Part 40
“The only group of animals to which our attention may be specially directed with the view of finding a zoological solution of the problem, is that of the _Vertebrata_,--the highest group of animals, which possesses the fishes as its lowest, and man and quadrupeds as its highest representatives. Laying aside the class of birds, as including no form at all allied to our present inquiry, we are left with, speaking generally, three groups of animals, from the ranks of which various forms may be selected to aid us in solving the sea-serpent mystery. These three groups are the fishes, reptiles, and mammalia, and it may be shown that from each of these classes, but more notably from among the fishes and reptiles, various animals, corresponding more or less closely with the descriptions given of strange marine monsters, may be obtained. An important consideration, however, must not be overlooked at this stage, namely, that too frequently the attempt to reconcile the sea-serpent with some _known_ animal of serpentine form and nature, has limited the perceptions and foiled the labours of naturalists. Starting with the fixed idea that the unknown form must be a serpent, and not widening their thoughts to admit of the term “serpentine” being extended to groups of animals other than the reptilia, naturalists soon exhausted the scientific aspect of the subject, and the zoological solution of the problem was almost at once given up. Then, also, as far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists and other writers on this subject have never made allowance for the _abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals_. My own convictions on this matter find in these two considerations, but especially in the last idea, the most reasonable and likely explanation of the personality of the sea-serpent, and also the reconciliation of such discrepancies as the various narrations may be shown to evince. If we thus fail to find in the ranks of ordinary animal life, or amongst the reptiles themselves, the representatives of the “sea-serpents”, I think we may nevertheless build up a most reasonable case both for their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking into account the facts, _that the term “sea-serpent”, as ordinarily employed, must be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals which possess elongated bodies; and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordinary serpents and of serpent-like animals will reasonably account for the occurrence of the animals collectively named sea-serpents_.”
“The idea that the animal observed in this instance” (n^o. 118) “was a huge serpent, seems to have been simply slurred over without that due attention which this hypothesis undoubtedly merits. Whilst to my mind, the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the _Pauline_” (n^o. 144, 145) “must be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes. The habits of the animals in attacking the whales, evidently point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the animal being described in the various narratives as swimming with the head out of water, would seem to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration. The difficulties which appear to stand in the way of reconciling the sea-serpent with a marine snake, in this or in other cases, are two in number. The great majority of intelligent persons are unaware of the existence of serpents of truly and exclusively marine habits; and thus the mere existence of such snakes constitutes an apparent difficulty, which, however, a slight acquaintance with the history of the reptilia would serve at once to remove. Mr. Gosse speaks of these marine snakes,--the _Hydrophidae_ of the naturalist,--which inhabit the warmer seas, possess compressed fin-like tails adapted for swimming, and are frequently met with far out at sea. Whilst, as regards the claims of the “sea-serpent” to belong to the true serpent order, naturalists have dismissed their idea, simply because it has never occurred to them that a gigantic development of an ordinary species of sea-snake would fully correspond with most of the appearances described, and would in the most natural manner explain many of the sea-serpent tales. Suppose that a sea-snake of gigantic size is carried out of its ordinary latitude, and allow for slight variations or inaccuracies in the accounts given by Captain M’Quhae, and I think we have in these ideas the nearest possible approach to a reasonable solution of this interesting problem”.
“It will be asked how I account for the apparent absence of motion of the fore part of the body, and for the existence of a dorsal or back fin. I may suggest, in reply, that the simple movements of the laterally compressed tail, altogether concealed beneath the surface, would serve to propel the animal forward without causing the front portion of the body to exhibit any great or apparent motion; whilst the appearance of a fin may possibly be explained on the presumption that sea-weed may have become attached to the animal, or, that the upper ridge of the vertically compressed tail extended far forward and appeared as a fin-like structure.”
