Part 45

“P. S. Since sending to you the above I have again seen my relative, and find that the cut in the _Graphic_ of July 19, 1879, is not that of the instance observed from the steamer in which she came home, which was the _City of Washington_; but of a separate instance which occurred to another ship. I have not been able yet to procure the _Graphic_ containing the figure of the animal seen from the _City of Washington_, but she tells me that it was pasted up in the saloon and represented only the head and long neck of the animal, which was raised to a great height out of the water, and near to the ship; and had been drawn for the _Graphic_ by a lady passenger immediately after the occurrence. These repeated and independent notices of the same long necked are, however, the more confirmatory of its existence.”

“I find that Prof. Owen in his article on Palaeontology in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ (Vol. XVII, p. 166), in giving a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_, says that “the skull is very long and narrow _and the nostril single_”, that Dr. Harlan obtained the teeth on which, correcting Harlan’s reptilian reference of them, he founded the order _Zeuglodontia_, from the Miocene of Malta; and that the teeth discovered by Grateloup in the Miocene beds of the Gironde and Herault, and described by him also to a reptile under the name of _Squalodon_, are those of a smaller species of _Zeuglodon_. The remains of _Squalodon_, along with those of the shark with huge teeth, _Carcharodon megalodon_, and of numerous cetaceans assigned to orders all still living, and of which some, such as _Delphinus_, belong to living _genera_, occur in the “Sables inférieures” of Antwerp; which, though long called Miocene, are by Mr. Van den Broeck regarded as older Pliocene, and as the base of that series of deposits of which the middle and upper divisions are respectively represented by the Coralline and Red Crags of England; and with these “Sables inférieures” the so called Miocene of Malta, in which _Zeuglodon_ is associated with _Carcharodon_, is probable coeval. Dr. Gibbes (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc., 2d. ser., vol. I, p. 143), figures and describes teeth of the Antwerp species of _Carcharodon_ from both the Eocene of South Carolina and Miocene of Alabama. These various references bring the _Zeuglodonts_, with their _Carcharodon_ associates, down to a late geological period during which they co-existed with Delphinian prey; and of this prey the whale in the woodcut (which looks like a _Grampus_) seems an example”.

“It is most likely that Bishop Pontoppidan, a copy of the English (1755) edition of whose work I possess, concocted his two figures (one of which is that of a huge snake undulating on the waves, and the other that of a serpent-like animal with pectoral flappers or fins, resting almost on the surface of the sea, with head and tail erect out of the water like the letter U, and spouting water or steam from its mouth _in a single column_), from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen, some of whom had seen the animal in the position in which it was observed from the _Daedalus_, and others in that in which it is represented in the cut as seen from the _Kiushiu-maru_; for in the long narrative which he gives of the descriptions received from observers at numerous times, some of these agree with the one, and some with the other, though both of the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his own.”

“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of June 30, 1877, as the “Sea-Serpent”, is quite a different thing from the one in question, and may have been a manatee.]”

I shall take the liberty to make some remarks on his paper.

The reader will remember (see n^o. 118) that it was _not_ the _long neck_ of the animal, which caused the comparison of a snake, made by the officers of the _Daedalus_, but the roundness of its neck, the apparent roundness of the body, and the resemblance of the animal’s head with that of a snake.

In their reports there is not a single estimation of the length of the neck. It is only said that the length of the visible part of the animal was about sixty feet; and now Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD says: “a neck, estimated on that occasion as sixty feet”. I don’t see the reason of such a deduction!

As I have not read the “description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_” I am not able to discover the reason _why_ it struck Mr. Wood that the animal seen from the _Daedalus_ may have been a descendant of the order to which _Zeuglodon_ belonged.

We observe that Mr. Wood really believes that it was the sea-serpent which attacked “the whale by the long neck, the appearance being confounded into the double coil of a serpent by the distance and motions of the object” (See n^o. 144). I will not contest his opinion!

