Part 51

As to the _breadth of the head_, some observers mention its diameter, and some its circumference, or they compare its thickness either with that of the neck, with that of the trunk, or with some well-known object; this is the reason that we meet with the following statements: it is rather broad (31), where the head was connected with the body (read neck) it was a little larger than the body (read neck) (34), the head was rather larger than the body (read neck) (48), much smaller than the body (69), narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently the animal had contracted its neck, so that this latter grew much thicker (69), about two feet in diameter (150), about three feet in circumference (69), at least three feet in circumference (29), about as thick as a ten gallon keg (92), about six feet thick (148).

The _neck_ is somewhat smaller than the head (31), as is also stated in other accounts: smaller than the head (109), much thinner than the head (91), comparatively narrow (148), and may be two and a half feet in circumference (48), just behind the head sixteen inches thick (118), about the thickness of a man’s waist (124), about two feet in diameter (149), or about four feet thick (148).

The _thickness of the animal_ has commonly been compared with that of different objects, a circumstance which makes it difficult to fix the true diameter. Moreover it is in many instances difficult to make out whether the animal’s neck, just behind the head, is meant by the observer, or the animal’s chest or breast, which is the thickest part of the trunk. For the animal generally swims in such a way that a little part of its back rises above the surface of the water, completely hiding its thickest part and its flappers, so that it makes the impression to be a serpentine animal without any appendages, and of a uniform size. So the animal is said to be ten or twelve inches thick (147), about twelve inches (113), about fourteen inches (102), fifteen inches (19), as thick as a half-barrel (39, 41, 44, 48, 63), as thick as a common firkin (63), about twenty two inches (17), as thick as a barrel (34, 41, 80), as thick as a man’s body (46), as thick as a wine barrel (2, 85), as thick as a stout man (94), as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads (12), three feet (17), as thick as a sloop’s boom (24), three to four feet in circumference (25), as thick as a full-grown ox (79), about two feet in diameter (92), inconsiderable (95), as thick as a large horse (109), he is the thickest just behind the head (103), several ells (115), as thick as our main mast (135), thirty feet from its head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat (126), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the back (121), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (148), the shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (122).

The _tail-root_ had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet (146), but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a few instances that it was actually observed.

The _tail ends_ in a point (fig. 19, fig. 20), and consequently is mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also said to be as pointed as a boat-hook (8), or very pointed (12).

_Comparison of the dimensions._ Supposing that the dimensions of the several portions of the animal are relatively nearly the same in individuals of different ages, we are able to draw up a table of comparative and relative dimensions. We learn from the officers of the _Daedalus_ that the vertical diameter of the neck was about 1¹⁄₃ feet. From the officers of the _Osborne_ we have the following estimations of dimensions: horizontal diameter of the head about 6 feet, horizontal diameter of the neck about 4 feet. We know from several eye-witnesses that the neck is round, so that we may suppose that its vertical diameter is the same as its horizontal or transversal one. Consequently the transversal diameter of the neck of the _Daedalus_ animal was 1¹⁄₃ or ⁴⁄₃ feet; and that of its head ⁶⁄₃ = 2 feet. For a moment I will suppose that in these animals a head of about 2 feet broad has a length of about 3 feet, and this I may do, as the heads of the animals which I consider as allied to sea-serpents, have nearly these relative dimensions. In the same way I may put the length of the head of the _Osborne_ individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to the foreflapper in the _Daedalus_ animal was about twenty feet. We may consequently suppose that the same portion measured sixty feet in the individual seen by the officers of the _Osborne_. As to the question whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done hitherto? I answer without hesitation _no_, this length also includes a portion of the animal’s trunk, viz. the part from its shoulder to the point where the fore limb is free. In the animals which, in my opinion, are allied to the sea-serpent, the upper arm is, so to say, “imbedded” in the trunk’s integument, is not free, as in man, and nearly immovable, and this portion is about one third of the whole length of the limb. Consequently we may conclude that, if the free part of the foreflapper is about fifteen feet, the portion of the trunk from the place where the fore limb in seated on the body to the shoulder is about seven feet and a half. Consequently the individual of the _Osborne_ had a neck of about 53 feet. As the size of the individual of the _Daedalus_ was about one third of that of the _Osborne_, its neck was about 17¹⁄₂ feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the _Daedalus_ individual were five feet in length. The distance from the foreflapper to the hind flapper in the _Daedalus_ animal measured about 20 feet, consequently the _trunk_ measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that the distance from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the _Osborne_ animal must have been about 60 feet, and the length of its _trunk_ about 67 feet. Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck, and the trunk, we have for the _Daedalus_ animal 43 feet. This individual swam with its body in a straight line; “sixty feet at least were visible _à fleur d’eau_” are the words of Captain M’QUHAE, substantiated by the reports of two of his officers. Yet it was obvious that this was not the whole length of the animal, and that a great length of tail was hidden under water. The animal was estimated to be from eighty to ninety feet in length. I have not a single reason to doubt this statement, and therefore conclude that the tail of the animal was about as long as the distance from the animal’s nose to its hindflappers. But I will not be too bold and only give it a length of about forty feet. If this is within the bounds of truth, of which I don’t doubt in the least, the length of the tail of the individual, seen by the officers of the _Osborne_ measured about 120 feet. Captain HOPE who had the opportunity to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position, states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (119). I venture to estimate the length of the last at about ²⁄₃ of that of the foreflappers. So we may estimate the length of the hindflappers of the two individuals at 3¹⁄₃ and 10 feet respectively. As to the breadth of the animal’s trunk the officers of the _Osborne_ state that it was from fifteen to twenty feet in their individual. We may safely suppose that the animal did not expose its greatest breadth, which must have been a little below the surface of the water, so that I don’t hesitate to fix the greatest diameter at 20 or 21 feet. The body gradually diminishes towards the tail, and this in its turn towards its end, which, as we have observed, is pointed.