“The most important feature in my theory, however, in which I may be desired to lead evidence, and that which really constitutes the strong points of this explanation, is the probability of the development to a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine serpents. This point is one in support of which zoology and physiology will offer strong and favourable testimony. There is no single fact, so far as I am aware, which militates in the slightest degree against the supposition that giant members of the sea-serpents may be occasionally developed. The laws which regulate human growth and structure, and in virtue of which veritable “sons of Anak”, like Chang the Chinese giant, and the Russian giant, differing widely in proportions from their fellow-mortals, are developed, must be admitted to hold good for the entire animal kingdom. There is, in fact, no valid reason against the supposition that a giant serpent is occasionally produced, just as we familiarly observe almost every kind of animal to produce now and then a member of the race which mightily exceeds the proportions of its neighbours. But clearer still does our case become when we consider that we have proof of the most absolute and direct kind of the giant development of such forms as cuttle-fishes, which have thus appeared as if in realisation of Victor Hugo’s “devil-fish”, which plays so important a part in that strange weird tale, the “Toilers of the Sea”. At the present time we are in full possession of the details of several undoubted cases of the occurrence of cuttle-fishes of literally gigantic proportions,--developed, in fact, to an extent justly comparable to that of the supposed “sea-serpent”, when the latter is compared with its ordinary representatives of the tropical oceans.”
“Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable giant of its race--or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct species of monster sea-serpents--than in the production of huge cuttle-fishes, which, until within the past few years, remained unknown to the foremost pioneers of science! In the idea of gigantic developments of snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or reptiles, I hold we have at least a feasible and rational explanation of the primary fact of the actual existence of such organisms.”
Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ (1883) also says:
“As marine snakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails adapted for swimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, and are frequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible that some of these also may attain to an abnormal and colossal development. Dr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much attention to this subject, is of the opinion that “in this huge development of ordinary forms we discover the true and natural law of the production of the giant serpent of the sea.” It goes far, at any rate, towards accounting for its supposed appearance”.
But by this supposition the smooth skin, the four flappers, the mane, and the pointed tail of the sea-serpent are not explained. Further, true snakes cannot possibly throw their bodies into vertical undulations. It is moreover very improbable that large _Hydrophidae_, supposing that they do exist, should visit Great Britain, the United States, the coasts of Norway, the North-Cape, Greenland and the Aleutes, as their geographical distribution only extends over the tropical seas.
* * * * *
The =fifth= explanation. The same Mr. RAFINESQUE believed the sea-serpent seen by Capt. BROWN to be a fish (n^o. 56), closely allied to the genera _Symbranchus_ (Fam. _Symbranchidae_) and _Sphagebranchus_ (Fam. _Muraenidae_); consequently =belonging to the eel tribe=.
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having shown that in some instances the sea-serpent may have been an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, or a ribbon-fish, says:
“A far greater probability exists, that there may be some oceanic species of the eel tribe, of gigantic dimensions. Our own familiar conger is found ten feet in length. Certainly, Captain M’Quhae’s figures remind me strongly of an eel; supposing the pectorals to be either so small as to be inconspicuous at the distance at which the animal was seen, or to be placed more than commonly far back.”
And Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ is also inclined to this hypothesis:
“Amongst the fishes, we may find not a few examples of snake-like animals, which, admitting the fact of the occurrence of gigantic developments, may be supposed to mimic very closely the appearance of marine serpents. Any one who has watched the movements of a large conger-eel, for example, in any of our great aquaria, must have remarked not only its serpentine form, but also the peculiar gliding motion, which seems frequently to be produced independently of the active movements of the tail or pectoral fins. I do not doubt, however, that a giant eel might by most persons be readily enough referred to its proper place in the animal sphere, although, when viewed from some distance, and seen in an imperfect and indistinct manner, the spectators--all unprepared to think of an eel being so largely developed--might report the appearance as that of a marine snake.”
Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, too, asserts:
“An enormous conger is not an impossibility.”
As the common eel and the conger or sea-eel are well enough known to all my readers, I have not given a figure of it. The _Symbranchus_ has nearly the same external features, it has, however, no pectoral or ventral fins, and the right and left gill-apertures, or gill-splits, are united together on its throat. The _Sphagebranchus_ has also nearly the same external features; it has no ventral fins and the very end of its tail is destitute of a fin.
The four flappers of the sea-serpent and its vertical flexibility are strong proofs against this hypothesis.
* * * * *
The =sixth= explanation is that which I have accidentally found mentioned in Dr. HIBBERT’S _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822. The passage runs as follows:
“The faith in the Edda of the great Serpent that Thor fished for, did not, as Dr. Percy conceives, give rise to the notion of the sea-snake, but a real sea-snake was the foundation of the =fable=.”
I am convinced that Dr. HIBBERT is right. All fables have their foundation in facts, or in objects of nature, and it is plausible that the Norwegians had met with the sea-serpent before the fable of Thor’s great Serpent was inserted in their Eddas.
