Part 46
“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded reptile or fish”. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on the back to a horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a clothing of hair; and, guided by this interpretation, the Professor judges that the animal was not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.”
“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, more than from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that this diagnosis was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made _from the life_, under the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing could be more legitimate than such a use of them. But surely it has been overlooked that they were made under no such circumstances. Only one of the published representations was original; and this was taken “immediately _after_ the animal was seen”. That is, one of the officers, who could draw, went below immediately, and attempted to reproduce what his eye was still filled with. Now, what could one expect under such conditions? Of course, the artist was not a zoologist, or we should have had a zoologist’s report. Would the drawing so produced be of any value? Surely yes; of great value. It would doubtless be a tolerably faithful representation of the _general appearance_ of the object seen, but nothing more; its form, and position, and colour, and _such_ of the details _as the observer had distinctly noticed, and marked down_, so to speak, _in his mind_, would be given; but a great deal of the details would be put in by mere guess. When a person draws from an object before him, he measures the various lines, curves, angles, relative distances, and so on, with his eye, one by one, and puts them down _seriatim_; ever looking at the part of the original on which he is working, for correction. But no possibility of doing this was open to the artistic midshipman; he had merely his vivid, but necessarily vague, idea of the whole before him as the original from which he drew. Who is there that could carry all the details of an object in the memory, after a few minutes’ gaze, and that, too, under strong excitement? This was not the case even of a cool professional artist, called in to view an object for the purpose of depicting it; in all probability the officer had not thought of sketching it till all was over, and had made no precise observations, his mind being mainly occupied by wonder. He sits down, pencil in hand; he dashes in the general outline at once; now he comes to details,--say the muzzle, the facial angle;--of course, his figure must have _some_ facial angle, _some_ outline of muzzle; but probably he had particularly noticed that point. What shall he do? there is no original before him, a glance at which would decide; he sketches on a scrap of paper by his side two or three forms of head; perhaps he shows the paper to a brother officer, with a question, “Which of these do you think most like the head?” and then he puts the one selected in his sketch, and so of other details.”
“Those who are not used to drawing will think I am making a caricature. I am doing no such thing. I have been accustomed for nearly forty years to draw animals from the life; and the public are able to judge of my power of representing what I see; but I am quite sure that if I were asked to depict an object unfamiliar to me, which I had been looking at for a quarter of an hour, without thinking that I should have to draw it, I should do, in fifty points of detail, just what I have supposed the officer to have done. Let my reader try it. Get hold of one of your acquaintances, whom you know to be a skilful, but non-professional artist, whose attention has never been given to flowers; take him into your greenhouse, and show him some very beautiful thing in blossom; keep him looking at it for some ten minutes without a hint of what you are thinking of; then take him into your drawing-room, put paper and colours before him, and say, “Make me a sketch of that plant you have just seen!” When it is done, take it to a botanist, and ask him to give you the characters of the genus and species from the sketch; or compare it yourself with the original, and note how many and what ludicrous blunders had been made in details, while there was a fair general correctness.”
“Viewed in this light, it will be manifest how inefficient the sketch made on board the _Daedalus_ must be for minute characters; and particularly those which in the diagnosis above I have marked with italics. Yet these are the characters mainly relied on to prove the mammalian nature of the animal. Some of these characters could not possibly have been determined at two hundred yards’ distance. I say “_mainly_ relied on”; because there is the manelike appendage yet to be accounted for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of a mammalian, and of a phocal nature; whether it decides the question, however, I will presently examine.”
“The head in either of the large sketches (those, I mean, in which the creature is represented in the sea) does not appear to me at all to resemble that of a seal; nor do I see a “vaulted cranium”. The summit of the head does not rise above the level of the summit of the neck; in other words, the _vertical_ diameter of the head and neck are equal, while there are indications that the occiput considerably exceeds the neck in _transverse_ diameter. This is not the case with any seal, but it is eminently characteristic of eels, of many serpents, and some lizards. Let the reader compare the lower figure (_Illustrated London News_, Oct. 28, 1848) with that of the Broadnosed Eel in Yarrell’s _British Fishes_ (ed. ii. Vol. ii. p. 396). The head of some of the scincoid lizards (the Jamaican _Celestus ociduus_, for instance) is not at all unlike that represented; it is full as vaulted, and as short, but a little more pointed, and with a flatter facial angle. On this point the Captain’s assertion corrects the drawing; for, in reply to Professor Owen, he distinctly asserts that “the head was _flat_, and not a capacious vaulted cranium;” and the description of Lieutenant Drummond, _published before any strictures were made on the point_, says, “the head.... was long, pointed, and flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw projecting considerably.”