I do not know what to think of Mr. WOOD, when he speaks of the _Kiushiu Maru_ in connection with a relative of his. I may suppose that his relative had told him she repatriated by the _City of Baltimore_ through the Indian Ocean, and that the “previous voyage” of that vessel was also from India to England; notwithstanding this he cites the account of the _Kiushiu Maru_ reporting the appearance of a sea-serpent near the isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) in the Van Diemen’s Straits. Most probably the _City of Baltimore_ never was there!

In short, the error took place, and Mr. WOOD sees clearly in the figures of the _Graphic_ his _Zeuglodon_ pointing out that this figure shows a bifurcated or fan-shaped tail, and that consequently the animal must be a cetacean! It is evident, that Mr. WOOD was convinced that the _Zeuglodon_ (read _Basilosaurus_) had the following outlines!

It is clear that, before writing his postscript, he had already had the opportunity to read “a description of _Zeuglodon cetoides_”. Yet he holds to his idea, and does not show the great difference between the extremely _short_ neck of _Basilosaurus_ and the extraordinarily _long_ neck of the Sea-Serpent. This at all events _must_ have struck him.

At last I am obliged to say some words about his considerations of PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_. It is clear that he has not read a single word of it! He says: “it is most likely that the Bishop concocted his two figures from accounts given him by Norwegian seamen”, whilst the Bishop clearly states that the first figure is a copy of a sketch of Mr. BENSTRUP, and the second a copy of the drawing of Mr. BING. Of the latter figure Mr. WOOD says “it is that of a serpent-like animal almost resting on the surface of the sea”. I shall be greatly obliged to any person who can show me a passage either in PONTOPPIDAN’S or in EGEDE’S work, stating that the animal presented itself in this way “resting on the surface”. I refer my readers to the account itself (n^o. 5), where it is clear that the animal must have been seen in this position for only the fraction of a second!

Mr. WOOD, describing the drawing of Mr. BING underlines the words: _in a single column_, speaking of the animal’s “spouting water or steam from its mouth”. Now I ask my readers (drawing their attention to the fact that the figure represents the animal’s head seen from aside), whether a column, spouted from the animal’s nose or mouth, when seen from aside could ever have been decided to be single or double! If we look at the breath of a horse, standing just on one side of him, it will be observed to be single. This optical illusion will be dispelled as soon as we stand in front of the horse. Bing’s figure would have been incorrect, if he had drawn two columns, though in reality--if the animal exhaled through its nostrils,--the column must have been double.--It is remarkable that Mr. WOOD does not say anything of the great difference between the figure of the _Kiushiu Maru_ (with a cetacean tail) and that of Mr. BING, (with a long and pointed one).--Again, he asserts that both the Bishop’s figures represent only preposterous conceptions of his own description!

Finally he compares the animal seen from the _Osborne_ with a manatee! Surely we must be a Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD JUN. to find this conception _not_ preposterous!

In a second paper in _Nature_ of February 10, 1881, Mr. WOOD quotes the report of the _City of Baltimore_, and correcting his second error, writes in parentheses “not _City of Washington_, as I had misunderstood.”--In treating of this report and of the accompanying figure he is again mistaken, for the figure shows the animal moving at a rapid rate with its neck high in the air, and the two splashes were evidently caused by the animal’s fore-flappers and hind-flappers, whilst the splash “like a pair of wings” described in the report, is caused by the dropping of the immense neck like a log of wood in the act of disappearing suddenly in the water. This act, and consequently this splash too, is not represented in the figure! According to his idea of the sea-serpent being a dolphin or porpoise with a very long neck (called by him _Zeuglodon_), he ascribes the splash, caused by the hind flappers, to his “cetacean tail” of the animal. Remarkable is his third error; for after having first confounded the foremost splash, drawn in the figure, with that described in the report as caused by the dropping of the neck, he now writes: “the foam around the neck may be due to the splash of the humeroid” (i. e. fore) “paddles which a cetacean should possess.”

