Chapter V: The various explanations hitherto given (5)

“But for an opera-glass, probably all our party on board the _Rangoon_ would have been personal witnesses to the existence of a great sea-serpent, but, alas for romance! one glance through the lenses and the reptile was resolved into a bamboo, root upwards, anchored in some manner to the bottom--a “snag” in fact. Swayed up and down by the rapid current, a series of waves undulated beyond it, bearing in their crests dark coloured weeds or grass that had been caught by the bamboo stem.”

“Ignorance of the shallowness of the straits so far from land, and of the swiftness of the current, no doubt led us to our first hasty conclusion, but the story, with Dr. Drew’s shows how prone the human mind is to accept the marvellous, and how careful we should be in forming judgments even on the evidence of our senses.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, in his _Leisure Time Studies_, speaking of this hypothesis says:

“Floating trunks and roots of trees, serving as a nucleus around which sea-weed has collected, and to which barnacles and sea-acorns--producing a variegated effect by reason of their light colour--have attached themselves in great numbers, have also presented appearances closely resembling those of large marine animals, swimming slowly along at the surface of the water. In one instance of this latter kind, related to me by a friend who was an actual spectator, the floating piece of timber assumed a shape imitating in the closest and most remarkable manner the head of some reptile,--by the same rule, I suppose, that in the gnarled trunks and branches of trees one may frequently discern likenesses to the human face and to the forms of other living things. In this latter instance, the floating object was perceived at some miles’ distance from the deck of a yacht; and even when seen through a telescope, and carefully scrutinized by men accustomed to make out the contour and nature of objects at sea, the resemblance to the head of some animal was so close that the course of the vessel was changed and the object in due time overhauled. This latter, therefore, presents an example of a case, the details of which, when related, tempt people to maintain without further parley, that sea-serpents always resolve themselves into inanimate objects of one kind or another.”

The extreme rapidity which is reported of the sea-serpent, banishes at once the idea of a dead organism.

* * * * *

The =twentieth= explanation is: =a mass of flying birds=, of Mr. JOSEPH DREW, who wrote in _Nature_ of the 5th. of September, 1878:

“On Monday, August 5, a number of geologists crossed in the Folkestone boat to Boulogne, to study the interesting formations of that neighbourhood, and, when about three or four miles from the French coast, one of these gentlemen suddenly exclaimed, “Look at that extraordinary object passing across the bow of the steamer about a mile or a mile and a-half in advance of us!” On turning in this direction there was seen an immense serpent apparently about a furlong in length, rushing furiously along at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour; it was blackish in front and paler behind; its elongated body was fairly on the surface of the water and it progressed with an undulating or quivering motion, mirum erat spectaculum sane.”

“Of course many suppositions were immediately started to account for this extraordinary phenomenon, but they quickly changed and settled into the fixed idea that the object before them could be nothing less than the great sea-serpent himself; for--

“Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
“Lay floating, many a rood, in bulk as huge
“As whom the fables name of monstrous size,
“Leviathan, which God of all his works
“Created hugest, that swim the ocean stream.”

“The writer fortunately had with him one of Baker’s best opera-glasses, and, after a few moment’s use of this little instrument, the wonder was satisfactorily resolved. The first half of the monster was dark and glittering and the remainder of fainter hue, gradually, fading towards the tail. The glass did not determine the matter until the extreme end was reached, and then it was seen to consist of a mass of birds in rapid motion; those that were strong on the wing were able to keep well up with the leaders, and to make the head appear thicker and darker by their numbers, whilst those that had not such power of flight were compelled to settle into places nearer and nearer the tail. Doubtless these birds were shags (_Pelecanus cristatus_) returning to their homes for the night from the distant waters in which they had been fishing, during the day; perchance it may be wrong to assert positively as to the variety of bird, but in as much as the writer has often seen shags on the Cornish coast in smaller numbers returning in single or double file to their roosting places, and since it is stated in works of natural history that they have been noticed occasionally flying in this peculiar manner to the number of a thousand or more, it does not appear an unwarranted liberty in supposing that they really were _Pelecani cristati_.”

“It is to be feared some of the geological gentlemen still doubt the interpretation of the lorgnette, preferring the fond deceit of a large and unknown serpent; but as in this case individual birds (scores of them) were distinctly seen flapping their wings, the writer has thought it his duty to report the circumstance to you that your readers who voyage across the seas may keep their opera-glasses in their pockets and verify for themselves, on the first opportunity this interpretation of the great sea-serpent.”

