Part 114

+-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of head. | ³⁄₄ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of neck. | 4 | 6 |11²⁄₃|17¹⁄₂| 23¹⁄₂| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of trunk. | 4⁷⁄₁₂| 7¹⁄₂|15 |22¹⁄₂| 29²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of tail. | 8²⁄₃ |13¹⁄₃|26²⁄₃|40 | 53¹⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Total length. |18 |27²⁄₃|55¹⁄₃|83 |110²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |From occiput to foreflappers.| 4¹⁄₃ | 6²⁄₃|13¹⁄₃|20 | 26²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of head. | ⁵⁄₁₂| ²⁄₃| 1¹⁄₃| 2 | 2²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of neck. | ³⁄₁₂| ⁴⁄₉| ⁸⁄₉| 1¹⁄₂| 1²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Breadth of trunk. | 1¹⁄₂ | 2¹⁄₃| 4²⁄₃| 7 | 9¹⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of foreflapper. | 1 | 1²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₃| 5 | 6²⁄₃| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+ |Length of hindflapper. | ⁷⁄₉ | 1¹⁄₆| 2¹⁄₃| 3¹⁄₂| 4¹⁄₂| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+

+-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of head. | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of neck. | 29¹⁄₂| 35¹⁄₃| 41¹⁄₆| 47 | 53| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of trunk. | 37¹⁄₆| 44²⁄₃| 52¹⁄₉| 59¹⁄₂| 67| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of tail. | 66²⁄₃| 80 | 93¹⁄₃|106²⁄₃|120| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Total length. |138¹⁄₃|166 |193²⁄₃|221¹⁄₃|249| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |From occiput to foreflappers.| 33¹⁄₃| 40 | 46²⁄₃| 53¹⁄₃| 60| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of head. | 3¹⁄₃| 4 | 4²⁄₃| 5¹⁄₃| 6| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of neck. | 2¹⁄₆| 2²⁄₃| 3¹⁄₉| 3¹⁄₂| 4| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Breadth of trunk. | 11²⁄₃| 14 | 16¹⁄₃| 18²⁄₃| 21| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of foreflapper. | 8¹⁄₃| 10 | 11²⁄₃| 13¹⁄₃| 15| +-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+---+ |Length of hindflapper. | 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 n^o. 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 n^o. 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.