Part 52
Of the _whiskers_ PONTOPPIDAN already tells us that on the sides of the nostrils there are a few stiff hairs or bristles, as other animals have, with a good nose (p. 130). These whiskers are mentioned afterwards only once: “on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long” (103). Were these whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that of a seal (8, 29), with that of a walrus (129), or with that of a sea-lion (36)? I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency, they are not mentioned in the reports.
The _mouth_ is transverse (56) and large (9, 56); it is rarely mentioned, but once stated to have been distinctly visible (118); once it was estimated at fifteen inches (56) (I may ask: large, long, or when opened?), and once we find the firm assertion that when open it looked like that of a serpent! (41).
The _eyes_ were not always seen; it may be that the distance was too large, or that the animal kept them closed (115, 128, 130, 137, 146). They are mentioned as to have been only visible in 31, 80, 101, 118, 126, 152, 158; but sometimes we get a short description. They are round (92, fig. 30), about the size of an ox’s (48), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in diameter (102), about 5 inches in diameter (92), large (p. 131, 91, 122), large as a plate (32, 103), disproportionately large (36), broad (p. 225), very large (92), relatively large (112). We observe that the size of the eyes, when opened as wide as possible, has struck the observers; they must be disproportionately large. But if we wish to know the relative largeness, we have only to consult n^o. 92 and 102, where the eyes are estimated at 3¹⁄₂ and 5 inches. On both occasions the observers estimated the head to be as long as a ten gallon cask, and about of the same thickness. As to the lustre of the eyes we read that: they are not glossy (103), generally, however, glossy (122), brilliant (p. 105), flaming (p. 105), sharp (44), very bright (48), and glittering (63, p. 225, 92). It seems that the eyes, seen in their axis are dark (44, 103), or black (9, 103), and that, when seen in an oblique direction they seem to be blue or better tin-coloured, for they are said to resemble rather a pair of pewter plates (p. 131). We also conclude that when seen in the axis and reflecting the daylight by their _tapetum lucidum_ they glisten like those of a cat (91), or have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity (143), and this glimmer or glistening was said to be red (33), or reddish like a burning fire (5), or crimson (92). The eye is delineated in fig. 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36.--One of the eye-witnesses of no 48 states that there is a small bunch on each side of his head, just above his eye; another too said: there appeared a bunch above the eyes (48). It is also said that the eyes are prominent, and stand out considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad (60). It is easy to understand that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (56), and that another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (149). This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (fig. 19, 26). The situation of the eyes is over the jaws (56), and nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of the head (60, fig. 30).
Neither _ear-holes_ nor _external ears_ are mentioned. If external ears are present, they must be exceedingly minute; the absence, however, is very probable; at all events earholes must be present, but they are evidently very small, and capable of being closed, as in seals. Curious is the assertion “the ears seemed to be diaphanous” (143).
There is a slight hollow at the _top of the head_ (60, fig. 30).
The _features_ resemble those of an alligator (148), but made on others the impression as being those of a seal (29).
c. Skin.
Except in two cases (39, 157) when the animal was very near, scales are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, &c., &c., &c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales (149), altogether devoid of scales (148), smooth (13, p. 132, 41, 43, 48, 56, 59, 60, 92, 103, 114, 115, 118, 146, fig. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 45), like a mirror (p. 132), shining (114), shining strongly (117), with a very bright reflexion (46), looking similar to an eel’s (59). But an animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, _must have a hairy skin_. Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin appeared rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal (148), and still more: that it is as woolly as a seal’s (8). Such a hairy skin becomes smooth as a mirror and shines strongly, when it is wet, as may be seen in seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears.
2. INTERNAL OR ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.
It is not astonishing that we don’t know much of its anatomical characters, as it never had the honour to be dissected by the able hand and keen scalpel of an anatomist. Yet it is clear that if the animal opens its mouth, there is an opportunity to learn something about its teeth, tongue, etc. Generally it keeps its mouth shut, once only this is stated (126), as if the observer watched an opportunity to see it opening its mouth. Though we have several accounts mentioning the animal opening its mouth (39, 41, 48, 65, 81, 109, 118, 144, 149), _teeth_ are not always seen, either because the distance was too great, or because the position was not favourable. Teeth are delineated (fig. 19); they are mentioned in 65, 81, 109, 118, described as formidable in 109, and as jagged in 118.