This story induced Mr. BIRD (_Nature_, of 12th. September, 1878) to make a similar avowal:

“Dr. Drew’s letter in _Nature_, Vol. XVIII, p. 489, recalls to my mind a similar phenomenon witnessed by myself and a friend on August 8, while crossing from Grimsby to Rotterdam. It was towards evening, when, looking ahead, we saw a low, black hull, without masts or funnel, moving through the water at enormous speed. After a minute or two it undulated and rose from the surface, and we saw that it was a flight of birds.”

“The deception was so complete that I can well believe that at least many of the stories of the sea-serpent have so originated, though I doubt whether _all_ can be explained in this manner.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, on the contrary wrote the following against this supposition (_Nature_, in the same number):

“The communication of Dr. Joseph Drew in your issue of yesterday regarding the serpentine appearance of a flock of shags in the English Channel is extremely interesting even as a mere fact regarding the habits of these birds. Will you kindly permit me, however, to point out that Dr. Drew’s statement cannot be regarded as explanatory of the sea-serpent’s personality? At the most the incident only explains one of a number of _serpentine appearances_ of which porpoises and sunfishes swimming in line, pieces of wood with trains of sea-weed, &c., are also good examples. There have been placed on record numerous incidents of serpentine forms having been closely expected (as in the well-known case of the _Daedalus_, or later still of H. M. S. _Osborne_) where the hypothesis of the serpentine appearances assumed by flocks of birds or fishes could not be held as explanatory in any sense. It is with the view of showing that the exact personality of the “sea-serpent” cannot be accounted for by such an incident as Dr. Drew relates, that I venture to pen these remarks; and as a firm believer from the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the “sea-serpent” mystery, I would also ask your readers to distinguish carefully between cases in which serpentine appearances have been assumed by ordinary animals, and those in which _one_ animal form has presented itself in the guise of the “great unknown”. I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle-fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape-fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for “a sea-serpent.”........ “At the same time zoologists cannot but feel indebted to Dr. Drew, and to those who, like that gentleman, note unwonted appearances in ordinary animal life, and communicate such incidents to your columns.”

A week afterwards the following article bearing upon the foregoing descriptions of flying sea-birds, appeared in the same journal from the pen of Mr. C. M. INGLEBY:

“The letters of Dr. Drew and others remind me of what I witnessed at Sandgate twenty four years ago. I was staying at a cottage on an elevation which commanded an extensive sea-view. One morning my attention was called to a large, dark, undulating body, which moved rapidly through the sea. As it was some way out from shore, I naturally concluded it to be of enormous length. I lost no time in making inquiries as to the nature of this phenomenon, and was so fortunate as to discover a fisherman who had witnessed it. He told me it was a flight of petrels. But for this I should certainly have believed that I had seen the Great Unknown. I have often seen a similar phenomenon, but nothing nearly so striking as this.”

In _Nature_ of January 25, 1883, an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent is published. In the following number of Febr. 1st., a correspondent says that he often has witnessed a row of porpoises in the same locality; “I never, however, saw the _head_”. Now another correspondent thinking that _he_ had solved the problem, wrote the following article in the next issue of the same journal:

“In the summer of 1881 I was staying for some weeks at Veulettes, on the coast of Normandy. While there, on several occasions, several members of my party, as well as myself, saw, at a distance of three or four miles out at sea, what had the appearance of a huge serpent. Its length was many times that of the largest steamer that ever passed, and its velocity equally exceeded that of the swiftest. What seemed its head was lifted and lowered, and sometimes appeared to show signs of an open mouth. The general appearance of the monster was almost exactly similar to that of the figure in your correspondent’s letter published on the 25th. ult. Not the slightest appearance of this continuity in its structure could be perceived by the eye, although it seemed incredible that any muscular mechanism could really drive such an enormous mass through the water with such a prodigious velocity. I carefully watched all that any of us caught sight of, and one day, just as one of these serpent forms was nearly opposite our hotel, it instantaneously turned through a right angle, but instead of going forward in the new direction of its length, proceeded with the same velocity broad side forward. With the same movement it resolved itself into a flock of birds.”