Mr. WOOD further sees in the figure of the head of the _Daedalus_ animal (fig. 30) the alleged “bulldog appearance of the forehead and eye-brow”. I can only express my opinion that this comparison is far fetched.

Of the report of Captain Cox (n^o. 152) Mr. WOOD says:

“In this account we have almost a duplicate of that of Major Senior in the dropping of the animal with a great splash into the water prior to its darting forward under it; while the boiling of the water around, which is so inconsistent with the motion of a snake in water (which I have more than once seen) evidently resulted from the strokes of the cetacean tail, and possibly also from those of the paddles, as in the case witnessed by Major Senior. The black colour also is described in both cases.”

In treating of this report I have already expressed my opinion that the boiling of the water must have been caused by the four flappers together. It is very natural that Mr. WOOD who represents the sea-serpent as a dolphin-shaped animal, without a backfin, and with a long neck, sets much value on the cetacean tail. Finally he says:

“Judging from the figures which accompany this and my previous letter” (figg. 48, 49, 46, and reduced sketches of figg. 28 and 30), “it appears to me that the external form of the animal must resemble the well-known _Plesiosaurus_, if we imagine the hinder (femuroid) paddles of that _Enaliosaurian_ to be absent, and a cetacean tail (which is their homologue), to be present in their stead. Since in the direction of the _Porpesse_ the cetacean in external form so closely simulates the fish, so it may in another direction simulate this Mesozoic marine saurian, or the gigantic _Elasmosaurus_ of the American cretaceous formation, of which a nearly perfect skeleton is described by Prof. Cope as forty-five feet in length, the neck constituting twenty-two of this length.”

And he expresses his firm opinion:

“There ought, I submit, to remain no longer with naturalists any doubt that a hitherto unknown group of carnivorous cetaceans, with necks of extraordinary length, inhabit the ocean.”

In the middle of November, 1881, appeared the first number of the _Album der Natuur_ for 1882, and in this issue the author of the present Volume treated of the probability of the existence of the great sea-serpent. Unfortunately he, who at that time was only a student of Natural History at the Utrecht University, really believed the animal of Stronsa, of 1808, to be a sea-serpent, and was misled by the hoax of Captain SEABURY of which he only knew the last part, found by him in the Illustrated London News. In his firm belief, however, he examined such characters, taken from these tales and from nearly 60 reports then known to him, as were possible from a zoological point of view, and came to the conclusion that the sea-serpent must be a mammal, with _four_ flappers, a _long_ neck and a _long_ and _pointed_ tail, and that the position of this marine mammal is between dolphins and pinnipeds. Was there such an animal known? Yes, the _Zeuglodon cetoides_ of Prof. RICHARD OWEN. Well, as the sea-serpent has the outlines of a _Plesiosaurus_, with an enormous tail, he called it _Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_. At that time he was the dupe of the Stronsa animal and of the alleged capture of 1852, because, like so many other writers on the subject, he believed that he could solve the difficult question without reading, if not all that had been written about the animal, at least much more than some few reports!

* * * * *

The =fourteenth= explanation is that of an anonymous writer in one of the public papers of about the sixth of November, 1848. Amidst the excitement, caused by the reports of Capt. M’QUHAE and Lieutenant DRUMMOND, he asks whether or not the animal could be a full grown specimen of =Saccopharynx flagelium= of Dr. MITCHILL or the =Ophiognathus ampullaceus= of HARWOOD. I have only to tell my readers that these two names are given to two different species of the same genus, that the former attains a length of about five, the latter of about six feet, and to give the next figure, in order to enable them to judge themselves, whether such an animal could ever have shown itself in the form of a sea-serpent! They belong to the family of the _Muraenidae_.

The figure represents the _Eurypharynx pelecanoides_ of VAILLANT, taken from FILHOL’S _La vie au fond des mers_. GÜNTHER, in his _Deepsea-fishes of the Challenger_ says on p. 262 of _Saccopharynx Bairdii_ (synonym with _Saccopharynx flagellum_): “It is uncertain whether these specimens are specifically distinct from _Saccopharynx pelecanoides_ VAILLANT.” I therefore don’t hesitate to put before my readers the above figure as a representation of the general outlines of _Saccopharynx flagellum_.

