VI. Conclusions.
Reading edition
The Libraries from which I borrowed the greater part of the works treating of the subject were:
The Royal Library at the Hague,
The Library of the Leiden University,
The Library of the Utrecht University,
The Library of the Groningen University,
The Library of the Amsterdam University,
The Library of the Royal University at Göttingen,
The Library of the Royal Zoological Society “Natura Artis Magistra” at Amsterdam,
The Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam,
The Library of the Museum of Natural History at Leiden,
The Library of the Dutch Zoological Society at den Helder, and
The Library of the Dutch Entomological Society at Leiden.
In the part headed Literature on the Subject I have given an idea of the mass of works and articles written about it. I here present to my readers a list of the different appearances found by me in the works which I have consulted. Of each appearance I have noted down as far as possible, the date, the locality and the names of the observers. The numbers correspond with those in the 4th. Chapter.
1.—1522.—Near the Isle of Moos, Norway.
2.—1640.—Most probably in the Sound between Sweden and Denmark.—Burgomaster of Malmö.
3.—1687.—Damsfjord in Norway.—Several persons, and at one time eleven persons together.
4.—1720.—A little inlet near Kobbervueg, in Norway.—Thorlack Thorlacksen.
5.—1734, July 6.—Before the harbour of Gothaab in Davis’ Straits, west of Greenland, at 64° N.—Rev. Hans Egede, Rev. Bing.
6.—1743?—Cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, in Norway.
7.—1744?—Isle of Karmen, in Norway.
8.—1745?—Near Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, in Norway.—A fisherman.
9.—1746, August.—Jule-Naess, six miles from Molde, in Norway.—The Hon. Lorenz von Ferry, Niels Petersen Kopper, and Niels Nielsen Anglewigen.
10.—1747?—Coast of Norway.—Commander Benstrup.
11.—1748?—Coast of Norway.—Mr. Reutz.
12.—1749?—Coast of Norway.—Mr. Tuchsen.
13.—1750?—Coast of Norway.—A north-sailor.
14.—1751?—Near Sundsmöer.—Some fishermen.
15.—1751.—Near Muscongus-Island and Round Pond in Broad Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. Joseph Kent.
16.—1770?—East coast of U. S. A.—Captain Paul Reed.
17.—1777 or 1778.—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Captain Eleazar Crabtree.
18.—1779?—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. Stephan Tuckey.
19.—1780, May.—Near Muscongus Island and Round Pond, in Broad Bay, U. S. A.—Captain George Little, of the Boston frigate.
20.—1781?—Off Meduncook, east coast of U. S. A.
21.—1782?—East coast of U. S. A.?—The British on their expedition to Bagadusa.
22.—1783?—Near the Isle of Mount Desert, east of Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Inhabitants of this isle.
23.—1784?—Near Ash Point on Fox and Long Island, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. Crocket.
24.—1785?—Penobscot Bay, Maine, U. S. A.—Mr. Miller.
25.—1786, August 1.—Lat. 42° 44′ N., long. 23° 10′ W., north-east of the Azores.—On board the General Coole.
26.—1787?—East coast of U. S. A.—Captain Lillis.
27.—1794?—Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.—Two inhabitants of these islands.
28.—1799?—Near Fox and Long Islands, Maine, U. S. A.—Two inhabitants of these islands.
29.—1802, July.—Between Cape Rosoi and Long Island, Maine, U. S. A.—The Rev. Abraham Cummings, Mrs. Cummings, Miss Cummings, Miss Martha Spring.
30.—1805?—Near Cape Breton and Newfoundland.—Mr. W. Lee.
31.—1808, June.—Coast of Coll, west of Scotland.—Rev. Donald Maclean.
32.—1808, June.—Coast of Canna and Rum, west of Scotland.—The crew of thirteen fishing boats.
33.—1810?—?—A mariner.
34.—1815, June 20.—Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain Elkanah Finney, his son, and some house carpenters.
35.—1815, June 21.—Warren’s Cove, near Plymouth, in Cape Cod Bay, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain Elkanah Finney.
36.—1816?—Near Behring’s Island.—Mr. Kriukof.
37.—1817, August 6.—Harbour of Cape Ann.—Two women.
38.—1817, August 10.—Near Ten Pound Island in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. Amos Story.
39.—1817, August 12.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. Salomon Allen, 3d.
40.—1817, August 13.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. Salomon Allen, 3d.
41.—1817, August 14.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. Salomon Allen 3d., Mr. Epes Ellery, Mr. William H. Foster, Mr. Matthew Gaffney, Mr. Daniel Gaffney, Mr. Augustin M. Webber, and the Hon. Lonson Nash.
42.—1817, August 15.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. James Mansfield.
43.—1817, August 17.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. William H. Foster, Mr. John Johnston, jun., Captain John Corliss, Mr. George Marble.
44.—1817, August 18.—Off Cape Ann Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.—The Captain and crew of a vessel.—Webber’s Cove in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. William B. Pearson, Mr. James P. Collins, Colonel T. H. Perkins, Mr. Lee.
45.—1817, August 22?—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—A woman, Mr. Mansfield and Mrs. Mansfield.
46.—1817, August 23.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. Amos Story.
47.—1817, August 24?—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Several of the crews of coasting vessels.
48.—1817, August 28.—Two miles east of the eastern point of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain Sewell Toppan, of the schooner Laura, William Somerby, Robert Bragg, mariners on board the same schooner.
49.—1817, August 30?—In the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, Mass., U. S. A.—One of the revenue cutters.
50.—1817, October 3.—In the sound between Long Island and the State New York, U. S. A.—Mr. James Guion.
51.—1817, October 5.—Long Island Sound, N. York, U. S. A.—Mr. Thomas Hertell.
52.—1818, June.—Off Cape Henry, Virg., U. S. A.—The Captain and crew of the brig Wilson.
53.—1818, June 19.—In Sag Harbour, Long Island, N. Y., U. S. A.
54.—1818, June 21.—East coast of U. S. A.—S. West, master of the Packet Delia.
55.—1818, July 2.—Between Cranch Island Point and Marsh Island, about seven miles from Portland, Maine, U. S. A.—Mssrs. J. Webber and R. Hamilton.
56.—1818, July.—60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, between Far Öer and Hebrides.—Captain Brown.
57.—1818 July.—Folden fjord, Norway.—Some fishermen of Folden fjord.
58.—1818 August?—Near Fieldvigen, Norway.—Fishermen of Fieldvigen.
59.—1818, August 19.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain Richard Rich.
60.—1819, June 6.—About 15 miles north-west of Race Point, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain Hawkins Wheeler, of the sloop Concord, and Gersham Bennett.
61.—1819, July.—Sound between the Island of Ottersum and the continent, Norway.—Captain Schilderup and about thirty other persons.
62.—1819, August 12?—At Nahant Beach, Mass., U. S. A.
63.—1819, August 13?—Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Mr. James Prince, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Prince, Mr. James Magee, Mr. Samuel Cabot, Mrs. Cabot, Mr. James Boott, Colonel T. H. Perkins, Mrs. Perkins, and family.
64.—1819, August.—Vieg or Veg fjord, Norway.—John Gregar.
65.—1819, August?—At the North Cape.—Some fishermen.
66.—1819, August?—Bay of Shuresund or Sorsund in the Drontheim fjord, Norway.—The Right Rev. Bishop of the Nordlands and Finmark.
67.—1819? August?—In the Mageröe-Sund near North Cape, Norway.—The sexton of Maasöe.
68.—1819, August.—Near Vadsöe, Norway.—Several persons.
69.—1819, August 26.—Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—The Rev. Cheever Felch, Captain William T. Malbone, of the schooner Science, Midshipman Blake, four boatsmen.
70.—1819, September?—Near Boston, Mass., U. S. A.—An Officer of the American Navy.
71.—1819, September 13?—Bay of Massachusetts, U. S. A.
72.—1820, July?—Near Hundsholm, Norway.—A young man, master of a small fishing yacht.
73.—1820, August.—Near Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. Perkins.
74.—1820?—About latitude 46°, longitude 3°, Bay of Biscay.—Lieutenant George Sandford, Captain of the Lady of Combermere.
75.—1821, Summer.—Several members of the family of Colonel T. H. Perkins.
76.—1821.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.—Captain Bennett.
77.—1821, September 25?—Near Nantucket Isle.—Many persons, Mr. Francis Joy Jun.
78.—1821.—Off the Isles of Stenness, Vaily and Dunrossness (Shetland Islands).
79.—1822, Summer.—Off Soröe, Norway.—Many inhabitants of Soröe.
80.—1824, January.—Lat. 34° 31′ South, long. 48° West, about sixty miles east of Uruguay.
81.—1824, Summer.—Off Plum Island and in Shad Cove (Rhode Island?), U. S. A.—Mr. Ruggles.
82.—1825?—West coast of Scotland?—Mr. Andrew Strang.
83.—1826, June 16.—George’s Bank, South of Newfoundland.—Captain Holdrege of the ship Silas Richards, Mr. Warburton, Miss. Magee.
84.—1826, June 18.—Off Cape Cod, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain and crew of a vessel.
85.—1827, August 24.—Christiania fjord, Norway.—Five persons.
86.—1827, August 26.—Christiania fjord, Norway.—Several persons.
87.—1827, September 3.—Off Nusodden, Norway (Christiania fjord?).
88.—1827, September 5.—Off Lepager (Christiania fjord?), Norway.
89.—1827, September 9.—Off Dröbak, Christiania fjord, Norway.—Several persons.
90.—1828?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—Nils Roe.
91.—1828?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—Nils Roe.
92.—1829? July.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—Lars Johnöen.
93.—1829, the end of July.—A considerable distance south-west of the Cape of Good Hope.—Captain Petrie, of the Royal Saxon, and Mr. R. Davidson.
94.—1830?—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—John Johnson.
95.—1831?—In a narrow fjord near Christiansund, Norway.—Mr. William Knudtzon, Mr. Booklune.
96.—1832, Summer.—Rödö and Södelöw fjords, Norway.—Many persons.
97.—1833, May, 15.—Some miles from Margaret’s Bay, Nova Scotia.—Captain W. Sullivan, Lieutenants A. Maclachlan, G. P. Malcolm, B. O’Neal Lyster, Mr. Henry Ince.
98.—1833, July, on a Saturday.—Off Nahant, Mass., U. S. A.—Several persons.
99.—1833, July, the next Sunday.—Lynn Harbour, Mass., U. S. A.—Forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen.
100.—1834, Summer.—Bay of Gloucester Mass., U. S. A.—One of the crew of the Brig Mangehan.
101.—1835, March or April.—A few miles from Race Point Light, near Gloucester, Mass., U. S. A.—Captain Shibbles, and the crew, of the brig Mangehan.
102.—1836?—In Christiansund fjord, at Torvig, Norway.—Mr. Gaeschke.
103.—1837, end of July.—Near Storfosen and the Krovaag Isles (Drontheim) Norway.—A trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, with his two sons, and numerous people.
104.—1838?—The South Atlantic.—Captain Beechy, of the Blossom.
105.—1839, August?—Near Boston.—Captain Bubier.
106.—1839, September?—Coast of Maine, U. S. A.—Captain Smith.
106 A.—1840, April 21.—24° 13′ N. latitude, 89° 52′ W. longitude, in the Gulf of Mexico.—Captain d’Abnour.
106 B.—1840, June?—Near Boston?
107.—1840, July?—Molde fjord, Norway.—Mr. Hammer, Mr. Kraft, and some other persons.
107 A.—1840, August?—“Along the whole line of the American coast”, i. e. of the east coast of the U. S.
108.—1841.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.—Several persons.
109.—1842?—Romsdal fjord, Norway.—A parish priest.
110.—1842?—Romsdal fjord, Norway.—A gentleman.
111.—1843, Summer.—Christiansund fjord, Norway.
111 A.—1843, October?—Near Ibbestad, not far from Christiansand, Norway.—Some fishermen.
112.—1845?—Near Bergen? Norway.—Some fishermen.
113.—1845.—Between Bergen and Sogn, Norway.—Mr. J. D. Morries Stirling, and two other gentlemen.
114.—1845 or 1846, Summer.—Camp’s Bay, near Cape Town.—Mr. G. D. Brunette, Mr. Charles A. Fairbridge.
115.—1845, July 28.—Romsdale fjord, Norway.—Mr. J. C. Lund, Mr. G. S. Kroch, Christian Flang and John Elgenses.
117.—1846, August 8.—Between the islands of Sartor Leer and Tös, and in Bjornfjord, near Bergen, Norway.—Several persons, Daniel Salomonson, his wife Ingeborg, Abraham Abrahamsen Hagenoes.
118.—1848, August 6.—Lat. 24° 44′ S., long 9° 22′ E., between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.—Mr. Sartoris, midshipman, Lieutenant Edgar Drummond, Captain Peter M’Quhae, Mr. William Barrett, master, and most of the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus.
119.—1848?—The Gulf of California.—Captain the Hon. George Hope.
120.—1848, December 31.—Lat. 41° 13′ N., long. 12° 31′ W., west of Oporto.—An officer of H. M. S. Plumper.
121.—1849, February 18.—Off the south point of Cumberland Island, about twelve miles from the St. John’s bar, Florida.—Captain Adams, of the schooner Lucy and Nancy, and the crew and passengers of it.
122.—1849, May 30.—South of Australia, between 40° and 45° S. lat., and 110° and 145° W. long.—Captain Edwards, of the Alpha, Mr. Thomson, Mr. George Park.
123.—1849, September 15.—Indian Ocean, between lat. 10° and 20° S., and long. 50° and 70° E.—An officer of H. M. S. Cleopatra.
124.—1850?—Between Iceland and the Far Öer.—Captain Cristmas.
125.—1853?—Fjords of Norway.
126.—1854, September 4.—Lat. 38° S., long. 13° E.—The Brig Albeona.
127.—1855, August?—Off St. Helena.—A Captain.
128.—1856, March 30.—Lat 29° 11′ N., long. 34° 26′ W.—Mr. J. H. Statham, Captain James Guy, of the Imogen, Mr. Julian B. Harries, Mr. D. J. Williamson.
129.—1856, July 8.—Lat. 34° 56′ S., long. 18° 41′ E.—Captain A. K. W. Tremearne of the ship Princess, Captain Morgan, of the ship Senator.
130.—1857, February 16.—In Table Bay, Cape Town.—Dr. Biccard, his wife, daughter and two sons, Mr. Murray and Mr. Hall.
131.—1857, December 12.—North east end of St. Helena distant 10 miles.—Captain George Henry Harrington, of the ship Castilian, William Davies, chief officer, Edward Wheeler, second officer.
132.—1858, January 26.—Lat. 19° 10′ S., long. 10° 6′ W., between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena.—Captain Suckling of the Carnatic, Captain Shuttleworth.
133.—1861? August, on a Sunday.—Nahant?—Dr. Amos Binney, and above a hundred persons.
134.—1861? August, the following Monday.—Nahant? from the piazza of the hôtel.
135.—1863, May 16.—Between the Isles of Canary and the Cape Verde Isles.—Mr. John Chapple, Rev. Mr. Smith, on board the Screw Steamer Athenian.
136.—1871.—Near the coast of Australia.—A second officer.
137.—1872, August 20.—The Sound of Sleat between the Isle of Skye and the west coast of Scotland, and between Eigg and the mainland.—Rev. John Macray, Minister of Glenelg, Rev. David Twopeny, Vicar of Stockbury, two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman, G. B., and a Highland lad, on board the cutter Leda; also a Lady at Duisdale, in Skye.
138.—1872, August 21.—On the north side of the opening of Loch Hourn, west coast of Scotland, and in the same Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland.—The same witnesses as of no. 137; the ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea, Finlay Macrae, and other people.
139.—1872, August 23.—In the entrance of Lochduich.—Alexander Macmillan and his brother Farquhar.
140.—1872, August 24.—In the same locality.—The same witnesses.
141.—1873, Nov. 16?—Near Dunrobin castle, east coast of Sutherland, Scotland.—Lady Florence Leveson Gower and the Hon. Mrs. Coke.
142.—1873, Nov. 17?—Near Golspie, east coast of Sutherland, Scotland.—Dr. Soutar.
143.—1873, Nov. 18?—The same locality.—Mr. James.
144.—1875, July 8.—Lat. 5° 13′ S., long. 35° W., twenty miles from Cape San Roque.—Captain Drevar, of the barque Pauline, Horatio Thompson, John Henderson Landells, William Lewarn, Owen Baker.
145.—1875, July 13.—Lat. 5° S., long 34° 10′ W., eighty miles from Cape San Roque.—The same witnesses.
146.—1876, September 11.—Fifteen miles north west of North Sand Lighthouse, in the Malacca Straits.—John K. Webster, Captain of the British s. s. Nestor, and Mr. James Anderson.
147.—1877, May 21.—Lat. 2° N., long. 90° 53′ E., Indian Ocean.—The master of the barque Georgina.
148.—1877, June 2.—Off Cape Vito, Sicily.—Commander Pearson of H. M. Yacht Osborne, Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth, and Mr. Moore.
149.—1879, January 28.—Lat. 12° 28′ N., long 43° 52′ E., Gulf of Aden.—Major H. W. J. Senior, Dr. C. Hall, Miss. Greenfield, on board the s. s. City of Baltimore.
150.—1879, March 30.—In Geographe Bay, Australia, near Lockville and Busselton.—Rev. H. W. Brown, Mr. C. M’Guire and his wife, Mr. M’Mullan.
151.—1879, April 5.—Cape Satano, the most southern point of Japan, distant about nine miles.—Captain Davison, Mr. Mc. Kechnie, of the Kiushiu Maru.
152.—1879, August 5.—100 miles west of Brest, France.—Captain J. F. Cox, of the Privateer.
152 A.—1881, Nov. 12?—Near Monillepoint, not far from Cape Town.—Mr. C. M. Hansen, his wife and children, and several of his neighbours.
153.—1882, May 28.—About six miles W.N.W. of Butt of Lewis (the northern point of the Hebrides or Western Islands).—Some fishermen.
154.—1882, May 31.—The same locality.—Mr. Weisz of the Lloydsteamer Kätie, Mr. Andrew Schultz.
155.—1882, September 3.—Near Orme’s Heads, northern coast of Wales, Irish Sea.—Mr. W. Barfoot, Mr. F. J. Marlow, Mrs. Marlow, and several other ladies and gentlemen.
156.—1883, October 15.—Bristol Channel.
157.—1885, August 16.—Between Rödö and Melö Isles, Nordland, Norway, at lat. 66° 35′ N., long. 13° 21′ E.—Some lads.
158.—1886, August.—Near Kingston Point on the Hudson, New Jersey, U. S. A.—Two young men.
159.—1886, August.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.
160.—1886, August.—Near the east coast of U. S. A.—Jonah.
161.—1889, May.—In the common track from Liverpool to Philadelphia.—A captain.
162.—1890, June.—Near Long Island, not far from the coast of Connecticut.—Captain David Tuits of the schooner Anny Harper.
In these reports nearly all is very probable from a zoological point of view, and there is but little that must be looked upon as fabulous.
Some statements, which at first seem to us to be exaggerations, we unhesitatingly accept as truths, when we have taken a review of all the reports together; either because they are constantly repeated, or because they are confirmed by highly respectable testimonies of recent date.
What now follows is an abstract of the 166 reports, enumerated above. The numbers in brackets correspond with those placed in the list given above, consequently also with those in my 4th. Chapter. Let us first speak of the improbable things.
A. Fables, Fictions, Exaggerations and Errors.
At present nobody believes that the appearance of a strange animal on the coast is a bad sign! In the sixteenth and the seventeenth century, however, this was not uncommon. So we read that an appearance of a sea-serpent portended a change in Norway (1), and that the appearance of one in 1522 was followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; it also foretold the destruction of the country (1). The snatching away of a man from a ship did not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being at hand, either that the princes would die or be banished, or that a war would soon break out (p. 105). The Norwegian fishermen looked upon its coming as a bad sign, for the fish would leave the coast (61). Curious are also the characters described to the animal. It lives in rocks and holes, and it comes out of its caverns only in summernights and fine weather, to devour calves, lambs and hogs (p. 105). The eating of cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs (p. 105) may also be a story, though this is not quite improbable. The fables, often told of Kraken and Spermwhales, that when sleeping on the surface of the water they are taken for an islet, are also related of sea-serpents: “and when it is slumbering on the Norway foam, the seamen deeming it some island, fixed their anchor in its scaly rind” (p. 111).
It is also said to enclose ships by laying itself round them in a circle; and to upset the ship (p. 109) if the seamen do not try to escape, which they can manage to do when they row over its body there where a coil is visible, for that when they reach the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible part rises (p. 134, p. 227). Arend Berndsen tells us that sea-serpents, as well as spermwhales, often run down whole ships with all aboard (p. 134), and some north sailors know that it had occasionally thrown itself across a yacht of several hundred tons and dragged it to the bottom (p. 134). Mr. Lee has sufficiently shown in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, that large calamaries really sometimes snatch a man from a rowing boat; for a long time this was considered to be a fable; now, however, zoologists unconditionally accept it as truth. Such incidents, if happened, are generally, but falsely, attributed by the Northern fishermen to sea-serpents (p. 105, p. 108, p. 134).
It is not astonishing that by such people the sea-serpent is called dangerous to seamen (p. 108, p. 134) and that they are very much afraid of it (7, 14, p. 134, 61, 64, 65, 67, 92, 103, p. 259, 139, 157), and will never forget to take with them asa foetida or castoreum, the smell of which the animal cannot bear (p. 130, p. 134, p. 259) Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent approaches, and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts the animal (p. 259). Some believe that it casts its skin, as common snakes do (p. 132), and that it is born on land, and lives in forests and mountains till it can no longer hide its enormous body in it; then it seeks some river and floats down to the sea (p. 133). When swimming, sea-serpents don’t show their tail above the surface. Fishermen, in their fear, would say: if one was near the head, the other end of the animal could not be seen (103). I am convinced that this is one of the reasons that the animal is sometimes said to be at least a cable in length. The animal leaves behind itself a considerable wake, which may be another reason that the witnesses exaggerated its length. So we find: it is three hundred feet long (p. 107, 21), about 320 feet (106 A), six hundred and seventy feet (p. 130, 61), about a fourth of an English mile (79), about 750 feet (85), from six hundred to 800 ells, i. e. from 1340 to 1780 feet (103), more than 500 feet (130) or half a mile long (156).
The thickness too is sometimes exaggerated (twenty feet, p. 105); the head is described in some instances to be as large as a foering boat, i. e. about twenty feet long (117, 146), or twelve feet long (126), or perhaps ten feet long (118), and the tail fully a hundred and fifty feet in length (146). The jaws are said to be of such an enormous size that, if extended, they seemed sufficiently capacious to admit of a tall man standing upright in them (118). It may be that the alleged serpentine shape of the animal caused some writers to give scales to the sea-serpent (p. 105), or that the distance was too large for a closer examination, so that the observers thought it might have a hard skin (5), or a rough coating (41, 51), or even a scaly one (39), or it was the fear which made them see scales (157) which in reality did not exist. Scales are also occasionally delineated (fig. 26) though the eye-witness does not mention them, and even believed it belonged to the eel-tribe (63). No wonder that such a terrible animal is often called Leviathan (p. 111), an animal which raises its coils so high above the water, that a ship can go through one of them (p. 109). Norwegian fishermen really believe that the animal sometimes comes on land as Olaus Magnus (p. 105) and Pontoppidan (p. 133) tell us, and as is stated afterwards, when even distinct traces of it were said to have been found in the fields (96).
In my opinion it is an error to believe that there are two species of sea-serpents (p. 107) or that there are several species of them all belonging to the same genus (112). And also that the animal ever takes a boat for one of the other sex, which induces it to follow the boat (p. 133). This is a habit of the animal; but as it is a quite harmless one, it is an error to believe that it grows furious when the pursued are so fortunate as to escape (158), or that it may ever destroy them, even after being struck with a boat-hook (112). That the shores of Norway are the only in Europe, which are frequented by this monster (p. 135) is a positive error, since the animal is known to appear also on the coasts of Great Britain, France, and even in the Mediterranean.
From what we now know of the division of the colours of the animal’s body, I don’t hesitate to say that they are wrongly represented in one of the drawings (fig. 31). The cetacean tail delineated in fig. 49 is explained in no. 151, the fish tail of fig. 26 in no. 63. The definition that the eyes were of a greenish hue and looked devilish (158) is certainly the result of an observation made in great fright. I am sure that in cases wherein the colour of the head and neck are described as a bluish green (29), or of a blue colour (29), or as blue as possible (29), and that of the back of a dark green (30), these definitions are the result of optical illusion, or the observers may have been colour-blind.
The twelve fins (129, fig. 36) of which six are drawn on the left side and six on the right side of the body emerging from the water, are undoubtedly the result of an optical deception, as I have explained in no. 129.—In the same way I have explained why the animal has a head connected with the body without any indication of a neck, so that it resembled a gigantic salamander (146), and that it seemed to be of a gelatinous, that is flabby, substance (146), and that the motion of it was apparently cork-screw-like (155).
In no case the antenna, ending in a crescent (106 A) or the ridge of fins (148), or the discolouring of the water (131) observed, have anything to do with the animal or with its appearance.
But let us now pass to the facts which may be inferred from what is reported of the animal.
B. Facts.
These are so numerous that I am obliged to bring them together under several heads.
1. EXTERNAL CHARACTERS.
a. Dimensions.
The length of what was visible of the animal above the surface of the water was estimated to be: from sixteen to eighteen feet (25), several meters (136), about twenty feet (150), from twenty to thirty feet (35), thirty feet (113, 123), about thirty-six feet (92), about forty feet (26, 41, 42, 44, 80, 91, 128, 145), forty-five feet (137), between forty and fifty feet (115, 147), fifty feet at least (43, 46, 50, 51, 60), about fifty-five feet (94), from fifty to sixty feet (63), sixty feet (57, 83, 117, 118, 129, 138, 150), seventy-five feet (152 A), eighty feet at least (97), a hundred and fifty feet (154), and, though estimated by the eye-witnesses at about fifty feet, the visible part must, according to my reckoning, have been eighty feet at least in no. 148. These enormous differences in the statements cannot surprise us of an animal which may attain a length of more than two hundred feet. As a rule the animal swims with head and neck above the water-surface, commonly the back too is partly visible, but of the tail only a small portion. In no. 154 as we see, a length of 150 feet of the animal was visible; in this instance it lay nearly perfectly still; only the long neck and head were under water, and the back and a great length of tail were above the surface.
The whole length of the animal is spoken of as: great (37, 152), large (119), very large (2), considerable (107), immense (36), astonishing (1), enormous (132), as a yacht of fifty tons (8), three or four times larger than the ship (5), eighteen feet (14), from fifty to fifty-five feet (19), from fifty to sixty feet (18), sixty feet (17, 28, 56), at least sixty feet (82), more than sixty feet (29), from sixty to seventy feet (24), from sixty to eighty feet (139, 142), about seventy feet (29), not above seventy feet (109), at least seventy feet (41), from seventy to eighty feet (31), from seventy to one hundred feet (74), seventy five feet (1, 158), about eighty feet (63), from eighty to ninety feet (39, 118), about ninety feet (121, 134), one hundred feet (17, 33, 41, 44, 45, 63, 66, 69, 135), at least a hundred feet (34), more than one hundred feet (95), greater than the animal of Captain M’Quhae, consequently probably more than one hundred feet (93), one hundred and twenty feet (34), from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and thirty feet (105), one hundred and thirty feet (69), about one hundred and fifty feet (65), from one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet (114), from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy feet (34, 144), one hundred and eighty feet (126), one hundred and ninety feet (52), about 200 feet (p. 107, p. 138, 130, 155, 157), more than two hundred feet (p. 107, 30, 131), and though estimated by the eye witnesses (see no. 148) as to be at least one hundred and fifty feet, the individual seen by them must have been, according to my reckoning, more than two hundred feet long.—Such a length needs no explanation: it is a fact, established by the declarations of highly respectable men, and of men who are accustomed to estimate the length of objects floating in the water from afar and at any short distance. Moreover it is the enormous tail which apparently enlargens these dimensions. The elephant is of a great bulk and of an enormous weight, but the giraffe astonishes us by its enormous legs and its enormous neck, though its body and its head are smaller than that of a moderate sized horse. So the colossal spermwhales, fin whales and whalebone whales surprise us by their bulk and weight, but the sea-serpent deprived of its neck and immense tail is only a child to them. Moreover a zoologist has not one single reason to deny the possibility of the existence of sea-animals with a body of no more than sixty feet, a neck of sixty feet, and a tail of hundred and twenty feet.
The length of the head is, according to the different declarations: nearly as that of a man (19, 43), about the size of the crown of a hat (42), larger than that of any dog (38), as large as a hat (94), about as that of a pail (29), full as large as a four gallon keg (42), equal to a small cask (109), nearly as large as the head of a horse (39, 60), rather larger than that of a horse (29), two feet long (56, 81), of the size of a ten gallon keg (48, 80, 92, 102), as large as a barrel (101), as large as a flour barrel (158), of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead (152 A), long (118), with regard to its thickness not very long (94), long in proportion to the throat (95), about six feet in length (97), about six or eight feet long (34, 120), as large as a little boat (32), colossal (115). The head of the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. Daedalus cannot have been longer than three feet, as the neck is estimated sixteen inches in diameter, though it is called long (118) or even ten feet long (118); evidently a portion of the neck was included in the calculation. The head of the individual seen by the officers of the royal yacht Osborne must have been from eight to nine feet long, as its breadth is estimated at six feet (148).
The length of the neck is said to be: long (31, 56, 119, 124), enormous (p. 225), a length of ten feet was visible (48), about eighteen feet (124), about twenty feet (118), at least twenty feet (160), the neck together with the body fifty or forty-five feet, i. e. the neck alone must have been about twenty-five feet (146), about twenty five feet (149), at least twenty five feet (152), about thirty feet (151), about sixty feet (145); “from its crown or top to just below the shoulder where it became immersed, I should reckon about fifty feet”, but as the eye-witness saw the animal from behind, the length of the neck could not be estimated with accuracy; as to me, I am convinced that the neck of the individual measured about sixty feet (148). The long neck is delineated in fig. 46, 48 and 49.
The length of the trunk has never been actually estimated, as nearly all the observers believed that the animal was serpent-shaped, and therefore estimated only its total length or the part exposed to their eyes. Yet we may put down the length of the trunk of the individual seen by the officers of H. M. S. Daedalus to be about twenty feet, as one of the hindflappers was occasionally seen at about twenty feet distant from the point where one of the foreflappers was also occasionally seen. And as this fore-flapper was visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, we may conclude that the length of the trunk equals that of the neck (118). Consequently we may decide that the individual observed by the Captain and the surgeon of the Nestor, who saw the animal swimming evidently with its neck contracted, had a neck and a trunk each of about forty feet (146). In the same way we may conclude that the individual observed by the captain and crew of the Pauline (145) and that seen by the officers of the royal yacht Obsorne (148) had both a neck and a trunk of each about sixty feet.
The tail delineated in fig. 19, has only three times been actually estimated. Once it is called thirty five feet long (8), then forty feet long (162), and once a hundred and fifty feet (146). In my opinion the animal’s tail in this last instance cannot have been longer than about eighty feet, i. e. as long as the animal’s head, neck and trunk together. The length of the individual observed by the officers of the Daedalus was estimated by them to be at least eighty feet. As he have reckoned above about forty three feet for head, neck and trunk together, its tail consequently must have been about forty feet long. So the animal’s hind flappers are situated almost in the middle of the whole length. And therefore Egede and Bing did not observe them, because the middle part of the whole length remained hidden from them (fig. 19). Captain Hope states (119) that the animal seen from above on its back resembles an alligator with an enormous neck. If the animal had not an immense tail, he would never have made this comparison. When Captain Tremearne says “also a great length of tail” he seems to me to have included in his estimation a portion of the animal’s trunk (129). The individuals seen by the officers of the Osborne (148), of the Pauline (145), and of the Kätie (154), undoubtedly had a tail of about one hundred or even of one hundred and twenty feet in length. Captain d’Abnour called the tail enormous (106 A).
Twice (14, 119) it has been stated that the four flappers were seen together; the two fore flappers were seen four times (5, 121, 129, 148, see also p. 250); and delineated in fig. 19, 36, and 45; it is possible that the two hind flappers were twice seen (151, 158), and delineated in fig. 49. Four times one of the fore-flappers was visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154) and twice one of the hindflappers (118, 154). The foreflappers are called broad and large (5), frightful, several feet in length (121), larger than the posterior (119), about fifteen feet in length (148), and of immense dimensions (154); judging from the drawing illustrating this last instance (fig. 50), I should estimate its length also at fifteen feet. Captain d’Abnour saw one of the foreflappers rising to the height of about six feet from the water and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the body (106 A). The hindflappers are said to be smaller than the anterior (119), and about ten feet long (154).
As to the breadth of the head, some observers mention its diameter, and some its circumference, or they compare its thickness either with that of the neck, with that of the trunk, or with some well-known object; this is the reason that we meet with the following statements: it is rather broad (31), where the head was connected with the body (read neck) it was a little larger than the body (read neck) (34), the head was rather larger than the body (read neck) (48), much smaller than the body (69), narrow in proportion to the throat: evidently the animal had contracted its neck, so that this latter grew much thicker (69), about two feet in diameter (150), about three feet in circumference (69), at least three feet in circumference (29), about as thick as a ten gallon keg (92), about six feet thick (148).
The neck is somewhat smaller than the head (31), as is also stated in other accounts: smaller than the head (109), much thinner than the head (91), comparatively narrow (148), and may be two and a half feet in circumference (48), just behind the head sixteen inches thick (118), about the thickness of a man’s waist (124), about two feet in diameter (149), or about four feet thick (148).
The thickness of the animal has commonly been compared with that of different objects, a circumstance which makes it difficult to fix the true diameter. Moreover it is in many instances difficult to make out whether the animal’s neck, just behind the head, is meant by the observer, or the animal’s chest or breast, which is the thickest part of the trunk. For the animal generally swims in such a way that a little part of its back rises above the surface of the water, completely hiding its thickest part and its flappers, so that it makes the impression to be a serpentine animal without any appendages, and of a uniform size. So the animal is said to be ten or twelve inches thick (147), about twelve inches (113), about fourteen inches (102), fifteen inches (19), as thick as a half-barrel (39, 41, 44, 48, 63), as thick as a common firkin (63), about twenty two inches (17), as thick as a barrel (34, 41, 80), as thick as a man’s body (46), as thick as a wine barrel (2, 85), as thick as a stout man (94), as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads (12), three feet (17), as thick as a sloop’s boom (24), three to four feet in circumference (25), as thick as a full-grown ox (79), about two feet in diameter (92), inconsiderable (95), as thick as a large horse (109), he is the thickest just behind the head (103), several ells (115), as thick as our main mast (135), thirty feet from its head-end the body seemed about as thick as the ship’s long-boat (126), it appeared about seven feet across the broadest part of the back (121), at the shoulder about fifteen to twenty feet (148), the shoulder was the thickest part of the body, about twenty feet (122).
The tail-root had, on one occasion, a diameter of four feet (146), but as it is generally hidden under water, it is only in a few instances that it was actually observed.
The tail ends in a point (fig. 19, fig. 20), and consequently is mostly said to resemble that of a serpent or snake. It is also said to be as pointed as a boat-hook (8), or very pointed (12).
Comparison of the dimensions. Supposing that the dimensions of the several portions of the animal are relatively nearly the same in individuals of different ages, we are able to draw up a table of comparative and relative dimensions. We learn from the officers of the Daedalus that the vertical diameter of the neck was about 1¹⁄₃ feet. From the officers of the Osborne we have the following estimations of dimensions: horizontal diameter of the head about 6 feet, horizontal diameter of the neck about 4 feet. We know from several eye-witnesses that the neck is round, so that we may suppose that its vertical diameter is the same as its horizontal or transversal one. Consequently the transversal diameter of the neck of the Daedalus animal was 1¹⁄₃ or ⁴⁄₃ feet; and that of its head ⁶⁄₃ = 2 feet. For a moment I will suppose that in these animals a head of about 2 feet broad has a length of about 3 feet, and this I may do, as the heads of the animals which I consider as allied to sea-serpents, have nearly these relative dimensions. In the same way I may put the length of the head of the Osborne individual at about 9 feet. The distance from the head to the foreflapper in the Daedalus animal was about twenty feet. We may consequently suppose that the same portion measured sixty feet in the individual seen by the officers of the Osborne. As to the question whether this portion is to be called the neck as I have done hitherto? I answer without hesitation no, this length also includes a portion of the animal’s trunk, viz. the part from its shoulder to the point where the fore limb is free. In the animals which, in my opinion, are allied to the sea-serpent, the upper arm is, so to say, “imbedded” in the trunk’s integument, is not free, as in man, and nearly immovable, and this portion is about one third of the whole length of the limb. Consequently we may conclude that, if the free part of the foreflapper is about fifteen feet, the portion of the trunk from the place where the fore limb in seated on the body to the shoulder is about seven feet and a half. Consequently the individual of the Osborne had a neck of about 53 feet. As the size of the individual of the Daedalus was about one third of that of the Osborne, its neck was about 17¹⁄₂ feet long. For the same reason the foreflappers of the Daedalus individual were five feet in length. The distance from the foreflapper to the hind flapper in the Daedalus animal measured about 20 feet, consequently the trunk measured 22¹⁄₂ feet, so that the distance from the foreflapper to the hindflapper of the Osborne animal must have been about 60 feet, and the length of its trunk about 67 feet. Summing up the lengths of the head, the neck, and the trunk, we have for the Daedalus animal 43 feet. This individual swam with its body in a straight line; “sixty feet at least were visible à fleur d’eau” are the words of Captain M’Quhae, substantiated by the reports of two of his officers. Yet it was obvious that this was not the whole length of the animal, and that a great length of tail was hidden under water. The animal was estimated to be from eighty to ninety feet in length. I have not a single reason to doubt this statement, and therefore conclude that the tail of the animal was about as long as the distance from the animal’s nose to its hindflappers. But I will not be too bold and only give it a length of about forty feet. If this is within the bounds of truth, of which I don’t doubt in the least, the length of the tail of the individual, seen by the officers of the Osborne measured about 120 feet. Captain Hope who had the opportunity to observe the four flappers together in a very favourable position, states that the foreflappers are larger than the hindflappers (119). I venture to estimate the length of the last at about ²⁄₃ of that of the foreflappers. So we may estimate the length of the hindflappers of the two individuals at 3¹⁄₃ and 10 feet respectively. As to the breadth of the animal’s trunk the officers of the Osborne state that it was from fifteen to twenty feet in their individual. We may safely suppose that the animal did not expose its greatest breadth, which must have been a little below the surface of the water, so that I don’t hesitate to fix the greatest diameter at 20 or 21 feet. The body gradually diminishes towards the tail, and this in its turn towards its end, which, as we have observed, is pointed.
The reason why I have deduced my different relative proportions only from the reports of the officers of the Daedalus and of the Osborne, is that they had a very favourable opportunity to estimate them. The former saw the animal swimming with its body in a straight line, and with its neck quite stretched, not contracted, showing the greater part of its length, and swimming in such a way that it was seen just from aside, so that the different lengths of the portions of the body could easily be estimated. And the latter saw the animal just from behind, so that the different breadths of the animal could be seen; moreover the dimensions of the foreflappers were visible.
I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal’s proportions for ten individuals, differing in age or sex.
Length of head. ³⁄₄ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Length of neck. 4 6 11²⁄₃ 17¹⁄₂ 23¹⁄₂ 29¹⁄₂ 35¹⁄₃ 41¹⁄₆ 47 53
Length of trunk. 4⁷⁄₁₂ 7¹⁄₂ 15 22¹⁄₂ 29²⁄₃ 37¹⁄₆ 44²⁄₃ 52¹⁄₉ 59¹⁄₂ 67
Length of tail. 8²⁄₃ 13¹⁄₃ 26²⁄₃ 40 53¹⁄₃ 66²⁄₃ 80 93¹⁄₃ 106²⁄₃ 120
Total length. 18 27²⁄₃ 55¹⁄₃ 83 110²⁄₃ 138¹⁄₃ 166 193²⁄₃ 221¹⁄₃ 249
From occiput to foreflappers. 4¹⁄₃ 6²⁄₃ 13¹⁄₃ 20 26²⁄₃ 33¹⁄₃ 40 46²⁄₃ 53¹⁄₃ 60
Breadth of head. ⁵⁄₁₂ ²⁄₃ 1¹⁄₃ 2 2²⁄₃ 3¹⁄₃ 4 4²⁄₃ 5¹⁄₃ 6
Breadth of neck. ³⁄₁₂ ⁴⁄₉ ⁸⁄₉ 1¹⁄₂ 1²⁄₃ 2¹⁄₆ 2²⁄₃ 3¹⁄₉ 3¹⁄₂ 4
Breadth of trunk. 1¹⁄₂ 2¹⁄₃ 4²⁄₃ 7 9¹⁄₃ 11²⁄₃ 14 16¹⁄₃ 18²⁄₃ 21
Length of foreflapper. 1 1²⁄₃ 3¹⁄₃ 5 6²⁄₃ 8¹⁄₃ 10 11²⁄₃ 13¹⁄₃ 15
Length of hindflapper. ⁷⁄₉ 1¹⁄₆ 2¹⁄₃ 3¹⁄₂ 4¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂ 6²⁄₃ 7⁵⁄₆ 9 10
I am far from asserting that these dimensions will prove to be correct, if ever an individual falls into the hands of men, but I am sure that they are approximately correct.
Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence of an animal of 250 feet! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself the utmost possible length of our Sea-Serpent!
b. Form.
The name we give to an unknown object will naturally depend on the impression it makes on us at first sight. To some the animal was like a log of wood or a floating tree; comparisons which will be spoken of below. It is called an animal of the fish kind (60), or a most remarkable fish (118), or a very large fish (29), and to be eel-shaped (33), or to resemble a large eel (118, 152). Some persons say it appeared to be of a uniform size (34), and others that it gradually tapers towards the two extremes (41), and appeared round (43). One of the eye-witnesses says: I do not undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself (63). Generally it is compared with a snake (5, 17, 18, 25, 26, 37, 41, 44, 60, 80, 118, 135, 152) or serpent (26, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 60, 80, 103, 118, 121, 147, 157). Curious is the statement of one that it was an enormous sea-serpent, without, however, having ever heard of such an animal (132)! Remarkable is the opinion of an officer of the Daedalus: it was, he says, rather of a lizard than of a serpentine character, as its movement was steady and uniform, as if propelled by fins, not by any undulatory power (118). Remarkable too is Pontoppidan’s comparison of an animal which he himself, believing that sea-serpents have no fins, or paws, or flappers, did not mention in his paragraph about the subject, viz. with a crocodile (14). Captain Hope who had an opportunity to observe the animal from above, described it as a large marine animal with the head and general figure of the alligator, except that the neck was much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had four flappers somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior (119). In my opinion the comparison of Lieutenant Haynes, of the Osborne, who saw the fore part of the animal from behind, deserves all our attention; he says: the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head (148, fig. 45).
The shape of the head has also been described in different ways. There is the statement that it is of a form somewhat oval (31); here it evidently was seen in rather an oblique direction; also that it was as round as a flour-barrel (158, evidently seen in front), and bullet-shaped (148, seen from behind, fig. 45). The head is also said to appear like a triangular rock (74), or like a nun buoy (131), or like a boat keel uppermost, and the reader has only to look at our fig. 31, to conceive how these comparisons arose. In another instance the observer declared it to have nearly the shape of a ten-gallon cask (102), which is nearly the same as “of a form somewhat oval”. Major Senior asserts that the shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon he has often seen (149); the explanation of this curious comparison I have given in treating of his report. The head, says somebody, resembled the end of a log (150), and: the thick bluff head had but little resemblance to a snake’s (150); but he saw the animal in late evening twilight. But most eye-witnesses declare it to resemble that of a snake (p.137, 29, 60, 97, 101, 118, 121), or serpent (29, 48, 61, 63, 74), or something that of a rattle snake (39); and evidently seen in a somewhat oblique direction, it is said to be shaped much like that of a sea-turtle (38). I can only explain these different comparisons by supposing that to some extent the head really resembles these various head shapes, being flattened above and somewhat blunt at its end. Though the officers of the Daedalus, too, compared it with that of a snake, their drawing (fig. 30) shows the head of a mammal. The proportions of the length and height, the outlines of the jaws, the extension of the mouth-split, the situation of the nostril and the eye, the flattened appearance of the forehead and nose, the bluntness of the snout and the presence of the two cushions on the crown of the head (the external visible masticatory muscles) are true mammalian characters. It therefore is not wonderful also to find such a head compared with that of a bull-dog (152 A), that of a walrus (129), that of a seal (8, 29, 148), and that of a sea-lion (36). When the animal held its head at nearly right angles with its neck, which has often been the case, and opened its nostrils as wide as possible (and the nostrils are exceedingly large), such a head, with its flattened nose and forehead, and with its somewhat protruding eyes, resembled that of a horse (9, 63, 124). We observe that the head is compared with seven different head-shapes, five of which are mammalian. It is obvious that the observers compared it with the heads of those animals which involuntarily and at once occurred to them. To which of these types are we to direct our attention? Which of these types will the sea-serpent’s head resemble most? I say, that of the sea-lion. And why? Because the animal, with the head of which that of the sea-serpent was compared, was not present at the time, except in Mr. Kriukof’s case. He was daily surrounded by sea-lions; the image of the sea-lion’s head was as firmly impressed on his memory as that of a dog on his master’s; and I greatly doubt whether the other observers were acquainted with sea-lions. These animals, especially the species of the Northern Pacific, are only of late years to be seen in the zoological gardens, and it remains to be found out whether the most recent eye-witnesses of the sea-serpent ever saw a sea-lion, and if so, whether the features of the animal had been impressed on their memory so as to recognize the same shape in the head of another animal. Moreover the head of a sea-lion, especially that of Zalophus californianus has some resemblance to a snake’s.
The neck being round is said to resemble “something of a serpent’s (74), or of a common snake’s (97, 101), and tapering small from the head to the body (121). It is obvious that this observer used the expression “tapering” in a sense contrary to the usual one, for he had a fair opportunity to see the animal’s head, long neck and upper part of the trunk with the two foreflappers, and he goes on with the words: and it appeared to measure about seven feet across the broadest part of the back.
The trunk must be broadest before and smallest behind, as may be inferred from the following statements: its shoulders are considerably broader than the head (31), from the shoulders it tapered towards the tail (31, 39, 91, 150), the breadth diminished remarkably towards the tail (92), from the shoulder (estimated to be about twenty feet) diminishing towards the tail to about twenty four inches (122), evidently the end of the latter was hidden under water. Moreover, the body is said to be round (102, 115, 117), even as a snake’s (92), and on one occasion, when seen from behind, is said to be developed in form like that of a gigantic turtle (148, fig. 45), which we need not say, was the result of the upper part of the back being only visible. Remarkable is the use of the term “shoulders”, for even if the flappers of the animal were never actually observed, we are now obliged to conclude that the animal was possessed of fore-limbs. Equally remarkable is the statement: “there is a distinct difference in thickness between the body and the tail; the trunk is not gradually growing smaller, where the tail begins, but at once and very distinctly” (8, 12, 146); for such an animal has rumps, and consequently also thighs and hind-limbs.
The tail itself is cylindrical (146), like that of a snake (101), and tapering to its end (8, 12, 146, 150, fig. 19). Twice the animal’s head and tail were plainly visible above the surface (135, 162), the trunk being wholly hidden under the surface of the water; it was called a snake; the shape of the tail was not mentioned; evidently the tail was pointed, else it would have been described as resembling that of a fish or of a whale; evidently it was also tapering to its end, else it would have been described as a cord or whiplike. The same was the case in no. 152 A; the observer firmly believed he saw an enormous serpent.
Position and shape of flappers. Hans Egede said that the animal had two flappers on the fore-part of the body (5), but the drawing of Mr. Bing, his brother missionary (fig. 19), is not accurate, as the animal’s neck is drawn too small, the head too large, and the flappers themselves are badly represented. It seems, however, that the indented edge of the foreflappers did not escape the eyes of Mr. Bing. Mr. Bakewell asserts that the flappers are described to resemble those of turtles (p. 250); most probably the foreflappers are meant here, as these are occasionally seen above the surface, which is hardly ever the case with the hindflappers. In an animal which was estimated at from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the fore-flappers was occasionally visible at about twenty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about one fourth of the whole length (118). Captain Hope states that the flappers were somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than the posterior (110). According to the figures 36, 45 and 50 on the right, the foreflappers resemble those of a sea-lion. In the figures 36 and 45 the hindmost edge is drawn indented. In the animal of the Daedalus, which was from 80 to 90 feet in length, one of the hindflappers was occasionally visible at about forty feet in the rear of the head, consequently at about the centre of the whole length (118). Of course they were invisible to Egede and Bing, as the middle part of the animal’s body was hidden under water (fig. 19).
The fore-head is described as high and broad (p. 144) and flat (29, 41, 44, 60, 69, 118, 157, fig. 30), or depressed (56) and once Mr. Senior thought to observe in it, together with the eyebrow, a bull dog appearance (149).
The snout or muzzle is called long and sharp (5, fig. 19), sharp (p. 130, 115, 120), tapering to a point (48), rather pointed (91), pointed (118), though the accompanying figure (fig. 30) contradicts this, pointed like that of a porpoise (122), an elongated termination (148), not pointed but bluntly round (92), not pointed but seemed rather blunt (94), a blunt and quadrangular beak as cows and horses have (p. 144), evidently with the nostrils opened as wide as possible, rather blunt (48), apparently blunt (102), bluff (150), obtuse (56), the head, estimated at eight or six feet long, consequently at five or four feet broad, tapered to the size of a horse’s (34), the snout being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal (148).
The upperjaw projects considerably (118); we may safely read projects.
Under the jaw there was a quantity of loose skin, like a pouch (126). This it seems is occasionally the case, and it is not impossible as it even occurs in allied animals.
The nostrils are seldom mentioned. It is evident that the animal is able to close them; they are, however, delineated (fig. 19, fig. 24, fig. 36), or indicated with a crescentic mark (fig. 80), and mentioned to have been distinctly visible (118), and described as large (p. 180). It is also evident that when the animal opens them as wide as possible, the beak appears quadrangular, as is the mouth of cows and horses (p. 130). This comparison agrees with the description of the nose sides or flaps which are here said to be “nearly semicircular flaps or valves overarching the nostrils, which were in front” (143).
Of the whiskers Pontoppidan already tells us that on the sides of the nostrils there are a few stiff hairs or bristles, as other animals have, with a good nose (p. 130). These whiskers are mentioned afterwards only once: “on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long” (103). Were these whiskers not seen by them who compare the head with that of a seal (8, 29), with that of a walrus (129), or with that of a sea-lion (36)? I believe they were, and that, through inadvertency, they are not mentioned in the reports.
The mouth is transverse (56) and large (9, 56); it is rarely mentioned, but once stated to have been distinctly visible (118); once it was estimated at fifteen inches (56) (I may ask: large, long, or when opened?), and once we find the firm assertion that when open it looked like that of a serpent! (41).
The eyes were not always seen; it may be that the distance was too large, or that the animal kept them closed (115, 128, 130, 137, 146). They are mentioned as to have been only visible in 31, 80, 101, 118, 126, 152, 158; but sometimes we get a short description. They are round (92, fig. 30), about the size of an ox’s (48), about 3¹⁄₃ inches in diameter (102), about 5 inches in diameter (92), large (p. 131, 91, 122), large as a plate (32, 103), disproportionately large (36), broad (p. 225), very large (92), relatively large (112). We observe that the size of the eyes, when opened as wide as possible, has struck the observers; they must be disproportionately large. But if we wish to know the relative largeness, we have only to consult no. 92 and 102, where the eyes are estimated at 3¹⁄₂ and 5 inches. On both occasions the observers estimated the head to be as long as a ten gallon cask, and about of the same thickness. As to the lustre of the eyes we read that: they are not glossy (103), generally, however, glossy (122), brilliant (p. 105), flaming (p. 105), sharp (44), very bright (48), and glittering (63, p. 225, 92). It seems that the eyes, seen in their axis are dark (44, 103), or black (9, 103), and that, when seen in an oblique direction they seem to be blue or better tin-coloured, for they are said to resemble rather a pair of pewter plates (p. 131). We also conclude that when seen in the axis and reflecting the daylight by their tapetum lucidum they glisten like those of a cat (91), or have a peculiar glimmer in their cavity (143), and this glimmer or glistening was said to be red (33), or reddish like a burning fire (5), or crimson (92). The eye is delineated in fig. 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36.—One of the eye-witnesses of no 48 states that there is a small bunch on each side of his head, just above his eye; another too said: there appeared a bunch above the eyes (48). It is also said that the eyes are prominent, and stand out considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad (60). It is easy to understand that one thought such eyes similar to the horse’s (56), and that another saw a bull-dog appearance in forehead and eye-brow (149). This heavy eye-brow is delineated too (fig. 19, 26). The situation of the eyes is over the jaws (56), and nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of the head (60, fig. 30).
Neither ear-holes nor external ears are mentioned. If external ears are present, they must be exceedingly minute; the absence, however, is very probable; at all events earholes must be present, but they are evidently very small, and capable of being closed, as in seals. Curious is the assertion “the ears seemed to be diaphanous” (143).
There is a slight hollow at the top of the head (60, fig. 30).
The features resemble those of an alligator (148), but made on others the impression as being those of a seal (29).
c. Skin.
Except in two cases (39, 157) when the animal was very near, scales are not mentioned, and the skin was apparently smooth (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, &c., &c., &c.); it is stated to be destitute of scales (149), altogether devoid of scales (148), smooth (13, p. 132, 41, 43, 48, 56, 59, 60, 92, 103, 114, 115, 118, 146, fig. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 45), like a mirror (p. 132), shining (114), shining strongly (117), with a very bright reflexion (46), looking similar to an eel’s (59). But an animal which has whiskers on its upperlips, must have a hairy skin. Remarkable is therefore the assertion: the skin appeared rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal (148), and still more: that it is as woolly as a seal’s (8). Such a hairy skin becomes smooth as a mirror and shines strongly, when it is wet, as may be seen in seals, sea-lions, and sea-bears.
2. INTERNAL OR ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.
It is not astonishing that we don’t know much of its anatomical characters, as it never had the honour to be dissected by the able hand and keen scalpel of an anatomist. Yet it is clear that if the animal opens its mouth, there is an opportunity to learn something about its teeth, tongue, etc. Generally it keeps its mouth shut, once only this is stated (126), as if the observer watched an opportunity to see it opening its mouth. Though we have several accounts mentioning the animal opening its mouth (39, 41, 48, 65, 81, 109, 118, 144, 149), teeth are not always seen, either because the distance was too great, or because the position was not favourable. Teeth are delineated (fig. 19); they are mentioned in 65, 81, 109, 118, described as formidable in 109, and as jagged in 118.
Of the animal’s tongue we have the following observations: “There rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point. I thought it not the tongue, as I saw the prong before I saw the head, but it might have been” (43, distance forty rods, with a spyglass); “I was struck with an appearance in the front part of the head like a single horn, about nine inches to a foot in length, and of the form of a marlinespike. There were a great many people collected by this time, many of whom had before seen the same object and the same appearance” (44); “he threw out his tongue about two feet in length, the end of it appeared to me to resemble a fisherman’s harpoon” (48); “he raised his tongue several times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again” (48); “he threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from his jaws, the end of it resembled a harpoon” (48); “he threw his tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again” (48); “the colour of his tongue was a light brown” (48).
To the descriptions of the teeth and tongue no great value can be attached, as such organs need close examination. The length of the tongue is, anatomically spoken, not an impossibility, as it is known that animals with a long neck generally have a long tongue.
3. COLOURS, INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS.
Just as in some species of the order of Pinnipeds, there seem to exist indeed some individual variations with regard to the colour of the sea-serpent.
Just as in the dark specimens of the Pinnipeds, the colour of the sea-serpent becomes lighter in drying; i. e. the real colour of the animal comes to light. Properly we should say: their colour is light, but, when wet, it becomes a dark one. It is evident that the real colour of the sea-serpent, being dried by the sunshine, is grey (9, 61, 64), a light ash-colour (25), grey and yellow (147), pale yellowish (146), or yellow (71).
Just as in Pinnipeds, the colour of a wet individual appears much lighter when it is very close to us, than when we see it at some distance. Three times the colour is called grey (65, 66, p. 138), though not a single fact is mentioned, from which it may be made out, whether the animal was very near or far off. The colour of an individual which was so close that it could be struck with a handspike was greyish (72), that of one a few yards distant, light fawn coloured (122), at about thirty feet distance the colour seemed to be a very dark grey (102), still farther a greyish brown (79).
Though some persons call the colour only dark, or brown, or black, it is noteworthy that those who describe it more minutely, agree that the backpart of the head, the neck, the trunk and the tail are dark, and that the under part of the head and the neck is light coloured. With regard to the colour, the animal is evidently longitudinally divided into a dark one above and a light one beneath.
The dark colour of the upper part seems to vary a little, as may be seen from the following appellations: dark (41, 48, 51, 63, 67, 80, 85, 103, 115, 131, 152 A, 154), very dark (42, 48), somewhat dark (95), dark dull (130), evidently a chocolate brown, or mahogany brown, or chestnut brown, for it was compared with a red snake (36), chocolate colour (44), dark chocolate colour (48), colour of a pilot fish (151), old mahogany brown (92), dirty brown (121), brown (43, 81, 92, 144), deep brown (34), dark brown (p. 131, 39, 44, 46, 56, 69, 97, 115, 117, 118, 135), blackish brown (91), approaching to black (63), nearly black (41, 95, 97) almost black (48), blackish (65, 94, 117), black (34, 42, 60, 85, 114, 120, 126, 138, 149, 150, 152, 155), as black as coal-tar (152). The tints of the figures also evidently represent a dark colour (figg. 28, 29, 30, 41, 45, 46). By some witnesses the colour of the head is observed to be darker than that of the body; we may safely read for “body” the “neck”. Once the colour of the shoulders is reported to be much darker than the rest of the body (122).
On this dark upperpart spots, stripes, streaks etc. of a lighter hue are observed more than once: the colour was that of a conger eel, consequently brown with lighter streaks (144), spotted, and with light flames, or maculated, with distinctly visible light spots like a turtle or a lackered table (p. 131), apparently shaded with light colours (41), streaked with white in irregular streaks (97), on an under ground of fawn colour there were large brown spots behind the shoulders (122), maculated with large white spots (130), covered with several white spots (131), brown with black spots (162). See also figg. 37 and 38.
In some individuals there is a black ring round the eye (p. 131, 29), and the region of the mouth is also black, so that they resemble those horses which we call moorish heads or blackfaces (p. 131, 9).
The sides of the underjaw seem to be very light coloured: white (34, 41, 126, figg. 28, 29, 30), as is also the throat: whitish (p. 138, 117, figg. 28, 29, 30), yellow (25), muddy white (56), yellowish white (118), brownish white (118), light coloured (126), white (69, 144), “the underpart of its head appeared nearly white” (41), “several feet of its belly” (read throat) “which were visible appeared nearly white” (41); very remarkable is the supposition of Mr. Matthew Gaffney: “I suppose and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white” (41), this really seems to be the case, for we read in 106 A that the tail is longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black, and in no. 144 that the whole animal was longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. Of course in both cases the black side was the back-side, as was very well supposed by Captain Drevar in no. 144.
I am of course unable to decide in how far the problematic dark stripe, curved downwards, on each side behind the underjaw, and as long as the head, delineated in figg. 28 and 29, will ever be found to come up to reality.
The representation of the colours in fig. 31 is very bad, as the animal’s back is drawn lighter than the underpart, and I believe that such alternating broad bands of a light and dark colour don’t exist in reality, but are here the result of drawing with a pencil.
4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE.
It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and that others have not.
The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over the whole length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, and diminishing gradually to the tail where it evidently passes imperceptibly into the common hair-coating. The mane is said to have been visible on its head (135); at the back of the head (figg. 17, 24, no. 102), which no doubt means just behind the occiput. Further: on the neck (p. 105, p. 132, p. 138, p. 225, 9, 11, 12, 101, 103, fig. 31), from the back of the head a mane commenced (91), just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further backwards (91), close behind the head a mane commences along the neck (92), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (92), the head was provided with a mane hanging down (152 A); evidently the mane extends from the head over the whole length of the neck and the trunk (18? fig. 28, fig. 29). The mane near the head is long (9, 152 A), tolerably long (92), two feet long (p. 105), and all along the neck and back: not very long (91), that it is of some length, we must suppose, for it is said to wash about to and fro in the water (91, 118, 120), and to spread to left and to right floating on the water (92), when the animal swims. The colour of the mane seems to be white (9) when dried up by the sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the body (102), brown (92, 152 A). The mane resembles that of a horse (p. 138, p. 225, 91, 92, 103, 118) or rather seaweed (p. 132, 118, 135).
Probably a mane was present in no. 51, and 74; the back from afar, was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and had a rugged appearance; see also fig. 36.
Twice it is stated that there was no mane (26, 115, see also fig. 19 and 27), but we have so many reports which don’t mention the mane, and which surely would have mentioned it, if it had been present, that we are obliged to believe that those individuals had no mane. In other instances the distance was too great to observe a mane, even if the animal had been provided with one.
I am sure that here we have one of the differences between males and females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a difference in size between males and females, I should not be surprised that, if these animals were better known to zoologists, the males would, in general, prove to surpass the females twice in size and four or six times in weight. In my opinion large individuals are, therefore, males, and must have a mane, or at one time have had one. The probability exists that they lose the greater part of their mane at a certain age, or that they were moulting when they were seen; which would account for the fact that in some large individuals no mane was observed.
Fig. 72. Sea-serpent, side view, drawn from the descriptions.
Fig. 73. Sea-serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions.
I have ventured to draw the outlines of the animal from the descriptions. Fig. 72 represents it as seen from aside, with the divisions of the colours, and fig. 73 as seen on the back with the whiskers and the extension of the mane in the males.
5. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.
a. Nutritory functions.
1. Eating, Food.—Its eating cuttles, lobsters and all kind of sea-crabs (p. 105), may be true. With the greatest certainty it may be said to feed on fish. We have found the following notices which decide this: “He often disappeared and was gone five or ten minutes under water; evidently he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same situation and thus employed for two hours. All kind of fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen” (35). “It sometimes darted under water with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey” (69), which in this instance surely was fish. “Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, and showing all the symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some wicked enemy” (133), and suddenly a sea-serpent appeared. “There was an unusual abundance of fish close in shore” (150), a sea-serpent soon made its appearance.
Not only does the animal prey on fish, but, by way of change, also on sea-mammals. When on Behring’s Isle Mr. Kriukof tells us that “the sea-lions were so terrified at the sight of the monster, that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of the flesh, which, according to the Aleutians is that of this serpent” (36). Evidently such pieces of flesh are washed aland only when a sea-serpent had made its appearance, otherwise there would be no reason to ascribe such pieces of flesh to sea-serpents. Sea-reptiles don’t exist in those regions; it is highly improbable that the pieces of flesh were of sea-birds; they are not of fishes, as in that case they would not have been called flesh, consequently they are of sea-mammals. Of what kind of sea-mammals these pieces of flesh were, is not the question now, but I am sure that the sea-lions would not be so terrified, if they did not know the sea-serpent to be a terrible enemy.
There is moreover no doubt, that sea-serpents sometimes prey on the smaller kind of whales, as dolphins, porpoises, grampuses, &c. It sometimes appears suddenly amidst a shoal of these animals: “It was surrounded by porpoises and grampuses” (56); “There was an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”, no doubt because they were pursued by a sea-serpent (97); “an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship as if pursued” (124), and gracefully a long neck, moving like that of a swan rose from the depths. Our suppositions in this respect are confirmed by the reports of Captain S. West, who saw the sea-serpent “engaged with a whale” (54), and of Captain Davison, stating that a sea-serpent seized a whale on the belly (read pectoral fin) (151, fig. 49).
The manner of darting on its prey is well described in no. 149 and 152. I am convinced that the individuals in no. 154 and 106 a were diving for food in a playful manner, with their body and part of their tail floating on the surface.
2. Breathing. Nobody will doubt that sea-serpents respire by gills as fish do; they move or swim, as is stated in numerous reports, with the head constantly above water, or when holding it nearly on the surface, it is evident that their nostrils are always just above the surface. When diving or fishing for food the average time that they remain under water is about eight minutes (63). It is probable that they may remain under it for half an hour or still longer. When having remained so long under water, and appearing on the surface, the animal suddenly exhales with such a force that “we at first imagined it to be a whale spouting” (83), and “every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steamboat” (101). The same noise is usually heard when a whale “spouts” (See H. Lee, Sea Fables Explained, 1883, London), see also fig. 36. But also when the animal is swimming or lying still on the surface with its head on the level of the water, occasionally exhaling when its nostrils are not quite above water, it “spouts water from it not unlike the blowing of a whale” (74); “near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth as though it was spouting water” (114). The breath of the animal is occasionally also seen condensed by the cold, forming little curling clouds, “it blew like a whale”, said Egede (5, fig. 19), “it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff, resembling long shavings from a pine plank” (158). In general, however, the animal swims with its head some feet above the surface of the water, so that it is very natural that “there was an entire absence of blowing or spouting” (148).
3. Excretion. In one report we read that the animal left a greasy trail behind him (156). It is very probable that such a large sea-animal, provided as it is with rather a thick layer of bacon under its skin, secretes a quantity of liquid fat, large enough to leave a greasy trail”; this will certainly happen when it is severely wounded.
Without any doubt it is true that it may “emit a very strong odour” (61).
b. Functions of the senses.
1. Feeling.—Of course but little can be noticed about the animal’s feeling. Pontoppidan tells us that it has whiskers “like other animals which have a good nose.” How far the Bishop believed that those whiskers had anything to do with the animal’s sense of smell, I cannot tell. But certainly they have not. Well developed whiskers are rarely found but in animals which catch their prey in a stealthy way, such as cats, dogs, viverrides, mustelides, and numerous allied animals, and in animals which live in holes, as mice, rats, &c. It is known that all these animals can go through holes, crevices, fissures, slits or clefts which are large enough to admit their whiskers. Whiskers are organs of feeling. Consequently seals, sea-lions, sea-bears, &c., and also sea-serpents will on numerous occasions find their whiskers of great use for the purpose of feeling with them.
Further it must not astonish us that sea-serpents are usually observed in fine weather when there is no wind. They seem to dislike wind, and therefore, if having no special purpose in view, they disappear as soon as the wind begins to blow (3, p. 129, p. 133, 92, 94); they even seem to be very sensible of the least wind.
Warmth on the contrary seems to be very welcome to them, as they are often seen on hot days, and even basking in the sun (114, 137).
2. Taste. The taste of the animal is, of course, only to be known by the food it takes.
3. Smell. There is no doubt that, guided by their smell they prey on fish, but it is clear that we shall never know any more particulars about it. Only it is stated, and it seems to be true, that they cannot bear the smell of castoreum and asa foetida, and that Norwegian seamen and fishermen up to the days of Rathke (1840) would never forget to bring one of these drugs with them, to drive them away. (Pontoppidan, p. 130, p. 134, p. 259).
As far as I know, zoologists accept three reasons why some animals emit some strong odour; viz. to drive away their enemies, or to recognize one another, either in the neighbourhood or from afar, or to flatter and to attract the other sex. With which purpose sea-serpents emit a strong odour, this surely will be very difficult to decide, but in all probability they smell it themselves.
4. Hearing. The observations about the animal’s hearing are, as may be expected, but very few. That an animal hears, can only be asserted when it gives unmistakable signs that it has heard, for instance a sudden turning of its head towards the origin of sound, or the running away from it. So we have the statements that the sea-serpent “was not pleased with the noise of our oars” (69); “the fishermen advise to be very quiet when a sea-serpent approaches and to avoid rowing, because the least noise attracts it still more” (p. 259); “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); “on my coo-ee the fish started off seawards out of sight and under water” (150).
5. Sight.—The numerous statements that a sea-serpent swims with its head some feet above the surface of the water prove that it looks straight before it. Further we have found it several times mentioned that it followed a boat, and finally the assertion that it raised its head and neck several feet above the water, evidently to take a survey towards the ship passing, or to take a view of objects, or to look about for prey (31, 36, 60, 63, 74, p. 225, 80, 93, 121, 128, 131, 145, 149, 152 A).
c. Functions of the muscular system.
1. Relative mobility of organs. We have already mentioned that the eyes, like the nostrils and the mouth, may be shut or opened wide. Yet they do not seem to be very movable (103).
The head may be held at right angles with the neck (70, fig. 24). The animal can bend its neck in several directions, moving it like that of a swan (124, 151, fig. 49), consequently bent dorso-ventrally in the form of a stretched S. When only the forepart of the neck, curved in such a way, is visible above water, the observers naturally say that it is curved (97), or bent in a semi-circle (115). It can also turn its head a little sideways (60, 63, 93). The swimming in vertical undulations is surely a proof of dorso-ventral flexibility. It has the power to hold its body in a straight line, quite stiff, even in swimming. Also it has the power to bend its neck, trunk and tail dorso-ventrally into numerous “bunches”, unless it is not the whole mass of its body, but only the layer of muscles, bacon and its skin, which it is able to bend in such a manner, for it is observed lying perfectly still, showing, however, numerous bunches (34, 42, 61, 64, 67, 69, 106 A, 154). In this condition it may even swim (60, 63). These bunches according to its body-length, may be of the size of a barrel (34), or from six to seven feet from each other, and from three to four feet high (154, fig. 50). On some occasions it gave the impression of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself (137), for there was no appearance of undulation; when the lumps sunk, other lumps did not rise in the intervals between them (137). Twice it is observed only with its head and its tail above water, the body slightly under (135, 162), and once casting itself backwards, and in doing so, its tail rose high above the water (5) so that the animal was bent dorsally in the form of an U or horse-shoe (fig. 19).
Its lateral flexibility is also astonishing. In turning it bends its body quite in the form of a horse-shoe, the head nearly touching its tail end (39, 41, 44); in turning twice immediately after each other or in playing, its body is bent in the form of the letter S (63, fig. 37, fig. 38). Also it may play in circles (39). Once, seized by a spermwhale, evidently in its trunk, it wound itself laterally round the head and upperjaw of its attacker (144). Its tail is said to lash the water (151? 158), and to wind itself up, and to rest for a moment on a part of the trunk (106 A). In short it is as limber and active as an eel (44).
Provided, as sea-lions are, with rather a thick layer of bacon under its skin, the animal, when it bends its body in the form of a horse-shoe, either laterally or dorsally, naturally shows in the concave side of the curve, wrinkles or folds (5) in its skin. When its head is held nearly at right angles with the neck, the skin under the chin is contracted into folds, which led to the description that the animal had some “gills” (read “gill-splits”, 56). When its neck is a little contracted, it may happen that three folds of the skin encircle the neck, which when held so for some time, and exposed to the sun, dry on their highest part, and when stretched again, will show “three yellow collars” (71). It may also be that “at about six feet from the jaws there is a protuberance on its back like a small watercask” (126), or that “a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircles the neck about two feet from the head” (131).
The flappers may be lifted up so high that they are occasionally visible above the surface (106 A, 118, 137, 154, fig. 50); when the animal is swimming with extreme rapidity, they may be raised still higher, so that they are almost entirely above the surface (129, 148, fig. 36, fig. 45), but then they are not directed hindwards, but forwards, “they were turned to the contrary way” (129, fig. 36, fig. 50). The flappers move alternately: “the movements of the flappers were those of a turtle”, “the monster paddled itself along after the fashion of a turtle” (148), and have “a semi-revolving motion” (148). When the animal swims with vertical undulations, it may press the flappers close against the body, so that seen from above, it is as if the flappers were wanting (82).
2. Motions. Hitherto we have considered the animal by itself, let us now see how it moves in the water.
The first sign of the presence of a sea-serpent may, of course, be very different. Generally, when the animal was met with it was already swimming on the surface; sometimes it lay still, and it appeared to be a wreck or a small rock, but on approaching gradually changed into a living animal; and sometimes, though rarely, it appeared on the surface not far from the vessels. It is a proof that it may remain a tolerably long time under water before it comes to the surface to breathe. This may happen in two ways; viz. 1. After it has swum a long time just below the surface, it will gradually raise its head above it, and 2. When it has swum for some time very deep below the surface, it will rise perpendicularly upwards. Instances of the first manner of coming to the surface will be found in the following passages: “the first sign of the sea-serpent coming up was a rushing in the water ahead of the ship; at first we imagined it to be a whale spouting” (83), “attention was first directed to it by the broken action of the water” (126). Apparently this happened also in the animal of Captain Tremearne (129). In the other manner of coming to the surface, going upwards with great speed, a large portion of the animal is shown to the spectators: “it raised its head high above the surface (1, 31, 36), even so high that the foreflappers became visible” (5, 121); “arising out of the depths of Ocean, stretches to the skies its enormous neck, masthead high” (p. 225); “it raised itself slowly and gracefully from the deep” (124), “it suddenly stood quite perpendicular out of the water to the height of sixty feet” (145); “a head and neck rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty feet (149, 151, 152, see also fig. 19, fig. 46, fig. 48, fig. 49). Once it struck a vessel in coming to the surface (122) so that it may be supposed that the animal had its eyes shut.
Generally it swims with vertical undulations (1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, p. 130, p. 138, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 81, 82, 83, 85, 91, 92, 94, 95, 101, 102, 103, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 137, 138, 139, 150, 155, 157, see also the following figures 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 47, 51). The undulations may be large or small, so that their number differs, but also the animal’s higher or lower position in the water is cause, that their number may greatly vary. Of course it is not always easy to account for a small number of coils. This number is mentioned to be two or three (102), three (113), three to four (138), three to five (117), four or more (139), seven (137, 157), not more than seven (137), seven or eight (9), not more than eight (41), at least ten (85), ten or twelve (44, 60), thirteen to fifteen (63), fifteen to twenty three (63), fourteen (69), several (83), twenty five (2). In our illustrations we find four (fig. 40, fig. 47, fig. 51), six (fig. 26), seven (fig. 24, fig. 39), eight (fig. 35), eleven (fig. 27, fig. 34) and twenty (fig. 33).
The motion of the animal is said to be wrongly serpentine (29, 91, 103, 119, 157), like that of a snake (101, 115, 155), like that of an eel (117), and rightly vermicular (82), like that of a caterpillar (41), like that of a leech (94).
The coils are said to resemble or to be as large as ten-gallon kegs (41), half-barrels (60), flour barrels (60), large kegs (117), those of a dromedary (83), about three feet long (117).
The space between the coils, for there is always a space visible between them (p. 130), is sometimes large, at other times small; it was a space of one fathom (9), of seven feet (69), or of three feet (60).
The whole animal swimming with vertical undulations, and seen from afar, resembles a string of tuns or hogsheads (p. 130), a large shoal of fish (read porpoises) with a seal at one end of it (29), a string of empty barrels tied together (60), a string of casks tied together (60), a string of large casks, gently bubbing up and down (114), a long chain of rocks (106 A), a long chain of enormous rings (106 A), a number of barrels linked together (106 A), eight seals in a row (137), a flock of wild ducks swimming (157).
The height of the coils above water was, according to the animal’s lower or higher position in the water, or according to its bulk, about six inches (41), eight or ten inches (39), at least three feet (114), only a few feet (106 A); we also find the notices: “apparently about one third of the upperpart of its body was above water” (93), “it partly raised itself above the surface of the water” (94).
As is to be expected, the bunches decrease in size towards the tail (69, 102); of coarse this will always be the case.
It seems that sometimes the undulations are limited only to the trunk of the animal: “I saw no bunches towards I thought the end of the tail, and I believe there were none; from where I judged his navel might be, to the end of his tail there were no bunches visible” (44); “the first bunch appeared ten or twelve feet from his head” (69); “about thirty feet behind the head appeared the first coil” (81).
The reader will remember (see Relative mobility of organs) that the animal may crook up its back, or the layer of bacon of its back, when lying perfectly still. It seems evident that it also is able to swim with its flappers, whilst its back is in such a condition: “the bunches appeared to be fixed” (60); “his bunches appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he moved along some appeared to be depressed and others brought above the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them” (63); “the protuberances were not from his motion, as they were the same whether in slow or in rapid movement” (69). See also no. 137.
I am convinced that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations, usually presses its flappers to its body. Once it was seen from above (82) and it seemed to be eel-shaped, and the flappers must have been invisible, at least they are not mentioned; it swam with vertical undulations.
But there are reasons to believe that the animal, swimming with vertical undulations, at a moderate rate, also uses its flappers. Once it was seen from above, moving with vertical undulations, and its flappers are tolerably well described (119). And when we read: “the motion of his body was rising and falling, the head moderately vibrating from side to side” (48), “the motion of his head was sideways and quite moderate, and the motion of his body was up and down” (48), “his motion was partly vertical, partly horizontal” (69), “serpentine movements, some up and down, some to the side” (91), we must conclude that the animal swimming with vertical undulations may indeed also use its flappers. If only the foreflapper and the hind one of the right side were used, the animal would turn to the left, if, on the contrary, it used its two left flappers, it would turn to the right; consequently when the right foreflapper (leaving for a moment the hindflappers out of consideration) is moved backwards with a strong action, the head must move a little to the left, and it will move to the right, when the left foreflapper is propelled backwards.