Oe FoF eT u Fri a 7, a a Te a Tel a 0 Cte Pere oc eta d “eres < COC Cra oe ) Man 4 oh GS sae owt Yoo, 93 ‘ j 4 . ee ey 2 . \ bale ye Nob Ve eos SOL yee ee ye % oe yr yh hah > yb >’) ae) Poe he ey ae 4666 0 ee ve 0 ey Ble ee 0 or es ae ee oce ul a by EO ee ee Or eg PP SS 4 ee 4A he ee HAMAR REY ? ) aM: Sb KOM Py SP aro? oes oe) areata PP IG IA or “ye 373K HOP eee ON SP, PRIS Se Cw Ger ar oF SOF WW a er be yay er ae ae nes We OL Ok we had we hal OOS See ee Vana roa Pi A ee i \ ie iN ¥ oi P ove The . <\) meat, as 7 ri e4 Te) en i ct ying Le ” % Th ne : i 2 ty 7 Sie ne we iat ; hee a 7 Nh 1 ted i ao i cn Br iB ioe aa te i a 1F a arn a 7" in eas ae’, § i) cs a ay ny ai ae ‘ fi ae ri ' 7 = ; jay - a ae i ae a i e — ? me ' ' a - 1 : =~ # — i a : o i ~~ = - ‘ : = Pa ‘ . aa 7 i , os i rie — — F & 1 t ; , Co on ts u ah - 7 - = i _ = = ao is » | 7 ’ Ar j ' rt " = ea > ee ~e THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT. We ZA oAXx »\ THE GREAT SEA-SERPENT. AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL TREATISE. WITH THE REPORTS OF 187 APPEARANCES (INCLUDING THOSE OF THE APPENDIX), THE SUPPOSITIONS AND SUGGESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND NON-SCIENTIFIC PERSONS, AND THE AUTHOR’S CORMONGEIORTS. WITH 82 ILLUSTRATIONS. BY A. C. OUDEMANS, Jan., DOCTOR OF ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MEMBER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF THE NETHERLANDS, DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL SOCIETY (ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS) AT, ON TOT OT I NR RIA LOO PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, OCTOBER 1892. a a a ta a a a ae a a a LEIDEN , LONDON, EK. J. BRILL, LUZAC & Co., Oude Rijn 33a, Great Russell Street 46. PRINTED AT E. J. BRIL ™ THIS VOLUME Is DEDICATED TO OWNERS OF SHIPS AND YACHTS, SEA CAPTAINS AND ZOCOR O2GaeS Tes: “It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved.” — A. G. MELVILLE. (See p. 897 of the present volume.) ae _ Voyagers and sportsmen conversant with photography are re- © quested to take the instantaneous photograph of the animal: this alone will convince zoologists, while all their reports and pencil- drawings will be received with a shrug of the shoulders. As these animals are very shy, it is not advisable to approach them with a steamboat. The only manner to kill one instantly will be by means of explosive balls, or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine; but as it most _ probably will sink, when dead, like most of the Pinnipeds, the harpooning of it will probably be more successful. If an individual is killed, take the following measurements: — 1. Length of the head from nose-tip to occiput. — 2. Length of the neck from occiput to shoulders. — 38. Length of the trunk from shoulders to tail-root. — 4. Length of the tail from tail-root to end. — 5. Distance from shoulders to fore-flappers. — 6. Distance from shoulders to thickest part of the body. — 7. Length of a fore- flapper. — 8. Length of a hind-flapper. — 9. Circumference of the head. — 10. Circumference of the neck. — 11. Circumference of the thickest part of the body. — 12. Circumference of the tail-root. Give a description of the animal, especially an accurate one of the head, the fore-flappers and the hind-flappers, and, if possible, make a sketch. If but barely possible, preserve the whole skeleton, and the whole skin, but if this is utterly impracticable, keep the cleaned skull, the bones of one of the fore-flappers and those of one of the hind-flappers, four or five vertebrae of different parts of the backbone, neck, and tail; and preserve the skin of the head, and a ribbon of about a foot breadth along the whole back of the neck, the trunk, and the tail. PREFACE. In all ages meteoric stones have fallen on the earth. Many of them were found by persons who were in search of them; they pre- served them, and thus collections were made in private rarity cabinets and in natural history cabinets. Many learned persons believed in meteoric stones, but many others were sceptical, and their attacks were so violent, and their mockery about stones that fell from the atmosphere, or were thrown by the men in the Moon to the inhab- itants of the Earth, so sharp as to shake the belief of many a collector, and the happy possessor, fearing the mockery of the so- called learned men, concealed his treasures, or threw them away on the dust-hill, or in a ditch. But at last there appeared a firm believer in aerolites, named CHLADNI, who took the trouble to collect all accounts concerning ob- servations of meteoric stones from the ancient times up to the nine- teenth century. He showed 1. The immense number of facts. 2. The strikingly concurrent testimony in all the accounts independent of one another. In the year 1829 he published his work “Ueber Feuermeteore’”’ (i. e. on Meteoric Stones) in Vienna, and from that moment the eyes of unbelievers were opened. Meteoric stones were again found, and vat a EL» Oy ee : \ : Ne, _ PREFACE. were proved to be quite different from terrestrial stones. F: moment the belief in the existence of meteoric stones was fix for ever. es The author of the present Volume has been at the pa: collect all accounts concerning observations of Sea-Serpents. His 3 has the same purpose as Cuuapni’s had in 1829. It is his s' hope that it may meet with the same success. Tue Haque, } A Geo. ion February 1%, 1891. ex CONTENTS. — eee Page’ (TERT? oo 2 8 Sic ¢ CS Eg nS eer IE Sorin Oc wah Ur Tne OI IX MPMAMBEM IT SREEUIGU SI ere) et es. Aw oe ee ee Ae le etre Mes Bc XIII See ParcennbECROMat Ne cSUD|CCUin. <2. 26. dais bye ses b's pd, ne ee ade egy ere 1 II. Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent, cheats and hoaxes........... Ree ae 12 MPA MCR hOm SOA SEEN ONS cr cai °. . < ors 6 Stee oa) wy aan, hater oes ee ee eae ae 60 IV. The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms on the SapeEEMEILOC Le AOU Rte SMOJOCt sso. 2.5. eg ch sa See pene ee 102 weehe various explanations hitherto given............4....$a.+8.csssb nesses 380 LUST EL ee eines 6 rin eis Ocal nae clo 485 8) CO: OUSCIVEMNOTE RSG ae le, eaten tae ani MEMS Lorene soled a: 485 ybamoss Tewons, exarcerations and Grrors. .....2..<.5. sheet ee ee 4,95 Le DEG Eco: plop one pCn ee a a Se EAL nial oon gga © 4.98 1. External characters........ ne OE es Sh 6.90 ok oo 06 6 aid 4,98 2. VAG STOR a pe Ae ne HENS c Ean coo Hin: 498 ie VAG TBITS OOF eke etal ea BSUS LENDS Gs! Gi cny nore 4 a 505 &, ISIATL Oe eee oS GC Maree ear bes Ae ob OS act 511 PeeuLoEny OrsanaLomical. characters. .... .. . sisal, fest 5 eee 512 MCOLOUES INGIVICUAISVATIATIONS :. 6 0.3 kg cline, ose Jee ee ee 513 PEORIA GUNOEOIUCES | SIBIIC 5.2% 65 Sis 4 8 6 0 a oboe Be le eae ee 515 SEMEL SIOIO SICAL CHATACEOIS « ooscc4. 2 sa « «+ vie lis 0 a)e «caps soe ae 517 PeMMEEMOLY, LHUCHIOUS 22. <)2 5000s s «21s vies Os ye, 2 a ee en 517 PMU ALI OPaE LOO Age oe 2. ala. nj op o's ato atten, pg he en nee 517 i, CBS V3 05 MST oe ep a Paria reer AGS TS ocr 5 AWile hd 46 518 2, ol B57) 10) area ee ee Ee ea reer Sn srs INS 5 6 dias pic 518 Pecos Of LG” SCNSES 5-66 anh cca a eee a ae re 519 Loe GGL AES tae AO ee ea ae emer Temnne Perr OE (SKE os, s aR rice 519 eG SCS Ne as SOs oo ae PEE oS ote tee enti S 519 3, AG) An eee eee a a a Mc Sic 2s cit rec ach S 519 i, APRA ee Mer ne MN rr Ss 6 ent 15% 520 Se (aL oe ae ee ee eR ES ee San Qioignrile asc 520 é7-Enmentons ob thie: muscular: system, :......-.... seaweed aoe 520 Peg keatxo mobility of, Organs.”....... 3... tt eee eee 520 Peg GU GLC. 2 eee ee ere oan eee emer nooo co Sk SRR RS 3 522 ise V OIC G PA Be ae: Sets walt o aden «GeV nae eC ee 530 6. Psychical characters......... badew etl 2G a. Not taking notice of objects........... owl ats eet ea ee Oe lakingenoice ol objects.) ea.) so ee te ee ee a a Rat e. Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion.....................0.06 7 @. SUSpiciones . 2. 5°. Bee Lan dg Sie Re Skee a e. Harmlessness....... Le ES eee 6 oc PIER, PTE Paelimidityet ase) itunes. loa ieee ESS le. os a mblearlessn@ssit0. 22 cee 3 oc ee i S0e BE Be c's ds INGEN mo 6 Se Ri EEIOE Petee ao cin & ics Cae eee ee nd ee ae erm ae lit een ek ie, ornare cue OE se Se On ee ee es» RUT cocoa eae bast word) Picts. tot, cts tr oh te ete hts Hane, nual richer . ob ot eee LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page. eles eh iannius: thynmus (UINN.) .o1.... 5 28 bce eine eee ee aS occ 2 19 Beene ydrarchos sillvmannt Koch o...5 016.0. 2 eed ee ee sans 31 Fig. 3 and 4. — Would-be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston ................-. 55 Fig. 5. — The Sea-Monster, as Mr. C. RENARD supposed to have seen it ...... 58 Fig. 6. — The largest calamary, ever found, with a scale of 80 feet............ 61 eee —bhoe Amimal of Stronsas . G. eos ak ceed so sec es Ge Eee en 63 Bes. — squalus macimus, Winn.-............4.. Ra ee ry eA Ecler a6 12 Sea OR TIET TE INOMSUTOSH:, LuINN.'. 2s. ). 5 ss). dele) s stele dae ete eee 76 een T UC (COPMLILDICO, q(HUIIN:) aps. 62h 6 ae ote «) 05 oper bigots eh boreeesh ayers es each eee 78 Fig. 11. — A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the sea............. 88 eee TICLES MLONOUSSIINUS SOW ocho oss od! s 2s a, sor oyu ue rekon ow omeeg eer teoke 9] Peiee—eGymnecirus giaous, Cuve Vals. ...2. 5 6... oe ee eee 93 Fig. 14. — The Sea-Serpent, as represented by Otaus Maenus................ 106 Fig. 15. — The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the text of GESNER.................. 107 Fig. 16. — The second Sea-Serpent, illustrating the same work................ 108 Fig. 17. — The Sea-Serpent, as represented in the Basle edition of OLaus Macnus’ TOE creed Le Batre oes i PP Prem ate A Mas . oad 109 Fig. 18. — The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the Map of Scandinavia in the Basle ERMIDI CHOP OUAUS, MAGNUS? WOLK .. < of. cl. 5 dis 2.2: oe Serene ee Rg re een ee 109 Fig. 19. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Eorpr, drawn by Mr. Bine..... 114 Fig. 20. — The same individual, plunging back into the water................ 115 Fig. 21. — The drawing of Mr. Bing, as reprinted and altered in the Illustrated Bondow News Of 1846.22.52... .....°. she Ge ack Gc ce SN I Peer ea ey arene 116 Fig. 22. — Mr. Bine’s drawing, as copied by PoNTOPPIDAN..............+.05. 119 Fig. 23. — Mr. Brne’s drawing, as altered in Dr. Haminton’s work............ 120 Fig. 24. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Governor BENSTRUP.............-..-: 126 Fig. 25. — Mr. Brenstrup’s drawing, as altered in Dr. Hamiron’s work....... 127 Fig. 26. — The Sea-Serpent, as delineated by Mr. Princh.................... 207 Fig. 27. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Mr. WAaRBURTON.............2..005. 234 Fig. 28. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Officers of the Daedalus.......... 273 Fig. 29. — Another sketch ofthe same individual............ .......eeeeeee 274 Fig. 30. — A sketch of the head of the same individual...................... 276 Fig. 31. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by an officer of H. M. 8. Plumper....... 296 Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35. — The Sea-Serpent as seen by Capt. Guy, of the Imogen 304 Fig. 36. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Captains TREMEARNE and Moreay..... 306 Fig. 37 and 38. — 'l'wo positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by Dr. Biccarp.. 308 Fig. 39 and 40. — Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. Jonn MBACEA® and tiie toy, WAVID LWOPENY... sc. 2.. ieee oe eee 323 . 41. — The so-called ,,Fight between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale’’...... 330 XIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. fig. 42. — Another representation of the so-called ,,Fight between a sea-serpent and saisperm-whale” 0005 2a. ss Se Seto, ng Fig. 43. — The sperm-whale going down head foremost to the bottom.......... Fig. 44. — The ridge of fins, mentioned in the report of the Osborne.......... Fig. 45. — The Sea-Serpent as seen by Commander Prarson and Lieutenant Haynes of the Osborne: 2... o..c.. oes os fs ee ee Fig. 46. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Major Senior of the City of Baltimore Fig. 47. — Outline of the back of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. H. W. Brown Fig. 48 and 49. — Two positions of the sea-serpeut, as seen by Captain Davison ofthe Kashi Maru.s.:..2 0.2.0... Skee EL ee Fig. 50. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer Avitie near the Hebrides. Drawn under the supervision of the Captain, Mr. Wetsz, by the American animal-painter Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ...........:.. ..5.....00ee Hig. 51. — Outline of the Sea-Serpent seen near Little Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. Mort, after three different sketches. ....:.....:.....5. 0 Hig. 52. — Phocaena phocoena (linn). e-e........-. 8.0 2 Hig. 53. — A row of porpoises. 2s. 448 saeco. eos 12) ee Big. 54. — Scohophis atlanticws., one sixth of full’size,..2..2..02. 25. eee Wie, 55. — Ttsshead; full@sizehs. ee. 2 tee ce wo ee Fig. 56. — Aydrophis. pelanmndoides:n..-.-... =. 0: cea) Hig. 57. —= Balaenoptera tohysalusa(Minn’).2 1; eee. oo oe Hig. 58: — Ichithyosaurus communis, skeleton...2....-....-..04.- 0: ee Big, 59. — Ichthyosaurus communis, restored (23.2... 2... 152s se Vig, 60. — Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, skeleton................2%...... 500 Rie, 61. — Plestosaurus dolichodeirus, restored .....).s...2.2.3. = eee Bic, (62. OIG WU OOSOUT US tet. «iors ake) s/o(e.s)0 0 see at eee Mae tae Bigs 6320S 1G, WUDEPCULGLO « . «<9 ois vais 00s io 8 sheune Se oie ee Big) 640 ——sCatodon macrocepnalus.: .. sss t 5) a -fotls eisie lets ee ee Hic, (6b.0—— Basitosorus, Skeleton... ..<.. 2... s\- » i selene aie eee eee Fig. “66; Basilosaurus, restored... 0.0 .)).0.0 Gee wee yee ne eee Fig. 67. — Basilosaurus as imagined by Mr. Szearntes V. Woop, Jun......... Fig. 68. — Hurypharynx pelecanoides, Vaillant....................:4..08 8 Pie. 695 — Macrorhinus: leonmus (inn:) .......25..: 60s. dee eee Fig. 70. — Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. Henry Ler explains Nina iyiGss, dra Wilf aon one element ee PMA ST RSME os co : Bie Wie Thrichechus manotus Minne... 3.0. .7. 2.40 (2 ee) eee Fig. 72. — Sea-Serpent, side view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions........ Fig. 73. — Sea-Serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions....... Fig. 74. — Zalophus californianus (Lesson) Allen? — Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton Aquarium. — From the Illustrated London Neos votedan. <6; “L877: o.nAest-s 3. eka cas Pe ee ae ah Fig. 75. — Zalophus californianus (Lesson) Allen? — Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton Aquarium. — From the Illustrated London News ot Jan..'6, 1871526 hes aks lee ae ee i ee ee Fig. 76. — Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters. — Drawn by the animal-painter G. Miirzer from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. — From the Jilustrirte Zeitung of Jan. 27, 1877 ...2.5...2........2 eee Fig. 77. — Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters. — Sketched by the animal- painter G. Miurzet from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From: the Illustririe Zeitung of Jan. 27, 18717. ..-.....) 3 3eeeee Fig. 78. — Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters. — Sketched from a living spec- imen by the animal-painter G. Miirzen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the Iliustrirte Zettung of Jan. 27, 1877. ...< 2.5 eee ee 547 548 549 550 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. XV Fig. 79. — Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters. — Sketched by the animal- , painter G. Murzen from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. Pramneheaniinestivie Zevtung Ob dale aie tO bli... cutie ee ees laaley ee cae de 551 Fig. 80. — Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters. — Sketched by the animal- painter G. Murzen from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. Brome tne Eesteirie Zeitung of Jama 20 lod (et. s sii 2. ea wee ect ane. 55] Fig. 81. — Otaria jubata (Forster) Desmarest. — From the ,, List of the Vertebrated Animals now or lately Living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of JT TOUS , LAVA ts eee ORC Tuten Sa 2 eae i 2 an a ern Se 552 Fig. 82. — Callorhinus ursinus (Linné). Gray. — From Breum’s, “Thierleben”. 553 L. Literature on the Subject. An asterisk (*), placed before the works, mentioned in the list, Seis that the author has had no opportunity to consult them. . — Olaus Magnus. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus , earumque diversis statibus, conditionibus, etc.. etc. Romae, 1555, p. 771. . — Olaus Magnus. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, etc., etc., (Iéditio nec Romae nec Basileae). . — Gesner. Nomenclator aquatilium animantium (= Historia animalium |i- ber IV), Tiguri, 1560, p. 93, 94. . — Olaus Magnus. Historia de gentium septentrionalium variis conditionibus statibusve, etc., etc., Basileae, 1567, p. 799. _— Edward Topsell. The Weare of serpents, or the second booke of liv- ing creatures. With wood couts in-fol. London, 1608, (315 pag.). . — Aldrovandus. Serpentum et draconum historiae libri duo. Bononiae, 1640, p. 58, 59, 296. . — Jonston. Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II. Francofurti, 1653. - — Jonston. Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpenti- bus et draconibus libri Il, Amstelodami, 1657. . — Jonston. Naeukeurige beschrijving van de natuur der vissen en der slan- gen en draken. Amsterdam, 1660. Deel II en IV. . — Jonston. Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpenti- bus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1665. . — Milton. Paradise Lost. I, 192—208. . — Charleton. Onomasticon zoicon. Londini, 1668. p. 34. . — Berndsen. Danmarks og Norges fruchtbare Herlighed , 1670? 74, — Adam Olearius. Gottorfische Kunstkammer. Schleswig, 1674. . — Ramus. Norges Beskrivelse, 1690? . — Jonston. Theatrum universale omnium animalium, Amstelaedami. Edidit Ruysch, 1718. . -- Jean Baptiste Labat. Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, con- tenant histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. Paris, Giffard, 1722. 12°. 1 “4742. 1742. 17431 “4745. 1746. *4753. “1768. aT TA. ASS. “2790; *4805. LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. . — Jean Baptiste Labat. Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, con- tenant Vhistoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. La Haye, 1724. _ — Pere Labat. Nieuwe reizen naar de franse eilanden van Amerika: In ’t Nederlandsch in ’t ligt gebracht door W. C. Dijks. Amsterdam, 1725, Vol. Iv. P. I. p. 43. — Vol. IV. P. IL p. 105. . — P. Dass. Beskrivelse over Nordland. 1730? . — Hans Egede. (A Full and Particular Relation of his Voyage to Green- land, as a Missionary, in the year 1734, printed in Danish at) Kjoeben- havn, 1740. . — Hans Egede. Ausfihrliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der Groenlindischen Mission, etc. Hamburg, 1740. 4°. —- Paul Egede. Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den Groenlanske Mission, Tilstand og Beskaffenhed, Kjoebenhavn, 1741. . — Paul Egede. Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenlandische Mission be- treffend; Kopenhagen, 1744. . — Hans Egede. Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration. Kjoebenhavn, 1744. . — Hans Egede. Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration. Copenhagen, 1742. . — Paul Egede. Journal of the mission to Greenland, 24. Vol. London, 1742. (The first Vol. by Hans Egede, and the third Vol. by Niels Egede do not contain anything about the subject.) -—— Labat. Nouveau Voyage aux Isles francaises de Amérique, VII, p. 344. Paris, 1742. — Charles Owen. An Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents. Lon- don, John Gray, 1742. —- Paul Egede. Efterretninger om Grénland. Kjébenhavn, 1743? p. 45—46. — Hans kigede. A description of Greenland. London. 1745. — Hans Egede. Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746. — Eric Pontoppidan. Det fdrste Forség paa Norges natuurlige Historie. Kjoebenhavn , 2¢, Vol. 1753. . — Erich Pontoppidan. Versuch einer natuerlichen Historie von Norwegen, 24, Vol. Cap. VIII. § 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Kopenhagen, 1754. . — Eric Pontoppidan. The Natural History of Norway. London, 1755. . — Hans Egede. New Natural History of Greenland. 1760.? . — Hans EKgede. Description et Histoire Naturelle de Groenland. Copenhague et Geneve, 1763. . — Hans Egede. Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland. Berlin, 1763. . — Jonston. Theatrum universale omnium animalium. Heilbron, 1764. . — Knud Leems. Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, 1765. . — Canutus Leemius. De Lapponibus Finmarchiae eorumque lingua, vita et religione historia, c. notis J. EH. Gruneri. (Text in Latin and pan 2 Vols. 4°. with 100 figgs. —Jonston. Historia naturalis de piscibus et cetis, et de serpentibus et dra- conibus. Rouan, 1768. — Knud Teen Nachrichten von den Lappen in Finmarken, ihrer Sritalobes Sitten, u.s. w. Aus dem Dan. iibers. v. J. J. Volekmann. Leipae aaa 8°. — Paul Egede. (Intelligences from Greenland, in the original Danisch language). Kjoebenhavn, 1789. — Paul Egede. Nachrichten von Groenland aus einem Tagebuch geftihrt von 1721—1788. Kopenhagen , 1790. — Peter Ascanius. Icones rerum naturalium, ou figures enluminées ayes: 1808, 1809, 1809, 1809, 1809, A814, 1847, “1817, *4817, 1817, 1847, *1847. 1818, 1818, 1818. 1818, 1818. 1818. 1818. “1818, 1818, 1818, LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. BY toire naturelle du Nord. Cah. V. Copenhague 1805. (In the first four Cahiers the author does not touch the subject). Nov. — The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 32, p. 190. Jan. — The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 33, p. 90. March. — The Philosophical Magazine. Vol..33, p. 251. May. — The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 33, p. 441. July. — E. Home. An anatomical account of the Squalus Maximus, which, etc. — Philosophical Transactions of the’ Royal Society at London, 1809. Vol. 98, p. 206—220. March. — Dr. Barclay. Remarks. on some parts of the animal that was cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, September 1808. — Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol. I. Aug. 20. — Extract from a letter from S. G. Perkins, Esq. dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to E. Everett, in Paris. — (This extract, a manuscript, preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Gottingen, has never before been printed.) Oct. 145. — The Columbian (newspaper). Oct. 22 or 23. — (A New York newspaper). Nov. 13. — Letter from Edward Everett in Paris to the “Obermedicinal- rath und Ritter” Blumenbach in Gottingen. — (This letter preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Géttingen, has never before appeared in print). | Dec. — Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a sea-serpeut, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817. 8°. Boston, 1817, with two plates, 52 pg. — Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England. Boston, 1817. April. — H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville. Sur un nouveau genre de Serpent, Scoliophis, et le Serpent de mer vu en Amérique en 1817. — Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle. Vol. 86. Paris, 1818. June. — Sur le serpent nommé Scoliophis. — Extrait d’une lettre de M. A. Lesueur au Rédacteur (Mr. H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville). Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle. Vol. 86. Paris 1818. — Hoffmann and Oken. Thier von Stronsa. Oken’s Isis, II, 1818, p. 2096. — W. D. Peck. Some Observations on the Sea-Serpent. — Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. IV. Part 1. Cambridge 1818. — American Sea Serpent. — The Journal of Science and the Arts. — Kdited at the Royal Institution of Great Britaine. Vol. IV. London, 1818, p. 378. — American Sea-Serpent. — The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts. R. Inst. Vol. VI. London, 1848, p. 163. — Wieder eine ungeheure Meerschlange an America. — Oken’s Isis, 1818, p- 2100. June 9 -— Commercial Advertiser, Boston. Aug. 21. — (Boston Newspaper). A paragraph from this newspaper is pre- served in the library of the Royal University of Gottingen). Sept. 141. — Letter from Mr. Andrews Norton to Mr. George Ban- croft, at that time a resident at Gittingen. — The letter is preserved in the library of the Royal University of Géttingen, and has never before ap- peared in print. “1818 — W.... On the history of the Great Sea-Serpent. — Blackwood’s Ma- gazine, Ill. p. 33-42. 1819, 1819. 1819. 1819. 1819. 1819. *4819. *4819. 1819. 1819. 1820, 1820. 1821. 1821. 1821. *4821. 1821. 1821. 1822. 1822. 1822. *4822. 1822. 1823. 1823. 1823. *1824. 1824. LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. Jan. — American Sea-Serpent. — The Philosophical Magazine, Vol. LIII, p. 71. — W. D. Peck. Some observations on the Sea Serpent. — The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts. R. Inst. Vol. VIII. London, 1819, p. 68. — Scoliophis. Eine neue Schlangen-Sippe. — Oken’s Isis, 1819, p. 143. — Meerschlange in Amerika. Lesueur aus Amerika an Blainville. —— Oken’s Isis, 1819. p. 263. — Ueber die Meerschlange an Amerika. Von T. Say aus Philadelphia an Leach in London. — Oken’s Isis, 1819, p. 653. — Einige Bemerkungen tiber die Meerschlange von Amerika, von W. D. Peck, Prof. d. N. G. in Amerika. — Oken’s Isis, 1819, p. 1123. Aug. 19. — Boston Daily Advertiser. — Boston Centinel. — Amerikanische Meerschlange. — Oken’s Isis, 1819. p. 1754. Nov. — C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz. Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea- Snakes and Sea-Serpents. — Philosophical Magazine. Vol. LIV. May. — Prof. Jacob Bigelow. Documents and Remarks respecting the Sea-Serpent. — Silliman’s American Journal of Science and. Arts. Vol. II, p. 147—154. Boston (1819) 1820. — De beruchte Zeeslang op de kusten van Noord-Amerika. — Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk, Amsterdam, 1820. — On the American Sea-Serpent. — The Philosophical Magazine and Journal, Vol. 57, 1821, p. 356—359. — Walter Scott. The Pirate, Vol. I, Chp. II. — Otto von Kotzebue. Entdeckungs-Reise in die Stid-See und nach der Behrings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordoéstlichen Durchfahrt. Unternoin- men in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818. Weimar, 1821, Zweiter Band, p. 108. — Otto von Kotsebue. Voyage of discovery into the South-Sea and Behring’s Straits, London, 1822. — Sea-Serpent. — The Philosophical Magazine and Journal, Vol. 58, p. 454. — Analysis of one of the Vertebrae of the Orkney Animal. — The Edin- burgh Philosophical Journal. Vol. V, p. 227. Jan. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Pence do epee. — Dr. Hibbert. Description of the Shetland-Islands. London, 1822, p. Boaaa — Otto von Kotsebue. Ontdekkingsreis in de Zuid-Zee en naar de Behrings straat in de jaren 1815, 1816, 1817 en 1818, tweede deel p. 277. Amster- ~ dam, 1822. June, 15. — New-York... (newspaper). Aug. — Die sogenannte Seeschlange. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, UI, n°. 48, p. 53. Febr. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, TV, n°. 68, p. 24: — A. de Capell Brooke. Travels through Sweden, Norway and Finmark in the Summer of 1820. London 1823. June. — Nachrichten tiber die grosse Seeschlange. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, IV, n°. 84, p. 273. — Newbury port... (newspaper). — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, VIII, nw 168, p. 218. Cr LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. >. June 214. — New York Advertiser. “41826 1826. Oct. — Sea-Serpent. — The American Journal of Science and Arts, con- ducted by Benjamin Silliman, Vol. XI. 1827. — Dr. Hooker. Additional testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent of the Ame- rican Seas. — The Edinburgh Journal of Science, Vol. VI, 1827, p. 126. 1827, April. — Dr. Hooker. Fernere Zeugnisse titber die Seeschlange in den Ame- rikanischen Meere. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XVIII, n°. 256, p. 49. 1827, June. — Sea Serpent. — The American Journal of Science and Arts, con- ducted by Benjamin Silliman, Vol. XII, June, 1827, New Haven. *4827, Aug. — Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania. “1827, Sept. 5. — Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania. *1827, Sept. 15. — Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania. 1828, Jan. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, SEPK, ur. 4095 p.. 193. “1828. — John Fleming. A history of British Animals, etc., Edinburgh, 1828. 1829. — Sam. L. Mitchill. The history of Sea Serpentism. — Silliman’s Ame- 1830, 1830, 1832, * 1834. 1834. * 1834. 1835. 1835. 1837. *1837, 1837, 1839. * 1839, * 1839. * 1839. 1839, *4840. “1840, A84A., * A843, 1843, rican Journal of Science and Arts, 1829. April, May. — Chronicle. June. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Notun und Heilkunde , RXVil, n°. 589, p. 265. Nov. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und IEUSLIOE Meee, no 7156, “p.. 122. — Bakewell. Introduction to Geology. Chap. XVI, p. 342; with a note of Prof. Silliman. June. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde , XL, n° 879, p. 328. — C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz. — Abhandlung tiber Wasser-Schlangen, etc. — Oken’s Isis, 1834. Extract from Phil. Mag. 1819. July. — A sea-serpent. — Silliman’s American Journal of Science and Arts, Vol. 28, New Haven, July, 1835. Aug. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XLV, n° 980. p. 186. — H. Schlegel. Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, Amsterdam, 1837. Sept. — The “Adis” of Drontheim , (newspaper). Oct. — Froriep’s Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heil- kunde, 1V, n° 67, p. 7. — Dr. R. Hamilton. Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of Jardine’s Naturalist’s Library). — The Athenaeum, London, 1839, p. 902. — Boston Mercantile. — Kennebek Journal. Oct. — Froriep’s Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heil- kunde, XII, n° 248, p. 88. — Boston Daily Advertiser. Sept. 15. — Journal du Havre. — H. Rathke. Ueber die Seeschlange der Norweger. — Archiv fir Na- turgeschichte 7& Jahrgang, I, 1841, p. 278. — Christiansund Posten. Nov. — Froriep’s Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heil- kunde, XXVIII, n° 606, p. 184. 6 “1844, “1845, 1845, 1845, 1846, 1846, 1847. 1847. “41847. 1847. 1847. 1847. 1847, 18477, 1848. 1848, 1848. “1848, “1848, “1848, * 1848, * 1848, 1848, * 1848, “1848, 1848, * 1848, 1848, 1848, * 1848. 1848 , “1848, 1848, 1848, 1848, 1848, * 1848, * 1848, * 1849, * 1849, * 1849, LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. — H. Schlegel. Essay on the physionomy of Serpents, Edinburgh, 1844. — Cincinnat. Gazette. Nov. — Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. II, p. 65: Dec. — Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. II, p. 73. Jan. — Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural Mistory, Vol. Il, p. 94. Febr. — Froriep’s Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heil- kunde, XXXVII, n° 801, p. 134. — Dr. R. Hamilton. Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV, of Jardine’s Naturalist’s Library). — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1604—1608. — The Zoologist, London, 1847, n° LIV, wrapper. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1714—1716. — Charles Cogswell. A plea for the North Atlantic Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1844—1846. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1911. July. — Ueber die Seeschlange. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, Ill, 54, p. 148. Oct. — The Zoologist, London, 1847, Preface. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1848, p. 2028. June. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, VI, 134, p. 328. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1848, p. 2192—2193. Oct. 9. — The Times. Oct. 13. — The Times. Oct. 24. — The Literary Gazette. Oct. 214. — The Globe. Oct. 23. — The Times. Oct. 28. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Nov. 2. — The Times. Nov. 4. — The Times. Nov. 4. — The fossil Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Nov. 11. — Prof. Richard Owen. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Times. Nov. 15? — Note on the subject » Dodo” of Mssrs. Strickland and Melville.— Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d. Series, Vol. Il, p. 444. Nov. 15? — Prof. Richard Owen. The Great Sea-Serpent. — Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 458. Nov. 24. — The Times. Nov. 23. — Prof. Richard Owen. The Great Sea-Serpent. — Galignani’s Messenger. Nov. 25. — Boston Daily Advertiser. Nov. 25. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Nov. 27. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1848, p. 2306 — 2324. Nov. 27. — The Zoologist, London, 1848, Pretace. Dec. — Prof. Richard Owen. Ueber die Seeschlange. Froriep’s Notizen a. d. Gebrete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, VIII, n° 169, p. 234. — Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England, Boston, 1848. Dec. 30. — Bombay Bi-monthly Times. — Life and Letters of Campbell, 1849? Jan. — Westminster Review. Jan. — Bombay Bi-monthly Times. ‘ i LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. if *4849, March? — Boston Atlas. *4849, — Montrose Standard. 4849. — Enormous undescribed animal. — The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2356 41849. — Inquiries respecting the Bones of a large Marine Animal, cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, 1808. — The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2358—2363. 1849, Apr. 144. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. 4849. — The Sea-Serpent? — The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2395—2398, 4849. — A strange Marine Animal. — The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2433. 1849, May, 19. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. *4849, July, 9. — The Sun. 1849, July. — Ueber die Grosse Seeschlange. — Froriep’s Notizen aus dem Ge- biete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, X, n° 205, p. 97. 4849. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2458—2460. 1849. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2541. 1849. — The Zoologist, London, 1849. — Preface. 4850, Jan. 12. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. 1850, Jan. 19. — The Great Sea-Serpent. The Illustrated London News. “4850. — Romance of the Sea-Serpent or Ichthyosaurus. Also a collection of the ancient and modern authorities, with letters from distinguished merchants and men of science. Cambridge, U. S. 1850, 12°, 172 pages. *1850. — Christian Mercury (U. S. newspaper). *4850. — Charlestown Courier. 1850, April 20. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. 1850. — The Great Sea-Serpent again. — The Zoologist, London, 1850, p. 2803. *4850, Sept. 2. — Cork Constitution. “4850, Sept. 7. — Cork Constitution. 1850, Sept. 7. — The Sea-Serpent again! — The Tees London News. *4850, Sept. 11. — Cork Reporter. 1850, Sept. 14. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. 1850. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1850, p. 2925—2928. 1850, Dec. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. Vol. Ul, p. 328. 1851. — Rev. Alfr. Chrl. Smith. Notes on Observations in Natural History dur- ing a Tour in Norway. — The Zoologist, London, 1851, p. 3228. 1851, Oct. — Froriep’s Tagsberichte iwber die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heil- kunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie, n° 395. *4852, Febr. — New York Tribune. 1852, Febr. — Galignani’s Messenger. “1852, Febr. — Philadelphia Bulletin *1852, Mrch, 10. — The Times. 1852, Mrch, 13. — The Great Sea-Serpent caught at last. — The Illustrated Lon- don News. 1852, Mrch. — Froriep’s Tagsberichte iiber die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heil- kunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie, p. 486. 1852, Mrch. — Froriep’s Tugsberichte ber die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heil- kunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie, p. 491. 1852, Apr. — Reported Capture of the Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, p. 3426 — 3429. *4852, Nov. 17. — The Times. 1853, Jan. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1853, p. 3756. 1854, June? — Dr. T. S. Traill. On the supposed Sea-Snake, cast on shore in the Orkneys in 1808, and the animal seen from H. M. S. “Daedalus” in ‘ LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. 1848. — Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh, Ill, n° 44, p. 208. Febr. 17. — The Sea-Serpent Once More. — The Illustrated London News. Aug. 13. — Buffalo Daily Reporter. Sept. 15. — The Great Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Oct. 4. — The Times. The Great American Snake Caught. The Zoologist, London, 1855, p. 4896. May, 3. — Another Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Oct. 4. — The Sea-Serpent again. The Illustrated London News. — The Great Sea-Serpent. The Zoologist, London, 1856, p. 4948. — The Sea-Snake Story a fiction. The Zoologist, London, 1856, p. 4998. Febr. and March. — Cape Argus. Bo, March. 14. — Cape Argus. ) June 13. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Febr. 5. — The Times. Febr. 13. — The Times. Febr. 16. — The Times. Febr. 23. — The Times. Febr. — Revue Brittannique, n° 2, p. 496. March. 20. — Another Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. July or Aug. — Java Bode. Oct. 6. — Amsterdamsche Courant. — Another Peep at the Sea-Serpent.— The Zoologist, London, 1858, p. 5989. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1858, p. 6015—6018. — Another Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1859, p. 6492. — Dr. R. Hamilton, Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of Jardine’s Naturalist’s Library.) — P.H.Gosse. The Romance of Natural History, Vol. I, Lond., Nisbet, 1860. — A Sea-Serpent in the Bermudas. — The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 6934. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 6985—6993. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 7054—7052. — On the Probable Origin of Some Sea-Serpents. — The Zoologist, London, 4860, p. 7237. — Captain Tailor’s Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 7278. Sept. — Skibbereen Eagle. Sept. — Cork Constitution. — A Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1861, p. 7354. — Grattan’s Civilized America, p. 39. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1862, p. 7850—7852. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1863, p. 8727. June 13. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. April 9. — F. Buckland, The Sea-Snake Again. — Land and Water. June 13. — Nature, Vol. VI. Aug. 4. — Nature, Vol. VI. Aug. 17. — Sea-Serpent, lately seen near Galveston. The Graphic. Sept. 7. — Land and Water. Sept. 12. — Nature, Vol. VI. May. — Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the Norwegian Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1873, p. 3547—3522. Nov. — The Scotsman. Nov. 20. — The Times. Dec. — The supposed Sea-Serpent. — The Zoologist, London, 1873, p. 3804- 1875, 1875, 1876, “1876, “1876, *1876, “4876, *4877, *4877, * 4877, 4877, *4877, 4877, 4877, *1877, *4877, *1877, 4877, 1877, e401, me YY Bs *1877, *1878. *1878, 1878, * 1878, 1878, 1878, 1879, 1879, 1879, 1879, 1879, *1879, 1880. 1880, 1881, “1881, 188A, 1884, 1881, “1881, 188A, LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. 9 Nov. 20. — The Great Sea-Serpent. — The Illustrated London News. Dec. 4. — Illustrirte Zeitung. June 29. — The Sea-Serpents of the seventeenth Century. — The Graphic. June. — The Scotsman. June. — The Courant. Dec.? — London and China Telegraph. Dec. — Good Words. — J. Adams. Account of a supposed Sea-Serpent seen off Nepean Island. Proceedings Lit. Philosophical Society of Liverpool, n° XXXI, p. LXVIII. Jan. 6. — J. K. Webster. — The Sea-Monster. — Advertiser and Ladies’ Journal. Jan. 10, sqq. — (Newspapers of Liverpool). Jan. 13. — Illustrated London News, p. 35, 3d column. Jan. 15. — R. A. Proctor. Strange Sea-Monsters. — The Echo. Jan. 27. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Graphic. Febr. 3. — Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange. — Illustrirte Zeitung. Mrch. — R. A. Proctor. Strange Sea-Creatures. — The Gentlemen’s Magazine. June 13? — Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette. June 14. — The Times. June 16. — The Graphic, p. 563, 34. column. June 30. — The Sea-Serpent. — The Graphic. Sept. 4. — Manchester Courier. Sept. 8. — F. Buckland. Occurrence of a Sea-Serpent. — Land an Water. Sept. 45. — F. Cornish, Reply to Buckland. — Land and Water. — Wochenblatt fiir das Christliche Volk. May 24. — F. Buckland. Supposed Sea-Snake caught in Australia. — Land and Water. Sept. 5. — The Sea-Serpent explained. — Nature, Vol. XVIII. Sept. 6. — The Scotsman. Sept. 12. — The Sea-Serpent explained. — Nature, Vol. XVIII. Sept. 19. — The Sea-Serpent explained. — Nature, Vol. XVIII. — Andrew Wilson. Leisure Time Studies; chiefly biological; a Series of Essays and Lectures. With Numerous Illustrations, London , Chatto and Windus, 1879. Jan. 30. — (Critic of Mr. Wilson’s Leisure Time Studies). — Nature, Vol. XIX. April 19. — The Graphic. July 19. — The Graphic. July 24. — The Sea-Serpent. — Nature, Vol. XX. Sept. 24. — The Times. — A. Gunther. The Study of Fishes, p. 521. Edinburgh, 1880. Nov. 18. — Searles V. Wood, Jun. Order Zeuglodontia. — Nature, Vol. XXIII. Febr. 10. — Searles V. Wood. Zeuglodontia. — Nature, Vol. XXIII. Sept. 8. — Madras Mail. Oct. 8. — Le Monde LIllustré. Oct. 13. — Nature, Vol. XXIV. Nov. 12. — A. C. Oudemans, Jzn. Jets over fabelachtige verhalen en over het vermoedelijk bestaan van de groote Zeeslang. — Album der Natuur, 1882, p. 143—26. (The issue appeared already Nov. 12, 1881). Nov. 15? — Cape Argus. Nov. 17. — De Zuma-Afrikaan. 10 1881, 1882, * 4889. * 1889, * 1889, * 1889, 1882. * 1889, 1882. 1883. 1883, 1883, 1883, 1883, 1883, “1883, * 1884, 1884, “1885, “1885, 1885, “1886, 1886, 1886. 1886. * 4889, 1889, 1889, 1890, LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. Nov. 26. -— Nieuws van den Dag. Jan. -- P. Harting. Een Zeeslang. — Album der Natuur, 1882', p. 66. — Catherine C. Hopley. Curiosities and Wonders of Serpent-Life. Lon- don, 1882, 8° p. 247—267. May, 22. — Giant cuttlefishes. — Scotsman. June. — The Sea-Serpent at Shetland. — Glasgow Herald. June. — Newcastle Chronicle. — Die Neueste Seeschlange. — Illustrirte Zeitung, p. 2035. July, 4. — A Stradling. — Land and Water. — G. Verschuur. Eene reis rondom de wereld in vierhonderd en tachtig dagen. Haarlem, 1882. — Henry Lee. Sea Monsters Unmasked. — London, Clowes & Son, 1883. Jan., 25. --- The Sea-Serpent. — Nature, Vol. XXVII. Febr. 4. — The Sea-Serpent. — Nature, Vol. XX VII. Febr. 8. — The Sea-Serpent. — Nature, Vol. XX VII. Febr. 15. — The Sea-Serpent. — Nature, Vol. XXVII. Oct. 20. — The Inevitable Sea-Serpent. — The Graphic p. 387. Nov. 4. — Chambers’ Jonrnal, p. 748. Sept. 14. — Inverness Courner. Nov. — C. Honigh. Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen. — De Gids, p. 300. July, 29-Sept. 6. — W. Reid. History of Sea-Serpents. — John O’Groat Journal. Sept. 4 -- The Sea-Serpent again. — Scotsman Sept. 10. — Nature, Vol. XXXII. Sept. 145. — The Sea-Serpent again. — Evening Dispatch, Edinburgh. Sept. 25. —- The Graphic. — W. E. Hoyle. Sea-Serpent. — Encyclopaedia Brittannica Ed. 9. — W.E. Hoyle. Contribution to a Bibliography of the Sea-Serpent (read 21 st. April, 1886). — Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edin- burgh. 1886. May 21. — De Grondwet, n° 38. — (Journal, edited in Holland, Michi- Sama -ar A) June 6. — Haagsche Courant. Dec. 7? — John Ashton. Curious Creatures in Zoology. — With 130 II- lustrations throughout the text. London, John C. Nimmo (1890) p. 268—278. July 12. — De Amsterdammer, Weekblad voor Nederland. and probably: ‘47 2 — Mongitore. Remarkable Objects of Sicily. “48 ? — Leguat. Travels to Rodrigues Island. *1888. — A. Nicholson. Snakes, Marsupials and Birds. Should any reader know of any other contribution to the literature of the sea- serpent, he is earnestly requested by the author of this work to inform him about it. in Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes. Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Goss says, are commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they palm upon their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their own invention, they tell the old stories they have heard when on fine evenings they were together with the old tars talking and chatting on the fore-deck. Of the latter many have no other origin than the imagination of a sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes; others again are exaggerated and garbled reports of what they have seen with their own eyes, or of what their comrades or their captain saw! There are the tales of the Unicorn, of the White Whale, that terrible “Maby Dick” of the Polar Regions, there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent! Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the terrible tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment even to the sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently why our sailors do not report any more encounters with Mermaids , or with the Kraken. They know now that they saw, or harpooned , manatees, or dugongs, and gigantic squids, or calamaries. But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent having been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and by the master, several midshipmen, and some men of the crew! The news is printed in hundreds of newspapers, and passes from mouth to mouth, in short, it becomes the topic of the day! A schooner, or a brig runs into a harbour, say that of Liverpool, and the Captain, and the crew are immediately asked if they have seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the existence of such an animal they of course answer in the negative! But soon convinced by the ? 12 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. affidavits printed in the newspapers, they swear that when on their next voyage they meet with it, they will bring it home! But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on the watch, the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning home arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon an idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent, yet he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly that he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on | hoaxing the gullible! It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure in inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some splendid tricks on the believers! Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin by telling my readers some of them, which I met with in the various works | had the opportunity to consult. The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for the first time in the Report of 1817. There we find in a letter from the Rev. Mr. Wir11am Junxs the following: “He” (Mr. Srapuus of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780, as a schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay, one of these enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts — that the men ran into the hold for fright, and that the weight of the serpent sunk the vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner was of about eighteen tons.” | Now follows the hoax of a Josepx Woopwarp, who had reason to be satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston, New York, etc. It runs as follows: “Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape Anne, is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has been drawn up and attested in proper form.” “I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant schooner of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., and being about 10 leagues from the coast, perceived last Sunday, at two P. M. something on the surface of the water, which seemed to me to be of the size of a large boat. Supposing that it might be part of the wreck of r ‘va CHEATS AND HOAXES. 13 a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few fathoms of it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole crew, that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a second time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most from the bow of the ship.” “I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket bullets. I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and my- self distinctly heard the éa// and bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock. The serpent shook his head and tail in an extraordinary manner, and advanced towards the ship with open jaws. I had caused the cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it at his throat; but he had come so near, that all the crew were seized with. terror, and we thought only of getting out of his way. He almost touched the vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly have come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear again, with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on the other, as if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However, we did not feel any shock. He remained five hours near us, only going backward and forward.” “The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided , we were able to examine him attentively. | estimate that his length is at least twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 180 feet; his head is full 12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the neck is not less than six feet; the size of the head is in proportion to that of his body. He is of a blackish colour; his ear-holes (oules), are about 12 feet from the extremity of his head. In short, the whole has a terrible look.” “When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner, that it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in all directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.” “(Signed)” “Joseph Woodward.” “Hingham, May 12, 1818.” “This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo, who made affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.” This hoax was reprinted in the Quarterly Journal of Science, LInterature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London, Vol. VI, 1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. Oxen also inserted the tale of Woopwarp in his /sis, of 1818, p. 2100. — 14 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. Thirty years afterwards Mr. Epwarp Newman, the editor of The Zoologist, published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without, however, mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did not he do so? Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such an old story, and because he was aware of the fact, that the whole account was wonderful, and contained many impossibilities! Astonishing enough, Mr. FRorrep translated this piece from the Zoologist, and incerted it in his journal (Wotizen, Third Series, Vol. VI, n°. 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following remark : ') “This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent, published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from the Zoologist. Some German newspapers have then amused them- selves with our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We, however, shall go on to gather whatever from time to time will still come to us to solve an apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.” The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. Coo- pER, of Worcester (see Z’he Zoologist, 1848, p. 2192). I will let him speak himself: “IT have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent person than myself would offer any observation upon the statement of Captain Woodward, published in the March number of the Zoologist, relating to the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done so, I beg to offer you the following: In a note which you added in this statement, you say, “The foregoing statement was formally signed and sworn to at Hingham, by captain Woodward, on the 12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should have told your readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally considered as conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to be un- worthy of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with itself, Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till I read the “Zoologist’” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the latter ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so because in a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all evidence that will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Wood- ward tells us nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was sailing from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W.N. W., nor of the date when he says he saw the serpent, except that it was on “Sunday last at 2. p.m.” This is not sufficiently accurate. But these are trifling pomts. The most extraordinary part of the state- 1) The translations are done as literally as possible. CHEATS AND HOAXKS. 15 ment will appear from this: Captain Woodward says, the beast moved with extreme, or, as he afterwards expressed himself, aston- ishing rapidity; that when he fired at the monster it was sixty feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which appears to have been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but after he fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused his cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat, — of course while it was advancing towards his vessel, — but before he could fire his crew were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its way. So here we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving with astonishing rapidity towards the ship, which it appears was also moving ¢owards the animal, and yet allowing time to load a cannon, point it at its throat, and afterwards to tack to get out of its way. Truly a most accommodating serpent! But again, the animal remained five hours near the ship, allowing itself to be minutely examined, but yet no further attempt to kill the beast! And what is almost equally strange, though even the position of the ear-holes is mentioned, — such minute ohservation does Capt. Woodward seem to have made, — yet no description is given of any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before stated , that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as though they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regret- ted that these inconsistencies did not strike you before you made public the statement in question; it is also to be regretted that no one better able than myself to point them out has undertaken to do so. But it is highly desirable, in the present state of our ignor- ance upon this subject, that none but the most imexceptionable evidence should be received. Let us have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need hardly add, that in these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly feeling towards Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of the matter ; and I should hail with delight the day when one of these mon- sters of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with which we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is brought to our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be at once the wonder and admiration of naturalists. — W. W. Coo- per; Claines, Worcester, June 2, 1848.” Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed! Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack ! 16 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea- serpent in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars was offered to the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home dead or alive. I will insert here the whole history of these attempts, — for they finished with a trick. In the copy of the Report of the Committee of 1817, which I have borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Got- tingen, there is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818, the head or title of which is wanting; it runs as follows: “Boston, Aug. 21.” “Transmitted by our N. Y. Correspondents. “Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the Sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows: “Squam River, Aug. 20th. 12 o'clock. — After several unsuccess- ful attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing cal- led the Sea-Serpent. We struck him fairly but the harpoon soon drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pur- suit of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale. We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore disappointment.” “Rich’d. Rich’ “Gloucester, Aug. 20. — As I thought it would be interesting to you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last, he sailed from this m a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up the chase.” “He has zo scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, a CHEATS AND HOAXES. 17 Capt. Rich had one of his hands wounded. These particulars I have in a letter from my brother’. “Saml. Dexter’. After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am disposed to believe that the animal struck by Captain RicH was really a Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all that I have found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been fired at it, but it has never been killed yet. In the same copy of the Report of the Committee of 1817, there was a letter from Mr. Anprews Norton to Mr. Grorcr Bancrort, at that time a resident at Gottingen. I give here an extract from this letter con- cerning the matter in question. “Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s, I found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the most interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the expedition fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in particular nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his capture, and of the manner in which the information had been received , viz. from a person whose name was given, and who had come express from Gloucester, the evening before, to bring the news. He was said to be 120 feet long, and the Board of Health had sent down two boats to stop him in the Harbour. After talk- ing about it all breakfast time, I immediately went to Reed’s stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my pocket, | rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him into the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well, and said at first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm upon the subject, and concluded at last that it would never do for him not to see it. When I had fairly got him into the chaise, his spirits rose with the exertion he had made, with the thoughts of the memoir and letters which he should write, and with the triumph which he anticipated over the Linnaean Society and their “diseased black snake’, as he contemptuously called it (meaning the small serpent, killed near the shore at Gloucester); for he pledged himself that we should find that the sea-serpent had no bunches on his back. I too anticipated with great satisfaction the honorable mention of me, which his gratitude would induce him to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected confidently to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this enormous 2 18 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end of Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out the expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose countenance foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that we had come in to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not — taken! (f am not in the habit of using notes of admiration, but the present occasion seems to require one). The sailors, however, affirmed, as he said, that they had taken some most extraordinary fish of very large size, which he was going to see. I had little appetite left for seeing extraordinary fishes, but went to accompany Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the South End, and making our way through a croud, obtained admission into the dark lower room of a store where we found a considerable number of other gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged in from the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in sail. As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be nothing but a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size. — We had been gradually prepared for the disappointment, so that the shock was not so great as you might suppose. ‘lhe report in the morning’s paper had arisen from a mystification performed upon the person who brought it to Boston, by the crew of the vessel engaged in the expedition. The sailors who dragged in the fish were part of this crew; and instead of their being tossed over the wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their imposition, and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would have been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and bringing it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded for the honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present. -— I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will assure him, that we do not consider the circumstance, con- nected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real existence. — In the Messenger of this week which I will send by the next opportunity you will find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and p. 758.” I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned pas- sage from this Messenger. I think most of my readers know a tunny (Lhynnus thynnus (Linn.)). For those, however, wo don 't, I give here a figure of it. CHEATS AND HOAXES. 