Chapter VI: Conclusions (3)

A few lines above we have spoken of the increased speed of the animal swimming under water. The question arises how was this to be seen; and the answer is given by the eye-witnesses themselves: “I saw it coming rapidly under water” (31), “when moving under water you could often trace him by the motion of the water on the surface, and from this circumstance I conclude he did not swim deep” (41), “we could trace his course under water” (69), “swimming below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid course” (117), “in swimming under the surface the animal swims not deeply, for on the surface one can trace its course” (126), “and moved away just under the surface of the water, for we could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea” (137).

This, however, is not always the case. The animal can swim so deep that its course is not betrayed on the surface. Once “it swum directly under a boat” in which two men were (41), and once “it passed below the boat at the depth of eight or ten feet, swimming slowly with a vermicular motion” (82), which shows us at the same time that it swims under water with vertical undulations. There is, of course, reason to believe that it may also occasionally swim with its body in a straight line; and Captain HOPE saw it at still greater depths swimming evidently with its flappers and with vertical undulations (119).

So we have gradually approached to the way in which the animal disappears from the surface of the vaste ocean. In some instances it is only said that “it disappeared” (36), “it all at once vanished” (74), “it all at once disappeared” (74), “it suddenly disappeared” (132, 143, 155), evidently withdrawing itself beneath the surface of the water deep enough to avoid a rippling of it. In other instances the _way how_ it disappeared is more circumstantially described: “it sank” (49, 60, 69, 117, 137), “it sunk gradually into the water” (63), “it sank quietly beneath the surface” (134), “it sank rather abruptly” (137), “it sunk apparently down” (39), “he did not turn down like a fish, but appeared to settle down like a rock” (41), “he apparently sunk directly down like a rock” (41); this “sinking like a rock” is of course effectuated by a sudden upward movement of all the flappers together. But the animal may also plunge violently under water (31), or go down with a tremendous splash (157), or when it is swimming with its neck high elevated above the surface, it dives like a duck head foremost (124, 151), and finally, when it has apparently remained a long time under water in great depths, and suddenly comes to the surface with so much force that its head, long neck, and a part of its trunk with its formidable foreflappers become visible, it throws itself backwards, and in doing so, raises its enormous tail high above the surface of the water (5), and disappearing under the waves, the last part which is visible of it, is the end of the tail (fig. 20). Generally, however, it happens that the swimming animal grows gradually smaller and smaller to the eyes of the observers, and at last disappears in the distance to be seen no more.

3. _Voice._--In none of the reports gathered in this volume there is a single notice about the animal’s voice. It is probable that the individual gripped by the spermwhale (144) uttered a sound which, however, was not heard amidst the tremendous noise, made by the two animals fighting.

d. Generation, Growth.

I am sure that nobody will believe any longer, as was the case in 1817, that sea-serpents are oviparous. Animals with a hairy skin, save the _Monotrymata_, are viviparous, consequently sea-serpents are viviparous.

Though PONTOPPIDAN believes that sea-serpents “seek the other sex most probably in July and August” (p. 133), and that “July and August are its pairing time” (p. 129), I am satisfied that March and April must be taken as their months of amours, and that July and August are the months of whelping.

A new born pup most probably has a length of about twenty feet (14).

It seems that the months during which two sea-serpents were seen together are July and August, probably also September (23, 27, 66, 72). It would seem, therefore, that a male remains in the neighbourhood of his companion during her pregnancy and probably also during the first month or during the first two months of the new-born young.

It seems also that the females are much smaller than the males, as the pups are comparatively very small, and as twice one of the two which were seen together is described smaller than the other (23, 66).

We have already met with two instances in which the head of the individual is delineated or described as having a hollow at its top (60, fig. 30). I am satisfied that these were two males not yet full-grown, showing the two cushions of their enormously developed masticatory muscles, which were not yet closed in the centre of the top of the head, and whose skulls therefore, could not show the occipital and medial crests.

6. PSYCHICAL CHARACTERS.

a. Not taking notice of objects.

There are instances that the animal is reported as taking no notice at all of men, vessels or other objects (29, 34, 48, 82, 83).

b. Taking notice of objects.

