Part 55

Along the coasts of Norway they appear only “at certain times” (2) i. e. evidently “in the dog days” (92, p. 138), viz. from the 23th. of July to the 23th. of August, and when we consult those reports which mention the dates of the appearances we observe that they really appear along the Norwegian coasts in July (61, 92, 115) and August (9, 64, 68, 117, 157), but that after the dog days they swim further south: from the 24th. of August to the 9th. of September one or more individuals appeared in Christiania fjord (85, 86, 87, 88, 89), and in the month of October (?) an individual was observed near Ibbestad, in the neighbourhood of Christiansand (111 A). The occurrences between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides took place in the last days of May (153, 154) and in July (56), those on the east coast of Scotland in the middle of November (141, 142, 143), those on the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England: in June in the neighbourhood of Coll and Eigg (31, 32), in the last days of August in the neighbourhood of Loch-Hourn (137, 138, 139, 140), in the beginning of September near Orme’s Heads, Wales, (155), and in the middle of October in Bristol Channel (156). The occurrence a hundred miles west of Brest, France, took place on the 5th. of August (152), that west of Portugal on the 31st. of December (120), that in the Mediterranean on the 2d. of June (148), that north-east of the Azores on the 1st. of August (25), that south of the Azores and west of the Canaries on the 30th. of March (128), that between the Canaries and Cape Verde on the 16th. of May (135), and those between Cape Verde and Cape of Good Hope and southwest of the latter: on January 26 (132), February 16 (130), July 8 (129), in the end of July (93), in the summer (114), on August 6 (118), on November 12 (152 A), and on December 12 (131).

EGEDE saw an individual in Davis’ Straits in July (5); the sea-serpents frequent the coast of North America from Newfoundland to Florida in February (121), March or April (101), May (19, 97, 161), June (34, 35, 53, 54, 60, 83, 84, 106 B?, 162), July (29, 55, 75?, 81?, 98, 99, 100?), August (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 62, 63, 69, 73, 105?, 133, 134, 158, 159, 160), September (70, 71, 77, 106?), and October (50, 51). It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in April (106 A), was east of Cape San Roque in July (144, 145), and visited the South Atlantic east of Uruguay in January (80).

January was the month in which it appeared in the Gulf of Aden (149), September in about lat. 15° S. and 60° E. (123), May in about lat. 2° N. and long. 91° E. (147), September in the Malacca Straits (146), and March in Geographe Bay (150).

In May it was observed south of Australia (122), and in April south of Kiu Siu, Japan (151).

A few lines above I have already expressed my firm conviction that they are migratory and don’t like cold water. If this be true, they will be _generally_ observed (and I purposely draw the reader’s attention to the expression “generally”, for animals are not bound by _laws_ of nature), in the northern hemisphere when summer is there, and they will _generally_ appear in the southern hemisphere when summer visits those parts of our globe. To follow this _rule_ they must be able to migrate from north to south, and vice versa. Consequently the Atlantic and the Pacific are the only two oceans in which we shall observe that _generally_ this rule is followed, for in the Indian Ocean the animals are checked in their course towards the north by the continent of Asia.

We are therefore obliged to take no account of the appearances which occurred in the Indian Ocean. And as we have _only two_ appearances observed in the Pacific, of which the dates are mentioned, we are also obliged to pass over those in the Pacific too.

Let us now see where the animals were met with in the different months.

January.

South of St. Helena. 19° S. (132). East of Uruguay. 34¹⁄₂° S. (80).

February.

East coast of North America. 31° N. (121). Table Bay. 34° S. (130).

March.

East coast of North America. 42° N. (101). South of the Azores. 29° N. (128).

April.

East coast of North America. 42° N. (101). Gulf of Mexico. 24° N. (106 A).

May.

Near Butt of Lewis. 58¹⁄₂° N. (153, 154). East coast of North America. 44° N. (19). East coast of North America. 43° N. (97). East coast of North America. 40° N. (161). Between Canaries and Cape Verde. 22° N. (135).

June.

Coast of Norway. 64° N. (103). West coast of Scotland. 57° N. (31, 32). East coast of North America. 45° N. (83). East coast of North America. 42° N. (34, 35, 60, 84, 106 B). East coast of North America. 41° N. (53, 54, 162). Mediterranean. 38° N. (148). East coast of North America. 37° N. (52).

July.

