” perfectly round, or was it provided on its back with a fin, as in eels?”

“What colour had your snake, and had the belly and the back the same colour?”

“Did you observe any eyes, nostrils, ears, ear holes, gills, whiskers, or any other appendages?”

“These are all questions which a zoologist wants to have answered in order to determine somewhat, what animal may have been seen by you.”

Mr. VERSCHUUR had the courtesy to send me an early answer Oct. 30th., 1889. The part of this letter referring to my questions runs as follows:

“I greatly regret to say that my answers will not help you much. The distance at which I saw this strange animal was too great, and the appearance too short, to observe anything of the particulars stated by you.”

“The part which we saw rise out of the sea had, if my memory does not deceive me, the thickness of a full-grown upper-arm, and the length of from 1 to 1¹⁄₂ meter.”

“The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of a snake’s head, i. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the “cobra” or of the rattlesnake.”

“Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., I could observe nothing, during this short appearance. The colour seemed to me to be a greyish one.”

“I regret not being able to give you more details than those written by me in my book of travels.”

I think this animal was of the eel-tribe, the dimensions were too small even to admit the supposition that it was a spawn of the sea-serpent.

* * * * *

We observe that many so-called great sea-serpents are to be explained by reference to _known_ animals. There are, however, a great many sea-serpents which don’t answer to the description of any _known_ being at all, unless we venture upon a suggestion which is either wrong, forced, or premature, and which can be accepted only with a smile or a shrug of the shoulders.

Some sea-serpent explainers are in the habit of explaining _one single_ sea-serpent, say by reference to a row of porpoises, and then try to account for others by this suggestion, the upshot of which is that the explainer does no longer see his way clear of the difficulties which beset him, and driven to his wits’ end, cuts the Gordian knot, leaving a great many sea-serpents unexplained.

Others, like Mr. GOSSE, Mr. ANDREW WILSON, and Mr. HENRY LEE, were prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea-serpent a _Plesiosaurus_, an extraordinarily developed _Hydrophis_, or a large Calamary (_Architeuthis_).

But none of them hit on the plan to put all the accounts, tales, and reports of this great unknown animal side by side, to point out the statements which are immediately recognizable as strange, or explicable by reference to some known animal, and finally to decide which of the known animals may have been bold enough to present itself as a deceitful serpentine creature, or, if the result is negative and leads to the conclusion that the sea-serpent does not belong to any known species of animal, to decide, what kind of animal does exist, though _unknown_ to zoologists! And to this inquiry we pass now.