APPENDIX.
Reading edition
Since the book was written, I have corresponded with Prof. Dr. M. Forster Heddle, of St. Andrews, Mr. J. A. Harvie Brown, of Dunipace (Larbert), Misses Kate and Forbes J. Macrae, both of Heathmount (Inverness), Mr. Gilbert Bogle, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Prof. R. Collett, of Christiania, and Mr. R. P. Greg, of Coles (Buntingford). The five first-named corresponded with me as eye-witnesses, and kindly sent me their statements, written immediately after the appearances they had witnessed; Prof. Collett courteously presented me with a copy of his dissertation Lidt om Soe-Ormen eller Soe-Slangen; Mr. Greg who since many years has been collecting with great zeal accounts and reports concerning the matter, had the rare liberality to send me his whole collection to make use of. To all these ladies and gentlemen I feel here called upon to tender my warmest thanks.
Space does not allow me to give a verbal reprint of the various hoaxes, would-be sea-serpents, reports, and principal contents of papers, nor to treat of them separately. This I leave for an eventual second edition. But all the appearances which I have placed under the Reports and Papers are explicable by reference to the Megophias. With the initials “R. P. G.” I have marked those statements, accounts, etc., which I got from Mr. R. P. Greg.
Literature.
Besides the newspapers, dissertations, and books, mentioned in the subsequent parts, the following are additions to my first chapter:
*1707.—F. Leguat. Voyage et aventures en deux isles désertes des Indes Orientales.
*18.....—Het Nederlandsch Magazijn.
*1874, February.—The Cape Monthly Magazine.
*1875.—The Shipping Gazette, London.
*1875.—The Daily Telegraph.
1879, September 25?—The Royston Crow.—(R. P. G.).
*189...—Bassett, Sea-phantoms; or legends and superstitions of the sea and sailors in all lands and all times. Chicago.
Hoaxes.
The account of captain L. Bijl, of 1858, July 9, (see p. 96) must be a hoax, for 1. 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ E. long. is a point in the middle of North-Africa, and 2. even if E. long, were a misprint instead of W. long., it is impossible that a barque should travel over such a distance as from 27° 27′ N. lat. and 14° 51′ W. long, to 37° 55′ S. lat. and 42° 9′ E. long. in nine days!
A tale in the Standard of 1879, March 27, of a dead sea-serpent found floating near Monegan (Manhegin?) Island near Portland, Me.—(R. P. G.).
Collision of the Norwegian barque Columbia, from London to Quebec, with a huge floating creature on the 4th. September, 1879; the ship sunk.—Manchester Guardian of 1879, Sept. 25.—(R. P. G.).
A sea-serpent of 55 feet in length, light pink coloured. “Several times it opened its mouth, disclosing fangs about 4in. in length”.—It was on 5th. August 1885, in lat. 29° 35′ N. and long 34° 50′ W.—(R. P. G.).
A sea-serpent caught off Newfoundland, October 11, 1886, and stuffed.—Manchester Evening Mail, 1887, September; Evening Mercury of St. Johns, N. F., 1887, September 12; The Marine Industrial News.—The monster was from head to tail “a fraud”, or “a Yankee humbug”.—Letter from Mr. G. Fitz Gerald, of St. Johns, and from Prof. G. V. Morse, of Portland, Me., to Mr. R. P. Greg.—(R. P. G.).
The London Globe of Aug. 15, 1887, mentions a fight between a sea-serpent and a whale, witnessed near Fort Papham in moonlight, some three weeks back, etc.—(R. P. G.).
A stranded sea-serpent.—Boston Courier, 1887, November.—Cape May, N. Jers.—Hoax? or would-be sea-serpent? (Regalecus?)—(R. P. G.)
The sea-serpent is distinctly seen in Georgetown Harbour, on the 20th. of August, 1888, sleeping on the surface, &c.—Chambers’ Journal, 1888, Nov. 24.—(R. P. G.)
“Exciting chases after boats’ crews.”—A splendid hoax.—St. Johns’ (N. F.) Evening Telegram of Aug. 25, 1888.—(R. P. G.)
The Bishop of Adelaide or a certain Mr. Bishop of that town has found a sea-serpent lying dead on the shore.—The Times of Nov. 11, 1891.—(R. P. G.)—Mr. G. Bogle wrote to the Bishop, who promptly answered it was entirely untrue.—(G. B.)
“Narrow escape of a boats’ crew.”—The North British Daily Mail of September 1892.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. Heddle.)
Would-be Sea-Serpents.
1880 August.—The sea-serpent of Captain Hanna, of Pemaquid, Me.—Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, Vol. III, no. 26, p. 407.—Without any doubt a fish, but very problematic.—Naturen, 1884, No. 2.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. Collett.)
1880 August 11.—Between Yokohama and San Francisco, lat. 48.37. long. 180.—Captain Thos. U. Brocklehurst, of Henbury Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire, saw on board the Oceanic a snake-like fish, 40 feet long, about 18 inches the whole length thick.—Letter from Mr. Thos. U. Brocklehurst to Mr. R. P. Greg.—Without any doubt an eel-shaped fish.—(R. P. G.)
1883, July or August.—A newspaper of this month mentions the capture of a genuine sea-serpent in the Java Sea.—Hydrophis.—(R. P. G.)