“We often saw the sea-serpent again without this resolution being effected, and, knowing what it was, could with difficulty still perceive that it was not a continuous body; thus having a new illustration of Hershell’s remark, that it is easier to see what has been once discovered than to discover what is unknown. Possibly this experience may afford the solution of your correspondent’s difficulty.”--W. STEADMAN ALDIS.--

As to the figure, it is our fig. 51.--In the next issue of _Nature_ again another correspondent asserts:

“On reading the letter of W. Steadman Aldis in _Nature_ yesterday, I was reminded by a person present that some years ago, when in Orkney, I pointed out an appearance that most people unaccustomed to witness it might have taken for a great sea-monster. This was nothing more or less than some hundred of cormorants or “skarps” flying in a continuous line close to the water, the deception being increased by the resemblance of a head caused by several “skarps” in a cluster _heading_ the column, and by the “_lumpy_” seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and hiding for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer to--not unnaturally--imagine that the portions so hidden had gone under water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be fairly estimated at thirty miles an hour or more.”--J. RAE.

It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass of flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the most striking proofs against this hypothesis.

* * * * *

The =twenty-first= explanation was proposed by Dr. ANDREW WILSON in his _Leisure Time Studies_, 1879. He presents a frontispiece to his work “embodying the chief representations of the various theories of the sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the foreground is delineated =a large turtle=. Of this supposition Mr. LEE says in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_:

“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers and broad back.”

The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet, including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. The breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three and a half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-faring people would have been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know this animal well enough. Even a giant turtle would immediately be recognized by its broad shell. No sea-turtles occur near the Norwegian shore.

* * * * *

The =twenty-second= explanation. I don’t know whether the note p. 106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_, also appeared in the first edition, January, 1879, and so I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. LEE, (1883), has a superior claim to the supposition that the great sea-serpent might be in some or in most instances =a giant cuttle-fish or calamary=.

Mr. ANDREW WILSON, quoting the report of Messrs. WEBSTER and ANDERSON (n^o. 146), in which the latter says: “the creature was apparently of a gelatinous (that is flabby) substance”, writes in a note:

“It is just possible that the “flabby” or “gelatinous” creature mentioned in this narrative was a giant cuttle-fish, whose manner of swimming, colour, absence of limbs, etc., would correspond with the details of the narrative. The “immense tail” might be the enormous arms of such a creature trailing behind the body as it swam backwards, propelled by jets of water from the breathing “funnel.””

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ tries to explain all accounts of the sea-serpent by reference to large calamaries. Of one of the figures of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work (our fig. 14) he says: “the presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid” (which snatched the man from the vessel) “and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each side of it.” I have discussed this explanation in its right place (see p. 106).

The “monster of EGEDE” he also explained by reference to a great calamary. Mr. LEE does not doubt of the accuracy of EGEDE’S description, but as to Mr. BING’S figure he says: “The high character of the narrator would lead us to accept his statement that he had seen something previously unknown to him (he does not say it was a sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand what it was that he saw. Fortunately however, the sketch made by Mr. BING, one of his brother-missionaries, has enabled us to do this”. And Mr. LEE has the boldness to figure a large calamary, with the words: “the animal which EGEDE probably saw”, of which figure I give a facsimile in fig. 70.--

Well! It looks convincing enough, and there is a savour of ingenious acuteness of wit in it, that might lull the suspicions of a doubting zoologist! What more could be required? And yet, the whole fabric falls to pieces as soon as we compare EGEDE’S description and BING’S drawing with the greater part of descriptions and figures given as well before as after EGEDE. His idea is far fetched and thereby impossible: 1. When a calamary propels itself with great velocity to the surface and raises its tail high out of the water, all its arms are turned and stretched downwards; not one is visible above the surface. 2. When a calamary is in this position and falls down in consequence of its weight, it will fall to the side where its body is nearest the water, in our figure to left, and not to right, as Mr. EGEDE saw very distinctly; he says: “backwards” that is towards the tail; and 3. A calamary in the position above delineated, spouting through its locomotor tube, spouts in a direction contrary to that which Mr. LEE has figured. The locomotor tube may be somewhat flexible, when at rest; it is stretched by its own muscular wall towards the head, and not towards the tail, nor in a direction perpendicularly to the body, when the act of spouting takes place. Moreover HANS EGEDE saw the sea-serpent spouting (exhaling) through its nostrils or its mouth, and not on or below the surface of the water, as the calamary of Mr. HENRY LEE!