The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions only from the reports of the officers of the _Daedalus_ and of the _Osborne_, is that they had a very favourable opportunity to estimate them. The former saw the animal swimming with its body in a straight line, and with its neck quite stretched, not contracted, showing the greater part of its length, and swimming in such a way that it was seen just from aside, so that the different _lengths_ of the portions of the body could easily be estimated. And the latter saw the animal just from behind, so that the different _breadths_ of the animal could be seen; moreover the dimensions of the foreflappers were visible.

I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.

+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of head. | ³⁄₄ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of neck. | 4 | 6 |11²⁄₃|17¹⁄₂| 23¹⁄₂| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of trunk. | 4⁷⁄₁₂| 7¹⁄₂|15 |22¹⁄₂| 29²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of tail. | 8²⁄₃ |13¹⁄₃|26²⁄₃|40 | 53¹⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Total length. |18 |27²⁄₃|55¹⁄₃|83 |110²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |From occiput to foreflappers.| 4¹⁄₃ | 6²⁄₃|13¹⁄₃|20 | 26²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of head. | ⁵⁄₁₂| ²⁄₃| 1¹⁄₃| 2 | 2²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of neck. | ³⁄₁₂| ⁴⁄₉| ⁸⁄₉| 1¹⁄₂| 1²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of trunk. | 1¹⁄₂ | 2¹⁄₃| 4²⁄₃| 7 | 9¹⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of foreflapper. | 1 | 1²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₃| 5 | 6²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of hindflapper. | ⁷⁄₉ | 1¹⁄₆| 2¹⁄₃| 3¹⁄₂| 4¹⁄₂| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+

+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of head. | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of neck. | 29¹⁄₂| 35¹⁄₃| 41¹⁄₆| 47 | 53| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of trunk. | 37¹⁄₆| 44²⁄₃| 52¹⁄₉| 59¹⁄₂| 67| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of tail. | 66²⁄₃| 80 | 93¹⁄₃|106²⁄₃|120| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Total length. |138¹⁄₃|166 |193²⁄₃|221¹⁄₃|249| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |From occiput to foreflappers.| 33¹⁄₃| 40 | 46²⁄₃| 53¹⁄₃| 60| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of head. | 3¹⁄₃| 4 | 4²⁄₃| 5¹⁄₃| 6| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of neck. | 2¹⁄₆| 2²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₉| 3¹⁄₂| 4| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of trunk. | 11²⁄₃| 14 | 16¹⁄₃| 18²⁄₃| 21| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of foreflapper. | 8¹⁄₃| 10 | 11²⁄₃| 13¹⁄₃| 15| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of hindflapper. | 5¹⁄₂| 6²⁄₃| 7⁵⁄₆| 9 | 10| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+

I am far from asserting that these dimensions will prove to be correct, if ever an individual falls into the hands of men, but I am sure that they are approximately correct.

Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence of an animal of 250 feet! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself the utmost possible length of our Sea-Serpent!

b. Form.

The name we give to an unknown object will naturally depend on the impression it makes on us at first sight. To some the animal was like a log of wood or a floating tree; comparisons which will be spoken of below. It is called an animal of the fish kind (60), or a most remarkable fish (118), or a very large fish (29), and to be eel-shaped (33), or to resemble a large eel (118, 152). Some persons say it appeared to be of a uniform size (34), and others that it gradually tapers towards the two extremes (41), and appeared round (43). One of the eye-witnesses says: I do not undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself (63). Generally it is compared with a snake (5, 17, 18, 25, 26, 37, 41, 44, 60, 80, 118, 135, 152) or serpent (26, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 60, 80, 103, 118, 121, 147, 157). Curious is the statement of one that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without, however, having ever heard of such an animal (132)! Remarkable is the opinion of an officer of the _Daedalus_: it was, he says, rather of a lizard than of a serpentine character, as its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power (118). Remarkable too is PONTOPPIDAN’S comparison of an animal which he himself, believing that sea-serpents have no fins, or paws, or flappers, did not mention in his paragraph about the subject, viz. with a crocodile (14). Captain HOPE who had an opportunity to observe the animal from above, described it as a large marine animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, except that the neck was much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had four flappers somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior (119). In my opinion the comparison of Lieutenant HAYNES, of the _Osborne_, who saw the fore part of the animal from behind, deserves all our attention; he says: the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head (148, fig. 45).

The _shape of the head_ has also been described in different ways. There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (31); here it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that it was as round as a flour-barrel (158, evidently seen in front), and bullet-shaped (148, seen from behind, fig. 45). The head is also said to appear like a triangular rock (74), or like a nun buoy (131), or like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at our fig. 31, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another instance the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon cask (102), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat oval”. Major SENIOR asserts that the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon he has often seen (149); the explanation of this curious comparison I have given in treating of his report. The head, says somebody, resembled the end of a log (150), and: the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake’s (150); but he saw the animal in late evening twilight. But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble that of a snake (p. 137, 29, 60, 97, 101, 118, 121), or serpent (29, 48, 61, 63, 74), or something that of a rattle snake (39); and evidently seen in a somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped much like that of a sea-turtle (38). I can only explain these different comparisons by supposing that to some extent the head really resembles these various head shapes, being flattened above and somewhat blunt at its end. Though the officers of the _Daedalus_, too, compared it with that of a snake, their drawing (fig. 30) shows the head of a mammal. The proportions of the length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the extension of the mouth-split, the situation of the nostril and the eye, the flattened appearance of the forehead and nose, the bluntness of the snout and the presence of the two cushions on the crown of the head (the external visible masticatory muscles) are true mammalian characters. It therefore is not wonderful also to find such a head compared with that of a bull-dog (152 A), that of a walrus (129), that of a seal (8, 29, 148), and that of a sea-lion (36). When the animal held its head at nearly right angles with its neck, which has often been the case, and opened its nostrils as wide as possible (and the nostrils are exceedingly large), such a head, with its flattened nose and forehead, and with its somewhat protruding eyes, resembled that of a horse (9, 63, 124). We observe that the head is compared with _seven_ different head-shapes, _five_ of which are mammalian. It is obvious that the observers compared it with the heads of those animals which involuntarily and at once occurred to them. To which of these types are we to direct our attention? Which of these types will the sea-serpent’s head resemble most? I say, that of the sea-lion. And why? Because the animal, with the head of which that of the sea-serpent was compared, was not present at the time, except in Mr. KRIUKOF’S case. He was daily surrounded by sea-lions; the image of the sea-lion’s head was as firmly impressed on his memory as that of a dog on his master’s; and I greatly doubt whether the other observers were acquainted with sea-lions. These animals, especially the species of the Northern Pacific, are only of late years to be seen in the zoological gardens, and it remains to be found out whether the most recent eye-witnesses of the sea-serpent ever saw a sea-lion, and if so, whether the features of the animal had been impressed on their memory so as to recognize the same shape in the head of another animal. Moreover the head of a sea-lion, especially that of _Zalophus californianus_ has some resemblance to a snake’s.