19 é Fig. 1. Thynnus thynnus (Linn,). In the Philosophical Magazine, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January 1819, we read: | “T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, m a letter received from him by Dr. Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an exped- ition purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been said in the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He succeeded in “fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by all the crew to be the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of them had previously seen and made oath to): but when drawn from the water, and full withm the sphere of their vision, it prov- ed that this serpent, which fear had loomed to the gigantic length of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless Tunny (Scombrus Thyn- mus) nine or ten feet long!” We see that Mr. Norton and Prof. Puck immediately recognized the whole story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. T. Say was the dupe of it! From a letter from Prof. Jacop Bicrnow to Prof. Brnsamin Sinmiman (4m. Journ. Sc. Arts, Vol. IT, Boston, 1820) I conclude that Prof. Say’s letter was printed in Taomson’s Annals for Jan. 1819. If anybody can tell me the exact title of T'Homson’s Annals, he will oblige me, indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult it. A part of this letter was translated into German, and inserted in Oxen’s /sis of 1819, p. 653. I will try to translate this part into English again: | “1 regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good earnest treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which is nothing but a result of defective observation connected with an 20 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT., extravagant degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. Rica has thrown light upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted out a ship to catch this Leviathan. He succeeded..... ” (etc., the rest of the letter runs like the Path from the Phzlosophical Maga- zine, quoted above). | Mr. RaAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, however says, (see Phil. Mag. Vol. LIV, 1819): . “The Pelamis megophas, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have left the shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts to catch it, probably because those attempts were conducted with very little judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long, and a strange shark, have been taken, of which the papers give no description: let us hope that they will be described by the naturalists at Boston’. And Prof. Jacop Biestow, of Boston (Stnuiman’s Am. Journ. Se. Arts, Vol. IL, Boston, 1820): “In the following year’ (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on an expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent , and after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish of the species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the name of ‘Tunny, Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the Scomber Thynanus of Linnaeus, and which fish he asserted to be the same as that denominated Sea-Serpent. This disappointment of public curiosity was attended at the time by a disbelief on the part of many, of the existence of a distinct marine animal of the serpent-kind, or of the dimensions and Shape represented by the witnesses of Glou- cester and elsewhere.” “It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Cign Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportuni- ties which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be consid- ered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.” This was written m 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet! The trick of Capt. Ricu is also mentioned in the paper of Mr. Mircuini, spoken of further on. Again Colonel T. H. Perkins relates in the Boston Daily Ad- vertiser of November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. Ricu as follows (copied from the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2361). “As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do much credit to the actors m it, but which served to fortify the unbelief of our southern brethern. Believing that the possession of the sea-serpent would be a fortune to those who should have him ~ CHEATS AND HOAXES. aa | in their power, many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and other places in the neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with har- poons and other implements, and manned with persons used to the whale fishery, in hopes of getting near enough to him to fasten their harpoons in his side. Among others a Captain Rich (not Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party, which was fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent. With a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they determined to throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though at the expense of truth! They spread a report that they had caught the serpent, or what had been taken for one, and that he was to be seen at a place mentioned in the advertisement.” “Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found to be no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a great natural curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds) very much disappointed those, who had been induced to visit it. Those who had declared their disbelief of the existence of the Sea- serpent amongst ourselves were delighted to find their opinions were confirmed, and gave themselves great credit for their judg- ment and discrimination. The report spread from Boston to New Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons to be a sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even those who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had been themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been seen after the capture of the macquerel was made, during that year, Captain Rich had the laugh with him, until circumstances , which have transpired since, have borne rather against him. Thus much for the transactions of the past years.” The Lake Erie Serpent. — In Mr. Rarinesaun’s Dissertation on Sea-Snakes, we read (See Phil. Mag. Vol. LIV, 1819): - _ “Jt appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes, as well as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in Lake Erie, three miles from land, by the crew of a schooner, which was 35 or 40 feet long, and one foot in diameter; its colour was a dark mahogany, nearly black. This account is very imperfect, and does not even notice if it had scales; therefore it 22 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. must remain doubtful whether it was a snake or a fish. I am inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise convinced: it might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the above genus Octipos. Until seen again, and better described, it may be recorded » under the name of Anguilla gigas or Gigantic Hel.” And in the Additions to this dissertation: “The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and des- cribed to be of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet long. It is added, that at a short distance balls had no effect on him: but it is omitted to mention whether it was owing to have hard scales (in which case it might be a real snake of the genus” Enhydris or Pelamis), or to the indexterity of the marksman.” Every one feels that Mr. Rarinesaue was the dupe of a hoax, and that he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. MrrcHint’s dissertation (see below) in which more hoaxes are to be found. Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers, but when scientific men, they even read papers before learned assemblies, with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there has been no greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent, than that of Mr. Samugn L. Mircume.. I am obliged to commun- icate to my readers his whole paper, even at the risk of wearying them. It was published in Srnuiman’s Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, 1829, and runs as follows: “The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L. Mitchill’s Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our United States, for a few years past; read before the New York Lyceum, at a succession of sittings during October, 1828. — N°. 35. — The Sea-Serpent. (Communicated for this Journal).” “his subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of notice, before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not, happened, that during several years, it, or something so imagined and so called, had frequently been presented for public consideration ; and that paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals, do yet, from time to time, attract the attention of their readers.” “This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of Massachusets, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood of Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and evidence was collected to a large amount. These were so consider- CHEATS AND HOAXES. ree; able and imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of Scofopis. As the fishermen and natur- alists could not catch him and bring him ashore for inspection, it was concluded to fortify the story by oaths. Accordingly, affid- avits were made to great extent, contaiming the particulars of what the several deponents believed they had seen, and, as far as swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a strong case. Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was nothing better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions of the opimions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they had observed in the water. | who was a believer in the first in- stance, was gradually sworn into scepticism, which finally ended in incredulity.” | “About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did me the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read a manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express pur- pose of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning the sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had reduced his researches into the form of letters adressed to Sir Jos- eph Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evid- ently intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to acquire the honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence known first to the scavans of Hurope. He did not vouchsafe, even to name me in the communication. After a very pleasant inter- view, during which I found that he positively considered himself right in the investigation, and I determined on my part to enter into no discussion about it, he requested me to receive the writing , and engage some bookseller to cause it to be put to press without delay. The reason for this was, that he was obliged to return forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract in his behalf, and directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I had a lucky escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.’ “Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the land, somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alco- holic spirit. This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of the Great Scoliophis. The head, which contains the strong opfzo- logical characters, had been crushed and destroyed. But, as far as I could judge, from the formation of the belly and tail, it had (24 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. been a native of the land, (apparently a colwber,) and had, of course, no pretention to claim kindred with its pretended parent of the ocean.” “I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct | opinion, relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my museum, at the time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating friends had brought me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chin- ese Sea.” “The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the sayings and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the benefit of the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be written. In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must pre- mise, that I am one of the last persons in existence who would presume to put a limit to creative power. I admit that the all- mighty beimg could make a water-snake as easily as a fish; and that such an animal might be as big as a Kraken, as easily as the diminutive size of the Stickleback. Yet, on reviewing these legends of the times, there is found such a propensity towards the strange and the marvellous, that the men of the present day show a credulity very much resembling that of the remote ages, when the terraqueous globe was peopled with gorgons, mermaids, chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of fabulous zoology.” “(a). The first tale I remember tc have considered seriously rel- ative to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put a steam boat in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to convey passengers. It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse the currents and pass among the islands with an ease and a speed unknown to boats moved by oars and sails; and of course, much | of the business of transporting passengers would be taken away from the small craft heretofore employed. The large boat would thus destroy the small ones, or, as was expressed by another word, devour them. Under these forebodings, the steam-vessel — made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag, the account proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical description of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and Gloucester, and had probably come there to consume all the small fish in the place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occur- rence, and credited accordingly.” “(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On this fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An CHEATS AND HOAXES. 25 active young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land, bought a little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to have seen; and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves. He named his vessel the Sea-Serpent. She was mostly employed in carrying country produce to the New-York market and in bringing manure back, with the advantage of passengers when any offered. This boat was on her way from Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout toward the city, and was met by a sloop from that place, a short distance from City-Island. The captain of the latter, on arriving at home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc for news; and being a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor, the querist , he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how (alluding to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back; how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how the black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were variegated; how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion of the boom in jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly wind); that this sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling at least from five to six knots an hour, which made.all white before him (meaning the foam at the bows). The good man took the joke in real earnest, went away and told it to a sensible acquaintance. ‘This latter wrote a formal and solemn account of it; which, travelling an extensive round in the sheets of intelligence, was finally embodied in the aforesaid book, where it is registered as a part of the evidence.” “(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I re- ceived from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a letter, respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to me whether that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide? It had been found on the shore of the region which the alarming visitor frequented; and was supposed to have been separated from his body by one of the musket balls which had been fired at him and washed ashore. To this serious communication I returned for answer that it was simply a portion of skin with closely adhering scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike (Esox osseus), an inha- bitant of the Atlantic Ocean.” “(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about the sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared he had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at length concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of 26 ATTEMPTS TO DiSCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. catching him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain Rich. Day after day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent had, according to information, been observed , without discovering anything like him. At length, a creature was descried, which some — of the men on board said they had seen before, and that it was the sea-serpent. The captain pursued the game a considerable time longer, with much vigilance and patience, until it was at a distance near enough to be harpooned. He was taken on board, and found to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I saw the preparation of it in the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself that it was an indi- vidual of a well known species called Zunny in the Mediterranean, and A/dicore in the Atlantic sea.” “After the capture of the fish, the persons whe, when they saw him in the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent, now changed their minds, and swore he was not.” “At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize; and unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure of his employers for attempting to impose upon them a Horse- Mackerel (as they call it) for a Sea-Serpent/ He told me the story himself.” “(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that a sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, some- where between Kingston and York, had several times during his trips observed among the islands and rocks something that appeared to be a long animal with vertical flexures of the back, resembling lumps or humps of variegated black and white hues. He told some of his acquaintances what peculiar appearances had presented them- selves to his view; and that he intended the next opportunity to take a more close and correct survey. He did so, shortly after, when the whole phenomenon ascended into the air! It turned out to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood of young ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head. And as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though a wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceiv- ed, his belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!” “(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent. One of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was steering eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the hither side of the islands called “The Sisters’, which, when she arrived at the place of her destination on the southern shore, was CHEATS AND HOAXES. 7 reported by the men at the tavern and the printing office, to be the very creature. Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject, and inserted it in his paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It may be relied on that this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea, has been reduced to genus and species, by a distinguished natur- alist, and registered very orderly in zoology. Now let us find what the production really turned out to be. The sheriff of the county , a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and conceiving that he knew as much about the lake as any person whatever, went on board full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but one of the people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning the won- derful sight, with which he and his associates had entertained the neighbourhood. The sailor was scon implicated in contradictions. The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was not ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sher- iff would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as it was. At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and concluding that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots on the trunk for knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they would have a little pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent, which they thought their lake was as much entitled to as any other water. The whole three had agreed to tell the same tale and support it!” “(g). When the skin, &c. of the huge basking shark, that had straggled from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan Bay (Squalus Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the in- habitants were openly and earnestly invited by notice in words at length displayed in front of the house, to enter and behold the sea-serpent. ‘The conceit took very well!” “Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions on the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the gambols of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the yet different appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which have fins on their backs, may have given rise to those parts of the narrations, not already here commented upon.” Professor Siuniman, the editor of the journal, could not help Saying in a note: “We give place to the scepticism of the learned author, although not ourselves sceptical on this subject. We do not see how such evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this Journal — particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the 28 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. Boston Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr. Cabot, can be set aside -— although we have no doubt that there have been on this subject both error and imposition; and we are far from believing that every thing that has been called a sea-— serpent has really been such.” Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single proof of - the non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. Mircuiin gathered some hoazes, which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his statements are sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea- serpent jirst haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in October 1828, had taken the trouble to look up the literature on the subject, he would have found that the sea-serpent had already appeared on the coasts of Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in Davis’ Straits, in the Northern Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all along the Eastern coasts of the United States. The Linnaean Society, he further asserts “published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of Scolophis’. This is also untrue, for the Society only figured an individual of a sick and ill-formed Coluber constrictor, the so-called Black Snake, having only the length of about one yard! The “mutilated specimen of a snake’ which was brought to him in alcoholic spirit, was the same figured by the Linnaean Society; and where Mr. Mitcarn. says that he is convinced that the snake was a common native of the land, “apparently a Coluber’, he expresses an opinion which the Society already printed in their little book. Consequently he cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally, where he says that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop, called “the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the Linnaean Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is commonly called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one “formal and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed” the water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all white before him”. I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of Mr. Mircuitt is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy of notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours of the Committee was unfair. CHEATS AND HOAXES. 29 Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I have found, translated into German, in FRorinp’s Wotizen, of 1830, June, Vol. XXVII, n°. 589, p. 265: — “Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American newspapers. Capt. Drnanp with the schooner Hagle ran into Charlston on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and with his crew is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the following declaration: On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M., at about a mile from Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of about 300 yards a large body, resembling an alligator, which sometimes moved with the vessel, sometimes lay motionless on the surface. Capt. Druanp, who perceived that he approached the animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered so, that he approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it lay quite still and apparently careless. Capt. Denann aimed with great sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster, to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel, and in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail, of which the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by every-one on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the animal approach, jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on deck, and the whole crew, the mate not excepted, only thought of their safety. They all had opportunity to see their enemy and agree that its length was about 70 feet. The body was as thick as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of a grey colour, eel-shaped , without visible fins and apparently covered with scales, the back full of joints or bunches, the head and beak resembled an alligator’s , the former 10 feet long, and as big as a hogshead. A smaller individual was observed at a great distance (!), which, however, disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were seen again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they disappeared. — Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a similar creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four times at it; without, however, causing such a visit as in the pre- sent case. He believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has strength enough to damage a vessel of the size of the Hagle, if not to destroy it, and feels happy to have got rid of it in this way. He further asserts that he has certainly not erred with regard to the shape of the sea-monster, and that it was different from 30 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. whales and other inhabitants of the deep, which he has ever witnessed’ (Chronicle). i. Though the description of the form might lead to the belief that what is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent, yet I consider the whole account as a story, because it is not the habit of the sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck by a ball, but to plunge down and to disappear. Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario. In Frortmp’s NVotizen of August 1835, Vol. 45, n°’. 980, p. 186, we read: “The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American newspapers. Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake Ontario, 78 feet long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a- blue colour spotted with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea- serpent at last ought to have been explained or will be so very soon”. It seems that Mr. Frortep really believes, that if this report is not the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that the appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong to the impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the report can only be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax. In 1845 Dr. Atsert C. Kocu “exhibited a large skeleton of a fossil animal, under the name of Hydrarchos Sillimanni in Broadway , New York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent. These remains consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring in all 114 feet, of a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the latter, and of parts of supposed paddles” (see Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist. Nov. 1845, Vol. Il, p. 65). I show here to my readers the figure of this skeleton, which I have found in the Wochenblatt fiir das Christhiche Volk of 1878. The description of this skeleton in full particulars is given by Prof. Wyman in the above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble my readers with it, but only mention that Prof. Wyman in the same paper proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”. db] CHEATS AND HOAXES. ‘Yooy ‘TUUeWMIT [Ig soqoretpAH — “gZ “SIZ S— ————— =a ———— ——<$<—<—— = a —= jj Ma DELLA ou = re SST ise SS IPSS ————— N LS -y, am, J ATM 72 Py My MNS dW vi bili P iid VA BS y aq =~ as Y, Ui th is tile j = i == Es = =, SS === = = IN L=\=Val= -\— Ve fee Ve 7 7a et! =f, Das \ Le A LU Hf ip yee he mn Yi a Fie HO i hf : | } he f 7 | ad WM | i OMT MTOR Ss | WT i f | | Ht | : : KK | = | | | Wy HN NN \ UN Herter | hed | | ~ ‘Sy Mt \" WN \\\ : ye if aae 7a | Tne I cae . iE | | s , % | SAT | * oF } : Bs : f it Sl Val i a us = is 65, 4 All AANA hy _—— = 2 : = SS 2. : a nt 3 | = eM ea ne Hal A TaN \ x ‘ , Ait § aN SS > 7 — > AS ayiety 32 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones belonged to the genus Basilosaurus of Harian, 1824, an animal — allied to the seals. The same genus is called Zeuglodon by Prof. RicoarD Owen in 1839, Dorudon by Prof. Grpprs in 1845, and Saurocetus by Prot. Acassiz. In the same Proceedings, of Dec. 1845, Vol. Il, p. 73, Prof. H. D. Rogzrs too states, that according to the form and structure of some loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals of Basilosaurus. : In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. IT, p. 94) we read that Dr. Koc# also told the public that the bones had been found together, in a position which proved that they belonged to one individual, and that the vertebrae formed an integral series , arranged in the order in which they were lying when discovered. That this assertion too was a mere fabrication, is not only shown by Prof. Wyman, as we have seen above, but also in a letter by Dr. Lisrur , who stated that Dr. Kocu had dug up the bones in different places in Alabama. A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York correspondent in the Cincinnatc Gazette which, translated into Ger- man, appeared in Frortgp’s Neue Notizen of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37, n° 801, p. 134. In the Jiustrated London News of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that Prof. Srutimman attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the same individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from . any existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the popular (and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in our modern seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent had been attached”. ‘hese words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or journal, but I can hardly believe that Prof. Sinmiman bad a share in this imposture. In the J/lustrated London News of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and Palaeontologist MANTEL : “Sir, — Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared in the last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil men- tioned at the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called Sea-Serpent, as having been exhibited in America under the name of Hydrarchos Sillimannii, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch, from bones collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged CHEATS AND HOAXES. 3) to several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean , termed Basilosaurus by the American naturalists, and better known in this country by that of Zeuglodon , a term signifying yoked teeth. Mr. Koch is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of fossil bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Picca- dilly, under the name of Missourtum. This collection was purchased by the trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected the bones which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon in our National Gallery of Organic Remains’. “Not content with the interest which the fossils which he col- lected in various parts of the United States really possess, Mr. Koch, with the view of exciting the curiosity of the ignorant multitude, strung together all the vertebrae he could obtain of the Paszlosaurus , and arranged them in a serpentine form; manufactured a skull and claws, and exhibited the monster as a fossil Sea-Serpent, under the name above mentioned — /Hydrarchos. But the trick was im- mediately exposed by the American naturalists, and the true nature of the fossil bones pointed out. “Bones of the Basilosaurus have been found in many parts of Alabama and South Carolina, in green sand belonging to a very ancient (Hocene) tertiary formation. Hundreds of vertebrae, bones of the extremities, portions of the cranium, and of the jaws with teeth, have from time to time been collected. Remains of species of the same genus have also been found near Bordeaux and in Malta”. “Professor Owen has shown that the original animal was a marine cetacean, holding an intermediate place between the Cachelots and the herbivorous species. It must have attained a length equal to that of the largest living whales; for a series of vertebrae was ob- served zm situ, that extended in a line 65 feet. An interesting Memoir on the Basilosaurus by Dr. Gibbes, of Columbia, was published in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. I, 27 Series, 1847; and a Memoir on the remains of the same animal, by Prof. Owen appeared in the “'T'ransactions of the Geological Society of London’, Vol. VI; a brief notice of which is inserted in my “Medals of Creation” p. 826, under the name of Zeuglodon cetoides’’. “Gideon Algernon Mantell”. “19, Chestersquare, Pimlico, Oct. 31. 1848”. In the Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. (Vol. III, p. 328, Dec. 1850) we read: 34 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. “This animal” (the Basilosaurus) “was supposed by Dr. Kocu to be a reptile, a marine serpent, but Dr. Wyman has exposed the fallacy of this opinion, and shown that it was a warm blooded mammal’. | I do not think this to be the true view of the matter. I firmly believe that Dr. Kocn knew very well what he did, and that he was in every way an impostor who cheated the credulous people of their money. The honour of the discovery that the Baszlosaurus is a warm blooded mammal is due to Prof. Owen. Dr. Wyman has only recognized that the bones were of the Basilosaurus. The further history of the large skeleton exhibited in New York is related to us in that same Journal: “Koch’s sea-serpent was carried to Dresden, where it was de- scribed by Carus, who figured it and even restored the cranium , of which then only a portion had been found. Carus restored the cranium of a reptile, but this was a mere fiction of his imagination; — for an entire cranium has since been found, proving beyond a doubt that the Zeuglodon was not a reptile but a cetacean; the teeth being inserted by double roots into double alveoli is positive evidence that it was a warmblooded mammal. Miiller has also carefully studied this specimen, and pronounces it unquestionably a cetacean.” The reader will further on see mention made of a report, gener- ally known as that of the Daedalus. It appeared in the newspa- pers of October, 1848. As soon as it was published, the following letter was addressed to the Editor of the Géode. It first appeared in the number of 21. Oct., 1848, of that journal, next in the Times of 23d. Oct. and in the Jdlustrated London News of 28 Oct. It runs as follows: “Mary Ann, of Glasgow, Glasgow, October 19”. “T have just reached this port, on a voyage from Malta and Lisbon, and my attention having been called to a report relative to an animal seen by the master and crew of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus, I take the liberty of communicating the following cir- cumstance: — “When clearing out of the port of Lisbon, on the 30th of Sep- tember last, we spoke the American brig Daphne, of Boston, Mark Trelawney master. He signalled for us to heave to, which we did; and standing close round her counter, lay-to while the CHEATS AND HOAXES. 35 mate boarded us with the jolly boat, and handed a packet of let- ters to be despatched per first steamer for Boston on our arrival in England. The mate told me that when in lat. 4° 11'S., long. 10° 15° E., wind dead north, upon the 20th of September, a most extraordinary animal had been seen: from his description it had the appearance of a huge serpent or snake, with a dragon’s head. Immediately upon its being seen, one of the deck guns was brought to bear upon it, which having been charged with spike-nails, and whatever other pieces of iron could be got at the moment, was discharged at the animal, then only distant about forty yards from the ship; it immediately reared its head in the air, and plunged violently with its body, showing evidently that the charge had taken effect. The Daphne was to leeward at the time, but was put about on the starboard tack and stood towards the brute, which was seen foaming and lashing the water at a fearful rate: upon the brig nearing, however, it disappeared, and, though evi- dently wounded, made rapidly off at the rate of 15 or 16 knots an hour, as was judged from its appearing several times upon the surface. The Daphne pursued for some time, but the night coming on the master was obliged to put about and continue his voyage’. “From the description given by the mate, the brute must have been nearly 100 feet long, and his account of it agrees in every respect with that lately forwarded to the admiralty by the captain of the Daedalus. The packet of letters to Boston, I have no doubt, contains the full particulars, which, I suppose, will be made public”. “There are letters from captain Trelawney to a friend in Liver- pool, which will probably contain some further particulars, and | have written to get a copy for the purpose of getting the full ac- count. James Henderson, Master, Broomielaw, Berth, n° 4”. The same story was inserted in the Zoologist of 27 Nov. 1848, and Mr. Newman the Editor who half a year before had fallen into the snare laid by the so-called captain Woopwarp, and who was taken to task by Mr. Coopmr, grown more careful, now added: “Doubtless the sagacious production of some selfstyled philosophical naturalist, who is pledged to one of the hypothetical modes of ex- planing away the existence of a sea-serpent, and who hopes by a hoax of this kind to throw discredit on Captain M’Quhae’s statement”. Now, I think, Mr. Newman was on the right track ! 36 ATTEMP1'S TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. In the L/lustrated London News for 1850, April 20, Supplement, we read: “The following we extract from the Christian (United States) Mercury. — The following letter from a gentleman of Beaufort gives exciting news of what may, by this time, be the “seat of war’. The old fellow has got into close quarter, and if he does not make a sudden and fortunate dash, has nothing better than offering himself as an oblation on the altar of science: — Beaufort, March 15, 1850. The report of Captain Bankenship and passengers has been verified by many other witnesses. This formidable sea- monster has been seen again to day, we understand, in our waters. When discovered by those on board the steamer, his “eminence” was in Port Royal Sound, a distance of seven or eight miles from this town. Since that time he has been lazily making his way up Broad- — River, and was seen by a gentleman, we understand, to-day in © White Branch River, an arm of the Broad, he is reported to be making his way higher up still, when, perhaps, he may be cap- tured. He is described as being from 120 to 150 feet in length, and of proportionate bulk; has the head of a serpent, which he carries, when in motion, five or six feet out of the water, about ten feet from his head is a hump, resembling a huge hogshead, and as far as he could be seen, out of the water a succession ot humps was observed. He was pursued for several miles along the bank of the river, at times the party in pursuit coming very near to him. He was shot at with a rifle and shot gun, which had the effect of making him timid, and caused him to sink below the surface of the water when nearly approached. We understand that a party from this place has been made up to capture him, if possible. The plan is to man two large flats with a cannon to each, one going below where he is represented to be, and the other above, and then approach each other, and, when he is discovered, to fire into him. In this way he may be taken if, peradventure, he does not take them first. The Whale Branch 1s not more than 100 yards wide, and there is every probability of an animated conflict with this king of the waters within his own dominions; and I suppose it is admitted that the battle must be waged upon his own terms. The “Charlestown Courier’ has a letter from Beaufort, of the same date, and of a similar tenor to which is appended the following: — Information has just reached us that the said sea-serpent is ashore at the mouth of Skull Creek. If so, the prize is certain, and Beaufort immortalized.” CHEATS AND HOAXES. OM Mr. Newman inserted this tale in his Zoologist of 1850, p. 2803, however, not without the followmg introduction: “Ever since Prof. Owrn attempted to confound this leviathan with the seals, on which he probably feeds, taking in whole shoals of them at a mouthful, and draining of the water with his seaserpentbone apparatus in the manner of a whale filling his stomach with medusae and shrimps: ever since the promulgation of this humilating hypothesis, the great sea-serpent has felt himself snubbled and has doggedly kept in deep water, pertinatiously resolved, no doubt, to withhold himself in future from the incre- dulous malevolence of men. But he has relented: the recurrence of St. Valentine has warmed his heart: he has once more risen to the surface, and has wisely concluded to shun the disparaging Britishers, and to select, as of yore, for the scene of his auto-ex- hibition, the shores of a nation, at once the smartest and most credulous on earth. The papers of the United States are fraught with intelligence respecting him; cannon have been discharged , and reports say that he is actually ashore. My first extract is from a religious newspaper, entitled the “Christian Mercury.’”” The reader will afterwards get acquainted with Prof. Owrn’s suggestions; it is not now the right moment to enter into them; I will only observe that Mr. Newman also wrote the following last word: “The London papers have repeated all this, intermixed with a perfect flood of wit: the shafts of which are directed against be- lievers and unbelievers, in a very pleasing and impartial manner. Ts it still a hoax, or a Brachioptilon Hamiltoni? — Epwarp Newman, London, April 20, 1850.” I must confess that I too am much inclined to believe, that all that has above been mentioned is a mere hoax, though the des- cription of the animal agrees with that of the Sea-serpent. It is striking that the arm of the Broad-River is first called White- River, and a few lines afterwards Whale-River. — As to the Brachoptilon Hamilton, it is a kind of shark. Again in the ///ustrated London News for 1850 , Sept. 7, appeared a hoax in the following terms: “The Cork Constitution publishes the following circumstantial letter: Courtmasherry, Aug. 29. — Sir, — The following partic- 38 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. ulars, the accuracy of which need not to be questioned, will, ] doubt not, interest many of your readers: — The different fishing establishments on the shore of this extensive bay, extending from the Old Head of Kinsale to the Seven Heads, have been within the last few days abundantly supplied with fish of every descrip- tion, and the greatest activity prevails to profit by the bounty which has been thus sent to us literally in shoals. It has been vo- ticed too, that some description of fish, haak for instance, has been captured further within the limits of the mner harbour than was ever known before. In fact, as I heard it observed, the fish was literally leaping ashore. These novel appearances, however, it was my lot to see fully accounted for yesterday (August 28). At about 1 o'clock A.M. when sailing in my yacht, with a slight breeze off shore, about two miles to the south of the beacon erected to the Barrel rocks, one of the party of four gentlemen on board (M. B. of Bandon) drew attention towards the structure, with the inter- rogatory of: “Do you see anything queer about the Barrels?” In an instant the attention of all on board was rivetted on an object which at first struck me as like the upheaved thick end of a large mast, but which, as it made out plainer, proved to be the head of some huge fish or monster. On bearing down towards the object we could distinctly see, with the naked eye, what I can best describe aS an enormous serpent without mane or fur or any like appendage. The portion of the body above water, and which appeared to be rubbing or scratching itself against the beacon, was fully thirty feet long, and in diameter I should say about a fathom. With the aid of a glass it was observed that the eyes were of immense size, about nine inches across the ball, and the upper part of the back appeared covered with a furrowed shell-like substance. We were now within rifle shot of the animal, and, although some on board exhibited pardonable nervousness at the suggestion, it was resolved to fire a ball at the under portion of the body whenever the crea- ture’s unwieldy evolutions would expose its vulnerable part. The instant the piece was discharged the monster rose as if impelled by a painful impulse to a height which may appear incredible, say at least thirty fathoms, and culminating with the most rapid motion dived or dashed itself under water with a splash that almost stopped our breath with amazement. In a few moments all disturbance of the water subsided, and the strange visitor evidently pursued his — course to seaward. On coming up to the beacon we were gratified to find adhering to the supports numerous connecting scaly masses, CHEATS AND HOAXES. 39 bd such as one would think to be rubbed from a creature “coating’ or changing its old skin for a new one. These interesting objects can be seen at the Horse Rock Coast Guard station, and will repay a visit. These particulars I have narrated in the clearest manner | am able, and if others, in other boats, who had not so good an opportunity of seeing the entire appearance of the animal as those in my boat had, should send you a more readable account of it, I pledge myself none will more strictly adhere to the real facts. 1 am, Sir, your very obedient servant, “Roger W. Travers””’, in the Cork Constitution, Sept. 2. And in the number of September 14 of the same year, we read: “The mysterious stranger has been again seen by Mr. Travers and his enterprismg yachtsmen. They have brought four rifles to bear upon his left eye which, it seems, he most merrily winked at his pursuers. He would have laughed in his sleeve at the pleasant conceit, but we learn that he had just put off his coat. He, however, wished them a polite good morning, and descended to unknown depths”. “On Saturday last (August 31), the weather having the appear- ance of being settled fine, I put out to sea, determined, as far as the capabilities of my little craft would permit, to go any length in finding out the position of the stranger, hoping, by keeping a constant look out in every direction, to discover him. Nor was I disappointed, the animal, lured no doubt by the dense masses of fish now off the coast, having remained within a comparatively short distance of the land. At about 11. o’clock A. M., when off Dunwordy- head, one of my crew on the look out sang out: “The sea-serpent on starboard bow!’ and on looking in the direction indicated, | had the pleasure of at once recognizing the same monster that | had before seen, and greatly do I regret, indeed, that you or some person conversant with natural history were not on board with me. We drew as close as I thought consistent with safety , and had ample proof of the creature being piscivorous, he being at the time engaged in bolting a great number of large haak or congereels. I had now for the first time a view of his tail, which entirely differs from the usual form of that extremity in most descriptions of fish, being furnished with no fin, but somewhat resembling a huge elephant’s trunk or proboscis, the end long drawn out and curling and twisting in a very remarkable manner. I really feel afraid to hazard expres- sing in figures what I judge to be the dimensions of the animal, but I do believe that if it were stretched straight from head to AO ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SRA-SERPENT. tail it would be rather over than under thirty fathoms long, and of that length I am satisfied fully half is seven feet im diameter. The mouth is a most capacious organ, and opens something like that of an alligator. The small size of the gills, for I could discern nothing like the blowing holes of a whale, rather surprised me. The nose, I think, is formed of a soft flesh-like substance, not bony; and from the broken condition of the external coat of scales I am satisfied, as before observed, that the beast is now in its “coating’’ state. After a little time it appeared evident that he had fallen asleep, as we could perceive him rapidly driftmg on shore at the east side of Dunworly-head; and I once more, although I now feel with more rashness than discretion, resolved to try the effect of firearms in capturing him. Four rifles were prepared , brought simultaneously to bear on the animal's head, and, giving the word myself, and directing all to aim for the eye turned towards us, bang went the pieces in a volley, the shots taking evident effect. His first movement was to shake his head and wink the wounded eye in a rapid manner, and then, as if to cool the painful wound, he suddenly dived, since when J have not had the slightest trace of him either by my own observation or through others’. Cork Constitution, Sept. 7. “The Cork Constitution, referrmg to the foregoing says: - - Since the above letter was received, the following information on the same subject came to hand. Monday last a party of gentlemen be- longing to this city were enjoying a sailing excursion in the Antelope yacht, belonging to Mr. Wheeler, along the coast from Glandore to Kinsale. Passing the Old Head of Kinsale, the day unusually fine, they observed an extraordinary commotion in the sea, apparent to every one on board. The bay at Kinsale was at the time filled with fish. In a few moments they perceived a large serpent-like fish on the surface, that could not be less than 120 feet im length. In shape it resembled a long funnel of an immense steamer. Unfortun- ately they were not sufficiently near the monster to give a des- cription, of the head and body. After lying on the surface for a few minutes, it suddenly dashed ahead with a velocity, as far as could be seen for a distance of two miles, of at least sixty miles an hour. It then disappeared. It was believed that the sea-serpent must have been in pursuit of the shoals of fish that thronged the bay. It is a singular circumstance that, notwithstanding the unusual quantity of fish that was observable, the Kinsale hookers were most unsuccessful, as it was stated they did not obtain a single take ty CHEATS AND HOAXES. A. during the evening. The gentlemen who have witnessed the visit of the monster, and whose statement is detailed above, may be relied on as above all suspicion”. — Cork Constitution Sept. 7.— The Zoologist of course could not overlook such statements. In the year 1850 this journal inserted the three reports (see p. 2925): “The Great Sea-Serpent has again appeared with immense ¢éc/d¢ in the newspapers. Most respectable witnesses are called to speak a word in his favour, as will be seen by the following extracts from the daily press. It should, however, be premised that a num- ber of brief and analogous paragraphs had previously located him “at Howth”, “off Wexford’, and “off Cork’’; so that he made the grand demonstration at Kinsale, he appeared to be taking a coast- ing trip round the shores of old Ireland.” Here follow the above mentioned three hoaxes, of Courtmasherry, Au- gust 29, August 31, and September 2. Further we read in the Zoologist : “A few frends accompanied me on a _ boating excursion this day (Sept. 9) whose names are William Silk, John Hunt, George Williams, Henry Seymour, and Edward Barry, and, being off the Souverein-Islands, our attention was directed by one of the party to an extraordinary appearance ahead of the boat; immediately all eyes were turned to see what it was, when, to our astonishment and fright, the above monster of the deep was bearing down to us; we were at once thrown into an awful fright, and thought it best to retreat for the shore; on our landing, Mr. W. Silk, who was armed with a double barrelled gun, discharged both barrels at the monster, but without effect. I need not describe his appear- ance, as you are aware of it before, but from inquiries from va- rious boatmen I am told he has been off the harbour the last three days.’ — John Good, of Kinsale.” in Cork Reporter, Sept. 11. Mr. Newman, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds: | “he next account states that a party encountered the monster in Ballycotton Bay, fired into him, and made him disgorge a shoal of fishes, some of which fell into the boat, and being handled , gave the crew the most terrific electric shocks; where upon the naturalist of the party immediately concluded, and I think, with great judgment, that the sea-serpent is neither more nor less than the electric eel (Gymnotus electricus).” “The last account published in London, on this day (September 24), reports his capture and death at Youghal, in the county of Cork, together with full admeasurements, and the names of the parties concerned in the galant archievement.” 4,2, ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT, “There was something that struck me as unsatisfactory about several parts of this highly exciting narrative. One o’clock in the morning, and without the assistance of a moon, was rather a strange time to make such exact observations. Again, about the scales; why not sent some to London or Dublin? — why keep them at the light-house? And again, the bearing of Kinsale bay did not quite correspond with my remembrance of the place: so I epistolized the chief actors, and particularly entreated Mr. Travers to send me a handful of scales, and a more detailed account: alas! there was no response. After a while I bethought myself of a friend in London who corresponds with the accountant of the Principal Bank at Bandon. To this gentleman my friend, with prompt kindness, applied, and I have now the pleasure of laying his most explicit answer before the readers of the “Zoologist”.” — “Dear Sir, — I reply to your note relative to the Sea-Serpent, there is not one word of truth in the statements put forward in the newspapers: there is no such person as Roger W. Travers, but there is a person named James W. Travers, to whom I believe it has been done to annoy (and indeed with great effect). Mr. Thomson’s family has been staying in the neighbourhood, but do not hear a word of it except what is to be seen in the papers about it. Dear Sir, yours truly, H. O.’ Callaghan.” — Bandon, Sep. 18, 1850. | “Any comment on this would be superfluous. — Edward Newman.” The trouble Mr. Newman gave himself to get possession of the scales, and to know whether the reports were true or not, is the best proof that he was caught in the snare! The Sea-Serpent caught at last! (See The New York Tribune for 1852, lebruary, Gauianant’s Messenger for 1852, Februari, The Illustrated London News for 1852, March, 13, The Times for 1852, March 10, The Zoalogist for 1852 p. 3426—3429, Spenerische Zeitung for 1852, March). “Ship Monongahela, at Sea, Feb. 6.— A small vessel has just been reported from my mast-head, and as she is apparently bound into some of the northern parts, I intend to speak her, purposely to acquaint, through your widely diffused journal, the people of the United States, of the fact of the existence and capture of the sea-serpent —a monster deemed fabulous by many — but the truth CHEATS AND HOAXES. A3 of whose existence is for ever settled, and, I trust I shall be ex- cused in saying, by Yankee intrepidity. On the morning of January 13, when in lat. 3 deg. 10 min. south, and long. 131 deg. 50 min. west, the man on the look out, seated on the foretopmast cross-trees, sang out: “White Water’ and in reply to my “Where away?” said “Two points on the lee bow’. Supposing it to be made by sperm whales, and being very anxious to obtain oil, I ordered my ship to be kept off, and immediately went aloft with my spyglass. I will observe that for several days we had been struggling along with very light and baffling winds, but at day- light of the morning of the 13th. the wind had drawn to the south-south-west, become steady, and threatened to blow a gale. I was aloft nearly half an hour before I observed anything like “white water’ and then I presumed it to be made by a “school”, or rather schoal of porpoises; but wishing to be certain, I ordered the mate, as it was seven bells, to turn up all hands, square in the yards, and send out the port studding sails. It being my breakfast hour I urged the man to keep both eyes open, and came down; but before I reached the deck my attention was called to the sudden and vehement cry of Onnetu Vanjau, a Mar- quesan Islander, “Oh! look! look! Me see! — too much — too much!’ All eyes were instantly directed to the savage to ascertain where he was looking, and then all eyes turned to the lee quarter. I had just time to see “black skin” when it disappeared. The native was excited, and in reply to my question said: “No whale — too much — too big — too long. Me no see all same dat fellar — me fraid”. Not being able to tell which way the animal or fish was bound, I luffed and came aback, ordering the lines into the boat and the crews to “stand by”. The horizon was scanned in every direction for nearly an hour, when giving up all hopes | braced forward and went below. The native continued to look with eagerness, pushed on by the observations of the crew, who asserted that he had seen nothing, but he proved the truth of his sight in a few minutes by uttering another cry, and with more vehemence than the first. I rushed on deck, and the first look, not a mile to leeward, rested on the strangest creature I had ever seen in the ocean. It was apparently still, but “shobbing” up and down, as we say of sperm whales. I knew it was not a whale. The head I could not see, but the body had a motion like the waving of a rope when shaken and held in the hand. Every eye in the ship regarded it attentively, and not a word was spoken 4A, ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. or sound uttered. In a few minutes the whole length of the body rose and lay on the water; it was of an enormous length. Pre- sently the extremity or tail moved or vibrated, agitating the water, and then the head rose entirely above the water, and moved side- © ways slowly, as if the monster was in agony or suffocating. “It is a sea-serpent’’ I exclaimed; “stand by the hoats’. There was a hesitancy, and the mate said, “of what use is there lowering for him? We only lose time, and gain nothing besides” I abrubtly checked him, and ordered all hand to be called aft. When they had mustered I told them I wished to “try” that fellow. 1 urged them with all the eloquence I possessed, telling them there were but few who believed in the existence of a sea-serpent, and that a wish had been expressed that a whale ship might fall in with one of them — that if we did not attack him, and should tell of seeing him when we got home, we should be laughed at and de- rided -— and the very first question would be: “Why didn’t you try him?” I told them our courage was at stake — our manhood, and even the credit of the whole American whalefishery, and con- cluded by appealing to their cupidity — holding out that we might possibly get him into some southern port. “I do not order one of you to go in the boats’, I said “but who will volunteer?” Let me say to their credit, every American in the ship stepped. out at once, followed by all but one native and two Englishmen. I ordered the boat-steerers and officers to examine and see that every thing in and about the boats was in perfect order. I had already jumped into my boat when the serpent began to move very rapidly, and it was necessary to stand after him. The wind was piping up strongly, but as we gained I continued to carry all sail, hoping to be able to lower before the gale rendered it im- possible. The serpent worked to windward, which compelled me to haul on the wind, and soon after I carried away my fore top- gallant mast; this was most unlucky for us, and, what was still worse, we lost sight of the monster. We repaired damages with all possible despatch, and still kept on the wind, hoping to see his snakeship. In less than an hour we saw him again, but some way to windward; soon ascertaining that he partly turned, and was headed baft for beam, I put the ship about on the other tack. The wind had increased so much, that 1 was obliged to put a single reef in the fore and mizen topsails. The serpent disappeared for a few minutes again, but when he rose he was a mile ahead of the ship, and going slowly to leeward, CHEATS AND HOAXES. AD having made a complete circuit. I frankly admit my hopes were feeble of ever really capturing him, and the gale made me hesitate about lowering; but the time arrived, the serpent was still, and we nearly half a mile to windward. I came to with the head yards aback to have a better control of all the ship, and told the ship-keeper to keep close to us, and by no means to lose sight of us for an instant. We lowered, myself taking the lead, and in a few strokes — the wind and sea carrying us to leeward — I told the boat-steerer, James Wittemore, of Vermont, to “stand up’. With calm and cool intrepidity he laid hold of his iron (harpoon), and, when I beckoned with a movement of my hand, quick as thought both of his weapons were buried to the socket in the repulsive body before us. I shouted ‘stern, but there was no visible motion of his snakeship. I shifted ends with the boat- steerer, and cleared away a lance as quickly as possible, beckoning them to pull up, that I might get a lance, when a movement of the body was visible, and the head and tail of the monster rushed as it were to “touch the wound’) The frightfulness of the head as it approached to boat, filled the crew with terror, and three of them jumped over board. I instinctively held out my lance, and its sharp point entered the eye. I was knocked over and felt adeep churning off the water around me. I rose to the surface and caught a glimpse of the writhing body, and was again struck and carried down. | partly lost my consciousness under water but recovered it; when I rose again in the bloody foam, the snake had disappeared , and I shouted, “pick up the line”. The third mate Mr. Benson, caught a bight at my line near the end, and bent on his, which in an instant began to be taken out rapidly. The mate picked me up as soon as I rose to the surface, and in a few minutes all were picked up — one was severely bruised and another insensible, but he recovered and both are now well. ‘The snake had taken my line, the third mate’s, and was taking the second mate’s, when I ordered the mate to bend on and give his line to the ship. ‘The snake was sounding, and I cautioned the officers not to hold on too hard, for fear of drawing the irons. At first the line went out rapidly, but decreased gradually , nevertheless I was obliged to get up a spare- lime out of the fore hold and bend on. For fear that the ship would by its weight on the line draw the irons, [I put on several drags and gave the line to the mate, when it became stationary. There were now out four boats’ lines, 225 fathoms in a boat, and two- thirds of another line, 100 fathoms more — in all 1,000 fathoms , A6 - ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT., six feet in a fathom, 6,000 feet — better than one mile and an eighth, an enormous depth, and the pressure at that distance is inconceivable. It was now blowing furiously, and I scarcely dared to carry sail enough to keep the ship up, the boat was in peril, and I was obliged to take the line to the ship again, and run the risk of the irons drawing. | made the end of the line fast and tuok in all sail but enough to keep her steady, and waited in alarm the snake’s rising, the parting of the line, or the irons drawing. At 4 p.m. the wind began to shift, which favoured us a little; at 5 p.m. it, to our great joy, began to abate. At 8 p.m. a sudden lull; line taut. The night was beautiful, sky clear, wind scarcely abreath and sea rapidly falling, no eye was closed in the ship — we were speculating on our prey. It was evident he was on the bottom. He stayed down a long time; but on reflection I considered that was his forte — that he was at home there. At 4 a. m. of the 14th., 16 hours after he went down, the line began to slack, 1 had it taken to the windlass, when we got nearly two lines “hand over hand”, then there came a strain again. This strain continuing , I told every body to bear a hand and get breakfast, and just before we were through, the cook cried out, “Here he is’. In no time all were on deck, and sure enough he had risen; but all that was visible was a bunch, apparently the bight of the snake, where he had been fastened toy I lowered three boats, and we lanced the body repeatedly without eliciting any sign of life. While we were at work he gradually rose to the surface, and around him floated what I took to be pieces of his lungs which we cut with our lances. To make our work sure we continued to lance, eagerly seeking for his life, when he drew himself up and we pulled away, and then witnessed the terrific dyimg struggles of the monster. None of the crew who witnessed that terrible scene will ever forget it; the evo- lutions of the body were rapid as lightning, seeming like the re- ‘volving of a thousand enormous black wheels. The tail and head would occasionally appear in the surging bloody foam, and a sound was heard, so dead, unearthy, and expressive of acute agony, that a shrill of horror ran through our veins. ‘The convulsive efforts lasted 10 or 15 minutes, when they suddenly stopped, the head was partially raised — it fell — the body partly turned, and lay still. I took off my hat, and nine terrific cheers broke simultaneously from our throats. Our prey was dead. Luckily he floated buoyantly, and we took -him alongside, and while doing so he turned over, lying belly up. Every eye beamed with joy as we looked at him CHEATS AND HOAXES. 4.7 over the rail, and the crew again cheered vociferously, and I joined them. We now held a consultation as to what we should do, and I had requested all hands to offer their opinions. After a short talk, all of us felt convinced that it would be impossible to get him into port, and then we concluded to try and save his skin, head, and bones, if possible. In the first place I requested a Scotchman , who could draw tolerably, to take a sketch of bim as he lay, and the mate to measure him. It was now quite calm, and we could work to advantage. As I am preparing a minute description of the serpent, I will merely give you a few general points. It was a male; the length 103 feet 7 inches; 19 feet 1 inch around the neck; 24 feet 6 inches around the shoulders; and the largest part of the body, which appeared somewhat distended, 49 feet 4 inches. The head was long and flat, with ridges; the bones of the lower jaw are seperate; the tongue had its end like the head of a heart. The tail ran nearly to a point, on the end of which was a flat firm cartilage. The back was black, turning brown on the sides; then yellow, and on the centre of the belly a narrow white streak two- thirds of its length; there were also scattered over the body dark spots. On examining the skin we found, to our surprise, that the body was covered with blubber, like that of a whale, but it was only four inches thick. The oil was clear as water, and burnt nearly as fast as spirits of turpentine. We cut the snake up, but found great difficulty, and had to “flense” him, the body would not roll, and the blubber was so very elastic, that when stretched 20 feet by the blocks, it would, when cut off, shrink to 5 or 6 feet. We took in the head, a frightful object, and are endeavouring to pre- serve it with salt. We have saved all the bones, which the men are not done clearing yet. In cutting open the serpent we found pieces of squid and a large blackfish, the flesh of which dropped from the bones. One of the serpent’s lungs was three feet longer than the other. I should have observed that there were 94 teeth in the jaws, very sharp, all pointing backward and as large as one’s thumb at the gum, but deeply and firmly set. We found it had two spoutholes or spiracles, so it must breathe like a whale; it also had four swimming paws, or imitations of paws, for they were like hard, loose flesh. The joints of the back were loose, and it seemed as if, when it was swimming that it moved two ribs and a joint at a time, almost like feet. The muscular movement of the serpent after it was dead made the body look as if it were en- circled by longitudinal ridges. We were nearly three days in getting 48 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. the bones in, but they are now nearly clean, and are very porous and dark coloured. The heart I was enabled to preserve in liquor, and one of the eyes, but the head, notwithstanding it is cool, begins to emit an offensive odour; but I am so near the coast now that I shall hold on to it as it is; unless it is likely to breed a distemper. Every man in the ship participates in my anxiety. 2 p. m. I have just spoken the vessel; she proves to be the bree Gipsy, Captain Sturges, eight days from Ponce, P. R., with oranges and merchandise, bound to Bridgeport. He has kindly offered to put these sheets in the post office when he arrives. As soon as I get in I shall be enabled to furnish you a more detailed account. — I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Charles Seabury, Master, Whale-ship Monongahela, of New Bedford.” Mr. Newman, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds: “Very well like a hoax, but well drawn up.” Mr. Ropert FRroriep, the Editor of the Vagsberichte uiber de Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, (Abtheilung Zoologie und Palaeontologie n°. 486, 1852, March), says: “The picturesque description of the adventure is lively and reads ~ pleasantly, yet it makes the impression, as if the whole is one of the stories, so often occurring in American newspapers. Nothing can be concluded with any certaimty from the description of the animal of 104 feet length and 16 feet thickness, with two spout- holes and a skin like that of whales. The intrepid captor of the monster says that he has preserved the bones, the skin, the skull with its flesh adhering to it, an eye and the heart, and as he must come back ashore, a naturalist will at last have opportunity to examine and determine these remains, and we shall learn then, whether the fable of the Sea-Serpent is founded, and what the Sea-Serpent may probably be. As soon as possible we will mention more accurate reports.” Some time afterwards Mr. Ropert Froriep wrote, (same jour- nal n°. 491): “As it was supposed, we learn from a communication of the Philadelphia Bulletin that the story of the capture of the Sea- Serpent is a fiction. The crew that was said by the New York Tribune to have met with the ship of Captain Szapury in the open sea and to have taken home the report, has declared, that it has nowhere met with a ship Monongahela, Captain SEABURY.” — CHEATS AND HOAXES. AY Another reported capture of a sea-serpent was published in the Buffalo Daily Republic, of the 13th. of August, 1855, partly inserted in the Ld/ustrated London News of the 15th. of September, of that year, and iz foto in the Zoologist of that year, p. 4896, and in the Zimes of October, 1, 1855: “The “Buffalo Daily Republic” of the 13th. of August, announ- ces the capture of the great American water-snake on that day in the Silver Lake, near Perry village, New York. On Sunday, the 12th. the snake came to the surface, displaying 30 feet length of his body. On Monday morning all were on the alert. At nine o'clock the snake appeared between the whaleman’s boat and the shore: he lay quiescent on the surface, and the whaleman’s boat moved slowly towards him, Mr. Smith, of Covington, pointing his patent harpoon. On reaching within ten feet of the snake, the iron whistled in the air, and he darted off towards the upper part of the lake, almost dragging the boat under water by his move- ment. Line was given him, and in half an hour his strength seemed much exhausted. The whaleman then went ashore and gradually hauled the lme in. When within fifty feet of the shore, the snake showed renewed life, and with one dart nearly carried off the whole line; but he was dragged slowly ashore amid excite- ment unexampled in the district. Four or five ladies fainted on ‘seeing the snake, who, although ashore, lashed his body into tre- mendous folds, and then straightened himself out in agony with a noise that made the earth tremble. The harpoon had penetrated a thick muscular part, eight feet from his head. He is 59 feet 8 inches in length, and has a most disgusting look. A slime a quarter of an inch thick covers his body, and if removed is instantly replaced by exudation. The body is variable in size. The head is the size of a full grown calf. Within eight feet from the head the neck grad- ually swells to the thickness of a foot in diameter; it then tapers down, and again gradually swells to a diameter of two feet in the centre, giving about six feet girth; it then tapers off towards the tail, and ends in a fin, which can expand im fan-shape three feet across, or close in a sheath. Double rows of fins are alternately placed along the belly. The head is most singular. The eyes are large, staring and terrific, with a transparent membrane attached to the lids, protecting the eye without impeding the vision. No gills appear. The mouth is like that of the fish called a sucker; it can stretch so as to swallow a body a foot and a half in diameter: there are no teeth; a bony substance, extending in two parallel lines, covers 4 D0 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. the upper and lower part of the head. The sides and back are dusky brown; the belly is dirty white. Although sinuous like a snake, there are hard knot-like substances along the back. The harpoon is still in him. He lies in the water, confined with ropes, which keep his body in a curve, so that he cannot get away. He can use his head and tail, with which he stirs the water all around. When he rears his head (which he generally keeps under water) he presents a fear- ful aspect. In expanding his mouth he exhibits a blood-red cavity , horribly to look at, and the air rushes forth with a heavy short puff.” The well known Mr. Spencer I. Batrp, the late zealous Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U. S. on reading this in the Zoologist, sent to the Editor the following letter (Zoologist , 1856, p. 4998): “In the November number of the “Zoologist’’ (Zool. 4896) 1 notice an extract from an American paper, respecting the capture of the “Great American Snake”. You have probably since learned that the account is an unmitigated hoax, manufactured by a news- paper-editor, while on a summer vacation, for the purpose of fur- nishing material for his editorial correspondence. — Spencer F. Barro, Smithsonian Institution Washington, U. S. December 28, 1855.” The following splendid trick is of Captain Taytor, who is even called “a respectable and trustworthy gentleman’, nay, who, when the truth of it was inquired into, even “confirmed the statement” ! In the Zoologist of 1860, p. 6985, we read: “The following extract from the log of the “British Banner’, which arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last, appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post of March 20. “On the 25th. April in lat. 12° 7' east, and longitude 93° 52’ south, felt a strong sen- sation as if the ship were trembling. Sent second mate to see what ‘was up; the latter called out to me to go up the fore rigging and look over the bows. I did so, and saw an enormous serpent shaking the bowsprit with his mouth. There was about thirty feet of the serpent out of the water, and I could see in the water abaft of our stern; must have been at least three hundred feet long; was about the circumference of a very wide crinoline petticoat, with black back, shaggy mane, horn on his forehead, and large glaring eyes, placed rather near the nose, and jaws about eight feet long; he did not observe me, and continued to shake the bowsprit and CHEATS AND HOAXES. D1 to throw the sea alongside into a foam, until the former came clear away of the ship. The serpent was powerful enough, although the ship was carrying all sail, and going at about six knots at the time, he attacked us, to stop her way completely. When the bowsprit with the jibboom sails and rigging went by the board, the monster swallowed the foretopmast staysail and flying jib, with the greatest apparent ease; he also snapped the thickest of the rigging asunder like thread. He sheered off a little after this, and returned apparently to scratch himself against the side of the ship, making a most extraordinary noise, resembling that on board a steamer when the boilers are blowing off. A whale breached within a mile of the ship at this time, and the serpent darted off after it like a flash of lightning, striking the vessel with his tail, and staving in all the starboard quarter gally. Saw no more of it, but caught a young one in the afternoon, and brought it on to Melbourne. — William Taylor, Master, “British Banner” .” “(The British Banner arrived here on Sunday, and is now in the Albert Dock. Captain Taylor declares that the above statement is perfectly correct. — Hditor Daily Post.\’ Mr. Epwarp Newman, the Editor of the Zooloyist, adds hereto: “It is impossible for any story to read more like a hoax than this, but I had ready means of procuring, through a friend at Lloyd’s, the information that there is such a ship as the “British Banner”, that she is commanded by Mr. William Taylor, a respect- able and trustworthy gentleman, and that she did arrive at Liver- pool on Sunday, 18 March, last past, and is now in the Albert Dock. Armed with this information I wrote to Capt. Taylor, who has replied in the most courteous manner; he confirms the above statement, adding that he sent it to the Daily Post himself, and adding also that the young one reported to have been caught was presented to the Museum at Melbourne, were it was thoroughly inspected and pronounced to be a veritable sea-serpent.’’ — It is not quite clear whether Mr. Newman was a second time the dupe of a trick, or not, but I think he really was! Mr. Groreze Guyon, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the contrary, wrote the following poem (see Zoologist, p. 7051, 1860): “I’ve a story to tell — I don’t say that it ’s true — But just as I heard it I tell it to you. A ship there was sailing upon the blue sea With her canvas all set, when the captain, said he “J feel that the vessel is all of a tremble, 52 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. A sort of sea earthquake it seems to resemble; Send forward the mate to see what is the matter.” When lo! what he saw would have made your teeth shatter, An enormous big snake rising out of the sea, Some three hundred feet long it might possibly be, And in bulk it might equal a “wide crinoline”’ (At least seven yards round that description must mean). With jaws eight feet long, and with eyes fiercely glaring, A horn and a mane; he looked horribly daring, While the bowsprit he shook in his terrible mouth. "T was in Latitude east and in Longitude south, This is somewhat obscure, but I think on the whole It occurred th’ other side of the Antarctic pole, The ship making six knots — leaving foam in her wake, Yet she stopped at the touch of this wonderful snake; And the jibboom and bowsprit were snapped like a straw; But his strength was outdone by his marvellous maw; For he swallowed the stay-sail and also the jib, Like a boy gulping oysters — they went down to glib. With his stay to his stomac he turned him about, And gave with his tail such a vigorous flout, That some timbers to atoms were crushed by the blow, And what more might have happened we none of us know, When an object appeared for the which he set sail, And both object and story were much like a whale.” Afterwards, (Zoologist, p. 7278, of the same year) we find the following about the young sea-serpent of Captain Taytor: “Captain Taylor's Sea-Serpent. — A friend, who has the oppor- tunity of communicating with Melbourne on the subject of the young sea-serpent which Captain Taylor says (Zool. 6985) he pre- sented to the Museum at Melbourne, has ascertained through Mr. | Coates, of that town, that Captain Taylor is so far correct, that he did at the time specified present a specimen of Pelamys bicolor to the Museum in question, and Professor M’Coy exhibited the same to Mr. Coates. Of course there is no rational ground for concluding that this small sea snake is the young of any such gigantic creature as Captain Taylor has described. — Sdward Newman.” | But of a great Sea-Serpent of Captain Taytor we don’t find any more statements! CHEATS AND HOAXES. 53 We have read the various hoaxes which appeared in the Cork Constitution of 1850; the Skibdbereen Hagle too is not averse to publishing a similar hoax (See Zoologist, 1861, p. 7354): “As Samuel Townsend, Esq., J. P., of Whitehall, was sailing in Whitehall Harbour, he saw, following his wake, what appeared to him (from the many descriptions he had read of the monster) to be a sea-serpent about twenty five or thirty feet in length; and being in a small boat he endeavoured to keep as respectful a distance as possible. There was, however, another boat in the harbour at the time, in which was Mr. Samuel Hingston, his brother, Mr. John Hingston (of Trinity College, Dublin), and a party of ladies. These parties also saw the huge monster; and upon raising its neck about six feet above the surface the females became greatly alarmed, when Mr. John Hingston, who is a remarkably good shot, fired at it, upon which it immediately disappeared. Mr. Townsend informed us the serpent presented a beautiful appear- ance, having large, brilliant scales of a yellow hue, and is of opinion it was struck by the shot fired by Mr. Hingston. It was likewise distinctly seen from the windows of Whitehall-House. Mr. Robert Atkins told us he saw it the day before of Barlogue.” — The following hoax is not inferior to any of the foregoing (Na- ture, of 13th. of June 1872): “Mr. J. Coppin of Durban, forwards to the MWatal Colonist the following account of a “sea-serpent’” seen by him: — “During my last passage from London, I saw no less than three sea-serpents, but an account of the last will suffice. On 30th. December last , on board the Silvery Wave, in lat. about 35’ 0” S., and long. 33° 30" H., at 6.20 P. M. solar time, an enormous sea-serpent passing nearly across our bows compelled the alteration of our course. He was at least one thousand yards long, of which about one third appeared on the surface of the water at every stroke of his enormous fan-shaped tail, with which he propelled himself, raising it high above the waves, and arching his back like a land- snake or a caterpillar. In shape and proportion he much resembled the cobra, being marked by the same knotty and swollen protuber- ance at the back of the head on the neck. The latter was the thickest part of the serpent. His head was like a bull’s in shape, his eyes large and glowing, his ears had circular tips and were 54 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. level with his eyes, and his head was surrounded by a horny crest , which he erected and depressed at pleasure. He swam with great rapidity and lashed the sea into a foam, like breakers dashing over jagged rocks. The sun shone brightly upon him; and with a good glass I saw his overlapping scales open and shut with every arch of his sinuous back coloured like the rainbow.” I don’t know whether the following, taken from the Graphic, is a true hoax, or an optical illusion, but I think it is a hoax. There we read in the number of August, 17th., 1872: “Concerning this much discussed animal, whose existence mariners from the earliest times have firmly asserted, and landsmen as ob- stinately persisted in doubting, we have received the followmg ~ from Mr. Walthew, a well-known ship-owner and merchant in Liverpool: — “Report of Captain A. Hassel, of barque S?