Coast of Norway. 65° N. (61). Coast of Norway. 64° N. (103). Davis’ Straits. 64° N. (5). Coast of Norway. 63° N. (92, 115). Between the Far-Öer and the Hebrides. 60° N. (56). East coast of North America. 44° N. (29, 55). East coast of North America. 42° N. (98, 99). East of Cape San Roque. 5° S. (144, 145). West of Cape of Good Hope. 35° S. (129). South West of Cape of Good Hope. 38° S. (93).

August.

Coast of Norway. 70° N. (68). Coast of Norway. 66¹⁄₂° N. (157). Coast of Norway. 66° N. (64). Coast of Norway. 63° N. (9). Coast of Norway. 60° N. (117). Coast of Norway. 59° N. (85, 86). West coast of Scotland. 57° N. (137, 138, 139, 140). 100 miles west of Brest. 48° N. (152). North east of the Azores. 42° N. (25). East coast of North America. 42° N. (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 62, 63, 69, 73, 133, 134). East coast of North America. 41° N. (158, 159, 160). Between St. Helena and Cape of G. H. 24° S. (118).

September.

Coast of Norway. 59° N. (87, 88, 89). North of Wales. 53¹⁄₂° N. (155). East coast of North America. 42° N. (71). East coast of North America. 41° N. (77). South west of Cape of Good Hope. 38° S. (126).

October.

Near Ibbestad, Christiansand. 58° N. (111 A). Bristol Channel. 51° N. (156). East coast of North America. 41° N. (50, 51).

November.

East of Scotland. 58° N. (141, 142, 143). Near Monillepoint. 34° S. (152 A).

December.

West of Portugal. 41° N. (120). North-east of St. Helena. 15° S. (131).

What conclusions may now be drawn from these facts?

1^o. That these animals seldom appear in the North Sea, between Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark (141, 142, 143); that they don’t frequent the Baltic Ocean since two centuries; that they seldom appear in the so-called Skagerrak (85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 111 A); rarely show themselves in the Gulf of Mexico (106 A) or in the Mediterranean (148); but that they moreover inhabit the whole of the Atlantic Ocean.

2^o. That, when they remove their quarters, they seem to swim _as much as possible_ in the so-called warm ocean-currents. The number of appearances, it is true, is very small, but surveying the foregoing list of appearances in the different months I am inclined to think that these animals in their migration from north to south really swim _against_ the current, while, on the contrary, in their migration from south to north they move with the current. Only a very few times they were met with in the so-called cold ocean-currents.

3^o. We observe that in the month of August some individuals reached the highest northern latitude, i. e. 70 degrees, and that a series of appearances took place from 70° N. to 41° N. latitude,--that in the month of September they seem not to appear beyond 59° N. latitude; and so on;--so that we may conclude that in the beginning or in the middle of August they have reached their most northern point and begin to migrate towards the south, as in December we read of no appearances beyond 41° N. latitude, and in January of no one beyond 19° S. latitude. And further we conclude that they seem to leave the southern hemisphere to migrate again towards the north already in January, for in February they generally have already reached the northern latitudes, in March still higher, and so on.

4^o. We observe that in one month not all the appearances took place in the same latitude, consequently in one and the same month they are scattered over a vast portion of the ocean.

5^o. When the migration from north to south begins, which of course must be influenced by the early or late setting in of autumn, it seems that not only the individuals which have proceeded to the most northern coasts of Norway, but also some other individuals begin their migration towards the south. I think that we must find in this fact the explanation that even in July appearances took place at from 5° to 38° southern latitude, and that on August 6 an individual was seen at lat. 24° S. swimming _towards the S. W._ Though I have no appearances in the South Atlantic in the month of October, I am convinced that the greater part of the individuals are there during this month, as well as in November, December and January.--The reason that there are so few reports from these regions is of course that in comparison with the North Atlantic, a far smaller number of vessels visits the South Atlantic.

The two appearances which happened in the Pacific, and of which the dates are mentioned, are:

April.

South of Japan 31° N. (151)

May.

South of Australia 43° S. (122)

And those of the Indian Ocean:

January.

Gulf of Aden 12° N. (149)

March.

Geographe Bay 33° S. (150)

May.

Indian Ocean 2° N. (147)

September.

Straits of Malacca 3° N. (146) Indian Ocean 15° S.? (123)

Suppose that some individuals in the Atlantic migrate towards the south beyond the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope and get much farther than 20° eastern latitude, they will come into the Indian Ocean. I think that when these individuals returning to the north, find themselves checked by the continent of Asia, they will swim in any direction, and that perhaps most of them will find back the outlet round the Cape of Good Hope or south of Australia, so that in such cases individuals will be met with in the South Atlantic, or in the South Pacific, at times that one would not expect to find any.