Of the animal’s _tongue_ we have the following observations: “There rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point. I thought it not the tongue, as I saw the prong before I saw the head, but it might have been” (43, distance forty rods, with a spyglass); “I was struck with an appearance in the front part of the head like a single horn, about nine inches to a foot in length, and of the form of a marlinespike. There were a great many people collected by this time, many of whom had before seen the same object and the same appearance” (44); “he threw out his tongue about two feet in length, the end of it appeared to me to resemble a fisherman’s harpoon” (48); “he raised his tongue several times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again” (48); “he threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from his jaws, the end of it resembled a harpoon” (48); “he threw his tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again” (48); “the colour of his tongue was a light brown” (48).
To the descriptions of the teeth and tongue no great value can be attached, as such organs need close examination. The length of the tongue is, anatomically spoken, not an impossibility, as it is known that animals with a long neck generally have a long tongue.
3. COLOURS, INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS.
Just as in some species of the order of Pinnipeds, there seem to exist indeed some individual variations with regard to the colour of the sea-serpent.
Just as in the dark specimens of the Pinnipeds, the colour of the sea-serpent becomes lighter in drying; i. e. the real colour of the animal comes to light. Properly we should say: their colour is light, but, when wet, it becomes a dark one. It is evident that the real colour of the sea-serpent, being dried by the sunshine, is grey (9, 61, 64), a light ash-colour (25), grey and yellow (147), pale yellowish (146), or yellow (71).
Just as in Pinnipeds, the colour of a wet individual appears much lighter when it is very close to us, than when we see it at some distance. Three times the colour is called grey (65, 66, p. 138), though not a single fact is mentioned, from which it may be made out, whether the animal was very near or far off. The colour of an individual which was so close that it could be struck with a handspike was greyish (72), that of one a few yards distant, light fawn coloured (122), at about thirty feet distance the colour seemed to be a very dark grey (102), still farther a greyish brown (79).
Though some persons call the colour only dark, or brown, or black, it is noteworthy that those who describe it more minutely, agree that the backpart of the head, the neck, the trunk and the tail are dark, and that the under part of the head and the neck is light coloured. With regard to the colour, the animal is evidently longitudinally divided into a dark one above and a light one beneath.
The dark colour of the upper part seems to vary a little, as may be seen from the following appellations: dark (41, 48, 51, 63, 67, 80, 85, 103, 115, 131, 152 A, 154), very dark (42, 48), somewhat dark (95), dark dull (130), evidently a chocolate brown, or mahogany brown, or chestnut brown, for it was compared with a red snake (36), chocolate colour (44), dark chocolate colour (48), colour of a pilot fish (151), old mahogany brown (92), dirty brown (121), brown (43, 81, 92, 144), deep brown (34), dark brown (p. 131, 39, 44, 46, 56, 69, 97, 115, 117, 118, 135), blackish brown (91), approaching to black (63), nearly black (41, 95, 97) almost black (48), blackish (65, 94, 117), black (34, 42, 60, 85, 114, 120, 126, 138, 149, 150, 152, 155), as black as coal-tar (152). The tints of the figures also evidently represent a dark colour (figg. 28, 29, 30, 41, 45, 46). By some witnesses the colour of the head is observed to be darker than that of the body; we may safely read for “body” the “neck”. Once the colour of the shoulders is reported to be much darker than the rest of the body (122).
On this dark upperpart spots, stripes, streaks etc. of a lighter hue are observed more than once: the colour was that of a conger eel, consequently brown with lighter streaks (144), spotted, and with light flames, or maculated, with distinctly visible light spots like a turtle or a lackered table (p. 131), apparently shaded with light colours (41), streaked with white in irregular streaks (97), on an under ground of fawn colour there were large brown spots behind the shoulders (122), maculated with large white spots (130), covered with several white spots (131), brown with black spots (162). See also figg. 37 and 38.
In some individuals there is a black ring round the eye (p. 131, 29), and the region of the mouth is also black, so that they resemble those horses which we call moorish heads or blackfaces (p. 131, 9).
The sides of the underjaw seem to be very light coloured: white (34, 41, 126, figg. 28, 29, 30), as is also the throat: whitish (p. 138, 117, figg. 28, 29, 30), yellow (25), muddy white (56), yellowish white (118), brownish white (118), light coloured (126), white (69, 144), “the underpart of its head appeared nearly white” (41), “several feet of its belly” (read throat) “which were visible appeared nearly white” (41); very remarkable is the supposition of Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY: “I suppose and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white” (41), this really seems to be the case, for we read in 106 A that the tail is longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black, and in n^o. 144 that the whole animal was longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. Of course in both cases the black side was the back-side, as was very well supposed by Captain Drevar in n^o. 144.