¢. Olaf, from Newport to Galveston, Texas. -— ‘T'wo days before arrival at Galveston, and about 4.30 P. M. on May 18, weather calm, smooth sea, lat. 26° 52’, long. 91° 20’, I saw a shoal of sharks passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel’s stern, but before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something on the weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one called out that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall man. On a nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with its head out of the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay stall on the surface of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body in a serpentine manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could see, from the after part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of the same thickness all the way, excepting about the head and neck, which were smaller, and the former flat, like the head of a serpent. It had four fins on its back, and the body of a yellow greenish colour, with brown spots all over the upper part and underneath white. The whole crew were looking at it for fully ten minutes before it moved away. It was about six feet in diameter. One of the mates has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent, which will give some notion of its appearance. — A. Hassel, master of Norwegian barque St. Olaf. — Witness to signature, J. Fredk. Walthew.” — The accompanying engravings are also published, and I give facsimiles of them in Fig. 3 and 4. —TI think that Captain Hassm1 "MOJSOATVL) Ivou woes yuodTog-vog 9q p[NO\\ “Pp pue Eg “SIT —S Re a EE Fa Sine we ————— ani ell, comune ~ = meta poceon ae ries. =e Baran 56 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. after having seen the shoal of sharks, two minutes afterwards saw _ four of these individuals swimming perfectly in a line, the fore- most occasionally lifting its head above the surface, and the backs with the backfin of each animal being visible. The distance between the first and the last being about seventy feet, the whole row looked like a huge serpent, and gave thus rise to the story, which, as I have already said above, may be a hoax, or a true statement of what they saw. Evidently one of the mates first drew the sketch exactly as he saw the four sharks, but afterwards, answering his own question: “how would the serpent look, if floating on the surface?” sketched the second figure, where a boa or python with four fins is represented floating on the water like a cork, or better like the skin of such an animal puffed up! A splendid hoax was again communicated by a correspondent of the Monde Lllustré to the Editor, and published in the number of October, 8, 1881, of that journal. “On board the steamer Zhe Don, of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. — Captain Rozpert Wootwarp.” “Sunday, August 14, 1881”. “To the Editor.” “IT commence my letter by asking you a correspondent’s diploma of the journal Le Monde Lllustré for my friend Mr. E. pr Con- 3 TRERAS Y AL Cee, an inhabitant of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico, Spanish colony.” S = =e _ > SSS = SS 2 (G — Ss = SS = Z \\ x S . SSS . S ——— \ j ie Hi Wf Yj Hj y 4 Al ff Pot Att H) |! ] Hi Vi, YY Ail! A) iat })) y A ) Huy LLL Wy i i | i/ fal f My n | Vig. 5. — The sea-monster, as Mr. C. Renard supposed to have seen it. 58 ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT THE SEA-SERPENT. I just above, resting upon the port-hole and supported by a rope.” “The monster seemed to measure about forty or fifty meters, from the head to the tail, as far as the numerous coils made an approximative estimation possible. The body from the dorsal ridge to the midst of the belly seemed to be covered by several ranges of scales, or a rough skin like that of sharks, but forming over- lapping layers of scales. The back is very darkish and gradually growing lighter towards the belly, where it is a dirty grey. The entire body is marked with alternating transversal stripes, darkish green, chesnut coloured, and grey; the tail seems to taper in a point, like that of eels. I preserve for the end the description of the head, which we have properly examined, and which is very remarkable. This head is not oval, and rather pointed, as in most - of the snakes; it forms at its cranium a great mass with rough and irregular outlines. From the occiput it is provided with a hard and movable crest, with very sharp points; this crest may be lowered on the neck so as to become invisible. The upper jaw projects, as is shown in the sketch, the end is doubled up, and a dark hollow, like a nostril is visible there; the lower jaw, more pointed , shows below hollow and convex outlines, like sacs, doubt- less for the act of swallowing. The teeth are sharp, enormous, and white. From the throat, attached to a kind of cushion, projects a hard tongue, pointed, provided with suckers, and glittering like steel, and phosphorescing as the sea occasionally does; the eye is round, very glittering, very movable, and seems to be able to look backward, so rapid and “dcen combinées’” are the animal's evolutions; the orbit is bordered by a ring of lighter colour and seems to be overarched by an eye-brow provided with hairs or bristles.” “The face, from the snout to the neck presents a lateral oblique line, grey in colour, on both sides of which three other similar lines run towards it.” “The movement of the animal in the water, seems to produce no sound at all, but undulating waves and a very slight ripple.” “It caused a stench enough to make one ill; this smeil, which hung about us for more than half an hour, was like that of a fer- mention by heat on a large scale of the house of Lusacz, the great gatherers of Asniéres, mingled with that of a dozen of charcoal-black works of Billancourt.” “To neutralize it, all the shops of several of our best perfumers would be wanted.” “The monster seems to be old, judging partly from its dimen- CHEATS AND HOAXES. 59 sions, and partly from its colour and the roughness of its integ- ument.”’ “This is not the first time that similar animals are observed.” “The first time it was seen in 1847 by the Portuguese ship Ville de Lissabonne, captain Juan Aupnonso Zarco y Capepa.” “This date coincides with the buffooneries of the Charivarz on the Constitutionel, and with the first disease of the potatoes.” “In 1864, the second of Zhe Don observed a similar animal near the coast of Japan; he tattooed it on his arm.” “J end this series of reports by assuring you that the monster was seen on wednesday evening, August 10, 1881, by the under- signed, at a quarter to ten P. M. in latitude 29° 60’ longtitude 42°40’ reckoning the degrees, according to the log-book on board, from the meridian of Greenwich.” “C. RENARD.” “(Here follow the seven signatures above-mentioned).” The Editor of the Monde Jilustré adds: “We leave to the author of this letter and of the subjoined sketch all the responsibility of an assertion which seems to us, least to say, strange, and the details of which we communicate to our readers with due reserve.’ Let us now pass on to reports of would-be sea-serpents. IIT. Would-be Sea-Serpents. It is by no means astonishing that in the vast waters of the ocean several objects, totally different from the animal generally known as the Great Sea-Serpent, gave rise to tales of that Great Unknown, such as wrecks, gigantic sea-weeds, or even animal beings. So we meet with an account dated: 1720. — (See Ponropripan.) “T'HortAcK 'T'HoRLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a Sea-Serpent had been shut up a whole week in a little mlet, m which it came with high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the skin had sunk into the water of the inlet, so that its length could not be made out, as the inlet. was several fathoms deep, and the skin partly lay there. The other end of this skim was washed on the shore by the current, where everybody could see it; apparently, however, it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft slimy mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg.” It may be that a real sea-serpent remained a week in the inlet. The Norwegian fishermen know the sea-serpent too well to make mistakes. Another animal would not have been called a sea-serpent , and a short description of it would have been given. But the skin wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent, was certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a gigantic calamary. The description “soft and slimy mass” proves this sufficiently. The great calamary died in the fjord, or inlet, and its long dead arm was floated ashore by the current, while the body sank. Such great calamaries, the true Krakens, have been measured, and found to have a body of 30 feet in length with long tentacles of 58 feet WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. (see Lex, Sea Monsters Unmasked, London, 1883). I give here a figure of the largest ever found. (See our Fig. 6.) 1808. — Lhe Animal of Stronsa. — Perhaps no stranded animal, even the so-called sea-monks of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century caused such an excitement among the learned as “the animal of Stronsa”’. | The oldest report of it is certainly a letter from Mr. Campsent, in which only the following lines refer to it: “A snake (my friend TrLrorp received a draw- ing of it) has been found thrown on the Orkney- Isles, a sea-snake with a mane like a horse, 4 feet thick and 55 feet long, this is seriously true. Mautcorm Laine, the historian saw it, and sent a drawing of it to my friend.” The letter was first printed in the work en- titled: “Life and Letters of Campbell’, and afterwards the above quoted lines were reprinted in the Zoologist for 1849, p. 2395. In the Proceedings of the Meeting of the Wernerian Natural History Society on the 19th. of November, 1808, printed in the Pholosophical Magazine, Vol. 32, p. 190, we read: “At this meeting Mr. P. Neri read an account of a great Sea-Snake, lately cast ashore in Orkney. This curious animal, it appears, was stranded in Rothiesholm Bay, in the Island of Stronsa. Malcolm Laing, Esq., M. P. being in Orkney at the time, communicated the circumstance to his brother, Gilbert Laing Hsq., advocate at 30 61 Fig. 6.— The largest calamary ever found, with a scale of 80 feet. Edinburgh, on whose property the animal had been cast. Through this authentic channel Mr. Neill received his information. The body measured fifty five feet in length, and the circumference of the thickest part might be equal to the girth of an Orkney pony. The head was not larger than that of a seal, and was furnished with two blow holes. From the back a number of filaments (resembling in 62 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. tecture the fishing-tackle known by the name of silk-worm gut) hung down like a mane. On each side of the body were three large fins, shaped like paws, and jointed. The body was unluckily knocked to pieces by a tempest; but the fragments have been collected by Mr. Laing, and are to be transmitted to the Museum at’ Edinburgh. Mr. Neill concluded with remarking, that no doubt could be entertained that this was the kind of animal described by Ramus, Egede, and Pontoppidan, but which scientific and systematic naturalists had hitherto rejected as spurious and ideal.” In the meeting of the same Society on the 14th. of January, 1809, (see Phil. Mag. Vol. 33. p. 90.), “Dr. John Barclay communicated some highly curious observa- tions which he had made on the caudal vertebrae of the Great Sea-Snake, (formerly mentioned) which exhibit in their structure some beautiful provisions of Nature, not hitherto observed in the vertebrae of any other animal.” “And Mr. Patric Neill read an ample and interesting account of this new animal, collected from different sources, especially let- ters of undoubted authority, which he had received from the Orkneys. He stated, however, that owing to the tempestuous season, the head, fin, sternum, and dorsal vertebrae, promised some weeks ago to the University Museum at Edinburgh, had not yet arrived ; but that he had received a note from Gilbert Meason, esq., (the gentleman on whose estate in Stronsa the sea-snake was cast.) intimating that they might be expected by the earliest arrivals from Orkney. In the mean time, he submitted to the Society the first sketch of a generic character. The name proposed for this new genus was Halsydrus, (from adg the sea, and vdgog a water snake) ; and as it evidently appeared to be the Soe-Ormen described above half a century ago, by Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway, it was suggested that its specific name should be H. Pontoppidani.” Mr. Matcotm Laine and Dr. Grant, living on Stronsa, were requested to take down the affidavits of the eye-witnesses, and at the meeting of the Wernerian Society on the 11th. of February, 1809, (see Phil. Mag. Vol. 33. p. 251), “the Secretary (Mr. P. Neill) laid before the Society copies of those affidavits made before the justices of peace at Kirkwall m Orkney, by several persons who saw and examined the carcass of — the great sea snake (Halsydrus Pontoppidani) cast ashore in Stronsa in October last; with remarks illustrative of the meaning of some passages in these affidavits.” WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS., 63 The above-mentioned communication of Dr. Joun Barcuay was printed in 1811] in the first Volume of the Memoirs of the Wer- nerian Society, and contains a detailed description of some vertebrae of the animal. The figures of these vertebrae are splendid, also those of the dried and shrivelled skull and a portion of one of the pectoral fins, with the cartilages that connect it with the body. As well the descriptions as the figures betray at a glance the shark nature of the animal. We will not trouble our readers with them, and we will also omit the figures, except one; it is a drawing made after the description of one of the eye-witnesses."(See our Fig. 7). Fig. 7. — The Animal of Stronsa. The Paper of Dr. Barcnay was entitled: Remarks on some parts of the animal that was cast ashore on the island of Stronsa, Sept. 1808. The above-mentioned affidavits were also printed in 1811, in the first Volume of the Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, and run as follows: “At Kirkwall, Nov. LO. 1808. “In presence of Dr. Robert Groat, Physician in Kirkwall, and Malcolm Laing, Esq; M. P. Two of his Majesty’s Justices of the _ Peace of the County of Orkney. “Compeared ‘Thomas lotheringhame, house-carpenter in Kirkwall; who solemnly declared, That being in Stronsa during the gales of wind in October last; he went to see the strange fish that was driven ashore in Rothiesholm Bay: That he measured his length with a foot-rule, which was exactly fifty-five feet, from the junction of the head and neck, where there was the appearance of an ear, to the tail: That the length of the neck, from the ear to the shoulder, was ten feet three inches, as nearly as he recollects. And being shewn a drawing of the animal, he declared, That the neck appeared to him to be too long. That the fins or arms, or, as they were called on the island, the wigs of the animal, were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the drawing: That the toes were less spread out, and tapering more to a point, unless when purposely lifted up; but were not 64 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. webbed unless the space of an inch and a half in breadth, where they joined each other; and the length seemed to be about eight inches: That he measured one of the wings next the head, which was four feet and a half in length, and in shape, from the first joint to the extremity, it resembled a goose-wing without the feathers: That the hollow between the snout and the upper part of the skull, appeared to him not to be quite so deep as repre- sented in the drawing: That in every other respect the drawing appears to be so exact, that if the fish had not been mentioned, it would have brought it to his recollection: That from the ridge of the back to the belly, the body appeared to be four feet in depth, and the circumference rather oval than round; but that he did not measure either: That the mane or bristles of the back extended from the shoulder to within two feet and a half of the tail, and were of a shining appearance when wet; but shrunk up, and turned yellow, when dried: That the mane was thin, about two inches and a half in breadth towards the shoulder, and two inches in breadth at the tail: That the skin seemed to be elastic when compressed, and of a greyish colour, without any scales: it was rough to the feeling, on drawing the hand over it, towards the head; but was smooth as velvet when the hand was drawn towards the tail: That the extremity of the tail was about two inches in thickness, and somewhat rounded; and as he saw no part of the bones, he cannot say whether any part of the tail had been broken off or not: That the eyes appeared to be no larger than those of a seal: That there were two spout holes on each side of the neck, about an inch and a fourth in diameter, and at the same distance from the head as appears in the drawing: That he lifted up the snout, and examined the throat, which was too narrow to admit his hand: That a part of the bones of the lower jaw, resembling those of a dog, were remaining at that time, with some appear- ance of teeth, which were soft, and could be bent by the strength of the hand: That he observed no nipples, or organs of generation; — the belly having been burst open by the violence of the sea: That the stomach was about the size of a ten gallon cask; and the bowls about the bulk of those of a cow: That the bristles of the back which had been pulled off through curiosity, were luminous in the dark, while they continued wet. And all this he declares to be truth, &c. | | “(Signed)” “Thomas Fotheringhame.” WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 65 “Kirkwall, Nov. 19, 1808.” “Compeared John Peace, tenant in Dounatoun in Rothiesholm ; and being interrogated, solemnly declares, That on the 26th. day of September last, he went a fishing off the east part of Rothies- holm-head, when he perceived as he imagined, a dead whale, on some sunk rocks, about a quarter of a mile from the Head: That his attention was first directed to it by the sea-fowl screaming and flocking about it; and on approach of it, in his boat, he found the middle part of it above the surface of the water: That he then observed it to be different from a whale, particularly in having fins or arms, one of which he raised with his boat-hook above the surface of the water: That this was one of the arms next the head, which was larger and broader than the others nearer the tail; and at that time the fin or arm was edged all around, from the body to the extremity of the toes, with a row of bristles about ten inches long, some of which he pulled off, and examined in the boat: That about ten days afterwards, a gale of south east wind came on, and the surge drove the fish ashore on Rothiesholm-Head: That he measured it by fathoms, and found it about fifty-four or fifty-five feet in length: That he observed the six arms, or wings as they are called on the island; but perceived no part of the bristles then round the edges of the fins or arms, and supposes, that being in a putrid state, they had been beaten off by the sea, or washed away: That a small part of the belly was broken up when he saw it then, from which the stomach, as he now supposes it to have been, had fallen out: That the stomach , which he took at first for the penis, from the one end of it beimg joimed to the body; but on seeing it after it was opened, he concluded it to have been the stomach, as it resembled the second stomach of a cow: That he did not measure the circum- ference of the animal, but it appeared to be of the thickness of a middle sized horse round the girth, of twelve or thirteen hands high. And being shewn a drawing of the animal, and desired to point out the resemblance or difference, he declared, That the joint of the foremost leg was broader than represented in the drawing, being more rounded from the body to the toes, and narrower at the upper end than at its junction with the toes: That the limb itself was larger than the hinder ones, and the uppermost joint or shoulder was altogether attached to the body: That in all other respects the drawing appears to him to be an exact resemblance of the fish, as it lay on the beach: That the ) : 5 66 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. mane came no further than the shoulder, and extended to the tail, part of which appeared to have been broken off: That the length of the neck, the situation of the spout-holes, and of the eye, the shape of the snout, the position and distance of the limbs from each other, appear to him to be exactly preserved in the drawing: That the lower jaw was awanting when he saw it: That the fish was of a greyish colour: That he observed no nipples or organs of generation, unless as above mentioned: That the part of the belly which was burst open, and from which the stomach had fallen out, was between the two limbs that are situated in the ~ middle of the animal. And all this he solemnly declares to bes truth. And declares he cannot write.” “Bodem de” “Compeared Mr. George Sherar, tacksman of Rothiesholm in the island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared , That on the 20th. of October, bemg in Rothiesholm-head he saw the crew of John Peace’s boat examining something on the water, which he took to be a dead whale: That about ten days afterwards, a gale of east wind having taken place he went to see if the whale was driven ashore, and found it in a creek, lymg on its back, about a foot under water; and from the view which he had of its figure, length and limbs, his curiosity induced him to return a day or two after the gale had abated, when he found it thrown upon the beach, a little below high water mark, and lying on its belly, as represented in the drawing: That he returned next morning, with a foot-rule, purposely to measure it, and found it to be exactly fifty-five feet in length, from the hole in the top of the skull (which he has brought to town with him), to the extrem- ity of the tail: That the length of the neck was exactly fifteen feet, from the same hole to the beginning of the mane: That he measured also the circumference of the animal as accurately as he could, which was about ten feet, more or less; and the whole body, where the limbs were attached to it, was about the same circumference: That the lower jaw or mouth was awanting; but there were some substances or bones of the jaw remaining; when he first examined it, which are now away: That it had two holes on each side of the neck, besides the one on the back of the skull: That the mane or bristles were about fourteen inches in length each, of a silvery colour, and particularly luminous in the dark, before they were dried: That the upper part of the limbs, which answers to the shoulder-blade, was joined to the body like WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 67 the shoulder-blade of a cow, forming a part of the side: That a part of the tail was awanting, being incidentally broken off at the extremity; where the last joint of it was bare, was an inch and a half in breadth: That the bones were of a gristly nature, like those of a halibut, the back-bone excepted, which was the only solid one in the body: That the tail was quite flexible, turning in every direction, as he lifted it; and he supposes the neck to have been equally so, from its appearance at the time: That he has brought in, to deliver to Mr. Laing, the skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs, next the head, with different parts of the backbone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in: That there were either five or six toes upon each paw, about nine inches long, and of a soft substance: That the toes were separate from each other, and not webbed, as far as he could observe; and that the paw was about half a foot each way, in length and in breadth: That a few days thereafter, a gale of wind came on, and drove it to another part of the shore, where it was broken to pieces by the surge, and when Mr. Petrie came out to take a drawing of it, no part of the body remained entire: That he endeavoured to convey an idea of the animal to Mr. Petrie, by drawing the figure. of it as accurately as he could, with chalk, on the table, exactly as it lay on the shore, after which Mr. Petrie made six or seven different sketches or plans of the fish, before he could bring it to correspond, in each minute particular, with the strong idea which he retains of its appearance: That he was the more attentive to its shape, dimen- sions and figure, in order to be able to give an accurate account of it to any travellers that might come to Rothiesholm, and that he is ready to make oath that the drawing is an exact resemblance of the fish, as it appeared when he measured it; and corresponds in all particulars with the idea which he entertains of the figure, dimensions, and proportions of the fish: That the substance of the body appeared like coarse, ill coloured beef, interlarded with fat or tallow, without the least resemblance or affinity to fish; but when put into a lamp, and the lamp placed on the fire, it neither flamed nor melted, but burned away like a gristly substance: That he perceived no teeth in the upper jaw; the lower jaw and tongue being awanting, and the palate also away: That the aperture of the throat appeared to be so wide, that he might have put his foot down through it: That the joints of the limbs were not united by a ball and socket but were lapped over each other, and united by some means which he does not comprehend: That there were 68 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. two canals, one above and another below the backbone, large enough to admit one’s finger, and extending from the vertebrae of the neck, to the extremity of the tail, containmg two ligaments, which he supposed, enabled the animal to raise itself up, or to bend its body in a spiral form: That a tract of strong easterly wind had prevailed, before the body was discovered upon the shore, and that he saw the body on two or three different occa- sions, after he had measured it, and before it went to pieces. And all ine he declares to be truth, &c.” : “(Signed)” “Geo. Sherar.”’ “Compeared Mr. William Folsatter, tacksman of Whitehall, in the island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That having heard that it was a dead whale that had come on shore in Rothiesholm-head, he did not see the body till about the 28th. day of October, when it had gone to pieces: That he saw about nine or ten feet of the back-bone, and some bones of the paws, and what was supposed to be the stomach which last he had the curiosity to open; that it was about four feet long, and as thick as a firkin, but flatter: That the membranes that formed the divisions, extended quite across the supposed stomach, and were about three sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and at the same distance from each other, and of the same substance, with the stomach itself: That the section of the stomach, after it was opened, had the appearance of a weaver’s reed: ‘That he opened about a fourth part of the supposed stomach which contained nothing but a reddish substance, like blood and water, and emitted a fetid smell: That he was very doubtful at the time whether it was really the stomach or not; but that each end of it had the appearance of terminating in a gut. And all this he solemnly declares to be the truth, &e. “(Signed)” “Wim. Folsetter.” “The said Mr. George Sherar being again interrogated , declares, That he examined the supposed stomach, after it had been opened by Mr. Folsitter, and that he laid it open to the farther end: That there was something like a gut at the end which he opened, about two inches long, with a small aperture: That the stomach had the same appearance from end to end, and contained nothing but a substance like blood and water: That the large bone of which a drawing was taken, was considered as the collar-bone; WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 69 and that it was situated with the broad and thick part downwards and the open part towards the vertebrae of the back: That he observed no appearance of fins about the neck or breast, or other parts of the body, except the six paws already described. And all this he solemnly declares to be truth, &c.” “(Signed)” “Geo. Sherar.” One of the ablest ichthyologists of those days, Mr. Evrrarp Home examined the “sea-snake”’, and recognized it for a Basking shark. Immediately after his paper in the PAédlosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 98, entitled “An anatomical account of the Squalus maximus (of Linnaeus), which, &c.,” especially of an individual of thirty feet six inches, “entangled in the herring nets, belonging to the fishermen of Hastings, 13 Nov. 1808”, Mr. Home goes further: | “IT cannot close the present paper without mentioning, that nearly the same period, two other Squali of large dimensions were thrown upon our coast. The problable cause of this event, is the season being uncommonly boisterous and tempestuous. On the 3d. of January, 1809, a fish was thrown ashore at Penrhyn, in Corn- wall. On hearing of it from a person on the spot, I sent down a drawing of the subject of this paper to compare with it, and the fish proves to be of the same species, and a male, measuring thirty-one feet in length.” “The other was thrown ashore on the 7th. of October, 1808, at Rothiesholm, an estate of Gilbert Meason, Esq. in Stronsay, one of the Orkney isles. It had been seen lying on some sunken rocks, eleven days before, was in a half putrid state, and the sea fowls were in great numbers feeding upon it. Those who saw it, re- ported that the skin was rough in one direction, and smooth like satin in the other. At the time of its being examined, the skin and a great many other parts of the fish were wanting.” “Mr. Meason, with a zeal for science which does him infinite credit, upon hearing the strange accounts which were given of this sea-monster, got his brother, Malcolm Laing, Esq. and Dr. Grant, an eminent physician (both justices of the peace), to take depositi- ons on the spot, from those persons who had seen the fish, that its real appearance might be ascertained. This examination, how- ever, did not take place till six weeks after the fish was thrown ashore.” “These depositions were sent to Sir Joseph Banks, who put them into my hands. (The depositions are very long, and exceedingly minute; they are preserved in the Board-book of the Royal Society). I also received, a short time after, from my friend Mr. Laing, in consequence of a request I made for that purpose, that part of the skull, which contained the brain, the upper jaw having been separated from it, a considerable number of the vertebrae of the back united together by their natural attachments, a portion of one of the pectoral fins, with the cartilages that unite it to the spine, and a long and short cartilage forming the support of one of the gills. On comparing these different parts, with those of the Squalus maximus, they were found to agree, not only in their form, but also in their dimensions. This led to the opinion of the fish being a Squalus, a very different one from what was formed by those who saw it in the mutilated state in which it was thrown ashore, and who called it a sea-snake. In the different depositions , several parts are accurately described, such as the valvular intest- ine, which was taken for the stomach, and the bristles of the mane, which are described as ligamentous fibres, one of them is in my possession, and is of the same kind with the fibres forming the margin of the fins of the squalus maximus. The drawing that was made from memory, and which I have annexed, will enable me in a few words to point out how much, in some things, those who saw the fish adhered to truth, and in others allowed their imagination to supply deficiencies, for one of them declared, with confidence, that the drawing was so exact a representation of what he had seen, “that he fancied he saw the beast lying before him, at a distance on the beach.” “The drawing is correct in the representation of the head, and anterior part of the fish, from which the skin, the upper and lower jaw, the gills, and gullet, had been separated by putrifica- tion; and when we consider that the liver and the other viscera were all destroyed, except the valvular intestine, which was taken away by the observers, the size of the body that remained would be nearly in proportion with the drawing. The legs are tolerably exact representations of the holders in the male Squalus maximus, described in a former part of this paper, and therefore are not imaginary, only that four have been added which did not exist. This is satisfactorily determined by the pectoral fin, which is preserved , having no resemblance to them. The mane, they said, ~ was composed of ligamentous fibres, one of which was sent to London; this corresponds, in its