Dr. PERCY’S explanation that the notion of the Sea-Serpent springs from the faith in the Edda, is repeated by Messrs. H. E. STRICKLAND and A. G. MELVILLE in a note to their dissertation on the Dodo, in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 2nd. series, Vol. 2, p. 444, Nov. 15? 1848:
“It has always seemed to us that the fable of the Great Sea-Serpent, which first spread in modern times from Norway, was to be traced to the myth, in the fine Old Northern Mythology, of that fell offspring of Loki, Jormungandr,--the great world surrounding serpent, whom Thor fished up with the bull’s-head bait, and whom, at the great day of Ragnarokr, he shall slay. It is curious by the way, that we are expressly told how Jormungandr rearing his head, poured out fountains of venom upon Thor, very much as old Bishop Egede tells us of the great sea-serpent raising up its head and spouting out water.”
At present every one is convinced of the fact that the reports of the great sea-serpent are no fables.
* * * * *
The =seventh= explanation, viz. that the “slow motions of =basking sharks=” evidently caused a deceitful appearance, will be found at the end of Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation, printed in 1828, with which the reader will remember to have been made acquainted in our Chapter on Hoaxes. A basking shark is delineated in our fig. 8, in the Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents.
Again this suggestion is made by the well-known palaeontologist MANTELL in a P. S. to a letter addressed by him to the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_, and published there in the number of November 4, 1848:
“P. S. With regard to the existence of the so-called sea-serpent, I would beg to remark, that, although it is highly improbable that an ophidian, or true snake, of the dimensions and marine habits described by our voyagers now exists, yet there is nothing to forbid the supposition that there are unknown living forms of cartilaginous fishes presenting the general configuration and proportions of the animals figured in the last Number of the Illustrated London News.”
Evidently he meant a shark, of which individuals of more than thirty feet are no rarity in the species called basking shark (_Squalus maximus_ of LINNÉ). The figures referred to are those of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE, (fig. 28, 29, 30).
In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. A. G. MELVILLE was of opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in reality, but only in fables, and that these fables originated in the Northern mythology. Now, he seems to have changed his opinion in a fortnight, for in a letter to Dr. COGSWELL, part of which is published “with permission of both gentlemen” in the _Zoologist_, number of November 27th., 1848, he says:
“I have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of some unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have astonished the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile of the authorities of science.”
“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the known facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any relationship between “the great sea-serpent” and the extinct Plesiosauri; nor do the recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.”
“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous fish (Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when caught the sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive it is just as probable that a shark may carry the head for short periods out of the water, as that the flying fishes should occasionally step aboard to look at us land monsters.”
“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. Might we not obtain some information from the accurate Sars regarding the Norwegian tradition? Could not the surgeon of the Daedalus throw some light on the subject?”
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having treated of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion caused by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some cetacean, expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in the following terms:
“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville consider that the _Daedalus_ animal may have been one of the sharks; and there is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, which was considered by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent, was really the _Selache maxima_ or basking-shark. But the identification of Captain M’Quhae’s figure and description with a shark is preposterous.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON, however, in _Nature_ (1878, Sept. 12, Vol. XVIII) is of the opinion that:
“A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”
Mr. LEE, in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, also believes that “the dorsal fins of basking sharks, as figured by Mr. Buckland, may have furnished the “ridge of fins”. Here he evidently means the ridge of fins as seen in fig. 44.
None of the observers of the sea-serpent mention fins on its back, so that this explanation is not untenable either.
* * * * *
The =eighth= explanation is given by Mr. MITCHILL in his paper “_On Sea-Serpentism_”, printed in 1828; (See our Chapter on Hoaxes), at the end of which he supposed that also the appearances of =balaenopterous whales= may have given rise to reports of the sea-serpent. He says: “which have fins on their back”, and yet he cannot show me one single account of the sea-serpent, in which there is question of backfins. Moreover, who has ever heard of fin-fishes which bend their body in such a manner as to show bunches on their backs, or coils like a string of buoys? Fig. 57 shows the readers a fin-fish (_Balaenoptera physalus_ (LINNÉ)). It is the largest kind of whales, it may obtain a length of 106 feet. An outline of the tail, seen from above, is added above the hindmost part of the main-figure.
Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_, after having considered and upset the sea-weed hypothesis and the seal-theory says:
“It is by no means impossible that the creature may prove to belong to the _Cetacea_ or whale tribe. I know of no reason why a slender and lengthened form should not exist in this order. The testimony of Colonel Steele, who represents his animal as spouting, points in this direction.”