I am of course unable to decide in how far the problematic dark stripe, curved downwards, on each side behind the underjaw, and as long as the head, delineated in figg. 28 and 29, will ever be found to come up to reality.
The representation of the colours in fig. 31 is very bad, as the animal’s back is drawn lighter than the underpart, and I believe that such alternating broad bands of a light and dark colour don’t exist in reality, but are here the result of drawing with a pencil.
4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE.
It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and that others have not.
The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over the whole length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, and diminishing gradually to the tail where it evidently passes imperceptibly into the common hair-coating. The mane is said to have been visible on its head (135); at the back of the head (figg. 17, 24, n^o. 102), which no doubt means just behind the occiput. Further: on the neck (p. 105, p. 132, p. 138, p. 225, 9, 11, 12, 101, 103, fig. 31), from the back of the head a mane commenced (91), just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further backwards (91), close behind the head a mane commences along the neck (92), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (92), the head was provided with a mane hanging down (152 A); evidently the mane extends from the head over the whole length of the neck and the trunk (18? fig. 28, fig. 29). The mane near the head is long (9, 152 A), tolerably long (92), two feet long (p. 105), and all along the neck and back: not very long (91), that it is of some length, we must suppose, for it is said to wash about to and fro in the water (91, 118, 120), and to spread to left and to right floating on the water (92), when the animal swims. The colour of the mane seems to be white (9) when dried up by the sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the body (102), brown (92, 152 A). The mane resembles that of a horse (p. 138, p. 225, 91, 92, 103, 118) or rather seaweed (p. 132, 118, 135).
Probably a mane was present in n^o. 51, and 74; the back from afar, was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and had a rugged appearance; see also fig. 36.
Twice it is stated that there was no mane (26, 115, see also fig. 19 and 27), but we have so many reports which don’t mention the mane, and which surely would have mentioned it, if it had been present, that we are obliged to believe that those individuals had no mane. In other instances the distance was too great to observe a mane, even if the animal had been provided with one.
I am sure that here we have one of the differences between males and females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a difference in size between males and females, I should not be surprised that, if these animals were better known to zoologists, the males would, in general, prove to surpass the females twice in size and four or six times in weight. In my opinion large individuals are, therefore, males, and must have a mane, or at one time have had one. The probability exists that they lose the greater part of their mane at a certain age, or that they were moulting when they were seen; which would account for the fact that in some large individuals no mane was observed.
I have ventured to draw the outlines of the animal from the descriptions. Fig. 72 represents it as seen from aside, with the divisions of the colours, and fig. 73 as seen on the back with the whiskers and the extension of the mane in the males.
5. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.
a. Nutritory functions.
1. _Eating, Food._--Its eating cuttles, lobsters and all kind of sea-crabs (p. 105), may be true. With the greatest certainty it may be said to feed on fish. We have found the following notices which decide this: “He often disappeared and was gone five or ten minutes under water; evidently he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same situation and thus employed for two hours. All kind of fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen” (35). “It sometimes darted under water with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey” (69), which in this instance surely was fish. “Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, and showing all the symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some wicked enemy” (133), and suddenly a sea-serpent appeared. “There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore” (150), a sea-serpent soon made its appearance.
Not only does the animal prey on fish, but, by way of change, also on sea-mammals. When on Behring’s Isle Mr. KRIUKOF tells us that “the sea-lions were so terrified at the sight of the monster, that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of the flesh, which, according to the Aleutians is that of this serpent” (36). Evidently such pieces of flesh are washed aland only when a sea-serpent had made its appearance, otherwise there would be no reason to ascribe such pieces of flesh to sea-serpents. Sea-reptiles don’t exist in those regions; it is highly improbable that the pieces of flesh were of sea-birds; they are not of fishes, as in that case they would not have been called _flesh_, consequently they are of sea-mammals. Of what kind of sea-mammals these pieces of flesh were, is not the question now, but I am sure that the sea-lions would not be so terrified, if they did not know the sea-serpent to be a terrible enemy.
There is moreover no doubt, that sea-serpents sometimes prey on the smaller kind of whales, as dolphins, porpoises, grampuses, &c. It sometimes appears suddenly amidst a shoal of these animals: “It was surrounded by porpoises and grampuses” (56); “There was an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”, no doubt because they were pursued by a sea-serpent (97); “an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship as if pursued” (124), and gracefully a long neck, moving like that of a swan rose from the depths. Our suppositions in this respect are confirmed by the reports of Captain S. WEST, who saw the sea-serpent “engaged with a whale” (54), and of Captain DAVISON, stating that a sea-serpent seized a whale on the belly (read pectoral fin) (151, fig. 49).