At other instances, however, the animal was thought to notice objects (43), or is said to have turned its head two or three times slowly round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object on board (60), or that it slowly turned its head towards the observers (93), and numerous are the reports that it lifted itself high above the surface apparently to take a survey towards the vessel, or to take a view of objects (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131, 145, 149, 152 A).

c. Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion.

The many instances that sea-serpents are said to have followed a boat (p. 133, 31, 36, 103, 110, 117, 158) or to have taken a survey towards vessels, sufficiently prove that they are curious beings, and that their curiosity as in so many animals, is generally mixed with some suspicion, which of course is again a proof that the animal is constantly prepared for selfpreservation. One of the most striking proofs of this is to be read in n^o. 92: the individual swam towards a boat, passed within a few feet or some fathoms, and swam away, to repeat the same movement two times.

d. Suspicion.

That some of the eye-witnesses got the impression that it is sometimes really suspicious may be seen from the following lines: “he appeared to avoid the boat wherein I was” (39), “he seemed suspicious of the boat” (69), “they chased the animal fruitless for seven hours” (59), “Captain George Little made many attempts of pursuing and killing it, but without any result, as the serpent ever kept a distance of a quarter of a mile” (19), “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).

e. Harmlessness.

The animal is evidently a quite harmless creature (p. 107). Though very close to several boats, it offered them no molestation (32). “After the shot” of MATTHEW GAFFNEY “it turned towards him immediately, sank down, went directly under his boat, and made its appearance one hundred yards from where it sank and continued playing as before” (41), “he appeared to us to be a harmless animal” (63), “it was harmless” (69). A proof of perfect harmlessness may be found in n^o. 92: it approached a fisherman in his boat to within six feet and offered him no molestation. See also n^o. 94 and 112.

f. Timidity.

PONTOPPIDAN already concluded that these animals are really timid ones, “for when it follows a boat, the fishermen throw any object, for instance a scoop, at it, and then the animal generally plunges into the deep” (p. 134), and Mr. PRINCE also says: “he appeared to us to be a timid animal” (63).

g. Fearlessness.

It were perhaps better if I used here the expression: “Involuntary consciousness of the harmlessness of vessels, boats, and men”, in which, however, it was often mistaken! “It did not appear to avoid anything” (41), “it appeared to be amusing itself, though there were several boats not far from it” (41); after the shot of MATTHEW GAFFNEY “it did not appear more shy” (41); once it lay extended on the surface, the night was falling, and a boat rowed by four men, passed just before its snout at an oar’s length, and yet it remained lying quite still (43), “it did not appear to be at all disturbed by the vessel” (48, 80, 93, 112, 118); it may swim or come to the surface very close to boats, and swim parallel with them (72, 109, 112, 121, 157).

h. Fear.

A stronger expression of suspicion is evidently to be seen in the animal’s sinking and being seen no more at the approach of a vessel (49).

i. Fright.

I think that in the following we see true expressions of fright. When LORENZ VON FERRY fired at it, the animal plunged down under water and was seen no more (9); some strangers fired at it and it suddenly disappeared (90); it gracefully rose once from the deep, but seeing a ship, it immediately disappeared (124); it once raised its head out of the water within twenty yards of a ship, when it suddenly disappeared, but here its curiosity got hold of its fright, and after half a minute it made its appearance again in the same manner (131).

j. Fury.

The animal does not always plunge down after a shot, and is then seen no more: MATTHEW GAFFNEY fired at it, when it was thirty feet from him. The animal turned towards him immediately after the shot, sank down, went directly under his boat and made its appearance at about one hundred yards from where it sunk. It continued playing as before, and did not appear more shy (41); once when it was fired at, it turned and pursued the boat to the shore and then disappeared (110); a boatmen struck it with a boathook, upon which it immediately gave him chase (112); when LUND fired at it, it stretched its long neck quite erect in the air, like a snake preparing to dart on its prey, and darted towards LUND, who reached the shore in time (115). I am convinced that the animal, when fired at and hit, in most instances grows suddenly furious and darts on the enemy, but it seems that its fury is soon dispelled by the emotion of fear, suspicion, timidity, etc. Hitherto I have not found one single proof that it ever attacked a man, with the result of having hurt him, though it had more than once a favourable opportunity of doing so.

k. Toughness.