“With regard to the “mane”. The great _Phoca proboscidea_ is the only seal which will bear comparison with the _Daedalus_ animal in question, reaching from twenty to thirty feet. H. M. officers declare that upwards of sixty feet of their animal were visible at the surface; but Mr. Owen supposes, not improbably, that the disturbance of the water produced by progression induced an illusive appearance of a portion of this length. But how much? Suppose all behind thirty feet, the extreme length of the elephant seal. Then it is impossible the animal could have been such a seal, for the following reason. The fore paws of the seal are placed at about one-third of the total length from the muzzle; that is, in a seal of thirty feet long, at ten feet behind the muzzle. But _twenty_ feet of the “serpent” were projected from the water, and yet no appearance of fins was seen. Lieutenant Drummond judges the head to have been ten feet in length (with which the lower figure, assuming sixty or sixty-five feet as the total length drawn; well agrees); and besides this, at least an equal length of neck was exposed.”
“But the great _Phoca proboscidea_ has no _mane_ at all. For this, we must have recourse to other species, known as sea-lions. Two kinds are recognized under this name, _Otaria jubata_ and _Platyrhynchus leoninus_; though there is some confusion in the names. Neither of these ever exceeds sixteen feet in total length, of which, about five feet would be the utmost that could project from the water in swimming. Suppose, however, the eyes of the gallant officers to have magnified the leonine seal to sufficient dimensions; I fear even then it will not do. For the mane in these animals is a lengthening and thickening of the hair on the occiput and on the neck, just as in the lion. But the “serpent’s” mane was not there, but “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head” says Lieutenant Drummond; it “washed about its back”, says Captain M’Quhae.”
“I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that on data we at present possess, the seal hypothesis appears to me quite untenable.”
I think that the reader will easily see that Mr. GOSSE in discussing the mammalian character of the sea-serpent, and we may add: _especially of the sea-serpent seen by Captain_ M’QUHAE, was prepossessed with his idea of the sea-serpent being an _Enaliosaurian_.--Mr. GOSSE points out that the vertical diameter of the head and neck are equal; but he does _not_ fix the reader’s attention to the fact that if this were really the case, the estimation of the length of the head by Lieutenant DRUMMOND at “ten feet” and that of the diameter of the neck by Captain M’QUHAE at “sixteen inches” don’t agree at all!--In none of the reports of the animal of the _Daedalus_ there is question of the “serpent” being “twenty feet projected from the water”; it is only stated that the head was kept four feet above the water.--Neither do the reports mention _how much_ of the neck was exposed, besides the head: Mr. GOSSE says “an equal length”.--Lieutenant DRUMMOND did _not_ say that the _mane_ was “perhaps twenty feet in the rear of the head”: the gallant officer, on the contrary, did not mention the mane at all!--
Prof. OWEN relying upon the descriptions of Captain M’QUHAE and drawings of one of the midshipmen, and admitting all their statements to be true and their sketches to be as accurate as possible, absolutely rejects the estimation of the length of the animal at “sixty-feet at least”; in doing so he of course could not possibly come to another conclusion than that the animal was a mammal, and to the question: “which mammal could it have been? his reply could not be otherwise than: “a large seal”. It is evident that for this reason he recalled to his mind all the sea-mammals known to him, but he seems to have totally overlooked the possibility of the existence of sea-mammals unknown to him!!! The conclusion: “the animal was a large seal” leads the Professor to write: “A larger body of evidences from eye-witnesses might be got together in proof of ghosts than of the sea-serpent”. The Professor would never have expressed such an opinion, if he had examined _all_ the reports about the animal, and _all_ that had been written about it up to his time. It is evident that, without a thorough investigation a sceptic _must_ remain a sceptic.
I need not say, why the sea-serpent cannot be a sea-elephant. The latter has a proboscis, the sea-serpent has none, the sea-elephant has no long neck, no long tail, no mane, whereas these characters are very prominent in the sea-serpent.