The manner of darting on its prey is well described in n^o. 149 and 152. I am convinced that the individuals in n^o. 154 and 106 a were diving for food in a playful manner, with their body and part of their tail floating on the surface.
2. _Breathing._ Nobody will doubt that sea-serpents respire by gills as fish do; they move or swim, as is stated in numerous reports, with the head constantly above water, or when holding it nearly on the surface, it is evident that their nostrils are always just above the surface. When diving or fishing for food the average time that they remain under water is about eight minutes (63). It is probable that they may remain under it for half an hour or still longer. When having remained so long under water, and appearing on the surface, the animal suddenly exhales with such a force that “we at first imagined it to be a whale spouting” (83), and “every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steamboat” (101). The same noise is usually heard when a whale “spouts” (See H. LEE, _Sea Fables Explained_, 1883, London), see also fig. 36. But also when the animal is swimming or lying still on the surface with its head on the level of the water, occasionally exhaling when its nostrils are not quite above water, it “spouts water from it not unlike the blowing of a whale” (74); “near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth as though it was spouting water” (114). The breath of the animal is occasionally also seen condensed by the cold, forming little curling clouds, “it blew like a whale”, said EGEDE (5, fig. 19), “it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff, resembling long shavings from a pine plank” (158). In general, however, the animal swims with its head some feet above the surface of the water, so that it is very natural that “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting” (148).
3. _Excretion._ In one report we read that the animal left a greasy trail behind him (156). It is very probable that such a large sea-animal, provided as it is with rather a thick layer of bacon under its skin, secretes a quantity of liquid fat, large enough to leave a greasy trail”; this will certainly happen when it is severely wounded.
Without any doubt it is true that it may “emit a very strong odour” (61).
b. Functions of the senses.
1. _Feeling._--Of course but little can be noticed about the animal’s feeling. PONTOPPIDAN tells us that it has whiskers “like other animals which have a good nose.” How far the Bishop believed that those whiskers had anything to do with the animal’s sense of smell, I cannot tell. But certainly they have not. Well developed whiskers are rarely found but in animals which catch their prey in a stealthy way, such as cats, dogs, viverrides, mustelides, and numerous allied animals, and in animals which live in holes, as mice, rats, &c. It is known that all these animals can go through holes, crevices, fissures, slits or clefts which are large enough to admit their whiskers. Whiskers are organs of feeling. Consequently seals, sea-lions, sea-bears, &c., and also sea-serpents will on numerous occasions find their whiskers of great use for the purpose of feeling with them.
Further it must not astonish us that sea-serpents are usually observed in fine weather when there is no wind. They seem to dislike wind, and therefore, if having no special purpose in view, they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow (3, p. 129, p. 133, 92, 94); they even seem to be very sensible of the least wind.
Warmth on the contrary seems to be very welcome to them, as they are often seen on hot days, and even basking in the sun (114, 137).
2. _Taste._ The taste of the animal is, of course, only to be known by the food it takes.
3. _Smell._ There is no doubt that, guided by their smell they prey on fish, but it is clear that we shall never know any more particulars about it. Only it is stated, and it seems to be true, that they cannot bear the smell of castoreum and asa foetida, and that Norwegian seamen and fishermen up to the days of RATHKE (1840) would never forget to bring one of these drugs with them, to drive them away. (PONTOPPIDAN, p. 130, p. 134, p. 259).
As far as I know, zoologists accept three reasons why some animals emit some strong odour; viz. to drive away their enemies, or to recognize one another, either in the neighbourhood or from afar, or to flatter and to attract the other sex. With which purpose sea-serpents emit a strong odour, this surely will be very difficult to decide, but in all probability they smell it themselves.
4. _Hearing._ The observations about the animal’s hearing are, as may be expected, but very few. That an animal hears, can only be asserted when it gives unmistakable signs that it has heard, for instance a sudden turning of its head towards the origin of sound, or the running away from it. So we have the statements that the sea-serpent “was not pleased with the noise of our oars” (69); “the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent approaches and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts it still more” (p. 259); “on both days it seemed to keep about us, and as we were always rowing then, we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured sound of the oars” (137, 138); “on my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight and under water” (150).
5. _Sight._--The numerous statements that a sea-serpent swims with its head some feet above the surface of the water prove that it looks straight before it. Further we have found it several times mentioned that it followed a boat, and finally the assertion that it raised its head and neck several feet above the water, evidently to take a survey towards the ship passing, or to take a view of objects, or to look about for prey (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131, 145, 149, 152 A).
c. Functions of the muscular system.