It is evident that the animal is a tough one; it is not easy to kill it. A single rifle-ball seems to be insufficient, and I think the only manner to kill it is by explosive balls or by harpoons loaden with nitro-glycerine, which will at once destroy a considerable part of its brain and skull, or body.

l. Playsomeness.

Like the seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, sea-serpents have often been seen amusing themselves for hours when in a harbour, gracefully gliding in circles, as has been stated above. Twice an individual just as in seals, showed its head and tail quite above the surface, the body slightly under (135, 162), stretching itself comfortably; at other times crooking up its back to sun itself (114, 137).

m. Sensibility of fine weather.

Evidently the animals feel comfortable _in fine weather_ and when there is _no wind_. Repeatedly we have found the statement that they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow. But as they are air-breathing animals, they are obliged to come every now and again to the surface, and it is, therefore, not wonderful that there are reports which, though in a slight degree, contradict the other statements. But upon the whole it is clear that in such circumstances the animal will only raise their nostrils for a moment above the surface of the water in order to breathe, and this is clearly the reason why in many instances they are never high enough and long enough above the surface to be observed by men.

When the animal appeared, the _weather_ is reported to have been calm (2, 3, 5, 25, 29, 61, 64, 79, 103, 128, 130, 137, 144, 157), quite calm (35), good (60), clear (34, 60, 63, 83, 114, 128, 132, 152, 154, 162), very clear (60), fine (44, 79, 128, 129, 144, 146, 152), brisk (114), sunshiny (137, 149, 157), warm and sunshiny (138), hot (150, 157), very hot (64), excessively sultry (61), cloudy (131), dark and cloudy (118).

The _surface of the sea_ is described as smooth (34, 41, 126, 146), quite smooth (80), very smooth (29), perfectly smooth (44, 137, 148), extremely smooth (63), smooth as a mirror (92, 95), as smooth as a glass (150), as smooth as the surface of a pond (114), calm (2, 60), quite calm (p. 129, 115), almost calm (60), perfectly calm (83, 119), exceptionally calm (148), moderate (144). But there may be also some sea on (120), or a sharp sea on (122), or the surface may be only little moved by waves (154), or occasionally disturbed by slight flaws of wind, “catpaws” (128), or there may be a long ocean swell (118), or a strong ebb tribe (51).

In the reports we read that there was no _wind_ (48), not a breath of wind (150), not a breath of air (114, 137), a very little wind (29), a light wind (34, 126, 132), a light air of wind (60), a fresh wind (118, 129), a variable wind (132), a moderate wind (144), a gale of wind (124), a light breeze (80, 130), a brisk breeze (51), a fresh breeze (104, 120), or there were strong breezes (122, 131).

7. ENEMIES.

Undoubtedly sea-serpents have some enemies of which we are and probably will remain ignorant. But spermwhales and men are certainly their most terrible foes, the former on account of their enormous beak with formidable teeth (144), the latter on account of their nets (14), boathooks (112), harpoons (59, 121), and rifles (9, 19, 41, 69, 90, 110, 115, 129, 130).

8. REPOSE, SLEEP, DEATH.

I believe that repose and sleep are the same for the animal, and that like a seal, it is always on the look out, shutting the eyes for only a few seconds. I say, I believe so, for I cannot deduce it from one of the reports. Once it is said that it lay motionless, without bunches, holding its head above water, and that the eyes were visible (80); another time it lay perfectly still, spouting like a whale; consequently the nostrils were just below the surface, or just at water level, so that the water was sprayed by every exhalation; it had a rugged appearance, consequently it was most probably a male with a mane (74). The other instances in which the animal was evidently resting are the following: it lay almost motionless in the sea; probably in a straight line, for undulations or bunches are not mentioned (17). It was in the evening between eight and nine o’clock; it lay extended on the surface of the water, it appeared straight, exhibiting no protuberances, “we were within two oars’ length of him, when we first discovered him and were rowing directly for him. We immediately rowed from him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail, but fearing we might strike him with the boat, concluded to pass around his head, which we did, by altering our course. He remained in the same position, till we lost sight of him. We approached so near to him, that I believe I could have reached him with my oar” (43). It lay perfectly still extended on the water, probably with its body in a straight line, for no protuberances are mentioned; neither its head nor its tail were visible; yet I believe that its nostrils were above water level, and so it remained for half an hour (46). Very seldom it seems to avail itself of an opportunity to support itself on a sand bank. I have found but one case in which it is, however, stated that the bank had about four feet water upon it. “It lay dormant on the rocks, partly on the rocks, partly in the water,” resembling from afar a large log of wood. “It lay stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had four or five feet water upon it, and lay partly over the channel” (45).