Of Mr. MACLEAN’S report (n^o. 31) he says: “His description of it is exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary”. If I may beg my readers to read Mr. MACLEAN’S report again, they will observe that _nothing_ in it indicates a calamary!

About the report of Mr. J. C. LUND (n^o. 115) he writes:

“We may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements of all the worthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There is no room for the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously that which they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, is most accurately and intelligently described--so clearly, indeed, that it furnishes us with a clue to the identity of the strange visitant.”

“Here let me say--and I wish it to be distinctly understood--that I do not deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea-serpent, or other great creatures at present unknown to science, and that I have no inclination to explain away that which others have seen, because I myself have not witnessed it. “Seeing is believing”, it is said, and it is not agreeable to have to tell a person that, in common parlance, he “must not trust his own eyes”. It seems presumptuous even to hint that one may know better what was seen than the person who saw it. And yet I am obliged to say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly and assuredly, that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not correctly interpret that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is not the eye which deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the imagination which is led astray by the association of the thing seen with an erroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent assumption of superior acumen, but because we now possess a key to the mystery which Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours had not access to, and which has only within the last few years been placed in our hands. The movements and aspect of their sea-monster are those of an animal with which we are now well acquainted, but of the existence of which the narrators of these occasional visitations were unaware; namely, the great calamary, the same which gave rise to the stories of the Kraken, and which has probably been a denizen of the Skandinavian seas and fjords from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have elsewhere said, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure of the _Alecton_ in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or sixty feet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the great sea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express belief in either was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned, specimens of even greater dimensions than those quoted were met with on the coasts of Newfoundland, and portions of them were deposited in museums, to silence the incredulous and interest zoologists. When Archdeacon Deinbolt published in 1846 the declaration of Mr. Lund and his companions of the fishing excursion he and they knew nothing of there being such an animal. They had formed no conception of it, nor had they the instructive privilege, possessed of late years by the public in England, of being able to watch attentively, and at leisure, the habits and movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in great tanks of sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted with them, I believe they would have recognized in their supposed snake the elongated body of a giant squid.”

“When swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by the outrush of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction contrary to that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part, therefore, goes in advance, and the body tapers towards this, almost to a blunt point. At a short distance from the actual extremity two flat fins project from the body, one on each side, so that this end of the squid’s body somewhat resembles in shape the government “broad arrow”. It is a habit of these squids, the small species of which are met with in some localities in teeming abundance, to swim on the smooth surface of the water in hot and calm weather. The arrow-headed tail is then raised out of water, to a height which in a large individual might be three feet or more; and, as it precedes the rest of the body, moving at the rate of several miles an hour, it of course looks, to a person who has never heard of an animal going tail first at such a speed, like the creature’s head. The appearance of this “head” varies in accordance with the lateral fins being seen in profile or in broad expanse. The elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea of the neck to which the “head” is attached; the eight arms trailing behind (the tentacles are always coiled away and concealed) supply the supposed mane floating on each side; the undulating motion in swimming, as the water is alternately drawn in and expelled, accords with the description, and the excurrent stream pouring aft from the locomotor tube, causes a long swirl and swell to be left in the animal’s wake, which, as I have often seen, may easily be mistaken for an indefinite prolongation of its body. The eyes are very large and prominent, and the general tone of colour varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink, and grey, as the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary matter circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving cells.”

“Here we have the “long marine animal” with “two fins on the forepart of the body near the head”, the “boiling of the water”, the “moving in undulations”, the “body round, and of a dark colour”, the “waving motion in the water behind the animal”, from which the witnesses concluded that “part of the body was concealed under water”, the “head raised, but the lower part not visible”, the “sharp snout”, the “smooth skin”, and the appearance described by Mr. William Knudtzon, and Candidatus Theologiae Bochlum, of “the head being long and small in proportion to the throat, the latter appearing much greater than the former”, which caused them to think “it was _probably_ furnished with a mane”. Not that they _saw_ any mane, but as they had been told of it, they thought they _ought to have seen it_. Less careful and conscientious persons would have persuaded themselves, and declared on oath, that they _did see it_.”