1883, October 8.—In the Red Sea, lat. 23° N., long. 37° E., on board the ss. Madura.—Witness Mr. A. Eisses, of Groningen.—Nieuwe Groninger Courant of August 16, 1892.—The neck had the thickness of the upper arm of a man.—Appearance perfectly the same as that witnessed by Mr. G. Verschuur (see p. 99).
1886 or 1887.—The sea-snake-like bird, reported by Count Joachim Pfeil, the German African explorer—a little snake-like neck rising out of the water, which when fired at, rose into the air, proving to be a bird—is of course a kind of Plotus, and most probably Plotus levaillantii Temm.—A Hertford newspaper of 1887.—(R. P. G.)
1888?—In Mrs. Caddy’s book To Siam and Malasia in the Duke of Sutherland’s Yacht is a description of a sea-serpent she witnessed near Bangkok “which rose slowly out of the water in two large luminous curves, like two arches of a low bridge”.—?—(R. P. G.)
1889, August.—Standard of 1889, August 15.—A monstrous fish was seen floundering in shallow water on the Bancals Rocks, not far from the Island of St. Honorat, near Cannes, and had a beak like a parrot.—Most probably therefore it was a calamary.—(R. P. G.)
Reports and Papers.
Without date.—A sea-monster at Maringonish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, judged to be a hundred feet in length, seen by two intelligent observers within 200 yards of the shore.—Description too short.—Doubtful.—(R. P. G.)
1570, July.—A monstrous fish seen in Loch Fyne (Fine), having great eyes, and at times standing above the water as high as the mast of a ship.—Diurnal and Remarkable occurrents in Scotland, 1513-1575, Maitland Club, Scotland, 1833.—(R. P. G.)
1639.—A vague report of a certain Josselin, but most probably based on truth.—Cape Ann.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1779.—“In an Eastern Harbour” (which?)—Eye-witness E. Preble, midshipman in the Protector, and several other officers and crew.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1817, August 14. (No. 41, see p. 169).—Another confirmation of this appearance will be found in the Gloucester Telegraph of that year. Here it is also mentioned that in the Rogers family there is preserved a picture by “Jack” Beach, or better a copy of this picture by Joseph H. Davis, representing the sea-serpent in the harbour of Gloucester on this day.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)—This is of course the drawing, spoken of on p. 173 of the present volume. Here I may note that Pontoppidan also speaks of a picture in the collection of Jacob Severin, representing the animal as it appeared to Egede.
1818, August 13 and 14.—Partly about Nahant, and partly near Gloucester.—Multitudes of spectators.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1819, August 19.—This seems to be the exact date of the appearance witnessed by Mr. Samuel Cabot. Mr. Prince and others saw it “a few days previously”.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1820, August 10.—Off Swampscott.—Andrew Reinolds, Jonathan B. Lewis, Benjamin King, Mr. Joseph Ingalls.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1823, July 12.—The animal was seen moving into the harbor (Lynn Harbour?) from Nahant.—Mr. Francis Johnson (in April 7, 1884, still alive).—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1826.—“In 1826 it again appeared off Nahant, as is recorded very briefly in the Lynn Mirror”.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—See also no. 84, p. 236; it might have been the same individual.—(R. P. G.)
1838? (No. 104, see p. 253).—Captain Beechy made his voyage to the Pacific in the Blossom in the years 1825, 26, 27 and 28. It is therefore probable that he saw the sea-serpent in one of these years, but also possible that he was commander of the Blossom before 1825 or later than 1828.
1841, July 14.—A monster with a straight black head, 10 feet out of the water, spouting “a column of water in the air”, but “it was not a whale”.—Gulf of Mexico.—Stephen’s Central America, 1842, Vol. II, p. 464.—Description too short.—Doubtful.—(R. P. G.).
1849.—Seen (where?) by Mr. Marston, of Swampscott.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.).
1854, spring.—A gigantic serpent, first called by the look-out man as “the biggest log ever seen”, afterwards rearing its snake like head as high as the funnel of the steamer out of the water, and plunging down.—Eye witnesses: Captain Peat, of the Wm. Scalrook, and Captain Rollins, of the Isabel.—Before the mouth of Savannah River, Georg. and S. Car.—Miss Murray, United States, Canada and Cuba, 1855, Putnam & Co., New York, p. 235.—(R. P. G.).
1872.—Prof. Schlegel in his De Dierentuin van het Koninklijk Zoölogisch Genootschap Natura Artis Magistra te Amsterdam, Vol. III, p. 45, points out that as early as 1837 he proved (nota bene) the impossibility of the existence of such a more than gigantic animal.
1872, August 20 and 21. (No. 137 and 138, see p. 322).—The following is the account which the Rev. J. Macrae sent to the Inverness Courier, August 1872, prefaced by the Editors of this paper:
“A gentleman on whose intelligent observation and accuracy we have perfect reliance, sends the following account of a strange animal now to be seen about the West-Coast of Invernessshire and which, if not the veritable or traditional sea-serpent, must be the object so often represented under that appellation”.