Till now it seems that no individual has ever been killed by the rifle balls of men. It is probable that the individual attacked by the sperm-whale (144) was finally killed by it, but it is also probable that it escaped. Yet I believe that sperm-whales may occasionally wound sea-serpents to death.

Generally, however, I believe that these animals die a natural death.

Dead sea-serpents are more likely to sink than to float, as the enormous neck and tail are most probably not provided with a comparatively thick layer of bacon, and are, therefore, too heavy for the comparatively small quantity of air in the animal’s lungs, and for the layer of bacon of the animal’s trunk. Yet it may occasionally occur that sea-serpents dying near some shore, may be stranded by the waves. PONTOPPIDAN reports that a dead sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amond in Nordfjord and that its carrion caused a dreadful smell (6), and that another stranded near the isle of Karmen (7), and that the stranding of dead sea-serpents took place in more localities (7). Such carrions must be a dainty to all kinds of mews, which sometimes even follow living individuals (69). The fear of the Norwegians of sea-serpents, even of such carrions, is great enough to keep them at a considerable distance. It may be true “that some time ago a part of a skeleton of a sea-serpent was present in the Museum of Natural History at Bergen” (p. 374). It is possible that the fate of this part of a skeleton was the same as that of so many meteoric stones (see my Preface), or as that of the two eggs of _Platypus_ or _Ornithorhynchus_, which reached the Manchester Museum in the year 1829, and remained there for some years, till they were condemned to the rubbish hill (_Nature_, 11 Dec. 1884, p. 133), and it was not before September 1884 that zoologists knew that _Ornithorhynchus_ and _Echidna_ are really oviparous, and that the Manchester Museum was once in the possession of two eggs!!

9. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

The Rev. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, after having mentioned that the animal swims with vertical undulations, wrote in August 1803: “this renders it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable distance, and that the water is his proper element” (29).

I wish to express here my firm conviction that these animals never come ashore, nor even on the ice, but always remain in the water. It is true that we have one observation that an individual rested upon a sandy beach, which, however, at that time had about four feet water upon it. But we have other observations that individuals which, following a boat, come into shallow water, immediately and apparently with some difficulty took a turn and went away (31, 115).

It seems that in Norway it has happened a few times that these animals, which are in the habit of frequenting the fjords, swam even up the mouths or the lower parts of rivers, consequently swam in fresh water, which probably gave rise to the fable of these animals being born on land, remain there till they are too large to hide themselves, and then swim down to the sea, where they can move much more easily. Their swimming in fresh water is once recorded, viz. in the Hudson-mouth, New Jersey, U. S. A. (158).

Moreover they are sea-animals, and according to their air-breathing condition, live on the surface, though they may sometimes seek great depths (119).

I have already shown that these animals like _sunshiny_ and _hot_ weather. They don’t like wind, and consequently we may conclude that they are averse of cold weather and of cold water. Therefore they are seen near Norway especially in July and August, which led PONTOPPIDAN to suggest that they “perpetually live in the depths of the sea, except in July and August” (p. 129). The Bishop seems not to have hit upon the idea that the sea-serpents could be migratory animals.

The sea-serpents, it is true, may remain for a long time in a place where they enjoy all that they can possibly wish to have, i. e. room enough, bright weather and plenty of food. They may stay a few days in the same fjord (3, 4, 96) or in the same place or harbour (31 and 32, 34 and 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, 50 and 51, &c., &c.). But then, it may be that the fish is flown for the enemy, or that the season proceeds, the sea-serpents look for an other provender place, or swim to a warmer part of the ocean, i. e. _they migrate_.

