Part 9

“The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa, confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a neck. But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home’s figure be accurate, had nothing resembling a neck. And, indeed, Artedi observes, that “omnes pisces qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque carent: Ergo soli pisces cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a neck, therefore, as peculiar to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise the account of the spiracula or ear-holes, ascribed to this animal of Stronsa.”

“The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches. The length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was fifty five feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part of the tail was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the animal of Stronsa was, by actual measurement, about ten feet, meant, I suppose, at the thickest part. If the animal had been cylindrical at that part, the diameter from the dorsal to the sternal aspect must have been about three feet four inches. The diameter of the squalus at the thickest part, measuring from the dorsal to the sternal aspect, is nearly six feet; its circumference, had it been cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.”

“The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder to near the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after deducting the length of the head and neck, which, when together were sixteen feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which I got from Mr. Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought here, confirm the accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys. The bristles of that mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor, although they were, has the squalus a fin extending from the shoulder to the tail.”

“A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and obliging Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the original, by Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the dried specimen now before us. It represents the sternum and two parts corresponding two scapulae, and those organs which are named _paws_. Mr. Home says, that these organs resemble the pectoral fins of his squalus. But the length of the pectoral fins, measuring along the upper margin, is four feet, the length of the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting; the part that remains, measures seventeen inches.”

“The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three feet and seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in its dried state, is only five inches and three quarters.”

“Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit articular surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.”

“Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance to science, that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a new animal, unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.” Of what importance it is to science to admit no new genera or species into our catalogues of natural history, I cannot conceive. But it is certainly of much importance to science, that the naturalist should be cautious not to determine the species of an animal upon vague evidence. Now what evidence had Mr. Home that this animal was a squalus, and even to suppose that it was a squalus maximus?”

I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. BARCLAY does not seem to make any difference between “a head” of a Squalus and “a skull.” It is true that the “head” of a _Squalus maximus_ of thirty feet and a half measures five feet and a half, but its “skull” has only a length of ten inches. It is true that the diameter of the “head” of such a shark measures from right to left about five feet, but its “skull” would have only a few inches in breadth. It is true that the diameter of the larger vertebrae near the head of such an individual may be about seven inches, but what is indicated by Mr. BARCLAY in the head of his “animal of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertebra”, is (don’t laugh!) the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous appendages!--No wonder that the animal of Stronsa had “a neck”, for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins, except the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed away, whilst the basking shark of Mr. HOME had no neck, because it was entire.--Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which ARTEDI is quoted!

In the comparison of Mr. HOME’S basking shark and his own stranded animal, Mr. BARCLAY also wholly overlooks, when he states the dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified remains of an animal, and not of an undamaged being.

Dr. BARCLAY seems to entirely reject Mr. HOME’S idea that the “mane” had never extended over the whole back, but what was seen were only fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places of the foremost and the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of the “mane” only existed in the imagination of the witnesses.

In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the _paws_, Mr. BARCLAY again forgets that he has only before him a totally mutilated specimen.

An extract from the “_Remarks_” of Dr. BARCLAY was given by Dr. HOFFMANN in OKEN’S _Isis_, II, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst others he says:

“The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;” but Mr. HOFFMANN himself is not free from inaccuracies! In none of Dr. BARCLAY’S papers mention is made of a “membranaceous comb extended over bony rays, which was running from the shoulders to the end of the tail, over the back.” He has evidently translated this (if we may use this expression) from the figure (see our fig. 7). But this figure was made for print by Mr. SYME, after a drawing made on one of the islands from the description given there, and Mr. SYME has changed the “mane” (long loose hairs hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he figured exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble to compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same Mr. SYME in the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal of Stronsa.”

Immediately after this paper Mr. OKEN, the editor of the _Isis_, wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship with other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as no animal with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been a cartilaginous fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia (a pair of additional paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or “holders”) were regarded as the third pair of feet, whilst the ventral and pectoral fins were the other pairs. “It is, however, no shark,” he goes on, and adduced 7 proofs for this theory; “it is, neither a cetacean,” and for this opinion he gives 4 different reasons. And yet he has the boldness to conclude: “The animal consequently is _more_ related to the sharks, and as it is not a true shark, it must be a _Chimaera_”; but the reasons given to prove this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I will add here that he also says: “finally individuals of _Chimaera_ of 30 feet in length, have already been caught”, a manifest untruth, for the largest ever measured were of three feet and a half!--For those readers who never saw a _Chimaera_, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, I have delineated the _Chimaera monstrosa_ in our fig. 9.