“On Tuesday last, 20th. August, I went on a trip to Loch Hourn in my small sailing boat. I was accompanied by my friend, the Rev. Mr. T. of Kent, my two daughters, my grandson, and a servant lad. While we were proceeding along the sound of Sleat it fell calm, and we were rowing the boat, when we observed behind us a row of dark masses, which we took at the first glance for a shoal of porpoises; but a second look showed that these masses formed one and the same creature, for it moved slowly across our wake, about two hundred yards off, and disappeared. Soon afterwards what seemed to be its head reappeared, followed by the bumps, or undulations of its body, which rose in succession till we counted 8 of them. It approached now within about 100 yards, or less, and with the help of binoculars we could see it pretty distinctly. We did not see its eyes, nor observe any scales: but two of the party believed that they saw what they took to be a small fin moving above the water. It then slowly sunk, and moved away just under the surface of the water, for we could trace its course till it rose again, by the large waves it raised above it, to the distance of a mile and upwards”.
“We had no means of measuring its size with any accuracy, but taking the distance from the centre of one bump or undulation of its body to that of another at 6ft. (it could not be less) the length of the portion visible above the water, would be about 50 feet, and there may have been 20 or 30ft. more of its length which we did not see”.
“Its head seemed blunt, and looked about 18in. in diameter, and the bumps were rather larger than the head. When in rapid motion the bumps disappeared, and only the head and neck could be seen, partly above the surface of the water. It continued to rush about in the same manner as long as we remained within sight of the place, but did not again come so near us that day”.
“On the afternoon of the next day, August 21, as we were returning home we encountered our strange acquaintance again within the entrance of Loch Hourn, and saw him careering swiftly along the surface of the water, which was now slightly rippled with a light air of wind. It passed once abeam of us, at a distance of about 150 yards, with its head half out of the water, and we distinctly heard the whizzing noise it made as it rushed through the water. There were no organs of locomotion to be seen, and its progress was equable and smooth, like that of a log towed rapidly. Neither its appearance nor mode of progression had any resemblance to those of any known cetacean, shark, or fish of any kind. In case any of your readers should imagine that I, as well as the subject of my report am a mere myth, you will please to give my name to this communication, and I believe that among a pretty wide circle of persons who know me there is none who consider me capable of stating as true what I do not believe to be so; or so little acquainted with the sea, as not to know a whale, a porpoise, a shark, or a herring barrel, when I see them. I am Sir, your obedient servant”
“Glenelg Mame”. “J. Macrae”.
Miss Kate Macrae’s narrative, written on the spot, runs as follows:
“In the yacht “Leda”, 20th. and 21th. August 1872.—We were becalmed in the sound of Sleat about 3 miles from Glenelg, the day was intensely hot, the lads were rowing slowly. I was facing the stern, when I saw about a half mile behind, a dark object suddenly emerge, about the size of a small cask. I exclaimed, and called the attention of the others to it; immediately a second, third, fourth, fifth, thing appeared like this”. (Here Miss Macrae has drawn six bunches exactly resembling those drawn by her father, see fig. 39 p. 323). “We thought at first it was the back of a cormorant, but were undeceived by seeing the animal swim swiftly just under the surface of the water towards a rowing boat of country people which was nearer it than we were, the people evidently astonished ceased rowing, and the creature disappeared quietly without the least agitation of the water. Our boys then resumed their oars, which they had dropped to gaze, and next we saw the animal coming swiftly towards us, from the direction of the boat; it raised the water before it, and left a wake on the calm sea behind it, like what a small steam launch would. As our rowers paused again, it turned to the outer side of our yacht, and disappeared, but I noticed that something like a rounded paddle, the breadth of two hands worked to and fro raising the water in a clear dome as it went down; the colour of it a dark brown, and shape like this”. (Here Miss Macrae has drawn a thick curved line in the form of a horse-shoe, the opening turned downwards). “In a few minutes afterwards, the row of lumps appeared again about a mile behind, and this time a triangular fin stuck up from about the 4th. lump, and apparently 10ft. the size of our jib, and the animal moved slowly along on the surface”.
“Next evening as we were slipping gently along near the mouth of Loch Hourn on the N. side, my nephew called out, that he saw the sea-serpent again. Swimming across from Skye, by the time I caught sight of it, it was far away, but showed more lumps, I counted 12, there were two sloops trying to get up into the Loch, and the crews were in their boats towing them, the animal looked 4 times as long as one of these vessels, it was swimming leisurely, and plainly pursued those vessels; then making a sweep across the mouth of the Loch came towards us, and passed not far outside the boat. I distinctly heard its rush through the water, just under the surface; the first waves it made, were unbroken, but some way from the head the water was broken, and foaming”.
“Later, at 9 P. M. just as we neared Glenelg sailing and rowing, and with a good deal of ripple on the sea, we saw it coming straight astern, then it turned away northward and passed out of sight through Kyle Rhea”.
“Kate Macrae”.
Miss Forbes J. Macrae wrote to me under date of July 22, 1892:
“I fancy I have had a closer view of the sea-serpent than most people. About an hour before we were becalmed and saw it rise in its length astern of us, we had been slipping down in our boat along the coast, by the help of a strong tide and a very light wind. Looking at what I could see of the water under the edge of the mainsail of our small cutter yacht, I noticed at about an oar’s length from the boat a dark brown shining creature lying on the water, or rather a part of a creature for there was neither head nor tail nor fin visible, it seemed about six feet in length and the highest part of it was about a foot out of the water. None of the others were looking that way, so I was the only one who saw it. I asked my father if porpoises were in the habit of basking on the top of the water. He said he was not aware of their being in the habit of doing so, and we thought no more of it; till the next appearance of the animal made us think that it must have been one of its ridges I had seen as we sailed just close to it”.