* * * * *

The =fifteenth= explanation is suggested by the same anonymous writer on the same occasion, who wishing to explain the appearance of the sea-serpent near the coasts of Africa, asks whether “some land species, as the =boas=, among which are individuals of forty feet in length, may not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even transport themselves from one continent to another”.

Probably he “adduced” this suggestion “of a large boa constrictor having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent, twisted round the trunk of a cedar tree, carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of some South-American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles Lyell from the _Zoological Journal_ of December, 1827. (Principles of Geology.)”

Mr. GOSSE in his _Romance of Natural History_ after having shown that the sea-serpent cannot be a kind of true sea-snake (Family _Hydrophidae_) because “none of these are known to extend a few feet in length and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic”, goes on saying: “It is remarkable, however, that a record exists of a serpent having been seen in the very midst of the North Atlantic”. And instead of relating now the historical fact of the boa constrictor, above mentioned, he quotes the report of the sea-serpent seen from the _General Coole_, (n^o. 25) and goes on saying:

“It augments very considerably the value of this incident, that no suggestion of identity with the Norwegian dragon appears to have occurred to the observer; he speaks of it of “a snake”, and nothing more; the dimensions alone appear to have excited surprise, “sixteen or eighteen feet”, and these are by no means extravagant.”

“On the whole I am disposed to accept this case as that of a true serpent--perhaps the _Boa Murina_, one of the largest known, and of very aquatic habits--carried out to sea by one of the great South American rivers, and brought by the Gulf Stream to the spot where it was seen. If I am warranted in this conclusion it affords us no help in the identification of the _great unknown_.”

“I do not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them respectively was “undoubtedly that of a snake.” Such comparisons made by persons unaccustomed to mark the characteristic peculiarities which distinguish one animal from another, are vague and unsatisfactory. Their value, at all events, is rather negative than positive. For example, if a person of liberal education and general information, but no naturalist, were to tell me he had seen a creature with a head “exactly like that of a snake”, I should understand him, that the head was not that of an ordinary beast, nor of a bird, nor that of the generality of fishes; but I should have no confidence at all that it was not as like that of a lizard as of a serpent, and should entertain doubt whether, if I showed him the form of head, even of certain fishes, he would not say, “Yes, it was something like _that_.”

“There does not seem, then, any sufficient evidence that the colossal animal seen from the _Daedalus_, and on other occasions, is a serpent, in the sense in which zoologists use that term. A lengthened cylindrical form it seems to have; but, for anything that appears, it may as well be a monstrous eel, or a slender cetacean, as anything. All analogies and probabilities are against its being an ophidian.”

It is remarkable that Mr. GOSSE is disposed to believe that the sea-serpent of the _General Coole_ was a boa, because the report speaks of “a snake”, and that he cannot believe that the sea-serpent of the _Daedalus_ was a boa, though the captain, Mr. M’QUHAE, clearly tells that he saw “a serpent, the head of which, without any doubt, was that of a snake”. Now I ask what is the difference between “a snake” and “a serpent with a head of a snake”!? What, in short, is the difference between a _snake_ and a _serpent_? Though he attaches a considerable value to the assertion of the captain of the _General Coole_ who speaks of “_a snake, and nothing more_”, Mr. GOSSE “does not attach much value to the assertions of observers, that the head of the animal seen by them was _undoubtedly that of a snake_”. How to make this agree?

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ says: “a marine snake of enormous size may, really, have been seen”. As I think he means in this instance, a land-snake which occasionally frequents the sea, as the _Boa murina_, I have placed this supposition here, and I have not considered it as identical to the fourth explanation.

As a snake has no paddles or flappers, and is unable to undulate vertically, the sea-serpent cannot be such an animal. Moreover the boas are only inhabitants of tropical America and adjacent seas.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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