appearance, with the fibres that form the termination of the fins and tail of the Squalus maximus, 70 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 71 such an appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met with in the place of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continu- ed along the back, as in the drawing. The contortions towards the tail are such, as the invertebral joints could not admit of, they are therefore imaginary.” “It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by fathoms, the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet long. ‘Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are preserved correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long, and it is rendered still more so, as the person who gives the length in fathoms, says, he saw at that time the six legs, the two foremost being larger than the hinder ones, and the lower joint more rounded on the body to the toes. The pectoral fin , which is preserved, proves this declaration to be incorrect: the person who measured the fish with a foot-rule, declares the length , from the hole in the head to the beginning of the mane, to be exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a Squalus of about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart of the skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other measure- ment must be questionable.” “It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure re- presented in this drawing, atic was not actually seen. The skeleton of the holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin of the dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only errors are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the fish and the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs. (This mistake of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been frequently made. There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library, sent from Ireland, in which the fish is represented walking like a duck, with broad webbed feet. The skin of a male Squalus maxi- mus was exhibited in London, some years ago, distended by means of hoops, and the holders were shown as its legs, on which it occasionably walked). And when we recollect that the drawing was made from memory six weeks after the fish had been seen by those , who describe it, during which interval it had been their principal subject of conversation, we may conclude that so extraordinary an object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when believed to be a perfect one, would, in their different discourses, have every part exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the depositions kept so close to the truth as they have done.” “It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained , 72 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. that this fish is not a new animal unlike any of the ordinary pro- ductions of nature, and we are indebted to the zeal and liberality of Mr. Meason and Mr. Laing, who have collected a sufficient body of evidence to enable me to determine that poimt, and prove it to be a Squalus, and the orifices behind the eye, which com- municate with the mouth met with in the skull, renders it very probable, that it is a Squalus maximus.” “This opinion is further confirmed by the Squalus maximus, known by the name of the basking shark, being frequently seen upon the coast of Scotland.” The only remark J have to make is: Mr. Home will never have believed that the animal of Stronsa really measured 56 feet, and so made himself guilty of throwing discredit on the accurate measuring of the eye-witnesses. I present here to my readers the figure of a Squalus maximus , or Basking-shark, thus enabling them to make this animal’s ac- quaintance, if they don’t know it yet. Fig. 8. — Squalus maximus, Linné. Of course Mr. Barcuay rejected Mr. Homn’s supposition, and wrote a paper against it, printed in the first volume of the above mentioned Memoirs, running as follows: “Since reading the first paper of Mr. Home, where he treats of the vertebrae of the Squalus maximus, I have seen another, en- titled “An anatomical account of the Squalus maximus’. In this last paper, he seems to be convinced, that the animal of Stronsa is a Squalus maximus. The scale on which he draws his figure of the squalus, is a scale of half an inch to a foot.” | “Measuring by this scale, the head of his squalus is five feet and a half, from the jomt of the upper jaw to the gills. The WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 73 dried and shrivelled head of the animal of Stronsa, measures only twelve inches from the first vertebra to the farthest part that re- mains of the jaw.” “The diameter of the head of the squalus maximus, from night to left, at the angle of the mouth, was, according to Mr. Home, five feet. The broadest part of the head of the animal of Stronsa is, in its present state, only seven inches.” “The diameter of the larger vertebrae, near the head, in the squalus, was, according to Mr. Home, seven inches. The first cervical vertebra in the animal of Stronsa, is still adhering to the’ head, and is only two inches in diameter.” “Yet some of the vertebrae of this animal, which are still pre- served, are six inches and a half in diameter; and the first vertebrae which I saw, were from four to five and a half inches across.” “The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa, confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a neck. But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home's figure be accurate, had nothing resembling a neck. And, mdeed, Artedi observes, that “omnes pisces qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque ca- rent: Ergo soli pisces cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a neck, therefore, as peculiar to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise the account of the spiracula or ear-holes, ascribed to this animal of Stronsa.” “The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches. The length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was fifty five feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part of the tail was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the animal of Stronsa was, by actual measurement, about ten feet, meant, | suppose, at the thickest part. If the animal had been cylindrical at that part, the diameter from the dorsal to the sternal aspect must have been about three feet four inches. The diameter of the squalus at the thickest part, measuring from the dorsal to the sternal aspect, is nearly six feet; its circumference, had it been cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.” “The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder to near the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after deducting the length of the head and neck, which, when together were sixteen feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which | got from Mr. Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought here, confirm the accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys. The bristles of that mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor, 74, WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. although they were, has the squalus a fin extending from the shoulder to the tail.” “A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and obliging Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the original, by Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the dried specimen now before us. It represents the sternum and two parts corresponding two scapulae, and those organs which are named paws. Mr. Home says, that these organs resemble the pect- oral fins of his squalus. But the length of the pectoral fins, Measuring along the upper margin, is four feet, the length of the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting; the part that remains, measures seventeen inches.” “The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three feet and seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in its dried state, is only five inches and three quarters.” “Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit articular surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.” “Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance to science, that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a new animal, unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.” Of what importance it is to science to admit no new genera or species into our catalogues of natural history, I cannot conceive. But it is certainly of much importance to science, that the natur- alist should be cautious not to determine the species of an animal upon vague evidence. Now what evidence had Mr. Home that this animal was a squalus, and even to suppose that it was a squalus maximus?” I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. Barcnay does not seem to make any difference between “a head” of a Squalus and “a skull.” It is true that the “head” of a Sgualus maximus of thirty feet and a half measures five feet and a half, but its “skull” has only a length of ten inches. It is true that the diameter of the “head” of such a shark measures from right to left about five feet, but its “skull” would have only a few inches in breadth. It is true that the diameter of the larger vertebrae near the head of such an individual may be about seven inches, but what is indicated by Mr. Barcuay in the head of his “animal of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertrebra’, is (don’t laugh!) the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous append- ages! — No wonder that the animal of Stronsa had “a neck”, for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins, except WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 715 the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed away, whilst the basking shark of Mr. Home had no neck, because it was entire. — Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which ARTEDI is quoted! In the comparison of Mr. Homer's basking shark and his own stranded animal, Mr. Barciay also wholly overlooks, when he states the dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified remains of an animal, and not of an undamaged being. Dr. Barcniay seems to entirely reject Mr. Homn’s idea that the “mane had never extended over the whole back, but what was seen were only fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places of the foremost and the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of the “mane” only existed in the imagination of the witnesses. In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the paws, Mr. Barciay again forgets that he has only before him a totally mutilated specimen. An extract from the “Remarks” of Dr. Barciay was given by Dr. Horrmann in Oxen’s Jsis, IL, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst others he says: | “The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;” but Mr. Horrmann himself is not free from inaccuracies! In none of Dr. Barcray’s papers mention is made of a “membrana- ceous comb extended over bony rays, which was running from the shoulders to the end of the tail, over the back.” He has evidently translated this (if we may use this expression) from the figure (see our fig. 7). But this figure was made for print by Mr. Symz, after a drawing made on one of the islands from the description given there, and Mr. Syme has changed the “mane” (long loose hairs hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he figured exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble to compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same Mr. Syme in the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal of Stronsa.”’ Immediately after this paper Mr. Oxzn, the editor of the Jss, wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship with other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as no animal with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been 76 | WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. a cartilaginous fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia (a pair of additional paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or “holders”) were regarded as the third pair of feet, whilst the ventral and pectoral fins were the other pairs. “It 1s, however, no shark ,” he goes on, and adduced 7 proofs for this theory; “it is, neither a cetacean,” and for this opinion he gives 4 different reasons. And yet he has the boldness to conclude: “The animal consequently is more related to the sharks, and as it is not a true shark, it must be a Chimaera”’; but the reasons given to prove this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I will add here that he also says: “finally individuals of Chimaera of 30 feet in length, have already been caught’, a manifest untruth, for the largest ever measured were of three feet and a half! — For those readers who never saw a Chimaera, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, I have delineated the Chimaera monstrosa in our fig. 9. Fig. 9. — Chimaera monstrosa, Linn. In the Hdinb. Philos. Journ. Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is pub- lished of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis was made by Dr. Joun Davy, and communicated “a considerable time ago” by Dr. Lacs to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my readers with this analysis would be superfluous. Dr. Hissert in his Description of the Shetland Islands, 1822, really believes that: “The existence of the sea-snake, — a monster of fifty-five feet long, is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown on shore in Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the Edinburgh Museum.” Dr. Haminron too, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, is of the same opinion: “We turn first’ he says “to an account of an animal which apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-ser- pents), “which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, in the year 1808’, and he goes on giving some details WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. WG of the stranded animal, taken from the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society. Later on we learn from him that: “Dr. Fremine” in his Aistory of British Animals, 1828, (this work I have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal, suggests that these members were probably the remains of pectoral, ventral and caudal fins.” Mr. RatsuKe in the Archi fiir Naturgeschichte of 1841, after having published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about the sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm believer in it, goes on: “To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition, however, is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal, which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, and of which several pieces of the skeleton are said to be preserved in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, and in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. I have read a note about it in the London Journal ¢he Athenaeum, 1839, p. 902, which note is taken from the work: The Naturalst’s Library, Am- phibious Carnivora, including the Walrus and Seals, also of the Herbivorous Cetacea. By B. Hamilton, M. D. (Edinburgh, Lizars). — An ample description of the saved rests of the animal is said to have been. written by Dr. Barcnay in the first Volume of the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society. 1 had, however, not the means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-men- tioned note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured 56 feet and had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet. The head was small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15 feet long. The organs of motion are said to have consisted of three pairs of fins: one pair of which is believed to have been properly a caudal fin. The foremost pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were the longest, and their tops looked like toes, partly, however, webbed together. From the shoulders a kind of bristly mane ex- tended to near the extremity of the tail. The skin was smooth, without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as large as a seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.” “Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the head was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender, and -the extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the animal stranded in Stronsa resembled a Plesiosaurus; and that con- sequently it belonged to the Amphibia, viz. to the Saurians.”’ 718 WOULD-BR SEA-SERPENTS. Prof. Dr. W. F. Ericuson, the well known Editor of the Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, expressed his opinion about the animal of Stronsa, immediately after the appearance of Mr. Raruxn’s disser- tation. After having given full details of Mr. Barcuay’s paper, and an ample description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts belong undoubtedly to a shark,” and: “Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and in spite of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be so for ever, only it may not have been a Selache maxima, but a Lamna cornubica, which also reaches a considerable length. So the animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians. ” I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. Ericuson could arrive at this conclusion, as the Lamna cornubica, or por- beagle has never attained a length above 18 feet. — Our fig. 10 represents a porbeagle. 4g Fig. 10. — Lamna cornubica (Linn.). It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. Newman, the Editor of the Zoologist, after all that had been written about the animal of Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his journal of 1849, p. 2358, he asked the following “Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa in 1808.” “In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society” (vol. I. p. 418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast ashore on the island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the Doctor figures the head with a vertebra attached, four other vertebrae and a sternum with a paddle “and two parts correspon-— ding two scapulae’ attached. He speaks of the originals of these figures as specimens then before the audience he was addressing. — rah ers i WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 79 He gives seven inches as the diameter of the head, and two inches as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then still attached to the head. The total length of the animal is given as fifty-five feet, and this from actual admaesurement. It is now positively asserted that the animal in question was a shark; but the utter impossibility of a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head only seven inches in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches in diameter, is so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I shall esteem it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the means of doing so will reply to the following questions: — “]. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained ? “2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal? “3. Where are these bones preserved ? “4. What is their present state? | “5 Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc. ? “6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? and if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it? “Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the questions at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus, order or class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head and sternum of the creature are still in existence.” — The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in the Zoologist for 1849, p. 2396: “Reply to Mr. Newman’s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the Stronsa Animal. — Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an animal cast on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Society’, — after some little trouble I have been able to answer most of these questions.” “1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtaimed ? — It will be seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that George Sherar, one of those who saw the animal, mentions that he brought away, to deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian), the skull, two joimts of one of the largest limbs next the head, with different parts of the back-bone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, 1 suppose, forwarded them to Dr. Barclay.” “2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal? — The answer to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took them from the same animal.” “3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present state? — Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal 80 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches in diameter; and four in the University Natural History Museum , preserved in spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas the other three are separate.” “5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &c.? — 6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative ana- tomist? if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it? — ‘This is answered by the annoying fact that the skull has not been preserved.” “On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae , he tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly those of a Shark (Squalus maximus), as are the skull, sternum and scapulae, figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs’, p. 418.” “We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who saw this extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on closer inspection even these will be found to have little weight in the argument. In the first place it is imfortunate that no well- educated person saw it: they were all ignorant, illiterate men, who most likely knew nothing further of a shark than that it was an animal with a huge mouth, capable of discussing so many seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly adapted for am- putating limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses agreeing in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six legs: on this pomt it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing any- thing of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility of such. a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it 1s at once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and scapulae with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol. I. p. 418); the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his “British Animals’, supposes were claspers. In the last place we may notice one striking contradiction in the evidences: Thomas Fothermghame seems to have been astonished at such a large animal having such a narrow throat, — so narrow indeed that it would not admit his hand; while George Sherar would have had no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there is nothing to prove that Thomas Fothermghame’s hand was larger than George Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other must have made a mistake in his calculation.” “We might further suggest the improbability of any animal sixty feet long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and | we might even suspect the carpenter's footrule of showing a decided taste for the marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 81 remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was cer- tainly not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Higg-Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance. — Jas. C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.” As to the animal seen by Mr. MacuEan, see our report n°. 31, in the following chapter. One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa” was now set at rest. Not at all! Dr. Tsaomas Srewarr Train wrote a paper about it, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. III, n°. 44, 1854, June, comparing it with the animal seen by the Captain, officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus (see our report n°. 118 in the next chapter). The part of his dissertation, respecting the “animal of Stronsa” runs -as follows: “The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain M’Quhae, the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the Southern Atlantic, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, about 300 miles off the African shore, recalled my attention to the materials I had collected respecting the vast animal cast ashore on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys, in 1808.” “T was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made by those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me by order of Malcolm Laing Hsq., the historian of Scotland, on whose property it was stranded; and I obtained other notes from several individuals resident in Okney.” | “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 natur- alists. 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 wimg, as it was termed by the natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and exam- ined 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- 6 82 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 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 for- warded 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, endeav- oured, 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 obtamed, it would appear that the joimted 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 jims 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 jis. 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 | 2 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 Levels) drawing”. WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. | 83 “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, seen 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 grossiérement 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 footru/e, 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 mouths 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 thick- ness; 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 “2gnorant 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 por- tion towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions) 84 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 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. Be- sides, the ine like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the eel-like are 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 sup- posed sea-serpent.”’ “Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior wings, or pectoral fins, towards the aul 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 trans- parency, sete 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 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 85 the Basking-shark, in the same situation, 1s 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: Leur omoplates sont suspendues dans le chair, en arriere des Bran- chies, sans articuler ni au crane ni a l’espive. The Orkney animal seems to have had ¢wo circular spiracles on each side of its neck, about 1'/, inch in diameter; whereas the Basking shark has jive finear 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 lenght 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 m length; and the diameter of the cran- ium 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 ceta- ceans; 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 chon- dropterygious 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 pro- gression 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. Train'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 sur- face of the sea, for the pectoral fin was already putrified and the fibres had become loose. 86 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 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. Tratiu 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 ¢wo anal fins. The anal fin is therefore called an unpaired fin! | In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those of Homr’s Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. Barcuay, perman- ently 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. Scuiecen’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 intelli- gences, transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GunNEzR, sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than 100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”. In considermg 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 cal- led “first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. Barcuay ! 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. Traizu 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. Trait, no more than Dr. Barcuay, 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. : T need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of Stronsa”. They may more than once have observed that I agree WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 87 with Mr. Evzrarp Home's opinion in all particulars, except in the so-called exaggerated dimensions. I firmly believe that the car- cass 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 mches “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 cartilagi- nous 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 Britam 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 ! 88 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. As to the sketch, made by Mr. Prrrim after the descriptions of one of the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat altered by Mr. Sym, 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, conse- quently 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 omy cause of all this trouble, and of the whole puzzle! 1816. — Phil. Mag., LIV, 1819). — The third sea-serpent de- scribed by Mr. Rarinzsave (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.” Fig. 11. — A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the Sea. 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 repos- ing 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 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 89 water (taken from Mr. Henry Ler’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 Frorimp’s Wofizen 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. Frorrep 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. — 90 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 1849. — In the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2335, we read: “A young sea-serpent. — On Friday, while some fishermen belong- ing to Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what ap- peared 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 con- tracts like what a iong cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds itself up im 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 dimen- sions.’ — “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 Linn, but that of Montacu. The former is a little worm of about one half of an ~ inch in length, livmg parasitically in the entrails of some fishes, especially in herrings, whilst the latter is identical to Limeus longissimus of SoweErsy, .belonging to the family of Leneidae, to the order of MNemertini, 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. Intosu, 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 capt- ured on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By the enclosed handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears 91 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. imus, Sow. 185, Fig. 12. — Lineus long 99 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS, to be quite unknown to the neighbouring savants. The honest fishermen who drew the struggling monster to land are not, how- ever, overscrupulous about the name, provided it be attractive enough to extract from the pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 64¢.; working people 3d. 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 con- temporaries 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 gentle- men 6d¢., Working people 3d. each.” In the J/lustrated 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 Northumbriam coast, by the Culler- coats’ fishermen, and has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 93 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 Newcaste 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. AnBaNny Hancock and Dr. Emsiuron now declared it to be a probably new species of the genus of riband-fish (Gymmnetrus). Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the Gymnetrus gladius of Cuvier and Vauenciennes, taken from the Régne Animal. This fish is of a silvery colour, except. the fins and the peculiar Maas vmerenasenrntete ATL Fig. 13. — Gymnetrus gladius, Cuv. Val. 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 sores! The fish im question therefore most probably pene. to this species. 94, WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS, | 1852, Aug. 28. — Mr. Aurrep Newton, of Elveden Hall, forwarded the following report to the Editor of the Zoologist (see this journal for 1853, p. 3756). “T 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° H., lat. 387° 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.” 3 “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° K. long., being about 650 miles due south of Madagascar. | 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.” “Hetract 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 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 95 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 feeth 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. Gossz, in his Romance of Natural History, 1% Series, p. 311, says of these rapports: “The descriptions, however, show great TRH Ey with that of the creature, seen from the Daedalus” (see report n°. 118 in the next phapter) “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. Gossr, 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. Goss, 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 96 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. the surface they are dying or already dead. ‘hey 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. Goss 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 Plesiosaurz, 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. Bil, of the Dutch bark “Hendrik Ido Ambacht’’, to the “Jorn-Bode’: — “Sailing in the South Atlantic, in 27° 27° N. lat, and 14° 51’ EH. Jonge we perceived on July the 9th., between twelve and one o'clock in the afternoon, a dangerous sea monster, which during nine days con- stantly kept alongside of us to 37° 55’ S. lat., and 42° 9’ H. 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 un- pleasant 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.” *) | 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. 1) 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. WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. Q7 1860? — In the Zoologist for this year we read p. 6934: “4 sea-serpent in the Bermudas. — 1 beg to send you the fol- lowing 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. T'wo 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 gathermg in sea-weed, and unfortunately mauled it much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven inches in length, tapermg from head to tail like a snake, the body being a flattish 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 locomo- tion, 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 powertul 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, 7 98 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 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 1 enclose.” Mr. Newman, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds hereto the fol- lowing 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 ¢dis sea-serpent a ribband fish?” -—— Yes, ¢his sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent nat- uralist’’, Mr. J. M. Jonzs, soon afterwards described this species for the Zoologist, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr. Epwarp 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. Matazw JonEs, with which we will not trouble our readers, only referring them to our fig. 13, p. 938, of a ribband fish, closely allied to the specimen, captured in the Bermudas. Mr. Jonns adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea- serpent seen by Captain M.’ Quuaz (see report n°. 1]8), and con- cludes 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. Nuwman 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 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 99 his new species, and adds that he is not competent to express an opinion upon the similarity of Regalecus Jonesu to Capt. M.’ Quuan’s sea-serpent. 1878. — The Scotsman of September 6th. of this year has in- serted 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 limes and rows of spots running from the head to the tail each side. There is a mane on the neck twenty inches long, and con- tinues 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. Anprew Witson 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 “cs explicable only on the tape fish theory”, or in short: “this was evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is ident- ical to a ribband fish. Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes , some species evidently don’t live at great depth, and are occasion- ally cast ashore after a storm, as had also happened, in 1860, on the Bermudas (see hereabove). | 1879, December 23. — (G. Verscuuur, Hene reis rondom de wereld in 480 dagen, p. 51.) On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. Verscnuur on board the Granada, \eft 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. Verscuuur 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 100 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 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 offi- cers run to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless five of us had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent alter- cation 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 fnmily maintain that what we had seen, “igteed m all respects with the shape of a serpent.” “The second officer, who jomed 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 opin- ion, 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. Verscuuur Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the fol- lowing 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?” WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 101 “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 an- swered in order to determine somewhat, what animal may have been seen by you.” Mr. Verscuuur 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 1*/, meter.” | “The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of a snakes head, 1. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the “cobra” or of the rattlesnake.” “Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., | 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 snuown 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 elther 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. Gossz, Mr. ANnprew Wirson, and Mr. Hxnry Lez, were prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea- 102 | WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. serpent a Plesiosaurus, an extraordinarily developed Hydrophis, or a large Calamary (4rchiteuthis). 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. : é 2 ' IV. The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms of the papers written about the subject. An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in Nature of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that subject. A few months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the Album der Natuur, a Dutch periodical, designed to bring the latest progress and problems of Science in a very popular manner under the eyes of non-scientific readers. In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an animal which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless existed, and gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent. In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the same subject by Mr. Henry Lez. In this work “Sea Monsters Unmasked” the sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as having been a row of porpoises following one another, as some gigantic sea-weed, as huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as any still unknown animal belonging to a genus of reptiles, the representatives of which are only known in the fossil state. Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, and seeing that Mr. Lexx did not mention my supposition, I am now so bold as to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent in another manner; I have chosen the English language as being known to all zoologists and to all navigators. The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, quoted by Aristoretes (History of Animals, Book 8, chapt. 28), Puinius (Naturals Historiae, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), Vaterius Maximus (de Factis Dictisgue Memorabilibus, Lib. 1, 104 THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS , [ NPeee cap. 8, Ist. century), Frorus (Lib. 2), Senzca (litt. 82), Sinvius Iraticus (Lib. 6), Autus Grxrius (Lib. 6, cap. 3), Onostus, ZoNARES, Dioporus Sicutus, VoLETERRANUS (Commentariorum Urbanorum libri 38, book 12), Purr. Marryr (Decad. 1, lib. 10), Baxrus (Posidoni Vita et Rehgqumae, p. 115), Aruianus, VERGILIUS, etc., were most probably nothing but pythons. The various kinds of Serpens marinus alluded to by AxistoTELES and Purius, and afterwards described and figured by many other authors, evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of Pére JEan Baptiste Lapat in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes , which reach no greater length than about twelve feet. For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these dif- ferent animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than the year 1500 A. D. Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A.D. up to this day, we come © to the conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of the so-called sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were cuttles of extraordinary dimensions (Cephalopoda Decapoda Chon- drophora). In all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes not difficult for a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures and their habits, to explain those observations, but the greater part of the accounts of Great Sea-Serpents do zof agree with the well-known shape of sea-weeds and cuttles, zor with the habits of porpoises. Mr. Lex tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent with these kinds of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent moving with vertical undulations, and figured it thus, knew the habits of those animals, and some of them testified, that it could not have been porpoises, which they knew well enough to be sure of it. I will add here that porpoises move irregularly and have dorsal fins, which must of course be visible whenever they appear on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts mentioning the sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any question of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent. But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within our reach, and peruse them in order of their date. Z B. — 1522. — (See Ouaus Macnus, Historia de gentibus, etc.) “There is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island at. | REPORTS AND PAPERS. 105 called Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change in the Kingdom of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, as it was seen, anno 1522, raising itself high above the surface of the water and circling like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent was estimated by conjecture to be fifty cubits long; this event was followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; and it also showed the destruction of the country, as Isidorus tells us of the birds of Diomedes.” In the original Latin we read atgue in modum sphaerae convol- vens (and wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am convinced that we have to do with a misprint, and that the author evidently wrote atgue im modum spirae convolvens, which I have translated above “and circling like a spire’. This evidently signifies that the observer saw the animal swimming with vertical undu- lations, parts of which were visible above the surface of the water. Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the animal raised itself high above the surface of the water. Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i.e. about seventy-five feet. Oxraus Maenus, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as follows: “They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, namely that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 feet, and 20 feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the shore of Bergen; it comes out of its caverns only on summernights and in fine weather to devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It has a row of hairs of two feet in length, hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark colour, and brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks boats, and snatches away the men, by raising itself high out of the water, and devours them: and commonly this does not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being at hand, either that the princes will die or will be banished, or that a war will soon break out.” , This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores of Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large dimensions, and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs 106 THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS , [ 1555. | hanging down from its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are bril- liant and flaming. It only appears in fine weather. : We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its ap- pearance on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. The eating of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, or it may have been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them with its head above water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of snatching away a man from the ships is evidently confounded with another tale, as it is not mentioned anywhere else with regard to the sea-serpent. It evidently refers to gigantic calamaries which occasionally attack boats and snatch away one of the crew. (See Lez, Sea Monsters Unmasked, 1, The Kraken.). Its being covered with scales must be fictitious too, for they who saw a sea-serpent at a short distance, are unanimous in stating that it had no scales but a smooth skin. On the same page of the text, Ouaus Maenvs has figured a sea-serpent in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which has just anchored on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. I give a facsimile of that figure in Fig. 14. — Mr. Henry Ler who mostly sees calamaries and no other animals in the tales and figures representing the Great Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended —— a eee \\ eS Q ie Lf [ae DY = i Bay i 2 ti = eidt{i] DP o \ ne 4 ‘s \ ie >s — eee, "4 SS NSS a \ = Ve w, ‘oy TG A S79 S f yn ¢ Vt Fig. 14. — The sea-serpent as represented by Olaus Magnus. to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each side of it’. — As to the snatching away a man of [ 1555. | REPORTS AND PAPERS. 107 the crew, I quite agree with Mr. Lun, as already said above, but as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced that Oxraus Maenvs or his draughtsman had no other intention than to delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it a medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row. Grsner in his Womenclator aquatilum animantium, 1560, gives two figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in Fig. 15 and 16. — Gusner says that there is a large map of Scandinavia in Onaus Maenus’ work, and on this map our fig. 15 is drawn in the Baltic Sea, and our fig. 16 im the Atlantic Ocean. In the original edition of 1555 there is but a small map of Scandinavia, which shows only the heads of several animals in the sea. I there- fore conclude that there still exists another edition of Maenvs’ work which I don’t know. Returning to our figures we immediately Fig. 15. — The sea-serpent illustrating the text of Gesner. observe that the drawer has delineated large snakes, the one without scales, and swimming with vertical undulations, the other with large scales, and that he did not intend to represent a dorsal fin by the medial line, but only a medial row of scales, unequal to the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of protuberances are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long hairs hang- ing down from the neck of the animal. Of the sea-serpent Gusnzr tells us: “In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea- serpents of thirty or forty feet m length, which, when not pro- voked, do not harm any one. Of these sea-serpents Otaus Maenus gives the following figure in his Map of Scandinavia”. — (See our fig. 15). “On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or two hundred feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as (1560. ] VARIOUS ACCOUNTS, THE 108 states the number added to the figure), which sometimes appears near Norway in fine weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it ae! S aes RM ond Oo > o— aot ae! Ss jo) a co) oO | ia) | ee —H o RM (7p) ie) > an S o— ae in] — wey a 5 ao St [acy oO an ro as) — 2 ia) a oF o— \ \ < ’ VS —_ — WZ Fig. 19. — The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Hgede, drawn by Bing. seemed to be covered with scales, instead of with a hard skin or crust, for the Danish shied or skiaell is singular, and not plural. [ Ne. 5.] | REPORTS AND PAPERS. 115 Finally, that the tail above the water was a whole ship-length from the /ead instead of from the body, for the Danish Kroppen signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything of the figures in this edition. In the original Danish work of Paun Herbs there is a map of - a part of the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called Baals Rivier, on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good Hope (Gothaab). As it was generally done in those days, Mr. Bine, a brother-missionary of Earpnr’s, drew on his map not only the animal but also the vessel in the sea. I give here a facsimile of the figure of the animal, without the ship. We distinctly see that the animal has rather a serpentlike form with a large head, show- ing formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy eye-brow, and a nostril; two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the uneven skin, and a tail ending in a point. On the same map there is also another figure, Sean the ani- mal’s tail, after it had plunged back into the water. The tail is again figured terminating in a point. We shall do well to observe the fact that the figure is an accurate illustration of the text with regard to the animal blow- ing like a whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately after having been under water a long time, is condensed in the cold air and forms little curling clouds. In the original Danish work of Hans Eenve, entitled 4 Full and Particular Relation, etc., of which we have spoken above, there is also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to consult this work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of Baals Rivier with the two figures of the animal are quite the same, true facsimiles. The above mentioned translator drew this figure on a reduced scale for his article in the /ustrated London News, and as his text is imcorrect, his figure is so too, for he changed the rough skin into scales, according to his own trans- lation. (See our fig. 21.) Afterwards Mr. Lez in his Sea-Monsters Unmasked made use of the figure of the Jllustrated London News and so gave his readers again an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a true facsimile of the figure as it appeared in the J/ustrated London Fig. 20. — The same individual plunging back into the water. Ul 116 THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS , [ N°. 5.] ae News, Oct. 28, 1848, and in Mr. Ler’s Sea Monsters Unmasked, London, 1883. A reduced copy of it also appeared in the J//us- trirte Zeitung of Kebruary, 3,, 1877. i A KID a Sisal STI Ts RY i I i LE PN ae Ht I y Re all SS a ae =——— ae == S ‘he : = = S a Q ru I Hitt HY i) Pay mine, HT hy ith i a Nose pet uy Heth > GE Fig. 21. — The drawing of Bing, as reprinted and altered in the [llustrated London News of 1848. In the Danish work of Hans Herve Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four times longer’. Moreover the description of the animal is the same as in Pau Eaxrpn’s Continuation of the Journal. . In the German edition of this work, entitled Des alten Groen- lands neue Perlustration, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it was seen before the Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had two broad flappers on the fore-part of the body”. In the Dutch edition, entitled: Beschryving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties as the English and the German translators did, but was more correct in his expressions. In the French edition, entitled Description et histoire naturelle du Groenland, Copenhagen et Geneve, 1763, the translator allowed [ N°. 5.| REPORTS AND PAPERS. Wey himself the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which was covered with scales, plunged back into the water, it did so with the belly turned ee In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated from the French) entitled Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland, Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal lay upon the water with rts belly turned upwards when it plunged back into the water! In many respects the figure of Mr. Brine and Hexpe’s text com- plete each other. Let us now have a look at both the text und the figures. We may do this most safely, being convinced of the truth of Hcxpn’s words and Brne’s figure. Eeupe “was a truthful, pious, and single- minded man, possessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, and free from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable signs of fidelity.” (Lez, Sea-Monsters Unmasked, p. 65.) From what has been said of the animal, seen by EcrpE, we gather that it appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather before the Danish Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland ; (EeEDE says: “the following evening we had very bad weather’, so we may conclude that:) the weather was fine, when the animal was seen; it had a considerable length, say a hundred feet, and was much thicker than a snake of those dimensions would be, say some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck and the fore-part of its trunk high above the surface of the water, it had a long, sharp snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal as large as a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in those cold regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the figure where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. HEarpn does not say: it had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Ecxpr does not state that the figure, made by Mr. Bine aboard his ship, directly after the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we must consider it as being correct; so the animal had two large and broad flappers on the fore-part of the trunk. The body seemed to be covered with a hard skin. For truth’s sake Earp wrote seemed, which is well done; for a hard skin or crust would not have been wrinkled when the animal bends its body. Like all known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions the animal 118 THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS, [N°. 5.] must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick layer of bacon, and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions and seals wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as the Sea-Serpent of Eczpr did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly see that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals have. And if the animal could have scales, they would be very large ones, considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it must have been easy to see the scales from a distance, though they were wet with the water; but I can hardly believe that one can say of an animal, seen at some distance and quite wet and shining with the water, whether it has a crust or a soft skin. The latter has been the case, for the animal showed wrinkles when bending its body. Its lower part was formed like that of a snake, by which Herve evidently means to say that it was perfectly round and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he did not see any appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for the middle part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water). The creature plunged dackwards into the water. It evidently has a con- siderable flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility, nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. Lex thinks, which has no flexibility at all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the length of its body, which was distinctly seen by Ecrps and figured by Mr. Bine. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable length, tapered in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither hori- zontal nor vertical: ones. The figure shows an eye with a heavy eye-brow, a nostril, and teeth; the flappers have external visible fingers, as sea-lions have; those of porpoises and dolphins are without them. Afterwards we shall more than once have occasion to observe that the sea-serpents’s head is drawn by Brine too large, and the neck too short. Mr. Lex says in his frequently quoted work Sea-Monsters Un- masked, “The sea-monster seen by Ecrpr was of an entirely diff- erent kind” (viz. from those mentioned by Macnus and PonTopprpan). I am of the opinion that if Mr. Ler had written: The sea-monster seen by Ecrpr was the same, but seen in an entirely different position, condition and direction, he would have been nearer the truth; for careful inquiry has shown me that the sea-serpents of Maenus and Pontoprrpan are the same as those which still appear in the Norwegian seas, and those have all the characters of Kexpr's animal. Moreover we saw that the animal, mentioned in our accounts [N°. 5.] REPORTS AND PAPERS. 119 1, 2, 3 and 4, and according to the descriptions of Macenus and Gesner had the following characteristics: 1. It raises itself out of the water to a considerable height. 2. It swims with vertical un- dulations. 3. It has an enormous length, probably upwards of a hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the same ~ length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming. 8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It is harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11. It can stretch itself in a straight line. — Of these facts the Ist., 3d., Ath., and 10th. are stated by Herpz; he could not mention the 2d., 8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or eating. Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not see the animal on its back, but as the figure shows , somewhat on its belly and somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without a mane. KeEpE says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness. Its colour was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large sea- animals, else he would have called it brilliant white, or green, or red. The eyes are figured by Bina, though not described by EeErpE, but in Ponropprpan’s work we read in a note to Chapt. VIII, § 7, that Mr. Bine mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson A 4 — PARI) Te tA SS = SS SSH S S SSS ee A SS SS tt SO 5 FS ——— SS RNS GS = —=—_ ———