The following is the statement of Mr. Gilbert Bogle in the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle of 1877, December 31:
“As considerable attention has lately been drawn in your columns to the sea-serpent, both mythological and otherwise, perhaps the following description of the strange creature seen by me and others in 1872 will be of some interest. An account of this creature, attested by credible witnesses, appeared in the May number of the Zoologist in 1873:—
“On the 20th. of August, 1872, the Rev. J. Macrae of Glenelg, Rev. David Twopenny, Miss Forbes, and Miss Kate Macrae, a servant lad, and I left Glenelg Bay in Mr. Macrae’s yacht Leda for a sail up Loch Hourn. The day was hot and calm, and, the yacht being a small one (seven tons), we had recourse to rowing in order to reach Sandaig, six miles distant, where we intended to dine. While still about a mile distant from Sandaig, one of the ladies called out that there was a shoal of porpoises playing astern, and on looking in that direction there appeared to me a number of dark objects, which at first sight seemed not unlike porpoises, making a considerable commotion on the surface of the sea, the only peculiarity being that they all followed each other in a line. As they rapidly approached, I then perceived that the black lumps which I at first thought porpoises could not be so, but were evidently parts of one and the same creature. This impression seemed to come over the minds of all at the same time, and every appearance of the creature afterwards clearly verified it”.
“I was looking at it through a binocular (we had three on board), and when it came to within one hundred yards of the stern it dived below, the surface of the sea remained agitated at the spot where it had disappeared for some time afterwards. Just before it went down, as it came head on towards our stern, it raised a succession of waves. The first was unbroken, and through it I distinctly saw the colour of the creature, and what appeared to be a small fin on the back or neck, moving rapidly sideways, and two or three yards behind the head. Its colour was a dark slaty brown, somewhat similar to that of a porpoise.”
“While we were all speculating about this strange creature, it suddenly appeared about a quarter of a mile off between us and Skye, going at a rapid rate along the calm surface of the sea, and leaving a large wake behind. It was only now that I had any idea of the creature’s length. It kept cruising about on the surface after this for more than an hour, sometimes only four or five bumps or dark raised portions of its body appearing above the surface, about the size of herring barrels, at other times up to eight. I noticed that the less the speed the more bumps appeared, always commencing from the first in rotation, and that when going very fast only one or two appeared.”
“After landing on Sandaig, where we had dinner, we started for Loch Hourn, the weather still being very calm and sultry, with hardly a cat’s-paw on the water. We had barely entered the mouth of the loch when this creature again made its appearance, proceeding in the same manner as before along the surface of the sea, sometimes coming quite close. There was a large schooner yacht not far off, in tow of a noisy steam launch, which about this time probably frightened the animal, as it was not seen again that night.”
“As evening fell, a breeze sprang up, and we reached Loch Hourn Head early next morning. After paying a visit to the Barrasdale oyster beds, we set sail for home in the afternoon, with a nice breeze on the quarter, but on reaching the mouth of the loch the wind died away again and we had to take to the sweeps. Just about the place where the animal was last seen, my attention was called by someone to a peculiar swirling of the water not far off, and I immediately noticed what was evidently the same creature swimming up to the yacht at a very rapid rate. When a short distance off it dived beneath the surface, quickly re-appearing off the starboard beam nearer than at any previous time, and going at such a great speed that I could distinctly hear the rushing sound of the breaking water. At this time there were no bumps to be seen, and I can only liken the appearance of our visitor to a log almost entirely submerged and dragged very rapidly through the sea, the water falling over each side of the head in a kind of cascade, while a series of broken waves formed immediately behind, gradually subsiding in the wake.”
“It afterwards kept swimming about for a considerable time, and I had an opportunity of judging of its length so far as visible, compared with the hulls of two trading schooners of about 100 tons each some little distance from us. When apparently the same distance away as the traders, and going slowly, it appeared fully as long from the head to the eighth bump as the length of one of the schooners on waterline, which would be at least sixty feet; but how much of the animal remained under water I had no means of estimating. The head seemed to be square or blunt, but I did not see under it, and did not notice its eye or mouth. The bumps, or dark raised portions, appeared to me to be about eighteen inches above the water, and three or four feet long, with a distance of four or six feet between each bump. I could not say whether the bumps were the convolutions of a snake-like body or the raised portions of a large body underneath the water. I am inclined to think the latter, as the bumps always kept the same distance apart, and appeared to be protuberances on the back of, possibly, a lizard shaped reptile. That it caused a large displacement was evident from the waves and commotion raised when swimming at or near the surface, as I could distinctly trace its progress with the naked eye at a distance of from two to three miles.”
“We lost sight of the creature after leaving the mouth of Loch Hourn, but just as night fell I noticed it going past at a rapid rate in the direction of Kyle Rhea, a narrow strait which separates Skye from the mainland. I afterwards heard that it was seen that same evening by fishermen and others passing through these narrows, and it struck them all at the time as being quite different from anything they had been accustomed to.”