The _neck_ being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s (74), or of a common snake’s (97, 101), and tapering small from the head to the body (121). It is obvious that this observer used the expression “tapering” in a sense contrary to the usual one, for he had a fair opportunity to see the animal’s head, long neck and upper part of the trunk with the two foreflappers, and he goes on with the words: and it appeared to measure about seven feet across the broadest part of the back.

The _trunk_ must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may be inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably broader than the head (31), from the shoulders it tapered towards the tail (31, 39, 91, 150), the breadth diminished remarkably towards the tail (92), from the shoulder (estimated to be about twenty feet) diminishing towards the tail to about twenty four inches (122), evidently the end of the latter was hidden under water. Moreover, the body is said to be round (102, 115, 117), even as a snake’s (92), and on one occasion, when seen from behind, is said to be developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle (148, fig. 45), which we need not say, was the result of the upper part of the back being only visible. Remarkable is the use of the term “shoulders”, for even if the flappers of the animal were never actually observed, we are now obliged to conclude that the animal was possessed of fore-limbs. Equally remarkable is the statement: “there is a distinct difference in thickness between the body and the tail; the trunk is not gradually growing smaller, where the tail begins, but at once and very distinctly” (8, 12, 146); for such an animal has rumps, and consequently also thighs and hind-limbs.

The _tail_ itself is cylindrical (146), like that of a snake (101), and tapering to its end (8, 12, 146, 150, fig. 19). Twice the animal’s head and tail were plainly visible above the surface (135, 162), the trunk being wholly hidden under the surface of the water; it was called a snake; the shape of the tail was not mentioned; evidently the tail was pointed, else it would have been described as resembling that of a fish or of a whale; evidently it was also tapering to its end, else it would have been described as a cord or whiplike. The same was the case in n^o. 152 A; the observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.

_Position and shape of flappers._ HANS EGEDE said that the animal had two flappers on the fore-part of the body (5), but the drawing of Mr. BING, his brother missionary (fig. 19), is not accurate, as the animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too large, and the flappers themselves are badly represented. It seems, however, that the indented edge of the foreflappers did not escape the eyes of Mr. BING. Mr. BAKEWELL asserts that the flappers are described to resemble those of turtles (p. 250); most probably the foreflappers are meant here, as these are occasionally seen above the surface, which is hardly ever the case with the hindflappers. In an animal which was estimated at from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the fore-flappers was occasionally visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about one fourth of the whole length (118). Captain HOPE states that the flappers were somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior (110). According to the figures 36, 45 and 50 on the right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion. In the figures 36 and 45 the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the animal of the _Daedalus_, which was from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the hindflappers was occasionally visible at about forty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about the centre of the whole length (118). Of course they were invisible to EGEDE and BING, as the middle part of the animal’s body was hidden under water (fig. 19).

The _fore-head_ is described as high and broad (p. 144) and flat (29, 41, 44, 60, 69, 118, 157, fig. 30), or depressed (56) and once Mr. SENIOR thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow, a bull dog appearance (149).

The _snout or muzzle_ is called long and sharp (5, fig. 19), sharp (p. 130, 115, 120), tapering to a point (48), rather pointed (91), pointed (118), though the accompanying figure (fig. 30) contradicts this, pointed like that of a porpoise (122), an elongated termination (148), not pointed but bluntly round (92), not pointed but seemed rather blunt (94), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows and horses have (p. 144), evidently with the nostrils opened as wide as possible, rather blunt (48), apparently blunt (102), bluff (150), obtuse (56), the head, estimated at eight or six feet long, consequently at five or four feet broad, tapered to the size of a horse’s (34), the snout being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal (148).

The _upperjaw_ projects considerably (118); we may safely read projects.

_Under the jaw_ there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch (126). This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible as it even occurs in allied animals.

The _nostrils_ are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal is able to close them; they are, however, delineated (fig. 19, fig. 24, fig. 36), or indicated with a crescentic mark (fig. 80), and mentioned to have been distinctly visible (118), and described as large (p. 180). It is also evident that when the animal opens them as wide as possible, the beak appears quadrangular, as is the mouth of cows and horses (p. 130). This comparison agrees with the description of the nose sides or flaps which are here said to be “nearly semicircular flaps or valves overarching the nostrils, which were in front” (143).