Part 91

For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!

For Mr. DE BLAINVILLE who did not give himself the trouble to collect as many accounts as possible, to read OLAUS MAGNUS, PONTOPPIDAN, EGEDE, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the witnesses concerning the length of the animal.

Mr. A. LESUEUR, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. PÉRON, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. DE BLAINVILLE to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the members of the Committee, together with several inches of another portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake, closely allied to the Black Snake (Coluber constrictor), but that it was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself.

The dissertation of Mr. DE BLAINVILLE and the extract from Mr. LESUEUR’S letter translated into German are in OKEN’S Isis, 1819.

Mr. FRORIEP in his Notizen, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself about this explanation in the following manner:

“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”

Of this little Coluber we find also the following passage in SCHLEGEL’S Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, La Haye, 1837, p. 80:

“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the species called Coluber constrictor, of which all parts were disfigured by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published in Boston, will be found in the Journal de Physique Vol. 86, p. 297.”

Dr. HAMILTON, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, apparently believes that the little Scoliophis atlanticus was the spawn of the Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:

“The Great Sea-Serpent.”

“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.

We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of interrogation after the scientific name.

Without any doubt the Scoliophis atlanticus was a difformed specimen of Coluber constrictor. It was the bunches on its back, which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against this supposition.

* * * * *

The =third= explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already inserted the letter from Prof. T. SAY, of Philadelphia, to Prof. LEACH, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of the crew of the vessel commanded by captain RICHARD RICH, firmly believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but =a large tunny=. Prof. SAY’S letter is also printed in THOMSON’S Annals of January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above mentioned Chapter, fig. 1.

Prof. BIGELOW’S indignation rose against this explanation; in SILLIMAN’S Am. Journ. Sc. Arts. Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:

“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, in which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere), “is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a “defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” (See Thomson’s Annals, for January 1819)”.

“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note from the same author, on the identity of Scoliophis with Coluber constrictor. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on the subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it might have been decorous in him to have noticed the source from which he got his information.”

“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more important than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to the public consideration some additional evidence in regard to the size and shape of this marine animal which has come to light since the publication of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This evidence is partly the result of observations during the present year, and partly the contents of a communication made to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences fifteen years ago, but which, having been mislaid, has not before been published. The reader will judge whether it is a “defective observation” which has produced a remarkable coincidence between witnesses in different periods and places, unknown to each other; or whether it was “an extravagant degree of fear” which induced the commander of an American frigate to man his boats and go with his mariners in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add that the original letters constituting the communication last alluded to, are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy, where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, a seal, a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its enormous long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a tunny, even of nine or ten feet in length!?

* * * * *

The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in his Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents (Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family Hydrophidae), of which I give a figure representing the Hydrophis pelamidoides, and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this head, proposing for them the names of Pelamis megophias (Megophias monstrosus) and Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis.

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History, after discussing the question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a ribbon fish, or a large kind of eel, continues his considerations in the following terms:

“To the Reptiles, however, popular opinion has pretty uniformly assigned this denizen of the sea, and his accepted title of “sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities in the estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. Let us, then, test his claims to be a serpent.”

“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes (Hydrophidae), which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so soundly there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes fails to awaken them.”

“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON on the contrary in September, 1878, declares in Nature (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:

“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”