In the _Edinb. Philos. Journ._ Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is published of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis was made by Dr. JOHN DAVY, and communicated “a considerable time ago” by Dr. LEACH to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my readers with this analysis would be superfluous.

Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_, 1822, really believes that:

“The existence of the sea-snake,--a monster of fifty-five feet long, is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown on shore in Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the Edinburgh Museum.”

Dr. HAMILTON too, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, is of the same opinion: “We turn first” he says “to an account of an animal which apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-serpents), “which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, in the year 1808”, and he goes on giving some details of the stranded animal, taken from the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_. Later on we learn from him that:

“Dr. FLEMING” in his _History of British Animals_, 1828, (this work I have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal, suggests that these members were probably the remains of pectoral, ventral and caudal fins.”

Mr. RATHKE in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841, after having published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about the sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm believer in it, goes on:

“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition, however, is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal, which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, and of which several pieces of the skeleton are said to be preserved in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, and in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. I have read a note about it in the London Journal _the Athenaeum_, 1839, p. 902, which note is taken from the work: _The Naturalist’s Library, Amphibious Carnivora, including the Walrus and Seals, also of the Herbivorous Cetacea_. By B. Hamilton, M. D. (Edinburgh, Lizars). An ample description of the saved rests of the animal is said to have been written by Dr. BARCLAY in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Society_. I had, however, not the means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-mentioned note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured 56 feet and had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet. The head was small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15 feet long. The organs of motion are said to have consisted of three pairs of fins: one pair of which is believed to have been properly a caudal fin. The foremost pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were the longest, and their tops looked like toes, partly, however, webbed together. From the shoulders a kind of bristly mane extended to near the extremity of the tail. The skin was smooth, without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as large as a seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.”

“Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the head was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender, and the extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the animal stranded in Stronsa resembled a _Plesiosaurus_; and that consequently it belonged to the _Amphibia_, viz. to the Saurians.”

Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON, the well known Editor of the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, expressed his opinion about the animal of Stronsa, immediately after the appearance of Mr. RATHKE’S dissertation. After having given full details of Mr. BARCLAY’S paper, and an ample description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts belong undoubtedly to a shark,” and:

“Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and in spite of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be so for ever, only it may not have been a _Selache maxima_, but a _Lamna cornubica_, which also reaches a considerable length. So the animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians.”

I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. ERICHSON could arrive at this conclusion, as the _Lamna cornubica_, or porbeagle has never attained a length above 18 feet.--Our fig. 10 represents a porbeagle.

It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, after all that had been written about the animal of Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his journal of 1849, p. 2358, he asked the following

“_Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa in 1808._”

“In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society” (vol. I. p. 418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast ashore on the island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the Doctor figures the head with a vertebra attached, four other vertebrae and a sternum with a paddle “and two parts corresponding two scapulae” attached. He speaks of the originals of these figures as specimens then before the audience he was addressing. He gives seven inches as the diameter of the head, and two inches as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then still attached to the head. The total length of the animal is given as fifty-five feet, and this from actual admeasurement. It is now positively asserted that the animal in question was a shark; but the utter impossibility of a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head only seven inches in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches in diameter, is so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I shall esteem it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the means of doing so will reply to the following questions:--

“1. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained?

“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?

“3. Where are these bones preserved?

“4. What is their present state?

“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc.?

“6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? and if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?

“Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the questions at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus, order or class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head and sternum of the creature are still in existence.”--

The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in the _Zoologist_ for 1849, p. 2396:

“_Reply to Mr._ NEWMAN’_s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the Stronsa Animal_.--Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an animal cast on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Society”,--after some little trouble I have been able to answer most of these questions.”

“1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtained?--It will be seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that George Sherar, one of those who saw the animal, mentions that he brought away, to deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian), the skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs next the head, with different parts of the back-bone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, I suppose, forwarded them to Dr. Barclay.”

“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?--The answer to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took them from the same animal.”