* * * * *
The =seventeenth= explanation is the following: the sea-serpent is nothing else but a gigantic =sea-weed=, detached from the bottom of the sea. In 1849 we meet for the first time with this suggestion. In the _Zoologist_ of that year, p. 2541, we read the following statement of Captain HERRIMAN:
“Mr. J. A. Herriman, commander of the ship _Brazilian_, now lying near the principal entrance of the London Dock, makes the following curious and interesting statement:--
“He left the Cape on the 19 of February, running with a strong south-easterly wind for four days. On the morning of the 24th. the ship was becalmed in latitude 26° South, longitude 8° East, being about forty miles from the place in which Captain M’Quhae, R. N., is said to have seen the Great Sea-Serpent. About eight o’clock on that morning, whilst the captain was surveying the calm, heavy, rippleless swell of the sea through his telescope, the ship at the same time heading N. N. W., he perceived something right abeam, about half a mile to the westward, stretched along the water to the length of about twenty-five or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from the ship with a steady, sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to be lifted several feet above the waters, had something resembling a mane, running down to the floating portion, and within about six feet of the tail it forked out into a sort of double fin. Having read at Colombo the account of the monster said to have been seen by Captain M’Quhae in nearly the same latitude, Mr. Herriman was led to suppose that he had fallen in with the same animal, or one of the genus; he immediately called his chief officer, Mr. Long, with several of the passengers, who, after surveying the object for some time, came to the unanimous conclusion that it must be the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’Quhae. As the _Brazilian_ was making no headway, Mr. Herriman, determining to bring all doubts to an issue, had a boat lowered down, and taking two hands on board, together with Mr. Boyd, of Peterhead, near Aberdeen, one of the passengers, who acted as steersman under the direction of the captain, they approached the monster, Captain Herriman standing on the bow of the boat armed with a harpoon, to commence the onslaught. The combat, however, was not attended with the danger which those on board apprehended; for on coming close to the object it was found to be nothing more than an immense piece of sea-weed, evidently detached from a coral reef, and drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the westward in this latitude, and which, together with the swell left by the subsidence of the gale, gave it the sinuous, snake-like motion.”
“But fore the calm, which afforded Captain Herriman an opportunity of examining the weed, we should have had an other “eye-witness” account of the great sea-serpent,--Mr. Herriman himself admitting that he should have remained under the impression that he had seen it. What appeared to be the head, crest, and mane of the _immensum volumen_, was but the large root which floated upwards, and to which several pieces of the coral reef still adhered. The Captain had it hauled on board, but as it began to decay, was compelled to throw it over. He now regrets that he had not preserved it in a water-butt for the purpose of exhibition in the Thames, where the conflicting motion produced by the tide and steamers would in all probability give it a like appearance.”
Again we read in the _Times_ of February 13th., 1858, republished also in the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5990:
“In your paper of the 5th. inst. is a letter from Captain Harrington, of the ship _Castilian_, stating his belief that he had seen the great sea-serpent near St. Helena. His confidence is strengthened by the fact of something similar having been seen by H. M. Ship _Daedalus_ near the same position. The following circumstance which occurred on board the ship _Pekin_, then belonging to Mrrs. T. & W. Smith, on her passage from Moulmein, may be of some service respecting this “queer fish.” On December 28th., 1848, being then in lat. 26° S., long. 6° E., nearly calm, saw, about half a mile on port beam, a very extraordinary looking thing in the water, of considerable length. With the telescope we could plainly discern a huge head and neck, covered with a long shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting at intervals out of the water. This was seen by all hands, and declared to be the great sea-serpent. I determined on knowing something about it, and accordingly lowered a boat, in which my chief officer and four men went, taking with them a long small line in case it should be required. I watched them very anxiously, and the monster seemed not to regard their approach. At length they got close to the head. They seemed to hesitate, and then busy themselves with the line, the monster all the time ducking its head, and showing its great length. Presently the boat began pulling towards the ship, the monster following slowly. In about half an hour they got alongside; a tackle was got on the mainyard and it was hoisted on board. It appeared somewhat supple when hanging, but so completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles, about eighteen inches long, that we had it some time on board before it was discovered to be a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet long, and four inches diameter; the root end appeared when in the water like the head of an animal, and the motion given by the sea caused it to seem alive. In a few days it dried up to a hollow tube, and as it had rather an offensive smell, was thrown overboard. I had only been a short time in England when the _Daedalus_ arrived and reported having seen the great sea-serpent,--to the best of my recollection near the same locality, and which I have no doubt was a piece of the same weed. So like a huge living monster did this appear, that, had circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” Frederic Smith, New-castle-on-Tyne, February 10, 1858.”--
The Editor of the _Zoologist_ adds the following quotation from HARVEY’S _British Algae_, p. 27, however, not as an explanation of the appearances of the sea-serpent, for he was a firm believer in its existence, but only as a note to the statement of Captain SMITH and to increase the knowledge of his readers as to the existence of these large weeds. We do the same.
“The plants of this family (_Laminariaceae_) are almost all of large size, and many of them gigantic, greatly exceeding in bulk any other marine vegetables. The Oarweeds and Tangles of our own coasts have frequently stems six or eight feet long, and fronds expanding from their summits to as great a length; and the Seathong (_Chorda_) often measures forty feet in length. But these dimensions are small, compared with their kindred on the shores of the Pacific ocean. The _Nereocystis_, a plant of this family inhabiting the north-western shores of America, has a stem, no thicker than whipcord, but upwards of 300 feet in length, bearing at its apex a huge vesicle, six or seven feet long, shaped like a barrel, and crowned with a tuft of upwards of fifty forked leaves, each from 30 to 40 feet in length. The vesicle being filled with air, buoys up this immense frond, which lies stretched along the surface of the sea: here the sea-otter has his favoured lair, resting himself upon the vesicle, or hiding among the leaves while he pursues his fishing. The cord-like stem which anchors this floating tree must be of considerable strength; and, accordingly, we find it used as a fishing-line by the natives of the coast.”