And so we come to their _horizontal geographical distribution_. We may at once assert that they are cosmopolites though we have not a single report of an appearance at a higher degree than 46° S. latitude, i. e. they have not been met with in the Antarctic Ocean.

Up to this time the animals have appeared 1. In the _Arctic Ocean_, and 2. In the _Atlantic Ocean_.

_a._ All along the coasts of Norway from North Cape up to the boundary of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 111 A, 112, 113, 115, 117, 125, 157). Of the whole coast of Norway that of the northern provinces (washed by the Arctic Ocean) seems to be frequented more than that of the southern (p. 130). It seems that they appear along these coasts almost every year.

_b._ Along the coasts of Sweden, from the boundary of Norway and Sweden, east of Christiania fjord, to the southmost point of Sweden, Falsterbo. I have but one report (2), and the locality of the appearance of the animal I have _supposed_ to have been in the Sund near Malmö.

_c._ In the Baltic or Swedish Sea. According to OLAUS MAGNUS it is also recorded from this sea, but I think that this happens no more.

_d._ North of Scotland: between Iceland and the Faroe Isles (124), between the Faroe Isles and the Hebrides (56, 153, 154), and near Dunrossness, one of the Shetland Isles (78).

_e._ On the eastern coast of Scotland (141, 142, 143).

_f._ Along the western coasts of Scotland, Wales and England (31, 32, 82, 137, 138, 140, 155, 156).

_g._ A hundred miles west of Brest, France, (152).

_h._ In the Gulf of Biscay (74).

_i._ West of Portugal (120).

_j._ In the Mediterranean (148).

_k._ North-east of the Azores (25).

_l._ South of the Azores and west of the Canaries, 29° N., 34° W., (128).

_m._ From the Canaries to Cape Verde (135).

_n._ In a line from Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope and a little further south (93, 114, 118, 129, 130, 131, 132, 152 A), not along the coast, except three appearances in Table Bay (114, 130, 152 A).

_o._ In Davis Straits, 64° N., (5).

_p._ Along the east coast of North America from Newfoundland to Florida (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 83, 84, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 106 B, 107 A, 121, 133, 134, 158, 159, 160, 162). So these coasts seem to be frequented almost every year. In Mr. TRAILL’s paper on the subject (_Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb._ 1854, Vol. 3,) we read: “I shall not here discuss the notices we have, from time to time, received of late years of a great sea-serpent seen by mariners in crossing the Atlantic to America”. I am convinced that these meetings took always place not far from the American coast. Our n^o. 161 is also one of these “notices received of a sea-serpent seen by a mariner in crossing the Atlantic _from_ America”.

_q._ In the Gulf of Mexico (106 A.)

_r._ East of Cape San Roque (144, 145).

_s._ East of La Plata river mouth (80).

_t._ In the South Atlantic (104).

3. In the _Indian Ocean_.

_a._ In the Gulf of Aden (149).

_b._ Probably between 40° lat. and 20° lat. S., and between 50° and 70° long. E. (123).

_c._ In lat. 2° N., long. 90° E. (147).

_d._ In the Malacca Straits (146).

_e._ Near the coast of Australia (136).

_f._ In Geographe Bay (150).

4. In the _Pacific Ocean_.

_a._ South of Australia (122).

_b._ Near Cape Satano, the southmost point of the Isle of Kiu Siu (Japan) (151).

_c._ Near Behring Isle (36). The Aleutians declare that they have often seen this animal (36).

_d._ In the Gulf of California (119).

That so many appearances took place in the Atlantic and so few in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific only results from the Atlantic being the great highway of nations.

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!

Well, let us stop here, and say that there are many wonders still hidden in the sea, and that there will be always a chance that of every species of animals individuals will be discovered, still larger than the largest specimen ever measured. If of all Pinnipeds the sea-elephants were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the case: they are surpassed by sea-serpents. If of all known living and fossil animals the _Atlantosaurus_ and the _Balaenoptera_ were hitherto the largest known, this is no more the case: they are surpassed by the _Megophias_.

Of all Pinnipeds the family of the _Auriculata_ (Eared Seals) has the longest necks. In this particular they are surpassed by sea-serpents.

None of the hitherto known living Pinnipeds has such an enormous tail as the sea-serpent, but the fossil _Basilosaurus_, an animal more or less allied to the earless seals, has an enormous tail. Of the singular appearance of a family of which some members have immensely long tails, and others are almost wholly without, we have more instances in the animal kingdom. Of the Monkeys the family of the _Simiidae_ have no tails, whilst the other families have generally long tails. Amongst the tailed monkeys we find in one _genus_ species with very long tails, as the _Macacus cynamolgos_ (the Macaque Monkey), and others with very short tails, as the _Macacus maurus_ (Moor Macaque). This difference in the length of the tail is present _in all orders_ of the _Quadrupedia_.

_Form._--The shape of _Megophias megophias_ is exactly that of _Zalophus californianus_, with a longer neck, and with a tail as long as trunk, neck, and head together. The shape of the head too, in my opinion, more resembles that of _Zalophus californianus_ than that of any other Pinniped. The shape of the neck, the trunk, and the flappers is exactly that of the same portions of the _Auriculata_, especially in _Zalophus californianus_, viz: all are slender: “The body is rather slender, and the head is narrow, long, and pointed, and with this slenderness of form is coordinated a corresponding litheness of movement”. (ALLEN, _History of North American Pinnipeds_, p. 276). It may be that the hindflappers have a form hitherto unknown in Pinnipeds, as we have of the hindflappers neither a description nor any tolerable illustration. The forehead being flat, very much resembles that of _Zalophus californianus._ The snout or muzzle too, is of all Pinnipeds most resembling that of _Zalophus californianus_.

All Pinnipeds have whiskers. In some species they are large, as in _Callorhinus ursinus_, the sea-bear, in other comparatively small, as in _Monachus tropicalis_ GRAY, and in the males of the genus _Macrorhinus_, and even very small in the _Trichecidae_.

The eyes of _Megophias megophias_ seem to be comparatively larger than those in other species of Pinnipeds, though _Otaria jubata_ and _Phoca foetida_ are known to have comparatively large eyes. I have nowhere found any remark about the colour of the eye, with regard to its _tapetum lucidum_, and till now I have had no opportunity to convince myself of the _tapetum_ of _Zalophus_ or _Eumetopias_ being red. But is it not remarkable that Mr. H. W. ELLIOT too asserts of _Eumetopias Stelleri_: “it has a really leonine appearance and bearing, greatly enhanced by the rich, golden-rufous of its coat, ferocity of expression, and _bull-dog-like muzzle and cast of eye_”? (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p. 258).

_Skin._--As in all Pinnipeds the skin is hairy, most probably the hairs are quite stiff and not woolly like fur.

_Colours, Individual Variations._--We have only to read different descriptions of seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears, to observe that every species varies much as to its colour, but that in some there is a wide range of individual variations. Only in a few species the under part is darker than the upper part, but generally the upper part is much darker than the under part, and with regard to their colours the animals are so to say longitudinally divided into two sections, dark above, lighter beneath. Their being variegated with spots or streaks occurs in many species, less in sea-lions and sea-bears, more in seals, but is the most striking in the Hooded Seal (_Cystophora cristata_, (ERXL) NILSS.). If we closely examine this species, the question arises: is not the lighter colour the ground-colour, and are not the dark spots and streaks and circles secondary appearances? And I think that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Remarkable is also the black colour of the region of the mouth and round the eye in some individuals of sea-serpents. This singularity occurs also in some specimens of other Pinnipeds. Of _Eumetopias Stelleri_ “the end of the nose.... is naked and.... dull blue black” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p. 234, 235); of _Zalophus californianus_ we read: “A third is.... blackish around the eyes and nostrils” (ALLEN, _Hist. N. Am. Pinn._ p. 277). In a foetal specimen: “nose and face, to and around the eyes” are “black” (Ibid., p. 278); and NILSSON’S black variety of the Ringed Seal (_Phoca foetida_ FABR.) has “nose and eye-rings uniform black” (Ibid. p. 602).