“I need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the proverbially smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition of its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance that “white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched out several fathoms”, and of “the water boiling around it on both sides of it”. The cuttle is the only animal that I know of that would cause this by the effluent current from its “syphon tube.” I have seen a deeply laden ship push in front of her a vast hillock of water, which fell off on each side in foam as it was parted by her bow; but that was of man’s construction. Nature builds on better lines. No swimming creature has such unnecessary friction to overcome. Even the seemingly unwieldy body of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without a splash, and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering action of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.”

Again I beg my readers to read the above-mentioned account, that they may decide for themselves, whether the animal was a sea-serpent or a great calamary. Mr. LEE’S last views of the motion of sea-animals is also wrong; I make bold to contradict here all his assertions; for instance, he says: “Nature builds on better lines”. I say: If nature built on better lines, men would long ago have imitated them. All creatures, when swimming rapidly on the surface, cause a splash. Swans, when moving as rapidly as possible, cause heavy undulations before the chest, and I have observed myself the common porpoises in the Zuider Zee, which when coming to the surface to breathe, caused a splash and a rushing of water, which all who were on board distinctly saw and heard.

The sea-serpent of Mr. MORRIES STIRLING (n^o. 113) appeared, according to Mr. HENRY LEE also “to have been, like the others from the same locality, a large calamary.”

Of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE and his officers he says:

“Of course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted the veracity or _bona fides_ of the captain and officers of one of Her Majesty’s ships; and their testimony was the more important because it was that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. Their practised eyes would, probably, be able to detect the true character of anything met with afloat even if only partially seen, as intuitively as the Red Indian reads the signs of the forest or the trail; and therefore they were not likely to be deceived by any of the objects with which sailors are familiar. They would not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks of trees, or Brobdingnagian stems of Algae; but there was one animal with which they were not familiar, of the existence of which they were unaware, and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed to be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself--namely, the great calamary, the elongated form of which has certainly in some other instances been mistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen swimming in the manner I have described, and endeavoured to portray, would fulfil the description given by Lieutenant Drummond, and would in a great measure account for the appearances reported by Captain M’Quhae. “_The head long, pointed and flat on the top_”, accords with the pointed extremity and caudal fin of the squid. “_Head kept horizontal with the surface of the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not apparently for purposes of respiration._” A perfect description of the position and action of a squid swimming. “_No portion of it perceptibly used in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal undulations._” The mode of propulsion of a squid--the outpouring stream of water from its locomotor tube--would be unseen and unsuspected, because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would suggest a prolongation of the creature’s body. The numerous arms trailing astern at the surface of the water would give the appearance of a mane. I think it not impossible that if the officers of the _Daedalus_ had been acquainted with this great sea-creature the impression on their mind’s eye would not have taken the form of a serpent. I offer this, with much diffidence, as a suggestion arising from recent discoveries; and by no means insist on its acceptance; for Captain M’Quhae, who had a very close view of the animal, distinctly says that “the head was, without any doubt, that of a serpent”, and one of his officers subsequently declared that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour, and the form were all most distinctly visible.”

And of the sea-serpent of Mr. R. DAVIDSON (n^o. 93) he asserts: “The features of this incident are consistent with his having seen one of the, then unknown, great calamaries.”

The sea-serpent, seen by Lieutenant SANFORD (n^o. 74) is also explained by him to be “evidently a great squid seen under circumstances similar to those described by HANS EGEDE”.

Captain HARRINGTON’S sea-serpent (n^o. 131), according to Mr. LEE, “was evidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal extremity and fin above the surface, and discolouring the water by discharging its ink.”

Considering and weighing various explanations hitherto given, Mr. LEE concludes: “I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have been searching amongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, the great unknown, and therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their elongated cylindrical bodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have played the part of the sea-serpent in many a well-authenticated incident.”

In answering, again, Mr. GOSSE’S question: “To which of the recognized classes of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda. There is not one of the above judiciously summarized characteristics that is not supplied by the great calamary, and its ascertained habits and peculiar mode of locomotion.”

With these “above summarized characteristics” are meant those which Mr. GOSSE enumerates in his _Romance of Natural History_ (see p. 318 of the present volume), but which, as we know, are taken by him from only six reports of true sea-serpents, and from a report of a would-be sea-serpent!