As soon as this suggestion was published, “an officer of H. M. S. _Daedalus_” and Captain HARRINGTON repeated their assurances that the creatures they saw were living animals. Nay, even Rear-Admiral HAMILTON took up the cudgels for Captain HARRINGTON, upon which Captain FREDERIC SMITH wrote the following paper (_The Times_ of 23 February 1858):
“Sir,--I beg to explain, in answer to Rear-Admiral HAMILTON, that in the water, before being divested of its extraordinary-looking appendages, the diameter of my marine capture was above three feet. Some buckets full of splendidly-coloured blue and crimson crabs, varying from the size of a shilling to that of a man’s hand, were collected from it, and that this quantity of such animal life could be furnished with a refuge in the mats of snaky-looking creatures which constituted the moving monstrous-looking external will assist those who read my account in believing what I before stated that even when the object was laid on deck we had difficulty in making out what it was. Now, sea-weeds of gigantic growth abound near the islands of the group of Tristan d’Acunha. From decay or other causes, these will from time to time be detached at the roots, and with their living attachment will then, floating horizontally, be carried by the well-known currents, into the very positions where the sea-serpent delights in exhibiting himself. It is not disputed that such was the monster picked up by the boat’s crew of my ship. I do not doubt that more monstrous specimens may be seen from time to time, and I expect that your insertion of this correspondence will cause more attention to be given to their capture than, as on board of Her Majesty’s Ship _Daedalus_, to the forming of “sundry guesses”, causing the observers to “settle down” to the conclusion: “This must be the animal called the sea-serpent.” Had the monster I described not been taken, I should have believed, as firmly as Captain Harrington does, that I could confirm the statement of the commander of the _Daedalus_ and that “the animal belonged to the serpent tribe.””
“Everybody knows what different notions are generated by momentary and unexpected appearances of things as compared with the things themselves when examined. Perhaps the nostril of the _Daedalus_ sea-serpent was seen in the recollection of one spectator, the mouth in that of another, and so on. I take leave to question the possibility of these being “most distinctly visible”, when the object at its “nearest position” was 200 yards distant, the sea getting up, and the observers travelling in an opposite direction, the passing of the two being apparently at the rate of 20 miles an hour. Naturalists will say whether an animal to answer to the habits and attributes of that in question would have a nostril.”
“I am sure that Captain Harrington, of the _Castilian_, saw an extraordinary object, and described it according to his impression, and having a great respect for “a first-class certificate in the mercantile marine” (as I hold a “first-class extra” myself), and also for “Sir Colin Campbell, now in the East”, to whom Capt. Harrington is so well known, I feel equally sure that, so accredited, he has published his account with no other than a good object. Nevertheless, these circumstances do not prove to me that Captain Harrington saw the sea-serpent, because that “queer fish” so very nearly and completely took me in until I took him in.”
“I am, Sir, your most obedient servant
“Fred. Smith.”
Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, p. 320, inquiring whether the sea-serpent is an animal at all, treats of the sea-weed hypothesis. We will let him reason himself.
“To which of the recognised classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred? And, first, is it an animal at all? That there are immense algae in the ocean, presenting some of the characters described, has been already shown; and on two occasions an object supposed to be the “sea-serpent” proved on examination to be but a sea-weed floating; the separated and inverted roots of which, projecting in the role of the swell, seemed a head, and the fronds (in the one case), and (in the other) a number of attached barnacles, resembled a shaggy mane washed about in the water.”
“But surely it must have been a very dim and indistinct view of the floating and ducking object, which could have mistaken this for a living animal; and it would be absurd in the highest degree to presume that of such a nature could be the creatures, going rapidly through the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, with the head and neck elevated, so distinctly seen by Captain M’Quhae and Mr. Davidson, the former at two hundred, the latter at thirty five yards’ distance. We may fairly dismiss the sea-weed hypothesis.”
Again in _Nature_ of the 12th. of September, 1872, appears the following passage which also clearly shows that by some unbelievers the sea-weed hypothesis is admitted.
“The “dead season” has brought up its usual crop of reports of the reappearance of the sea-serpent, mostly easily resolvable into masses of floating sea-weed.”
Mr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_ speaking of this hypothesis says: