Part 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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