“The above is a bare statement of fact, and was written down by me immediately after getting ashore, while my recollection of the creature’s appearance was perfectly fresh and vivid. Having cruised for many summers amongst the West Highland lochs, I am perfectly familiar with the appearance and habits of whales, seals, porpoises, &c., which can often be seen in great numbers. To these, the creature I have described bore no resemblance whatever.”
“Gilbert Bogle, Newcastle.”
From this gentleman I received three splendid pen-drawings, representing the animal witnessed by him on that occasion, but alas too late to be reproduced for this edition.
1872, August 22 and 23. (No. 139 and 140, see p. 322).—On one of these days it seems also to have been seen by Lord Macdonald’s steam yacht in Loch Hourn.—Eye-witnesses: Lord Macdonald, of Armadale, Skye, Rev. Mr. Mc. Neill, minister of Skye, Mrs. G. C. Lysons, of Painswick, Strand, and others.—(R. P. G.)
1873, March.—Mr. Basil Clochrane, Capt. R. N., of Windlesham House, Bagshot, Surrey, on board the Orontes, from the West Indies to England saw a sea-serpent.—Letter from eye-witness to Capt. Geo. Drevar (see p. 329).—(R. P. G.)
1875, July 8 and 13. (No. 144 and 145, see p. 329).—The letter from Capt. Geo. Drevar to the Editor of The Calcutta Gentleman, 1876, February (?), contains no news about the two appearances.—(R. P. G.)
1875, July 17.—Off Plymouth, Cape Cod Bay.—Captain Garton of the ss. Norman, and several people on board the ss. Roman.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G).
1875, July 30.—On board the yacht Princess, between Nahant and Egg-Rock.—Mr. Francis W. Lawrence, Mrs. Lawrence, Rev. Arthur Lawrence, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Stockbridge, Mass., Miss Mary Fosdick, Albion W. Reed, Robert O. Reed, Mr. J. Kelsoe and Mr. J. P. Thomas, both of Swampscott.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1876, September 11. (No. 146, see p. 341).—An account in the Times of 1876, December 28, furnishes no news.—A rough drawing made by Mr. Anderson, and now in the possession of Robert Holt, of Liverpool, owner of the steamer, hardly agrees with the depositions, and cannot give the idea of a salamander, a newt, or a frog.—(R. P. G.)
1876.—Some Pitcairn islanders saw a sea-serpent near Norfolk Island.—Letter from one of the Pitcairn islanders to Mr. Palmer of Liverpool.—Liverpool Mercury, 24 February, 1877.—“Mr. John Adams and his boat’s crew saw it near Norfolk-Islands”.—Letter from Mr. Marcus Lowther, Capt. R. N. of Penge, London, S. E., to Capt. Geo. Drevar (see p. 329).—(R. P. G.)
1877, March.—Mr. R. A. Proctor, in his “Strange Sea-Monsters” (Gentleman’s Magazine) says amongst other assertions: “naturalists have been far less disposed to be incredulous than the general public”. If it were only true! Hitherto at least zoologists have not admitted even the possibility of the existence of a still unknown species, called “sea-serpent”.—(R. P. G.)
1877, July 15.—About two miles off the mouth of Gloucester Harbour, Mass.—Mr. George S. Wasson and Mr. B. L. Fernald.—Atlantic Monthly of June, 1884.—(R. P. G.)
1878, summer.—Fjord near Aalesund.—Naturen, 1884, no. 2.—(Forwarded to me by Prof. R. Collett).
1882, October 11.—Near Bude, Cornwall.—Eye-witnesses: Rev. E. Highton, Vicar of Bude, with several friends.—The Times of October 12, 1882.—(R. P. G.)
1883, August 1.—The Evening News of this date communicates and gives partly a review of Mr. Lee’s Sea Monsters Unmasked.—(R. P. G.).
1884, February.—Prof. R. Collett, of Christiania, wrote a paper in the Norwegian language headed Something on the sea-serpent (Naturen, 1884, no 2).—The writer does not seem to be a believer in the existence of a sea-serpent. The arguments against its existence are 1. A sea-serpent of considerable dimensions would in the course of centuries not have failed to have been observed and caught. 2. In the depth of the Ocean there are undoubtedly creatures, which as yet are unknown, but all specimens caught, be they as abnormal as possible, are referred to existing well-known forms. 3. No known vertebrated animal, can, on account of its structure, move in vertical undulations.—Against these arguments I may say: 1. Before, 1861, and 1873 the krakens were fables, and yet they existed! Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz &c., see p. 431, line 6 from below to p. 432, line 5 from above. 2. Do “naturalists” not constantly refer the sea-serpents to existing well-known forms? 3. Among Reptiles the Plesiosaurians had a long neck and this neck could certainly be bent vertically; among Birds the swans are able to bend the long neck vertically, and all Mammals can move in vertical undulations, especially the Mustelina, Lutrina, and Pinnipedia; and the horizontal position of the tail of the Sirenia and Plagiuri is a strong proof that their ancestors moved in vertical undulations.—Prof. Collett’s private opinion is that the sea-serpents observed in the fjords of Norway, were mostly specimens of the basking shark. I, however, firmly believe that the Norwegian fishermen know the basking shark so well, that such an animal would never have been taken by them for a sea-serpent! They know these sharks and their habits far better, I should think, than Prof. Mitchill, Prof. Mantell, Prof. Melville, Mr. Buckland and Prof. Lütken all together. Moreover in none of their descriptions there is question of a backfin, or of backfins, which are the first visible parts of a basking shark!
1884, June.—The Trail of the Sea-Serpent, by Mr. J. G. Wood, in the Atlantic Monthly.—A very interesting paper, with historical notes and many new appearances, however, not without some zoological inaccuracies. He believes the sea-serpent to be an elongated whale, a Basilosaurus or an animal allied to it, and that the short neck of the Basilosaurus may be an error of the restorer (nota bene!).—(R. P. G.).
1884, June 2.—The Manchester Guardian gives a review of Mr. J. G. Wood’s paper, and as Mr. Wood comes to the conclusion that the animal must be an elongated whale, the Manchester Guardian ends (how insipid!): “Very like a whale”.—(R. P. G.).
1885, October 4.—Near Umhlali (Umlazi?) in Morewood’s Bay, South Africa.—(R. P. G.).
1886(?), summer.—Prof. Heddle informs me that a few summers ago, (and from one sentence of his letter I deduce that it was before 1887) a sea-serpent was seen in Loch Duich. “The description was very much what we are familiar with”.
1886, August. (No 158, see p. 376).—The description of the eyes as having a greenish hue struck me so, that I at first did not attach belief to the assertion (see p. 377 and 497), but now I know that this is not an impossibility, as I since observed that the tapetum lucidum of the eye of a dog may reflect the daylight as well in a reddish as in a greenish hue.
1887, July 30.—Prof. Heddle wrote to me on May 6th., 1892:
“I would just say that having taken bearings on the land, in order to estimate—(of course roughly)—the length, and the speed, I set down the length at from 60 to 65 feet. There was a very low flat head like a large skate, say 4¹⁄₂ feet—a gap not so great,—ten “hummocks” increasing in bulk and altitude towards the central one, but not much—gaps not so great as the size of the hummocks, next a space, about equal to two hummocks, then three hummocks, the central one largest, the last small”.
“The thing I saw appear three times—first time end on was a worthless observation, except that on this occasion the whole was rushing through the water. On the other two occasions there was hardly any forward motion at all. The whole disappeared at the same moment, and reappeared also at the same moment, about two seconds thereafter more than its own length in advance; so that there must have been either an exceedingly rapid rush under water—or a second animal. The disappearance and reappearance were both without the least splash; but at the moment of disappearance the second time the foremost two of the last three hummocks coalesced into one”.
“During one of the appearances I got the focus of the binoculars so sharp that I distinctly saw water falling over towards me, between some of the hummocks and myself. There was no consecutive filling up of the interspaces whatever, or appearance of vacuities where the hummocks had but now been”.
“There was certainly no vertical serpentine motion—and I could see no lateral one”.
“My impression was that, setting aside the quiescent low head, I did not see a solid substance at all,—except when the tail hummocks momentarily appeared—and that what I did see was water being thrown over laterally by the undulous lashings of a long back fin of a dark colour, which gave opacity”.
“I cannot set the “hummocks” down to surge waves of a rushing short fish; because I cannot so explain such surges being always the same both in number and in place: nor can I so explain the appearance of an apparently solid head—and an apparently continuous tail”.
“The above is all from memory”.
The following is the
“Relation regarding a Phenomenon seen by the crew and Owner and guests of the yacht Shiantelle on the W. coast of Scotland on 30th. July 1887 as told by J. A. Harvie Brown, and seen by him, and written in his Journals of that date”.
“At 10″ to 15″ to 10 am. I was called quickly on deck by Cowell, and I went up from breakfast. “What is that”? said Cowell. After some time I saw between me and the shore to the E., which shore was about one mile distant, undulations upon almost calm water (The ship was moving at the rate of about half a knot an hour) being similar in appearance, and having the motions of the (described and supposed) Sea-Serpent. I counted with the binoculars twelve or perhaps thirteen humps at almost perfectly regular distances the one from the others. The first of these humps appeared to be moving rapidly through the water across the line of vision, and to be breaking and spraying water, and the other eleven or twelve (I had only time to count them once) maintained all their relative positions with one another and collectively with the first, yet did not appear in themselves to me to move, though slight ripples of water were visible, nearly throughout the whole length. The whole disappeared and reappeared at least four times to me, apparently simultaneously or almost so throughout its length. When last it was seen, it was moving on a course almost parallel with the shore, which shore runs N. E. or thereby. The distance from the ship at which time I first saw it, and from that time to its final disappearance was estimated by me at about half a mile by eye (but this may have been an over-estimate of distance)”.
“John Campbell, seaman, and mate on board the yacht, standing at the helm, deposes in a seperate document—drawn up and written by R. L. Cowell, Steward, from his oral statement—which seperate statement, was at once closed, without being read by either Dr. Heddle or myself, and still remains so”.
“R. L. Cowell, Steward, who was on deck at the same time as John Campbell (having laid and served our breakfast) deposes in similar manner in a seperate statement, also closed and not read by Dr. Heddle and myself”.
“But John Campbell on being examined by us deposes on cross-examination that:—While we were at breakfast in the Saloon, he saw approaching from the direction of Corrie Chreachan a series of large undulations which passed “within 40 yards” then “within 30 yards” and again “within the length of the ship” (which is 56 feet) from the stern of the vessel, and travelling at a great pace; that he saw nothing above the surface of the water except broken water in front of the first or foremost undulation. That except this, he saw nothing but the perpendicular swellings (vertical swellings), as it were “skins of water” pushed up from beneath, and a long track or wake of slightly disturbed water, left for a long distance behind. It was seen approaching from the direction of the Sound between Scarba and Jura, or Corrie Chreacan, and passed the stern of the vessel. It was therefore heading at the time nearly E. The Ship’s head was lying about E. half N.”
“R. L. Cowell saw it almost or quite simultaneously with John Campbell on its first appearance.”
“N. B. The time between his calling me on deck and the time I first observed the appearance, I have described, I put down at about half a minute (as, before seeing it, after getting on deck, I asked one or two questions as to bearings, before I could get sight of it with my glasses). After my first look I called up Dr. Heddle. It was after calling up Dr. Heddle, that I made out the counting of the humps, and the other appearances described. I may have been 5 to 10 seconds between my being called up, and my reaching the deck, aft of the companion, and I then got the glasses and unscrewed them to focus, while I was asking the questions as to bearings. Roughly speaking, I calculate, that from the first appearance to Campbell and Cowell, till its final disappearance, it must have been, inclusive of disappearances and reappearances, about 15 minutes in sight or observation. When they saw it, it must have been travelling very rapidly; and not nearly so rapidly when we observed it at the greater distance. My estimate of distance when I saw it, may be an over-estimate put at half a mile.”
“Before J. Campbell saw it he heard a heavy splash, and saw the marks of the same, near the vessel—about half an hour before he saw what he describes—but no importance is attached to this, as a heavy fish some time after the disappearance, was seen shortly after to splash near the vessel; and Pellocks were also seen in the vicinity. The Pellocks however did not splash but rolled in their usual way. Not for one moment can their motion be compared by any of us, with the other appearances observed.” (Here Mr. Brown has drawn a bunch, then a gap, larger than the bunch, and then eleven smaller bunches, separated one from the other by a gap as large as the half of one of these smaller bunches, the whole drawing representing exactly the animal swimming with vertical undulations and seen at a considerable distance.)
“Without actually fixing the position of the ship we consulted the chart and as nearly as we could arrived at it by bearings. It will be seen that the deepest water runs from the E. extremity of Corrie Chreacan very much along the line which the object or objects seen, was seen to follow; and that where its appearance was last noted the soundings show a very rapid shoaling from 30 fathoms to 17 about the position of our ship, being in from 15 to 17 fathoms.—”
“I think it right to add to the above account as written down on the spot, that after the statements which were kept sealed for a long time after, were consulted and every consideration given to the whole tale and phenomenon personally I came to the conclusion, and feel very certain still, that it was simply a Tide-rip or Tidal wave coming from the direction of Corrievreachan between Scarba and Jura running Easterly and then N. Easterly along the smooth water where soundings showed the meeting of the shallow of the deep. I have questioned Light-house-keepers since who have the most continuous chances of observation, within often, calm seas, and they have assured me such a phenomenon is not at all rare or unusual “under certain conditions of tides in certain localities”. Sailors have less chance to witness these phenomena perhaps than light-house-keepers, as they are seldom and long stationary at all states of tides.”
Notwithstanding this conclusion of Mr. Brown, I feel persuaded that he, Prof. Heddle and others really saw the same appearance as did the Rev. J. Macrae and others (see no 137 and 138). The long back fin of a dark colour, which gave opacity and threw water over laterally by its lashings, of course was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.
1889, August 15.—A good little paper on the subject, and partly a plea for the existence of the creature is in the Standard of that date.—(R. P. G.)
1891, July 24.—East coast of North Island, New-Zealand.—The Standard, 1891, September 22.—(R. P. G.):—
“Mr. Alfred Ford Mathews, a surveyor, living at Gisborne, on the east coast of the North Island, wrote to the papers to the effect that while on board the Manopouri, another of the Union Company’s steamers, on the voyage from Auckland to Gisborne, on Friday, July 24th., he and several others distinctly saw a sea-serpent resembling the one seen from the Rotomahana off Portland Island. This time it appeared north of the East Cape, which is some distance to the north of where it was seen by the Rotomahana a week later. The time, Mr. Mathews states, was between eight and nine in the morning. The “monster” was also seen by the ship’s officer in charge. It would from time to time lift its head and part of its body to a great height perpendicularly, and when in that position would turn its body round in a most peculiar manner, displaying a black back, white belly, and two armlet appendages of great length, which appeared to dangle about like a broken limb on a human being. It would then suddenly drop back into the water, scattering it in all directions. It had a flat head, and was about half a mile distant from the ship. The reason, Mr. Mathews added, that he had not mentioned the matter before was that people were likely to treat it with derision.”
1891, August 1.—Off the East-coast of North Island, New Zealand, on board the Rotomahana, a steamer of the Union Steam-Shipping Company.—Standard of 22th. September, 1891; Newcastle Evening Chronicle of September 23, 1891.—(R. P. G. and Gilbert Bogle.)
“The Chief Officer, Mr. Alexander Lindsay Kerr, on being interviewed by a newspaper reporter said:—
“On Saturday morning last, August 1st., about 6.30 o’clock, we were off Portland Light, between Gisborne and Napier. I was on deck looking over the weather side, to see if I could see the land, when I saw the object, whatever it was, rise out of the water to the height of about 30ft. Its shape was for all the world like a huge conger eel, with the exception that it had two large fins that appeared to be about 10 feet long. The creature was not more than 100 yards away at the outside, and I should estimate its girth at between ten and twelve feet. I could not see its back as it was coming straight towards the steamer, but its belly and fins were pure white. The creature’s head did not appear to be particularly definite, the neck running right up to the head the same as that of a large eel. It was broad daylight at the time, and the sun was shining clearly. When it went beneath the water it did not fall forward like a fish that is jumping, but drew itself back as if with a contortion. I only saw it the once which was the last time it rose. I looked out for it, thinking it might pass under the ship and reappear on the other side, but I did not see it again. Had the weather not been so rough the steamer might have gone alongside and ascertained its dimensions. One of the Quartermasters Peter Nelson, was watching the thing, and it so startled him that he took upon himself to rush on to the bridge and ask me if I had seen it, a thing a sea-man never does unless something very exceptional occurs. A landsman might do so, but a sea-man never, unless under exceptional circumstances, such as these. I have been to sea for twenty seven years, and have been engaged in nearly every known trade from whaling in Greenland to the slave trade, and have been in almost every part of the world, but I never saw any object at sea like the one that rivetted my attention on Saturday morning last. I have always been sceptical with regard to the sea-serpent stories, I have heard and read, and a smile has always come across my face at them, but I have been too long at sea, and have seen too many remarkable things, to deny positively that there was such a thing, had a landsman or a lady told me about the creature on Saturday, while I should have given them credit for being quite sincere, I should have taken no notice of it, as they are so apt to make mistakes at sea. I am too much accustomed at sea, however, to have made any mistake. When we got to Napier, I mentioned the circumstance there, when they pointed out that there had been a shock of earthquake shortly before the time we saw the creature, which may have been the cause of sending it to the surface. As to its length I could give no opinion, but as the creature rose some 30ft. out of the water I should imagine there were still two-thirds of it in the water, but that is only my supposition.”
“Peter Nelson, the Quartermaster, referred to gave his story as follows:—
“It was about 6.30 on Saturday morning last, August 1st. It was a bright clear morning with the sun shining brightly. The weather, however, was rough, with a heavy sea. I had just come from the wheel at six o’clock, and was standing on the lee-side looking out, and all at once I saw this thing appear rising out of the water about 30ft. It went down again. It did not go forward like a fish jumping, but seemed to draw itself right back under water as if it contracted itself. It came up and went down again in the same way about four times. The first time I saw it was about a mile off the ship to leeward; the last time I saw it was about 100 yards from the ship. The time occupied in traveling the distance seemed to be about two minutes. It looked like a huge conger-eel or snake, except that it had two large fins. The fins seemed to be about 10ft. long, and were situated about 20ft. from the head. The tips of the fins were about touching the water. Where the fins joined the body the latter seemed to bulge out. I did not see the fins the first time it rose, but I saw them each time afterwards. The belly and the fins were pure white. I saw the back part. It was the colour of an eel. The head and neck were like those of an eel. It was nothing like a whale. Had it been at all like a whale I should have taken no notice of it, as it is such a common thing to see whales at sea. It was not more than one hundred yards away the last time I saw it. The thing was glistening in the sun. I could not see its eyes. Had the sun not been shining, or had it been night, I might have been able to see its eyes. Every time it went down there was a distinct splash that could be heard quite plainly. The time being so early in the morning and the sea being so rough, there were no people about except the watch on deck, who were aft scraping the decks. The Chief Officer was on the bridge. I spoke to him about it. He said he had seen it. I have often heard of a sea-serpent before, but never saw one, nor have I ever seen any one who had seen one, but have spoken to men who have seen other men who professed to have seen the creatures. I have always laughed at the sea-serpent story but never denied it. Call it what you like, but after my experience of Saturday morning I am decidedly of opinion that what I saw is a fish or creature that is never hardly seen. I never saw any thing like it before, although I have been at sea twenty five years and have seen a great many queer things.” In reply to a question, Nelson said, “I am not a very frightened sort exactly, but I suppose I should have been frightened if it had come much closer.”
I have reprinted here these three reports of two different appearances, because they so completely corroborate the hitherto so wonderful-seeming report of Egede (5), and figure of Bing (fig. 19). As to the remark of Prof. Hutton, of Canterbury College (N. Zeal.) “that if the animal had great fins or flappers, as reported, they would no doubt be used for swimming, and it is improbable that the creature would wave them about in the air like wings”, I only remark in my turn, that Prof. Hutton seems never to have observed the movements of seals, and sea-lions, for these animals really “wave the flappers about in the air like wings”.