10. NOMENCLATURE.

GESNER (p. 107) and PONTOPPIDAN (p. 132) believed that there were at least two species of the same genus. ALDROVANDUS, however, doubted of this, and thought that there was only one species (p. 110). Dr. HAMILTON was evidently of the same opinion (p. 126). RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ at last believed that there were several species (p. 199).

In his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents_, (Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names. Of the Massachusetts Sea-Serpent (his n^o. 1) he says:

“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus _Pelamis_, and I propose to call it _Pelamis megophias_. It might, however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of _Megophias monstrosus_ might have been appropriated to it” (see p. 200).

Of Captain BROWN’S sea-serpent (his n^o. 2) he writes: “It had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not a snake, but a new genus of fish! I shall call this new genus _Octipos_ (meaning eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will be _Octipos bicolor_” (see n^o. 56).

Mr. W. LEE’S sea-serpent according to RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (n^o. 4 of his “Additions”) “appears to be the largest on record, and might well be called _Pelamis monstrosus_; but if there are other species of equal size, it must be called _Pelamis chloronotis_ (see n^o. 30).

The author of the present volume proposed in Nov. 1881 to give it the name of _Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_ (see p. 445).

It is one of the laws of Nomenclature that the oldest name of a species or genus has the priority, no matter whether the author wrote it right or wrong, and whether the author placed his species, or genus, in a genus, or family, or group, other than zoologists would do at present.

Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is _megophias_, and this specific name must be kept. RAFINESQUE placed his species in the genus _Pelamis_. This genus, however, was established by DAUDIN, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with some other genera it forms the family of _Hydrophidae_ Sws. It must, therefore, be rejected.

RAFINESQUE himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea-Serpent with the common small sea-snakes, proposes in that case the name of _Megophias monstrosus_. Here we have the oldest _generic_ name for these animals, viz. _Megophias_. In my opinion, the only name to be given to the sea-serpent is that of

_Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD.

I know that such a double name will offend the eyes and ears of some zoologists. But it will not do to give a wrong name simply to please some zoologists; and it is here the question: by what name _must_ these animals be called according to the _law_ of nomenclature, and then I say:

_Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD.

and its synonyms are:

_Pelamis megophias_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1), _Megophias monstrosus_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1), _Octipos bicolor_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 2), _Pelamis monstrosus_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4), _Pelamis chloronotis_, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4), _Zeuglodon plesiosauroides_, OUD., Nov., 1881.

The name of _Halsydrus Pontoppidani_, proposed by Mr. PATRIC NEILL, for the “great sea-snake cast ashore on the isle of Stronsa” (Phil. Mag. Vol. 33, p. 90, Jan., 1809) can of course not be accepted as the scientific name of the sea-serpent, although it is older than _Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents.)

Nor can there be any question to consider the name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_, proposed by Dr KOCH for his so-called fossil sea-serpent, as a synonym of _Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on Hoaxes).

C. Conclusions.

1. COMPARISON WITH ALLIED ANIMALS.

It will be quite superfluous to tell my readers to which order of animals I think that this _Megophias megophias_ belongs. It runs like a red thread through my whole volume, that I firmly believe that it belongs to the Order of _Pinnipedia_.

More than once I have already shown the relation to this Order, but probably not often enough to convince some headstrong scepticals, or even those who believe in the existence of sea-serpents, but think that they belong to other orders of the Animal Kingdom.

I will first show my readers some drawings and sketches of sea-lions and of a sea-bear.

Fig. 74 represents a sea-lion of the Brighton Aquarium. I think it is a _Zalophus californianus_ (LESS.) ALLEN. We observe that it has a rather pointed, rather blunt snout, with whiskers; that the eyes protrude like those of a toad, that there is a little bunch a little above and behind the eye, that its neck is long in comparison with that of common seals, that in this position the neck is narrower than the head, and the shoulders are visible, that the flappers resemble somewhat those of turtles, that the body is round and slender, and the skin smooth and glittering in the sun, though, in fact, it is hairy and not shining when it is dry.

Fig. 75 shows the same species in another position. The neck is not extended as much as possible, and so the head seems to be as large as the neck; the forehead and nose form nearly a straight line; in the bunch above the eye protruding from the surface we clearly see the heavy eye-brow; the head is held at nearly right angles with the neck, so that the latter gets wrinkles on the throat, which resemble four gills (read gillsplits), or pouches of loose skin. Compare for a moment the left foreflapper with the flappers of a sea-serpent, drawn in figg. 36, 45, and 50. The skin is smooth and shining, though when dry it is hairy and dull.

Fig. 76 is a drawing of _Eumetopias Stelleri_ (LESSON) PETERS, also a sea-lion. This genus is characterized by its considerably vaulted fore head (_eu_ = well developed, _metopion_ = forehead). The skin shows numerous folds or wrinkles, on the throat a fold again forms a distinctly visible “gill”.--The form of the foreflappers resemble those of a turtle. The neck is in comparison with that of seals much longer and as it is not extended as much as possible, it is thicker than the head. The skin is smooth, being wet.

Fig. 77 represents the same species. Here the animal swims with vertical undulations.

Fig. 78 represents the same species with its neck totally contracted so that several wrinkles encircle it, resembling “kinds of scrolls, or tufts of loose skin”, and it seems as if the animal has no neck at all.

Fig. 79 shows us the same species standing nearly upright in the water, with its neck contracted, so that it looks as having no neck, or a neck much larger than the head; the head seen in front is as round as a barrel; the skin is wrinkled. The individual looks at us, as if it would take a view of us.

Fig. 80 is the same individual in the same position but seen from aside. The head is now much longer, the snout neither too pointed, nor too blunt; the head is held at nearly right angles with the neck, forming a “gill” (read gillsplit) by wrinkling the skin on the throat.

Fig. 81 is a drawing of _Otaria jubata_, quite dry. The head is held at nearly right angles with the neck forming two “gills”. The snout is rather blunt, apparently quadrangular in front. The nostrils are at the end of the snout and wide open, “nearly semicircular valves overarching” them. The eyes are wide open and disproportionately large. The neck in comparison with that of seals is long. The skin is hairy, the hairs of the neck are much longer. This mane begins at the occiput. The form of the flappers is like that of a turtle’s. Compare the form of the foreflappers with that of figg. 36, 45 and 50. The body is round and slender.

Fig. 82 represents a sea-bear, _Callorhinus ursinus_, quite dry. The little hairy bunch which is visible in the forepart of the back, is the shoulder of the other side. The hairs of the back-line are longer than the others, forming a mane extending all over the neck and back. The reader will see that I have represented this animal with only four toes on both the foreflappers and hindflappers; this is because I give a facsimile of the figure occurring in BREHM’S “Thierleben”.

It is not the place here to give a monograph of Pinnipeds, but to compare the different known characters of the sea-serpents with those of the other of Pinnipeds, and therefore I am obliged to take the same order I have followed above.

_Dimensions._ At first sight it will be doubted if such an enormous animal can be a pinniped? It is so immensely large in comparison with the known species of this order! Suppose for a moment that whale-bone whales, spermwhales and finwhales were not yet known, and that one of these animals was caught; what would be our astonishment! Suppose that pythons and boas were not yet discovered, and somebody showed us a skin of a python of 26 feet long, I think that the first thought would be “you are a handy fellow, but you will not cheat me with your story!” I will add here some other striking comparisons.

The largest known now living cartilaginous fishes are of 36 (_Selache maxima_) and of 42 feet (_Carcharodon Rondeletii_); but a fossil species of the latter genus reached a length of 81 feet (_Carcharodon megalodon_), and earlier Northern truthful and accurate writers even mention 100 feet as occasional dimension of the _Selache maxima_, an animal eagerly pursued by the Norwegians for the oil of its liver.

We, who in our latitudes look already with amazement on a salmon of 5 feet length, must be perplexed when seeing for the first time an osseous fish of 10 (_Thynnus thynnus_), of 15 (_Arapaima gigas_), or of 20 feet (_Regalecus Banksii_).

The largest known living Amphibium is 4 feet long (_Cryptobranchus_), and caused great astonishment, when it was discovered, but fossil _Amphibia_ have been found larger than 15 feet (_Mastodonsaurus_).

The largest actually measured living Reptile has a length of 30 feet (_Crocodilus_), but some fossilized reptiles show a length of 38 feet (_Hadrosaurus_, _Ichthyosaurus_), 45 feet (_Elasmosaurus_), 58 feet (_Rhamphosuchus_), 70 feet (_Brontosaurus_) nay even of 100 (_Liodon_) and of 115 feet (_Atlantosaurus_), and probably many kinds of Reptiles are still longer, the skeletons of which have been dug up only partially!

Whale-bone-whales of 88 feet, sperm whales of 90 feet, and finwhales of 120 feet are occasionally mentioned to have been measured in the foregoing century, but at present such dimensions are not more recorded, because these animals have been so incessantly persecuted for ages!