“3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present state?--Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches in diameter; and four in the University Natural History Museum, preserved in spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas the other three are separate.”

“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &c.?--6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?--This is answered by the annoying fact that the skull has not been preserved.”

“On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae, he tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly those of a Shark (_Squalus maximus_), as are the skull, sternum and scapulae, figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs”, p. 418.”

“We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who saw this extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on closer inspection even these will be found to have little weight in the argument. In the first place it is infortunate that no well-educated person saw it: they were all ignorant, illiterate men, who most likely knew nothing further of a shark than that it was an animal with a huge mouth, capable of discussing so many seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly adapted for amputating limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses agreeing in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six legs: on this point it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing anything of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility of such a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it is at once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and scapulae with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol. I. p. 418); the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his “British Animals”, supposes were claspers. In the last place we may notice one striking contradiction in the evidences: Thomas Fotheringhame seems to have been astonished at such a large animal having such a narrow throat,--so narrow indeed that it would not admit his hand; while George Sherar would have had no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there is nothing to prove that Thomas Fotheringhame’s hand was larger than George Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other must have made a mistake in his calculation.”

“We might further suggest the improbability of any animal sixty feet long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and we might even suspect the carpenter’s footrule of showing a decided taste for the marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was certainly not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg-Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance.--Jas. C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.”

As to the animal seen by Mr. MACLEAN, see our report n^o. 31, in the following chapter.

One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa” was now set at rest. Not at all! Dr. THOMAS STEWART TRAILL wrote a paper about it, published in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_, Vol. III, n^o. 44, 1854, June, comparing it with the animal seen by the Captain, officers and crew of H. M. S. _Daedalus_ (see our report n^o. 118 in the next chapter). The part of his dissertation, respecting the “animal of Stronsa” runs as follows:

“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain M’Quhae, the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the Southern Atlantic, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, about 300 miles off the African shore, recalled my attention to the materials I had collected respecting the vast animal cast ashore on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys, in 1808.”

“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made by those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me by order of Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on whose property it was stranded; and I obtained other notes from several individuals resident in Orkney.”

“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists. Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the late Gilbert Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the skull and several vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which a portion of the pectoral fin, or _wing_, as it was termed by the natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined them.”

“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of what was termed the _mane_ of the animal, which I now exhibit.”

“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying on a sunken rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; but in a few days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on shore in a creek near the headland, where it remained for some time tolerably entire; and it was subsequently broken up by the fury of the waves. Before it was thus broken into several pieces it was examined, and measured by several intelligent inhabitants of the Island; and their testimony collected as above stated was forwarded to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations were, however, accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal, which was thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the storm abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, to collect what information he could on the subject. But by this time the body of the animal was completely broken up. This lad, who was no draughtsman, and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, from the descriptions of those who had seen the animal most entire, to delineate with chalk on a table a figure of the animal. The rude figure so produced was transferred by pencil to paper, and copies of it were handed about as real representations of the animal.”

“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted by those who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards obtained, it would appear that the _jointed legs_, which the lad had attached to it, are creations of his own imagination.”

“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, were never called _legs_ by those who saw the animal, but were denominated by them _wings_ or _fins_ or swimming paws. “That nearest the head was broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half feet in length, and was edged all round with bristles or fibres, about ten inches long”. The “lower jaw was wanting when it was cast ashore, but there remained cartilaginous teeth in portions of the jaws”. Before it was discovered putrefaction had commenced, especially in the _fins_. The animal had a long and slender neck, on which there were two spiracles on each side.”

“The _wings_ would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains of pectoral, abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have been placed, like those of some of the shark family, farther from the centre of the abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of the witnesses states that “the wings of the animal were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the drawing”.”

“The portion of the anterior fin or _wing_, which was attached to the omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a structure of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, the rays might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural science, seem like toes or fingers.”

“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing the fins of fishes:”--

“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires membraneuses representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et des pieds.”

“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal rests on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw it most entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew the three principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George Sherar, and William Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, and of remarkable intelligence. They were not _ignorant fishermen_, as the witnesses were represented to be; but two of them were of the better sort of farmers in that part of Orkney; and the first and the last of them were also very ingenious mechanics, much accustomed to the use of the _footrule_, the instrument employed in measuring the animal.”