The reader will remember that, on one occasion, I explained a would-be sea-serpent by reference to a large calamary, because the head was described “acute” and the colour “crimson”. All true sea-serpents are brownish black, and only in case the animal had swum for a long time in the sun and partly above the surface of the water, the colour is yellowish, grey or greyish. It is true that this colour partly agrees with that of a calamary, when quite at rest or when dead; but generally, when the animal is in motion, and especially in emotion, the colour becomes a reddish-purple or crimson-red. Moreover the long neck, the mane, the extraordinary long tail, the four flappers, are not explained by reference to a calamary.

* * * * *

The =twenty-third= explanation is proposed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. in _Nature_ of November 18th., 1880. His article on the “Order Zeuglodontia” closes with the following parenthesis:

“[The animal seen from the _Osborne_, and figured in the _Graphic_ of June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent”, is quite a different thing from the one in question, and may have been =a manatee=.]”

This figure is our figure 45. Evidently Mr. WOOD did not read the account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based on a figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen from the _Osborne_, i. e. “from its crown or top to just below the shoulders, where it became immersed”, was “about fifty feet”, and the length of the flappers “each about fifteen feet”. So this animal had an enormous neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total length of ten feet, the length from the crown or top to just below the shoulders is not more than four feet and there is no question of a neck, as our figure will show. Mr. WOOD committed the mistake, like so many others, that he explained _one_ sea-serpent, instead of first comparing _all_ the reports of it before giving an opinion.

* * * * *

Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According to different authorities, the sea-serpent may be:

1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, 1803).

2. _Scoliophis atlanticus_, a new species of snake with bunches on its back. (Hon. JOHN DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, Mr. C. F. GRAY, 1817).

3. A large tunny. (Prof. THOMAS SAY, 1818).

4. A true sea-snake (_Hydrophis_) of very large size. (Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).

5. A gigantic individual of the eel-tribe. (Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, 1819).

6. A fable, arisen from Northern Mythology. (Dr. PERCY, 1820?).

7. A basking shark, or a row of sharks. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL, 1828).

8. A balaenopterous whale, or a row of them. (Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL, 1828).

9. An _Ichthyosaurus_, or a saurian allied to it. (Mr. R. BAKEWELL, 1830?).

10. A _Plesiosaurus_, or a saurian allied to it. (Professor BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, 1830?).

11. Not a saurian. (Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, 1835).

12. A row of spermwhales. (Professor HERMANN SCHLEGEL, 1837).

13. A _Basilosaurus_. (Professor MATTHIAS JACOB SCHLEIDEN, 1847).

14. A _Saccopharynx_ or an _Ophiognathus_. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).

15. A large boa. (Anonymous writer in one of the daily papers, 1848, Nov. 6?).

16. A _Macrorhinus leoninus_, or sea-elephant. (Professor RICHARD OWEN, 1848, Nov. 9).

17. A large sea-weed. (Commander J. A. HERRIMAN, of the _Brazilian_, 1849).

18. A large ribbon-fish, _Gymnetrus_ or _Regalecus_. (Mr. A. G. MORE, 1856).

19. A floating dead tree, or bamboo, or a weed-laden log of wood. (Mr. ARTHUR ADAMS, 1860).

20. A mass of flying birds. (Mr. JOSEPH DREW, 1878).

21. A large sea-turtle. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879).

22. A gigantic calamary. (Mr. ANDREW WILSON, 1879? or Mr. HENRY LEE, 1883).

23. A manatee. (Mr. SEARLES VALENTINE WOOD JUN., 1880).

* * * * *

I have bracketed the names of the authors who, as far as I could discover, were the first to express the supposition to which their name is added. The dates are those at which they published their supposition.

Of all these explanations those are the best, which are not the result of reading _one single_ report (1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16), which are not mere suppositions without any foundation (6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21, 23), which are not offered by persons who a moment ago saw a deceitful object or animal (17, 18, 19, 20, 22), but which are the result of a _study_ of several accounts and reports. They are those marked 2, 9 and 10. And of these n^o. 10 is the most admissible, because the _Plesiosaurus_ in its outlines most resembles the sea-serpent. Why, however, is the sea-serpent not a _Plesiosaurus_? I have already summed up some reasons, when treating of this explanation, but the principal reasons are the mammalian characters, habits and behaviour of the sea-serpent; I will try to prove this in the next chapter.