The sea-serpent seen by Colonel STEELE, however was not a cetacean, although it was observed spouting, for it had a red back-fin like a saw (see our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, 1852, Aug. 28).--
* * * * *
The =ninth= explanation is Mr. R. BAKEWELL’S. In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, n^o. 879, of June, 1834, we read:
“With regard to the often mentioned and much questioned great American Sea-Serpent Mr. R. Bakewell, in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology, Chapt. 16, p. 312, has expressed the opinion that the great sea-serpent often seen on the coasts of the United States of America probably belonged to a genus of reptiles which may be analogous to the fossil =Ichthyosaurus=, and that the description, given of the sea-serpent, as having flappers like sea-turtles, and formidable mandibles like a crocodile, was agreeing more with that of a saurian than with that of a snake. Some of the people who saw the sea-serpent state that the body was very long and as thick as a water-cask.”
Though in 1872 the majority apparently believed the sea-serpent to be a living _Plesiosaurus_, yet we meet with the following suggestion, in the September number of _Nature_ of that same year.
“The following extract from an evening contemporary well illustrates the hazy ideas prevalent as to the extinct Saurian monsters of which the sea-serpent is supposed to be a descendant:--“If the sea-serpent continues in its present sociable state of mind, we may perhaps have an opportunity of deciding the vexed question regarding the formation of that portion of his figure which, according to English observers, he keeps concealed under the water. The legend of the Lambton Worm, a popular tale in the North of England, describes the worm as a serpent of enormous size, who used to coil himself round a hill overhanging the River Wear, just as thread is wound round a reel, but a very ancient stone effigy of the creature which lately existed at Lambton Castle, represents it with ears, legs and a pair of wings. If this effigy was made, as it probably was, _from some recollection_ on recent tradition of the Lambton Worm, these adjuncts would indicate that the beast was one of the _winged land monsters_ which existed at the same time as the _Ichthyosaurus_, but would naturally become an extinct species far sooner than the _fish-lizard_, which can conceal itself in the depth of the ocean from the curiosity and violence of man.”
The _Ichthyosaurus_ must have been destitute of scales, or better the scales must have been of a microscopic minuteness, and so I have ventured to sketch my fig. 59, showing the _Ichthyosaurus communis_, as it most probably looked, and of which fig. 58 represents the skeleton.
Here we have an animal of really huge dimensions. Some may have had a length of from forty to fifty feet. Their skin was smooth, the tail was very long and four flappers resembling the foreflappers of whales, were the organs of locomotion. Most probably, however, the tail was provided with a vertical fin, as I have delineated. The neck was very short, as in whales. Now the sea-serpent has a pointed tail, and a very long neck. Especially this last character is enough to drop the supposition that the sea-serpents are still living _Ichthyosauri_. Moreover, the _Ichthyosaurus_ was unable to move in vertical undulations.
* * * * *
The =tenth= explanation.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen, Vol. 40, (1834), n^o. 879, p. 328, we read that, in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S latest (1834?) edition of his _Introduction to Geology_, above mentioned, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds:
“Mr. Bakewell’s very sensible conjecture that the sea-serpent may be a Saurian, agrees still more with the supposition, that it is a =Plesiosaurus=, than an Ichthyosaurus, as the short neck of the latter does not agree with the common appearance of the sea-serpent.”
_Plesiosaurians_, as well as the _Ichthyosaurians_, are reptiles only known in a fossil state. Only the bones of the skeleton of these animals are found in Europe as well as in America and in Australia in _liassic_ and _oolitic_ formations. Of these remains geologists are able to build up or to “restore” the whole skeleton, of which I show my readers a sketch in fig. 60.--If this is done, it will not be difficult to imagine how the animal must have looked, the more so as it is a well-known fact that these animals must have been destitute or nearly destitute of scales. The figures drawn by GOSSE, FIGUIER and ANDREW WILSON, don’t please me, as the necks are delineated too slender, and the head of the animal in Mr. GOSSE’S drawing, in my opinion, is wrongly represented. So I venture to present to my readers my fig. 61, showing how I think that the animal must have looked.
Mr. RATHKE, in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, after publishing some accounts of the sea-serpent, collected by himself during a journey in Norway, and after declaring that he himself is a firm believer in it, goes on: