Part 26

“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain M’Quhae, the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the Southern Atlantic, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, about 300 miles off the African shore, recalled my attention to the materials I had collected respecting the vast animal cast ashore on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys, in 1808.”

“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made by those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me by order of Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on whose property it was stranded; and I obtained other notes from several individuals resident in Orkney.”

“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists. Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the late Gilbert Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the skull and several vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which a portion of the pectoral fin, or wing, as it was termed by the natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined them.”

“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of what was termed the mane of the animal, which I now exhibit.”

“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying on a sunken rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; but in a few days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on shore in a creek near the headland, where it remained for some time tolerably entire; and it was subsequently broken up by the fury of the waves. Before it was thus broken into several pieces it was examined, and measured by several intelligent inhabitants of the Island; and their testimony collected as above stated was forwarded to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations were, however, accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal, which was thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the storm abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, to collect what information he could on the subject. But by this time the body of the animal was completely broken up. This lad, who was no draughtsman, and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, from the descriptions of those who had seen the animal most entire, to delineate with chalk on a table a figure of the animal. The rude figure so produced was transferred by pencil to paper, and copies of it were handed about as real representations of the animal.”

“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted by those who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards obtained, it would appear that the jointed legs, which the lad had attached to it, are creations of his own imagination.”

“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, were never called legs by those who saw the animal, but were denominated by them wings or fins or swimming paws. “That nearest the head was broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half feet in length, and was edged all round with bristles or fibres, about ten inches long”. The “lower jaw was wanting when it was cast ashore, but there remained cartilaginous teeth in portions of the jaws”. Before it was discovered putrefaction had commenced, especially in the fins. The animal had a long and slender neck, on which there were two spiracles on each side.”

“The wings would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains of pectoral, abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have been placed, like those of some of the shark family, farther from the centre of the abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of the witnesses states that “the wings of the animal were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the drawing”.”

“The portion of the anterior fin or wing, which was attached to the omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a structure of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, the rays might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural science, seem like toes or fingers.”

“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing the fins of fishes:”--

“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires membraneuses representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et des pieds.”

“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal rests on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw it most entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew the three principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George Sherar, and William Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, and of remarkable intelligence. They were not ignorant fishermen, as the witnesses were represented to be; but two of them were of the better sort of farmers in that part of Orkney; and the first and the last of them were also very ingenious mechanics, much accustomed to the use of the footrule, the instrument employed in measuring the animal.”

“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that I can have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made of their impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”

“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months after these accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr. Home (afterwards Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside the evidence of the persons who saw and measured the animal in its most entire condition, as to its dimensions of length and thickness; and maintains that it was nothing but a Basking shark (Selache maximum!), which he supposes the love of the marvellous had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those whom he is pleased to call “ignorant fishermen”. Unfortunately for Home’s hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the Orkney Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so totally different from the animal in question, that the two could scarcely be confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had ever seen them.”

“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions) measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account scarcely exceeds thirty six feet.”

“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. My notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body of the Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much towards the head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large Basking shark, where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, the shark-like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the eel-like form of the Stronsey animal.”

“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more oval than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, who had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized horse in thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to fourteen hands in height, I found their greatest circumference to be from seventy-one to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet eleven inches to six feet one inch), or an average of six feet, that is less than the thickest part of our animal, but seemingly near that of its average dimensions.)”

“The mane as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a decomposed fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a fin; and the animal seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had a mane, floating about like sea-weed; and a similar appendage has generally been noticed in some less distinct accounts of a supposed sea-serpent.”

“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior wings, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the mane consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine animal. That its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from the specimen now exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches in length; and in the dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, equal to that of isinglass.”

“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our Museum, have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in the Wernerian Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their want of processes and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance to those of chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent to the cranium, measured only two inches across; while that of the Basking-shark, in the same situation, is about seven inches in diameter. Dr. Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of the omoplates, and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are accurately given, from a drawing made from the recent remains, by the late Mr. John T. Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman, and able naturalist. I know the representation to be correct, for I saw and handled the specimen. The substance of this part was a firm, but flexible cartilage, and seemed to have been placed in the muscles; just as Cuvier describes the omoplates of sharks to be: Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans le chair, en arrière des Branchies, sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à l’espine. The Orkney animal seems to have had two circular spiracles on each side of its neck, about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the Basking shark has five linear spiracles on each side, a foot or more in length.”

“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far too small for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual length of that species. It measured in its dried state no more than twelve inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven inches. A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a head of at least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium at the angles of the mouth, would have measured probably five feet. These proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal could not possibly be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed to see the Basking shark, with that fish. There was a hole on the top of the cranium, something similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans; but its lateral spiracles and cartilaginous bones forbid us to refer it to the order of cetacea”.

“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious fish, different from any described by naturalists; but it has no pretensions to the denomination of Sea Serpent or Sea Snake, although its general form, and probably its mode of progression in the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order of Serpentes. Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known shark; nor does it belong to the family of Squalidae”.

I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. TRAILL’S paper. First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was cast on shore by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime tolerably entire”. This is not true, for the dead animal was already in a very putrified and damaged state, when it floated on the surface of the sea, for the pectoral fin was already putrified and the fibres had become loose.

Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, but they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by the strength of the hand”.

Mr. TRAILL further says that “they would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may be remains of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there is no fish known to Zoologists, that has two anal fins. The anal fin is therefore called an unpaired fin!

In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those of HOME’S Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. Barclay, permanently believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”! Further he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six feet”. Consulting Prof. H. SCHLEGEL’S De visschen van Nederland, I read, however:

“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, had a length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are usually observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this capture, which are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences, transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GUNNER, sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than 100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”.

In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the two dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so that their fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called “first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. Barclay!